Questions on fitness and cadence

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by Paul DeVries
Lactate threshold is defined as the exercise intensity that results in an abrupt increase in blood lactate concentration. If exercise is maintained above this intensity, blood lactate levels in the body will continue to rise, indicating a progressive increase in stress on the cyclist’s body (even if the workload remains constant). It is this progressive increase in stress that ultimately leads to failure of muscles (this is direct from a textbook)

Your definition is the minimum lactate that is produced by low intensity workouts (lactate <2.5). The above is in fact the definition which is correct that produces an abrupt increase in lactate that ultimately (within 30-60 minutes) requires the athlete to stop or greatly reduce effort. This is what you ride at during TT's or relatively short uphill efforts....

i'm not sure what text you've got that from, but if you read the actual research the definition i use is the most frequently cited. your definition is close to e.g. maximal lactate steady state.

nonetheless, when you ride a TT e.g., 20/40km (~30/60 mins), there's no reason to assume that lactate would be steady state or constant. in fact, at the intensities people generally ride a TT at (whether they're elite or not) lactate tends to rise throughout the effort.

Critical power is thought to be the highest effort that can be sustained (although it oftens over estimates what can acheived) and even though it's possible to ride at a constant montonic critical power in the lab, lactate will constantly rise throughout the effort.

ric

 

[Roadie_scum]

Originally posted by ricstern
i'm not fully sure i understand what you're saying. Power is the direct measure of fitness. In other words the more power you have the fitter you are (obviously this may need to be scaled to each persons mass, as someone who has a mass of 100 kg is likely going to have more absolute power than someone of 45 kg)

It also needs to be scaled to time. People are fit for different event lengths, etc. And also, recovery from anaerobic effort is not readily measured just by a power over time. More a power after a set of intervals.

whenever i train (as opposed to recovery rides) i always gasp at the top of a hill. sometimes i gasp, breathe harder/deeper than other times, but that's dependent on the intensity i ride up the hill at

And your level of recovery from previous training (eg EPOC may occur), and whether or not you're sick, etc, etc. (Provided you are using power as your measure of intensity, which you seem to do universally).

paradoxically, you're more efficient at a lower cadence at a given power compared to a higher cadence. however, it feels worse and may affect performance. you're most efficient at around 50 - 60 revs/min

What is your metric for efficiency? If it 'feels worse' and 'may affect performance' I wouldn't classify 50-60 rpm as efficient for the purpose of a discussion of cycling, even if it does use the least energy. Perhaps the metric should be adjusted to either: the RPM eliciting the minimum blood lactate at a given time for a given power, or the RPM eliciting the maximum time to exhaustion at a given power.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by Roadie_scum
It also needs to be scaled to time. People are fit for different event lengths, etc. And also, recovery from anaerobic effort is not readily measured just by a power over time. More a power after a set of intervals.

apologies, i must have missed the time off - maybe i included that in a previous post? but, yes, intensity is inversely proportional to duration

And your level of recovery from previous training (eg EPOC may occur), and whether or not you're sick, etc, etc. (Provided you are using power as your measure of intensity, which you seem to do universally).

yes, but that would be included in a training schedule. in other words, some days you wouldn't be expected, nor could you go as hard as other days (when you're fresher).

What is your metric for efficiency? If it 'feels worse' and 'may affect performance' I wouldn't classify 50-60 rpm as efficient for the purpose of a discussion of cycling, even if it does use the least energy. Perhaps the metric should be adjusted to either: the RPM eliciting the minimum blood lactate at a given time for a given power, or the RPM eliciting the maximum time to exhaustion at a given power.

efficiency is thermodynamic efficiency and is a well established scientific term. in the case of cadence it's the cadence that elicits lowest VO2 for a given power output, i.e., least amount of energy is expended at a given power and is thus the most efficient.

on the other hand optimal cadence is somewhat different -- that's the one that you want -- the one that allows you to do the most work (which is generally between about 70 and 100 revs/min).

ric

 

[Roadie_scum]

Originally posted by ricstern
apologies, i must have missed the time off - maybe i included that in a previous post? but, yes, intensity is inversely proportional to duration

Graciously accepted

yes, but that would be included in a training schedule. in other words, some days you wouldn't be expected, nor could you go as hard as other days (when you're fresher).

Hmmm... I would hope so! I didn't think the discussion was about someone who had a particularly well thought training schedule - I wouldn't have wanted to assume this. Good call though.

efficiency is thermodynamic efficiency and is a well established scientific term. in the case of cadence it's the cadence that elicits lowest VO2 for a given power output, i.e., least amount of energy is expended at a given power and is thus the most efficient.

But at a given power output you are always putting the same amount of energy into the system that matters - your bike. Thermodynamics is the science of heat and energy, and I'm not sure exactly what that has to do with oxygen consumption. Oxygen consumption is going to correlate reasonably well with power, but not precisely (obviously, given that different cadences elicit marginally different VO2 usage). Consequently, it seems you are defining efficiency as an economist or layman might - the state of a system when a scarce resource is spared for the maximum period of time, or used at the minimum rate (oxygen), while other desirable outcomes are achieved (power output). This is not the same as a straightforward thermodynamic definition which is largely irrelevant to sports science anyway. While you could describe this as aerobic efficiency reasonably accurately, would you consider it possible that under certain definitions of efficient, it might be the same thing as 'optimal cadence'?

on the other hand optimal cadence is somewhat different -- that's the one that you want -- the one that allows you to do the most work (which is generally between about 70 and 100 revs/min).

ric

By the way, I'd be interested to know what you thought of Brett Aitken's comments regarding higher cadences recruiting more slow twitch muscle and thus sparing glycogen if you'd care to comment.

Cheers Ric,

It's always fun, and I'm always learning.

 

[Roadie_scum]

Also re: efficiency.

It seems to me that anerobic mechanisms are the 'scarce resource' in cycling, with glcyogen stores being a secondary but important factor. I would suggest measures of efficiency (in terms of cadence) should be about sparing these, rather than sparing oxygen usage.

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by ricstern
i understand entirely what you're saying, but that has *NOTHING* to do with scientific training and coaching and everything to do with either bad coaching or event selection.

ric

I wasn't aware that this thread was specific to science-based training solutions.

The initial question posed by Carrera as I recall was about difficulty with his/her breathing when cycling.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by limerickman
I wasn't aware that this thread was specific to science-based training solutions.

The initial question posed by Carrera as I recall was about difficulty with his/her breathing when cycling.

i didn't say it was? i was talking about your club mates and their so called scientific training, which i'm saying it isn't and/or is bad coaching/poor event selection. it was you who said they (your clubmates) were scientifically trained
ric

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by ricstern
i didn't say it was? i was talking about your club mates and their so called scientific training, which i'm saying it isn't and/or is bad coaching/poor event selection. it was you who said they (your clubmates) were scientifically trained
ric

Understood.
Apologies for the confusion !

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by limerickman
Understood.
Apologies for the confusion !

apologies from me too, looking back at the original post it ain't too clear what i meant -- as i just quoted your whole text message, and should have quoted the pertinent part

cheers
ric

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by ricstern
apologies from me too, looking back at the original post it ain't too clear what i meant -- as i just quoted your whole text message, and should have quoted the pertinent part

cheers
ric

Ric,

No worries.

While I'm on here : our club (with all these monitor reading neos !) are going over to your lovely country in September for a
some racing and training.

I have been over to Wales several times (fantastic place - great
climbing country - nice people) and we've built up a range of contacts of there.

I'll keep you posted about this.

L

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by limerickman
Ric,

No worries.

While I'm on here : our club (with all these monitor reading neos !) are going over to your lovely country in September for a
some racing and training.

I have been over to Wales several times (fantastic place - great
climbing country - nice people) and we've built up a range of contacts of there.

I'll keep you posted about this.

L

sounds good. plenty of hills here, sometimes too many! everyone is very friendly. which part of wales are you going to visit?

what part of ireland are you from? are there many hills?
ric

 

[limerickman]

Originally posted by ricstern
sounds good. plenty of hills here, sometimes too many! everyone is very friendly. which part of wales are you going to visit?

what part of ireland are you from? are there many hills?
ric

We're off to Ryle (North Wales as you know) and we're going to be heading south (destination not verified as yet).

Me, I am living in the rugby capital of Ireland - Limerick !
Although I am from Dublin originally.
No real climbing round here - have to travel out a few miles to get some hills in.

 

[Carrera]

Thanks for the pointers. I agree with you entirely that it's possible to train too intensely, too often. I'm being careful on that score and today, for example, I did a far easier session, with far lesser hills. I confess it seems to be going well since I flew today and had loads of energy. I had 2 days rest from riding and can feel the difference in stamina. Plus I now appear to be losing weight steadily.
The hill I climb way out West could be the subject of much scientific debate. Basically, I noticed there are two ways to climb:
(1) Maximum effort, ascending faster with more power output - thus getting to the top quicker.
(2) Slower and steadily, hoping to maintain stamina and breathing - thus getting to the top slower.
I'm climbing in too high a gear as my cassette has yet to be lowered and I don't have a triple crank. However, it only really starts to get crazy at the final stretch when it goes up a few degrees steeper. I was wondering whether the triple crankwould make this easier or harder since the present system has me going up pretty fast in the higher gear but, as I said, breathing so hard that I now consider it wise to halt at that point.
All in all, though, with the gradual loss of bodyweight, development of strength in the thigh muscles and expansion of lungs, I think it's possible to scale these really steep climbs and do so without being a martyr to the cause - dropping through exhaustion.
Apart from riding in severe wind, I can't think of anything that makes you breathe so hard on the bike than doing a really severe, long climb but I agree with you that it's very easy to overtrain and lots of cycling on the flat is also a must for everyone.

Originally posted by ricstern
this really isn't an ideal training scenario. you're highly likely to throw up, riding all-out after just eating or drinking. even if you don't it's likely it's highly detrimental to performance.

eat/drink some carbs 2 - 3 hours before an intense session, then just sip small amounts in the first hour of training.

it's also highly likely that you're training *too* intensely to increase your aerobic fitness, which is what i think you are trying to achieve. you need to do long intervals (e.g., one to four x 15 to 30 -mins)





as i've suggested before, it's perfectly normal to be breathing hard, gasp for air when training. it's normal when riding very hard, and is only contraindicated if something is wrong with you (e.g., ill, chronic conditions, cardiac rehab patient)




you're breathing hard, because you are riding intensely. you've exceeded the effort (power) that you can sustain for a long period of time and maybe approaching or have reached VO2max.

you need to increase the power (fitness) that you can sustain for a long period of time. this is achieved primarily, at the start of training hard with the long intervals i suggested above.

to reach the summit of the climb in one go, just pedal a little easier all the way up. the way you are currently training isn't very optimal. i don't think you're going hard enough for a true short effort, and you're not going long enough for a slightly more moderate effort.



put it in a lower gear and ride a little easier to get there in one go.




to loose fat mass, you need to expend more energy than you consume. it does not necessarily mean anything to do with riding easy on the flat

ric