Low cadence/high resistance sessions
Comments
-
Aaah right. I can't really see how it would improve that tbh, best just riding at your self selected cadence I'd've thought!0
-
P_Tucker wrote:Sorry, to be clear I was talking about the idea of doing low cadence work to improve TT power at self-selected cadence.
It's never been studied... it would also be a very difficult study to do as the effects are likely to be very small so you'd need lots of participants which isn't possible to fund. It may also be that it only helps address certain limiters which only a subset of people have which would make it even more difficult to study.
So you're stuck looking at anecdotal evidence of which there's a lot - but unfortunately theres's also a lot of anecodtal evidence for many things which have been shown to be wrong.
One thing to note is that Alex is wrong when he says "yet such efforts are sustainable for just as long as pedaling at same power in a regular gear" Particularly at the limits of high powers and low inertia. Two of his other reasons are strawmen, and the specificity one, well if a coach of 10 mile TT participants proscribes anything but 10mile TT's then they've already accepted that specificity is not the only thing.
Personally I do not do any low gear training, I don't think it's beneficial, and I wouldn't suggest it to others, however it's not been shown to be bad, so why not try it out?Jibbering Sports Stuff: http://jibbering.com/sports/0 -
jibberjim wrote:Personally I do not do any low gear training, I don't think it's beneficial, and I wouldn't suggest it to others, however it's not been shown to be bad, so why not try it out?
W4nking into a pot noodle has not been shown to be bad, so why not try it out?
The burden of proof clearly lies with those who claim that this method of training works.0 -
P_Tucker wrote:jibberjim wrote:Personally I do not do any low gear training, I don't think it's beneficial, and I wouldn't suggest it to others, however it's not been shown to be bad, so why not try it out?
W4nking into a pot noodle has not been shown to be bad, so why not try it out?
The burden of proof clearly lies with those who claim that this method of training works.
Why don't you try offering some useful advice backed up by something other than the fact you seem to be a pompous douche?0 -
Pokerface wrote:P_Tucker wrote:jibberjim wrote:Personally I do not do any low gear training, I don't think it's beneficial, and I wouldn't suggest it to others, however it's not been shown to be bad, so why not try it out?
W4nking into a pot noodle has not been shown to be bad, so why not try it out?
The burden of proof clearly lies with those who claim that this method of training works.
Why don't you try offering some useful advice backed up by something other than the fact you seem to be a pompous douche?
1. I have offered useful advice. Low cadence training doesn't work. Choose whatever cadence comes naturally to you.
2. Its backed up by Andrew Coggan and Alex Simmons. Sports scientists who might actually, y'know, know something about this kind of thing.
3. Yes I am clearly a pompous douche. What's your point?0 -
My point is that the sum total of your 'advice' was to either change gear or use a compact, rather than accept that some posters might have events that neither of these is a viable option and that low cadence work is actually suited to their events.
You yourself said that there is no clear agreement on whether low cadence work has any benefit.
I respect both the opinions of Alex and Jim - but neither is the final word on the subject. The fact that many coaches still prescribe this type of work (for whatever reason) indicates (to me) that either they are all vastly unqualified or that they still think there may be some benefit.
You are entitled to your opinion of course. And if you disagree with Jim (or anyone else), it's possible to express that in an intelligent way.
And now I'll have to go grill MY coach on why he makes me do these useless overgeared efforts. :twisted:0 -
Pokerface wrote:My point is that the sum total of your 'advice' was to either change gear or use a compact, rather than accept that some posters might have events that neither of these is a viable option and that low cadence work is actually suited to their events.
You yourself said that there is no clear agreement on whether low cadence work has any benefit.
I respect both the opinions of Alex and Jim - but neither is the final word on the subject. The fact that many coaches still prescribe this type of work (for whatever reason) indicates (to me) that either they are all vastly unqualified or that they still think there may be some benefit.
You are entitled to your opinion of course. And if you disagree with Jim (or anyone else), it's possible to express that in an intelligent way.
And now I'll have to go grill MY coach on why he makes me do these useless overgeared efforts. :twisted:
I have expressed myself clearly and concisely. You were the one who threw your toys out of the pram and resorted to name calling.
I imagine that the vast majority of coaches, like everyone else, hate admitting that they're ever wrong. Look at this thread for a sterling example of how defensive anyone gets when told that they're wrong - now imagine this exacerbated by the fact that you earn your living for being an expert on these topics.0 -
P_Tucker wrote:You were the one who threw your toys out of the pram and resorted to name calling.
Uhhmm, yeah. Not really. I hardly 'threw my toys out of the pram', did I? I made a valid observation (as you openly admitted being a pompous douche).
I readily admit to NOT knowing the answer to the overgearing issue and am not convinced by any argument at this point. But I'm also not firmly in favour one way or the other!
You have an uncanny knack of criticizing everyone else's advice without offering any (useful) advice of your own.
As you were.0 -
Pokerface wrote:P_Tucker wrote:You were the one who threw your toys out of the pram and resorted to name calling.
Uhhmm, yeah. Not really. I hardly 'threw my toys out of the pram', did I? I made a valid observation (as you openly admitted being a pompous douche).
I readily admit to NOT knowing the answer to the overgearing issue and am not convinced by any argument at this point. But I'm also not firmly in favour one way or the other!
You have an uncanny knack of criticizing everyone else's advice without offering any (useful) advice of your own.
As you were.
So its okay to insult people at long as it's true?0 -
P_Tucker wrote:
Fair enough. I can lose weight and get better at cycling. You'll always be a douche :roll:0 -
0 -
P_Tucker wrote:Yeah, but you probably won't
Glad we've sorted this out.
Well, I'm already a number 1 ranked track rider in the world. Not sure I can improve on that. But maybe I can match it again next year if it makes me 'worthy' in your eyes. And I guess I can try and repeat as National Champion.
But yes, glad we sorted it out.
[puts willy back in pants and stops waving it around]0 -
Pokerface wrote:[puts willy back in pants and stops waving it around]
No wait! Sure I've got a pot noodle somewhere!!
0 -
I just tried what you said about the pot noodle. It didn't work. It tasted all funny.
That's not very scientific. Are you a regular pot noodle eater? I think they always taste funny.0 -
Pokerface wrote:P_Tucker wrote:Yeah, but you probably won't
Glad we've sorted this out.
Well, I'm already a number 1 ranked track rider in the world. Not sure I can improve on that. But maybe I can match it again next year if it makes me 'worthy' in your eyes. And I guess I can try and repeat as National Champion.
But yes, glad we sorted it out.
[puts willy back in pants and stops waving it around]
Getting the excuses in early I see.
I plan to improve by:
1. Stealing candy from a baby
2. Pushing an old person down the stairs0 -
Are you sure about that? We are talking aerobic efforts here. At same power. Granted if you mean 0-40 rpm, but then if you think you will have such extended efforts in a goal event, I would suggest you are way over geared.jibberjim wrote:One thing to note is that Alex is wrong when he says "yet such efforts are sustainable for just as long as pedaling at same power in a regular gear" Particularly at the limits of high powers and low inertia.
If you are perhaps referring to the items on strength and muscle fibre type, I posted those simply as information because (a) they were previously mentioned in this thread and (b) they are a couple of common misconceptions about the "benefits" of such training.jibberjim wrote:Two of his other reasons are strawmen,
The principle of specificity, as applied to training for a 10 mile TT, suggests that one's training be specific to improving one's 10-mile TT power and delivering that power in the TT position. That will involve a range of training efforts at variable intensities and durations and sufficient time riding in TT position.jibberjim wrote:and the specificity one, well if a coach of 10 mile TT participants proscribes anything but 10mile TT's then they've already accepted that specificity is not the only thing.
To suggest that only riding 10-mile TTs is an example of how the principle of specificity is applied is, well, ludicrous, and I expect better from you.0 -
MORE validation from someone who knows what they're on about. I'M SO HAPPY!0
-
While I know something about this, I am not a sports scientist. I am a professional cycling coach with a science background.P_Tucker wrote:2. Its backed up by Andrew Coggan and Alex Simmons. Sports scientists who might actually, y'know, know something about this kind of thing.
Dr Coggan however is a scientist.
In any case, what people choose to "believe" should be on the basis of the evidence and sound exercise physiological and training principles, not who is providing the information.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
While I know something about this, I am not a sports scientist. I am a professional cycling coach with a science background.P_Tucker wrote:2. Its backed up by Andrew Coggan and Alex Simmons. Sports scientists who might actually, y'know, know something about this kind of thing.
Dr Coggan however is a scientist.
Ah, my mistake.Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:In any case, what people choose to "believe" should be on the basis of the evidence and sound exercise physiological and training principles, not who is providing the information.
But in the real world, people believe whatever they currently believe unless they have a good reason to change their mind. Expertees are valued by many.0 -
I'm happy for you.P_Tucker wrote:MORE validation from someone who knows what they're on about. I'M SO HAPPY!
But please read what I said carefully, because no where did I say they were not beneficial or did not work, just that there is nothing to suggest a benefit to one's regular riding over and above performing such efforts at same power in a regular gear, specificity aside.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
I'm happy for you.P_Tucker wrote:MORE validation from someone who knows what they're on about. I'M SO HAPPY!
But please read what I said carefully, because no where did I say they were not beneficial or did not work, just that there is nothing to suggest a benefit to one's regular riding over and above performing such efforts at same power in a regular gear, specificity aside.
Indeed. And all I said was that on the available evidence they didn't work, so there is no reason to do them. Exactly the same as you.0 -
Christ this is getting dull now. People will do what they want.0
-
I've got something new in this regard that I'm working on, which I hope to get input on from folks with an interest in this subject (see link below).
First, everyone should realize that cycling taps both the aerobic AND anaerobic systems of power virtually all the time. And, at different times one or the other of these systems are of greater importance. Hill climbs and time trials, for example require high levels of aerobic power, while sprints, attacks and accelerations out of corners require high anaerobic power.
Each system of power has it's own protocol for optimal training, and every person who has studied a little exercise physiology knows what this is:
Aerobic Power - Lactate Threshold and VO2 max intervals (resulting in increased mitochondria count and density)
Anaerobic Power - Progressively overloaded resistance, in both the concentric and eccentric movements, and in the EXACT muscular motion which is used in competition
Cycling coaches are pretty uniform on the aerobic side of training, but on the anaerobic side it is a quite varied--some advocate weight training in the gym and some these on-bike strength workouts (the subject of this thread). The problem with the gym and on-bike training, however, is that none of the prescribed workouts conform with some basic tenets of ex. physiology--the gym workouts lack the specificity, and the on-bike workouts don't offer eccentric resistsance, an adequate amount of progressive overload, or the ability to exercise the muscle groups in isolation.
So, after greatly benefitting myself from on-bike strength workouts, and knowing a little about ex. physiology, I developed the apparatus in the video below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_9Cue-qKb8
After using a garage prototype for a few months, and seeing the benefits of this modality of training, I decided to build something for real and see what others think about it. The apparatus in the video is a pre-production prototype and I hope to be able to make it available to other racing enthusiasts--but before I go and make a big investment in it, I'm very curious what people think of this concept.
Please chime in...and please forgive if you see this post on a couple of other forums with activity on this subject matter.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Are you sure about that? We are talking aerobic efforts here. At same power. Granted if you mean 0-40 rpm, but then if you think you will have such extended efforts in a goal event, I would suggest you are way over geared.jibberjim wrote:One thing to note is that Alex is wrong when he says "yet such efforts are sustainable for just as long as pedaling at same power in a regular gear" Particularly at the limits of high powers and low inertia.
Yep, absolutely positive, at both the 5 minute end of efforts and 60minute - I've never tested longer but I cannot hold the same power at 70rpm as I can at 90rpm. On 3-4 minute it's even more pronounced. Even fully motivated to overcome the pain in a race I only managed to produce around 80% of my 2 minute power when my cadence dropped to just below 70. In later testing on a very steep ~3 minute hill (Crocknorth) I essentially failed to climb it whenever I tried to climb it below 70rpm. Given that it only needs me to do around 400watts to climb it at the 3 minute speed and I can comfortably * do 500 with freely chosen cadence that's a pretty significant failure.
To get appropriate gearing for that race (a road race not a TT) I think I would've needed a triple 38x28 was where I got down to 70rpm, and to get back to the group on the descents I was doing 400+watts in 52x11. A 34x50 might've got me there, unfortunately I won't see next year, but maybe the year after!jibberjim wrote:To suggest that only riding 10-mile TTs is an example of how the principle of specificity is applied is, well, ludicrous, and I expect better from you.
But it's exactly what you're saying, training at a range of intensities is what's being advocated the intensity in question being one where you increase the stress on the muscles by either recruiting more motor units each revolution or recruiting stronger ones or recruiting them in for longer - whatever it takes to increase the force. That of course leads to a reduced stress on the aerobic system (all research I can find suggests oxygen efficiency is greatest on lower cadences)
That may allow you to produce overload in the muscles that you wouldn't normally be able to do - since your aerobic system prevents you working that hard.
As I said, I don't do it, but you're beginning to convince me to give it a try. But there simply isn't the evidence to say that it's absolutely useless.
* Well comfortably as in I'm completely dead drooling at the top but I can do it.Jibbering Sports Stuff: http://jibbering.com/sports/0 -
So, for you, doing such efforts means that you would not be able to apply the same power and would thereby be reducing the effectiveness of training by doing them.jibberjim wrote:Yep, absolutely positive, at both the 5 minute end of efforts and 60minute - I've never tested longer but I cannot hold the same power at 70rpm as I can at 90rpm.
It really depends on what you mean by lower power. I'm not talking to the watt. I mean near enough that the physiological impact is essentially the same.
And I'm not talking about mean maximal efforts for a given duration. I'm talking about sustainable aerobic efforts. While 2-5 min efforts are substantially aerobic when done maximally, they still have a substantial anaerobic component.
I too lose power when cadence drops when riding at/near mean max power for a given duration (I'm more sensitive to it since my amputation). But not so much that the training effect would be impacted.
No it's not, you are putting words in my mouth. Talk about a strawman.jibberjim wrote:But it's exactly what you're saying,
The only measure of intensity that matters is power. Cadence or force per se are not measures of intensity.jibberjim wrote:training at a range of intensities is what's being advocated the intensity in question being one where you increase the stress on the muscles by either recruiting more motor units each revolution or recruiting stronger ones or recruiting them in for longer - whatever it takes to increase the force. That of course leads to a reduced stress on the aerobic system (all research I can find suggests oxygen efficiency is greatest on lower cadences)
If it were the case, then training to apply maximal force at zero velocity would be of benefit to endurance cycling performance, when it isn't.
Efficiency (at lower cadences) is a red herring. Effectiveness (i.e. power) is what matters.
Not really, and especially not for you, since you've already told us that you lose power trying and therefore reduce the load.jibberjim wrote:That may allow you to produce overload in the muscles that you wouldn't normally be able to do - since your aerobic system prevents you working that hard.
If people want an overload, they should simply ride at a higher power output.0
