Mashing

Quoted message said:

On Jul 4, 2:37 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>

Quoted message said:

Obviously, if I reduce the inefficiency in turning a pedal, I can turn the
pedal more.

It is not obvious to me that if you reduce the inefficiency in turning
a pedal you can produce more power.

Perhaps not, but as the article I posted the link to seems to suggest,
maybe power doesn't change but fuel consumption does.

Joseph

email hidden said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Obviously, if I reduce the inefficiency in turning a pedal, I can turn the
pedal more.

Quoted message said:

It is not obvious to me that if you reduce the inefficiency in turning
a pedal you can produce more power.

Perhaps not, but as the article I posted the link to seems to suggest,
maybe power doesn't change but fuel consumption does.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17545890&ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

email hidden said:

I guess the question comes down to distribution of muscle fiber types
and at what force levels these are recruited.

http://cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/quad.asp

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

bar said:

On Jul 3, 9:25 pm, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Jul 3, 2:48 pm, "[email hidden]"

Quoted message said:

IMO, mashing is a symptom of the disease rather than
a cause of it. The disease, of course, is not enough
power. The issue isn't always fuel, although by 410 km,
I suppose everything is about fuel.

Dropped after 410km? Jeez you guys are freaks. Rejoin the human
race, please.

Damn.

Dumbass,

That's why we need the dope.

But seriously, talk to Joseph. I always used to get
dropped 150 km into the ride. I've never ridden 410 km.
I did like how in the newspaper photo gallery Joseph
posted of the race, most of the pics are of riders
sleeping.

Ben
sucked at racing, good at sleeping

http://lavender.fortunecity.com/eraserhead/396/simpsons/ralfwiggams/sleep.wav

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Jul 4, 5:37 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

IMO, mashing is a symptom of the disease rather than
a cause of it. The disease, of course, is not enough
power.

And power comes from torque and pedal speed.

Power is the product of torque and pedal speed. That
doesn't mean it comes from them. AFAIK, power is mostly
limited by cardio capacity.

Quoted message said:

The whole "cadence doesn't matter" crew ignores the real
gains which can be made in pedal efficiency. Obviously,
if I reduce the inefficiency in turning a pedal, I can
turn the pedal more. A smoother pedal stroke supports
a higher cadence, a higher cadence supports higher pedal
speed, higher pedal speed supports more power.

I guess I think self selected cadence is a symptom of
your comfort at a given pedal speed rather than the
cause of it. That is, you can train yourself to feel
more comfortable at a higher speed, but that doesn't
necessarily prove you trained yourself to be more
efficient (in either the power/O2 sense of efficient,
or the wasted-effort sense, which is less quantifiable).
I also am not convinced that there are large gains
to be made in efficiency of stroke beyond unweighting
the rear leg.

Remember that when talking about mashing versus spinning
on climbs, we might be talking about cadences of 60
versus 90 rpm. IMO, most reasonably trained people can
pedal 90 rpm smoothly without bouncing. It's when we
get to ~110-120 rpm that most of us have to have practiced
high cadence in order not to feel uncomfortable.
But this is more than anyone, even LANCE, thinks is
sensible to ride on climbs.

Ben

p.s. Dan, could you insert carriage returns into your
paragraphs? thanks.

Robert Chung said:

On Jul 4, 3:53 pm, "[email hidden]"

Quoted message said:

I guess the question comes down to distribution of muscle fiber types
and at what force levels these are recruited.

http://cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/quad.asp

That is quite interesting. Does that seem to say that a tendency to
mash indicates a certain fiber type distribution, or just that the
fiber types have different thresholds for different people? And is
this a training response or do the fibers themselves determine this
threshold? The article also touched on my other favorite subject of
joint angular velocity and/or muscle contraction speed as relates to
crank length.

I think my body's wish for low joint angular velocity is what drives
my mashing. Since force varies greatly during a ride (at least much
more than angular velocity/cadence) I presume my body is not so
sensitive to forces, but nonetheless I should look to reduce force
generation to try to keep fiber type use limited and thus keep fat
metabolism high. This points to longer/proportional crank arms. I have
175's on my road bike, but I think I'd prefer 180's. I have some 195's
which I like but I think may be a bit extreme.

Joseph

Robert Chung said:

On Jul 4, 3:55 pm, "[email hidden]"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Obviously, if I reduce the inefficiency in turning a pedal, I can turn the
> pedal more.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is not obvious to me that if you reduce the inefficiency in turning
a pedal you can produce more power.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps not, but as the article I posted the link to seems to suggest,
maybe power doesn't change but fuel consumption does.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView...

So do you think I should consciously try to train myself to use a
higher (more normal) cadence range? And if I use longer crankarms,
should I forget about cadence and think more in terms of torque?

Joseph

Joseph said:

Quoted message said:

http://cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/quad.asp

That is quite interesting. Does that seem to say that a tendency to
mash indicates a certain fiber type distribution, or just that the
fiber types have different thresholds for different people?

The former.

Quoted message said:

And is
this a training response or do the fibers themselves determine this
threshold?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Quoted message said:

The article also touched on my other favorite subject of
joint angular velocity and/or muscle contraction speed as relates to
crank length. [...] I have
175's on my road bike, but I think I'd prefer 180's. I have some 195's
which I like but I think may be a bit extreme.

Longer cranks increase foot speed at a given cadence, so there's not
much to be gained or lost by changing (either increasing or
decreasing) crank length. You can pretty much choose your crank length
based on preference and comfort but don't expect that it will have
much effect on power.

Joseph said:

So do you think I should consciously try to train myself to use a
higher (more normal) cadence range? And if I use longer crankarms,
should I forget about cadence and think more in terms of torque?

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

Quoted message said:

Joseph said:

Quoted message said:

http://cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/quad.asp

Quoted message said:

That is quite interesting. Does that seem to say that a tendency to
mash indicates a certain fiber type distribution, or just that the
fiber types have different thresholds for different people?

The former.

I can't figure out if this means I have lots of type 1 or type 2. And
either way does this have any implications for what I should try to do
in training?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And is
this a training response or do the fibers themselves determine this
threshold?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

That would only be applicable were the answer to the previous question
otherwise.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The article also touched on my other favorite subject of
joint angular velocity and/or muscle contraction speed as relates to
crank length. [...] I have
175's on my road bike, but I think I'd prefer 180's. I have some 195's
which I like but I think may be a bit extreme.

Longer cranks increase foot speed at a given cadence, so there's not
much to be gained or lost by changing (either increasing or
decreasing) crank length. You can pretty much choose your crank length
based on preference and comfort but don't expect that it will have
much effect on power.

Foot speed may be increased, but I think that angular joint velocity
and thus muscle contration speed would be less (than with shorter
cranks) at given levels of torque. And by long cranks, I really mean
proportional, which in may case means longer than average. While the
range of motion is greater, I wonder if the angular velocity is still
less.

I think the muscle contraction speed vs torque (not cadence) is what
is interesting. And is there some optimal sweet spot there that allows
low contraction speed and low force generation that _does_ result in
more efficient fuel use. I'm already more than convinced that power is
limited by other factors (O2), but I think there is something to the
fibre type recruitment and the subsequent levels of fat metabolism.

Joseph

email hidden said:

I can't figure out if this means I have lots of type 1 or type 2. And
either way does this have any implications for what I should try to do
in training?

It means that you should focus on power, not on cadence alone or on
torque alone.

Quoted message said:

Foot speed may be increased, but I think that angular joint velocity
and thus muscle contration speed would be less (than with shorter
cranks) at given levels of torque. And by long cranks, I really mean
proportional, which in may case means longer than average. While the
range of motion is greater, I wonder if the angular velocity is still
less.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11417428&dop-=

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11990729&dopt=Abstract

Quoted message said:

On Jul 4, 11:25 pm, "[email hidden]"

Quoted message said:

I can't figure out if this means I have lots of type 1 or type 2. And
either way does this have any implications for what I should try to do
in training?

It means that you should focus on power, not on cadence alone or on
torque alone.

Quoted message said:

Foot speed may be increased, but I think that angular joint velocity
and thus muscle contration speed would be less (than with shorter
cranks) at given levels of torque. And by long cranks, I really mean
proportional, which in may case means longer than average. While the
range of motion is greater, I wonder if the angular velocity is still
less.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_...

Yes, power is limited by other factors. But what about glycogen vs fat
precentages? How that same total power is derived may not be the same
in terms of fuel. Six of one may not be half a dozen of the other.

Joseph

in message <[email hidden]>,

(') said:

Hi All,

After reading this:

http://www.timetrialtraining.co.uk/PPwhyfastpedalingmakescyclists.htm

I wonder if part of the reason I got dropped after 410km of my latest
Trondheim Oslo is that I am a masher and thus unnecessarily used up my
fuel too soon.

The article claims that higher cadences while no more efficient in
terms of oxygen use, breathing rate and blood lactate levels are much
more efficient in terms of glycogen and fat metabolism. My first
thought was that the cyclists in the tests were probably training at
cadences comparable to the high cadences in the test and thus were
adapted to those cadences, and that if they trained at lower cadences,
they would be more efficient at those lower cadences. But then there
is the whole slow-twitch vs fast-twitch argument. Is this reason
enough for me to try to temper my mashing tendencies?

I get the impression from the photos and your reports that this was a cold,
wet event over big hills - and 410Km is a long way. OK, I know Norway
produces tough guys... but there are a lot of reasons why you may have got
dropped. Nutrition is a big one. Cold - and adequate clothing - is
another; muscles just don't work well when they're cold. And fatigue is a
third. I bonked badly eighteen hours into a 24 hour event this year, and
I'm sure I'd been getting enough nutrition. I think my bonk was mainly
fatigue, partly cold.

What cadence are you talking about when you say mashing? I try to maintain
a steady 80-85, but I know that when I'm seriously fatigued my cadence
drops.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'You cannot put "The Internet" into the Recycle Bin.'

Joseph said:

Yes, power is limited by other factors. But what about glycogen vs fat
precentages? How that same total power is derived may not be the same
in terms of fuel. Six of one may not be half a dozen of the other.

Joseph

From:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17545890&ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

"RESULTS: When the participants were instructed to pull on the pedal
during the upstroke, mechanical effectiveness was greater (index of
force effectiveness=62.4+/-9.8%) and gross efficiency was lower (gross
efficiency=19.0+/-0.7%) compared with the other pedaling conditions
(index of force effectiveness=48.2+/-5.1% and gross
efficiency=20.2+/-0.6%; means and standard deviations collapsed across
preferred, circling, and pushing conditions). Mechanical effectiveness
and gross efficiency during the circling and pushing conditions did
not differ significantly from the preferred pedaling condition.
CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical effectiveness is not indicative of gross
efficiency across pedaling techniques."

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>,

(') said:

Hi All,

Quoted message said:

After reading this:

Quoted message said:

http://www.timetrialtraining.co.uk/PPwhyfastpedalingmakescyclists.htm

Quoted message said:

I wonder if part of the reason I got dropped after 410km of my latest
Trondheim Oslo is that I am a masher and thus unnecessarily used up my
fuel too soon.

Quoted message said:

The article claims that higher cadences while no more efficient in
terms of oxygen use, breathing rate and blood lactate levels are much
more efficient in terms of glycogen and fat metabolism. My first
thought was that the cyclists in the tests were probably training at
cadences comparable to the high cadences in the test and thus were
adapted to those cadences, and that if they trained at lower cadences,
they would be more efficient at those lower cadences. But then there
is the whole slow-twitch vs fast-twitch argument. Is this reason
enough for me to try to temper my mashing tendencies?

I get the impression from the photos and your reports that this was a cold,
wet event over big hills - and 410Km is a long way. OK, I know Norway
produces tough guys... but there are a lot of reasons why you may have got
dropped. Nutrition is a big one. Cold - and adequate clothing - is
another; muscles just don't work well when they're cold. And fatigue is a
third. I bonked badly eighteen hours into a 24 hour event this year, and
I'm sure I'd been getting enough nutrition. I think my bonk was mainly
fatigue, partly cold.

Despite being Italian from Brooklyn, NY I handle the [censored] weather
better than a lot of local boys I know ;-) In this case I was actually
quite comfortable.

As Robert as pointed out and as was rather apparent underway the real
reason I got dropped was I lack enough power to maintain a reasonable
effort level on the hills. On the steep parts some guys were busy
chatting while I was suffering at max HR. Not too much of a mystery as
to why that couldn't go on forever! As far as eating goes, I'm pretty
sure I ate more than as many calories could have been absorbed in the
period, so I don't think that had much to do with it. I didn't
actually bonk on this ride and despite the hills in the last bit I
managed to maintain almost 30km/h average for the last 130km alone
despte not really caring about my time once I'd been dropped and had
my warm-up nap.

Quoted message said:

What cadence are you talking about when you say mashing? I try to maintain
a steady 80-85, but I know that when I'm seriously fatigued my cadence
drops.

I don't really know what cadences I use other than that I am often in
a higher gear than my riding companions. I'm probably in the 70-85
range I'd guess.

Joseph

Robert Chung said:

Joseph said:

Yes, power is limited by other factors. But what about glycogen vs fat
precentages? How that same total power is derived may not be the same
in terms of fuel. Six of one may not be half a dozen of the other.

Quoted message said:

Joseph

From:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView...

"RESULTS: When the participants were instructed to pull on the pedal
during the upstroke, mechanical effectiveness was greater (index of
force effectiveness=62.4+/-9.8%) and gross efficiency was lower (gross
efficiency=19.0+/-0.7%) compared with the other pedaling conditions
(index of force effectiveness=48.2+/-5.1% and gross
efficiency=20.2+/-0.6%; means and standard deviations collapsed across
preferred, circling, and pushing conditions). Mechanical effectiveness
and gross efficiency during the circling and pushing conditions did
not differ significantly from the preferred pedaling condition.
CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical effectiveness is not indicative of gross
efficiency across pedaling techniques."

Is efficiency just O2 consuption? In this study the fixed cadence and
power meant that despiet the various techniques used, the muscle
contraction speeds/angular velocity vs torque was the same the whole
time.

The local health club has a VO2 machine which can determine the
percentage of fat being burned during exercise. I am almost tempted to
bring my bikes there and do some testing. Too bad it's so expensive!

Joseph

email hidden said:

Is efficiency just O2 consuption? In this study the fixed cadence and
power meant that despiet the various techniques used, the muscle
contraction speeds/angular velocity vs torque was the same the whole
time.

http://tinyurl.com/2euaku

Quoted message said:

I don't really know what cadences I use other than that I am often in
a higher gear than my riding companions. I'm probably in the 70-85
range I'd guess.

That isn't mashing.

You should come up with some firm numbers, for example you can calculate cadence from gear, distance, and time on a known hill.

Dan

P.S. A lot of factors can lead to getting dropped. Fitness, electrolytes, hydration, carbohydrate, lack of core strength, bad bike fit. On rides that long, there are multiple links. Maybe you just lacked the aerobic fitness to hold the pace on the climbs.

Quoted message said:

On Jul 5, 11:30 am, "[email hidden]"

Quoted message said:

Is efficiency just O2 consuption? In this study the fixed cadence and
power meant that despiet the various techniques used, the muscle
contraction speeds/angular velocity vs torque was the same the whole
time.

http://tinyurl.com/2euaku

Hey! No fair, I'm supposed to be doing work here!

I read a handful of those, and as far as I can tell none of them
address the issue of differing muscle contraction speeds for a given
force and power. And this is interesting in terms of fiber recruitment
and potential for differences in glycogen usage.

I sketched out a simplified example using my leg length and 165mm
cranks and 195mm cranks. To maintain a given power level using the
same applied force yet with different cranks and thus cadence and
pedal speed, there is a significant difference in the angular velocity
of the knee and subsequently muscle contraction speed. I don't think
that it is unreasonable to think that it may be interesting to see
what effect different contraction speeds have given the same force and
power.

For example in my 165 vs 195 case with the same force and power, the
165's need 90 rpm, and the 195's about 76 rpm. This translates to
about 164 degrees per second for the knee joint with 165's and 148
degrees per second for the 195's. So while the foot speed is the same
I have to contract my muscles 10% faster with the shorter arms to
maintain the same power with the same force. I think this may be
significant in terms of fiber usage and fuel source.

Joseph

On Jul 5, 3:15 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't really know what cadences I use other than that I am often in
a higher gear than my riding companions. I'm probably in the 70-85
range I'd guess.

That isn't mashing.

You should come up with some firm numbers, for example you can calculate cadence from gear, distance, and time on a known hill.

My 70-85 guess was just that, a guess. I suppose I should try getting
real info. My assessment of myself as a masher is based solely on the
fact that I have a lower cadence than EVERYONE I ever ride with.

Quoted message said:

Dan

P.S. A lot of factors can lead to getting dropped. Fitness, electrolytes, hydration, carbohydrate, lack of core strength, bad bike fit. On rides that long, there are multiple links. Maybe you just lacked the aerobic fitness to hold the pace on the climbs.

In this case I think it was my lack of fitness that made me go too
deep in to the red for too long such that fatigue eventually caught up
with me. But it may be fuel efficiency related how long I could have
kept going despite having spent so much time in the red zone.

Joseph