Cycling Cadence and Running Stride Rate

[Doug Freese]

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

Tony, be damn careful here.! Whether it's modifying stride length or
heel striking to mid-foot you are making significant changes to your
biomechanics. I think you need to break into this slowly and I don't
think two continuous weeks is slowly. Right or wrong, efficient or not,
your muscles are used to your current running. Making radical changes or
even subtle changes and wake up the injury Gods, i.e. too much, too
soon, too quickly.



-DougF

 

[Andy Coggan]

"warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:070720042201539159%[email protected]...
>. 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

You must have been awfully weak to begin with if such low force training on
the bike actually increased your strength. In reality, your strength
probably didn't change at all, even your ability to do repeated one-legged
squats did.

> and more of them, not that
> this alone meant I could ride faster, but strength as most would define
> it

If you're doing "more of them", it is not strength that you were measuring.

> and strength endurance definitely increased.

What's wrong with just calling it "local muscular endurance", which is 1)
what it is, and 2) avoids confusing people that such training actually
improves strength.

Andy Coggan

 

[np426z]

"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> FWIW, I was really just trying to be nice - my major objection to OG's
post
> is that it basically an infomercial (and one full on half-truths at that).

Golly, you won't get into heaven now. Ozzie is a running god and has spent
years and helped - oooh, at last count at least a quarter of a billion
people - to run safely and happily. In fact, without Oz, I doubt that the
earth would continue to rotate about its axis.

You prove what we all *know* to be true about cyclists - that you're all
drug-addled equipment freaks that only need to catch the slightest glimpse
of carbon fibre to collapse in an orgasmic frenzy, murmering 'please lord,
make my bike lighter than my competitors' whilst simultaneously polishing
any exposed aluminium with your one free hand. What's your other hand
doing? Do you really need to ask?

 

[Tony]

Andy Coggan 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.

Yes the more appropriate term would be "strength-endurance"? Maybe it's a
relatively small difference, but over time it can make a difference.
Several years ago I rode all summer using a high cadence. That year my
weight and muscle mass were down from other years and I distinctly lacked
the big-chainring power that I had before, but my daily endurance was better
and I could climb better and my transition into Fall running was very easy
that year. At that time I was doing it to try to avoid bulking up, though I
didn't understand the physiology behind it - which is what I now find
interesting. Also this year I've made the mistake of letting my power
develop more on the bike, which is fine, but it doesn't meet my goal of
getting light for running. (Don't ask me why I bike if my goal is running -
it's because I love biking.)

>
>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'm not relying on charmichael - and it may in fact be unproven in a
clinical sense - but it makes sense from the literature on weighlifting
muscle recruitment, and if two 5 time tour winners successfully utilized
this technique that is at least a very good reason to believe they are onto
something good.

>
>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).

But is it not true that type I muscle fibers don't experience hypertrophy to
the same extent as type IIs?

- Tony
>
>Andy Coggan
>
>

 

[Donovan Rebbechi]

On 2004-07-08, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm not relying on charmichael - and it may in fact be unproven in a
> clinical sense - but it makes sense from the literature on weighlifting
> muscle recruitment,

What literature are you referring to ? Powerlifters include explosive
repetitions at relatively light weights (high power output, low resistance)
and I can assure you that they're *not* doing it to increase type I fiber
recruitment.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

 

[np426z]

"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...

> There is no such thing as heaven.

'Tis too. My mummy told me. My mummy don't lie.

> I am aware that he is considered a "god" among you runner types - however,
> that still doesn't mean he knows much about running biomechanics (as I
have
> pointed out in the past), much less cycling biomechanics.
>
> > and has spent
> > years and helped - oooh, at last count at least a quarter of a billion
> > people - to run safely and happily.
>
> Helped, or just screwed with their self-selected stride length, which for
> ~80% of all runners is their optimal (most economical) stride length?

Irony is wasted on you, isn't it?

> Fun-ny! But the fact is that my comments are motivated by my background as
> an exercise scientist, and have essentially nothing at all to do with the
> fact that I am a cyclist.

Well, I know that, and you know that, but why d'ya have to go and spoil it
for everyone else?

> Again a plea to OG: please do not cross-post your infomercials to
> rec.bicycles.racing.

Fat chance. Oz is to self-promotion what Bill Clinton is to illicit sex,
i.e. he does it everywhere, he does it without thinking, he leaves stains,
and he feel little guilt. Having said that, dontcha just love 'em both?

 

[Tony]

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>On 2004-07-08, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I'm not relying on charmichael - and it may in fact be unproven in a
>> clinical sense - but it makes sense from the literature on weighlifting
>> muscle recruitment,
>
>What literature are you referring to ? Powerlifters include explosive
>repetitions at relatively light weights (high power output, low resistance)
>and I can assure you that they're *not* doing it to increase type I fiber
>recruitment.
>

Found several from googling this one is typical:
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/glen4.htm

- Tony

>Cheers,
>--
>Donovan Rebbechi
>http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

 

[warren]

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

> "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:070720042201539159%[email protected]...
> >. 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
>
> You must have been awfully weak to begin with if such low force training on
> the bike actually increased your strength.

At the "beginning" I was able to do 8-10 parallel (two-legged) squats
with 305 pounds of weight on the bar. I wouldn't characterize that as
"awfully weak".

> > and strength endurance definitely increased.
>
> What's wrong with just calling it "local muscular endurance", which is 1)
> what it is, and 2) avoids confusing people that such training actually
> improves strength.

The amount of force in each pedal stroke is increasing, the amount of
resistance used during squats is increasing, and the number of reps is
increasing. Call it whatever you want but most people can figure out
what strength-endurance means.

Commonly-used nomenclature needs to be appropriate for the intended
audience. To me, and most other people, the ability to increase the
amount of force on the pedals is an increase in "strength". If you want
to try to blaze a path by calling it something else that you're more
comfortable with in a literal sense then go ahead.

If one person can accelerate from a standing start with 800 watts and
another can do the same with 1200 watts would you say there is a
strength difference between the two riders or would you call it
something else?

-WG

 

[Donovan Rebbechi]

On 2004-07-08, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>>On 2004-07-08, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not relying on charmichael - and it may in fact be unproven in a
>>> clinical sense - but it makes sense from the literature on weighlifting
>>> muscle recruitment,
>>
>>What literature are you referring to ? Powerlifters include explosive
>>repetitions at relatively light weights (high power output, low resistance)
>>and I can assure you that they're *not* doing it to increase type I fiber
>>recruitment.
>>
>
> Found several from googling this one is typical:
> http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/glen4.htm

This isn't a journal article, and it doesn't support your claim (unless I'm
misunderstanding what you're saying).

In particular, the "slow twitch specific" training the article suggests
involves using light weights *and* a fairly slow cadence (3 seconds down, 1
pause, 2 up). The reason the article advocates this is that a faster cadence
(which requires high acceleration, which in turn requires greater force
production) will result in more type II recruitment.

Think about it this way -- we know sprinters have predominantly type II fiber.
But their body weight is ridiculously light compared to their strength. A good
weight-trained sprinter will probably be able to squat 2.5-3.5xbodyweight or
so. So sprinting is actually high power production, high cadence (240 or so
compared to 180 or so for distance) low resistance exercise -- and it
predominantly recruits type II fibers.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

 

[Donovan Rebbechi]

On 2004-07-08, warren <[email protected]> wrote:

> At the "beginning" I was able to do 8-10 parallel (two-legged) squats
> with 305 pounds of weight on the bar. I wouldn't characterize that as
> "awfully weak".

I think he's saying that endurance training doesn't improve strength. He's
not calling you weak.

>> What's wrong with just calling it "local muscular endurance", which is 1)
>> what it is, and 2) avoids confusing people that such training actually
>> improves strength.
>
> The amount of force in each pedal stroke is increasing, the amount of
> resistance used during squats is increasing, and the number of reps is
> increasing. Call it whatever you want but most people can figure out
> what strength-endurance means.
>
> Commonly-used nomenclature needs to be appropriate for the intended
> audience. To me, and most other people, the ability to increase the
> amount of force on the pedals is an increase in "strength".

Your point of view certainly has merit. There are runners who would describe
hill work as "strength", even though we secretly all know that it is not
strength training in the same sense as limit-strength specific training.

The problem is that one needs to be more careful and more precise with
terminology when one is discussing different types of "strength" at the same
time.

Let me present a hypothetical example, to illustrate how this can cause
confusion. Consider the following assertion about hill-running --
"it's strength work, so it increases strength".
While the sentence *appears* to be a tautology, if the two instances of the
word "strength" are used to mean completely different things, then it's
anything but.

I'm not saying that you're "wrong", but I did find your post unclear.
In particular, I am not clear what sort of "strength" you claim has increased,
since you didn't say how much resistence or how many repititions you performed
before/after on your strength metric (one-legged squats)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

 

[Tony]

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>On 2004-07-08, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>>>On 2004-07-08, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not relying on charmichael - and it may in fact be unproven in a
>>>> clinical sense - but it makes sense from the literature on weighlifting
>>>> muscle recruitment,
>>>
>>>What literature are you referring to ? Powerlifters include explosive
>>>repetitions at relatively light weights (high power output, low
resistance)
>>>and I can assure you that they're *not* doing it to increase type I fiber
>>>recruitment.
>>>
>>
>> Found several from googling this one is typical:
>> http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/glen4.htm
>
>This isn't a journal article, and it doesn't support your claim (unless I'm
>misunderstanding what you're saying).
>
>In particular, the "slow twitch specific" training the article suggests
>involves using light weights *and* a fairly slow cadence (3 seconds down, 1
>pause, 2 up). The reason the article advocates this is that a faster
cadence
>(which requires high acceleration, which in turn requires greater force
>production) will result in more type II recruitment.
>
>Think about it this way -- we know sprinters have predominantly type II
fiber.
>But their body weight is ridiculously light compared to their strength. A
good
>weight-trained sprinter will probably be able to squat 2.5-3.5xbodyweight
or
>so. So sprinting is actually high power production, high cadence (240 or so
>compared to 180 or so for distance) low resistance exercise -- and it
>predominantly recruits type II fibers.

"The slower the fibre the lower the threshold for recruitment (the easier it
is to activate the fibre), as well as being more fatigue resistant. As you
move up the continuum the fibres recruitment threshold increases, but its
fatigue resistance decreases

"This plays a vital role in how muscle fibres are recruited. During muscle
contraction fibres are recruited in an orderly manner referred to as the
'size principal'.1 Basically the small slow fibres with their low
recruitment threshold are recruited first and as increasing force is
required the larger fast twitch fibres are recruited along the continuum.

"As can be seen slow fibres are recruited first, with fast fibres being
recruited when greater effort and loads are required."

The way I read this is that when a light force is required, the slower
fibres (type I first) are recruited because they have a low threshold for
recruitment. It's the force necessary not necessarily the speed. Don't
confuse slow fibres here with relative speed of contraction here. In the
case of a higher cadence the contraction may be somewhat faster but the
force required is less, and that's why the slow fibres can handle the force
necessary. As the force necessary increases with a low cadence, faster
fibres are needed more to meet the force demand. At some point the actual
speed of the contraction necessary may be important, but this does not seem
to be in the case of high-cadence cycling.

- Tony
>
>Cheers,
>--
>Donovan Rebbechi
>http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

 

[Tony]

Ozzie Gontang wrote in message
<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

Thanks, interesting stuff. I'll be counting strides some to see what my
rates are.

- Tony
>
>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

 

[Tony]

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>On 2004-07-08, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>>>On 2004-07-08, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not relying on charmichael - and it may in fact be unproven in a
>>>> clinical sense - but it makes sense from the literature on weighlifting
>>>> muscle recruitment,
>>>
>>>What literature are you referring to ? Powerlifters include explosive
>>>repetitions at relatively light weights (high power output, low
resistance)
>>>and I can assure you that they're *not* doing it to increase type I fiber
>>>recruitment.
>>>
>>
>> Found several from googling this one is typical:
>> http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/glen4.htm
>
>This isn't a journal article, and it doesn't support your claim (unless I'm
>misunderstanding what you're saying).
>
>In particular, the "slow twitch specific" training the article suggests
>involves using light weights *and* a fairly slow cadence (3 seconds down, 1
>pause, 2 up). The reason the article advocates this is that a faster
cadence
>(which requires high acceleration, which in turn requires greater force
>production) will result in more type II recruitment.
>
>Think about it this way -- we know sprinters have predominantly type II
fiber.
>But their body weight is ridiculously light compared to their strength. A
good
>weight-trained sprinter will probably be able to squat 2.5-3.5xbodyweight
or
>so. So sprinting is actually high power production, high cadence (240 or so
>compared to 180 or so for distance) low resistance exercise -- and it
>predominantly recruits type II fibers.

Sprinting requires both a fast contraction rate and a very high force. If
you go beyond a certain threshold of speed requirement, then probably type
I's can't handle the speed, but the force required is what determines
whether other fibres are recruited if speed of contraction isn't an issue.
Spinning on the bike at 100-120 rpm vs. 50-60 rmp probably won't be too fast
for type I fibres to handle, but the force requirements per stroke are
clearly greater for 50-60 rpm.

- Tony
>
>Cheers,
>--
>Donovan Rebbechi
>http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

 

[Tony]

Dan Stumpus wrote in message ...
>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.

I'll be watching runner's styles more often now. I've seen people race that
way too and they seemed to be efficient.

- Tony
>
>-- 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
>
>

 

[Andy Coggan]

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

> "The slower the fibre the lower the threshold for recruitment (the easier
it
> is to activate the fibre), as well as being more fatigue resistant. As you
> move up the continuum the fibres recruitment threshold increases, but its
> fatigue resistance decreases
>
> "This plays a vital role in how muscle fibres are recruited. During muscle
> contraction fibres are recruited in an orderly manner referred to as the
> 'size principal'.1 Basically the small slow fibres with their low
> recruitment threshold are recruited first and as increasing force is
> required the larger fast twitch fibres are recruited along the continuum.
>
> "As can be seen slow fibres are recruited first, with fast fibres being
> recruited when greater effort and loads are required."
>
> The way I read this is that when a light force is required, the slower
> fibres (type I first) are recruited because they have a low threshold for
> recruitment. It's the force necessary not necessarily the speed.

The speed of movement - or more specifically, the speed of the *intended*
movement - does enter into the picture, however, in that it lowers the force
at which any particular motor unit is recruited. Hence, fast twitch (as well
as slow twitch) fibers will be recruited during very rapid ("ballistic")
movements even if the actual force generated is quite low.

> Don't
> confuse slow fibres here with relative speed of contraction here.
> In the
> case of a higher cadence the contraction may be somewhat faster but the
> force required is less, and that's why the slow fibres can handle the
force
> necessary. As the force necessary increases with a low cadence, faster
> fibres are needed more to meet the force demand. At some point the actual
> speed of the contraction necessary may be important, but this does not
seem
> to be in the case of high-cadence cycling.

Au contraire, it appears that it is quite relevant. To wit: the time
available to reach peak force when pedaling at typical cadences is close to
that typically defined as a "ballistic" contraction. Hence, the lowering
(via disinhibition) of the threshold for recruitment of faster contracting
motor units may explain why pedaling at 50 vs. 100 rpm seemingly results in
comparable motor unit recruitment patterns, despite that two-fold difference
in force being generated.

Andy ("don't believe everything Chris Carmichael tells you") Coggan

 

[Donovan Rebbechi]

On 2004-07-09, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

> The way I read this is that when a light force is required, the slower
> fibres (type I first) are recruited because they have a low threshold for
> recruitment. It's the force necessary not necessarily the speed. Don't

Force = mass * acceleration. So to send the weight flying, you need a high
rate of acceleration. Even if the weight is very light, for example, only
60% of 1 rep max, the force required to accelerate it to a high velocity
is substantial.

> confuse slow fibres here with relative speed of contraction here. In the
> case of a higher cadence the contraction may be somewhat faster but the
> force required is less,

Not true. The peak forces may even be higher. The main difference is
probably that you get a less even production of force (much like if you lift
a light weight quickly, as opposed to lifting a heavy weight slowly)

> and that's why the slow fibres can handle the force
> necessary. As the force necessary increases with a low cadence, faster
> fibres are needed more to meet the force demand.

Could you explain how the "force increases with low cadence" ?

> At some point the actual
> speed of the contraction necessary may be important, but this does not seem
> to be in the case of high-cadence cycling.

I don't see how you get high cadence witout increasing the speed of contraction.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

 

[Donovan Rebbechi]

On 2004-07-09, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sprinting requires both a fast contraction rate and a very high force. If
> you go beyond a certain threshold of speed requirement, then probably type
> I's can't handle the speed, but the force required is what determines
> whether other fibres are recruited if speed of contraction isn't an issue.
> Spinning on the bike at 100-120 rpm vs. 50-60 rmp probably won't be too fast
> for type I fibres to handle,

How do you know ?

> but the force requirements per stroke are
> clearly greater for 50-60 rpm.

The power output is the same each way, so I'm hard pressed to see how one way
could involve substantially and uniformly less force production (speed
*is* part of the force production equation).

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

 

[Donovan Rebbechi]

On 2004-07-09, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ozzie Gontang wrote in message
><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
>
> Thanks, interesting stuff. I'll be counting strides some to see what my
> rates are.

A note about this: I've gradually gone from about 180/min to about 186/min.
But this involved a good year of consistent training including good milage and
consistent speed work. If you're interested in pushing cadence, consider doing
some strides, and focusing on turnover in these. Forcing gait changes in a long
run could be harmful or cause injury (partly because this is dealing with symptoms
and not getting at deeper biomechanical issues), but doing short technical
drills that focus on turnover could improve your economy and gradually address
correct weaknesses that could contribute to a lower cadence.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

 

[Donovan Rebbechi]

On 2004-07-09, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ozzie Gontang wrote in message
><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
>
> Thanks, interesting stuff. I'll be counting strides some to see what my
> rates are.

A note about this: I've gradually gone from about 180/min to about 186/min.
But this involved a good year of consistent training including good milage and
consistent speed work. If you're interested in pushing cadence, consider doing
some strides, and focusing on turnover in these. Forcing gait changes in a long
run could be harmful or cause injury (partly because this is dealing with symptoms
and not getting at deeper biomechanical issues), but doing short technical
drills that focus on turnover could improve your economy and gradually address
correct weaknesses that could contribute to a lower cadence.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

 

[warren]

In article <[email protected]>, Donovan Rebbechi
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On 2004-07-08, warren <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > At the "beginning" I was able to do 8-10 parallel (two-legged) squats
> > with 305 pounds of weight on the bar. I wouldn't characterize that as
> > "awfully weak".
>
> I think he's saying that endurance training doesn't improve strength. He's
> not calling you weak.

The term endurance training is rather broad, especially for bike racers
who are training for hour long events who need to include strength,
speed, acceleration, etc. types of training.

> > Commonly-used nomenclature needs to be appropriate for the intended
> > audience. To me, and most other people, the ability to increase the
> > amount of force on the pedals is an increase in "strength".
>
> Your point of view certainly has merit. There are runners who would describe
> hill work as "strength", even though we secretly all know that it is not
> strength training in the same sense as limit-strength specific training.

You could say strength endurance, explosive strength, or explosive
power and know pretty much what each phrase means but the words have
different meanings within their contexts.

> The problem is that one needs to be more careful and more precise with
> terminology when one is discussing different types of "strength" at the same
> time.
>
> Let me present a hypothetical example, to illustrate how this can cause
> confusion. Consider the following assertion about hill-running --
> "it's strength work, so it increases strength".
> While the sentence *appears* to be a tautology, if the two instances of the
> word "strength" are used to mean completely different things, then it's
> anything but.
>
> I'm not saying that you're "wrong", but I did find your post unclear.
> In particular, I am not clear what sort of "strength" you claim has increased,
> since you didn't say how much resistence or how many repititions you performed
> before/after on your strength metric (one-legged squats)

The amount of resistance used increased, as did the number of reps with
the higher resistance. I suppose I could have kept the reps the same
and the resistance used could have been even higher, but the training
was/is intended to allow for higher power outputs and more repetitions
at high power outputs so we increase resistance and reps.

In any case, this type of training (low cadence at relatively high
force) was only done for about 7 weeks and then I went to very high
power at near normal cadences while going uphill for just 15-25 seconds
and also some other long, uphill intervals at normal cadences and
something near LT power. This has been done now for more than 20 weeks.

-WG