gregf83 wrote:
Trev wrote:
gregf83 wrote:
Trev wrote:
As the metabolic cost is a function of power output and speed of muscle shortening, then if the crank length does not change and the power remains the same, a higher cadence causes faster muscle contraction for the same power, thus a higher metabolic cost for the same power. Is this correct?
Power is a function of speed and force and metabolic cost is a function of power and speed of muscle shortening / contracting, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Yes with you now. This might be of interest. Can't speak for the accuracy of the article, and I don't agree with pulling up on the pedals.
http://athletic-education.co.uk/...mal-cycling-cadence/
I'm not sure I want the discussion to shift to deliberate sessions in too big a gear.
But looking at the graph in the above article it does look as if 300 watts on a fixed gear, which necessitates being in too high or too low a gear most of the time, exept on the flat in the optimum gear, will 'feel' harder and require more energy. Yet it would score the same TSS as if an optimum gear were used on a geared bike.
Again for commuting, where speed may be limited, it may well be worth using a fixed gear to generate more training stress. Although it may not reflect in the TSS, you will have worked a little harder.
I would not recommend commuting in a gear which limits cadence though, better use a gear which encourages faster pedalling. Particularly if there are several stops, as excessive force will be needed to get up to speed and unless you are training for track starts in a kilo it wouldn't be worth the risk to muscles and tendons.
Again the old tradition of riding a fixed gear, which encourages fast spinning, through winter may have more merit than commonly thought.