i haven't anywhere suggested that training doesn't improve efficiency. i'm just suggesting that efficiency isn't a limiting factor in this issue.
ric
Burning legs
- Thread starter tt-timmer
- Start date
i haven't anywhere suggested that training doesn't improve efficiency. i'm just suggesting that efficiency isn't a limiting factor in this issue.
ric
Ric...
let's settle this once and for all...
with dueling banjos!
http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~blagger/the_duel.html
let's settle this once and for all...
with dueling banjos!
http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~blagger/the_duel.html
one of my favourite songs.
anyway, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8933490&dopt=Abstract
efficiency is similar (i.e. not significantly different) between trained cyclists and untrained matched controls, as i previously stated.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10541922&dopt=Abstract
efficiency highest at 60 revs/min across various exercise intensities in trained cyclists
Ric
Ric....what type of SUSTAINED efforts were involved in the test?
There seem to be REST periods granted to the subjects as well.
I wonder if the tests simulated actual race specific stress? A hard crit could be a sustained hour of intense effort....or a long road race could last for 4-6 hours.
The advantages garnered by the effecient/economical cyclist over the lesser effcient ones are often realized at later stages of a long race..when the more effecient/economical subject has greater reserves than his less effecient counterpart. This means that he might have more left for a sprint or a final ascent of a mountain....or perhaps he will be able to maintain his power output in the closing kilometers of a long time trial..while his less effecient counterpart weakens in the closing kilometers.
I'm not sure this controlled test would convince me based on the way it is structured.
There seem to be REST periods granted to the subjects as well.
I wonder if the tests simulated actual race specific stress? A hard crit could be a sustained hour of intense effort....or a long road race could last for 4-6 hours.
The advantages garnered by the effecient/economical cyclist over the lesser effcient ones are often realized at later stages of a long race..when the more effecient/economical subject has greater reserves than his less effecient counterpart. This means that he might have more left for a sprint or a final ascent of a mountain....or perhaps he will be able to maintain his power output in the closing kilometers of a long time trial..while his less effecient counterpart weakens in the closing kilometers.
I'm not sure this controlled test would convince me based on the way it is structured.
off the top of my head i have no idea what the tests were. however, you appear to be missing the point about what efficiency and economy are. i gave the definition a few messages back.
ric
Ric, as you know I am a tester. The reason I'm trying to pedal faster is because I feel I 'lock-in' to a cadence and any deviation tends to affect my performance negatively.
I seem to lock in at 90 rpm. If I want to go faster I either have to shift into a bigger gear and pedal slower momentarily and try to accelerate to get back to 90 rpm (which is too a huge increase in wattage out put) or simply pedal faster. If I can train myself to ride 95 rpm in the same gear isn't that how I should train? to peal faster?
there's a few issues...
one as mentioned i think people need to ride at vary cadences to cope with various situations. however, by and large most people will meet a variety of cadences whenever they ride outside.
i don't believe that there's much point to riding at varying cadences indoors on the trainers. i contend it's not the cadence that you have issues with, but the forces involved. with most trainers, especially commercial ones that have small mass flywheels you can't generate the forces required on them that you can naturally get outdoors (this is one reason why you can sprint on most trainers). cadence is a proxy for the torque that we can cope with
thus, it's important to train specifically the situation you're struggling with. it's important to train at the power you're trying to meet, and the force you'll meet that power at (which will vary depending on topography and environmental conditions.
however, this is bogging down, in very specific stuff, and you're best trying to just increase the power you can sustain over the duration you're expected to race (e.g. increase the power you can average over 40km).
ric
however, this is bogging down, in very specific stuff, and you're best trying to just increase the power you can sustain over the duration you're expected to race (e.g. increase the power you can average over 40km).
ric [/B][/QUOTE]
Thanks Ric,
I'm stuck on a trainer. Until almost April. The power reading on the trainer is purely relative.. I don't really use it as a training tool. I watch cadence and my HRM. But considering power and increasing it over the duration of an event, isn't it adviseable to train to ride at an increased cadence? Increasing the cadence by 5 rpm requires far less 'perceived' effort than ridng and bigger gear (at a cadence required to increase speed) but it does need to be trained in my situation.
pedaling faster has become the universal answer to increasing power output has it not?
ric [/B][/QUOTE]
Thanks Ric,
I'm stuck on a trainer. Until almost April. The power reading on the trainer is purely relative.. I don't really use it as a training tool. I watch cadence and my HRM. But considering power and increasing it over the duration of an event, isn't it adviseable to train to ride at an increased cadence? Increasing the cadence by 5 rpm requires far less 'perceived' effort than ridng and bigger gear (at a cadence required to increase speed) but it does need to be trained in my situation.
pedaling faster has become the universal answer to increasing power output has it not?
however, this is bogging down, in very specific stuff, and you're best trying to just increase the power you can sustain over the duration you're expected to race (e.g. increase the power you can average over 40km).
ric [/B][/QUOTE]
Thanks Ric,
I'm stuck on a trainer. Until almost April. The power reading on the trainer is purely relative.. I don't really use it as a training tool. I watch cadence and my HRM. But consireing power and increasing it over the duration of an event, isn't it adviseable to train to ride at an increased cadence? Increasing the cadence by 5 rpm requires far less'percieved' effort than ridng and bigger gear (at a cadence required to increase speed) but it does need to be trained in my situation.
pedaling faster has become the universal answer to increasing power output has it not?
ric [/B][/QUOTE]
Thanks Ric,
I'm stuck on a trainer. Until almost April. The power reading on the trainer is purely relative.. I don't really use it as a training tool. I watch cadence and my HRM. But consireing power and increasing it over the duration of an event, isn't it adviseable to train to ride at an increased cadence? Increasing the cadence by 5 rpm requires far less'percieved' effort than ridng and bigger gear (at a cadence required to increase speed) but it does need to be trained in my situation.
pedaling faster has become the universal answer to increasing power output has it not?
i'm not sure why you don't watch the power -- it's the most important metric to train, in fact it's really the only thing to train, everything else is a proxy for it.
to increase your power for a specific duration/condition you can apply more force to the pedals, or increase your cadence or a combination of the two. however, the important point to realise is that breaking it down into it's specific parts (torque cadence) is really a complete waste of time. just train to ride with more power.
additionally, to this if you're completely depedent upon indoor riding i'd suggest riding a slightly lower cadence at a given power output, so that torque is higher. principally, this is because trainers can't generate the forces found on the road, and this may help a little when you get back on the road.
ric
Guys, I've been watching the debates concerning cadence and power and efficiency. I'm not a sport scientist myself but I do study it.
Ric is right when he says that the power demand to travel at a specific speed does not ever change depending on gearing. It's the speed that determines how much power is required, not the cadence or gearing.
However, regarding cadence, oneradtec is wrong IMO because for some reason, cyclists tend to become fatigued faster at 125 rpms. It's very hard to sustain 125 rpms for a long period of time no matter what gear. From what I've heard, the fastest rpm on the professional circuits for regular riding, not sprinting is somewhere around 112 rpms.
There is a tradeoff with using lower and higher cadence, one tradeoff is that a higher cadence requires a larger load from the aerobic system, however, a lower cadence lessens that load on the aerobic system, but it does increase muscular fatigue. It's like trying to lift weights very slowly, you will feel like you are doing much more work when you take 10 seconds to benchpress say, 150 lbs (arbitrary number) each time. However, when you supposedly did the same amount of weight on the benchpress for a shorter duration, there's a much larger demand on the aerobic system, but you don't fatigue as fast. Jan Ullrich probably is capable of lifting tremendous amounts of power with his legs but he doesn't focus so much on the aerobic aspect, yes, he's fit, but he won't be able to increase his speed much more by increasing cadence because his legs are so used to doing slow cadence and tolerating the muscular fatigue. It is possible to train using a higher cadence as in Jan Ullrich's case and make the load more focused on his aerobic condition rather than his muscular condition. But would he win in relationship to Lance, I don't know, we'd never know unless he decided to try working that way.
Thomas Davis
Ric is right when he says that the power demand to travel at a specific speed does not ever change depending on gearing. It's the speed that determines how much power is required, not the cadence or gearing.
However, regarding cadence, oneradtec is wrong IMO because for some reason, cyclists tend to become fatigued faster at 125 rpms. It's very hard to sustain 125 rpms for a long period of time no matter what gear. From what I've heard, the fastest rpm on the professional circuits for regular riding, not sprinting is somewhere around 112 rpms.
There is a tradeoff with using lower and higher cadence, one tradeoff is that a higher cadence requires a larger load from the aerobic system, however, a lower cadence lessens that load on the aerobic system, but it does increase muscular fatigue. It's like trying to lift weights very slowly, you will feel like you are doing much more work when you take 10 seconds to benchpress say, 150 lbs (arbitrary number) each time. However, when you supposedly did the same amount of weight on the benchpress for a shorter duration, there's a much larger demand on the aerobic system, but you don't fatigue as fast. Jan Ullrich probably is capable of lifting tremendous amounts of power with his legs but he doesn't focus so much on the aerobic aspect, yes, he's fit, but he won't be able to increase his speed much more by increasing cadence because his legs are so used to doing slow cadence and tolerating the muscular fatigue. It is possible to train using a higher cadence as in Jan Ullrich's case and make the load more focused on his aerobic condition rather than his muscular condition. But would he win in relationship to Lance, I don't know, we'd never know unless he decided to try working that way.
Thomas Davis
You've articulated what I was trying to express about Ullrich vis-a-vis Lance Armstrong, TD.
With respect to each poster on the thread, I think that some of the posters here are confusing themselves (and other people) regarding their definitions of power, power outputs etc.
The terminology being used on this thread is generic to cycling - the definitions being used here don't correspond to the scientific
definition of power for example.
So when reading this thread, people need to be aware that although they may well be using cycling definitions of 'power' et
al, for someone from a scientific background these definitions are
not correct or clear.
But I suppose it's a cycling thread, thus we have to understand cycling definitions of power etc.
i'm not sure if you're including everyone in the above, but i'm definitely using (one of) the correct definition of power
ric
It's totally dependent on the individual's phisiology and I don' want to wake that monster up.
The big question is can a specific type of training change an individuals' physiology to improve power, or better put, help them go faster longer?
and, are my symptoms an indication that this might be happening?
Most efficient cadence is really termed thermodynamic efficiency, and is equal to actual mechanical work done / input of energy x 100. in other words, an efficient cyclist would be one that minimises energy expenditure for a given workload (power). Pedalling at high cadence (at a given power) requires more energy to expended than at a lower cadence (there's a cost associated with moving your legs even in an unweighted way.
Optimal, would be the cadence that is most optimal for producing the highest power output. Optimal is best done by natural self selection of cadences.
Thus, in an efficient world to save energy the best cadence will be about 50 - 70 revs/min (the cadence comes up as the absolute power output increases).
Optimal is about 80 to 100 revs/min, because that tends to minimise the discomfort felt when e.g. TTing or riding hard
Ric
I'm not sure if i understand your question correctly, but the whole purpose of training is to increase power output over whatever duration is important to the person in question.
with regards to the second point, if i understand what you've written, in terms of TTing that's the inverse of what is needed, i.e., as your power increases, you travel faster (under given conditions) and thus, you go faster for shorter periods of time.
Ric
Similar threads
