It seems that T-Mobile likes (used to like) low cadence cyclists: Gontchar, Sevilla and Ullrich are notorious examples.
Notorious ? Does that imply there's something wrong with such a style ?
Lance spins and Lance wins. So spinning is good right? I have an entirely baseless theory that one of the reasons spinning helped Lance was training like that helped him keep his muscle mass down to stay lighter, and since he trained like that, he raced like that. In Oslo at the World Championships he sure was buff. I saw it live but I didn't pay any attention to cadence. What sort of cadence did he use in the old days?
I've been told by a fitness instructor that pedaling with heavy resistance tones the muscles that are there, but won't build new ones.
"Sonarrat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
I can hardly even keep my cadence above 90, but that might be just poor technique rather than a natural proclivity. I definitely do ride strongest at 70-80 rpm.
Are you racing? As you build strength racing you sort of automatically gain a higher cadence.
"Sonarrat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
I can hardly even keep my cadence above 90, but that might be just poor technique rather than a natural proclivity. I definitely do ride strongest at 70-80 rpm.
Are you racing? As you build strength racing you sort of automatically gain a higher cadence.
Me? Race? I might be 23, but I may as well be a fatty master for the kind of shape I'm in.
Lance spins and Lance wins. So spinning is good right? I have an entirely baseless theory that one of the reasons spinning helped Lance was training like that helped him keep his muscle mass down to stay lighter, and since he trained like that, he raced like that. In Oslo at the World Championships he sure was buff. I saw it live but I didn't pay any attention to cadence. What sort of cadence did he use in the old days?
Like a notable albeit not notorious member of rbr puts it, cadence is a red herring.
"sonarrat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Tom Kunich said:
"Sonarrat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
I can hardly even keep my cadence above 90, but that might be just poor technique rather than a natural proclivity. I definitely do ride strongest at 70-80 rpm.
Are you racing? As you build strength racing you sort of automatically gain a higher cadence.
Me? Race? I might be 23, but I may as well be a fatty master for the kind of shape I'm in.
Some people can drive themselves to train as hard as they would in a race. This is the kind of riding it takes to build up the sort of strength that causes higher cadences. And the reason for that is that a peloton generally rides at the speed of the slower members of the group. So when you get stronger you drop into lower gears in order not to outrun the peloton (or to end up on the front all the time). Over time you'll be accelerating in smaller gears and your cadence will grow.
"sonarrat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Tom Kunich said:
"Sonarrat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
>I can hardly even keep my cadence above 90, but that might be just poor >technique rather than a natural proclivity. I definitely do ride >strongest at 70-80 rpm.
Are you racing? As you build strength racing you sort of automatically gain a higher cadence.
Me? Race? I might be 23, but I may as well be a fatty master for the kind of shape I'm in.
Some people can drive themselves to train as hard as they would in a race. This is the kind of riding it takes to build up the sort of strength that causes higher cadences. And the reason for that is that a peloton generally rides at the speed of the slower members of the group. So when you get stronger you drop into lower gears in order not to outrun the peloton (or to end up on the front all the time). Over time you'll be accelerating in smaller gears and your cadence will grow.
Or you could work on it. Back when I had a coach, he used to make us ride in the 42x19 all spring long. Later he added hill intervals where we had to stomp up in the 53x13 and spin down in the 42x19. I don't know if it worked or not, but I'm sure it is certainly possible to train/acclimate oneself to a different cadence. At least to a higher cadence, I'm not sure it goes as easily the other way.
Back when I had a coach, he used to make us ride in the 42x19 all spring long. Later he added hill intervals where we had to stomp up in the 53x13 and spin down in the 42x19. I don't know if it worked or not,
Back when I had a coach, he used to make us ride in the 42x19 all spring long. Later he added hill intervals where we had to stomp up in the 53x13 and spin down in the 42x19. I don't know if it worked or not,
Cadence is a red herring.
What cadence do you find yourself using? Any thoughts on why? My theory has to do with comfortable muscle contraction rates being a somewhat individual thing with a narrow "band" of comfortable values, while force generated has a much wider range of comfort limited by strength on one end (or percantage of max strength used) and cardio fitness on the other.
What cadence do you find yourself using? Any thoughts on why? My theory has to do with comfortable muscle contraction rates being a somewhat individual thing with a narrow "band" of comfortable values, while force generated has a much wider range of comfort limited by strength on one end (or percantage of max strength used) and cardio fitness on the other.
I don't focus on cadence. Power is proportional to cadence * torque so in the course of riding we're all constantly adjusting all three together, particularly in response to crank inertia. So even if you think there's some benefit to training cadence separately from torque (Do marathon coaches train their runners to take teenylittlestepsrealfast early in training but h u m o n g o u s...s l o w...s t r i d e s later on?) it still doesn't make sense to prescribe a particular cadence without also specifying a particular torque, and none of the coaches who prescribe cadence targets appear to specify torque limits at the same time.
In a historical sense, cycling coaches focused on cadence because they didn't have good ways to measure torque or power. However, they had watches so cycling mythology built up around the thing they could measure, which was cadence. But it's a red herring.
What cadence do you find yourself using? Any thoughts on why? My theory has to do with comfortable muscle contraction rates being a somewhat individual thing with a narrow "band" of comfortable values, while force generated has a much wider range of comfort limited by strength on one end (or percantage of max strength used) and cardio fitness on the other.
I don't focus on cadence. Power is proportional to cadence * torque so in the course of riding we're all constantly adjusting all three together, particularly in response to crank inertia. So even if you think there's some benefit to training cadence separately from torque (Do marathon coaches train their runners to take teenylittlestepsrealfast early in training but h u m o n g o u s...s l o w...s t r i d e s later on?) it still doesn't make sense to prescribe a particular cadence without also specifying a particular torque, and none of the coaches who prescribe cadence targets appear to specify torque limits at the same time.
In a historical sense, cycling coaches focused on cadence because they didn't have good ways to measure torque or power. However, they had watches so cycling mythology built up around the thing they could measure, which was cadence. But it's a red herring.
I do not at all agree that's it's a red herring. Explain to me then why my legs get tired much faster at a cadence under 75, but my lungs want to explode at a cadence over 120, for a sustained strong effort.
BTW my preferred cadence is somewhere around 90-95. Do you have any preferred cadence or do you just ride at any old cadence, given what you've written above?
I do not at all agree that's it's a red herring. Explain to me then why my legs get tired much faster at a cadence under 75, but my lungs want to explode at a cadence over 120, for a sustained strong effort.
BTW my preferred cadence is somewhere around 90-95. Do you have any preferred cadence or do you just ride at any old cadence, given what you've written above?
What's the torque and crank inertia you're riding at?
What cadence do you find yourself using? Any thoughts on why? My theory has to do with comfortable muscle contraction rates being a somewhat individual thing with a narrow "band" of comfortable values, while force generated has a much wider range of comfort limited by strength on one end (or percantage of max strength used) and cardio fitness on the other.
I don't focus on cadence. Power is proportional to cadence * torque so in the course of riding we're all constantly adjusting all three together, particularly in response to crank inertia. So even if you think there's some benefit to training cadence separately from torque (Do marathon coaches train their runners to take teenylittlestepsrealfast early in training but h u m o n g o u s...s l o w...s t r i d e s later on?) it still doesn't make sense to prescribe a particular cadence without also specifying a particular torque, and none of the coaches who prescribe cadence targets appear to specify torque limits at the same time.
In a historical sense, cycling coaches focused on cadence because they didn't have good ways to measure torque or power. However, they had watches so cycling mythology built up around the thing they could measure, which was cadence. But it's a red herring.
I do not at all agree that's it's a red herring. Explain to me then why my legs get tired much faster at a cadence under 75, but my lungs want to explode at a cadence over 120, for a sustained strong effort.
BTW my preferred cadence is somewhere around 90-95. Do you have any preferred cadence or do you just ride at any old cadence, given what you've written above?
He means that focusing on cadence as the key to performance - for example saying that riders should train to ride at such and such cadence - is a red herring. The important thing is power, and riders tend to self-select whatever cadence allows them to reach that power comfortably. So if you like 95 and I like 90, it doesn't mean that one of us is better trained than the other. Both of us will have the feeling of muscular fatigue pushing high gears at low cadence, and get winded at very fast cadence, but the actual numbers may differ.
Early to midway through the era of the Cyclist Formerly Known As Lance, Carmichael used to go around talking about high cadence as the key to better performance. I think he's toned that down, or maybe I just stopped listening.
What cadence do you find yourself using? Any thoughts on why? My theory has to do with comfortable muscle contraction rates being a somewhat individual thing with a narrow "band" of comfortable values, while force generated has a much wider range of comfort limited by strength on one end (or percantage of max strength used) and cardio fitness on the other.
I don't focus on cadence. Power is proportional to cadence * torque so in the course of riding we're all constantly adjusting all three together, particularly in response to crank inertia. So even if you think there's some benefit to training cadence separately from torque (Do marathon coaches train their runners to take teenylittlestepsrealfast early in training but h u m o n g o u s...s l o w...s t r i d e s later on?) it
The coach's theory was that stomping in a big gear developed leg strength, and the spinning developed speed. Mix 'em together for a power sandwich!
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
still doesn't make sense to prescribe a particular cadence without also specifying a particular torque, and none of the coaches who prescribe cadence targets appear to specify torque limits at the same time.
In a historical sense, cycling coaches focused on cadence because they didn't have good ways to measure torque or power. However, they had watches so cycling mythology built up around the thing they could measure, which was cadence. But it's a red herring.
The historical explaination makes sense. I agree it a a red herring of sorts. I just ride as I feel, but I am interested to know why it is the way it is.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I do not at all agree that's it's a red herring. Explain to me then why my legs get tired much faster at a cadence under 75, but my lungs want to explode at a cadence over 120, for a sustained strong effort.
This is my contraction-speed vs strength theory: Power is pedal speed x pedal force. Your power is limited by your cardio fitness. Your legs have a certain strength. If you chose to generate your power a ta low cadence, this requires a high force to counter the low speed. This higher force means you are asking your legs for a larger amount of strain as a percentage of their capacity. If your legs are not trained/suited to high force they will complain. The same is true the other way, but it is muscle contraction speed that causes problems. My favorite cadence is 60-75. 90 feels way too fast and 100 burns like crazy after any length of time. My muscles seem to like force more than speed, while yours seem to like speed more than force. I have no real opinion on wether this is trainable. Fiber type, bulk, who knows.
Joseph
Quoted message said:
BTW my preferred cadence is somewhere around 90-95. Do you have any preferred cadence or do you just ride at any old cadence, given what you've written above?
(Do marathon coaches train their runners to take teenylittlestepsrealfast early in training but h u m o n g o u s...s l o w...s t r i d e s later on?) it
The coach's theory was that stomping in a big gear developed leg strength, and the spinning developed speed. Mix 'em together for a power sandwich!
He means that focusing on cadence as the key to performance - for example saying that riders should train to ride at such and such cadence - is a red herring. The important thing is power, and riders tend to self-select whatever cadence allows them to reach that power comfortably.
Grasshopper:
You have snatched the pebble from my hand. It is time for you to leave. Really.
He means that focusing on cadence as the key to performance - for example saying that riders should train to ride at such and such cadence - is a red herring. The important thing is power, and riders tend to self-select whatever cadence allows them to reach that power comfortably.
Grasshopper:
You have snatched the pebble from my hand. It is time for you to leave. Really.
I am sorry, Master. I now see that I was wrong to explain the joke.
But I cannot leave yet. We here at Chung Training Systems, Inc. still have many Chungs to train.
I do not at all agree that's it's a red herring. Explain to me then why my legs get tired much faster at a cadence under 75, but my lungs want to explode at a cadence over 120, for a sustained strong effort.
BTW my preferred cadence is somewhere around 90-95. Do you have any preferred cadence or do you just ride at any old cadence, given what you've written above?
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.
But if you mean that there's no point for the rider to try get used to the highest cadence possible, then I agree with you.
