In Reply To:
In Reply To:
"I'd be more interested in hearing you comment on what I and others have been hinting at with regards to the litterature seemingly indicating that absolute power has more of an impact on cadence." what studies are those? there are probably two dozen studies, from the 70s forward, suggesting, as frank day noted, that the energetic optimum was in the neighborhood of 60rpm to 70rpm (depending on rider intensity), that is, if you're simply measuring oxygen consumption, aerobic fatigue, etc., that slow is better than fast. this, altho "freely chosen" cadences always seemed to be around 90rpm in these studies.
then ahlquist came along with a game changer, and was the first to posit that muscle fiber recruitment was a key, essentially saying that we must look at neuromuscular fatigue, not simply aerobic fatigue; the problem being the higher rate of fuel consumption when type II fibers are recruited -- which is what happens as you lower the cadence, increasing the torque required to do the work, which increases type II fiber recruitment.
In Reply To:
so, you pick your poison. pedal faster and stress your aerobic system. pedal slower and stress your neuromuscular system. somewhere in there is the balance and, i think, this is why cadence rates change based on intensity.
In Reply To:
i think if -- again -- you simply look at what riders tend to do, you'll see that they pedal much faster cadences as their intensity increases. you yourself, i'm guessing, pedal 3 to 6 beats faster in a 70.3 than you do in an IM, and faster yet in an oly. if you don't, okay, but that's the norm.
______________________________________
"Bros b4 Hos, man" House MD
Team Aquaphor 06-08