Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Utilising different training modalities in cycling
Quote | Reply
Is there a benefit, beyond purely anecdotal to including a range of training modalities in cycling, like there seems to be in running?
Is there any studies to show this?

Or when it comes to time trialling/triathlon is pure specificity the key?

Let me explain.

Running utilises plenty of different modalities that claim to improve overall performance, but may not reflect the demands, partcularly at the muscular level of the planned race. For instance trail running, it's still running yes, but muscle use does change, so does use of recoil, cadence, stride length etc. All change in comparison to road running. Yet it does seem to confer benefit through variance in load, strength and neural control etc.

Can the same be said for cycling? An activity where stabilisation and strength are largely secondary behind pure aerobic and muscular power?

In cycling you could change your inertia completely, I.e. By mountain biking, or you could change elements such as crank length, ring shape etc. To alter things at the muscle level.

What got me thinking about this was non-round rings and shorter cranks. I always felt q rings didn't suit me, yet when I spent time on them indoors I always felt my outdoor power on round improved. I put this down to the fact that on the indoor trainer I had (lemond) had good inertia but would 'give' a little in the downstroke, unlike the road. By putting on a q ring I felt it developed more resistance at this point. It seemed to work.

But what about short cranks? Interesting I have spent a while on 155, I always felt they were too short for my long legs, on the turbo sat up they were great as I could easily use cadence to balance out the shortness, I noticed my cadence would track at about 105, compared to 95 on 165s. But on the road I never fully got on with them when I was in TT mode, I felt the cadence was either too high, for my long legs to keep up with, or the load was too high, I felt the time on the downstroke was too short.

I switched back to 165 and wow what a difference, it was like I could effectively apply power. (It also seemed to change my aero quite a bit thanks to a saddle change but I'll not discuss that here!)
But to be honest I feel my performance was enhanced somewhat by the training on the short cranks, which seemed to have a benefit on my ability both to spin faster, AND apply down force.
I'm not sure if this is all in my head, but it felt this way.

Any thoughts on whether things such as short cranks could be utilised for this benefit?
Quote Reply
Re: Utilising different training modalities in cycling [Tom_Hughes] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
No thoughts on this STers?
Quote Reply
Re: Utilising different training modalities in cycling [Tom_Hughes] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom_Hughes wrote:
No thoughts on this STers?

Can you restate your post in two sentences and one clear question? I got lost in the ramble.
Quote Reply
Re: Utilising different training modalities in cycling [Tom_Hughes] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom, interesting thoughts. Speaking for myself, I've just never experimented with other variables on the bike like you're talking about. On a little different thought train, I spent time on the erg this past winter as a way of cross training, and did one indoor erg competition. It was great training for cycling. I felt the power in the leg drive on the erg helped generate power on the bike. Back around the early 90's a Canadian triathlete, Joanne Ritchie, set a world record on the erg. I don't believe she ever rowed on the water, just used the erg as cross training, but specifically for the bike. She was a 2 time medalist at the World Championships (pre drafting), so it certainly worked for her! I know it's not exactly what you were asking, but just a different way to improve strength and power on the bike.
Quote Reply
Re: Utilising different training modalities in cycling [Johnny21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think there is definitely something in the idea of giving the muscles a different stimulus. I guess it's just trying to work out which stimuli are helpful, and which may detract from specificity.
Quote Reply
Re: Utilising different training modalities in cycling [Tom_Hughes] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You're close to the right idea, though I think the crank length idea might be a red herring.

Yes, the ideal training plan for a triathletes includes different loadings and intensities. There are different physiological responses to each modality and it's useful to take advantage of most, if not all available. Obviously specificity dictates L4 and L3 I'm aero position and at speed will be important but training doesn't need to end there.

I think crank length, and fit in general, should be influenced by what position can be held at maximum effort for the length of the event without injury. Most athletes struggle enough with holding position that changing it for training benefit doesn't seem wise. Furthermore, cycling is mostly about how hard you push down on the pedals, so there isn't much benefit to changing contraction length by 5-10%.
Quote Reply
Re: Utilising different training modalities in cycling [Karl.n] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks. It's partly because I have a stack of 155 but only 1 165mm chainset and 3 bikes!
It's changeable but it's a PITA!

I also feel there is a significant difference going below 160, the muscle pattern seems to change
Quote Reply