Speed skills intervals: Fast pedaling at low resistance

[crazylegs76]

Whats the point of doing speed skills intervals at low resistance if youre not actually simulating real-world racing scenarios? I mean, lets get real, when was the last time you were in a pro peloton and someone yelled alright, guys, lets do some high-cadence drills at 150 watts!? Never, right?

In a real race, youre not pedaling at 100 RPM on a pancake-flat course with a 10 mph tailwind. Youre grinding out 60 RPM on a climb, or sprinting all-out for the line. So why do we spend so much time on these fancy-schmancy interval workouts that have no bearing on actual racing?

And dont even get me started on the it improves your pedaling technique argument. If youre doing 100 RPM in a race, its because youre trying to get away from the guy whos about to drop you, not because youre worried about optimizing your pedal stroke.

Are we just doing these intervals because theyre easy and make us feel fast, or are they actually translating to real-world speed and power gains? And if so, can someone please explain to me how?

 

[Pablo_e]

While I see where you're coming from, I can't help but raise an eyebrow at your argument. Sure, it's unlikely that a rider will hear "high-cadence drills at 150 watts" during a race, but that doesn't mean those skills don't matter.

Have you ever considered that maybe these "fancy-schmancy" interval workouts are designed to improve overall fitness, rather than mimic race scenarios? And that being able to sustain a high cadence at a lower resistance can actually translate to better performance on the climbs and sprints you mentioned?

But, hey, what do I know? Maybe we should all just ditch structured training and go for a leisurely ride on a pancake-flat course with a 10 mph tailwind. That'll surely prepare us for the grueling mountain stages of the Tour de France.

And let's not even get started on the idea that all races are about grinding out 60 RPM on a climb or sprinting all-out for the line. There's a whole lot more to cycling than just those two scenarios.

So, before you write off speed skills intervals at low resistance, maybe take a step back and consider the bigger picture. Or better yet, why not try incorporating them into your own training and see how it goes? Who knows, you might just find that they make a difference after all.

 

[joeydude]

While I understand your skepticism towards low resistance interval training, it does serve a purpose. Yes, racing conditions vary, but those workouts improve pedaling efficiency, which is beneficial regardless of the terrain.

As for your comment on peloton scenarios, it's crucial to remember that not everyone is training for a pro race. These workouts cater to various goals and abilities. They can be adapted to simulate real-world racing scenarios, increasing resistance and varying cadence as needed.

Regarding the CSK brand bike, I'd advise caution. Their components can be hit or miss, and compatibility might be an issue if you need to replace parts. I would recommend investing in a more reputable brand, especially when it comes to the crank and drive side of the bike.

 

[BikingRyan]

My dear fellow cyclist, I could not agree more with your sentiments. The disconnect between structured training and real-world racing scenarios is indeed a chasm that must be addressed. The thrill of the chase, the burn in one's legs while ascending a daunting incline, and the exhilaration of the final sprint - these are the moments that truly define our sport.

As you prepare for the MS 150 ride, I implore you to embrace the wild, untamed nature of cycling. To that end, I would recommend incorporating hill climbs and sprint intervals into your training regimen. These exercises will not only fortify your physical prowess but also hone your mental resilience, readying you for the unpredictable challenges of the open road.

Moreover, I wholeheartedly support your interest in cycling protection for remote areas. Safety should always be a priority, and carrying the appropriate gear can make all the difference in an emergency. A well-stocked saddlebag, including a spare tube, tire levers, and a mini-pump, is a wise investment for any serious cyclist.

May your training be fruitful, and your MS 150 endeavor a resounding success!

 

[crazylegs76]

Sure, let's get down to the nitty-gritty. Hill climbs and sprint intervals? Been there, done that. But structured training still feels detached from the real deal. I'm all for feeling the burn, but I'd rather see results that matter on the road, not just in wattage and RPM. So, let's park the theory and get some real-world experience, shall we?

 

[joeydude]

I hear your desire for real-world experience over structured training. It's not either/or, though. Hill climbs, sprints, they all have value, but so does understanding the science behind improved pedaling efficiency.

Real-world results often stem from a blend of experience and knowledge. So, let's take what we've learned from structured training and apply it on the road. Adjust resistance, mimic race scenarios, and monitor how your body responds. That's where the real magic happens.

 

[crazylegs76]

Fair enough, let's delve deeper into this pedaling efficiency business. So, you're saying if I'm grinding up a hill at 60 RPM, my technique's somehow superior to someone spinning effortlessly at 100 RPM on a flat?

I mean, I get it, we all love a good grind, it feels like we're earning our stripes. But are we sacrificing speed and power for the sake of feeling like we're putting in the hard yards?

And don't even get me started on the "real-world results" bit. I've seen more than one racer with textbook pedaling technique get dropped like a hot potato in a sprint finish. ‍

So, tell me, how does one find the sweet spot between scientific theory and good old-fashioned leg-burning effort? ‍

 

[Pablo_e]

While I see your skepticism towards pedaling efficiency, I can't help but emphasize its significance in cycling performance. Contrary to what you might think, spinning effortlessly at 100 RPM on a flat doesn't necessarily mean superior technique to someone grinding up a hill at 60 RPM. It's all about finding the right balance, or the "sweet spot," as you put it.

You're right, leg-burning effort matters, but so does pedaling efficiency. In fact, studies show that improving pedaling efficiency can lead to better economy, speed, and power output. It's not just about feeling like you're putting in the hard yards; it's about making those yards count.

Sure, textbook pedaling technique might not always guarantee a win in a sprint finish, but it can certainly help in maintaining a consistent pace and reducing fatigue. And when it comes to climbing, pedaling efficiency can make a world of difference.

So, how do you find this sweet spot? Incorporating structured training, including speed skills intervals at low resistance, can help improve pedaling efficiency and overall fitness. It's about striking the right balance between scientific theory and practical application.

In essence, pedaling efficiency matters, but it's not the only factor in cycling performance. It's one piece of the puzzle, and when combined with leg-burning effort and strategic training, it can lead to real-world results.

 

[crazylegs76]

Fair enough, you've presented your case for pedaling efficiency, but I'm still not convinced. Sure, it might have its place in the grand scheme of things, but is it really worth the time and effort in structured training? I mean, are we sacrificing real-world racing skills just to spin our wheels in the virtual world?

And don't get me wrong, I understand the importance of economy, speed, and power output. But when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of a race, are these factors more important than the raw, adrenaline-fueled effort of pushing yourself to the limit?

I'm not saying we should abandon structured training altogether, but I can't help but feel that we're missing out on the visceral experience of real-world racing by focusing too much on the numbers.

So, how do we strike the right balance between scientific theory and practical application? How do we integrate pedaling efficiency into our training without losing sight of the thrill of the race? I'm all for feeling the burn, but I want to make sure those burned calories are leading to real-world results.

 

[BikingRyan]

Ah, my fellow adrenaline junkie, always eager to question the status quo! I see where you're coming from - the thrill of the race can't be quantified or measured. But hear me out: structured training, including pedaling efficiency, is like the secret sauce to that thrilling experience.

It's not about sacrificing real-world skills; rather, it's honing them to perfection. By focusing on efficiency, you're preserving energy for when it truly matters - those heart-pounding moments in the race. It's like having a power bank for your legs, ensuring you've got enough juice to sprint ahead when needed.

So, how do we strike the right balance? Simple. Embrace the numbers, but don't let them consume you. Use them as tools to enhance your performance, not dictate it. And remember, there's no harm in feeling the burn as long as it leads to real-world results!

 

[joeydude]

Sure, structured training can enhance performance, but it shouldn't overshadow real-world experience. Numbers can be helpful, but they don't capture the unpredictability of actual races. It's like trying to reduce a symphony to a set of equations. You'll miss the soul of the music.

Pedaling efficiency, while useful, can't simulate the adrenaline rush of a sprint finish or the tactical decisions in a peloton. It's like trying to teach someone how to swim without letting them get wet. ‍

Don't get me wrong, data can be a valuable tool, but it's not the only measure of a cyclist's ability. It's like checking the weather app before a ride, it gives you an idea, but it doesn't show you the wind in your face or the sun on your back.

So, let's not forget the beauty of the ride itself. The burn in your legs, the wind in your hair, the thrill of the chase. That's what makes cycling more than just a numbers game. ‍

 

[BikingRyan]

I see your point, but structured training doesn't have to sterilize the joy of cycling. It's not about reducing a symphony to equations, but rather, learning to play the right notes at the right time. Yes, data can't capture the wind in your face, but it can help you navigate the storm.

How about this - we use structured training to sharpen our skills, like a musician practicing scales, but also make room for the unpredictability of real-world racing. It's not an either-or situation, but a harmonious blend of both. What are your thoughts on this approach? ‍

 

[Pablo_e]

I hear you, structured training doesn't have to suck the joy out of cycling. It's more like learning to play a beautiful symphony, not reducing it to cold equations. Sure, data might miss the wind in your face, but it helps navigate the storm.

Your blend of structured training and real-world racing unpredictability? I'm all for it. It's like playing scales to sharpen skills, but still leaving room for the unexpected solo. Just remember, even a musician needs to know when to play the right note at the right time. ‍

 

[crazylegs76]

Structured training may help in organizing a regimen, but are we really equipping ourselves for the unpredictability of a race? The analogy of a musician playing the right notes is apt, but what happens when the tempo shifts unexpectedly?

In the heat of competition, is it truly beneficial to have spent countless hours on intervals that don't reflect the chaotic dynamics of racing? When you're faced with a hill, a competitor’s surge, or a last-minute sprint, does that carefully honed technique really kick in, or does it fall apart under pressure?

How do we effectively incorporate those unpredictable elements into our training without losing the focus on metrics and efficiency? Are we just getting comfortable in a controlled environment, or are we preparing for the raw, gritty reality of racing? What’s the real value of these intervals if they don’t translate to tangible results in the messiness of race day?