Gonchar

[email hidden] wrote:

---snip---

Quoted message said:

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.

Ben
Chung Training Systems, Inc.

OK, if that's what he means then I understand, and agree. High cadence
shouldn't be a goal in itself, though it does happen to suit some
people, myself included. /Robert

Quoted message said:

Early to midway through the era of the Cyclist Formerly Known
As Lance,

You mean we should refer to Him as SYMBOL from now on ?

Robert Chung said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> (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!

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/wattage/components/components.html

I disagree. Height DOES represents a "sweet spot" for rectangle area!

It seems we all more or less agree that optimal cadence self-selects.
What factors do you believe influence this selection?

Joseph

Robert said:

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.

Why do you think such an ideal one exists. More likely the 'ideal'
cadence varies along with all the other variables.

Quoted message said:

It seems we all more or less agree that optimal cadence self-selects.
What factors do you believe influence this selection?

1. crank inertia (or gear ratio).
2. muscle fiber type.
3. power.

Robert said:

Robert Chung said:

Robert said:

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.

Donald Munro said:

Robert said:

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.

Why do you think such an ideal one exists. More likely the 'ideal'
cadence varies along with all the other variables.

Because if I use a different cadence than my preferred one, I cycle not
as well (worse endurance, lower speed for given comfort level, or both).

It's up to each cyclist to find their own optimal cadence. What's so
strange about that? /Robert

Quoted message said:

But I cannot leave yet. We here at Chung Training Systems, Inc.
still have many Chungs to train.

Can you put together a chart that shows how many?

Robert said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Donald Munro said:

Quoted message said:

Why do you think such an ideal one exists. More likely the 'ideal'
cadence varies along with all the other variables.

Robert said:

Because if I use a different cadence than my preferred one, I cycle not
as well (worse endurance, lower speed for given comfort level, or both).

Quoted message said:

It's up to each cyclist to find their own optimal cadence. What's so
strange about that? /Robert

You mean you always ride with the same cadence regardless of terrain,
gradient or wind ?

Robert Chung schreef:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But I cannot leave yet. We here at Chung Training Systems, Inc.
still have many Chungs to train.

Can you put together a chart that shows how many?

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~dronkert/mosim/opdr1/tau37.gif

--
E. Dronkert

Donald Munro said:

Robert said:

Quoted message said:

>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.

Donald Munro said:

Quoted message said:

Why do you think such an ideal one exists. More likely the 'ideal'
cadence varies along with all the other variables.

Robert said:

Because if I use a different cadence than my preferred one, I cycle not
as well (worse endurance, lower speed for given comfort level, or both).

Quoted message said:

It's up to each cyclist to find their own optimal cadence. What's so
strange about that? /Robert

You mean you always ride with the same cadence regardless of terrain,
gradient or wind ?

I do, at least within a very narrow range. Particularly now that I have
a modern bike with brifters and 10 cogs.

Joseph

Robert Chung said:

Quoted message said:

It seems we all more or less agree that optimal cadence self-selects.
What factors do you believe influence this selection?

1. crank inertia (or gear ratio).
2. muscle fiber type.
3. power.

I think of 1 as force, so it is a bit independent of gear and crank
length, etc. I think 2 influences to what degree a person likes their
power to "consume" their strength. For example I might feel comfortable
when at 100% power I am using 30% of leg strength (force) Maybe at 75%
power I like 20%. Less of a masher might like a different ratio. I
suspect these are linear for some reason, and thus people tend to
settle on a narrow cadence range (at least for sustainable efforts,
sprinting is different) for a wide power range. Some sort of a
perceived effort thing relative to power produced.

Joseph

Donald Munro said:

Robert said:

Quoted message said:

>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.

Donald Munro said:

Quoted message said:

Why do you think such an ideal one exists. More likely the 'ideal'
cadence varies along with all the other variables.

Robert said:

Because if I use a different cadence than my preferred one, I cycle not
as well (worse endurance, lower speed for given comfort level, or both).

Quoted message said:

It's up to each cyclist to find their own optimal cadence. What's so
strange about that? /Robert

You mean you always ride with the same cadence regardless of terrain,
gradient or wind ?

Yes, I use my gears. That's what they're there for.

/Robert

Quoted message said:

Robert Chung said:

Quoted message said:

It seems we all more or less agree that optimal cadence self-selects.
What factors do you believe influence this selection?

1. crank inertia (or gear ratio).
2. muscle fiber type.
3. power.

I think of 1 as force, so it is a bit independent of gear and crank
length, etc. I think 2 influences to what degree a person likes their
power to "consume" their strength. For example I might feel comfortable
when at 100% power I am using 30% of leg strength (force) Maybe at 75%
power I like 20%. Less of a masher might like a different ratio.

http://www.mae.ufl.edu/~fregly/protected/publications/jb2002.pdf
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-201X.2002.01032.x

Quoted message said:

I
suspect these are linear for some reason, and thus people tend to
settle on a narrow cadence range (at least for sustainable efforts,
sprinting is different) for a wide power range.

They don't.

Quoted message said:

Donald Munro wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You mean you always ride with the same cadence regardless of terrain,
gradient or wind ?

I do, at least within a very narrow range. Particularly now that I have
a modern bike with brifters and 10 cogs.

You have data files with your recorded cadence? You're saying the cadences
lie within the same very narrow range for: 1) flat TTs; 2) steep hill
climbs; and 3) crits?

I've seen a fair number of data files from all sorts of riders on all
sorts of terrain. You'd be the first to have an identical pattern
regardless of the type of ride.

Robert said:

Donald Munro wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You mean you always ride with the same cadence regardless of terrain,
gradient or wind ?

Yes, I use my gears. That's what they're there for.

You'd be the second.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Robert said:

Donald Munro said:

Robert said:

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.

Why do you think such an ideal one exists. More likely the 'ideal'
cadence varies along with all the other variables.

Because if I use a different cadence than my preferred one, I cycle not
as well (worse endurance, lower speed for given comfort level, or both).

It's up to each cyclist to find their own optimal cadence. What's so
strange about that?

The antithesis is that there is no optimal cadence. Please
consider this seriously. Many act as if such is the case
with no hindrance.

--
Michael Press

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

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.

Or maybe he was trying to confuse the opposition. I know
that when I saw and heard Carmichael I knew that I might
as well believe a aluminum siding salesman, for all the
good it would have done me.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Robert said:

Donald Munro said:

Robert wrote:

>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.

Why do you think such an ideal one exists. More likely the 'ideal'
cadence varies along with all the other variables.

Because if I use a different cadence than my preferred one, I cycle not
as well (worse endurance, lower speed for given comfort level, or both).

It's up to each cyclist to find their own optimal cadence. What's so
strange about that?

The antithesis is that there is no optimal cadence. Please
consider this seriously. Many act as if such is the case
with no hindrance.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Robert

Robert Chung said:

Robert said:

I'm one of those people whose legs burn up if I pedal (hard) at any
cadence less than about 80. What is it that allows some riders to pedal
super-slow for such a long time?

/Robert

Cadence is a red herring.

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

Bob Schwartz