Gonchar

Robert said:

BTW how did you get into this area originally - from the physiology /
sports medicine side, the product side (power meters), or as an
ex-competition rider?

A stooping physicist.

--
E. Dronkert

Ewoud Dronkert said:

A stooping physicist.

At least he's not stooped enough to go frog gigging.

Robert Chung said:

Bob Schwartz said:

That reminds me, did you have red herring with the andouillette?
Did it taste like [censored]?

That reminds me of a phrase I've never quite understood: what's a
[censored]-eating grin?

Try some and you'll see!

;-)

Joseph

Robert said:

BTW how did you get into this area originally - from the physiology /
sports medicine side, the product side (power meters), or as an
ex-competition rider?

None of the above. I like marinated herring.

Quoted message said:

Robert Chung said:

Bob Schwartz said:

That reminds me, did you have red herring with the andouillette?
Did it taste like [censored]?

That reminds me of a phrase I've never quite understood: what's a
[censored]-eating grin?

Try some and you'll see!

Kinda the same as a possum eating fish guts outta a wirebrush.

Ron

Robert Chung said:

Cadence is a red herring.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15241693&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

Andy Coggan

P.S. Don't tell all the trackies about this study, as they won't be
able to use the "I had the wrong gear on!" excuse any more.

Robert said:

OK all,

Let's try to get this over to something constructive.

Suppose - just suppose - I have it in my head that I do indeed have an
optimal cadence range (we'll say between 90 and 95 revs/min). Can any of
you answer the following questions:

1. Why would this notion be a disadvantage to me

Because it causes you to focus on your cadence instead of other things
that are far more important (e.g., you actual power output).

Quoted message said:

2. Should I then try to train at different cadences, e.g. 80 rpm

Only if you expect to use such cadences when racing.

Quoted message said:

3. If I do 2) what will this gain me

Probably not much.

Quoted message said:

4. If I notice that, for the same speed, a cadence of 80 causes knee
pain (whereas a cadence of 96 does not), how shall I go about
eliminating that discomfort

Pedal at 96 rpm.

Quoted message said:

5. Are there any sensible articles available on the web or authoritative
source that answer any or all of the above questions

Lots - I suggest that you start here: www.pubmed.gov

Andy Coggan

Robert Chung said:

Robert said:

Robert Chung said:

Robert wrote:

> BTW my preferred cadence is somewhere around 90-95.

What's the torque and crank inertia you're riding at?

Who cares? The point is that different riders choose different cadences
to reach the same power output. For you to say that cadence is a red
herring discounts the importance of the rider finding the ideal one.

That's cuz it's unimportant for the rider to find the ideal one. Torque
and cadence are intertwined. If, as you say, you don't care about torque
you shouldn't care about cadence. Different riders choose different
cadences to reach the same power, yes; but what you're ignoring is that
the *same* rider chooses different cadences to reach the same power. There
is no ideal cadence. Looking for it is a red herring.

Do you not agree that for a given condition (flat road, no wind, time
trialing) every rider has a maximum power that they can generate at a
given cadence and that when plotted would be zero at the extremes with
a peak at some point in between? You see no value in finding that peak?
The use of maximum possible torque at each cadence is implicit.

Bret

acoggan said:

Robert Chung said:

Cadence is a red herring.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15241693&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

Andy Coggan

P.S. Don't tell all the trackies about this study, as they won't be
able to use the "I had the wrong gear on!" excuse any more.

It won't be very popular with the LANCE fans either.

Quoted message said:

Robert Chung said:

Cadence is a red herring.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15241693&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

Andy Coggan

P.S. Don't tell all the trackies about this study, as they won't be
able to use the "I had the wrong gear on!" excuse any more.

If I understand this correctly, power was fairly constant over a fairly
wide range of cadence/torque combinations.

This may explain why fixed gear riding isn't that much different than
geared riding in terms of performance (with the exception of huge hills
which requires cadence adjustment outside the relatively wide range of
the study).

In geared riding a rider tends to keep cadence fairly constant while
varying torque. In fixed gear riding you keep torque fairly constant
while varying cadence.

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:4ilruoF4ce70U1
@individual.net:

Quoted message said:

That reminds me of a phrase I've never quite understood: what's a
[censored]-eating grin?

Way back in high school I heard the phrase "He's grinning like a skunk
eating [censored]", so I always thought a [censored]-eating grin referred to that.

Of course, that raises the questions -- do skunks eat [censored]? If so, do they
grin when they eat it?

NS
fan of Pepe Le Peu

Quoted message said:

Robert Chung said:

Cadence is a red herring.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15241693&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

Andy Coggan

P.S. Don't tell all the trackies about this study, as they won't be
able to use the "I had the wrong gear on!" excuse any more.

The great thing about physiology abstracts is that you don't have to go
and read the paper afterwards. All the information is already summarized.

Bret said:

Do you not agree that for a given condition (flat road, no wind, time
trialing) every rider has a maximum power that they can generate at a
given cadence and that when plotted would be zero at the extremes with
a peak at some point in between

Sorta, but I think finding that maximum isn't quite as easy as you appear
to think it is.

Quoted message said:

You see no value in finding that peak?

Not really, except for curiosity's sake. I don't think it has a very
important prescriptive role in terms of training. See
http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/setraining , especially figure 2.

Robert Chung said:

Bret said:

Do you not agree that for a given condition (flat road, no wind, time
trialing) every rider has a maximum power that they can generate at a
given cadence and that when plotted would be zero at the extremes with
a peak at some point in between

Power cannot be zero at a given cadence.

Wayne

Wayne Pein said:

Robert Chung said:

Bret said:

Do you not agree that for a given condition (flat road, no wind, time
trialing) every rider has a maximum power that they can generate at a
given cadence and that when plotted would be zero at the extremes with
a peak at some point in between

Power cannot be zero at a given cadence.

Wayne

That was me that said that. I was talking about the theoretical extreme
of zero torque and infinite cadence.

Bret

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

What I can't figure out is why you ride at 90ish at top speed on the
flats and develop your max power and yet on climbs your power output is
the same but at a lower cadence for comfort.

Crank inertia.

What exactly is that? Inertia implies a carry through which you don't have
with a freewheel.

Robert Chung said:

Bret said:

Do you not agree that for a given condition (flat road, no wind, time
trialing) every rider has a maximum power that they can generate at a
given cadence and that when plotted would be zero at the extremes with
a peak at some point in between

Sorta, but I think finding that maximum isn't quite as easy as you appear
to think it is.

Why is that? Do you think that the slope of the Power curve is too low
to detect the peak?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You see no value in finding that peak?

Not really, except for curiosity's sake. I don't think it has a very
important prescriptive role in terms of training. See
http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/setraining , especially figure 2.

You are focused on cadence as a training tool and Andy's main point in
the article is that low cadence workouts are ineffective as strength
training. But I'm not talking about that or any other training method.
I'm talking about finding the cadence for maximum power transfer and
using it when maximum power is needed.

Regarding figure 2, the plot of max AEPF vs. CPV (solid black line)
indicates that peak power is at 120 RPM (stated in the linked article).
I'm a little unclear how that line was plotted.

Bret

Tom Kunich said:

Quoted message said:

Crank inertia.

What exactly is that?

Hansen, et al. 2002. "Crank inertial load affects freely chosen pedal rate
during cycling." Journal of Biomechanics 35: 277-285.

Bret said:

Robert Chung said:

Bret said:

Do you not agree that for a given condition (flat road, no wind, time
trialing) every rider has a maximum power that they can generate at a
given cadence and that when plotted would be zero at the extremes with
a peak at some point in between

Sorta, but I think finding that maximum isn't quite as easy as you
appear to think it is.

Why is that? Do you think that the slope of the Power curve is too low
to detect the peak?

No, not exactly, it's because power is a rate over time, and "maximum"
power is going to be affected by the length of time over which it is
measured even for a particular cadence. Max one-second power at a given
cadence is going to be different than max 30-second power (or 1 minute, or
5 minute, or 1 hour). So, explain the experiment that you'd do to find,
say, max 5 second power at 90 rpm. How do you keep your cadence constant
at 90 rpm for that length of time? How do you know that was your best
effort? Or perhaps you meant max power over one comple crank revolution,
at many different rpms (e.g., max power for 1 second at 60 rpm, max power
for .67 seconds at 90 rpm, max power for .5 seconds at 120 rpm). Getting
this latter thing would be simpler but I'm not sure what practical use
there is in knowing max power over 1 crank revolution at a given cadence.
What do you think it's useful for?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You see no value in finding that peak?

Not really, except for curiosity's sake. I don't think it has a very
important prescriptive role in terms of training. See
http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/setraining , especially figure 2.

You are focused on cadence as a training tool and Andy's main point in
the article is that low cadence workouts are ineffective as strength
training. But I'm not talking about that or any other training method.
I'm talking about finding the cadence for maximum power transfer and
using it when maximum power is needed.

Actually, I'm not focused on cadence solely as a training tool. I don't
think it has a prescriptive role in training, yes; but I also don't think
it has a prescriptive role in racing.

Quoted message said:

Regarding figure 2, the plot of max AEPF vs. CPV (solid black line)
indicates that peak power is at 120 RPM (stated in the linked article).
I'm a little unclear how that line was plotted.

From standing start data. But one of the things to notice was that the
solid line was pretty linear over a wide range of cadences. If you have a
linear relationship between pedal speed and pedal force, their product is
maximized at half of max speed (and half of max force). So if you knew max
cadence was around n, you'd know max power is attained at around n/2. But
you weren't asking about the cadence that maximizes power, you were asking
about the max power at each level of cadence. So I was pointing at figure
2 to show that the max 1 revolution power at different cadences is way
above the power you use in racing situations (that's why the line is above
the color blobs).

Though I sort of like your implication for an entirely new category of
Master Fatty excuses: "I had the wrong cadence when he attacked."

Robert Chung said:

Bret said:

Robert Chung said:

Bret wrote:

> Do you not agree that for a given condition (flat road, no wind, time
> trialing) every rider has a maximum power that they can generate at a
> given cadence and that when plotted would be zero at the extremes with
> a peak at some point in between

Sorta, but I think finding that maximum isn't quite as easy as you
appear to think it is.

Why is that? Do you think that the slope of the Power curve is too low
to detect the peak?

No, not exactly, it's because power is a rate over time, and "maximum"
power is going to be affected by the length of time over which it is
measured even for a particular cadence. Max one-second power at a given
cadence is going to be different than max 30-second power (or 1 minute, or
5 minute, or 1 hour). So, explain the experiment that you'd do to find,
say, max 5 second power at 90 rpm. How do you keep your cadence constant
at 90 rpm for that length of time? How do you know that was your best
effort? Or perhaps you meant max power over one comple crank revolution,
at many different rpms (e.g., max power for 1 second at 60 rpm, max power
for .67 seconds at 90 rpm, max power for .5 seconds at 120 rpm). Getting
this latter thing would be simpler but I'm not sure what practical use
there is in knowing max power over 1 crank revolution at a given cadence.
What do you think it's useful for?

Quoted message said:

You are focused on cadence as a training tool and Andy's main point in
the article is that low cadence workouts are ineffective as strength
training. But I'm not talking about that or any other training method.
I'm talking about finding the cadence for maximum power transfer and
using it when maximum power is needed.

Actually, I'm not focused on cadence solely as a training tool. I don't
think it has a prescriptive role in training, yes; but I also don't think
it has a prescriptive role in racing.

I think there's a further issue in terms of prescriptiveness.
Suppose you defined max power in some sensible way,
like max power for a 2 minute (or 5 minute or whatever)
interval. And you tried to figure out what cadence would
maximize power. Power is probably a weak function of cadence
in the "comfortable" range. But even if you could do this, a bigger
problem is that the "best" cadence might depend on when
you're doing the interval. Maybe it would be different after a
10 min warmup than at the end of a 2 hour hilly race, or
trying to ditch your buddy before the town line at the end
of a 5 hour training ride.

I offer no proof it would be different, I just know that pedaling
feels different under those circumstances, and my self-selected
cadence is probably different too. I would not expect to
put out more power when fatigued by imposing a high
cadence that I find comfortable when fresh.

That said I think it's worth training to ride at a reasonably
high cadence (the usual 90 or so) because it makes the
usual trade of spinning more to delay the onset of fatigue,
and it doesn't come naturally to novices. But anybody
who's moderately trained has probably done this already.