fixie/single speed for training?

imposter2.0

'Improving strength' is not really needed, as mentioned earlier. Learning to 'resist' the pedals might be useful if you entered a 'ride downhill slowly on a fixie' competition. I can't see it being much use anywhere else. Given that most competition disciplines rely on sustainable power over your chosen distance/discipline, it would make more sense to work on some kind of regime that seeks to improve/develop that aspect of your fitness.

matudavey

There's 15 pages of argument somewhere on here on the strength debate; so I'm not going to even start on that.

OP - IF you want to improve your leg strength, and reduce potential injury, then fixed riding could help you achieve your goal.

Without a specific goal there's no saying whether any method will work or not.

imposter2.0

matudavey wrote:

There's 15 pages of argument somewhere on here on the strength debate; so I'm not going to even start on that.

OP - IF you want to improve your leg strength, and reduce potential injury, then fixed riding could help you achieve your goal.

Without a specific goal there's no saying whether any method will work or not.

There's a lot more than 15 pages on that. And anyway, the OP never mentioned anything about 'improving leg strength' - you did.

Alitogata

There's a big difference between training on single speed and fixed geared bicycles.

When training with single speed you have one gear, perhaps with a high speed ratio, but you have free hub, so while you are pedaling with the same load you don't have to do that continuously. This increases in long term the muscle mass and the power of your legs. With a single speed you gain muscle mass.

When you training with a fixed gear, you don't have the free hub, so you have to pedal all the time so you may perhaps have a lower gear and lower speed ratio, because it is not easy to have fast enough cadence especially with a very big front disc as it is difficult to accelerate as your legs get tired from continuous pedaling. So by using a fixie you have lower gear ratio, higher pedaling cadence and the continuous pedaling and you end up with less muscle mass, and stronger cardiorespiratory system.

With a fixie you learn how to have a good tempo in your pedaling cadence as well, because your legs directly transmit power on your rear wheel and vice versa. Good tempo means that you can endure for longer distances.

BUT both kind of these bicycles can overload knee joints so you have to fit them accurately and not use them if you don't have really strong knees or any suspicion of knee injure.

I used to ride ss/fg for 15 years, now I'm riding a road bike with 16 sp, ( can't get rid of my one speed past ). Ss/fg are great for a good workout but you must be careful not to overdo it, f.e very long distances, ( over 40-50 km per day) or very hilly terrains.

imposter2.0

Alitogata wrote:

This increases in long term the muscle mass and the power of your legs. With a single speed you gain muscle mass.

How?

matudavey

Imposter wrote:

matudavey wrote:

There's 15 pages of argument somewhere on here on the strength debate; so I'm not going to even start on that.

OP - IF you want to improve your leg strength, and reduce potential injury, then fixed riding could help you achieve your goal.

Without a specific goal there's no saying whether any method will work or not.

And anyway, the OP never mentioned anything about 'improving leg strength' - you did.

He asked about fixed gear training, so I suggested potential benefits. He didn't specify any particular fitness component.

Alitogata

Imposter wrote:

Alitogata wrote:

This increases in long term the muscle mass and the power of your legs. With a single speed you gain muscle mass.

How?

It's the same rule with the gym training. Heavy load but not so many repeats. You can have a high speed ratio but you don't pedal all the time so you gain muscle mass especially on your quadriceps. The opposite happens with the fixed geared bike. You can't use the highest speed ratio on your fixie, because you have to pedal all the time as you have no free hub, so you loose muscle mass in the long run ( all fixie riders become very slender) but you gain cardio fitness. With a fixie you become the equivalent of a marathon runner on your bike. With a single speed you make ( about not exactly ) the body of a sprinter. ( depends on what is the gear ratio you use, but on the single speed bike you can use very high speed gear ratio which you can't on a fixie).

imposter2.0

Alitogata wrote:

It's the same rule with the gym training. Heavy load but not so many repeats. You can have a high speed ratio but you don't pedal all the time so you gain muscle mass especially on your quadriceps. The opposite happens with the fixed geared bike. You can't use the highest speed ratio on your fixie, because you have to pedal all the time as you have no free hub, so you loose muscle mass in the long run ( all fixie riders become very slender) but you gain cardio fitness. With a fixie you become the equivalent of a marathon runner on your bike. With a single speed you make ( about not exactly ) the body of a sprinter. ( depends on what is the gear ratio you use, but on the single speed bike you can use very high speed gear ratio which you can't on a fixie).

WTF?

imposter2.0

matudavey wrote:

He asked about fixed gear training, so I suggested potential benefits. He didn't specify any particular fitness component.

I can't see how improving leg strength would be of any 'benefit' (as you put it) to an already healthy rider of normal function.

matudavey

Imposter wrote:

matudavey wrote:

He asked about fixed gear training, so I suggested potential benefits. He didn't specify any particular fitness component.

I can't see how improving leg strength would be of any 'benefit' (as you put it) to an already healthy rider of normal function.

Ok, let's call it a 'training outcome', rather than a 'potential benefit'. If it fits the trainee's goals it's a benefit, if not; it's not.

Maybe dig out the old thread and make your own decision on that aspect.

BigFatBloke

Imposter wrote:

BigFatBloke wrote:

Have you tried riding fixed?

Yes, but only on the track. I would regard riding a fixed wheel bike on the road as impractical at the best of times. Single speed perhaps - but where I live, being stuck in one gear is a massive disadvantage.

It is that very disadvantage that makes riding fixed good training. If you have not ridden a fixed gear on the open road, up hill and down hill for several months, it is understandable you have no comprehension of how riding fixed stresses the rider in different ways at both extremes of cadence and force and at high power.

Riding fixed gear up hill is considerably harder work because to even keep moving you must apply far more force than you would be used to doing with gears. This is, in effect, a forced regime of big gear work and it enables you to produce high power at lower cadence than you would normally choose.

Down hill on fixed you must spin faster than you would even consider possible with gears this drills in the ability to turn the legs round fast and smoothly and you learn to apply force and power at higher cadences.

When you do get back on a geared bike you immediately realise how much easier it is and you will find your power has increased at your selected preferred cadence.

Someone mentioned Sky. Well Wiggins and many other Sky riders come from a fixed gear track background. All that riding on fixed seems to have stood them in good stead.


Close examination of power meter data, in particular quadrant analysis, will show that not all power is equal, even with gears, there are times when you are working at high force low cadence but high power and other times you are still producing high power but at low force high cadence. Only in time trials will you see a power profile which is almost permanently self selected optimal cadence & force.

Obree & Boardman often chose to do TTs on fixed. One must assume they also did at least some training on fixed.


There are however some serious drawbacks with riding fixed down steep hills.

Alitogata

Imposter wrote:

Alitogata wrote:

It's the same rule with the gym training. Heavy load but not so many repeats. You can have a high speed ratio but you don't pedal all the time so you gain muscle mass especially on your quadriceps. The opposite happens with the fixed geared bike. You can't use the highest speed ratio on your fixie, because you have to pedal all the time as you have no free hub, so you loose muscle mass in the long run ( all fixie riders become very slender) but you gain cardio fitness. With a fixie you become the equivalent of a marathon runner on your bike. With a single speed you make ( about not exactly ) the body of a sprinter. ( depends on what is the gear ratio you use, but on the single speed bike you can use very high speed gear ratio which you can't on a fixie).

WTF?

How polite! :roll:

imposter2.0

BigFatBloke wrote:

Someone mentioned Sky. Well Wiggins and many other Sky riders come from a fixed gear track background. All that riding on fixed seems to have stood them in good stead.

But did they train on the open road on fixed? (the answer is 'no', by the way). Nobody is suggesting that track racing would not be helpful from a power/fitness perspective.

BigFatBloke

Imposter wrote:

BigFatBloke wrote:

Someone mentioned Sky. Well Wiggins and many other Sky riders come from a fixed gear track background. All that riding on fixed seems to have stood them in good stead.

But did they train on the open road on fixed? (the answer is 'no', by the way). Nobody is suggesting that track racing would not be helpful from a power/fitness perspective.

I know Boardman & Obree did train on the open road on fixed - I can't speak for other riders. If riding on a track is helpful from a fitness / power perspective, then riding fixed on the road must also be effective.

imposter2.0

BigFatBloke wrote:

I know Boardman & Obree did train on the open road on fixed - I can't speak for other riders. If riding on a track is helpful from a fitness / power perspective, then riding fixed on the road must also be effective.

It's the intensity of the racing that makes if effective. Using a fixed wheel on the open road as a training tool is largely ineffective (ie not as productive as training in the right gear/cadence/effort/duration), for all the reasons stated earlier.

The same logic also explains why Lewis Hamilton doesn't drive his F1 car to the shops.

BigFatBloke

Imposter wrote:

BigFatBloke wrote:

I know Boardman & Obree did train on the open road on fixed - I can't speak for other riders. If riding on a track is helpful from a fitness / power perspective, then riding fixed on the road must also be effective.

It's the intensity of the racing that makes if effective. Using a fixed wheel on the open road as a training tool is largely ineffective (ie not as productive as training in the right gear/cadence/effort/duration), for all the reasons stated earlier.

The same logic also explains why Lewis Hamilton doesn't drive his F1 car to the shops.

Lewis Hamilton does not have to pedal.

1. Training on fixed is harder because you are usually in the wrong gear so you are working harder and putting in more effort per hour.

2. Cadence is something of a red herring, there is no right cadence it is an individual thing.
3. As for duration, due to the fact you are mostly in the wrong gear on fixed a ride over a given distance on fixed will take longer.


Suppose you have a one hour training session. Due to not being able to coast at any time, unable to change gear, and unable to ease off up hills you will have done far more work on fixed in that hour. Over months this has a massive cumulative effect on training load.

Fixed also improves mental strength, you can never change gear to make it easier, you can only maintain speed or go faster by applying more force or increasing rpm. There is never an easy option.

I do not advocate doing all or even most training on fixed. Best in my opinion is to ride fixed or single speed for commuting, which changes junk commutes into training rides and increases training load by making your commute harder work.

One time where you should avoid fixed or single speed is on recovery rides because you will be unable to keep within the recovery zone, unless you get off and walk up any hills.

More specific training is probably best done on a geared machine, unless you intend to do a time trial on fixed. If you live in a very hilly area with anything like 5% gradients or over, fixed or single speed would not be an option as any down hills you would be hardly be able to apply any power or would spin out and end up coasting or you would need to brake when rpm became unsustainable.

I don't think we will ever agree on this, but the discussion has been interesting and I hope I have explained why fixed 'may' have training benefits.

iPete

If you are a time limited rider in a flat or undulating part of the world, its a hoot and a nice way to mix things up.

If you are a full time pro who rides for team sky, oddly enough different things might apply.

I find fixed great for riding a nice tempo & when hammering it, not being allowed to blow up. This has translated into my geared riding, the legs just keep on turning & work really well at 90 RPM now (the fixed is geared for cruising 90RPM @ 21mph).

Most detractors of fixed tend to be people who haven't ever extensively ridden fixed. I never got it till I'd got a few thousand miles down & my legs had adapted to the gearing.

Ultimately its down to the rider and how hard they want to push themselves and what their goals are.

markos1963

madasahattersley wrote:

Cycling is full of tradition and (for the large part) lacking in reason. Training on fixed is a very old school method and may work for some people. It's fun, but for the £400 the fixie costs you you will gain more fitness with a power meter.

However if I wasn't a serious competitor then yeah, I'd ride fixed all the time. It's great fun!

Can you post me a link to a £400 new power meter please?

markos1963

One of the fastest TTer's in my area races fixed, arguement over.

BigFatBloke

markos1963 wrote:

madasahattersley wrote:

Cycling is full of tradition and (for the large part) lacking in reason. Training on fixed is a very old school method and may work for some people. It's fun, but for the £400 the fixie costs you you will gain more fitness with a power meter.

However if I wasn't a serious competitor then yeah, I'd ride fixed all the time. It's great fun!

Can you post me a link to a £400 new power meter please?

You can pick up an SRM power control for £580.00
http://www.cyclepowermeters.com/srm-acc ... s-92-c.asp
or a Garmin for £
http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Mode ... elID=95976 £432.00

then you need the power meter

http://www.scientific-coaching.com/depo ... 0-srm.html £2549.00



Or if you have a watch and can count you can measure performance improvements by riding one of these. £399.00

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/ ... g-07-20542

then download and analyse data with these,

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=note+ ... 40&bih=799

imposter2.0

markos1963 wrote:

One of the fastest TTer's in my area races fixed, arguement over.

yeah, but you live in Norfolk. And he is fast because he has a good sustainable power output.

twotyred

One of the fastest TTer's in my area races fixed, arguement over.

Maybe he'd be even faster with gears.

markos1963

twotyred wrote:

One of the fastest TTer's in my area races fixed, arguement over.

Maybe he'd be even faster with gears.

No point, he wins just about everything around here anyway!

BigFatBloke

Imposter wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

One of the fastest TTer's in my area races fixed, arguement over.

yeah, but you live in Norfolk. And he is fast because he has a good sustainable power output.

He has a good sustainable power output because he rides fixed.

imposter2.0

BigFatBloke wrote:

Imposter wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

One of the fastest TTer's in my area races fixed, arguement over.

yeah, but you live in Norfolk. And he is fast because he has a good sustainable power output.

He has a good sustainable power output because he rides fixed.

Whatever you say, Trev.. :roll:

imposter2.0

comprehensive, I would say..

matudavey

Most of this seems to have focused on being in the wrong gear and having to pedal all the time. You can achieve both these things (if desired) on a geared bike, so there's little point trying to argue their benefits.

The only real difference is the fact that the wheel will continue to turn the pedals when you stop.

Some people may find this good for flat riding, as keeping the wheel at a constant speed may become slightly easier. A bit like Q-Rings, the inertia of the wheel can help move your feet round, without slowing for the 'dead spot' where you are least strong. This may be of use in flat TTs (some people going for the hour record used deliberately heavy wheels to increase inertia). I don't believe this would be good for translating good pedalling technique to geared bikes.

The main difference for training purposes is the eccentric loading of the muscles on downhill.
Muscles can apply a greater force when loaded eccentrically than concentrically, and therefore greater strength adaptations could occur.

The English Institute of Sport are currently investigating eccentric training for cycling, and so far have found very promising outcomes; increased strength and improved economy. They regarded strength as a benefit for both road and track.

I questioned whether increased strength was beneficial for geared cyclists; the EIS said that a greater peak force meant that the force used in normal cycling was a lower percentage of your maximum, therefore reducing fatigue - as each pedal stroke is less effort proportionally.

Strength isn't necessarily associated with large muscle mass (argument against strength for cyclists), as muscles can adapt in two ways, myofribular and sarcoplasmic. Increasing sarcoplasm in the muscles is associated with size gain and moderate strength gain. With correct training (higher load) you can get myofribular adaptations which gain little size/mass but great strength gains.

I was shown some data on Mo Farah; he is exceptionally strong, which translates into being a very fast runner, and good endurance as he is operating at a lower percentage of his peak force.

imposter2.0

You keep talking about 'increased strength' - but I don't think you've ever been able to explain the benefits of increased strength in terms of cycling performance. I'll give you a clue - there aren't any.

matudavey

Power = Torque X Angular Velocity (Cadence)

So you can increase torque or increase cadence to increase power.

Cadence can be increased up to a certain point, and is a good way of increasing power as it's likely to have less of an increase of fatigue.

The other option is to increase torque. This means pushing a harder gear, applying more force, and requiring increased strength.

The higher your peak torque the better, as for the same power you will be operating at a lower proportion of your maximum, which in turn reduces the onset of fatigue, and you can maintain that torque for longer.

Going faster and going faster for longer. What's not to like about being stronger?

imposter2.0

matudavey wrote:

The other option is to increase torque. This means pushing a harder gear, applying more force, and requiring increased strength.

Sounds like you don't fully understand what you are talking about. Leg strength is not a limiter in cycling performance, unless you are a track sprinter or something. This issue has been discussed a million times on here already. Suggest you do a search on the topic.