Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
A new question for the PC'ers ...
Quote | Reply
I have been thinking about drills and the concern that some have of "losing" quad strength or the ability to ride at high cadence or both and came up with the following drill to be used after basic transition has occurred and some basic endurance has been reached. I call it "which is heaven and which is hell? Wait, both of these are hell!" Set your countdown timer on your watch to 5 minutes or so. Start out in the smallest gear you have and ride at the highest cadence you can staying as smooth as you can until the alarm sounds then switch to the biggest gear you have and concentrate on pushing and pulling as hard as you can until the alarm sounds then go back to the smallest gear etc. etc. for an hour or so.

What do you PC'ers think of that drill?

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks
Quote Reply
Re: A new question for the PC'ers ... [Frank Day] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
well mr day as soon as you can tell me how to work this here m-dot branded ( the corporate scumbags!!) watch in the countdown mode i will be good to go. :)

seriously, i will try it on the rollers tommorrow, as i watch tony alva, jay-boy adams and stacy peralta in the film "dogtown and z-boys" again. THOSE were the days. . . . . . . . . . . .
Quote Reply
Re: A new question for the PC'ers ... [t-t-n] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Alright! Sounds good to me! With one change...I'll start off each segment in the aero position as long as I can hold it. I'll try it on rollers, but I might not have enough resistance on them unless I rig something up...and ideas on how to rig up a roller resistance mechanism using normally available items? I should just buy the unit that is made for these rollers, I know...



Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)
Quote Reply
Re: A new question for the PC'ers ... [ktalon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ktalon that aero idea hurts just thinking about it, you b-stard. as for your rollers some guys used to put a thick rug or the like under one roller as a poor man's resistance unit. (!!) stupid man's resistance unit, really - if you go down in a flaming wad of carpet fibers i will deny ever have suggesting it. by the resistance unit you cheap b-sta......oh wait, already called you that. :)
Quote Reply
Re: A new question for the PC'ers ... [ktalon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You could use a fire extinguisher instead of a rug. when it got hot enough to breach the extinguisher you could then pretend you were on the space shuttle except you would come back alive. cut out the middle man.

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks
Quote Reply
Re: A new question for the PC'ers ... [Frank Day] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have been doing that drill on the trainer for some time now. I think it works great. I go 10 minutes low RPM/big gear then 10 minutes high RPM/small gear and repeat. My HRPM is up to 110 and I keep my LRPM around 60.

Haim

-------------------------------------------------------
"Sometimes you need to think INSIDE the box!" -- ME
"Why squirrel hate me?"
Quote Reply
Re: A new question for the PC'ers ... [Haim] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Haim,

Do you keep your HR constant for the two drills or do you consider one a "rest". Are you measuring your power on the two drills?

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks
Quote Reply
Re: A new question for the PC'ers ... [t-t-n] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ttn: as Popeye used to say, "I yam what I yam, and that's what I yam!" You've got me pegged! Depending upon what the carpet fibers are made of, maybe the fumes from the fire would be poisonous, too!

Now, let's get out there and do this torture that our dear "Doctor Demento" prescribed...it's a great day for it here...3 inches of rain expected today! But, don't make any jokes about me and 3 inches...they don't call me "Stubby" for no reason, you know!



Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)
Quote Reply
Re: A new question for the PC'ers ... [Frank Day] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Frank,

I keep my HR constant at whatever my target is for that ride, which is much easier to do on a CT/trainer than on the road. In general, I don't find there is much use working the RPM range between 60 and 85 (or highest sustainable RPM if it is less than 85) while on the trainer. The LRPM works sport specific strength quite effectively, and the HRPM works the spin and coordination with the PCs. Once one is able to spin comfortably above 90 RPM, then some sustained work at 85-95 RPM and adding spin-ups (increasing 5 RPM per 1' until max RPM) seems to work well for me. Shorter spin-ups will also help those still working on the coordination and endurance to spin comfortably at 90RPM.

So much for my "secret" PC workouts ;)

Haim

-------------------------------------------------------
"Sometimes you need to think INSIDE the box!" -- ME
"Why squirrel hate me?"
Quote Reply
Re: A new question for the PC'ers ... [Frank Day] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
OK, I tried the new drill. Although, I cheated and changed it. I started out on rollers, but ran off the edge 3 times. That's as many times as I have EVER run off rollers the entire time I've had them! So, after about 30 minutes, I went to the resistance trainer. Anyway, there just isn't enough resistance on the rollers to do the drill.

What I did was run a 53x12 at 60 rpm's...because that is the highest gear I have, and at that setting, I could keep my HR below 150. Speed was 19mph...that's my only way to know power output. After 2.5 minutes, I went to 90 or 90+ rpms at whatever gearing kept me at 19mph....so my power output to the wheel was the same with both rpm's. I found that my HR would climb above 150 doing the higher rpm portion, and would drop back below 150 during the low rpm portion. The last 15 minutes, I did some high rpms in the 53x12 just because I was getting bored. I could motor along in the 26-28mph range in the lower 80rpms, and felt very good...but my HR was too high, and it wasn't sustainable for longer than a couple of minutes at a time.

Findings:

My legs FELT fresher after the high rpm sessions, even though my HR was higher.

I could stay in the aero postition the entire time I was at low rpms. I couldn't stay in the aero position longer than a minute at 90+rpms.

As I tired, my HR would creep above 150 while at low rpms...but, when I got out of the aero position at low rpms my HR would drop to about 145.

Conclusions: With PC's, I'm still more efficient at lower rpms on a trainer, although I suspect I'd have better power/HR ratio at rpm's higher than those low ones I ran today. I think somewhat higher rpms would result in an easier running transition, because my legs felt fresher at higher rpms. The aero position I used isn't as efficient for me as sitting more upright, at least on a trainer. THis could be because my hip flexors work better while I sit up more and/or my aero position needs adjustment or simply more practice in this position.



Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)
Quote Reply
Re: A new question for the PC'ers ... [ktalon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My thoughts on this drill is

1. it would "prevent" the sense of loss of quad strength that some have complained about if done regularly. What do you think of this?

2. it shows how inefficient high cadence can be but why the triathlete might want to increase the cadence from their optimum cycling cadence the last 10 minutes or so or a race to prepare for the transition.

3. I think your aero performance will improve with more time but I also expect you will always find better performance with an open hip angle as muscles work better when they are "stretched" a little.

4. It would appear to be a good drill to point out the importance of finding the "optimum" cadence or pointing out to the athlete how important cadence is to cycling performance. What do you think of this?

5. It would appear your optimum cadence for power, both upright and aero, is somewhere between 60 and 90, at least for now.

Frank

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks
Quote Reply
Re: A new question for the PC'ers ... [Frank Day] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
1: I think this will help keep that sense of quad strength...it essentially gives me the permission to grind away in a big gear. I'm still amazed that my knees don't hurt doing this work.

2. I think that higher rpms than what I was doing will be needed during a race. Once I get a muscle burdened with high power output fatigue, it's hard to get it to fully recover unless I give it a break soon (I'm talking about not exceeding my anaerobic threshold more than 5-10 minutes without some prolonged coasting or easing back on the effort).


3. Specificity would tell me my aero position needs to be practiced more...something I haven't been doing.


4. I think this kind of drill is great for finding out optimal power/Heartrate/rpm balance. At least on the trainer. Real world correlations could be made, but aerodynamics would need more consideration as related to the average speed of the rider. When I'm going uphill and less than 17 mph...I sit up tall and BREATHE, I go faster this way than trying to stay aero. When I'm zipping along in the upper 20's, I stay as aero as possible, even if I have to throttle back the effort a bit due to being uncomfortable...because aerodynamics are more important than maximal power at those speeds.

5. Yep, I think my optimal rpms will turn out to be less than 90. And, definitely more than 60!

Thanks for your help!



Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)
Quote Reply
Re: A new question for the PC'ers ... [ktalon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I haven't tried this drill yet, but I am fairly confident that my current optimal cadence is 86. How's THAT for a range?? OK, somewhere around an 86. Historically, I have raced in the 95 - 105 range. I anticipate that during races, I'll ride at a bit higher cadence due to adrenaline and the increased intensity of a race. I am concerned though as riding at this slower cadence, while seemingly more efficient, may be working my legs harder. I need to start focusing on brick workouts to assess the impact on the bike/run transition. I just don't buy the idea of spinning the last 10 min of the bike at a high cadence to counteract the effects of fatigue. If I've been chugging along at a cadence that will negatively affect my run for 108 miles, I don't see how pedaling a high cadence for the last 4 is going to undo anything.

Also, I do not ride PCs exclusively, and I'm starting to believe that's a very good thing. Sort of like mixing in drills with LSD work for swimming. By switching back and forth often, I feel I'm getting a pretty good handle on the specifics of how I ride on standard cranks vs. PCs. It still takes some concentration to make sure I pedal "PC Style" while on std cranks, but I like switching back and forth as you can learn to really feel the differnece in the two "styles". Plus, it can be nice to "cheat" for a couple minutes when you start to get tired.
Quote Reply
Re: A new question for the PC'ers ... [Frank Day] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[reply] it shows how inefficient high cadence can be but why the triathlete might want to increase the cadence from their optimum cycling cadence the last 10 minutes or so or a race to prepare for the transition.[/reply]

Allen Lim made an interesting point when I went to his talk regarding cadence and power. He noted that high RPM was not necessarily better for all of us to optimize power output. He cautioned against making that assumption just because that works for Lance. He noted that more power can usually be produced at lower RPM, but the higher muscle tension causes restrictions to blood flow to the muscles at higher power outputs. He said this was the reason that Lance had to switch to higher RPMs. He puts out so much power that he can not ride without compromising muscle blood flow at lower RPM.

Haim

-------------------------------------------------------
"Sometimes you need to think INSIDE the box!" -- ME
"Why squirrel hate me?"
Quote Reply
Re: A new question for the PC'ers ... [Haim] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Haim, I've often joked that if Lance Armstrong is doing X, I should be doing Y, because I'm no Lance Armstrong!

I used to race tt's in the 100-110 rpm range. Last year, it was suggested gently to me by a coach, "Why don't you just stop doing that stupid high rpm stuff for one race and see what happens!" I dropped to 95 rpms and went faster. I dropped to 85-90 and went faster again. That's where I stayed the rest of the year.

For me, it seems that slower rpms than 85 create a tension in the muscle that "feels" like it will result in decreased power if I stay at lower rpms...PC's have shown me that I can still ride along at 70-75 rpms and not actually fall over (like the guy on the tricycle on Laugh-in...how many of you are old enough to remember him?). But, I'm not sure where I'm going to end up, rpm-wise. I agree that it certainly feels that too much low rpm work during a race would overcook the muscles so that the run would suffer.

Maybe the answer is to switch back and forth during the race. That's easy to do on hilly rides...you power up the hills in a lower rpm...and recover with higher rpms/coasting on the downhills...on flats, maybe strike a balance between your higher and lower rpms.

I know that I've always sort of done this...if my quads were getting tired, I shift to a lower gear and spin a bit faster...even if my speed stayed the same or dropped. If my breathing rate is too high (and therefore heartrate is too high) but my quads feel fresh, I kick it up a gear or two and my speed inevitably increases. Lower rpms (within reason) increase my speed, higher rpms increase my heartrate (showing an increase in overall INefficiency) but rest my power muscles.

BUT, I think I MAY be headed to a lower range of rpm's than last year. Maybe 80-85? It's certainly not crazy for old veterans to try new things to improve results. The crazy people are those that don't try anything new and expect to improve results!



Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)
Quote Reply
I am not trying to be a jerk, but...... [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Written by:
Dr. Dale E. Brigham, Ph.D.
USA Cycling Licensed Expert Coach
Brigham Training Services
Columbia MO,


One of the best features of road and mountain bikes is that you can change gears (chain ring/cog combinations) to suit the terrain and conditions, which allows you to maintain a steady pedaling rate, or cadence, regardless of whether your bike is going fast or slow. This is a good thing, since we all intuitively know that both pedaling too slowly or too fast is not as good as pedaling at the right cadence. But knowing what that optimal cadence is for each of us and learning how to ride at that cadence is another matter. Let's see what expert coaches and sports scientists have to say about this, and then let's figure out how to use that information to make us better cyclists.

There's a lot of lore in cycling, and one of the most hidebound traditions is that pedaling cadence should be from 80-100 revolutions per minute (rpm). Traditionally, one hallmark of an accomplished cyclist is the ability to maintain pedaling in that cadence range most of the time. That's not to say that a skilled cyclist will never stray outside that range -- steep climbs often dictate a lower cadence, and sprinters usually exceed 100 rpm during the final rush for the finish. And that's not to say that there are not successful racers who spend much of their time riding at cadences above and below that range. There are some pretty fast guys and gals who push the big gears and some who spin the little ones.

In fact, all of us should "violate" the cadence laws some of the time during training. Spend some of your training miles riding in big gears at low cadence to build muscular strength and little gears at high cadence to work on suppleness. Nevertheless, most of the time, most of us should try to ride with an 80-100 rpm pedaling cadence.

Why that cadence, you ask? First of all, the "bible" of cycling, Italy's famous CONI manual, tells us so. The CONI manual, which was compiled in the early 60's by Italian coaches and sport scientists, is the distilled essence of generations of cycling lore and science. How relevant is that info today? Well, the USA Cycling recommends roughly the same pedaling cadence (90-110 rpm) for road racers in their coaching manuals, so it seems that this advice stands the test of time.

So, what do today's sport scientist's say about cycling cadence? Over the years, scientists have observed in study after study that experienced cyclists instinctively choose an 80-100 rpm cadence, but, to put it bluntly, until recently, the researchers didn't seem to have a clue as to why. In fact, several studies have shown that the most efficient (least energy expended for a given work output) pedaling cadence range is much lower, between 30 and 80 rpm. So why are we trying to pedal so fast, anyway?

Sports scientists have attempted to reconcile this discrepancy between scientific observation and hidebound tradition. Recent findings made by a group of Japanese sport scientists (published in the Dec. 1996 issue of Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise may explain why racing cyclists like to pedal so fast. The researchers found that the pedaling rate that experienced cyclists preferred was not the one with the most efficient energy use; it was the cadence at which neuromuscular fatigue was the lowest. To put it more scientifically, the peak torque needed to turn the cranks is decreased at a higher pedaling cadence, so neuromuscular fatigue is likewise decreased. That is, by having a high cadence, the cyclists turned the cranks faster with less muscular strain per stroke, than if they had a lower cadence.

At long last, scientific knowledge has caught up with traditional lore -- we pedal fast so that we don't overly fatigue our leg muscles. This makes perfect sense if you compare sprinting up a steep hill in a big gear at 40-60 rpm to sprinting up the same hill in a lower gear at 80-100 rpm. I'll bet you can get to the top just as fast in the lower gear, but your legs will feel much better than with the big gear. In bike racing, breathing hard isn't all that pleasant, but it's dead legs that stop you cold. A brisk pedaling cadence keeps those legs alive.

How can you raise your cadence, if you are not pedaling as fast as you'd like? Practice, practice, practice. Work on riding in a lower than normal gear for short periods, then gradually increase the amount of time you spend spinning. This practice can be done on the road, trail, stationary trainer, or cycling rollers. A low fixed gear (single-speed, no freewheel) forces a high cadence, but your regular bike will also do nicely. Just use the smaller chainring(s) and larger cogs, and make yourself keep pedaling when you otherwise would coast.

One fringe benefit of riding with a high cadence is that it often reveals bike fit problems, particularly having the saddle height set too high. If you are unable to pedal at 90 rpm or so without your hips rocking from side to side or without bouncing on the saddle, try lowering your saddle. Make saddle height changes in small increments (5 millimeters or less at a time), and give yourself time to adjust to the new position.

You can monitor your pedaling cadence either by using a cycle computer with a cadence function (a sensor mounted on the chain stay detects crank arm revolutions) or by using a watch and simply counting. Do that looking at your watch, counting 30 crank revolutions, then looking at your watch again to see how many seconds have elapsed. If 20 seconds have elapsed, you're at 90 rpm; if 15 seconds are gone, you're doing 120 rpm.

Actually, if the latest scientific findings are correct, muscular characteristics (like the muscle fiber type and number, muscle cross-sectional area, and overall strength of muscles involved in cycling) of each rider dictate each rider's optimal pedaling cadence. Regardless, the old advice of 80-100 rpm is a good place to start. Given training and experience, you'll find your own particular, optimum pedaling cadence.

Contact Brigham Training Services at brighamdmo@hotmail.com
Quote Reply
Re: A new question for the PC'ers ... [Frank Day] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Mr. Day

This is my first foray on this site. I generally gravitate toward specific sites geared for the type of racing I train for. However, that is here nor there. So.....Here is the question.

Why is it that some are concerned about losing quad strength?

I just don't get that. On a few of the "other" training sites that question was posed. I responded and requested a more detailed response (data). The responses were vague, and did not address the question that I posed with supporting data.

While I have only been on my PC's since early January, my average power has been steadily improving so that now I can hold a 1 hour average of 265-270 at 78 rpm staying at the upper end of my zone 2. Pre-PC average cadence was 89 rpm for just about every ride. When I first started on the PC's January 2nd, I could only manage 195-200 watts for 30 min (had a hard time with hip flexors and staying in the saddle long enough). My cadence for that first ride was 60 rpm (had to stay in the 53x12 and 11)

I know some of my improvement comes from the training effect, but I am now only 50 watts below last years CP30 (320 watts) test in which I was going all out for those 30 minutes, and it was in August (peak season) heartrate was 182 bpm. This portion of the season (end of base 2) im already pushing 265-270 at 158 bpm. And this is only biking 3-5 times a week. I nordic ski the remainder of the time, so further improvement may come in base 3 when all training time is on the bike. As soon as I do my first CP 30 test, I'll post the results for you. This test wont be until the 1st or 2nd week in april.

I look forward to your response

Chris
Quote Reply
Re: A new question for the PC'ers ... [BadgerLand] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Badger, I am no Dr. Day.

But, I am one of the ones that felt a decrease in quad strength. I think that is was because I refused to go to what I consider very low rpms (in the 60's) out of ignorance, or stubbornness, or perhaps, out of experience (which taught me that lower rpms would make my knees hurt...I've since found out that lower rpms don't hurt my knees after all...at least when on PC's). So, I was riding PC's at rpms that would fry my hip flexors before my quads got tired. Having done that for a while, I feel I lost some quad strength.

I began lower rpm-higher power riding at Dr. Day's suggestion. Since going to lower rpms to get more quad tension, AND since my hip flexors aren't quite the pathetic wimps they used to be, I've rapidly gained that strength back. In fact, it's only taken about a week and now I'm no longer concerned about the apparent loss of strength I had felt.

This brings up the point of view that the type of cycling I do is really an aerobic event. The increased opportunity to improve aerobic function I may have been giving my quads, by exercising them at a level that never became anaerobic, might actually be beneficial to my TT times. I might not sprint as well right now, but, maybe my 40K tt time would be better. Add some higher load workouts to those better-aerobic quads in order to increase strength and lactate tolerance, and I might just have the recipe for even faster times.

Anyway, this isn't an answer backed by good science, it's just what I "feel". I might not have had any loss in quad strength to begin with...never measured it.

Maybe they just weren't used to being worked in the way I did them one day...I had a fitting, and put on regular cranks for the first time in almost two months...the medial head of both quads felt weaker than usual when I was on regular cranks. This could have been because I wasn't doing a good job at PC pedalling, and the extra work to lift the rising leg was being felt by the medial quads.

Oh, one last thing regarding sprinting...I often run a 53x14 on my resistance trainer and see what my top sprint speed is. When I first did this on PC's two months ago, it was about 27mph. It has now increased to 40.5 mph. When I had on regular cranks for a fitting, I tried this test, and my top speed was 34.5 mph on regular cranks! This tells me my pedal stroke isn't as good with regular cranks...I'm probably not rising the recovery leg as well, which robs power from the drivetrain. So, I have a way to go on becoming a better pedaller.

I write too much, don't I? Hope there was something in there that helped answer your question, if you can dig it out of all the other junk info.



Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)
Quote Reply
Re: A new question for the PC'ers ... [ktalon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ktalon

Maybe Just as a test at the end of base 3, I'll put regular cranks on for an hour. It would be interesting to see if there is any power difference and a percieved exertion level at that power. Both of the rides (test) will be on a trainer. I will post the results.

Even "if" there were to be a percieved quad detraining, and like you said it was percieved. If your power and speed have increased as a result of using PC's.....is this not what all are striving for? In other words, countless hours are spent trying to develope a perfect spin for economy reasons. Not only on PC's but regular crank users as well. Now, there are those out there that claim by using PC's it will detrain your quads and cause muscle imbalance (no data to back up claims). My quads are still the primary movers, but now my backstroke leg is starting to not be dead weight and work against the force leg. I don't see how this could cause detraining, because you should simply be able to produce more power if one leg is not working against the other. This assumes that your hip flexors have the endurance and that adaptation has taken place.

Chris
Quote Reply
Re: A new question for the PC'ers ... [BadgerLand] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Chris,

The issue of "loss of quad strength" is one of a combination of testosterone poisoning combined with my own selfish interest. I have found that many of the better cyclists have egos that prevent them from seeing the forest from the trees and because they tend to slow down in the beginning and can't ride with their friends on their hammerfests, tend to stop using them regularly (and then, eventually, totally, when improvement seems marginal) and the most frequent "excuse" is this loss of quad strength. See Peter Reid's comments on the cranks in the Inside Tri article on them a year or so ago.

It is in my best interest to help people achieve the full potential of the cranks and, while many people are using them right now and I suspect their performance will prove to those who are not using them properly how much they are missing, I am looking for ways in which to help the user figure this out for themselves early on rather than trust what i say with blind devotion on something so radical and new.

Reports like yours helps but you would be surprised how many people out there just refuse to believe such improvement is possible without scientific proof, as if this is something relatively easy to do. And, as you did, they easily attribute improvements to training effect. Well, you are right,it is training effect but it is all the training effect on the HF's and hamstrings and they are just beginning the road to athletic excellence.

The purpose of my question was to try to devise tools to help these people (who have trouble seeing the big picture) overcome their own prejudices long enough to see the advantages of staying with the program full time. When more people are successful at this then, 5 years from now, these same people will have trouble remembering they ever questioned this.

I have a question for you ... Are you seeing any benefit in your nordic skiing? I would expect so as i expect it is related to the running improvement everyone sees.

I look forward to your CP 30 test.

Frank

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks
Quote Reply
Re: I am not trying to be a jerk, but...... [stoots] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have not seen the studies that you reference done by the Japanese scientists but I suspect their conclusions are a bunch of speculation. Unless they actually measured intramuscular pressures during these pedaling periods they cannot know whether there is " less muscular strain per stroke" or not. In fact, my theoretical analysis would suggest there should be more muscular strain per stroke at higher cadences, at the same power, even though there is less force on the pedal, due to the need to accelerate the foot up to pedal speed before one once of force can be applied to the pedal - this acceleration being performed by the very muscles used to apply pedal force.

I think cyclists tend to race at higher cadences than is most efficient for tactical reasons because of the nature of their racing. Because of the nature of the bicycle matched with a biological system, the ability to quickly accelerate to match opponents requires riding at higher cadences, where higher powers can be quickly achieved, even though they are less efficient. Since most cycling is in this environment, this is what the cyclist trains to do so that, come the time trial, where maximum power matched with maximum efficiency is the key to success, the rider doesn't have the experience to change. Cyclists don't reduce muscular fatigue by pedaling at higher cadences, they reduce muscular fatigue by drafting.

Cycling has evolved the way it has because it is not an individual sport, but, rather, a group activity. You win not because you have the ability to ride faster than your opponent but because you get to the line before him/her, the race, usually, being decided entirely in the last mile or so.


Frank

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks
Quote Reply
Dr. Day, Here's an update on my PC progress [Frank Day] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dr. Day,

Like I've mentioned before, my pre-PC style was to push very big gears at low RPMs, so when I first started riding PCs I actually INCREASED my cadence in order to give my pushing foot a little momentum back over the top.

I think I've gradually gravitated back to my old cadence (but I base this simply on feel and the fact that I'm back to big gears.) All of my riding has been on the Computrainer. Usually I just ride the same old 13 mile Coors course. Sometimes I draft, and sometimes I don't. Anyway, I struggle when I draft going downhill because I spin so poorly. I was never a smooth spinner before, but it seems even harder with the PCs. Your small gear exercise would probably do me some good.

My best solo effort on the PCs for the 13 mile course has been a 328 Watt average. This is well below my old best, but I haven't gone really hard on them yet, and I think much of my loss is my inability to keep the power up while riding at high RPMs when I'm going downhill. I also use to get out of the saddle occasionally which would relieve some overworked muscles while increasing power. I simply cannot ride effectively out of the saddle yet.

Even with the PCs, I don't "feel" like I'm pedaling in circles. My old style felt like "stomp, stomp, stomp," and my new, PC style feels more like "push/pull, push/pull, push/pull." I feel like my legs are simply acting like pistons--up and down, but no "around." I'm not overly concerned about this because my cycling has always been strong, so maybe if it ain't broke, I shouldn't fix it. I'm more anxious to see if the PCs will resuscitate my sluggish run. I haven't noticed any affect on my running yet, but then again it's only been a short while an I haven't been too consistent with my training.


One concern I have is that the drive side crank seems to have a slight wobble even though I'm sure it's tight. Have you encountered this before?
Quote Reply
Re: Dr. Day, Here's an update on my PC progress [trifink] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Trifink, You are "pedaling in circles" or you would be hesitating at the top or the bottom. it is just your dominant action is the push/pull, as is most peoples. I suspect with more time you will smooth things out.

Slight wobble can come from many things from how they are installed to spider being "bent" from any various causes and including flexing of the frame from high stomping forces. It probably is not a big issue it it is not severe enough to interfere with shifting or ability to apply power. If you are riding at 328 watt average with no mechanical problems I suspect and are a natural masher, frame flex may be part of the problem causing "apparent wobble" and i suspect this is not a big deal.

Frank

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks
Quote Reply
Re: Dr. Day, Here's an update on my PC progress [trifink] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Finkmeister, I have the drive side wobble, too. I thought the chainrings might be warped, the spindle warped, the spider warped, etc. I tested them all. If you have ZERO load on the system, turn the crank by hand...you'll find it probably is true. When you crank with your foot, though, you'll see the wobble. I think, with mine, it is simply a little bit of play that is inherent in the mechanism. It isn't much, and it just means I have to fine-tune the front derailler a bit more than usual to keep the chain from rubbing. I doubt it's due to bottom bracket flex on a Kestrel Talon. That sucker is stout.

Watch for the run improvement...for me, it happened before any cycling improvement! It's sleeting today, and I was planning on running...not to worry, I'll PC instead! Lots of running benefit without the damage that running can do!



Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)
Quote Reply
What I am talking about ... [Frank Day] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
regarding not being able to get through the transition without being afeard of losing something. Here is a post from a training log on another site.

"PowerCranks. Brother I hate these things :) PC's should be for Painful Crotch :) I think I'll ride PC once or twice a week as a speed skills session, I really can't get a good aerobic workout on them. I do find my legs getting tired but my lower back and crotch take a beating too."

What does it take to get people to use them "right"? I am not sure this person will ever get to 100 miles or see any significant improvement. I do like the alternative term for PC's though.:-)

Frank

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

Prev Next