TT average cadence goal

mamba80

meanredspider wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

I was asking you and mrs...as you guys seem to know more than many renowned coaches

I was actually far more balanced and objective in what I wrote than saying it's a "a waste of time". I'm actually more equivocal and believe it probably depends upon you and your specific goals and weaknesses (as does pretty much everything in this sub-forum).

My own experience, though, matches the broad sentiment of what I wrote and I'm undoubtedly limited by my aerobic engine. After all, except for the steepest climbs (which is outside the scope of TT-ing), you can gear your way out of trouble. From then on it's just whether your heart and lungs can keep the job going (in the crudest possible sense). I've certainly built muscle mass on my legs buts that's probably as much to do with me being big and to do with my tendency to compensate for lack of aerobic capacity by grinding my way up at lower cadences (I'd compare myself with a Diesel engine rather than a revvy motorbike engine which isn't a bad analogy to this discussion). I'm not fast.

Thanks... i was a bit harsh on you! sorry!
for me doing some specific strengh sessions both on the bike and off, has helped limit muscle lose as i ve gotten older, muscle lose is associated with cramping in the older rider, so regardless of whether or not (one believes) there are performance gains, avoiding cramp is a win! - but i dont go out and grind away at 50rpm for hours, rather seated accelerations from a low rpm, some over geared hill efforts, they are basically what we would do on our mtb/cx bikes around haldon in the winter when we were young aspiring racers without really knowing why.

RChung

Spoke too soon.

meanredspider

RChung wrote:

Spoke too soon.

PMSL. Baby steps...

imposter2.0

mamba80 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

You'd have to ask them....

well actually you were one who said it was a waste of time so i was asking you and mrs...as you guys seem to know more than many renowned coaches including BC coaches who have given my daughter "Strength" workouts.
I was also lucky enough recently to chat with a former PR winner who said strength workouts were an essential part of a riders training....at all levels.

Is your daughter on ODP/Academy? Like I said - you'd have to ask them. Specifically, you'd have to ask them what benefits/gains they are expecting for your daughter from whatever 'strength' work they are prescribing. Let us know what they say, as I'd be interested to learn what the response is - because my own feeling is that strength work is not beneficial to performance, for reasons which have been hammered out on this forum many times over.

RChung wrote:

Spoke too soon.

yep..

meanredspider

I can believe for females that there may be some value in increasing some muscle mass. Females don't put on muscle mass very easily and, as a general observation, I'd say that female pro cyclists look to have "beefier" legs than a typical low BMI lass. I think it's very dangerous to draw broad conclusions from anything specific though - just because person X benefits from something, it certainly doesn't mean that it's right for everyone.

okgo

They need less muscle as they generally weigh less I'd have thought?

Intersting you brought up the way they look, Armistead, Vos, Trott etc look lean, some of the female pro's look far from it but I'm sure its not because they train less, just different make up perhaps. But you don't often see women with legs like Wiggins or Froome, every fiber visible and veins everywhere, I've always wondered why that is, because if women have a low enough BF % age then they look just like men in body building, so why not cycling?

meanredspider

okgo wrote:

They need less muscle as they generally weigh less I'd have thought?

Intersting you brought up the way they look, Armistead, Vos, Trott etc look lean, some of the female pro's look far from it but I'm sure its not because they train less, just different make up perhaps. But you don't often see women with legs like Wiggins or Froome, every fiber visible and veins everywhere, I've always wondered why that is, because if women have a low enough BF % age then they look just like men in body building, so why not cycling?

Yes - but, weight for weight, women have less muscle and don't bulk up like men. They have to work harder at it.

mamba80

RChung wrote:

Spoke too soon.

:oops:

anyhow, i ve finished the festive 500 today... so happy new year to all, i m going out to celebrate

DeVlaeminck

RChung wrote:

Spoke too soon.

Shame you spoke at all if that is your contribution.

frisbee

The solution to the leg strength and weight training issue is obvious.

Just weight train one leg and get a power meter that measures left-right power split.

RChung

DeVlaeminck wrote:

RChung wrote:

Spoke too soon.

Shame you spoke at all if that is your contribution.

You have kids, or maybe students? Sometimes it's good to let them work out disputes on their own. You just have to let them know you're watching.

meanredspider

Feeling patronised, anybody? No, me neither...

The truth is that there's no definitive, one-size-fits-all, answer as much as some would like to think that there is.

RChung

Some people can find insult in anything. Glad you're not one of them.

meanredspider

RChung wrote:

Some people can find insult in anything. Glad you're not one of them.

As I've said before, you need to develop a reasonably thick skin to post in this sub-forum. The only problem with that is that people with thick skins aren't necessarily the best listeners or learners (I don't exclude myself). Progress is therefore pretty slow.

mamba80

I ve just read through Joe Friels chapter on both off and on bike strength training, his views are similar to Allens, are these guys idiots?
would they be classed as "slow learners" or slow progressors?

If it is as clear cut as RC would have us believe with little criptic remarks, then maybe a few lines on why, would be great to hear.

imposter2.0

mamba80 wrote:

I ve just read through Joe Friels chapter on both off and on bike strength training, his views are similar to Allens, are these guys idiots?

Such a shame that people have to be labelled as idiots for having one view or another. Plenty of other coaches disagree with the strength issue - are they idiots too..?? I doubt if anyone is an idiot - but it's a shame you have to escalate this with such a poor choice of words...

mamba80

But its ok to be condescending?
You ve stated an opinion that you do not believe in any strength training cycling benefits, i ve asked you and RC why you believe this but so far nothing of substance.
Friel and Allen are two very well respected coaches, and they state their belief in strength cycling specific training (on and off the bike) and why, it is a well reasoned argument, (which can be read in their on line blogs) you have an opposing view, so lets hear it.

chrisw12

mamba80 wrote:

I ve just read through Joe Friels chapter on both off and on bike strength training, his views are similar to Allens, are these guys idiots?
would they be classed as "slow learners" or slow progressors?

If it is as clear cut as RC would have us believe with little criptic remarks, then maybe a few lines on why, would be great to hear.

Think the problem some of you are having is coming new to this, you're not aware of the posters and some of the history behind topics like this. I think Robert was the first to quote 'cadence is a red herring'?? and when you get into the power stuff it really is (imo).

I don't mean this in a patronising way but spend some time searching through Roberts old posts (along with Coggan and alex S) both on here and slowtwitch and you might come to the same conclusions or at least understand the criptic comments made here.

imposter2.0

mamba80 wrote:

Friel and Allen are two very well respected coaches, and they state their belief in strength cycling specific training (on and off the bike) and why, it is a well reasoned argument, (which can be read in their on line blogs) you have an opposing view, so lets hear it.

I doubt if this forum really needs another 10-page discussion on leg strength. Why not just do a search, like ChrisW suggested? Sorry if that's 'condescending'...

sub55

chrisw12 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

I ve just read through Joe Friels chapter on both off and on bike strength training, his views are similar to Allens, are these guys idiots?
would they be classed as "slow learners" or slow progressors?

If it is as clear cut as RC would have us believe with little criptic remarks, then maybe a few lines on why, would be great to hear.

Think the problem some of you are having is coming new to this, you're not aware of the posters and some of the history behind topics like this. I think Robert was the first to quote 'cadence is a red herring'?? and when you get into the power stuff it really is (imo).

I don't mean this in a patronising way but spend some time searching through Roberts old posts (along with Coggan and alex S) both on here and slowtwitch and you might come to the same conclusions or at least understand the criptic comments made here.

All right chris it's been a long time, trust you and your family are well.
'cadence is a red herring' was my line. seem to recall went to about 10 pages I think courtesy of trev the rev, remember him. Argumentative bugger he was . Anyway ,stand by the quote , if you feel you need to practise anything ,its peddling in circles.

okgo

He lives on in various guises...

Alex_Simmons/RST

sub55 wrote:

if you feel you need to practise anything ,its peddling in circles.

why?

mamba80

Imposter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Friel and Allen are two very well respected coaches, and they state their belief in strength cycling specific training (on and off the bike) and why, it is a well reasoned argument, (which can be read in their on line blogs) you have an opposing view, so lets hear it.

I doubt if this forum really needs another 10-page discussion on leg strength. Why not just do a search, like ChrisW suggested? Sorry if that's 'condescending'...

Unlike an 11 page debate on cycling clubs, (which descended into name calling, insults and a locked thread)........ a subject that has never been discussed before but hey ?

imposter2.0

Strange response. It's an open forum - and by the way, you never answered my previous question. Or dig up one of the countless other leg strength threads, read it and then submit a comment explaining why you disagree with it. You know, normal stuff like that...

Stalin

sub55 wrote:

chrisw12 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

I ve just read through Joe Friels chapter on both off and on bike strength training, his views are similar to Allens, are these guys idiots?
would they be classed as "slow learners" or slow progressors?

If it is as clear cut as RC would have us believe with little criptic remarks, then maybe a few lines on why, would be great to hear.

Think the problem some of you are having is coming new to this, you're not aware of the posters and some of the history behind topics like this. I think Robert was the first to quote 'cadence is a red herring'?? and when you get into the power stuff it really is (imo).

I don't mean this in a patronising way but spend some time searching through Roberts old posts (along with Coggan and alex S) both on here and slowtwitch and you might come to the same conclusions or at least understand the criptic comments made here.

All right chris it's been a long time, trust you and your family are well.
'cadence is a red herring' was my line. seem to recall went to about 10 pages I think courtesy of trev the rev, remember him. Argumentative bugger he was . Anyway ,stand by the quote , if you feel you need to practise anything ,its peddling in circles.

Argumentative - Moi?