Training in the small ring.
Comments
-
Anyone needing to ask this question needs to join a club and have some basics whacked into them with a frame fit pump...0
-
Thank you sir! May I have another?0
-
Big ring beats little ring, look at any tour peloton......simples.
0 -
Oh dear. Where does one start?giantsasquatch wrote:chaffordred wrote:I have been told that the benefits of training in the small ring far outweigh that of training in the big ring.
You were told RIGHT. Those who said it's tripe like the coach don't spin train hard enough or don't get it.
SPINNING HARD and FAST in SMALL RING is harder than slow mashing BIG RING! Your using up more overall energy.
Training in the small ring at a higher cadence will develop your cardiovascular system quicker and better, and at the same time, develop your muscles good. That's if you select a optimum hard enough gear, still being able to spin fast.
Cycling in the small ring will develop good cardiovascular and muscle at the SAME TIME, that's if you SPIN FAST and HARD!
If you just mash hard in a big ring, you develop muscle, strength and endurance with a slower development rate of efficiency and cardiovascular.
Incidentally, Why do you think cyclists who used to run before they took up cycling, make good cyclists? Because they developed a good highly trained cardiovascular.
It's harder training. Do it every alternate day. On the off days in between, spin easy.
Do what i tell you and you will maximize your training time and reach your potential at a faster rate.
So many myths, so little time.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Oh dear. Where does one start?giantsasquatch wrote:chaffordred wrote:I have been told that the benefits of training in the small ring far outweigh that of training in the big ring.
You were told RIGHT. Those who said it's tripe like the coach don't spin train hard enough or don't get it.
SPINNING HARD and FAST in SMALL RING is harder than slow mashing BIG RING! Your using up more overall energy.
Training in the small ring at a higher cadence will develop your cardiovascular system quicker and better, and at the same time, develop your muscles good. That's if you select a optimum hard enough gear, still being able to spin fast.
Cycling in the small ring will develop good cardiovascular and muscle at the SAME TIME, that's if you SPIN FAST and HARD!
If you just mash hard in a big ring, you develop muscle, strength and endurance with a slower development rate of efficiency and cardiovascular.
Incidentally, Why do you think cyclists who used to run before they took up cycling, make good cyclists? Because they developed a good highly trained cardiovascular.
It's harder training. Do it every alternate day. On the off days in between, spin easy.
Do what i tell you and you will maximize your training time and reach your potential at a faster rate.
So many myths, so little time.
I wouldn't bother, some people are never going to get it so leave them carry on.0 -
The giantsasquatch is back --
"Because the cycling is pain. The cycling is soul crushing pain."0 -
giantsasquatch I just swapped my compact chainset for a standard double - have I made a mistake?More problems but still living....0
-
amaferanga wrote:giantsasquatch I just swapped my compact chainset for a standard double - have I made a mistake?
nooooooo! what have you done??? :shock:--
"Because the cycling is pain. The cycling is soul crushing pain."0 -
Woo hoo!
Welcome back Giantsasquatch!
Look forward to hearing more input on this thread.0 -
Just spin in the big ring, most bikes have 10 ratios to choose from. Unless it is sufficiently steep that you can't use the big ring without grinding away.0
-
How about concentrating on keeping a high cadence if that's what you want to do and not worrying about what gear you're in, jeez.
An if you train to spin all the time what do you doo when the road turns skywards and your already in the bottom gear? What about leg strengh? Where would you be getting that from?Saracen Tenet 3 - 2015 - Dead - Replaced with a Hack Frame
Voodoo Bizango - 2014 - Dead - Hit by a car
Vitus Sentier VRS - 20170 -
giantsasquatch wrote:Mistake calculation, which was for 50 not 34. I try again with a better example, higher cadence for flat road.
Both = 23MPH.
34/11 (82 gear inches) @ 103 RPM
53/11 (128 gear inches) @ 85RPM
Might want to give that another go, those numbers still look dubious.0 -
Shmo wrote:giantsasquatch wrote:Mistake calculation, which was for 50 not 34. I try again with a better example, higher cadence for flat road.
Both = 23MPH.
34/11 (82 gear inches) @ 103 RPM
53/11 (128 gear inches) @ 85RPM
Might want to give that another go, those numbers still look dubious.
Correct
Formula is
Speed(mph) = Gear(inches) x Cadence Divided by 336
23 x 336 divided by 82 = 94 rpm
23 x 336 divided by 128 = 60 rpm
IMO providing you practise spinning in training over many months then it will benefit your pedalling efficiency physiologically as per Cancellera. At a fast cruising speed say 30 mph then my optimum cadence was around 95 rpm.
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0965.htm
BTW I don't particularly care if anyone disagrees with this especially coaches.0 -
The peak of maximum efficient high cadence is around 120RPM. You don't even train anywhere near to that cadence, so why knock it?
Once the body adapts, it is simply more efficient. Of course, if your used to 85RPM then anything higher will work against you for ages.
It all depends what your body is capable of and the training demands your prepared to do.
Maybe you can't afford the bigger food bill, utilized for recovery due to the sheer energy expenditure.
It is easier and natural for the legs to automate, programme and perfect a smaller motion, than it is a bigger one. There is less higher leg motion and more leg motion going forward. It is simply a more fluid natural motion. Because it a quicker circular motion, the body learns faster. You just have to build the cardiovascular to cope with it.
Cruising past 53 riders is growing and a delight!
I think i had a slight advantage, because i trained like that from the start.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Oh dear. Where does one start?giantsasquatch wrote:chaffordred wrote:I have been told that the benefits of training in the small ring far outweigh that of training in the big ring.
You were told RIGHT. Those who said it's tripe like the coach don't spin train hard enough or don't get it.
SPINNING HARD and FAST in SMALL RING is harder than slow mashing BIG RING! Your using up more overall energy.
Training in the small ring at a higher cadence will develop your cardiovascular system quicker and better, and at the same time, develop your muscles good. That's if you select a optimum hard enough gear, still being able to spin fast.
Cycling in the small ring will develop good cardiovascular and muscle at the SAME TIME, that's if you SPIN FAST and HARD!
If you just mash hard in a big ring, you develop muscle, strength and endurance with a slower development rate of efficiency and cardiovascular.
Incidentally, Why do you think cyclists who used to run before they took up cycling, make good cyclists? Because they developed a good highly trained cardiovascular.
It's harder training. Do it every alternate day. On the off days in between, spin easy.
Do what i tell you and you will maximize your training time and reach your potential at a faster rate.
So many myths, so little time.
All roads lead to Rome. You have your way, i have mine. Mine travels faster.
It like workouts, for example there is more than one way to train and build muscle. I train more efficiently and so progress faster, probably in half the time.0 -
giantsasquatch wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Oh dear. Where does one start?giantsasquatch wrote:chaffordred wrote:I have been told that the benefits of training in the small ring far outweigh that of training in the big ring.
You were told RIGHT. Those who said it's tripe like the coach don't spin train hard enough or don't get it.
SPINNING HARD and FAST in SMALL RING is harder than slow mashing BIG RING! Your using up more overall energy.
Training in the small ring at a higher cadence will develop your cardiovascular system quicker and better, and at the same time, develop your muscles good. That's if you select a optimum hard enough gear, still being able to spin fast.
Cycling in the small ring will develop good cardiovascular and muscle at the SAME TIME, that's if you SPIN FAST and HARD!
If you just mash hard in a big ring, you develop muscle, strength and endurance with a slower development rate of efficiency and cardiovascular.
Incidentally, Why do you think cyclists who used to run before they took up cycling, make good cyclists? Because they developed a good highly trained cardiovascular.
It's harder training. Do it every alternate day. On the off days in between, spin easy.
Do what i tell you and you will maximize your training time and reach your potential at a faster rate.
So many myths, so little time.
All roads lead to Rome. You have your way, i have mine. Mine travels faster.
It like workouts, for example there is more than one way to train and build muscle. I train more efficiently and so progress faster, probably in half the time.
You talk like Schwarzenegger, me like. Train good. Big ring good, Small ring, wuss.
0 -
giantsasquatch wrote:The peak of maximum efficient high cadence is around 120RPM. You don't even train anywhere near to that cadence, so why knock it?
Once the body adapts, it is simply more efficient. Of course, if your used to 85RPM then anything higher will work against you for ages.
It all depends what your body is capable of and the training demands your prepared to do.
Maybe you can't afford the bigger food bill, utilized for recovery due to the sheer energy expenditure.
It is easier and natural for the legs to automate, programme and perfect a smaller motion, than it is a bigger one. There is less higher leg motion and more leg motion going forward. It is simply a more fluid natural motion. Because it a quicker circular motion, the body learns faster. You just have to build the cardiovascular to cope with it.
Cruising past 53 riders is growing and a delight!
I think i had a slight advantage, because i trained like that from the start.
+10 -
NapoleonD wrote:giantsasquatch wrote:The peak of maximum efficient high cadence is around 120RPM. You don't even train anywhere near to that cadence, so why knock it?
Once the body adapts, it is simply more efficient. Of course, if your used to 85RPM then anything higher will work against you for ages.
It all depends what your body is capable of and the training demands your prepared to do.
Maybe you can't afford the bigger food bill, utilized for recovery due to the sheer energy expenditure.
It is easier and natural for the legs to automate, programme and perfect a smaller motion, than it is a bigger one. There is less higher leg motion and more leg motion going forward. It is simply a more fluid natural motion. Because it a quicker circular motion, the body learns faster. You just have to build the cardiovascular to cope with it.
Cruising past 53 riders is growing and a delight!
I think i had a slight advantage, because i trained like that from the start.
+1
Quite. I particularly liked "It is easier and natural for the legs to automate, programme and perfect a smaller motion, than it is a bigger one. There is less higher leg motion and more leg motion going forward. It is simply a more fluid natural motion. Because it a quicker circular motion, the body learns faster. You just have to build the cardiovascular to cope with it." :roll:0 -
giantsasquatch wrote:The peak of maximum efficient high cadence is around 120RPM. You don't even train anywhere near to that cadence, so why knock it?
Once the body adapts, it is simply more efficient. Of course, if your used to 85RPM then anything higher will work against you for ages.
It all depends what your body is capable of and the training demands your prepared to do.
Maybe you can't afford the bigger food bill, utilized for recovery due to the sheer energy expenditure.
It is easier and natural for the legs to automate, programme and perfect a smaller motion, than it is a bigger one. There is less higher leg motion and more leg motion going forward. It is simply a more fluid natural motion. Because it a quicker circular motion, the body learns faster. You just have to build the cardiovascular to cope with it.
Cruising past 53 riders is growing and a delight!
I think i had a slight advantage, because i trained like that from the start.
Surely thats down to crank arm length?0 -
Well for a start, this has nothing to do with cadence. In this instance, cadence really is a red herring.giantsasquatch wrote:The peak of maximum efficient high cadence is around 120RPM. You don't even train anywhere near to that cadence, so why knock it?
But even if it were, well you are quite simply wrong to assert that maximum efficiency is attained at 120rpm. Peak efficiency is typically achieved at very low cadences of ~ 60rpm. Not that efficiency is all that important to performance.0 -
Just what is "my way"?giantsasquatch wrote:All roads lead to Rome. You have your way, i have mine. Mine travels faster.
here's a hint:
http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopi ... 0#16191230
Evidence please. How, for instance are you measuring progress?giantsasquatch wrote:It like workouts, for example there is more than one way to train and build muscle. I train more efficiently and so progress faster, probably in half the time.
Since I have published my rate of progress perhaps we can compare it with yours. Here's my progress in cycling performance (power output) since returning to the bike after having a leg amputation:
Mind you, everyone's own rate of progress from training is different and significantly impacted by genetic factors.
Anyone claiming their performance improvement is due to the chain ring they happen to choose to ride in (big or small) is simply having a lend.0 -
giantsasquatch wrote:The peak of maximum efficient high cadence is around 120RPM. You don't even train anywhere near to that cadence, so why knock it?
Once the body adapts, it is simply more efficient. Of course, if your used to 85RPM then anything higher will work against you for ages.
It all depends what your body is capable of and the training demands your prepared to do.
Maybe you can't afford the bigger food bill, utilized for recovery due to the sheer energy expenditure.
It is easier and natural for the legs to automate, programme and perfect a smaller motion, than it is a bigger one. There is less higher leg motion and more leg motion going forward. It is simply a more fluid natural motion. Because it a quicker circular motion, the body learns faster. You just have to build the cardiovascular to cope with it.
Cruising past 53 riders is growing and a delight!
I think i had a slight advantage, because i trained like that from the start.
where the hell did you get that pearl from??
Each persons physiology is different, its as useful as claiming that the most efficient heart rate is 175 bpm...!
Does your coaching method involve beer in any way? I quite like the idea of a cycling "holiday" based on your theories!0 -
Heh heh!
Some biters here!0 -
SteveR_100Milers wrote:where the hell did you get that pearl from??
Each persons physiology is different, its as useful as claiming that the most efficient heart rate is 175 bpm...!
Does your coaching method involve beer in any way? I quite like the idea of a cycling "holiday" based on your theories!
Mine is around 172bpm, does that mean I'm farked!?...
I think the training theory may be based loosely on mind bending drugs!...
Written like a Vino quote, taken from a Bhima mind... Start with a budget, finish with a mortgage!0 -
NapoleonD wrote:Heh heh!
Some biters here!
Yes I know, but don't spoil the fun, it's what makes forum life exciting sometimes...0 -
yawn0
-
I'm not a coach, not even a good cyclist anymore. But as a scientist (not sports science though) and someone who used to race, I like to keep my eye on the literature. The abstract below is for a recent review article covering much of what has been discussed here, although not necessarily if you should only train in the small ring. For those of you who are truly interested it might make interesting reading. Of course just because it is published doesn't make it true, and some studies are better planned than others. But as a review article it should cover and discuss the broader literature.
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2009 Mar;4(1):3-17.
Factors affecting cadence choice during submaximal cycling and cadence influence on performance.
Hansen EA, Smith G.
Department of Physical Performance, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
Cadence choice during cycling has been of considerable interest among cyclists, coaches, and researchers for nearly 100 years. The present review examines and summarizes the current knowledge of factors affecting the freely chosen cadence during submaximal cycling and of the influence of cadence choice on performance. In addition, suggestions for future research are given along with scientifically based, practical recommendations for those involved in cycling. Within the past 10 years, a number of papers have been published that have brought novel insight into the subject. For example, under the influence of spinal central pattern generators, a robust innate voluntary motor rhythm has been suggested as the primary basis for freely chosen cadence in cycling. This might clarify the cadence paradox in which the freely chosen cadence during low-to-moderate submaximal cycling is considerably higher and thereby less economical than the energetically optimal cadence. A number of factors, including age, power output, and road gradient, have been shown to affect the choice of cadence to some extent. During high-intensity cycling, close to the maximal aerobic power output, cyclists choose an energetically economical cadence that is also favorable for performance. In contrast, the choice of a relatively high cadence during cycling at low-to-moderate intensity is uneconomical and could compromise performance during prolonged cycling.No-one wanted to eat Patagonia Toothfish so they renamed it Chilean Sea Bass and now it's in danger of over fishing!0 -
Thick Tester wrote:Anyone needing to ask this question needs to join a club and have some basics whacked into them with a frame fit pump...
I am with a club, but having only 14 months cycling experience and coming from a running background I thought I would ask what I thought was a sensible question.
I was also told grinding big gears does you no good for later life and can give you varicose veins, whereas spinning in the small ring develops your cardio, trains you to spin at a more optimum cadence and more importantly can give you more acceleration when in a race?0 -
SBezza wrote:Just spin in the big ring, most bikes have 10 ratios to choose from. Unless it is sufficiently steep that you can't use the big ring without grinding away.
I have tried spinning in the big ring, but I keep forgetting to drop down gears to keep the cadence up. Whereas riding in the smaller ring "forces" me to spin at a better cadence.0
