And she has a very fast cadence on the run. No one cadence is better than another, we all have our own sweet spot.

---

-Of course it's 'effing hard, it's IRONMAN!
Team ZOOT
ZOOT, QR, Garmin, HED Wheels, Zealios, FormSwim, Precision Hydration, Rudy Project

riding at a higher cadence does raise your heart rate. riding at a lower cadence requires a lot of torque per revolution, however. each comes with a cost. so, you find the "right" cadence for the effort.

i agree with her that riding a high cadence is bad, or, CAN be bad. but there's a cadence 5 beats lower than the one she rides. why doesn't she ride that cadence? it all depends on what you call "high," and, at what effort you're talking about. "high" is 95rpm for an IM. but that's not high for a 40k time trial.

so, statements like this don't mean anything unless they're attached to a set of real numbers over specific distances, and even better if you're talking about an effort that's at a particular intensity, say, a specific percentage of your FTP. otherwise, it's like saying you're in favor of "smaller government." smaller than what?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

With all due respect to Chrissie, in her 3 years of winning all over the world, I'm yet to hear a single piece of useful advice coming from her end. Lots of pros out there with a ton of more insight to offer us. She does not seem to be very effective in communicating anything technical about the sport. Other aspects like "my gosh, its so good to win, I feel so fit, I love the volunteers" she's great at, but on the technical insight part, her ranking is down in the "fail" category.

Dev

you mean BS?

---

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

She meant to say, "Brett Sutton told me I love to push a big gear. Brett Sutton told me it's a misconception that... Brett Sutton told me that doing that actually raises your heart rate. Brett Sutton told me that doesn't serve you very well in long distance racing. Brett Sutton told me cranking it down and pushing a bigger gear lets me lower my heart rate... Brett Sutton told me it's what feels natural to me and enables me to go the fastest I can go."

Re-read it as I wrote it, and you'll have a more accurate understanding of what she thinks.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

FLAT BUNS
I LIKE FLAT BUNS
FLAT BUNS
I LIKE FLAT BUNS

GALILEO, GALILEO
THE WORLD IS FLAT
BUT NOT AS FLAT
AS MY SHORTY’S BACK

I LIKE ‘EM REALLY HOT
I LIKE ‘EM REALLY FLAT
I LIKE ‘EM LOOKIN JUST
LIKE A PANCAKE STACK

IF HER BUTT IS BONY
SHE GOT IT GOIN’ ON
I THINK I SAW HER ON
FLATBUNS.COM

FLATTER
MAKES A BETTER REAR
STAND SIDEWAYS, GIRL
YOU DISAPPEAR

FLAT BUNS
I LIKE FLAT BUNS
FLAT BUNS
I LIKE FLAT BUNS

WELL WE ARE
ITTY, BITTY BOOTY COMMITTEE
ON A ONE WAY BUS
TO FLAT BUN CITY

GOT NO HINEY?
I CALL YOU YOUR HINEOUS
IN ANATOMY CLASS
YOU GOT A BUTT MINUS

FLAT BUNS
I LIKE FLAT BUNS
FLAT BUNS
I LIKE FLAT BUNS

She may not know what she's talking about, but the results indicate that whatever she is doing is working. There's probably as many different theories out there as there are triathletes (ok, maybe a slight exaggeration), but there is no one specific theory for each individual. The best you can do is to work out what works best for you using the theroty and other's expertise as a guideline, not something to slavishly adopt.

And that is what it looks like Brett Sutton is saying.

---

Trust me I’m a doctor!
Well, I have a PhD :-)

Re-read it as I wrote it, and you'll have a more accurate understanding of what she thinks.

That's pretty disrespectful.

Granted, her comments need to be taken in the context of her experience, but Chrissie is an accomplished enough cyclist that she's earned the right to tell people what feels "natural" to her.

And she's about as fast as you running off the bike, so it obviously works.

You are kidding, right? While Brett Sutton may have told her such several years ago, it would seem to me that her results speak for themselves and that it is reasonable for her to actually believe this stuff. Don't you think people "believe" what has worked for them? Has anybody ever been more dominant than Ms. Wellington, having never lost an IM race? And, again, there is some scientific evidence to support what she says. Ignore her words at your competitive peril, as far as I am concerned.

I find it interesting that those who are not quite at her level seem to think she is an idiot because she says something that goes against what they believe.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Now that Rappstar has won IMAZ, he can say anything.

very, very well put. i had the entire "She could flip burgers at McDonalds for the remainder of her natural life and still have a much better athletic perception than the lot of you all combined" but figured someone with a brain would soon chime in and that i'd just agree with you, like just now.

Go Chrissie Go!!!! i've been watching her for the last few hours, very impressive and i love how she's always smiling. good natured woman.

my two cents.

---

It's not about the bike, it's just along for the ride.

who thinks she is an idiot for going against what they believe? So because she is so dominant we should assume everything she is doing is ideal and she planned it all along? If we could get people to stop believing in what worked for them and realize the only way you truly know if something works is through a randomized trial then we wouldn't have so many educated idiots running around.

---

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

Anybody can say anything. Winning IMAZ does not put Rappstarr quite at Ms Wellington's level.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

again with the brains, Go Frank Day Go!! ;) and Jordan's comment almost took him off of my who's advice counts list for 2010. just saying.

---

It's not about the bike, it's just along for the ride.

well i'm a bit confused because if you, Jordan, are saying that Sutton is a great coach, then i guess i agree with you on that in the way of yes, big gears is the only way to go and he knew it and passed it along to Chrissie and look at what happened there so go Sutton as far as that goes. but if you are saying that Chrissie can't think for herself and can't put together in her own mind what is what and how she adapts to conquering ironmen and women alike and easily and that her opinion doesn't count just because she may not care about the technical side of things or care to explain them than i'd have to disagree, strongly.


btw, remember the narrators talking about Big Lance only pushing a big gear up hill during one of them tours he dominated? and he never gets too technical either...just saying.


Go Chrissie Go!!!

---

It's not about the bike, it's just along for the ride.

10/10

---

-----
coming soon...

Let me say up front that I have great respect for you and I understand that you know the pro's better than I ever will. However, you make it sound like Chrissie is incapable of thinking for herself. If you give advice as you have so kindly shared after your great wins in Canada and Arizona, does it mean that we are really just hearing what your coach told you? I doubt it. I have found you to be bright and thoughtful.
While I have never met Chrissie, I have read that is quite intelligent and capable of thought for herself.
I understand that if I was coached by Mark Allen, I would probably use his philosophy. However, I would know that when I chose him as a coach.
Perhaps what Chrissie says follows Brett Sutton's philosophy, but it sure works----for her.
Do you know if there has been a study on muscle fiber type and cadance? Perhaps, her pace matches her muscle fiber type. As a biology teacher, I bet there is a reason why some do better at high cadance and others do better at a slower cadance.
Anyway, thanks for all you done on this forum to help many of us be better athletes.

---

Team Zoot So Cal

Hello onyourright and All,

What is Chrissie's average race cadence - the number that is - like 80 or 70 or whatever?

What are number are you talking about?

Cheers,

Neal

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

It has nothing to do with what races I've won or not won. It has to do with the fact that I know something about how Sutton trains his athletes, and that I pay attention to a lot of details that other people seem to gloss over when evaluating Chrissie. She wins in such dominating fashion - and always has - that it's much more difficult to say what things she is successful because of and what things she is successful in spite of.A couple of things to consider. Chrissie has never lost an Ironman. Ever. She's never had to address the topic of "I need to change things because what I'm doing isn't working." But that also means that it makes it much harder to determine what things she succeeds in spite of and what things she succeeds because of. Kind of like her aerobar extensions. They are too long. They just are. It's not like it something that "works for her." It's just something that doesn't matter enough to make a difference. But it's not like it's right or good or anything like that. It's wrong, but she's good enough that it doesn't matter.

If you asked her after the race (or even after training) what her cadence was, or what her HR was, she couldn't tell you. Because Brett's athletes don't know. Because that's not how they train. They train with a watch. And that's it. Chrissie doesn't wear a HRM. She doesn't use a powermeter. She doesn't even have a cycling computer. She doesn't actually even know what her cadence is. Interestingly, if you watch OTHER sections of video, especially early in the race, I clocked her at 90rpm+ for some good stretches. But this wasn't in the Ironman TV broadcast. It was footage from someone shooting at the race. Her cycling "technique" is 100% grounded in what Sutton believes is correct. As Dan said, she could ride 5 beats lower cadence then she does. Or 10 beats lower. Or 15. Or 5 beats higher. Chrissie doesn't even actually know what her cadence is, so it wouldn't really make a difference since the only thing she's reporting is what she FEELS her cadence is. And she doesn't even really know whether or not she's pushing a big gear, other than she feels like it's a big gear. But why not one gear bigger? Or two? Her HR would be even lower. That's just basic physiology. Drop her cadence some more. If you actually read what she wrote/said, it's not a definitive statement. It's like saying "when you go to the pool, you should swim with long strokes." So in that sense, it's not really something you can (or can't) believe in.

What she says is reminiscent of Lance describing his pedaling technique as "scraping mud off the bottom of his shoes." Except that he doesn't actually pedal that way. I.e., Lance does not (and did not) apply power approximately perpendicular to the crank arm around BDC. But Lance *thought* he did this. So he said that's what he did. But it isn't actually how he pedaled. But he'd swear to you that is how he pedaled and that it was a big part of why he was successful.

I never implied that Chrissie cannot think for herself. However, on the topic of cycling technique, she doesn't actually have any of the tools to underpin her argument. I.e., she doesn't know her cadence. She doesn't know her HR. So how can she make statements about it? She can make statements because they are what Brett drilled into her head. I am not saying that her riding low cadence is not something that works for her. I am simply pointing out that she - by all accounts (and I'm considering much more than just what I've seen on TV) - has very little to no actually evidence to lend credence to her argument and that it is also basically a word-for-word repetition of what you can find in any one of the various Brett Sutton interviews out there. Chrissie can think for herself. In this case, she is able to think that "don't fix what isn't broken." That is very different than being able to say "I am successful because of X." A huge part of any athletes success is rooted in the trust of one's coach. Myself included.

What is most interesting is to me is everyone's reaction to what I wrote. But I suppose it isn't really surprising. Everyone wants there to be a "way to train" or a "way to race." I saw it regularly when people would ask for my training schedules. The main reason I don't share them is because they aren't mine to share. But I also don't share them because they are not really relevant to anyone but me. Chrissie doesn't win because she rides a "low" cadence. She doesn't even know the cadence she rides. She wins because she trains really f'ing hard and races really f'ing hard and was blessed with a huge f'ing motor. Have Dan relate some stories about Dave Scott. Or look at Normann Stadler who won two Ironmans and set the bike course record in Kona without ever measuring his bike position and by deciding what training to do on a give day by how he felt when he woke up in the morning. As my rowing coach once said, "there are very few problems in the world that can't be fixed by pulling harder." A really big f'ing motor makes up for a lot. When you have someone that basically exists in an entirely separate timezone on race day, how do you ask them to explain, "so, what is it that makes you successful?"

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

And that's a pretty damn good post to summarise the thread. Well put.

---

Trust me I’m a doctor!
Well, I have a PhD :-)

X2

"It's just something that doesn't matter enough to make a difference. But it's not like it's right or good or anything like that. It's wrong, but she's good enough that it doesn't matter."

If she does pay attention to all the things you mentioned, do you think she can do better?

The woman has confidence. And the way she handled herself when having bike problems is it also due to her "being blessed with a big motor"? I think it is plain old school greatness. However I fully understand what you said, and thanks for your insight.

Well put, and I would add that before being coached by Brett Sutton Chrissie was already riding with a low cadence and running with a high cadence (frequency). So maybe one aspect of Brett's success with Chrissie has been to be intelligent enough not to change her spontaneous movement but 'simply' to help her to develop her strength(s).
By the way, do you think that Dave Scott and Mark Allen knew their HR and cadence? Maybe at the end of their career, but not at the beginning.

---

Francois-Xavier Li @FrancoisLi
"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing." George Bernard Shaw
http://www.swimrunfrance.fr
http://www.worldofswimrun.com

"Chrissie doesn't win because she rides a "low" cadence. She doesn't even know the cadence she rides. She wins because she trains really f'ing hard and races really f'ing hard and was blessed with a huge f'ing motor"

Best quote of 2010 so far Jordan. In fact I am going to put that one in my sig line!

Kevin

Thanks Jordan, excellent post. As a fan of the sport, you summarize my frustration with what comes out of Chrissie's mouth. It's not like she sheds any insight "the game". It's like when they used to interview Gretzky when he scored 50 goals in 39 games. He annhilalted Rocket Richard's 50/50, but really could not say why....he just did it. Sometimes the interviews from the grinder on the 3rd line offer much more insight into how the game is played. Even when Normann was winnning by getting up in the morning and "doing whatever he felt like", at least his interviews were exciting and interesting.

Erin Baker, PNF, Badmann, Lori Bowden, Heather Fuhr, all past Kona champions seemed to have a lot more insight to offer in their day.

Well I for one like the Chrissie Wellington way of ass kicking. Leave the technically needy people behind in all their infinite lack of wisdom that doesn't seem to matter anywho and just go, go, go, go and then go some more.

---

It's not about the bike, it's just along for the ride.

Frank Day getting support from roadhouse - classic

it was the heat of the moment kind of thing. i've since dropped Rapp and dev_paul from my list though.

---

It's not about the bike, it's just along for the ride.

Not to be picky or anything, but I'm pretty sure it was Greg LeMond who used that description for "proper" pedaling technique...not Lance.

I just figured you probably had enough sporting legends miffed at you over this thread, and it most likely wouldn't help having GL also mad because you were attributing something of his to LA ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Yeah, it's pretty amazing how a "huge f'n motor" (as Jordan put it) can make up for a lot of "technical ignorance", huh? Prodigies are like that...

Did you ever think that maybe those "technically needy" people are "needy" because they need to make up for not having been blessed with a huge f'n motor? Speed, especially bike speed, can be (and should be) approached from a bunch of different angles.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

you're talking to the guy who turned his panaracer mountain bike tires around to have maximum rolling resistance and still could ride at 30+ in long sprints and average 18-20 on fifty milers and who raced a guy 60 miles on his roadie while on my mountain bike. i lost but i still did it. he wouldn't race me again once i got my road bike as now it was a loser gives up bike race. eh. and who doesn't care one way or another about heart rate and still doesn't care what category racer anyone is because they don't put fear into me with all their technical neediness. i connect with those who just do things and do them better than the rest. ever heard of WB? he's one of them. So is Lance. and Chrissie. Craig Alexander too. all smart in the logistics of things but that's not what drives them, it's not why they win. it's all heart and not heart rate that i benefit from so no, i don't get it when it comes to that stuff or to the people that need it.

and I'm keeping Rapp and dev_paul on the list of experts in the field of athletic knowledge but not advice. it's an admiration thing for me.

---

It's not about the bike, it's just along for the ride.

I think if you review the book "The Lance Armstrong Performance Program", by Lance Armstrong and Chris Carmichael, you will find it described in there.

clm

---

clm
Nashville, TN
https://twitter.com/ironclm | http://ironclm.typepad.com

I don't think it's technical ignorance, they just aren't putting a lot of stock into the technical aspects, but instead training and racing hard. And, the "technically needy" people are "needy" because they are trying to look for an answer to how they can be as good, or maybe as close to as good as those top pros. The problem is you can't emulate what they are doing and expect the same outcome. They are good because they are physically blessed and they work really hard. The best way to get better is to train your butt off, but to train your butt off in a way that will benefit you the most. And, since everyone is different it's hard to say what that is. That is why having a great coach and make such a huge difference.

---

____________________________________________________
"I like you. I'll gladly sit down and have dinner with you after the race. But when the gun goes off, I pretty much hate you, and I want to stomp your guts out. That's racing." -Rappstar

http://train4autism.org/

i agree that this is a great quote. one issue--how can you say that she was blessed? couldn't it have been because she's been playing sports her whole life and is incredibly dedicated? whenever someone says something is because of genetics, it really annoys me...it somewhat takes away from the hard work these athletes are doing. read "Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else" by Geoff Colvin. it is an absolutely fascinating book that will change the way you think about statements like these.

similar to a New York Times article on Christian van de velde:

After a 10-kilometer time trial, a team doctor took their blood to determine their fitness and potential.
Armstrong, who went on to win the first of his record seven Tour titles that year, did not have the best numbers that day. Vande Velde did.
“We didn’t want to tell Lance because it would have upset him, but no one ever told Christian, either,” Hincapie said in February at the Tour of California. “We kind of didn’t want to upset the hierarchy.”

That's where I remember reading it, which I guess isn't exactly the same as Lance saying himself that it is what he did. It's very possible that the "scraping mud technique" was simply something they wanted to convey and attributed it to Lance because it was the "Lance Armstrong Performance Program," not the "Combination Of Lots Of Great Cyclists Performance Program." Though I am sure I type this at the risk of adding GL, LA, and CC to the list of people who I will have offended in this post. ;)

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

It's a combination. For some people who don't have the same genetics, no matter how hard they work, they may never see the same results. Do you not think that Tyson Gay is training his tail off to beat Usain Bolt? Do you think he can if both are in top form?

---

____________________________________________________
"I like you. I'll gladly sit down and have dinner with you after the race. But when the gun goes off, I pretty much hate you, and I want to stomp your guts out. That's racing." -Rappstar

http://train4autism.org/

you didn't offend me Big Jordan, you lost me completely.

---

It's not about the bike, it's just along for the ride.

"If she does pay attention to all the things you mentioned, do you think she can do better?"

i don't think that's the issue here. i was thinking about this topic over the past few days, as i've been reading article after article about how (u of florida quarterback) tim tebow is not likely to be taken in the first round of the pro draft. one big reason: his throwing motion. dan marino set a new standard for quarterbacks when he played, in the speed of his delivery. tebow is a throwback, pardon the pun, because he drops the ball almost to his knees as he cocks his arm to pass.

those who criticize the mechanics of tebow's passing style do not think he's a bad athlete, or has a bad attitude, or is stupid, or stubborn, or untalented, or unsuccessful. on the contrary. many general managers of pro teams would love to draft him, and would draft him high, if he would agree to switch positions, to halfback, linebacker, safety, tight end, anything that would take advantage of his work ethic, intelligence, strength, speed, vision, hands, toughness, leadership.

what i don't hear on the TV are the critics of the critics, pointing out that tebow is a 3-time heismann finalist (and 1-time winner), that he just passed last night for almost 500 yards against the third-ranked team in the country; that he's rewritten the SEC passing records, and so forth. and that's because they don't let the fans talk on the TV, thank god. happily, we don't witness fans confusing the quality of tim tebow's achievements with the rightness of his technique.

but fans do get to talk here ;-)

tebow may prove his critics wrong, he may turn out to be a great NFL quarterback. but if he does prove them wrong, here's what tim tebow would likely say:

- these "critics" are not criticizing me as a person or an athlete, they're simply criticizing my throwing mechanics;
- they're right to criticize my mechanics, nevertheless i've come by them over the course of many years;
- my mechanics might even be good for me, but, they should not be emulated by others;
- pop warner football coaches would be foolish to teach my mechanics to youngsters;
- youngsters would be foolish to emulate my throwing motion.

what we don't have enough of in triathlon are fans of great athletes who are able to distinguish between what makes that athlete great versus the habits of that great athlete not appropriate for emulation. would chrissie be a better athlete if she sped her cadence up? maybe, but, as jordan points out, what is her cadence is over the course of an IM? can anyone answer that?

but even if her cadence is perfectly okay for her, neither she nor anyone else is or ought to be immune from penetrating questions about the things they say. this, precisely because they are great, and likely to be emulated. i think this places a special burden on great athletes to know what they're talking about on a subject, or to just not talk.

about chrissie specifically: we couldn't have a lovelier person winning our races, setting our records, representing our sport. she stands nicely alongside the big-4, paula, natascha, and others, and we couldn't do better. nevertheless, she's new to triathlon, relatively speaking, and new to timed racing, and if she engaged tom a or andy coggan or jim martin (or rappstar) in a panel discussion about technique, nutrition, mechanics, aerodynamics, she'd discuss from a very different perspective then would they. why don't we wait a few years before we place on her the burden of the knowledge accumulated by those who've been hard at it for 20 or 30 years?

my problem is not with the way chrissie rides or tebow throws, rather with those who think that "everybody has to find the technique that's right for them," or, that palmares validate technique. henry rono spent a lot of time drinking heavily while he was setting world records. gilbert arenas apparently likes to carry guns around. we know about wilt. using the sort of "logic" many use here on this forum, maybe if tebow was a heavy drinking, gun-toting, womanizer, he'd be a certain first-rounder.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I believe Dave never used a watch or a heart rate monitor any any ironman race. Also Brett's not out there riding beside chrissie telling her what to do all day long either.
But all of her training she probably knows what feels right and goes by old school perceived effort and how things feel rather than be dictated to by a power meter and heart rate monitor.
So maybe shes in tune with her body due to the training her coach has given her and can use her natural abilities better than those who tend to rely on technology to tell them whats going on.
Sounds pretty much old school to me..

I seem to remember somewhere I believe on the online kona coverage the commentators(huddle,paula roch whomever) talking about chrissies cadence and some other athletes Sutton coachs haveing the same... A thought I remembered them talking about Craig Alexander as well.. Anyone else remember this? (not saying its so or not just I have this faint memory of this being discussed during the online live Kona coverage back in october).

Whatever shes doing its working and kudo's to that for sure. I'm a fan.. because she not only can bike she can run as well.

----------------------

Ah Dev, more gems....

- If Chrissie posted here you'd be the first one to pucker up and kiss her ass repeatedly and suddenly you'd distance yourself from any claims a la above. History has shown this.
- She owes no one any responsibility to "shed any insight" on her game. Her job is to race fast in the important races. My guess is that she couldn't give a crap less what you think. The fact that Jordan offers details of his racing / training is a bonus not a requirement.
- Perhaps why the 3rd line thug would have more to offer is because they have to think more and work harder than those who instinctively just know where the puck will be, see things before they occur, and know what the opposition will be doing before they even know. They need to out muscle the opponent while the Gretzkys simply outplay them.
- You get "frustrated" by a pro not detailing some 2000 word narcisstic essay of everything that happened to them during some ironman? Wow. I find it refreshing that a pro like CW can absolutely destroy almost every competitor in Kona minus 20+ or so men and not be so wrapped up in details that it becomes all consuming...

Train hard, repeat, kick ass in a race, rest.

what we don't have enough of in triathlon are fans of great athletes who are able to distinguish between what makes that athlete great versus the habits of that great athlete not appropriate for emulation.


uhm, hello? like i'm right here...;)

yup, kudos to what you said about chrissie being a lovely person repesenting (y)our 'sport'. and natascha too, however they do it. Macca, not so much.

way to have great insiders represent intelligence, Mr. Empfield. Hats off to you.

---

It's not about the bike, it's just along for the ride.

Great analogy (i.e. Tim Tebow vs. Tony Pike at the Sugar Bowl). 2 very different quarterbacks that day (and college career), yet we will see who has the higher Sunday potential (i.e. a 6-6 perfect mechanics guy, or the one with big heart/natural talent).

Jordan, as always, I appreciate your insight.

---

____________________________________
Fatigue is biochemical, not biomechanical.
- Andrew Coggan, PhD

"I find it refreshing that a pro like CW can absolutely destroy almost every competitor in Kona minus 20+ or so men and not be so wrapped up in details that it becomes all consuming."

of course, i look at this through the prism of someone who used to sponsor athletes, and i looked for a return on my invested pro athlete dollar, so, with that in mind: yes, you're right. depending on the terms of the personal services contract, sponsored athletes may have no obligation to talk at all about the technical/tactical aspects of racing. i don't recall faris ever doing so, and, i don't know that faris, tho a great athlete, tho a hawaiian IM winner, tho winning kona largely during the bike ride, ever moved cannondale's needle in terms of bike sales.

bjorn moves cervelo's needle. rappstar will move specialized's needle. this, not only because they ride hard, but because they each engage the buying audience thoughtfully, intelligently, from a background of knowledge.

many great athletes never engage the buying public about the technical aspects of their equipment. but then, air jordans bought by teenagers and pre-teens are not quite the same quality of purchase as a several thousand dollar bike bought by adults scrutinizing their purchases.

to chrissie's credit, and mirinda's, they've both freely shared their bike positions (their fit coordinates) with slowtwitch, and, i know that cannondale is grateful to them for that sort of openness, which, you're right, is not required. and, as each continues to engage with triathletes, they'll each do for cannondale what i think did not happen during faris' association with that brand: bike sales for that company will increase.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

You're right...CC appears to have adopted the analogy, but check out this quote from roadbikerider.com's "29 Pro Cycling Secrets for Roadies":

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Actually you are wrong. She does as can clearly be seen in this ST picture. I believe that is on a Cervelo as well which is Brett Sutton era?

http://www.slowtwitch.com/...Cervelo_P2C_466.html

She may not race with one but she regularly trains with one.

Two things on your example.

- I know the Colvin book, but Chrissie's introduction to the sport has been relatively well documented. After years spent hiking and doing UN outreach in Nepal (IIRC), she started doing triathlon and within 2 years (again, best recollection), she won the overall ITU ag title. She then went and started with Brett Sutton and has won every Ironman she's ever entered. She trained exactly the same way as everyone else Brett coaches. That's how they train. So it's fine to say she is successful because of hard work and dedication. But then that is implying that she is more dedicated than Belinda, for example, or Hillary Biscay, or any of the other women who trained along side her, or any of the women who followed the same program. The problem is that she has enjoyed a remarkable amount of success right from the start, following the same training protocol as veteran, hard working athletes. I don't discount that Chrissie is a hard worker, but you also can't discount her obvious gift, because if you do, then you are, essentially, insulting everyone that she races against.

- The problem with the NYT article, and many others like it, is that they are journalistic simplifications. What does it mean to have "better blood numbers"? Do you recall doctors talking about how Lance was an aerobic freak because he never went anaerobic, according to his BLA. Basically, Lance never hit 4.0mmol, even when he was obviously above threshold. But 4.0mmol is just a number representing a bell curve. Mike Teti, the US Rowing coach and long time US national team member, is the polar opposite. He was viewed as an anaerobic freak, because he could sustain BLA of 10+mmol. They were oddballs wrt to blood lactate. But they still fell on the continuum, which is what it is. Much (if not all) of the BLA science needs to be re-examined after the discovery the lactate is simply an intermediary fuel - a marker of anaerobic respiration - rather than some sort of performance limiter. So it's entirely possible that Van De Velde's numbers were not actually "better." They were just "different." But that doesn't make for a good story in a newspaper...

However, I think your point is really that genetics alone doesn't win races. And I think that's obviously true. Many people said that Jan Ullrich was much more "talented" than Lance was. But his head wasn't in it in the same way. I don't think anyone would say that Chrissie's genes are the only reason why she wins. BUT, they are obviously a factor. And just like with Lance or Ullrich, "talent" is a great ace to hold. Otherwise, you are saying that Chrissie simply outworks every other athlete she races, and that's even less fair than saying that she wins because of good genes.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Fair enough. She actually had a cadence sensor on her bike the first year she won as well.



And she has a computer (can't see about cadence, which is what would be relevant to this discussion) on her Cannondale. That is a contrary to what I know of Brett's other athletes (Tereza Macel, for example), though I guess it makes sense since Brett always advocated a cadence of less than 84, and I always wondered how he expected athletes to know.



If anyone has a picture of her Cannondale with a cadence sensor, fire away. I'm not afraid to be corrected.

EDIT: No cadence, but speedo, for Kona '09: http://gallery.me.com/...iz&bgcolor=black

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Nice, way to break it down SHB...that's how we roll in F-town!

That was much better put than the first one.

I completely understand your point about people wanting the "magic formula", but I think what more were concerned about was the first post seemed kind of "dick" of you, as if you were completely referring to her lack of intelligence.

Now that I see your second post, which was very insightful, I inderstand where you are coming from and the "dick" disappears - glad I kept reading.

As a side note, congratulations on the two wins this year - IMC was my first viewing of IM as a volunteer this year and saw your interview after the win before heading to the finish line.

---

-----------------------------------------------------------
"Chrissie wins because she trains really f'ing hard and races really f'ing hard and was blessed with a huge f'ing motor" Jordan Rapp

---

-----------------------------------------------------------
"Chrissie wins because she trains really f'ing hard and races really f'ing hard and was blessed with a huge f'ing motor" Jordan Rapp

Jordan,



You being a pro and possibly wanting to knowing info. during the race, would you rather want to know your speed or your cadence in that situation (assuming no PM and in the CW's pictures I'm not sure she has one). So would there be an advantage/disadvantage to knowing just speed vs knowing cadence and/or speed.


I'm asking, cus it's curious she has a cadence sensor on one of the Kona years, while in this past Kona, it seems she doenst have the cadence sensor.


Also, I'm not trying to debate whether CW or anyone is right/wrong in using just a computer.

---

------------------
@brooksdoughtie
USAT-L2,Y&J; USAC-L2
http://www.aomultisport.com

I am blown away by the arrogance of your reply.

Exactly what is your evidence that what she is doing is "wrong". I submit it is simply your opinion that some of what she is doing is "wrong" and that you don't have an ounce of evidence that what she is doing is wrong. As I posted in my previous reply the scientific evidence actually supports the "lower cadence is better" philosophy (at least to a point).

Again, where is your evidence that she could change her cadence and it would make no difference? Where is your evidence she could drop her cadence more and lower her HR more? there is such a thing as a "most efficienct" cadence and above or below that cadence your HR is going to go up at the same power. That is a physiologic truth. You are seemingly criticizing her (and Sutton) for not knowing or caring about the stuff you feel important. You folks who put all your belief in some number you get off a contraption you attach to yourself (HRM) or your bike (PM) without regard to how the athlete feels simply slay me. While such tools can be useful to an athlete or coach there is simply zero evidence that they make any difference in helping the athlete to perform better and I simply don't understand what you are trying to say by saying she doesn't "know" what her actual cadence (power, or speed) is or not. I suspect she "knows" if it is too fast or too slow for what she is trying to do and for how she feels. And, if you think cadence doesn't matter I suggest you do your next race at a cadence of 140 and tell us all how it goes.

Wow, again, where is your evidence that Lance doesn't "scrape mud off the bottom of his shoes"? I have never seen pedal force data on Lance, have you? Without pedal force data how do you know. I submit you cannot know what the pedal forces are at the bottom, top, or anywhere else, by simply looking at a rider. If you say you do I submit you are guessing.

The fact that Chrissie doesn't have a cadence meter means what again? I would submit that Chrissie occasionally rides with other riders and might possibly notice that her cadence is higher or lower than those other riders. If one notes that one is going the same speed at a lower cadence (despite not knowing what the number actually is) do you think it unreasonable they might conclude they are "pushing bigger gears"? Why are you so obsessed by the numbers and what she "knows" or doesn't know?
You are the one who said she is "wrong" in her comments. Seems to me you are the one obsessed with the "right way" and "wrong way" of training. Again, it blows me away that Chrissie is telling everyone some of what she thinks they are doing wrong and the experts here at ST are saying "ignore her" she doesn't know what she is talking about.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

I believe that most of are looking to find that formula or technique or piece of equipment that will make us a little bit better. Slowman and slowtwich survives on us MOPers that want to do just a little bit better. God knows triathlets will spend a fortune on anything that will make us better.
We want to know that if I pedal at this cadance, then I will do better. I know enough physiology to know that there are a thousand variable that go into training and racing. I think most of us want to be able to control as many variables as possible. We want to maintain a cadance--X. As Slowman pointed out, the answer is probably X plus or minus 5 or 8. We still want it to X and we would like it to be X for all of us.
Chrissie wins because of genetics AND a great work ethic. Whoever is coaching her has not ruined her potential. Could she be better with "different coaching" or being more aware of all the tiny techniques (cadance, HR, Watts, nutrition)? If so, would it be measurably better? Or would it take the "fun" out her training (for her).
For years I watched Mark Allen chase (or lead) Dave Scott in Hawaii. Mark was trying new gadgets and monitors, Dave kept beating him. Dave figured that race out 7 years before Mark did. Dave wasn't telling anyone what he knew. It took Macca years to figure it out (if he did). It is fun to watch Chrissie dominate like Dave (and then Mark, and Paula, and Natasha) did.
Thanks for you input and responses

---

Team Zoot So Cal

perhaps Dev wanted a race report from her.

Is there anyone here who "knows" what they are talking about regarding athletic training? You, Rappster, Coggan, anyone else? I submit that not a single person here has scientific proof of a single thing they say regarding training (other than, perhaps, training more is better, in general, than training less except, of course, if it results in injury). There are simply too many variables. Almost everything everyone says here or anywhere else is opinion and usually based upon their own personal experience. Why anyone her would choose t criticize the most dominant triathlete of this generation regarding her opinion here baffles me.

Of course, one area where there is some scientific evidence regards cadence, power, and efficiency. Study after study show cyclists cycle at a cadence substantially higher than the most efficient cadence and many studies have been done trying to figure out why. Why anyone would think it irrelevant in view of that data that Chrissie races at a lower cadence than most while also being the most dominant athlete on the circuit (especially on the bike) baffles me. Actually, it doesn't baffle me, few seem capable of actually thinking and analyzing this stuff.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Wow Frank. I would say that the ignorance of your reply blows me away, but that's just not the case. Everything you write is colored by your own lens of feeling persecuted. Nobody ever said Chrissie's cadence selection was wrong. The question is really, "what makes it RIGHT?" But you spend 99% of your time on here defending your product against those sort of objective probes.

I never said her riding a low cadence was wrong. I said her aerobar extensions were too long, and THAT was wrong. It's wrong because you have to reach out to shift, supporting yourself on only one arm in the process. There's no valid reason for her not to cut them down to where she actually holds them. But nowhere do I ever criticize her selecting a low cadence. Even in my initial reply, I was simply stating that her beliefs weren't really a belief (or rather, weren't the product of her own analysis). To reiterate, "lower than WHAT?" It's a mantra, the kind of thing that comes from a coach. But you automatically go into "defensive mode" because that's the only way you know how to interact. You injected some meaning that was not at all there into what I wrote, and then call me arrogant? I only wish I was surprised.

I also never said she could change her cadence without it making a difference. I was simply pointing out that she says "a lower cadence is better." But again, LOWER THAN WHAT? Why not five beats lower? Or ten beats? Or five higher? I.e., she just says "lower" without giving a frame of reference. My argument was not that she could change her cadence without it making a difference, rather that she could change her cadence without it affecting her argument. Big difference.

The pedal force data for Lance is widely available. Here's one of the first hits on a google search of "Lance Armtrong pedal force analysis": http://www.trainright.com/...tdf/clockdiagram.jpg Wow, that was REALLY hard to find.

And I'm not obsessed with knowing numbers. She's the one who said she rides with a lower cadence for a reason. So don't you think that it's reasonable that SHE might want to know what her cadence is, since she obviously feels that it is important?

Again, I never said she was wrong about anything other than her aerobars being too long. But it's not surprising that you think I did, because that's the only way you seem to know how to interact with people. It's so biases everything your thought process that you basically miss every single point that I made, points that were not lost on virtually everyone else who read what I wrote.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Just cadence. I don't ever look at speed during training or racing. My computer shows Power // Cadence // Time, so I can figure out my average speed every 10miles or so during a race, but that's it. Speed is, in my opinion, not only irrelevant, but actually detrimental, especially in the absence of power. I.e., are you going up a false flat or down one? Headwind or tailwind? Etc.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Jordan, this is what you wrote in post 20 of this thread:
"It's wrong, but she's good enough that it doesn't matter." Now, you either said her cadence selection is wrong or that her opinion that it matters is wrong. If you meant something else perhaps you could enlighten us. No persecution complex here, you were the one who said that. I think it is pretty arrogant to say that (as I understood it, but it is simply my opinion. Her beliefs are not her beliefs because you think she was told them by her first coach? Where on earth do you think most people's beliefs come from? From their own experience wouldn't you say? And, regarding your question, "Lower than what?" Lower than her competition, on average. Isn't that all that counts. Wouldn't that be the reference by which she would be judging things?
geeze. This seems pretty clear to me. Lower than what most people ride. What other frame of reference would there be?

"change her cadence without it affecting her argument" Huh????

Ugh, I think she could know her cadence is lower than most of her competition without knowing the actual number just as she might know her speed is higher than most of her competition without knowing exactly how fast she is going.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Would you rather know your cadence or how you are feeling and how you are doing in relationship to the competition?

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Here is what I wrote: "Kind of like her aerobar extensions. They are too long. They just are. It's not like it something that "works for her." It's just something that doesn't matter enough to make a difference. But it's not like it's right or good or anything like that. It's wrong, but she's good enough that it doesn't matter." Is that clear to you now? It was clear to everyone else...

Lower than her competition? Really? Based on what? Tereza Macel actually rides a much lower cadence than Chrissie. So does Lucie Zelenkova. Belinda Granger rides a similar cadence. As I said all along, Chrissie never actually alludes to what her preferred cadence is, so we can't really compare it. Tell me what her cadence was. And then tell me the cadence of her competition. As I pointed out, she doesn't know what her cadence is when she races, and both Lucie Zelenkova and Tereza Macel, who were ahead of Chrissie out of the water, ride with a slower cadence than Chrissie.

Furthermore, it doesn't actually make any sense to infer that she is implying "lower than her competition" because her exact statement pertains to pushing a bigger gear and lowering her heart rate. If you read what she wrote, it doesn't really make sense to infer a comparison with the competition, because she talks about spinning a "smaller gear at a higher cadence" as compared with "pushing a bigger gear and lowering her heart rate." Those are self-reflective observations. But there is no frame of reference provided, which is why I said she could ride with a cadence five or 10 beats lower (or higher) without it affecting her argument that pushing a bigger gear is better. Especially if you consider going even lower with cadence. If she rides at 75, why not 65? Or why not 70? Or why not 80? Even 80 would be lower than "normal" (including men).

What she wrote makes the most sense if you treat it as what it is - a piece of advice // a mantra // etc. from her coach. It's like my "swim with long strokes" analogy. It doesn't make any sense if I, as an athlete, say that I am successful because I swim with long strokes. What does make sense is if I say "my coach told me I need to swim with long strokes," because then it's a coaching cue. If you look at what Chrissie said in that light - the way that I rewrote it in my very first post - it makes a lot more sense.

So, to borrow a phrase, "Ugh!" I can't believe you ate the chess piece...

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Careful, Rappstar knows what he's talking about. He just won an IronMan, and I saw it on TV. It was awesome.

---

persequetur vestra metas furiose

Well since you're making it your personal business to stalk my posts, I'll ask you to invite Chrissie here to explain her approach, and no I won't kiss her ass.

Sorry, but by now, I'm expecting more from my champions of this sport than what Chrissie says (or actually does not say). Anyone can smile ear to ear when they're on a winning streak, and anyone can say, "I worked hard, got fit, and had a great race....thank you volunteers".

I'll take what comes out of Macca's or Normann's mouth (or Rappstar for knowledge) over CW. I kind of think Normann losing it completely and throwing his bike into the lavafield and coming back to win the next year (and even not win in subsequent years) is of greater interest (to me). ....and yeah, I like hearing what the third line player has to say, cause this guy is really having to think it through to earn his paycheque, not just dominating through better physical and natural gifts (as well as hard work....but they all work hard)

I don't really think I'd find doing an interview of CW that interesting. There are much more colourful and insightful personalities in the sport who have much less of a palmares that offer us better listening and reading....but that's just me. Watching someone destroy a field by 20 minutes I don't find particularly exciting. But if she can describe to me what went through her head and body on race day so that I'm almost living it with her....then yeah, that's interesting. Erin Baker, PNF, Karen Smyers (forgot her in the first list), Lori Bowden, Natasha Badmann....all give more interesting interviews.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

L -M- freakin- A-O

Love the .gif. It seems to capture the 'arguing with FD' perfectly. :-D

It has been fun lurking here- all you guys and this back and forth stuff that doesn't matter about Chrissie and her performance at Kona.

I for one find it refreshing that she just went out there, gave it her all and had fun doing it and is nice to her competition. There really isn't anything for her to say. No secrets. No How-to-be-like-me interviews. I like that. It's the way tris used to be in the 80s. Go and kick butt and have the time of your lives.

Now-go train or race-but have some fun. Please. :-)

what competition?

---

It's not about the bike, it's just along for the ride.

Well, that's actually not how it was in the 80's. The 80's were the time when massive equipment advances like aerobars, aero helmets, lace locks (probably the biggest time savings per dollar spent), triathlon specific wetsuits, steep seat tube angled bikes, lycra skinsuits, carbon bikes, indexed shifting, super light race flats, were born.

The pros back then were trying to figure out every material way in which they could shave time and go faster. That's how Greg Lemond beat Laurent fignon in the TdF by 8 seconds. There were tons of pros trying to figure out how to get faster by racing smarter with better equipment choices back in the 80's. Definintely quite different from how CW races (or lets on).

Its actually interesting that more pros back in the 80's were thinking like Rappstar vs CW and other pros today. That's cause today, the macro equipment choices are mainstream. Back then, it was the realm of the innovator. Today the playing field is somewhat level from an equipment, strategy, nutrition, pacing and preparation perspective

In the 80's the playing field was fairly "unlevel"...all this stuff that we all use today was new. If you were the first guy with aerobars, in a field, or the first guy riding a QR Superform at IM New Zealand, you might just beat the field by 20 minutes off the bike (ask Andrew McNaughton or Ray Browning). I think Monty actually won a few races cause he was the first guy to discover the use of lace locks.

Its cool if you find it refreshing that she went out and cleaned the clocks of the field, but tris in the 80's were actually totally different from how CW approaches it today. Lots of innovation coming from the pro ranks back then. I see none from CW....not saying that she does not put the work in and race hard....she obviously does.

i'm not sure what you meant by 'lot's of innovation coming from pro ranks back then. i see none from chrissie." howsabout three straight Kona dominations? what else do you want? it's the rest who are not showing innovation but rather are hanging on to what supposed innovation has shown them and that's why they aren't winning or coming close to it, they've apparently been sidetracked by 'innovation'. her innovation to me is simply dominating with or without the bells and whistles because she just can.

further down the list you go, buddy.

---

It's not about the bike, it's just along for the ride.

X 2

it s not lava field here, it's DRAMA fields....

Interesting do!

Jf

funny and i gotta say as now is the time for more drama for your babys mama but i think Big Rapp spoke too soon earlier and stuck his foot way into his mouth and only came out an amputee on the rebound as Frank was right. just saying. a simple 'whoops, i phucked up' woulda saved more face but that's only my little ole opinion on the matter and tomorrow is a new day anywho.

---

It's not about the bike, it's just along for the ride.

My friend, the original quote was about cadence and you write "kind of like her aerobar extensions. . . . It's wrong" Sure seems to me you are criticizing her cadence and her knowledge/opinions about cadence.
well, cadence isn't everything. there is an optimum cadence for everyone and the optimum cadence for each individual depends upon a lot of factors including what power they are at. So, if Chrissie is higher than some that doesn't mean her comments are still not valid. Most competitors ride way above their most efficient cadence. Those of you who are arguing that she is wrong about this cadence comment really are trying to say that people should race at something other than their most efficient cadence. I look forward to hearing the justification for such an argument. Many here might want to pay attention to what Chrissie is trying to say. I suspect Chrissie's "preferred cadence" depends upon what she is trying to do. Is she climbing, descending, trying to pass someone and demoralize them, "resting" before the next hill. Her comment surely is a generalization and should not be taken to account for every circumstance one might encounter racing.
I suspect she rides at the cadence that keeps her HR the lowest it can go for the power she is putting out. That would be the most efficient cadence. That is "why not 65 or 50 or 80 or anything else. she is trying to optimize efficiency. What is so hard to understand here?
No, what makes the most sense is what she said is what she actually believes, based upon her experience. Not that she is some automaton regurgitating what her coach has told her in the past. IMHO

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

frank, you owe me some powercranks...i'll take mine in first place, please. ;)

---

It's not about the bike, it's just along for the ride.

Sheesh... While I find this thread both highly entertaining and increasingly educational, I have to say that after reading Frank's posts, I have to wonder if there is some sort if innate need to disagree?

Seriously Frank, I typically can find some truth and thoughtful insight to what you say, while even at times, agreeing with your point of view, but damn... this is a totally new level.

---

___________________________________
Cure CF, because I love my daughter.
http://www.cff.org

Perhaps you are thinking of the late 80's? Meanwhile, Dave Scott was as low tech as any of the pro's. No heart rate monitor, the last to use aerobars, shirt flapping in the air, and he dominated Hawaii until '89. He just did what Chrissie does, goes out and trains harder than everyone else and he NEVER went into any details about his training.
I do not mean to imply he didn't know how to coach himself, he did.
We all started to train with a heart rate monitor back then, but it was guess work. The same with aerobars and position. Heck I remember triathlons in the 80's were wetsuits were forbidden.

---

Team Zoot So Cal

i gotta agree with trijunk but that's a two way street cause Big Rapp isn't exactly taking it laying down on his back and with that i gotta tip my hat to all of you for maintaining an adult atmosphere while arguing your sides. it's a first for me to witness this and it has a calming effect to go along with the fun. figures i would find this kind of stand up behavior on an Ironman forum.

---

It's not about the bike, it's just along for the ride.

Just because you win, does not mean you innovated. Just cause you win, does not mean you can articulate how you went about doing so. As a fan of the sport, I'd like to see more from CW. Her description of cadence that started off this thread is the perfect example. Rappstar has done a fine job describing her explanation of cadence (or lack thereof since she does not even state what cadence relative to which her comments are made....)

How many races did Andrew McNaughton win? But guess what....he was the first pro to give Boone Lennon's weird handlebars a go in a marquis event. The rest is history. Not asking for CW to go to that extent, just responding to the poster saying that things were simple in the 80's when this is furthest from the truth. The 80's were when the bulk of major advancement in triathlon occurred. CW can dominate without using the best equipment effectively cause she can overcome a lot with her superior engine and work ethic. Good for her.

Eventually the strategy of "out muscle the competition" may no longer work, when her engine/wheels decline and some other up and comer is younger, and fitter and uses the equipment more effectively....of course, she may walk away from the sport long before that.

Frank, can you please enlighten me as to one simple fact - why does a lower HR mean a given cadence is more "efficient"? Unfortunately, you're entire argument (since that's all it is) is based off a misconception. Not really surprising...

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

....right, true about Dave....but you do recall Dave making his comeback half IM race at Gulf Coast in 1994. The week of the race, he put on a stem that was too long and too much reach....DNF....no Kona qual spot for Dave that day (back then winners had to requal). Maybe if Dave knew as much as Rapp, he'd have gone for a shorter reach and not made that rookie mistake which he later described himself in an interview.

He did requal later in the year and went on to finish 2nd in Kona....could he have beaten Welchie with better aerodynamics.

This is what Welchy rode (may have been 95, but had pretty well the same in 1994):

I can possibly see how Frank could misinterpret Jordan's first post:

"She meant to say, "Brett Sutton told me I love to push a big gear. Brett Sutton told me it's a misconception that... Brett Sutton told me that doing that actually raises your heart rate. Brett Sutton told me that doesn't serve you very well in long distance racing. Brett Sutton told me cranking it down and pushing a bigger gear lets me lower my heart rate... Brett Sutton told me it's what feels natural to me and enables me to go the fastest I can go."

However, knowing the informative nature that intrinsically encompasses Jordan's posts, I naturally assumed there was some sort of justified reasoning behind it. Therefore, rather than looking for an opportunity to criticize, as did Frank, I waited and through further reading was able to make a more informed opinion of what was truly being said.

Furthermore, Frank's responses to the rest of Jordan's posts seem only to be made to provocate some sort of reaction (exactly what reaction he's looking for, I am not sure).

---

___________________________________
Cure CF, because I love my daughter.
http://www.cff.org

I have yet to see almost anything (in quite a long time) that Frank has been right about, and that's not limited to this thread. I have no problem admitting when I've "phucked up," as evidenced by the fact that *I* owned up to being wrong about the computer and actually posted the pic of Chrissie in 2007 using a computer with cadence after someone pointed out that she did use a computer at some races. There is no shame in being wrong. The problem with Frank is that you not only have to defend yourself about what you actually said, you also have to defend yourself against whatever it is that he thinks you said. Chess with a chimpanzee...

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

For the moment, regardless of how you interpreted the context of Rappstar's comment, can we let it rest with his clarification that the comment was intended to refer to her aerobars and continue along more productive lines?

I am curious why you say most competitors ride way above their most efficient cadence. I am just a cyclist, so perhaps the demographics are a bit different, but what would you consider a normal range for the most efficient cadence (i.e. in what range does the optimum for most Ironman distance pro athletes fall)?

In road races and time trials, I note that a lot of riders will have cadences lower than mine (average ~80 rpm for a flat RR or TT), and I don't consider mine particularly speedy; my assumption has been that, if my cadence is anywhere near where it should be, that a lot of folks are riding below their optimum, but I could be wrong. (Is there a significant decrease in the optimum if you will be running afterward?)

I'm also curious about this efficiency bit. I'd believe a well trained athlete could hone in on a local optimum, but especially for a triathlon, I am doubtful that finding a global optimum "by feel" is possible, but even so, efficiency isn't the goal -- overall speed is, even if you sacrifice efficiency, and I think that is even harder to tune into, especially considering that there is a completely different sport (running) that is involved. Could you clarify exactly what you were trying to get at here, or why (if) you think that Chrissie (or anyone else) can find that global optimum by feel alone?

Clearly, Chrissie has a decent margin of error, partly by diligence, partly by a bit of luck, but that doesn't mean she's racing at the absolute fastest pace she can (granted, many of her competitors probably are a bit off their best too, so that may even out).

On another note, I don't find it particularly disappointing that she doesn't bring new revelations to sport-science or training. If she just likes going fast... so be it!

you're kidding me right? who else is using the equipment more efficiently than her? heck, if anything she is proving moreso than not there hasn't been much innovation from then and now. she dominated that tri in 2006 on a klien with 105 so there goes that theory that sram rival or super record or whatver is gonna just make you faster just because you own it. it won't. and i dunno why you all are so intrigued as to what her cadence is or her ability to not acre to talk about it is. it's not gonna make you any faster or stronger, only you can do that for yourself, if that is why you want to know her numbers for. i appreciate her for exactly not being what you two are demanding she degrade herself down to and she brought the magic and will for some time to your sport so why mess with a grand thing? who cares cadence or whatnot? let Big Rapp go and take Kona on and see if he has any time to think about cadence on that day, i doubt he will, or yourself or anyone for that matter and for those who do, well, they won't win.

---

It's not about the bike, it's just along for the ride.

Rapp really jumped the gun in posting an early response on this post and now is trying to do damage control.

and a mirror. just saying.

---

It's not about the bike, it's just along for the ride.

Quit exacerbating the situation. It wasn't funny the previous three pages, and it isn't fucking funny the fourth page.

Go drink your horse piss beer and shut up.

I believe Mark Allen began using HR as a training tool quite early in his carreer;

http://www.markallenonline.com/heartrate.asp

It was all I knew. So, when I entered the sport of triathlon in the early 1980’s, my mentality was to go as hard as I could at some point in every single workout I did. And to gauge how fast that might have to be, I looked at how fast the best triathletes were running at the end of the short distance races. Guys like Dave Scott, Scott Tinley and Scott Molina were able to hold close to 5 minute miles for their 10ks after swimming and biking!

So that’s what I did. Every run, even the slow ones, for at least one mile, I would try to get close to 5 minute pace. And it worked…sort of. I had some good races the first year or two, but I also suffered from minor injuries and was always feeling one run away from being too burned out to want to continue with my training.

Then came the heart rate monitor. A man named Phil Maffetone, who had done a lot of research with the monitors, contacted me. He had me try one out according to a very specific protocol. Phil said that I was doing too much anaerobic training, too much speed work, too many high end/high heart rate sessions. I was forcing my body into a chemistry that only burns carbohydrates for fuel by elevating my heart rate so high each time I went out and ran.

So he told me to go to the track, strap on the heart rate monitor, and keep my heart rate below 155 beats per minute. Maffetone told me that below this number that my body would be able to take in enough oxygen to burn fat as the main source of fuel for my muscle to move. I was going to develop my aerobic/fat burning system. What I discovered was a shock.

To keep my heart rate below 155 beats/minute, I had to slow my pace down to an 8:15 mile. That’s three minutes/mile SLOWER than I had been trying to hit in every single workout I did! My body just couldn’t utilize fat for fuel.

So, for the next four months, I did exclusively aerobic training keeping my heart rate at or below my maximum aerobic heart rate, using the monitor every single workout. And at the end of that period, my pace at the same heart rate of 155 beats/minute had improved by over a minute. And after nearly a year of doing mostly aerobic training, which by the way was much more comfortable and less taxing than the anaerobic style that I was used to, my pace at 155 beats/minute had improved to a blistering 5:20 mile.

Not Frank, but a lot of people use that as a definition of efficiency. At the very least its cheap and easy, all you need is a way of measuring speed and a HR moniter. Obviously its not at all accurate in a rigorous physiological sense.

What bothers me most is that riding or running at the most efficient cadence or speed isn't normally (or ever) the fastest method, which is what most of us are concerned with.

Styrrell

---

Styrrell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l114NsjD1nQ

---

It's not about the bike, it's just along for the ride.

I'm not clicking any link from you

I've got one for you, though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFiSkKpySaE

"Mommy, the big bad internet bully that told me to shut up and drink horse piss isn't clicking on my link!!!" or was it Rapp you were talking to originally? wait, don't answer, i don't care as the feeling is more than quite supplementary and mutual, jackhole. ;)

Big Rapp and Dev_Paul, i see and appreciate both of you alls version albeit i don't agree with it so that being said, tomorrow is a new day. adios, ladies.

---

It's not about the bike, it's just along for the ride.

Wow. Just fucking wow...

Supplementary? Really?

I think Dave just got the bike from a sponsor right before the race. Yep, he admits that was a bonehead/rookie move. I was amazed a few years back when he could get his tire off because of a too well glued tubular.
Rappstar has lost some respect from me in his exchanges here. He does know a lot, but seems to be a regular STer now with his exchanges.

---

Team Zoot So Cal

my brain hurts. I cant tell whats going on here.

I don't think that Big Rapp speaking his mind and doing so how he sees fit even when that fit means being funny on a forum where he is the moderator and allows the rest of us to speak our minds is worth anyone lessening respect of him.. I'm glad he does no matter who speaks his mind against him, it keeps him human in my eyes and not some mythological gawd who is supposed to be too good for the rest of us.

I appreciate that about him and he keeps his cool the entire time which is big and shows all the signs of proper leadership which is probably why he is out there winning Ironmen competitions and we all keep looking to him for his insight because of it vs. the lot of us blindly tossing opinions around. Big Rapp, don't take me too seriously, you'll find that I get more into the fight than it's actually worth at times and try to have fun while seeing things in my own light and that's about it so no harm, no foul and thanks for the fun this evening. The same to your friend Dev_Paul.

---

It's not about the bike, it's just along for the ride.

If my memory serves me correctly Dave had just signed up with Carbonframes as a bike sponsor and they didnt have a bike made for him, but really wanted him to race on one of their bikes, so they gave him one of the owners bikes to use for the race. It was the wrong size and he paid for it that day. He did get the right size bike and went on to finish second to Welch at Kona.
I had almost an exact copy of Welchies bike setup including the Headway and the Speedo!

Kevin

I'm most certainly as fallible as anyone else on this board. I am just a regular STer, which I don't mind being at all. Conveying meaning strictly via the written word is extremely challenging when you don't have tone or gesture to enhance what you write. That's part of why I spend so much time writing. If you can be clear (and, ideally, concise) on an internet forum, that's quite an impressive achievement. I do by best, but obviously I make mistakes. I have emotions. They get the better of me at times.

One inevitably seems to tread on especially thin ice when talking about someone who is pretty universally liked and respected, as Chrissie is and should be. But I also don't think anyone should be "above the law" with respect to being challenged on what they believe. ALL successful people make mistakes. What I, personally, find to be interesting is to examine whether people are successful because of something they do or in spite of something they do. I am not saying that Chrissie's preferred cadence is a case of either one. I honestly don't know. But I'd like to know, simply because if it is something that she is successful because of, then I think that is worth examining, and if she's successful in spite of it, why is that the case. And I don't think that the answer is as simple as some folks may believe. I think Dan's analogy of Tim Tebow's throwing motion was the most illustrative and largely says what I wish that I had been able to say so appropriately. C'est la vie.

Ultimately, I suppose I care about answering the question of "why" more than I care about not stepping on people's toes. I do my best to walk the line, but if I have to choose between critical thinking and playing nice, I will choose critical thinking. A better debater than I might say that's never a choice you have to make, but I guess I lack that eloquence. That's just who I am. I do not ask anyone to like or not like me as a result. I'd like to think respect is not influenced by something like that, but if your definition is different, then I respect your right to have it be so. I hope I can re-earn your respect, just because respect is a currency that is in relatively short supply these days, and I do value it, going both ways.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

You should know better than this. In this place, the idiots always win. It's more entertaining to see them fight among themselves.

---

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!

I actually think it's a poor one. While I agree with your basic sentiment regarding her comments about her cadence, there's nothing wrong with her cadence. There is, OTOH, a problem with Tebow's throwing motion.

Her cadence doens't give her a competitive disadvantage. The same can't be said for Captain Windup. It just hasn't caught up with him since he's not playing in the NFL.

I realized that after I wrote it. I was more referring to the sentiment that critical analysis of technique is commonplace within major league sports, and it's not viewed by the players or the criticizers as a bad thing or ridiculous because of success. It just is something that *is*. That is, it's perfectly reasonable in most professional sports to ask "is this person successful because of or in spite of how they do something." And that's what I appreciated about the Tebow analogy.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

i've gotta agree with paulo. best for you to just shut up and win another 10 or 15 ironman races, in which case you can ride a wheelie the entire bike leg and it'll be the best possible technique... for you. plus, you'll get honorary degrees in engineering (in addition to the real one you already have) and ex fizz, from lemming polytech.

i need to tell you, jordan, i've lost all sorts of respect for you, because you're spending your weekend trying to help me understand best practices. how dare you.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Everything else being the same, HR correlates pretty well with oxgen consumption. I look forward to hearing from you how this is a misconception.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

I totally understood your intent, but you know me--I can't help myself sometimes. Sorry, you've been raked over the coals enough...

When I think of Tebow though, two words come to mind: Byron Leftwitch. I'm seeing a similar career path unless he makes some changes.

Frank,

I think you're getting carried away on this one. When he quoted the specific paragraph, it is clear thgat he is speaking to the Aerobar extensions and not her cadence as being "wrong".

Was he right in putting the first post the way he did? No, as I said in an earlier post, had he not clarified, he would have seemed like a complete Dick for that post.

Given the clarification, I, and most others as he's pointed out, see where is argument is coming from. You seem to want to continue to push the argument well past the point that it should go, which is strange.

That said, your point regarding her pedalling at the cadence that optimizes her power output in a given situation, while minimizing the HR at that power output is great. With that though, wouldn't she need to do significant training / testing with both a HR monitor, cadence sensor and PM? I have not seen much questioning of Jordan's assertion that she, and many other of Brett's athlete's, use the aforementioned equipment as part of their training? Also, wouldn't she specifically need to know her optimal cadence to produce X power while minimizing her heart rate under the specific conditions of Kona - i.e. Heat, course, etc. When you think it through, doesn't it sound like you are starting to push for her being even more scientific and into the numbers than Jordan was accused of being into earlier? Also, doesn't that fly in the face of your saying she does it off of "feel" earlier?

Just saying, she is either (1) going about it very scientifically and none of us are aware of it, (2) simply doing what her coach has told her and she therefore believes, or a combination thereof? It can't be one or the other depending on which point of Jordan's hypothesis you are arguing against.

---

-----------------------------------------------------------
"Chrissie wins because she trains really f'ing hard and races really f'ing hard and was blessed with a huge f'ing motor" Jordan Rapp

This just in: Powercranks signs Jordan Rapp to sponsorship agreement.


Normally I scroll past any post by frank day and roadhouse among others, but this thread in like a car accident...... wow. keep up the good work jordan!

---

_________________________________________________

well i gotta say Big Rapp that you instantly gained much more respect than i had previously thought i had had for you when you wrote this:

Ultimately, I suppose I care about answering the question of "why" more than I care about not stepping on people's toes. I do my best to walk the line, but if I have to choose between critical thinking and playing nice, I will choose critical thinking. A better debater than I might say that's never a choice you have to make, but I guess I lack that eloquence. That's just who I am. I do not ask anyone to like or not like me as a result. I'd like to think respect is not influenced by something like that, but if your definition is different, then I respect your right to have it be so. I hope I can re-earn your respect, just because respect is a currency that is in relatively short supply these days, and I do value it, going both ways.

i'm still not quite sure of what you meant concerning Chrissie and Sutton because it came out almost sexist as if Chrissie couldn't think for herself but i doubt that that is what you meant, now i can see that. she's refreshing in her ability and her pride to just do it and that's what i like about those types of athletes, they're refreshing and invigorating in their overall simplicity. anywho, it's safe to say that you are much, much better at critical thinking (light years ahead of myself) than most and in my eyes you , in the most recent of your posts, easily proved your place at the top of this forum. cool. and i'll leave the scientific stuff to you all, i'll just try and dominate as best i can without it because that is just me, not that bright and yet not that dumb but with a ton of heart...eh.

in another time i hope i can have some better intended arguments for you to help me figure out.

---

It's not about the bike, it's just along for the ride.

Maybe you can explain how oxygen consumption is a true and accurate measure of efficiency. I am well aware that this is a lost cause, given numerous power cranks threads. And, as is always the case, I would suggest that maybe you do some research that proves that you are correct rather than telling me I should prove you wrong. Generally speaking, utilization of a greater percentage of Type II muscle fibers equates to a lower HR , but that's not the same as efficiency, since it's well documented that Type I fibers respirate more efficiently than type two fibers. Much of the literature that's been around actually defines efficiency by that cadence which maximizes type I fiber recruitment, since they contract the most efficiently. Now I'm not an exercise physiologist, so I am sure I am way oversimplifying things, but I would also say that it's an antiquated theory to equate HR alone and efficiency. I'd argue that BLA is also a relevant metric if you are going to examine oxygen consumption. Because what is more interesting is how the work is being distributed, which BLA will help give you insight about, though even that is not a complete measure. If you are going to use HR as a proxy for O2 consumption, then you could also potentially use BLA as a proxy for fiber type recruitment, though I am sure there are limitations to that, I just don't know enough to the physiology to accurately assess them.

As you said, numerous studies have been done to try and answer why cyclists pick a cadence that is not the most "efficient," defining efficiency according to HR, O2 consumption, or something similar. Maybe that's because that definition of "efficient" is wrong, since once you start to consider muscle fiber recruitment, then the preferred cadence and the most efficient cadence track more closely. But even fiber recruitment isn't necessarily the whole story. As an example, might it not be more appropriate to consider efficiency in terms of damage to muscle tissue, especially for something like Ironman racing? Or what about efficiency defined by most work being done by major muscle fibers with minimal recruitment of smaller stabilizer muscles?

Biologic efficiency is not at all easy to measure. The best cyclists in the world continually choose cadences that those metrics for efficiency tell them are not optimal. Yet they do not change. These are people whose livelihoods depend on winning races. If the more "efficient" cadence worked, they would choose it. The fact that as a group they do not choose it leaves two options - 1) all the best athletes in the world are wrong, which defies the law of large numbers, which is pretty compelling evidence. OR - 2) the way in which efficiency is being defined//measured is wrong, which is supported if you look at the other studies using alternative definitions of efficiency, namely fiber recruitment, since it is well documented that type I fibers are more efficient than type II fibers at contracting, which is what we really care about.

Of course, much of the literature that discusses this type of efficiency with respect to cycling also says that the most effective way to pedal is to simply hammer the downstroke of the pedal cycle and to not worry about anything else, so I can see why you might not want to read them too closely.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I look forward to it.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

With the "eh" in there Roadhouse, are you Canadian?

Glad to see you flip back to on-side. Would have hoped you went there after his original clarifiaction email, but then again, you likely were playing games, as I can see you like to do.

All the Best,

Clint

---

-----------------------------------------------------------
"Chrissie wins because she trains really f'ing hard and races really f'ing hard and was blessed with a huge f'ing motor" Jordan Rapp

You know what's funny......there is another cadence thread on the front page currently, only it's regarding swimming. In that thread, any particular cadence is dependent on individual....YET on this thread, there appears to be no middle ground.......it's one way or the other.......I think it's individual, in both cases.

---

http://theworldthroumyeyes.tumblr.com/

I try to learn from the best in any given field.

Coaching ironman? Ask Mario Huys and Brett Sutton.

Racing ironman? Ask Chrissie Wellington, Dave Scott, Marc Allen, Normann Stadler, Faris Al Sultan, Macca, ...

So when Wellington talks, the argument "it could be influenced by Brett Sutton" makes me listen even closer.

Frank,
You said it your self. "HR correlates pretty well with oxgen consumption." The problem is correlating HR with efficiency. For most runners/cyclists, we care about max speed for a distance. They don't give medals for the lowest HR, or even the lowest O2 consumed. Its the pretty well part that is bad, we want to improve on pretty well to exactly.

Styrrell

---

Styrrell

Paulo FTW!

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

oh, how so not canuckian and yes i like to joke around...eh. ;) i think i may have missed the original clarification though but it all turned out to be good.

thanks,

Sir Preston

---

It's not about the bike, it's just along for the ride.

After this, I'm finally ready to get me some Power Cranks!

---

___________________________________
Cure CF, because I love my daughter.
http://www.cff.org

The problem is whether discussing aerobic efficiency or mechanical efficiency.

HR does correlate pretty well to oxygen consumption, but at a muscle fiber level may or may not represent efficiency. Amongst other things, does the person have more Type I or Type II muscle fibers - so efficiency becomes VERY individual.

From speaking with bike coaches, it does seem that women generate better power output at lower cadences than men do. So perhaps Brett Sutton picked up on this earlier - does anyone know if he has his male athletes also use lower cadence?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

When I think of Tebow though, two words come to mind: Byron Leftwitch. I'm seeing a similar career path unless he makes some changes.


______________________________________________________


That'd be one hell of a career. Making $20-$30 million (guranteed money) after the "he isnt good enough to QB in the NFL". If he follow's Byron's path, it'll mean he basically is an NFL starter for about 3-5 seasons, than becomes an journeyman "2nd string" QB. Not a bad way to make a career at all.

---

------------------
@brooksdoughtie
USAT-L2,Y&J; USAC-L2
http://www.aomultisport.com

It's definitely individual. Nobody is saying the number must be X (or at least I'm not). However, one thing to consider is that with cycling - you have gears and can choose from a variety of crank lengths, cleat mounts, etc. With swimming, the faster you turn over, the faster you will (should) go (assuming your technique doesn't falter). That same relationship doesn't hold true in cycling. That doesn't mean that there isn't a range of cadences that are probably "appropriate" (I would think optimal cadence is largely defined by muscle type), but I would guess that it's much less individual than in swimming. It's also important to remember in swimming cadence is usually defined by strokes/length. If you change it to strokes per second, the discrepancy would shrinks somewhat. I think the big comparison often made is Phelps vs Manadou(?) setting 200m free world record with Phelps at ~29s/50m and Manadou at ~50s/50m. But Manadou takes longer to get across the pool. If you watch the best cyclists - male and female - during an equivalent effort, say the 4000m pursuit (RIP), I doubt very much (but don't know for certain) if you'd see even close to the kind of variance you see in swimming (i.e., the fastest cadence being ~50 faster than the slowest competitor). I think in both cases, there is a range. I just think it's a narrower range - because of the drivetrain - than it is in swimming.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Jordan -

What if any opinion do you have on cleat position...specifically a cleat slammed far back towards midfoot. As in opposition to ball of foot over spindle? I only ask b/c I went to the Speedplay fore/aft adjuster several months ago to get rid of nagging knee and Achilles injuries. It has worked like a charm. Just curious if I'm a 1/10,000 that it works for.....as I was chided by everyone I knew for such 'blasphemy';)

I saw the thread on 'cadence' and I was immediately interested b/c my cadence picked up automatically by using this cleat position and it 'lightened' up my foot on the upstroke....as in I'm not fighting a 'heavy' foot on the opposing side during the recovery.

Thanks for your opinion as it's one of a few I greatly value.

I used to run my cleats all the way forward, because I thought you got more "leverage" (which maybe you do). But then I heard from a friend who worked with the High Road team that all their GC guys ran their cleats all the way back on the shoe (without custom drilling). Dan's rule of thumb is (I think) mount the cleats 1/3" of the overall SOLE (of the shoe) length from the front. So in my case, that works out to ~10cm, which is as far back as they will go on the standard speedplay adapter. I think this has been a good change, especially for running after, since I find my calves get less fatigued, which makes sense since they work through less ROM.

People I know who have tried midfoot (arch) or even heel mounted cleats report this phenomenon even more. I.e., even less calf usage. But at some point, that doesn't seem to be a good thing if you are actually interested in racing, since you are taking a muscle out of play that helps provide power. I.e., for long distance touring, I would definitely try arch - or even heel - mounted cleats. But for racing, you do want to use your calves some. So at that point, it becomes personal. Given that you had achilles injuries, I'm not suprised that you tried arch mount cleats or that you found success by doing so.

I don't know that there is a great answer, but I generally just put cleats as far back as they will go, without drilling new holes.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Okay thanks for your insight. I had read about Joe Friel? who uses the true midfoot/arch position, but the Speedplay fore/aft adapter seemed to be a happy medium between conventional wisdom and midfoot/arch.

I can't argue with the results and certainly my calves are used much less. It's been a blessing as both my knee and Achilles are behaving!

Thanks for you explanation. OK, you did get back some of the respect I had lost for you. If you go back and and read some of your responses about Chrissie, I think you were portraying her as mindless, just do what Brett Sutton says. I know you never said "mindless". I do not know one way or the other if that is the case, but I wouldn't portray anyone of being mindless, even Frank.
Frank is stuck on HR and you are stuck on watts- well that is how it appears in your arguments. (ok, I over simplified it) I bet you are both right. I know you are MORE right, but arguing with Frank doesn't help you case. Refering back to Power Crank rants puts you in ranks of us STers, not a scholar of the sport.
As an engineer (I believe that was your field), you want quantifiable answer. As a biology person, so do I. The difference I believe is that the physical sciences always have precise results. Biological answers have a lot of variables we do not fully understand and rarely have precise answers-the joy and frustration of it.
Go train or rest, depending on what you need to do.

---

Team Zoot So Cal

I would actually say that "just do what [your coach] says" is not mindless. I would actually say it's quite intelligent. In fact, I would say it also a lot more intelligent, as far as advice goes, than "push a big gear." Chrissie is very intelligent. However, in this particular case, I think her intelligence is reflected in trusting her [former] coach, rather than some in depth analytical understanding of physiology, etc. That's my *opinion.*

The reference to old PowerCranks rants is relevant in this case because Frank has, on multiple occasions presented the idea of HR=efficiency, and has, on multiple accounts, been corrected (by folks other than me). So the point was, "we've done this dance before." He keeps making the same claims about "efficiency," and keeps being shown he's incorrect. That's SOP. He knows the studies about cycling efficiency and cadence, because some of them are the exact same studies that demonstrate why PowerCranks don't work, and they've been referenced many times before. It's like beating a dead horse. The horse may be dead, but if you beat it long enough, it can still wear *you* down.

I'm caught up on performance. Not watts. Or HR. Or anything else. Performance. And Chrissie obviously performs. But, again, WHY does she perform? Is it because of - or in spite of - the things that she does.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

IT'S OFFICAL, IT'S THE OFF SEASON!!!!!! Looks everyone needs to go for a bike ride.

Franks misconception that heart rate= efficiency is shared by many people.

if you look at some of the arguments made by pose running, they bring up that point, along with misinterpreted physics.

its really hard to tell what cadence is efficient for chrisse because
1) i the womens competition isnt as stiff as the men's, meaning they dont have to bike as hard to stay with the group.
2) metabolic efficiency is pretty hard to measure

""

To this 2nd point...Have there been many/any studies related to metabolic efficiency specifically related to muscle type/LT/VO2max or other individually specific physiological strengths?...refering to cadence.

Depending on your own motor's efficiencies/deficiencies (and the relatively high variability btwn individual physiologies,...it seems that (even considering the same distance/gross effort) the standard for cadence efficiency would also be highly relative.

Do a search on Pubmed for Cadence & efficiency. You'll see a couple studies. They are for sale on science direct if you want them. Two are by Coyle. Not sure if they exactly answer your question or not.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I'm interested to know if you have any ideas as to why the medial aspect of my tibial plateau would feel relief from this as well. MCL/ACL/meniscus repair from skiing blow out. The contusion on my tibial plateau was the worst and last part to heal, but would still flare up. To that end it has gone by the wayside with the rearward cleat position. I'm just a tech dork and would love to know they why of it, but either way I'm just thrilled to be cycling pretty much pain free:) Thanks

what exactly do you mean by because of or in spite of? what variable(s)/things she does are you talking about?

---

It's not about the bike, it's just along for the ride.

Site of pain and source of pain are rarely the same. I.e., there many other muscles that anchor around your heel that could have done a lot of extra work when you damaged your achilles and they had to fill in additional stabilizer roles. So now that there is not the increased ROM in your ankle, you may feel better. Many of the muscles that anchor around your heel have their other anchor up around your knee. The simple answer is probably that you have better overall stability by reducing the ROM of your ankle joint, and that is making your knee feel better.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

With regards to this thread, it's her "lower" cadence (though we still haven't defined what that means exactly). Basically, she's only ever ridden with a "low" cadence. So it's not clear that if low cadence is something that helps her succeed, has no influence on her success, or is something she has to overcome in order to be successful.

As a counter example, you can look at Lance Armstrong's higher cadence during his 7 TdF wins with a more critical eye, because he CHANGED his cadence. Of course, so many other things about his body changed as well, that it's hard to isolate that. But it does seem clear that spinning a higher cadence helped Lance win 7 tours. That same sort of clarity is not there with Chrissie's cadence selection.

Or as another example, look at Paula Radcliffe, who bobs her head a LOT when she runs. Most people would say that she succeeds in spite of the fact that she bobs her head, or at the very least, it is not something that affects her at all. But I don't think anyone would say that bobbing her head is a reason for her success.

Or, if you want a case of someone who clearly does something "wrong," but is successful in spite of it, look at how Shawn Marion shoots a free throw. It's really bad technique. No coach would ever teach that. But he's a great basketball player. So that's a very obvious case of a player being successful in spite of something he does.

Because Chrissie has been so successful from the outset, she's never really had to change anything. This makes it harder when you look at how she races to clearly isolate those things that make her successful. That's always a challenge, even with athletes that have had both success and adversity, but it's ESPECIALLY challenging when you only have someone who has been successful.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I respectfully disagree. Phelps and myself are both of very similar build, have similar strokes. Being 6ft 4, with long arms, it is virtually impossible to change stroke cadence without losing something, whether it stroke, DPS or the like. Ultimately, speed is the victim. A shorter person with a less efficient stroke may be able to increase stroke rate to make up for lack of strength or DPS - Janet Evans for example. Phelps did try to change his stroke to increase sprint speed, but was short lived. As agreed upon, it is individual.

---

http://theworldthroumyeyes.tumblr.com/

OMG that is too funny. I had to say, plus this thread had moved from the top so I have to put it back up there. It has made me smile all weekend long ;>) hahahhahahaha

God forbid anyone in this thread actually take a breather, and read what your writting. I haven't seen this many attacks on a single person, well.. since George Bush I suppose.

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. Are you calculating cadence as strokes/length or strokes/sec (or minute)? It makes a big difference with swimming depending on which metric you use when you talk about changing cadence. If you are talking about increasing stroke rate that's very different than increasing strokes/length, and vice versa. I think that we are probably saying the same thing, which is why I am not sure what you are disagreeing with.

Ultimately, with sprinters (just like in most other sprint events), you need to have a certain muscle fiber breakdown. Just look at the difference with 800m runners vs. 400m runners physically. Same with Phelps. The stroke rate is - it seems now - a minimal requirement to be a competitive 50m or 100m sprinter. If Phelps can't hit that rate, he can't be a 100m sprinter (at the highest level). So I think with all of this, muscle fiber breakdown likely is a major factor.

I do think Phelps could train himself to swim at a different cadence. The question is SHOULD he. If there's not a compelling reason to change, then why should he? I.e., with Lance and the shift to higher cadence, there seemed to be a compelling reason. That reason is there for Phelps - should he want to race the 100. If he doesn't want to race the 100, he doesn't change his stroke. But if he does want to race the 100, I think he must change his stroke. Whether or not he can be as successful as he wants swimming the higher cadence, I don't know. Maybe he just wasn't built to be a sprint specialist.

The interesting thing with cycling is that isn't the case with swimming is that cadence and speed can be TOTALLY unrelated because of gearing.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

GO BIG LANCE GO!!! sorry, i couldn't resist. ;)

---

It's not about the bike, it's just along for the ride.

btw and seeing as how i never really paid much attention to his cadence at all, did it happen to change during his eigth Tour which could also be said was a victory? and what of the Leadville massacre? without any effort he adapted to the cadence of whatever the mtn bike gearing offered vs. the road bike and tore that track a new bum cheek without hesitation. and i doubt he specifically trained one second for that 'race'.

---

It's not about the bike, it's just along for the ride.

or do we know if he switched gears a few times during that race. sometimes it seemed as if he was just sitting and spinning while climbing and i'm sure on the way down he was in the biggest gear to accomodate the speed so im sure it changed moreso than not a few times throughout that 'race' so not sure if cadence would be an issue in the first place seeing as how it would damn near be impossible to sustain a single sustained cadence/gear throughout it. unless your name is Wb of course. ;)

---

It's not about the bike, it's just along for the ride.

Brett Sutton's point - amply backed up by my favourite kind of empirical result (race performances by not enormously gifted athletes) - as related to me by a mutual friend (sadly no longer with us) is that triathletes don't, in the main, have the skill level to pedal the higher cadence and STILL get off and run at the higher cadence required to not deteriorate through the run section (shorter stride, less pounding). Some do, particularly those who came from a cycling background as a youngster. He thinks it's more time-efficient given a career lasting only a few years to work on the strength required to pedal the lower cadences for those without such a background. Note, that isn't to say this is the ONLY way to get better. It's his belief which he has passed on to CW. There are other ways, I've never been convinced any one is massively better than any other.

Rappstar is absolutely right, if you want to get better quickly it pays to go see a coach who has seen all sorts over the years and can quickly tailor something for you - it's always better to learn quickly from someone else's mistakes than waste your best 5 years making mistakes yourself if what you want is results.

I recall LAS in about 1994 doing a bunch of work on the track with Specialized to improve his TT-ing. The conclusion was a lower cadence was better. Coyle also did some work with him on pedalling efficiency, which was published in a widely discredited paper. You can read all about the flaws in an interview Michael Ashenden gave, but I'll warn you that before you get to that analysis, you have to read about how he actually went from being 6 minutes down on Indurain every year to winning at will, so LAS-fans should perhaps stay away. No replies on this thread on anything other than the Coyle protocol please, it's currently still quite a good thread.

Thanks Jordan. I know just enough to know I don't know anything with respect to injuries. I will just chalk it up to 'it works' and be psyched.

I remember the same dismay I had when I found out my 'knee pain' from my IT band was actually coming from my hip flexors 2 feet away from the site pain.

Sorry for the delay, I have been at the Grand Canyon with very limited internet access.

tell me you are kidding? You might be right, this could be a lost cause. :-)

Anyhow, here goes my try. Cycling efficiency is generally defined as power out divided by rate of total energy consumed generating that power. What better measure of rate of total energy consumption by the body is there than rate of oxygen consumption? At aerobic efforts, HR correlates pretty well with oxygen consumption. For any given power (everything else being the same) then, it seems to me, HR gives a pretty good estimate as to whether efficiency is improving or worsening?

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

You wrote the above in response to my statement as to how do you "know" how Lance pedals without having seen a pedal force diagram. To which you posted the above link as if i were an idiot for not having seen it. Thanks for the link I had not seen it. I have a couple of comments.

I believe that link came from this article: http://www.trainright.com/...?uid=4613&p=4366

The article states that pedaling dynamic was done in 1993. I am not sure I would hang my hat on the fact that that diagram is indicative of how Lance pedals NOW. Perhaps it is but it seems unlikely in view of what the accompanying article says.

!. Why didn't the article include a pedal force analysis as to how Lance pedals now? Perhaps he didn't want the competition to know exactly how well he had adapted to this new way of pedaling? On the basis of that article, which states that that diagram was the basis of his trying to improve his dynamic, not something he was satisfied with, do you assume Lance still pedals in that fashion and use that 17 year old chart as your proof.

2. Don't you think it is a bit easier to "get that leg out of the way" at a lower cadence than at a higher cadence?

In view of this article I am about as baffled by your contention that you know how Lance pedals now just as I was baffled as to how you "knew" what Chrissie actually believes that is different than what she says.

I know you would prefer to make me look foolish since I called you out on your inappropriate post but I would prefer to discuss facts, ifthey are available. Otherwise, lets label our posts as opinions.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

I don't know Jordan and he is probably a great guy but it is not clear to me that Jordan is "engaging the buying audience thoughtfully" with posts like he made in this thread dissing the greatest female triathlete of the last few years. Reminds me of what Greg LeMond has said against Lance Armstrong. He may truly believe what he says. It may actually be true and many may agree with him. But, it was not an act of marketing genius. Hopefully he will learn from this episode and hold his tongue unless he has something truly important to say if he is speaking about other athletes.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Here is the problem IMO. Efficiency should NOT be divided by the rate of total energy consumption. For example, say I can pedal at 200W using 100units of energy and can sustain that for 1 hour (bear with me) Then lets say if I alter my position and utilize a new muscle that was not formerly used and I can generate 210W at 110units of energy and can sustain that for 1 hour (assuming aerodynamics are equal). I am less 'efficient' by your terms yet my FTP has increased because I am able to put out more power for the same unit of time. I think there needs to be some sort of time metric here - how long can you sustain that given energy. If your energy is increasing, your energy/oxygen decreasing, but you can sustain it for just as long if not longer than you are not losing efficiency in my eyes. I do not have enough experience in this type of stuff but that is one of my concerns. I could be way off though :)

---

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

well, i didn't see him dis her at all. as in my own example of tim tebow, you can honor the athlete (and jordan very clearly does honor chrissie) while also commenting on that athlete's interface with his (or her) sport.

i don't think jordan has anything to learn from this episode. but i think others can learn from this episode, by reading about the technical aspects of their sport from probably the most technically thoughtful, technically educated, pro triathlete racing today.

in the 12th century, aristotle was called "the master of those who know." peter abelard, though, said, "dear is aristotle, but dearer still the truth."

because peter abelard dissed aristotle (and seduced heloise), he got his balls cut off. now, you might ask what peter abelard learned from that episode, and he might well have answered, "keep your mouth shut around people who don't simply honor aristotle, but worship him."

nevertheless, abelard is quoted today, and fulbert (the castrator) is not.

so, maybe jordan should keep his mouth shut, because the lowest common denominator of slowtwitch reader might become offended. but i hope he does not, because we don't cater to that denominator around here.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Well, if you can lower your HR for the same power on the bike one of the following are possible. 1. you should be able to increase your power or, 2, you will have more gas in the tank when you get off the bike for the run.

A similar scenario exists for running.

Improved efficiency can help performance if you know how to use it properly. Chrissie seems to have figured it out, wouldn't it appear?

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Seriously? Are you really being serious with that comparison? Jordan essentially said that Chrissie blindly follows Sutton's advice and that she doesn't have much to add to a technically conversation because that's nothing she's worried about. Also she is in the enviable position of being the most talented woman in Ironman right now. She works hard but has never had to really scrutinize her performace because, well if it ain't broke.

Not sure how he this could be compared to LeMond calling Lance a doper. Not even remotely close. Maybe you can help put on some wings so I can follow your leap of logic.

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

This is truly hilarious. I rarely step in to these pissing matches (make that almost never). However, if there is a poster child for general internet jackassery and representing a product poorly, the honor would go to you, sir.

---

Kendall Frederick

Orange Park, FL

Efficiency is a scientific term. Racing involves trying to achieve the optimum combination of power (or which efficiency is simply part of the equation, aerodynamics, and comfort. In an earlier post I stated that "all things being equal" improved efficiency is an advantage.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

The dissing is not in the eyes of you or me but in the eyes of the "buying" public. I was not the only one who took his statement "wrongly". Simple indiscretions can have huge effects on a professional's image. Just ask Tiger and many, many, others.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

I choose to engage in debates here regarding my own product. I also post on other topics I know something about when I feel it appropriate (like this post). People may not like what I say but I am only "hurting" myself, at least in the eyes of some. I am not being paid by another to represent their product. There is a slight difference.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

I guess it is the interpretation. I interpreted his remarks as saying something along the lines that Chrissie is an mindless automaton, doesn't know what she is talking about, and has nothing to offer any thinking triathlete because this cadence stuff just doesn't matter.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

This would be true if you didn't have an obvious axe to grind with anyone with whom you've clashed in the endless arguments about your product. You are doing your best to drag Rappstar through the mud for a rather innocuous statement, and I submit that it's not due to some impartial desire to defend Chrissie Wellington's training acumen.

---

Kendall Frederick

Orange Park, FL

x2

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

Well I'll be competely honest and I am pretty much an outsider with nothing to lose and with respect for the both of these two, Frank Day and Big Jordan Rapp, for what they both either put into or at the very least attempt to put into the world of sports, and that is that I witnessed both attempting to drag each other through the mud as was stated and I'm not taking sides as they both seemed capable of defending themselves and in and adult manner so what of it?It's between them, isn't it? Yes, I saw, read and comprehended what Frank saw as did trail and damien and I'm srure a few others who just didn't want to say anything and big deal now, what of it? Big Rapp came back and explained himself and we all know, me in my short time here, just who he is and what he meant overall so it's over as far as I'm concerned but I will also say this, no one should dare say that putting Big Rapp on a Specialized and him cleaning house completely and thouroughly on it need be any more than the advertisement that is needed for Specialized. As for him being human and having opinons, well, that's good to know.

My two cents.

---

It's not about the bike, it's just along for the ride.

I think your two cents in this case are pretty dang good. One of the most well thought out posts I've seen you make (and thank you for the kudos). Agree on all counts about this thread.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I am not the one trying to drag Jordan through the mud here. He keeps posting rather silly stuff trying to defend his original statement or to make me look foolish. He was the one who posted what I considered to be innappropriate comments. Then he brings up justification for his remarks and other things pointing out that he doesn't seem to know how HR could be used to estimate efficiency (not the actual number but whether it might be better or worse) and throws out a 17 yo pedal analysis of Lance as evidence he knows that Lance doesn't pedal in the fashion he says he does either, even though that data came out of an article stating that Lance has spent the last 17 years trying to improve his pedal technique because of what was learned from that data.

Further, I don't think I have called Jordan any names even though he certainly has attacked me in this thread has having said: "I have yet to see almost anything (in quite a long time) that Frank has been right about, and that's not limited to this thread." Well, I have yet to see anything in this thread I have been wrong about. Jordan simply believes, I suspect, without much critical thinking what he has been told by the esteemed Dr. Coggan (and others) here, that pedaling style and cadence doesn't make any difference. The same criticism he leveled at Chrissie. He apparently believes HR has nothing to do with oxygen consumption. And, he even manages to ignore the Carmichael training article which states that pedaling style is the major thing that Lance has been working on for the past 17 years. But, that couldn't have anything to do with Lance's dominance, could it?

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

- you never replied to any of my post about alternative methods of measuring efficiency, specifically the one that says efficiency is best measured for cycling by measuring what cadence maximizes type I fibers, which contract more efficiently than type II. I understand why you think that HR~=efficiency, but you conveniently left out any reply to the majority of everything else I posted.

- I posted a photo of how Lance pedaled from 1993. I know what that article says about how Lance wanted to change his pedaling, BUT there are no photos that ever show ANY elite *road* cyclist pedaling any differently than that. So maybe Lance did change his pedal stroke, but there is NO evidence that he did. There is discussing by Carmichael about what he HOPED to achieve, but no proof of any change. This is rather unfortunate for you of all people. Theoretically, I can see how it could have been conceptualized that changing Lance's pedal stroke - based on that graph - would have been a good thing. It's the same sort of "logical" deduction that I imagine led you to develop PowerCranks. But as with many "logical" deductions regarding physiology, the truth is often very different from what you think should be the case. So just as they may have theorized that Lance could benefit from changing his pedal stroke, there is no evidence that he actually did. Only evidence that they thought he should try. So, in the absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary, I think the image I posted can be assumed to be correct, because we know that 1) Lance did pedal that way at one point and 2) it's basically identical to how every other elite road cyclist pedals when analyzed via force plate analysis. I can see that you have a vested interest in suggesting that he did change, but you don't actually have any force plates that suggest he - or any other cyclist worth imitating - has done so. Again, I think you regularly ask *other* people to prove things to you, rather than ever taking the burden of proving change yourself. I've showed you a photo of how Lance pedaled. Until someone shows me something that demonstrates that he changed how he pedals, I think it's reasonable to take that picture as accurate.

EDIT: I also NEVER said HR has "nothing to do with efficiency." I simply said that HR just not a definitive proxy for efficiency, and that there are much better ways to measure efficiency than HR. The only thing you've done is speculate. I posted REAL data from 17 years ago. You have nothing but speculation, which is typical. And, yes, I do resent that about you. I find it to be extraordinarily frustrating that you postulate theories and then demand that others refute them, as opposed to actually supporting what you've said. Yes, I've presented justification, which is more than I can say for what you have done. I also NEVER leveled the criticism at Chrissie that "cadence and pedaling technique don't matter." Where did I ever say cadence doesn't matter? Or that pedaling technique doesn't matter? And you bet that I've watched Dr. Coggan (and others) pick you apart. And the reason that I know that they picked you apart, as opposed, to vice versa, is precisely because of critical thinking about what you both wrote. In terms of who what I am writing "hurts," I don't think I am hurting any of my supporters. The only thing that would be hurtful would be if I had actually said the things that you accuse me of saying.

However, at the risk of this devolving into a "he said, he said thread," here's what I'm hoping you might respond with:

1) A study that demonstrates that HR either offers a better measure of efficiency than muscle type usage _OR_ that HR and muscle type usage track together.

AND (though I'd be satisfied with "OR")

2) A force-pedal analysis from ANY elite road cyclist (say any Grand Tour, World Championships, or Olympics podium finisher - male or female) who demonstrates the sort of pedaling technique that Chris Carmichael says he hoped Lance could develope 17 years ago.

I think either of these things would offer a worthwhile point of debate. I think I've done a reasonable job of presenting my support of both points.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

HR has nothing (edit: directly) to do with efficiency. Where do you get where i think that? HR has to do with oxygen consumption. (edit: in any one athlete at a particular point in time HR tracks well with oxygen consumption.) Oxygen consumption has to do with energy cost. Energy cost, when compared to power out has to do with efficiency. HR can be used to help the athlete evaluate whether what they are doing is helping or hurting their efficiency (if they care about such a thing as some her don't seem to care about).

But, you said you knew he didn't pedal the way he said he does. I asked how you knew that. You had no evidence to back that up. You state the article said they should try. No, the article stated they did try and that it has been an emphasis of his training in the intervening years. Further, there is the Coyle data that shows he has improved his pedaling efficiency almost 10% in the intervening years. Now, I guess, you can accept Coyles guess that he changed his muscle fiber type to account for this improvement or you might conclude that he succeeded in changing his pedaling style.

There are better ways of measuring efficiency than HR, without going to a lab and spending a lot of money? Please name one. What speculation? You said you knew Lance doesn't pedal the way he says he does. i simply asked you how you knew that. Your "real data" is not particularly convincing evidence that you know anything about Lance, particularly in view of the article that data came from. Why on earth do you resent my questioning you on this when you have time and time again defended your remark about Chrissie as simply criticism a pro should be open to.

You are kidding right. HR simply tracks well with oxygen consumption. That is a key ingrediant in measuring efficiency in the lab. It will track well regardless of what muscle fibre types are used.

While I don't have that data I can simply tell you that it is true because Grand Tour, World Champions, and Olympic Champions have all trained on PowerCranks. We believe Lance has also but we can't prove it. Anyone who is successfully riding a pair of PowerCranks is pedaling in the fashion Chris Carmichael describes (and I have posted that data here from an Italian study). I presume it is possible to learn to pedal in that fashion without them, we just think it is easier and faster to do it with the PC's (and that is what Greg LeMond told us - "I spend years trying to learn how to pedal this way now people can learn it in months")

I have no trouble with debate. Let's try to stay with facts, when available, and label opinion as opinion.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Jordan, in the above photo it looks like there is a sensor on Chrissie's front wheel(visible just behind the front fork).

I will expand the photos up to look for a cadence sensor on her cranks when I get home.

In the whole of triathlon Chrissie is the one athlete who is standing out in a class of her own. The only explanation I have for it is either she is 'the outlier on the bell curve' or the depth of womans triathlon over long distance just isn't there.

G.
www.TriathlonShots.com

---

http://www.TriathlonShots.com
Full event coverage of triathlon/ironman in photos.

HR is still very flawed, since it's subject to all sorts of other environmental variables. As an example, HR suppression during long periods of hard training is well recorded. I.e., your HR is lower because of fatigue at the same effort. And then as you as your taper - when you are RESTED - your HR is higher than when you were tired. HR and RPE don't even match up all that well over long periods of time if you have other variables to consider, which you ALWAYS do. HR definitely has value, but it's also regularly a "red herring." Show me some support for the idea that HR and efficiency track REGARDLESS of muscle type, as you claim.

If you aren't going to go to the lab, then don't claim to measure efficiency. Saying HR is the "best measure of efficiency without going to a lab and spending a lot of money" is a VERY different claim from saying HR is a good proxy for efficiency, which is what you said initially. That's like saying eyeballing a map from across the room is a good proxy for GPS navigation. It may be better than nothing, but it also is fraught with error and you'd never choose it if you didn't have to. It's not that I have a real problem with HR. It's really the idea of HR *alone.* If we had HR and power, that would be better, but it still has the opportunity for error because HR is quite erratic. I would say Power + RPE is the best "cheap" measure of efficiency, since elite cyclists are regularly able to choose a cadence with HR implies is "inefficient," but which lab tests show is in fact efficient.

I stand by my assessment of Lance's pedaling. It was demonstrated that he pedaled a certain way. I've never seen any data to the contrary - and even you can't provide any from any elite cyclist despite the legions you claim have trained with powercranks explicitly for this purpose. Don't you think given the emphasis that Carmichael placed on this topic that it would be reasonable to assume that if Lance actually had changed his pedaling style that he would have publicized it? Lance is always trying to explain his performance gains. He's been very public about what he has felt were his changes. If he had changed his pedal stroke, and he felt that it had made a difference, doesn't it seem reasonable that he would have publicized it? It seems reasonable that Coyle certainly would have looked at pedal force when he looked at Lance. I've read that study. It's flawed, but he never goes over changes in pedal force. While I am *speculating* that they would have measured it, I do think it's absence is noteworthy given that the focus was entirely on Lance's (potential) efficiency gains. In the same way, I'm repeatedly astounded that you cannot provide even a single pedal force graph that supports an elite cyclist pedaling in this way. I searched, but could never actually find the Italian study. I looked. I only saw claims that such a study existed, but not the actual results. If you post a link, I'll look at it. Lance pedaled a certain way. No one has demonstrated repeatably that you can change your pedaling efficiency in the manner described by Carmichael. So why is it unreasonable to say that he pedals the same way. It's only unreasonable to YOU, for obvious reasons.

And I don't resent you questioning my data on Lance. I resent you clearly making false statements about what I said - things that clearly didn't say. I can't believe you can quote what I wrote where I specifically say I resent you saying things like (paraphrased) "[Jordan] says that HR/cadence don't matter," and then try to claim that I'm resenting you challenging me on Lance. I clearly stated why I said I "know" how Lance pedals. There's no compelling evidence - no evidence of any sort - that he has changed his pedaling style. Even moreso, there is no evidence that he even COULD (or SHOULD) change his pedaling style. There was speculation about why he might change his pedaling style. I posted *data* showing how Lance pedaled in 1993. That's data. It's definite. Furthermore, there is substantial evidence to support the idea that Lance pedaled in the manner of all other elite cyclists when the data was taken in 1993 AND substantial support (from folks like Jim Martin) for the idea that you cannot change your pedaling efficiency by doing what Carmichael suggests. I have data and support from respected scientists for believing that data is still valid. You have speculation - "Carmichael said it was something they wished to focus on, so it's logical to conclude that it was something that worked on, and [in your mind] logical to think that he actually did change it." That's not even really speculation, since speculation implies (to some extent) that there is SOME evidence supporting the idea. You have NO evidence.

Your own lack of evidence or data doesn't seem to trouble you, though. Just because someone has done training with PowerCranks, that does not mean how they pedaled with PCs is how they pedal on their regular cranks (or that they are even similar). That (maybe) means that they WHILE THEY WERE TRAINING WITH POWERCRANKS (assuming they actually ever did), they pedaled that ("in circles") way. BUT, that doesn't mean that they pedaled the same way once they were back on regular cranks. That's the sort of erroneous logic that you regularly employ. I.e., I swim with paddles sometimes in the pool. When I swim with paddles I swim a certain way. I use them as a tool to impact my swim stroke, but I certainly would never say that I swim the same without paddles as I do with them on. The topic of carry over has been debated many times on this forum, yet you've not (to the best of my knowledge) ever convincingly supported (or had a study that supported it) the case for carry over from PCs (which no elite cyclist races on) to regular cranks. You have only putative support for the idea that there is carry over, no *actual* support for carry over.

How's this as a compromise. I'll admit that it's only my OPINION that Lance pedals a certain way if you admit that it's only your OPINION that PowerCranks can change the way that you pedal. I think that's a reasonably generous offer on my part.

I think your concession that HR is good way to measure efficiency WITHOUT GOING TO THE LAB AND WITHOUT SPENDING A LOT OF MONEY (on a PowerMeter, for example) is fair. If you aren't going to go to a lab and you don't want to pay for a powermeter, then fine, use HR. I'll agree with that.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I found photos earlier which I posted. She DOES have a speedo. She does NOT have cadence on her Cannondale.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Only saw the photos you posted from her Cervelo days.


G.

---

http://www.TriathlonShots.com
Full event coverage of triathlon/ironman in photos.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

What on earth are you talking about? Of course HR is "flawed" because it is not a direct measure of oxygen consumption. But, "everything else being equal" it is pretty good. One has to "know what they are doing" to be able to make pretty good sense of the data but if one is lacking a laboratory it is the best most people have and it is silly to ignore the possibilities, unless one doesn't understand how to utilize the data, which apparently you do not. And, muscle fiber type has no bearing here. The term efficiency doesn't care what the muscle fiber type is. No one, when they measure efficiency in the laboratory, tests for muscle fiber type. The muscle fibers affect the overall efficiency but in any given athlete he is stuck with what he or she has, at least for the short term. While it is possible to change the mix of muscle fibers the athlete has over time, this takes time and has nothing to do with pedaling efficiency as Chrissie and Carmichael are talking about. The desire of the athlete should be to maximize efficiency regardless of the muscle fiber type. That is how doing some experimenting using HR could be useful. That is what, it seems, Chrissie was talking about yet you don't seem to understand.
HR can only be a tool to "measure" relative efficiency. I make a change (increase or decrease cadence for instance, keeping power the same) and if HR goes down one is more efficient. If it goes up one can conclude one is less efficient. I have never said HR is a good proxy for efficiency. All I have said is it can be used to help the athlete improve their efficiency, assuming one knows what they are doing. You are putting words in my mouth trying to make me look foolish. I am a physician and an anesthesiologist. I understand this stuff way beyond the level of yourself and Dr. Coggan. While you could argue that power and RPE is a "better" measure of efficiency I think you will find that RPE also correlates well with HR. If you don't believe this you have never done a Conconi protocol where power, RPE, and HR are collected at the same time.
Actually, I believe it more reasonable that Lance keep it quiet. With many so-called experts out there claiming that it makes no difference it would give Lance a competitive advantage. Let the competition think he improved his efficiency by changing his fiber type. It just amazes me that people like Chrissie can state what she does and why she thinks it helps, Carmichael can say what he did to help Lance and no one believes them because they don't publish their data. Barb Lindquist told me she never told any pro (saving one, a male) about PowerCranks because she wanted to keep them a secret. They are laughing all the way to the bank over the failure of the competition to keep an open mind. It is not unreasonable for you to say you believe Lance still pedals the same way he did 17 years ago. It is unreasonable for you to say you KNOW he pedals the same way, especially in view of his assertions he has made a serious attempt to change that dynamic and the documented change in efficiency over this period.
In my opinion you implied it. What on earth was the point of your original post here? You clearly do not think very highly of Brett Sutton's coaching methods here.
Since "no one" has actually ever had their pedal force data obtained no one really knows what they are doing. I do believe that some of those who train on PC's do revert back to close to their previous dynamic when they go back to regular cranks. The question is how much do they go back and how fast do they revert. There seems to be a lot of variability here. In fact, that is what the Italian study showed. Stop using them and revert back. Notice in the Carmichael study they referred to the need for years of training to fully evoke these changes. Why do people here expect PC's to be able to mak these changes in 5 weeks. It is why I recommend exclusive use in training to optimize and hasten this change. Some follow my advice, many don't. Here is a link the the Italian study abstract. http://www.powercranks.com/studycoord.html I will try to find the data I also posted here.

I have an alternative to your Powercrank Frank. And that is get down to the velodrome and ride a track bike.

The track bikes don't allow you to stop pedalling so this would help with technique also.

Well both of the above could help people refine their pedalling technique, and it could especially help a cyclist with poor pedalling technique.

Also in all your discussion above it sounds like you are implying lowering your HR while pushing a big gear is the way to go. It makes sense to me that it would be, but one would have to be careful not to overdo it.... it would take practise to get it right versus spinning in a lower gear which is safer for the novice IMO.

If you can send me a pair of your powercranks to NZ for under $60usd them message me. Will paypal you the dosh.

G.

---

http://www.TriathlonShots.com
Full event coverage of triathlon/ironman in photos.

"Everything else being equal" - but that's rarely (if ever) the case outside of a lab, and you specifically said HR is a good way to evaluate efficiency outside of a lab. Furthermore, muscle fiber type does have a bearing. And it's regularly measured in the lab. As is power output. As is VO2 consumption. Interestingly, in none of the studies or abstracts I read, did I ever see ANYWHERE that HR was used as a relevant tool. Now HR and VO2 definitely *can* correlate. But it's not for certain - there are ways to change HR without changing VO2, fatigue being one of the big ones. And I don't see how it's possible to maximize efficiency "regardless" of fiber type - unless you are talking about necessarily keeping power/cadence constant, which is unreasonably restrictive. That's sort of the whole point of this article - that you can change your cadence when you ride a bike. Changes in cadence, power, etc. all can change muscle recruitment. Requirements for speed of contraction changes the recruitment fibers. So the idea of maximizing efficiency "regardless of fiber type" doesn't make any sense to me, unless you were assuming I was talking about fiber type breakdown rather than recruitment. I don't see how that could be the case, since I specifically said that you want to maximize the percentage of type I fibers being used, since it's well documented that they contract more efficiently. As for a conconi protocol, which I HAVE done, remind me again where they are done? Oh, that's right. In a LAB. In a controlled environment. With a POWERMETER (at least for cycling). And all I really wanted from you was this, HR cannot be reliably used to measure efficiency without a way of measuring power. Power could be estimated by using speed or RPE as a substitute but power is part of the efficiency equation. I'm perfectly willing to let you use speed and RPE in the field as a substitute for power, since I think it's pretty well established how reliable that is. I understand efficiency quite well. I just wanted you to admit that 1) you needed to somehow evaluate power and 2) that you think speed and RPE are reasonable substitutes in the field for power. I think the latter assumption is quite flawed, and most people who train with power would also say it's quite flawed. So basically you are taking HR as a substitute for VO2 consumption and speed & RPE as a substitute for power, and you think that is a reasonable way to estimate efficiency? That's accepting a lot of error - unnecessary error in today's world. I think it's *a* way to measure efficiency, but I think it's a crappy one that is ripe with the opportunity for error. Obviously it can work "ok," but there are massive chances for error, the most notable that I can think of being HR suppression over a training period and HR variability with weather. But power and RPE - ignoring HR - is a much better way to gauge training, which is why having a powermeter has replaced having a HRM for people that really care about training. I'm not saying that HR is useless. But it has a whole host of limitations that power does not, and once you have power, HR doesn't really seem to add anything over RPE.

You also can't have it both ways with the Coyle study. You can't say that Lance did improve his efficiency, which the Coyle study says, but then ignore why Coyle says he did it - changes in fiber type. Furthermore, the Coyle study is not considered without it's flaws. So you can hardly say it's "well documented" that Lance improved his efficiency. Furthermore, if it really did take him 6+ years to change his pedaling style, why wouldn't he release it? As you claim, it's a long process, so it's not an advantage that he'd give away quickly. He didn't keep many more "top secret" projects from his TdF campaigns a secret in his book. Somehow changes in pedaling efficiency - which there is basically no support for in the sport or in any study on Lance - would be the one secret he'd keep? If it really was pedaling efficiency, why not just show it and be done with it. In my *opinion*, the takeaway (if there is one) that makes the most sense from the Coyle study is that it is aerobically optimal to bring bring required contraction velocity closer to the contraction velocity of type I fibers, which is is well established contract more efficiently (but with less velocity & force of contraction) than type II fibers. That's the seeming paradox of a higher cadence - muscle contraction speed is actually slower. This *could* also explain why, for example, it is anecdotally reported that women tend to do better with a lower cadence (relative to men) - they are riding the bike for longer, therefore the %FTP power they are riding at should be lower, meaning the required % of maximum force required is lower, meaning that a lower cadence could work better. Since cadence and effort seem - if left solely to RPE - to track reasonably well among elite cyclists, then it would make sense that female Ironman athletes should pedal a slightly lower cadence than male Ironman athletes, since they are out there - even in Chrissie's case - substantially longer than the men.

What on earth do you mean I don't think highly of Brett Sutton's coaching? That is a total fabrication, and it's also totally irrelevant. My original point was that Chrissie's advice could be read as "I trust what Brett Sutton has told me because it works for me, so I've never had any reason to doubt it or to try to change it." THAT, as advice, is much more relevant than the totally contextless advice to "push a big gear," which doesn't really mean anything anyway. I am pretty sure Cancellara pushes a big f'ing gear when he time trials at 95+ rpm. There are things I disagree with about how Brett Sutton coaches, but I would hardly say that I don't think highly of him as a *coach.* He's one of the most successful coaches of all time. But coaches have a knack for "doing what works." I.e., it seems to "work" to have female athletes pedal a low cadence, though it's not universal (Hillary Biscay, for example, finally won an Ironman after she upped her cadence per Dan's recommendation), and Brett actually sets a cadence cap of 84, which is not atypically low by any means. However, it is Brett's speculation as to why that is - and that is what Chrissie is echoing - not the byproduct of any sort of comparative or rigorous study. Why not simply say "I pedal a big gear because Brett saw success having lots of athletes before me do it, and I have success while doing it, so I've never been motivated to change." That's really a very accurate and thoughtful statement, that's much more intelligent than "I push a big gear because it gives me a lower HR," which doesn't really mean anything, and is also, IN MY OPINION, misleading. But there's a big difference between not thinking highly of Brett's coaching methods and disagreeing with his reasoning. Just say "I do it because it works. I'll figure out the 'why' part later." There are many coaches that do that, especially when results and what science says *should* be the case differ. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Thanks for the Italian study - though it's just an abstract, not a study. I will admit I pretty much discounted everything that came after the first sentence, "In cycling, a circular pedaling action makes the most useful contribution to forward propulsion." That's just not the case. Unless of course, you mean that cranks should go around in a circle, which I'm fairly certain every crank does. I also don't see that they actually document how people pedal - via pedal force analysis. It only shows muscle recruitment via EMG. So at best, it shows that people who train on PCs use "more diverse muscle recruitment" at a given power output, and that the utilization of "more diverse muscle recruitment" carries over to pedaling on regular cranks. But there's still no justification that using "more diverse muscle recruitment" is better. I.e., where is the proof that pedaling that way offers any improvement over "mashing"? That conclusion is stated, but it's missing any support. I.e. power was held CONSTANT. They say that you "save your quadriceps," but where is the proof that these cyclists enjoyed any sort of increase in time to exhaustion as a result?

I've never said to anyone that PowerCranks could not have been a part of why they improved. Training is about physiological load. If PowerCranks recruit more muscles WHILE YOU ARE USING THEM - which I think is reasonable since you have to lift the crank - then that's going to increase the load on your body as opposed to not having to lift that crank. But you could also just go out and pedal harder on your regular cranks, which would also increase the load, increase muscle recruitment during a normal pedal stroke, and would also help you train the way that even most powercranks users plan to race - on regular cranks. That's what the high level athletes I know have reported, all of whom only used PowerCranks in the winter. When they trained with PowerCranks, their running and cycling fitness was no different than when they didn't use PowerCranks but did specific power intervals on the trainer and treadmill instead. PowerCranks cost approximately the same amount as a PowerTap (the cheapest PT on a wheel is 1099, IIRC) vs. $899 for the cheapest powercrank. And a powermeter offers all the benefits of powercranks plus a whole lot more, like the ability to monitor effort during all training, racing, etc. PowerCranks certainly can help you improve. But I am pretty sure you can pedal harder - which also recruits more muscles and recruits them as you are going to use them during a race - without using powercranks. It's not that PowerCranks *can't* work. It's just that there is no proof that they actually do anything unique. I.e., there is no proof that they change how you pedal when you are not using them, save for the abstract you posted. But even if they did, there is no proof that change is an improvement. Change doesn't mean improvement. There is no proof that it's better to pedal the way that you must when you are using them. And it's well documented that the best cyclists in the world pedal a certain way, and that way is neither using PowerCranks for racing nor pedaling the way that one must pedal when using PowerCranks. So you can either recruit more muscles in a fashion that is atypical of the best riders in the world by using PowerCranks. OR you can recruit more muscles in a fashion that mimics the best cyclists in the world by just pushing harder. Working harder always gets results. Training works. But it's been well shown that training in the manner that you intend to race is what yields the best success. If you want to dispute that last part, have at it.

And now the sun is shining, the weather is warm, I'm off to push my regular cranks harder...

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Wow! you don't give the average person here much credit do you. The average person here who owns a power meter or a computrainer or some such thing. A simple calibration and a ride indoors at the same time of the day, etc. etc. and conditions are the "same" every bit as good as can be done in the lab.

Show me a single study of cycling efficiency that looks at the effect of cadence on cycling efficiency where they also did muscle biopsey to determine fiber type. I assume there might be one but I suspect it will take you awhile to find it. In the meantime there are lots of studies that never look at fiber type. While fiber type is "regularly" measured in the lab it is rarely measured in the exercise physiology lab. The reason being is determining fiber type is invasive and involves risk and takes special skill to obtain. Such studies require institutional review board approval and few researchers are willing to go to the grief to try to get that approval unless it is integral to what they are looking for.

Well, HR is not a relevant tool for a study because the researcher is looking for numbers that can be subjected to statistical analysis. The individual isn't particularly interested in that ability. It is enough to say "this is better", "this is worse".

Again, you don't give the average person much credit here. Usually, I suspect, most people would do many trials in doing such an evaluation. I guess if you simply do one trial it could give a false result. I mean, how does anyone evaluate the effects of training? How does anyone do testing? Fatigue is a variable in all testing, whether one is measuring oxygen uptake or just HR.

Wow. I have done Conconi in my garage. John Howard did a Conconi protocal testing on me at a Tri camp at a tennis resort. Conconi protocol can be done anywhere. You don't seem able to think outside of a paper bag let alone the box. To determine "efficiency" for my purpose requires knowing power. Have you read what I have written?

Yes one needs to know power. Speed and RPE are not reasonable substitutes for power for this purpose IMHO.

I agree, see above. Where did you get that I thought otherwise.

Go back and read what I have said. HR is simply a substitute for O2 uptake, not power.

I know what Coyle hypothesized. But, Coyle was guessing as to why he had improved his efficiency. Notice Coyle did not have muscle biopsy data to support his contention. It is possible, I suppose, but we would expect that every rider starting at his level (world champion) who trained similarly to Armstrong for the next 8 years would see a similar increase in efficiency. That has never been shown before. In fact, this increase in efficiency was so remarkable it was the only change worthy of not in the data. Coyle is of the bias that pedaling style cannot affect efficiency. But, he had to come up with an explanation to explain the improvement he documented. He came up with the only thing he could that didn't go against his bias, even though it made essentially zero sense. The fact that such changes has never before been demonstrated in an athlete like Lance and one cannot say what must be done to reproduce this change in an athlete like Lance should give one pause in accepting Coyles hypothesis as fact. The interesting fact we know now (thanks to the CTS article) is that Armstrong set off to deliberately change his pedaling style to improve his efficiency. Take your choice (or come up with another explanation). Which explanation makes more sense?

It is the only documentation we have. Coyle has answered his critics. He thinks the data is good. His critics also have agendas as they need to show Lance could have only improved using drugs.

I don't know, why don't you ask him or Carmichael. They say they have done this but haven't given you the data you need to believe it. Ask and I'll bet they ignore you, but you never know. Perhaps it is because he became aware that there was a device that became available that would allow one to make these changes much faster than it took him. His 6 or 8 or 12 year advantage would quickly disappear.

Well, he isn't keeping it a secret now since the Carmichael article. It just so happens you don't believe a thing they say.

Your kidding again, right?

Well, I would have an alternative explanation, one that actually makes sense and is supported by the scientific data but that would be for another thread.

I really don't know what you think of Chrissie or Brett. I can tell you I thought your original post taken from on professional about another and her coach was extremely disrespectful and inappropriate. I think most athletes here would understand the advice means to "push a big gear" as opposed to "spinning". Even though neither involves an actual number I think most know the meaning.

What do you not understand about the scientific process. Apparently everything. Here was the "aim" of the study: "The aims of this study were, first, to assess whether the intermuscular coordination pattern of the pedaling action with normal cranks (NC) is modified after a training period with IC and, second, to determine if the new coordination pattern is maintained after a washing-out period." Why are you looking for "proof that these cyclists enjoyed any sort of increase in time to exhaustion as a result?" from this study. Anyhow, a link to the entire study was provided should you desire to read it. Further, a link was provided to a "slide show" presentation of the study but it is in Italian. Anyhow, you asked for evidence, as I remember, that PC's change the coordination pattern. The study provided provides such evidence. Of course, your bias was shown again by your comment "I will admit I pretty much discounted everything that came after the first sentence" that had nothing to do with your original question or what was found.

How is it that a PM changes one pedaling style? You say a PM offers all the advantages of PC's. About all PC's do is change how people pedal a bike. How does a PM do that again if they "offer all the benefits of PowerCranks plus a whole lot more". PC's do something different than a PM in my opinion. They are complimentary IMO. And, I agree that training the way you intend to race is what yield the best success. It is why I continue to harp on PC users to use them exclusively. The only reason to get PC's is if you believe there is an advantage to pedaling in the PC fashion (or if you are looking for the run benefits). If you believe there is such an advantage then you should train on them in a manner to allow you to race as you train. If you can't do that then the benefits will be less than optimal. Put you head in the sand and ignore the potential. And, you can't be afraid of hard work if you take them on. Many give up on them as being "too hard". So be it, PC's are not for whimps.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

I used to think that fixed gear was the next best thing to PC training. The few people who have gotten on these things and just ridden off have been, mostly, fixed gear riders. However, I am not so sure anymore. The number of fixed gear riders who show such ability are rare and almost all fixed gear riders "think" they pedal circles so it can lead to a sort of unjustified overconfidence. Recently a PowerCranker wrote he thought fixed gear riding was counter productive. http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/...&catname=Toolbox The problem with fixed gear bikes is they are only "different" when "coasting". When applying power, the part that counts, there is no difference. When coasting, all they make you do is relax on the upstroke. And, they teach you to put backpressure on the upstroke, if you are trying to brake.

Regarding riding a "big gear" clearly it is possible to go too big. A cadence of 10 is probably too slow. But, I have been experimenting and I think it is hard to go "too big" with the gearing on most peoples bike. It really depends upon what your power is IMO. While your muscle fiber type may modify things some for the average person putting out 150 watts a cadence as low as 60 may be optimum. The only way one can know is to experiment. I think that is all Chrissie is saying. Go "big" and see what happens.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Yup, all of about 30 seconds: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1501563

You said "Power could be estimated by using speed or RPE as a substitute but power is part of the efficiency equation." That's relevant because you were implying earlier in this thread that Chrissie has self-selected her most efficient cadence, yet she has doesn't use a powermeter (or even a HRM *as far as I know, which could certainly be wrong, but which is true based on what I have heard from reliable sources.*). When you first mentioned her choosing her cadence, you never addressed (that I could find) the fact that she lacks an actual device for measuring power or HR. You only discussed "feel." That's why I took issue with your claim that she selected the most efficient cadence - since it was based entirely off HR/RPE/Speed, which seems to be a pretty flawed combination, which you seem to have agreed with in your latest post. That's my *opinion* though. But that was my issue though - that power is, as we both agree, critical for evaluating efficiency, and Chrissie only has proxies for power. As you say in the post directly above this one - "Speed and RPE are not reasonable substitutes for power for [the] purpose [of evaluating efficiency in the field] IMHO." So how did Chrissie reliably self-select her most efficient cadence then?

My *opinion* of the Coyle study is that Lance changed his pedaling style by changing his cadence. I.e., cadence - not force application - was the big change. That's my "best guess." I am also not convinced - and I'm not alone in this belief - that Coyle's numbers for Lance's improvement in efficiency are not rock solid. Anytime you have an N=1 study of a phenomenal athlete, it's going to be problematic. C'est la vie.

Why are you looking for "proof that these cyclists enjoyed any sort of increase in time to exhaustion as a result?" from this study. Because the authors of the study made the initial statement that "In cycling, a circular pedaling action makes the most useful contribution to forward propulsion." I guess I was looking for something to support that claim. I.e., they set out to show the carry over of PC training. But isn't a logical question, "why would such carry over be beneficial?" I thought so. At the very least, I think they would have provided some support for the opening statement. It seems like a pretty big claim to make. I just thought they would have explained it, and something like an improvement of time to exhaustion would have supported it.

A powermeter *can* change your pedaling style by giving you instantaneous feedback on your pedaling force. That is the same thing that PowerCranks do. The method by which they provide feedback is different. But I would submit that if you go out and, for example, do supra-max intervals that will recruit more muscle fibers, which is the same thing that PowerCranks do. Only doing supra-max intervals will recruit more muscle fibers in the manner in which you actually plan to race, which is not true of PowerCranks (unless you plan to race on them). I guess we differ on our view of what it is that PowerCranks do. Of course there are differences in how they do what they do, but I think there are also similarities. From my *opinion* about how PowerCranks could be of value, I think that you can achieve the same result with a powermeter. But that's based on how *I* perceive the potential value of powercranks, which I am sure differs from yours.

Anyway, I think we are returning to the initial debate, which I prefer. I think we agree as much as we are going to on PowerCranks. I agree that if there is a benefit, it is most likely to be realized by also racing on them. I'm not convinced of the benefit. You are. That's fine.

So really, what I find most interesting now, is that you seem to have said that Speed/RPE are not reasonable substitutes for Power when doing field tests. Since Chrissie is (or rather, was) the subject of this thread, I am curious about how - or if - you support her cadence selection in light of the fact that she did not - by all accounts - ever use a powermeter, and *seems* not to have ever used a HR monitor. Given that, I am of the opinion that she 1) chose that cadence because Brett told her to, 2) she had success by doing so, and therefore has never felt the need to change. Again, that's my opinion. If you feel that's disrespectful, that's you're right. To reiterate, I don't actually think that Chrissie's cadence selection is wrong, despite how you read (or in my opinion, misread, what I wrote). I just don't necessarily think that it's right. I.e., I don't think it's clear whether or not it's something that she succeeds because of, in spite of, or which makes no difference. I think your suggestion that I do an Ironman at 140 was unreasonable. I never said a higher cadence was better. I agree that there is an optimal cadence (or an optimal range). As I said, my issue with what Chrissie says is that it doesn't have context. I'm not looking for *a* number, but as I said in the thread, Chrissie's cadence varied a great deal during the race, since I measured her on a ~ flat section of the course at 88+ rpm, which seems to me to stand in contrast with her statement of "push a big gear." Again, my opinion.

I don't find Chrissie's advice - in this case - to be particular illustrative. I think it is illustrative if her message is to believe in your coach and believe in success. That's my take away from the whole thing. If you wish to respond, I'll read it, since I think we are getting closer to isolating the actual topic on which we can actually debate. But this is my last post on this topic, since I've said everything I want to, and I've spent way too much time (though I don't think I've wasted any) on this thread.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Of course such a study has been done. Muscle fiber type simply cannot account for the entire variety of efficiencies found in cyclists, nor can it account for the changes seen by Luttrell in his study, nor can it account entirely for the changes seen in the Lance data. Most studies that look at cycling efficiency do not do muscle biopsies because this has already been shown.
Well, if someone is indoors on a trainer then speed is a pretty good substitute for power. And, if environmental conditions are "quiet" there won't be much variation such that an experienced athlete like Chrissie might be able to estimate what is better or not. It would be less accurate to use those as substitutes for power but it doesn't mean that the athlete cannot do so if one doesn't have power. Whatever she is doing she seems to think she can do it and it seems to be working for her.
changed his cadence? Do you have any data to support that contention? Certainly Coyle did not remark on that. In fact, here is what he says about efficiency and cadence in that paper: "Gross efficiency was calculated as the ratio of work accomplished per minute (i.e., watts converted to kcal/min) to energy expended per minute (kcal/min). Energy expenditure per minute (i.e., kcal/min ) was calculated from V˙ O2 and respiratory exchange ratio using the tables of Lusk (31). On a given date of testing, gross efficiency was generally similar at all work rates evaluated when cycling at 50–90% V˙ O2 max and 80–90 rpm, as previously described in trained cyclists (10, 31). Therefore, gross efficiency was reported as the average of the values obtained at the five work rates(10)." Unless you have some data beyond what is in the paper I think you are going to have to come up with a different hypothesis.
So, they made that statement as a prelude to see if they could show that the training device changed the pedaling dynamic. Before one would want to show that improvement in time to exhaustion was a result it would be nice to show that the dynamic was changed. One step at a time don't you think.
Power meters give one instantaneous feedback of pedaling force? Didn't know that. Bet the manufacturers don't know that either as most of them tell us they give an average power (force/torque) over each second or so? CT does have the spinscan but that is the net of the two pedals together and only gives the feedback when actually looking at the screen.

I guess it depends upon how one "wants to race". If one wants to race using a "more efficient" pedaling style then one might want to recruit and train the muscles necessary to pedal in that style. If one doesn't care what style they use then forget the PC's and train how you are used to doing. PowerCranks are only for those who care about their pedaling technique (or who don't care about technique but are using them to help them with their running).
Cool. Everyone is welcome to their opinion. As long as you admit your opinion comes from no substantial personal experience with them.
I cannot speak for Chrissie. I believe athletes who do not have PM's can make estimates of relative power based upon speed and RPE to make such estimates. They would not be as accurate for the purpose of estimating relative efficiency but it seems to have worked well for Chrissie. And, I think you would have to ask Chrissie to explain what she was doing for a portion of the race at a cadence of 88, not me. What is of more important is what she is doing for the bulk of the race. I think most will agree she tends to ride at a lower cadence and faster than most of her competition.
How helpful would it have been for her to say "believe in your coach"? Not very because many don't have coaches. She was giving advice to those people. "Ride a bigger gear and see what it does for your power/HR. It is what I do." or words to that effect. Those words of "general wisdom" was more helpful to those people, IMO, than your advice would have been, despite the fact that you would have liked her to be more specific.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Here is an interesting study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...amp;logdbfrom=pubmed

To determine the effects of cycling experience, fitness level, and power output on preferred and most economical cycling cadences: 1) the preferred cadence (PC) of 12 male cyclists, 10 male runners, and 10 less-trained male noncyclists was determined at 75, 100, 150, 200, and 250 W for cyclists and runners and 75, 100, 125, 150, and 175 W for the less-trained group; and 2) steady-state aerobic demand was determined at six cadences (50, 65, 80, 95, 110 rpm and PC) at 100, 150, and 200 W for cyclists and runners and 75, 100, and 150 W for less-trained subjects. Cyclists and runners (VO2max: 70.7 +/- 4.1 and 72.5 +/- 2.2 mL.kg-1.min-1, respectively) maintained PC between 90 and 100 rpm at all power outputs and both groups selected similar cadences at each power output. In contrast, the less-trained group (VO2max = 44.2 +/- 2.8 mL.kg-1.min-1) selected lower cadences at all common power outputs and reduced cadence from approximately 80 rpm at 75 W to 65 rpm at 175 W. The preferred cadences of all groups were significantly higher than their respective most economical cadences at all power outputs. Changes in power output had little effect on the most economical cadence, which was between 53.3 and 59.9 rpm, in all groups. It was concluded that cycling experience and minimization of aerobic demand are not critical determinants of PC in well-trained individuals. It was speculated that less-trained noncyclists, who cycled at a higher percentage of VO2max, may have selected lower PC to reduce aerobic demand.

Maybe Chrissie could push even bigger gears. :-)

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Alright, I'm suckered into posting again... I knew it would happen... :)

I was predominately talking about fiber type recruitment though, not fiber type of biopsy. I don't think you will disagree with the statement that different cadences/intensities change the percentage of each fiber type that is recruited. For example, very low intensity efforts recruit more type I fibers. Very high intensity efforts (like sprints) recruit more type II fibers. I think that is well established. So what I was trying to say (but maybe did not say so clearly) is that here is what I think is a logical conclusion related to efficiency:
-> type I fibers contract more efficiently than type II fibers (but with less force)
-> the higher the required force of contraction (defined for cycling by torque - which is affected by both cadence and power), the more type II fibers get recruited.
-> each individual has a different breakdown of type I and type II fibers, though muscle fiber breakdown probably self selects somewhat. I.e., a natural sprinter is probably going to have a lot of type II fibers and a natural endurance athlete is going to have a lot of type I fibers
-> the variance in fiber type affects what is an optimally efficient cadence range for a given individual
-> the most efficient cadence range will be the one that maximizes the use of type I fibers, since they respirate the most efficiently. However, for some individuals, they may to be able to generate 100% of the required force from type I fibers. In this case, type II fibers will be recruited. It's optimizing that balance that defines the most efficient cadence range. I.e., for individuals with a great deal of type II fibers, the optimal cadence range will be lower than for individuals with a lot of type I fibers. In everyone's case, however, a cadence that is either lower or higher than the ends of that range is going to be less optimal.
-> This is why as load goes up, the optimal cadence also goes up, because that is how you continue to recruit the maximum amount of type I fibers
-> It's also why, as load goes DOWN, the optimal cadence also goes down, because there is a cost to simply pedaling (even against no load), and if the required force is small enough, then there's no reason to incur this additional load, since the required torque is already low enough.

That's my opinion, which I believe is supported by my interpretation of various studies on cadence/efficiency/etc. So I hope that clears up why I was referring to fiber type. I was not talking about an individual's breakdown within a given muscle (though that is relevant because I believe it plays a role in determining optimal cadence range for a given individual at a given effort). I was talking about recruitment for a given load. I believe this is essentially what this study says (though I have not read the whole study, only the abstract): The efficiency of pedaling and the muscular recruitment are improved with increase of the cadence in cyclists and non-cyclists. I'd also point to this study as one that stands in contrast with your assertion that most cyclists pedal with a cadence that is higher than their most efficient one (and that a lower cadence is more efficient). I do want to emphasize that I think it's a RANGE, not a number, where folks are optimal. This seems to be supported by efficiency studies that demonstrate an efficiency "plateau" across a range of cadences.

Whatever she is doing she seems to think she can do it and it seems to be working for her. I don't disagree with that. I just think that's quite different from saying, "It’s a misconception that you need to spin a smaller gear at a higher cadence on the bike. You don’t, " Wellington said. " Doing that actually raises your heart rate and makes you more tired, which doesn’t serve you very well in long distance racing. Cranking it down and pushing a bigger gear lets me lower my heart rate." My dispute is with the conclusions she draws. That's my personal opinion. I think her conclusions about why low cadence is wrong. That's different than me saying that pedaling a low cadence is wrong. Chrissie is successful. Chrissie rides a low cadence. In my opinion, it's not reasonable to conclude that Chrissie is successful BECAUSE she rides a low cadence.

Coyle wrote, Although during all laboratory measures of mechanical efficiency, cycling cadence was held constant at 85 rpm, this individual’s freely chosen cycling cadence during time trial racing of 30- to 60-min duration increased progressively during this 7-yr period from 85–95 rpm to 105–110 rpm. That is the change in cadence I am referring to. My *opinion* is that this training//racing cadence could impact his efficiency, even at lower cadences. "Carry over," if you will. I.e., training & racing at a very high cadence was what necessitated changes in pedaling efficiency. I.e., I'd argue that his pedaling efficiency changed as a result of changing his freely chosen cadence in training/racing. That's as opposed to saying that his cadence increased as a result of a change in pedaling technique. I.e., I would say that Lance's changes to his "preferred" cadence necessitated other changes, as opposed to vice versa. That's opinion. But I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that the ~10% increase in preferred cadence was a physiological load that his body responded to.

Before one would want to show that improvement in time to exhaustion was a result it would be nice to show that the dynamic was changed. One step at a time don't you think. I would actually have gone the other way. In my opinion, if time to exhaustion was improved, then that is of value even if the dynamic doesn't carry over. I.e., performance is the currency we care about. If there isn't a clear performance benefit, then who cares if there's carry over. That's my thought process. I just don't see that carry over is all that interesting if you don't actually know that there is a benefit that you are trying to understand in the first place. <shrug>

1sec is "instantaneous" enough for my purposes. I.e., given what I stated I believe, it isn't important to me to have feedback more often that that. In fact, I actually run a 5sec rolling average, which is still works "instantaneous" enough for me. Again, that's based of my belief about how PowerCranks could add value to training, which is based off no personal experience, but which is based off discussions with elite athletes I am close friends with who have used PowerCranks in the past, but do not use them now. I also don't agree that PowerCranks offer a "more efficient" pedaling style. Other than that rather large sticking point, we are in agreement. If you want to race on PowerCranks, train on them (and vice versa). But I don't thinks it's been demonstrated conclusively that PowerCranks offer a more efficient pedaling technique. If you want to say that people *perceive* that they pedal more "efficiently" as a result of using PowerCranks, I don't really have a problem with that. But I don't think you can conclusively say that pedaling in the PC style is more efficient. One step at a time, as you said.

I think most will agree she tends to ride at a lower cadence and faster than most of her competition. I'm not so sure. That's really why I've asked for numbers. If you watch either Tereza Macel (4th) or Lucie Zelenkova (lead out of the water), both pedal with a lower cadence than Chrissie. That's why I brought up her riding at 88rpm. It may appear that she rides a low cadence, but what is her average over the course of a race? I don't know. But I was - personally - quite surprised to see how high her cadence was during the first couple hours of the race. I'm not asking you to explain it. I'm just saying maybe she doesn't actually pedal at as a low a cadence as she thinks. Reminds me of when folks use to say Bjorn rode at 65rpm. He actually did some races at 85-90rpm average, but people on the sidelines still said "look at him grinding away." I think there is some influence of people seeing what they want to see. That's all I'm saying.

I also disagree that saying "ride a lower cadence and see if it lowers your HR, because that's better for endurance racing" is good advice. I.e., if she'd said "ride a lower cadence and see what it does for your bike speed and run sped off the bike," then that's fine. It's really the issue of concluding that a lower cadence = lower HR and that lower HR is definitely better for endurance racing. That's my opinion. It seems to differ from yours. That's fine.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Or maybe she could push even smaller ones. :-)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...Sum&ordinalpos=1

Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol. 2009 Sep-Oct;49(6-7):311-9.The efficiency of pedaling and the muscular recruitment are improved with increase of the cadence in cyclists and non-cyclists.
Dantas JL, Smirmaul BP, Altimari LR, Okano AH, Fontes EB, Camata TV, Moraes AC.
GPNeurom - Laboratory of Electromyography Studies, FEF - University of Campinas (UNICAMP), SP, Brazil.
The objective of this study was to compare the efficiency of pedaling (EP) and the electromyographic activity (EMG) between cyclists and non-cyclists during cycling in different cadences. Using a cyclosimulator, 12 cyclists (26.5 +/- 4.5 years; 68.2 +/- 10.5 kg; 175.6 +/- 8.2 cm) and 9 non-cyclists (25.1 +/- 4.3 years; 72.6 +/- 9.8 kg; 174.6 +/- 6.2 cm), performed a maximum incremental test (ITmax), and subsequently, two constant load tests (Tconst) in different cadences (60 and 90 rpm) at the intensity of the electromyographic fatigue threshold (EMGth) determined in ITmax. Before the Tconst, the subjects performed a maximum isometric voluntary contraction (MIVC) for the normalization of the EMG data of Tconst. During Tconst, the EMG of the studied muscles was recorded, as well as the EP Although there was a trend of higher values in all occasions for the cyclists, there were no statistical differences in EP and the EMG when compared in a same cadence between groups. However, when the EMG is compared in different cadences in the same group, there was a significant increase (p < 0.05) in the muscles that work during the recovery phase with the increase in cadence, in both groups, being more evident in the cyclists. In conclusion, the hypothesis that cyclists had better technique than non-cyclists was not confirmed statistically. However, it was found that the increase in cadence improves the EP and the recruitment in both groups.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

BTW, I think this shows efficiency is multifactorial and not a one size fits all and, of course, one study doesn't prove anything. Note that none of these studies involved muscle biopsies even though according to that eariler study by Coyle the only determinant of cycling efficiency is muscle type. Hence, since people can't do much about their muscle fiber type, the take home for most people should be that they should experiment with some of these different approaches to improve efficiency and power and see what is best for them. (Isn't that what Chrissie says she does?) Unless, of course, they have a coach then they should just ask them what to do. :-)

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

agree

I don't agree entirely here. there are two components to the required force of contraction. One is, of course, the force on the pedals. But, the other is the force required to accelerate the associated body parts up to the speed of the pedal. One component gets lower with higher cadence, the other gets higher. The timing of these various "forces" may not be entirely correlated but they are both present. This trade off probably explains why there is a range of cadences where efficiency doesn't change much. But, it is why unloaded high cadence cycling gets the old HR up and can take the cyclist anaerobic if one goes high enough even at zero power. This can also explain why better unweighting on the upstroke can increase efficiency because it could mean less recruitment of type II fibers when pushing with the quads, especially at higher power. Here is some pedal force data submitted to me by a PC'er comparing PowerCranks forces to what he does on regular cranks. He has lower pushing forces despite a lower cadence on PowerCranks at the same power (250 watts).


agree, it is why one of the most important aspects of becoming elite is chosing your sport correctly, not so much choosing your parent carefully.

that would be one component. But it is not the only one, imho.

I presume you are talking about pure endurance events like Ironman. I am not sure I would agree with you here. I don't know there is any evidence to support this. People with high proportion of type two fibers probably are better off choosing another sport than trying to emulate Chrissie. I sincerely doubt Chrissie has a high proportion of type II fibers. I would think they would have to be even more careful about avoiding type II fiber use if they wanted to make it to the marathon.

Yes, but it is also why the time such a load can be sustained goes down. RAAM riders ride at a lower power and substantially slower cadence than "ordinary" cyclists. That argues against your (avoid type II use requires high cadence" hypothesis above.

Yes, I agree. the cost of pedaling against no load is the cost I mentioned above, the cost of accelerating the body parts up to speed (plus the internal friction of the various parts). As long as the forces involved are low enough that there is essentially no type I recruitment the cyclist should be able to pedal indefinitely. It is all about proper pacing, wouldn't you say.

I would agree with your thoughts here that fiber type does affect what the athlete should be doing. I simply believe that most cyclists pedal at a cadence higher than is optimal for them because most of them are trying to pedal like Lance but none of them are training like Lance. Studies consistently show most efficient cadences in the power range of most athletes being between 60-80. Most people are racing at cadences between 80 and 100, IMHO. The athlete cannot know what is best for them without testing, and this doesn't require testing in the lab. It is simple trial and error to see what works and what doesn't, which is all Chrissie advocated that started this thread.

Well, I think her conclusions are correct. Reasonable people can agree to disagree.

yes, Coyle did write that. And Carmichael wrote that they started in 1993 on a deliberate attempt to change his pedaling dynamic in order to allow him to ride at a higher cadence. High power requires high cadence. The more efficient one is the higher one can take the cadence, the longer one can sustain that cadence, and the longer one can sustain that power. It is what makes Lance a champion, IMHO, not drugs. At least, his dominance can be explained without the need to invoke drug use to the dismay of Ashendon, whether he has used them or not.

Well, when you do your study you can do it that way. We are all stuck with what the researchers actually do even though we might like them to do something different.

But, in 1 second the crank has made 1.5 revolutions and there have been 3 "pushing" events by the two legs (at 90 rpm). How on earth does that kind of feedback help the rider to change the way he pedals. And, whether you believe PC's improve efficiency or not something has to explain the improvements reported by users. Luttrell obtained an efficiency improvement in only 6 weeks so it is possible. Burns almost replicated that result in 5 weeks but the improvement didn't quite reach statistical significance. With enough time though . . . Problem is no one has ever before shown that it is possible to reliably improve cycling efficiency which makes these results improbable to the experienced researcher. But, then there is that Lance data fly in the ointment.

Well, it is the concensus of most that she rides at a lower cadence. I can tell you this, that #2 told me she also tries to keep her cadence low. No spinning for her.

Reasonable people can agree to disagree. It is hard to disagre with Chrissie's results though. If she thinks something is important to her result I guess it is possible she might be wrong but I think one would be foolish to entirely discount it.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

I disagree 100%. By far, the most important aspect in becoming elite is genetics. There isn't even a close 2nd. If you do not have great genetics there is no way you are going to be an elite athlete.

What is this fascination that people have with observing elite athletes and trying to repeat their patterns without any understanding as to why they are doing what they are doing? It's absolutely absurd, imho. We have an opportunity to learn from people like Jordan because he's willing to share the intimate details of his training and, more importantly, his thought process. We have no clue as to why Chrissie does what she does and it's a worthless exercise to speculate. We have no idea whether she's as good as she is because of her training or in spite of her training.

Thanks, Chris

What do you call the guy who graduates Dead F'ing Last in his med school class?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Doctor.

I disagree 100%. By far, the most important aspect in becoming elite is genetics. There isn't even a close 2nd. If you do not have great genetics there is no way you are going to be an elite athlete.

What is this fascination that people have with observing elite athletes and trying to repeat their patterns without any understanding as to why they are doing what they are doing? It's absolutely absurd, imho. We have an opportunity to learn from people like Jordan because he's willing to share the intimate details of his training and, more importantly, his thought process. We have no clue as to why Chrissie does what she does and it's a worthless exercise to speculate. We have no idea whether she's as good as she is because of her training or in spite of her training.

Thanks, Chris

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Chris, I think what you have written is confusing things unnecessarily.

G.

---

http://www.TriathlonShots.com
Full event coverage of triathlon/ironman in photos.

The most important aspect of becoming an elite athlete is work ethic, IMHO. Those with great genetics and poor work ethic can do well but are frequently surpassed by those with average genetics and great work ethic. Genetics only comes into play in separating those with near equal work ethics and identifying those people can only be done on the playing field. What does it mean to say someone has "great genetics" anyhow? Kobe Bryant has great genetics to be a basketball player. He can jump high because he has lots of fast twitch fibers and the "right" natural coordination for that sport. If he had taken up triathlon in HS I suspect he might be very good (because he would be able to transform some of those FT muscles into ST ones with enough work - he also has a grat work ethic) but I doubt he ever would have won Kona, not because he doesn't have good genetics but because he would have chosen the wrong sport for his good genetics. Lance Armstrong has good genetics for cycling (and, perhaps, triathlon) but lousy gnetics for basketball. Michael Jordan had great genetics for basketball and just above-average genetics for baseball, another sport he loved. Everyone probably has good genetics for some sport or skill, if they were only able to discover what it was and then to concentrate on it.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Unfortunately (for me), based on results, I think about the only "skill" or event I'm genetically suited for is "BattleZone" :-(

http://en.wikipedia.org/...281980_video_game%29

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I chose the wrong sport also. i have kicked Tiger Woods ass in Tiger Woods golf on the Wii.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Did you ever take the Cooter preference test, when you were a senior in high school? They said I should be a fire watcher.

LOL. Does that test your genetics or your work ethic?

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

you lost me with your rationale ...

so who are you saying would win the following triathlons ?

a high motivated Kobe vs low motivated lance
a low motivated kobe vs high motivated lance
a high motivated kobe vs high motivated lance
a low motivated kobe vs low motivated lance

on my guess its 0-1 kobe to 3-4 lance , and thats accepting your arguement that significant FT can change to ST is possible

does that still mean motivation is the most important factor determining performance ? or do factors like vo2 and biomechanics etc still factor ?