# heavy gear mashing



## trangkista (Aug 14, 2007)

I was riding today and came across a group of riders going up a long steep hill on their 53 x 12 or 13. I followed them for a while and they going very slow on a cadence of about 30 to 40 rpm. They told me that they are training to increase their power output/wattage.

I also would like to increase my power output, is this the proper way to do it or will it just increase my chance of getting a knee injury? 

Thanks and ride safe,


----------



## MShaw (Jun 7, 2003)

IIRC that's part of Friel's book. Prolly where they found that workout.

I've done it. Certainly makes ya tired! 

AFA knee issues: I don't know 'cause I don't have any. Now, if you go from mile zero n00b to doing it, I'd say yer setting yerself up for some pain...

M


----------



## Dwaynebarry (Mar 16, 2004)

trangkista said:


> I was riding today and came across a group of riders going up a long steep hill on their 53 x 12 or 13. I followed them for a while and they going very slow on a cadence of about 30 to 40 rpm. They told me that they are training to increase their power output/wattage.
> 
> I also would like to increase my power output, is this the proper way to do it or will it just increase my chance of getting a knee injury?
> 
> Thanks and ride safe,


Generally the goal of all training is to increase power output. What they are doing is a good way to increase power if they're interested in doing so at 30-40 rpm (i.e. when massively overgeared). Why you would want to do that I don't know. The gears on bikes generally allow you to avoid that situation.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

*Train crazily, race sensibly.*



Dwaynebarry said:


> Generally the goal of all training is to increase power output. What they are doing is a good way to increase power if they're interested in doing so at 30-40 rpm (i.e. when massively overgeared). Why you would want to do that I don't know. The gears on bikes generally allow you to avoid that situation.


Extreme low rpm / high gear workouts increase leg strength, which will enable you to put more _force_ (not power) onto the pedal. Since power basically is force x speed, more pedal force means more power if you can spin a large gear in a race situation. Imagine having the leg strength to spin a 53 x 13 at 95 rpm on the flat.


----------



## StillRiding (Sep 16, 2006)

Power is the result of force and speed, but the application of power over time is limited by the energy available. Mashing gears may build the ability to apply force, but it won't do much to increase the energy available. 

If the speed at which a rider can spin is limited, then the only way to increase short duration power output is to increase force. In other words, if your spin is maxed out, the only way to increase power is to increase force; however, the total power over time that can be produced will always be limited by the capacity of your anaerobic and aerobic systems, not the force you can exert.

Increasing leg strength will help in short sprints where the limiting factor is the combination of speed and force exerted. It won't do a thing for longer duration efforts where the limiting factor is the sum of energy available to be converted into power.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

StillRiding said:


> .Increasing leg strength will help in short sprints where the limiting factor is the combination of speed and force exerted. It won't do a thing for longer duration efforts where the limiting factor is the sum of energy available to be converted into power.


Agree completely, hence my title. You'd never finish a race on leg strength alone. Well, maybe DFL.


----------



## STARNUT (Jun 19, 2005)

wim and stillriding.............. good responses fellas.

Power is force X velocity.

I bet the hillclimbers were all on to long a crank arms as well: "You mean a longer crank _doesn't_ give me more power?"




Those boys would be better served to increase force in the gym............. in the offseason. Low cadence drills are good for teaching the rider where a dead spot may or may not be in their pedal stroke.


Starnut


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

STARNUT said:


> I bet the hillclimbers were all on to long a crank arms as well: "You mean a longer crank _doesn't_ give me more power?"


LOL, 'power' is just such an attractive term that it's used for everything—force, strength, speed, what have you. 

I think there is value in splitting something apart and training the individual components. One day you train the pedal force component, the next day you train the leg speed component, the day after that you put it all together. That's always worked better for me than always training at the ideal pedal force-cadence combination for a given situation.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

What STARNUT said. To add to what stillriding said...

Regardless of whether or not leg strength is/isn't an issue in cycling, the way to increase it is not by doing low cadence hill repeats.

In a maximal sprint in a race, you can typically hit ~900N of force, which is about 200lb-f.

Here is a summary of what Andy Coggan said on Nov 2004 in a post about this very topic:


Andy Coggan said:


> Power (both legs) = 400 W (400 Nm/s)
> 
> Cadence = 55 rpm (angular velocity = 5.76 radians/s)
> 
> ...


Relating to peak force at 90 degree crank arm location:


Andy Coggan said:


> some assumptions or approximations are required...and the simplest way to approach is, IMO, is to know that the peak force on the pedal is generally about twice the average force. IOW, when pedaling at 400 W and 55 rpm, then the peak force is about 80-85 kg, or around 180 lbs...
> 
> Note that even during this sort of on-bike "strength training", even a puny, weak guy like me would be generating only about 45% of the maximum force that they could (http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/misc/id4.html)...when attempting to increase strength, how many folks would have somebody lift weights using only 45% of 1 RM?


Combining the two ideas: the maximum force you can generate in a sprint _might_ increase slightly by lifting weights. But, the maximum sustained force (by sustained, I mean more than a few seconds, and certainly nowhere near >30s) is not going to increase by doing low cadence, high-power (=high force) intervals.

I think the reason most people think this works is because it makes your legs tired. But the only reason for any kind of increase in performance due to these types of intervals is because it can fatigue your neuromuscular system. And, if you really wanted to do that, you should just work on 10s sprints. You'd get a much higher benefit from it. Hell, that would be closer to weightlifting, anyways.


----------



## trangkista (Aug 14, 2007)

Thanks for your replies. I do have some more follow up questions:

Would it help if I use a heavy gear at low rpm on the climbs to increase my pedaling force then complement it by spinning a light gear at 90+ rmp on the flats? I guess this way I will be able to train to spin a heavier gear during races.

If doing the heavy gear mashing and light gear spinning combination is the correct way, should i do it during the same ride or should I alternate it on different training days?

I tried to mash the same hill, I could do it on a 53 x 17 without any knee pain. Though my legs and thighs felt like jelly after the ride. 

Cheers,


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

> _If doing the heavy gear mashing and light gear spinning combination is the correct way, should i do it during the same ride or should I alternate it on different training days?_


As I said above, I've always done better with training big gears on one day, high rpm the next day. But during training rides or club rides in a good draft, I've also enjoyed a few minutes of huge-gear riding just to give my legs a rest from the steady spin. It also dropped my heart rate considerably for those few minutes, but that might just be me.

Perhaps there's a misconception about huge-gear riding. It's not just about exerting a lot of force on the pedal—it's also about practicing your pedal stroke. Low-rpm riding is a perfect time to do this because you have more time to feel and think your way around the crank revolution. You have time to think about bringing your foot across the top, exerting downward pressure at the right time and for the right duration, bringing your foot back through the bottom, and unweighting the pedal on the backstroke. If you consciously drill these stroke segments at 40 rpm against high resistance, the improvements will carry over to the higher rpms the next day and eventually make you a smoother rider

Last, you bring up an important point: knees. If you have knee problems, don't do huge gears. The gains you get from these drills are real, but not crucial to race success—certainly not important enough to pay for them with buggered knees.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

wim said:


> Extreme low rpm / high gear workouts increase leg strength, which will enable you to put more _force_ (not power) onto the pedal. Since power basically is force x speed, more pedal force means more power if you can spin a large gear in a race situation. Imagine having the leg strength to spin a 53 x 13 at 95 rpm on the flat.


Nice theory, however the forces involved in such riding are still far too low to induce the physiological adaptations associated with increases in muscular strength (unless you are particularly frail).

Such efforts are no more or less effective than simply riding up the hill at the same speed in a more normal gear.

What they will do is help you to adapt to riding at 40 rpm up a hill. That's nice if it's what you expect to do in your goal events, however I would suggest if you expect to ride at such cadences for any more than a handful of seconds at a time, then you have chosen inappropriate gearing for the task.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

wim said:


> Perhaps there's a misconception about huge-gear riding. It's not just about exerting a lot of force on the pedal—it's also about practicing your pedal stroke. Low-rpm riding is a perfect time to do this because you have more time to feel and think your way around the crank revolution. You have time to think about bringing your foot across the top, exerting downward pressure at the right time and for the right duration, bringing your foot back through the bottom, and unweighting the pedal on the backstroke. If you consciously drill these stroke segments at 40 rpm against high resistance, the improvements will carry over to the higher rpms the next day and eventually make you a smoother rider


You have evidence for this assertion?

The most (aerobically) powerful riders are the ones with the greatest ratio of peak force (down stroke) to average pedal force (over the whole pedal stroke), and not those that ride with the most even application of torque around the pedal stroke.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

trangkista said:


> Would it help if I use a heavy gear at low rpm on the climbs to increase my pedaling force then complement it by spinning a light gear at 90+ rmp on the flats? I guess this way I will be able to train to spin a heavier gear during races.


Just focus on getting up the hill fast and don't worry about the gear. Ride whatever gear feels right for you.

Adaptations come from the relative power you are riding at and not the gear you choose.

Cadence (and torque/pedal force) is an _outcome _of the power we are capable of riding at, the gear we happen to be in and the various resistance forces acting against us.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

And just to be clear - I am not against big gear workouts. Do 'em if they float your boat.

Just don't expect that they are any more effective than simply riding at the same power in a "normal" gear.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

*Careful reading*



Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> You have evidence for this assertion?
> 
> The most (aerobically) powerful riders are the ones with the greatest ratio of peak force (down stroke) to average pedal force (over the whole pedal stroke), and not those that ride with the most even application of torque around the pedal stroke.


What assertion—the one you built your strawman out of? I said nothing about "the most even application of torque around the pedal stroke". I and many of my colleagues knew 30 years ago that this is no more than a theoretical construct which riders can visualize to help them in reducing or eliminating negative force. Unweighting is _not _applying torque!


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> And just to be clear - I am not against big gear workouts. Do 'em if they float your boat.
> 
> Just don't expect that they are any more effective than simply riding at the same power in a "normal" gear.


Alex and Ilive,
I'm likely missing something but it appears that you are both saying that riding on the flat at a cadence of 70 and a HR of 165 at high speed will work the same as the same cadence and HR at 1/4th the speed on a steep grade? (this assumes that heart rate is being used to measure effort) 

The reason I ask this is because it would then occur to me that hills are not necessary for climb training (except for altitude adaptation). It seems like something is missing? 

I've found a couple of 8 to 10 minute hills that force me into an effort ( low cadence and sustained high heart rate) that I'm unable to push to and hold on the flat. Is it just that reaching the top produces a higher level of motivation? Or, is the reduced speed/cooling associated with high pitch training necessary for good low speed / high pitch climbing? (I'm asuming the same cadence in all cases)


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

wim said:


> What assertion—the one you built your strawman out of? I said nothing about "the most even application of torque around the pedal stroke". I and many of my colleagues knew 30 years ago that this is no more than a theoretical construct which riders can visualize to help them in reducing or eliminating negative force. Unweighting is _not _applying torque!


OK - it seems I've misinterpreted what you are saying. So help me understand.

If unweighting is _not _applying more torque, then how does this make one faster?

What then is working on bringing the foot through the top and across the bottom of the pedal stroke, if it's not attempting to apply more torque around the circle than one currently does?

Convince me with evidence or sound principles that such "technique" practiced at 40rpm translates to more effective power delivery.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> Alex and Ilive,
> I'm likely missing something but it appears that you are both saying that riding on the flat at a cadence of 70 and a HR of 165 at high speed will work the same as the same cadence and HR at 1/4th the speed on a steep grade? (this assumes that heart rate is being used to measure effort)
> 
> The reason I ask this is because it would then occur to me that hills are not necessary for climb training (except for altitude adaptation). It seems like something is missing?
> ...


I've not said anything about HR. If you are using HR to guage intensity of an effort, then all bets are off.

Primarily it is your sustainable aerobic power to weight ratio that determines your ability to climb longer hills. So working on each side of this ratio is what will see you climb faster. You do not need to climb hills to do either.

However, as with all sports training, specificity applies and it would be wise to climb hills as part of training designed to improve your ability to climb hills. There are a number of other factors to consider, such as the different intertial loads on a hill vs flat, altitude, dealing with variable gradients and changes in pace which are a different beast to deal with on a hill than on the flat.


----------



## trangkista (Aug 14, 2007)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Just focus on getting up the hill fast and don't worry about the gear. Ride whatever gear feels right for you.
> 
> Adaptations come from the relative power you are riding at and not the gear you choose.
> 
> Cadence (and torque/pedal force) is an _outcome _of the power we are capable of riding at, the gear we happen to be in and the various resistance forces acting against us.


Thanks Alex,

The reason why I wanted to increase my power is that during races, when the road goes on a long climb, I am the first one to get dropped. I always notice that I am one of the first in the peloton to shift down to my 39 chainring while the others are still SPINNING (not mashing) away in their 53's. Afterwards, I would catch a few of the guys who "blew" but most of the others would finish way ahead of me. 

I was hoping that by mashing the gears during my training rides, I will be able to keep spinning my 53 for a little while longer.

Cheers,


----------



## trangkista (Aug 14, 2007)

wim said:


> As I said above, I've always done better with training big gears on one day, high rpm the next day. But during training rides or club rides in a good draft, I've also enjoyed a few minutes of huge-gear riding just to give my legs a rest from the steady spin. It also dropped my heart rate considerably for those few minutes, but that might just be me.
> 
> Perhaps there's a misconception about huge-gear riding. It's not just about exerting a lot of force on the pedal—it's also about practicing your pedal stroke. Low-rpm riding is a perfect time to do this because you have more time to feel and think your way around the crank revolution. You have time to think about bringing your foot across the top, exerting downward pressure at the right time and for the right duration, bringing your foot back through the bottom, and unweighting the pedal on the backstroke. If you consciously drill these stroke segments at 40 rpm against high resistance, the improvements will carry over to the higher rpms the next day and eventually make you a smoother rider
> 
> Last, you bring up an important point: knees. If you have knee problems, don't do huge gears. The gains you get from these drills are real, but not crucial to race success—certainly not important enough to pay for them with buggered knees.


Thanks WIM,

Now that you have mentioned it, I did remember that when I was mashing, I had to concentrate on my pedalling stroke and coordinate the push of one leg to the pull of the other leg so that the force applied in my pedal stroke would be constant. It seemed that if I did not push and pull at the same time, I would not be able to turn the cranks. 

In addition, I also remember that on several occassions, my hands and shoulders were so tense and I had to conciously relax them. 

I will try to alternate my mashing and spinning on different training days to help improve my climbing and overall power. 

Cheers,


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> OK - it seems I've misinterpreted what you are saying. So help me understand.
> 
> If unweighting is _not _applying more torque, then how does this make one faster?
> 
> ...


Again, you're making things up. "Make one faster" and "effective power delivery" are your words, not mine. Here's what I said:

_. . . the improvements will carry over to the higher rpms the next day and eventually make you a smoother rider._

I think if you read my posts more carefully, you will come to the conclusion that we actually agree. I mean, this stuff is not exactly quantum physics.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

wim said:


> Again, you're making things up. "Make one faster" and "effective power delivery" are your words, not mine. Here's what I said:
> 
> _. . . the improvements will carry over to the higher rpms the next day and eventually make you a smoother rider._
> 
> I think if you read my posts more carefully, you will come to the conclusion that we actually agree. I mean, this stuff is not exactly quantum physics.


OK, so it's about making you smoother, not about making you faster.
Not sure I see the benefit then.

No, it's not quantum physics. I haven't read that text book for over 25 years


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> Alex and Ilive,
> I'm likely missing something but it appears that you are both saying that riding on the flat at a cadence of 70 and a HR of 165 at high speed will work the same as the same cadence and HR at 1/4th the speed on a steep grade? (this assumes that heart rate is being used to measure effort)
> 
> The reason I ask this is because it would then occur to me that hills are not necessary for climb training (except for altitude adaptation). It seems like something is missing?
> ...


Not really. Different muscle recruitment and probably less overall power if the HR is the same as a less steep hill.

Hills are not necessary for aerobic training, like Alex said. Specificity is important, as it could make your more efficient at climbing if you practice climbing. But, in the end, it it still about your power/weight ratio. You could practice climbing all you want, but you aren't going to beat Dave Zabriskie in an uphill race, simply because he's putting out much more w/kg then you.

And wim, I'm not sure I've seen any research praising the "benefits" of low cadence drills to be more smooth with high cadence pedaling. Maybe you can point us to the source(s)?

In fact, the higher up you go in the categories, the less smooth of a pedal stroke riders tend to have.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

> In fact, the higher up you go in the categories, the less smooth of a pedal stroke riders tend to have.


really? or is the variation among the categories constant, where just some people are smooth and some are not? 
I'm not sure that the average spin, if there is such a thing, gets worse. Has this been measured?


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

bill said:


> really? or is the variation among the categories constant, where just some people are smooth and some are not?
> I'm not sure that the average spin, if there is such a thing, gets worse. Has this been measured?


Was that phrased in confusing way? I would doubt that actual efficiency decreases (a lot, if any) in one person as he goes from a cat4/3 to a cat1/pro.

I meant, in general, professionals just have a less efficient pedaling stroke than amateurs and it remains (fairly, but not exactly) similar as they improve.

It was in a study I read, that I cannot find for the life of me, that basically said the massive amounts of power that they are capable of producing at some % of VO2max was the reason for the lack of efficiency. There was just no time for muscles to switch between eccentric/concentric motion at very high wattages like there was with amateurs. The difference being that the pros can and do put out those higher wattages for longer periods of time. A rough example: 70% of VO2max for a pro would be 250w whereas an amateur would be 150w. At 70%, the amateur was more efficient. Same goes for 100% of VO2max, say 500w vs. 300w, and the pro was less efficient.

Get into a pro race and you won't be averaging numbers seen in a cat3/4 field.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

iliveonnitro said:


> Was that phrased in confusing way? I would doubt that actual efficiency decreases (a lot, if any) in one person as he goes from a cat4/3 to a cat1/pro.
> 
> I meant, in general, professionals just have a less efficient pedaling stroke than amateurs and it remains (fairly, but not exactly) similar as they improve.
> 
> ...


Further:
There's not much difference in efficiency between untrained or trained cyclists, nor is efficiency linked to VO2 Max. Efficiency is however correlated with the propotion of Type I muscle fibres.

As for the issue of more powerful riders producing higher peak to average torque ratios, this was clearly demonstrated in the study by Coyle et al, forgive me, the actual reference I have at home (where I am not right now). I'll post that reference later.

But even that doesn't need study to be demonstrated as it can be derived from first principles. There's a good item on that and I'll post that reference later as well (it can be found in Asker Jeukendrup's book, High Performance Cycling).


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

Then to summarize????

The low cadence drills to build strength are not going to help a normal road cyclist more than doing them at a normal cadence because:

- If increasing muscle strength is your only goal for this training session, go to the gym and do weights. Doing a thousand alternate-one-leg presses at very low weight isn’t going to do it.

- Road cycling is not a strength-limiting sport. You can have all the strength in the world and you are not going to go faster if you do not have the engine (energy supply systems) to support it. Hill climbing at a ‘normal’ cadence will provide all the strength the engine can use.

- Muscle strength and muscle contraction speed are not separable. When the muscles adapt to stress, they adapt to both. Building strength at one cadence does not necessarily mean strength at a very different cadence.

- Specificity: You are better off training the complete package (strength, contraction speed, technique, etc.) the same way as you are actually going to use it.

TF


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

TurboTurtle said:


> Then to summarize????TF


Very well put.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Further:
> There's not much difference in efficiency between untrained or trained cyclists, nor is efficiency linked to VO2 Max. Efficiency is however correlated with the propotion of Type I muscle fibres.
> 
> As for the issue of more powerful riders producing higher peak to average torque ratios, this was clearly demonstrated in the study by Coyle et al, forgive me, the actual reference I have at home (where I am not right now). I'll post that reference later.
> ...


I promised the two references:

_Physiological and by mechanical factors associated with elite endurance Cycling performance, Coyle, et al, 1991

Biomechanics, Jos de koning, Knoek van Soest, specifically pp-134-136, Chapter 11, High Performance Cycling, Asker Jeukendrup, PhD, 2002_


----------

