LA's High Cadence Style and Avoidance of Leg Fatigue

[musette]

My guess is that it probably is an advantage. It's kind of like riding with the weight removed. The muscles will recover faster with reduced lactate.

Your point about recovery is a key one. During a long stage race like TdF, where the climbing can be clumped together (i.e., mountain stages one after another) due to geography, recovery becomes very important.

 

[gntlmn]

Just to clarify some basic issues: there have been other Tour winners who have used lower cadences than LA. Additionally, i think it would be fair to say that LA (or whoever) didn't invent pedalling fast. If you look at the riders with the exception of Obree, in the Hour Record, they all used a high cadence (i.e. > 100 revs/min)

it's also acutely important to understand that most people cannot pedal at high cadences when climbing hills with the normal gear ratios that we have on our bikes.

Your cadence is determined, obviously by gear selection, but also by velocity of movement, which in turn is determined by the power that you can produce. For e.g., many/most racers will have a lowest gear of 39 x 23 or 24 for their usual locale. If you can only produce a finite amount of power (e.g., 300 W) up a climb, then under given conditions that power will produce a specific velocity. That maybe (e.g.) by 16 km/hr. in your lowest gear (e.g. 39 x 23) that will produce a specific cadence (~ 70 revs/min). thus to pedal at a faster cadence (which may or may not better) you'd need either substantially lower gears, or to produce significantly greater power, or to avoid hills... in other words, most people on most hills will be forced to pedal at a lower rather than higher cadence (until one of the above 3 changes are made).

ric

In the case of the hour record, that the best performances have been made at the higher cadences lends support to the idea that higher cadences are better for the highest wattage performances.

There have been 5 5-time winners of the Tour de France. Of those, two of them did not pedal high cadence--Eddy Merckx and Bernard Hinault. The rest were high cadence riders: Anquetil, Indurain, Armstrong. Many would argue (especially Greg Lemond) that Hinault did not deserve his 5th Tour win, but was gifted it. That leaves only Merckx without a high cadence style. That doesn't surprise me, but it doesn't mean that Merckx could not have done better with high cadence. I think it illustrates that he stood so far ahead of his competition that he didn't need to adopt the best pedaling style.

I'm not so sure that high cadence is a huge factor in any one race or tour. I suspect that it does become a huge factor over time. I think it converts more of the leg muscle movement to aerobic rather than anaerobic. Imagine lifting a 1 lb weight. This you could lift all day aerobically. Imagine lifting successively larger weights until you get to a weight that you can barely lift. This you could lift once anaerobically. The chance of injury increases as the weight increases.

Changing your pedalling style to have increased cadence will remove more of the anaerobic element from the pedal stroke by reducing the force that the rider must exert against it at any given speed. Over a period of 5 Tour wins, I suspect that the cumulative joint, ligament, tendon, muscle damage from a high cadence pedal stroke will be lower than the same for a low cadence pedal stroke.

 

[davidbod]

in 2004, Ullrich hasn't climbed quite as well or TTed as well, either suggesting that he weighs more than last year with the same power, or weighs the same with similar power and Armstrong has upped his power or some similar combination. Ullrich looks (to me) slimmer than last year.

ric

Ric,

Given the fact that Jan had to go off after his Spring bail outs to lose a significant amount of weight in a short time, couldn't it be possible that he lost muscle mass with his crash weight loss. If that were the case then he could weigh near what he weighed last year or even slightly less, but be down on power due to loss of muscle.

I agree that he looks like he weighs less than last year, but he did it in such a short time, I can't see how he would have done that without compromising his conditioning and possibly power.

David

 

[gntlmn]

Ric,

Given the fact that Jan had to go off after his Spring bail outs to lose a significant amount of weight in a short time, couldn't it be possible that he lost muscle mass with his crash weight loss. If that were the case then he could weigh near what he weighed last year or even slightly less, but be down on power due to loss of muscle.

I agree that he looks like he weighs less than last year, but he did it in such a short time, I can't see how he would have done that without compromising his conditioning and possibly power.

David

He did seem to be suffering somewhat in the Pyrenees, but then he seems to have recovered his form in the Alps and then also in the final TT. It might be that it took him this long to finally recover his strength from the drastic weight loss.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

To see whether it makes a difference involves observing the difference that lactate would have on that rider's performance, all other factors remaining unchanged. The fact that a given rider produces less lactate and rides poorly or that another rider produces more lactate and rides better ignores this factor. Clearly, in these two cases, neither one proves or disproves that lactate affects performance and/or recovery. If you put a 50 lb weight on one rider and then observe that that rider rides better than another who does not carry that 50 lb weight, are we then to conclude that that 50 lb weight makes no difference on the stronger rider's performance? No. And yet this is much like the argument you make here with lactate. You say that the weaker rider generates less lactate than the stronger rider. Therefore, reduced lactate at every level of power output in another rider is not an advantage. My guess is that it probably is an advantage. It's kind of like riding with the weight removed. The muscles will recover faster with reduced lactate.

if you ride at higher power you produce more lactate than if you ride at a lower power. what that ammount of lactate is, is immaterial. if you can sustain a power output that's all that matters.

lactate is completely disperesed after a *maximal* "all-out" effort within ~ 90-mins of rest (a maximal all-out effort, being an effort that a kilo track rider produces not the low amount of lactate that a TdF rider produces).

you can alter the value of lactate being produced by your diet, if you're glycogen depleted your lactate at a given power will be lower than if you're glycogen loaded, yet you won't last as long at that power (with the lower lactate).

and don't forget it's not even lactate that's limiting

ric

 

[musette]

cyclecoach (per the website) -- After you've trained a six time TdF winner, let's see whether C Carmichael's theories hold up to your training philosophy.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

cyclecoach (per the website) -- After you've trained a six time TdF winner, let's see whether C Carmichael's theories hold up to your training philosophy.

we're not talking training philosophy, but exercise physiology. i'm not sure why you don't like it and what you don't understand, but feel free to ask a query and i'll try to respond.

just because i've not coached a 6 times TdF winner doesn't make me irrelevant. It appears that CC doesn't coach LA either, but Michele Ferrari instead, at least according to his site.

however, i do coach at TT1 to recreational level, and lastly i guess, if you don't like what i write why not go to a forum that CTS sponsors, instead of one i do.

cheers
ric

 

[gntlmn]

if you ride at higher power you produce more lactate than if you ride at a lower power. what that ammount of lactate is, is immaterial. if you can sustain a power output that's all that matters.
ric

Apparently, what you are saying is that if you could somehow increase your blood lactate at the same power output, like say with an IV while riding on a trainer, you would see no decline in power. I find that hard to believe, but I'm eager to see the data if you've heard of any such test. Otherwise, if it does result in a decline, the amount of lactate is material. From what it sounds like with Lance's physiology, a factor of 2 would convince me. In other words, if the control group riders get double their respective normal blood lactate levels, and their power output does not decline as a result, even over several hours and many days, I would be forced to agree with you.

I would prefer to observe a halving of blood lactate at given power output to see if power output increases, but I think that would be an even harder test to devise from a technological standpoint. Also, if perceived exertion declines, and this results in higher output, how can one be sure that this is a result of reduced lactate? Hmmm.

I suppose these tests would need to be performed at the anaerobic threshold.

 

[gntlmn]

cyclecoach (per the website) -- After you've trained a six time TdF winner, let's see whether C Carmichael's theories hold up to your training philosophy.

If I were a 6 time Tour de France winner, I'd want to be looking everywhere to learn something new to keep my edge. To think that Chris Carmichael has every theory down pat is simply ludicrous. Sure, he must be doing many things right, but there's plenty more to learn.

A lot of things seem simple, but when you really start taking a close look at what's going on, the answers you thought you knew are not at all clear any more.

I appreciate all the varied advice, especially when I find out I didn't have it right to start with. That's progress.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Apparently, what you are saying is that if you could somehow increase your blood lactate at the same power output, like say with an IV while riding on a trainer, you would see no decline in power.

no, that's not what i'm saying. I'm saying that as the intensity of exercise increases, lactate levels increase.

If you're sat on the couch watching telly your lactate is minimal, if you're riding a 40-km TT it'll be higher, and if you do a 1-km TT as hard as you can it'll be higher still (i.e., maximal).

On the other hand you could ride at the power you can sustain for a 40-km TT with your glycogen stores not fully topped up and your lactate would be lower than when the glycogen stores are fully loaded. it's likely (highly) that you'd not finish the 40-km TT. in other words, having a low lactate level isn't that important, it's the power that you can sustain for the duration concerned that's important.

ric

 

[gntlmn]

no, that's not what i'm saying. I'm saying that as the intensity of exercise increases, lactate levels increase.

If you're sat on the couch watching telly your lactate is minimal, if you're riding a 40-km TT it'll be higher, and if you do a 1-km TT as hard as you can it'll be higher still (i.e., maximal).

On the other hand you could ride at the power you can sustain for a 40-km TT with your glycogen stores not fully topped up and your lactate would be lower than when the glycogen stores are fully loaded. it's likely (highly) that you'd not finish the 40-km TT. in other words, having a low lactate level isn't that important, it's the power that you can sustain for the duration concerned that's important.

ric

I agree that it's the power that you can sustain that's important. I also understand that you can produce more horsepower at higher lactate levels when your glycogen is fully restored versus lower horsepower when your glycogen is depleted but your lactate levels are lower.

But this seems to sidestep the issue. It's not a question of whether an individual produces more power when he reduces his lactate by riding slower. This wouldn't make any sense. If you ride slower, you are producing less power and less lactate (unless, as you say, you are bonked).

You still haven't answered the question about anaerobic threshold versus lactate level. The reason I asked this is because it is a commonly held belief (I haven't heard anyone doubt it yet) that Lance Armstrong produces less lactate than other riders at every level of power. How do you know this is not an advantage? If another rider's lactate level could be reduced (like maybe with a souped up renal dialysis machine when he's on a trainer), would not you see an increase in power? If it wicks away immediately, it wouldn't matter, but it doesn't. It keeps going up as power output increases. I realize that Lance's goes up too, but the lactate level is lower for each level of power output.

Even if both riders recovered in 90 minutes after a supramaximal effort, how can you be convinced that the higher lactate individual will not be as recovered the next day? Might there be more soreness or deadness in the legs?

 

[gntlmn]

In the case of the hour record, that the best performances have been made at the higher cadences lends support to the idea that higher cadences are better for the highest wattage performances.

There have been 5 5-time winners of the Tour de France. Of those, two of them did not pedal high cadence--Eddy Merckx and Bernard Hinault. The rest were high cadence riders: Anquetil, Indurain, Armstrong. Many would argue (especially Greg Lemond) that Hinault did not deserve his 5th Tour win, but was gifted it. That leaves only Merckx without a high cadence style. That doesn't surprise me, but it doesn't mean that Merckx could not have done better with high cadence. I think it illustrates that he stood so far ahead of his competition that he didn't need to adopt the best pedaling style.

I'm not so sure that high cadence is a huge factor in any one race or tour. I suspect that it does become a huge factor over time. I think it converts more of the leg muscle movement to aerobic rather than anaerobic. Imagine lifting a 1 lb weight. This you could lift all day aerobically. Imagine lifting successively larger weights until you get to a weight that you can barely lift. This you could lift once anaerobically. The chance of injury increases as the weight increases.

Changing your pedalling style to have increased cadence will remove more of the anaerobic element from the pedal stroke by reducing the force that the rider must exert against it at any given speed. Over a period of 5 Tour wins, I suspect that the cumulative joint, ligament, tendon, muscle damage from a high cadence pedal stroke will be lower than the same for a low cadence pedal stroke.

Whether or not you choose to include Hinault in the 5 time group, the Badger did have knee problems. I wonder if he might not have if he had a high cadence pedalling style. Ullrich has had knee problems as well, and he doesn't have a high cadence.

 

[antoineg]

Even if both riders recovered in 90 minutes after a supramaximal effort, how can you be convinced that the higher lactate individual will not be as recovered the next day? Might there be more soreness or deadness in the legs?

I'm not an expert, but I thought that the idea of lactic acid causing soreness was pretty much disproven by this point?

Also, what I recall reading is that the lactate threshold was quite possibly a "dummy marker" -- easy to study, easy to calculate, but possibly not a great indicator of performance, capabilities, or recovery potential. The best threshold to consider is AeT, but there's at best an imperfect relationship between AeT and LT.

Here's a very brief article outlining some of the issues:

http://www.peakscoachinggroup.com/tips/at.html

 

[gntlmn]

I'm not an expert, but I thought that the idea of lactic acid causing soreness was pretty much disproven by this point?

Also, what I recall reading is that the lactate threshold was quite possibly a "dummy marker" -- easy to study, easy to calculate, but possibly not a great indicator of performance, capabilities, or recovery potential. The best threshold to consider is AeT, but there's at best an imperfect relationship between AeT and LT.

Here's a very brief article outlining some of the issues:

http://www.peakscoachinggroup.com/tips/at.html

Thanks. That was an interesting article. It still doesn't answer whether or not low lactic acid production is an advantage for an athlete. It talks about the disconnect between AT and LT, VT. They used to be considered synonymous, but now they're not.

Quote from the article referenced above:
Lactate levels rise simply because production and release of lactate occurs at a rate faster than removal mechanisms can accommodate. For these reasons, lactate threshold can be accurately determined only by sampling blood during a graded exercise test.
End of Quote

According to the LA camp, Lance's production of lactate is lower than other athletes. The question is whether or not this is an advantage.

 

[antoineg]

Thanks. That was an interesting article. It still doesn't answer whether or not low lactic acid production is an advantage for an athlete.

Hmm...you're right. How about this one:

http://www.time-to-run.com/theabc/lactic.htm

or this one:

http://www.runningplanet.com/articles/article_detail.asp?article_id=739

Interesting snippet from the second one:

This is where the old school parts ways with the new school. According to earlier beliefs, this build up of lactic acid was a waste product that caused fatigue, burning muscles and could only be cleared during rest and recovery. Now we know that most of the lactic acid produced is used to produce immediate energy for your muscles and also plays an important part in generating additional glycogen to be used for energy.

Lactic acid is not only produced during highly intense bouts of exercise. It is produced at all times, even at rest. A recent study showed that even during low intensity exercise, as much as 50% of the glucose that is converted to energy during glycolysis is converted to lactic acid.

Our muscles produce lactic acid, but they also use lactic acid. Many studies have confirmed that approximately 75% of lactic acid is removed from our bloodstreams through oxidation. That is, it is converted to energy and used to fuel our muscles. The remaining 25% is cleared by conversion to glycogen which is used to produce further energy. So, as you see, lactic acid is far from a “garbage” dead end by- product. It is an important cog in the mechanisms that fuel our running activities.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

You still haven't answered the question about anaerobic threshold versus lactate level. The reason I asked this is because it is a commonly held belief (I haven't heard anyone doubt it yet) that Lance Armstrong produces less lactate than other riders at every level of power.

I don't think you've understood what i've previously written. You can't compare one person's lactate with another it's immaterial. the rider or athlete can produce a sustainable power and that is what's important. for e.g., i can ride maximally for an hour at ~ 300 W at an average of e.g., ~ 4 mmol/L. Conversely, i know people that can ride maximally at > 300 W at more than 4 mmol/L and others at less than 4 mmol/L.

On the other hand, and this maybe where your confusion lies, and this maybe due to poor journalism or reporting by his coaches, as i've previously stated as you ride at high powers you produce more lactate than at low power, however, as you get fitter you produce less lactate at a given workload. however, as can be seen above you can't compare that lactate with other people (the same as you can't compare HRs).


ric

 

[gubaguba]

As far as the knee problems go I can say from my personal experience higher cadence will help. I have little cartlage left in one knee. I destroyed it training as a shot putter in high school. I can ride everyday if I use a high cadence. I can ride with force but if I do I'll be destroyed within a few days. It takes dicipline but it works for me.

 

[musette]

Leaving aside the lactic acid question, isn't it still compelling that when the heart/lungs are being relied upon more heavily, those muscles "tire" (in whatever way is relevant) less readily and therefore cause stronger performance at the end of stages and/or quicker recovery?

 

[antoineg]

Leaving aside the lactic acid question, isn't it still compelling that when the heart/lungs are being relied upon more heavily, those muscles "tire" (in whatever way is relevant) less readily and therefore cause stronger performance at the end of stages and/or quicker recovery?

This is complicated. There is the "local recovery" of the legs muscle fibers, and the "systemic recovery" to consider as well, which involves the functioning of the whole body.

It's not possible to totally isolate the two, and there is not enough data to prove your hypothesis. (at least not that I know of).

 

[gntlmn]

I don't think you've understood what i've previously written. You can't compare one person's lactate with another it's immaterial. the rider or athlete can produce a sustainable power and that is what's important. for e.g., i can ride maximally for an hour at ~ 300 W at an average of e.g., ~ 4 mmol/L. Conversely, i know people that can ride maximally at > 300 W at more than 4 mmol/L and others at less than 4 mmol/L.

On the other hand, and this maybe where your confusion lies, and this maybe due to poor journalism or reporting by his coaches, as i've previously stated as you ride at high powers you produce more lactate than at low power, however, as you get fitter you produce less lactate at a given workload. however, as can be seen above you can't compare that lactate with other people (the same as you can't compare HRs).


ric

I'd say it's about time to fire off an email to Chris Carmichael and ask him what he is talking about in regard to a genetic advantage with Lance Armstrong and lactic acid production. After all this point and counterpoint, I don't see anything that suggests to me exactly what Carmichael must have meant.

Who wants to do the honors? Maybe what he meant is that Lance can shift his lactate versus power output curve faster to the right on a day by day basis. That's the only thing I can figure. Like for example, when Basso finished ahead of him up La Mongie, but then he came back stronger the next day and won to Plateau de Beille and continued to perform at a very high level the next few days. Actually, that may be what he's talking about. I can improve slowly over time, but I don't bounce back like those tour riders, especially Armstrong.

Do you think that's what he meant? I guess he would be the one to ask.