---

-----------------------------------------------------------
"Chrissie wins because she trains really f'ing hard and races really f'ing hard and was blessed with a huge f'ing motor" Jordan Rapp

Jordan,



You being a pro and possibly wanting to knowing info. during the race, would you rather want to know your speed or your cadence in that situation (assuming no PM and in the CW's pictures I'm not sure she has one). So would there be an advantage/disadvantage to knowing just speed vs knowing cadence and/or speed.


I'm asking, cus it's curious she has a cadence sensor on one of the Kona years, while in this past Kona, it seems she doenst have the cadence sensor.


Also, I'm not trying to debate whether CW or anyone is right/wrong in using just a computer.

---

------------------
@brooksdoughtie
USAT-L2,Y&J; USAC-L2
http://www.aomultisport.com

I am blown away by the arrogance of your reply.

Exactly what is your evidence that what she is doing is "wrong". I submit it is simply your opinion that some of what she is doing is "wrong" and that you don't have an ounce of evidence that what she is doing is wrong. As I posted in my previous reply the scientific evidence actually supports the "lower cadence is better" philosophy (at least to a point).

Again, where is your evidence that she could change her cadence and it would make no difference? Where is your evidence she could drop her cadence more and lower her HR more? there is such a thing as a "most efficienct" cadence and above or below that cadence your HR is going to go up at the same power. That is a physiologic truth. You are seemingly criticizing her (and Sutton) for not knowing or caring about the stuff you feel important. You folks who put all your belief in some number you get off a contraption you attach to yourself (HRM) or your bike (PM) without regard to how the athlete feels simply slay me. While such tools can be useful to an athlete or coach there is simply zero evidence that they make any difference in helping the athlete to perform better and I simply don't understand what you are trying to say by saying she doesn't "know" what her actual cadence (power, or speed) is or not. I suspect she "knows" if it is too fast or too slow for what she is trying to do and for how she feels. And, if you think cadence doesn't matter I suggest you do your next race at a cadence of 140 and tell us all how it goes.

Wow, again, where is your evidence that Lance doesn't "scrape mud off the bottom of his shoes"? I have never seen pedal force data on Lance, have you? Without pedal force data how do you know. I submit you cannot know what the pedal forces are at the bottom, top, or anywhere else, by simply looking at a rider. If you say you do I submit you are guessing.

The fact that Chrissie doesn't have a cadence meter means what again? I would submit that Chrissie occasionally rides with other riders and might possibly notice that her cadence is higher or lower than those other riders. If one notes that one is going the same speed at a lower cadence (despite not knowing what the number actually is) do you think it unreasonable they might conclude they are "pushing bigger gears"? Why are you so obsessed by the numbers and what she "knows" or doesn't know?
You are the one who said she is "wrong" in her comments. Seems to me you are the one obsessed with the "right way" and "wrong way" of training. Again, it blows me away that Chrissie is telling everyone some of what she thinks they are doing wrong and the experts here at ST are saying "ignore her" she doesn't know what she is talking about.

---

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

I believe that most of are looking to find that formula or technique or piece of equipment that will make us a little bit better. Slowman and slowtwich survives on us MOPers that want to do just a little bit better. God knows triathlets will spend a fortune on anything that will make us better.
We want to know that if I pedal at this cadance, then I will do better. I know enough physiology to know that there are a thousand variable that go into training and racing. I think most of us want to be able to control as many variables as possible. We want to maintain a cadance--X. As Slowman pointed out, the answer is probably X plus or minus 5 or 8. We still want it to X and we would like it to be X for all of us.
Chrissie wins because of genetics AND a great work ethic. Whoever is coaching her has not ruined her potential. Could she be better with "different coaching" or being more aware of all the tiny techniques (cadance, HR, Watts, nutrition)? If so, would it be measurably better? Or would it take the "fun" out her training (for her).
For years I watched Mark Allen chase (or lead) Dave Scott in Hawaii. Mark was trying new gadgets and monitors, Dave kept beating him. Dave figured that race out 7 years before Mark did. Dave wasn't telling anyone what he knew. It took Macca years to figure it out (if he did). It is fun to watch Chrissie dominate like Dave (and then Mark, and Paula, and Natasha) did.
Thanks for you input and responses

---

Team Zoot So Cal

perhaps Dev wanted a race report from her.

Is there anyone here who "knows" what they are talking about regarding athletic training? You, Rappster, Coggan, anyone else? I submit that not a single person here has scientific proof of a single thing they say regarding training (other than, perhaps, training more is better, in general, than training less except, of course, if it results in injury). There are simply too many variables. Almost everything everyone says here or anywhere else is opinion and usually based upon their own personal experience. Why anyone her would choose t criticize the most dominant triathlete of this generation regarding her opinion here baffles me.

Of course, one area where there is some scientific evidence regards cadence, power, and efficiency. Study after study show cyclists cycle at a cadence substantially higher than the most efficient cadence and many studies have been done trying to figure out why. Why anyone would think it irrelevant in view of that data that Chrissie races at a lower cadence than most while also being the most dominant athlete on the circuit (especially on the bike) baffles me. Actually, it doesn't baffle me, few seem capable of actually thinking and analyzing this stuff.

---

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

Wow Frank. I would say that the ignorance of your reply blows me away, but that's just not the case. Everything you write is colored by your own lens of feeling persecuted. Nobody ever said Chrissie's cadence selection was wrong. The question is really, "what makes it RIGHT?" But you spend 99% of your time on here defending your product against those sort of objective probes.

I never said her riding a low cadence was wrong. I said her aerobar extensions were too long, and THAT was wrong. It's wrong because you have to reach out to shift, supporting yourself on only one arm in the process. There's no valid reason for her not to cut them down to where she actually holds them. But nowhere do I ever criticize her selecting a low cadence. Even in my initial reply, I was simply stating that her beliefs weren't really a belief (or rather, weren't the product of her own analysis). To reiterate, "lower than WHAT?" It's a mantra, the kind of thing that comes from a coach. But you automatically go into "defensive mode" because that's the only way you know how to interact. You injected some meaning that was not at all there into what I wrote, and then call me arrogant? I only wish I was surprised.

I also never said she could change her cadence without it making a difference. I was simply pointing out that she says "a lower cadence is better." But again, LOWER THAN WHAT? Why not five beats lower? Or ten beats? Or five higher? I.e., she just says "lower" without giving a frame of reference. My argument was not that she could change her cadence without it making a difference, rather that she could change her cadence without it affecting her argument. Big difference.

The pedal force data for Lance is widely available. Here's one of the first hits on a google search of "Lance Armtrong pedal force analysis": http://www.trainright.com/...tdf/clockdiagram.jpg Wow, that was REALLY hard to find.

And I'm not obsessed with knowing numbers. She's the one who said she rides with a lower cadence for a reason. So don't you think that it's reasonable that SHE might want to know what her cadence is, since she obviously feels that it is important?

Again, I never said she was wrong about anything other than her aerobars being too long. But it's not surprising that you think I did, because that's the only way you seem to know how to interact with people. It's so biases everything your thought process that you basically miss every single point that I made, points that were not lost on virtually everyone else who read what I wrote.

---

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

Just cadence. I don't ever look at speed during training or racing. My computer shows Power // Cadence // Time, so I can figure out my average speed every 10miles or so during a race, but that's it. Speed is, in my opinion, not only irrelevant, but actually detrimental, especially in the absence of power. I.e., are you going up a false flat or down one? Headwind or tailwind? Etc.

---

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

Jordan, this is what you wrote in post 20 of this thread:
"It's wrong, but she's good enough that it doesn't matter." Now, you either said her cadence selection is wrong or that her opinion that it matters is wrong. If you meant something else perhaps you could enlighten us. No persecution complex here, you were the one who said that. I think it is pretty arrogant to say that (as I understood it, but it is simply my opinion. Her beliefs are not her beliefs because you think she was told them by her first coach? Where on earth do you think most people's beliefs come from? From their own experience wouldn't you say? And, regarding your question, "Lower than what?" Lower than her competition, on average. Isn't that all that counts. Wouldn't that be the reference by which she would be judging things?
geeze. This seems pretty clear to me. Lower than what most people ride. What other frame of reference would there be?

"change her cadence without it affecting her argument" Huh????

Ugh, I think she could know her cadence is lower than most of her competition without knowing the actual number just as she might know her speed is higher than most of her competition without knowing exactly how fast she is going.

---

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

Would you rather know your cadence or how you are feeling and how you are doing in relationship to the competition?

---

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

Here is what I wrote: "Kind of like her aerobar extensions. They are too long. They just are. It's not like it something that "works for her." It's just something that doesn't matter enough to make a difference. But it's not like it's right or good or anything like that. It's wrong, but she's good enough that it doesn't matter." Is that clear to you now? It was clear to everyone else...

Lower than her competition? Really? Based on what? Tereza Macel actually rides a much lower cadence than Chrissie. So does Lucie Zelenkova. Belinda Granger rides a similar cadence. As I said all along, Chrissie never actually alludes to what her preferred cadence is, so we can't really compare it. Tell me what her cadence was. And then tell me the cadence of her competition. As I pointed out, she doesn't know what her cadence is when she races, and both Lucie Zelenkova and Tereza Macel, who were ahead of Chrissie out of the water, ride with a slower cadence than Chrissie.

Furthermore, it doesn't actually make any sense to infer that she is implying "lower than her competition" because her exact statement pertains to pushing a bigger gear and lowering her heart rate. If you read what she wrote, it doesn't really make sense to infer a comparison with the competition, because she talks about spinning a "smaller gear at a higher cadence" as compared with "pushing a bigger gear and lowering her heart rate." Those are self-reflective observations. But there is no frame of reference provided, which is why I said she could ride with a cadence five or 10 beats lower (or higher) without it affecting her argument that pushing a bigger gear is better. Especially if you consider going even lower with cadence. If she rides at 75, why not 65? Or why not 70? Or why not 80? Even 80 would be lower than "normal" (including men).

What she wrote makes the most sense if you treat it as what it is - a piece of advice // a mantra // etc. from her coach. It's like my "swim with long strokes" analogy. It doesn't make any sense if I, as an athlete, say that I am successful because I swim with long strokes. What does make sense is if I say "my coach told me I need to swim with long strokes," because then it's a coaching cue. If you look at what Chrissie said in that light - the way that I rewrote it in my very first post - it makes a lot more sense.

So, to borrow a phrase, "Ugh!" I can't believe you ate the chess piece...

---

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

Careful, Rappstar knows what he's talking about. He just won an IronMan, and I saw it on TV. It was awesome.

---

persequetur vestra metas furiose

Well since you're making it your personal business to stalk my posts, I'll ask you to invite Chrissie here to explain her approach, and no I won't kiss her ass.

Sorry, but by now, I'm expecting more from my champions of this sport than what Chrissie says (or actually does not say). Anyone can smile ear to ear when they're on a winning streak, and anyone can say, "I worked hard, got fit, and had a great race....thank you volunteers".

I'll take what comes out of Macca's or Normann's mouth (or Rappstar for knowledge) over CW. I kind of think Normann losing it completely and throwing his bike into the lavafield and coming back to win the next year (and even not win in subsequent years) is of greater interest (to me). ....and yeah, I like hearing what the third line player has to say, cause this guy is really having to think it through to earn his paycheque, not just dominating through better physical and natural gifts (as well as hard work....but they all work hard)

I don't really think I'd find doing an interview of CW that interesting. There are much more colourful and insightful personalities in the sport who have much less of a palmares that offer us better listening and reading....but that's just me. Watching someone destroy a field by 20 minutes I don't find particularly exciting. But if she can describe to me what went through her head and body on race day so that I'm almost living it with her....then yeah, that's interesting. Erin Baker, PNF, Karen Smyers (forgot her in the first list), Lori Bowden, Natasha Badmann....all give more interesting interviews.

---

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

L -M- freakin- A-O

Love the .gif. It seems to capture the 'arguing with FD' perfectly. :-D

It has been fun lurking here- all you guys and this back and forth stuff that doesn't matter about Chrissie and her performance at Kona.

I for one find it refreshing that she just went out there, gave it her all and had fun doing it and is nice to her competition. There really isn't anything for her to say. No secrets. No How-to-be-like-me interviews. I like that. It's the way tris used to be in the 80s. Go and kick butt and have the time of your lives.

Now-go train or race-but have some fun. Please. :-)

what competition?

---

It's not about the bike, it's just along for the ride.

Well, that's actually not how it was in the 80's. The 80's were the time when massive equipment advances like aerobars, aero helmets, lace locks (probably the biggest time savings per dollar spent), triathlon specific wetsuits, steep seat tube angled bikes, lycra skinsuits, carbon bikes, indexed shifting, super light race flats, were born.

The pros back then were trying to figure out every material way in which they could shave time and go faster. That's how Greg Lemond beat Laurent fignon in the TdF by 8 seconds. There were tons of pros trying to figure out how to get faster by racing smarter with better equipment choices back in the 80's. Definintely quite different from how CW races (or lets on).

Its actually interesting that more pros back in the 80's were thinking like Rappstar vs CW and other pros today. That's cause today, the macro equipment choices are mainstream. Back then, it was the realm of the innovator. Today the playing field is somewhat level from an equipment, strategy, nutrition, pacing and preparation perspective

In the 80's the playing field was fairly "unlevel"...all this stuff that we all use today was new. If you were the first guy with aerobars, in a field, or the first guy riding a QR Superform at IM New Zealand, you might just beat the field by 20 minutes off the bike (ask Andrew McNaughton or Ray Browning). I think Monty actually won a few races cause he was the first guy to discover the use of lace locks.

Its cool if you find it refreshing that she went out and cleaned the clocks of the field, but tris in the 80's were actually totally different from how CW approaches it today. Lots of innovation coming from the pro ranks back then. I see none from CW....not saying that she does not put the work in and race hard....she obviously does.

i'm not sure what you meant by 'lot's of innovation coming from pro ranks back then. i see none from chrissie." howsabout three straight Kona dominations? what else do you want? it's the rest who are not showing innovation but rather are hanging on to what supposed innovation has shown them and that's why they aren't winning or coming close to it, they've apparently been sidetracked by 'innovation'. her innovation to me is simply dominating with or without the bells and whistles because she just can.

further down the list you go, buddy.

---

It's not about the bike, it's just along for the ride.

X 2

it s not lava field here, it's DRAMA fields....

Interesting do!

Jf

funny and i gotta say as now is the time for more drama for your babys mama but i think Big Rapp spoke too soon earlier and stuck his foot way into his mouth and only came out an amputee on the rebound as Frank was right. just saying. a simple 'whoops, i phucked up' woulda saved more face but that's only my little ole opinion on the matter and tomorrow is a new day anywho.

---

It's not about the bike, it's just along for the ride.

My friend, the original quote was about cadence and you write "kind of like her aerobar extensions. . . . It's wrong" Sure seems to me you are criticizing her cadence and her knowledge/opinions about cadence.
well, cadence isn't everything. there is an optimum cadence for everyone and the optimum cadence for each individual depends upon a lot of factors including what power they are at. So, if Chrissie is higher than some that doesn't mean her comments are still not valid. Most competitors ride way above their most efficient cadence. Those of you who are arguing that she is wrong about this cadence comment really are trying to say that people should race at something other than their most efficient cadence. I look forward to hearing the justification for such an argument. Many here might want to pay attention to what Chrissie is trying to say. I suspect Chrissie's "preferred cadence" depends upon what she is trying to do. Is she climbing, descending, trying to pass someone and demoralize them, "resting" before the next hill. Her comment surely is a generalization and should not be taken to account for every circumstance one might encounter racing.
I suspect she rides at the cadence that keeps her HR the lowest it can go for the power she is putting out. That would be the most efficient cadence. That is "why not 65 or 50 or 80 or anything else. she is trying to optimize efficiency. What is so hard to understand here?
No, what makes the most sense is what she said is what she actually believes, based upon her experience. Not that she is some automaton regurgitating what her coach has told her in the past. IMHO

---

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

frank, you owe me some powercranks...i'll take mine in first place, please. ;)

---

It's not about the bike, it's just along for the ride.

Sheesh... While I find this thread both highly entertaining and increasingly educational, I have to say that after reading Frank's posts, I have to wonder if there is some sort if innate need to disagree?

Seriously Frank, I typically can find some truth and thoughtful insight to what you say, while even at times, agreeing with your point of view, but damn... this is a totally new level.

---

___________________________________
Cure CF, because I love my daughter.
http://www.cff.org

Perhaps you are thinking of the late 80's? Meanwhile, Dave Scott was as low tech as any of the pro's. No heart rate monitor, the last to use aerobars, shirt flapping in the air, and he dominated Hawaii until '89. He just did what Chrissie does, goes out and trains harder than everyone else and he NEVER went into any details about his training.
I do not mean to imply he didn't know how to coach himself, he did.
We all started to train with a heart rate monitor back then, but it was guess work. The same with aerobars and position. Heck I remember triathlons in the 80's were wetsuits were forbidden.

---

Team Zoot So Cal