Cycling Cadence and Running Stride Rate

[Tony]

Reading from "Lactate Threshold Training" (Janssen 2001) recently, I saw a
section about pedaling frequency that seemed to confirm the advantages of
using a high cadence at certain times when cycle racing. This is of course
the style of Armstrong and Indurain, especially when climbing. Their success
using this technique makes it intriguing.

As I understand it, basically with a bigger gear (lower cadence), the muscle
contraction is longer and requires more power and will become anaerobic
sooner than will a higher cadence that requires less power per contraction.
Thus at the same speed, two equally fit athletes each using a different
cadence will be doing a different kind of workout. The cyclist using a
lower cadence will be getting more of a strength workout, and the cyclist
using a higher cadence will be getting a more aerobic workout and will
breathe harder as a result. But the one using the higher cadence will
recover faster and be able to go longer because there will be less muscle
damage. All this for Two riders of equal ability going the same speed.

It is the contraction force necessary that determines which muscles will do
the work. First, slow twitch (type I muscle fibers) always do the work
first unless the contraction requires greater speed or force than the type
I's can handle. If the force is greater, the medium twitch (type IIa's and
others) kick in, and while these are partially aerobic, they produce more
lactate than type I's, and thus fatigue more quickly. If the force
necessary is still greater, fast twitch (type IIb) muscles kick in, but
these will fatigue very quickly.

The surprising thing to me is that for the same workout effort, it can turn
out to be a strength workout or an aerobic workout. This certainly has
implications for both training and racing, and has clearly not been
exploited by many racers. Strength workouts require longer to recover from.
It now seems clear why Armstrong usually seems to have fresher legs than
other riders when climbing in the mountains day after day. The higher
cadence is more aerobic and saves on muscle fatigue.

The evidence seems clear on this for cycling, as it makes sense from a
muscle physiology point of view. I'm wondering if similar principles might
be true for running too. Is a shorter but faster stride more aerobic for
the same speed? I believe over-striding is known to have a tendency to wear
out the legs, and this might be a demonstration of this principle.

A separate but related question is: to what degree does the difference in
cycling cadence (and possibly stride rate in activities like running and
hiking) produce differences in hypertrophy? Thus, is hypertrophy after
endurance exercise a demonstration of this principle of it being more of a
strength workload as opposed to an aerobic workload? My understanding is
that type I muscle fibers do not experience hypertrophy to the same extent
of type IIa and IIb fibers. In my experience, high cadence cycling produces
less hypertrophy than low cadence cycling. Also, certain activities like
trail running in hilly areas tend to produce much more hypertrophy. To what
extent is this evidence that the workload is more anaerobic? Any other
ideas on this?

- Tony

 

[np426z]

"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Reading from "Lactate Threshold Training" (Janssen 2001) recently, I saw a
> section about pedaling frequency

Yunno, there's a world of difference between reading and understanding.
However, reading makes a fine start...

> This is of course
> the style of Armstrong and Indurain, especially when climbing. Their
success
> using this technique makes it intriguing.

<splutter>

Uh? 'Their' success? Almost *EVERY* climber of note maintains high
cadence when climbing. In fact I'd go so far as to say that the big guys
like Armstrong and Indurain actually turn the pedals at a slightly lower
rate than the 'pure' climbers.

> As I understand it, basically with a bigger gear (lower cadence), the
muscle
> contraction is longer and requires more power and will become anaerobic
> sooner than will a higher cadence that requires less power per
contraction.
> Thus at the same speed, two equally fit athletes each using a different
> cadence will be doing a different kind of workout. The cyclist using a
> lower cadence will be getting more of a strength workout, and the cyclist
> using a higher cadence will be getting a more aerobic workout and will
> breathe harder as a result. But the one using the higher cadence will
> recover faster and be able to go longer because there will be less muscle
> damage. All this for Two riders of equal ability going the same speed.

Yes - in theory - but life is never that simple. You also have to factor
in body weight, bike weight, rider/bike aerodynamics, etc, etc. Cycling,
like life, cannot be reduced to a series of simplistic equations or formula.

<snipped basic physiology examples lifted from textbook>

Dear Tony,

If I wanted/needed a refresher course I'd buy the book.

> It now seems clear why Armstrong usually seems to have fresher legs than
> other riders when climbing in the mountains day after day

I think there is a rather more likely explanation being touted in a popluar
book on Armstrong at the mo'.

> I'm wondering if similar principles might
> be true for running too.

Simple answer? No.

> Is a shorter but faster stride more aerobic for
> the same speed?

Simple answer? No.

> A separate but related question is: to what degree does the difference in
> cycling cadence (and possibly stride rate in activities like running and
> hiking) produce differences in hypertrophy?

OMG! I think you need to sit down and ask yourself *why* you're asking
these questions. Are you bored? A deviant troll? Wobbot's long-lost
brother?

> Any other ideas on this?

Yup. I have an idea. Post something interesting. It could be what you
had for breakfast, what your boss said to you today, your views on world
peace, ANYTHING but this nonsense.

 

[SwStudio]

"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Reading from "Lactate Threshold Training" (Janssen 2001) recently, I saw a
> section about pedaling frequency that seemed to confirm the advantages of
> using a high cadence at certain times when cycle racing. This is of
course
> the style of Armstrong and Indurain, especially when climbing. Their
success
> using this technique makes it intriguing.

Yep, we all know that Armstrong consistently maintains a higher
average cadence than anyone else on the TdF, hills or not - every
year people talk about it. Remember the talk of LA's cadence
vs. Ullrich over the years? I wasn't as much into cycling when Indurain
was ripping up the roads, but I remember that being discussed about
him as well. They are/were certainly amazing climbers, and the higher
cadence certainly helps.

As a runner, I can tell you that it's standard procedure to shorten
your stride and increase the cadence a little (as well as a bit of the
old arm-pumping) when climbing. I'd say it's a similar strategy.
Certainly taking slow, long strides when running up a hill (comparable
to pushing a high gear) would be less effecient.


> It now seems clear why Armstrong usually seems to have fresher legs than
> other riders when climbing in the mountains day after day. The higher
> cadence is more aerobic and saves on muscle fatigue.

Well - said, and I agree. Often in marathon running you will see people
developing a shorter stride length and faster cadence as the race nears
the end, because fatigue it really taking over and the body simply
compensates and makes it as easy as possible. This makes me think
that people should do this from the start!

Interesting post - thanks for your thoughts.

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON)
www.allfalldown.org
www.absolutelyaccurate.com

 

[Tony]

SwStudio wrote in message ...
>"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> Reading from "Lactate Threshold Training" (Janssen 2001) recently, I saw
a
>> section about pedaling frequency that seemed to confirm the advantages of
>> using a high cadence at certain times when cycle racing. This is of
>course
>> the style of Armstrong and Indurain, especially when climbing. Their
>success
>> using this technique makes it intriguing.
>
>Yep, we all know that Armstrong consistently maintains a higher
>average cadence than anyone else on the TdF, hills or not - every
>year people talk about it. Remember the talk of LA's cadence
>vs. Ullrich over the years? I wasn't as much into cycling when Indurain
>was ripping up the roads, but I remember that being discussed about
>him as well. They are/were certainly amazing climbers, and the higher
>cadence certainly helps.

I know there are other cycling greats who have used the high cadence
technique so it's not a new thing, but its surprizing how resistant the
other racers are, particularly guys like ullrich. Pride perhaps.

>
>As a runner, I can tell you that it's standard procedure to shorten
>your stride and increase the cadence a little (as well as a bit of the
>old arm-pumping) when climbing. I'd say it's a similar strategy.
>Certainly taking slow, long strides when running up a hill (comparable
>to pushing a high gear) would be less effecient.
>
>
>> It now seems clear why Armstrong usually seems to have fresher legs than
>> other riders when climbing in the mountains day after day. The higher
>> cadence is more aerobic and saves on muscle fatigue.
>
>Well - said, and I agree. Often in marathon running you will see people
>developing a shorter stride length and faster cadence as the race nears
>the end, because fatigue it really taking over and the body simply
>compensates and makes it as easy as possible. This makes me think
>that people should do this from the start!

Well today I started an experiment of one. For two weeks I will do my runs
with very short strides and a quick turnover. My aim is to do 1.5x my usual
stride rate and see how this affects my training. Today I did an 80 min
trail run doing this and it felt seriously funny to run that way, and I
probably looked like charlie chaplin shuffling down the road frantically
with a load in his pants. My HR was at least 10 beats higher than normal,
but the run took the same amount of time as usual. All I can say so far is
that maybe there was a bit less loading than normal on the hills, and that
my legs felt very different than they usually do after the run, not better
necessarily, but just different. Will post more results of this later.

- Tony
>
>Interesting post - thanks for your thoughts.
>
>cheers,
>--
>David (in Hamilton, ON)
>www.allfalldown.org
>www.absolutelyaccurate.com
>
>

 

[Tony]

np426z wrote in message ...
>"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> Reading from "Lactate Threshold Training" (Janssen 2001) recently, I saw
a
>> section about pedaling frequency
>
>Yunno, there's a world of difference between reading and understanding.
>However, reading makes a fine start...
>
>> This is of course
>> the style of Armstrong and Indurain, especially when climbing. Their
>success
>> using this technique makes it intriguing.
>
><splutter>
>
>Uh? 'Their' success? Almost *EVERY* climber of note maintains high
>cadence when climbing. In fact I'd go so far as to say that the big guys
>like Armstrong and Indurain actually turn the pedals at a slightly lower
>rate than the 'pure' climbers.

Well they each won 5 tours de france. I didn't say they invented the
technique, but their success with it certainly demands a closer look at it
IMO.

>
>> As I understand it, basically with a bigger gear (lower cadence), the
>muscle
>> contraction is longer and requires more power and will become anaerobic
>> sooner than will a higher cadence that requires less power per
>contraction.
>> Thus at the same speed, two equally fit athletes each using a different
>> cadence will be doing a different kind of workout. The cyclist using a
>> lower cadence will be getting more of a strength workout, and the cyclist
>> using a higher cadence will be getting a more aerobic workout and will
>> breathe harder as a result. But the one using the higher cadence will
>> recover faster and be able to go longer because there will be less muscle
>> damage. All this for Two riders of equal ability going the same speed.
>
>Yes - in theory - but life is never that simple. You also have to factor
>in body weight, bike weight, rider/bike aerodynamics, etc, etc. Cycling,
>like life, cannot be reduced to a series of simplistic equations or
formula.
>
><snipped basic physiology examples lifted from textbook>
>
>Dear Tony,
>
>If I wanted/needed a refresher course I'd buy the book.

lol, its a very minor point in the book.

>
>> It now seems clear why Armstrong usually seems to have fresher legs than
>> other riders when climbing in the mountains day after day
>
>I think there is a rather more likely explanation being touted in a popluar
>book on Armstrong at the mo'.

The jury hasn't even been selected on this. The success of Armstrong and
others using this technique makes it important for the future of cycling.

>
>> I'm wondering if similar principles might
>> be true for running too.
>
>Simple answer? No.
>
>> Is a shorter but faster stride more aerobic for
>> the same speed?
>
>Simple answer? No.
>
>> A separate but related question is: to what degree does the difference
in
>> cycling cadence (and possibly stride rate in activities like running and
>> hiking) produce differences in hypertrophy?
>
>OMG! I think you need to sit down and ask yourself *why* you're asking
>these questions. Are you bored? A deviant troll? Wobbot's long-lost
>brother?

I think we all know who and what constitutes a deviant troll.

>
>> Any other ideas on this?
>
>Yup. I have an idea. Post something interesting. It could be what you
>had for breakfast, what your boss said to you today, your views on world
>peace, ANYTHING but this nonsense.
>
>
>

 

[Chris]

"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> SwStudio wrote in message ...
> >"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> Reading from "Lactate Threshold Training" (Janssen 2001) recently, I
saw
> a
> >> section about pedaling frequency that seemed to confirm the advantages
of
> >> using a high cadence at certain times when cycle racing. This is of
> >course
> >> the style of Armstrong and Indurain, especially when climbing. Their
> >success
> >> using this technique makes it intriguing.
> >
> >Yep, we all know that Armstrong consistently maintains a higher
> >average cadence than anyone else on the TdF, hills or not - every
> >year people talk about it. Remember the talk of LA's cadence
> >vs. Ullrich over the years? I wasn't as much into cycling when Indurain
> >was ripping up the roads, but I remember that being discussed about
> >him as well. They are/were certainly amazing climbers, and the higher
> >cadence certainly helps.
>
> I know there are other cycling greats who have used the high cadence
> technique so it's not a new thing, but its surprizing how resistant the
> other racers are, particularly guys like ullrich. Pride perhaps.

Ullrich does NOT use largely different gears. The difference you are seeing
is Ullrich under pressure trying to keep from blowing up compared to
Armstrong on the attack in the final kilometers. They are normally in the
same gear and Lance is moving ahead (remember, he is opening a gap when
spinning the fastest so all he is really doing differently is keeping in the
same gear while opening up a gap quickly). You can look at Ullrich in '97
(when he won) and he can be seen winning (stage 10?) in the mountains almost
by accident and spinning very smoothly and quickly (85 to 90).

 

[Andy Coggan]

"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Reading from "Lactate Threshold Training" (Janssen 2001) recently, I saw a
> section about pedaling frequency that seemed to confirm the advantages of
> using a high cadence at certain times when cycle racing. This is of
course
> the style of Armstrong and Indurain, especially when climbing. Their
success
> using this technique makes it intriguing.
>
> As I understand it, basically with a bigger gear (lower cadence), the
muscle
> contraction is longer and requires more power and will become anaerobic
> sooner than will a higher cadence that requires less power per
contraction.
> Thus at the same speed, two equally fit athletes each using a different
> cadence will be doing a different kind of workout. The cyclist using a
> lower cadence will be getting more of a strength workout, and the cyclist
> using a higher cadence will be getting a more aerobic workout and will
> breathe harder as a result. But the one using the higher cadence will
> recover faster and be able to go longer because there will be less muscle
> damage. All this for Two riders of equal ability going the same speed.
>
> It is the contraction force necessary that determines which muscles will
do
> the work. First, slow twitch (type I muscle fibers) always do the work
> first unless the contraction requires greater speed or force than the type
> I's can handle. If the force is greater, the medium twitch (type IIa's
and
> others) kick in, and while these are partially aerobic, they produce more
> lactate than type I's, and thus fatigue more quickly. If the force
> necessary is still greater, fast twitch (type IIb) muscles kick in, but
> these will fatigue very quickly.
>
> The surprising thing to me is that for the same workout effort, it can
turn
> out to be a strength workout or an aerobic workout. This certainly has
> implications for both training and racing, and has clearly not been
> exploited by many racers. Strength workouts require longer to recover
from.
> It now seems clear why Armstrong usually seems to have fresher legs than
> other riders when climbing in the mountains day after day. The higher
> cadence is more aerobic and saves on muscle fatigue.
>
> The evidence seems clear on this for cycling, as it makes sense from a
> muscle physiology point of view. I'm wondering if similar principles
might
> be true for running too. Is a shorter but faster stride more aerobic for
> the same speed? I believe over-striding is known to have a tendency to
wear
> out the legs, and this might be a demonstration of this principle.
>
> A separate but related question is: to what degree does the difference in
> cycling cadence (and possibly stride rate in activities like running and
> hiking) produce differences in hypertrophy? Thus, is hypertrophy after
> endurance exercise a demonstration of this principle of it being more of a
> strength workload as opposed to an aerobic workload? My understanding is
> that type I muscle fibers do not experience hypertrophy to the same extent
> of type IIa and IIb fibers. In my experience, high cadence cycling
produces
> less hypertrophy than low cadence cycling. Also, certain activities like
> trail running in hilly areas tend to produce much more hypertrophy. To
what
> extent is this evidence that the workload is more anaerobic? Any other
> ideas on this?

First, I think you are taking things a bit too literally here...the
difference between, say, a cadence of 70 vs. 110 is quite small when you
consider that the minimal (concentric) cadence is 0 and the maximum (at
least theorectically) up around 250, or even higher. There is therefore no
such thing as a true "strength" workout when pedaling, at least not in the
way you're viewing it.

Second, while intuitively appealing, the notion that varying your cadence
affects fiber type recruitment is far from proven (despite what Carmichael
might have you believe). In fact, the only study that has addressed this
question using the classical means of assessing motor unit recruitment
pattern (i.e., PAS staining) yielded results that suggest that cadence does
*not* have any significant influence (although the authors interpreted the
data differently).

Third, hypertrophy is a consequence of muscle use, period. The degree to
which hypertrophy occurs of course varies with the force requirement, but
some amount of hypertrophy will result even from very low force activities
(e.g., running).

Andy Coggan

 

[Harold Buck]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote:

> >Yep, we all know that Armstrong consistently maintains a higher
> >average cadence than anyone else on the TdF, hills or not - every
> >year people talk about it. Remember the talk of LA's cadence
> >vs. Ullrich over the years? I wasn't as much into cycling when Indurain
> >was ripping up the roads, but I remember that being discussed about
> >him as well. They are/were certainly amazing climbers, and the higher
> >cadence certainly helps.
>
> I know there are other cycling greats who have used the high cadence
> technique so it's not a new thing, but its surprizing how resistant the
> other racers are, particularly guys like ullrich. Pride perhaps.


For a sport that is so affected by technology, they sure don't have a
lot of "early adopters." "Real" cyclists used to laugh at aerobars until
Greg LeMond used them to make up an "insurmountable" deficit and win the
TDF by 8 seconds in a final stage time trial. Now they all use them.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

 

[Ozzie Gontang]

Any otherideas on this?
> - Tony


From Peter Cavanagh and Michael Pollock's work back in the 70's one was
a comparison of Elite and Good Distance runners. See the Marathon in
Volume301 of the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1977 for
all aspects on the marathon.

Elite Marathoners (Frank Shorter was included in that group) numbered 9
(mean marathon time: 2:15:52) and good runners made up of 3 with a mean
time of 2:34:40.

When you are talking about 90 cycles a minute in biking, the equivalent
is 90 strides a minute which we all know as the 180 steps/minute ideal.

In the research between elite and good:
Elite: 191 steps/minute SD 10.74
Good 182 steps/minute SD 8.80

Elite stride length: 1.56 M SD 0.17 M
Good stride length: 1.64 M SD 0.16 M

If you want to see various people playing with the 90 cycles/stides or
180 steps/minute check out

http://www.breathplay.com

Ian Jackson was an early writer for Runner's World and was into
breathing and running form. He did a booklet for them on Running and
Yoga. He's worked with some top cyclists.

http://www.chirunning.com

Danny Dreyer has arrived at the same conclusions that I have. His
training program is all about "Running is falling and catching oneself
Gracefully." GAPO Well done CD. If you get a chance to take his
half day class I would say, Don't miss it, if you want to learn to run
gracefully over the surface of the earth.

I'm looking at taking Danny's certification program as my thinking
melds right into his program.


In health and on the run,
Ozzie Gontang
Director, San Diego Marathon Clinic, est. 1975
Maintainer - rec.running FAQ
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-faq/
Mindful Running:
http://www.mindfulness.com/mr.asp

 

[Lyle McDonald]

Andy Coggan wrote:

> "Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message

> First, I think you are taking things a bit too literally here...the
> difference between, say, a cadence of 70 vs. 110 is quite small when you
> consider that the minimal (concentric) cadence is 0 and the maximum (at
> least theorectically) up around 250, or even higher. There is therefore no
> such thing as a true "strength" workout when pedaling, at least not in the
> way you're viewing it.

Most of the recs for muscle tension types workouts (Carmichael and
Morris) are in the 50RPM range against a higher resistance than what
you'd use at a higher cadence. From the Force-Velocity curve, as you
move closer to isometric (0 RPM against maximal resistance), you are
increasing tension requirements. It is moving closer to a 'strength'
stimulus becuse of this. Strength-endurance would be a better description.

>
> Second, while intuitively appealing, the notion that varying your cadence
> affects fiber type recruitment is far from proven (despite what Carmichael
> might have you believe). In fact, the only study that has addressed this
> question using the classical means of assessing motor unit recruitment
> pattern (i.e., PAS staining) yielded results that suggest that cadence does
> *not* have any significant influence (although the authors interpreted the
> data differently).

I think I know the study you're referring to, it used a fairly narrow
range of high cadences, didn't it. Also, did the study change
power/force requirements with the changing cadence?

>
> Third, hypertrophy is a consequence of muscle use, period. The degree to
> which hypertrophy occurs of course varies with the force requirement, but
> some amount of hypertrophy will result even from very low force activities
> (e.g., running).

Yes, hence all those super muscular runners. Right.

What you generally see with endurance training is a slight incrase in
size of some Type I fibers (and a decrease in others, both approaching
an optimal size:capillary ratio) and a loss of size in Type II, at least
with only low intensity endurance work.

LSD work at 20% of maximal force output can be maintained almost
exclusively with Type I fibers (until exhaustion at which point Type II
will come into play).

Running or cycling uphill (or faster) will have higher tension
requirements. Meaning greater recruitment of Type II fibers. This is
why it tends to be more anaerobic, b/c of increasing use of fibers that
tend to rely more on anaerobic glycolytic metabolism (which is the point
of training the Type II fibers to be more endurance and rely less on
anaerobic glycolysis with intervals).

distance cycling has higher tension requirements than distance runnning,
which is part of why cyclists tend to have more muscular legs.

Sprinters trump both of them. Of course, they also lift weights.

Lyle

 

[Dan Stumpus]

Ozzie:

Remember my thoughts on how elite runners tended to shuffle (higher stride
rate and shorter stride length)?

This data comparing the elite with the sub-elite seems to support that
observation. The difference is even more striking when you compare elites
to the merely above-average runner.

The Cavanagh/Pollock results seem to imply that running economy is the major
difference between the groups, not just VO2 max. A longer stride at a given
speed means more vertical lift (and less efficiency).

I had a 76.4 vo2 max (predictive of 2:15 marathon), but couldn't get to
2:30, due to my poor economy (too much bounce). I got trounced in short
races by a guy with a 62 vo2max who was smooth as silk -- short quick
shuffle steps and very little bounce.

-- Dan

"Ozzie Gontang" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:060720042238267497%[email protected]...
> Any otherideas on this?
> > - Tony
>
>
> From Peter Cavanagh and Michael Pollock's work back in the 70's one was
> a comparison of Elite and Good Distance runners. See the Marathon in
> Volume301 of the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1977 for
> all aspects on the marathon.
>
> Elite Marathoners (Frank Shorter was included in that group) numbered 9
> (mean marathon time: 2:15:52) and good runners made up of 3 with a mean
> time of 2:34:40.
>
> When you are talking about 90 cycles a minute in biking, the equivalent
> is 90 strides a minute which we all know as the 180 steps/minute ideal.
>
> In the research between elite and good:
> Elite: 191 steps/minute SD 10.74
> Good 182 steps/minute SD 8.80
>
> Elite stride length: 1.56 M SD 0.17 M
> Good stride length: 1.64 M SD 0.16 M
>
> If you want to see various people playing with the 90 cycles/stides or
> 180 steps/minute check out
>
> http://www.breathplay.com
>
> Ian Jackson was an early writer for Runner's World and was into
> breathing and running form. He did a booklet for them on Running and
> Yoga. He's worked with some top cyclists.
>
> http://www.chirunning.com
>
> Danny Dreyer has arrived at the same conclusions that I have. His
> training program is all about "Running is falling and catching oneself
> Gracefully." GAPO Well done CD. If you get a chance to take his
> half day class I would say, Don't miss it, if you want to learn to run
> gracefully over the surface of the earth.
>
> I'm looking at taking Danny's certification program as my thinking
> melds right into his program.
>
>
> In health and on the run,
> Ozzie Gontang
> Director, San Diego Marathon Clinic, est. 1975
> Maintainer - rec.running FAQ
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-faq/
> Mindful Running:
> http://www.mindfulness.com/mr.asp

 

[Cat Dailey]

"Lyle McDonald" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Andy Coggan wrote:
>
> > "Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > First, I think you are taking things a bit too literally here...the
> > difference between, say, a cadence of 70 vs. 110 is quite small when you
> > consider that the minimal (concentric) cadence is 0 and the maximum (at
> > least theorectically) up around 250, or even higher. There is therefore
no
> > such thing as a true "strength" workout when pedaling, at least not in
the
> > way you're viewing it.
>
> Most of the recs for muscle tension types workouts (Carmichael and
> Morris) are in the 50RPM range against a higher resistance than what
> you'd use at a higher cadence. From the Force-Velocity curve, as you
> move closer to isometric (0 RPM against maximal resistance), you are
> increasing tension requirements. It is moving closer to a 'strength'
> stimulus becuse of this. Strength-endurance would be a better
description.
>
> >
> > Second, while intuitively appealing, the notion that varying your
cadence
> > affects fiber type recruitment is far from proven (despite what
Carmichael
> > might have you believe). In fact, the only study that has addressed this
> > question using the classical means of assessing motor unit recruitment
> > pattern (i.e., PAS staining) yielded results that suggest that cadence
does
> > *not* have any significant influence (although the authors interpreted
the
> > data differently).
>
> I think I know the study you're referring to, it used a fairly narrow
> range of high cadences, didn't it. Also, did the study change
> power/force requirements with the changing cadence?
>
> >
> > Third, hypertrophy is a consequence of muscle use, period. The degree to
> > which hypertrophy occurs of course varies with the force requirement,
but
> > some amount of hypertrophy will result even from very low force
activities
> > (e.g., running).
>
> Yes, hence all those super muscular runners. Right.
>
> What you generally see with endurance training is a slight incrase in
> size of some Type I fibers (and a decrease in others, both approaching
> an optimal size:capillary ratio) and a loss of size in Type II, at least
> with only low intensity endurance work.
>
> LSD work at 20% of maximal force output can be maintained almost
> exclusively with Type I fibers (until exhaustion at which point Type II
> will come into play).
>
> Running or cycling uphill (or faster) will have higher tension
> requirements. Meaning greater recruitment of Type II fibers. This is
> why it tends to be more anaerobic, b/c of increasing use of fibers that
> tend to rely more on anaerobic glycolytic metabolism (which is the point
> of training the Type II fibers to be more endurance and rely less on
> anaerobic glycolysis with intervals).
>
> distance cycling has higher tension requirements than distance runnning,
> which is part of why cyclists tend to have more muscular legs.
>
> Sprinters trump both of them. Of course, they also lift weights.
>
> Lyle
>
Hey Lyle...is that you...Lyle of the Ketogenic Diet book? If so WHAT ARE
YOU DOING POSTING TO THIS NUTTY GROUP??? Seriously, good to see you are
still alive and kicking.

Cat the ex-speedskater back to cycling chick who you corresponded with about
weight training and dieting a few years back;>

 

[eddy eagle]

Ozzie Gontang <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<060720042238267497%[email protected]>...
> Any otherideas on this?
> > - Tony
>
>
> From Peter Cavanagh and Michael Pollock's work back in the 70's one was
> a comparison of Elite and Good Distance runners. See the Marathon in
> Volume301 of the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1977 for
> all aspects on the marathon.
>
> Elite Marathoners (Frank Shorter was included in that group) numbered 9
> (mean marathon time: 2:15:52) and good runners made up of 3 with a mean
> time of 2:34:40.
>
> When you are talking about 90 cycles a minute in biking, the equivalent
> is 90 strides a minute which we all know as the 180 steps/minute ideal.
>
> In the research between elite and good:
> Elite: 191 steps/minute SD 10.74
> Good 182 steps/minute SD 8.80
>
> Elite stride length: 1.56 M SD 0.17 M
> Good stride length: 1.64 M SD 0.16 M
>
> If you want to see various people playing with the 90 cycles/stides or
> 180 steps/minute check out
>
> http://www.breathplay.com
>
> Ian Jackson was an early writer for Runner's World and was into
> breathing and running form. He did a booklet for them on Running and
> Yoga. He's worked with some top cyclists.
>
> http://www.chirunning.com
>
> Danny Dreyer has arrived at the same conclusions that I have. His
> training program is all about "Running is falling and catching oneself
> Gracefully." GAPO Well done CD. If you get a chance to take his
> half day class I would say, Don't miss it, if you want to learn to run
> gracefully over the surface of the earth.
>
> I'm looking at taking Danny's certification program as my thinking
> melds right into his program.
>
>
> In health and on the run,
> Ozzie Gontang
> Director, San Diego Marathon Clinic, est. 1975
> Maintainer - rec.running FAQ
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-faq/
> Mindful Running:
> http://www.mindfulness.com/mr.asp



The chirunning.com site leads off with this quote:
"A good runner leaves no footprints."
– Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

If that be true does that mean that shoe wear would be drastically reduced?
Maybe I could save enough on shoe replacement to justify the expense of the books.

 

[Lyle McDonald]

Cat Dailey wrote:

> "Lyle McDonald" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Andy Coggan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>First, I think you are taking things a bit too literally here...the
>>>difference between, say, a cadence of 70 vs. 110 is quite small when you
>>>consider that the minimal (concentric) cadence is 0 and the maximum (at
>>>least theorectically) up around 250, or even higher. There is therefore
>
> no
>
>>>such thing as a true "strength" workout when pedaling, at least not in
>
> the
>
>>>way you're viewing it.
>>
>>Most of the recs for muscle tension types workouts (Carmichael and
>>Morris) are in the 50RPM range against a higher resistance than what
>>you'd use at a higher cadence. From the Force-Velocity curve, as you
>>move closer to isometric (0 RPM against maximal resistance), you are
>>increasing tension requirements. It is moving closer to a 'strength'
>>stimulus becuse of this. Strength-endurance would be a better
>
> description.
>
>>>Second, while intuitively appealing, the notion that varying your
>
> cadence
>
>>>affects fiber type recruitment is far from proven (despite what
>
> Carmichael
>
>>>might have you believe). In fact, the only study that has addressed this
>>>question using the classical means of assessing motor unit recruitment
>>>pattern (i.e., PAS staining) yielded results that suggest that cadence
>
> does
>
>>>*not* have any significant influence (although the authors interpreted
>
> the
>
>>>data differently).
>>
>>I think I know the study you're referring to, it used a fairly narrow
>>range of high cadences, didn't it. Also, did the study change
>>power/force requirements with the changing cadence?
>>
>>
>>>Third, hypertrophy is a consequence of muscle use, period. The degree to
>>>which hypertrophy occurs of course varies with the force requirement,
>
> but
>
>>>some amount of hypertrophy will result even from very low force
>
> activities
>
>>>(e.g., running).
>>
>>Yes, hence all those super muscular runners. Right.
>>
>>What you generally see with endurance training is a slight incrase in
>>size of some Type I fibers (and a decrease in others, both approaching
>>an optimal size:capillary ratio) and a loss of size in Type II, at least
>>with only low intensity endurance work.
>>
>>LSD work at 20% of maximal force output can be maintained almost
>>exclusively with Type I fibers (until exhaustion at which point Type II
>>will come into play).
>>
>>Running or cycling uphill (or faster) will have higher tension
>>requirements. Meaning greater recruitment of Type II fibers. This is
>>why it tends to be more anaerobic, b/c of increasing use of fibers that
>>tend to rely more on anaerobic glycolytic metabolism (which is the point
>>of training the Type II fibers to be more endurance and rely less on
>>anaerobic glycolysis with intervals).
>>
>>distance cycling has higher tension requirements than distance runnning,
>>which is part of why cyclists tend to have more muscular legs.
>>
>>Sprinters trump both of them. Of course, they also lift weights.
>>
>>Lyle
>>
>
> Hey Lyle...is that you...Lyle of the Ketogenic Diet book?

Shhh..

> If so WHAT ARE
> YOU DOING POSTING TO THIS NUTTY GROUP???

had some questions that only the runners could adequately answer for me.


> Cat the ex-speedskater back to cycling chick who you corresponded with about
> weight training and dieting a few years back;>

Yeah, well I moved back into speedskating last year. Training for it
anyhow. Only to find out that the 10k distance I like is all but gone.
Blech. Why are you an ex-speedskater?

Lyle

 

[Andy Coggan]

"eddy eagle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ozzie Gontang <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<060720042238267497%[email protected]>...
> > Any otherideas on this?
> > > - Tony
> >
> >
> > From Peter Cavanagh and Michael Pollock's work back in the 70's one was
> > a comparison of Elite and Good Distance runners. See the Marathon in
> > Volume301 of the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1977 for
> > all aspects on the marathon.
> >
> > Elite Marathoners (Frank Shorter was included in that group) numbered 9
> > (mean marathon time: 2:15:52) and good runners made up of 3 with a mean
> > time of 2:34:40.
> >
> > When you are talking about 90 cycles a minute in biking, the equivalent
> > is 90 strides a minute which we all know as the 180 steps/minute ideal.
> >
> > In the research between elite and good:
> > Elite: 191 steps/minute SD 10.74
> > Good 182 steps/minute SD 8.80
> >
> > Elite stride length: 1.56 M SD 0.17 M
> > Good stride length: 1.64 M SD 0.16 M
> >
> > If you want to see various people playing with the 90 cycles/stides or
> > 180 steps/minute check out
> >
> > http://www.breathplay.com
> >
> > Ian Jackson was an early writer for Runner's World and was into
> > breathing and running form. He did a booklet for them on Running and
> > Yoga. He's worked with some top cyclists.
> >
> > http://www.chirunning.com
> >
> > Danny Dreyer has arrived at the same conclusions that I have. His
> > training program is all about "Running is falling and catching oneself
> > Gracefully." GAPO Well done CD. If you get a chance to take his
> > half day class I would say, Don't miss it, if you want to learn to run
> > gracefully over the surface of the earth.
> >
> > I'm looking at taking Danny's certification program as my thinking
> > melds right into his program.
> >
> >
> > In health and on the run,
> > Ozzie Gontang
> > Director, San Diego Marathon Clinic, est. 1975
> > Maintainer - rec.running FAQ
> > http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-faq/
> > Mindful Running:
> > http://www.mindfulness.com/mr.asp
>
>
>
> The chirunning.com site leads off with this quote:
> "A good runner leaves no footprints."
> - Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
>
> If that be true does that mean that shoe wear would be drastically
reduced?
> Maybe I could save enough on shoe replacement to justify the expense of
the books.

Please don't crosspost this stuff to rec.bicycles.racing - nobody here is
interested.

Andy Coggan

 

[Andy Coggan]

> "Lyle McDonald" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Andy Coggan wrote:
> >
> > > "Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > First, I think you are taking things a bit too literally here...the
> > > difference between, say, a cadence of 70 vs. 110 is quite small when
you
> > > consider that the minimal (concentric) cadence is 0 and the maximum
(at
> > > least theorectically) up around 250, or even higher. There is
therefore
> no
> > > such thing as a true "strength" workout when pedaling, at least not in
> the
> > > way you're viewing it.
> >
> > Most of the recs for muscle tension types workouts (Carmichael and
> > Morris) are in the 50RPM range against a higher resistance than what
> > you'd use at a higher cadence. From the Force-Velocity curve, as you
> > move closer to isometric (0 RPM against maximal resistance), you are
> > increasing tension requirements. It is moving closer to a 'strength'
> > stimulus becuse of this. Strength-endurance would be a better
> description.

Closer, but not close enough to matter. If it did, then endurance-trained
cyclists would be stronger than untrained individuals, which they are not.

> > > Second, while intuitively appealing, the notion that varying your
> cadence
> > > affects fiber type recruitment is far from proven (despite what
> Carmichael
> > > might have you believe). In fact, the only study that has addressed
this
> > > question using the classical means of assessing motor unit recruitment
> > > pattern (i.e., PAS staining) yielded results that suggest that cadence
> does
> > > *not* have any significant influence (although the authors interpreted
> the
> > > data differently).
> >
> > I think I know the study you're referring to, it used a fairly narrow
> > range of high cadences, didn't it.

50 vs. 100 rpm:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1385118

> > Also, did the study change
> > power/force requirements with the changing cadence?

Since power was held constant, average effective pedal force would have
differed between trials by a factor of two.

> > > Third, hypertrophy is a consequence of muscle use, period. The degree
to
> > > which hypertrophy occurs of course varies with the force requirement,
> but
> > > some amount of hypertrophy will result even from very low force
> activities
> > > (e.g., running).
> >
> > Yes, hence all those super muscular runners. Right.
> >
> > What you generally see with endurance training is a slight incrase in
> > size of some Type I fibers

I see you've been reading my research! ;-)

> > (and a decrease in others

I am not aware of any data to support this statement.

> >, both approaching
> > an optimal size:capillary ratio) and a loss of size in Type II, at least
> > with only low intensity endurance work.

Again, I am not aware of any data suggesting that endurance training results
in atrophy of type II fibers.

Andy Coggan (Coggan AR on PubMed)

 

[warren]

In article <[email protected]>, Andy
Coggan <[email protected]> wrote:

> > "Lyle McDonald" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Andy Coggan wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message

Somebody wrote:

> > > Most of the recs for muscle tension types workouts (Carmichael and
> > > Morris) are in the 50RPM range against a higher resistance than what
> > > you'd use at a higher cadence. From the Force-Velocity curve, as you
> > > move closer to isometric (0 RPM against maximal resistance), you are
> > > increasing tension requirements. It is moving closer to a 'strength'
> > > stimulus becuse of this. Strength-endurance would be a better
> > description.

I don't know who wrote this but I think you're right. This past winter
I did one-legged squats once per week for about 5 weeks. Then I started
doing intervals near LT (4mMol) power (HR was lower than HR @ 4mMol)
using 40-50 rpm's, on a hill. Each week the total time of the intervals
was increased, begining with 4 x 3' and working up to 7 x 5'. Even
after not doing the squats for about 8 weeks when I tried another
session of them I could do higher resistance and more of them, not that
this alone meant I could ride faster, but strength as most would define
it, and strength endurance definitely increased.

I think Armstrong uses high cadences to reduce the force needed to
produce a given power. His demonstrated ablities, and his mention of
rarely producing more than 4-6mMol of lactate indicates that he isn't
using a lot of Type 2 fibers even when he is producing high power
output.

-WG

 

[Shayana Kadidal]

"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<vy2Hc.8981> > >
> > > From Peter Cavanagh and Michael Pollock's work back in the 70's one was
> > > a comparison of Elite and Good Distance runners. See the Marathon in
> > > Volume301 of the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1977 for
> > > all aspects on the marathon.
> > >
> > > Elite Marathoners (Frank Shorter was included in that group) numbered 9
> > > (mean marathon time: 2:15:52) and good runners made up of 3 with a mean
> > > time of 2:34:40.
> > >
> > > When you are talking about 90 cycles a minute in biking, the equivalent
> > > is 90 strides a minute which we all know as the 180 steps/minute ideal.
> > >
> > > In the research between elite and good:
> > > Elite: 191 steps/minute SD 10.74
> > > Good 182 steps/minute SD 8.80
> > >
> > > Elite stride length: 1.56 M SD 0.17 M
> > > Good stride length: 1.64 M SD 0.16 M
> > >
> > > If you want to see various people playing with the 90 cycles/stides or
> > > 180 steps/minute check out
> > >
> > > http://www.breathplay.com

> Please don't crosspost this stuff to rec.bicycles.racing - nobody here is
> interested.
>
> Andy Coggan

Not true at all, Andy.--Shayana Kadidal

 

[Shayana Kadidal]

"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<vy2Hc.8981> > >
> > > From Peter Cavanagh and Michael Pollock's work back in the 70's one was
> > > a comparison of Elite and Good Distance runners. See the Marathon in
> > > Volume301 of the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1977 for
> > > all aspects on the marathon.
> > >
> > > Elite Marathoners (Frank Shorter was included in that group) numbered 9
> > > (mean marathon time: 2:15:52) and good runners made up of 3 with a mean
> > > time of 2:34:40.
> > >
> > > When you are talking about 90 cycles a minute in biking, the equivalent
> > > is 90 strides a minute which we all know as the 180 steps/minute ideal.
> > >
> > > In the research between elite and good:
> > > Elite: 191 steps/minute SD 10.74
> > > Good 182 steps/minute SD 8.80
> > >
> > > Elite stride length: 1.56 M SD 0.17 M
> > > Good stride length: 1.64 M SD 0.16 M
> > >
> > > If you want to see various people playing with the 90 cycles/stides or
> > > 180 steps/minute check out
> > >
> > > http://www.breathplay.com

> Please don't crosspost this stuff to rec.bicycles.racing - nobody here is
> interested.
>
> Andy Coggan

Not true at all, Andy.--Shayana Kadidal

 

[Ozzie Gontang]

In article <[email protected]>, eddy
eagle <[email protected]> wrote:

>> The chirunning.com site leads off with this quote:
> "A good runner leaves no footprints."
> – Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
>
> If that be true does that mean that shoe wear would be drastically reduced?
> Maybe I could save enough on shoe replacement to justify the expense of the books.


I believe that the value of the book is that for many it will make
sense and show them to run lightly. It will save on shoe wear, and
even moreso on the effects of inefficient and improper form and style
years down the road.

Ozzie