pedaling technique



davek <[email protected]> wrote:

: Well, they always say that Ullrich can pump round the big gears at high
: speeds because of his "big engine" - I'm not entirely sure what that
: means

If you've ever ridden with someone with a "big engine" it becomes clear. It's
not about fast twitch/slow or build it's just lots and lots of raw power.

Get enough watts through the rear wheel and you'll go fast.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
"Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook
 
Arthur Clune wrote:

> davek <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> : Well, they always say that Ullrich can pump round the big gears at high
> : speeds because of his "big engine" - I'm not entirely sure what that
> : means
>
> If you've ever ridden with someone with a "big engine" it becomes clear. It's
> not about fast twitch/slow or build it's just lots and lots of raw power.
>
> Get enough watts through the rear wheel and you'll go fast.
>
> Arthur
>


I'd agree with this. I'm finding I'm better able to suddenly put the
power on in a high gear at what is a fairly low cadence sometimes, and
though I've had a twinge in the knees once or twice (my saddle's still a
bit too low) as long as I avoid putting it on at the very top of the
pedal stroke (where, for that reason, my knee is at it's most bent I
guess) I really do find it works as a method to accelerate, and my body
really likes doing it this way.

I can feel the difference to just sitting and pedalling - I don't get
out the saddle to do this, but the bike moves differently under me, and
my body does something different too, so I'm guessing it might be that
side-to-side type movement going on - not sure, I'm usually
concentrating on other things ;-)

I can't do this up hills though - I just weigh too much, and the weight
overcomes the power - it's insufficient to heave the bulk up the hill,
but works extremely well on the flat to accelerate said bulk in a
horizontal direction ;-)

However, I still think you're more at risk (perhaps not guaranteed, I'm
not sure, not a knee expert!) at doing your knees in by pushing a high
gear for any length of time or under any significant load. For me, this
means slow cadences up long gradients in anything other than the low
gears is a Bad Thing - my knees tell me so.

--


Velvet
 
Tim Hall wrote:

> Not that simple though. Shirley the Ulrich line should read
>
> High gears, slow cadence, eat pies all witer.


But then it wouldn't make any sense.

Witer?

;-)
 
MSeries wrote:
> I am surprised it took 5 posts before the name Armstrong was mentioned.
> Anyone would think he invented pedalling. High cadence has been the
> recommendation for years. I can't remember the reasons why but it comes
> failry naturally now.


Armstrong gets mentioned because he rides at a particularly high
cadence. None of the other riders in the TdF ride at a genuinely /low/
cadence, even Ullrich.

d.
 
I wrote:
> Riding on the flat with the wind at my back, as was the case with the
> first half of my ride yesterday evening, I kept up a steady 105 rpm for
> around 20 minutes ...


After the climb, I had a long (3 miles), relatively gentle descent but
it was into the wind. On this part of the ride I actually found it
easier to "churn" a higher gear (52x14) at a lower cadence to maintain a
speed of just under 30mph.

To be honest, I don't know what all this proves, if anything - maybe
that different styles of riding suit different conditions?

d.
 
dannyboy1206 wrote:
> What is the rule when you are pedaling do you spin your legs in lower
> gears or do churn the legs round in high gears.Some people say you
> build muscle endurance quicker in the higher gears but other people
> say it damages your knees can anyone help.
>
> Cheers


I just pedal at whatever speed feels best. Dependiong on length of journey,
terrain, energy levels, wind direction. Sometimes churning, sometimes
spinning.
 
Arthur Clune typed:
> davek <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Well, they always say that Ullrich can pump round the big gears at high
>> speeds because of his "big engine" - I'm not entirely sure what that
>> means

>
> If you've ever ridden with someone with a "big engine" it becomes clear.
> It's not about fast twitch/slow or build it's just lots and lots of raw
> power.
>
> Get enough watts through the rear wheel and you'll go fast.


I'd agree with this. Ullrichs general size would help a lot here .. ;)

Armstrongs spinning is a technique that can be learned, practised, coached
and trained for, but does require lots of training and concentration to get
it to anything near his level. Powering like Ullrich just needs power, and
the mindset to pump it out ... ;)

IMHO I think the analysis of which muscles exactly do the job might help in
the long run, but if you haven't got the basic physique and stamina then
it's unlikely to be as good a technique as spinning ..

--
Paul ...

(8(|) ... Homer Rocks
 
Arthur Clune wrote:
> If you've ever ridden with someone with a "big engine" it becomes clear. It's
> not about fast twitch/slow or build it's just lots and lots of raw power.


Yes, but where does that power come from? The ability to pump out that
level of power for a sustained period requires serious muscle
development, specifically in the fast twitch fibres. Ullrich is
muscular, sure, but he's not exactly bodybuilder physique. Hence my
speculation about his natural proportion of fast/slow twitch muscle -
his ability is genetically determined.

d.
 
Simonb wrote:
> I just pedal at whatever speed feels best. Dependiong on length of journey,
> terrain, energy levels, wind direction. Sometimes churning, sometimes
> spinning.


I think that's what I was trying to say in my previous posts about my
ride yesterday evening.

d.
 
On 28/7/04 9:57 pm, in article [email protected],
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

> High gears, slow cadence: Ullrich


Slow cadence being around 85-95 IIRC

> Low gears, fast cadence: Armstrong.


being 95-105

It is the difference between 39x21 and 39x23 on the Alpe d'Huez

By the standards of this group, those cadences are normal/high and very
high/very very high.

...d
 
David Martin wrote:

>> Low gears, fast cadence: Armstrong.

> being 95-105
> By the standards of this group, those cadences are normal/high and
> very high/very very high.


95-105 is normal for me :)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:26:35 +0100, "Meschersmit" <[email protected]>
> wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>
>> Everyone's different though. There can surely be no "right" or
>> "wrong" way - it's whatever suits you. Ullrich does use low cadence
>> yet still came second up Alpe D'huex time trial - against high
>> cadence spinners. It must surely depend on the muscularity of the
>> legs. Not that I am an expert, I'd be the first to admit. I must
>> say though that I favour the low cadence approach; but then again
>> I'm a very big guy.

>
> I go much faster and with far fewer joint problems since I increased
> my cruising cadence from 80-odd to 100+. I am not particularly big,
> at 6'1" and 13st.


Do you have a history of joint problems? I only ask because you say you now
have /fewer/ joint problems.
 
Call me Bob wrote:

>> I don't know about building muscle endurance quicker, you'll
>> certainly wreck your knees quicker.

>
> I see this written here all the time and by so many different people.
> I always end up thinking, there's so many of 'em, they can't all be
> wrong... but it always ****les in the back of my mind.
>
> Is it really going to make that much of a difference? Are our knees
> really put at risk by a habit of pushing a slightly higher gear?


I can't come up with the science but I've personally experienced
disturbing and lasting pain through pedalling high gears, so I believe the
theories. However, I also once had knee problems after some bouts of
ridiculously high-cadence pedalling (slipstreaming lorries with 50x14),
where I think the knee joint gets jerked about too much, so too high a
cadence can also be bad, albeit in another way.

> I wonder what the difference is in terms of actual pressure and
> working load in the knee between moving at a given speed with a
> cadence of say 65 and that same speed at 85rpm. Is one really going to
> be measurably more damaging to your knee than the other?
>
> Spinning at a higher cadence would I suppose slightly lower the
> pressures in the knee, but at the same time it forces the joint into
> many more repetitions for the same amount of work.


It's more than "slightly" if the speed is the same. Repetition with
minimal force must have quite a different effect.

/snip
> The knee is only doing what it has evolved to do (not exactly, I grant
> you, but pretty bloody close). Plus, our knees are designed to put up
> with a lot more grief then our modern sedentary lifestyles ask of
> them.


The stressed are different in all these things. We didn't elvolve to ride
bicycles (and pedal them hard!).

Still, I think it's a fair and good question. Sorry I can't answer it
properly. There's bound to be some good info on the web or
rec.bicycles.tech.

~PB
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> High gears, slow cadence: Ullrich
> Low gears, fast cadence: Armstrong.
>
> Who won? ;-)


I dunno. Was it Armstring again?
Where I live you'd think it was Kim Kirchen who won...
 
davek <[email protected]> wrote:
: it was into the wind. On this part of the ride I actually found it
: easier to "churn" a higher gear (52x14) at a lower cadence to maintain a
: speed of just under 30mph.

The harder you are working, the higher the cadence that is most efficient.
Lots of cyclists just tick a big gear over on a descent.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
"Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook
 
davek <[email protected]> wrote:
: Arthur Clune wrote:
:> If you've ever ridden with someone with a "big engine" it becomes clear. It's
:> not about fast twitch/slow or build it's just lots and lots of raw power.

: Yes, but where does that power come from?

I don't think it's muscular. It's about lungs more than anything. The leg
strength comes over time. Huge lungs don't.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
"Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook
 
David Martin wrote:
>>Low gears, fast cadence: Armstrong.

>
> being 95-105


I thought Armstrong's normal cadence was closer to 120, but that's based
purely on watching him on telly and trying to count...

d.
 
Call me Bob wrote:

> Is it really going to make that much of a difference? Are our knees
> really put at risk by a habit of pushing a slightly higher gear?


I haven't worked out the numbers or anything, but my personal
observations are that I can go longer if I spin rather than mash, and I
stopped having terrible knee troubles[1] walking down big hills (as a
hillwalker, not a cyclist) /after/ I took to spinning lower gears with
clipless pedals.

Aside from the problems I had walking down the hills, being able to go
further on the bike without just finding my legs had no ooomph left in
them is reason enough for me to prefer higher cadences than I used to
use. Not that I'm in the continual super-high revs department by any
stretch of the imagination, but I certainly spin lower gears than I used
to and can run at much higher values for short, sharp climbs too.

> Well, there you go, I've said it out loud now for all to hear. That's
> what goes through my mind everytime I read the "it'll bugger your
> knees" line.


I won't say it will definitely bugger your knees, but something like it
didn't seem to do mine any good. Sample base of 1, my knees (and their
immediate physiological surroundings) probably aren't exactly the same
as yours, but in my case mashing does cause me problems while I can
winch myself up most things with no trouble as long as I can spin the
pedals at a reasonable cadence. And off the bike my knees work better
too if I've been spinning, and worse from mashing.

Of course, placing the dividing line between "slightly higher gear" and
"slightly higher gear than that which will cause a problem" is quite
hard to pin down with hard numbers, and I suspect that there is a grey
area between "no problems" and "clear problems" in any case...

Pete.

[1] if I was going up a Munro on foot or touring skis I'd wear a pair of
neoprene knee supports and would usually have to stop for rests on
descent to prevent discomfort growing to pain. Don't have to do any of
that any more.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Simonb wrote:

>> I go much faster and with far fewer joint problems since I increased
>> my cruising cadence from 80-odd to 100+. I am not particularly big,
>> at 6'1" and 13st.


> Do you have a history of joint problems? I only ask because you say
> you now have /fewer/ joint problems.


I do have a history of joint problems, also lower back pain. That was all
back in the Dark Ages - i.e. before the Darkside Ages :)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk