This is off the topic of Andy's article, but...The use of higher cadences is related to the force
issue, with the general idea being that cyclists choose higher cadences because they are trying to
reduce the overall "strain" on the muscles, rather reducing lactic acid. Andy, correct me if I'm
wrong, but wasn't Coyle's contention that the elite riders are able to spread the workload of the
legs over a great number of fibers, so that individually each is less stressed? Higher cadences
would also "spare" each fiber some "strain".
Metabolically, higher cadences would be worse, but relative to the untrained person, its not a
problem, because the trained rider has the extra capacity; considering Lance, he has taken this a
step or two further, turning a cadence none of us mere mortals could without "blowing up", but he
has that extra capacity. How does this relate to strength?
The idea of cyclists lifting weights in the winter and gaining strength seems like a good one. I
mean you lift and get so much stronger that it seems natural that, like an increase in LT or VO2
max, all the previous sub max workloads are less hard. However, something many of the posters have
failed to address is the fact that one's 1 RM is so much higher than we could produce on the
steepest Berg, that strength alone is not relevant, and, as Andy pointed out, largely neurological.
The only way to make the strength increase permanent (so to speak) is to develop a bigger muscle.
Unfortunately (for those of you concerned with metabolic issues), a large increase in muscle would
decrease capillary density, decreasing endurance capacity, at least in the short-term. But, let's
say you grow your muscles and then say, "OK, now I'm going to train my ass off and get that
endurance back." Super, 3 months later (probably longer), your capillary density is increased, your
endurance is back up and your muscles are SMALLER. Why? Because the smaller muscle is better for
endurance.
While I may have oversimplified this, the point here is that large muscle sizes are good for force,
but probably not possible to sustain for endurance sports. Obviously, cyclists have very large legs,
but compared to body builders they're still "small potatoes"!
I think a lot of people missed the point of the original post and zeroed in on his use of
terminology. Whether correct or incorrect, the point was to raise issue over weight training, not
word usage.
Now for my own use in coaching, I am not a strong proponent of weight training, but some clients use
it, others don't and I mostly believe weights can be an important break for a rider and help address
weaknesses. Some clients even feel they need weight training making it not worth the time to argue
or reform, because cycling is part
psychological, too. Let's all consider the overall role of auxiliary training and not forget the
need for specificity.
Chris Harnish
"Fighting poor training one client at a time."
[email hidden] (Frank Day) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:Shayne, We are not talking about imaginary numbers here. If you prefer to call it science that we
ignore results we don't like or can't explain so be it. You are not alone in this regards. I don't
see why the higher cadence is necessarily the "unphysical" one. Lots of people here would argue
that higher cadences are better than lower cadences because they "flush out the lactic acid", even
though there is no good science to back that claim up either.
Frank
"Shayne Wissler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:> This conclusion does not
follow. There are lots of examples in physics where
Quoted message said:you throw out the "unphysical" solution, which is just an artifact of the method of computation.
Shayne Wissler
