# when did cadence change?



## bobf (Apr 3, 2015)

Back in 1971 I bought a copy of Sloane's "Complete Book of Bicycling" as I researched the purchase of my first 10-speed. Sloane recommended a cadence of about 70rpm as the most efficient for human legs. Maybe later editions of CBB recommend faster, but I only read the first.

I didn't know any differently, and in any case I was used to cruising at a slower cadence on my old Schwinn Racer (sweet bike: diamond frame, all steel, single-piece crankset, and a Bendix coaster brake). So I taught myself to spin close to 70rpm on my shiny new Raleigh Super Course.

Over the years I changed to higher cadence (and ligher bikes), and it seems like nowadays lots of people cruise at 80 to 90 rpm. Did most people agree with Sloane 40 years ago, and if so, when did the concensus change to faster? Old TDF videos show Lance A spinning a lot faster than Jan Ullrich on a climb. Is that when things changed?


----------



## upstateSC-rider (Aug 21, 2004)

Pretty much, with Lance 'Dancin' on the pedals'.


----------



## .je (Aug 25, 2012)

When i really got into biking, 25 years ago, i heard to do 90rpm. A friend who raced was involved maybe 15 years longer advised that number, so it's been a guideline for a very long time.

Maybe your book had a typo. Were there many other typos too?


----------



## doctormike (Oct 13, 2015)

I just did a little research on this. I can tell you from my personal experience, I prefer riding at around 90 rpm because in a race at speed I can spin without a lot of muscle fatigue and I can quickly respond to changes in speed.

According to exercise research, the ideal cadence is between 80-83 when riding alone at a consistent speed. Most research has found that your ability to take in oxygen at 80-83 is better than 70's or 90's and that you actually can go faster over 8k TT at a cadence of 80-85 than you will at 70-75 or 95-100. There is less force on the knee at a higher cadence but more force on the ankle. 

From the professional cyclist that I know, they basically train at whatever cadence they can consistently maintain 350 watts at. If you look at someone like TeeJay, he has a slower cadence and take a little longer to respond to accelerations compared to Nairo. At that point, it's about what gets you to where you are going faster. 

There was also a brief period according to research in the late 90's that thought you could look at muscle composition and fibers (fast twitch vs slow twitch) to identify an ideal cadence. However, it seems in the last 5 years researchers have dismissed that theory and are now looking at your ability to take in oxygen, speed, and pain.


----------



## factory feel (Nov 27, 2009)

I don't keep track, life is too short and too precious to waste on stuff like that.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

factory feel said:


> I don't keep track, life is too short and too precious to waste on stuff like that.


Good for you. I like to understand things I'm doing. So I went for a GPS upgrade from an old 205 to my current 510 to add cadence and wireless data transfer. Added HR too. 

I tend end toward high cadences, mid-upper 90's but I have noticed with an increase in mileage and with focused training rides, some shorter very high intensity rides, that my cadence goes down as my pace improves. So, I started riding harder gears and sure enough my lace is consistently better. I'm in the upper 80's now. Average HR is lower by a small amount. Now these are correlations. Repeated trials over the same routes with variable atmospheric conditions. Now, N=1 so I'm aware that this isn't research.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Optimal cadence is one of those hotly debated topics. If you dig into the research on the topic you'll find the answer is, it depends on a lot of variables including what is being measured. You might read through this thread, which was rebooted earlier this year. You'll find a number of references cited that illustrate the debate. Even with more recent research results the debate continues. There is no simple answer, it all depends.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

PBL450 said:


> Good for you. I like to understand things I'm doing. So I went for a GPS upgrade from an old 205 to my current 510 to add cadence and wireless data transfer. Added HR too.
> 
> I tend end toward high cadences, mid-upper 90's but I have noticed with an increase in mileage and with focused training rides, some shorter very high intensity rides, that my cadence goes down as my pace improves. So, I started riding harder gears and sure enough my lace is consistently better. I'm in the upper 80's now. Average HR is lower by a small amount. Now these are correlations. Repeated trials over the same routes with variable atmospheric conditions. Now, N=1 so I'm aware that this isn't research.


If you're lowering your cadence from a well trained spin in the relatively fast mid 90s, and getting lower heart rates at lower cadences in higher gears, man, that's a tall order! D'you suppose your legs and cardio are working like they work at 95 rpm, and as they're well conditioned aerobically, they can meet the challenges of harder gears at lower cadences?

I notice this every time I climb a hill. My "spin" may drop to 60 rpm, but it's still a spin and the legs never blow up.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

I suspect what you're seeing is what would be expected from training. You're getting better.


----------



## bigbill (Feb 15, 2005)

When I started cycling in the late 80's, my road bike had a 42/52 crankset with a 13-21 six speed freewheel. On the flats I was probably holding a cadence in the mid 80's but climbing was a matter of keeping the pedals turning over. These days, I've got a 39/52 crankset with a 12-27 eleven speed cassette. Unless it's really steep, I can keep cadence 90-95. In the winter I use my spin bike 7-8 hours a week and work on a cadence near 100. I feel like it trains my legs to feel natural at that cadence and makes it easier on the road. 

As far as when it got popular, Miguel Indurain popularized the seated spin climb that Lance used. If you watch the 99 tour, you'll see the old school climbers slogging it out on the climbs while Lance was spinning.


----------



## factory feel (Nov 27, 2009)

unplug the gizmos and start enjoying the actual ride.


----------



## Keoki (Feb 13, 2012)

If you can spin uphill at 90 - 100 @ 36/23t you'll be fine. However, on steeper sections like 20+ gradient, you'll be standing. =)


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

Sloan was writing for a different audience than the Armstrong generation... Sloan's audience was not in a hurry to get anywhere, they wanted to enjoy the ride... 70's cadence is pretty efficient for just rolling along. 

If you want to go faster, sure, higher cadence works better, once you've trained for that.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Creakyknees said:


> Sloan was writing for a different audience than the Armstrong generation... Sloan's audience was not in a hurry to get anywhere, they wanted to enjoy the ride... 70's cadence is pretty efficient for just rolling along.
> 
> If you want to go faster, sure, higher cadence works better, once you've trained for that.


That's an interesting distinction. At low wattages, 70 is fine, like purposely walking. And when a climb comes up, just push harder, and get those quads strong. But the higher the wattage, the more difference "form" makes. Pedaling fast works the heart and lungs but saves the legs. Gotta be more efficient over the long haul. 

To quote Eddy, "If you want to go fast, pedal fast!" :yesnod:


----------



## scott967 (Apr 26, 2012)

Watching infrequent/beginning cyclists, I find they always gravitate to about 65-70 to achieve "best speed". From what I've read, it is the most efficient cadence. The problem comes when you want to put down more watts. To do that you need higher cadence.

scott s.
.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Creakyknees said:


> Sloan was writing for a different audience than the Armstrong generation...


Exactly. When Sloan's book first came out, the cover showed the front end of a fendered upright bicycle with a wire basket on the handlebar. Inside the basket was a cute little dog. Granted, book covers often are at odds with the actual content. But that cover shows you the marketing pitch.


----------



## pittcanna (Oct 2, 2014)

My thought on cadence: Is there is not one singular cadence you use for a whole bike ride or all rides in general. There are a range of cadences that must be utilized for there situation.

The 85 to 95 zone is the ideal avg for all day pedaling on generally rolling terrain. It is just quick enough the legs remain loose and your in the aerobic endurance sweet spot of spinning.

The 95 to 105 or higher, are great for endurance sprints, there just high enough that you can recover after about a minute of efforts. Again rolling terrain, and aerobic efforts.

The lower end 65-85 rpm are really to muscle the bike through a bit aggressive terrain. 

However these ranges are for the average fit cyclist, as with anything i feel its good to take it with a grain of salt and do what works for you.

Also most cadence back in the 70's took into account the 53/39 front crankset. With todays compact crankset it allows the rider to spin faster.

A great read is the emergance of 52/36 crankset.
Is it the end for the 34t chainring? - Cycling Weekly

where they talk about cadence economy.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

scott967 said:


> From what I've read, it is the most efficient cadence. The problem comes when you want to put down more watts. To do that you need higher cadence. s.


70 or so is most efficient at a certain degree of effort, yes. In fact, for an old sot trundling down to his pub on an English coaster brake bike at 6 mph, 30 or so would be even more efficient.

What that tells you is that 'efficiency' (and there are several kinds of efficiencies) depends on output. There is no such thing as a 'most efficient cadence' across the board.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

cadence changed when the peleton switched to "e-poh", :thumbsup:


----------



## pittcanna (Oct 2, 2014)

aclinjury said:


> cadence changed when the peleton switched to "e-poh", :thumbsup:


Yeah because epo is great for aerobic system.

The roids where great for muscular system.


----------



## TricrossRich (Mar 26, 2014)

bigbill said:


> As far as when it got popular, Miguel Indurain popularized the seated spin climb that Lance used. If you watch the 99 tour, you'll see the old school climbers slogging it out on the climbs while Lance was spinning.


well, it really helps when you're on the juice to deliver the oxygen that those muscles need at that RPM.


----------



## TricrossRich (Mar 26, 2014)

Over the last 2 years, I've spent a lot of time on the bike... a lot. more than 12,000 miles. I've found that as my fitness improved and aerobic ability improved, my cadence has crept higher and higher, allowing me to go faster at sustained higher wattages for longer periods of time without feeling the burn. When I first started 70-75 rpm was my norm and I'd occasionally get to 90, if I was really focusing on spinning in a climb. A year ago, I found myself turning the pedals over at 90-95 on average putting out about 225w. Now, I usually average 100-105 rpm with an FTP at 285w or so...

The point is... there is no perfect cadence. We are not machines and cadence is dynamic based on many, many variables. Use the cadence that feels right for you... too high and you'll feel the pain in your lungs, too low and you'll feel the pain in your muscles.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

bobf said:


> Back in 1971 I bought a copy of Sloane's "Complete Book of Bicycling" as I researched the purchase of my first 10-speed. Sloane recommended a cadence of about 70rpm as the most efficient for human legs. Maybe later editions of CBB recommend faster, but I only read the first.
> 
> I didn't know any differently, and in any case I was used to cruising at a slower cadence on my old Schwinn Racer (sweet bike: diamond frame, all steel, single-piece crankset, and a Bendix coaster brake). So I taught myself to spin close to 70rpm on my shiny new Raleigh Super Course.
> 
> Over the years I changed to higher cadence (and ligher bikes), and it seems like nowadays lots of people cruise at 80 to 90 rpm. Did most people agree with Sloane 40 years ago, and if so, when did the concensus change to faster? Old TDF videos show Lance A spinning a lot faster than Jan Ullrich on a climb. Is that when things changed?


1971! I think Sloane was basing his experience on riding Penny Farthings. I have a copy of Sloane's book (proably from the 80's) in the basement. I'll have to see if it says that


----------



## jjaguar (Oct 11, 2011)

So, is the trend now for a lower cadence? My average is about 100, do I need to work on bringing my cadence down? It isn't something I've ever really worked on, I'm just naturally a spinner. Should I force myself to push bigger gears?


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

my junk knees dictate the size of gear I can push.

the pain from trying to push too large a gear will automatically result in shifting to something I can spin faster with less mashing.

in most situations, ~90 rpm seems to be their preferred cadence.

otoh, strongest rider is our group does everything in the big ring at 60-ish rpm...


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Oxtox said:


> my junk knees dictate the size of gear I can push.
> 
> the pain from trying to push too large a gear will automatically result in shifting to something I can spin faster with less mashing.
> 
> ...


There's a fellow on Tour de Nebraska last few years pushing a CX bike towing a Burley trailer of all his camping gear (probably 60+ lbs of stuff totaled)....grinds maybe a 50 cadence all day long up hill and both ways. Such high torque that his rig actually snake slithers (waves back and forth, not due to lack of traction as in fishtailing) a bit as he goes down the road, which makes pacelining and drafting Le Sketchy

As soon as he drops his trailer off, he's gone in the distance and will drop you. Young pup, but ya wonder what his knees will be like in 5 or 10 years.


----------



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

I thought I remember reading that Greg Lemond thought 90 was a good cadence. 
Back in the day my lowest gear was a 42 / 25 on Campy Nuovo Record cranks so that made cadence pretty slow uphill. Now I have a 34 / 29. I feel best around 95 and try to maintain 80 uphill. Sometimes I push a big gear for building leg strength.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

"Also most cadence back in the 70's took into account the 53/39 front crankset. With todays compact crankset it allows the rider to spin faster."

Back in the 70s the standard racing crankset was 52/42 or 52/40. The 53/39 didn't become popular until the 80s. 

In 1978 I read an article about knee pain in Bicycling magazine where they recommended spinning lower gears at a higher cadence if you were experiencing such pain. I had trashed my knees as a distance runner in high school (1972-76) and was definitely feeling those pains. I then replaced my Stronglight 52/42 crankset with a T/A CycloTouriste triple with 48/38/28 chainrings. I've never looked back - and am exceptionally happy with the modern 50/34 compact crank. I don't care to be fast (in the early 80s when I was still dabbling in racing I was spun out at 34mph in my high gear of 48x14), but I do care to be able to keep riding long distances.


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

DaveG said:


> *1971! * I think Sloane was basing his experience on riding Penny Farthings. I have a copy of Sloane's book (proably from the 80's) in the basement. I'll have to see if it says that


Were bikes even invented back then???

For that matter, did they even have the wheel invented in that age?


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

bobf said:


> Back in 1971 I bought a copy of Sloane's "Complete Book of Bicycling" as I researched the purchase of my first 10-speed. Sloane recommended a cadence of about 70rpm as the most efficient for human legs. Maybe later editions of CBB recommend faster, but I only read the first.
> 
> I didn't know any differently, and in any case I was used to cruising at a slower cadence on my old Schwinn Racer (sweet bike: diamond frame, all steel, single-piece crankset, and a Bendix coaster brake). So I taught myself to spin close to 70rpm on my shiny new Raleigh Super Course.
> 
> Over the years I changed to higher cadence (and ligher bikes), and it seems like nowadays lots of people cruise at 80 to 90 rpm. Did most people agree with Sloane 40 years ago, and if so, when did the concensus change to faster? Old TDF videos show Lance A spinning a lot faster than Jan Ullrich on a climb. Is that when things changed?


Efficiency is generally higher at lower cadences (to a point) but efficiency is rarely the aim of performance cycling, being able to sustain higher power for durations of relevance is. 

So if you are taking pedalling advice on the basis of what is more efficient, then I'd ask why? With the exception of ultra endurance events, efficiency isn't something you'd chase for its own sake.

Asking what the optimal cadence to pedal at is, is about as useful as asking what the optimal torque to pedal at is. i.e. not much, yet both are equally (in)valid.

Much better off to figure out what is more effective. Remarkably, that typically turns out to be what comes naturally.

Focus on effort level and choose an appropriate gear. It need be no more complicated than that.

oh - and have a bike that is well fitted for you.


----------



## rchung (Apr 19, 2009)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Asking what the optimal cadence to pedal at is, is about as useful as asking what the optimal torque to pedal at is.


All of the recent hour record holders averaged in excess of 40Nm of crank torque (around 80 Nm of peak torque). How could hour record holders be wrong? Everyone should always pedal with 80 Nm of peak torque. Otherwise you're overstressing your cardio system.


----------



## azpeterb (Jun 1, 2006)

factory feel said:


> unplug the gizmos and start enjoying the actual ride.


That's what she said.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

My style is torque and low cadence, but then again I find it difficult to ride several days in a row, so maybe I'm doing it wrong.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

aclinjury said:


> cadence changed when the peleton switched to "e-poh", :thumbsup:


That's it. It started with Lance/Carmichael.

Good comment.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

tvad said:


> That's it. It started with Lance/Carmichael.
> 
> Good comment.


That's in the American culture. Europeans have always had their spinners. Those guys learned how to spin during the winters when they rode indoor track events on fixies. :yesnod: 

Jacques Anquetil had an elegant spin admired by the fans. Of course riders all climbed in such big gears they couldn't spin up mountains. :frown2:


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

funny bunnies


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

tvad said:


> Nope. It wasn't In the American culture. It was in the Pro Peloton in Europe. Lance started spinning up the climbs and blew Jan Ullrich out of his shoes.
> 
> Jan was of the big gear, old school crowd.
> 
> Like you!


:nono: Indurain had a nice spin, as someone here pointed out. :yesnod: Look at the news reels. They're pedaling faster than 70 rpm. :idea:

Bernard Hinault said rider has to be able to do both, spin like Lance, or some of the fast cadence climbers today, and turn big gears at 70 rpm, or for us back when bikes were steel, climb for all you're worth with that damn 42-21 they put on the bike. "Builds strength!" they said. :shocked:


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

fuzzy bunnies


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

wonder if the switch to compact cranks pushed cadence up


----------



## DaveLeeNC (Jan 12, 2011)

FWIW, I did a fair amount of riding in the mid 90's (DOB 1949). Somewhere between 90 and 95 rpm just 'seemed right' on the flats. Last year I got the bike back out and have been riding 150 to 200 miles per week for a while now. Somewhere closer to 85, under the same PERCEIVED conditions (as I recall them) now 'seems right'.

Optimum cadence, in my case, seems to be somewhat age related. 

dave


----------



## SantaCruz (Mar 22, 2002)

Back in the day, with friction shifters, most riders used a greater range of cadence, today with a shift at the flick of a finger and more gears, riders hold a steadier cadence. 
JMHO


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SantaCruz said:


> Back in the day, with friction shifters, most riders used a greater range of cadence, today with a shift at the flick of a finger and more gears, riders hold a steadier cadence.
> JMHO


Unless, rider shifts the front rings. Going from 50 to 34 is a huge jump in cadence.  Rider has to "double" shift in back to pick up the cadence. :nono:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

DaveLeeNC said:


> FWIW, I did a fair amount of riding in the mid 90's (DOB 1949). Somewhere between 90 and 95 rpm just 'seemed right' on the flats. Last year I got the bike back out and have been riding 150 to 200 miles per week for a while now. Somewhere closer to 85, under the same PERCEIVED conditions (as I recall them) now 'seems right'.
> 
> Optimum cadence, in my case, seems to be somewhat age related.
> 
> dave


That's because of your layoff from riding. :yesnod:

Racers work on their spin every winter. They lose it over the racing season with all the hard riding. Pedaling faster than 90 rpm for most riders is counterintuitive when they're about to get dropped!


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

tvad said:


> Nope. It wasn't In the American culture. It was in the Pro Peloton in Europe. Lance started spinning up the climbs and blew Jan Ullrich out of his shoes.
> 
> Jan was of the big gear, old school crowd.
> 
> Like you!


The Lance = fast spin, Ullrich = low cadence is a commentator's myth.

Whenever I watch video of Armstrong and Ullrich riding together up a climb or over same section of a TT course (and turn off the commentary), the cadence difference is minimal. Especially considering Ullrich tended to ride slightly longer cranks on climbs. which means that pedal speed at same cadence is higher (or at equivalent pedal velocity, the cadence is lower).


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

soft bunnies


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

tvad said:


> Nope. It wasn't In the American culture. It was in the Pro Peloton in Europe. Lance started spinning up the climbs and blew Jan Ullrich out of his shoes.
> 
> Jan was of the big gear, old school crowd.
> 
> Like you!


If you look back I believe you will find that "spinning" at high cadence well predates Lance. If I recall correctly, it made its way into U.S. cycling via Eddie Borysewicz when he coached the U.S. teams int eh late 70's - early 80's. LeMond was one of his early students. I recall reading an interview with Borysewicz ~ '83/'84 in which he commented specifically about cadence, and noted 90 rpm as the nominal cadence all road racers should be "spinning".


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

warm bunnies


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

It's all a nonsense. You don't get to choose your cadence in any case. You choose your effort level and gear. 

Cadence is simply an outcome of those two choices and the resistance forces.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> It's all a nonsense. You don't get to choose your cadence in any case. You choose your effort level and gear.
> 
> Cadence is simply an outcome of those two choices and the resistance forces.



Prexactly. But there have been a number of coaches, some noteworthy, who taught changing gear as needed to keep cadence in a specified range at a given effort.


----------



## marathon marke (Nov 14, 2011)

SantaCruz said:


> Back in the day, with friction shifters, most riders used a greater range of cadence, today with a shift at the flick of a finger and more gears, riders hold a steadier cadence.
> JMHO


This! ^
We had to practice changing our tempo when we only had 5 cogs in the back, or you just couldn't keep going!
I still work on this, since it makes one a more versatile cyclist. It really helps when you need to accelerate, especially if you find yourself in a less than perfect gear choice.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

I think your observation is spot on. I remember well the leg burn climbing caused by the large jumps in the 5 and 6 speed cassettes. Each new generation of cogs has been a big improvement for climbers.


SantaCruz said:


> Back in the day, with friction shifters, most riders used a greater range of cadence, today with a shift at the flick of a finger and more gears, riders hold a steadier cadence.
> JMHO


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> I think your observation is spot on. I remember well the leg burn climbing caused by the large jumps in the 5 and 6 speed cassettes. Each new generation of cogs has been a big improvement for climbers.


True. But what gear to use is dependent on grade. With 6 speed freewheels, rider might have to slow down a bit more to pick up the gear, but so what? The grade will slow rider down as much as two or three gears on a current 10-11 speeds if the grade changes significantly. Rider can "cheat" a little with closely spaced gears, but usually not for long before having to settle in the highest gear that allows him to "stay on top of the gear." This is totally dependent on the grade when all is said and done. :yesnod:


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> True. But what gear to use is dependent on grade. With 6 speed freewheels, rider might have to slow down a bit more to pick up the gear, but so what? The grade will slow rider down as much as two or three gears on a current 10-11 speeds if the grade changes significantly. Rider can "cheat" a little with closely spaced gears, but usually not for long before having to settle in the highest gear that allows him to "stay on top of the gear." This is totally dependent on the grade when all is said and done. :yesnod:


That's because what constrains a rider is their sustainable power output and the limiter for that is aerobic metabolic in nature, and not force production.


----------



## bigbill (Feb 15, 2005)

pittcanna said:


> My thought on cadence: Is there is not one singular cadence you use for a whole bike ride or all rides in general. There are a range of cadences that must be utilized for there situation.
> 
> The 85 to 95 zone is the ideal avg for all day pedaling on generally rolling terrain. It is just quick enough the legs remain loose and your in the aerobic endurance sweet spot of spinning.
> 
> ...


53/39 didn't exist until the 90's. You could get a 39 after the advent of 135/130 spacing, but the stock crankset had a 42 until around 94. In the 70's, it was 52/42 or even a 44 with 5-6 speed freewheels, usually something like a 14-23.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> That's because what constrains a rider is their sustainable power output and the limiter for that is aerobic metabolic in nature, and not force production.


Yep. IOW the limit is VO2 max., pretty much. :yesnod: That limit can be raised significantly by pedaling at high speeds consistently. The legs have to follow the crank around smoothly, a perfect conditioner for the aerobic slow twitch muscle fibers. These muscle fibers can then also handle much more of the load climbing at lower cadences, and rider recovers much more quickly at the top.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

I have no idea what your point is? If you're climbing a 6.5% grade and it changes to 7%, shifting your 11 speed 11/2? with 2 tooth jumps will likely make the transition with little cadence change. Not so with a 6 speed cassette with jumps 2 to 3 times as big. I would guess that 90% of the shifting on significant climbs is done one cog at a time--large transitions notwithstanding.

Because it is inevitable that these threads turn into johnson measurement illustrations, let me point out that on a 6.5% grade we all concede that, with a light enough johnson, a rider would still be riding in the one-tooth-jump part of the cassette.


Fredrico said:


> True. But what gear to use is dependent on grade. With 6 speed freewheels, rider might have to slow down a bit more to pick up the gear, but so what? The grade will slow rider down as much as two or three gears on a current 10-11 speeds if the grade changes significantly. Rider can "cheat" a little with closely spaced gears, but usually not for long before having to settle in the highest gear that allows him to "stay on top of the gear." This is totally dependent on the grade when all is said and done. :yesnod:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> I have no idea what your point is? If you're climbing a 6.5% grade and it changes to 7%, shifting your 11 speed 11/2? with 2 tooth jumps will likely make the transition with little cadence change. Not so with a 6 speed cassette with jumps 2 to 3 times as big. I would guess that 90% of the shifting on significant climbs is done one cog at a time--large transitions notwithstanding.
> 
> Because it is inevitable that these threads turn into johnson measurement illustrations, let me point out that on a 6.5% grade we all concede that, with a light enough johnson, a rider would still be riding in the one-tooth-jump part of the cassette.


With a four tooth jump, as on the old six speeds, like from 24 to 28, shifting down just makes it easier to pick up the cadence. If the grade shifts a little, rider just pedals faster or slightly slower to stay in aerobic. No problem. 

But no, :nono: some riders still have to shift, climbing, in two tooth increments? Is there really that much difference between the 25 and the 27? Rider could upshift to cheat out a little more speed, or downshift to save his legs. But it seems so easy to just adjust leg speed and stay in the same gear. :yesnod: Smaller jumps hardly feel worth it! 

That was my experience going from six speed to ten speed once. I found myself shifting more than one cog almost all the time. My legs were used to changing cadence enough, so they could recover on a downshift, or have something to work with on the upshift. Two tooth jumps were always transitional.  

And shifting in front, 52-39 was so large a change in cadence, I avoided it. 

You've ridden both six speed freewheels and 11 speed cassettes? How much do you shift when climbing? I just whack it out in my lowest gear, 43-28 or 22, and let the grade determine cadence and speed, or how I'm feeling that day. Usually, it's a quick attack accomplished with high speed, 90 rpm, cadence in the 43-28. By the top of the hill, I'm still going 10 mph with nice momentum. 

Lose that momentum, though, and that's it. Hunker down and grind it out. The average human can do that in any gear from 34-30 all the way up to 39-17 or so! I see them everyday, enthusiastic rec. riders like you and me. :yesnod:

Have to admit, though, after broken ribs in July and internal surgery in Sept., I did my first ride today. Had my spin down fine, but AT was way low. Sure coulda used a 34-28 before the top of some of these climbs. :yesnod: All I had was the trusty 43-52 and 13-28 freewheel. The ride was wonderful.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Yep. IOW the limit is VO2 max., pretty much. :yesnod: That limit can be raised significantly by pedaling at high speeds consistently. The legs have to follow the crank around smoothly, a perfect conditioner for the aerobic slow twitch muscle fibers. These muscle fibers can then also handle much more of the load climbing at lower cadences, and rider recovers much more quickly at the top.


Vo2max can be raised but by how much is quite variable and depends on a range of factors. It is raised through training, with efforts at higher power (sufficient to elicit VO2max) being specifically good for this but just about all training above recovery will help to improve VO2max.

Muscle fibre type recruitment is more a function of power output/demand than of anything else, with faster twitch fibres increasingly recruited as power demand rises.

The legs don't have to do anything other than pedal naturally.

Rate of recovery is more a function of fitness (high lactate threshold, or threshold power) and how far the power demand is below that threshold.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Vo2max can be raised but by how much is quite variable and depends on a range of factors. It is raised through training, with efforts at higher power (sufficient to elicit VO2max) being specifically good for this but just about all training above recovery will help to improve VO2max.
> 
> Muscle fibre type recruitment is more a function of power output/demand than of anything else, with faster twitch fibres increasingly recruited as power demand rises.
> 
> ...


True, riding a bike will improve VO2max. But training the lungs and heart with rapid cadence drills and riding at 90-95 rpm stimulates adaptive response faster than putzing along at 60 rpm, even if in a hard gear. 

It is not natural for humans to work their legs faster than a rapid walk, or running for that matter, at what, 70 rpm? Spinning has to be learned and practiced all the time. Otherwise the legs go back to 70 rpm.  

Rider can become "natural" pedaling at 95 rpm, mainly because the legs have no choice but to follow the crank around. No resting between strokes. :nono: 95 rpm is steady state. In moderate to high gears, pedaling fast delivers the power without beating up the legs. That may include fast twitch fibers at the high end of intensity, but below AT, its the slow twitch doing most of the work. And since rider is below lactate threshold, the legs will recover much more quickly at the top of the hill than if they started pushing highlighting the fast twitch. The latter is newbie behavior. Experienced riders don't "lose form." They make it look easy. They keep an even strain right under AT. :yesnod:


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

. 
Here we go!


Fredrico said:


> With a four tooth jump, as on the old six speeds, like from 24 to 28, shifting down just makes it easier to pick up the cadence. If the grade shifts a little, rider just pedals faster or slightly slower to stay in aerobic. No problem.
> 
> But no, :nono: some riders still have to shift, climbing, in two tooth increments? Is there really that much difference between the 25 and the 27? Rider could upshift to cheat out a little more speed, or downshift to save his legs. But it seems so easy to just adjust leg speed and stay in the same gear. :yesnod: Smaller jumps hardly feel worth it!
> 
> ...


----------



## trailmonkey72 (Nov 11, 2015)

I vary my cadence from ride to ride. In a fast moving group, I focus on a higher cadence, 85+, to be able to respond to accelerations and decelerations more easily. By myself, I let my cadence vary much more - lower if I want to "wake" up my legs, higher if I want to conserve. Here in Tucson, I ride a lower cadence more often to use my legs for "suspension" as the roads are quite rough. When in Phoenix, I tend to spin much higher.

And mountain biking.....that's a whole different game.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> True, riding a bike will improve VO2max. But training the lungs and heart with rapid cadence drills and riding at 90-95 rpm stimulates adaptive response faster than putzing along at 60 rpm, even if in a hard gear.


What stimulates adaptive response is the (relative) power you are riding at. The cadence/gear chosen has almost nothing to do with it. It's the metabolic demand that matters.



Fredrico said:


> It is not natural for humans to work their legs faster than a rapid walk, or running for that matter, at what, 70 rpm? Spinning has to be learned and practiced all the time. Otherwise the legs go back to 70 rpm.
> 
> Rider can become "natural" pedaling at 95 rpm, mainly because the legs have no choice but to follow the crank around. No resting between strokes. :nono: 95 rpm is steady state.


Do some racing and you'll soon pedal more quickly, because the power demands will drive you that way. As you improve sustainable power output, cadence tends to increase. It also tend to go up as you pedal at high power outputs.

Cadence is an outcome, not a an input or choice. You choose effort level and gear.



Fredrico said:


> In moderate to high gears, pedaling fast delivers the power without beating up the legs.


If the gear is large and you are pedalling fast, then you are by definition pedalling at higher power output (unless you are going down hill). 



Fredrico said:


> That may include fast twitch fibers at the high end of intensity, but below AT, its the slow twitch doing most of the work. And since rider is below lactate threshold, the legs will recover much more quickly at the top of the hill than if they started pushing highlighting the fast twitch. The latter is newbie behavior. Experienced riders don't "lose form." They make it look easy. They keep an even strain right under AT. :yesnod:


To remain below lactate threshold power you will by necessity need to slow down to do so. Most people wouldn't ride a climb at that low a power though. Most would ride at about 10-15% higher power than power at LT (LT typically corresponds with a power level sustainable for several hours). 

Even at this higher power, fibre recruitment is still dominantly slow twitch, with faster twitch being progressively recruited as fatigue sets in. You can sustain this level of effort for around 45-70 minutes.

But good to see that you agree that it is work rate (i.e. power output) and fitness level, and not really the pedalling rate that determines how well you recover after an effort.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> What stimulates adaptive response is the (relative) power you are riding at. The cadence/gear chosen has almost nothing to do with it. It's the metabolic demand that matters.
> 
> 
> Do some racing and you'll soon pedal more quickly, because the power demands will drive you that way. As you improve sustainable power output, cadence tends to increase. It also tend to go up as you pedal at high power outputs.
> ...


Thanks!

You say it well. :yesnod: 

Especially about leg speed rising along with training. I am witness to this transition. At first I found it awkward to purposely pedal faster than my legs felt comfortable. Then I discovered the way to increase leg speed was to do sprint or speed intervals. Pedal as hard as you can at as fast a cadence and see what happens. That was the year I raced some criteriums at age 41.

And take it from this old man: pedaling fast has saved my right knee from destruction, kept my cholesterol levels acceptable, my heart and pulse the wonder of the medical profession. Nurses marvel at the bicycling lifestyle, as dangerous and risky as it is.  

Yes, back off if excursions into anaerobic start to become painful. But I still feel at about 90 rpm pedaling starts to favor the slow twitch fibers and when they are strengthened, power improves, now limited by the cardio delivery system. I'm more willing to suffer at the same intensities pedaling fast in a gear legs can handle, rather than in a slower cadence in a bigger gear that demands full participation from the fast twitch. By that time, I was always about to blow and have to back off in an easier gear. Now I usually make it to the top without losing power. :yesnod:

I think we basically agree, though. We just have different ways of describing the same phenomenon.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> But I still feel at about 90 rpm pedaling starts to favor the slow twitch fibers


Just because that's what you believe doesn't make it so. As I said already, fibre type recruitment is much more a function of the power demand, and not cadence.

Else - enjoy your cycling!


----------



## scott967 (Apr 26, 2012)

bigbill said:


> 53/39 didn't exist until the 90's. You could get a 39 after the advent of 135/130 spacing, but the stock crankset had a 42 until around 94. In the 70's, it was 52/42 or even a 44 with 5-6 speed freewheels, usually something like a 14-23.


I put a Suntour Superbe Pro on a Paramount in 89. 52/42 was all that was available as I recall. A couple years later 53 was the thing so I bought one. Then a couple years later they went to the 39 and eventually I fell in line. This was with a 14-24. I started with 6 cog FW and then went to 7. I don't think it went any wider, just added a missing option in there. 

scott s.
.


----------



## Herbie (Nov 12, 2010)

I was wondering if someone would raise the issue of 52/42 vs 53/39. My first 53/39 was on a bike I bought when 8 speed. 130 spacing came out. I think this was in December 91 or Jan 92. 

52/42 came in handy to catch those in between gears by using both and rear shifts necessary when 2 and 3 tooth gaps were common

I developed the habit of spinning when I developed an interest in endurance riding. (1985) It was a good way of balancing your speed without digging to far into your leg power. Now it's just a habit .

I have an old repair manual that says that very few if any riders need a high gear over 100" That about a 50/13. Things change


----------



## Typetwelve (Jul 1, 2012)

pittcanna said:


> The 85 to 95 zone is the ideal avg for all day pedaling on generally rolling terrain. It is just quick enough the legs remain loose and your in the aerobic endurance sweet spot of spinning.


For me...this is pretty much the truth.

I looked over my rides from last summer. On my "longer" rides of 40-65 miles...I settle where I'm comfortable for the duration. Over and over again...my average speed is in the 16's and my average CAD is in-between 84-86rpm. When I'm riding for distance I do pay a bit of attention to my numbers, I ride where I "feel" in a good zone for duration.

I'm training with sufferfest at the moment and working on higher RPM's. I'm keeping a cad of at least 10 points higher than my normal...so we'll see what this does for me come 2016 season.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

I've begun to realize that your definition of "climbing" is very different than most. "Climbing" is typically used in the context of sustained efforts on categorized type climbs--not rollers. "Momentum" generated at the base plays little role in that it has been dissipated long before you can summit such a "climb".

While your talk about using high cadence with small cassettes / large rings is obviously fantasy on a "climb", it is often possible on rollers to use momentum and leg strength to muscle your way over the top if the roller is short enough.

When talking about gears for climbing, try to understand that almost nobody is talking about gears for momentum type rollers.


Fredrico said:


> With a four tooth jump, as on the old six speeds, like from 24 to 28, shifting down just makes it easier to pick up the cadence. If the grade shifts a little, rider just pedals faster or slightly slower to stay in aerobic. No problem.
> 
> But no, :nono: some riders still have to shift, climbing, in two tooth increments? Is there really that much difference between the 25 and the 27? Rider could upshift to cheat out a little more speed, or downshift to save his legs. But it seems so easy to just adjust leg speed and stay in the same gear. :yesnod: Smaller jumps hardly feel worth it!
> 
> ...


----------



## Typetwelve (Jul 1, 2012)

I thought I'd also pop in with one other thought...why does stuff like this always come down to "right" or "wrong"?

I'll openly admit that I am a data-head...I get too obsessed with it. Buying a complete Garmin setup only made this worse. I would read study-A or white paper-B on how you should ride this way or that...and then go out and try to do it.

In the end, when I finally let thing go (kinda let things go), I began cycling where I felt comfortable. This made me a more productive cyclist. If there is any data that I pay attention to, it's my HR. That often tells me where I should and should not be and while it is within a range, it is never the same. Some days I can just sustain more of a beating that others.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> Jacques Anquetil had an elegant spin admired by the fans. Of course riders all climbed in such big gears they couldn't spin up mountains. :frown2:


Didn't you have a thread a while ago where you were muscling up climbs in 42/21 (or whatever) while the rest of us with compacts, semi-compacts, and anything greater than a 23 was a sissy?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

deviousalex said:


> Didn't you have a thread a while ago where you were muscling up climbs in 42/21 (or whatever) while the rest of us with compacts, semi-compacts, and anything greater than a 23 was a sissy?


Yes. It is not hard to spin 42-23 up climbs. :yesnod: You just have to work hard. :yesnod: The body will adapt. That's why we ride, right?


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Fredrico said:


> Yes. It is not hard to spin 42-23 up climbs.


Define spin in RPM.

Define climb in percent grade.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> Yep. IOW the limit is VO2 max., pretty much. :yesnod: That limit can be raised significantly by pedaling at high speeds consistently. The legs have to follow the crank around smoothly, a perfect conditioner for the aerobic slow twitch muscle fibers. These muscle fibers can then also handle much more of the load climbing at lower cadences, and rider recovers much more quickly at the top.



You can raise your vo2 max by pedaling at high speeds consistently? 

Huh. I'd say such a discovery would redefine sports science!


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

pedalbiker said:


> You can raise your vo2 max by pedaling at high speeds consistently?
> 
> Huh. I'd say such a discovery would redefine sports science!


Yeah, why bother throwing out any watts when you can just sit there on a trainer in Z1 spinning at 120-140 rpm while smoking a bowl?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Just because that's what you believe doesn't make it so. As I said already, fibre type recruitment is much more a function of the power demand, and not cadence.
> 
> Else - enjoy your cycling!


Yes, primarily a function of power demand. But that power demand can be apportioned evenly to all the leg muscles working together at faster cadences rather than relying on fast twitch to push harder at lower cadences. Right? There are two ways to attack power demand: high rpm or high torque low rpm. :yesnod: I see riders going back and forth while climbing.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

pedalbiker said:


> ... I'd say such a discovery would redefine sports science!


That happens several times every week here in the RBR forums.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

deviousalex said:


> Yeah, why bother throwing out any watts when you can just sit there on a trainer in Z1 spinning at 120-140 rpm while smoking a bowl?


You're not spinning low wattages. You're spinning high wattages in the appropriate gears. And if on the road, going faster. Come on, boys, why so dense?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

tvad said:


> Define spin in RPM.
> 
> Define climb in percent grade.


here we go again


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> You're not spinning low wattages. You're spinning high wattages in the appropriate gears. And if on the road, going faster. Come on, boys, why so dense?


Really? Where in your post (the one pedalbiker quoted) does it mention anything about high wattages?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Typetwelve said:


> I thought I'd also pop in with one other thought...why does stuff like this always come down to "right" or "wrong"?
> 
> I'll openly admit that I am a data-head...I get too obsessed with it. Buying a complete Garmin setup only made this worse. I would read study-A or white paper-B on how you should ride this way or that...and then go out and try to do it.
> 
> In the end, when I finally let thing go (kinda let things go), I began cycling where I felt comfortable. This made me a more productive cyclist. If there is any data that I pay attention to, it's my HR. That often tells me where I should and should not be and while it is within a range, it is never the same. Some days I can just sustain more of a beating that others.


Maybe it just comes down to style. Some riders want to plug along at the same cadence all the time and shift like crazy to keep that cadence. And other riders want to change their leg speed once in a while, give the legs a rest, and then pick it up again. Teach the legs how to pedal fast, they will also pedal lower cadences more efficiently. Just watch the pros at the end of the stage. :yesnod:


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Once again, consider that the definition of "climbs" may not include the small rollers in your neighborhood.

You may not be able to see the...a...wisdom of making the blanket statement "Yes. It is not hard to spin 42-23 up climbs. :yesnod: You just have to work hard. :yesnod: The body will adapt. That's why we ride, right?"

I can never tell if you are showing your...a...brilliance or talking tongue-in-cheek. Certainly the level of absurdity makes us hope that it is the latter


Fredrico said:


> Yes. It is not hard to spin 42-23 up climbs. :yesnod: You just have to work hard. :yesnod: The body will adapt. That's why we ride, right?


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

SwiftSolo said:


> I can never tell if you are showing your...a...brilliance or talking tongue-in-cheek. Certainly the level of absurdity makes us hope that it is the latter


Consider the man's avatar is actor, George Peppard, who died 21 years ago.








That alone should provide a clue.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

ibericb said:


> That happens several times every week here in the RBR forums.


Damn rep. Still can't rep that one.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> I've begun to realize that your definition of "climbing" is very different than most. "Climbing" is typically used in the context of sustained efforts on categorized type climbs--not rollers. "Momentum" generated at the base plays little role in that it has been dissipated long before you can summit such a "climb".
> 
> While your talk about using high cadence with small cassettes / large rings is obviously fantasy on a "climb", it is often possible on rollers to use momentum and leg strength to muscle your way over the top if the roller is short enough.
> 
> When talking about gears for climbing, try to understand that almost nobody is talking about gears for momentum type rollers.


Sadly I have only one mountain climb to compare, Mt. Wilson, CA, only a few thousand feet, 20 miles, and when in the flower of youth at age 42, did it on a 22 pound steel bike with 53-44 up front and 13-22 in back. I made it. Twice, again the next weekend.

Now I have no problem doing the hills around here with 42-28 or heaven forbid, 42-23. The 44 t. inner cog is history, but I still have it in a box. Today, I can assure you, I'd wimp out for sure in whatever low gear I could get. 

34-27? Fine. 

34-30? Forget it. :frown2: I don't want to fall off the bike spinning out at 9 mph!


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

deviousalex said:


> Really? Where in your post (the one pedalbiker quoted) does it mention anything about high wattages?


I thought that was a given.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

tvad said:


> Consider the man's avatar is actor, George Peppard, who died 21 years ago.
> View attachment 310686
> 
> 
> That alone should provide a clue.


Still here, pal. That guy looks just like me. I don't smoke, though. :nono:


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Fredrico said:


> Still here, pal. *That guy looks just like me.* I don't smoke, though. :nono:


Sure...why not post your own photo, then?

(And I am a doppleganger for Cary Grant.)


----------



## crit_boy (Aug 6, 2013)

Fredrico said:


> Sadly I have only one mountain climb to compare, Mt. Wilson, CA, only a few thousand feet, 20 miles, and when in the flower of youth at age 42, did it on a 22 pound steel bike with 53-44 up front and 13-22 in back. I made it. Twice, again the next weekend.


Mt. Wilson. Again? 

Let it go. . . 

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/general-cycling-discussion/53-39-a-345883-11.html#post4857579


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

crit_boy said:


> Mt. Wilson. Again?
> 
> Let it go. . .
> 
> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/general-cycling-discussion/53-39-a-345883-11.html#post4857579


It's the only thing he has


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

deviousalex said:


> It's the only thing he has


Nevertheless, I have seen war and know what its like. :yesnod:


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Fredrico said:


> Nevertheless, I have seen war and know what its like. :yesnod:


What was your cadence then?


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

It's not too late to get in your car and go find some significant climbs in your area. It will give you some perspective on using the right tools for the job at hand. An 8.5% average gradient 18mile climb requires different gearing than a 4.5% 18 mile climb--especially for recreational riders. 

The message that everyone is trying to give you is that it is stupid to be under geared. A 53/39 with a 11/28 11 speed will often suffice for strong and young recreational riders on the 8.5% and they simply will not need or use the 28 or 25 on the 4.5%. It may be incredibly stupid for that same recreational rider to show up to ride the long 8.5% climb on the 11/25--especially if he/she expects to be worth a sh!t the next day.

Being under geared is a sign of stupidity not machismo. It's like showing up for this year's Indy 500 in a Stutz Bearcat The good old days were really not that good when compared to today.


Fredrico said:


> Sadly I have only one mountain climb to compare, Mt. Wilson, CA, only a few thousand feet, 20 miles, and when in the flower of youth at age 42, did it on a 22 pound steel bike with 53-44 up front and 13-22 in back. I made it. Twice, again the next weekend.
> 
> Now I have no problem doing the hills around here with 42-28 or heaven forbid, 42-23. The 44 t. inner cog is history, but I still have it in a box. Today, I can assure you, I'd wimp out for sure in whatever low gear I could get.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

tvad said:


> What was your cadence then?


In the 44-22? First shallow climb 15 miles up to the clear air above the smog, about 10 mph average speed, 60-70 rpm. The last 3 or 4 miles were steeper, like those pictures of Stelvio, and I really suffered. 6mph! That's 40 rpm according to the chart, but I wasn't counting. :shocked:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> It's not too late to get in your car and go find some significant climbs in your area. It will give you some perspective on using the right tools for the job at hand. An 8.5% average gradient 18mile climb requires different gearing than a 4.5% 18 mile climb--especially for recreational riders.
> 
> The message that everyone is trying to give you is that it is stupid to be under geared. A 53/39 with a 11/28 11 speed will often suffice for strong and young recreational riders on the 8.5% and they simply will not need or use the 28 or 25 on the 4.5%. It may be incredibly stupid for that same recreational rider to show up to ride the long 8.5% climb on the 11/25--especially if he/she expects to be worth a sh!t the next day.
> 
> Being under geared is a sign of stupidity not machismo. It's like showing up for this year's Indy 500 in a Stutz Bearcat The good old days were really not that good when compared to today.


Ok, ok, its your world. I'm just visiting for a time. All I can say is: I've never had to stop and get off my bike on any climb I've ever done in 35 years of riding in 52/42, 53-44, 52-43, and 13-28 or 13-23, 22, or 21 freewheels. Manufacturers didn't even put 28 t. cogs on racing bikes. Rider would have gotten dropped using a 28. 

So who needs 34-27 low gears? :ihih: Out of shape middle aged men in their mid-life crises. Been there and done that. :frown2:


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Mt Wilson is a 18 mile climb that averages 4.5%--not exactly the Stelvio. 

I'm guessing that a lot of the Giro riders are going to get dropped this year because they lack your "wisdom". 

People used a lot of inferior equipment, bad training methods, bad diets, and a general lack of knowledge in days gone by. That is why today's athletes run faster, jump higher and farther, and do things on bicycles that they could not have dreamed of.

You hang on to those illusions about the old days and old athletes if they make you feel better. Seems like you are having a tough time accepting that this younger generation has taught us old guys a thing or two--at least those who are willing to learn.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> Mt Wilson is a 18 mile climb that averages 4.5%--not exactly the Stelvio.
> 
> I'm guessing that a lot of the Giro riders are going to get dropped this year because they lack your "wisdom".
> 
> ...


Yeah? Like what? 

Eddy Merckx did it all. The sport has been downhill since then. Everybody brings his theories into the sport. Why not? It's a labor of love! So far, we all agree that cadences of 70-90 rpm are the most efficient, and that gears should be chosen that enaable those cadences. If that means 34-27 going up steep climbs, that's great. All I'm saying is, most of the time, it can be done in 39-27 or gosh, even 42-27! In all the years I've been riding, that's all I ever needed. My knees are fine from learning how to spin.

Also, there was really nice equipment in the 80s, along with inferior equipment, same as today. The good stuff made back then rode as good as the good stuff made today, albeit with a 5 pound weight penalty.  So what? I want to make it home after 50 mile ride out to the hinterlands. A little weight in the interest of strength and crashworthiness never hurt.

I don't think anything has changed much at all. Now you've got Strava and watt meters to quantify it, but we knew what it was, riding out into the country back in the 80s. We could FEEL how hard we were working. All we needed to figure out was how to make it back to DC before sundown.

I kind of gravitate toward Grant Peterson's philosophy of what it means to ride a bike. I'll let the Strava crowd play their computer games on their bikes, and just go out on a country road I've never been on before and take it all in.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Fredrico said:


> In the 44-22? First shallow climb 15 miles up to the clear air above the smog, about 10 mph average speed, 60-70 rpm.


OK. This is good background. 

Perhaps some of the ongoing debate in this thread and others is due to varying definitions of spinning.

So, when you state that, "It is not hard to spin 42-23 up climbs", you're referring to a cadence of 60-70?

In today's vernacular, spinning is considered 90+rpm. 60-70rpm is considered a slow cadence.

For example, if you believe it's easy to climb at 9-10 mph on a 5% grade at a cadence of 60-70 rpm, then I would generally agree with you (it's not _easy_ but it's entirely doable). However, I would not consider this "spinning" up the climb.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Yep, there's been no progress since the old days. Bikes were just as good and as fast, computers were just as good and as fast, cars were just as good and as fast. Most of all, it's a certainty that we would not be making these kinds of observations if our minds were not just as good and even faster! 

These riders today don't even realize the importance of having a cigarette at the top of the climbs. Lucky for them that nobody shows up at the Giro with a six speed cassette and friction shifting on their steel down tube. There'd be some serious ass kick'n! 

Thanks for sharing your reality.


Fredrico said:


> Yeah? Like what?
> 
> Eddy Merckx did it all. The sport has been downhill since then. Everybody brings his theories into the sport. Why not? It's a labor of love! So far, we all agree that cadences of 70-90 rpm are the most efficient, and that gears should be chosen that enaable those cadences. If that means 34-27 going up steep climbs, that's great. All I'm saying is, most of the time, it can be done in 39-27 or gosh, even 42-27! In all the years I've been riding, that's all I ever needed. My knees are fine from learning how to spin.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

tvad said:


> OK. This is good background.
> 
> Perhaps some of the ongoing debate in this thread and others is due to varying definitions of spinning.
> 
> ...


Right.  It gets confusing. 

I said a few times: once rider learns how to spin, legs can follow the crank around favoring the aerobic slow twitch muscle fibers as he has trained his legs to do, at low rpms such as 60-70. Hinault mentions this in his book as the main benefit of learning how to "spin." It's not necessarily cadence, but also how the power is delivered when the going gets tough. Evening out the strokes trained by spinning reduces lactic acid build up, stimulates the cardio system to expel lactic acid more efficiently than pushing with the fast twitch quads, and the bunny just keeps going. 

Sure, Mr. Simmons is right, the fast twitch come into play, but not at the expense of the aerobic capability. Thus rider's legs will not fill up with lactic acid pain and rider won't blow up and have to slow down to recover, or stop, get off the bike, and rest. :nono:

Some riders instinctively pedal this way, in smooth strokes, but most riders have to learn it. :yesnod: And they do, according to Mr. Simmons and other posters, the longer they ride, they increase their leg speeds. 90-95 is ideal. :yesnod:


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

^After that response, I'm as confused as ever about what you meant when you stated, "It's not hard to spin 42-23 up climbs."

Your personal example is 9-10 mph on a 5% grade at 60-70rpm, which you now say is low rpm. So, how can that be spinning?

I'll tell you what's spinning. My head. That's what's spinning.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

_"It's like deja vu all over again"_.

Haven't we already been through this?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> Yep, there's been no progress since the old days. Bikes were just as good and as fast, computers were just as good and as fast, cars were just as good and as fast. Most of all, it's a certainty that we would not be making these kinds of observations if our minds were not just as good and even faster!
> 
> These riders today don't even realize the importance of having a cigarette at the top of the climbs. Lucky for them that nobody shows up at the Giro with a six speed cassette and friction shifting on their steel down tube. There'd be some serious ass kick'n!
> 
> Thanks for sharing your reality.


All I can say is: I don't race.  And if I really wanted to, I can catch any of these middle aged, overweight guys on their Pinarellos, because their strength to weight ratios are not as good as mine from years of "training," and what I lack in strength is compensated for in aerobic capacity, that is, pedaling fast. This isn't rocket science.

Yes, the next generation takes from the previous generation and tries to improve on it. That's fine: lighter bikes, more gears, new training strategies measuring power (watts), and Strava, so one can claim a place in competition with others. A while back, we had a big discussion on training with watt meters. Riders were throwing their heart rate monitors away. Well, we used to train by heart rate. Once rider knew his limits, that's how he trained. Over years of riding, heart rates went down as speeds went up. How about that? 

Knowing how many watts rider was delivering was beside the point. The limiting factor was heart rate, as Mr. Simmons points out above. :yesnod: How rider achieves that power is the issue. I think this is still true. Eddy B. who coached Alexi Grewal winning the Olympics road race, once said, "When strength goes up, endurance (power) goes down. When endurance (power) goes up, strength goes down."

This, BTW, is an excellent argument for spinning, learned in easy gears and carried through to harder gears as fitness (power) improves with training. :yesnod:

As far as equipment: Some of those old steel Italian bikes would be equivalent to those Sixties Ferraris that rich men bid a million dollars for at auctions. They worked superbly back then and they still work superbly, even if the cars were a PITA to keep tuned, and the bikes required one soft pedal stroke to shift easily.  Big deal.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> All I can say is: I don't race.  And if I really wanted to, I can catch any of these middle aged, overweight guys on their Pinarellos, because their strength to weight ratios are not as good as mine from years of "training," and what I lack in strength is compensated for in aerobic capacity, that is, pedaling fast.


I've seen a few middle-aged guys around here with some weird rainbow bands on their jerseys. Maybe you can show them what's up.


----------



## Herbie (Nov 12, 2010)

My memories of the good old days are a bit different from Fredrico's. Only a small percentage of riders used a 42/21 or 23 as their low gear. Much more likely it was a 28 on the back

Also when you had 3 or 4 tooth gaps, most of us did use our front derailleur along with shifting the rear to get an in between gear. With friction shifting the front was easier to shift than the rear. Basically all the way in one direction or the other. The rear took more finesse. 

The one thing I do agree with is that we did tend to shift less. I remember I started shifting more as soon as I had indexed down tube shifters, even though the rear free wheels had the same 6 cogs

Back on point, I'm not sure the discussion about cadence was any different back in the 70s than it is today. No one has won the argument yet, and in 10 years the discussion will be the same


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

deviousalex said:


> I've seen a few middle-aged guys around here with some weird rainbow bands on their jerseys. Maybe you can show them what's up.


Or maybe THEY can show the young turks how its done. :yesnod: I have nothing but respect for these guys, if I know what group you're talking about.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> Or maybe THEY can show the young turks how its done. :yesnod: I have nothing but respect for these guys, if I know what group you're talking about.


But you said you could beat them! I really hand it to you, you put the Fred in Fredrico.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

I'm not sure whether you should be racing or coaching for a Giro team. I guess it would depend on whether you can find a friction shifting steel six speed to race on. On the other hand, I don't see how any team can afford to be without the benefit of your..a ....wisdom.


Fredrico said:


> All I can say is: I don't race.  And if I really wanted to, I can catch any of these middle aged, overweight guys on their Pinarellos, because their strength to weight ratios are not as good as mine from years of "training," and what I lack in strength is compensated for in aerobic capacity, that is, pedaling fast. This isn't rocket science.
> 
> Yes, the next generation takes from the previous generation and tries to improve on it. That's fine: lighter bikes, more gears, new training strategies measuring power (watts), and Strava, so one can claim a place in competition with others. A while back, we had a big discussion on training with watt meters. Riders were throwing their heart rate monitors away. Well, we used to train by heart rate. Once rider knew his limits, that's how he trained. Over years of riding, heart rates went down as speeds went up. How about that?
> 
> ...


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

deviousalex said:


> But you said you could beat them! I really hand it to you, you put the Fred in Fredrico.


Not to put to fine of a point on it.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Herbie said:


> The one thing I do agree with is that we did tend to shift less. I remember I started shifting more as soon as I had indexed down tube shifters, even though the rear free wheels had the same 6 cogs


Yep, same here.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

tvad said:


> ^After that response, I'm as confused as ever about what you meant when you stated, "It's not hard to spin 42-23 up climbs."
> 
> Your personal example is 9-10 mph on a 5% grade at 60-70rpm, which you now say is low rpm. So, how can that be spinning?
> 
> I'll tell you what's spinning. My head. That's what's spinning.


Pedaling 80-90 rpm up climbs works great for a minute or two, on the short climbs around here, in 42-23. On the longer climbs when energy runs out, sitting and following up with nice, even strokes, gradually slowing down to stay on top of the gear. Sometimes the grade slows rider down to 60 rpm! 

No worries, though, the legs know how to handle it. They work just below AT, at the appropriate cadence determined by the grade and gear. At lower cadences, rider grinds it out in smooth, even strokes. That retards the buildup of pain in the legs. Now it is the heart that might fail! It wants to jump out of the chest. But that's why we ride, non?

All I want to say is: don't mash. The older rider gets, the more important that rule is, my friends. :yesnod: And walk to increase bone density, eat your broccoli and yogurt.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Fredrico said:


> Oh, sorry. My message is: don't mash. The older rider gets, the more important that rule is, my friends. :yesnod: And walk to increase bone density, eat your broccoli and yogurt.


None of which answers the question of what cadence rpm you consider spinning (up that 5% grade at 9-10mph in your 42-23).

Will you ever get around to answering that question?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> I'm not sure whether you should be racing or coaching for a Giro team. I guess it would depend on whether you can find a friction shifting steel six speed to race on. On the other hand, I don't see how any team can afford to be without the benefit of your..a ....wisdom.


"Those who remain ignorant of the past are doomed to repeat it." :frown2:

Has anyone noticed the return of LACE UP shoes? No velcro straps! Perfect for toe clips and strap pedals, just like the old days. The latest thing, pals! And round helmets are back! :nono:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Herbie said:


> My memories of the good old days are a bit different from Fredrico's. Only a small percentage of riders used a 42/21 or 23 as their low gear. Much more likely it was a 28 on the back
> 
> Also when you had 3 or 4 tooth gaps, most of us did use our front derailleur along with shifting the rear to get an in between gear. With friction shifting the front was easier to shift than the rear. Basically all the way in one direction or the other. The rear took more finesse.
> 
> ...


Well, the competitive guys all used 42-21, cheaters going to 23 or 24. The short cage Campy or Campy knockoff derailleurs back then couldn't wrap the chain around any cog bigger. 

The 28 cog freewheels around DC area back in the 80s were on many lesser quality recreational bikes, but they weren't riding with us.  

I guess that's also true today.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

What about "those who remain in the past"? Seems like that may make it hard to repeat it.




Fredrico said:


> "Those who remain ignorant of the past are doomed to repeat it." :frown2:
> 
> Has anyone noticed the return of LACE UP shoes? No velcro straps! Perfect for toe clips and strap pedals, just like the old days. The latest thing, pals! And round helmets are back! :nono:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

tvad said:


> None of which answers the question of what cadence rpm you consider spinning (up that 5% grade at 9-10mph in your 42-23).
> 
> Will you ever get around to answering that question?


Yes. 

I thought I answered it with my description of climbing when necessary [] at lower cadences, "in smooth, fluid pedal strokes," grinding it out, like most of us try to do, just below anaerobic threshold, at which point if rider cheats, the fast twitch will rush in eagerly and blow rider up at some point later on the climb. He will suffer painfully and want to stop and rest. :nono:

Again, and I'm giving credit to Hinault, LeMond, Eddy B, and others who have lived in the sport long enough to know what works and what doesn't work. Pedaling fast works better than putzing along at low cadences. But when rider has to, his legs will deliver power at the low cadences in the same manner as fast cadences, saving his knees from destruction, I might add as a personal example.

I strongly suspect, also confirmed by reading, that the aerobic fibers, or let's say the cardiovascular system as a whole, stays conditioned longer than the non-aerobic fibers. The non-aerobic fibers increase in size quickly, then shrink when unused, and lose strength. Aerobic conditioning, or shall we say heart and lungs, circulatory system: sure it dwindles without stimulation, but anecdotal evidence I have observed over the years suggests it takes longer to lose. Older people who have led active lifestyles live longer when forced to cut back for health reasons, and also recover more quickly from sickness and injuries.

Except for an aunt, who never moved a muscle in her body, never had kids, and lived to the ripe old age of 104.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> Well, the competitive guys all used 42-21, cheaters going to 23 or 24. The short cage Campy or Campy knockoff derailleurs back then couldn't wrap the chain around any cog bigger.
> 
> The 28 cog freewheels around DC area back in the 80s were on many lesser quality recreational bikes, but they weren't riding with us.
> 
> I guess that's also true today.


Im only quoting this post to anchor my reply to your comments, loosely... Pardon the vague quote... What I'm struggling with most, is the notion of "learning to" spin. Spinning is pedaling fast. Ypu repeatedly mention or allude to the fact that there is a learning function or art to mastering high cadence riding? I don't get that. You pedal fast. Following the crank over the blah, blah, blah? You just pedal fast. I do high cadence work on the trainer in the off season, it's a good vehicle for that kind of thing. But I have never felt that I needed to "learn" to turn over the crank? I'm so at a loss to respond because I'm so at a loss to understand what you are talking about? Is there a technique thing I'm missing? Pedal. Pedal a lot. Pedal fast. I ask because when I first started cycling (recently) I looked here and elsewhere for some kind of manifesto on proper technique. I couldn't find what I was looking for because I am coming from speed skating which is incredibly technically specific in terms of your technique. It is like swimming in some ways, small improvements in your form and technical accuracy have serious impacts on your speed. Set-down, double push, ankle push... In speed skating small improvements in technique make big differences. And the finer the improvement the more strength and balance required to achieve it. But I have found no such equal in cycling. It is a wonderful and poetic sport. I love it. It requires amazing discipline and practice and endurance... It's just that I can't seem to find some agreed on technique for pedaling that makes you faster? X cadence in X gear on flat ground goes X fast. I'm not sure I can validate your responses by finding references to pedaling technique? Froome looks like a slob on his bike, he is a monster GT racer. There is no equivalent in speed skating, the racers form dictates their success so the winners look just like ach other, which is perfect form. Sorry for the long rant, I just can't understand the whole intricate learning thing for turning over cranks...


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Fredrico said:


> Yes.
> 
> I thought I answered it with my description of climbing when necessary [] at lower cadences, "in smooth, fluid pedal strokes," grinding it out, like most of us try to do, just below anaerobic threshold, at which point the fast twitch will rush in eagerly and blow rider up at some point later on the climb, if rider cheats.
> 
> ...


The diatribe quoted once again doesn't answer the question of what cadence you consider spinning, which only requires one sentence that includes a number.

For example, "I consider spinning to be a minimum cadence of X" (where X is the lowest cadence in rpm considered as spinning).

Oh well...


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

tvad said:


> The diatribe quoted once again doesn't answer the question of what cadence you consider spinning, which only requires one sentence that includes a number.
> 
> For example, "I consider spinning to be a minimum cadence of X" (where X is the lowest cadence in rpm considered as spinning).
> 
> Oh well...


Alright. 

Spinning is when the legs can't purposely push the crank in deliberate intense contractions of the quads. Instead, legs follow the crank around, slowly contracting the muscles around the legs in smooth, fluid strokes. That starts to happen for most riders around 90-95 rpm, and becomes more important as leg speed increases. At 100-110 rpm, forget about pushing. Rider can't jam down at such a high rate, so fast twitch demand levels off and the slow twitch fibers take on the load. This teaches a smooth pedal stroke at any cadence down to let's say, 40 or so rpm. Try it someday. :yesnod:

Ok?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> What about "those who remain in the past"? Seems like that may make it hard to repeat it.


I'm just not a fashion drone, Swifty. :frown2: You don't know how many times I've lusted after the latest bikes! :cryin: It's just that, as fun as the new stuff might be, a Stradivarius is still a Stradivarius. :ihih: 

When you get set up with really great stuff, why abandon it for something that might be better in some ways, with the inevitable trade offs? I've been biking long enough to tell the difference between real technological progress and marketing gimmickry. 

I just like to ride, like Brother Grant says. Equipment is a conceit, like with violins or electric guitars. They enhance the experience. But its the playing that counts. :yesnod:


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> Alright.
> 
> Spinning is when the legs can't purposely push the crank in deliberate intense contractions of the quads. Instead, legs follow the crank around, slowly contracting the muscles around the legs in smooth, fluid strokes. That starts to happen for most riders around 90-95 rpm, and becomes more important as leg speed increases. At 100-110 rpm, forget about pushing. Rider can't jam down at such a high rate, so fast twitch demand levels off and the slow twitch fibers take on the load. This teaches a smooth pedal stroke at any cadence down to let's say, 40 or so rpm. Try it someday. :yesnod:
> 
> Ok?


Sorry, that makes no sense to me. Zero. It's BS as far as I can tell. Quite literally... "Have a ham in Thursday when Pumpkins. Be sure to have learning that round is better than parallel so that green." DAMNIT!!!!


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Fredrico said:


> Spinning is...for most riders around 90-95 rpm.


Abridged version. Thank you.


So, when you wrote:


Fredrico said:


> Yes. It is not hard to spin 42-23 up climbs. :yesnod:


...climbing in a 42-23 gear ratio spinning at 90rpm would result in a speed of 12.9mph. That's easy?

If so, I say kudos to you. 

On my _best_ day climbing up to Mt. Wilson with a group of truly strong men, we _never_ "spun" up those 18 miles at 12.9mph. On a good day, we'd be happy to hit _sections_ at 11.5mph...and I can assure you it _hurt like hell_.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

PBL450 said:


> Im only quoting this post to anchor my reply to your comments, loosely... Pardon the vague quote... What I'm struggling with most, is the notion of "learning to" spin. Spinning is pedaling fast. Ypu repeatedly mention or allude to the fact that there is a learning function or art to mastering high cadence riding? I don't get that. You pedal fast. Following the crank over the blah, blah, blah? You just pedal fast. I do high cadence work on the trainer in the off season, it's a good vehicle for that kind of thing. But I have never felt that I needed to "learn" to turn over the crank? I'm so at a loss to respond because I'm so at a loss to understand what you are talking about? Is there a technique thing I'm missing? Pedal. Pedal a lot. Pedal fast. I ask because when I first started cycling (recently) I looked here and elsewhere for some kind of manifesto on proper technique. I couldn't find what I was looking for because I am coming from speed skating which is incredibly technically specific in terms of your technique. It is like swimming in some ways, small improvements in your form and technical accuracy have serious impacts on your speed. Set-down, double push, ankle push... In speed skating small improvements in technique make big differences. And the finer the improvement the more strength and balance required to achieve it. But I have found no such equal in cycling. It is a wonderful and poetic sport. I love it. It requires amazing discipline and practice and endurance... It's just that I can't seem to find some agreed on technique for pedaling that makes you faster? X cadence in X gear on flat ground goes X fast. I'm not sure I can validate your responses by finding references to pedaling technique? Froome looks like a slob on his bike, he is a monster GT racer. There is no equivalent in speed skating, the racers form dictates their success so the winners look just like ach other, which is perfect form. Sorry for the long rant, I just can't understand the whole intricate learning thing for turning over cranks...


I guess speed skating or hockey requires whole body coordination and precision movements, but like all sports, its the same in cycling. The more frequently you do it, the better you get at it.

When I got started, I'd see these old timers in their 50s and 60s just pedaling along as it were the easiest thing in the world. And they were always in front, setting the pace for us newbies to anxiously hang on to. I took Hinault's and others' advice and started pedaling faster than I was used to in easy gears, like 42-20, 42-17 in the small ring. It took the legs a few years to adapt to 90-95 rpm. Before they maxed out around 90 rpm if I remember correctly, and my knees hurt later after hard efforts. But after a few years, really quite like what you're doing on the trainer, the legs could pedal as fast in harder gears at greater intensities, and lo, I wasn't blowing up nearly as quickly. It worked. The less torque I was loading up on the knees, the stronger they felt after the ride. No pain. At one point I couldn't even climb stairs without over stressing the knees. Knee problems have gone away, basically, no surgery, no titanium pins, although doctor might still say, "Better have surgery on that! "

How about imitating trainer spins out on the road in the next higher gear, at the same cadences? It works the heart and lungs really well, saves the legs. Isn't this your experience?


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

tvad said:


> So, when you wrote:
> 
> 
> ...climbing in a 42-23 gear ratio spinning at 90rpm would result in a speed of 12.9mph. That's easy?
> ...


Maybe you just don't remember as well as Fredrico.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Back to my earlier point. The kind of Johnson enhancement that the internet provides is unmatched---even by prosthesis.



tvad said:


> Abridged version. Thank you.
> 
> 
> So, when you wrote:
> ...


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> All I can say is: I don't race.  And if I really wanted to, I can catch any of these middle aged, overweight guys on their Pinarellos, because their strength to weight ratios are not as good as mine from years of "training," and what I lack in strength is compensated for in aerobic capacity, that is, pedaling fast. This isn't rocket science.


Aerobic capacity has nothing to do with how quickly or slowly you pedal. 

And no, you'd probably get blown out the back of a race. People who don't race have no clue about racing. It's a different beast indeed.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Someone linked to the thread I started on this a while back. All we have is science, the rest is just belief. All the scientific articles I've found and posted say it's mechanically more efficient to pedal at a slower cadence. The GCN video backs that up. I'd be happy to read an article that refutes this, I just haven't found any that have any scientific validity. Of course the scientific articles are mostly based on shorter length efforts, so I could see there being some long term drawbacks, like joint pain.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

DrSmile said:


> Someone linked to the thread I started on this a while back. All we have is science, the rest is just belief. All the scientific articles I've found and posted say it's mechanically more efficient to pedal at a slower cadence. The GCN video backs that up. I'd be happy to read an article that refutes this, I just haven't found any that have any scientific validity. Of course the scientific articles are mostly based on shorter length efforts, so I could see there being some long term drawbacks, like joint pain.


Well, my understanding is yes, it is more efficient to pedal at leg speeds close to those used for walking and running. But pedaling 60-70 rpm in higher gears for long becomes very painful and hard on the knees. So as Eddy said, "To go fast, pedal fast!" That means for most pros, 90-95 rpm with sprinting capabilities of 120 rpm. Pedaling at 60-70 rpm will not train the legs to handle harder efforts in the higher gears, no?

It's like car engines. When horsepower increases, fuel economy goes down. :yesnod: Cycling at 25 mph may not be very efficient compared to putzing along at 12 mph at a nice 70 rpm, but its the price rider pays for performance.

Maybe I'm wrong. A guy passed me last year pedaling 52-13 at least, maybe 52-12 or 11, cranking about 40 rpm. He slowed a little on the hill but didn't shift. Very impressive. I did catch him in my 53-17, though, and went right by him as he flagged about a mile up the road. If he was doing a speed interval, I think he was in the wrong gear. :yesnod:

Scott says it above: _The problem comes when you want to put down more watts. To do that you need higher cadence.

scott s._


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

pedalbiker said:


> Aerobic capacity has nothing to do with how quickly or slowly you pedal.
> 
> And no, you'd probably get blown out the back of a race. People who don't race have no clue about racing. It's a different beast indeed.


Well, shoot, I did try racing the local crits in '85-'88, but never placed and only won one lap prime.  For one thing, I rode over to them from across the river, a bit much for a warmup, and was a late comer at age 41. 

It was fun for a while, but too dangerous. There were so many crashes, the only place to ride was toward the front, and if that didn't hold, forget it, quit the race. :frown2: Never got caught amidst the stragglers in heavy oxygen debt, wobbling over the road about to blow. They were always hitting each other.

I'm just saying my aerobic capacity, as defined by heart rate for a given load of work, improved quite a bit from pedaling fast over the years and it is quite good now. I could do the same gears and speeds ten years later at lesser heart rates than when starting out. Others I've ridden with have had the same experience. 

Then again, I guess if one rides a bike just below AT, it doesn't matter what cadence he's in. If he works the heart, it will get stronger and handle the same loads at slightly slower heart rates.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

tvad said:


> Abridged version. Thank you.
> 
> 
> So, when you wrote:
> ...


That's right, the first 18 miles could be done around 11 mph, then the average for me dropped to 6 :shocked: mph the last few miles into the antenna farm. Overall, timewise my log said the average for the whole climb was 9.5 mph, about the same as you and your friends. :yesnod:

Was obviously not "spinning 90 rpm," more like 60-70 rpm, but the legs could go very well by using the muscles the same way as spinning, only at lower cadences. It results in efficient strokes, expels lactic acid, or uses lactic acid, doesn't beat up the legs, and saves energy. The only section that hurt like hell for me was the last 3 or 4 miles. Up to the turnoff to that road, the grades aren't all that bad, are they? 11 mph! :yesnod:

If it hurt like hell, maybe its the bike!


----------



## FasterStronger (Jun 6, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> All I can say is: I don't race.  And if I really wanted to, I can catch any of these middle aged, overweight guys on their Pinarellos, because their strength to weight ratios are not as good as mine from years of "training,"


Uh.. I ride a Giant.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

FasterStronger said:


> Uh.. I ride a Giant.


That's great. Are you also in your late 40s or 50s, at least 20 pounds overweight and been biking one or two years?  That's who I'm talking about.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

DrSmile said:


> Someone linked to the thread I started on this a while back.


Yep - that would be me.



> All we have is science, the rest is just belief. All the scientific articles I've found and posted say it's mechanically more efficient to pedal at a slower cadence. The GCN video backs that up. I'd be happy to read an article that refutes this, I just haven't found any that have any scientific validity. Of course the scientific articles are mostly based on shorter length efforts, so I could see there being some long term drawbacks, like joint pain.


First, do you really mean _mechanical efficiency_, or do you mean gross or metabolic efficiency. They are different.

For a good review of the pertinent literature and the science I suggest this 2009 review article (same one I referenced in the previous thread). There's a whole section titled "Efficiency and economy" on page 9. From that a few key points:

- The most economical cadence appears to be extremely low (~50-60rpm) when cycling at low power outputs (≤200W), but increases to approximately 80-100rpm with increasing workloads (~350W).

- Improved efficiency of cycling observed at lower pedaling rates is likely to be dictated by the relationship between muscle shortening velocity and the efficiency of muscle contractions (percent Type I and Type II active fibres). The cause of the rise in the economically optimal cadence is unclear, but is again likely to be due to the power-velocity relationship of muscle contraction and the additional recruitment of fast twitch muscle fibres with increases in exercise intensity.

- At lower cadences, greater force per pedal stroke is required to maintain a given power output, which requires additional muscle fibre recruitment and thus a higher energy expenditure. An increase in cadence at higher exercise intensities may optimise the power-velocity relationship, and as a result reduce the metabolic cost of cycling. 

- In addition to reducing the average pedal force per revolution, a faster pedal rate might reduce the oxygen cost associated with high intensity cycling since the mechanical efficiency of both fast and slow twitch muscle is improved at high and low contraction velocities, respectively.​
What's most efficient depends on both what you are measuring as efficieny, and for gross efficiency the power output. When it comes to racing other than ultra endurance events, efficiency is often thrown out the window i the interest of speed, and managing fatigue vs. speed.


----------



## Herbie (Nov 12, 2010)

Just noticed this statement

If it's not hard, why do you have to work hard? Seems like a contradiction to me.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Fredrico said:


> Was obviously not "spinning 90 rpm," more like 60-70 rpm, but the legs could go very well by using the muscles the same way as spinning, only at lower cadences. It results in efficient strokes, expels lactic acid, or uses lactic acid, doesn't beat up the legs, and saves energy.


Now you're contradicting yourself. The legs "could go very well by using the muscles the same way as spinning, only at lower cadences."

Huh? You can't have it both ways. Sorry.

"Efficient strokes expels lactic acid, or uses lactic acid?" Nonsense.

You've gone off the rails in this last post.


----------



## FasterStronger (Jun 6, 2014)

Mid 40's, 10-20 lbs overweight BUT I have been biking for three years.:thumbsup:


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

ibericb said:


> For a good review of the pertinent literature and the science I suggest this 2009 review article (same one I referenced in the previous thread). There's a whole section titled "Efficiency and economy" on page 9. From that a few key points:
> 
> - The most economical cadence appears to be extremely low (~50-60rpm) when cycling at low power outputs (≤200W), but increases to approximately 80-100rpm with increasing workloads (~350W).
> 
> ...


I think you are being extremely selective in your quotes from that article. As all of the previous discussions regarding mechanical and metabolic efficiency are searchable, as are the discussions on different muscle fibers, I suggest anyone interested to actually read the article you quote and draw their own conclusions, with the understanding that some of the articles referenced in it may have been influenced by certain beliefs at the time they were written.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Let me state from the beginning that I did not read the quoted article. In my opinion, the question in these matters always comes down to the best available science verses the best available empirical evidence--in this case top level professional racers and racing results.

We can either assume that those who have invested their livelihood in going fast on bicycles know the answer to this question, or the best available academic protocol for testing provides the answer.

Prior to 2000's Americas Cup the AC teams used and pretty much trusted the academic community (MIT in part) to provide answers about mast and sail efficiency even though a growing number of teams were winning using contradictory anecdotal evidence mixed with semi-empirical results. During the wind tunnel testing for the 2000 AC it was learned that the protocol that had been used for years had produced results that were irrelevant to real world sailboats. Mast and sail shapes had been held back for years and the only people who seemed to know it were the hippy sailing bums who, through trial and error, developed masts and sails that have today become the standard for racing boats with soft sails This revelation occurred in their world 10 years before the keel boat community accepted that most of this anecdotal development technology transferred to keel boats as well.

I think that most top level folks racing anything successfully now realize that advancement comes from anecdotal evidence that eventually mutates into empirical evidence and then the academic/science community sets out to explain why--rarely the other way around.





DrSmile said:


> I think you are being extremely selective in your quotes from that article. As all of the previous discussions regarding mechanical and metabolic efficiency are searchable, as are the discussions on different muscle fibers, I suggest anyone interested to actually read the article you quote and draw their own conclusions, with the understanding that some of the articles referenced in it may have been influenced by certain beliefs at the time they were written.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

DrSmile said:


> I think you are being extremely selective in your quotes from that article.


Well, since the quotes are excerpts, selectivity is a given.



> As all of the previous discussions regarding mechanical and metabolic efficiency are searchable, as are the discussions on different muscle fibers, I suggest anyone interested to actually read the article you quote and draw their own conclusions, with the understanding that some of the articles referenced in it may have been influenced by certain beliefs at the time they were written.


If you find that article bothersome, you might find this one published in 2012 more pertinent and timely:

"Gross efficiency and cycling performance: a brief review".

In particular let me draw attention to the following taken in total from final section, emphasis added:

_*When adults are asked to ride at their preferred pedalling rate at a power output typically experienced during submaximal cycling, they tend to choose a cadence between 90 and 100 revolutions per minute (rev•min-1) *(Hagberg et al. 1981; Marsh & Martin 1993; Marsh & Martin 1997; Marsh & Martin 2000). (It should be noted that that the preferred cadence depends on multiple factors including power output as well as a cyclist’s cycling experience, fitness level and fibre type distribution. However, an exhaustive discussion of these factors is beyond the scope of this brief review.) *However, we also know that the cadence at which metabolic efficiency is maximised is between 60 and 70 rev•min-1 (Seabury et al. 1977; Hagberg 1981; Böning et al. 1984; Coast & Welch 1985; Sidossis et al. 1992) suggesting that maximising metabolic efficiency is not an important contributor to the selection of the preferred cadence. *Here, biomechanical analyses of cycling provide further insights. Several authors have quantified the magnitude of muscular torques (Redfield & Hull 1986; McLean & LaFortune 1991; Marsh & Martin 2000) or forces (Neptune & Hull 1999) across cadences. *These studies consistently show that joint torques are minimal close to the preferred cadence, which suggests that the minimisation of muscular forces is a priority of the nervous system within the context of the selection of the preferred pedalling rate. *Another mechanical variable, which potentially influences the selection of the preferred cadence is the production of (inefficient) negative muscular work. Neptune and Herzog (1999) quantified negative muscular work across a range of cadences and found that there is a significant amount of negative mechanical work above the preferred cadence of 90 rev•min-1. The authors concluded that at higher cadences, the nervous system might not be able to activate and deactivate the muscles fast enough to produce more efficient force patterns (Neptune & Herzog 1999). *Together, these findings demonstrate that the selection of preferred cadence is driven by mechanical factors (rather than the maximisation of metabolic efficiency). Specifically, they suggest that cyclists choose their preferred cadence to minimise muscular forces, muscular stress and inefficient, negative muscular work, possibly with the goal of avoiding or delaying muscular fatigue.*_​
There is no doubt that gross efficiency (is that what you meant ?) is important and relevant. But it's most relevant when a considering the energy demands of time vs the ability to meet those demands through pre-effort nutrition and supplemental intake while riding. When it comes to performance it is about power and muscular fatigue vs time. As this article notes self-selected cadence is typically higher than what is metabolically most efficient. From the research done it appears to guided by central nervous system response to reduce muscular forces, stress and inefficiencies with the goal of avoiding or delaying muscular fatigue.

So, if a cyclist really needed to ride for durations that challenges their ability to meet the energy demands limited by nutrition, then moving toward better metabolic efficiency might be a key issue. On the other hand for more modest durations where the ability to meet the total energy demands is not limiting, and attention turns towards speed over the distance, then the cyclist should probably be focused on the combination of torque and cadence that enables him to produce the most power for that duration. The latter case will likely sacrifice gross efficiency for more favorable biomechanics at the desired speed. That will probably be realized from lower torque and higher cadence than maximum metabolic efficiency would dictate.


----------



## crit_boy (Aug 6, 2013)

SwiftSolo said:


> I think that most top level folks racing anything successfully now realize that advancement comes from anecdotal evidence that eventually mutates into empirical evidence and then the academic/science community sets out to explain why--rarely the other way around.


That statement flies in the face of everything ibericb regularly posts. 

I don't think it is one way or the other. I think progress is in both directions, i.e. real world need forces innovation in combination with scientific discovery that has some application in the real world.


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

My cadence is determined by a few factors:

1) Fatigue - the more tired I am the slower I will pedal.
2) Grade - the steeper the grade the slower I will pedal.
3) Cramp onset - If I feel a cramp coming on, I will pedal slower.

It never comes down to:

1) A published study
2) What the cool kids are doing
3) What the forum kids are doing (or saying they do)

Happy spinning/mashing/crushing!


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

Also, and I know this will fall on Fred's def ears (eyes).

*Mount Wilson - top to bottom is 18 miles.

Mount Wilson - from beginning to end is 18 miles.

Yoda: Mount Wilson, 18 miles long, it is.
*


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

arai_speed said:


> Also, and I know this will fall on Fred's def ears (eyes).
> 
> *Mount Wilson - top to bottom is 18 miles.
> 
> ...


Word.

See post #121.


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

tvad said:


> Word.
> 
> See post #121.


Pointless, it is.

53/39 - Page 9


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Remember, I'm talking mostly about racing--the place where efficiency/power usually prevail.


crit_boy said:


> That statement flies in the face of everything ibericb regularly posts.
> 
> I don't think it is one way or the other. I think progress is in both directions, i.e. real world need forces innovation in combination with scientific discovery that has some application in the real world.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

DrSmile said:


> I think you are being extremely selective in your quotes from that article. As all of the previous discussions regarding mechanical and metabolic efficiency are searchable, as are the discussions on different muscle fibers, I suggest anyone interested to actually read the article you quote and draw their own conclusions, with the understanding that some of the articles referenced in it may have been influenced by certain beliefs at the time they were written.


Ibericb's quotes make sense and agree with the other accounts I've read, including one by a British medical doctor, Peter Konopka, "Cycle Sport", the best treatise on the biomechanics of cycling that I've come across.

What are the issues that give you pause?


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

IMO, it's very difficult to generalize. In the world of practical application of scientific understanding there is always a handshake between what's observed empirically in the field, and what the lab rats find and figure out. Each stimulates the other. A common pitfall is when folks on both sides of the effort - practical field and lab researchers - begin to believe the models as if they were fundamental laws. Experts often lose sight of the limits of models, which should be used rather than believed. Discoveries that change the proven course frequently arise from the exploration by those who don't know enough to be constrained by the trusted and established models and rules of the time. When that happens a new avenue and focus for research to understand it all will follow. That in turn leads to new developments, which then leads to improvements and new exploration. It's a never ending cycle, and attempting to assert one precedes the other is like arguing whether the chicken or the egg came first.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

arai_speed said:


> Pointless, it is.
> 
> 53/39 - Page 9


Pretty much, yeah. I made it up those 18 miles in a flat two hours. That's 9 mph average speed. Big deal, huh?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

ibericb said:


> Well, since the quotes are excerpts, selectivity is a given.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lower torque at higher cadences saves the legs big time. Up to VO2max, high [low torque] cadences also favor the aerobic slow twitch muscle fibers that can go at sustainable power, now dependent on what rider eats and drinks. 

Slow twitch is where its at with cycling, essentially an endurance sport. Konopka says humans are more or less equipped with equal amounts of fast and slow twitch fibers, and that both do the work, but rider can favor either. High cadence trains the slow twitch and low cadence inevitably favors the fast twitch the harder it gets. Cyclists with well developed slow twitch, long narrow fibers that don't get really big, don't look like Arnold Swartzenegger, although track riders have legs that rival bodybuilders. Trackies have terrible endurance. Their events don't require endurance, only strength, big legs.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

I don't think it is much about the muscle fiber recruited as a function of cadence as it is a function of force applied (torque if you prefer), and how that affects recruitment. 

Higher cadence allows for lower force application to deliver the same power. At typical road cycling speeds and power levels that, in turn, appears to lead to a longer period before the onset of muscular fatigue and the attendant loss in performance that comes with that, up to a point (there is a biodynamic limit to the advantage). Just don't start on lactic acid or lactate - we now know that has nothing to do with it directly.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Fredrico said:


> Trackies have terrible endurance. Their events don't require endurance, only strength, big legs.


Nonsense unless you qualify it by event. Elite level points races are well over 100 laps long with a sprint every 10 laps, so we're talking 40 minutes or so of intense racing here. The average points race cadence at the elite level is around 115 and maximums are in the 140s during the sprints.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

wim said:


> Nonsense unless you qualify it by event. Elite level points races are well over 100 laps long with a sprint every 10 laps, so we're talking 40 minutes or so of intense racing here. The average points race cadence at the elite level is around 115 and maximums are in the 140s during the sprints.


as illustrated by 2*moerkov, wiggins, cavendish, Keisse, rasmussen etc. not sure what it is he is smoking but it's melting the brain rather badly.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

wim said:


> ... The average points race cadence at the elite level is around 115 and maximums are in the 140s during the sprints.


Before I'd get to 140 my legs would explosively separate from the remainder of my body.


----------



## Herbie (Nov 12, 2010)

Campy chorus 7 speed had 2 settings. The b position would take up to a 32. Athena 7 speed had a plastic piece inside the derailleur that allowed a setting up to a 30. 

Well,as far as being competitive. I used to end my endurance season with BAM. Bike across Missouri. 540 to 565 miles in an out and back from St Louis to Kansas City. I must have cheated on an Armstrong level because I used the 32. The riders that used the 21 and 23 generally did not finish. 28's were probably the most common

I guess "competitive" changes it's definition from place to place.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

ibericb said:


> I don't think it is much about the muscle fiber recruited as a function of cadence as it is a function of force applied (torque if you prefer), and how that affects recruitment.
> 
> Higher cadence allows for lower force application to deliver the same power. At typical road cycling speeds and power levels that, in turn, appears to lead to a longer period before the onset of muscular fatigue and the attendant loss in performance that comes with that, up to a point (there is a biodynamic limit to the advantage). Just don't start on lactic acid or lactate - we now know that has nothing to do with it directly.


Right. But muscle fiber recruitment during excursions into anaerobic will call in the fast twitch when the slow twitch are maxed out, right? That's the way it seems to work, anyway, to me and riders I've discussed this subject with. Lower force application is easily handled by the slow twitch fibers at high cadences, providing the heart is up to it and there's nutrients coming down the pike. So the slow twitch are the one's recruited to do the work at high cadences, ain't they?

I'm sure up there on the edge, there would be frequent excursions into anaerobic. But like the Sky riders who did the high cadence drills, training the slow twitch this way, enabled Froome's sitting breakaway up the mountain at rapid cadence, well into anaerobic to create a gap, then back below AT to the lower cadence that's sustainable. It worked! :yesnod:


I also read lactic acid is converted into lactate and the latter can be used by the legs, not sure whether to replenish glycogen in the fast twitch or fuel the slow twitch, probably both. 

Only, that is, if it can get through to the muscles. Fast twitch contractions actually close off the capillaries, retarding the fuel delivery until the contraction is over. The author mentions that fast cadences build up a pumping action not present at low cadences, that delivers nutrients and oxygen to the muscles more efficiently, used by the slow twitch if below AT, and also by the fast twitch if beyond AT.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

ibericb said:


> Before I'd get to 140 my legs would explosively separate from the remainder of my body.


For some people, things smooth out again once they go past 120 rpm. Can't explain it, but it's a fact, with me in my younger days being an example of this odd smoothing once past 120.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

den bakker said:


> as illustrated by 2*moerkov, wiggins, cavendish, Keisse, rasmussen etc. not sure what it is he is smoking but it's melting the brain rather badly.


Alright, I'm thinking about one track rider who transitioned into road racing, forget his name. He gave up and went back to track. He had great power, but not the endurance of the road racers by a long shot. Road racers of course already have the endurance, so they do track or used to, to work on strength, from what I've read, anyway.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Herbie said:


> Campy chorus 7 speed had 2 settings. The b position would take up to a 32. Athena 7 speed had a plastic piece inside the derailleur that allowed a setting up to a 30.
> 
> Well,as far as being competitive. I used to end my endurance season with BAM. Bike across Missouri. 540 to 565 miles in an out and back from St Louis to Kansas City. I must have cheated on an Armstrong level because I used the 32. The riders that used the 21 and 23 generally did not finish. 28's were probably the most common
> 
> I guess "competitive" changes it's definition from place to place.


 I'm referring to the Campy short cage derailleurs, like Nuovo Record and Super Record in the early 80s. After Shimano became famous for its slant parallelogram design, which permitted precise click shifting, Campy went slant parallelogram, too. And their derailleurs still didn't shift worth a damn. 

The old SR and NR riders had to slightly over shift and then back it off to quiet the chain. I never found it difficult to slide the chain up on the cogs without over shifting, but I was never into instant shifting on the fly. It was always, soft pedal, ease that chain slowly onto the next cog, and pick up cadence. 

The short cage derailleurs like SR, NR, shifted very fast and positively. I remember some crit racers frowning on click shifting when it came out. You could friction shift silently into the 13 while drafting a competitor and sprint around him without warning. Now that he could hear the "click" in your shift, he'd know when to sprint himself. :ihih:


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Man, what a train wreck of misunderstanding of exercise physiology this thread is.

End it, please.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Yes, primarily a function of power demand. But that power demand can be apportioned evenly to all the leg muscles working together at faster cadences rather than relying on fast twitch to push harder at lower cadences. Right? There are two ways to attack power demand: high rpm or high torque low rpm. :yesnod: I see riders going back and forth while climbing.


Again, you completely misunderstand the process of fibre type recruitment. Please stop.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Knowing how many watts rider was delivering was beside the point. The limiting factor was heart rate, as Mr. Simmons points out above.


I never said anything of the sort.



Fredrico said:


> How rider achieves that power is the issue. I think this is still true. Eddy B. who coached Alexi Grewal winning the Olympics road race, once said, "When strength goes up, endurance (power) goes down. When endurance (power) goes up, strength goes down."


If Eddy B. was referring to strength as defined in exercise physiology*, he's right but somehow I think the word strength is completely misused by all concerned.

Endurance cycling is not a strength sport. Period.

Put it this way, even low cadence pedalling has nothing to do with strength. The forces are way too low, and are not even close to those associated with strength. The only time we approach such levels is the first pedal stroke of a track kilo or BMX rider's standing start (neither of which are endurance cycling events). And after stroke one the forces fall away dramatically.

The limiter in endurance cycling is our ability to sustainable produce and regenerate ATP in sufficient quantities to meet the ongoing energy demand.

This would also be why Eddy B. used blood doping methods on his Olympic riders, and Grewal was also a doper.


* i.e. the maximal force generation capacity of a muscle or group of muscles. This by definition occurs at zero velocity.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Alright.
> 
> Spinning is when the legs can't purposely push the crank in deliberate intense contractions of the quads. Instead, legs follow the crank around, slowly contracting the muscles around the legs in smooth, fluid strokes. That starts to happen for most riders around 90-95 rpm, and becomes more important as leg speed increases. At 100-110 rpm, forget about pushing. *Rider can't jam down at such a high rate*, so fast twitch demand levels off and the slow twitch fibers take on the load. This teaches a smooth pedal stroke at any cadence down to let's say, 40 or so rpm. Try it someday. :yesnod:
> 
> Ok?


Peak power for most riders occurs at ~130rpm give or take 10rpm and requires maximal recruitment of faster twitch fibres.

At sub-maximal powers, especially below functional threshold power (~power at MLSS), then faster twitch recruitment is pretty limited, no matter the cadence.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Fredrico said:


> Well, the competitive guys all used 42-21, cheaters going to 23 or 24.


And here I thought that back in the day the cheaters were using amphetamines and strychnine with a little cognac to take the edge off.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> I never said anything of the sort.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok, so yes, bicycling is an endurance sport. How about that? Still, evening out the excursions into pushing down, as the fast twitch muscle are so good at, reduces the cycle of exertion and recovery riders all feel at the top of a climb. If these cycles can be reduced, higher wattages can be maintained. 

Most riders achieve a sweet spot in cadence that they can work at efficiently. So I guess we agree, that's primarily slow twitch action, no matter what the cadence? I'll say it again, the best way to find that sweet spot is by learning how to pedal fast.  At around 90 rpm, cadence starts to become too fast for contracting the quads to exert much strength pushing down, as your analogy with the first stroke of a BMX rider from a dead stop points out. The legs now have to follow the crank around, at least unloading the pedals on the upstrokes. Something as simple as that add up over the miles, as in any endurance sport. :yesnod:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

velodog said:


> And here I thought that back in the day the cheaters were using amphetamines and strychnine with a little cognac to take the edge off.


You obviously weren't around.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

velodog said:


> And here I thought that back in the day the cheaters were using amphetamines and strychnine with a little cognac to take the edge off.


Strychnine? Jeez... Really? They'd puke their guts out? I could see it otherwise.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Man, what a train wreck of misunderstanding of exercise physiology this thread is.
> 
> End it, please.


Please synopsize what you're talking about.  I don't see any difference between your understanding and mine of the issues. We are arguing over terminology, IMO. We agree on the basic issues. Precisely where am I mistaken?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

PBL450 said:


> Strychnine? Jeez... Really? They'd puke their guts out? I could see it otherwise.


He's referring to the doping racers did before the '80s. By the '90s EPO was much better, even if a few riders died of blood clots the night after the race. :shocked:


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

What we've all learned is that the rules of exercise physiology change when riding a 6 speed steel friction shifter with a 42/21 low combination.


Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Man, what a train wreck of misunderstanding of exercise physiology this thread is.
> 
> End it, please.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Man, what a train wreck of misunderstanding of exercise physiology this thread is.
> 
> End it, please.


hehe i was wondering how you could stand it this long


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

edit. pointless.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> What we've all learned is that the rules of exercise physiology change when riding a 6 speed steel friction shifter with a 42/21 low combination.


Wrong. Th rules never changed.  The change is style, conforming to fashion and clever marketing.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Man, what a train wreck of misunderstanding of exercise physiology this thread is.
> 
> End it, please.


Sorry. I didn't realize you were the only one who understands exercise physiology. What are your credentials, if you don't mind??? Masters level? PhD? Just some shmo who has a coaching career? I'd love to know, because there are people on this forum qualified to write the post you made... Are you one of them? I'm not meaning to be snarky, your post is offensive on many levels and guilty of hubris on any level... I have spent a good amount of time doing projects with a Kinesiologist (PhD) and work every day with a physical therapist (DPT). Do you have their level of preparation? I appreciate your participation and have learned a lot from your posts, so thank you. But your unequicivocal proclamation that every poster on this thread is contributing to a train wreck makes you look like a snob and I'd love to know if you have the preparation for that kind of statement? Again. People here do... Maybe they will jump in? Pardon my rudeness... You routinely post as though you are the only one who knows anything about exercise physiology? I'd love to know why? The folks with PhDs who are involved in current scholarship might want to know as well? Again, I look forward to your participation, I learn a lot. But your high handed and seemingly capricious posting makes me wonder if the content is valid or reliable.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

I'm thinking we're going to need a bunch more of this ...









Anyone interested ?


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

PBL450 said:


> Sorry. I didn't realize you were the only one who understands exercise physiology. What are your credentials, if you don't mind???


To spare the Coach a tad, consider this as a starting point.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

ibericb said:


> To spare the Coach a tad, consider this as a starting point.


Sorry, when someone writes you off without explanation, that's arrogant. Or maybe Mr. Simmons has a problem with language. 

I'm very interested in knowing what his thoughts are! This is a basic issue in cycling worthy of debate. We're fortunate to read the ideas of a pro! 

Going nyah nyah nyah isn't the way to win an argument, is it?

So far, I think we can agree with Eddy Merckx:"To go fast, pedal fast."


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

ibericb said:


> To spare the Coach a tad, consider this as a starting point.


Thanks man... This makes my point? No valid preparation at all? I love the input, don't get me wrong it's awesome, but it isn't based on decent science? You should notice that? There is zero evidence of the academy granting credibility to the input. I can't stand the asshats in the academy, but they do make standards that are connected to real meaningful numbers. I can't see the efficacy in the posts? They might be awesome they might be BS? It takes a degree of academic preparation to tease apart the difference. I'd love to know why that is?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

PBL450 said:


> Thanks man... This makes my point? No valid preparation at all? I love the input, don't get me wrong it's awesome, but it isn't based on decent science? You should notice that? There is zero evidence of the academy granting credibility to the input. I can't stand the asshats in the academy, but they do make standards that are connected to real meaningful numbers. I can't see the efficacy in the posts? They might be awesome they might be BS? It takes a degree of academic preparation to tease apart the difference. I'd love to know why that is?


Yeah. Nobody's going to convince me climbing up a steep incline for all I'm worth, barely pushing the crank down at 50 rpm isn't a naked use of strength!


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Yep, those wanting to win the TDF are only concerned about fashion not speed over time. 

And yes, I am aware that pro racers are riding slow bikes with bad gearing in order to appease corporate conspirators who force cleaver marketing on us poor victims. Maybe someday someone will mutiny and kick everybody's ass by riding a superior steel 6 speed friction shifter. That'd teach those Bass turds. 

Is their motive based on the massively increased profitability of selling bikes with bigger cogs?


Fredrico said:


> Wrong. Th rules never changed.  The change is style, conforming to fashion and clever marketing.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> Yeah. Nobody's going to convince me climbing up a steep incline for all I'm worth, barely pushing the crank down at 50 rpm isn't a naked use of strength!


Not sure why you quoted me... My point is simply about credibility in making sweeping assertions about the knowledge base of the people presenting in this thread. Some of what you have posted does indeed look like a train wreck in terms of understanding exercise physiology... That is from my hobbyist perspective.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

ibericb said:


> To spare the Coach a tad, consider this as a starting point.


I'm not actually questioning the knowledge base, I'm questioning the credentials required to dismiss others. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find successful coaches in any sport that have a poor understanding of science involved? I'd guess the same goes for you? It also wouldn't surprise me to find highly knowledgeable coaches about the science of their sport? My point is in the creation of theory. In the classic western world model of higher education a bachelors degree is designed for someone to understand and apply theory. A masters degree is designed to understand, apply and critique theory. A PhD is designed to understand, apply, critique and create theory, hence the rationale behind the dissertation. Does a BS in math qualify you to dismiss the input of others wha have at least equivalent credentials? There are great athletes that understand their sport on a very deep level and there are great athletes who don't. I have had a student that still holds state records in track that didn't understand anything about exercise physiology. She didn't even like running... She was just really fast.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

There are those who actually do have a deep understanding of some element(s) of the underlying science (physics, physiology, etc.), but probably more who don't. Those who don't often frequently offer up explanations based on misunderstanding or folklore. Often the folklore then gets passed along and perpetuated as fact. FWIW, from having read many of Coach Alex's blog entries, and posts here he strikes me as one who has an excellent and very deep understanding of the physics and biophysics of cycling.

As far as dismissing others - it's an internet forum. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

I understand the academic view of the skill sets associated with degrees, but in the end, the metric of racing related knowledge is results (produced ethically). I'm not sure we see a major contribution in racing from the academic community.

If I had to bet, I would go with odds that in 50 years we will be looking back at the current era's sports physiology knowledge base with the same respect we currently hold for 1950s'. That increase in knowledge will come from the results discovered and produced in the field by coaches and participants and later quantified by the academic community--seldom the other way around.

I'm not defending anyone--just questioning the relative contribution of PhD's to results in (ethical) racing. It seems to me that we have a world of folks who are convinced that they have definitive answers.


PBL450 said:


> I'm not actually questioning the knowledge base, I'm questioning the credentials required to dismiss others. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find successful coaches in any sport that have a poor understanding of science involved? I'd guess the same goes for you? It also wouldn't surprise me to find highly knowledgeable coaches about the science of their sport? My point is in the creation of theory. In the classic western world model of higher education a bachelors degree is designed for someone to understand and apply theory. A masters degree is designed to understand, apply and critique theory. A PhD is designed to understand, apply, critique and create theory, hence the rationale behind the dissertation. Does a BS in math qualify you to dismiss the input of others wha have at least equivalent credentials? There are great athletes that understand their sport on a very deep level and there are great athletes who don't. I have had a student that still holds state records in track that didn't understand anything about exercise physiology. She didn't even like running... She was just really fast.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

The very definition of biting off more than you can chew.



PBL450 said:


> Sorry. I didn't realize you were the only one who understands exercise physiology. What are your credentials, if you don't mind??? Masters level? PhD? Just some shmo who has a coaching career? I'd love to know, because there are people on this forum qualified to write the post you made... Are you one of them? I'm not meaning to be snarky, your post is offensive on many levels and guilty of hubris on any level... *I have spent a good amount of time doing projects with a Kinesiologist (PhD) and work every day with a physical therapist (DPT). Do you have their level of preparation?*


Followed by the back pedal...



PBL450 said:


> My point is simply about credibility in making sweeping assertions about the knowledge base of the people presenting in this thread. Some of what you have posted does indeed look like a train wreck in terms of understanding exercise physiology... *That is from my hobbyist perspective.*


btw, small point that you can go to town complaining about... adding a question mark to a statement doesn't make it a question. When one reads *This makes my point? No valid preparation at all?* it reads like a 13 year old girl who ends each sentence with a rise in the tone of her voice, thinking that that makes her statement sound like a question. It doesn't. 

btw, I wonder what cadence one uses on a back pedal.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

SwiftSolo said:


> ...I'm not defending anyone--just questioning the relative contribution of PhD's to results in (ethical) racing. It seems to me that we have a world of folks who are convinced that they have definitive answers.


In the world of practical application, typically the real world folks in the field find the effect, but are often at a loss to explain the cause (they know what works, and figure out how to change it, but often don't know why it works). The guys in long white coats then come along and explain the cause. It's a back and forth handshake.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Also consider that the title of this thread ("when did cadence change?") is a leading question comparable to the classic "when did you stop beating you wife?" I don't think it has ever been established that "cadence changed" universally. I've got Euro training literature from the 1960s in my book shelf proclaiming that "the ability to ride at a relatively high cadence is the foundation of all successful racing."


----------



## pittcanna (Oct 2, 2014)

My other observations with cadence.

If you have a trainer with erg control this is a great experiment to try:

Set the wattage to something reasonable 75% to 80% FTP
Put the bike in the biggest gear possible(note erg does not care about gearing)
wear a hr strap

Spin at a variety cadences for 20 to 30 min segments

slow (50 to 60)
Moderate (60 to 80)
Ideal (85 to 95)
endurance sprint (95 to 98)
Sprint (98 to 105)
All out effort (115+)

During these ranges watch your heart rate and be mindful of your perceived exertion. The slower cadences will drag on, even though heart rate is slow.

Also watch the rear wheel speed of an erg trainer. Same wattage but higher cadences will produce a faster rear wheel speed by a mile or 2 an hour.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

I mostly agree. That is tempered by the idea that we may have a long to go to approach a 50% understanding of this field (sports physiology as it relates to bicycle racing results).

Also academic research on this subject is hopefully based on the best available data and generally accepted assumptions and protocol. That means that researchers should be listened to in the context of knowing much more than we do, but with the skepticism appropriate for someone that likely knows less than half of what will eventually be learned.


ibericb said:


> In the world of practical application, typically the real world folks in the field find the effect, but are often at a loss to explain the cause (they know what works, and figure out how to change it, but often don't know why it works). The guys in long white coats then come along and explain the cause. It's a back and forth handshake.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

LMAO! 

I agree completely. Cannondales are faster than Treks!


PBL450 said:


> Not sure why you quoted me... My point is simply about credibility in making sweeping assertions about the knowledge base of the people presenting in this thread. Some of what you have posted does indeed look like a train wreck in terms of understanding exercise physiology... That is from my hobbyist perspective.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

SwiftSolo said:


> ...researchers should be listened to in the context of knowing much more than we do, but with the skepticism appropriate for someone that likely knows less than half of what will eventually be learned.


New understanding leads to new discoveries, etc., etc., It's an unending cycle.

A couple of of the never ending challenges to biophysical, physiological, neuromuscular, and related kinds of research are the studies are always very limited in what they can actually test and probe, and the subjects themselves are quite varied. Then there are constraints in how much you can control a subject (they aren't lab rats kept in a cage under controlled conditions), and the fact that they will only be available for a limited period of time to study (they live real, continuing lives). Then there are also ethical boundaries on what can be tested and explored. All of those, in turn, restrict our understanding. It helps to figure out what those boundaries of understanding are, and then not be limited or by a lack of knowledge in exploring new possibilities.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Well maybe not naked mental strength if you're using a 42/21! You could be spinning at 82.5 rpms on a 34/28. In fact, you could shift into your 25 tooth and save that 28 for a steep climb! Just saying.


Fredrico said:


> Yeah. Nobody's going to convince me climbing up a steep incline for all I'm worth, barely pushing the crank down at 50 rpm isn't a naked use of strength!


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

pittcanna said:


> ...
> Also watch the rear wheel speed of an erg trainer. Same wattage but higher cadences will produce a faster rear wheel speed by a mile or 2 an hour.


Okay, same power at different cadences produces different measured speeds on the Wahoo Kickr trainer? I believe you found the limits of either precision or accuracy for your system.


----------



## pittcanna (Oct 2, 2014)

ibericb said:


> Okay, same power at different cadences produces different measured speeds on the Wahoo Kickr trainer? I believe you found the limits of either precision or accuracy for your system.


Nothing wrong with the precision. ERG mode drops resistance the faster you spin up. so the flywheel will spin faster. You are not changing gears as that is not necessary in erg mode.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

pittcanna said:


> Nothing wrong with the precision. ERG mode drops resistance the faster you spin up. so the flywheel will spin faster. You are not changing gears as that is not necessary in erg mode.


Right. But if at two different cadences you see two different speeds for the same power, then either the speed measurement is in error, or in the erg mode the power is actually not the same at different cadence. The same power should produce the same speed. If not, then there is an error in the system, somewhere.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

PBL450 said:


> I'm not actually questioning the knowledge base, I'm questioning the credentials required to dismiss others.


What? This is like the anti-appeal to authority argument. How does the validity of data or the proper interpretation of it depend on what degree a person does or doesn't have? Either an argument stands on its own merits or it doesn't. A weak argument doesn't get stronger when repeated by a PhD and a strong argument isn't weaker for having been put forward by someone with no training at all.


----------



## pittcanna (Oct 2, 2014)

ibericb said:


> Right. But if at two different cadences you see two different speeds for the same power, then either the speed measurement is in error, or in the erg mode the power is actually not the same at different cadence. The same power should produce the same speed. If not, then there is an error in the system, somewhere.


No error, the resistance drops the faster you spin. So output is the same.


----------



## cobra_kai (Jul 22, 2014)

This is true on a trainer that is holding power output constant but if you were biking in the real world then a higher cadence at the same gear ratio will result in both a higher speed and a higher power. Assuming other conditions are constant of course.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Please synopsize what you're talking about.  I don't see any difference between your understanding and mine of the issues. We are arguing over terminology, IMO. We agree on the basic issues. Precisely where am I mistaken?


Terminology matters, because in science precise terminology conveys precise meaning. If you choose to use incorrect terminology, then misunderstandings will arise and cause confusion (a classic example is the complete misuse of the term "strength"). 

However it's more than _simply _terminology. Even with some leeway given on use of more lay versions of terminology (which is to be expected in forums and general discourse, and I'm no different in this regard), there are some things that are still incorrect assertions no matter the terminology used.

Commentators on here are right in that I should not have phrased my blanket statement so dismissively. 

In my defence this was probably due to the fact that corrections of your misunderstandings (e.g. fibre type recruitment) have been made several times and yet you persist in making the same mistaken claims. I encourage you to go away and do some research into the subject. I also did follow up with some extra clarifications.

Rather than an outright dismissal, I should instead have remarked that this thread is a prime example of the Dunning Kruger effect.

In any case, there is nothing personal and I trust everyone is riding well and enjoying life!


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Yeah. Nobody's going to convince me climbing up a steep incline for all I'm worth, barely pushing the crank down at 50 rpm isn't a naked use of strength!


This a classic example of your desire to cling to a mistaken understanding of physiology and physics.


Suggestion: do the maths and work out what the forces exerted by both legs are. 

Let me know once you've worked out they represent a minor fraction of our maximal force exertion capability (i.e. strength).


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> Yeah. Nobody's going to convince me climbing up a steep incline for all I'm worth, barely pushing the crank down at 50 rpm isn't a naked use of strength!


I have no idea what 'naked use for strength' means and in this particular instance I'm praying I don't find out.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

pittcanna said:


> No error, the resistance drops the faster you spin. So output is the same.


Okay, then obviously I don't understand something. PLease explain to how, at the same identical power at the rear hub equivalent, regardless of cadence, you get different speeds? The physics, as I understand it, doesn't jive.


----------



## rchung (Apr 19, 2009)




----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

ibericb said:


> Okay, then obviously I don't understand something. PLease explain to how, at the same identical power at the rear hub equivalent, regardless of cadence, you get different speeds? The physics, as I understand it, doesn't jive.


I can't be certain of what the OP meant, but there are computer controlled trainers (e.g. Computrainer, Wahoo Kickr etc) that can be programmed to maintain a constant power load irrespective of the hub's rotational speed (within reasonable limits). IOW it doesn't matter what gear you choose or how quickly you pedal, if the resistance load has been set to say 200W, it will maintain 200W. Attempt to push harder and the trainer will simply let you spin along and not increase the load. Attempt to pedal more easily and it will respond by making you push harder to get back to the pre-set load.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> LMAO!
> 
> I agree completely. Cannondales are faster than Treks!


You may have a point there, Swift. :yesnod:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

ibericb said:


> Okay, then obviously I don't understand something. PLease explain to how, at the same identical power at the rear hub equivalent, regardless of cadence, you get different speeds? The physics, as I understand it, doesn't jive.


To get the same watts, shift into the next easier gear and pedal faster.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

PBL450 said:


> Not sure why you quoted me... My point is simply about credibility in making sweeping assertions about the knowledge base of the people presenting in this thread. Some of what you have posted does indeed look like a train wreck in terms of understanding exercise physiology... That is from my hobbyist perspective.


 So what specifically makes you think that?


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

It should be obvious. I'm agreeing with you that using a 42/21 or 42/23 is idiotic for any kind of significant climbing. You are right on!:thumbsup:


Fredrico said:


> You may have a point there, Swift. :yesnod:


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> I can't be certain of what the OP meant, but there are computer controlled trainers (e.g. Computrainer, Wahoo Kickr etc) that can be programmed to maintain a constant power load irrespective of the hub's rotational speed (within reasonable limits). IOW it doesn't matter what gear you choose or how quickly you pedal, if the resistance load has been set to say 200W, it will maintain 200W. Attempt to push harder and the trainer will simply let you spin along and not increase the load. Attempt to pedal more easily and it will respond by making you push harder to get back to the pre-set load.


Yep, got that. That's exactly what pittcanna is doing. He's running a Wahoo Kickr (the full direct drive Kickr) in erg mode (constant load). But he states that in that mode as he changes gears to alter cadence against the same load, from very low cadence to very high, he gets different "speed" results (I presume he means steady state speed against the same load). So it seems to me that something is amiss. My guess is that there's some slop in the speed equivalent reporting, but honestly I have no idea what leads to the variation he describes.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> This a classic example of your desire to cling to a mistaken understanding of physiology and physics.
> 
> 
> Suggestion: do the maths and work out what the forces exerted by both legs are.
> ...


If I can only squeeze out cadence at 40 rpm, I'm going anaerobic and calling in the fast twitch {strength muscles].

Can I get away with measuring power workouts by heart rate? I don't pedal a bike the same as doing squats with 100 pound barbell over the shoulders. I want to go up the road, so I keep it at best just below AT. 

You fall into agreeing with my argument: pedaling faster lowers the necessary strength to push down the pedals, enables aerobic metabolism to take over, saves the fast twitch for the sprint to the finish line, and is the essence of cycling, which is, when all is said, an endurance sport.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

wim said:


> Also consider that the title of this thread ("when did cadence change?") is a leading question comparable to the classic "when did you stop beating you wife?" I don't think it has ever been established that "cadence changed" universally. I've got Euro training literature from the 1960s in my book shelf proclaiming that "the ability to ride at a relatively high cadence is the foundation of all successful racing."


Exactly.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

asgelle said:


> What? This is like the anti-appeal to authority argument. How does the validity of data or the proper interpretation of it depend on what degree a person does or doesn't have? Either an argument stands on its own merits or it doesn't. A weak argument doesn't get stronger when repeated by a PhD and a strong argument isn't weaker for having been put forward by someone with no training at all.


Right.. Dismissing an opposing view is no argument at all. :frown2:


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

DaveWC said:


> The very definition of biting off more than you can chew.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not trying to win the Internet. I don't find any shame or dishonor in back pedaling. I could care less. I look forward to every post the coach writes because I learn from them. What I posted is only in to regard to referring to everyone on the thread as a train wreck. That isn't the case. And if you were to say that, then someone needs to have declared you an expert in my opinion. In our culture, expert, when referring to physiology, is often reserved for someone who has attained an advanced degree in the field. There are people posting on this thread that are knowledgable. I have made that point clear. I also now realize the coach wasn't referring to everyone and was frustrated. I get that... I took the Statement literally. He didn't mean it that way. This is human communication. It's a wonderful thing, you should try it!


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Jay Strongbow said:


> I have no idea what 'naked use for strength' means and in this particular instance I'm praying I don't find out.


I should have said "obvious."


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> It should be obvious. I'm agreeing with you that using a 42/21 or 42/23 is idiotic for any kind of significant climbing. You are right on!:thumbsup:


Don't change the subject, Swifty. :nono: We're talking frame construction, carbon weaves, subtile variations in geometry, and those elastomer shocks Trek is putting on the seat stays of their bikes.  

Must admit, if I were going to Northern Italy and doing any of those mountain passes, I'd have a 39-28 at least.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Fredrico said:


> Must admit, if I were going to Northern Italy and doing any of those mountain passes, I'd have a 39-28 at least.


Probably be a good idea to bring along a good pair of walking shoes too.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

velodog said:


> Probably be a good idea to bring along a good pair of walking shoes too.


The day I stop on a hill and get off to walk will be the day an ambulance takes me to ER!


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> Yep, those wanting to win the TDF are only concerned about fashion not speed over time.
> 
> And yes, I am aware that pro racers are riding slow bikes with bad gearing in order to appease corporate conspirators who force cleaver marketing on us poor victims. Maybe someday someone will mutiny and kick everybody's ass by riding a superior steel 6 speed friction shifter. That'd teach those Bass turds.
> 
> Is their motive based on the massively increased profitability of selling bikes with bigger cogs?


Steel is real, man. Believe it. :yesnod: 

Today's elite racers may be faster, owing to better health and nutrition, smarter training programs, lighter bikes, and ok, lower gears. But they also know how to pedal fast, the subject of this thread, and they're the ones winning races.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> If I can only squeeze out cadence at 40 rpm, I'm going anaerobic and calling in the fast twitch {strength muscles].
> 
> Can I get away with measuring power workouts by heart rate? I don't pedal a bike the same as doing squats with 100 pound barbell over the shoulders. I want to go up the road, so I keep it at best just below AT.
> 
> You fall into agreeing with my argument: pedaling faster lowers the necessary strength to push down the pedals, enables aerobic metabolism to take over, saves the fast twitch for the sprint to the finish line, and is the essence of cycling, which is, when all is said, an endurance sport.


There is little to no agreement. Your understanding of physics and physiology is flawed. Given that you are unable to accept this, nor attempt to learn, there is little more I can do to help.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

ibericb said:


> Yep, got that. That's exactly what pittcanna is doing. He's running a Wahoo Kickr (the full direct drive Kickr) in erg mode (constant load). But he states that in that mode as he changes gears to alter cadence against the same load, from very low cadence to very high, he gets different "speed" results (I presume he means steady state speed against the same load). So it seems to me that something is amiss. My guess is that there's some slop in the speed equivalent reporting, but honestly I have no idea what leads to the variation he describes.


The speed can vary freely at same power on such trainers.

I can set up my Computrainer, use erg mode to set a load of 200W, and make the wheel spin from 15 to 45 km/h and use a wide range of gearing to pedal from 50 to 120 rpm across a range of speeds and the power load will remain at 200W. Power will of course vary for a few seconds while I make significant changes to gear/wheel speed, but after a few seconds it will settle back down to the pre-set power level, no matter how fast I am pedalling or how rapidly the wheel is turning.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> The speed can vary freely at same power on such trainers.
> 
> I can set up my Computrainer, use erg mode to set a load of 200W, and make the wheel spin from 15 to 45 km/h and use a wide range of gearing to pedal from 50 to 120 rpm across a range of speeds and the power load will remain at 200W. Power will of course vary for a few seconds while I make significant changes to gear/wheel speed, but after a few seconds it will settle back down to the pre-set power level, no matter how fast I am pedalling or how rapidly the wheel is turning.


:idea: I believe that's also true on the road.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Unless your wheel is slipping, with all other factors remaining the same, 200 watts will always produce the same speed in the real world and on any virtual training that is worth a crap.

If wind, gradient, road surface conditions, tire pressure, rider drag, total weight or drive train efficiency change there will be an exception.


Fredrico said:


> :idea: I believe that's also true on the road.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> :idea: I believe that's also true on the road.


No, it's not. On the road the power required to sustain a given wheel speed is a function of the various resistance forces involved (e.g. air resistance, rolling resistance, changes in gravitational potential energy). You cannot simply change speed on the road without changing the power demand.

This is basic physics.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> The speed can vary freely at same power on such trainers. ...


So what is the trainer simulating with that kind of variation of steady state "speed" with changes in cadence at a consistent power? Grade change, or different aerodynamic drag, or ...?


----------



## crit_boy (Aug 6, 2013)

ibericb said:


> So what is the trainer simulating with that kind of variation of steady state "speed" with changes in cadence at a consistent power? Grade change, or different aerodynamic drag, or ...?


Are you old guys really baffled by the concept of erg mode? 

It is not trying to simulate anything. Erg mode maintains a determined power (power set by the user or training software). It simply requires the rider to maintain constant power output. For example, 200W means the rider has to make 200W to keep the trainer spinning. The 200W can be at a rear wheel speed equivalent to 10 mph or 50 mph, a cadence of 20 rpm or 150 rpm, etc. The constant is power. 

Erg Mode Explained ? TrainerRoad


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

crit_boy said:


> Are you old guys really baffled by the concept of erg mode?


Not baffled by the concept at all. What's unclear is why does the supposed speed change with cadence at constant power or load? 

On the road, if all resistance components are the same (aero drag, road grade, rolling resistance, etc.), and the power is the same, the resultant speed doesn't depend on cadence. So if I'm on a trainer in erg mode, and the speed is different at different cadence, then either the trainer is simulating a change in one of the resistance components (drag, grade, ...), or the speed is a meaningless reference altogether in that mode, or I am missing something pretty fundamental.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

ibericb said:


> So what is the trainer simulating with that kind of variation of steady state "speed" with changes in cadence at a consistent power? Grade change, or different aerodynamic drag, or ...?


It's not a simulation of anything. It's simply a means of providing a programmable resistance level.

e.g. say you wanted to program a training session with some intervals at a specific wattage level. That's what this mode of trainer enables. It doesn't care how fast the hub/wheel or your legs move - it simply provides a constant power load as per the set program. You can choose any gear, pedal at any rate at it will force you to maintain the programmed wattage.

Such trainers also have a course mode, whereby you enter in parameters like weight, aero drag factor, gradient and wind vectors and the trainer then simulates the resistance relative to the speed you are attempting to ride at. In this mode such trainers are simulating the actual resistance of riding on the road and the speed and power you ride at reflect what happens outside. Drop your effort level and you ride more slowly. How well it simulates the actual net resistance forces of outdoor riding is a matter of software and hardware.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

ibericb said:


> Not baffled by the concept at all. What's unclear is why does the supposed speed change with cadence at constant power or load?
> 
> On the road, if all resistance components are the same (aero drag, road grade, rolling resistance, etc.), and the power is the same, the resultant speed doesn't depend on cadence. So if I'm on a trainer in erg mode, and the speed is different at different cadence, then either the trainer is simulating a change in one of the resistance components (drag, grade, ...), or the speed is a meaningless reference altogether in that mode, or I am missing something pretty fundamental.


In erg mode, speed is meaningless. It's a wattage level that matters.

Erg programs stipulate a power to be maintained for a given duration.

Since metabolic fitness improvements are primary purpose of such training, intensity (power) and duration are all that really matters.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> No, it's not. On the road the power required to sustain a given wheel speed is a function of the various resistance forces involved (e.g. air resistance, rolling resistance, changes in gravitational potential energy). You cannot simply change speed on the road without changing the power demand.
> 
> This is basic physics.


Of course, but road conditions are only variations of the "load," which, as I gather can be fixed on a trainer to one value. I can't see how you could simply change speed of the rear wheel in a trainer without changing the power demand either, no?


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> It's not a simulation of anything. It's simply a means of providing a programmable resistance level.
> 
> e.g. say you wanted to program a training session with some intervals at a specific wattage level. That's what this mode of trainer enables. It doesn't care how fast the hub/wheel or your legs move - it simply provides a constant power load as per the set program. You can choose any gear, pedal at any rate at it will force you to maintain the programmed wattage.


Coach, I really appreciate your help here. I completely understand what erg mode does. I also understand how it's done, at least on th Kickr. I understand it, or at least thought I did, because I have been seriously considering buying one, and have been all over the mechanics, etc. of the trainer. I appreciate the training utility of erg mode - it's a cool feature. What I don't get is _why the apparent speed at a single, fixed, constant load is dependent on cadence_. 

The only thing that makes sense to me at this point is it has to do, somehow, with the timing or frequency of the resistance mechanism. Since that's developed by the timing and strength of the resistive force developed electromagnetically, that would almost make sense to me, and would seem to be something akin to drive train efficiency on a road bike, on the road, facing an otherwise constant and uniform collection of resistive forces.

If I'm really missing it, I sincerely hope you'll try one more time to help me resolve my confusion, because I'm really struggling with understanding the cause and effect relationship here between cadence and apparent speed at a constant power.


----------



## rchung (Apr 19, 2009)

ibericb said:


> What I don't get is _why the apparent speed at a single, fixed, constant load is dependent on cadence_.


You're thinking of different "loads." In an erg, the load isn't fixed at a single constant number. If it were, you'd have a conventional trainer whose load is fixed by design, and to increase power you'd have to alter wheel speed. But in an erg, the load isn't fixed by design -- the power can be fixed, so the load varies as wheel speed changes. Wheel speed depends on cadence and gear, so changing wheel speed must be accompanied by a changing load in order for power to remain constant.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Of course, but road conditions are only variations of the "load," which, as I gather can be fixed on a trainer to one value. I can't see how you could simply change speed of the rear wheel in a trainer without changing the power demand either, no?


You can change the load and therefore the wheel speed with the same power input on most trainers.

Virtual training uses google earth to plot the GPS track that you took on a real ride to determine the road gradient of small segments of the ride. It then computes how much power it takes to move your weight (total combined weight) up or across that gradient at various speeds. It automatically adjusts the resistance on the drive wheel to match the speed that your current power input would generate in the real world. Since you have input all of the cogs and rings electronically, it automatically causes you to ride that gradient at your current power and in your current gear at the appropriate cadence (too big a gear and your cadence may drop so low that you can no longer turn the cranks). The video frames are associated/attached to the GPS location so that when you stop, the video stops progressing and when you speed up so does the video. 

In the end, you end up at the top of Mt Wilson having used the same gears to produce the same speed with the same power in the same locations while seeing the same visuals you experienced on the real ride.

Others input/share their gps data and video on famous rides around the world so that you can do/experience the famous rides anywhere while riding in your garage. A couple of flaws include the impact of oxygen deprivation at high altitudes, it doesn't know how much or which direction the wind was blowing, it makes no allowance for rough road surface conditions, and it allow you to ride sharp downhill hairpins much faster than actually possible. Since the fame of a ride is usually associated with climbs, you usually use the downhills to rest and forgo sprinting out of the hairpins. Over time, you learn to adjust your claimed weight to adjust a given training ride for road conditions and altitude


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Steel is real, man. Believe it. :yesnod:
> 
> Today's elite racers may be faster, owing to better health and nutrition, smarter training programs, lighter bikes, and ok, lower gears. But they also know how to pedal fast, the subject of this thread, a*nd they're the ones winning races. *


Only one or them. The rest are all losers!


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

rchung said:


> In an erg, the load isn't fixed at a single constant number. If it were, you'd have a conventional trainer whose load is fixed by design, and to increase power you'd have to alter wheel speed. But in an erg, the load isn't fixed by design -- the power can be fixed, so the load varies as wheel speed changes. Wheel speed depends on cadence and gear, so changing wheel speed must be accompanied by a changing load in order for power to remain constant.


What you are describing is pretty much the opposite of what others, and Kickr describe (see also here). In the erg mode the resistive load is maintained at a preset constant, and remains there regardless of cadence and gear ratio selected. It is a specified, fixed, constant load.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

ibericb said:


> What you are describing is pretty much the opposite of what others, and Kickr describe (see also here). In the erg mode the resistive load is maintained at a preset constant, and remains there regardless of cadence and gear ratio selected. It is a specified, fixed, constant load.


Don't confuse a constant _power _load with a constant _force or torque_ load. 

The _power _in erg mode is kept constant because the _torque _resistance applied by the unit is automatically varied inversely with the roller's rotational speed such that any variations in wheel speed result in the same power load.

The unit detect the changes in wheel speed and adjusts the resistance force (torque) accordingly, and such changes are made at a fairly high frequency.

e.g. if wheel speed increases, because say you decide to pedal faster or use a bigger gear with same cadence, then the unit will reduce the torque required to spin the trainer's roller. It reduces the torque load just the right amount such that power load is kept constant (as per the programmed power load).

Torque = power / rotational velocity

_This is the exact relationship shown in the chart posted by rchung above. The only minor difference for a CT trainer is the rotational speed and torque measured and controlled is that of the trainer's roller, and that is simply a constant factor of the wheel's speed and torque, with the factor being the ratio of the tyre and roller's diameter.
_
Measurement of rotational velocity is not difficult. The small roller on a Computrainer rotates approximately 25 times for each wheel revolution (diameter of wheel's tyre / diameter of roller), so the roller's rotational speed can be easily measured with such frequency*, and the torque adjusted (IOW the electro braking applied to the roller and controlled by the unit's firmware) can be adjusted with high frequency.


* e.g. if you use a 53/16 gear at 50rpm, with a 700c wheel, then the roller will be rotating at ~ 70 revs per second, and at 100rpm cadence it will be rotating at ~140 revs per second. In that case, the unit will apply half the torque to the roller when the roller's speed is doubled, and in that way it keeps the power load constant.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Of course, but road conditions are only variations of the "load," which, as I gather can be fixed on a trainer to one value. I can't see how you could simply change speed of the rear wheel in a trainer without changing the power demand either, no?


Perhaps my latest post will help. 

Don't confuse a constant _power _demand with a constant resistance _force_. Power and force are not the same thing (basic physics).

The power load can be kept constant on such trainers in erg mode because the trainers can automatically and inversely vary the torque resistance applied to the roller as wheel speed varies and by this automatic adjustment it maintains a constant power.

That's not possible when out riding on the road.


----------



## rchung (Apr 19, 2009)

Are you sorry to responded in this thread yet? I've only posted thrice, and I'm ready to slit my wrists.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> Only one or them. The rest are all losers!


.. ready for victory on another day!


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> You can change the load and therefore the wheel speed with the same power input on most trainers.
> 
> Virtual training uses google earth to plot the GPS track that you took on a real ride to determine the road gradient of small segments of the ride. It then computes how much power it takes to move your weight (total combined weight) up or across that gradient at various speeds. It automatically adjusts the resistance on the drive wheel to match the speed that your current power input would generate in the real world. Since you have input all of the cogs and rings electronically, it automatically causes you to ride that gradient at your current power and in your current gear at the appropriate cadence (too big a gear and your cadence may drop so low that you can no longer turn the cranks). The video frames are associated/attached to the GPS location so that when you stop, the video stops progressing and when you speed up so does the video.
> 
> ...


Great!  But you can't get out of the house! :frown2: I like my adventures in 3D. Do they have 3D versions?


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Got it. I wasn't confused about torque (or force) vs. power. That I understand, at least for a conventional bike. It's the varied speed vs. constant power thing in erg mode that has me befuddled.

I guess I need to let it sink in a bit and see if I come to one of those aha! moments.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Don't confuse a constant _power _load with a constant _force or torque_ load.
> 
> The _power _in erg mode is kept constant because the _torque _resistance applied by the unit is automatically varied inversely with the roller's rotational speed such that any variations in wheel speed result in the same power load.
> 
> ...


I'd be interested in what benefit rider achieves from maintaining the same power level regardless of gear and cadence?  Wouldn't it be like riding along a flat at a certain power measured in watts, and when the grade goes down a headwind comes up, so rider has to keep up the same effort? Then when the grade goes up, the wind shifts to his back, pushing him up the grade at the same power?

And I still don't see why riders couldn't train by heart rate. There's a direct relationship between power and heart rate, isn't that right? Can't have one without the other!


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Fredrico said:


> And I still don't see why riders couldn't train by heart rate. There's a direct relationship between power and heart rate, isn't that right? Can't have one without the other!


Performance art. (bad performance art)


----------



## crit_boy (Aug 6, 2013)

)


Fredrico said:


> I'd be interested in what benefit rider achieves from maintaining the same power level regardless of gear and cadence?  Wouldn't it be like riding along a flat at a certain power measured in watts, and when the grade goes down a headwind comes up, so rider has to keep up the same effort? Then when the grade goes up, the wind shifts to his back, pushing him up the grade at the same power?
> 
> And I still don't see why riders couldn't train by heart rate. There's a direct relationship between power and heart rate, isn't that right? Can't have one without the other!


:mad2:


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

rchung said:


> Are you sorry to responded in this thread yet? I've only posted thrice, and I'm ready to slit my wrists.


It's a bit of light comic relief.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

ibericb said:


> Got it. I wasn't confused about torque (or force) vs. power. That I understand, at least for a conventional bike. It's the varied speed vs. constant power thing in erg mode that has me befuddled.
> 
> I guess I need to let it sink in a bit and see if I come to one of those aha! moments.


You'll get it I'm sure.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Fredrico said:


> I'd be interested in what benefit rider achieves from maintaining the same power level regardless of gear and cadence?  Wouldn't it be like riding along a flat at a certain power measured in watts, and when the grade goes down a headwind comes up, so rider has to keep up the same effort? Then when the grade goes up, the wind shifts to his back, pushing him up the grade at the same power?
> 
> And I still don't see why riders couldn't train by heart rate. There's a direct relationship between power and heart rate, isn't that right? Can't have one without the other!


Watts is watts but heart rate changes with wellness or lack of wellness.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> And I still don't see why riders couldn't train by heart rate. There's a direct relationship between power and heart rate,* isn't that right*? Can't have one without the other!


No. Early in a ride (before fatigue sets in) a moderate heart rate will produce much higher power than that same heart rate later in the ride.

If you know your best one hour average heart rate and run it up to that level early in a one hour ride and maintain it until the end, you will have a mediocre ride and feel like sh!t afterward and probably the next day. 

If you know your best one hour average power and do the entire ride at that level, it will be faster (you will go farther in one hour) and you will feel better physically when you finish. You will have seen a relatively low heart rate through the middle of the ride, a rate that approaches your one hour average at 45 minutes and the ability to approach your max heart rate for the last several minutes


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> I'd be interested in what benefit rider achieves from maintaining the same power level regardless of gear and cadence?


That's because metabolic adaptations are induced by a combination of intensity of effort (i.e. power output) and duration of effort. What cadence you are riding at isn't all that important. It's certainly way less important than the power you are riding at.

Hence why erg control on such electro-braked computer controlled trainers are very effective training tools since they control the two things that matter most - how hard you are riding and for how long.

Of course you don't need a computer controlled trainer to ride at a given power for a given duration, you can manage that on any trainer (or suitable outdoor course) - it just makes the process of achieving such training goals easier.

Hard to fake an interval set when the power demand is pre-controlled for you.



Fredrico said:


> Wouldn't it be like riding along a flat at a certain power measured in watts, and when the grade goes down a headwind comes up, so rider has to keep up the same effort? Then when the grade goes up, the wind shifts to his back, pushing him up the grade at the same power?


Sort of. 

It's more like riding at the same power and allowing your speed to vary as resistance forces vary (wind, gradient etc). i.e. go slower up hills and into the wind and faster on the flats and with tailwind.



Fredrico said:


> And I still don't see why riders couldn't train by heart rate. There's a direct relationship between power and heart rate, isn't that right? Can't have one without the other!


The correlation between HR and power output exists but it's quite a variable correlation and not a particularly strong one when outdoors and riding involves somewhat variable and harder efforts (which is pretty common).

For sure you can use HR as a guide to intensity of effort, but it has many limitations: namely it it a lag indicator (takes quite a while for HR to respond to actual changes in energy demand), it has a natural day to day variability for the same power output, heart rate will exhibit a variable level of cardiac drift for the same energy demand, it's utility is non-existent for shorter and harder efforts and it is significantly affected by many factors other than how hard you are riding your bike.

As a general guide for intensity of sub-threshold quasi steady state riding, it's OK. 

As a guide to threshold level effort, well it takes some experience to understand how to pace them, as HR is not a constant during such effort, nor does it have a constant rate of change during well paced efforts.

For supra threshold and highly variable efforts, HR is pretty useless as a guide to intensity while riding.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> You'll get it I'm sure.


Thanks for the vote of confidence. I know this feeling well from my career past.

Here's my dilemma -- a hypothetical -- suppose I ride a bike under perfect, non-varying resistance conditions. Over the course of the ride I have an absolutely invariant road grade, the air is still (no wind), I am able to hold the exact same position indefinitely such that CdA remains invariant, and nothing on the bike changes over the course of the ride (Crr, bearings, drivetrain efficiency all remain constant). I neither gain nor lose weight over the ride, and the load on the bike remains constant. I ride at the same power output throughout, X watts. Now suppose I shift gears but also adjust my cadence and force such that the power remains exactly the same, gear change to gear change. 

What happens to my speed in that ideal, hypothetical situation?


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

ibericb said:


> What happens to my speed in that ideal, hypothetical situation?


Nothing.

Assuming of course that you had attained a steady state speed, in other words the power supply was in already balance with the power demand.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Nothing.
> 
> Assuming of course that you had attained a steady state speed, in other words the power supply was in already balance with the power demand.


Right, exactly as I thought. Hence my confusion over the trainer in erg mode, and different speeds reported at the same power for different gear/cadence combinations.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

When it's 38 degrees and raining like hell and the wind is blowing dogs off chains, who wants to get out of the house?


Fredrico said:


> Great!  But you can't get out of the house! :frown2: I like my adventures in 3D. Do they have 3D versions?


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

It seems clear that the level or resistance changes--much like changing the gradient in the real world or in virtual training? I can't see any other possibility. 

What causes it to decide to do that--I don't have a clue.


ibericb said:


> Right, exactly as I thought. Hence my confusion over the trainer in erg mode, and different speeds reported at the same power for different gear/cadence combinations.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Just to be sure we are all talking abut the same effect, my questioning arose from this post in this thread, and specifically this statement in that post:



pittcanna said:


> Also watch the rear wheel speed of an erg trainer. Same wattage but higher cadences will produce a faster rear wheel speed by a mile or 2 an hour.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> That's because metabolic adaptations are induced by a combination of intensity of effort (i.e. power output) and duration of effort. What cadence you are riding at isn't all that important. It's certainly way less important than the power you are riding at.
> 
> Hence why erg control on such electro-braked computer controlled trainers are very effective training tools since they control the two things that matter most - how hard you are riding and for how long.
> 
> ...


_Hard to fake an interval set when the power demand is pre-controlled for you._ I think I understand what you mean.  No cheating; discipline the legs to stay on top of the gear, the mind not to give up. The body adapts, can we say not only in "strength," but also metabolic processes that increase sustainable "power?" 

If we define sustainable power as essentially aerobic, then in the interest of endurance, rider should reduce efforts to just below AT, so as to capitalize on the aerobic muscle fibers. 

I'm still skeptical as to whether no matter what cadence, the legs can deliver the same power sustainable for the length of the same interval. I've found I can sustain considerably more power climbing at 95 rpm than I could at 60 rpm; as measured in speed, the difference between 12 mph and 9 mph.

Yep, heart rate delays after exertion can confuse the issue, but there's still enough consistency so rider can use it to gauge performance, IMO, at least rider's immediate capabilities. He can average over multiple sessions to get a pretty good idea of where he's at delivering power, as measured in speed at a given heart rate. It would be nice to know what my power capabilities are, but I'm just not ready to get a watt meter. 

I've also noticed 90-95 rpm stimulates the heart quickly, delays the inevitable increases into anaerobic when working hard, and when the interval or climb is over, rider recovers more quickly than if the effort was done in low cadence, 50-60 rpm, producing the same speed. And this is good for conditioning the heart to handle greater power demands over longer periods of time. 

But what you seem to be saying is cadence doesn't matter. I have a problem with that.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

ibericb said:


> Just to be sure we are all talking abut the same effect, my questioning arose from this post in this thread, and specifically this statement in that post:


Ahah! Is pittcanna's data correct?


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

I missed that ibericb--sorry. I'm guessing that there is some fairly substantial flaws in the resistance control of that system.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

I think you are taking much of what he has said out of context. It goes without saying that extending cadence to the limits of the commonly used range is not his point. Further, if you look at cadence scatter graphs, you'll find that, in practice, most of us put out our highest power at lower cadence. That is simply because, most of the time when your cadence falls much below optimum, you have run out of gears and you are mashing hard because the gradient leaves you no option.


Fredrico said:


> _Hard to fake an interval set when the power demand is pre-controlled for you._ I think I understand what you mean.  No cheating; discipline the legs to stay on top of the gear, the mind not to give up. The body adapts, can we say not only in "strength," but also metabolic processes that increase sustainable "power?"
> 
> If we define sustainable power as essentially aerobic, then in the interest of endurance, rider should reduce efforts to just below AT, so as to capitalize on the aerobic muscle fibers.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> I think you are taking much of what he has said out of context. It goes without saying that extending cadence to the limits of the commonly used range is not his point. Further, if you look at cadence scatter graphs, you'll find that, in practice, most of us put out our highest power at lower cadence. That is simply because, most of the time when your cadence falls much below optimum, you have run out of gears and you are mashing hard because the gradient leaves you no option.


Yes, the highest power per pedal stroke is achieved with a deliberate push purposely contracting the quads at 70 rpm, but what about sustained power over several minutes or gosh, several hours? Rider must work within aerobic capabilities. Whatever power he can produce is then dependent on his lungs, heart, arteries, capillaries, and slow twitch muscles that metabolize oxygen and nutrients into energy. Sure, rider could up shift and do the same work in lower cadence, but he'll probably slow down, certainly quicker than if he had a good spin going. 

Of course when rider gets in his lowest gear and still can't stay on top of the gear, then he does the best his legs can do, jamming each stroke down with the quads, soon blowing up, having to get off the bike and weep. :frown2:

BTW, 40 inch gears, such as 42-28, are still not high enough that ordinary riders can't handle climbs using them. At least that was true up until bike manufacturers popularized lower gears, to keep buyers lusting for the latest thing, or avoid liability for beating up the legs of owners and destroying their knees. Same with cleats that float, and lawyer lips on what used to be accurately called "dropouts." :frown2:


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

ibericb said:


> Right, exactly as I thought. Hence my confusion over the trainer in erg mode, and different speeds reported at the same power for different gear/cadence combinations.


And that's because the erg can vary the roller's torque no matter what the wheel's speed is so as to maintain a constant power, unlike when riding on the road, where a change of wheel speed by definition requires a change of power, and the cadence and crank torque that results is then simply a function of gear choice (ceteris paribus).


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> _Hard to fake an interval set when the power demand is pre-controlled for you._ I think I understand what you mean.  No cheating; discipline the legs to stay on top of the gear, the mind not to give up. The body adapts, can we say not only in "strength," but also metabolic processes that increase sustainable "power?"


Strength is neither relevant nor impacted by endurance cycling. Sustainable power is. Strength and sustainable power are unrelated. Please, if you learn one thing here, make it this.



Fredrico said:


> If we define sustainable power as essentially aerobic, then in the interest of endurance, rider should reduce efforts to just below AT, so as to capitalize on the aerobic muscle fibers.


There is no need to define it.

Power is what it is and as defined in physics, i.e. the rate of energy transfer.

The metabolic energy pathways required to meet ongoing power demand are a mix of various aerobic and anaerobic systems but the aerobic systems dominate for efforts up to and including those that induce a state of VO2max. Indeed aerobic energy supply is dominant up to and include efforts down to as short as about a minute's duration.

Pacing your effort carefully up a climb makes sense if your objective is to maximise your overall speed. How much you tap into your anaerobic energy supply is then a function of duration of effort and how hard you wish to ride.



Fredrico said:


> I'm still skeptical as to whether no matter what cadence, the legs can deliver the same power sustainable for the length of the same interval. I've found I can sustain considerably more power climbing at 95 rpm than I could at 60 rpm; as measured in speed, the difference between 12 mph and 9 mph.


On a steep climb, that's equivalent to more than a 25% difference in power output simply because your gear has changed while still being within reasonable cadence range. I call BS.



Fredrico said:


> Yep, heart rate delays after exertion can confuse the issue, but there's still enough consistency so rider can use it to gauge performance, IMO, at least rider's immediate capabilities. He can average over multiple sessions to get a pretty good idea of where he's at delivering power, as measured in speed at a given heart rate.


Heart rate is not and never will be a measure of performance. It is a measure of heart beat rate and by proxy cardiac output (although that will vary with stroke volume as well).

Speed is a poor measure of performance due to all the variables involved that affect speed for a given power output.

At best under controlled conditions you might be able to estimate power up a steep climb to within 5% with speed data but even the slightest bit of breeze will see a sizeable error. On flatter terrain you will be fooling yourself.



Fredrico said:


> It would be nice to know what my power capabilities are, but I'm just not ready to get a watt meter.


I agree it's nice, but it's not necessary to train reasonably well. However it does remove a lot of the guesstimation about how hard you really are working.

Keep in mind that you are outputting power whether or not you are measuring it.



Fredrico said:


> I've also noticed 90-95 rpm stimulates the heart quickly, delays the inevitable increases into anaerobic when working hard,


Again, the energy pathways used to support the energy demand are a function of power, not of the cadence.



Fredrico said:


> and when the interval or climb is over, rider recovers more quickly than if the effort was done in low cadence, 50-60 rpm, producing the same speed.


Recovery rate is a function of the relative energy demand, fatigue and your fitness.



Fredrico said:


> And this is good for conditioning the heart to handle greater power demands over longer periods of time.


What conditions the heart, and indeed the entire cardiovascular system is sufficient and appropriate workload demands, i.e. a function of intensity and duration.



Fredrico said:


> But what you seem to be saying is cadence doesn't matter.


For the issues discussed in this thread, that precisely what I'm saying. Of course I don't mean ride stupidly fast or slow cadences. All one need do is to choose an effort level and then choose an appropriate gear. Metabolically there really is very little difference to adaptations induced when riding in different gears.

There will be some small differences in gross efficiency when pedalling at difference cadences and minor neuromuscular difference. but from the perspective of inducing positive adaptations to sustainable aerobic power, then no, cadence doesn't matter all that much. What does matter is the power you sustain and the duration you sustain it for.



Fredrico said:


> I have a problem with that.


That's fine but please don't inflict your belief- and anecdote- based approach on others.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Yes, the highest power per pedal stroke is achieved with a deliberate push purposely contracting the quads at 70 rpm, but what about sustained power over several minutes or gosh, several hours?


You mean like all those that have set world hour records, which on average are performed with a gear and power output that results in a little over 100rpm for most.

Or those that ride the individual pursuit that regularly average 110 to 120 rpm.

In maximal sprint efforts (i.e. a very short duration fast twitch dominant effort), the cadence attained at maximal peak power is typically between 120 and 140rpm.



Fredrico said:


> Rider must work within aerobic capabilities. Whatever power he can produce is then dependent on his lungs, heart, arteries, capillaries, and slow twitch muscles that metabolize oxygen and nutrients into energy. Sure, rider could up shift and do the same work in lower cadence, but he'll probably slow down, certainly quicker than if he had a good spin going.


Again for about the 10th time, muscle fibre recruitment and metabolic energy pathways used are a function of the energy demand (i.e. power), and not the cadence or gear.

Repeating the same mistaken beliefs over and over again does not make it right.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

This BS is simply too absurd to waste time on. Consider that you may have to repeat it a few more times before it will become rational.


Fredrico said:


> _BTW, 40 inch gears, such as 42-28, are still not high enough that ordinary riders can't handle climbs using them._ _At least that was true up until bike manufacturers popularized lower gears, to keep buyers lusting for the latest thing, or avoid liability for beating up the legs of owners and destroying their knees._ _Same with cleats that float, and lawyer lips on what used to be accurately called "dropouts." _ :frown2:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> You mean like all those that have set world hour records, which on average are performed with a gear and power output that results in a little over 100rpm for most.
> 
> Or those that ride the individual pursuit that regularly average 110 to 120 rpm.
> 
> ...


Ok, it's beginning to dawn on me that fast twitch fibers can work at very fast cadences as well as normal or slow cadences. This explains how track riders can have very stout legs, yet work at 100+ rpm cadences. I have misunderstood fast twitch as not being able to contract and relax fast enough to deliver full power above 90 rpm. When rider goes anaerobic the fast twitch are kicking in, no matter how fast he's pedaling, as you've pointed out several times. 

This has been an interesting discussion. I'm learning a lot, believe it or not.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> This BS is simply too absurd to waste time on. Consider that you may have to repeat it a few more times before it will become rational.


Just playing, Swift.  Forgive me.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Strength is neither relevant nor impacted by endurance cycling. Sustainable power is. Strength and sustainable power are unrelated. Please, if you learn one thing here, make it this.
> 
> 
> There is no need to define it.
> ...


Sorry, I kind of liked playing devil's advocate to get your response. I hope readers will get that.  Your thoughts are very much appreciated, and are correcting some long held mistaken assumptions I've had about cadence. Now that I think about it, I find plenty of anecdotal evidence, including my own, that supports what you're saying. I can't argue with your second to last paragraph. It's right on!


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> And that's because the erg can vary the roller's torque no matter what the wheel's speed is so as to maintain a constant power, unlike when riding on the road, where a change of wheel speed by definition requires a change of power, and the cadence and crank torque that results is then simply a function of gear choice (ceteris paribus).


I sense I may be closing in on that moment.

So, it seems that a trainer in erg mode, with varied cadence, at steady state, is fundamentally different than my hypothetical idealized ride on a road bike ridden at constant uniform power, with varied cadence, at steady state. I need to get my brain wrapped around this.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Fredrico said:


> Sorry, I kind of liked playing devil's advocate to get your response. I hope readers will get that.


As a reader, what I get is that your are a combination of clueless and a troll. If you want to play devil's advocate, fine, but make your arguments accurate and rational.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

ibericb said:


> I sense I may be closing in on that moment.
> 
> So, it seems that a trainer in erg mode, with varied cadence, at steady state, is fundamentally different than my hypothetical idealized ride on a road bike ridden at constant uniform power, with varied cadence, at steady state. I need to get my brain wrapped around this.


Maybe this will help. On the road, at steady velocity, power is a function of velocity. P=f(v)=Av+Bv^3. That is a constant, A*, times velocity plus a second constant, B*, times velocity cubed. On an erg trainer, P=C. That is, power is a constant and is independent of velocity with the constant being enforced by the load generator and software. So on the erg, whatever cadence I pedal at, the power will be the same. Similarly, whatever speed the wheel is turning, the power will be the same. What will not be the same is the resistance against which the wheel is turning.

*A will include the effects of rolling resistance, drivetrain losses, and gravity if the road is not level. B includes aerodynamic drag effects.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

I think the confusion comes in with traditional thoughts about lag time. If you suddenly decide to pedal at 90 rpm instead of 50, how long does it take the computer to respond and adjust the drag appropriately to maintain consistent power 

We are programmed to respond to the conditions instead of having the conditions respond to our behavior.

Not sure what the advantage is?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

asgelle said:


> As a reader, what I get is that your are a combination of clueless and a troll. If you want to play devil's advocate, fine, but make your arguments accurate and rational.


I thought my arguments were rational and accurate, but unfortunately based on anecdotal riding experiences and the books I read back in the 80s when I got interested in cycling. 

Seems like, if max. power is delivered at 130 rpm as Alex says, there's something to say about high cadences being beneficial to riders who want to ride fast, proving the point that if rider wants to go fast, he should pedal fast, as Eddy Merckx said. But what did he know? :frown2:


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Fredrico said:


> Seems like, if max. power is delivered at 130 rpm as Alex says, there's something to say about high cadences being beneficial to riders who want to ride fast, proving the point that if rider wants to go fast, he should pedal fast, as Eddy Merckx said. But what did he know?


Did you miss the point that 130 rpm was used only in efforts under ~10 seconds? How about the fact that as duration increased, cadence decreased? So no, I wouldn't say the above case is rational or accurate. Honestly, if you want to troll, you have to do better.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> I thought my arguments were rational and accurate, but unfortunately based on anecdotal riding experiences and the books I read back in the 80s when I got interested in cycling.


There is much myth and folklore wrt cycling and training. But that is the same about most facets of life.

Which is precisely why one should learn to use scientific sceptical thinking approach to assess such things rather than blind faith.



Fredrico said:


> Seems like, if max. power is delivered at 130 rpm as Alex says, there's something to say about high cadences being beneficial to riders who want to ride fast, proving the point that if rider wants to go fast, he should pedal fast,


Maximal power is only available for very brief periods (~ 1 second). We are only capable of sustaining such maximal effort for perhaps 5 or 6 seconds before neuromuscular fatigue sets in, and the stored ATP supply is exhausted.

Sustainable aerobic power is a different beast. 

To ride faster overall (ceteris paribus) you need one or both of two things:
- more power output enabled by the increasing the capacity and rate of production and regeneration ATP via glycolysis and lipolysis
- a reduction in the various factors that determine the resistance forces acting against you at any given speed (CdA, Crr, body mass, etc)

Cadence doesn't feature in effective means of addressing either of those fundamentals.



Fredrico said:


> as Eddy Merckx said. But what did he know? :frown2:


Being a fast cyclist does not mean one understands why they are fast. I'm sure Eddy knows more than these throw away quotes suggest but regurgitating them without applying any critical thought does nobody a service.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

asgelle said:


> Did you miss the point that 130 rpm was used only in efforts under ~10 seconds? How about the fact that as duration increased, cadence decreased? So no, I wouldn't say the above case is rational or accurate. Honestly, if you want to troll, you have to do better.


I'm not trolling, asgelle, but seriously trying to wrap my head around this issue! Come on, don't be so damn politically correct. Don't question my right to say what's on my mind.

Just for grins, how would you interpret Merckx's statement answering the question, "How do I go fast?" "If you want to go fast, pedal fast." Also, as riders become fitter, they characteristically increase their cadences. We seem to agree on that, too. So why the rudeness, my friend?  If riders increase their cadence in response to load demands, there's something more to be said about the issue.

You jump to conclusions. Sure, max. power can't be maintained for longer than a few seconds, but it is still done by pedaling fast, not mashing top gear at 50 rpm. 

What about riding just below VO2max? You think the legs will last as long at 60 rpm as 95 rpm, at just below AT or VO2max or whatever you want to call it? My experience says, "no," so I learned to spin.  Argue the issue. Leave personal sh!t out of it, ok, geez….


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Fredrico said:


> I'm not trolling, asgelle, but seriously trying to wrap my head around this issue! Come on, don't be so damn politically correct. Don't question my right to say what's on my mind.


Your words, not mine.


Fredrico said:


> Sorry, I kind of liked playing devil's advocate to get your response. I hope readers will get that.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Fredrico said:


> I'm not trolling, asgelle, but seriously trying to wrap my head around this issue! Come on, don't be so damn politically correct. Don't question my right to say what's on my mind.
> 
> Just for grins, how would you interpret Merckx's statement answering the question, "How do I go fast?" "If you want to go fast, pedal fast." Also, as riders become fitter, they characteristically increase their cadences. We seem to agree on that, too. So why the rudeness, my friend?  If riders increase their cadence in response to load demands, there's something more to be said about the issue.
> 
> ...


Are you "pedaling fast" in a 52x19 or a 53x14? There is a difference between spinning and spinning a big gear.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> I think the confusion comes in with traditional thoughts about lag time. If you suddenly decide to pedal at 90 rpm instead of 50, how long does it take the computer to respond and adjust the drag appropriately to maintain consistent power
> 
> We are programmed to respond to the conditions instead of having the conditions respond to our behavior.
> 
> Not sure what the advantage is?


The robot could increase or decrease resistance immediately, on the first stroke. Advantage: discipline the legs to what used to be called, "stay on top of the gear?" Teach rider the limits of his power or rather the how long he can produce a set power value?


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

I have no idea what you're talking about? I suspect that there may be at least two of us in the same boat.


Fredrico said:


> The robot could increase or decrease resistance immediately, on the first stroke. Advantage: discipline the legs to what used to be called, "stay on top of the gear?" Teach rider the limits of his power or rather the how long he can produce a set power value?


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

SwiftSolo said:


> I have no idea what you're talking about? I suspect that there may be at least two of us in the same boat.


I think that the boat is a mite larger than that.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

SwiftSolo said:


> I suspect that there may be at least two of us in the same boat.


No doubt...


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Ok, steady state training at a chosen power level. That's what he said. :idea:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

asgelle said:


> Your words, not mine.


Oh! Alright, I'm humbled.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> There is much myth and folklore wrt cycling and training. But that is the same about most facets of life.
> 
> Which is precisely why one should learn to use scientific sceptical thinking approach to assess such things rather than blind faith.
> 
> ...


I get what you're saying, but still have to question, if cadence doesn't matter, why, the more riders ride, they tend to increase their leg speeds? Why is that?

Would not "resistance forces" per pedal stroke be considerably less spinning fast than mashing hard in low cadences? It sure has been in all my riding. 

Eddy won more races than any other rider before or since. I'll take his word on it, and let the scientists and bean counters figure out why. In the meantime, I remain skeptical of assertions that contradict Eddy's remarks. :yesnod:


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

tvad said:


> No doubt...
> 
> View attachment 310838


i get it know. I understand.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

velodog said:


> Are you "pedaling fast" in a 52x19 or a 53x14? There is a difference between spinning and spinning a big gear.


Let's not call it "spinning." That makes it sound too easy. Let's call it "pedaling 90 rpm or above."  

Teaching the legs how to fire the muscles at a higher rate than what they're used to walking or running, may not produce more power and may not load up the cardio delivery system any less than pushing a big gear at 70 rpm. But so far, we've found in this discussion that higher cadences do stimulate the fuel delivery system a bit better, the "pumping action" mentioned, which makes the whole action slightly more efficient by eliminating waste products more efficiently, for one thing, and another, saving the knees.  Argue that.

If rider has the strength, oops, power! and he's going fast enough to stay on top of a big gear, great! He's a winner. Lots of evidence in the race footage show that's done by pedaling quite a bit faster than 70 rpm. Sure, drafting in a group, rider can "soft pedal" within aerobic capabilities and rest the legs, but sooner or later, when the pressure ramps up, rider will increase his leg speed--or probably get dropped.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Fredrico said:


> Let's not call it "spinning." That makes it sound too easy. Let's call it "pedaling 90 rpm or above."
> 
> Teaching the legs how to fire the muscles at a higher rate than what they're used to walking or running, may not produce more power and may not load up the cardio delivery system any less than pushing a big gear at 70 rpm. But so far, we've found in this discussion that higher cadences do stimulate the fuel delivery system a bit better, the "pumping action" mentioned, which makes the whole action slightly more efficient by eliminating waste products more efficiently, for one thing, and another, saving the knees.  Argue that.
> 
> If rider has the strength, oops, power! and he's going fast enough to stay on top of a big gear, great! He's a winner. Lots of evidence in the race footage show that's done by pedaling quite a bit faster than 70 rpm. Sure, drafting in a group, rider can "soft pedal" within aerobic capabilities and rest the legs, but sooner or later, when the pressure ramps up, rider will increase his leg speed--or probably get dropped.


Spinning 102 gear inches don't sound easy to me. Plus if someone can spin 102 inches as easily as another can spin 74 inches it probably ain't that hard on the knees.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

velodog said:


> Spinning 102 gear inches don't sound easy to me. Plus if someone can spin 102 inches as easily as another can spin 74 inches it probably ain't that hard on the knees.


Not that hard on the knees if rider is already going fast enough to stay on top of the gear.  At 90 rpm, rider pedaling his 102" [50-13] gear would already be going 27.3 mph! 

Hard on the knees? Ask Mark Cavendish. He always gets really good lead outs! 

Let's not forget, accelerating in 52-17 [81"] reaches 26.5 mph at 110 rpm. Not too bad for us pretenders.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> I get what you're saying, but still have to question, if cadence doesn't matter, why, the more riders ride, they tend to increase their leg speeds? Why is that?
> 
> Would not "resistance forces" per pedal stroke be considerably less spinning fast than mashing hard in low cadences? It sure has been in all my riding.
> 
> Eddy won more races than any other rider before or since. I'll take his word on it, and let the scientists and bean counters figure out why. In the meantime, I remain skeptical of assertions that contradict Eddy's remarks. :yesnod:


If Eddy said jump off a cliff to help your performance, would you?

Riders tend to end up with a higher cadence as they become fitter (i.e. more powerful). That's pretty normal. It's also normal that as riders begin to do harder/faster group rides and/or race, they realise they are able to manage the variable energy and neuromuscular demands better with slightly lower gear choices.

Keep in mind that cadence per se is not a choice (except on one of the special computer controlled erg trainers we discussed earlier), but rather it's an outcome of the two things you do choose, i.e. effort level and gear, and one thing you don't, being the resistance forces in play.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> But so far, we've found in this discussion that higher cadences do stimulate the fuel delivery system a bit better, the "pumping action" mentioned, which makes the whole action slightly more efficient by eliminating waste products more efficiently, for one thing, and another, saving the knees.  Argue that.


You have evidence to support your assertions?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> You have evidence to support your assertions?


The "pumping action" was mentioned by one of the researchers linked to in this thread. I'm too lazy right now to look it up. The greatly reduced pressure on knees is from my own experience riding. 

I have a bad knee from weight lifting that has been strengthened and doesn't hurt anymore after a ride. That made me a believer, plus all the other literature I've read over the years.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> The "pumping action" was mentioned by one of the researchers linked to in this thread. I'm too lazy right now to look it up. The greatly reduced pressure on knees is from my own experience riding.
> 
> I have a bad knee from weight lifting that has been strengthened and doesn't hurt anymore after a ride. That made me a believer, plus all the other literature I've read over the years.


When you're not so lazy, do please provide the references.
Thanks

As to your knees, having a pre-existing injury is never great, so look after your knees. Keep in mind the forces when cycling are not high, nothing like that when lifting/pushing weights in a gym. It's possible you need to consider some bike set up changes since (non-crash) injuries in cycling are far more likely to be from poor bike fit and/or attempting to do too much too quickly.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> When you're not so lazy, do please provide the references.
> Thanks
> 
> As to your knees, having a pre-existing injury is never great, so look after your knees. Keep in mind the forces when cycling are not high, nothing like that when lifting/pushing weights in a gym. It's possible you need to consider some bike set up changes since (non-crash) injuries in cycling are far more likely to be from poor bike fit and/or attempting to do too much too quickly.


Well, tonight I can't find the reference to "pumping," but noticed it because it seemed to make sense (for my argument.).

I did review Peter Konopka's book, "Cycle Sport." He showed two pictures of muscle fibers. The first showed 2/3rds white (anaerobic) and 1/3 red (aerobic) fibers in an untrained person. Next to it was a picture of about 3/4 red fibers and 1/4 white from a fit cyclist. So I deduced while most people have equal amounts of each, riding below AT trains the slow twitch to become dominant, definitely suggesting aerobic power can be increased, elevating AT. Of course, the aging process reduces max. heart rate and at least in my case, reduced AT by about 20 bpm now at age 72 from where it was 20 years ago. Curiously my sweet spot is still around 122, same as when I was in my 40s. Then, I could TT for a few minutes at 150-155 bpm and AT was around 165. Now I'm lucky to get 135 out of the hardest climbs. 

Would you recommend saddle forward or back to reduce knee problems? I guess, saddle forward. Have two bikes, one saddle set back 7 mm, the other set back 5 mm. I ride the former most, but when I get on the latter, I can just spin like mad and the knees don't complain after the ride. Might put on shorter stem on the 7 mm set back bike to sit up a bit more, but both bikes, set up exactly the same, are still very comfortable. I've been complimented on fit over the years. Spent several years finding it. 

People look at me quizzically zipping along at 95 rpm and smile when they see an old man riding like a little kid. That always makes my day. And I'm only going 15-17 mph. :lol:


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Fredrico said:


> People look at me quizzically zipping along at 95 rpm and smile when they see an old man riding like a little kid.


Well...it might be the cadence, or it might be the top hat.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

tvad said:


> Well...it might be the cadence, or it might be the top hat.
> 
> View attachment 310867


Or the Schlitz beer jersey. :lol:


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Fredrico said:


> Or the Schlitz beer jersey. :lol:


Schlitz. The reason women can't drink beer on the beach.

Sand. Gets everywhere.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> Well, tonight I can't find the reference to "pumping," but noticed it because it seemed to make sense (for my argument.).


Given your record so far, I'd suggest it may not make sense 



Fredrico said:


> I did review Peter Konopka's book, "Cycle Sport." He showed two pictures of muscle fibers. The first showed 2/3rds white (anaerobic) and 1/3 red (aerobic) fibers in an untrained person. Next to it was a picture of about 3/4 red fibers and 1/4 white from a fit cyclist. So I deduced while most people have equal amounts of each,


You deduced incorrectly.



Fredrico said:


> riding below AT trains the slow twitch to become dominant, definitely suggesting aerobic power can be increased, elevating AT.


It's long been known that both training and detraining affect the relative composition of fibre types.

Saying that sufficient aerobic training increases aerobic power is kind of like saying doing (real) strength training improves strength. It's self evident and is fundamental to the principle of _specificity_.



Fredrico said:


> Of course, the aging process reduces max. heart rate and at least in my case, reduced AT by about 20 bpm now at age 72 from where it was 20 years ago. Curiously my sweet spot is still around 122, same as when I was in my 40s. Then, I could TT for a few minutes at 150-155 bpm and AT was around 165. Now I'm lucky to get 135 out of the hardest climbs.


HR and impacts of ageing aren't relevant to the discussion.



Fredrico said:


> Would you recommend saddle forward or back to reduce knee problems? I guess, saddle forward. Have two bikes, one saddle set back 7 mm, the other set back 5 mm. I ride the former most, but when I get on the latter, I can just spin like mad and the knees don't complain after the ride. Might put on shorter stem on the 7 mm set back bike to sit up a bit more, but both bikes, set up exactly the same, are still very comfortable. I've been complimented on fit over the years. Spent several years finding it.
> 
> People look at me quizzically zipping along at 95 rpm and smile when they see an old man riding like a little kid. That always makes my day. And I'm only going 15-17 mph. :lol:


If you have prior injury and find riding a bike is exacerbating it or the cause of other problems, then you probably need professional fit help. There is simply no way one can make blanket statements about saddle location in order to resolve fit problems*. Proper bike fit is multifactoral equation best resolved in person by an expert. It's also an evolving beast as what is good today may not be best when you are more or less fit.

_* Except when on a triathlon forum. In that case the saddle is too high._


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

asgelle said:


> Maybe this will help.


I think you may have helped me crack that nut. This is the same point the Coach tried to get me to see a few days ago, but it didn't get through my hard skull. This explanation helped.

Thanks!

Rep earned.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

tvad said:


> Now you're contradicting yourself. The legs "could go very well by using the muscles the same way as spinning, only at lower cadences."
> 
> Huh? You can't have it both ways. Sorry.
> 
> ...


Alex will correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't I read somewhere that lactic acid from the fast twitch muscle fibers gets expelled when power goes back below AT and the slow twitch take over? Also that lactic acid is broken down to lactose or something like that, and actually used as fuel by the slow twitch? That's what I'm talking about. :yesnod: Hardly "off the rails," my friend!

And as far as cadence: even if below AT the slow twitch are doing the work. Isn't it best to teach them an even stroke, so as to maintain form at low rpms when the going gets rough? When rider loses form, that's the first sign of impending doom. He's goes quickly into anaerobic. But if rider keeps a nice, even, smooth stroke going, his legs will not waste energy and last longer. 

I mean, isn't this just common sense? And it is learned, according to Hinault and others, by pedaling fast in ridiculously easy gears. That's what Team Sky did last year, explaining the famous break away by Froome up the mountain. Instead of standing, he remained seated and pedaled very fast to create the gap.

I make my case.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Lactic acid does not exist in humans. Read up on the latest.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

tvad said:


> Lactic acid does not exist in humans. Read up on the latest.


Very interesting:

_It was believed that lactate was just a nasty waste product that made our legs scream 50 meters from the finish. In reality, lactate serves many important roles. For example, “it is the *principle fuel for the heart during vigorous exercise,”* Hickey said. And the liver can recycle it, “releasing a brand new glucose molecule as if you’d been drinking a sports drink.”_

Ok, that's the first point I alluded to previously.  Lactate!


_But if we don’t have lactic acid, then what do we have? What causes the burn? Our muscles *do produce acid, but that acid is simply positively charged hydrogen, not lactic acid* as we once believed. Scientists were long fooled because *hydrogen and lactate exit the cell together — in fact one can’t leave without the other.* So when we measure lactate levels, it correlates with hydrogen ions. We thought we were measuring lactic acid, but it is merely a coincidence that when we measure a rise in lactate it happens to match with a rise in painful acid levels._

Ok, fine, so its hydrogen ions instead of lactic acid, together with lactate. :yesnod:

_The reality is that we are constantly producing lactate in our bodies. “There’s a misunderstanding that until you get to threshold you’re not making lactate. That’s not the case,” Hickey said. “You’re making lactate 24/7 all your life.”

The same goes for acid, those hydrogen ions. The reason our blood lactate levels are low most of the time is because *our bodies clear and use it as quickly as we produce it.* Our lactate threshold is simply the point where our bodies produce both lactate and acid faster than it can clear them. This makes our ability to *clear lactate and acid a critical part of sustaining high-end power.*_

And how does rider clear lactate and acid [ionized hydrogen!]? By working just below AT, where the muscles can expel this stuff as fast as they can produce it. Spin, baby! :idea: 

I rest my case.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

^Spinning does not guarantee working below lactate threshold. I spin at 90+ rpm quite often and well above LT. 

Case blown.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

tvad said:


> ^Spinning does not guarantee working below lactate threshold. I spin at 90+ rpm quite often and well above LT.
> 
> Case blown.


Of course. But spinning just below AT is still much better than delivering the same power at 60 rpm, wouldn't you say?

I recover much more quickly from anaerobic efforts if the legs were at high cadences. The lactate and hydrogen ions are expelled faster and therefore take longer to become really painful!

Case still open. :yesnod:


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Frederic, I believe you mean well. I really do, however your posts continue to demonstrate that you have no idea how the concepts you parrot work in practice.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

But high cadences work in practice, don't they? 

Now if you'd like to critique my ideas, have at it. Dismissing them is not adding anything to the argument. You have to explain yourself because so far, y'all have not convinced me Eddy's dictum is incorrect, "If you want to go fast, pedal fast." You yourself must agree that at the highest power levels, you also pedal fast! :frown2: 

So what's your argument?


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Frederic, others with backgrounds in coaching have already discussed errors in your statements in this thread.

That suffices.


----------



## ncr (Apr 13, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> But high cadences work in practice, don't they?
> 
> Now if you'd like to critique my ideas, have at it. Dismissing them is not adding anything to the argument. You have to explain yourself because so far, y'all have not convinced me Eddy's dictum is incorrect, "If you want to go fast, pedal fast." You yourself must agree that at the highest power levels, you also pedal fast! :frown2:
> 
> So what's your argument?



Where can that advice of Merckx be found, all I can find is "ride lots" and "ride your bike, ride your bike, ride your bike".


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

tvad said:


> Frederic, I believe you mean well. I really do, however your posts continue to demonstrate that you have no idea how the concepts you parrot work in practice.


The persistent repeating of tired old nonsense despite constant correction of the erroneous suggests he's moved beyond that to troll level posting and probably should be ignored.

I see no point in continuing to point out the multitude of fallacies presented.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> The persistent repeating of tired old nonsense despite constant correction of the erroneous suggests he's moved beyond that to troll level posting and probably should be ignored.
> 
> I see no point in continuing to point out the multitude of fallacies presented.


Ok, forget it. Stay in your little worlds; hide behind the alleged authority of your station. I'll continue examining the evidence and draw my own conclusions. Thanks for your input. 

Too bad it leaves the issue unresolved. Nothing so far has defeated my opinions. I've tried to argue why, but all y'all can do is cluck and wag fingers. Big deal. I'll go ride my bike and reap the multifaceted benefits, physically and mentally, with the tools I have.


----------



## goodboyr (Apr 19, 2006)

31 pages of pure entertainment.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Fredrico said:


> Ok, forget it. Stay in your little worlds; hide behind the alleged authority of your station. I'll continue examining the evidence and draw my own conclusions. Thanks for your input.
> 
> Too bad it leaves the issue unresolved. Nothing so far has defeated my opinions. I've tried to argue why, but all y'all can do is cluck and wag fingers. Big deal. I'll go ride my bike and reap the multifaceted benefits, physically and mentally, with the tools I have.


My gosh, it's like talking to Curly


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

velodog said:


> My gosh, it's like talking to Curly


And who are you, velodog, the lawyer or the judge? 

Curly was always one of my heroes!


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

goodboyr said:


> 31 pages of pure entertainment.


Doing my best, goodboyr, but these guys are such spoil sports. :frown2:


----------

