Who knew?

Quoted message said:

Subject: Who knew?

I did. Or rather, I agree.

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Who knew?

I did. Or rather, I agree.

Why?

Robert Chung said:

Why?

First power, then speed.

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Robert Chung said:

Why?

First power, then speed.

1. Why?
2. What makes you think that riding one gear higher will build power in a different way than one
gear lower?

"Ewoud Dronkert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Robert Chung said:

Why?

First power, then speed.

Ed means "First torque, then power and speed".

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Robert Chung said:

Why?

First power, then speed.

1. Why?
2. What makes you think that riding one gear higher will build power in a different way than one
gear lower?

There are many situations in road racing where the athletes need to build torque since once can't
always be in the optimum gear. If they are not accustomed to producing power at low cadence, it can
reduce torque (as a component of power). I don't care what anyone's theory says, I have seen this
over and over and over in racers. It works. It is also best to do the first workouts on an indoor
trainer to have precise control over the load as opposed to just riding around in a lower gear.
Also, the worout should focus primarily on accelerating from that cadence and not steady state
(although even that can help some, depending on how much potential improvement is possible). Some
athletes seem to not need these workouts, most likely because they already have sufficient torque
because of genetics and their riding habits. IOW, they may already be riding that way enough
accelerating from a lower cadence and therefore dedicated workouts are either wasted time (better
spent on something else) or overkill.

Nick Burns said:

"Ewoud Dronkert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Robert Chung said:

Why?

First power, then speed.

Ed means "First torque, then power and speed".

Why?

Nick Burns said:

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ewoud Dronkert said:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 18:26:05 +0100, Robert Chung wrote:
> Why?

First power, then speed.

1. Why?
2. What makes you think that riding one gear higher will build power in a different way than one
gear lower?

There are many situations in road racing where the athletes need to build torque since once can't
always be in the optimum gear. If they are not accustomed to producing power at low cadence, it
can reduce torque (as a component of power). I don't care what anyone's theory says, I have seen
this over and over and over in racers. It works. It is also best to do the first workouts on an
indoor trainer to have precise control over the load as opposed to just riding around in a lower
gear. Also, the worout should focus primarily on accelerating from that cadence and not steady
state (although even that can help some, depending on how much potential improvement is possible).
Some athletes seem to not need these workouts, most likely because they already have sufficient
torque because of genetics and their riding habits. IOW, they may already be riding that way
enough accelerating from a lower cadence and therefore dedicated workouts are either wasted time
(better spent on something else) or overkill.

1. What's the relationship between high torque - low cadence workouts and high torque - high cadence
demands? What's the relationship between low torque - high cadence workouts and high torque -
high cadence demands?

2. Since you think that torque and cadence should be trained separately, why should torque be
trained first and cadence second?

3. The article in bike.com (tinyurl.com3e2urOpen ↗) said, "Low-cadence, high-force workouts
(workouts that are performed in about one harder gear than normal or about 60-70rpm) are a
cornerstone of early season training." You think workouts performed one gear higher than normal
are going to elicit the changes you're talking about?

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nick Burns said:

"Ewoud Dronkert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 18:26:05 +0100, Robert Chung wrote:
> Why?

First power, then speed.

Ed means "First torque, then power and speed".

Why?

Becaue the object is not to choose gears that optimize power, it's to cause a training stimulus to
increase torque. If it works, you would then attempt to continue to carry that increase up to a
useable cadence range. Assuming you are not otherwise limited you will have more potential power. I
think I already said elsewhere that it is not a guranteed way to achieve this, but I do believe that
is the theory. I have seen it apparently work.

Were you confused in thinking I was saying that there is no power produced initially? I don't
understand why you asked about something that seems so obvious.

Nick Burns said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ed means "First torque, then power and speed".

Why?

Becaue the object is not to choose gears that optimize power, it's to cause a training stimulus to
increase torque. If it works, you would then attempt to continue to carry that increase up to a
useable cadence range. Assuming you are not otherwise limited you will have more potential power.
I think I already said elsewhere that it is not a guranteed way to achieve this, but I do believe
that is the theory. I have seen it apparently work.

Were you confused in thinking I was saying that there is no power produced initially? I don't
understand why you asked about something that seems so obvious.

Because it is not at all obvious to me that increasing torque at low cadence transfers to increased
torque at high cadence, just as it is not at all obvious that increasing cadence at low torque is
related to increased cadence at high torque.

The issues are two:

1. Can training for power be effectively split into separable and independent training for cadence
and torque?
2. Even if so, what is the basis for training for torque first (which is what the article claimed)?

I guess there's a third issue:

3. Is constant usage of a gear one step higher than normal sufficient to achieve this (which is also
what the article claimed).

I think if you want to practice jumps, practice jumps. I'm skeptical that riding in one gear higher
than normal will improve your jump.

Not so BTW, I mention cadence and torque training in the production of
power at:
mywebpage.netscape.comcomponents.htmlOpen ↗

Robert Chung said:

Because it is not at all obvious to me that increasing torque at low cadence transfers to
increased torque at high cadence, just as it is not at all obvious that increasing cadence at low
torque is related to increased cadence at high torque.

Nor to me. But doing power training gives a good base for speed training.

"Ewoud Dronkert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Robert Chung said:

Because it is not at all obvious to me that increasing torque at low cadence transfers to
increased torque at high cadence, just as it is not at all obvious that increasing cadence at
low torque is related to increased cadence at high torque.

Nor to me. But doing power training gives a good base for speed training.

I don't think I am clear what you mean by that.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Robert Chung said:

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Robert Chung said:

Why?

First power, then speed.

1. Why?

I think the thought is that if one can make power at a slightly lower cadence, one -ought- to be
able to translate that power in higher cadences. Of course, some people might find that they
can't do that, and wind up finding out they trained themselves to make power only at lower rpm
with this method (and further, that they can't even make the same power in bigger gears). I sort
of have a little of that problem when climbing. I'll say right now that I'm not the best climber
by any stretch of the imagination. But I can't seem to pull off the spin it up trick very well.
My cadence ends up dropping and (obviously) I end up going slower. So I bump it up a few gears
and maintain the same cadence but going somewhat faster up the hill. For example, there's a hill
around here (Tunitas Creek) that I was told would be tough on a 23 - I spend most of the time on
an 18 and a bit on a 19 when I do it.

--
tanx, Howard

"We're not laughing -at- you, we're laughing -with- you..) "But... I'm not
laughing???" Happiness

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?