Burning legs

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by oneradtec
"the adaptations that occur through training within the muscles, are specific to the joint angle and velocities at which they're trained. As running, obviously uses different joint angles and velocities and also recruits different muscles, then the adaptations are different. this is to do with the specificity of training (and why i'm always saying ride your bike, and weights are pretty much a waster of time for endurance cycling
performance)."
==============================================
...training specificity makes you more effecient/economical at your preferred activity..running or cycling. However..there are no proven limits to how far one can carry effeciency/economy and sharpen it. It can be refined and improved..even for the elite international level athlete. This is why Lance works so hard at it and why it is paying huge dividends for him.

Ric..I agree with you that weight training is a waste of time.

i haven't anywhere suggested that training doesn't improve efficiency. i'm just suggesting that efficiency isn't a limiting factor in this issue.

ric

Ric...
let's settle this once and for all...
with dueling banjos!

http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~blagger/the_duel.html

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by oneradtec
Ric...
let's settle this once and for all...
with dueling banjos!

http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~blagger/the_duel.html

one of my favourite songs.

anyway, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8933490&dopt=Abstract

efficiency is similar (i.e. not significantly different) between trained cyclists and untrained matched controls, as i previously stated.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10541922&dopt=Abstract

efficiency highest at 60 revs/min across various exercise intensities in trained cyclists

Ric

Ric....what type of SUSTAINED efforts were involved in the test?
There seem to be REST periods granted to the subjects as well.
I wonder if the tests simulated actual race specific stress? A hard crit could be a sustained hour of intense effort....or a long road race could last for 4-6 hours.

The advantages garnered by the effecient/economical cyclist over the lesser effcient ones are often realized at later stages of a long race..when the more effecient/economical subject has greater reserves than his less effecient counterpart. This means that he might have more left for a sprint or a final ascent of a mountain....or perhaps he will be able to maintain his power output in the closing kilometers of a long time trial..while his less effecient counterpart weakens in the closing kilometers.

I'm not sure this controlled test would convince me based on the way it is structured.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by oneradtec
[B]Ric....what type of SUSTAINED efforts were involved in the test?
There seem to be REST periods granted to the subjects as well.
I wonder if the tests simulated actual race specific stress? A hard crit could be a sustained hour of intense effort....or a long road race could last for 4-6 hours.
[/quote]

off the top of my head i have no idea what the tests were. however, you appear to be missing the point about what efficiency and economy are. i gave the definition a few messages back.

ric

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
most likely, you're recruiting muscles in a different manner to pedalling at a normal cadence and will take some time to adjust to it.

additionally, i don't see any point to pedalling fast unless you happen to race fix, and need to cope with cadences.

ric

Ric, as you know I am a tester. The reason I'm trying to pedal faster is because I feel I 'lock-in' to a cadence and any deviation tends to affect my performance negatively.

I seem to lock in at 90 rpm. If I want to go faster I either have to shift into a bigger gear and pedal slower momentarily and try to accelerate to get back to 90 rpm (which is too a huge increase in wattage out put) or simply pedal faster. If I can train myself to ride 95 rpm in the same gear isn't that how I should train? to peal faster?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by tt-timmer
Ric, as you know I am a tester. The reason I'm trying to pedal faster is because I feel I 'lock-in' to a cadence and any deviation tends to affect my performance negatively.

I seem to lock in at 90 rpm. If I want to go faster I either have to shift into a bigger gear and pedal slower momentarily and try to accelerate to get back to 90 rpm (which is too a huge increase in wattage out put) or simply pedal faster. If I can train myself to ride 95 rpm in the same gear isn't that how I should train? to peal faster?

there's a few issues...
one as mentioned i think people need to ride at vary cadences to cope with various situations. however, by and large most people will meet a variety of cadences whenever they ride outside.

i don't believe that there's much point to riding at varying cadences indoors on the trainers. i contend it's not the cadence that you have issues with, but the forces involved. with most trainers, especially commercial ones that have small mass flywheels you can't generate the forces required on them that you can naturally get outdoors (this is one reason why you can sprint on most trainers). cadence is a proxy for the torque that we can cope with

thus, it's important to train specifically the situation you're struggling with. it's important to train at the power you're trying to meet, and the force you'll meet that power at (which will vary depending on topography and environmental conditions.

however, this is bogging down, in very specific stuff, and you're best trying to just increase the power you can sustain over the duration you're expected to race (e.g. increase the power you can average over 40km).

ric

however, this is bogging down, in very specific stuff, and you're best trying to just increase the power you can sustain over the duration you're expected to race (e.g. increase the power you can average over 40km).

ric [/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks Ric,

I'm stuck on a trainer. Until almost April. The power reading on the trainer is purely relative.. I don't really use it as a training tool. I watch cadence and my HRM. But considering power and increasing it over the duration of an event, isn't it adviseable to train to ride at an increased cadence? Increasing the cadence by 5 rpm requires far less 'perceived' effort than ridng and bigger gear (at a cadence required to increase speed) but it does need to be trained in my situation.

pedaling faster has become the universal answer to increasing power output has it not?

however, this is bogging down, in very specific stuff, and you're best trying to just increase the power you can sustain over the duration you're expected to race (e.g. increase the power you can average over 40km).

ric [/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks Ric,

I'm stuck on a trainer. Until almost April. The power reading on the trainer is purely relative.. I don't really use it as a training tool. I watch cadence and my HRM. But consireing power and increasing it over the duration of an event, isn't it adviseable to train to ride at an increased cadence? Increasing the cadence by 5 rpm requires far less'percieved' effort than ridng and bigger gear (at a cadence required to increase speed) but it does need to be trained in my situation.

pedaling faster has become the universal answer to increasing power output has it not?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by tt-timmer
Thanks Ric,

I'm stuck on a trainer. Until almost April. The power reading on the trainer is purely relative.. I don't really use it as a training tool. I watch cadence and my HRM. But consireing power and increasing it over the duration of an event, isn't it adviseable to train to ride at an increased cadence? Increasing the cadence by 5 rpm requires far less'percieved' effort than ridng and bigger gear (at a cadence required to increase speed) but it does need to be trained in my situation.

pedaling faster has become the universal answer to increasing power output has it not?

i'm not sure why you don't watch the power -- it's the most important metric to train, in fact it's really the only thing to train, everything else is a proxy for it.

to increase your power for a specific duration/condition you can apply more force to the pedals, or increase your cadence or a combination of the two. however, the important point to realise is that breaking it down into it's specific parts (torque cadence) is really a complete waste of time. just train to ride with more power.

additionally, to this if you're completely depedent upon indoor riding i'd suggest riding a slightly lower cadence at a given power output, so that torque is higher. principally, this is because trainers can't generate the forces found on the road, and this may help a little when you get back on the road.

ric

Guys, I've been watching the debates concerning cadence and power and efficiency. I'm not a sport scientist myself but I do study it.

Ric is right when he says that the power demand to travel at a specific speed does not ever change depending on gearing. It's the speed that determines how much power is required, not the cadence or gearing.

However, regarding cadence, oneradtec is wrong IMO because for some reason, cyclists tend to become fatigued faster at 125 rpms. It's very hard to sustain 125 rpms for a long period of time no matter what gear. From what I've heard, the fastest rpm on the professional circuits for regular riding, not sprinting is somewhere around 112 rpms.

There is a tradeoff with using lower and higher cadence, one tradeoff is that a higher cadence requires a larger load from the aerobic system, however, a lower cadence lessens that load on the aerobic system, but it does increase muscular fatigue. It's like trying to lift weights very slowly, you will feel like you are doing much more work when you take 10 seconds to benchpress say, 150 lbs (arbitrary number) each time. However, when you supposedly did the same amount of weight on the benchpress for a shorter duration, there's a much larger demand on the aerobic system, but you don't fatigue as fast. Jan Ullrich probably is capable of lifting tremendous amounts of power with his legs but he doesn't focus so much on the aerobic aspect, yes, he's fit, but he won't be able to increase his speed much more by increasing cadence because his legs are so used to doing slow cadence and tolerating the muscular fatigue. It is possible to train using a higher cadence as in Jan Ullrich's case and make the load more focused on his aerobic condition rather than his muscular condition. But would he win in relationship to Lance, I don't know, we'd never know unless he decided to try working that way.

Thomas Davis

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by tomdavis80
Guys, I've been watching the debates concerning cadence and power and efficiency. I'm not a sport scientist myself but I do study it.

Ric is right when he says that the power demand to travel at a specific speed does not ever change depending on gearing. It's the speed that determines how much power is required, not the cadence or gearing.

However, regarding cadence, oneradtec is wrong IMO because for some reason, cyclists tend to become fatigued faster at 125 rpms. It's very hard to sustain 125 rpms for a long period of time no matter what gear. From what I've heard, the fastest rpm on the professional circuits for regular riding, not sprinting is somewhere around 112 rpms.

There is a tradeoff with using lower and higher cadence, one tradeoff is that a higher cadence requires a larger load from the aerobic system, however, a lower cadence lessens that load on the aerobic system, but it does increase muscular fatigue. It's like trying to lift weights very slowly, you will feel like you are doing much more work when you take 10 seconds to benchpress say, 150 lbs (arbitrary number) each time. However, when you supposedly did the same amount of weight on the benchpress for a shorter duration, there's a much larger demand on the aerobic system, but you don't fatigue as fast. Jan Ullrich probably is capable of lifting tremendous amounts of power with his legs but he doesn't focus so much on the aerobic aspect, yes, he's fit, but he won't be able to increase his speed much more by increasing cadence because his legs are so used to doing slow cadence and tolerating the muscular fatigue. It is possible to train using a higher cadence as in Jan Ullrich's case and make the load more focused on his aerobic condition rather than his muscular condition. But would he win in relationship to Lance, I don't know, we'd never know unless he decided to try working that way.

Thomas Davis

You've articulated what I was trying to express about Ullrich vis-a-vis Lance Armstrong, TD.

With respect to each poster on the thread, I think that some of the posters here are confusing themselves (and other people) regarding their definitions of power, power outputs etc.

The terminology being used on this thread is generic to cycling - the definitions being used here don't correspond to the scientific
definition of power for example.
So when reading this thread, people need to be aware that although they may well be using cycling definitions of 'power' et
al, for someone from a scientific background these definitions are
not correct or clear.
But I suppose it's a cycling thread, thus we have to understand cycling definitions of power etc.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tomdavis80
[B]Guys, I've been watching the debates concerning cadence and power and efficiency. I'm not a sport scientist myself but I do study it.

Ric is right when he says that the power demand to travel at a specific speed does not ever change depending on gearing. It's the speed that determines how much power is required, not the cadence or gearing.

Jan Ullrich probably is capable of lifting tremendous amounts of power with his legs but he doesn't focus so much on the aerobic aspect, yes, he's fit, but he won't be able to increase his speed much more by increasing cadence because his legs are so used to doing slow cadence and tolerating the muscular fatigue. It is possible to train using a higher cadence as in Jan Ullrich's case and make the load more focused on his aerobic condition rather than his muscular condition.>



Tom, to continue the converation I would like to mention that watching the Tour TT where Jan beat Lance his cadence was in the range of 110-115 for the last 15 km of the race. I was surprised to see it considering he tends to push bigger gears slower as he was in the ealier stages of the time trial. I suspect maybe he was geared out considering his time and speed.

I brought up this topic as a tester and should have mentioned that fact. I'm also a natural sprinter which means I probably have more quick-twitch, lower cadence muscle fibers. Other conversations have confirmed that what I'm feeling (burning legs at higher cadences at lower than LT HR) is those fibers fatiguing. I've also come across an article that mentions another mid-range muscle fibre that can be trained as either a quick or as a slow twitch (can't find at the moment but I think on pponline.uk.co). And therefor, in my case, to improve Time trial times I should train to increase (or convert to) slow twitch muscle fibres.

< It's the speed that determines how much power is required, not the cadence or gearing.> yes, but an individual's phisiology that dictates the most efficient cadence

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by limerickman
With respect to each poster on the thread, I think that some of the posters here are confusing themselves (and other people) regarding their definitions of power, power outputs etc.

The terminology being used on this thread is generic to cycling - the definitions being used here don't correspond to the scientific
definition of power for example.
So when reading this thread, people need to be aware that although they may well be using cycling definitions of 'power' et
al, for someone from a scientific background these definitions are
not correct or clear.
But I suppose it's a cycling thread, thus we have to understand cycling definitions of power etc.

i'm not sure if you're including everyone in the above, but i'm definitely using (one of) the correct definition of power

ric

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tt-timmer
[B]

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by tomdavis80
Guys, I've been watching the debates concerning cadence and power and efficiency. I'm not a sport scientist myself but I do study it.

Ric is right when he says that the power demand to travel at a specific speed does not ever change depending on gearing. It's the speed that determines how much power is required, not the cadence or gearing.

Jan Ullrich probably is capable of lifting tremendous amounts of power with his legs but he doesn't focus so much on the aerobic aspect, yes, he's fit, but he won't be able to increase his speed much more by increasing cadence because his legs are so used to doing slow cadence and tolerating the muscular fatigue. It is possible to train using a higher cadence as in Jan Ullrich's case and make the load more focused on his aerobic condition rather than his muscular condition.>



Tom, to continue the converation I would like to mention that watching the Tour TT where Jan beat Lance his cadence was in the range of 110-115 for the last 15 km of the race. I was surprised to see it considering he tends to push bigger gears slower as he was in the ealier stages of the time trial. I suspect maybe he was geared out considering his time and speed.

I brought up this topic as a tester and should have mentioned that fact. I'm also a natural sprinter which means I probably have more quick-twitch, lower cadence muscle fibers. Other conversations have confirmed that what I'm feeling (burning legs at higher cadences at lower than LT HR) is those fibers fatiguing. I've also come across an article that mentions another mid-range muscle fibre that can be trained as either a quick or as a slow twitch (can't find at the moment but I think on pponline.uk.co). And therefor, in my case, to improve Time trial times I should train to increase (or convert to) slow twitch muscle fibres.

< It's the speed that determines how much power is required, not the cadence or gearing.> yes, but an individual's phisiology that dictates the most efficient cadence

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by limerickman
Well spotted indeed Ullrich did drop from his usual gearing in order to increase the cadence tempo in the last 15k.

But I would suggest that Ullrich's version of a low gear is far higher than Armstrong's.
And indeed Arnmstrong;s version of a low gear is far lower than Ullrich's idea of a low gear.
Armstrong has that ability to cycle lower gears at a very high cadence.
Ullrich appears to be only capable of pushing higher gears.
Their individual physiology ( as you've said) suits their cycling styles.
As to who has the more efficient pedalling method ?
You cannot say that either one is more efficient than the other because like it or not, they know that their own individual pedalling cadence maximises their performances (if they don't know what their most comfortable cadence is at this stage, they'll never know !).

It's totally dependent on the individual's phisiology and I don' want to wake that monster up.

The big question is can a specific type of training change an individuals' physiology to improve power, or better put, help them go faster longer?

and, are my symptoms an indication that this might be happening?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tt-timmer
[B][QUOTE][i]
I brought up this topic as a tester and should have mentioned that fact. I'm also a natural sprinter which means I probably have more quick-twitch, lower cadence muscle fibers.[/quote]

just to point out that sprinters, who may have a high proportion of fast twitch fibres, sprint at high cadence, rather than low

Quoted post said:

but an individual's phisiology that dictates the most efficient cadence [/B]

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
just to point out that sprinters, who may have a high proportion of fast twitch fibres, sprint at high cadence, rather than low



the most efficient cadence is much lower than the optimal cadence, with the most efficient cadence being around 50 - 70 revs/min

ric

Can you define the two so I can make sence of it.. optimal versus efficient?

(Plus I edited my post following your reply)

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by tt-timmer
Can you define the two so I can make sence of it.. optimal versus efficient?

(Plus I edited my post following your reply)

Most efficient cadence is really termed thermodynamic efficiency, and is equal to actual mechanical work done / input of energy x 100. in other words, an efficient cyclist would be one that minimises energy expenditure for a given workload (power). Pedalling at high cadence (at a given power) requires more energy to expended than at a lower cadence (there's a cost associated with moving your legs even in an unweighted way.

Optimal, would be the cadence that is most optimal for producing the highest power output. Optimal is best done by natural self selection of cadences.

Thus, in an efficient world to save energy the best cadence will be about 50 - 70 revs/min (the cadence comes up as the absolute power output increases).

Optimal is about 80 to 100 revs/min, because that tends to minimise the discomfort felt when e.g. TTing or riding hard

Ric

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by tt-timmer
It's totally dependent on the individual's phisiology and I don' want to wake that monster up.

The big question is can a specific type of training change an individuals' physiology to improve power, or better put, help them go faster longer?

and, are my symptoms an indication that this might be happening?

I'm not sure if i understand your question correctly, but the whole purpose of training is to increase power output over whatever duration is important to the person in question.

with regards to the second point, if i understand what you've written, in terms of TTing that's the inverse of what is needed, i.e., as your power increases, you travel faster (under given conditions) and thus, you go faster for shorter periods of time.

Ric