my take on strength endurance training

[Tom Kunich]

I would have liked to have checked out Michael Creed's cadence while he
was off the front. He was REALLY motoring.

Has anyone any information on Creed's plans for this year?

 

[Mark Fennell]

Andy Coggan wrote:
> Mark Fennell wrote:
>> I know what it feels like to climb stairs at 90%, and I know what it
>> feels like to ride a 53x12 at 30 rpm up a ~6% slope in the saddle, and
>> they are a lot different. Each down-stroke is much more forceful than
>> simply lifting body weight up the steps. I suppose I should do the
>> physics to see if that is true!
>
> You definitely should, as I think you'll be rather surprised at the
> answer.
>

OK, homework assignment complete. In a 53x12 up a 6% slope, a SE
practitioner ascends ~ 0.57 m per crank revolution, or ~0.28 m per
downstroke. Now I'll postulate that most of the downstroke force occurs
+/-45 degrees about horizontal crank arms which means the rider is pushing
his/her body and bike mass up 0.28 m with a downstroke distance of ~.24 m.
So I'll concede that the low rpm SE workout is like climbing big steps in
slow motion with 9 kg of dead weight on your back. Yep, that sounds about
right.

Mark

 

[Phil Holman]

"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:7i6zf.115299$oG.19878@dukeread02...
>
> "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Since you specificaly mention physiological adaptions, don't forget
>>> there are likely to be mental adaptations at the same time.
>>
>> Other than the motivation to better the previous workout, what else
>> could there be?
>>
>
> Learning improvements in pedaling techniques for the specific effort,
> understanding the time intervals more precisely for energy
> expenditure, learning optimal rpm for the interval, familiarization
> with the roads used for the interval (if not on a trainer), learning
> improvements in between-interval recovery, learning to use upper body
> more efficiently, etc.

I think you assign too much credit to the things you mention. Maybe
there would be some improvement if the rider was a novice.

Phil H

 

[amit]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> I would have liked to have checked out Michael Creed's cadence while he
> was off the front. He was REALLY motoring.
>
> Has anyone any information on Creed's plans for this year?

yes.



this is too easy.

 

[Phil Holman]

"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news[email protected]...
>>> "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> what are the likely physiological adaptations that enable increased
>>>> time intervals?
>>>
>>> I could speculate, but ultimately the question is, does it matter?
>>> Obviously it does if for some reason (broken derailleur cable?
>>> excessively high gearing?) you're forced to pedal for extended
>>> periods at a markedly suboptimal cadence, but otherwise, who cares?
>>>
>> Those climbing at 8 mph with a 39/23 or a 39/25. These are not
>> uncommon and not everyone does SE at 45rpm. How many of us climb
>> longer grades at 75rpm with a 39/23? Did anyone check the cadences
>> going up Filbert St?
>
> Anybody climbing for *extended* periods at <55 rpm - which is what SE
> training prepares you to do - is waaaaaaaaaaaay overgeared.
>
I agree, but then your take on SE should be limited to <55. In your
article you mention the range 45 - 75 rpm. I've ridden up some longish
climbs at around 70rpm, with a lot of other riders.

Phil H

 

[Carl Sundquist]

"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
>>
>> Learning improvements in pedaling techniques for the specific effort,
>> understanding the time intervals more precisely for energy expenditure,
>> learning optimal rpm for the interval, familiarization with the roads
>> used for the interval (if not on a trainer), learning improvements in
>> between-interval recovery, learning to use upper body more efficiently,
>> etc.
>
> I think you assign too much credit to the things you mention. Maybe there
> would be some improvement if the rider was a novice.
>

It has been often speculated that Ullrich would handle uphill attacks much
better if he trained to pedal at a higher rpm. Of course that's not SE
training, but the point is to optimize for the task at hand, not just plow
through it.

 

[Wes]

So what about this as an argument (and excuse the butting in from a
lurker...):
What if the main function of the SE reps is that it lets the rider
"feel" the pedal stroke better and therefore learn how to recruit
muscles that they don't use at higher reps??
I'm not saying this is an argument for or against...but it might
explain the anecdotal evidence that supports the idea.
Wes in VA

 

[Phil Holman]

"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:8Wgzf.116053$oG.102274@dukeread02...
>
> "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Learning improvements in pedaling techniques for the specific
>>> effort, understanding the time intervals more precisely for energy
>>> expenditure, learning optimal rpm for the interval, familiarization
>>> with the roads used for the interval (if not on a trainer), learning
>>> improvements in between-interval recovery, learning to use upper
>>> body more efficiently, etc.
>>
>> I think you assign too much credit to the things you mention. Maybe
>> there would be some improvement if the rider was a novice.
>>
>
> It has been often speculated that Ullrich would handle uphill attacks
> much better if he trained to pedal at a higher rpm. Of course that's
> not SE training, but the point is to optimize for the task at hand,
> not just plow through it.
I can't imagine a single contender (or a masters fattie) who hasn't
tried that.

Phil H

 

[Andy Coggan]

"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news[email protected]...
>>>> "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>> what are the likely physiological adaptations that enable increased
>>>>> time intervals?
>>>>
>>>> I could speculate, but ultimately the question is, does it matter?
>>>> Obviously it does if for some reason (broken derailleur cable?
>>>> excessively high gearing?) you're forced to pedal for extended periods
>>>> at a markedly suboptimal cadence, but otherwise, who cares?
>>>>
>>> Those climbing at 8 mph with a 39/23 or a 39/25. These are not uncommon
>>> and not everyone does SE at 45rpm. How many of us climb longer grades at
>>> 75rpm with a 39/23? Did anyone check the cadences going up Filbert St?
>>
>> Anybody climbing for *extended* periods at <55 rpm - which is what SE
>> training prepares you to do - is waaaaaaaaaaaay overgeared.
>>
> I agree, but then your take on SE should be limited to <55. In your
> article you mention the range 45 - 75 rpm. I've ridden up some longish
> climbs at around 70rpm, with a lot of other riders.

The closer the cadence is to what somebody will actually use when competing,
the more logical such training becomes. Or in other words: specificity,
specificity, specificity, specificity, specificity.

Andy Coggan

 

[Andy Coggan]

"Wes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So what about this as an argument (and excuse the butting in from a
> lurker...):
> What if the main function of the SE reps is that it lets the rider
> "feel" the pedal stroke better and therefore learn how to recruit
> muscles that they don't use at higher reps??
> I'm not saying this is an argument for or against...but it might
> explain the anecdotal evidence that supports the idea.

Except that the specificity principle also applies in the realm of motor
learning, i.e., the best way to get good at a task is to practice at full
speed (and in its entirety).

Andy Coggan

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Wes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > So what about this as an argument (and excuse the butting in from a
> > lurker...):
> > What if the main function of the SE reps is that it lets the rider
> > "feel" the pedal stroke better and therefore learn how to recruit
> > muscles that they don't use at higher reps??
> > I'm not saying this is an argument for or against...but it might
> > explain the anecdotal evidence that supports the idea.
>
> Except that the specificity principle also applies in the realm of motor
> learning, i.e., the best way to get good at a task is to practice at full
> speed (and in its entirety).

Not entirely. My music teacher said `If you want to play
it fast, first you have to play it slow.' She is right.

--
Michael Press

 

[Andy Coggan]

"Michael Press" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> "Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Wes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > So what about this as an argument (and excuse the butting in from a
>> > lurker...):
>> > What if the main function of the SE reps is that it lets the rider
>> > "feel" the pedal stroke better and therefore learn how to recruit
>> > muscles that they don't use at higher reps??
>> > I'm not saying this is an argument for or against...but it might
>> > explain the anecdotal evidence that supports the idea.
>>
>> Except that the specificity principle also applies in the realm of motor
>> learning, i.e., the best way to get good at a task is to practice at full
>> speed (and in its entirety).
>
> Not entirely. My music teacher said `If you want to play
> it fast, first you have to play it slow.' She is right.

Actually, she's not: the idea that tasks are best learned by breaking them
down into their component parts, practicing those parts slowly in isolation,
and then attempting to put it all back together again is now apparently
largely viewed as outdated thinking by motor control specialists.

Andy Coggan

 

[Tom Kunich]

A 700c wheel is approximately 28" in diameter. One revolution of that
wheel is 28 x pi = 88" = 2 1/4 meters. 53/12 = 4.4 x 2 1/4 = 9.8 meters
OR almost 5 meters per stroke.

Homework assignment for tomorrow - learn basic logic.

 

[Tom Kunich]

Here's plainly something to think about - if you watch Ullrich
performance in 2004 you'll see that he in fact attempted to learn a
higher pedaling cadence and that it actually reduced his performance.
It didn't take long for him to fall back to his natural cadence.
Everyone's central nervous system isn't exactly the same.

 

[Dan Connelly]

Mark Fennell wrote:

>
> OK, homework assignment complete. In a 53x12 up a 6% slope, a SE
> practitioner ascends ~ 0.57 m per crank revolution, or ~0.28 m per
> downstroke. Now I'll postulate that most of the downstroke force occurs
> +/-45 degrees about horizontal crank arms which means the rider is pushing
> his/her body and bike mass up 0.28 m with a downstroke distance of ~.24 m.
> So I'll concede that the low rpm SE workout is like climbing big steps in
> slow motion with 9 kg of dead weight on your back. Yep, that sounds about
> right.
>
> Mark
>
>

peak force per pedal (F) = M * gear * effective rolling circumference * grade / (crank length * 2 alpha)
where alpha ~ the efficiency of the application of the pedal force. 0.5 seems a reasonable
estimate. 1 would be uniform in the direction of pedal motion.

Result:
(F/M) = 53/12 * 0.06 * 2.1m / 0.1725 m = 3.2 m/s^2

compare with gravity of 9.8 m/s^2

so the force applied at the feet when pedaling is approximately 1/3 as much
as when stair climbing w/o additional load.

Cadence doesn't enter the equation -- it affects power, not force.

Dan

 

[Dan Connelly]

Mark Fennell wrote:

>
> OK, homework assignment complete. In a 53x12 up a 6% slope, a SE
> practitioner ascends ~ 0.57 m per crank revolution, or ~0.28 m per
> downstroke. Now I'll postulate that most of the downstroke force occurs
> +/-45 degrees about horizontal crank arms which means the rider is pushing
> his/her body and bike mass up 0.28 m with a downstroke distance of ~.24 m.
> So I'll concede that the low rpm SE workout is like climbing big steps in
> slow motion with 9 kg of dead weight on your back. Yep, that sounds about
> right.
>
> Mark
>
>

peak force per pedal (F) = M * gear * effective rolling circumference * grade / (crank length * 2 alpha)
where alpha ~ the efficiency of the application of the pedal force. 0.5 seems a reasonable
estimate. 1 would be uniform in the direction of pedal motion.

Result:
(F/M) = 53/12 * 0.06 * 2.1m / 0.1725 m = 3.2 m/s^2

compare with gravity of 9.8 m/s^2

so the force applied at the feet when pedaling is approximately 1/3 as much
as when stair climbing w/o additional load.

Cadence doesn't enter the equation -- it affects power, not force.

Dan

 

[Dan Connelly]

Dan Connelly wrote:
>
> peak force per pedal (F) ...

> so the force applied at the feet

Clarification: ball of the foot, and only if the bike orientation remains fixed.
By adjusting ankle position and swinging the bike back and forth (d roll/d t), the effective
crank length can be increased (ie the length of the trajectory of the pedal axle,
in the inertial reference frame of the bike, divided by 2pi).

Dan

 

[Mark Fennell]

Tom Kunich wrote:
>A 700c wheel is approximately 28" in diameter. One revolution of that
> wheel is 28 x pi = 88" = 2 1/4 meters. 53/12 = 4.4 x 2 1/4 = 9.8 meters
> OR almost 5 meters per stroke.
>
> Homework assignment for tomorrow - learn basic logic.
>

Tom,

Your homework assignment is to reread my post and then go look up the word
"ascends". Hint: it doesn't simply mean how far you travel.

Next, measure the circumference of your wheel and you will most likely find
that it doesn't travel 2.25 m per revolution.

And finally, STFU.

Mark

 

[Robert Chung]

Dan Connelly wrote:

> peak force per pedal (F) = M * gear * effective rolling circumference *
> grade / (crank length * 2 alpha) where alpha ~ the efficiency of the
> application of the pedal force. 0.5 seems a reasonable
> estimate.

http://www.isbweb.org/data/kautz/index.html

 

[Robert Chung]

Mark Fennell wrote:
> My only comment about force was to say
> that it peaks in the range of +/- 45 degrees of horizontal cranks.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/kautz.png