Quick cadence training for juniors

macca1234 said:

yeah this is very confusing to me, i think ill just listen to my coach at the expense of good results this year, however i think i will ask him if i can put it in a big chainring at least twice a week. I just feel tired & sluggish now and its extra annoying having youre average speed go from 32km-27km/h.

Macca, first point: Don't wouldn't worry abotu ave speeds when training. Structured training is about trying to induce adaptations to new & specific workloads, intensities, etc. The speeds will vary depending on the particulare training block and specific type of exercise you're doing and what adaptation you're trying to induce by doing this. You need to remember where the current training block fits into the 'bigger picture' of your training/racing calendar. During peak race season, i sometimes work in the high-cadence low-resistance drills in place of 'power' intervals. Why? Because sometimes my body needs more time to recover as does my mind - mentally, it can be difficult to get pumped to do 2x20min intervals with ramp-ups after you've just hammered yourself in a race. I'm still training and working hard - just on different things.

Speak to your coach and better understand why he has prescribed specific typoes of exercises and where it fits into the whole program. Also tell him any concerns/thoughts you have. After trying a few coaches, a valuable lesson i've learnt (aside from all the structured training) is that the best results come when there is 2 way dialogue. Speak to your coach and forget about looking at ave speed - it's dependant upon too many other variables.

Anyway, that's my 2.75 cents worth! Cheers

RapDaddyo said:

I guess that since there's no evidence that a smooth stroke is beneficial, there must be a top rider who is not smooth. Can you cite an example, because I can't think of a single rider who "appears" to be anything but smooth?

I can do better than that dear chap, I can cite you a study where the fastest riders were actually *less* smooth, although the two are probably only casually related. It's something I'm looking into atm and there *might* be a connection of sorts, but the existing evidence points away from it.

COYLE, E. F., FELTNER, M. E., KAUTZ, S. A., HAMILTON, M. T., MONTAIN, S. J., BAYLOR, A. M., ABRAHAM, L. D. & PETREK, G. W. (1991) Physiological and biomechanical factors associated with elite endurance cycling performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 23, 93-107.

FWIW this is one paper on cycling that's almost indespensible I reckon. Although this study is 14 y/o one of the subjects was a youthful Lance Armstrong.

L.

RapDaddyo said:

I guess that since there's no evidence that a smooth stroke is beneficial, there must be a top rider who is not smooth. Can you cite an example, because I can't think of a single rider who "appears" to be anything but smooth?

Francisco Mancebo. No offense to any Mancebo fans out there, but that guy's style makes me hurt just sitting on the couch watching. 😉

biker-linz said:

..........
FWIW this is one paper on cycling that's almost indespensible I reckon. Although this study is 14 y/o one of the subjects was a youthful Lance Armstrong.
L.

... Lance who later stated that increasing his pedal stroke rate was one of the most beneficial move he had made in his career !

Here is a bit of a study made specifically on Lance Armstrong:

"Although during all laboratory measures of mechanical efficiency, cycling cadence was held constant at 85 rpm, this individual's freely chosen cycling cadence during time trial racing of 30- to 60-min duration increased progressively during this 7-yr period from 85–95 rpm to 105–110 rpm"

"As cycling efficiency increases due to increased percentage of type I muscle fibers, it is possible that increased power is manifested by increasing cycling cadence (i.e., velocity) rather than increasing the muscle forces directed to the pedals. This approach appears to produce less sensation of effort relative to muscular strength (27). Therefore, it is likely that the increases in freely chosen cycling cadence displayed over the years by this Tour de France champion reflect his increased mechanical efficiency, agreeing with the pattern expected to result from muscle fiber conversion from type II to type I"

jap.physiology.org2191Open ↗

biker-linz said:

I can do better than that dear chap, I can cite you a study where the fastest riders were actually *less* smooth, although the two are probably only casually related. It's something I'm looking into atm and there *might* be a connection of sorts, but the existing evidence points away from it.

COYLE, E. F., FELTNER, M. E., KAUTZ, S. A., HAMILTON, M. T., MONTAIN, S. J., BAYLOR, A. M., ABRAHAM, L. D. & PETREK, G. W. (1991) Physiological and biomechanical factors associated with elite endurance cycling performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 23, 93-107.

FWIW this is one paper on cycling that's almost indespensible I reckon. Although this study is 14 y/o one of the subjects was a youthful Lance Armstrong.

L.

Yes, I know the study well. But, you seem to be equating a pedaling style with a higher concentration of force at one point with "less smooth." I don't see it that way. I think one can be smooth and still be applying virtually all pedal force in a narrow range of the stroke. If you are hopping in the saddle, however, I don't think anyone would call that smooth. Show me a newbie who can pedal at 140-150rpm and not hop in the saddle.

SolarEnergy said:

... Lance who later stated that increasing his pedal stroke rate was one of the most beneficial move he had made in his career !

Here is a bit of a study made specifically on Lance Armstrong:

"Although during all laboratory measures of mechanical efficiency, cycling cadence was held constant at 85 rpm, this individual's freely chosen cycling cadence during time trial racing of 30- to 60-min duration increased progressively during this 7-yr period from 85–95 rpm to 105–110 rpm"

"As cycling efficiency increases due to increased percentage of type I muscle fibers, it is possible that increased power is manifested by increasing cycling cadence (i.e., velocity) rather than increasing the muscle forces directed to the pedals. This approach appears to produce less sensation of effort relative to muscular strength (27). Therefore, it is likely that the increases in freely chosen cycling cadence displayed over the years by this Tour de France champion reflect his increased mechanical efficiency, agreeing with the pattern expected to result from muscle fiber conversion from type II to type I"

jap.physiology.org2191Open ↗

..or to put it another way, cadence may have increased naturally as a result of physiological adaptations, not the other way round.

Incidentally I would treat some of the conlusions from this paper with caution, although I might attract some critiscism for saying as much.

L.

RapDaddyo said:

Show me a newbie who can pedal at 140-150rpm and not hop in the saddle.

Why would they want to pedal at 150 rpm??

L.

biker-linz said:

Why would they want to pedal at 150 rpm??

L.

To smooth out their stroke. Have you ever seen this Abbott & Costello skit? whos-on-first.comhome.htm2.htmlOpen ↗ This discussion is bringing back memories of that famous dialogue.

biker-linz said:

..or to put it another way, cadence may have increased naturally as a result of physiological adaptations, not the other way round.

Does it really matter? Cadence being an important variable in performances, I would not wait to see if the athlete will, over the time and thanks to some lucky and fortunate physiological adaptation, see his cadence increase by itself. I may rather try to trigger that physiological adaptation and see how the athlete reacts, how he likes pedaling like that... well you know... testing.

biker-linz said:

..
Incidentally I would treat some of the conlusions from this paper with caution, although I might attract some critiscism for saying as much.
L.

If you refer to the conversion of TypeII fibers into TypeI fibers, I tend to be naturally cautious with that conclusion myself. As I am always kind of cautious with most of the conclusions, in most studies anyway. They are just tools to help us base our judgement.

SolarEnergy said:

Does it really matter?

Of course it matters. If the relationship is casual rather than causal then artificially manipulating cadence is as likely to do harm as good. It's like saying 'men weigh more than women, therefore if you make a woman weigh more she'll turn into a man!".

SolarEnergy said:

Cadence being an important variable in performances, I would not wait to see if the athlete will, over the time and thanks to some lucky and fortunate physiological adaptation, see his cadence increase by itself. I may rather try to trigger that physiological adaptation and see how the athlete reacts, .

Are you suggesting that by asking an athlete to increase cadence you are likely to trigger a conversion from Type II to Type I fibres?? I wish!😉

SolarEnergy said:

If you refer to the conversion of TypeII fibers into TypeI fibers, I tend to be naturally cautious with that conclusion myself.

I don't think I'd get into any trouble for saying that. No, the whole paper has been severely questioned and there are elements of it which are clearly flawed. If you have a JAP subsctription you might want to take a look at:

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/4/1628?etoc

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/4/1630?etoc

L.

biker-linz said:

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/4/1628?etoc

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/4/1630?etoc

L.

You might have to go to the actual issue these letters came from. For those of you who don't have access here are David Martin's conclusions:

"In summary, although great insight into human physiology
can be gained from carefully controlled examinations of elite
athletes, poor experimental design and methodology can lead
to inappropriate conclusions, which in the case of a sporting
hero can quickly become more hype than fact. Coyle’s data
supporting the assumption that training can improve cycling
efficiency in an elite cyclist are not compelling. It appears
that other more conventional explanations describing why
Armstrong is such a successful cyclist may be equally
tenable."

And from Schumaker's letter:

"The author highlights the importance
of improved muscular efficiency as being the main reason for
Armstrong’s outstanding gain in performance. We feel that this
assumption cannot be made on the basis of the presented
information, because no records are available from periods
where the athlete actually had peak form. In this context, Fig.
1 is not correct, because it implies that Armstrong’s gross and
delta efficiency have been constantly rising since the age of 20
yr, despite a period of more than reduced physical condition
during cancer treatment. On the basis of the presented data, the
author cannot judge the efficiency of any other moment than
the ones studied (November 1992, January 1993, August 1997,
November 1999)."

L.

biker-linz said:

Of course it matters. If the relationship is casual rather than causal then artificially manipulating cadence is as likely to do harm as good. It's like saying 'men weigh more than women, therefore if you make a woman weigh more she'll turn into a man!".

You exagerated a lot on that one. I don't think it helps the discussion.

I don't think you can do harm by testing a high cadence protocole with a cyclist, as long as it is done appropriately, the right time, the right way. And if you end up harming the cyclist, at least it was for a good cause.

To me, it does not matter, in this particular case(in the Lance Armstrong case) , if physiological adaptation took place before or after an increase in cadence is observed. Simply because, adaptation is specific to the workload. It has nothing to do with turning a woman into a man. To do an analogy, it is more like a "Communicating vases theory" type of thing. If a physiological improvement allow you to turn the pedals faster, you may (again, that is what we call :testing), you may trigger that physiological improvement by turning the pedals faster on purpose.

I don't think that by doing high RPM drills, one can convert TypeII twitches into TypeI. I read at many occasions, that it has not been demonstrated that this conversion is possible.

But I like the scientific touch you bring to most of the discussions anyway. It is not always easy to find good valuable litterature, and very often you provide us with some.

SolarEnergy said:

You exagerated a lot on that one. I don't think it helps the discussion.

Hey Solar, I think you might have taken it the wrong way, I was being silly.🙂 It was just the first daft thing that sprang to mind to separate causality and casuality.

SolarEnergy said:

I don't think you can do harm by testing a high cadence protocole with a cyclist, as long as it is done appropriately, the right time, the right way.

Well, say we go with Ed Coyle's suggestion that Armstrong self-selected a higher cadence as a result of a change in his fibre profile. That means that if you force a cyclist with a different fibre profile to do what allegedly happened naturally to Armstrong then you would harm their performance rather than improve it. Therefore on this basis if you artificially manipulate a cyclist's cadence without prior knowledge of their fibre profile you are equally likely to harm as help them, that was all I was trying to say. I'm also not entirely clear what physiological adaptation you are suggesting will ocurr as a result of artificially manipuating cadence.

SolarEnergy said:

To me, it does not matter, in this particular case(in the Lance Armstrong case) , if physiological adaptation took place before or after an increase in cadence is observed.

Fair enough, but it matters very much to me. Actually what really matters to me is this- did Armstong's cadence change as a result of a physiological adapataion (change in fibre type) which also allegedly caused an improvement in economy (this is Dr. Coyle's proposition and once which is itself highly speculative) *or* that a change in Armstong's cadence was the cause of his alleged changes in economy? Neither of these is clear and there is little or no decent evidence either way.

SolarEnergy said:

Simply because, adaptation is specific to the workload. It has nothing to do with turning a woman into a man..

Now you're just being mean.

SolarEnergy said:

To do an analogy, it is more like a "Communicating vases theory" type of thing. If a physiological improvement allow you to turn the pedals faster, you may (again, that is what we call :testing), you may trigger that physiological improvement by turning the pedals faster on purpose...

This sounds suspiciously like circular logic to me. Where's RapD and his Abbott and Costello sketches?😉

SolarEnergy said:

I don't think that by doing high RPM drills, one can convert TypeII twitches into TypeI. I read at many occasions, that it has not been demonstrated that this conversion is possible....

Me neither.

SolarEnergy said:

But I like the scientific touch you bring to most of the discussions anyway. It is not always easy to find good valuable litterature, and very often you provide us with some.

Thank you Solar, I enjoy contributing very much. It makes me think things through in a way I might not otherwise have to.🙂

L.

frenchyge said:

Francisco Mancebo. No offense to any Mancebo fans out there, but that guy's style makes me hurt just sitting on the couch watching. 😉

LOL - yeah i agree totally. Man, he's so ugly to watch riding (again no disrespect to him as he'd kick my butt on 1 leg), but not sure if it's more his body/head/facial expressions or poor stroke😄

biker-linz said:

...Well, say we go with Ed Coyle's suggestion that Armstrong self-selected a higher cadence as a result of a change in his fibre profile. That means that if you force a cyclist with a different fibre profile to do what allegedly happened naturally to Armstrong then you would harm their performance rather than improve it. Therefore on this basis if you artificially manipulate a cyclist's cadence without prior knowledge of their fibre profile you are equally likely to harm as help them, that was all I was trying to say. I'm also not entirely clear what physiological adaptation you are suggesting will ocurr as a result of artificially manipuating cadence..

Tanks again! You help me understand better, the text I quoted at the first place 😄 ... Really!

Honestly, you have an intersting point of view. I now understand that your primary concern is the negative impact it can have on the cyclist's performances.

Most definitely, high cadence style of cycling is not for everyone. You can be very successful in a whole range of cadence, probably depending on your muscle composition.

But even if I understand better the pros and cons, thanks to your material, I still think it's nice to get to know yourself. And you got to work on your upper limit once in a while... at least I think:o

After all, we are talking about velocity🙂
Thanks again

SolarEnergy said:

But even if I understand better the pros and cons, thanks to your material, I still think it's nice to get to know yourself. And you got to work on your upper limit once in a while... at least I think:o

Yeah, sometimes I feel like the gurus use this list as training to improve their patience, persistence, and mental flexibility. The rest of us are the proverbial "bike trailer full of bricks" for their intellectual hill repeats. 😄