Do High Resistance - Low RPM Intervals help TT??

[Alex Simmons]

I think Ric points out an interesting point. I'm not using a power meter and I would bet that he is correct that I am actually riding higher wattage output during the low rpm intervals.

I tried them last year with benefit of power meter and this was my experience. Can't say there was any benefit over and above similar power level efforts at normal cadence.

I think I could virtually guarantee that if you are riding at the same HR but at a lower cadence you are riding at a higher power output. This is because at a constant power, cadence and HR are positively correlated (higher cadence = higher HR).

Similarly - when doing high cadence motor pacing I noted power output is way down but PE and HR are up on what I'd normally expect at that power level.

In my events (track scratch/points races) you can't self select cadence (and be competitive), so there is a need to be effective across a wide range of cadences - gee - there's that specificity thing again

 

[Pendejo]

In spite of all of the disagreements, I'm sure there is one thing we can all agree on and that is that Hitchy's avatar is absolutely fabulous!

http://www.cyclingforums.com/image.php?u=36660&type=profile&dateline=1156413353

That's one group ride where I'll want to be last over the finish line.

Yes, wheel-sucking could definitely lead to harder things.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

You've got it. I'd be honored to be on a list that includes Ric.

i'm honoured not to be ignored by almost everyone

ric

 

[jstock]

i'm honoured not to be ignored by almost everyone

ric

You can put me up as a fanboy

Maybe I'm damaged by science, but I like advice that make sense.

 

[Pendejo]

Now I'm confused. Based on this thread we've learned that 1) for a given power output, heart rate tends to decrease with cadence, and 2) for a given perceived effort, most riders generate more power at a lower cadence. So doesn't that seem to indicate that the most efficient way to time-trial is to use a very high gear and very low cadence? (Maybe Ulrich read this thread.) But we all know that that's not the case. So what gives? Ric?

 

[frenchyge]

Now I'm confused. Based on this thread we've learned that 1) for a given power output, heart rate tends to decrease with cadence, and 2) for a given perceived effort, most riders generate more power at a lower cadence. So doesn't that seem to indicate that the most efficient way to time-trial is to use a very high gear and very low cadence? (Maybe Ulrich read this thread.) But we all know that that's not the case. So what gives? Ric?

Well, if we *all* knew that, then this question wouldn't keep coming up.

Racing is not about high efficiencies, low HRs, and low PEs. It's about maximizing *output* (power) for the exact duration of the event and being totally used up at the end. The reason most people don't TT at very low cadences is because they can generate more power at their normal cadence, and when they cross the line it doesn't really matter that their HR or PE was higher than it might have been.

The apparent contradiction comes in trying to correlate HR or PE with power, or with assuming that more efficiency means that you've created the capacity for more output. Think about your car: if you installed some equipment designed to give you better gas mileage (like a fuel governor), would that necessarily increase the peak power of the engine?

 

[blkhotrod]

i'm honoured not to be ignored by almost everyone

ric

Part of article written by Ric Stern in 2004 (Cycling News Files):

If the weather is abysmal and I want a tough endurance session, I ride at zone 2 (aiming for the mid-point, i.e., 55 to 60 per cent MAP) for 1-3 hours. Every 10 to 20 minutes, I 'climb a hill', which involves upping the resistance and/or putting the bike in a big gear (53 x 13, for example) and riding at ~ zone 5 for 60-180 seconds at a low cadence (e.g., 60-70 revs/min as you would encounter when out on the road). I then recover on the 'descent' for ~ 50 per cent of the duration of the 'climb' by putting it in a low gear (e.g., 42 x 21) and just turning the pedals at low power.

 

[jstock]

Part of article written by Ric Stern in 2004 (Cycling News Files):

If the weather is abysmal and I want a tough endurance session, I ride at zone 2 (aiming for the mid-point, i.e., 55 to 60 per cent MAP) for 1-3 hours. Every 10 to 20 minutes, I 'climb a hill', which involves upping the resistance and/or putting the bike in a big gear (53 x 13, for example) and riding at ~ zone 5 for 60-180 seconds at a low cadence (e.g., 60-70 revs/min as you would encounter when out on the road). I then recover on the 'descent' for ~ 50 per cent of the duration of the 'climb' by putting it in a low gear (e.g., 42 x 21) and just turning the pedals at low power.

Part of a message written by Ric Stern in in 2006 (in this thread):

that's pretty much it, but also (for clarity) i do advocate low cadence training -- it's pretty much a prerequisite of where i (and many others) live. That is, i have numerous steep roads that are between 12 and 30%, where you're forced to ride at a low cadence. However, i do these as a consequence of where i live and wouldn't suggest the low cadence/big gear route.

Is that answer enough? Or have I missed something (English is not my first language so maybe you ment something else than what I think you mean, if so I'm sorry)

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Part of article written by Ric Stern in 2004 (Cycling News Files):

If the weather is abysmal and I want a tough endurance session, I ride at zone 2 (aiming for the mid-point, i.e., 55 to 60 per cent MAP) for 1-3 hours. Every 10 to 20 minutes, I 'climb a hill', which involves upping the resistance and/or putting the bike in a big gear (53 x 13, for example) and riding at ~ zone 5 for 60-180 seconds at a low cadence (e.g., 60-70 revs/min as you would encounter when out on the road). I then recover on the 'descent' for ~ 50 per cent of the duration of the 'climb' by putting it in a low gear (e.g., 42 x 21) and just turning the pedals at low power.

it relieves the boredom (for me at least) of riding at a constant effort on the turbo. Anything, that i can use as a distraction to make the time go by is useful, as i find that time stands still (when riding the turbo trainer). Doing that breaks the monotony.

And, anyway, aren't you meant to be ignoring me? You're obviously too enamoured by me.

Ric

 

[Pendejo]

Well, if we *all* knew that, then this question wouldn't keep coming up.

Racing is not about high efficiencies, low HRs, and low PEs. It's about maximizing *output* (power) for the exact duration of the event and being totally used up at the end. The reason most people don't TT at very low cadences is because they can generate more power at their normal cadence, and when they cross the line it doesn't really matter that their HR or PE was higher than it might have been.

The apparent contradiction comes in trying to correlate HR or PE with power, or with assuming that more efficiency means that you've created the capacity for more output. Think about your car: if you installed some equipment designed to give you better gas mileage (like a fuel governor), would that necessarily increase the peak power of the engine?

Your key sentence is "The reason most people don't TT at very low cadences is because they can generate more power at their normal cadence ..." What sort of evidence do we have for this? I'm not challenging you, because I just don't know what to think here.

Obviously what we want to do in a time trial is maximize the average power over the distance. Even if what you say is true, maybe one can sustain a higher average power at much lower cadence and higher gear. And if, at a given power, heart rate tends to decrease at lower cadence, wouldn't that be a reason for thinking that the best thing one could do in a TT would be to get in a high gear/low cadence and get up to one's maximum sustainable heart rate?

 

[RapDaddyo]

Your key sentence is "The reason most people don't TT at very low cadences is because they can generate more power at their normal cadence ..." What sort of evidence do we have for this? I'm not challenging you, because I just don't know what to think here.

The relationship between cadence and power is an individual attribute. I might generate max sustainable 60m power at a cadence of 95 and another rider might generate his max sustainable 60m power at a cadence of 80. I think what frenchy is saying is that an individual cyclist can generate more power for a given duration at a cadence that does not correspond to his lowest HR. This would be true for me, for example. The data are straightforward (MP at a given duration) and are obtained by trial and error.

Obviously what we want to do in a time trial is maximize the average power over the distance. Even if what you say is true, maybe one can sustain a higher average power at much lower cadence and higher gear. And if, at a given power, heart rate tends to decrease at lower cadence, wouldn't that be a reason for thinking that the best thing one could do in a TT would be to get in a high gear/low cadence and get up to one's maximum sustainable heart rate?

Actually, what we want to do in a time trial is to minimize elapsed time for the course. This is rarely the max AP. In fact, a variable power pacing strategy always reduces AP in exchange for a reduction in elapsed time. The relevant aggregate constraint is typically NP rather than AP. During the ride, the goal is power, not HR.

 

[frenchyge]

Your key sentence is "The reason most people don't TT at very low cadences is because they can generate more power at their normal cadence ..." What sort of evidence do we have for this? I'm not challenging you, because I just don't know what to think here.

Because if they thought they could ride faster by being overgeared, then that's how they'd ride. Even people that do train with low RPM intervals eventually switch back when racing season nears.

Obviously what we want to do in a time trial is maximize the average power over the distance.

Actually, most people are trying to get the best time, but I follow what you're saying.

Even if what you say is true, maybe one can sustain a higher average power at much lower cadence and higher gear. And if, at a given power, heart rate tends to decrease at lower cadence, wouldn't that be a reason for thinking that the best thing one could do in a TT would be to get in a high gear/low cadence and get up to one's maximum sustainable heart rate?

It'd certainly a logical deduction, and worth trying once or twice to see how it worked out. The reason it won't work out is that HR is not what's limiting their power at normal cadences, and thus switching to a lower HR mode won't allow one to raise their power. It's the aerobic energy production in the leg muscles that sets the limit for sustainable power output, so you can't just put it in the biggest gear and still drive your HR to max. Your legs will fall off long before that happens.

Sorry to throw another car analogy at you, but put it in 1st gear and floor it. See how the tach goes all the way to the redline? Now put it in 5th and do the same thing. The tach will not go all the way to the redline because power is being limited elsewhere.

 

[Pendejo]

Because if they thought they could ride faster by being overgeared, then that's how they'd ride. Even people that do train with low RPM intervals eventually switch back when racing season nears.

Actually, most people are trying to get the best time, but I follow what you're saying.

It'd certainly a logical deduction, and worth trying once or twice to see how it worked out. The reason it won't work out is that HR is not what's limiting their power at normal cadences, and thus switching to a lower HR mode won't allow one to raise their power. It's the aerobic energy production in the leg muscles that sets the limit for sustainable power output, so you can't just put it in the biggest gear and still drive your HR to max. Your legs will fall off long before that happens.

I see what you're saying.

Sorry to throw another car analogy at you, but put it in 1st gear and floor it. See how the tach goes all the way to the redline? Now put it in 5th and do the same thing. The tach will not go all the way to the redline because power is being limited elsewhere.

Thanks a lot. I just went out and blew the engine on my Lambo (or was it my Miata?)

 

[frenchyge]

Thanks a lot. I just went out and blew the engine on my Lambo (or was it my Miata?)

 

[jstock]

While not saying that this will prove anything I've made an observation that is at least related to this discussion, albeit not the original question.

Before I started to use a powermeter I had the feeling that whenever my cadence dropped below 90 rpms or so (on fairly flat ground) my legs were pretty dead. When I started to use a powermeter this was confirmed. If my target wattage was 280 and my display said 270 and cadence was 88, then I tried to push a little harder to up my wattage, but this was usually really hard. What I have now learned is that if I gear down instead power is up much more easily. Maybe this is selfevident but for me it took a while before I could believe how much difference this made. In my confused mind it felt really counterintuitive to gear down to increase power. This is despite the fact that I gear down to increase power all the time when going by car.

Just wanted to share this in case there are other confused people out there thinking that the only way to increase power is to put the pedal to the metal without using the shifter.

 

[DCWD]

Racing is not about high efficiencies, low HRs, and low PEs. It's about maximizing *output* (power) for the exact duration of the event and being totally used up at the end. The reason most people don't TT at very low cadences is because they can generate more power at their normal cadence, and when they cross the line it doesn't really matter that their HR or PE was higher than it might have been.

The apparent contradiction comes in trying to correlate HR or PE with power, or with assuming that more efficiency means that you've created the capacity for more output. Think about your car: if you installed some equipment designed to give you better gas mileage (like a fuel governor), would that necessarily increase the peak power of the engine?

OK, Now I have to jump in here because this is confusing me, too. Rap/Ric established that
lower cadance/bigger gear gives more power at a lower HR, but isn't necessarily sustainable; higher cadance with a smaller gear makes for more sustainable power. Then the thread went off on training to the objective event. French jumps in and says higher cadance maximizes power, not efficiency, and that all the strength should be left on the race track. This seems inconsistent. The lower cadance/bigger gear=more power message combined with the 'train to the objective' message tells us to train to our objective of riding with higher power by shifting to a bigger gear for race day and to train that way, too; that shifting down lowers power but increases sustainability.

I have an answer developing in my mind, but I'm still conjugating the notions. Mostly, I'm curious how this gets answered by Rap, Ric, and French.

It can't be both ways.

 

[RapDaddyo]

OK, Now I have to jump in here because this is confusing me, too. Rap/Ric established that
lower cadance/bigger gear gives more power at a lower HR, but isn't necessarily sustainable; higher cadance with a smaller gear makes for more sustainable power. Then the thread went off on training to the objective event. French jumps in and says higher cadance maximizes power, not efficiency, and that all the strength should be left on the race track. This seems inconsistent. The lower cadance/bigger gear=more power message combined with the 'train to the objective' message tells us to train to our objective of riding with higher power by shifting to a bigger gear for race day and to train that way, too; that shifting down lowers power but increases sustainability.

I have an answer developing in my mind, but I'm still conjugating the notions. Mostly, I'm curious how this gets answered by Rap, Ric, and French.

It can't be both ways.

The answer is that there is a positive correlation between HR and cadence, but the lower cadence/HR gearing does not necessarily enable one to produce his maximum sustainable power for the duration of an event. If I ride at 300W at a cadence of 60, I will have a lower HR than if I ride at 300W at a cadence of 95. But, I can sustain more power for an hour at a cadence of 95 than at a cadence of 60. There is not a cadence that is optimal for every rider. It's an individual matter. I prefer to create power with cadence rather than torque. Others prefer to create power with torque rather than cadence. The only thing virtually certain is that the lower cadence will result in a lower HR. But, that doesn't make it "better" or "more efficient."

 

[frenchyge]

Rap/Ric established that
lower cadance/bigger gear gives more power at a lower HR, but isn't necessarily sustainable; higher cadance with a smaller gear makes for more sustainable power.

Don't try to read more into the comments than what's really being said. Neither of them said it 'gives more power', Ric said that when people do low rpm intervals using HR as a pacing method, they're actually training harder (at a higher power level) than they normally would be if they were doing the same interval at their normal cadence, because they're trying to get their HR up to their usual target.

The only way sustainability becomes an issue is when you're trying to hit a target HR during a low-cadence interval, that you would normally hit during a normal-cadence interval. The reason it's not sustainable is because you're just plain working too hard by trying to drive you cadence-lowered HR to the normal target.

The lower cadance/bigger gear=more power message

I think that's a mis-interpretation of Ric's comments. In the same post he goes right on to suggest that people should just train at the higher power using their normal cadence.

combined with the 'train to the objective' message tells us to train to our objective of riding with higher power by shifting to a bigger gear for race day and to train that way, too; that shifting down lowers power but increases sustainability.

The 'objective' is to be able to push a bigger gear *at your normal cadence,* which means more power and more speed. That's the objective to train towards, and it doesn't require artificially lowering your cadence at any point by intentionally riding around overgeared.

Sorry if I've confused anyone by jumping in late. I was trying to stay out of the 'low-cadence training' discussion and was merely answering a question about why you don't see people TT-ing that way.

 

[frenchyge]

You know, after seeing this topic go around and around on this thread and many others, one thing has become obvious. I don't mean this to sound condescending, but without a power meter this topic is simply a very difficult one to understand. People training by HR learn that "HR = intensity of effort", and when they start into a topic like this one where that's no longer true, it kinda turns their world upside down.

My suggestion is to either take Ric's advice from post #4:

Potentially, it would be more beneficial to ride at your normal cadence at the higher power - as this will be more race specific.

or just ignore him and several of the rest of us, and read about the Force racing ability which Joe Friel talks about in his training books. To train that ability he suggests weight routines early in the season, progressing to big-gear repeats and then hill work.

Either way, you're likely to improve year-on-year and eventually see better results. See you at the starting line.

 

[Pendejo]

A related question that was alluded to in a post above: for you experienced time trialers, assuming a relatively flat TT and fairly constant wind velocity/direction, do you find yourself going into the red zone and then dialing back a gear to recover, then back up again, several times during the race? In other words, is that your desired standard operating procedure? Or do you think you get a better result by basically staying in the gear that just keeps you under the red zone?

I find myself doing the former, because unless I hit my limit I'm afraid I'm leaving too much fuel unused. But then I wonder if I'm forced to do this because I'm not experienced enough yet. (For the record, I don't use heart or power monitors.)