HR at different Cadences but same Power

Trev The Rev

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

But the goal is to produce more power, not to use less energy.

The goal is to sustain more power. So if a given power uses less energy at a certain cadence you should be able to sustain it longer and or sustain more power for the same energy.

You are confusing economy with performance.

You are confusing measuring power with improving it.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Trev The Rev wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

But the goal is to produce more power, not to use less energy.

The goal is to sustain more power. So if a given power uses less energy at a certain cadence you should be able to sustain it longer and or sustain more power for the same energy.

You are confusing economy with performance.

You are confusing measuring power with improving it.

No, I am not confused on that point.

But riding in a manner to increase economy does not automatically result in improving power (and hence performance).

Trev The Rev

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

The original poster asked about heart rate and rpm at a certain power. I would rather ride at the cadence that gives me the lowest heart rate for the highest sustainable power whatever that cadence might be.

I would rather they ride at a power level that elicits the desired adaptations and in a manner takes into account the specific event demands they are training for. HR has nothing to do with it.

Try riding a bike without a heart rate.



Why do we use gears if cadence is of no importance? Why is gear selection on the track so important if cadence does not matter?

Monitoring heart rate can help you establish your optimal cadence and gearing for a given power, be that power an all out effort on the track or sitting in the bunch conserving energy or a 5 minute climb. Only an idiot would ride up a climb at 350 watts at a cadence and in a gear which causes a higher than necessary heart rate. Particularly if he is on the limit of his sustainable power or heart rate. Only an idiot coach would not identify the cadence and gearing which enables the rider to deliver the most sustainable power.

Kerrison identified that Wiggins can sustain a higher power if he dropped his cadence slightly. If he had looked at power alone he would not have made this improvement.

Trev The Rev

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

No, I am not confused on that point.

But riding in a manner to increase economy does not automatically result in improving power (and hence performance).

Riding in a manner to increase economy might not automatically result in improved power and performance but it can. This is what Kerrison has done with Wiggins.

bernithebiker

May be useful to go back to basics here;

Power = Torque x Rotational speed.

Therefore, if you can push a super hard gear and generate lots of torque, great but power will be low if your cadence is low.

Likewise, spinning fast in an easy gear is low torque, high speed = average power.

Clearly the ideal is to able to push a hard gear fast.

Alot will come down to the type of rider; a light, flexible rider who has excellent cardiovascular performance (VO2 max, HR, etc.) would probably be better increasing cadence as his 'force' is limited.

A heavy, powerful rider, with lower heart/lung performance would be better off pushing hard at lower cadences.

There is no one size fits all.

But generally speaking, I find most beginner cyclists looking to go faster all make the same mistake; not enough cadence, they change down too late, and grind up hills. So I would say that for the average amateur, one should tend towards higher cadences, not lower.

Making comparisons with Wiggo is dangerous as we (well me certainly) are not anywhere near his league.

Trev The Rev

bernithebiker wrote:

May be useful to go back to basics here;

Power = Torque x Rotational speed.

Therefore, if you can push a super hard gear and generate lots of torque, great but power will be low if your cadence is low.

Likewise, spinning fast in an easy gear is low torque, high speed = average power.

Clearly the ideal is to able to push a hard gear fast.

Alot will come down to the type of rider; a light, flexible rider who has excellent cardiovascular performance (VO2 max, HR, etc.) would probably be better increasing cadence as his 'force' is limited.

A heavy, powerful rider, with lower heart/lung performance would be better off pushing hard at lower cadences.

There is no one size fits all.

But generally speaking, I find most beginner cyclists looking to go faster all make the same mistake; not enough cadence, they change down too late, and grind up hills. So I would say that for the average amateur, one should tend towards higher cadences, not lower.

Making comparisons with Wiggo is dangerous as we (well me certainly) are not anywhere near his league.

Agreed, I'm not advocating any particular cadence. I am advocating finding the cadence range which suits a particular rider. Obviously riders will be different and produce their best power over given times / distances at different cadences and gear ratios. My point is that if you look at power alone and are blind to cadences & heart rate you will not get the best possible performance out of the rider.

I use the Wiggin's comparison only to illustrate that by looking at cadence you can improve performance and that Kerrison sees cadence as something worth looking at.

bernithebiker

Indeed, cadence is a very important factor, as is HR, and of course power. All need to be considered together.

I had the impression (wrong, possibly) that you were implying that high cadences were something of a 'waste' of energy.

Whilst this would be true for excessive cadence, I believe that many amateur riders would benefit from slightly increasing cadence.

You only have to do a Marmotte or Etape du Tour to see hundreds of the slower cyclists grinding painfully up cols at cadences lower than 60 to get the idea.

Of course, there are MANY factors at play so it's hard to generalize - a very long ride would point to lowering the cadence a bit for example.

Trev The Rev

bernithebiker wrote:

Indeed, cadence is a very important factor, as is HR, and of course power. All need to be considered together.

I had the impression (wrong, possibly) that you were implying that high cadences were something of a 'waste' of energy.

Whilst this would be true for excessive cadence, I believe that many amateur riders would benefit from slightly increasing cadence.

You only have to do a Marmotte or Etape du Tour to see hundreds of the slower cyclists grinding painfully up cols at cadences lower than 60 to get the idea.

Of course, there are MANY factors at play so it's hard to generalize - a very long ride would point to lowering the cadence a bit for example.

I was trying to show that looking at power alone without looking at cadence, force and heart rate can give you a false picture. There is a tendency for the Power Meter Taliban to dismiss heart rate and cadence as unimportant. I was trying to show an example where the power meter data alone can be misleading.

I agree with you, many riders, particularly beginners would benefit from increasing cadence. I do not agree with those who dismiss cadence & heart rate as irrelevant.

Cadence and heart rate variance at a given power is normal and it is not of little consequence.

danowat

Trev The Rev wrote:

There is a tendency for the Power Meter Taliban to dismiss heart rate and cadence as unimportant.

Really?, where?

Trev The Rev

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Hurricane151 wrote:

Any thoughts or is is just a natural varience?

Pretty normal and of little consequence.

There for a start. You could also look at many threads on timetrialling forum where Coggan and his acolytes argued that heart rate was not relevant.

I also pointed out to Coggan that heart rate is clearly shown in his Training & Racing With A Power Meter Book. He replied that the heart rate data was included by Hunter Allen not him. I have been told on timetrialling forum that British Cycling don't even look at heart rate data only power. When I asked if this could be proved I was told yes it could by people who claim they work with British Cycling.

I'm not going to waste time searching threads on timetrialling forum seeing as I'm banned. But look for yourself. The power meter experts are very quick to disparage anyone who talks about cadence & heart rate. They claim it is not relevant and of little consequence.

danowat

Trev The Rev wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Hurricane151 wrote:

Any thoughts or is is just a natural varience?

Pretty normal and of little consequence.

There for a start.

Misrepresentation, and you know it.

Trev The Rev

danowat wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Hurricane151 wrote:

Any thoughts or is is just a natural varience?

Pretty normal and of little consequence.

There for a start.

Misrepresentation, and you know it.

Edit, just go on timetrialling forum, it is full of power meter propaganda.

Trev The Rev

danowat wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Hurricane151 wrote:

Any thoughts or is is just a natural varience?

Pretty normal and of little consequence.

There for a start.

Misrepresentation, and you know it.

Is it, remember this?

Alex Simmons
UCI Legal

Advanced

2,891 posts
Posted 06 July 2012 - 08:08 AM
danowat, on 05 July 2012 - 08:37 AM, said:
So my question is, how important is cadence?
Not overly.

danowat, on 05 July 2012 - 08:37 AM, said:
is it worth training to increase my cadence, and race at a higher cadence?
It's worth trying to increase your power. Focus on that as it is far more important.

bernithebiker

Saying 'focus on increasing your power' is kind of obvious, I would say.

You would have to be an idiot to not see that more power is a good thing.

BUT, how to achieve that? That is the question surely. Cadence is by definition a component of power, so you CANNOT ignore it!

(P = T x w)

Trev The Rev

bernithebiker wrote:

Saying 'focus on increasing your power' is kind of obvious, I would say.

You would have to be an idiot to not see that more power is a good thing.

BUT, how to achieve that? That is the question surely. Cadence is by definition a component of power, so you CANNOT ignore it!

(P = T x w)

Yet I was told this,

Quote:
Ric Stern/RST
UCI Legal

Advanced

2,590 posts
Posted 31 March 2012 - 09:04 AM
QUOTE (Trev The Rev @ Mar 30 2012, 11:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Can you prove that?

i'm sure Gav can ;-) (as Thomo mentioned). Gav also works with us. While we're not BC we do work with some national federations and coach a current world champion. i think (other than for shits & giggles) i stopped looking at HR data towards the end of the late 90s.

in talking with some elite athletes there are definitely some national federations that still use HR data. however, these athletes/federations lag significantly behind those that have embraced this "new" technology (and other new techs).

Ric
End Quote

And This
Quote
GZA
MTB

Advanced

567 posts
Posted 30 March 2012 - 09:55 AM
QUOTE (TarmacExpert @ Mar 30 2012, 10:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The thing that always amuses me is that this view seems very prevalent in cycling, where power is quite recent. It's as if the introduction of power has caused people to want to change something. But in other sports, such as swimming, where they have always had power (since pace substitutes for power in reproducible pool conditions) they still use HR (as well as pace).

I've spent alot of time running various projects in pools with our Olympic Swimmers in the past few years and have never seen a heart rate monitor in use.

QUOTE (Trev The Rev @ Mar 30 2012, 10:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Have you told Dave Brailsford and Bobby Julich and Shane Sutton those heart rate monitors they are using are a complete waste of money?

Athletes find them hard to give up, the analysts who use the data with the elite squad at BC never user HR. Fact.
End Quote:

So it would seem the elite squad at British Cycling never use Heart rate data,, and Rick Stern has not used heart rate data since the late 1990s.

Coggan also has no time for heart rate data,

Quote:
Andrew Coggan
MTB + Slicks

Advanced

1,164 posts
Posted 30 March 2012 - 10:49 AM

QUOTE (Trev The Rev @ Mar 30 2012, 04:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I am saying that monitoring your heart is just as important as ever.

I can't think of a single thing that knowing your heart rate tells you that knowing your power and your perceived exertion does not.

Andrew Coggan
MTB + Slicks

Advanced

1,164 posts
Posted 02 April 2012 - 04:35 PM
QUOTE (Trev The Rev @ Apr 2 2012, 07:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You forgot to mention your book - I read it again last night. You seem to show heart rate in most of the graphs from Training Peaks; if heart rate is so useless why include it?

I didn't provide those WKO+ plots. End Quote.

So the elite squad at British Cycling think heart rate is irrelevant and so does Dr Andrew Coggan and Ric Stern.

I think they are wrong.

Tom Dean

Confused now Trev. Should I base my training on anecdotes about Brad Wiggins or not?

Trev The Rev

Tom Dean wrote:

Confused now Trev. Should I base my training on anecdotes about Brad Wiggins or not?

No, but you might consider looking at your cadence. Kerrigan felt it was worth it with Wiggins.

Some might find this of interest.

Mora-Rodriguez et al. 2006
In a study published this month, a Spanish group (3) pretty much replicated the fundamental design of Foss and Hallen 2004. 9 elite amateur cyclists (racing as elite amateurs for at least 3 years) performed an increasing load test to exhaustion, beginning at 175 W and then increased 25 W every 3 min. This is similar to what you might do if you were tested for your lactate threshold in an exercise science lab.

Subjects repeated this test at a constant cadence of 80, 100, and 120 rpm, the same ones used by Foss and Hallen. Subjects also performed an initial test at their freely chosen cadence, which ended up averaging 89 rpm.

One of the primary results of this study demonstrated that gross efficiency (a basic measure of the total energy required) at 275 W was similar across the three cadences. In other words, it took the same amount of energy to pedal at 275 W at 80, 100, or 120 rpm. Heart rate was higher with increasing cadence though.

On the other hand, what did become impaired at 120 rpm compared with 80 and 100 rpm were the peak wattage at the point of exhaustion, the wattage at ventilatory threshold (where your breathing becomes laboured and inefficient), and a trend towards a lower wattage at lactate threshold.

So while cadence didn’t seem to impair performance at a high but submaximal wattage, it did seem to cause earlier “fatigue” when at maximal sustained effort. The authors hypothesized that this may be due to: 1) fatigue and greater energy required simply to move the legs at the higher speed (remember, while you may be pushing against less resistance with each pedal stroke, it costs more energy to move 120 times compared to 100 times even against no resistance), and 2) the higher speed of movement caused greater recruitment of fast-twitch muscle fibres, which are less efficient aerobically and produce more lactic acid.

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=4011

3. Mora-Rodriguez R and Aguado-Jimenez R. Performance at high pedaling cadences in well-trained cyclists. Med Sci Sports Exerc 38: 953-957, 2006.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Trev The Rev wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

The original poster asked about heart rate and rpm at a certain power. I would rather ride at the cadence that gives me the lowest heart rate for the highest sustainable power whatever that cadence might be.

I would rather they ride at a power level that elicits the desired adaptations and in a manner takes into account the specific event demands they are training for. HR has nothing to do with it.

Try riding a bike without a heart rate.



Why do we use gears if cadence is of no importance? Why is gear selection on the track so important if cadence does not matter?

Monitoring heart rate can help you establish your optimal cadence and gearing for a given power, be that power an all out effort on the track or sitting in the bunch conserving energy or a 5 minute climb. Only an idiot would ride up a climb at 350 watts at a cadence and in a gear which causes a higher than necessary heart rate. Particularly if he is on the limit of his sustainable power or heart rate. Only an idiot coach would not identify the cadence and gearing which enables the rider to deliver the most sustainable power.

Kerrison identified that Wiggins can sustain a higher power if he dropped his cadence slightly. If he had looked at power alone he would not have made this improvement.

Kerrison/Wiggin's comments (or at least how they are being quoted/used in this and similar threads) are a red herring.

Since you brought up the track, why do the best track pursuit and time trial riders use gears that are clearly way under the most efficient gear (i.e. gears that result is high cadences)? Using your logic, they must be idiots.

A: Because we are not concerned with economy, and instead we are concerned with speed/power.

I generally don't like car analogies, but in this case, if we are talking race cars in a drag race, the one that wins is the one that gets the power down best, not the one with the best fuel economy.

Using HR and power in the manner that you suggest as a marker of efficiency is significantly flawed.

mattshrops

I have recently been trying out different cadences whilst riding at or above ftp on the turbo.
My "normal" cadence is around 85rpm, and when doing a long ride i try to spin as much as poss.
However i have found it easier(RPE) to hold the power(at intervals >5mins) i was targetting by dropping my cadence by approx 5-10 rpm. Have to be honest i completely ignored my HR as i didnt feel it was all that relevant.
No doubt there is some correlation but that was not the object of the exercise.

Trev The Rev

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Kerrison/Wiggin's comments (or at least how they are being quoted/used in this and similar threads) are a red herring.

Since you brought up the track, why do the best track pursuit and time trial riders use gears that are clearly way under the most efficient gear (i.e. gears that result is high cadences)? Using your logic, they must be idiots.

A: Because we are not concerned with economy, and instead we are concerned with speed/power.

I generally don't like car analogies, but in this case, if we are talking race cars in a drag race, the one that wins is the one that gets the power down best, not the one with the best fuel economy.

Using HR and power in the manner that you suggest as a marker of efficiency is significantly flawed.

On the track in a pursuit or kilo or sprint or a time trial or a short road race, obviously economy is of no concern, maximum power is but over longer distances or for the cycle leg of a triathlon you might want to look at economy. Obviously you would choose a cadence which allows you to produce the most power. I am trying to point out that cadence is important and that looking at which cadence allows you to generate your best possible power is worthwhile.
I am not trying to argue that a lower cadence is always better because it obviously isn't. I am arguing that one cadence may be better over a given distance or at a certain power.

I at no point suggested a track rider would go faster using a lower cadence, if I gave that impression it was due to unclear phrasing. I also said monitoring heart rate 'can help'.

I was pointing out that claiming cadence is of no importance is wrong and using Wiggin's alleged lowering of his cadence for a time trial allowed him to improve his power.

I am well aware of the difficulties with heart rate not necessarily reflecting effort, a rider may generate the same power at 150bpm one day then at 155bpm. But I do argue that there is a point in monitoring heart rate.

For the record, whilst riding I pay more attention to my breathing than heart rate as this reflects effort better. I still find the heart rate info useful & interesting. If it is true British Cycling elite coaches never look at heart rate I would suggest they have ways of measuring certain things that are not available to mere mortals.

All I can see that we disagree on is you think there is no point in looking at cadence and heart rate. I think you should look at cadence and heart rate, although I agree heart rate is an unreliable measure of effort.

I use the Wiggins example only to show that he and Kerrison do look at it. I would also add that if you are looking at power and gearing you are also looking at cadence anyway. I take it you don't send athletes out on the track in any old gear? You work out which gearing allows them to generate the most power so you are looking at cadence. Cadence is important.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Trev The Rev wrote:

On the track in a pursuit or kilo or sprint or a time trial or a short road race, obviously economy is of no concern, maximum power is but over longer distances or for the cycle leg of a triathlon you might want to look at economy. Obviously you would choose a cadence which allows you to produce the most power. I am trying to point out that cadence is important and that looking at which cadence allows you to generate your best possible power is worthwhile.
I am not trying to argue that a lower cadence is always better because it obviously isn't. I am arguing that one cadence may be better over a given distance or at a certain power.

I at no point suggested a track rider would go faster using a lower cadence, if I gave that impression it was due to unclear phrasing. I also said monitoring heart rate 'can help'.

I was pointing out that claiming cadence is of no importance is wrong and using Wiggin's alleged lowering of his cadence for a time trial allowed him to improve his power.

I am well aware of the difficulties with heart rate not necessarily reflecting effort, a rider may generate the same power at 150bpm one day then at 155bpm. But I do argue that there is a point in monitoring heart rate.

For the record, whilst riding I pay more attention to my breathing than heart rate as this reflects effort better. I still find the heart rate info useful & interesting. If it is true British Cycling elite coaches never look at heart rate I would suggest they have ways of measuring certain things that are not available to mere mortals.

All I can see that we disagree on is you think there is no point in looking at cadence and heart rate. I think you should look at cadence and heart rate, although I agree heart rate is an unreliable measure of effort.

I use the Wiggins example only to show that he and Kerrison do look at it. I would also add that if you are looking at power and gearing you are also looking at cadence anyway. I take it you don't send athletes out on the track in any old gear? You work out which gearing allows them to generate the most power so you are looking at cadence. Cadence is important.

I'm not the one that brought the track into it (you did), nor did I brought cadence into the discussion nor say whether or not it's important.

My observation was that the fact that the OP observed a different HR when riding at similar power at different cadences was normal and of little consequence provided they trained in a manner to improve power and that met the specificity demands of their goal events.

So far in this thread we are told that in order to conserve oneself we should:
(i) pedal at a lower, more efficient rate to be economical and therefore spare glycogen, and
(ii) pedal at a high rate in order to save our legs for the sprint.

You can't have your cake and eat it, but then perhaps this is the new cadence duality theory.

The most important influence by far when it comes to sparing glycogen and saving our legs for the sprint is reducing power output as much as one can, often best done in road races by avoiding pedalling and soft pedalling as much as possible (usually by careful positioning and knowing how to navigate in a group/race with a minimum of effort).

Trev The Rev

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

On the track in a pursuit or kilo or sprint or a time trial or a short road race, obviously economy is of no concern, maximum power is but over longer distances or for the cycle leg of a triathlon you might want to look at economy. Obviously you would choose a cadence which allows you to produce the most power. I am trying to point out that cadence is important and that looking at which cadence allows you to generate your best possible power is worthwhile.
I am not trying to argue that a lower cadence is always better because it obviously isn't. I am arguing that one cadence may be better over a given distance or at a certain power.

I at no point suggested a track rider would go faster using a lower cadence, if I gave that impression it was due to unclear phrasing. I also said monitoring heart rate 'can help'.

I was pointing out that claiming cadence is of no importance is wrong and using Wiggin's alleged lowering of his cadence for a time trial allowed him to improve his power.

I am well aware of the difficulties with heart rate not necessarily reflecting effort, a rider may generate the same power at 150bpm one day then at 155bpm. But I do argue that there is a point in monitoring heart rate.

For the record, whilst riding I pay more attention to my breathing than heart rate as this reflects effort better. I still find the heart rate info useful & interesting. If it is true British Cycling elite coaches never look at heart rate I would suggest they have ways of measuring certain things that are not available to mere mortals.

All I can see that we disagree on is you think there is no point in looking at cadence and heart rate. I think you should look at cadence and heart rate, although I agree heart rate is an unreliable measure of effort.

I use the Wiggins example only to show that he and Kerrison do look at it. I would also add that if you are looking at power and gearing you are also looking at cadence anyway. I take it you don't send athletes out on the track in any old gear? You work out which gearing allows them to generate the most power so you are looking at cadence. Cadence is important.

I'm not the one that brought the track into it (you did), nor did I brought cadence into the discussion nor say whether or not it's important.

My observation was that the fact that the OP observed a different HR when riding at similar power at different cadences was normal and of little consequence provided they trained in a manner to improve power and that met the specificity demands of their goal events.

So far in this thread we are told that in order to conserve oneself we should:
(i) pedal at a lower, more efficient rate to be economical and therefore spare glycogen, and
(ii) pedal at a high rate in order to save our legs for the sprint.

You can't have your cake and eat it, but then perhaps this is the new cadence duality theory.

The most important influence by far when it comes to sparing glycogen and saving our legs for the sprint is reducing power output as much as one can, often best done in road races by avoiding pedalling and soft pedalling as much as possible (usually by careful positioning and knowing how to navigate in a group/race with a minimum of effort).

Alex,

You leave out the force applied to the various cadences, so there is no dual cadence theory.
It is well known that sprinters in a road race will try to spin to conserve their fast twitch muscle power for the sprint. Obviously they are conserving power whenever possible. Wiggins has reduced his cadence but increased his force & thus power for time trials. Cadence is worth looking at. Cavendish might spin at a high cadence but low force to conserve his legs for the sprint.

So do you agree cadence is important or not? Do you agree heart rate is important or not?

Trev.

Alex_Simmons/RST

If you consider the forces and cadence, then you are simply considering power.

Is cadence or HR important? Important for what?
Having a heart rate > 0 is pretty handy.

Trev The Rev

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

If you consider the forces and cadence, then you are simply considering power.

Is cadence or HR important? Important for what?
Having a heart rate > 0 is pretty handy.

But you can produce a given power at different forces and cadences. I'm interested in the forces, the cadence, and how best to use them to get the best power, not simply considering a power number. If you look only at the power number and ignore the force and cadence you are looking only at the result.

trickydisco

ever thought about getting out a bit more Trev

Alex_Simmons/RST

Trev The Rev wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

If you consider the forces and cadence, then you are simply considering power.

Is cadence or HR important? Important for what?
Having a heart rate > 0 is pretty handy.

But you can produce a given power at different forces and cadences. I'm interested in the forces, the cadence, and how best to use them to get the best power, not simply considering a power number. If you look only at the power number and ignore the force and cadence you are looking only at the result.

Then I recommend performing a quadrant analysis - as described in this item:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/2009/ ... lysis.html

as a starting point, then you might need to consider power expansion pathways as described by Robert Chung.

ric/rstsport

Yawn! Shock news, Trev talks utter plums. Yo, Trev it's "Ric" not "Rick" and to you it's Mr Stern.

Trev The Rev

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

Yawn! Shock news, Trev talks utter plums. Yo, Trev it's "Ric" not "Rick" and to you it's Mr Stern.

I am not the only person on here who argues cadence & heart rate is important. Are they also talking plums?

ric/rstsport

Everyone knows you talk plums Trev. In fact you frequently admit this (winding people up). <ending this communication with the plums talker>

Trev The Rev

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

Everyone knows you talk plums Trev. In fact you frequently admit this (winding people up). <ending this communication with the plums talker>

I wind up people who deserve it yes.