Low cadence turbo sessions

phreak

To prepare for doing some European rides this summer I have been doing a fair bit of tempo work on the turbo to try and replicate the hour or so of constant effort required to do a European climb.

Mostly however these tempo sessions have been done at 90-100 cadence, whereas most of the climbs are more around the 60-70 mark.

Is it worth doing my 1hr tempo sessions at that cadence or will it do my knees etc. no good to do such sessions a few times a week?

For the record I do low cadence intervals but they're typically just a few minutes in length rather than an hour.

Anonymous

Stick some books under the front wheel and do 10 mins alternating...

phreak

Yes I usually put some bricks under the front wheel when doing climbing sessions. Is there any particular reason why 10min sets rather than an entire 60mins?

Anonymous

Interest!

phreak

Fair enough

nmcgann

I'd recommend doing a good few of these long sessions with no breaks. My experience of the high mountains is that the long climbs are 1h+ of 50-70rpm at high (and very high) leg forces. You need good muscular endurance at these low cadences.

I've recently been doing this on the road just using my highest gear and no others (50x12 on my summer bike) for continuous tempo sessions between 1h and 1.5h. It makes a pretty tough workout, but on a flat training loop it does feel like a hard climbing session.

phreak

nmcgann wrote:

I'd recommend doing a good few of these long sessions with no breaks. My experience of the high mountains is that the long climbs are 1h+ of 50-70rpm at high (and very high) leg forces. You need good muscular endurance at these low cadences.

I've recently been doing this on the road just using my highest gear and no others (50x12 on my summer bike) for continuous tempo sessions between 1h and 1.5h. It makes a pretty tough workout, but on a flat training loop it does feel like a hard climbing session.

That's kinda what I was thinking. I've been doing similar kind of things most of this year but at a higher cadence. Being able to grind for an hour is something else again, almost as much mentally as physically.

deal

phreak wrote:

nmcgann wrote:

I'd recommend doing a good few of these long sessions with no breaks. My experience of the high mountains is that the long climbs are 1h+ of 50-70rpm at high (and very high) leg forces. You need good muscular endurance at these low cadences.

I've recently been doing this on the road just using my highest gear and no others (50x12 on my summer bike) for continuous tempo sessions between 1h and 1.5h. It makes a pretty tough workout, but on a flat training loop it does feel like a hard climbing session.

That's kinda what I was thinking. I've been doing similar kind of things most of this year but at a higher cadence. Being able to grind for an hour is something else again, almost as much mentally as physically.

just do as NapD says do 10 mins intervals followed by a short period at reduced intensity, even 30 seconds is enough to break it up mentally. Physically its pretty much the same as doing it without stopping.

cakewalk

phreak wrote:

nmcgann wrote:

I'd recommend doing a good few of these long sessions with no breaks. My experience of the high mountains is that the long climbs are 1h+ of 50-70rpm at high (and very high) leg forces. You need good muscular endurance at these low cadences.

I've recently been doing this on the road just using my highest gear and no others (50x12 on my summer bike) for continuous tempo sessions between 1h and 1.5h. It makes a pretty tough workout, but on a flat training loop it does feel like a hard climbing session.

That's kinda what I was thinking. I've been doing similar kind of things most of this year but at a higher cadence. Being able to grind for an hour is something else again, almost as much mentally as physically.

Agree. Got me round the Marmotte last year (combined with interval sessions & some time on bike)

Word of warning. This year had near to zero time on bike. Plenty of time on turbo. Result. Bad back pain on Ventoux climbs - found it difficult to stand at all. So keep up time on the road as well. (No expert - stabiliser muscles?)

phreak

I typically do turbo sessions during the week, then a longer ride or two at the weekends, with low intensity commutes to work during the week.

I guess the next question is when is best to fit these type of workouts into the yearly schedule? I've got the CTS climbing dvd and they make it sound like low cadence work should be done around spring time to convert strength from the gym into cycling strength.

Alex_Simmons/RST

phreak wrote:

I've got the CTS climbing dvd and they make it sound like low cadence work should be done around spring time to convert strength from the gym into cycling strength.

It won't matter as what you are proposing isn't possible (i.e. converting strength from the gym to the bike*).

Cycling isn't a strength sport.

* with perhaps the exception being track / BMX standing starts - but that won't help on climbs.

phreak

Thanks Alex. I'm just repeating the phrase Chris Carmichael uses himself in the video.

Alex_Simmons/RST

phreak wrote:

Thanks Alex. I'm just repeating the phrase Chris Carmichael uses himself in the video.

Yeah - it's a shame such myths get bandied about by those that should know better. It sort of devalues the good stuff IMO.

Train smart and hard - and you'll get better !

phreak

So with regards to fitting it into a schedule, would you say it's more of a spring thing than a summer thing? My two goals for next year are a couple of european sportives in June and August.

lochindaal

Cycling isn't a strength sport.

Hi Alex, could you explain this. My thought would be the stronger your legs, higher power and hence higher Power/weight ration -> makes better cyclist

I'm asking the question not debating your answer

tramotane

lochindaal wrote:

Cycling isn't a strength sport.

Hi Alex, could you explain this. My thought would be the stronger your legs, higher power and hence higher Power/weight ration -> makes better cyclist

I'm asking the question not debating your answer

A popular cycling misconception is that strength = power.When Boardman did 440 watts for 1 hour his leg strength/force was approx 28kg on every pedal rev.If you are able to get out of an arm chair you will be applying more than that!.

Strength is not a limiting factor, instead cycling is an aerobic sport and the best way to train to go faster is to focus on increasing power at threshold so around 80-92% of 1hour power output will have you flying up the cols.(along with optimised body mass).

hope this helps until Alex replies

ut_och_cykla

European sportives might need long uninterupted sessions of an hour or more for climbing. Replicate this by climbing same hill repeatedly maintaining a slightly less than comfortable effort (intervalls) or doing hour long sessions at an effort that just feels doable. Work out what cadence you will need to climb the hills you have on the sportives and use similar cadence on your training rides. If you think it might be too heavy gearing - get lighter gears...! Don't be fobbed off with 'its doable on a 36 ??' - repeated long climbs in Euroep are a fitness and mental attitude thing more than a massive strength thing.
I'm a fat 50 + female and have ridden up Ventoux, Alpe DHuez Tourmalet and several other 'big climbs' non stop having trained on flat lands of southern Sweden and the turbo.
Good luck!

Murr X

lochindaal wrote:

Cycling isn't a strength sport.

Hi Alex, could you explain this. My thought would be the stronger your legs, higher power and hence higher Power/weight ration -> makes better cyclist

I'm asking the question not debating your answer

Hi lochindall,

Strength and power is not the same although many get this confused, Alex is quite correct to say that cycling is not a strength sport - rather it is a power sport. For instance top professional climbers (Schleck, Contador) are generally not strong but are exceptionally powerful (for the durations that are relevant to them at least). A top weightlifter will have very strong legs but may not be able to produce a great deal of power (particularly for longer durations).

I posted this next bit a short while back;


Power to weight is usually talked about in watts produced relative to body weight in kilograms - W/Kg.

Peak power is rarely discussed in hill climbing but much more commonly (and usually much more importantly) it is longer periods of time ie 20 - 60 minutes that you will hear about with climbers. Bike weight is not factored into this figure, so when you hear about a rider being able to produce 5W/Kg that is simply power produced per kilogram of current body weight, it is that simple.

For sustainable power output - 20minutes or above, adding muscle and therefore weight will not* aid in generating more power. That is why the top climbers are about as thin as they can be without sacrificing sustainable power output.


Murr X

*There can be exceptions to this but it is not often the case.

Slimbods

Alex_Simmons/RST

lochindaal wrote:

Cycling isn't a strength sport.

Hi Alex, could you explain this. My thought would be the stronger your legs, higher power and hence higher Power/weight ration -> makes better cyclist

I'm asking the question not debating your answer

Sure, you've had some good answers already.

It's partly a matter of semantics - but important semantics.

In exercise physiology (which is what we are discussing when talking about what training etc will improve cycling performance) it's important to be very clear about what terms like strength and power mean. They are totally different things but unfortunately they are often (wrongly) used interchangeably.

Strength is the maximal force generation capacity of a muscle or group of muscles. By definition, maximal force occurs at zero velocity.

Power is the rate of doing work. The rate at which we can sustain doing work varies depending on how long we are performing the effort. So for example, we can sustain a high power output for very short periods, or a lower power output for longer durations.

As has been mentioned, the forces involved in endurance cycling are quite low, and significantly less (like nearly an order of magnitude less) than our maximal force generating ability.

What dictates our ability in endurance cycling (i.e. anything lasting longer than ~2 minutes) is our ability to generate power (i.e. frequently apply significantly sub-maximal forces) via aerobic metabolism.

Our limiter is an aerobic metabolic one, not a strength one. So what we need to improve performance is training that lift our aerobic capabilities (oxygen transport, delivery and utilsation). The sorts of changes we look for include increasing the number and density of mitochondria (the energy production plants inside our muscles), the density of our capillaries, our VO2 max, increased maximal cardiac output (by increasing heart stroke volume), increased lactate threshold. End of day these are what improves our aerobic abilities and enable us to sustain more power for longer. We do this by riding bikes, not by lifting weights.

Indeed training to increase our maximal force generation capacity (strength) has no impact on our ability to sustain power output over longer durations and in fact it can be counter productive since the physiological changes required to increase strength run counter to those needed to improve sustainable power output.

Strength training can add mass via hypertrophy for no gain in sustainable aerobic power.
Strength training tends to reduce mitochondrial density.
Strength training also tends to reduce capillary density, and increase the diffusion distance between muscles cells and the blood, making it harder for the exchange of gases and key metabolites.

While strength is a factor for non-endurance events that are very short (think track sprint/BMX), even in these events the forces are rarely maximal*, and there is a point beyond which more strength does not help and can be counterproductive (can slow you down).

* the only time one can apply close to maximal force is the first pedal stroke of a standing start. After that the forces decline quickly to being significantly less than maximal - hence it's the rate at which we can apply force (i.e. power) that matters, not the amount of force per se. Sprinters need to apply high forces for sure, but they have to do so at very high leg velocities - and the forces are still way sub-maximal.

Anonymous

But what if you want maffis quads?

robrauy

Thanks Alex. Very informative.

So, in terms of training our aerobic systems, is there any benefit to riding up hills in a non optimal gear - ie a fixie? I've often felt that a week of hard fixie commutes has had a positive effect and I've felt "stronger" when returning to the race bike.

Alex_Simmons/RST

robrauy wrote:

So, in terms of training our aerobic systems, is there any benefit to riding up hills in a non optimal gear - ie a fixie?

If you expect to need to ride/race with such non-optimal gearing, then yes.

The metabolic demands are similar to using a geared bike, it's the neuromuscular demands that will be different.

robrauy wrote:

I've often felt that a week of hard fixie commutes has had a positive effect and I've felt "stronger" when returning to the race bike.

As to why you feel more powerful after such training, without actually knowing your power output from such rides, one can only speculate.

You likely got fitter because you trained harder, not because of the (lack of) gears. It's possible it forced you to ride harder up the hills than you had been doing, hence that's why you felt a training benefit. You can get the same effect on a geared bike simply by riding harder.

IOW - from an aerobic fitness development POV, what matters is the effort level.

nmcgann

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

robrauy wrote:

So, in terms of training our aerobic systems, is there any benefit to riding up hills in a non optimal gear - ie a fixie?

If you expect to need to ride/race with such non-optimal gearing, then yes.
.......
.

One of the things to bear in mind is that a lot of amateur riders simply won't have the power to be able to achieve a high enough cadence on typical gearing up a long mountain climb to keep the leg force low.

It's instructive to play with cyling power/speed calculators to see what comes out as the likely speed for some typical power/weight/grade combinations (e.g. 75kg+10kg, 230W, 8%). 10-11kph is quite typical and road compact gearing (eg. 34x28) won't give that speed at 90rpm - more like 70rpm.

A rider better be prepared to handle low cadence/high force for an hour or more on these long climbs - or have mountain bike gearing (e.g. 22T chainring and a 11-32/4 cassette).

phreak

That's it. On a 10km/10% grade climb I'd probably be doing around 60rpm, even in the small ring, so it seems to make sense to train at that kind of rpm for an hour to replicate it. It doesn't seem likely that such training can be done on the road over here very easily so it's a case of ramping up the 'hill' on the turbo and grinding away at my usual tempo power output for an hour.

Alex_Simmons/RST

phreak wrote:

That's it. On a 10km/10% grade climb I'd probably be doing around 60rpm, even in the small ring, so it seems to make sense to train at that kind of rpm for an hour to replicate it. It doesn't seem likely that such training can be done on the road over here very easily so it's a case of ramping up the 'hill' on the turbo and grinding away at my usual tempo power output for an hour.

Or get more suitable gearing.