Wow, you're really smart. You must win lots of races. Will you please be my coach?

Two words...

Lactate shuttle

Sorry, not an obscure journal article. This time you've got to buy the textbook...

Exercise Physiology: Human Bioenergetics and Its Applications - Professor George A. Brooks, Cal Berkley. Best text on the subject ever written in my humble opinion.

My guess is Professor Brooks would disagree with you.

What do you mean by "net anaerobic energy production"? Is anaerobic energy somehow being lost somewhere?

One last question... Do you really believe all these positions you so vigorously defend on this forum, or do you just pick a position and defend it as some sort of strange, intellectual sport?

Do you even race or do you just talk about it all day? You ride your 78 cadence with your text book in your back pocket telling everyone that blows by you that you are more "economical" because your saving 02.

Give it a rest already!

"Quite often the reason that people write textbooks is that it allows them to provide their own personal interpretation of the scientific literature without having to deal with criticisms from outside peer reviewers."

imagine an informed, educated person ignoring all evidence, scientific and otherwise, espousing a private opinion, and even suggesting it as fact! it really makes you wonder...

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

"Are you referring to yourself? You're the one who ignored the majority of the scientific evidence (and/or conventional scientific terminology) when you stated that a higher cadence was more economical."

i could be wrong, of course, but i'm guessing that what readers are interested in is what cadence generates optimal performance. to that end...

Ahlquist, et al, in ?The effect of pedaling frequency on glycogen depletion rates in type I and type II quadriceps muscle fibers during submaximal cycling exercise.? (European Journal of Applied Physiology, 1992:65) demonstrated that a trained group of cyclists would put out the same power with the same aerobic cost?same oxygen consumption?whether pedaling at 50rpm or 100rpm. Blood lactate levels remained the same. What was found, though, was that the quadracep glycogen depletion was significantly greater at the lower cadence, and furthermore that this depletion occurred only in the fast twitch muscle fibers.

study after study has determined that cyclists freely choose 90rpm when given the choice, and that's in the lab. outside the lab, the higher the effort level the higher the cadence, i.e., inside the lab and out, anecdotal evidence overwhelmingly favors 90rpms. only in much longer exercises, say, during RAAM, do the neuromuscular costs of riding a lower cadence diminish to the point where the ?energetically optimal cadence? was favored.

When subjects are tested throughout a range of cadences, and are free to choose their own cadence, the cadence they choose is invariably higher than the optimal ?aerobic? cadence. Vercruyssen, et al, (?Effect of exercise duration on optimal pedaling rate choice in triathletes,? Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology, February, 2001) decided that for his test subjects (nine triathletes) the optimal neuromuscular cadence was just shy of 90bpm, yet the ?energetically optimal cadence? was 78bpm. His athletes chose, when given the option, to ride a cadence of 90bpm.

so, some studies show aerobic fatigue factors to be the same regardless of cadence, and others show that lower cadences offer more aerobic benefit. but as you can see there are other factors to be considered, and which have been demonstrated by science, which is why higher cadences are almost always chosen by those who know what they're doing.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I'm admittedly slow on the uptake, so I need a little help here. Are you arguing that I'll feel fresher off the bike if I ride using an excruciatingly slow cadence throughout the ride? The argument being that I'll consume less oxygen, therefore be more efficient and be better off.

My experience tells me that riding at a slow cadence at high exertion trashes my legs. Of course this is anecdotal, and again I'm slow, so I could be wrong about the pain I feel and my inability to walk after such efforts. But when it comes to triathlon I don't really care how much oxygen I consume, there seems to be plenty of it available. I care about how quickly I trash my legs. This thread gives me the impression that you're really torqued about the confusion surrounding the different uses of the word "efficiency". Fine, I get it. Who cares?? I think what's important is what is the best way to ride such that I can be as fast as possible while preventing fatigue such that I can have a strong run after getting off the bike? Call it whatever you want. Is your recommendation that I should ride all the time in a 55-11? That should keep me at a slow cadence and achieve your precious efficiency.

Well there are all sorts of weird things people do when they are running that use significant amounts of energy but contribute absolutely nothing to forward movement. I.E. they are "wasting" that energy consumption with regard to positive endurance performance. Surely one of you "smart guys" has studied these things (excessive heel strike or braking, excessive arm swing, side-to side upper body motion, etc.) You cannot possibly claim that correcting these "form" issues will not contribute to improved endurance performance.

"In other words, you wish to change the topic of the discussion"

i just wanted a clarification. i'm happy to concede that i used the word "economy" imprecisely in the context of a purely scientific discussion. it's a mistake i occasionally make when i write, and both those in the life and physical sciences catch me up on it, depending upon the context of the article. thanks for pointing it out. it makes me a better writer.

i thought you were actually arguing on behalf of a lower cadence. now i see that you are not, and that while you are offended by my use of certain terms in certain contexts, the actual issue of the appropriate cadence for racing is one in which we apparently agree. my apologies.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

You know, Dan, I think the scientific community's definition of economy being limited to O2 consumption is wrong and irrelevant to the sport.

I figure the term economy, or being economical, in the context of triathlon, refers to the efficient utilization of all available resources to complete a swim, bike ride and a run in the shortest possible time with some accommodation for a low risk of injury and a quick physical recovery.

I would allow for things like "O2 economy" or "glycogen economy", but I think you would be doing a disservice to the triathletes that read your articles and visit the forum if you reserved the terms "economy" or "efficiency" for oxygen consumption.

The previously mentioned Dr Brooks likes to say that "a little bit of knowledge is dangerous." Many of you are about as dangerous as they come. The problem with this thread is that you have one person (not a PCer) with a scientific background attempting to have a discussion within that framework with a number of you who are not familiar with scientific conventions.

JohnA - we should be able to change definitions if they don't suit us or we don't understnad them? come on. The scientific definition might not match your use of the term in everyday life, but that doesn't make it wrong. Such definitions are necessary to generate meaningful discussion. It doesn't work if everyone provides their own definition for the same word. I certainly don't like your definition of economy so let me go create my own. Then let's discuss economy. How does that work?

And I'm not 100% sure on this. But if I am correct, Not a PCer is a recognized expert on things like this. This isn't quite as funny as all of us arguing with him about exogenous carbohydrate metabolism during exercise, but close.

Not a PCer - if you are who I think you are, would you mind sending me an e-mail. I have a couple things I would like to ask you. I have e-mailed you previously, we had some discussion about tracer methods.



Brent

I think everyone would agree that (not a PCer) is extremely intelligent and well versed in scientific evidence. However, does that make it OK to clutter this whole thread that originally started about a seat angle with all his knowledge on economy. I mean come on, Dan admitted he used the term incorrectly but (PCer) kept it going.

Maybe most of the readers on this forum really do want to read scientific literature about every tine detail of this sport, but my guess is they don't. In fact I think most just want a simple answer (cliff note version if you will) on what is going to make them faster. In this case, while Dan may have used the term incorrectly, he was on the right track of answering the question that most wanted answered.

I mean no disrespect to you or PCer but let's just state your point concisely and get on with the answer to the posters question.

OK. I give... In the tradition of Saddam, I felt the 'not a PCer' tanks rolling into Baghdad and the best I could muster was to send up a Scud.

Point well made.

Now go back to the 'Well Referenced Academic Genius Forum' where you belong.

For me at least this was a fun and informative discussion. I think it does us all good to have an outlet such as this where our thoughts can be developed into broader concepts that actually start to make sense.