Fuck me.. that's a lot of pointless maths to say that you'll go faster by pushing harder and/or pedalling faster.

i like how you ignore the bit about eating less donuts

i like donuts too

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Just out of curiosity, when people say "climb Palomar" what ride, exactly, do they mean.

We were out there over Christmas and rode up both South Grade and East Grade Roads - different climbs. I guess East Grade has a pretty well defined starting spot, don't remember exactly with south. End where? The intersection at top? The store? The observatory?


Not that it matters - just curious about a common point of reference.


Thanks
Andy

My key take away that he should have spent the $1,728 allocated for the zipp 202s on donuts.

Andy - when people time Palomar, they take the South Grade route. The end is at the top where you take the left to the store at the top of Palomar. The observatory is significantly farther.

http://www.themappything.com/masters/74-palomar.html

_

---

Matt
http://www.themappything.com
San Diego Cycling Made Easy

I noticed - I rode South Grade and then over to the Observatory pretty easy with my wife. Then went back down and rode up East Grade pretty hard - took me 67 to get up to the intersection at the top by the store. I can see either climb around 60 minutes being a good indicator of fitness, but if people were talking about riding to the observatory in 60, I was going to be VERY impressed.

Now, I kind of wish I had done a timed test up South Grade.


Thanks for the info.

Andy

While I have no confidence in anything this guy says, it would be interesting to see if said client is able to make it up palomar in 1 hr

---

Ride Scoozy Electric Bicycles
http://www.RideScoozy.com

Thanks - That's what I thought and now I don't have to read the article.

Hi Andy,
If you are able to climb Palomar from store to store on the South side in 60minutes you are more than fit, you are climbing at a solid category one or two level.
67 minutes is a very good time, would be interesting to see what you can do on future attempts, keep us posted!
Vince

---

http://www.slowstepcycling.com/

The nonsense thing about this analysis is the supposition that getting "stronger" will increase Theoretical Jim's FTP, when in fact it is getting "fitter" that will do that. Gear ratio ("pushing big gears") has nothing to do with it. Riding more at threshold and doing the other accepted training to raise FTP will do it.

The best climbers in the world aren't guys who put out surreal wattage, they are the guys who can put out a human wattage for surreal periods of time. That's fitness, not strength.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Hi Ken,

You are too smart for me:-)
I would love to see more of your stuff!

---

http://www.slowstepcycling.com/

Ken - intuitively what you are saying makes sense, however, and I can only speak from my experience, I went your method for years and years and only got so far. Simply riding harder gets you faster to a point and then you need to start doing specific training for things like force to keep improving and get to the next level. Keep in mind, this is not an entirely novel concept. Here is a link about the topic from Joe Friels blog:

http://www.trainingbible.com/joesblog/blog.html (scroll down to the force training post).

__

---

Matt
http://www.themappything.com
San Diego Cycling Made Easy

Most people use pink font for sarcasm in slowtwitch.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Thanks ;-)

---

http://www.slowstepcycling.com/

i thought the article was pretty damned good, actually. the problem was broken down analytically, the math was easy to follow, the description of how power is generated was good, and, as opposed to what you wrote, the author does attempt to tackle BOTH the issue of strength and the issue of increasing aerobic power, that is to say, you could sum up the article this way: the problem is power:weight; power is torque x cadence, let's increase both; and then let's decrease weight.

now, i do think there are some topics of discussion the author left out. for example, pedaling dynamics. then there's bike fit, that is, if the saddle is not appropriately adjusted both fore/aft and up/down, then, mechanical advantage over the pedals is not optimized. again, the question of mechanical advantage is broached through a discussion of equipment, e.g., rotor rings or not rotor rings? so there are some other issues that impact performance up palomar.

but, i thought the article was good. i've known a lot of cyclists who do practice big gear drills, riding 40rpm or 50rpm in a big gear to specfically work on just raw power (perhaps dangerous, esp for heavier riders, in terms of potential injury, nevertheless this is a common drill in cycling). that established, the author was quite clear that riding up palomar at, say, 85rpm or 90rpm instead of 78rpm is pretty much free speed: it's easily trainable, it's as much motor learning as it is fitness, and it solves the issue of "theoretical jim's ftp."

there is one element to this, however, and i find this maddeningly omitted, esp with triathletes on the west coast who tend to ride a lot of hilly courses: triathletes are going to ride at a lower percentage of ftp during their bike legs, and, should probably not ride ascents at a much greater effort than the average power for the bike leg. so, in the case of jim riding up palomar, or a triathlete riding up nasty grade at wildflower, what IS the power you intend to ride, what is the cadence you intend to ride, and do you have the right gearing for it?

accordingly, the final thing i'd ask "jim" is, do you have the gears on your bike to ride palomar at the higher cadences the author admonishes you to ride during your higher cadence drills? (esp since at the 4000' elevation sign palomar gets ornery).

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

huh?

How on earth is this 'free speed'? Do you really think one can do an hour climb faster at 85-90 rpm than 78 rpm for some magical reason? I swear, if you use the word 'Lance' in your response, I'm going to throw up.

ah, yeah if you tend to be able to sustain power better at 85-90rpm than 78rpm.

which many people probably do.

on really nasty hills most people are forced to go lower than their normal cadence because they don't have enough gearing.

bring the right gearing and you can probably put out more power.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Except that getting stronger won't increase FTP. If it did, then track sprinters would be the best TTers in the world, yet they aren't even the best pursuiters. Why is that?

Instantaneous power is torque x cadence: increase instantaneous torque and power goes up. Sustained power, although measured as torque x cadence, is all about sustaining torque, which being stronger won't address.

The article was good as far as addressing the why's of climbing ability; it's the how of increasing that ability that is flawed.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I'd say that it ranks right up there with some of the stuff that Carmichael has written.

that's an awfully big 'if'. keep in mind we're talking about a guy who's self-selected cadence on the climb was 78. That climb isn't that steep that he's run out of gear (though with inadequate gear, yes, you could run out). That wasn't the context of the article, though. The author/Dan seem to be implying that somehow 85-90 is going to be a more efficient cadence that a freely-selected cadence--which frankly isn't that low. That needs some explaining.

One other nonsense portion is this:

"At Jims current 74.1 kilograms and 10% body fat, he might be able to lose 0.5 to 1.5 kg (1 to 3 pounds). It is not realistic for him to lose almost 9 kilograms (20 pounds). When an athlete already has low body fat, the answer to climbing faster seldom comes from losing fat; it’s more often achieved by gaining additional power and staying healthy, so that he/she can continue to train effectively. "

It's ignorant to think that weight loss is limited by available bodyfat. Depending on how we diet, how we train, and our personal genetics we can lose as much as 100% muscle when dieting (especially when bodyfat % is already low).

And much of a person's musculature provides no benefit in cycling.

This stuff?

"According to Chris Carmichael, founder of Carmichael Training Systems, and Alicia, the following three foods should NEVER be eaten by ANYONE under any circumstances unless they are starving. The three foods are:

1. Donuts - made mostly from refined white flour with lots of butter and sugar. One donut can contain as much as 400 calories thanks to the fat from the deep fryer"
   

You think?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Wow, I agree - there's no such thing as "free speed" in cycling. If you increase your cadence, it just means your fitness allows you to do that!!

---

_______________________________________________