All quiet here ...

sloboy

I've not browsed the forum for a while, but I was suprised not see a thread dissecting Joe Beer's article here

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/fitness/a ... -pro-12772

Not the article itself perhaps, but the referenced paper that concludes that "Maximal leg-strength training improves cycling economy in previously untrained men"

Now these are untrained men, and we're highly tuned elite athletes, of course, but presumably they could all stand from sitting, walk up stairs etc before the 8 week experiment regime.

Mike Willcox1

To be honest I seem to agree with everything I've read in the articles on fitness here. This one on improving pedalling technique is what I would recommend and have been advocating on this and the C+ forum for the last 3 years.

From my own personal experience of racing against the clock the shorter the distance then the higher the cadence that should be used. E.g. In a "10" my cadence would be a minimum of 100 rpm but you need a strong core to make it work efficiently.

You know I may not be a coach but that doesn't automatically disqualify me for having an opinion. Over a 4 year period I must have won about 50 or so "10"s so I didn't do too badly on it.

top_bhoy

Mike Willcox1 wrote:

You know I may not be a coach but that doesn't automatically disqualify me for having an opinion. Over a 4 year period I must have won about 50 or so "10"s so I didn't do too badly on it.

Just consider how good you could have been had you cut out all that weight training

DaveyL

I thought Lance Armstrong rode at the same high cadence whether he was doing a 5 k prologue or a 55 k TT. And he was a pretty good rider, perhaps even better than Dave Lloyd...

Mike Willcox1

DaveyL wrote:

I thought Lance Armstrong rode at the same high cadence whether he was doing a 5 k prologue or a 55 k TT. And he was a pretty good rider, perhaps even better than Dave Lloyd...

It was the intensity of the effort (power) of a "10" which I found was easier to sustain at a higher cadence. Try as I might I could not replicate the same for a "25" and certainly not a "50" and a "100".

I would be surprised if his average cadence was the same for both short and long distance TT's. If it was then that's quite impressive.

DaveyL

Well, Mike, you may have a point. I'm pretty sure this was referred to recently by either Ric, or someone linking to Dr Ferrari's website. I recall seeing a graph which showed that, as power increases, the cadence which is most efficient also increases. Perhaps someone can point to this graph?

Great minds do think alike (at least sometimes) after all!

Mike Willcox1

DaveyL wrote:

Well, Mike, you may have a point. I'm pretty sure this was referred to recently by either Ric, or someone linking to Dr Ferrari's website. I recall seeing a graph which showed that, as power increases, the cadence which is most efficient also increases. Perhaps someone can point to this graph?

Great minds do think alike (at least sometimes) after all!

http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=15.

Articles : High Pedaling Cadence.

He wrote this in March 2003. I found out by doing sprint interval training at 120 rpm in 1976.

DaveyL

The graph, the graph. We need the graph. It's in another article. I'm sure it's on The Infamous Weight Training Thread.

Mike Willcox1

DaveyL wrote:

The graph, the graph. We need the graph. It's in another article. I'm sure it's on The Infamous Weight Training Thread.

See High RPM - further observations under Articles

Alex_Simmons/RST

It is normal for cadence to go up as power output rises.

Here's one micro example. A MAP Test where resistance on the ergo is increased at 5 watts every 12 seconds - cadence is self selected throughout. You can see it goes from ~95 up to ~115 rpm as the power increases from 150W to 400W:

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd22 ... 1194485516

However it is a fallacy to focus on cadence alone, focus should be on power. Unless of course cadence is an event specific issue (like track racing, or climbing very steep hills).

Mike Willcox1

[quote="Alex_Simmons/RST"

However it is a fallacy to focus on cadence alone, focus should be on power. Unless of course cadence is an event specific issue (like track racing, or climbing very steep hills).[/quote]

I can't see how you can say that. Have you ever heard of "Power Rangers" will I think what we have here is "Power Blinkers".

In my experience if you focus on cadence then you know that you are at your most efficient for a given level of effort (power). As soon as your cadence slows or increases because of incline or wind then you should change gear accordingly.

Going by your definition why bother with gears. On the contrary focusing on cadence is everything.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Mike Willcox1 wrote:

I can't see how you can say that. Have you ever heard of "Power Rangers" will I think what we have here is "Power Blinkers".

Blinkers? Just the opposite actually - a mind open to investigating reality, data and evidence, rather than myth and legend.

Mike Willcox1 wrote:

In my experience if you focus on cadence then you know that you are at your most efficient for a given level of effort (power).

Really? How can you know what is the most efficient cadence?
(Hint: you can't)

Mike Willcox1 wrote:

As soon as your cadence slows or increases because of incline or wind then you should change gear accordingly.

Going by your definition why bother with gears.

I never said anything about not using gears :roll:

Mike Willcox1 wrote:

On the contrary focusing on cadence is everything.

As Robert Chung would say, Hmmm.

See these items by Robert. I know we're wasting our breath with you but others will likely learn something about trying to solely focus on cadence (i.e. it is not much use unless you also consider the crank torque simultaneously, hence power):

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/wattage ... nents.html

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/wattage ... plots.html

Cougar

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Mike Willcox1 wrote:

I can't see how you can say that. Have you ever heard of "Power Rangers" will I think what we have here is "Power Blinkers".

Blinkers? Just the opposite actually - a mind open to investigating reality, data and evidence, rather than myth and legend.

Mike Willcox1 wrote:

In my experience if you focus on cadence then you know that you are at your most efficient for a given level of effort (power).

Really? How can you know what is the most efficient cadence?
(Hint: you can't)

Mike Willcox1 wrote:

As soon as your cadence slows or increases because of incline or wind then you should change gear accordingly.

Going by your definition why bother with gears.

I never said anything about not using gears :roll:

Mike Willcox1 wrote:

On the contrary focusing on cadence is everything.

As Robert Chung would say, Hmmm.

See these items by Robert. I know we're wasting our breath with you but others will likely learn something about trying to solely focus on cadence (i.e. it is not much use unless you also consider the crank torque simultaneously, hence power):

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/wattage ... nents.html

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/wattage ... plots.html

Neither does it show that you should focus on power.

Mike believes (and if it works for him so why knock it), that he can maintain a level of power output using a cadence of 100 rpm for lets say 20 minutes better than he could at 95 rpm in a higher gear. So for him he selects a gear that will do it. I can't see the problem.

Ric_Stern/RST

Or as Chung would say, cadence is a red herring

ric

Alex_Simmons/RST

Cougar wrote:

Neither does it show that you should focus on power.

Well that's implicit in the discussion. When talking about physiological adaptations from training, just what else besides power would you focus on?

Cougar wrote:

Mike believes (and if it works for him so why knock it), that he can maintain a level of power output using a cadence of 100 rpm for lets say 20 minutes better than he could at 95 rpm in a higher gear. So for him he selects a gear that will do it. I can't see the problem.

That's my point exactly, let the body determine the right cadence for you but don't be concerned with what that cadence is. Focussing on cadence without an equal focus on torque will lead you to draw incorrect conclusions.

Whether or not Mike believes or knows this matters not and I am not having a go at Mike (I'm just pointing out that it is power and not cadence that one needs to be concerned with), but the search for the "most efficient cadence" is a fruitless one. Just pedal.


This myth is bit like those "Strength Endurance" intervals that some still prescibe - you know the low cadence (40-50rpm) hill efforts - in the mistaken belief that they build "strength". They don't of course ('cause the forces involed are simply too small to build strength) and are no more beneficial than riding up the same hill at a higher cadence at the same power.

Cougar

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Whether or not Mike believes or knows this matters not and I am not having a go at Mike (I'm just pointing out that it is power and not cadence that one needs to be concerned with), but the search for the "most efficient cadence" is a fruitless one. Just pedal.

quote]

Does a pursuit rider change their gearing from race to race? I don't know but I would suspect not and I would suspect it iwould be because they have through practice (training) established a cadence and a power output that will cover the 5K in the fastest time.

A TT is similar to a pursuit is that it is the time taken that is the key, the only difference is that it's on the road and you have the option of gears. There has to be a mid-range, maybe not a specific rate, but a mid-range where you are at your most efficient.

The two extremes are grinding away at 30 rpm or spinning at 150 rpm. I think you would agree that neither of these two cadences are likely to produce the best results.

Mike Willcox1

Cougar wrote:

Does a pursuit rider change their gearing from race to race? I don't know but I would suspect not and I would suspect it iwould be because they have through practice (training) established a cadence and a power output that will cover the 5K in the fastest time.

A TT is similar to a pursuit is that it is the time taken that is the key, the only difference is that it's on the road and you have the option of gears. There has to be a mid-range, maybe not a specific rate, but a mid-range where you are at your most efficient.

The two extremes are grinding away at 30 rpm or spinning at 150 rpm. I think you would agree that neither of these two cadences are likely to produce the best results.

Exactly.

To sustain a certain level of power for a 5k pursuit or a 10 mile TT there has to be cadence level which is the most efficient (or comfortable), for that particular rider. It could be 85-95 rpm or 95-105 rpm.

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

When talking about physiological adaptations from training, just what else besides power would you focus on?
[/unquote]

How about weight Loss, pedalling technique, fat burning eficiency, sustaining aerodynamic position, endurance.

Alex_simmons/RST wrote:

Really? How can you know what is the most efficient cadence?
(Hint: you can't)

[/unquote]

The fact is I won more races and improved more against other riders when I adopted pedalling at +100 rpm in a "10". I've nothing to prove to you either.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Pursuits (in contemporary times at least) are 3km or 4km events.

Yes, pursuit riders do change gearing quite regularly, sometimes riding a different gear from qualifier to final.

The fact that Mike's won more races means he's either been generating more power or got smarter in using the power he has.

Mike Willcox1

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

This myth is bit like those "Strength Endurance" intervals that some still prescibe - you know the low cadence (40-50rpm) hill efforts - in the mistaken belief that they build "strength". They don't of course ('cause the forces involed are simply too small to build strength) and are no more beneficial than riding up the same hill at a higher cadence at the same power.

The first point to consider with your statement here is that if you don't believe that strength has any relevance to a rider's performance anyway it doesn't matter whether low cadence builds strength or not.

The second point is that as soon as you get out of the saddle you are using different muscle groups (upper body) and are able to generate greater power and acceleration for which you need "upper body strength".

Lifting a dead weight, and starting the kilo on the track are applying forces to generate power for which you need strength. I can't see that they are that dissimilar from pedalling at a lower cadence on a climb. You are using more force per pedal stroke than you would at a higher cadence. So if you are using more force then surely you need more strength. And surely using more force repetitively builds strength does it not?

Taking it to the extreme on a steep climb where the rider is overgeared they can slow to a standstill, and in order to overcome this inertia the critical limiter is strength not CV fitness.

I have snapped a chain and sheared three pedals while out of the saddle in the last 3 years and that isn't down to my weight but to the forces exerted at the time (and maybe dodgy equipment).

I simply don't believe that the forces involved are too small to build strength.

Toks

Mike Willcox1 wrote:

The first point to consider with your statement here is that if you don't believe that strength has any relevance to a rider's performance anyway it doesn't matter whether low cadence builds strength or not.

The second point is that as soon as you get out of the saddle you are using different muscle groups (upper body) and are able to generate greater power and acceleration for which you need "upper body strength".

Lifting a dead weight, and starting the kilo on the track are applying forces to generate power for which you need strength. I can't see that they are that dissimilar from pedalling at a lower cadence on a climb. You are using more force per pedal stroke than you would at a higher cadence. So if you are using more force then surely you need more strength. And surely using more force repetitively builds strength does it not?

Taking it to the extreme on a steep climb where the rider is overgeared they can slow to a standstill, and in order to overcome this inertia the critical limiter is strength not CV fitness.

I have snapped a chain and sheared three pedals while out of the saddle in the last 3 years and that isn't down to my weight but to the forces exerted at the time (and maybe dodgy equipment).

I simply don't believe that the forces involved are too small to build strength.

Oh dear so many points to reply to but why bother. :roll: I gotta give it to you Mike you're consistent and its even slightly endearing that you're prepared to stand up and trade blows against the might of scientific evidence with nothing but trusty old BELIEF in your corner. Nevermind, like you say we're all entitled to our opinions. Personally I think you're a lovely cute FLAT EARTHER, keep posting!

Mike Willcox1

Toks wrote:

Oh dear so many points to reply to but why bother. :roll: I gotta give it to you Mike you're consistent and its even slightly endearing that you're prepared to stand up and trade blows against the might of scientific evidence with nothing but trusty old BELIEF in your corner. Nevermind, like you say we're all entitled to our opinions. Personally I think you're a lovely cute FLAT EARTHER, keep posting!

Well let's see I think I've pretty much demolished the cadence tosh; like it's not important, What was it? A red herring according to chimp, or was it chump no chung I believe. and like power meters are the only way to train. Yeah Yeah of course they are.

I think you are in the category of naive and will believe anything. Trust me I'm a doctor comes to mind.

Do me a favour Toks. Do a search on any combination of strength, cycling, endurance, and you tell how many coaches advocate strength training and how many don't and then come back and let us know the might of scientific evidence you are going on about.

Toks

Mike Willcox1 wrote:

Well let's see I think I've pretty much demolished the cadence tosh; like it's not important, .

Really? I haven't read it yet but my money says you took a right canning and you're swimming upstream in that big old African River called Da Nile . By the way which one is most significant when it comes to TT racing again?: power or cadence.

What was it? A red herring according to chimp, or was it chump no chung I believe. .

tut tut still can't resist a little adolescent name calling huh?

Do me a favour Toks. Do a search on any combination of strength, cycling, endurance, and you tell how many coaches advocate strength training and how many don't and then come back and let us know the might of scientific evidence you are going on about[/quote

I'll happily do that for you if you promise to read the whole "gyming to improve power" thread on http://www.cyclingforums.com/t126133.html Actually, you know what? don't bother! You're a an old school believer and generally believers ain't to fussed about evidence . So appologies - reading the thread won't make a blind bit of difference :?

Cougar

Toks.

Mike's post was raising points about the benefits of hill reps at low cadence to build strength. I don't see any emotive language in it at all.

Then you called him a lovely cute FLAT EARTHER. From here it looks as though you wanted to wind him up. Seems like he wound you up instead.

On the one hand you have named, current and past, professional and amateur, world and national champions, who have been shown to use high cadence, weight training and so on and so on.

And on the other you have sports scientists who have interpreted data produced from power measurements that proves that weight training, pedalling technique and cadence isn't relevant to producing the goods.

Is that a fair summary?

I would also add that from what I've read Mike is not advocating weight training for leg strength (neither is Dave Lloyd), but for upper body and core strength to provide a platform for pedalling and for out of the saddle efforts on a climb.

I have to say that from my own experience, having suffered from lower back problems for years, that developing core strength and upper body strength has proved very successful in dealing with it. There was a time I couldn't ride my bike at all. So if for no other reason than to prevent injury I would recommend it.

rollerball

Cougar wrote:

On the one hand you have named, current and past, professional and amateur, world and national champions, who have been shown to use high cadence, weight training and so on and so on.

You are wrong. Didn't you know that are all part of a conspiracy to spread misinformation. They have formed a secret society whose sole aim is to kid competitors into using training methods that don't work. Why they even gone as far as touching up photos of Tom Boonen to show a 6 pack good enough for the film 300. Source Ric Stern and Alex Simmons.

Now I know the truth I have thrown my dumb bells in the bin.

dennisn

I think that cadence is a freely chosen thing. After riding mega miles for some years
you eventually fall into a cadence that works best for you. This turns out to be
usually between 85 to 100. It's pretty typical for almost all riders. You will also find
that "pro" riders are not told what cadence to use by team coaches. Their body decides it for them and it's turns out to be right around 85-100. Ride lots and your body will
find the most efficient cadence for you. Not some "coach"

Dennis Noward

Toks

Cougar wrote:

Toks.

Hey Cougar, Mike and I have a lot of previous. It goes back over two years now so don't sweat it mate...These things tend to go round in cycles. People generally post on cadence, strength, climbing, lactate threshold getting fitter etc. Back when I joined cycling plus a few years ago there were always people who posted based on evidence or belief. And that remains the case today... I've actually got a lot of respect for Mike and his achievements but we disagree on some fundamentals in cycling training. Its no biggy really.

Mike Willcox1

Toks wrote:

Cougar wrote:

Toks.

Hey Cougar, Mike and I have a lot of previous. It goes back over two years now so don't sweat it mate...These things tend to go round in cycles. People generally post on cadence, strength, climbing, lactate threshold getting fitter etc. Back when I joined cycling plus a few years ago there were always people who posted based on evidence or belief. And that remains the case today... I've actually got a lot of respect for Mike and his achievements but we disagree on some fundamentals in cycling training. Its no biggy really.

8) Mutual

Toks to be honest I was a bit surprised by the strength of your attack on me, as I sort of saw you as mate. In fact I see your group out ridimg from time to time and have even riden along with them to see if you were there. One day maybe.

Toks

Mike Willcox1 wrote:

[
Toks to be honest I was a bit surprised by the strength of your attack on me, as I sort of saw you as mate. In fact I see your group out ridimg from time to time and have even riden along with them to see if you were there. One day maybe.

Oh no now I feel bad. ... I hope you don't take my comments personally Mike its all Bike forum love especially where you're concerned