14 weeks to the Marmotte; what can/should I focus on?
Comments
-
Wallace and Gromit wrote:JGSI wrote:I think I have to agree with this... 6 pages and ultimately we seem to have gotten to the conclusion that to get up the Glandon.. Galibier at a speed that fully exploits your potential etc etc you need to
pedal efficiently
apparently
:roll:
I think this revised (in bold) version of your post is more accurate, though this is just my personal view.
Actually I can go with this...
the main time you actually become inefficient - to use an old expression pedal in squares is when
you are knackered
so work on your aerobic fitness so you dont get knackered so quickly
0 -
Sorry but this is totally wrong. You need to back it up with evidence.bernithebiker wrote:If you're going to dish out advice, I think you need to back it up with credentials of some kind, after all, would you listen to cycling advice from a rank beginner?
It's important to clarify where you are in the cycling hierarchy or confusion results from a v.good rider giving inappropriate advice to a beginner and vice versa.
The quality of someone's advice does not depend on how 'good' a rider they are.0 -
JGSI wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:JGSI wrote:I think I have to agree with this... 6 pages and ultimately we seem to have gotten to the conclusion that to get up the Glandon.. Galibier at a speed that fully exploits your potential etc etc you need to
pedal efficiently
apparently
:roll:
I think this revised (in bold) version of your post is more accurate, though this is just my personal view.
Actually I can go with this...
the main time you actually become inefficient - to use an old expression pedal in squares is when
you are knackered
so work on your aerobic fitness so you dont get knackered so quickly
I've come up with a revolutionary new theory...
To maximise your potential you need to work on both fitness and technique. I wonder if this will catch on?
0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:I've come up with a revolutionary new theory...
To maximise your potential you need to work on both fitness and technique. I wonder if this will catch on?
The fitness bit caught on ages ago, because there's loads of evidence to support it. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the technique bit. Unless you count Bahzob's awesomeness as 'evidence'...0 -
Tom Dean wrote:
Sorry but this is totally wrong. You need to back it up with evidence.bernithebiker wrote:If you're going to dish out advice, I think you need to back it up with credentials of some kind, after all, would you listen to cycling advice from a rank beginner?
It's important to clarify where you are in the cycling hierarchy or confusion results from a v.good rider giving inappropriate advice to a beginner and vice versa.
The quality of someone's advice does not depend on how 'good' a rider they are.
You've missed my point.
What I mean is that confusion can result when a highly experienced rider gives advice to a beginner, like 'focus on your 1 hour FTP and keep cadence above 90', when all the beginner really needs is just to be comfortable on the bike for 3 hours + and be able to complete the course.
By stating your level, (beginner and Cat 1 alike) this kind of thing can be avoided.0 -
Imposter wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:I've come up with a revolutionary new theory...
To maximise your potential you need to work on both fitness and technique. I wonder if this will catch on?
The fitness bit caught on ages ago, because there's loads of evidence to support it. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the technique bit. Unless you count Bahzob's awesomeness as 'evidence'...
So you just have to be fit? Cadence, seat height, stem length, nutrition, gearing, aero, tactics, pedal style, etc. don't count for anything?0 -
bernithebiker wrote:So you just have to be fit? Cadence, seat height, stem length, nutrition, gearing, aero, tactics, pedal style, etc. don't count for anything?
Do you move goal posts for a living ??0 -
nevman wrote:Glasgowbhoy wrote:Having ridden it in 2011 I'd focus on 1 hour - 2 hour efforts at just below threshold which will simulate the climbs on the day. Get out and ride as many 60-100+ mile hilly routes as you can and maybe some sportive events in the next couple of months too. Hope you get round ok. It's still one of the toughest days on a bike I've had. The heat was my biggest limiter
This-I rode the 2011 and it was 35C that day.Below threshold works if you want to finish.Good luck and stay safe.
Assuming anyone on else here agrees with the "focus on 1 hour - 2 hour efforts at just below threshold" comment, what is "just below" threshold? Is it 90%+ of FTP or something lower?0 -
Imposter wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:I've come up with a revolutionary new theory...
To maximise your potential you need to work on both fitness and technique. I wonder if this will catch on?
The fitness bit caught on ages ago, because there's loads of evidence to support it. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the technique bit. Unless you count Bahzob's awesomeness as 'evidence'...
Maybe it hasn't in cycling in general. Though one wonders why anyone bothered inventing a compact or now that they have been invented why the gears are being re-engineered to take bigger and bigger cogs at the back. I thought it was because they enabled the masses to pedal at more efficient cadences, along with saving their knees and backs.
Similarly, why did Wiggo get laughed at by the Sky detractors for being over-geared on the Angliru in 2011?
Or why did Berto get his mechanic to build him a rear cassette with an extra low gear on it prior to a key mountain stage in the 2008 Giro?
Anyway, it's nearly beer o'clock, so I'm done here. Happy riding this weekend, everyone!0 -
The quality of someone's advice does not depend on how 'good' a rider they are.
Exactly. For example British Cycling actively look outside of cycling for coaches.
I have no problem with people of any riding standard posting advice or ideas here. If they have evidence for it then great. If they don't then I'll make a judgement whether its a) makes sense and b) makes sense for me to use it. I might even challenge them on it and I would expect them to engage in a reasonable discussion whether they think I'm a good cyclist or not. Responding to a challenge by saying that my opinion or argument is worthless because they are a better cyclist than me and therefore they must be right is a nice definition of arrogance.0 -
bernithebiker wrote:Tom Dean wrote:
Sorry but this is totally wrong. You need to back it up with evidence.bernithebiker wrote:If you're going to dish out advice, I think you need to back it up with credentials of some kind, after all, would you listen to cycling advice from a rank beginner?
It's important to clarify where you are in the cycling hierarchy or confusion results from a v.good rider giving inappropriate advice to a beginner and vice versa.
The quality of someone's advice does not depend on how 'good' a rider they are.
You've missed my point.
What I mean is that confusion can result when a highly experienced rider gives advice to a beginner, like 'focus on your 1 hour FTP and keep cadence above 90', when all the beginner really needs is just to be comfortable on the bike for 3 hours + and be able to complete the course.
By stating your level, (beginner and Cat 1 alike) this kind of thing can be avoided.
No, I think I understand. On your second point, if you mean that advice should suit the individual's level of riding, I agree.
On the first point though, The advice is either valid or it isn't. It make no difference who it comes from. Yes, I would listen to a beginner because I want to understand the idea being put across, and make my own judgement on its merits.
If you would rather blindly accept a person's word, based on some judgement you make about that person, go ahead. If I were to put my trust in a person in this way, I would want to base it on a bit more than their claim to be a 'good bike rider'.0 -
I see that many on here are still 'thumbing their noses' at each other...
Interesting that no one in this 'discussion' has made any reference to that paper I cited earlier. That is:INFLUENCE OF PEDALING TECHNIQUE ON METABOLIC EFFICIENCY IN ELITE CYCLISTS.
Biol. Sport 2012;29:229-233
DOI: 10.5604/20831862.1003448
This study measured the average and peak torque values for elite cyclists working at threshold and found that the longer the torque was applied (effectively meaning on the down stroke) the greater the Gross Efficiency (GE) "the ratio of how much mechanical work is produced compared to the overall metabolic energy expended". That is, 'simply pushing harder', so maximizing the peak torque generated, was much a less efficient strategy than that adopted by those riders who instead applied the torque through a longer proportion of the pedaling stroke. The difference measured was significant, with those who applied a more sustained application of torque achieving GE values in excess of 22%, as opposed to those with what might be called a 'punchier' pedaling style, whose GE was nearer 19%. Their conclusion?…the lack of a significant relationship between the Tmax and the GE suggest that at the power outputs at which the LT and OBLA were produced, increases in GE are associated to increments in torque applied throughout the whole pedal revolution and not to increases in the maximum torque during the downward phase of the crank cycle.
Surely the 'discussion' should be focused on finding such as this?"an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
Imposter wrote:bernithebiker wrote:So you just have to be fit? Cadence, seat height, stem length, nutrition, gearing, aero, tactics, pedal style, etc. don't count for anything?
Do you move goal posts for a living ??
And how are the goal posts being moved, given that those items in bold in particular have a direct influence on one's pedaling style?"an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
Tom Dean wrote:
No, I think I understand. On your second point, if you mean that advice should suit the individual's level of riding, I agree.
On the first point though, The advice is either valid or it isn't. It make no difference who it comes from. Yes, I would listen to a beginner because I want to understand the idea being put across, and make my own judgement on its merits.
If you would rather blindly accept a person's word, based on some judgement you make about that person, go ahead. If I were to put my trust in a person in this way, I would want to base it on a bit more than their claim to be a 'good bike rider'.
Yes, we agree on my 2nd point.
On the 1st point, I would tend to drift towards the opinion of the lucid Cat 1 rider with plenty of mountain experience, than that of a rank beginner with none. This does not necessarily mean the Cat 1 rider is totally right, or a good coach; as has been previously mentioned good coaches are not necessarily excellent bike riders (but it helps!).
Bahzob is clearly a highly competent rider that has steadily improved his climbing. I think it would be foolish of me to totally ignore everything he is saying......I am keen to improve, and if I can glean a few extra watts with tips that work, then I'll grab them willingly. If it doesn't work, I've lost nothing.0 -
BenderRodriguez wrote:Surely the 'discussion' should be focused on finding such as this?
True, but I think part of the problem is this 'Korff' study which suggests the opposite, which therefore splits threads like these into two camps.0 -
Interesting that no one in this 'discussion' has made any reference to that paper I cited earlier.
I'll bite Bender.
There may well be something in extending the size of crank angle over which force is applied but as you say we're in the world of difficult to prove marginal gains especially if you are already running appropriate gearing and aren't overtly mashing the pedals. Actually I've never disagreed that there may be some gain to be had from working on pedalling smoothness I just questioned the size of it and the priority it should be given by an amateur rider vs improving fitness and sustainable power and was pounced on and rubbished because I had dared to suggest someones pet theory might not be as important as they thought it was.it would seem logical to conclude that the almost universally 'smooth' style of pro cyclists when riding at their limits is likely to be one factor that contributes to their success.
Are you sure about that? I don't remember seeing too much smooth pedalling up the Kwaremont last Sunday and Cancellara wasn't exhibiting a lot of souplesse when he was monstering it to the finish.0 -
bernithebiker wrote:
True, but I think part of the problem is this 'Korff' study which suggests the opposite, which therefore splits threads like these into two camps.BenderRodriguez wrote:Surely the 'discussion' should be focused on finding such as this?
But if you read it all the Korff study did was to show that 'pulling up', as advocated by the makers of 'Power cranks', did not increase GE. It also got the cyclists to ride at a sub-threshold level, a maximum of 200 watts. It also assumed that an immediate increase in GE would be measurable simply by telling riders to alter their pedaling style. It had many other shortcoming, but in short it does nothing to counter the study I have cited."an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
Not so universally as you seem to think, since the subjects of this paper were all Elite level riders. Maybe bahzob is too humble and some of these guys could learn from him after all...BenderRodriguez wrote:Anyhow. I think that in the highly Darwinian world of pro cycling, it can be expected that those who reach the top will be likely to have optimal 'fitness' in relation to any factor that helps them to go faster for longer, recover quicker and so forth. Given this it would seem logical to conclude that the almost universally 'smooth' style of pro cyclists when riding at their limits is likely to be one factor that contributes to their success.
The study is interesting, but it's not clear that you can draw these conclusions. Efficiency is not the same as performance, and it has not been shown that specific technique training to improve efficiency can be effective, which after all is what we are discussing.0 -
twotyred wrote:I've never disagreed that there may be some gain to be had from working on pedalling smoothness I just questioned the size of it and the priority it should be given by an amateur rider vs improving fitness and sustainable power...
Surely, pedaling style is simply one factor yo focus on whilst training to increase your fitness and sustainable power? In fact I don't see how you could separate the two, given that it seems the development of an efficient style is really only something you can do when working at or close to threshold."an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
twotyred wrote:I don't remember seeing too much smooth pedalling up the Kwaremont last Sunday and Cancellara wasn't exhibiting a lot of souplesse when he was monstering it to the finish.
Was he perchance riding way into the red at these points? What does he look like when riding at or close to his threshold?"an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
Tom Dean wrote:Efficiency is not the same as performance...
Surely, you would not argue that having a higher GE does not contribute to performance, all other things being equal?"an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
No, but all other things are not necessarily equal.BenderRodriguez wrote:Tom Dean wrote:Efficiency is not the same as performance...
Surely, you would not argue that having a higher GE does not contribute to performance, all other things being equal?
...And we are back to the beginning again. Please show some evidence that you can do this.BenderRodriguez wrote:it seems the development of an efficient style is really only something you can do when working at or close to threshold.0 -
Tom Dean wrote:
...And we are back to the beginning again. Please show some evidence that you can do this.BenderRodriguez wrote:it seems the development of an efficient style is really only something you can do when working at or close to threshold.
Most professional riders seem to have been able to do it..."an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
An animal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-a-rRlfsUg look at this and listen to the sound from the disc. Not smooth.BenderRodriguez wrote:twotyred wrote:I don't remember seeing too much smooth pedalling up the Kwaremont last Sunday and Cancellara wasn't exhibiting a lot of souplesse when he was monstering it to the finish.
Was he perchance riding way into the red at these points? What does he look like when riding at or close to his threshold?
Note also the high cadence up around 120bpm. GE is higher at lower cadences though according to the studies, including the one you cited.0 -
Not according to the study you cited :roll:BenderRodriguez wrote:Tom Dean wrote:
...And we are back to the beginning again. Please show some evidence that you can do this.BenderRodriguez wrote:it seems the development of an efficient style is really only something you can do when working at or close to threshold.
Most professional riders seem to have been able to do it...0 -
BenderRodriguez wrote:Tom Dean wrote:
...And we are back to the beginning again. Please show some evidence that you can do this.BenderRodriguez wrote:it seems the development of an efficient style is really only something you can do when working at or close to threshold.
Most professional riders seem to have been able to do it...
blah blah "the pros do it" blah blah. Unless you have a direct link into their PMs, you have absolutely no idea how hard the pros are working.0 -
Imposter wrote:blah blah "the pros do it" blah blah.
And you views on the study cited? Or would you prefer to continue to ignore it? :roll:INFLUENCE OF PEDALING TECHNIQUE ON METABOLIC EFFICIENCY IN ELITE CYCLISTS.
Biol. Sport 2012;29:229-233
DOI: 10.5604/20831862.1003448
…the lack of a significant relationship between the Tmax and the GE suggest that at the power outputs at which the LT and OBLA were produced, increases in GE are associated to increments in torque applied throughout the whole pedal revolution and not to increases in the maximum torque during the downward phase of the crank cycle."an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
Imposter wrote:Unless you have a direct link into their PMs, you have absolutely no idea how hard the pros are working.
True on the flat, maybe, but going up well known Alpine climbs, it's not hard to work out a rider's w/kg. Any of the top guys riding in the high 5 range for w/kg up a 40 minute climb at the end of a stage will be working pretty close to their maximum, or even at it.0 -
BenderRodriguez wrote:
And you views on the study cited? Or would you prefer to continue to ignore it? :roll:
Yes, I think this has been mentioned to you already - try to keep up. Efficiency and sustainable power are not the same thing.0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:
True on the flat, maybe, but going up well known Alpine climbs, it's not hard to work out a rider's w/kg. Any of the top guys riding in the high 5 range for w/kg up a 40 minute climb at the end of a stage will be working pretty close to their maximum, or even at it.
Nobody is saying any different. The point is that they train themselves to be (relatively) comfortable at those outputs for a good deal longer than the average rider - or even bahzob, for that matter.0
