Was reading Macca going on about how he was always told “big” guys can’t win at Kona and he was 177lbs when he last won…I was wondering what Dave Scott weighed in at during his wins…he certainly “looks” pretty sturdy in 89 when he is running next to Mark who is a bit shorter. Hard to tell on tv though. Anyone have the stats on the top guys over the last couple decades or so? I couldn’t find squat.
http://www.neilhammond.com/ironman/BMIAnalysis.htm
This had always fascinated me as well. Seems like it is an odds game on the bike. Bigger guys will have top bike split 9/10 times but lighter guys with high cadence will only 3/10 or something. Seems liek the 70.3 is where this switches and then there is the run factor as high cadence always seems to work. Dave was a low low cadence guy as well.
where are you going with this cadence stuff?
bike cadence? run cadence?
Sorry, just “seems” like the big bike guys run a lower cadence on the big as to use their larger size to an advantage and not tap the cardio system. TJ Tollakson goes with this method and Dave Scott said he biked a low cadence at HI bc of the total number of muscle contractions required that day he wanted some in reserve for the run since you need a 90 something cadence.
Guess it just might be an idea why “heavier” guys ie 23-24 BMI could be competative but mainly at longer distances. The other idea is that the pace is slow enough on the run that weight isn’t such a hinder as it is pure running. On that note excited to see Marcel run at New York tomorrow.
Sorry, just “seems” like the big bike guys run a lower cadence on the big as to use their larger size to an advantage and not tap the cardio system.
it really doesn’t work that way. if you are doing 300 watts you are doing 300 watts, doesn’t matter what cadence, cardio system tapped the same. Chris Lieto is often the fastest bike split in a race and uses a high cadence. Chrissie wellington is often the fastest and uses a low cadence. if you forced them to switch cadences they would probably bike about the same speed.
Guess it just might be an idea why “heavier” guys ie 23-24 BMI could be competative but mainly at longer distances. The other idea is that the pace is slow enough on the run that weight isn’t such a hinder as it is pure running. On that note excited to see Marcel run at New York tomorrow.
kona is hot, when it is hot heat can be a limiter on the run. the more you weigh, the more heat you generate. doesn’t matter if you are heavy because you are tall, fat, or muscular, you will heat up more. this is the primary reason the bigger guys struggle at kona.
you also take more of a beating in marathons when you weigh more.
My HR at a given power varies based on my cadence. Using a lower cadence and lower HR could have an advantage with digestion or just overall fatigue at the end of the marathon. Yes the overall cardio is being tapped somewhere but I think this factor allows in bigger guys. Might be why Lieto has the fastest split always and then fades.
You points do make sense at the same time though. A Question. Why would “heavier” guys do better at longer distances then? ITU guys are really light. I would say just above what is the minimum muscle mass needed from marathoning (same time appx) for the extra swim and bike muscles. But then the Iron guys are quite a bit bigger.
Because iron guys are more bike-weighted than itu guys, where running wins it. OTOH, Jordan, Raelert, and a fair few others aren’t a very similar size to ITU guys.
The other issue with being big and dumping heat is that weight is cubic, while surface area is a square. Eg. if you’ve got more mass then it’s harder to dump the heat.
The other issue with being big and dumping heat is that weight is cubic, while surface area is a square. Eg. if you’ve got more mass then it’s harder to dump the heat.
there are some fascinating stats on warm weather marathons, where you can basically predict the winner by height.
ironman marathons, since the pace is slower, are less likely to be heat limited, but then kona is very hot.
it really doesn’t work that way. if you are doing 300 watts you are doing 300 watts, doesn’t matter what cadence, cardio system tapped the same.
It also doesn’t work your way, Your cardio system will be worked differently at 300 watts if you ride a low cadence vs a high cadence.
Not that I’m an expert, but I think higher cadence works well for long distance since you are recruiting more muscles for power production at high cadence aerobically than with low cadence.
Since low cadence uses fewer muscles (since the torque required makes some of the muscles “give up”), that means they are being used more at low cadence. That implies the muscle fibers are going into more anaerobic debt.
With more muscles at higher cadence, they can stay more aerobic.
Of course there’s a limit to how fast you can efficiently pedal, so it wouldn’t apply to 200rpm cadence.
That’s always been my view of low vs high cadence.
I’m having a difficult time understanding why it would take more or less muscles to pedal a bike depending on cadence.
Perhaps you could give a better explaination?
jaretj
Depending on what you call long distance, once a race gets truly long cadences are very slow typically 70-80. At that point its all about the muscles. Shorter races and higher speed you don’t need to conserve anything so you can give up efficiency for power.