Climbing vs testing: same power, different cadence. Why?

shockedsoshocked

In terms of the lower limbs, quite biomechanically similar. Plenty of rowers who dabble in road racing. Could be mistaken due to their bank handling and propensity to be a bunch engine as triathletes.

Alex_Simmons/RST

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

I've always said one needs to consider specificity in training.

And yet when I said that raising my FTP on the track does not seem to have transferred as well as I had hoped to doing long, mountainous rides, you argued that:

I'm not saying that two riders with same FTP will have same long duration power ability, what I'm saying is the fundamental adaptations required to improve each are the same. IOW if you are training to improve your FTP, then you will also improve your long duration power / endurance.

Naturally there are other factors that do come into play for endurance (e.g. overall training loads which enhance endurance ability, able to sit on saddle for long durations, ability to ingest sufficient calories and fluids), but the most important physiological factors are those adaptations that underpin threshold power (and LT).

viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12957414

Here you certainly seemed to be arguing that the most important factors underpinning endurance are 'general' and not specific.

In the same thread you also directed me to a study to illustrate the potency of neural as opposed to metabolic adaptation which showed that non-cyclists could produce more sprint power than competitive cyclists after just a few minutes high-intensity training over 2 days. So much for the benefits of specificity, in this case at least!

Perhaps the most important aspect of specificity is simply the promotion of activity-specific neural adaptation, with the 'metabolic' aspects being much more generalisable even to the extent that, for example, cross-country skiing could improve the 'metabolic' components of cycling performances to much the same degree as cycling itself?

Perhaps similar principles apply here as with much else in training, 'Specificity is important, except when it isn't'.

Put it this way, if two sufficiently similar groups had their training loads monitored such that one did their training on a bike, and the other did another form of non-cycling aerobic endurance training (take your pick, running, rowing, XC skiing etc), and training loads (durations, intensity, intervals types, volume of endurance etc) for both groups were equivalent and appropriate to improve performance, which do you think would improve their cycling performance better?

I'd put my money down on those riding a bike. Likewise I'd expect the rowers/runners/skiiers to perform better at rowing/running/skiing than the cyclists would.

Let's extend that further and say the cycling training in the above group was mostly performed on good ergometers. Which group would improve cycling performance better?

I'd still put my money down on those riding a bike.

That's not to say that there is no cross over of an improvement in metabolic fitness from one (aerobic endurance) exercise modality to another, of course there is, but the adaptations are still specific to the joint angles, forces, velocities and frequency applicable to that exercise modality. And the more those things differ, the more likely the fitness cross over will be less than attainable from training in the same modality.

BenderRodriguez

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

That's not to say that there is no cross over of an improvement in metabolic fitness from one (aerobic endurance) exercise modality to another, of course there is, but the adaptations are still specific to the joint angles, forces, velocities and frequency applicable to that exercise modality. And the more those things differ, the more likely the fitness cross over will be less than attainable from training in the same modality.

You mention 'joint angles, forces, velocities and frequency' in relation to 'metabolic' fitness, but aren't all these primarily 'neural' rather than purely 'metabolic' factors?

To my mind 'metabolic' factors are things such as mitochondrial density, capillarisation, the efficiency of the lactate shuttle system and so forth which, as far as I am aware, function in much the same way across all modalities. As such would it not be fair to say that the most important differences between modalities are those relating to 'neural' factors, rather than 'metabolic' ones?

BenderRodriguez

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

if two sufficiently similar groups had their training loads monitored such that one did their training on a bike, and the other did another form of non-cycling aerobic endurance training (take your pick, running, rowing, XC skiing etc), and training loads (durations, intensity, intervals types, volume of endurance etc) for both groups were equivalent and appropriate to improve performance, which do you think would improve their cycling performance better? I'd put my money down on those riding a bike.

On the other hand, in my experience doing a variety of activities does allow a higher overall training load, if only because one can, for example, run or go cross-country skiing when the weather means the only option for training on the bike would be a turbo session. I know that some like turbo training, but I could never amass much in the way of a training load if it all had to be done indoors.

Perhaps the reason that I feel that the work I have done on the track (irrespective of how much it may have raised my FTP) has not really given me any more return (that is, in terms of my endurance when doing long rides over mountainous roads) than spending my winter mainly doing cross-country skiing and ski touring, is simply that the overall endurance volume and training load I have amassed in the past was much higher than I have amassed this year on the track. I.e. a 2-hour hour track session, even if it includes '2 x 20s' and so forth, will probably not give the same training load, and certainly not the same endurance volume, as spending 5 or 6 hours skinning up mountains, with a lot of this being at a good 'tempo' or 'sweetspot' intensity.

I may have gained a little from the greater 'neural' specificity of riding on the track. (Although even here the differences between riding at a high cadence and with a high crank inertial load may have limited the degree of 'neural' transfer to riding on a climb with a lower cadence and lower crank inertial load). However, I may also have gained less in terms of non-specific 'metabolic' adaptations due to the lower overall training load.

Stalin

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

if two sufficiently similar groups had their training loads monitored such that one did their training on a bike, and the other did another form of non-cycling aerobic endurance training (take your pick, running, rowing, XC skiing etc), and training loads (durations, intensity, intervals types, volume of endurance etc) for both groups were equivalent and appropriate to improve performance, which do you think would improve their cycling performance better? I'd put my money down on those riding a bike.

On the other hand, in my experience doing a variety of activities does allow a higher overall training load, if only because one can, for example, run or go cross-country skiing when the weather means the only option for training on the bike would be a turbo session. I know that some like turbo training, but I could never amass much in the way of a training load if it all had to be done indoors.

Perhaps the reason that I feel that the work I have done on the track (irrespective of how much it may have raised my FTP) has not really given me any more return (that is, in terms of my endurance when doing long rides over mountainous roads) than spending my winter mainly doing cross-country skiing and ski touring, is simply that the overall endurance volume and training load I have amassed in the past was much higher than I have amassed this year on the track. I.e. a 2-hour hour track session, even if it includes '2 x 20s' and so forth, will probably not give the same training load, and certainly not the same endurance volume, as spending 5 or 6 hours skinning up mountains, with a lot of this being at a good 'tempo' or 'sweetspot' intensity.

I may have gained a little from the greater 'neural' specificity of riding on the track. (Although even here the differences between riding at a high cadence and with a high crank inertial load may have limited the degree of 'neural' transfer to riding on a climb with a lower cadence and lower crank inertial load). However, I may also have gained less in terms of non-specific 'metabolic' adaptations due to the lower overall training load.

Certainly cycling does not transfer to rowing. My 20 min power rowing is only 56% of my 20 minute cycling power. However I had not rowed until a few days ago for 16 years but have cycled at least 5 days a week for the last 16 years.
Power rowing can be expected to be lower rowing to cycling due to rowing being fundamentally less efficient than cycling, but not by such a vast margin.

My experience in many sports is that cycling fitness is not very transferable. Remember Superstars? Cyclists invariably came last. My sometimes judo coach, Brian Jacks, invariably won.

BenderRodriguez

Stalin wrote:

Certainly cycling does not transfer to rowing.

Which is perhaps not surprising given the much greater importance of upper body strength in rowing as compared to cycling!

Stalin wrote:

My experience in many sports is that cycling fitness is not very transferable. Remember Superstars? Cyclists invariably came last. My sometimes judo coach, Brian Jacks, invariably won.

To be fair you have to remember that when the original 'Superstars' was made the cyclists generally just took part for the money, doing no preparation whatsoever and even racing the day before appearing. (Back then most cyclists were poorly paid and would do almost anything for a fiver in their back pocket.) In comparison Jacks became a 'professional superstar', focused on training for the competition and even developing 'new technology' in order to help him win, as with those slippery-toed shoes that he wore in the 'squat jump' tests.

Chris Boardman showed very well when they re-ran the show. As I recall he would have gone through to the final if they hadn't stopped him from taking part in the MTB event, whilst still letting a runner do the running event because it 'wasn't his distance'.

I would say that the main reason that cyclists tend to be 'one trick ponies' is that they tend to do nothing but ride a bike in the mistaken view that doing other aerobic sports will not help and may even harm their cycling performance. In my view all cyclists should find the time do other aerobic sports, even if they only spend a significant amount of time doing them in the off-season. This would avoid problems associated with being exclusively a cyclist, such as loss of bone density and having sore legs for a week if they ever have to run after a bus!

Team4Luke

when climbing it can be a bit more accessable to pull up as well (lift off whatever you wish to call it), would appear to be more acheiveable than on the flat, not saying you can not on the flat but uphill there is or feels to me more to pull against.
How does deliberately pulling affect power output and possibly power readings themselves.

Stalin

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Stalin wrote:

Certainly cycling does not transfer to rowing.

Which is perhaps not surprising given the much greater importance of upper body strength in rowing as compared to cycling!

Stalin wrote:

My experience in many sports is that cycling fitness is not very transferable. Remember Superstars? Cyclists invariably came last. My sometimes judo coach, Brian Jacks, invariably won.

To be fair you have to remember that when the original 'Superstars' was made the cyclists generally just took part for the money, doing no preparation whatsoever and even racing the day before appearing. (Back then most cyclists were poorly paid and would do almost anything for a fiver in their back pocket.) In comparison Jacks became a 'professional superstar', focused on training for the competition and even developing 'new technology' in order to help him win, as with those slippery-toed shoes that he wore in the 'squat jump' tests.



Chris Boardman showed very well when they re-ran the show. As I recall he would have gone through to the final if they hadn't stopped him from taking part in the MTB event, whilst still letting a runner do the running event because it 'wasn't his distance'.

I would say that the main reason that cyclists tend to be 'one trick ponies' is that they tend to do nothing but ride a bike in the mistaken view that doing other aerobic sports will not help and may even harm their cycling performance. In my view all cyclists should find the time do other aerobic sports, even if they only spend a significant amount of time doing them in the off-season. This would avoid problems associated with being exclusively a cyclist, such as loss of bone density and having sore legs for a week if they ever have to run after a bus!

To be fair to Jacks his training pre superstars for Judo was legendary, I remember him doing press ups with people sat on his back at our Dojo. He was a superb athlete.

For the record, I have no idea who Bender is, frankly people on here owe him an apology.