Big gear training (1)

I’m well aware of what single legged drills do. You didn’t answer my questions, so I ask them again.

  1. “the low cadence drills, same as high cadence drills, are good to developing other aspects of fitness”**… Can you explain this more? I think its important to understand ones definition of Fitness. Im confused on how low cadence drills can develop fitness. Would like for you to elaborate on this. **

**2) “**Transferring your strength from the gym to on the bike. Better utilizing glycogen. Resisting muscular fatigue.” Are you referencing the low cadence drills here? Low cadence drills help transfer gym strength to bike strength? Can you explain this more?

Single leg drills are not about strength. They are about form. They are about smoothing out the pedal stroke so that you don’t have any dead spots. Those dead spots are hard to notice when pedaling with both legs as the opposite leg makes up the difference. Going to a single leg makes the dead spot glaringly obvious.

No, vittorio (hope I got the attribution correct): fatigue during prolonged exercise has nothing to do with strength, but all about metabolism.

As for “muscular endurance”, it’s an oxymoron…if you are talking about exercise, then obviously the muscles are involved.

Thanks for chiming in, Dr Coggan.

The first paragraph of your reply is exactly why I started to question the prescription of low cadence work to enhance “muscular endurance”. In my view, people seem to believe that it is a better way to train your muscles to resist fatigue simply because the exercise is more “muscular” itself (turning a big gear).

Single leg drills are not about strength. They are about form. They are about smoothing out the pedal stroke so that you don’t have any dead spots. Those dead spots are hard to notice when pedaling with both legs as the opposite leg makes up the difference. Going to a single leg makes the dead spot glaringly obvious.

I hear there is a great product on the market to help you with those dead spots. “Power” something-or-other, if I remember right. You should start a thread about it.

Maybe with a velo something? I hear crank length is all the rage…

An old but good thread on “muscular endurance”:

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=1194886

Was that thread meant to REDUCE the confusion?!

Actually, what it did do was serve as a reminder for me that LT and MLSS are not the same thing even though many people still use them interchangeably.

An old but good thread on “muscular endurance”:

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=1194886

Was that thread meant to REDUCE the confusion?!

Actually, what it did do was serve as a reminder for me that LT and MLSS are not the same thing even though many people still use them interchangeably.

The thread was actually pretty clear in pages 1-4…5-9, kinda slow twitchish.

I think the other take away is AC talking about the term FTP and perhaps a better term might be Mssp or maximal steady state power.

…or MSP, (max steady power)

Considering FTP is dead, I guess we should call it MSP?

2c

I have been thinking about this topic for some time and Dan’s recent post about torque made me dig a little deeper into it.

I understand many coaches like to have their athletes perform big gear/low cadence sessions on the bike to develop cycling specific strength.

I understand the reasoning behind it, but for long course racing I really question its validity. If my IM effort is 200w, my limiter to do a solid bike split and be able to run well off of it is not strength, but the ability to sustain 200w for 180k without blowing up, or in other words, endurance. The “strength” necessary to push my race watts is really low, the challenge is keeping that power for the duration. Again, endurance. Agree?

Also, my understanding is that the main driver for adaptation is power, “regardless” of how it is generated. In other words, what are the differences in training effect of doing, say, 250w for 30min @85 rpm vs. 250w for 30min @50rpm?

For me the low cadence work helped get me through a plateau I had been experiencing. I’m noticing after doing more of them my ability to push more power overall through the pedals which helped me finally see some FTP gains after nearly a year of hanging onto the same number. I think when you get into the higher end of the W/kg equation it is harder to find gains and this has helped pushing those higher watts longer. Thats been my experience, perhaps I’m also an outlier.

Yes, muscular endurance can be developed at your race cadence, and should be mostly performed at your planned race cadence, but there are other aspects of fitness you can target by changing cadence for some intervals, especially in the base phase of your training. You may notice while doing low cadence drills that your heart rate is lower. This is because the legs are producing more force and the load is shouldered more by your muscles as opposed to your heart and lungs. Switching to high cadence drills then switches the load over to the heart and lungs. You are working, burning calories, producing power, but in a very different way.

The definition of fitness from the new oxford dictionary is “the quality of being suitable to fulfil a particular role or task.” Transfer that into our discussion and you can be fit, generally speaking (ie. Healthy, strong, whatever), but is that “fitness” specific to being able to perform the task at hand? Low cadence drills are not some magic thing to make you stronger, but they can be a part of the plan to help you be a better athlete by training Your muscles to be able to crank out power, to resist fatigue, etc. if you find yourself at the end of a long hard workout not being able to crank out the same power you were at the beginning, and year not really “winded” then low cadence may help you.

On that note, if you are strapped for time and can’t spend 2 hours on the bike during the week but want to get more out of yourself, low cadence can help increase the training stimuli and tax your muscles more so you get more bang for your buck.

As far as transferring gym strength to the bike, squatting a heavy load is not going to make you faster. Again. See the def. of fitness above. You are increasing the max force your muscles can produce but then that doesn’t directly lead to higher power output. You need to train the muscles to produce the force in the pedaling motion. A quick cadence is efficient because it doesn’t load the muscles very much. Think of lifting a kettle bell 90 times a minute… you can’t do that with a very heavy weight. Lower the cadence and you load the muscles with my “weight” and teach them to put force into the pedals. Eventually that can lead to a higher power output at higher cadences as you would see on race day.

I’m well aware of what single legged drills do. You didn’t answer my questions, so I ask them again.

  1. “the low cadence drills, same as high cadence drills, are good to developing other aspects of fitness”**… Can you explain this more? I think its important to understand ones definition of Fitness. Im confused on how low cadence drills can develop fitness. Would like for you to elaborate on this. **

**2) “**Transferring your strength from the gym to on the bike. Better utilizing glycogen. Resisting muscular fatigue.” Are you referencing the low cadence drills here? Low cadence drills help transfer gym strength to bike strength? Can you explain this more?

Single leg drills are not about strength. They are about form. They are about smoothing out the pedal stroke so that you don’t have any dead spots. Those dead spots are hard to notice when pedaling with both legs as the opposite leg makes up the difference. Going to a single leg makes the dead spot glaringly obvious.

.I hear there is a great product on the market to help you with those dead spots. “Power” something-or-other, if I remember right. You should start a thread about it.

I don’t know what product your talking about…

‘Cause I know you are not sarcastically suggesting that simply producing more power is going to make your pedaling technique better.

A quicker cadence is more efficient? Are you sure? How are you measuring this efficiency, surely not through kettlebell squats.

Lets say, someone racing a flat IM at 70% of FTP and a 70.3 at 80%… what would be the most efficient pedal cadence should be for those efforts?

Yes, muscular endurance can be developed at your race cadence, and should be mostly performed at your planned race cadence, but there are other aspects of fitness you can target by changing cadence for some intervals, especially in the base phase of your training. You may notice while doing low cadence drills that your heart rate is lower. This is because the legs are producing more force and the load is shouldered more by your muscles as opposed to your heart and lungs. Switching to high cadence drills then switches the load over to the heart and lungs. You are working, burning calories, producing power, but in a very different way.

The definition of fitness from the new oxford dictionary is “the quality of being suitable to fulfil a particular role or task.” Transfer that into our discussion and you can be fit, generally speaking (ie. Healthy, strong, whatever), but is that “fitness” specific to being able to perform the task at hand? Low cadence drills are not some magic thing to make you stronger, but they can be a part of the plan to help you be a better athlete by training Your muscles to be able to crank out power, to resist fatigue, etc. if you find yourself at the end of a long hard workout not being able to crank out the same power you were at the beginning, and year not really “winded” then low cadence may help you.

On that note, if you are strapped for time and can’t spend 2 hours on the bike during the week but want to get more out of yourself, low cadence can help increase the training stimuli and tax your muscles more so you get more bang for your buck.

As far as transferring gym strength to the bike, squatting a heavy load is not going to make you faster. Again. See the def. of fitness above. You are increasing the max force your muscles can produce but then that doesn’t directly lead to higher power output. You need to train the muscles to produce the force in the pedaling motion. A quick cadence is efficient because it doesn’t load the muscles very much. Think of lifting a kettle bell 90 times a minute… you can’t do that with a very heavy weight. Lower the cadence and you load the muscles with my “weight” and teach them to put force into the pedals. Eventually that can lead to a higher power output at higher cadences as you would see on race day.

I’m well aware of what single legged drills do. You didn’t answer my questions, so I ask them again.

  1. “the low cadence drills, same as high cadence drills, are good to developing other aspects of fitness”**… Can you explain this more? I think its important to understand ones definition of Fitness. Im confused on how low cadence drills can develop fitness. Would like for you to elaborate on this. **

**2) “**Transferring your strength from the gym to on the bike. Better utilizing glycogen. Resisting muscular fatigue.” Are you referencing the low cadence drills here? Low cadence drills help transfer gym strength to bike strength? Can you explain this more?

Single leg drills are not about strength. They are about form. They are about smoothing out the pedal stroke so that you don’t have any dead spots. Those dead spots are hard to notice when pedaling with both legs as the opposite leg makes up the difference. Going to a single leg makes the dead spot glaringly obvious.

Yes. I’m sure.

%of FTP has nothing to do with it.

Cadence is highly individual, But switch to a slower cadence and you feel the muscles start to fatigue more quickly. That is why all the top cyclists have gravitated towards a more quick spin. Like Dan likes to say “orthodoxy.”

Huh…

So if someone is racing a sprint distance versus an ironman…the cadences should be the same? Lets say, both courses are flat.

And how are you so sure higher cadences are the most efficient? Can you lead me to some studies that have shown that? Also, because cyclists ride at a higher cadences, triathletes should mimic this? Cycling events being massively different than triathlon.

Yes, they should pedal at the most efficient cadence for them no matter what the distance.

Also, bikeradar has an article on it with a bunch of studies that are cited https://www.bikeradar.com/...dence-matters-16394/

“The lowest oxygen cost at around 60rpm, for both experienced and inexperienced cyclists, supports the idea that ‘grinding’ reduces oxygen cost… It seems that we all make a complicated assessment of the sensory data coming back from our legs, lungs and head. Grinding lower cadences may be a lower oxygen cost, but the neural system gets tired sooner.“

And later in the article…

“The legs act as a more effective blood pumping system when the cadence is higher – if you hit a faster cadence the heart output increases . For the same power output (200Watts as used by Gotshal, 1996) higher cadences make for better muscle blood flow, and in-line with reduced muscle strain data, it makes for better endurance. At 200 Watts (around 20mph) if you spin 100rpm your strain works out at just two Watts per rev, whereas at 60rpm your strain is over three Watts per rev.

Any rider who has ever ridden with power and cadence data to view, using SRM, Polar, PowerTap, Ergomo, Tacx or Cateye, can feel the difference that changes in cadence produce in leg tension, if Wattage stays constant. And here’s the crux: If you use this variety of gearing, power and perceived effort, you can vary training to develop your ability – in other words: Get fitter, faster and better. Now who doesn’t want that!”

Yes, they should pedal at the most efficient cadence for them no matter what the distance.

Also, bikeradar has an article on it with a bunch of studies that are cited https://www.bikeradar.com/...dence-matters-16394/

“The lowest oxygen cost at around 60rpm, for both experienced and inexperienced cyclists, supports the idea that ‘grinding’ reduces oxygen cost… It seems that we all make a complicated assessment of the sensory data coming back from our legs, lungs and head. Grinding lower cadences may be a lower oxygen cost, but the neural system gets tired sooner.“

And later in the article…

“The legs act as a more effective blood pumping system when the cadence is higher – if you hit a faster cadence the heart output increases . For the same power output (200Watts as used by Gotshal, 1996) higher cadences make for better muscle blood flow, and in-line with reduced muscle strain data, it makes for better endurance. At 200 Watts (around 20mph) if you spin 100rpm your strain works out at just two Watts per rev, whereas at 60rpm your strain is over three Watts per rev.

Any rider who has ever ridden with power and cadence data to view, using SRM, Polar, PowerTap, Ergomo, Tacx or Cateye, can feel the difference that changes in cadence produce in leg tension, if Wattage stays constant. And here’s the crux: If you use this variety of gearing, power and perceived effort, you can vary training to develop your ability – in other words: Get fitter, faster and better. Now who doesn’t want that!”

Have you read the previous thread from “bill”?

Respectful suggestion is to go do that and get back.

Maurice

That’s a 9 page thread… how about you just sumerize and explain how I’m wrong. If you disagree there must be some reasoning behind your though process.

I’ve explained myself pretty well I think and all I’m getting is “huh? Are you sure? Really?” As if I’m missing something apparently the whole rest of the world knows…

“That’s a 9 page thread…”

Sigh…as I said go read it and get back

“ how about you just sumerize and explain how I’m wrong.”

See above…

Best of luck

Maurice

Instead of forcing people to read 220 posts from 11 years ago, I’ll sumerize for anyone else who is following along:

Basically, it’s a discussion of semantics over the term “muscular endurance.” Friel has that as one of the advance abilities on his triangle (see Triathlete’s Training Bible) as the combination of both endurance and force.

Paulo, on the other hand, says it’s is all just “endurance” and that training is just focused on the three energy systems.

Whatever makes sense to you, that’s fine. It’s semantics over definitions. I prefer the Friel triangle of basic and advance abilities because it makes more sense to me. We can’t argue that there is a difference between “endurance” in zone 2 and the “endurance” of tempo-> threshold intervals. Paulo would say (I assume) you just neeed to increase your insurance in those zones. Friel would say you need to work on muscular endurance.

I guess if we want to be extra precise we should just talk in terms of zones… 30min Power, 60min Power etc. this is ST after all.

“That’s a 9 page thread…”

Sigh…as I said go read it and get back

“ how about you just sumerize and explain how I’m wrong.”

See above…

Best of luck

Maurice

Instead of forcing people to read 220 posts from 11 years ago, I’ll sumerize for anyone else who is following along:

Darn, I was looking forward to some cuneiform.

All endurance is muscular. I don’t know exactly why low cadence / high force threshold training is effective, but in my experience, it almost certainly is. I suspect the ex-phys crowd will catch up with the coaching crowd and at some point a mechanism(s) will be identified.

Here’s a podcast episode from a few weeks ago where the guys at Trainerroad discuss this topic of low cadence work.

https://m.soundcloud.com/trainerroad/low-cadence-training-stress-guide-pain-killers-more-ask-a-cycling-coach-144