Low cadence, mashing a big gear.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Ulrich was famous for his big gear, low cadence riding.

Yeah, except if you actually put a cadence watch on it, he rode at like 90 rpm. It just seemed slow relative to Lance. Sergei Gonchar is pretty much the biggest masher out there (rides a 55 up front, which is a rarity), and he "mashes" at like 85. Triathletes WAY overgear themselves. People think that Ulrich rode at like 65 or 75 rpm, which is a total fallacy.

---

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

Yeah, except if you actually put a cadence watch on it, he rode at like 90 rpm. It just seemed slow relative to Lance. Sergei Gonchar is pretty much the biggest masher out there (rides a 55 up front, which is a rarity), and he "mashes" at like 85. Triathletes WAY overgear themselves. People think that Ulrich rode at like 65 or 75 rpm, which is a total fallacy.

---

so 90 rpm is considered low cadence for a roadie?

I always think that 60-70 rpm is considered low rpm...but what do i know!!!

No, it was just looked really slow because Lance rode at 110 or so. I don't think people realized how quick a cadence Lance really rode. The difference between the two was remarkable, and that is what led people to think of Ulrich as masher. People knew Lance was a spinner, so Ulrich became then the "big gear grinder," which fit being the bigger guy. Everything gets blown out of proportion. Like Ulrich's weight, for example. Simply put, Ulrich would never have been considered a masher except that he raced against Lance. So when people go out and ride a big gear because it works for "cyclists like Ulrich," they are just fooling themselves. Big gear riding is an absolute waste of time. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to hear that Chrissy Wellington was riding at the cadence that people theorized Ulrich rode at (65-75rpm or so), but that wasn't even close to the cadence he actually rode.

---

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

During the 2001 Alpe d'Huez stage ("The Look") Armstrong's cadence varied between 90 and 105, while Ullrich's varied between about 80 and 90. Those were measured when the TV cameras were on them so they're not directly comparable but it does suggest that Ullrich's reputation as a low cadence masher wasn't accurate.

Big gear riding is an absolute waste of time.

---

What is ur reasoning behind this statement u made? u r one of the top riders in the pro fields so am curious to see why u said that. i thought in order to get stronger, big gear riding/training is part of the training process.

I was referencing the TT's, and I believe (as with many riders), both those guys rode a couple ticks higher during the time trials. But yes, I'd think that those numbers fall pretty well within the range of what was normal for each. Thanks.

I think that's it quite odd that if a 53/39 is the right crankset gearing for a guy putting out 6.0+ w/kg, that it is somehow also the right crankset for someone putting out roughly half of that (such as a female pro during an Ironman). But that's a whole other story... In any case, I wish more people would mash like Ulrich. You'd probably see a lot better bike splits, and a LOT better run splits.

---

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

For some reason people also like to think of bigger guys as mashers and smaller guys as spinners but take a look at a guy like Cancellara, one of the larger guys in the peloton and World TT Champ. His TT cadence is extremely high. In fact, in the several TT's I've seen him in, his cadence has been noticeably faster than the majority of the field.

Dr. Coggan is a better person to answer this question than I, so I'll let his very thorough explanation answer the question:

http://home.earthlink.net/~acoggan/setraining/

The simple summation is that it's best to simply choose the cadence that allows you to generate the most power, as generating power is what really stresses your system. Power is what is important, not torque (at least as regards cycling cadence).

---

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

I agree. A "low cadence" is relative to the power you are putting out. If Lance and Jan are putting out the same power (350-400 wqtts during a TT say) then Jan's 85-90 is very low and Lance's 105 is quite high. For a triathlete who is putting out 225 watts, then 70-80 is quite reasonable for a "low cadence" compared to the 90-95 high cadence of many. Those who are riding higher than that at those powers are losing a lot of efficiency.

Of course, many argue that they want a high cadence to get get or keep the legs ready for the run. Well, that might work but I don't think it is necessary to have that high cadence for 5-6 hours. Bring the cadence up the last mile or so, before T2, if that is what you need.

---

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

Ok, it makes sense to me! :) thank you.

I was referencing the TT's, and I believe (as with many riders), both those guys rode a couple ticks higher during the time trials. [snip]

I think that's it quite odd that if a 53/39 is the right crankset gearing for a guy putting out 6.0+ w/kg, that it is somehow also the right crankset for someone putting out roughly half of that. [snip][/reply]
During the stage 19 ITT in 2000, both Armstrong and Ullrich broke the previous record for the fastest TT (there was a huge tailwind and the course had a slight elevation drop). Armstrong averaged 15 m/s. Had his cadence truly averaged around 110, he would have been using something like a 50x13, which is a compact crank kind of gear. (Ullrich averaged 14.96 m/s.)

World-class marathoners probably put out in the neighborhood of 6 w/kg. I prefer to run as infrequently as possible so I try to be as ignorant about it as I can. Do you also think that stride length should depend on power output?

If you look at the 10k, which I choose only because someone running at 50% of world record speed is still running, whereas someone running at 50% of world record marathon speed is probably closer to jogging. In the case of the 10K world record, I would submit that Bekele or Geb's record (I know Geb runs at a VERY fast turnover, remarkably so) turnover was not double what the typical 50min 10k runner runs (WR is 26:17). That would mean that his stride length would need to be substantially longer. I suspect this has something to do with the biomechanics of running, but I have no real idea. I'd prefer to let someone like Dan or Paul Thomas answer that one.

---

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

Yea, and that article also said she was going 30 mph on the flats (with a tailwind?)

She was mashing a big gear (uphill?)


I have watched the Hawaii coverage on NBC a few times and Wellington isn't "mashing"

I also have looked at race results and she is extremely fast, but she isn't averaging 30 mph...nobody is!!

---

Ruble Triathlon Coaching Average of 30 coached PR's per year
Florida Triathlon Camps Train in North Americas winter training destination
Ruble Racing Events Midwest Triathlon Racing
Ruble Timing Midwest Event Timing

Big gear riding is an absolute waste of time.

---

Power = force x velocity. Max gains will not come if one does not work both sides of this equation.

I've seen the best spend a fair amount of time climbing Mt. Lemmon at a medium effort in the 53x12 (40-60 rpm).

7 TdF GC victories = time well spent.

JR

---

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com

Then there's that specificity thing: what good is pedaling at 40-60 rpm if you never race anywhere near that cadence?

---

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

How should one train train for max gains when running? Alternate intervals of b i g l o n g s l o w s t r i d e s and littleteenyquicksteps?

Your example doesn't add up. Lance won 7 TdF GC titles when he stopped grinding and switched to high-cadence (high-power) output. You never read about Ferrari (or Carmichael) having Lance do big-gear work. Now, you know Lance better than any of us, so if you say he did big gear work, I'd be tempted to believe you. But the science is not there to support it.

Some of the best Belgian riders don't shower before TT's (because their legs will absorb water), don't sleep with houseplants in the room (because they steal oxygen), and don't shave close to big races (because it takes energy to regrow hair). My point being, just because the "best" do something, it doesn't mean one ought to. Those same guys grinding up mount lemmon would probably have gotten a lot more out of the workout had they done it at 10% more power, and 30-40% more cadence.

---

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

Your example doesn't add up. Lance won 7 TdF GC titles when he stopped grinding and switched to high-cadence (high-power) output. You never read about Ferrari (or Carmichael) having Lance do big-gear work. Now, you know Lance better than any of us, so if you say he did big gear work, I'd be tempted to believe you. But the science is not there to support it.

Some of the best Belgian riders don't shower before TT's (because their legs will absorb water), don't sleep with houseplants in the room (because they steal oxygen), and don't shave close to big races (because it takes energy to regrow hair). My point being, just because the "best" do something, it doesn't mean one ought to. Those same guys grinding up mount lemmon would probably have gotten a lot more out of the workout had they done it at 10% more power, and 30-40% more cadence.

---

I did some of the workouts on Lemmon with him. Big gear work is not a waste of time and is a great way to increase the force one is able to apply to the pedals. Assuming the other side of the power equation stays the same, more force equals more power. If you make gains on both sides of the equation ... more power.

It doesn't get any simpler than that, and the science is there to back it up.

The best climbers and TTers in the world incorporate big gear work into their training -- the same way they incorporate agility exercises (pedaling higher than "long" tt optimum rpm), and the same way they work at optimum rpm. This I know for a fact.

Everyone who watches riders on TV, pedal high rpm up climbs or in TTs, is watching the end result of many pieces of the puzzle. I'm simply trying to tell you what went into that end result (hint: big gear work was part of it).

As far as your comments regarding athletes who dont shower, don't sleep with house plants, or refuse to shave ... I bet they did a little big gear work, too.

JR

---

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com

what good is pedaling at 40-60 rpm if you never race anywhere near that cadence?

---

It's a way to increase specific strength - ultimately force. Lots of other benefits, too, but no time to elaborate.

Try it, you'll like it!

JR

---

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com

How should one train train for max gains when running? Alternate intervals of b i g l o n g s l o w s t r i d e s and littleteenyquicksteps?

---

Just talking about the ride, Chung. But you give the above a crack, and let me know how it works:)

JR

---

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com

I agree that the science says that if you make gains on both sides of the equation you get more power. However, where does the science say that the best way to do that is to train pedal force and pedal speed separately?

I agree that the science says that if you make gains on both sides of the equation you get more power. However, where does the science say that the best way to do that is to train pedal force and pedal speed separately?

---

They're two separate things, aren't they?

Should you simply go out and ride at max sustainable power, at your optimum cadence, on each and every ride?

---

Jimmy
http://www.Riccitello.com