Cadence

Alex_Simmons/RST

Mike Willcox wrote:

Call it what you like. You can try smoke and mirrors but it changes nothing. If you believe that leg strength (maximal, minimal, up your jacksie strength or whatever), has no part to play in cycling faster then IMO you're plainly wrong.

Well if leg strength (as correctly defned) was a limiting factor, then why Mike are there no weight lifting specialists winning endurance cycling events? All of them have by far greater leg strength than you or I. They should be smashing our butts out there.

Answer: Leg strength (as properly defined) is not a limiter to endurance cycling performance.

Indeed people get faster on a bike and actually lose leg strength (as properly defined).

Do we need some force generating ability to pedal a bike? Of course. But our maximal force generation ability (i.e. strength) is not a limiter to performance in endurance cycling events.

Is there an echo in here?

Alex_Simmons/RST

SunWuKong wrote:

Sorry Neeb, I wasn't trying to brag or anything just didn't want Alex to think that my question was a dig at his position on this topic. I merely wanted clarification.

Seeking clarification is how I interpreted the query.

and presumably my clarification helped.

Alex_Simmons/RST

scapaslow wrote:

Is there any advantage/ fitness adaptation to either approach? Does one help build a more aerobic base than the other?

Does rider A's strategy have any validity?

If rider A & B have the same biomechanical profile (mass, position, coefficient of drag, frontal area, equipment etc), then getting up the same hill at the same speed will require the same power output.

In terms of aerobic fitness adaptations, that's all that really matters.

Learning to go up at slower cadence / higher torques (but still << maximal torques) at the same power as the other way will have some specificity principle, in that you will improve your ability to pedal up a hill in that way.

But that's about it.

Just get up the fastest way you can. Low cadence, high cadence or whatever. The aerobic fitness adaptations are dictated by the power you produce (speed up the hill) and not the rate at which you turn the cranks.

Alex_Simmons/RST

redddraggon wrote:

My cadence naturally varies from the flat to an incline, I don't feel the need to maintain that 90rpm I find comfortable on the flat, on the incline finding 60-70 rpm in the appropriate gear gets me up the hill faster and in better condition.

I think it's because I spend most of my time on the drops on the flat, meaning that my position is not the best for pushing hard gears, whereas when I'm climbing I'm on the tops and more upright meaning I'm better able to push a higher gear at lower cadence.

Which is exactly what you'd expect.

For anyone interested, I suggest a read about Quadrant Analysis, which plots the Average Effective Pedal Force against Average Pedal Speed (cadence) for various event types (i.e. plotting the torque and cadence components of power).

See here for more:
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/power411/quad.asp

Mike Willcox

FWIW.

My best time for 10 mile TT is 20.30 achieved in 1982 on a non aero road bike with 32 spoke wheels on a non traffic assisted day on a course without a ski slope start. My cadence was in excess of 100 rpm. There is calculation chart which suggets that the average wattage generated was 525 watts.

The calculator also shows that this time with todays Aero TT bikes andf helemts and disc wheels would be a long 18 minutes.

For me I found that I could sustain a greater power output over 10 miles with a cadence in excess of 100 rpm.

Note that there is no web link to any web site trying to sell you anything. This information is posted here in the interests of free debate ONLY.

Mike Willcox

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

and which contributes absolutely nothing of value to the discussion....
much like every one of your other posts here.

No credibility. Why do you include your web site link if not to attract punters?

................................................................................

Professional cycle Coaching for Numpties with more money than sense

nolf

Surely the fact that he is representing not only himself but his own business adds credibility to his claims?

After all if he makes a mistake it will reflect poorly on his professional reputation, whereas if you talk cr*p it doesn't make any difference.

The links to articles and careful use of words illustrates the professional way he acts and I for one am grateful for his input.

nolf

Umm I don't know Mike, was it? Can't be assed to re-read through.

Don't let Alex intimidate you Mike, get the debate back to sarcasm and away from scientific analysis, in that field you truly do shine.

bahzob

Mike Willcox wrote:

FWIW.

My best time for 10 mile TT is 20.30 achieved in 1982 on a non aero road bike with 32 spoke wheels on a non traffic assisted day on a course without a ski slope start. My cadence was in excess of 100 rpm. There is calculation chart which suggets that the average wattage generated was 525 watts.

The calculator also shows that this time with todays Aero TT bikes andf helemts and disc wheels would be a long 18 minutes.

For me I found that I could sustain a greater power output over 10 miles with a cadence in excess of 100 rpm.

Note that there is no web link to any web site trying to sell you anything. This information is posted here in the interests of free debate ONLY.

20:30 on a non-aero bike is very good time.

I ride TTs on my "normal" road bike and pb is only 24:10. I would be interested if you have any advice, on top of cadence, about best way to ride, e.g. position on drops, bike setup.

Mike Willcox

bahzob wrote:

Mike Willcox wrote:

FWIW.

My best time for 10 mile TT is 20.30 achieved in 1982 on a non aero road bike with 32 spoke wheels on a non traffic assisted day on a course without a ski slope start. My cadence was in excess of 100 rpm. There is calculation chart which suggets that the average wattage generated was 525 watts.

The calculator also shows that this time with todays Aero TT bikes andf helemts and disc wheels would be a long 18 minutes.

For me I found that I could sustain a greater power output over 10 miles with a cadence in excess of 100 rpm.

Note that there is no web link to any web site trying to sell you anything. This information is posted here in the interests of free debate ONLY.

20:30 on a non-aero bike is very good time.

I ride TTs on my "normal" road bike and pb is only 24:10. I would be interested if you have any advice, on top of cadence, about best way to ride, e.g. position on drops, bike setup.

My position on the drops was to get my elbows low and tucked in so that the elbow joints were at about a right angle. This means gripping the handlebars just below the brake hoods.

I used to focus on generating the power via the abdomen with a still upper body (need to develop core strength for this). Keep it as smooth as possible, and paradoxically take your time on the drags, change down into lower gears to keep the cadence up. Too high a gear and you are fighting the bike and losing energy.

Saddle postion is further forward than for road riding so that you don't end up on the tip of the saddle.

John Stevenson

Recent irrelevant personal attacks, and their spin-off, deleted. I could go through the whole thread but there's some baby here I don't want to throw out with the murky bathwater.

Alex & Mike - take it private please.

bahzob

Mike Willcox wrote:

My position on the drops was to get my elbows low and tucked in so that the elbow joints were at about a right angle. This means gripping the handlebars just below the brake hoods.

Thanks. I have been gripping drops close to the end where parallel to road. From above I think I should move further up. Also elbows at angle greater than 90 degrees. Idea of power from abdomen makes lot of sense as use this idea when climbing but not on flat. Hope weather holds and will try out tonight.

jedster

Alex,

just to clarify a point -

am I right in saying that you don't dispute the idea that leg muscles can get bigger and more defined as a result of cycling, just that these changes are more about power production capacity than strength?

J

Alex_Simmons/RST

jedster wrote:

Alex,

just to clarify a point -

am I right in saying that you don't dispute the idea that leg muscles can get bigger and more defined as a result of cycling, just that these changes are more about power production capacity than strength?

J

Yes

bahzob

FWIW I went out yesterday evening to put check out some of Mike's advice abvoe re TT position if you are using a road bike. Plan was to try various positions on same stretch of traffic free road.

Time was limited so I did not manage to get to any firm conclusions, so will be spending more time on this. However one thing that was interesting was that amongst runs I did were 2 in Mike's recommended position, one on 53x13@ 87rpm another 53x14@94rpm.

Over the 2.7km course both recorded exactly the same time 3:39. This was a surprise to me as runs were done blind. I only got the times when at home and downloaded to computer. During the ride itself the 53x13 felt a lot harder than the 53x14 and I was sure it was going to be a lot faster. Also the 53x13 was the third run I did, the 53x14 was sixth (and last). I plan a few more tests to see if this was a one off or not.

(BTW this was even more of a surprise since I am by habit a masher and find turning over a big gear on slow revs more comfortable than small on quick.)

parkaboy

jedster wrote:
Alex,

just to clarify a point -

am I right in saying that you don't dispute the idea that leg muscles can get bigger and more defined as a result of cycling, just that these changes are more about power production capacity than strength?

J
Yes

I've been away for a couple of days, and see that my post 'getting stronger but not increasing in strength' has been deleted. I'm not sure how this was a personal attack. It was an attempt to clarify the difference between common usage and physiologists use of the word strength. Which to me was what the whole discussion was about.

My degree was in Osteopathy with Physiology and so for me fuctional anatomy plays a huge part of any of this discussion.

This article is interesting: http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=strengthstern

Here it seems that sports scientists don't entirely agree on what strength is, even at masters level.

In discussions at college we felt that this definition didn't take into consideration motor unit recruitment. And that at submaximal contraction of the muscle, individual or smaller groups of recruited motor units would be maximally contracted and therefore subject to muscular hypertrophy.

John Stevenson

parkaboy

If I deleted your post over-zealously, then my apologies. I was trying to tidy up the mud-slinging and posts that only arose from it and you may have been caught in the cross-fire as it were.