pedaling technique

davek <[email hidden]> wrote:

: Well, they always say that Ullrich can pump round the big gears at high
: speeds because of his "big engine" - I'm not entirely sure what that
: means

If you've ever ridden with someone with a "big engine" it becomes clear. It's
not about fast twitch/slow or build it's just lots and lots of raw power.

Get enough watts through the rear wheel and you'll go fast.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
"Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook

Arthur Clune said:

davek <[email hidden]> wrote:

: Well, they always say that Ullrich can pump round the big gears at high
: speeds because of his "big engine" - I'm not entirely sure what that
: means

If you've ever ridden with someone with a "big engine" it becomes clear. It's
not about fast twitch/slow or build it's just lots and lots of raw power.

Get enough watts through the rear wheel and you'll go fast.

Arthur

I'd agree with this. I'm finding I'm better able to suddenly put the
power on in a high gear at what is a fairly low cadence sometimes, and
though I've had a twinge in the knees once or twice (my saddle's still a
bit too low) as long as I avoid putting it on at the very top of the
pedal stroke (where, for that reason, my knee is at it's most bent I
guess) I really do find it works as a method to accelerate, and my body
really likes doing it this way.

I can feel the difference to just sitting and pedalling - I don't get
out the saddle to do this, but the bike moves differently under me, and
my body does something different too, so I'm guessing it might be that
side-to-side type movement going on - not sure, I'm usually
concentrating on other things ;-)

I can't do this up hills though - I just weigh too much, and the weight
overcomes the power - it's insufficient to heave the bulk up the hill,
but works extremely well on the flat to accelerate said bulk in a
horizontal direction ;-)

However, I still think you're more at risk (perhaps not guaranteed, I'm
not sure, not a knee expert!) at doing your knees in by pushing a high
gear for any length of time or under any significant load. For me, this
means slow cadences up long gradients in anything other than the low
gears is a Bad Thing - my knees tell me so.

--

Velvet

Tim Hall said:

Not that simple though. Shirley the Ulrich line should read

High gears, slow cadence, eat pies all witer.

But then it wouldn't make any sense.

Witer?

;-)

MSeries said:

I am surprised it took 5 posts before the name Armstrong was mentioned.
Anyone would think he invented pedalling. High cadence has been the
recommendation for years. I can't remember the reasons why but it comes
failry naturally now.

Armstrong gets mentioned because he rides at a particularly high
cadence. None of the other riders in the TdF ride at a genuinely /low/
cadence, even Ullrich.

d.

"Simonb" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

But then it wouldn't make any sense.

Witer?

I did think it looked a bit like a German word. The Babelfish translation
of "witer" is "more witer" ...hmmm...

Graeme

I said:

Riding on the flat with the wind at my back, as was the case with the
first half of my ride yesterday evening, I kept up a steady 105 rpm for
around 20 minutes ...

After the climb, I had a long (3 miles), relatively gentle descent but
it was into the wind. On this part of the ride I actually found it
easier to "churn" a higher gear (52x14) at a lower cadence to maintain a
speed of just under 30mph.

To be honest, I don't know what all this proves, if anything - maybe
that different styles of riding suit different conditions?

d.

dannyboy1206 said:

What is the rule when you are pedaling do you spin your legs in lower
gears or do churn the legs round in high gears.Some people say you
build muscle endurance quicker in the higher gears but other people
say it damages your knees can anyone help.

Cheers

I just pedal at whatever speed feels best. Dependiong on length of journey,
terrain, energy levels, wind direction. Sometimes churning, sometimes
spinning.

Arthur Clune typed:

Quoted message said:

davek said:

Well, they always say that Ullrich can pump round the big gears at high
speeds because of his "big engine" - I'm not entirely sure what that
means

If you've ever ridden with someone with a "big engine" it becomes clear.
It's not about fast twitch/slow or build it's just lots and lots of raw
power.

Get enough watts through the rear wheel and you'll go fast.

I'd agree with this. Ullrichs general size would help a lot here .. 😉

Armstrongs spinning is a technique that can be learned, practised, coached
and trained for, but does require lots of training and concentration to get
it to anything near his level. Powering like Ullrich just needs power, and
the mindset to pump it out ... 😉

IMHO I think the analysis of which muscles exactly do the job might help in
the long run, but if you haven't got the basic physique and stamina then
it's unlikely to be as good a technique as spinning ..

--
Paul ...

(8(|) ... Homer Rocks

Arthur Clune said:

If you've ever ridden with someone with a "big engine" it becomes clear. It's
not about fast twitch/slow or build it's just lots and lots of raw power.

Yes, but where does that power come from? The ability to pump out that
level of power for a sustained period requires serious muscle
development, specifically in the fast twitch fibres. Ullrich is
muscular, sure, but he's not exactly bodybuilder physique. Hence my
speculation about his natural proportion of fast/slow twitch muscle -
his ability is genetically determined.

d.

Simonb said:

I just pedal at whatever speed feels best. Dependiong on length of journey,
terrain, energy levels, wind direction. Sometimes churning, sometimes
spinning.

I think that's what I was trying to say in my previous posts about my
ride yesterday evening.

d.

On 28/7/04 9:57 pm, in article [email hidden],

Just zis Guy said:

High gears, slow cadence: Ullrich

Slow cadence being around 85-95 IIRC

Quoted message said:

Low gears, fast cadence: Armstrong.

being 95-105

It is the difference between 39x21 and 39x23 on the Alpe d'Huez

By the standards of this group, those cadences are normal/high and very
high/very very high.

...d

David Martin said:

Quoted message said:

Low gears, fast cadence: Armstrong.

being 95-105
By the standards of this group, those cadences are normal/high and
very high/very very high.

95-105 is normal for me :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Just zis Guy said:

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:26:35 +0100, "Meschersmit" <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

Everyone's different though. There can surely be no "right" or
"wrong" way - it's whatever suits you. Ullrich does use low cadence
yet still came second up Alpe D'huex time trial - against high
cadence spinners. It must surely depend on the muscularity of the
legs. Not that I am an expert, I'd be the first to admit. I must
say though that I favour the low cadence approach; but then again
I'm a very big guy.

I go much faster and with far fewer joint problems since I increased
my cruising cadence from 80-odd to 100+. I am not particularly big,
at 6'1" and 13st.

Do you have a history of joint problems? I only ask because you say you now
have /fewer/ joint problems.

Call me Bob said:

Quoted message said:

I don't know about building muscle endurance quicker, you'll
certainly wreck your knees quicker.

I see this written here all the time and by so many different people.
I always end up thinking, there's so many of 'em, they can't all be
wrong... but it always niggles in the back of my mind.

Is it really going to make that much of a difference? Are our knees
really put at risk by a habit of pushing a slightly higher gear?

I can't come up with the science but I've personally experienced
disturbing and lasting pain through pedalling high gears, so I believe the
theories. However, I also once had knee problems after some bouts of
ridiculously high-cadence pedalling (slipstreaming lorries with 50x14),
where I think the knee joint gets jerked about too much, so too high a
cadence can also be bad, albeit in another way.

Quoted message said:

I wonder what the difference is in terms of actual pressure and
working load in the knee between moving at a given speed with a
cadence of say 65 and that same speed at 85rpm. Is one really going to
be measurably more damaging to your knee than the other?

Spinning at a higher cadence would I suppose slightly lower the
pressures in the knee, but at the same time it forces the joint into
many more repetitions for the same amount of work.

It's more than "slightly" if the speed is the same. Repetition with
minimal force must have quite a different effect.

/snip

Quoted message said:

The knee is only doing what it has evolved to do (not exactly, I grant
you, but pretty bloody close). Plus, our knees are designed to put up
with a lot more grief then our modern sedentary lifestyles ask of
them.

The stressed are different in all these things. We didn't elvolve to ride
bicycles (and pedal them hard!).

Still, I think it's a fair and good question. Sorry I can't answer it
properly. There's bound to be some good info on the web or
rec.bicycles.tech.

~PB

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

High gears, slow cadence: Ullrich
Low gears, fast cadence: Armstrong.

Who won? ;-)

I dunno. Was it Armstring again?
Where I live you'd think it was Kim Kirchen who won...

davek <[email hidden]> wrote:
: it was into the wind. On this part of the ride I actually found it
: easier to "churn" a higher gear (52x14) at a lower cadence to maintain a
: speed of just under 30mph.

The harder you are working, the higher the cadence that is most efficient.
Lots of cyclists just tick a big gear over on a descent.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
"Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook

davek <[email hidden]> wrote:
: Arthur Clune wrote:
:> If you've ever ridden with someone with a "big engine" it becomes clear. It's
:> not about fast twitch/slow or build it's just lots and lots of raw power.

: Yes, but where does that power come from?

I don't think it's muscular. It's about lungs more than anything. The leg
strength comes over time. Huge lungs don't.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
"Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook

David Martin said:

Quoted message said:

Low gears, fast cadence: Armstrong.

being 95-105

I thought Armstrong's normal cadence was closer to 120, but that's based
purely on watching him on telly and trying to count...

d.

Call me Bob said:

Is it really going to make that much of a difference? Are our knees
really put at risk by a habit of pushing a slightly higher gear?

I haven't worked out the numbers or anything, but my personal
observations are that I can go longer if I spin rather than mash, and I
stopped having terrible knee troubles[1] walking down big hills (as a
hillwalker, not a cyclist) /after/ I took to spinning lower gears with
clipless pedals.

Aside from the problems I had walking down the hills, being able to go
further on the bike without just finding my legs had no ooomph left in
them is reason enough for me to prefer higher cadences than I used to
use. Not that I'm in the continual super-high revs department by any
stretch of the imagination, but I certainly spin lower gears than I used
to and can run at much higher values for short, sharp climbs too.

Quoted message said:

Well, there you go, I've said it out loud now for all to hear. That's
what goes through my mind everytime I read the "it'll bugger your
knees" line.

I won't say it will definitely bugger your knees, but something like it
didn't seem to do mine any good. Sample base of 1, my knees (and their
immediate physiological surroundings) probably aren't exactly the same
as yours, but in my case mashing does cause me problems while I can
winch myself up most things with no trouble as long as I can spin the
pedals at a reasonable cadence. And off the bike my knees work better
too if I've been spinning, and worse from mashing.

Of course, placing the dividing line between "slightly higher gear" and
"slightly higher gear than that which will cause a problem" is quite
hard to pin down with hard numbers, and I suspect that there is a grey
area between "no problems" and "clear problems" in any case...

Pete.

[1] if I was going up a Munro on foot or touring skis I'd wear a pair of
neoprene knee supports and would usually have to stop for rests on
descent to prevent discomfort growing to pain. Don't have to do any of
that any more.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Simonb said:

Quoted message said:

I go much faster and with far fewer joint problems since I increased
my cruising cadence from 80-odd to 100+. I am not particularly big,
at 6'1" and 13st.

Quoted message said:

Do you have a history of joint problems? I only ask because you say
you now have /fewer/ joint problems.

I do have a history of joint problems, also lower back pain. That was all
back in the Dark Ages - i.e. before the Darkside Ages :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk