Cadence question

2»

Comments

  • smoggysteve
    smoggysteve Posts: 2,909
    Muscles store energy. It is there where the ability to pusj the pedals happens. As important as heart and lungs are the ability to efficiently process the chemical energy into mechanical energy is muscular. You need to improve your muscles. That is a fact. If you can give the heart and lungs a rest and push a higher gear for the same speed then you wont fatigue as quick. I see pros who spin up hills then drop a gear and climb out of the saddle for a bit. Using different muscles and at the same time giving the heart and lungs a rest. Then swap back again. It works. Or are hills best avoided by beginners?
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    I love the way you say 'give the heart and lungs a rest' as though they can just be switched off... :D

    Anyway, all of those things you describe can be summed up as 'aerobic fitness' - none of it relates to strength. Come on mate, this really is basic stuff...
  • smoggysteve
    smoggysteve Posts: 2,909
    To the OP read this. This is more about what I am trying to articulate
    http://www.active.com/cycling/articles/ ... ing?page=2

    I am not saying have massive muscles. I am saying if you can be comfortable in different cadence then you can become a more rounded efficient cyclist than just sitting at the same cadence all the time.
  • okgo
    okgo Posts: 4,368
    Article looks pretty crap. A lot of it directed at people who need to run afterwards too.

    I've never really bothered measuring or paying any attention to my cadence while I am riding and let my body dictate what feels right for each scenario. What is probably a bit misleading is the idea that you can have these all rounder legs. Not everyone has a lot of fast twitch muscle to call on. A mate of mine can likely ride 370w for an hour which is beyond 99% of amateurs but he has NEVER been able to get over 1000w when jumping out of the saddle which a lot of people who have never cycle in their life would be able to do. Chris Boardman was another who's peak power was comically low, but he could sustain huge power over longer durations than <60 seconds. Most of this isn't a choice, it's genetic I would think, do you think Marcel Kittle or Griepel would ever look like Andy Schleck even if they wanted to? No. And the reverse is true too.

    Given this is road beginners the best advice is to probably make sure your cadence isn't extreme in either direction and do more riding and training of your fitness than worrying about muscle mass, over time your muscles will adapt in the way they need to in order to be more efficient for endurance sport. This isn't solved with a squat rack.
    Blog on my first and now second season of proper riding/racing - www.firstseasonracing.com
  • Aphorism
    Aphorism Posts: 11
    To the OP, if you haven't lost interest due to infighting......

    Ride at a cadence that feels comfortable for you. You're likely to tend towards 90-95 rpm in time. You rarely see regular amateur cyclists with either very low or very high cadences because both are relatively inefficient.
  • Brailsford Bad
    Brailsford Bad Posts: 85
    Imposter wrote:
    SmoggySteve wrote:
    So why do sprinters have massive thighs? Why does Chris Hoy look like a body builder which muscles everywhere? 1 type of cyclist may be thin and light for climbing a la Froome or Contador. Others like Hoy or Marcel Kittel are big powerful guys. You do need muscles. If you are a weakling who relies on cv you will not improve. Energy is stored in the muscle fibres. The more efficient and better trained they are the less you fatigue. You can spin all day at a comfortable cadence but when you have to push harder you have nowhere to go. If you can alternate cv to muscle power and then back to cv then you will go for longer. By muscle mass I dont mean bigger but more efficient muscles. But if you dont think muscles are important for cycling then you are an idiot.

    Nope - you still don't get it. Obviously sprint and endurance disciplines require different types of training, with track sprinters focused on delivering high power outputs for a very short time - nobody is arguing that. But this is the road beginners forum, not the track forum. Nobody mentioned track sprinters apart from you. You really do need a better understanding of strength v power v endurance before you post again. It is often said (correctly) that the strength demands of endurance cycling are very low, and can be met by almost anyone - even untrained pedestrians - so stronger legs really aren't a consideration if you are serious about performance improvement. Finally, you really shouldn't accuse other people of being idiots - it's ironic. Sounds like you have a lot of reading to do...

    Maybe you could post what the strength v power v endurance is all about and enlighten some people on here and answer the original OPs question then Imposter?
    You've shot down a few peoples advice on here but you've given no firm advice or guidance either? so enlighten us. It's all well and good coming across as a smart ass but nows the time to back it up. As you say, it's all basic stuff right? should be easy to put in layman's terms.

    I'm looking forward to reading it.

    Thanking you in advance.
    BB
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Not sure why I should have to enlighten you - can't you do it yourself? There's a wealth of discussion over in the training forum - many hours of reading if you are interested.

    Here's one for starters, but the rest is up to you..

    viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12969369&hilit=leg+strength

    In terms of answering the OP's question - Nexxus already did that in his post on p1.
  • Brailsford Bad
    Brailsford Bad Posts: 85
    Imposter wrote:
    Not sure why I should have to enlighten you - can't you do it yourself? There's a wealth of discussion over in the training forum - many hours of reading if you are interested.

    Here's one for starters, but the rest is up to you..

    viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12969369&hilit=leg+strength

    In terms of answering the OP's question - Nexxus already did that in his post on p1.


    I don't need enlightening, I already know about it. I was just wondering if you did.

    Seems like you don't.

    Thanks
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Brailsford Bad wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    Not sure why I should have to enlighten you - can't you do it yourself? There's a wealth of discussion over in the training forum - many hours of reading if you are interested.

    Here's one for starters, but the rest is up to you..

    viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12969369&hilit=leg+strength

    In terms of answering the OP's question - Nexxus already did that in his post on p1.


    I don't need enlightening, I already know about it. I was just wondering if you did.

    Seems like you don't.

    Thanks

    Perhaps you could enlighten me then. Which bits, in general, of the statement that 'endurance cycling is not a strength sport' do you disagree with? Would be interesting to learn your views, because although you seem quick to criticise me for having an opinion on here, I notice you haven't offered one of your own on this thread yet...
  • ai_1
    ai_1 Posts: 3,060
    This "strength" crap gets trotted out every 5 minutes.
    Before you go bickering about it again. Please define what you actually mean. "Strength" can refer to maximal force capability, it can refer to ability to repeat a given exertion, it can refer to plenty things. It's a commonly used word in many contexts and therefore vague and susceptible to misinterpretation in technical use unless clearly defined.

    For example this oft repeated thing about anyone able to climb a stairs having strong enough legs sounds like drivle to me. I can climb a stair just fine as can most people.....for the first few flights. After a few thousand steps you're still going to have problems. If you mean you have the strength to lift your body weight about 175mm on one foot for 15 or so repetitions that really has little to do with cycling.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Ai_1 wrote:
    This "strength" crap gets trotted out every 5 minutes.
    Before you go bickering about it again. Please define what you actually mean. "Strength" can refer to maximal force capability, it can refer to ability to repeat a given exertion, it can refer to plenty things. It's a commonly used word in many contexts and therefore vague and susceptible to misinterpretation in technical use unless clearly defined.

    I thought the definition was well understood. In other words, the maximum force a muscle(s) can generate. I know the word is used for many different purposes (ie being a 'strong' rider, etc) but the actual definition from a 'physical strength' pov is pretty clear, I thought.
    Ai_1 wrote:
    For example this oft repeated thing about anyone able to climb a stairs having strong enough legs sounds like drivle to me. I can climb a stair just fine as can most people.....for the first few flights. After a few thousand steps you're still going to have problems. If you mean you have the strength to lift your body weight about 175mm on one foot for 15 or so repetitions that really has little to do with cycling.

    This is exactly why we are having this discussion. The 'stairs' thing gets trotted out because it is a fairly ubiquitous description. Assuming you can lift your own body weight (say 70kg) up a stair or two, then you will not have any strength-related problem pushing pedals up Alpe d'Huez at an average force of around 25kg per revolution. In other words, the only thing stopping you from staying on Contador's wheel while riding up the alpe is not your 'strength' (you already have that) - it is your aerobic fitness, or sustainable power. Which he has (I'm guessing probably) more of than you, or me for that matter.
  • ai_1
    ai_1 Posts: 3,060
    Imposter wrote:
    Ai_1 wrote:
    This "strength" crap gets trotted out every 5 minutes.
    Before you go bickering about it again. Please define what you actually mean. "Strength" can refer to maximal force capability, it can refer to ability to repeat a given exertion, it can refer to plenty things. It's a commonly used word in many contexts and therefore vague and susceptible to misinterpretation in technical use unless clearly defined.

    I thought the definition was well understood. In other words, the maximum force a muscle(s) can generate. I know the word is used for many different purposes (ie being a 'strong' rider, etc) but the actual definition from a 'physical strength' pov is pretty clear, I thought.
    I wouldn't argue with that definition as long as it's stated. I don't see it as obvious. Like most people with training in engineering, physics or other technical disciplines, we come across terms all the time which have very specific meanings in science but which are in common use in everyday life, usually with much less specific or even very different meanings. It seems to be the root of many arguments. So when a word is at the heart of a discussion - I think it's much easier and less frustrating to state your definition up front!
    Imposter wrote:
    Ai_1 wrote:
    For example this oft repeated thing about anyone able to climb a stairs having strong enough legs sounds like drivle to me. I can climb a stair just fine as can most people.....for the first few flights. After a few thousand steps you're still going to have problems. If you mean you have the strength to lift your body weight about 175mm on one foot for 15 or so repetitions that really has little to do with cycling.

    This is exactly why we are having this discussion. The 'stairs' thing gets trotted out because it is a fairly ubiquitous description. Assuming you can lift your own body weight (say 70kg) up a stair or two, then you will not have any strength-related problem pushing pedals up Alpe d'Huez at an average force of around 25kg per revolution. In other words, the only thing stopping you from staying on Contador's wheel while riding up the alpe is not your 'strength' (you already have that) - it is your aerobic fitness, or sustainable power. Which he has (I'm guessing probably) more of than you, or me for that matter.
    It seems to me that this argument assumes your ability to produce maximum force X and your ability to produce maximum force X several thousand times are not coupled. In other words, it seems you're claiming a clear distinction such that:
    Maximum force (strength) is dependent on leg muscle
    Endurance is dependent on aerobic fitness
    You do also say "aerobic fitness or sustainable power" but I don't see them as synonomous so i'm just ignoring that ;).

    As I understand it, while a muscle may be able to produce a given intensity of contraction once (maximum force) it should be operating well below maximum intensity if you wish to repeat the contraction many times or maintain the contraction for a prolonged period. Thus being able to walk up a stairs just means you should be able to turn the cranks over 10 or 20 times. It doesn't mean you have sufficient muscle bulk and/or quality to repeat the action constantly for hours or that you can do it at a reasonable cadence, regardless of the heart and lungs attached.
    i.e. I don't believe it's valid to suggest once legs are "strong" enough, it's all about aerobic fitness. Or certainly not if you mean just heart and lungs anyway.

    For example I've backed off my cycling a lot in the last couple of months since I started training to run a marathon. My aerobic fitness, in terms of VO2max and in terms of HR required to deliver a given output from my legs has improved. my leg "strength" has probably improved. My speed and endurance on long runs has improved. My ability to sustain high power on the bike has dis-improved.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    There's no need to produce maximal force several thousand times - the forces used when climbing are typically several times less than that, as mentioned. Using the 'agreed' definition of strength - then you would accept that the ability to repeat a movement more than once no longer becomes a strength issue, it becomes an endurance/aerobic issue, yes? The link between aerobic fitness and sustainable power is pretty clear - you would struggle to produce a good level of sustainable power without the requisite level of aerobic fitness.

    Beyond certain minimum requirements, muscle 'bulk' is not what enables you to repeat a movement - your ability to repeat it relies on your ability to endure the effort for a given time - whether than be 1 minute, 30 minutes or three hours.

    I mentioned Contador earlier (other cyclists are available) - he's not a 'bulky' guy.
  • ai_1
    ai_1 Posts: 3,060
    Imposter wrote:
    There's no need to produce maximal force several thousand times - the forces used when climbing are typically several times less than that, as mentioned. Using the 'agreed' definition of strength - then you would accept that the ability to repeat a movement more than once no longer becomes a strength issue, it becomes an endurance/aerobic issue, yes? The link between aerobic fitness and sustainable power is pretty clear - you would struggle to produce a good level of sustainable power without the requisite level of aerobic fitness.

    Beyond certain minimum requirements, muscle 'bulk' is not what enables you to repeat a movement - your ability to repeat it relies on your ability to endure the effort for a given time - whether than be 1 minute, 30 minutes or three hours.

    I mentioned Contador earlier (other cyclists are available) - he's not a 'bulky' guy.
    No, it's not primarily about muscle bulk but it is largely about muscle quality and blood vessel development (does this count as a property of the muscle or the cardiovascular system - it's both really). So as I mentioned despite in my example of my reduction in cycle training while doing lots of running: My muscle bulk hasn't noticably changed, my heart and lung performance have improved slightly but my cycling performance has dipped significantly. Presumably the reason is a reduction in quality of some cycle specific muscles or in their adaptation for that specific activity. It is certainly NOT due to a reduction in maximum force available or the performance of my heart and lungs.
    Imposter wrote:
    The link between aerobic fitness and sustainable power is pretty clear - you would struggle to produce a good level of sustainable power without the requisite level of aerobic fitness.
    Sure, but aerobic fitness alone is not sufficient. In my case I struggle to produce a good level of sustainable power but my heart rate is just ticking over and my breathing is easy. My legs are the weak link for sustained power.

    My point from the start has really been that using the argument that "if you can climb a stairs your legs are strong enough" is not useful. That seems obvious given all the qualifications and clarifications needed to get anywhere with this starting point.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Sounds like we agree on most of that - although there are studies which have shown that trained cyclists can potentially end up generally 'weaker' overall than equivalent 'non' cyclists. It wouldn't be reasonable to expect cycling to increase (or even maintain) your previous maximum strength - as the efforts concerned rarely involve maximal muscular power.

    The bit about your sustainable power is puzzling though. If your breathing is easy and your HR is not high, then that suggests the effort level is low - so it's difficult to correlate that with your legs being the 'weak link'.
  • ai_1
    ai_1 Posts: 3,060
    Imposter wrote:
    ...The bit about your sustainable power is puzzling though. If your breathing is easy and your HR is not high, then that suggests the effort level is low - so it's difficult to correlate that with your legs being the 'weak link'.
    Running has kept my cardiovascular fitness in good shape and I think it's actually improved in recent months. I'm stuggling to deliver as much power on the bike (not measured via power meter but comparing data from several rides on similar routes in typical conditions I'm confident there's a significant drop). When my legs are hurting on the bike my heart and lungs still have spare capacity. If I was to go out and do the hardest effort I could maintain for an hour. My heart rate would be relatively comfortable but my legs would still be at their limit by the end.
    Muscle fatigues even if the cardiovscular system supporting them is in good shape. I'm not entirely clear how much is down to the ability of circulatory system to supply fuel and remove waste products and how much to the strain each muscle fibre is enduring and the number of repetitions it can manage before rest and repair is essential. Muscles which do not require any rest to repair, like the heart and abdominal core, for example, operate way below maximal contraction, or that's my understanding anyway. I'm not claiming expertise on the matter!
  • diy
    diy Posts: 6,473
    I subscribe to the opinion that strength training can help particularly early on and have also ridden with marathon runners with similar Vo2 max as my own (mid 70s) yet have been done in after half the ride due to lack of specific muscle in the right places. However my comment is really on cadence. Its fine to train at higher cadence to improve your performance and technique, but you really shouldn't be putting too much thought in to cadence on a normal ride unless you think you might be in the wrong gear.

    Training at higher cadence does improve your ability to ride at higher cadence but its not something IMO you should focus too much on. It basically goes up with experience and practice. I regularly train at 130-150rpm (maxed at 200rpm being silly). However, on a sprint I wont go much over 110 on the road and will typically avg 85-95 on the road bikes and about 10 less on the MTBs.
    Guide to cheap bike lights Turbo Trainer Vids Play list
    Stretching & Workout Vids
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    diy wrote:
    I subscribe to the opinion that strength training can help particularly early on and have also ridden with marathon runners with similar Vo2 max as my own (mid 70s) yet have been done in after half the ride due to lack of specific muscle in the right places.

    For new riders, almost any exercise will be of benefit. Running and cycling are two entirely different sports - and do not compare well at all, aside from the obvious cardio similarities, but that's pretty much where it ends. No surprise at all that a marathon runner who hasn't previously cycled can't just jump on a bike and ride 100 miles, any more than a cyclist in a similar situation could just jump off a bike and knock out a marathon. (Yes, I know triathletes do it, but they train for it). It's not a 'lack of specific muscle in the right places' - it's a lack of a specifically trained muscle in the right places. Big difference.
  • ai_1
    ai_1 Posts: 3,060
    Imposter wrote:
    diy wrote:
    I subscribe to the opinion that strength training can help particularly early on and have also ridden with marathon runners with similar Vo2 max as my own (mid 70s) yet have been done in after half the ride due to lack of specific muscle in the right places.

    For new riders, almost any exercise will be of benefit. Running and cycling are two entirely different sports - and do not compare well at all, aside from the obvious cardio similarities, but that's pretty much where it ends. No surprise at all that a marathon runner who hasn't previously cycled can't just jump on a bike and ride 100 miles, any more than a cyclist in a similar situation could just jump off a bike and knock out a marathon. (Yes, I know triathletes do it, but they train for it). It's not a 'lack of specific muscle in the right places' - it's a lack of a specifically trained muscle in the right places. Big difference.
    Ah, see I agree with you completely here but it's not what you seemed (to me) to be saying based on the whole stairs analogy.

Categories