One section in todays ride made me pay dearly

Sunderland Supporter

Earlier in the week I went out on a 27 mile loop, which I paced myself nicely on, and finished with legs as strong as an ox . When I checked my bike pc it showed I averaged 19 mph and I was happy with that. Today I went out on an extended loop which incorporates sections of the other loop but is 43 miles. About 2/3 rds of the way into this loop there is a steeper climb section which is about 1.5 miles until its crest is reached. I selected the 34 teeth front cog and selected a low gear and set about higher cadence spinning to the crest. I reckon I was spinning about 95 rpm all the way up. I made it up easy enough, but afterwards I could feel the toll it had taken in my thigh muscles. It cost me a lot of power turning the cranks and the final stretch of the loop was compromised. When I checked the computer, id covered the 43 miles in a lousy average of 17.6 mph :x There are plenty of hilly bits on the ride, including the one I know crocked my thighs , but 17.6 mph avg is pretty disappointing for me.

I could have gotten out of the saddle and used higher gears , but past experience tells me this can be a leg shagger too. What is a guy to do then ? If a section is 1.5 miles of climbing, how would you approach it with the emphasis of conserving leg strength being paramount ?

RoadMeridaBen

Sunderland Supporter wrote:

Earlier in the week I went out on a 27 mile loop, which I paced myself nicely on, and finished with legs as strong as an ox . When I checked my bike pc it showed I averaged 19 mph and I was happy with that. Today I went out on an extended loop which incorporates sections of the other loop but is 43 miles. About 2/3 rds of the way into this loop there is a steeper climb section which is about 1.5 miles until its crest is reached. I selected the 34 teeth front cog and selected a low gear and set about higher cadence spinning to the crest. I reckon I was spinning about 95 rpm all the way up. I made it up easy enough, but afterwards I could feel the toll it had taken in my thigh muscles. It cost me a lot of power turning the cranks and the final stretch of the loop was compromised. When I checked the computer, id covered the 43 miles in a lousy average of 17.6 mph :x There are plenty of hilly bits on the ride, including the one I know crocked my thighs , but 17.6 mph avg is pretty disappointing for me.

I could have gotten out of the saddle and used higher gears , but past experience tells me this can be a leg shagger too. What is a guy to do then ? If a section is 1.5 miles of climbing, how would you approach it with the emphasis of conserving leg strength being paramount ?

17.6 poor average? Your going to get some flames for this im guessing lol

ddraver

There is no secret to climbing - Power vs Weight and fitness are all it is....Sucks does nt it!

Sunderland Supporter

RoadMeridaBen wrote:

Sunderland Supporter wrote:

Earlier in the week I went out on a 27 mile loop, which I paced myself nicely on, and finished with legs as strong as an ox . When I checked my bike pc it showed I averaged 19 mph and I was happy with that. Today I went out on an extended loop which incorporates sections of the other loop but is 43 miles. About 2/3 rds of the way into this loop there is a steeper climb section which is about 1.5 miles until its crest is reached. I selected the 34 teeth front cog and selected a low gear and set about higher cadence spinning to the crest. I reckon I was spinning about 95 rpm all the way up. I made it up easy enough, but afterwards I could feel the toll it had taken in my thigh muscles. It cost me a lot of power turning the cranks and the final stretch of the loop was compromised. When I checked the computer, id covered the 43 miles in a lousy average of 17.6 mph :x There are plenty of hilly bits on the ride, including the one I know crocked my thighs , but 17.6 mph avg is pretty disappointing for me.

I could have gotten out of the saddle and used higher gears , but past experience tells me this can be a leg shagger too. What is a guy to do then ? If a section is 1.5 miles of climbing, how would you approach it with the emphasis of conserving leg strength being paramount ?

17.6 poor average? Your going to get some flames for this im guessing lol

I dont follow you Ben. :?

Im not one of the lucky guys who belt out 21 mph avg , but Im usually a lot quicker than 17.6

Any thoughts on the original question about leg strength conservation and climbing efficiency ?

brucey72

I know the answer but as a Newcastle fan I'm afraid that I'm unable to help you ;-)

Sunderland Supporter

ddraver wrote:

There is no secret to climbing - Power vs Weight and fitness are all it is....Sucks does nt it!

Say I shed 7 lbs in weight, could I realistically expect to see a tangible improvement in climbing efficiency even if Im turning the cranks with the same effort ?

Sunderland Supporter

brucey72 wrote:

I know the answer but as a Newcastle fan I'm afraid that I'm unable to help you ;-)

Everything Martin O`Neill touches turns to solid gold, maybe I should send him an email and seek his advice

sub55

emphasis of conserving leg strength being paramount

whats strength got to do with it

Sunderland Supporter

sub55 wrote:

emphasis of conserving leg strength being paramount

whats strength got to do with it

care to expand ?

sub55

Sunderland Supporter wrote:

sub55 wrote:

emphasis of conserving leg strength being paramount

whats strength got to do with it

care to expand ?

cycling performance has nothing to do with strength

RoadMeridaBen

Hills are bound to affect your average especially one of about 1.5 miles on length, bikehike the route so we can have a look.
And I doubt there are many belting out averages of 21 on a regular basis! :P

springtide9

Arh.. have I missed something?


It seems to me a bit of a misunderstanding about average speed? (and why it's 'mostly' a worthless measurement) You seem to expect to have the same average speed over a hilly route compared to a flat route? Maybe I missed the point... please explain..??

Sunderland Supporter

When I say that the climbing had a large impact on my thigh muscles, I forgot to point out that it made the FRONT of them feel like lead weights whilst the back were absolutely fine. I found I just couldnt push through the cranks with the same leverage and power as I had been doing before the hill section that caused the issue. I know sod all about sports biology, but what is it that can have such a big effect on front thigh muscles ?

Sunderland Supporter

springtide9 wrote:

You seem to expect to have the same average speed over a hilly route compared to a flat route? .??

eh........................no :roll: , bit patronising in your question mate

ben16v

heres a pro doing the stage of last weeks tireno adriatico race
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/157898000
avr speed yup you guessed it 21mph - so i dont think you need beat yourself up over it

ShutUpLegs

I'm guessing this ride was done on your mountain bike with slicks on?

mikeeye

Did you eat during either ride? I'm just wondering if it could be down to running out of glycogen stores on the second ride which lasted 1 hr longer than the first. 1.4mph difference in average doesn't seem that much to me.

I have my Garmin set to do 10km 'laps' so I can see how my performace changes over the ride. On a ride where I run out of energy stores due to poor eating there can be a significant drop off in speed for the later laps.

RoadMeridaBen

Basically climbing will fatigue your legs its a well known thing, I dont know why you are so shocked about it.

Ber Nard

Sunderland Supporter wrote:

brucey72 wrote:

I know the answer but as a Newcastle fan I'm afraid that I'm unable to help you ;-)

Everything Martin O`Neill touches turns to solid gold, maybe I should send him an email and seek his advice

And everything he turns his back on turns to dog sh!t.

Rob (bitter Villa fan).

kayakerchris

Ok, I will bite.

The muscles at the front of your legs are the quadriceps and are the main muscles used for riding. You either have fast twitch fibres or slow twitch fibres and whilst to some extent this is determined before birth it is trainable to an extent.

Power is force times distance. Distance is measured(roughly) as number of pedal turns per minute or cadence. So if you have a power output of 300W at a cadence of 100 and you drop your cadence to 50, to maintain the 300W you will have to double how hard you push (force).

However we tend to get into bad habits as weekend warriors and pedal with a slow cadence but lots of force. The pros pedal with a high cadence 90-105 and lower force.

i suspect that you are used to riding with high force and relatively low cadence, so spinning up the hill was a very strange exercise for your legs and therefore tired them out quickly.

I would suggest spending the next few weeks practising a cadence of >85 on all occasions and see what happens next time you are out.

I am not a great cyclist but have spent some time on the turbo over the winter upping my cadence and it now feels very strange to be pedalling at 75 on anything less than a big climb.

cje

It's a good average, so well done for that. I often find myself going quicker after big climbs. Either through warming-up, or the psychological thing of having overcome the hardest part of the ride.

team47b

kayakerchris wrote:

Ok, I will bite.

The muscles at the front of your legs are the quadriceps and are the main muscles used for riding. You either have fast twitch fibres or slow twitch fibres and whilst to some extent this is determined before birth it is trainable to an extent.

Power is force times distance. Distance is measured(roughly) as number of pedal turns per minute or cadence. So if you have a power output of 300W at a cadence of 100 and you drop your cadence to 50, to maintain the 300W you will have to double how hard you push (force).

However we tend to get into bad habits as weekend warriors and pedal with a slow cadence but lots of force. The pros pedal with a high cadence 90-105 and lower force.

i suspect that you are used to riding with high force and relatively low cadence, so spinning up the hill was a very strange exercise for your legs and therefore tired them out quickly.

I would suggest spending the next few weeks practising a cadence of >85 on all occasions and see what happens next time you are out.

I am not a great cyclist but have spent some time on the turbo over the winter upping my cadence and it now feels very strange to be pedalling at 75 on anything less than a big climb.

So refreshing to see something that makes so much sense. thank you.

RoadMeridaBen

The answer in short then is to go faster up the hills to keep your average up and ride through the pain for the remainder of the ride!

sub55

team47b wrote:

kayakerchris wrote:

Ok, I will bite.

The muscles at the front of your legs are the quadriceps and are the main muscles used for riding. You either have fast twitch fibres or slow twitch fibres and whilst to some extent this is determined before birth it is trainable to an extent.

Power is force times distance. Distance is measured(roughly) as number of pedal turns per minute or cadence. So if you have a power output of 300W at a cadence of 100 and you drop your cadence to 50, to maintain the 300W you will have to double how hard you push (force).

However we tend to get into bad habits as weekend warriors and pedal with a slow cadence but lots of force. The pros pedal with a high cadence 90-105 and lower force.

i suspect that you are used to riding with high force and relatively low cadence, so spinning up the hill was a very strange exercise for your legs and therefore tired them out quickly.

I would suggest spending the next few weeks practising a cadence of >85 on all occasions and see what happens next time you are out.

I am not a great cyclist but have spent some time on the turbo over the winter upping my cadence and it now feels very strange to be pedalling at 75 on anything less than a big climb.

So refreshing to see something that makes so much sense. thank you.

Dont know about that :?

Cadence is a red herring, it does not matter. Ride in a gear that is comfortable for you .

The reason the OP felt fatigued is that he pushed it to the limit of his fitness. Good for him, it will do him no harm.
We all have our limits and if you want to be quicker, thats just what you need to do.

fosst

Cadence is a red herring and leg strength doesn't matter??? So THAT'S where Fabien's electric motor went!

If you want another opinion, leg strength (effort) X rpm (cadence) is what is it all about. Fitness allows you to apply the power for longer. Say you're at the bottom, and stationary, a 30% hill and stuck in 53X11. If you're strong you will go forward, but if you are not fit then you won't go very far. Being fit and strong will get you to the top. Gears help out if you are not strong, nothing but hard work helps fitness.

Answering an earlier question: losing weight but applying the same effort = going faster. Because the weight loss means the same effort will show up either as faster cadence or using a higher gear.
Not science, but it works for me.

Crimmey

Really don't get too cut up about it. You have good days and bad days and for most of the time you don't know what you will have. I've gone totally all out on hills expecting that to be it for the ride but carried on stronger than ever and other times totally blew up. Go with the flow.

sub55

fosst wrote:

Cadence is a red herring and leg strength doesn't matter??? So THAT'S where Fabien's electric motor went!

If you want another opinion, leg strength (effort) X rpm (cadence) is what is it all about. Fitness allows you to apply the power for longer. Say you're at the bottom, and stationary, a 30% hill and stuck in 53X11. If you're strong you will go forward, but if you are not fit then you won't go very far. Being fit and strong will get you to the top. Gears help out if you are not strong, nothing but hard work helps fitness.

Answering an earlier question: losing weight but applying the same effort = going faster. Because the weight loss means the same effort will show up either as faster cadence or using a higher gear.
Not science, but it works for me.

no
Strength : sit on a dining chair , stand up using one leg. You have enough strength in that one leg to lift your body weight. If you`re sitting on a saddle , you have more strength than you can use.
Cadence : as you become fitter and more experience , your cadence will naturally rise within sensible boundaries. This is because your cardiovascular system develops and provides your muscles with more hemoglobin. Allowing you to maintain the effort for longer. or more effort for the same duration

desweller

Lactic acid anyone?

rake

but more leg strength will help you push hugher gears for longer waint it, even at high cadence. more muscle is more weight.

andrewjoseph

rake wrote:

but more leg strength will help you push hugher gears for longer waint it, even at high cadence. more muscle is more weight.

?? are you suggesting losing muscle?? you even contradict yourself.

more leg and lower body muscle should give more power. massively built up arms and upper torso may mean excess weight, but no need to be drastic about leisure riders.

springtide9

Sunderland Supporter wrote:

springtide9 wrote:

You seem to expect to have the same average speed over a hilly route compared to a flat route? .??

eh........................no :roll: , bit patronising in your question mate

Sorry didn't mean to come across as "patronising". You stated:

Earlier in the week I went out on a 27 mile loop, which I paced myself nicely on, and finished with legs as strong as an ox . When I checked my bike pc it showed I averaged 19 mph and I was happy with that. Today I went out on an extended loop which incorporates sections of the other loop but is 43 miles. About 2/3 rds of the way into this loop there is a steeper climb section which is about 1.5 miles until its crest is reached.

You've increased the distance by 60% and have added a decent hill. TBH you haven't given much info to go on.
If the hill in big enough (as in height) to mean it's slowed your average pace down by a considerable amount, you will need to average more than 19mph for the rest of the ride to bring it back up again.
And if you pushed harder than usual on the hill, the it will be much harder to increase your pace for the rest of the ride (and as you suggested, probably slowed you down)

19mph average is a decent pace for a 30 miler, so a bit surprised how you've got this far without more experience of the impact of adding a decent hills into the ride, as well as other factors, such as road surface, wind etc (as well as the fact the distance increased by 60%)