Low cadence/high resistance sessions
Comments
-
While I'm not personally offended, I can see how others would be. You do realise that at least two contributors to this thread have aspirations to race at the Paralympics?P_Tucker wrote:Crikey, its like bloody China in ere
A discussion of cadence and force is natural for most, and in particular for those of us that have a disability that reduces our maximal force production ability.
Fortunately, for sustainable aerobic power, force production is not an inhibitor to performance. It is however for short range power.
As an example of this principle, below is a chart showing my mean maximal power for durations from 1 second out to ~ 5-min. Two lines: pre-amputation and post-amputation. From ~ 4-min outwards, the lines overlap, so I didn't bother to show out to several hours.
IOW, the only time force production has affected my ability to generate power, is for the very short range stuff. The difference in the 2-4 min range would mostly be down to missing the very high end power from accelerations included in such efforts. That's primarily the result of missing a lower leg muscular-skeletal system.
As to all the other questions, it comes down to this:
1. train to increase your sustainable aerobic power as that will see you ride faster, further
2. include efforts that are specific to the particular demands of the goal event(s)
Of course there's a bit more to it in terms of what, when and how much but they are the details.
You are right about the gears - once you are doing 75-80km/h, there's not a lot of point worrying about having enough gear because not pedaling and getting into an aero tuck will be faster than trying to pedal anyway.
As for climbing and lower cadences - I went back to have a look at some longer climbs I did in October when I was in Northern California. No longer climbs where I live so no training for them and no specific over gear work.
The longest climb was about 31 minutes, started about 70-minutes into the ride, I averaged 66 rpm and rode at 99% of my FTP. I used a 39x29 gear.
During the Granfondo a few days later, the climbs are similar/steeper gradient but shorter. Let's see:
King Ridge: 11 min, 61rpm @ 110% of FTP (after 2 hours)
Hauser bridge: 12 min, 69rpm @ 105% of FTP (after 3 hours)
Coleman Valley: 13 min, 64rpm @ 106% of FTP (after 4.5 hours)
In my last slightly hilly TT (25km) earlier this month my cadence was 96rpm @ 103% of FTP.
So even though I have had a significant reduction in max force ability, it still isn't anywhere near enough to prevent me from riding up steepish climbs (up to ~10% average) at or above my TT power even though my cadence drops to the 60's (as that's the gearing I had).
And that's because the force requirements, even at those cadences and powers, are still way sub-maximal.0 -
Oh, and one other thing I forgot to add. Someone (Jibberjim I think) mentioned that because efficiency is higher at low cadences (50-60rpm), that training at such cadences might in some way enable one to stress alternative "systems".
While it is true that low cadences are more efficient*, is true only at relatively lower power outputs. Once power output increases to and beyond threshold levels, the most efficient cadence range rises, typically to the 80-100 rpm range.
I would have thought that over gear work is something people are looking to perform at or above threshold power levels, so the argument that it would increase efficiency and target something else, is not well supported by the evidence.
Some references:
Foss O, and Hallen J. The most economical cadence increases with increasing workload. Eur J Appl Physiol 2004; 92: 443-451.
Lucia A, San Juan AF, Montilla M, et al. In professional road cyclists, low pedaling cadences are less efficient. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2004; 36: 1048-1054.
* Plenty of studies for low cadence is more efficient:
Banister EW, and Jackson RC. The effect of speed and load changes on oxygen intake for equivalent power outputs during bicycle ergometry. Int Z Angew Physiol 1967; 24: 284-290.
Chapman AE, and Sanderson DJ. Muscular co-ordination in sporting skills. In: Winters JM, and Woo SL-Y, ed. Multiple Muscle Systems: Biomechanics and Movement Organization. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990, p. 608-620.
Gaesser GA, and Brooks GA. Muscular efficiency during steady-rate exercise: effects of speed and work rate. J Appl Physiol 1975; 38: 1132-1139.
Marsh AP, and Martin PE. Effect of cycling experience, aerobic power, and power output on preferred and most economical cycling cadences. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1997; 29: 1225-1232.
Marsh AP, Martin PE, and Foley KO. Effect of cadence, cycling experience, and aerobic power on delta efficiency during cycling. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32: 1630-1634.
Takaishi T, Yamamoto T, Ono T, et al. Neuromuscular, metabolic, and kinetic adaptations for skilled pedaling performance in cyclists. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998; 30: 442-449.
Takaishi T, Yasuda Y, Ono T, et al. Optimal pedaling rate estimated from neuromuscular fatigue for cyclists. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1996; 28: 1492-1497.0 -
Pokerface wrote: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.
That isn't clear to me.
Are you saying that there IS some benefit to overgeared work if it relates to the type of riding you do? For instance, if you spend time doing climbs where you experience low cadence, high power-type efforts - will overgeared work replicate that effort?
Be clear if you can if there IS *ever* any benefit to doing overgeared training please.
Still don't have a clue.0 -
Focus on power and choose an appropriate gear.Pokerface wrote:Still don't have a clue.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Focus on power and choose an appropriate gear.Pokerface wrote:Still don't have a clue.
What makes a gear appropriate?0 -
One that enables you to perform the desired task most effectively. Only you will be able to determine that through experience and experimentation, but it's not that big a deal.Pokerface wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Focus on power and choose an appropriate gear.Pokerface wrote:Still don't have a clue.
What makes a gear appropriate?
For instance, for a sprinter in training, their flying 200m times will vary by maybe 0.1 seconds over a wide range of gears > 10-15" difference. Now of course in competition, 0.1sec is really important in qualifying, but by the time a sprinter gets to competition, you will know what gear works best for you. Or you should by that stage simply because you've done it enough times.
For TT, it's really easy. Use the ergo gear controller on your handlebars to choose one cog up/down and see how you feel banging out your TT power. When I ride I have no idea what gear I'm in. I just pedal and if it feels too big I go up a cog, too small and I go down a cog. Otherwise I just leave it and focus on going hard. Pretty simple really.0
