Why is Lance base training at 110 cad ?

5 TDF's?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by edd
Read that Lance is base training for 4 to 5 hours at 110 cadence and a fairly low heart rate of 60 - 65%.

As noted on other thread LA would be training to a specified power....

So many other cyclists state they can produce best power at 90 cad.

so why 110 cad ?

Only he would know. However, if you look at power/hr files for racers in big races, the largest amount of time spent in the aerobic area is often in the low 60 range... It turns out in races we often spend time near LAT or above it, and when we are not, we are often down very low -- spinning, descent, early hrs... etc...

I'm sure SOMETHING in his training dictated this. Also, it is a helluva way to improve pedaling technique...

Just some guess answers on my part

he does most of his training at that high cadence in order to condition himself to be efficent at that cadence. racing at 110rpms(time trials, other hard efforts) puts less stress on his muscles, so he can recover better during the tour.
you can't be efficent at a cadence you don't train at, duh. everyone knows lance races with a higher than normal cadence.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by velomanct
he does most of his training at that high cadence in order to condition himself to be efficent at that cadence. racing at 110rpms(time trials, other hard efforts) puts less stress on his muscles, so he can recover better during the tour.
you can't be efficent at a cadence you don't train at, duh. everyone knows lance races with a higher than normal cadence.

Insightful.... and yeah.... I understand this, but if most of the competitive cycling world reckons their riders produce best power at 90 cad... so why go 110 cad.

Now I can just feel the overwhelming wash of those who are going to say LA is LA and he is unique...

well all I'm asking is "most of the competitive cycling world wrong ?"

I'd bet that Lance has been tested over and over, and they've determined that he's more efficient and just as powerful at 100-110 cadence, so he's indeed "different".

The conventional wisdom is probably right that most of us (including most other pro riders) are most efficient at 80-90 cadence.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Allen H
I'd bet that Lance has been tested over and over, and they've determined that he's more efficient and just as powerful at 100-110 cadence, so he's indeed "different".

The conventional wisdom is probably right that most of us (including most other pro riders) are most efficient at 80-90 cadence.

is anyone at all thinking it might have something to do with long event fatigue and muscle function ?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by velomanct
he does most of his training at that high cadence in order to condition himself to be efficent at that cadence.....

you can't be efficent at a cadence you don't train at, duh. everyone knows lance races with a higher than normal cadence.

A recent analysis has thrown doubt on that last sentance. It is now thought he only races at high cadance in the mountains and time trials, while using a "normal" cadance at other times.

Quoted post said:

... racing at 110rpms(time trials, other hard efforts) puts less stress on his muscles, so he can recover better during the tour.

Actually I heard the opposite, that the high cadance does more damage and thats why he only does it in the stages that count...I trust my source on this but would be interested in opposing points of view 🙂

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by edd
Read that Lance is base training for 4 to 5 hours at 110 cadence and a fairly low heart rate of 60 - 65%.

As noted on other thread LA would be training to a specified power....

So many other cyclists state they can produce best power at 90 cad.

so why 110 cad ?

No one knows outside CTS.
Possible reasons:
- loss of muscle mass due to cancer therapy.
He compensates it weith cadence. Large muscle guys prefer low cadence.
- He was tested and it was found his most effective cadence is 110.
- joint safety reasons. May be they cannot stand lower cadence
- He likes high cadence :-)

Cancer therapy reasons will be cleared if someone would tell us what cadence he had used before cancer treatment.

check out http://www.lancearmstrong.com/lance/online2.nsf/html/training for the answer.

Hope this helps.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by tomUK
check out http://www.lancearmstrong.com/lance/online2.nsf/html/training for the answer.

Hope this helps.

Answers not there. That's where I got the question..
Answer is not important.. LA is LA is LA.. we are not.
Discussion important.
... truth may never be found but it is important we keep looking !

reads like dialog from a Bruce Willis Movie

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by edd
Insightful.... and yeah.... I understand this, but if most of the competitive cycling world reckons their riders produce best power at 90 cad... so why go 110 cad.

Now I can just feel the overwhelming wash of those who are going to say LA is LA and he is unique...

well all I'm asking is "most of the competitive cycling world wrong ?"

just because most of the competive cycling world reckons that the most powerful cadence is 90rpms doesn't mean it is the ONLY cadence all competive cyclists can train and race at.

you have to understand that lance and chris carmichael has throughly studied and determined that after training the body to become efficient at 110rpms, that it is the smarter choice for racing a 3 week grand tour. (without training the body to become efficient at 110rpms, surely it is more efficient for the rider to race at say 90rpms. that is naturally the most efficient cadence WITHOUT training the body for 110rpms.)

the higher cadence of lance armstrong puts more stress on his aerobic system(which is more trained than his competitors). therefore, he is able to recover better from stage to stage and race faster.

lance and carmichael are smart. they take the time to train his body to become most efficient at 110rpms(TTs), and take advantage of the principle that higher rpms put less stress on the muscles and allow the body to recover quicker.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by velomanct
just because most of the competive cycling world reckons that the most powerful cadence is 90rpms doesn't mean it is the ONLY cadence all competive cyclists can train and race at.

you have to understand that lance and chris carmichael has throughly studied and determined that after training the body to become efficient at 110rpms, that it is the smarter choice for racing a 3 week grand tour. (without training the body to become efficient at 110rpms, surely it is more efficient for the rider to race at say 90rpms. that is naturally the most efficient cadence WITHOUT training the body for 110rpms.)

the higher cadence of lance armstrong puts more stress on his aerobic system(which is more trained than his competitors). therefore, he is able to recover better from stage to stage and race faster.

lance and carmichael are smart. they take the time to train his body to become most efficient at 110rpms(TTs), and take advantage of the principle that higher rpms put less stress on the muscles and allow the body to recover quicker.

Not sure about your last statement about stress on the muscles...
Otherwise I think you on the money.

Makes me think that... in really simple terms...which is where I like to keep things.. I'm in a compfy cadence at 72 on a hill and at 94 on the flat. Why for goodness sake couldn't I develop another "compfy cadence" ?

Lets say at ...110 ? ......for a fast up hill grind on a short TT

so the science is action specific, right ? "angle/ force / velocity" of muscle contractions ?

I think you're onto something..

.....to be able to step up the pace and still minimize anaerobic contribution ?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by velomanct
he does most of his training at that high cadence in order to condition himself to be efficent at that cadence. racing at 110rpms(time trials, other hard efforts) puts less stress on his muscles, so he can recover better during the tour.
you can't be efficent at a cadence you don't train at, duh. everyone knows lance races with a higher than normal cadence.

I basically agree and have a couple of points to add...

When "Big Mig" Indurain won the 5 Tours, everybody gazed and wondered about his "relatively" low cadence and big chainrings in the TT. So everyone said "Hey, this guy is onto something" and over the years everyone has used lower cadence in racing and higher cadence in training (to get the smooth pedal stroke).

Now Lance comes around and eveything is different. "Hey look at Lance drop Ulle on the climb... 100+ RPM's for the Lance Rocket and only 70-odd for the Ullrich-Diesel" So now everyone thinks that Lance has discovered a miracle way of efficiency.

The truth is: It's somewhere in between. Lance and Chris tested the power output and found that he is more efficient at the cadence he's riding at. And what amazes the public is that he can keep up these cadences for a while, even out of the saddle. You hear such phrases as "sprinting or racing up a mountain" and it looks effortless when Lance is in full swing. Compare it to Lemond's ascent to Luz in 1990 and you see a BIG difference. Lance dancing on the pedals vs Greg laboring through every stroke. I would suggest you get a measurement done yourself and see the difference. The work generated by a higher cadence and an easier gear vs the work generated by a lower cadence and a higher gear should however be similar.

But Lance did not invent anything new. There were always riders who raced at higher cadences. See Owen Mulholland's book "Uphill Battle" and discover (if you don't already know him) the "Angel of the Mountains" Charly Gaul who was climbing mountains à la Lance... Or should we say Lance is climbing mountains à la Gaul. And that was 40 years ago....

Who knows what the next big gun in the TDF will "teach us"? Riding one-legged intervals while sitting backwards on the bike is more efficient ? We'll see...😄

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by lischoux
I basically agree and have a couple of points to add...

When "Big Mig" Indurain won the 5 Tours, everybody gazed and wondered about his "relatively" low cadence and big chainrings in the TT. So everyone said "Hey, this guy is onto something" and over the years everyone has used lower cadence in racing and higher cadence in training (to get the smooth pedal stroke).

Thing to consider... the bigger the gear, the harder and slower the load, the greater the chance of muscle fibre wastage and a whole other sort of muscle fatigue....

And I know there is the same argument for very high cadence too..

Lets hear it ...

in the 2002 tour lance got beaten in the time trial by botero a BIG upset.. for the following stages lance altered his cadence and tried different gear ratios DURING the tour to see if he was more effecient.. the end result was he returned to his normal 100 - 110rpm and accepted he had a bad ride while botero had a good ride.. think its the person that counts.. i figure if you cycle long enough your body will eventually find its equilibrium.. the most effecient way for your body!!

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by bomber
in the 2002 tour lance got beaten in the time trial by botero a BIG upset.. for the following stages lance altered his cadence and tried different gear ratios DURING the tour to see if he was more effecient.. the end result was he returned to his normal 100 - 110rpm and accepted he had a bad ride while botero had a good ride.. think its the person that counts.. i figure if you cycle long enough your body will eventually find its equilibrium.. the most effecient way for your body!!

For millions of years mankind walked the earth....

and for a couple of hundred years we rode our bikes....

Intellect can impose its own equilibrium...

I'm going with "train it" = "attain it"

Take ten different people, give them SRM's and one year, and at the end of it you will have 10 different 'favorite' cadences... Not to mention 10 different best cadences for power over 1 hr, 2 hrs...etc.

If LA is doing 110 rpm's the only thing you can be sure of is he is doing it for a reason specific to his body and his needs. Who knows how many days or hours he'll do -- maybe he was sore, maybe he's planning for a single stage, a single climb, a single attack....etc.

I like Lance and I kinda bought into the whole Carmichael thing... But the essence of it is: Lance has 5 Tour Wins and all it took was a lot of hard work. Since cadence is only 1 part of the equation there must be other factors that play a vital role to be able to ride away from Jan or Joseba. Maybe there are adverse effects to high cadences, maybe there are different adverse effects to lower cadences. There may be things one can do (and training is probably just 1 of them) to counter these effects.

Just reading Carmichael's books and watching reports on Lance and his training will not help you win 5 Tours. Factor in the spin that they put on things that go wrong (e.g. Lance loosing to Botero in 2002, Lance loosing to Ulle in 2003) you can't really take that information literally.

Personally I try to ride at 90+ cadence all the time though sometimes on uphill sections I can't do it. If your training goal is to challenge Lance in 2004, first of all good luck, and second you will need the same kind of resources and access to the same information that Lance and Chris have.

Interesting topic though... Thx for posting.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by lischoux
I like Lance and I kinda bought into the whole Carmichael thing... But the essence of it is: Lance has 5 Tour Wins and all it took was a lot of hard work. Since cadence is only 1 part of the equation there must be other factors that play a vital role to be able to ride away from Jan or Joseba. Maybe there are adverse effects to high cadences, maybe there are different adverse effects to lower cadences. There may be things one can do (and training is probably just 1 of them) to counter these effects.

Just reading Carmichael's books and watching reports on Lance and his training will not help you win 5 Tours. Factor in the spin that they put on things that go wrong (e.g. Lance loosing to Botero in 2002, Lance loosing to Ulle in 2003) you can't really take that information literally.

Personally I try to ride at 90+ cadence all the time though sometimes on uphill sections I can't do it. If your training goal is to challenge Lance in 2004, first of all good luck, and second you will need the same kind of resources and access to the same information that Lance and Chris have.

Interesting topic though... Thx for posting.

The goal is to understand training effect.
base training at a specified cadence struck me as inventive and topic worth discussing.
I have no illusions about my cycling performance, maybe one, or two...or