I agree that the science says that if you make gains on both sides of the equation you get more power. However, where does the science say that the best way to do that is to train pedal force and pedal speed separately?

---

They're two separate things, aren't they?

Should you simply go out and ride at max sustainable power, at your optimum cadence, on each and every ride?

Your example doesn't add up. Lance won 7 TdF GC titles when he stopped grinding and switched to high-cadence (high-power) output. You never read about Ferrari (or Carmichael) having Lance do big-gear work. Now, you know Lance better than any of us, so if you say he did big gear work, I'd be tempted to believe you. But the science is not there to support it.

Some of the best Belgian riders don't shower before TT's (because their legs will absorb water), don't sleep with houseplants in the room (because they steal oxygen), and don't shave close to big races (because it takes energy to regrow hair). My point being, just because the "best" do something, it doesn't mean one ought to. Those same guys grinding up mount lemmon would probably have gotten a lot more out of the workout had they done it at 10% more power, and 30-40% more cadence.

Lance did do big gear work. He did muscle tensions around 55-65 rpm and Tempo rides from 75-85.

I agree that the science says that if you make gains on both sides of the equation you get more power. However, where does the science say that the best way to do that is to train pedal force and pedal speed separately?

Give it a shot. Based on Dr. Coggan's paper, as long as you don't pop a tendon or ligament, you don't really have anything to lose, right?

Your thoughts on one of the studies cited in Coggan's article?



High-resistance interval training improves 40-km time-trial performance in competitive cyclists. Sportscience 9, 27-31, 2005.

The main finding of this investigation was
that eight weeks of low-cadence high-resistance
interval training improved mean power by ~8%
in a 40-km time trial in well-trained male cy-
clists.

You say this in response to the question if BG doesn't work, what will:


The answer to this question, of course, is pedaling at an even higher power output, e.g., performing maximal or near-maximal efforts, especially from an initially low cadence (what Dr. Martin has long referred to as �special force� training).

Humor me, but could Jimmy be correct, in that you weren't "doing it right"? I.e. maybe it was so effective for him because he was putting out maximal efforts? I read once on this site that his preferred method was a big gear up a short steep hill.

You say this in response to the question if BG doesn't work, what will:


The answer to this question, of course, is pedaling at an even higher power output, e.g., performing maximal or near-maximal efforts, especially from an initially low cadence (what Dr. Martin has long referred to as “special force” training).

Humor me, but could Jimmy be correct, in that you weren't "doing it right"? I.e. maybe it was so effective for him because he was putting out maximal efforts? I read once on this site that his preferred method was a big gear up a short steep hill.

What I'd like to see (and I think this is the effective way to, potentially, answer Dr. Coggan's article) is a study that does EMG analysis of big gear riding.