Compact vs. Standard

markos1963

giantsasquatch wrote:

If you train in a higher gears with big chainrings and little sprockets, then how can that build better faster aerobic capacity than using a compact? It won't. You won't even have the choice to do that up hills. You end up more tired for future rides/training as you used more muscle, so your training won't be as effective. Sure you get better but not as good as using a compact. Compact even gives you the choice of all.

That isn't what I'm saying, its irrelevant whether you have a compact or not on the flat, if you have a standard with a 14/27 cassette the gearing is very similar to a 50/34-12/25 especially at the top end, its only on the hills a compact makes any sense, whether or not your training involves high cadense or low.

giantsasquatch

@markos1963
Hi, sorry i wasn't referring to the flat as such, granted if using on the flat they both using similar ratios and not much of a difference. You just be using the big ring with the compact.

Totally seperate gearing with the compact. Big for flat. Small for hills. Keeps it simple.

giantsasquatch

DVV wrote:

Everyone is different though, and you will probably find a variety of cadence amongst even professional road riders.

That's because the majority of riders, have trained and got used to a double and there body has adapted to that style. The body has trained to go up hills in a double. They got fit and can get up hills in a double no problem in a higher gear, and think that's the end of it.

simonaspinall

Wow! So many replies! Thank you!

giantsasquatch

Not everybody is suited to pedal at a higher cadence for various reasons. It is unnatural and you have to be 100% body able. It takes months and months of training.

If you starting off, i think it better you start off with a compact and get good habits and training established to build on. If you been cycling long time then changing to a different cadence is going to feel so wrong. It's going to take time.

I think it is healthier in the higher cadence with a compact as it will save on your knees long term. There has been several cyclists(35-55) having heart attacks going uphill in too high a gear.

keef66

Can you post a link to any articles giving details of the number of middle-aged cyclists having heart attacks because they have used the wrong gear? Scientific papers or tabloid journalism, I don't mind.

And you can't include Tom Simpson; I suspect other factors were at play in his case.

AllTheGear

keef66 wrote:

Can you post a link to any...

Giant Sasquatch. The clue's in the name.

giantsasquatch

AllTheGear wrote:

I don't think you can say what is 'best' in general.

Well, taking cycling seriously with good training to maximise gains each week, then using a compact with higher cadence would give a better end potential than training with a double. You would also become a lighter cyclist at the same time due to more fat burning which would give even greater result.

If it's not in your nature to peddle at a higher cadence then no problem.

ride_whenever

seriously, over the same GI on a double?

AllTheGear

giantsasquatch wrote:

AllTheGear wrote:

I don't think you can say what is 'best' in general.

Well, taking cycling seriously with good training to maximise gains each week, then using a compact with higher cadence would give a better end potential than training with a double. You would also become a lighter cyclist at the same time due to more fat burning which would give even greater result.

It's not in your nature to peddle at a higher cadence then no problem.

I live in a flat area and can average a cadence in the 90's, over 20 miles, using the 50T ring only. As I'm never in the 25T spocket I could do that with a 53T ring as well. So makes no difference to me at all.

giantsasquatch

AllTheGear wrote:

keef66 wrote:

Can you post a link to any...

Giant Sasquatch. The clue's in the name.

Quite sad you take a personal attack on a name i gave the tiniest thought to, and not confront me on the facts.

keef66 wrote:

Can you post a link to any articles giving details of the number of middle-aged cyclists having heart attacks because they have used the wrong gear? Scientific papers or tabloid journalism, I don't mind.

And you can't include Tom Simpson; I suspect other factors were at play in his case.

Sure i could and could back it up with science too. It quite simple if you have a weak heart and you put strain on it then...

It has happened in one club of the several i rode when i used to ride but i don't know all there history.

Example. Marathon runners don't have strong hearts because they run at one speed. When they do something with extreme force then it puts too much pressure on the heart that it's not accustomed to.

keef66

AllTheGear wrote:

keef66 wrote:

Can you post a link to any...

Giant Sasquatch. The clue's in the name.

I thought he (or she) was ignoring me. Is that because they don't exist then?

AllTheGear

giantsasquatch wrote:

.. the facts...
...
Marathon runners don't have strong hearts because they run at one speed.

I probably am guilty of resorting to a personal attack, but frankly, people read this forum looking for honest, accurate advice. This thread is quite amusing though!

keef66

so you're suggesting that out there is a death certificate that says "Cause of death:-incorrect gear selection"?

And are you serious in your assertion that marathon runners do not have strong hearts?? I'd have thought that the opposite was more likely.

And finally, how can anyone challenge you "on the facts" when you haven't presented any???

giantsasquatch

All a marathon runner has done, has trained his body to be efficient with ONE exercise not a number.

AllTheGear

giantsasquatch wrote:

Marathon runners don't have strong biceps because they run at one speed.

I fixed it.

giantsasquatch

Long distance running burns off muscle. It's not needed!

Resistance training is what builds a stronger heart.

AllTheGear

giantsasquatch wrote:

All a marathon runner has done, has trained his body to be efficient with ONE exercise not a number.

Does that mean if I use a compact, I might be training to be efficient at something other than cycling? Perhaps the high jump?

giantsasquatch

I am not saying they don't have strong hearts you misunderstand me. If you don't tax the body under load, then it never gets stronger. With long distance running, it gets efficient is what it does not necessarily stronger.

DVV

Sooo....

I spectated at a half marathon recently. The winner ran it in ~63 minutes.

That means he ran sub five-minute miles for 13 miles. Or to put it another way, he was running at approximately 13 miles an hour.

Obviously he wasn't loading his heart though, just making it more efficient.

skyd0g

*grabs wooden spoon*
...are these Campag or Shimano spinny chainset thingies we're talking about here...?

giantsasquatch

Of course it gets stronger but if they do the same training day in day out they just adapt to that one exercise. Game Over.

What limits performance is delivery of oxygen to the muscles restricted by the heart and the lungs. If you can increase your heart and lung capacity then performance is increased! You don't get that just by running at one speed!

By doing endurance training the heart grows bigger and stronger still to have a bigger capacity to deliver more oxygen to the muscles.

AllTheGear

skyd0g wrote:

*grabs wooden spoon*
...are these Campag or Shimano spinny chainset thingies we're talking about here...?

SRAM, you heathen! ;-)

keef66

Fixed!

And for that reason, I'm out.

AllTheGear

Me too. I'm off to do something productive, perhaps pick my nose for a bit.

DVV

:shock:

Cripes. I think i'm going to bail. This is too much for my weak heart on a Tuesday afternoon...

giantsasquatch

In the case of a runner the heart is not as strong as opposed to someone who runs and lift weights as well. The heart is still a muscle.

giantsasquatch

I see you dont take your training seriously. No problem.

shisaa

What giantsasquatch is saying makes a lot of sense.

Although if you're saying that resistance training builds a stronger heart, then cycling up hills in high gears, which is essentially similar to resistance training, should be good for your heart. So long as you don't overdo it, which is true of any training.

As for the gearing you use to get the magical cadence of 90+, that could be done with a compact, or with a standard, depending on your sprocket, strength and terrain. I personally have a standard but am only now learning all the subtleties of gearing.

And by the way, there were three deaths at a Detroit marathon recently. So it does happen . . .

giantsasquatch

High cadence is just one part of the training. You train for hills as well.

If you exert too much up a hill and can't deliver oxygen fast enough, you put alot strain on the heart. If you combine that with bad health, smoking, high cholestrol, bad diet then bad thing can happen.

If you don't do muscle building then your muscles gets smaller along with your heart muscle meaning it gets weaker. If you not used to heavy exercise like going up hills and combine it with other factors such as bad diet then heart attack is the result.

By doing resistance training you make your heart BIGGER and so stronger. If you not used to hills and suddenly exert great force then it can happen and has happened.

Long distance running breaks down muscle including heart muscle!