acoggan said:
Well, I would have this to say about your paper right off the bat. You wrote: "Specifically, QA was used to assess the two most plausible physiological mechanisms by which SE training could potentially be beneficial, i.e., 1) as a form of on-the-bike resistance training that results in muscular hypertrophy and thus possibly increases maximal neuromuscular power, or 2) as a means of enhancing the recruitment of type II (fast twitch) motor units during prolonged bouts of exercise, thus improving their resistance to fatigue via increases in mitochondrial content, capillarization, etc."
Ugh, your analysis is incomplete as there are other plausible benefits from this kind of training. Perhaps the rider will learn that a lower cadence results in more speed because the rider is riding at a more efficient cadence for him. Or, perhaps the rider can better unweight on the upstroke at a lower cadence contributing to improved efficiency, or both. Of course, I know your bias is that pedaling style is unrelated to efficiency, but recognize that for what it is, bias. Such has never been proven.
I think the evidence is quite clear that most riders ride at cadences that are above the most efficient cadence for them, probably in part because they are trying to emulate the pros, such as Lance, most of whom are riding at 100 to 150 watts more power. Lance rides at a cadence of 100 so the presume they should be also. Unless they train like Lance and are his physiological equal they probably should not be racing like Lance if they want to optimize their own performance.
You never told me how you found out that I am too lazy to change a tire
