IT'S OFFICAL, IT'S THE OFF SEASON!!!!!! Looks everyone needs to go for a bike ride.

Franks misconception that heart rate= efficiency is shared by many people.

if you look at some of the arguments made by pose running, they bring up that point, along with misinterpreted physics.

its really hard to tell what cadence is efficient for chrisse because
1) i the womens competition isnt as stiff as the men's, meaning they dont have to bike as hard to stay with the group.
2) metabolic efficiency is pretty hard to measure

""

To this 2nd point...Have there been many/any studies related to metabolic efficiency specifically related to muscle type/LT/VO2max or other individually specific physiological strengths?...refering to cadence.

Depending on your own motor's efficiencies/deficiencies (and the relatively high variability btwn individual physiologies,...it seems that (even considering the same distance/gross effort) the standard for cadence efficiency would also be highly relative.

Do a search on Pubmed for Cadence & efficiency. You'll see a couple studies. They are for sale on science direct if you want them. Two are by Coyle. Not sure if they exactly answer your question or not.

---

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

I'm interested to know if you have any ideas as to why the medial aspect of my tibial plateau would feel relief from this as well. MCL/ACL/meniscus repair from skiing blow out. The contusion on my tibial plateau was the worst and last part to heal, but would still flare up. To that end it has gone by the wayside with the rearward cleat position. I'm just a tech dork and would love to know they why of it, but either way I'm just thrilled to be cycling pretty much pain free:) Thanks

what exactly do you mean by because of or in spite of? what variable(s)/things she does are you talking about?

---

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

Site of pain and source of pain are rarely the same. I.e., there many other muscles that anchor around your heel that could have done a lot of extra work when you damaged your achilles and they had to fill in additional stabilizer roles. So now that there is not the increased ROM in your ankle, you may feel better. Many of the muscles that anchor around your heel have their other anchor up around your knee. The simple answer is probably that you have better overall stability by reducing the ROM of your ankle joint, and that is making your knee feel better.

---

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

With regards to this thread, it's her "lower" cadence (though we still haven't defined what that means exactly). Basically, she's only ever ridden with a "low" cadence. So it's not clear that if low cadence is something that helps her succeed, has no influence on her success, or is something she has to overcome in order to be successful.

As a counter example, you can look at Lance Armstrong's higher cadence during his 7 TdF wins with a more critical eye, because he CHANGED his cadence. Of course, so many other things about his body changed as well, that it's hard to isolate that. But it does seem clear that spinning a higher cadence helped Lance win 7 tours. That same sort of clarity is not there with Chrissie's cadence selection.

Or as another example, look at Paula Radcliffe, who bobs her head a LOT when she runs. Most people would say that she succeeds in spite of the fact that she bobs her head, or at the very least, it is not something that affects her at all. But I don't think anyone would say that bobbing her head is a reason for her success.

Or, if you want a case of someone who clearly does something "wrong," but is successful in spite of it, look at how Shawn Marion shoots a free throw. It's really bad technique. No coach would ever teach that. But he's a great basketball player. So that's a very obvious case of a player being successful in spite of something he does.

Because Chrissie has been so successful from the outset, she's never really had to change anything. This makes it harder when you look at how she races to clearly isolate those things that make her successful. That's always a challenge, even with athletes that have had both success and adversity, but it's ESPECIALLY challenging when you only have someone who has been successful.

---

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

I respectfully disagree. Phelps and myself are both of very similar build, have similar strokes. Being 6ft 4, with long arms, it is virtually impossible to change stroke cadence without losing something, whether it stroke, DPS or the like. Ultimately, speed is the victim. A shorter person with a less efficient stroke may be able to increase stroke rate to make up for lack of strength or DPS - Janet Evans for example. Phelps did try to change his stroke to increase sprint speed, but was short lived. As agreed upon, it is individual.

---

http://theworldthroumyeyes.tumblr.com/

OMG that is too funny. I had to say, plus this thread had moved from the top so I have to put it back up there. It has made me smile all weekend long ;>) hahahhahahaha

God forbid anyone in this thread actually take a breather, and read what your writting. I haven't seen this many attacks on a single person, well.. since George Bush I suppose.

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. Are you calculating cadence as strokes/length or strokes/sec (or minute)? It makes a big difference with swimming depending on which metric you use when you talk about changing cadence. If you are talking about increasing stroke rate that's very different than increasing strokes/length, and vice versa. I think that we are probably saying the same thing, which is why I am not sure what you are disagreeing with.

Ultimately, with sprinters (just like in most other sprint events), you need to have a certain muscle fiber breakdown. Just look at the difference with 800m runners vs. 400m runners physically. Same with Phelps. The stroke rate is - it seems now - a minimal requirement to be a competitive 50m or 100m sprinter. If Phelps can't hit that rate, he can't be a 100m sprinter (at the highest level). So I think with all of this, muscle fiber breakdown likely is a major factor.

I do think Phelps could train himself to swim at a different cadence. The question is SHOULD he. If there's not a compelling reason to change, then why should he? I.e., with Lance and the shift to higher cadence, there seemed to be a compelling reason. That reason is there for Phelps - should he want to race the 100. If he doesn't want to race the 100, he doesn't change his stroke. But if he does want to race the 100, I think he must change his stroke. Whether or not he can be as successful as he wants swimming the higher cadence, I don't know. Maybe he just wasn't built to be a sprint specialist.

The interesting thing with cycling is that isn't the case with swimming is that cadence and speed can be TOTALLY unrelated because of gearing.

---

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

GO BIG LANCE GO!!! sorry, i couldn't resist. ;)

---

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

btw and seeing as how i never really paid much attention to his cadence at all, did it happen to change during his eigth Tour which could also be said was a victory? and what of the Leadville massacre? without any effort he adapted to the cadence of whatever the mtn bike gearing offered vs. the road bike and tore that track a new bum cheek without hesitation. and i doubt he specifically trained one second for that 'race'.

---

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

or do we know if he switched gears a few times during that race. sometimes it seemed as if he was just sitting and spinning while climbing and i'm sure on the way down he was in the biggest gear to accomodate the speed so im sure it changed moreso than not a few times throughout that 'race' so not sure if cadence would be an issue in the first place seeing as how it would damn near be impossible to sustain a single sustained cadence/gear throughout it. unless your name is Wb of course. ;)

---

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

Brett Sutton's point - amply backed up by my favourite kind of empirical result (race performances by not enormously gifted athletes) - as related to me by a mutual friend (sadly no longer with us) is that triathletes don't, in the main, have the skill level to pedal the higher cadence and STILL get off and run at the higher cadence required to not deteriorate through the run section (shorter stride, less pounding). Some do, particularly those who came from a cycling background as a youngster. He thinks it's more time-efficient given a career lasting only a few years to work on the strength required to pedal the lower cadences for those without such a background. Note, that isn't to say this is the ONLY way to get better. It's his belief which he has passed on to CW. There are other ways, I've never been convinced any one is massively better than any other.

Rappstar is absolutely right, if you want to get better quickly it pays to go see a coach who has seen all sorts over the years and can quickly tailor something for you - it's always better to learn quickly from someone else's mistakes than waste your best 5 years making mistakes yourself if what you want is results.

I recall LAS in about 1994 doing a bunch of work on the track with Specialized to improve his TT-ing. The conclusion was a lower cadence was better. Coyle also did some work with him on pedalling efficiency, which was published in a widely discredited paper. You can read all about the flaws in an interview Michael Ashenden gave, but I'll warn you that before you get to that analysis, you have to read about how he actually went from being 6 minutes down on Indurain every year to winning at will, so LAS-fans should perhaps stay away. No replies on this thread on anything other than the Coyle protocol please, it's currently still quite a good thread.

Thanks Jordan. I know just enough to know I don't know anything with respect to injuries. I will just chalk it up to 'it works' and be psyched.

I remember the same dismay I had when I found out my 'knee pain' from my IT band was actually coming from my hip flexors 2 feet away from the site pain.

Sorry for the delay, I have been at the Grand Canyon with very limited internet access.

tell me you are kidding? You might be right, this could be a lost cause. :-)

Anyhow, here goes my try. Cycling efficiency is generally defined as power out divided by rate of total energy consumed generating that power. What better measure of rate of total energy consumption by the body is there than rate of oxygen consumption? At aerobic efforts, HR correlates pretty well with oxygen consumption. For any given power (everything else being the same) then, it seems to me, HR gives a pretty good estimate as to whether efficiency is improving or worsening?

---

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

You wrote the above in response to my statement as to how do you "know" how Lance pedals without having seen a pedal force diagram. To which you posted the above link as if i were an idiot for not having seen it. Thanks for the link I had not seen it. I have a couple of comments.

I believe that link came from this article: http://www.trainright.com/...?uid=4613&p=4366

The article states that pedaling dynamic was done in 1993. I am not sure I would hang my hat on the fact that that diagram is indicative of how Lance pedals NOW. Perhaps it is but it seems unlikely in view of what the accompanying article says.

!. Why didn't the article include a pedal force analysis as to how Lance pedals now? Perhaps he didn't want the competition to know exactly how well he had adapted to this new way of pedaling? On the basis of that article, which states that that diagram was the basis of his trying to improve his dynamic, not something he was satisfied with, do you assume Lance still pedals in that fashion and use that 17 year old chart as your proof.

2. Don't you think it is a bit easier to "get that leg out of the way" at a lower cadence than at a higher cadence?

In view of this article I am about as baffled by your contention that you know how Lance pedals now just as I was baffled as to how you "knew" what Chrissie actually believes that is different than what she says.

I know you would prefer to make me look foolish since I called you out on your inappropriate post but I would prefer to discuss facts, ifthey are available. Otherwise, lets label our posts as opinions.

---

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

I don't know Jordan and he is probably a great guy but it is not clear to me that Jordan is "engaging the buying audience thoughtfully" with posts like he made in this thread dissing the greatest female triathlete of the last few years. Reminds me of what Greg LeMond has said against Lance Armstrong. He may truly believe what he says. It may actually be true and many may agree with him. But, it was not an act of marketing genius. Hopefully he will learn from this episode and hold his tongue unless he has something truly important to say if he is speaking about other athletes.

---

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

Here is the problem IMO. Efficiency should NOT be divided by the rate of total energy consumption. For example, say I can pedal at 200W using 100units of energy and can sustain that for 1 hour (bear with me) Then lets say if I alter my position and utilize a new muscle that was not formerly used and I can generate 210W at 110units of energy and can sustain that for 1 hour (assuming aerodynamics are equal). I am less 'efficient' by your terms yet my FTP has increased because I am able to put out more power for the same unit of time. I think there needs to be some sort of time metric here - how long can you sustain that given energy. If your energy is increasing, your energy/oxygen decreasing, but you can sustain it for just as long if not longer than you are not losing efficiency in my eyes. I do not have enough experience in this type of stuff but that is one of my concerns. I could be way off though :)

---

Ride Scoozy Electric Bicycles
http://www.RideScoozy.com

well, i didn't see him dis her at all. as in my own example of tim tebow, you can honor the athlete (and jordan very clearly does honor chrissie) while also commenting on that athlete's interface with his (or her) sport.

i don't think jordan has anything to learn from this episode. but i think others can learn from this episode, by reading about the technical aspects of their sport from probably the most technically thoughtful, technically educated, pro triathlete racing today.

in the 12th century, aristotle was called "the master of those who know." peter abelard, though, said, "dear is aristotle, but dearer still the truth."

because peter abelard dissed aristotle (and seduced heloise), he got his balls cut off. now, you might ask what peter abelard learned from that episode, and he might well have answered, "keep your mouth shut around people who don't simply honor aristotle, but worship him."

nevertheless, abelard is quoted today, and fulbert (the castrator) is not.

so, maybe jordan should keep his mouth shut, because the lowest common denominator of slowtwitch reader might become offended. but i hope he does not, because we don't cater to that denominator around here.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Well, if you can lower your HR for the same power on the bike one of the following are possible. 1. you should be able to increase your power or, 2, you will have more gas in the tank when you get off the bike for the run.

A similar scenario exists for running.

Improved efficiency can help performance if you know how to use it properly. Chrissie seems to have figured it out, wouldn't it appear?

---

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

Seriously? Are you really being serious with that comparison? Jordan essentially said that Chrissie blindly follows Sutton's advice and that she doesn't have much to add to a technically conversation because that's nothing she's worried about. Also she is in the enviable position of being the most talented woman in Ironman right now. She works hard but has never had to really scrutinize her performace because, well if it ain't broke.

Not sure how he this could be compared to LeMond calling Lance a doper. Not even remotely close. Maybe you can help put on some wings so I can follow your leap of logic.

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

This is truly hilarious. I rarely step in to these pissing matches (make that almost never). However, if there is a poster child for general internet jackassery and representing a product poorly, the honor would go to you, sir.

---

Kendall Frederick

Orange Park, FL