2 x 20

There's nothing wrong with 2x20s at FTP. The question is, "What is the additional benefit of varying cadence, in particular the 60 RPM segments?" Frankly, I think there is no added benefit in terms of increasing your aerobic power (e.g., FTP). I sometimes do low-cadence efforts, but only in advance of a course with (some) grades so steep that I have to ride some segments at "low cadence." My purpose in doing these low-cadence efforts is not to increase my aerobic power but rather to get comfortable riding at low cadence. To me, anything less than 70RPM is "low cadence," and is a cadence that I would only use if I had no other choice due to my gearing. If a course had many such segments, I would change my drivetrain. The toughest courses to gear are those with fast downhill segments (e.g., >40mph) and slow uphill segments (e.g., 5mph).

As I understand the low cadence is to build strengh on the bike. I have 3 weeks now were every week includes the 2x20 mention above and a 5-7 x 4 min @ FTP+20% with à cadence of 55-60 rpm. I'm a bit sceptical to low cadence training but I will give it a try and evaluate the training. The low cadence really kills your legs so hopefully it will help me to develop further. Thanks for your reply.

Well, that's what I was afraid of, that you saw low-cadence efforts as producing some additional benefit (e.g., strength). There are lots of threads on the subject of the value of strength in cycling, so I won't repeat the arguments and analysis here. Only to say that I don't believe strength plays a role in cycling performance with the possible exception of neuromuscular efforts (and even there the arguments are weak and not supported by empirical data).

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by matt76

As I understand the low cadence is to build strengh on the bike.

Low cadence increases the torque (load on your legs). Larger loads build strength. Or so the argument goes.

I prefer to measure strength at the end of my rides. Most people measure strength when they are fresh.

---

If you don't like the rides in your training plan, you always have the option of changing plans.

---

I do a number of climbs at 40-50rpm and 150% FTP. I could change my gearing and do them at 50-60rpm and 150%FTP. Or I could just do them at 50-60rpm and 200%FTP.

Lots of ways to accomplish the same goal. Find what works for you. No need for you to ride like the other guy.

Just use a cadence that you intend on using in a race. That will give you enough specificity to address "meeting the demands of the event".

Paul

+1 to RDO

The first time that you examine a power file with some "standing start" type of efforts, you'll be amazed at how low the Average Effective Peak Force (AEPF) is. Unless you're doing some track events (sprint, kilo, etc.) strength/force is generally not a limiter.

I was sceptical against training at low cadence, but I think it has helped my training. I do train with low and high cadence now compared to before when i did my FTP workouts at 85-90 rpm. After 3 weeks with low cadence workouts it feels "easy" for the legs when you go back to normal cadence. I have had à few workouts where i had to check My equipment to make sure I was producing correct power. Yesterday I also had a bit of a break through in my 2x20 min workouts. I Will do two hard weeks now and the one week for recovery and then I Will do the tour of sufferlandria! Great fun!

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by dkrenik
+1 to RDO

The first time that you examine a power file with some "standing start" type of efforts, you'll be amazed at how low the Average Effective Peak Force (AEPF) is. Unless you're doing some track events (sprint, kilo, etc.) strength/force is generally not a limiter.

Unfortunately, many times the high force efforts do not occur at the start of an event.

Perhaps an example we can agree on is constant power for an hour - a simple FTP test. My guess is that it is more difficult to hold cadence (produce the force necessary) at the end.

300w at 90rpm requires 50% more force than 200w at 90rpm. Tough to produce more power without more force.

---

But your beliefs do not influence my training. I don't expect my beliefs to influence your training.

Quote: 300w at 90rpm requires 50% more force than 200w at 90rpm

Yes. It also needs 50% higher oxygen uptake. If oxygen uptake is 40 ml/kg/minute at 200 watts during a 20 minute effort, then it would be 60 ml/kg/minute at 300 watts.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by An old Guy
300w at 90rpm requires 50% more force than 200w at 90rpm. Tough to produce more power without more force.

Not necessarily... you could apply the same force for 50% longer (~ish depending on where you are applying force in the two instances. It only requires that the average force over the entire revolution has increased, no applies force for the entire time.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by JibberJim

Not necessarily... you could apply the same force for 50% longer (~ish depending on where you are applying force in the two instances. It only requires that the average force over the entire revolution has increased, no applies force for the entire time.

occam's razor.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by cyclightning
It also needs 50% higher oxygen uptake. If oxygen uptake is 40 ml/kg/minute at 200 watts during a 20 minute effort, then it would be 60 ml/kg/minute at 300 watts.

That can all be removed from the problem.

In my case I do several hills on my rides. I used to have problems on them in my 30 - I could not push the pedals hard enough. I have gotten stronger and can do them in my 25. Same power output for the hills, same duration, just more force on the pedals.