"Grinding it out" most effective bike strategy?

Triathlon Forum
1

The following advice about low-cadence triathlon cycling was written by a coach. It seems atypical. Your thoughts appreciated.

Cycling for Triathlon

Cycling is no doubt the sport where athletes keep making mistakes, starting with improper bike fitting and finishing with over-distance training. I will leave the bike fitting issue for some other time and focus solely on training for now.

As you probably know, cycling is the least skilled sport of all three and for triathlon it is more about strength than skills. Unless you’re racing in a draft legal race (ITU), you don’t need to focus on acceleration, speed, group riding skills or spending time doing drills (ie. single leg drills). Instead, the focus for cycling is about developing strength and lactate tolerance. Most age group athletes have limited time to train on the bike, usually 2 or 3 times per week, so it’s important to make each session count!

In triathlon, the bike is all about arriving at the start of the run in control, without having accumulated overt amounts of aerobic fatigue, having worked the legs in a way that accommodates cycling fatigue without generating run fatigue. It is from this “don’t tax the run muscles” perspective that you can best understand how triathlon cycling is not the same as the sport of cycling.

In cycling, higher cadences are used to distribute an amount of work that has to be done (the wattage) into more “pieces.” Without getting into the specifics of why cycling differs from triathlon cycling other than to point out that bike races take place at much higher power outputs than triathlon cycling (in athletes of similar fitness), the price of higher cadence is higher aerobic stress and hence also greater glycogen consumption, which in cycling can be tolerated since there is no following run. The benefit of a higher cadence is that the workload on the muscles is spread out and the stress of each contraction is less forceful.

In short, high cadence saves muscles at the cost of greater aerobic stress: “Optimum cadence” is the point at which price balances benefit. As a triathlete, you are training to run after the cycling portion. But running on tired legs is much like cycling at high power outputs: The legs are already weakened, and the scarcest resource is a rested muscle. Attempting to run with a more forceful, longer stride rate in a triathlon will quickly lead to disappointment – the tired legs have nothing left to give. So just as a cyclist needs to increase cadence when working at effort levels at which the leg muscles begin to be significantly stressed, so too does a triathlete need to increase running stride rate to preserve the run muscles.

This implies that running will need to draw on fast “Firing” of the muscles if the runner is to run at a high stride rate – which in turn implies that in a triathlon the athlete needs to preserve these muscle “Firing” until the run begins.

In conclusion, the most effective cycling style for triathlon is to “grind” it out in a big gear rather than adopting a higher cadence because low cadence cycling against a higher resistance:

• Fatigues fast twitch muscle fibers while preserving slow twitch fibers
• Caps heart rate due to the slow contractions and high resistance
• Consequently conserves glycogen stores and draws more on fat as a fuel source

Start thinking like a triathlete and race fast this season!

2

the best cadence is the one that gets you to the finish line the fastest; assuming your goal is to finish as fast as you can.

spin or grind it out? Take the opposite approach and give it a try during your B or C race and see what happens.

3

Some good and not so good info here.

People will have to make up their own minds.

I always find it interesting, when people toss completely out the window the basic principals of physiology and training in a sport, and it all has to be somehow different because this is triathlon!

4

• Fatigues fast twitch muscle fibers while preserving slow twitch fibers
• Caps heart rate due to the slow contractions and high resistance
• Consequently conserves glycogen stores and draws more on fat as a fuel source

So low cadence uses fast twitch muscles that burn fat not glycogen. Interesting

Also, cadence should depend on power output. If you are putting out 100W you should not necessarily pedal at the same cadence as someone putting out 300W.

5

The following advice about low-cadence triathlon cycling was written by a coach. It seems atypical. Your thoughts appreciated.

Cycling for Triathlon

Cycling is no doubt the sport where athletes keep making mistakes, starting with improper bike fitting and finishing with over-distance training. I will leave the bike fitting issue for some other time and focus solely on training for now.

As you probably know, cycling is the least skilled sport of all three and for triathlon it is more about strength than skills. Unless you’re racing in a draft legal race (ITU), you don’t need to focus on acceleration, speed, group riding skills or spending time doing drills (ie. single leg drills). Instead, the focus for cycling is about developing strength and lactate tolerance. Most age group athletes have limited time to train on the bike, usually 2 or 3 times per week, so it’s important to make each session count!

In triathlon, the bike is all about arriving at the start of the run in control, without having accumulated overt amounts of aerobic fatigue, having worked the legs in a way that accommodates cycling fatigue without generating run fatigue. It is from this “don’t tax the run muscles” perspective that you can best understand how triathlon cycling is not the same as the sport of cycling.

In cycling, higher cadences are used to distribute an amount of work that has to be done (the wattage) into more “pieces.” Without getting into the specifics of why cycling differs from triathlon cycling other than to point out that bike races take place at much higher power outputs than triathlon cycling (in athletes of similar fitness), the price of higher cadence is higher aerobic stress and hence also greater glycogen consumption, which in cycling can be tolerated since there is no following run. The benefit of a higher cadence is that the workload on the muscles is spread out and the stress of each contraction is less forceful.

In short, high cadence saves muscles at the cost of greater aerobic stress: “Optimum cadence” is the point at which price balances benefit. As a triathlete, you are training to run after the cycling portion. But running on tired legs is much like cycling at high power outputs: The legs are already weakened, and the scarcest resource is a rested muscle. Attempting to run with a more forceful, longer stride rate in a triathlon will quickly lead to disappointment – the tired legs have nothing left to give. So just as a cyclist needs to increase cadence when working at effort levels at which the leg muscles begin to be significantly stressed, so too does a triathlete need to increase running stride rate to preserve the run muscles.

This implies that running will need to draw on fast “Firing” of the muscles if the runner is to run at a high stride rate – which in turn implies that in a triathlon the athlete needs to preserve these muscle “Firing” until the run begins.

In conclusion, the most effective cycling style for triathlon is to “grind” it out in a big gear rather than adopting a higher cadence because low cadence cycling against a higher resistance:

• Fatigues fast twitch muscle fibers while preserving slow twitch fibers
• Caps heart rate due to the slow contractions and high resistance
• Consequently conserves glycogen stores and draws more on fat as a fuel source

Start thinking like a triathlete and race fast this season!
While I generally agree with him/her that lower cadences are optimal for triathlon cycling I think some of what he says is pure unsupported opinion. A couple of “major” thoughts.

I am not sure why he would say: “cycling is the least skilled sport of all three”. Why does he believe cycling is “less skilled” than running.

While higher cadences does result in less force on the pedals for any given power, I have never seen any proof that it results in less muscle contractile force. I guess it is possible if the muscles that must accelerate the leg up to pedal speed (necessary before any force can be applied to the pedal) might be different than those that apply the actual force, but I would be surprised. Anyhow, unless I see some supporting data I believe this statement to be false: “The benefit of a higher cadence is that the workload on the muscles is
spread out and the stress of each contraction is less forceful.”

6

Your power/cadence logic is not sound. Someone putting out 300 watts can pedal at 90 rpm just like someone putting out 100 watts. The difference will be in the gear they use to do that and the subsequent speed difference.

Cadence would only relate to power output on a fixed gear. So if you had a 300 watt rider and a 100 watt rider, in the same gear (assuming they’re aero equal), putting out 300 watts would require a much higher cadence and thus higher speed.

Also if you think that all 300 watt riders use a given cadence, go back and watch Lance vs Ulrich. Lance likes high cadence, Ullrich preferred slower cadence, both put out, relatively, similar power.

Also, unless there has been some kind of breakthrough in biological research I’m not aware of, no types of muscle fibers burn fat directly, they all run off of glucose primarily and the body converts fat in the liver to glucose, so the argument would have to be that somehow fatiguing fast twitch fibers cause the body to produce more energy from adipose tissue rather than glycogen.

7

all of that is psuedoscience without bases or data to back it up. actually theres a lot of data to disprove all that.

8

tried higher cadence b/c people had been harping on me to do it… run suffered immensely.

I think it also depends on your muscle make up and endurance, etc.

I’ve gone back to what feels right… stop counting gears and such, and riding for ME!

9

In triathlon, the bike is all about arriving at the start of the run in control, without having accumulated overt amounts of aerobic fatigue, having worked the legs in a way that accommodates cycling fatigue without generating run fatigue. It is from this “don’t tax the run muscles” perspective that you can best understand how triathlon cycling is not the same as the sport of cycling.

You can stop right here and disregard everything else. This little snippet shows that the author doesn’t understand basic physiology, and thus everything in the article drawn from this conclusion will be flawed.

John

10

I am not sure why he would say: “cycling is the least skilled sport of all three”. Why does he believe cycling is “less skilled” than running.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the general consensus - at least among people here - is that technique is most important in swimming, less so in running and less still in cycling. That does not mean it doesn’t matter in cycling, of course it does, just not quite as much as in the other two.

11

The following advice about low-cadence triathlon cycling was written by a coach. It seems atypical. Your thoughts appreciated.

I think said coach needs a refresher course in exercise physiology…

12

I am not sure why he would say: “cycling is the least skilled sport of all three”. Why does he believe cycling is “less skilled” than running.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the general consensus - at least among people here - is that technique is most important in swimming, less so in running and less still in cycling. That does not mean it doesn’t matter in cycling, of course it does, just not quite as much as in the other two.
while I would agree that is the “general concensus” here (without any scientific support that I know of) here, it only deals with the issue of leg movement. Cycling also involves keeping the bike upright and riding a straight line (all while in a good aerodynamic position), both substantially more technical on the bike than when running.

13

“cycling is the least skilled sport of all three”

I quit reading at that.

14

That’s kinda like saying that running requires staying upright and running in a straight line.

15

My argument regarding cadence was referring to metabolic efficiency, not mechanics (the mechanics of speeds/rpm/power is something a 3rd grader could understand). The higher your output the better off you are using a higher cadence.

“If I were doing a 10M TT at 100% FTP+ then cadence = 110+rpm
25M TT 95-105rpm
50M TT 90ish rpm
100M TT 80-85rpm
IM Bike Leg 75-85rpm”

I guess I have not explored the science behind this too much but it is not an unheard of concept.

As far as Lance & Ulrich I would say using two people that may or may not have been on drugs as hardly scientific proof. Any comparison to them is idiotic.

As far as the glucose metabolism I did not say anything other than it was interesting. Is there any source or proof that a lower cadence will use one energy source more than the other at the same power output.

16

Two words to disprove this CHRIS LIETO
.

17

As far as Lance & Ulrich I would say using two people that may or may not have been on drugs as hardly scientific proof. Any comparison to them is idiotic.

Oh, for fk’s sake. Really? That statement is idiotic.

Fine. Go pick two different squeaky clean pro riders, one who is a “grinder” in the style of Ullrich, and one who prefers high cadence in the style of Armstrong and put those in the place of his example.

John

18

The following advice about low-cadence triathlon cycling was written by a coach. It seems atypical. Your thoughts appreciated.

I think said coach needs a refresher course in exercise physiology…

Said coach produces more winners in a year, than all Frank Days, Andrew Coggans and the whole slowtwitch crew in a decade.

19

The following advice about low-cadence triathlon cycling was written by a coach. It seems atypical. Your thoughts appreciated.

I think said coach needs a refresher course in exercise physiology…

Said coach produces more winners in a year, than all Frank Days, Andrew Coggans and the whole slowtwitch crew in a decade.

Bully for him. However, s/he clearly doesn’t have a very good understanding of how cadence impacts physiological function, which in turn certainly makes you wonder whether her/his recommendation is the correct one, or if s/he just got lucky (i.e., their recommendation is correct even if their reasoning isn’t).

20

The following advice about low-cadence triathlon cycling was written by a coach. It seems atypical. Your thoughts appreciated.

I think said coach needs a refresher course in exercise physiology…

Said coach produces more winners in a year, than all Frank Days, Andrew Coggans and the whole slowtwitch crew in a decade.

So what? Being a good coach, and knowledge of exercise physiology do not go hand in hand. I don’t know what Sergio Borges’ education background is, but some of his statements in that monograph are just silly. It’s akin to Terry (Of total immersion) saying that better swimming has to do with improving the myelin sheathing on nerves. Pseudoscience that has no meaning.

John