Efficiency is a scientific term. Racing involves trying to achieve the optimum combination of power (or which efficiency is simply part of the equation, aerodynamics, and comfort. In an earlier post I stated that "all things being equal" improved efficiency is an advantage.

---

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

The dissing is not in the eyes of you or me but in the eyes of the "buying" public. I was not the only one who took his statement "wrongly". Simple indiscretions can have huge effects on a professional's image. Just ask Tiger and many, many, others.

---

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

I choose to engage in debates here regarding my own product. I also post on other topics I know something about when I feel it appropriate (like this post). People may not like what I say but I am only "hurting" myself, at least in the eyes of some. I am not being paid by another to represent their product. There is a slight difference.

---

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

I guess it is the interpretation. I interpreted his remarks as saying something along the lines that Chrissie is an mindless automaton, doesn't know what she is talking about, and has nothing to offer any thinking triathlete because this cadence stuff just doesn't matter.

---

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

This would be true if you didn't have an obvious axe to grind with anyone with whom you've clashed in the endless arguments about your product. You are doing your best to drag Rappstar through the mud for a rather innocuous statement, and I submit that it's not due to some impartial desire to defend Chrissie Wellington's training acumen.

---

Kendall Frederick

Orange Park, FL

x2

---

---

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

Well I'll be competely honest and I am pretty much an outsider with nothing to lose and with respect for the both of these two, Frank Day and Big Jordan Rapp, for what they both either put into or at the very least attempt to put into the world of sports, and that is that I witnessed both attempting to drag each other through the mud as was stated and I'm not taking sides as they both seemed capable of defending themselves and in and adult manner so what of it?It's between them, isn't it? Yes, I saw, read and comprehended what Frank saw as did trail and damien and I'm srure a few others who just didn't want to say anything and big deal now, what of it? Big Rapp came back and explained himself and we all know, me in my short time here, just who he is and what he meant overall so it's over as far as I'm concerned but I will also say this, no one should dare say that putting Big Rapp on a Specialized and him cleaning house completely and thouroughly on it need be any more than the advertisement that is needed for Specialized. As for him being human and having opinons, well, that's good to know.

My two cents.

---

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

I think your two cents in this case are pretty dang good. One of the most well thought out posts I've seen you make (and thank you for the kudos). Agree on all counts about this thread.

---

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

I am not the one trying to drag Jordan through the mud here. He keeps posting rather silly stuff trying to defend his original statement or to make me look foolish. He was the one who posted what I considered to be innappropriate comments. Then he brings up justification for his remarks and other things pointing out that he doesn't seem to know how HR could be used to estimate efficiency (not the actual number but whether it might be better or worse) and throws out a 17 yo pedal analysis of Lance as evidence he knows that Lance doesn't pedal in the fashion he says he does either, even though that data came out of an article stating that Lance has spent the last 17 years trying to improve his pedal technique because of what was learned from that data.

Further, I don't think I have called Jordan any names even though he certainly has attacked me in this thread has having said: "I have yet to see almost anything (in quite a long time) that Frank has been right about, and that's not limited to this thread." Well, I have yet to see anything in this thread I have been wrong about. Jordan simply believes, I suspect, without much critical thinking what he has been told by the esteemed Dr. Coggan (and others) here, that pedaling style and cadence doesn't make any difference. The same criticism he leveled at Chrissie. He apparently believes HR has nothing to do with oxygen consumption. And, he even manages to ignore the Carmichael training article which states that pedaling style is the major thing that Lance has been working on for the past 17 years. But, that couldn't have anything to do with Lance's dominance, could it?

---

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

- you never replied to any of my post about alternative methods of measuring efficiency, specifically the one that says efficiency is best measured for cycling by measuring what cadence maximizes type I fibers, which contract more efficiently than type II. I understand why you think that HR~=efficiency, but you conveniently left out any reply to the majority of everything else I posted.

- I posted a photo of how Lance pedaled from 1993. I know what that article says about how Lance wanted to change his pedaling, BUT there are no photos that ever show ANY elite *road* cyclist pedaling any differently than that. So maybe Lance did change his pedal stroke, but there is NO evidence that he did. There is discussing by Carmichael about what he HOPED to achieve, but no proof of any change. This is rather unfortunate for you of all people. Theoretically, I can see how it could have been conceptualized that changing Lance's pedal stroke - based on that graph - would have been a good thing. It's the same sort of "logical" deduction that I imagine led you to develop PowerCranks. But as with many "logical" deductions regarding physiology, the truth is often very different from what you think should be the case. So just as they may have theorized that Lance could benefit from changing his pedal stroke, there is no evidence that he actually did. Only evidence that they thought he should try. So, in the absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary, I think the image I posted can be assumed to be correct, because we know that 1) Lance did pedal that way at one point and 2) it's basically identical to how every other elite road cyclist pedals when analyzed via force plate analysis. I can see that you have a vested interest in suggesting that he did change, but you don't actually have any force plates that suggest he - or any other cyclist worth imitating - has done so. Again, I think you regularly ask *other* people to prove things to you, rather than ever taking the burden of proving change yourself. I've showed you a photo of how Lance pedaled. Until someone shows me something that demonstrates that he changed how he pedals, I think it's reasonable to take that picture as accurate.

EDIT: I also NEVER said HR has "nothing to do with efficiency." I simply said that HR just not a definitive proxy for efficiency, and that there are much better ways to measure efficiency than HR. The only thing you've done is speculate. I posted REAL data from 17 years ago. You have nothing but speculation, which is typical. And, yes, I do resent that about you. I find it to be extraordinarily frustrating that you postulate theories and then demand that others refute them, as opposed to actually supporting what you've said. Yes, I've presented justification, which is more than I can say for what you have done. I also NEVER leveled the criticism at Chrissie that "cadence and pedaling technique don't matter." Where did I ever say cadence doesn't matter? Or that pedaling technique doesn't matter? And you bet that I've watched Dr. Coggan (and others) pick you apart. And the reason that I know that they picked you apart, as opposed, to vice versa, is precisely because of critical thinking about what you both wrote. In terms of who what I am writing "hurts," I don't think I am hurting any of my supporters. The only thing that would be hurtful would be if I had actually said the things that you accuse me of saying.

However, at the risk of this devolving into a "he said, he said thread," here's what I'm hoping you might respond with:

1) A study that demonstrates that HR either offers a better measure of efficiency than muscle type usage _OR_ that HR and muscle type usage track together.

AND (though I'd be satisfied with "OR")

2) A force-pedal analysis from ANY elite road cyclist (say any Grand Tour, World Championships, or Olympics podium finisher - male or female) who demonstrates the sort of pedaling technique that Chris Carmichael says he hoped Lance could develope 17 years ago.

I think either of these things would offer a worthwhile point of debate. I think I've done a reasonable job of presenting my support of both points.

---

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

HR has nothing (edit: directly) to do with efficiency. Where do you get where i think that? HR has to do with oxygen consumption. (edit: in any one athlete at a particular point in time HR tracks well with oxygen consumption.) Oxygen consumption has to do with energy cost. Energy cost, when compared to power out has to do with efficiency. HR can be used to help the athlete evaluate whether what they are doing is helping or hurting their efficiency (if they care about such a thing as some her don't seem to care about).

But, you said you knew he didn't pedal the way he said he does. I asked how you knew that. You had no evidence to back that up. You state the article said they should try. No, the article stated they did try and that it has been an emphasis of his training in the intervening years. Further, there is the Coyle data that shows he has improved his pedaling efficiency almost 10% in the intervening years. Now, I guess, you can accept Coyles guess that he changed his muscle fiber type to account for this improvement or you might conclude that he succeeded in changing his pedaling style.

There are better ways of measuring efficiency than HR, without going to a lab and spending a lot of money? Please name one. What speculation? You said you knew Lance doesn't pedal the way he says he does. i simply asked you how you knew that. Your "real data" is not particularly convincing evidence that you know anything about Lance, particularly in view of the article that data came from. Why on earth do you resent my questioning you on this when you have time and time again defended your remark about Chrissie as simply criticism a pro should be open to.

You are kidding right. HR simply tracks well with oxygen consumption. That is a key ingrediant in measuring efficiency in the lab. It will track well regardless of what muscle fibre types are used.

While I don't have that data I can simply tell you that it is true because Grand Tour, World Champions, and Olympic Champions have all trained on PowerCranks. We believe Lance has also but we can't prove it. Anyone who is successfully riding a pair of PowerCranks is pedaling in the fashion Chris Carmichael describes (and I have posted that data here from an Italian study). I presume it is possible to learn to pedal in that fashion without them, we just think it is easier and faster to do it with the PC's (and that is what Greg LeMond told us - "I spend years trying to learn how to pedal this way now people can learn it in months")

I have no trouble with debate. Let's try to stay with facts, when available, and label opinion as opinion.

---

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

Jordan, in the above photo it looks like there is a sensor on Chrissie's front wheel(visible just behind the front fork).

I will expand the photos up to look for a cadence sensor on her cranks when I get home.

In the whole of triathlon Chrissie is the one athlete who is standing out in a class of her own. The only explanation I have for it is either she is 'the outlier on the bell curve' or the depth of womans triathlon over long distance just isn't there.

G.
www.TriathlonShots.com

---

http://www.TriathlonShots.com
Full event coverage of triathlon/ironman in photos.

HR is still very flawed, since it's subject to all sorts of other environmental variables. As an example, HR suppression during long periods of hard training is well recorded. I.e., your HR is lower because of fatigue at the same effort. And then as you as your taper - when you are RESTED - your HR is higher than when you were tired. HR and RPE don't even match up all that well over long periods of time if you have other variables to consider, which you ALWAYS do. HR definitely has value, but it's also regularly a "red herring." Show me some support for the idea that HR and efficiency track REGARDLESS of muscle type, as you claim.

If you aren't going to go to the lab, then don't claim to measure efficiency. Saying HR is the "best measure of efficiency without going to a lab and spending a lot of money" is a VERY different claim from saying HR is a good proxy for efficiency, which is what you said initially. That's like saying eyeballing a map from across the room is a good proxy for GPS navigation. It may be better than nothing, but it also is fraught with error and you'd never choose it if you didn't have to. It's not that I have a real problem with HR. It's really the idea of HR *alone.* If we had HR and power, that would be better, but it still has the opportunity for error because HR is quite erratic. I would say Power + RPE is the best "cheap" measure of efficiency, since elite cyclists are regularly able to choose a cadence with HR implies is "inefficient," but which lab tests show is in fact efficient.

I stand by my assessment of Lance's pedaling. It was demonstrated that he pedaled a certain way. I've never seen any data to the contrary - and even you can't provide any from any elite cyclist despite the legions you claim have trained with powercranks explicitly for this purpose. Don't you think given the emphasis that Carmichael placed on this topic that it would be reasonable to assume that if Lance actually had changed his pedaling style that he would have publicized it? Lance is always trying to explain his performance gains. He's been very public about what he has felt were his changes. If he had changed his pedal stroke, and he felt that it had made a difference, doesn't it seem reasonable that he would have publicized it? It seems reasonable that Coyle certainly would have looked at pedal force when he looked at Lance. I've read that study. It's flawed, but he never goes over changes in pedal force. While I am *speculating* that they would have measured it, I do think it's absence is noteworthy given that the focus was entirely on Lance's (potential) efficiency gains. In the same way, I'm repeatedly astounded that you cannot provide even a single pedal force graph that supports an elite cyclist pedaling in this way. I searched, but could never actually find the Italian study. I looked. I only saw claims that such a study existed, but not the actual results. If you post a link, I'll look at it. Lance pedaled a certain way. No one has demonstrated repeatably that you can change your pedaling efficiency in the manner described by Carmichael. So why is it unreasonable to say that he pedals the same way. It's only unreasonable to YOU, for obvious reasons.

And I don't resent you questioning my data on Lance. I resent you clearly making false statements about what I said - things that clearly didn't say. I can't believe you can quote what I wrote where I specifically say I resent you saying things like (paraphrased) "[Jordan] says that HR/cadence don't matter," and then try to claim that I'm resenting you challenging me on Lance. I clearly stated why I said I "know" how Lance pedals. There's no compelling evidence - no evidence of any sort - that he has changed his pedaling style. Even moreso, there is no evidence that he even COULD (or SHOULD) change his pedaling style. There was speculation about why he might change his pedaling style. I posted *data* showing how Lance pedaled in 1993. That's data. It's definite. Furthermore, there is substantial evidence to support the idea that Lance pedaled in the manner of all other elite cyclists when the data was taken in 1993 AND substantial support (from folks like Jim Martin) for the idea that you cannot change your pedaling efficiency by doing what Carmichael suggests. I have data and support from respected scientists for believing that data is still valid. You have speculation - "Carmichael said it was something they wished to focus on, so it's logical to conclude that it was something that worked on, and [in your mind] logical to think that he actually did change it." That's not even really speculation, since speculation implies (to some extent) that there is SOME evidence supporting the idea. You have NO evidence.

Your own lack of evidence or data doesn't seem to trouble you, though. Just because someone has done training with PowerCranks, that does not mean how they pedaled with PCs is how they pedal on their regular cranks (or that they are even similar). That (maybe) means that they WHILE THEY WERE TRAINING WITH POWERCRANKS (assuming they actually ever did), they pedaled that ("in circles") way. BUT, that doesn't mean that they pedaled the same way once they were back on regular cranks. That's the sort of erroneous logic that you regularly employ. I.e., I swim with paddles sometimes in the pool. When I swim with paddles I swim a certain way. I use them as a tool to impact my swim stroke, but I certainly would never say that I swim the same without paddles as I do with them on. The topic of carry over has been debated many times on this forum, yet you've not (to the best of my knowledge) ever convincingly supported (or had a study that supported it) the case for carry over from PCs (which no elite cyclist races on) to regular cranks. You have only putative support for the idea that there is carry over, no *actual* support for carry over.

How's this as a compromise. I'll admit that it's only my OPINION that Lance pedals a certain way if you admit that it's only your OPINION that PowerCranks can change the way that you pedal. I think that's a reasonably generous offer on my part.

I think your concession that HR is good way to measure efficiency WITHOUT GOING TO THE LAB AND WITHOUT SPENDING A LOT OF MONEY (on a PowerMeter, for example) is fair. If you aren't going to go to a lab and you don't want to pay for a powermeter, then fine, use HR. I'll agree with that.

---

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

I found photos earlier which I posted. She DOES have a speedo. She does NOT have cadence on her Cannondale.

---

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

Only saw the photos you posted from her Cervelo days.


G.

---

http://www.TriathlonShots.com
Full event coverage of triathlon/ironman in photos.

---

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

What on earth are you talking about? Of course HR is "flawed" because it is not a direct measure of oxygen consumption. But, "everything else being equal" it is pretty good. One has to "know what they are doing" to be able to make pretty good sense of the data but if one is lacking a laboratory it is the best most people have and it is silly to ignore the possibilities, unless one doesn't understand how to utilize the data, which apparently you do not. And, muscle fiber type has no bearing here. The term efficiency doesn't care what the muscle fiber type is. No one, when they measure efficiency in the laboratory, tests for muscle fiber type. The muscle fibers affect the overall efficiency but in any given athlete he is stuck with what he or she has, at least for the short term. While it is possible to change the mix of muscle fibers the athlete has over time, this takes time and has nothing to do with pedaling efficiency as Chrissie and Carmichael are talking about. The desire of the athlete should be to maximize efficiency regardless of the muscle fiber type. That is how doing some experimenting using HR could be useful. That is what, it seems, Chrissie was talking about yet you don't seem to understand.
HR can only be a tool to "measure" relative efficiency. I make a change (increase or decrease cadence for instance, keeping power the same) and if HR goes down one is more efficient. If it goes up one can conclude one is less efficient. I have never said HR is a good proxy for efficiency. All I have said is it can be used to help the athlete improve their efficiency, assuming one knows what they are doing. You are putting words in my mouth trying to make me look foolish. I am a physician and an anesthesiologist. I understand this stuff way beyond the level of yourself and Dr. Coggan. While you could argue that power and RPE is a "better" measure of efficiency I think you will find that RPE also correlates well with HR. If you don't believe this you have never done a Conconi protocol where power, RPE, and HR are collected at the same time.
Actually, I believe it more reasonable that Lance keep it quiet. With many so-called experts out there claiming that it makes no difference it would give Lance a competitive advantage. Let the competition think he improved his efficiency by changing his fiber type. It just amazes me that people like Chrissie can state what she does and why she thinks it helps, Carmichael can say what he did to help Lance and no one believes them because they don't publish their data. Barb Lindquist told me she never told any pro (saving one, a male) about PowerCranks because she wanted to keep them a secret. They are laughing all the way to the bank over the failure of the competition to keep an open mind. It is not unreasonable for you to say you believe Lance still pedals the same way he did 17 years ago. It is unreasonable for you to say you KNOW he pedals the same way, especially in view of his assertions he has made a serious attempt to change that dynamic and the documented change in efficiency over this period.
In my opinion you implied it. What on earth was the point of your original post here? You clearly do not think very highly of Brett Sutton's coaching methods here.
Since "no one" has actually ever had their pedal force data obtained no one really knows what they are doing. I do believe that some of those who train on PC's do revert back to close to their previous dynamic when they go back to regular cranks. The question is how much do they go back and how fast do they revert. There seems to be a lot of variability here. In fact, that is what the Italian study showed. Stop using them and revert back. Notice in the Carmichael study they referred to the need for years of training to fully evoke these changes. Why do people here expect PC's to be able to mak these changes in 5 weeks. It is why I recommend exclusive use in training to optimize and hasten this change. Some follow my advice, many don't. Here is a link the the Italian study abstract. http://www.powercranks.com/studycoord.html I will try to find the data I also posted here.

I have an alternative to your Powercrank Frank. And that is get down to the velodrome and ride a track bike.

The track bikes don't allow you to stop pedalling so this would help with technique also.

Well both of the above could help people refine their pedalling technique, and it could especially help a cyclist with poor pedalling technique.

Also in all your discussion above it sounds like you are implying lowering your HR while pushing a big gear is the way to go. It makes sense to me that it would be, but one would have to be careful not to overdo it.... it would take practise to get it right versus spinning in a lower gear which is safer for the novice IMO.

If you can send me a pair of your powercranks to NZ for under $60usd them message me. Will paypal you the dosh.

G.

---

http://www.TriathlonShots.com
Full event coverage of triathlon/ironman in photos.

"Everything else being equal" - but that's rarely (if ever) the case outside of a lab, and you specifically said HR is a good way to evaluate efficiency outside of a lab. Furthermore, muscle fiber type does have a bearing. And it's regularly measured in the lab. As is power output. As is VO2 consumption. Interestingly, in none of the studies or abstracts I read, did I ever see ANYWHERE that HR was used as a relevant tool. Now HR and VO2 definitely *can* correlate. But it's not for certain - there are ways to change HR without changing VO2, fatigue being one of the big ones. And I don't see how it's possible to maximize efficiency "regardless" of fiber type - unless you are talking about necessarily keeping power/cadence constant, which is unreasonably restrictive. That's sort of the whole point of this article - that you can change your cadence when you ride a bike. Changes in cadence, power, etc. all can change muscle recruitment. Requirements for speed of contraction changes the recruitment fibers. So the idea of maximizing efficiency "regardless of fiber type" doesn't make any sense to me, unless you were assuming I was talking about fiber type breakdown rather than recruitment. I don't see how that could be the case, since I specifically said that you want to maximize the percentage of type I fibers being used, since it's well documented that they contract more efficiently. As for a conconi protocol, which I HAVE done, remind me again where they are done? Oh, that's right. In a LAB. In a controlled environment. With a POWERMETER (at least for cycling). And all I really wanted from you was this, HR cannot be reliably used to measure efficiency without a way of measuring power. Power could be estimated by using speed or RPE as a substitute but power is part of the efficiency equation. I'm perfectly willing to let you use speed and RPE in the field as a substitute for power, since I think it's pretty well established how reliable that is. I understand efficiency quite well. I just wanted you to admit that 1) you needed to somehow evaluate power and 2) that you think speed and RPE are reasonable substitutes in the field for power. I think the latter assumption is quite flawed, and most people who train with power would also say it's quite flawed. So basically you are taking HR as a substitute for VO2 consumption and speed & RPE as a substitute for power, and you think that is a reasonable way to estimate efficiency? That's accepting a lot of error - unnecessary error in today's world. I think it's *a* way to measure efficiency, but I think it's a crappy one that is ripe with the opportunity for error. Obviously it can work "ok," but there are massive chances for error, the most notable that I can think of being HR suppression over a training period and HR variability with weather. But power and RPE - ignoring HR - is a much better way to gauge training, which is why having a powermeter has replaced having a HRM for people that really care about training. I'm not saying that HR is useless. But it has a whole host of limitations that power does not, and once you have power, HR doesn't really seem to add anything over RPE.

You also can't have it both ways with the Coyle study. You can't say that Lance did improve his efficiency, which the Coyle study says, but then ignore why Coyle says he did it - changes in fiber type. Furthermore, the Coyle study is not considered without it's flaws. So you can hardly say it's "well documented" that Lance improved his efficiency. Furthermore, if it really did take him 6+ years to change his pedaling style, why wouldn't he release it? As you claim, it's a long process, so it's not an advantage that he'd give away quickly. He didn't keep many more "top secret" projects from his TdF campaigns a secret in his book. Somehow changes in pedaling efficiency - which there is basically no support for in the sport or in any study on Lance - would be the one secret he'd keep? If it really was pedaling efficiency, why not just show it and be done with it. In my *opinion*, the takeaway (if there is one) that makes the most sense from the Coyle study is that it is aerobically optimal to bring bring required contraction velocity closer to the contraction velocity of type I fibers, which is is well established contract more efficiently (but with less velocity & force of contraction) than type II fibers. That's the seeming paradox of a higher cadence - muscle contraction speed is actually slower. This *could* also explain why, for example, it is anecdotally reported that women tend to do better with a lower cadence (relative to men) - they are riding the bike for longer, therefore the %FTP power they are riding at should be lower, meaning the required % of maximum force required is lower, meaning that a lower cadence could work better. Since cadence and effort seem - if left solely to RPE - to track reasonably well among elite cyclists, then it would make sense that female Ironman athletes should pedal a slightly lower cadence than male Ironman athletes, since they are out there - even in Chrissie's case - substantially longer than the men.

What on earth do you mean I don't think highly of Brett Sutton's coaching? That is a total fabrication, and it's also totally irrelevant. My original point was that Chrissie's advice could be read as "I trust what Brett Sutton has told me because it works for me, so I've never had any reason to doubt it or to try to change it." THAT, as advice, is much more relevant than the totally contextless advice to "push a big gear," which doesn't really mean anything anyway. I am pretty sure Cancellara pushes a big f'ing gear when he time trials at 95+ rpm. There are things I disagree with about how Brett Sutton coaches, but I would hardly say that I don't think highly of him as a *coach.* He's one of the most successful coaches of all time. But coaches have a knack for "doing what works." I.e., it seems to "work" to have female athletes pedal a low cadence, though it's not universal (Hillary Biscay, for example, finally won an Ironman after she upped her cadence per Dan's recommendation), and Brett actually sets a cadence cap of 84, which is not atypically low by any means. However, it is Brett's speculation as to why that is - and that is what Chrissie is echoing - not the byproduct of any sort of comparative or rigorous study. Why not simply say "I pedal a big gear because Brett saw success having lots of athletes before me do it, and I have success while doing it, so I've never been motivated to change." That's really a very accurate and thoughtful statement, that's much more intelligent than "I push a big gear because it gives me a lower HR," which doesn't really mean anything, and is also, IN MY OPINION, misleading. But there's a big difference between not thinking highly of Brett's coaching methods and disagreeing with his reasoning. Just say "I do it because it works. I'll figure out the 'why' part later." There are many coaches that do that, especially when results and what science says *should* be the case differ. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Thanks for the Italian study - though it's just an abstract, not a study. I will admit I pretty much discounted everything that came after the first sentence, "In cycling, a circular pedaling action makes the most useful contribution to forward propulsion." That's just not the case. Unless of course, you mean that cranks should go around in a circle, which I'm fairly certain every crank does. I also don't see that they actually document how people pedal - via pedal force analysis. It only shows muscle recruitment via EMG. So at best, it shows that people who train on PCs use "more diverse muscle recruitment" at a given power output, and that the utilization of "more diverse muscle recruitment" carries over to pedaling on regular cranks. But there's still no justification that using "more diverse muscle recruitment" is better. I.e., where is the proof that pedaling that way offers any improvement over "mashing"? That conclusion is stated, but it's missing any support. I.e. power was held CONSTANT. They say that you "save your quadriceps," but where is the proof that these cyclists enjoyed any sort of increase in time to exhaustion as a result?

I've never said to anyone that PowerCranks could not have been a part of why they improved. Training is about physiological load. If PowerCranks recruit more muscles WHILE YOU ARE USING THEM - which I think is reasonable since you have to lift the crank - then that's going to increase the load on your body as opposed to not having to lift that crank. But you could also just go out and pedal harder on your regular cranks, which would also increase the load, increase muscle recruitment during a normal pedal stroke, and would also help you train the way that even most powercranks users plan to race - on regular cranks. That's what the high level athletes I know have reported, all of whom only used PowerCranks in the winter. When they trained with PowerCranks, their running and cycling fitness was no different than when they didn't use PowerCranks but did specific power intervals on the trainer and treadmill instead. PowerCranks cost approximately the same amount as a PowerTap (the cheapest PT on a wheel is 1099, IIRC) vs. $899 for the cheapest powercrank. And a powermeter offers all the benefits of powercranks plus a whole lot more, like the ability to monitor effort during all training, racing, etc. PowerCranks certainly can help you improve. But I am pretty sure you can pedal harder - which also recruits more muscles and recruits them as you are going to use them during a race - without using powercranks. It's not that PowerCranks *can't* work. It's just that there is no proof that they actually do anything unique. I.e., there is no proof that they change how you pedal when you are not using them, save for the abstract you posted. But even if they did, there is no proof that change is an improvement. Change doesn't mean improvement. There is no proof that it's better to pedal the way that you must when you are using them. And it's well documented that the best cyclists in the world pedal a certain way, and that way is neither using PowerCranks for racing nor pedaling the way that one must pedal when using PowerCranks. So you can either recruit more muscles in a fashion that is atypical of the best riders in the world by using PowerCranks. OR you can recruit more muscles in a fashion that mimics the best cyclists in the world by just pushing harder. Working harder always gets results. Training works. But it's been well shown that training in the manner that you intend to race is what yields the best success. If you want to dispute that last part, have at it.

And now the sun is shining, the weather is warm, I'm off to push my regular cranks harder...

---

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

Wow! you don't give the average person here much credit do you. The average person here who owns a power meter or a computrainer or some such thing. A simple calibration and a ride indoors at the same time of the day, etc. etc. and conditions are the "same" every bit as good as can be done in the lab.

Show me a single study of cycling efficiency that looks at the effect of cadence on cycling efficiency where they also did muscle biopsey to determine fiber type. I assume there might be one but I suspect it will take you awhile to find it. In the meantime there are lots of studies that never look at fiber type. While fiber type is "regularly" measured in the lab it is rarely measured in the exercise physiology lab. The reason being is determining fiber type is invasive and involves risk and takes special skill to obtain. Such studies require institutional review board approval and few researchers are willing to go to the grief to try to get that approval unless it is integral to what they are looking for.

Well, HR is not a relevant tool for a study because the researcher is looking for numbers that can be subjected to statistical analysis. The individual isn't particularly interested in that ability. It is enough to say "this is better", "this is worse".

Again, you don't give the average person much credit here. Usually, I suspect, most people would do many trials in doing such an evaluation. I guess if you simply do one trial it could give a false result. I mean, how does anyone evaluate the effects of training? How does anyone do testing? Fatigue is a variable in all testing, whether one is measuring oxygen uptake or just HR.

Wow. I have done Conconi in my garage. John Howard did a Conconi protocal testing on me at a Tri camp at a tennis resort. Conconi protocol can be done anywhere. You don't seem able to think outside of a paper bag let alone the box. To determine "efficiency" for my purpose requires knowing power. Have you read what I have written?

Yes one needs to know power. Speed and RPE are not reasonable substitutes for power for this purpose IMHO.

I agree, see above. Where did you get that I thought otherwise.

Go back and read what I have said. HR is simply a substitute for O2 uptake, not power.

I know what Coyle hypothesized. But, Coyle was guessing as to why he had improved his efficiency. Notice Coyle did not have muscle biopsy data to support his contention. It is possible, I suppose, but we would expect that every rider starting at his level (world champion) who trained similarly to Armstrong for the next 8 years would see a similar increase in efficiency. That has never been shown before. In fact, this increase in efficiency was so remarkable it was the only change worthy of not in the data. Coyle is of the bias that pedaling style cannot affect efficiency. But, he had to come up with an explanation to explain the improvement he documented. He came up with the only thing he could that didn't go against his bias, even though it made essentially zero sense. The fact that such changes has never before been demonstrated in an athlete like Lance and one cannot say what must be done to reproduce this change in an athlete like Lance should give one pause in accepting Coyles hypothesis as fact. The interesting fact we know now (thanks to the CTS article) is that Armstrong set off to deliberately change his pedaling style to improve his efficiency. Take your choice (or come up with another explanation). Which explanation makes more sense?

It is the only documentation we have. Coyle has answered his critics. He thinks the data is good. His critics also have agendas as they need to show Lance could have only improved using drugs.

I don't know, why don't you ask him or Carmichael. They say they have done this but haven't given you the data you need to believe it. Ask and I'll bet they ignore you, but you never know. Perhaps it is because he became aware that there was a device that became available that would allow one to make these changes much faster than it took him. His 6 or 8 or 12 year advantage would quickly disappear.

Well, he isn't keeping it a secret now since the Carmichael article. It just so happens you don't believe a thing they say.

Your kidding again, right?

Well, I would have an alternative explanation, one that actually makes sense and is supported by the scientific data but that would be for another thread.

I really don't know what you think of Chrissie or Brett. I can tell you I thought your original post taken from on professional about another and her coach was extremely disrespectful and inappropriate. I think most athletes here would understand the advice means to "push a big gear" as opposed to "spinning". Even though neither involves an actual number I think most know the meaning.

What do you not understand about the scientific process. Apparently everything. Here was the "aim" of the study: "The aims of this study were, first, to assess whether the intermuscular coordination pattern of the pedaling action with normal cranks (NC) is modified after a training period with IC and, second, to determine if the new coordination pattern is maintained after a washing-out period." Why are you looking for "proof that these cyclists enjoyed any sort of increase in time to exhaustion as a result?" from this study. Anyhow, a link to the entire study was provided should you desire to read it. Further, a link was provided to a "slide show" presentation of the study but it is in Italian. Anyhow, you asked for evidence, as I remember, that PC's change the coordination pattern. The study provided provides such evidence. Of course, your bias was shown again by your comment "I will admit I pretty much discounted everything that came after the first sentence" that had nothing to do with your original question or what was found.

How is it that a PM changes one pedaling style? You say a PM offers all the advantages of PC's. About all PC's do is change how people pedal a bike. How does a PM do that again if they "offer all the benefits of PowerCranks plus a whole lot more". PC's do something different than a PM in my opinion. They are complimentary IMO. And, I agree that training the way you intend to race is what yield the best success. It is why I continue to harp on PC users to use them exclusively. The only reason to get PC's is if you believe there is an advantage to pedaling in the PC fashion (or if you are looking for the run benefits). If you believe there is such an advantage then you should train on them in a manner to allow you to race as you train. If you can't do that then the benefits will be less than optimal. Put you head in the sand and ignore the potential. And, you can't be afraid of hard work if you take them on. Many give up on them as being "too hard". So be it, PC's are not for whimps.

---

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

I used to think that fixed gear was the next best thing to PC training. The few people who have gotten on these things and just ridden off have been, mostly, fixed gear riders. However, I am not so sure anymore. The number of fixed gear riders who show such ability are rare and almost all fixed gear riders "think" they pedal circles so it can lead to a sort of unjustified overconfidence. Recently a PowerCranker wrote he thought fixed gear riding was counter productive. http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/...&catname=Toolbox The problem with fixed gear bikes is they are only "different" when "coasting". When applying power, the part that counts, there is no difference. When coasting, all they make you do is relax on the upstroke. And, they teach you to put backpressure on the upstroke, if you are trying to brake.

Regarding riding a "big gear" clearly it is possible to go too big. A cadence of 10 is probably too slow. But, I have been experimenting and I think it is hard to go "too big" with the gearing on most peoples bike. It really depends upon what your power is IMO. While your muscle fiber type may modify things some for the average person putting out 150 watts a cadence as low as 60 may be optimum. The only way one can know is to experiment. I think that is all Chrissie is saying. Go "big" and see what happens.

---

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

Yup, all of about 30 seconds: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1501563

You said "Power could be estimated by using speed or RPE as a substitute but power is part of the efficiency equation." That's relevant because you were implying earlier in this thread that Chrissie has self-selected her most efficient cadence, yet she has doesn't use a powermeter (or even a HRM *as far as I know, which could certainly be wrong, but which is true based on what I have heard from reliable sources.*). When you first mentioned her choosing her cadence, you never addressed (that I could find) the fact that she lacks an actual device for measuring power or HR. You only discussed "feel." That's why I took issue with your claim that she selected the most efficient cadence - since it was based entirely off HR/RPE/Speed, which seems to be a pretty flawed combination, which you seem to have agreed with in your latest post. That's my *opinion* though. But that was my issue though - that power is, as we both agree, critical for evaluating efficiency, and Chrissie only has proxies for power. As you say in the post directly above this one - "Speed and RPE are not reasonable substitutes for power for [the] purpose [of evaluating efficiency in the field] IMHO." So how did Chrissie reliably self-select her most efficient cadence then?

My *opinion* of the Coyle study is that Lance changed his pedaling style by changing his cadence. I.e., cadence - not force application - was the big change. That's my "best guess." I am also not convinced - and I'm not alone in this belief - that Coyle's numbers for Lance's improvement in efficiency are not rock solid. Anytime you have an N=1 study of a phenomenal athlete, it's going to be problematic. C'est la vie.

Why are you looking for "proof that these cyclists enjoyed any sort of increase in time to exhaustion as a result?" from this study. Because the authors of the study made the initial statement that "In cycling, a circular pedaling action makes the most useful contribution to forward propulsion." I guess I was looking for something to support that claim. I.e., they set out to show the carry over of PC training. But isn't a logical question, "why would such carry over be beneficial?" I thought so. At the very least, I think they would have provided some support for the opening statement. It seems like a pretty big claim to make. I just thought they would have explained it, and something like an improvement of time to exhaustion would have supported it.

A powermeter *can* change your pedaling style by giving you instantaneous feedback on your pedaling force. That is the same thing that PowerCranks do. The method by which they provide feedback is different. But I would submit that if you go out and, for example, do supra-max intervals that will recruit more muscle fibers, which is the same thing that PowerCranks do. Only doing supra-max intervals will recruit more muscle fibers in the manner in which you actually plan to race, which is not true of PowerCranks (unless you plan to race on them). I guess we differ on our view of what it is that PowerCranks do. Of course there are differences in how they do what they do, but I think there are also similarities. From my *opinion* about how PowerCranks could be of value, I think that you can achieve the same result with a powermeter. But that's based on how *I* perceive the potential value of powercranks, which I am sure differs from yours.

Anyway, I think we are returning to the initial debate, which I prefer. I think we agree as much as we are going to on PowerCranks. I agree that if there is a benefit, it is most likely to be realized by also racing on them. I'm not convinced of the benefit. You are. That's fine.

So really, what I find most interesting now, is that you seem to have said that Speed/RPE are not reasonable substitutes for Power when doing field tests. Since Chrissie is (or rather, was) the subject of this thread, I am curious about how - or if - you support her cadence selection in light of the fact that she did not - by all accounts - ever use a powermeter, and *seems* not to have ever used a HR monitor. Given that, I am of the opinion that she 1) chose that cadence because Brett told her to, 2) she had success by doing so, and therefore has never felt the need to change. Again, that's my opinion. If you feel that's disrespectful, that's you're right. To reiterate, I don't actually think that Chrissie's cadence selection is wrong, despite how you read (or in my opinion, misread, what I wrote). I just don't necessarily think that it's right. I.e., I don't think it's clear whether or not it's something that she succeeds because of, in spite of, or which makes no difference. I think your suggestion that I do an Ironman at 140 was unreasonable. I never said a higher cadence was better. I agree that there is an optimal cadence (or an optimal range). As I said, my issue with what Chrissie says is that it doesn't have context. I'm not looking for *a* number, but as I said in the thread, Chrissie's cadence varied a great deal during the race, since I measured her on a ~ flat section of the course at 88+ rpm, which seems to me to stand in contrast with her statement of "push a big gear." Again, my opinion.

I don't find Chrissie's advice - in this case - to be particular illustrative. I think it is illustrative if her message is to believe in your coach and believe in success. That's my take away from the whole thing. If you wish to respond, I'll read it, since I think we are getting closer to isolating the actual topic on which we can actually debate. But this is my last post on this topic, since I've said everything I want to, and I've spent way too much time (though I don't think I've wasted any) on this thread.

---

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

Of course such a study has been done. Muscle fiber type simply cannot account for the entire variety of efficiencies found in cyclists, nor can it account for the changes seen by Luttrell in his study, nor can it account entirely for the changes seen in the Lance data. Most studies that look at cycling efficiency do not do muscle biopsies because this has already been shown.
Well, if someone is indoors on a trainer then speed is a pretty good substitute for power. And, if environmental conditions are "quiet" there won't be much variation such that an experienced athlete like Chrissie might be able to estimate what is better or not. It would be less accurate to use those as substitutes for power but it doesn't mean that the athlete cannot do so if one doesn't have power. Whatever she is doing she seems to think she can do it and it seems to be working for her.
changed his cadence? Do you have any data to support that contention? Certainly Coyle did not remark on that. In fact, here is what he says about efficiency and cadence in that paper: "Gross efficiency was calculated as the ratio of work accomplished per minute (i.e., watts converted to kcal/min) to energy expended per minute (kcal/min). Energy expenditure per minute (i.e., kcal/min ) was calculated from V˙ O2 and respiratory exchange ratio using the tables of Lusk (31). On a given date of testing, gross efficiency was generally similar at all work rates evaluated when cycling at 50–90% V˙ O2 max and 80–90 rpm, as previously described in trained cyclists (10, 31). Therefore, gross efficiency was reported as the average of the values obtained at the five work rates(10)." Unless you have some data beyond what is in the paper I think you are going to have to come up with a different hypothesis.
So, they made that statement as a prelude to see if they could show that the training device changed the pedaling dynamic. Before one would want to show that improvement in time to exhaustion was a result it would be nice to show that the dynamic was changed. One step at a time don't you think.
Power meters give one instantaneous feedback of pedaling force? Didn't know that. Bet the manufacturers don't know that either as most of them tell us they give an average power (force/torque) over each second or so? CT does have the spinscan but that is the net of the two pedals together and only gives the feedback when actually looking at the screen.

I guess it depends upon how one "wants to race". If one wants to race using a "more efficient" pedaling style then one might want to recruit and train the muscles necessary to pedal in that style. If one doesn't care what style they use then forget the PC's and train how you are used to doing. PowerCranks are only for those who care about their pedaling technique (or who don't care about technique but are using them to help them with their running).
Cool. Everyone is welcome to their opinion. As long as you admit your opinion comes from no substantial personal experience with them.
I cannot speak for Chrissie. I believe athletes who do not have PM's can make estimates of relative power based upon speed and RPE to make such estimates. They would not be as accurate for the purpose of estimating relative efficiency but it seems to have worked well for Chrissie. And, I think you would have to ask Chrissie to explain what she was doing for a portion of the race at a cadence of 88, not me. What is of more important is what she is doing for the bulk of the race. I think most will agree she tends to ride at a lower cadence and faster than most of her competition.
How helpful would it have been for her to say "believe in your coach"? Not very because many don't have coaches. She was giving advice to those people. "Ride a bigger gear and see what it does for your power/HR. It is what I do." or words to that effect. Those words of "general wisdom" was more helpful to those people, IMO, than your advice would have been, despite the fact that you would have liked her to be more specific.

---

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

Here is an interesting study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...amp;logdbfrom=pubmed

To determine the effects of cycling experience, fitness level, and power output on preferred and most economical cycling cadences: 1) the preferred cadence (PC) of 12 male cyclists, 10 male runners, and 10 less-trained male noncyclists was determined at 75, 100, 150, 200, and 250 W for cyclists and runners and 75, 100, 125, 150, and 175 W for the less-trained group; and 2) steady-state aerobic demand was determined at six cadences (50, 65, 80, 95, 110 rpm and PC) at 100, 150, and 200 W for cyclists and runners and 75, 100, and 150 W for less-trained subjects. Cyclists and runners (VO2max: 70.7 +/- 4.1 and 72.5 +/- 2.2 mL.kg-1.min-1, respectively) maintained PC between 90 and 100 rpm at all power outputs and both groups selected similar cadences at each power output. In contrast, the less-trained group (VO2max = 44.2 +/- 2.8 mL.kg-1.min-1) selected lower cadences at all common power outputs and reduced cadence from approximately 80 rpm at 75 W to 65 rpm at 175 W. The preferred cadences of all groups were significantly higher than their respective most economical cadences at all power outputs. Changes in power output had little effect on the most economical cadence, which was between 53.3 and 59.9 rpm, in all groups. It was concluded that cycling experience and minimization of aerobic demand are not critical determinants of PC in well-trained individuals. It was speculated that less-trained noncyclists, who cycled at a higher percentage of VO2max, may have selected lower PC to reduce aerobic demand.

Maybe Chrissie could push even bigger gears. :-)

---

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

Alright, I'm suckered into posting again... I knew it would happen... :)

I was predominately talking about fiber type recruitment though, not fiber type of biopsy. I don't think you will disagree with the statement that different cadences/intensities change the percentage of each fiber type that is recruited. For example, very low intensity efforts recruit more type I fibers. Very high intensity efforts (like sprints) recruit more type II fibers. I think that is well established. So what I was trying to say (but maybe did not say so clearly) is that here is what I think is a logical conclusion related to efficiency:
-> type I fibers contract more efficiently than type II fibers (but with less force)
-> the higher the required force of contraction (defined for cycling by torque - which is affected by both cadence and power), the more type II fibers get recruited.
-> each individual has a different breakdown of type I and type II fibers, though muscle fiber breakdown probably self selects somewhat. I.e., a natural sprinter is probably going to have a lot of type II fibers and a natural endurance athlete is going to have a lot of type I fibers
-> the variance in fiber type affects what is an optimally efficient cadence range for a given individual
-> the most efficient cadence range will be the one that maximizes the use of type I fibers, since they respirate the most efficiently. However, for some individuals, they may to be able to generate 100% of the required force from type I fibers. In this case, type II fibers will be recruited. It's optimizing that balance that defines the most efficient cadence range. I.e., for individuals with a great deal of type II fibers, the optimal cadence range will be lower than for individuals with a lot of type I fibers. In everyone's case, however, a cadence that is either lower or higher than the ends of that range is going to be less optimal.
-> This is why as load goes up, the optimal cadence also goes up, because that is how you continue to recruit the maximum amount of type I fibers
-> It's also why, as load goes DOWN, the optimal cadence also goes down, because there is a cost to simply pedaling (even against no load), and if the required force is small enough, then there's no reason to incur this additional load, since the required torque is already low enough.

That's my opinion, which I believe is supported by my interpretation of various studies on cadence/efficiency/etc. So I hope that clears up why I was referring to fiber type. I was not talking about an individual's breakdown within a given muscle (though that is relevant because I believe it plays a role in determining optimal cadence range for a given individual at a given effort). I was talking about recruitment for a given load. I believe this is essentially what this study says (though I have not read the whole study, only the abstract): The efficiency of pedaling and the muscular recruitment are improved with increase of the cadence in cyclists and non-cyclists. I'd also point to this study as one that stands in contrast with your assertion that most cyclists pedal with a cadence that is higher than their most efficient one (and that a lower cadence is more efficient). I do want to emphasize that I think it's a RANGE, not a number, where folks are optimal. This seems to be supported by efficiency studies that demonstrate an efficiency "plateau" across a range of cadences.

Whatever she is doing she seems to think she can do it and it seems to be working for her. I don't disagree with that. I just think that's quite different from saying, "It’s a misconception that you need to spin a smaller gear at a higher cadence on the bike. You don’t, " Wellington said. " Doing that actually raises your heart rate and makes you more tired, which doesn’t serve you very well in long distance racing. Cranking it down and pushing a bigger gear lets me lower my heart rate." My dispute is with the conclusions she draws. That's my personal opinion. I think her conclusions about why low cadence is wrong. That's different than me saying that pedaling a low cadence is wrong. Chrissie is successful. Chrissie rides a low cadence. In my opinion, it's not reasonable to conclude that Chrissie is successful BECAUSE she rides a low cadence.

Coyle wrote, Although during all laboratory measures of mechanical efficiency, cycling cadence was held constant at 85 rpm, this individual’s freely chosen cycling cadence during time trial racing of 30- to 60-min duration increased progressively during this 7-yr period from 85–95 rpm to 105–110 rpm. That is the change in cadence I am referring to. My *opinion* is that this training//racing cadence could impact his efficiency, even at lower cadences. "Carry over," if you will. I.e., training & racing at a very high cadence was what necessitated changes in pedaling efficiency. I.e., I'd argue that his pedaling efficiency changed as a result of changing his freely chosen cadence in training/racing. That's as opposed to saying that his cadence increased as a result of a change in pedaling technique. I.e., I would say that Lance's changes to his "preferred" cadence necessitated other changes, as opposed to vice versa. That's opinion. But I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that the ~10% increase in preferred cadence was a physiological load that his body responded to.

Before one would want to show that improvement in time to exhaustion was a result it would be nice to show that the dynamic was changed. One step at a time don't you think. I would actually have gone the other way. In my opinion, if time to exhaustion was improved, then that is of value even if the dynamic doesn't carry over. I.e., performance is the currency we care about. If there isn't a clear performance benefit, then who cares if there's carry over. That's my thought process. I just don't see that carry over is all that interesting if you don't actually know that there is a benefit that you are trying to understand in the first place. <shrug>

1sec is "instantaneous" enough for my purposes. I.e., given what I stated I believe, it isn't important to me to have feedback more often that that. In fact, I actually run a 5sec rolling average, which is still works "instantaneous" enough for me. Again, that's based of my belief about how PowerCranks could add value to training, which is based off no personal experience, but which is based off discussions with elite athletes I am close friends with who have used PowerCranks in the past, but do not use them now. I also don't agree that PowerCranks offer a "more efficient" pedaling style. Other than that rather large sticking point, we are in agreement. If you want to race on PowerCranks, train on them (and vice versa). But I don't thinks it's been demonstrated conclusively that PowerCranks offer a more efficient pedaling technique. If you want to say that people *perceive* that they pedal more "efficiently" as a result of using PowerCranks, I don't really have a problem with that. But I don't think you can conclusively say that pedaling in the PC style is more efficient. One step at a time, as you said.

I think most will agree she tends to ride at a lower cadence and faster than most of her competition. I'm not so sure. That's really why I've asked for numbers. If you watch either Tereza Macel (4th) or Lucie Zelenkova (lead out of the water), both pedal with a lower cadence than Chrissie. That's why I brought up her riding at 88rpm. It may appear that she rides a low cadence, but what is her average over the course of a race? I don't know. But I was - personally - quite surprised to see how high her cadence was during the first couple hours of the race. I'm not asking you to explain it. I'm just saying maybe she doesn't actually pedal at as a low a cadence as she thinks. Reminds me of when folks use to say Bjorn rode at 65rpm. He actually did some races at 85-90rpm average, but people on the sidelines still said "look at him grinding away." I think there is some influence of people seeing what they want to see. That's all I'm saying.

I also disagree that saying "ride a lower cadence and see if it lowers your HR, because that's better for endurance racing" is good advice. I.e., if she'd said "ride a lower cadence and see what it does for your bike speed and run sped off the bike," then that's fine. It's really the issue of concluding that a lower cadence = lower HR and that lower HR is definitely better for endurance racing. That's my opinion. It seems to differ from yours. That's fine.

---

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