The role of cadence in performance
Comments
-
...none of which has anything to do with cadence. Why not start another thread about pedalling technique and show some evidence to support your ideas on the subject?0
-
Tom Dean wrote:...none of which has anything to do with cadence. Why not start another thread about pedalling technique and show some evidence to support your ideas on the subject?
Some would say technique is irrelevant and all that matters is power. This might have something to do with the power meter and software they like to use not measuring technique. Obree is keen on pedaling technique. Don't hear Coggan mention it often though.0 -
Maybe they just looked at the evidence? PMs with technique related data are on the way, no one seems to have shown that the information is of any use though.
My favourite recommendation in Obree's book is for sardines on toast with ketchup. I am converted.0 -
Trev The Rev wrote:You can't put the cart before the horse.
You're such a neigh-sayer.0 -
Tom Dean wrote:Maybe they just looked at the evidence? PMs with technique related data are on the way, no one seems to have shown that the information is of any use though.
My favourite recommendation in Obree's book is for sardines on toast with ketchup. I am converted.
Have faith, accept the words of others without question, and ignore the science.
Sounds similar to another load of old tosh..........0 -
Those very same PMs and software do generally measure cadence though, among other things. People use the information that is useful.Trev The Rev wrote:Some would say technique is irrelevant and all that matters is power. This might have something to do with the power meter and software they like to use not measuring technique.0 -
Tom Dean wrote:Maybe they just looked at the evidence? PMs with technique related data are on the way, no one seems to have shown that the information is of any use though.
My favourite recommendation in Obree's book is for sardines on toast with ketchup. I am converted.
As I said, you don't hear Coggan, who would have looked at any available evidence, talking much about pedaling technique.0 -
Power on a bike is the result of biochemical and neuromuscular functions resulting in coordinated muscle fibre contractions. Speed and force are simply means used to measure that power.Trev The Rev wrote:Power is only the result of force and cadence. If you improve your ability to press the pedals harder more often you increase FTP. You can't put the cart before the horse.0 -
Someone who uses appropriate gearing will treat this as an endurance event with peak force applied rarely if ever going into the red line and coping with sudden changes in pitch by increasing/decreasing revs while keeping force delivery smooth.
Someone who is geared too highly will effectively treat this a series on min/max sprint efforts and will hit frequent red lines, especially when sudden change of pitch forces a max effort just to keep the pedals turning.
FTFY0 -
twotyred wrote:Someone who uses appropriate gearing will treat this as an endurance event with peak force applied rarely if ever going into the red line and coping with sudden changes in pitch by increasing/decreasing revs while keeping force delivery smooth.
Someone who is geared too highly will effectively treat this a series on min/max sprint efforts and will hit frequent red lines, especially when sudden change of pitch forces a max effort just to keep the pedals turning.
FTFY
0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Power on a bike is the result of biochemical and neuromuscular functions resulting in coordinated muscle fibre contractions. Speed and force are simply means used to measure that power.Trev The Rev wrote:Power is only the result of force and cadence. If you improve your ability to press the pedals harder more often you increase FTP. You can't put the cart before the horse.
The brain can 'feel' biochemical and neuromuscular functions as well as cardiovascular functions; we can 'feel' very tiny increases or decreases in force and speed. We instinctively know if we are applying more force or more speed to the pedals. I also think we instinctively feel and know if we have improved fitness, it is just some of us do not allow those parts of our brain to communicate with the parts of our brain that thinks in numbers. We can instinctively pace ourselves by feel, but can easily lose this ability if we start to think in numbers rather than sensations. Muscles, lungs & hearts and the parts of the brain that 'manage' them do not understand or communicate in watts or algorithms. Feeling the messages our nervous system and 'reptilian brain' sends to our higher neomammalian brain tells us far more about how and when to train, rest or recover than watts data can.0 -
Trev The Rev wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Power on a bike is the result of biochemical and neuromuscular functions resulting in coordinated muscle fibre contractions. Speed and force are simply means used to measure that power.Trev The Rev wrote:Power is only the result of force and cadence. If you improve your ability to press the pedals harder more often you increase FTP. You can't put the cart before the horse.
The brain can 'feel' biochemical and neuromuscular functions as well as cardiovascular functions; we can 'feel' very tiny increases or decreases in force and speed. We instinctively know if we are applying more force or more speed to the pedals. I also think we instinctively feel and know if we have improved fitness, it is just some of us do not allow those parts of our brain to communicate with the parts of our brain that thinks in numbers. We can instinctively pace ourselves by feel, but can easily lose this ability if we start to think in numbers rather than sensations. Muscles, lungs & hearts and the parts of the brain that 'manage' them do not understand or communicate in watts or algorithms. Feeling the messages our nervous system and 'reptilian brain' sends to our higher neomammalian brain tells us far more about how and when to train, rest or recover than watts data can.
Trev,
I am going to have to stop you there. It is crucial to understand that human beings don't do reality when it comes to perception of performance, we may be confident that we are improving or not but we can not tell very well at all.
An analogy could be to have two objects of different shapes and weights - a shoe and a can of tuna for instance and the shoe is 10% heavier than the can of tuna. Now you could ask a 50 people who did not know the weights of either object to guess what one is heavier and about half of them would get it correct. Perhaps a more suitable example would to guess everyday or so the weight of an object that fluctuates several percent to see if it has gained or lost weight. Human perception is so so bad under these circumstances that you might as well be guessing even if you are very confident that you are correct - however a scale will keep you on track and must be used instead of guessing. You see this is exactly what happens to cyclists who train blindly without power and without knowing at all if they are improving or not even if they are very confident that they are correct - however a powermeter will keep you on track and must be used instead of guessing.
An accurate power reading is the ONLY method to accurately gauge power and to track physical progress. Human perception is absolutely not under any circumstances nearly accurate or consistent enough to detect moderate changes in performance and anyone thinking otherwise is quite frankly deluded. We are an amazing creature but accurate judgement is not our strong point and we must learn how to use technology which can help us tremendously and keep us on track.
Without wishing to offend you, there is so much wrong with what is written above and I can forgive you for having a lack of experience in this area, but a great deal more knowledge is required on your part before stating what you have done.
I assume I am correct in thinking that you are not experienced with power meters?
Murr X0 -
Mur X,
Humans can be bad at putting numbers on feel. But a tennis player will be able to tell if there is the slightest change in string tension or the weight of a ball. He will be able to tell the difference between a new and used ball by its flight. Fencers can judge distance to a fraction of an inch moving backwards or forwards at speed. Athletes in sports are very tuned to their equipment, how they feel and can pace themselves very accurately by feel.
I first used a power meter in 1982, the sort of thing used in labs but I forget the makes, and did many tests / sessions through the 1980s. I have trained with a power meter on and off since 1998, and tested several types.
I did once test a power meter which I could 'feel' was under reading power and I was subsequently proved correct.
I agree entirely that a power meter is the only way to measure watts but there are other ways of measuring performance. Although I would also agree a power meter is the best.
I am not advocating never testing power or performance accurately but I am saying you can learn a great deal by listening to and understanding what you 'feel'.
Ideally everyone would have an accurate power meter and they are a superb tool (when calibrated correctly and actually working properly). All I would ask you to do is consider looking at everything including feel rather than just numbers. You may well already do this.
If we sat down face to face we would probably agree on most things, sometimes I give the impression I don't agree with training with power, when what I really mean is I don't like the numbers being made the be all and end all of training & coaching.
Trev.0 -
I think my own ability to ride on feel has probably been improved by use of numbers. Having live power data has helped me to understand and interpret feel better, to calibrate it if you like.Trev The Rev wrote:... We can instinctively pace ourselves by feel, but can easily lose this ability if we start to think in numbers rather than sensations. ...0 -
fish156 wrote:
I think my own ability to ride on feel has probably been improved by use of numbers. Having live power data has helped me to understand and interpret feel better, to calibrate it if you like.Trev The Rev wrote:... We can instinctively pace ourselves by feel, but can easily lose this ability if we start to think in numbers rather than sensations. ...
Pithy Power Proverb: "Power calibrates PE, PE modulates power" - Charles Howe0 -
Out of interest what exactly do you mean by modulation? I only know the meaning in the context of sound, does it mean the same in relation to power etc, or does it have a different meaning in sports science terms?
I found with a power meter I got adept at learning what feelings = certain power numbers. In time I found the feelings to be more important than the number. Now I only use power meters for occasional accurate testing and I do better tests blind by feel.
I understand though that many may prefer to see power in watts at all times.0 -
Murr X wrote:
however a powermeter will keep you on track and must be used instead of guessing.
An accurate power reading is the ONLY method to accurately gauge power and to track physical progress.
Murr X
No it's not. There are many sports that do not use power measuring equipment and like cycling they measure their training and performance with the ability to lift more weight, do another rep, do more laps, hit a tennis ball faster, finish in a quicker time. They do not need to know what power was used to do this only that they improved upon exactly what they did prior. Cycling fitness is all about going faster and finishing in less time, you don't necessarily Must have a PM to note improvements. FACT.Team4Luke supports Cardiac Risk in the Young0 -
Problem with that is there are many non-fitness factors that affect speed as well. It's entirely possible to be less fit and go faster, or be more fit and go slower, so how do you account for those other non-fitness factors that affect speed? Some of those non-fitness factors can affect speed far more than fitness change might.Team4Luke wrote:Cycling fitness is all about going faster and finishing in less time
Cycling fitness is all about the power you can sustain for durations relevant to your goals/events (and also a function of that power relative to body mass). The issue then is how accurately is it necessary to measure that power in order to assess fitness changes?
Speed is one of the poorer means to measure power, except in special circumstances where speed can be used as a reasonable proxy for power, such as on a reliably consistent indoor trainer, or when climbing a steep hill - but I would put such power estimate numbers in the +/- 5-10% category, which is fine for the large gains when one is going from low fitness to good fitness, but inadequate when fitness is already reasonable and you are seeking to ascertain smaller changes.
Another issue is how important is it to know power precisely whilst training? That's a topic for another debate, and the answer is, it depends....0 -
I take its meaning as per a dictionary: "Exert a modifying or controlling influence on". Although to be fair, the author of the statement may have another view, but I doubt it.Trev The Rev wrote:Out of interest what exactly do you mean by modulation? I only know the meaning in the context of sound, does it mean the same in relation to power etc, or does it have a different meaning in sports science terms?0 -
The irony in this post is hilarious. How, for example, would someone know if they were lifting more weight without knowing how many kilograms are on the bar?Team4Luke wrote:
No it's not. There are many sports that do not use power measuring equipment and like cycling they measure their training and performance with the ability to lift more weight, do another rep, do more laps, hit a tennis ball faster, finish in a quicker time. They do not need to know what power was used to do this only that they improved upon exactly what they did prior. Cycling fitness is all about going faster and finishing in less time, you don't necessarily Must have a PM to note improvements. FACT.CAPTAIN BUCKFAST'S CYCLING TIPS - GUARANTEED TO WORK! 1 OUT OF 10 RACING CYCLISTS AGREE!0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Problem with that is there are many non-fitness factors that affect speed as well. It's entirely possible to be less fit and go faster, or be more fit and go slower, so how do you account for those other non-fitness factors that affect speed? Some of those non-fitness factors can affect speed far more than fitness change might.Team4Luke wrote:Cycling fitness is all about going faster and finishing in less time
Cycling fitness is all about the power you can sustain for durations relevant to your goals/events (and also a function of that power relative to body mass). The issue then is how accurately is it necessary to measure that power in order to assess fitness changes?
Speed is one of the poorer means to measure power, except in special circumstances where speed can be used as a reasonable proxy for power, such as on a reliably consistent indoor trainer, or when climbing a steep hill - but I would put such power estimate numbers in the +/- 5-10% category, which is fine for the large gains when one is going from low fitness to good fitness, but inadequate when fitness is already reasonable and you are seeking to ascertain smaller changes.
Another issue is how important is it to know power precisely whilst training? That's a topic for another debate, and the answer is, it depends....
Think we all agree a power meter is the best way to measure any improvements in power or performance. But it is possible to measure improvements in performance without one as long as you make sure you control variables.
I'm not sure these methods would be 5-10% out though, they could be if you did not control the variables well, but you can do much better than that, particularly indoors. I know this because I used power meters to test the methods.
If you can't afford or don't want to train with power, borrowing or getting a mate with a power meter to check your methods would be a good idea.
I don't think training with power is best for everyone, I prefer to train with no numbers whatever, not even PE numbers, or heart rate, or even a watch, entirely by feel. That is my personal choice, but I still like to do accurate tests to check on progress.0
