What percentages in the various quadrants appear to be the “norm” to save the legs enough for a good run split in HIM distance races?
Any places I should consider looking for graphs or analysis??
Would a fair range be anything above 70% in QIII and QIIII total?
What would be the suggested max in QII?
Anyone?
whats a quadrant?</Homer Simpson Voice>
.
I’ve always been interested in the quadrant analysis but really haven’t spent much time figuring it out.
If you want I can send you a couple WKO files of the races I’ve done that had good runs afterwards.
jaretj
I believe most try to learn what bike power is optimal for their run legs by trial and error/experience (race day rehearsals). The quadrant analysis can be performed on that data, however its modification is likely a slower objective to accomplish and secondary in nature. I do not beleive there is a single right answer to the question as what is best for a given individual depends on many factors. You look at time trialists, such as Boardman’s 1 hour record where supposedly his cadence was 120 rpm, perhaps stressing his aerobic system more than some would advocate for triathlon. Having to run afterwards, you likely want a slower cadence with more force per cycle to acheive that Wattage to reduce aerobic stress. Likely an indiviual specific balance of muscle fatigue (glycogen burn/ composition of fiber recruitment to produce the force) and aerobic stress (reflected by heart rate at a given power). Less experienced riders tend to be under developed w.r.t. cadence and likely should attempt to migrate to higher frequency and lower Wattage per cycle. For 90% of us that is a source of untapped potential.
If there have been any good studies of what works best for the pros, I would love to see that as well along with what kind of scatter in the data there is from one pro to another. Then again, that data is not likely to be optimal for me since it would reflect a very different athlete at a different level of development/training.
quadrant I of course… if you could come off the bike using absolutely no energy, that would be the best scenario for your legs right?
IMO QA is much more useful for determining the demands of mass start bike racing than it is for TT/tri. I don’t know that I’d overthink TT/tri cadence . My recommendation would be to play around with various cadences during your threshold intervals and tempo rides to see what works best for you.
you likely want a slower cadence with more force per cycle to acheive that Wattage to reduce aerobic stress.
Sorry, but Hunter Allen and Coggen disagree with you.
Which part?
Slower cadence?
More force per cycle?
Reduce aerobic stress?
I’m not going to retype the chapter on it…
but paraphrasing one of the case studies in Training and Racing with a power meter.
Low force/high velocity allows for glycogen conservation for the run. I.e. quadrant 3 and 4 are better to be in for triathlons.
If you are in quadrant 1 or 2, Fast twitch muscles are recruited and glycogen consumption increases.
hey – good post considering this forum is called: slowtwitch for a reason.
No problem, now I know where you are comming from and I can read it over when I get home.
jaretj
Let’s look at what the Quadrants mean.
QI: High Force and High Cadence- An example of this would be sprinting.
QII: High Force and Low Cadence- An example would be steep hill repeats, big gear intervals and a lot of Mt. Biking resides in QII as well.
QIII: Low Force and Low Cadence- An example would be a recovery ride or just an easy ride around town.
QIV: Low Force and High Cadence- An example would be a Criterium or fast pedaling drills.
What feels most comfortable to you? Everyone seems to swear by their own pedaling style. I spend most of my time in Q3 and Q4 (mostly 4) but alot of people would spend their time in different places. Any of the 4 could work for anyone really. That’s the beauty of quadrant analysis, you can test it.
Very Interesting post. I have read the Allen and Coggan book (its great) and understand the argument for faster pedalling conserving muscle glycogen (which I’m sure is true). I just wonder why most professional IM triathletes appear to cycle at slower cadences than most professional bike riders in a time trial? Dave Scott also suggests slightly slower cadences in his book.
Anyone have a suggestion as to why? Could it be different muscle fiber composition? Length of the event?
Would be interested in your theories,
Thanks
Doug
Very Interesting post. I have read the Allen and Coggan book (its great) and understand the argument for faster pedalling conserving muscle glycogen (which I’m sure is true). I just wonder why most professional IM triathletes appear to cycle at slower cadences than most professional bike riders in a time trial? Dave Scott also suggests slightly slower cadences in his book.
Anyone have a suggestion as to why? Could it be different muscle fiber composition? Length of the event?
Would be interested in your theories,
Thanks
Doug
Personally I wouldn’t base my theories on how to cycle based on how IM pros cycle. The vast majority of them couldn’t hold a candle to a pro cyclist.
As far as possiblities -
A lot of time trials, at least what you can see on tv and watch somewhat regularly are part of stage races so conserving energy for the week or multiple weeks is more at a premium where as in IM you can probably deal with a little bump into zone 1 because your race ends at the end of the day.
Second, this is a guess but most cyclists probably regularly bike at higher cadences because of group dynamics. Its a lot easier to rev up the speed if your cadence is a bit higher then grinding it out then trying to pick it up once someone tries to break away up front.
Finally, going back to my first point, basing something off of how a few pros ride either in cycling or triathlon isn’t probably the best idea. A variation and cadence even if it is detrimental can be overshadowed if the athlete is good enough. For the average person, following the science is probably a better bet since they may not have the aerobic capabilities to make up for the gear mashing during a race. A lower cadence may not necessarily be bad, but Its not necessarily better than a higher one.
Pubmed:
In support of lower cadence: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15849289
In support of higher cadence: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12218748
However it is “Time to fatigue” vs “Performance off the bike” so the first study doesn’t appear as applicable to a true race. But a 3k run (in the second study) isn’t what people are mostly interested in, and an IM run could in some cases be viewed as a “time to fatigue” scenario. So I’m thoroughly confused and haven’t contributed much. Glad I could help.
Try doing your HIM at 80-85% of your FTP. You should be able to run after this. 70-75% for an IM.
Jim