| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Tricks for keeping cadence?
I'm wondering if there are any good tips out there for keeping cadence high going up moderate hills. I find I really have to hum a tune, or count reps when the going gets tough and I start to sink below 65 or 70 (or lower). I count to 50 and then try and take a deep sigh (more or less forceful breathe out), and think 'sink/get centered', then do it again. Have the experts pretty much decided that higher cadence is the way to go? I realize we just discussed this here, in relation to energy conservation, but we still see low cadence riding a lot in the pros during climbs. I'm thinking maybe it's something that's just very hard to change once you've developed your riding, and climbing style. I haven't learned the 'quiet upper body' phase yet, but it seems like that's next. -B |
Badger_South wrote:
:: I'm wondering if there are any good tips out there for keeping :: cadence high going up moderate hills. I find I really have to hum a :: tune, or count reps when the going gets tough and I start to sink :: below 65 or 70 (or lower). why not just look at your cadence computer? :: :: I count to 50 and then try and take a deep sigh (more or less :: forceful breathe out), and think 'sink/get centered', then do it :: again. you count while riding? that must be painful. someone might run into you while you're concentrating on counting reps. :: :: Have the experts pretty much decided that higher cadence is the way :: to go? Well, if it's good enough for Lance..... I realize we just discussed this here, in relation to energy :: conservation, but we still see low cadence riding a lot in the pros :: during climbs. I'm thinking maybe it's something that's just very :: hard to change once you've developed your riding, and climbing style. Bad habits are hard to change.... :: :: I haven't learned the 'quiet upper body' phase yet, but it seems like :: that's next. :: :: -B |
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:10:56 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
wrote: Badger_South wrote: :: I'm wondering if there are any good tips out there for keeping :: cadence high going up moderate hills. I find I really have to hum a :: tune, or count reps when the going gets tough and I start to sink :: below 65 or 70 (or lower). why not just look at your cadence computer? :: :: I count to 50 and then try and take a deep sigh (more or less :: forceful breathe out), and think 'sink/get centered', then do it :: again. you count while riding? that must be painful. someone might run into you while you're concentrating on counting reps. Ok, Mr Advanced Rider, lol. I'm talking about keeping up cadence on sections where you're breathing quite forcefully and about to rep out in 38x15 at 55rpm, seated. Don't you ride near current max sections where you're about to see stars until you reach the flats or more gentle slope? I realize we just discussed this here, in relation to energy :: conservation, but we still see low cadence riding a lot in the pros :: during climbs. I'm thinking maybe it's something that's just very :: hard to change once you've developed your riding, and climbing style. Bad habits are hard to change.... It's not so much that it's a habit, but perhaps similar to changing/improving something fundamental in your form, such as stride length in jogging. (something that may not even be adviseable). IOW, it seems like -such- a good idea, yet are many pros trying to train that way? If not, why not? -B |
Badger South writes:
I'm wondering if there are any good tips out there for keeping cadence high going up moderate hills. I find I really have to hum a tune, or count reps when the going gets tough and I start to sink below 65 or 70 (or lower). I count to 50 and then try and take a deep sigh (more or less forceful breathe out), and think 'sink/get centered', then do it again. Why do you care? From what you write, it seems you don't have any real mountains to climb. In that case it isn't cadence that counts but speed. Here you have a great opportunity to determine in which gear you climb faster by clocking the same run repeatedly in a lower and higher gear with statistical sampling. Just measure the ET. Have the experts pretty much decided that higher cadence is the way to go? I realize we just discussed this here, in relation to energy conservation, but we still see low cadence riding a lot in the pros during climbs. I'm thinking maybe it's something that's just very hard to change once you've developed your riding, and climbing style. I don't know that we have heard from any experts, although some have claimed such skills. You can't tell what the credentials of posters to this newsgroup are, only whether they make sense. Don't take oft repeated "facts" as valid. They just get repeated here enough to become absolute among the faithful. I haven't learned the 'quiet upper body' phase yet, but it seems like that's next. That's called the "nothing moves but my legs" syndrome, a fetish among beginners and only on short grades. I have ridden many long climbs in the Alps and never seen anyone ride like that near the top although some riders start out that way. Get out and ride and don't worry about form. That will come naturally if you hurry when riding. This is especially true if you ride with someone who's a bit faster. Jobst Brandt |
This may appear to be an idiocyncracy, so let's keep it between us, OK.
When on long rides I go against the wind or up moderate hills, I sometimes "play machine", which is a non intellecutal meditative activity. Body and soul turns into: Movement. I breathe out on every seventh pedal stroke, which means every other time with my left and right leg. And when breathing out on 7, I "hammer" down the pedal, and the following six strokes are practically just as fast, but with less effort. I shift my gear to find the cadence, that allows "the hammer feeling" on every seventh stroke and this gives me a feeling of at "natural" cadence. To the body it feels natural to hold your breath or to breathe out when you maximize effort (sprinting, hitting, jumping or lifting af very heavy load) .. This jump, throw, kick, or hit function supplies "homo sapiens" with a concentrated strength, that was necessary for survival (through escape or attack) in the jungle. Sprining on every seventh stroke, does not produce lactate acid, so I can go on for very long with a natural fast cadence. When I start to "play machine", speed increases about 5 %, I've noticed, staying just below my lactate treshold. My FlightDeck computer also provides me with the virtual cadence, but I like the idea of getting the feel of the right natural cadence, and though it might all be a product of my imagination (which is good enough for me) it might also someday prove be scientifically based, that this method results in the most efficient long time cadence. Ivar of Denmark (P.S: It doesn't necessarily take a lot of my precious RAM to keep counting to seven. It's just like picking up the rythm of "The Dave Brubeck Quartet" in the back of my head.) "Badger_South" skrev i en meddelelse ... I'm wondering if there are any good tips out there for keeping cadence high going up moderate hills. I find I really have to hum a tune, or count reps when the going gets tough and I start to sink below 65 or 70 (or lower). I count to 50 and then try and take a deep sigh (more or less forceful breathe out), and think 'sink/get centered', then do it again. Have the experts pretty much decided that higher cadence is the way to go? I realize we just discussed this here, in relation to energy conservation, but we still see low cadence riding a lot in the pros during climbs. I'm thinking maybe it's something that's just very hard to change once you've developed your riding, and climbing style. I haven't learned the 'quiet upper body' phase yet, but it seems like that's next. -B |
|
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:56:41 +0200, "Ivar Hesselager"
wrote: This may appear to be an idiocyncracy, so let's keep it between us, OK. When on long rides I go against the wind or up moderate hills, I sometimes "play machine", which is a non intellecutal meditative activity. Body and soul turns into: Movement. I breathe out on every seventh pedal stroke, which means every other time with my left and right leg. And when breathing out on 7, I "hammer" down the pedal, and the following six strokes are practically just as fast, but with less effort. I shift my gear to find the cadence, that allows "the hammer feeling" on every seventh stroke and this gives me a feeling of at "natural" cadence. To the body it feels natural to hold your breath or to breathe out when you maximize effort (sprinting, hitting, jumping or lifting af very heavy load) Thanks. I'll try that, and some variations. This is what I'm talking about. . This jump, throw, kick, or hit function supplies "homo sapiens" with a concentrated strength, that was necessary for survival (through escape or attack) in the jungle. Sprining on every seventh stroke, does not produce lactate acid, so I can go on for very long with a natural fast cadence. When I start to "play machine", speed increases about 5 %, I've noticed, staying just below my lactate treshold. My FlightDeck computer also provides me with the virtual cadence, but I like the idea of getting the feel of the right natural cadence, and though it might all be a product of my imagination (which is good enough for me) it might also someday prove be scientifically based, that this method results in the most efficient long time cadence. Ivar of Denmark (P.S: It doesn't necessarily take a lot of my precious RAM to keep counting to seven. It's just like picking up the rythm of "The Dave Brubeck Quartet" in the back of my head.) Yeah, as the spots start to appear the available RAM seems to decrease, so that's good. -B "Badger_South" skrev i en meddelelse .. . I'm wondering if there are any good tips out there for keeping cadence high going up moderate hills. I find I really have to hum a tune, or count reps when the going gets tough and I start to sink below 65 or 70 (or lower). I count to 50 and then try and take a deep sigh (more or less forceful breathe out), and think 'sink/get centered', then do it again. Have the experts pretty much decided that higher cadence is the way to go? I realize we just discussed this here, in relation to energy conservation, but we still see low cadence riding a lot in the pros during climbs. I'm thinking maybe it's something that's just very hard to change once you've developed your riding, and climbing style. I haven't learned the 'quiet upper body' phase yet, but it seems like that's next. -B |
Badger South writes:
I'm wondering if there are any good tips out there for keeping cadence high going up moderate hills. I find I really have to hum a tune, or count reps when the going gets tough and I start to sink below 65 or 70 (or lower). I count to 50 and then try and take a deep sigh (more or less forceful breathe out), and think 'sink/get centered', then do it again. Why do you care? From what you write, it seems you don't have any real mountains to climb. In that case it isn't cadence that counts but speed. Here you have a great opportunity to determine in which gear you climb faster by clocking the same run repeatedly in a lower and higher gear with statistical sampling. Just measure the ET. OK, boss. I'll try that. Sometimes the 'obvious' isn't that apparent. The obvious often gets clouded by hearing too much from people that believe bicycling is all about technique rather than strength and endurance. We see endless discussions on style that increases speed. I've never seen any of this in use by folks who get more than 50 miles from home. It's mostly practiced on the local "look at me" routes, aka Foothill Expressway (Los Altos) around here. Have the experts pretty much decided that higher cadence is the way to go? I realize we just discussed this here, in relation to energy conservation, but we still see low cadence riding a lot in the pros during climbs. I'm thinking maybe it's something that's just very hard to change once you've developed your riding, and climbing style. I don't know that we have heard from any experts, although some have claimed such skills. You can't tell what the credentials of posters to this newsgroup are, only whether they make sense. Don't take oft repeated "facts" as valid. They just get repeated here enough to become absolute among the faithful. I haven't learned the 'quiet upper body' phase yet, but it seems like that's next. That's called the "nothing moves but my legs" syndrome, a fetish among beginners and only on short grades. Hmm. Is it a syndrome or a phase? Carmichael talks about it... I have ridden many long climbs in the Alps and never seen anyone ride like that near the top although some riders start out that way. So you're a fan of the side-to-side full on body english method? I didn't say that. That style was best don by Roger Millar on hill climbs. Ride what works for you, not what "they" do. Get out and ride and don't worry about form. That will come naturally if you hurry when riding. This is especially true if you ride with someone who's a bit faster. I worry about form b/c as a beginner, I'm looking for all the 'edge' I can get, and anyway it's something to do while suffering. There is not edge in form, only in fitness and endurance. Don't suffer. You won't get any merit badges for it and it isn't any fun. Fun is going places and seeing things: http://tinyurl.com/adls also see Tour of the Alps 2004: rec.bicycles.rides Jobst Brandt |
Badger_South wrote in message . ..
I'm wondering if there are any good tips out there for keeping cadence high going up moderate hills. I find I really have to hum a tune, or count reps when the going gets tough and I start to sink below 65 or 70 (or lower). Try cutting off a few truckers and they chase you up the hill. |
Badger_South wrote:
I'm wondering if there are any good tips out there for keeping cadence high going up moderate hills. I find I really have to hum a tune, or count reps when the going gets tough and I start to sink below 65 or 70 (or lower). I think the best way to get your cadence up on the hills is to work on high cadence on the flats. Once you're comfortable with maintaining a cadence without thinking about it, doing it on the hills will become second nature. If the going gets tough and you find your cadence dropping below where you want it to be, shift down. If you're out of gears, lower ones can be had from bike shops. -- terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/ |
wrote in part: I haven't learned the 'quiet upper body' phase yet, but it seems like that's next. That's called the "nothing moves but my legs" syndrome, a fetish among beginners and only on short grades. I have ridden many long climbs in the Alps and never seen anyone ride like that near the top although some riders start out that way. As it relates to climbing, I'll bow to your much greater experience but when you call it a "fetish" it seems like you are saying that it's a mistake to consciously work toward a "quiet upper body" on the flats. Do you mean that? Regards, Bob Hunt |
Badger_South wrote:
Have the experts pretty much decided that higher cadence is the way to go? Well, most of the experts seem to be leaning that way. Here's a brief summary of why spinning is beneficial: "Why is it better to spin (80 - 100 rpm), rather than grind ( 80 rpm)? Spinning requires less force per revolution, builds up less lactate, requires less oxygen consumption, and reduces neuromuscular fatigue. This is why it is beneficial in racing, however grinding does have its place in training when you want to specifically target improving muscle force production." http://www.cyclingnz.com/science.phtml?n=44 -- terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/ |
Bob Hubt writes:
I haven't learned the 'quiet upper body' phase yet, but it seems like that's next. That's called the "nothing moves but my legs" syndrome, a fetish among beginners and only on short grades. I have ridden many long climbs in the Alps and never seen anyone ride like that near the top although some riders start out that way. As it relates to climbing, I'll bow to your much greater experience but when you call it a "fetish" it seems like you are saying that it's a mistake to consciously work toward a "quiet upper body" on the flats. Do you mean that? The "quiet upper body" riding is a development in the pursuit of excessive spinning, where saddle bounce becomes a problem. If you observe anyone racing you'll notice that riders lunge onto the downward stroke if working anywhere near top performance. This is not an option but a necessity. Riding with no upper body motion is possible only when riding at a less than maximum effort where an optional style is drawn from extra effort, something riders cannot do for long when working hard. That goes for flats or on hills sitting or standing where the equivalent is not leaning the bicycle, an even more contrived style that is possible when riding lower gears than optimal. I sense that we are getting close to discussing "ankling", forbid. Jobst Brandt |
Terry Morse writes:
Have the experts pretty much decided that higher cadence is the way to go? Well, most of the experts seem to be leaning that way. Here's a brief summary of why spinning is beneficial: "Why is it better to spin (80 - 100 rpm), rather than grind ( 80 rpm)? Spinning requires less force per revolution, builds up less lactate, requires less oxygen consumption, and reduces neuromuscular fatigue. This is why it is beneficial in racing, however grinding does have its place in training when you want to specifically target improving muscle force production." http://www.cyclingnz.com/science.phtml?n=44 I see no scientific data or proof of this hypothesis and have watches many great bicycle professionals from the 1960's to present win races using a wide range of cadences for their successes. I spent many years riding the low cadences that more recent riders denigrate as "painful grinding" and sure to ruin my knees. How soon should I expect that and why do they care? Unfortunately with advancing years I can no longer outrun these comments on climbs as I formerly did, leaving those giving me advice behind in their favorite cadence in the flats as well as on long climbs. I watched Roger Millar and Andy Hampsten ride low cadences (60's) in the TdS on hill climbs and watched Charley Gaul, Massignan, Pambianco, and Rik van Looy on the Stelvio. None were turnng more than 60rpm. http://www.cyclinghalloffame.com/rid...sp?rider_id=45 If you believe this is to your advantage, I don't want to dissuade you, but advising new riders to do so is folly. They should ride hill climbs and optimize their ET. In that process the ideal cadence will arrive naturally. Jobst Brandt |
|
wrote: The "quiet upper body" riding is a development in the pursuit of excessive spinning, where saddle bounce becomes a problem. If you observe anyone racing you'll notice that riders lunge onto the downward stroke if working anywhere near top performance. This is not an option but a necessity. Riding with no upper body motion is possible only when riding at a less than maximum effort where an optional style is drawn from extra effort, something riders cannot do for long when working hard. That goes for flats or on hills sitting or standing where the equivalent is not leaning the bicycle, an even more contrived style that is possible when riding lower gears than optimal. I sense that we are getting close to discussing "ankling", forbid. You can relax Jobst, we aren't even approaching any "ankling" discussion. My question was based, not on riding at or near maximum effort, on riding comfortably in the 20 to 24 mph range. Personally, in those circumstances I've found a "quiet upper body" approach works well in reducing fatigue. It felt unnatural when I first started to consciously try to achieve that about 8 or 9 years ago but the longer I worked at it, the more relaxed it felt. I'd compare it to the military posture of "standing attention". That is an extremely uncomfortable body position at first but once one's muscles "learn" the pose it actually seems easier on muscles, especially back muscles, than a casual slouching posture. Regards, Bob Hunt |
Bob Hunt writes:
The "quiet upper body" riding is a development in the pursuit of excessive spinning, where saddle bounce becomes a problem. If you observe anyone racing you'll notice that riders lunge onto the downward stroke if working anywhere near top performance. This is not an option but a necessity. Riding with no upper body motion is possible only when riding at a less than maximum effort where an optional style is drawn from extra effort, something riders cannot do for long when working hard. That goes for flats or on hills sitting or standing where the equivalent is not leaning the bicycle, an even more contrived style that is possible when riding lower gears than optimal. I sense that we are getting close to discussing "ankling", forbid. You can relax Jobst, we aren't even approaching any "ankling" discussion. Whew! My question was based, not on riding at or near maximum effort, on riding comfortably in the 20 to 24 mph range. Personally, in those circumstances I've found a "quiet upper body" approach works well in reducing fatigue. It felt unnatural when I first started to consciously try to achieve that about 8 or 9 years ago but the longer I worked at it, the more relaxed it felt. I'd compare it to the military posture of "standing attention". That is an extremely uncomfortable body position at first but once one's muscles "learn" the pose it actually seems easier on muscles, especially back muscles, than a casual slouching posture. What you say seems to support my contention, that to naturally do what your body wants as you ride hard makes that riding form easier and more natural. I suspect that you developed the muscles needed to keep the upper body relatively motionless. I propose that that effort can better be used to propel the bicycle. To call it a casual "slouching posture" is begging the question. You cannot slouch when your hands are on the drops or bar tops, but you can develop muscles that make that natural. I think you'll find that trained athletes sit up and ride no-hands in rest areas (where there are food hand-ups or the field in a stage race is just cruising. Riders do that and pedal standing occasionally as a relaxing stretch position. Not moving the upper body is an unnatural gait and requires effort. Jobst Brandt |
wrote:
Terry Morse writes: http://www.cyclingnz.com/science.phtml?n=44 I see no scientific data or proof of this hypothesis You didn't read the footnotes: Ahlquist, L. E., Bassett, D. R., Sufit, R., Nagle, F. J., & Thomas, D. P. (1992). The effect of pedaling frequency on glycogen depletion rates in type I and type II quadriceps muscle fibers during submaximal cycling exercise. European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology, 65(4), 360-364. "In conclusion, cycling at the same metabolic cost at 50 rather than 100 rev.min-1 results in greater type II fiber glycogen depletion. This is attributed to the increased muscle force required to meet the higher resistance per cycle at the lower pedal frequency." In other words, high cadence spares muscle glycogen, increasing the time to fatigue. If two equally fit riders enter a long race, and one rider uses a high cadence while the other uses a low cadence, the high cadence rider will have more left in the tank at the finish, and that's where races are won. I spent many years riding the low cadences that more recent riders denigrate as "painful grinding" and sure to ruin my knees. While the effect of grinding on your knees is questionable, the effect on muscle fatigue has been demonstrated. I watched Roger Millar and Andy Hampsten ride low cadences (60's) in the TdS on hill climbs and watched Charley Gaul, Massignan, Pambianco, and Rik van Looy on the Stelvio. None were turnng more than 60rpm. I've seen old photos of TdF riders stopping for smoke breaks and drinking wine, too. Yet few pros today smoke or drink wine. Those TdS and Stelvio riders could have ridden longer with less fatigue if they had used a higher cadence. The science says so. If you believe this is to your advantage, I don't want to dissuade you, but advising new riders to do so is folly. They should ride hill climbs and optimize their ET. In that process the ideal cadence will arrive naturally. It depends on the new rider's goals, I suppose. If he wants simply to ride and have fun, he can pick whatever cadence or riding style feels comfortable. But if he wants to optimize his performance, he'd be well served by paying attention to the science. -- terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/ |
"Badger_South" wrote in message
... I'm wondering if there are any good tips out there for keeping cadence high going up moderate hills. I find I really have to hum a tune, or count reps when the going gets tough and I start to sink below 65 or 70 (or lower). I count to 50 and then try and take a deep sigh (more or less forceful breathe out), and think 'sink/get centered', then do it again. Have the experts pretty much decided that higher cadence is the way to go? I realize we just discussed this here, in relation to energy conservation, but we still see low cadence riding a lot in the pros during climbs. I'm thinking maybe it's something that's just very hard to change once you've developed your riding, and climbing style. I haven't learned the 'quiet upper body' phase yet, but it seems like that's next. A few points: Any advantages in cadence are very small, if not, they would be obvious, and no one would be debating them. Techniques for small performance improvements may be useful for racing, but they don't automatically translate into techniques for raising fitness levels. Pro riders have trained to perfection (at least compared to us slobs) and look to very small effects to get any kind of edge, some of which (many?) are psychological. There is a variation in individual physiology, even if you're just interested in that slight competitive edge, you're better finding it for your own body and/or level of fitness. Higher cadence, as a rule, trades off aerobic demand against long-term muscle fatigue, there's no single optimum cadence, it depends on the duration of the ride and terrain. It's better to get good at listening to your body. Cycling is a highly "self-optimizing" activity -- your body will figure things out on its own. Slavish cadence counting or adherence to rigid styles makes riding tedious. Tedium makes riding less fun. Less fun means less riding. Less riding makes for slower development. Hill climbing is only one skill to be learned, it's not the be all, end all, part of cycling, competitive or otherwise. Pace is much more important than cadence in hill climbing. The trick is to know just how hard to push before "blowing up". This is surprisingly difficult to learn and is not a function of cadence. |
Peter Cole wrote:
:: "Badger_South" wrote in message :: ... ::: ::: I'm wondering if there are any good tips out there for keeping ::: cadence high going up moderate hills. I find I really have to hum a ::: tune, or count reps when the going gets tough and I start to sink ::: below 65 or 70 (or lower). ::: ::: I count to 50 and then try and take a deep sigh (more or less ::: forceful breathe out), and think 'sink/get centered', then do it ::: again. ::: ::: Have the experts pretty much decided that higher cadence is the way ::: to go? I realize we just discussed this here, in relation to energy ::: conservation, but we still see low cadence riding a lot in the pros ::: during climbs. I'm thinking maybe it's something that's just very ::: hard to change once you've developed your riding, and climbing ::: style. ::: ::: I haven't learned the 'quiet upper body' phase yet, but it seems ::: like that's next. :: :: A few points: :: :: Any advantages in cadence are very small, if not, they would be :: obvious, and no one would be debating them. Interesting. :: :: Techniques for small performance improvements may be useful for :: racing, but they don't automatically translate into techniques for :: raising fitness levels. :: :: Pro riders have trained to perfection (at least compared to us :: slobs) and look to very small effects to get any kind of edge, some :: of which (many?) are psychological. :: So basically, you either have it or you don't. All those magical training techniques are just fine tuning. :: There is a variation in individual physiology, even if you're just :: interested in that slight competitive edge, you're better finding it :: for your own body and/or level of fitness. :: :: Higher cadence, as a rule, trades off aerobic demand against :: long-term muscle fatigue, there's no single optimum cadence, it :: depends on the duration of the ride and terrain. It's better to get :: good at listening to your body. Cycling is a highly :: "self-optimizing" activity -- your body will figure things out on :: its own. :: :: Slavish cadence counting or adherence to rigid styles makes riding :: tedious. Tedium makes riding less fun. Less fun means less riding. :: Less riding makes for slower development. :: :: Hill climbing is only one skill to be learned, it's not the be all, :: end all, part of cycling, competitive or otherwise. :: :: Pace is much more important than cadence in hill climbing. The trick :: is to know just how hard to push before "blowing up". This is :: surprisingly difficult to learn and is not a function of cadence. That's so very true! And not blowing up is tricky too, because you might not blow up on this hill, but on one that comes along many miles later. The affects of climbing a lot of hills on a long ride can be cumulative. I would offer that highing in a high gear (low cadence) on a lot of hills will hasten the point of "blowing up". Also, riding hills at *very* high cadence would probably do the same thing. |
In article ,
"Roger Zoul" writes: So basically, you either have it or you don't. All those magical training techniques are just fine tuning. Not necessarily. Robert Johnson stunk as a guitar player until he sold his soul to the devil ;-) cheers, Tom -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca |
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:18:53 GMT, "Peter Cole"
wrote: A few points: Any advantages in cadence are very small, if not, they would be obvious, and no one would be debating them. Techniques for small performance improvements may be useful for racing, but they don't automatically translate into techniques for raising fitness levels. Pro riders have trained to perfection (at least compared to us slobs) and look to very small effects to get any kind of edge, some of which (many?) are psychological. There is a variation in individual physiology, even if you're just interested in that slight competitive edge, you're better finding it for your own body and/or level of fitness. Higher cadence, as a rule, trades off aerobic demand against long-term muscle fatigue, there's no single optimum cadence, it depends on the duration of the ride and terrain. It's better to get good at listening to your body. Cycling is a highly "self-optimizing" activity -- your body will figure things out on its own. Slavish cadence counting or adherence to rigid styles makes riding tedious. Tedium makes riding less fun. Less fun means less riding. Less riding makes for slower development. Hill climbing is only one skill to be learned, it's not the be all, end all, part of cycling, competitive or otherwise. Pace is much more important than cadence in hill climbing. The trick is to know just how hard to push before "blowing up". This is surprisingly difficult to learn and is not a function of cadence. A few points? Those are very good points, all! The only thing I'd quibble with is the 'counting' thing. I do that b/c I tell myself if I can get to fifty right foot pedal strokes I can make it to the top of one of my toughest hills where it gets steeper in the last 100 yards, and thus my feeble mind won't start thinking about slaloming. Heh, in fact on yesterday's ride I picked the steepest line to the top as an exercise in self-flagellation! Being a former bodybuilder I love this kind of stuff - mentally going through that seems to helps me. But on advice here, I'm going to try the stomp every 6 strokes method and see if that works better. I only do the tedious counting thing about once or twice on my route, when I have to fall back to 38x25 at 50rpm. (Most climbs I'm doing in 38x17 at 60rpm.) I'm only focussing on this stuff as part of a phase I'm going through, though. I keep seeking out and testing myself on harder and harder sections, which are not hard to find where I ride (lots of 100-200 yd steeps). So far I'm doing pretty well for a my condition with the hip injury and everything, I believe. If you don't mind my asking, what is the best way to learn the 'blowing up' part? By that do you mean a completel loss of ability such that you have to take the bus home? (I've had one sitch where I suddenly dropped off my 17-18mph pace and dropped off to 12mph for the last 20 minutes - puzzling since this was in the flats. I didn't feel bad - just lost the 'oomph'.) Should I attempt to push to the point of such 'blow up' to know what it feels like? -B |
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:17:10 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
wrote: That's so very true! And not blowing up is tricky too, because you might not blow up on this hill, but on one that comes along many miles later. The affects of climbing a lot of hills on a long ride can be cumulative. I would offer that highing in a high gear (low cadence) on a lot of hills will hasten the point of "blowing up". Also, riding hills at *very* high cadence would probably do the same thing. My 'goal' is to be able to attack a hill by shifting gears within the body, which I can do on false flats, but not on hills at this time. What are the characteristics of blowing up? Guess I'll know it when it happens, lol. -B |
Tom Keats wrote:
:: In article , :: "Roger Zoul" writes: :: ::: So basically, you either have it or you don't. All those magical ::: training techniques are just fine tuning. :: :: Not necessarily. :: :: Robert Johnson stunk as a guitar player until :: he sold his soul to the devil ;-) :) I wonder if I sold my soul to the devil if I could win the TdF 7 times? Hmm.... |
Badger_South wrote:
:: On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:17:10 -0400, "Roger Zoul" :: wrote: :: ::: That's so very true! And not blowing up is tricky too, because you ::: might not blow up on this hill, but on one that comes along many ::: miles later. The affects of climbing a lot of hills on a long ride ::: can be cumulative. I would offer that highing in a high gear (low ::: cadence) on a lot of hills will hasten the point of "blowing up". ::: Also, riding hills at *very* high cadence would probably do the ::: same thing. :: :: My 'goal' is to be able to attack a hill by shifting gears within :: the body, which I can do on false flats, but not on hills at this :: time. :: :: What are the characteristics of blowing up? Guess I'll know it when :: it happens, lol. :) Well, I've blow up twice by my counting. Once when I was doing a metric century and was foolish enough to try to race some little guy up a longish hill. I was in granny gear, but pedaling my heart out. My HR maxed on that climb and stay there for a good while. I was huffing and puffing the entire time. I made that hill. But the problem was the hill kept coming and even though I didn't race up the other ones, but legs eventually started cramping up on me. I had to quit at mile 50 with about 3400 feet of elevation gain. The second time was just a couple of weeks ago on my first century. I got to mile 80 with about 4400 ft of elevation gain. I was smarter this time as I didn't try to beat it up any hills, but they just got the better of me in the end. And I was drinking gatoraid and eating carbs the entire time. I hope to do these rides again next year without "blowing up." |
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:34:56 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
wrote: Badger_South wrote: :: On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:17:10 -0400, "Roger Zoul" :: wrote: :: ::: That's so very true! And not blowing up is tricky too, because you ::: might not blow up on this hill, but on one that comes along many ::: miles later. The affects of climbing a lot of hills on a long ride ::: can be cumulative. I would offer that highing in a high gear (low ::: cadence) on a lot of hills will hasten the point of "blowing up". ::: Also, riding hills at *very* high cadence would probably do the ::: same thing. :: :: My 'goal' is to be able to attack a hill by shifting gears within :: the body, which I can do on false flats, but not on hills at this :: time. :: :: What are the characteristics of blowing up? Guess I'll know it when :: it happens, lol. :) Well, I've blow up twice by my counting. Once when I was doing a metric century and was foolish enough to try to race some little guy up a longish hill. I was in granny gear, but pedaling my heart out. My HR maxed on that climb and stay there for a good while. I was huffing and puffing the entire time. I made that hill. But the problem was the hill kept coming and even though I didn't race up the other ones, but legs eventually started cramping up on me. I had to quit at mile 50 with about 3400 feet of elevation gain. The second time was just a couple of weeks ago on my first century. I got to mile 80 with about 4400 ft of elevation gain. I was smarter this time as I didn't try to beat it up any hills, but they just got the better of me in the end. And I was drinking gatoraid and eating carbs the entire time. I hope to do these rides again next year without "blowing up." Right, I recall these. But your blowing up with the cramps sitch was probably due to dehydration and/or loss of sodium and potassium wouldn't you think? I might end up putting this to the test today, b/c I have scheduled a 2 mile climb on a 3-4% grade, which is longer than any hill I've tried so far. -B |
"Badger_South" wrote
I'm only focussing on this stuff as part of a phase I'm going through, though. I keep seeking out and testing myself on harder and harder sections, which are not hard to find where I ride (lots of 100-200 yd steeps). So far I'm doing pretty well for a my condition with the hip injury and everything, I believe. We all go through phases, one of mine was beginning fixed gear riding where I learned that cadence didn't have as much of an effect as I had presumed it would. If you don't mind my asking, what is the best way to learn the 'blowing up' part? By that do you mean a completel loss of ability such that you have to take the bus home? (I've had one sitch where I suddenly dropped off my 17-18mph pace and dropped off to 12mph for the last 20 minutes - puzzling since this was in the flats. I didn't feel bad - just lost the 'oomph'.) Should I attempt to push to the point of such 'blow up' to know what it feels like? The classic "blowing up" is more of a short-term phenomenon, where you briefly exceed your cardio-vascular capacity and go into debt. We all have a steady-state pace that we can sustain for several minutes, when you push beyond that, your output drops precipitously until you recover. This is more of an aerobic/anaerobic thing than a fatigue thing. If you're climbing hills, or doing fast, relatively short rides (like time trials), it's important to go to your limit, without exceeding it, for your best time. Learning exactly where that is takes time and knowledge of your body. Heart rate monitors can help learning to pace, but given day-to-day variations, I find listening to your body works better. The long-term fatigue limit is different. Fatigue accumulates in your muscles, and eventually you get to the point where your output drops off severely. Unlike blowing up, which is recoverable after a few minutes, muscle fatigue doesn't go away with brief rest. If you keep pushing, the muscles often go into spasms (cramping). Muscle fatigue can be accelerated by periods of high level exertion, so if you want to go long, you have to watch the pace, too. |
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:01:37 GMT, "Peter Cole"
wrote: "Badger_South" wrote I'm only focussing on this stuff as part of a phase I'm going through, though. I keep seeking out and testing myself on harder and harder sections, which are not hard to find where I ride (lots of 100-200 yd steeps). So far I'm doing pretty well for a my condition with the hip injury and everything, I believe. We all go through phases, one of mine was beginning fixed gear riding where I learned that cadence didn't have as much of an effect as I had presumed it would. Yet ime, cadence, at least right now, is the focal point of my riding. (can you tell I just installed a cadence computer? ;-) But in actuality I rarely look at it. I just know that when I can 'spin up' I go faster with seeming less effort. YMMV. If you don't mind my asking, what is the best way to learn the 'blowing up' part? The classic "blowing up" is more of a short-term phenomenon, where you briefly exceed your cardio-vascular capacity and go into debt. We all have a steady-state pace that we can sustain for several minutes, when you push beyond that, your output drops precipitously until you recover. This is more of an aerobic/anaerobic thing than a fatigue thing. If you're climbing hills, or doing fast, relatively short rides (like time trials), it's important to go to your limit, without exceeding it, for your best time. Learning exactly where that is takes time and knowledge of your body. Heart rate monitors can help learning to pace, but given day-to-day variations, I find listening to your body works better. OK, makes sense. Watching the TdF 2003, Millar talks about blowing up, so I've been looking at that pheonm. The long-term fatigue limit is different. Fatigue accumulates in your muscles, and eventually you get to the point where your output drops off severely. Unlike blowing up, which is recoverable after a few minutes, muscle fatigue doesn't go away with brief rest. If you keep pushing, the muscles often go into spasms (cramping). Muscle fatigue can be accelerated by periods of high level exertion, so if you want to go long, you have to watch the pace, too. OK, all common sense stuff, but it helped to hear it. Very much thanks for taking the time to type all this out! ;-) I'm off to scout that 2 mile hill and ride. -B |
Badger_South wrote:
:: On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:34:56 -0400, "Roger Zoul" :: wrote: :: ::: Badger_South wrote: ::::: On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:17:10 -0400, "Roger Zoul" ::::: wrote: ::::: :::::: That's so very true! And not blowing up is tricky too, because :::::: you might not blow up on this hill, but on one that comes along :::::: many miles later. The affects of climbing a lot of hills on a :::::: long ride can be cumulative. I would offer that highing in a :::::: high gear (low cadence) on a lot of hills will hasten the point :::::: of "blowing up". Also, riding hills at *very* high cadence would :::::: probably do the same thing. ::::: ::::: My 'goal' is to be able to attack a hill by shifting gears within ::::: the body, which I can do on false flats, but not on hills at this ::::: time. ::::: ::::: What are the characteristics of blowing up? Guess I'll know it ::::: when it happens, lol. ::: ::: :) Well, I've blow up twice by my counting. Once when I was doing ::: a metric century and was foolish enough to try to race some little ::: guy up a longish hill. I was in granny gear, but pedaling my heart ::: out. My HR maxed on that climb and stay there for a good while. I ::: was huffing and puffing the entire time. I made that hill. But ::: the problem was the hill kept coming and even though I didn't race ::: up the other ones, but legs eventually started cramping up on me. ::: I had to quit at mile 50 with about 3400 feet of elevation gain. ::: The second time was just a couple of weeks ago on my first century. ::: I got to mile 80 with about 4400 ft of elevation gain. I was ::: smarter this time as I didn't try to beat it up any hills, but they ::: just got the better of me in the end. And I was drinking gatoraid ::: and eating carbs the entire time. I hope to do these rides again ::: next year without "blowing up." :: :: Right, I recall these. But your blowing up with the cramps sitch was :: probably due to dehydration and/or loss of sodium and potassium :: wouldn't you think? :: Maybe the first time, but I find it hard to imagine that being the case the second time. I was drinkig gator juice like crazy. :: I might end up putting this to the test today, b/c I have scheduled :: a 2 mile climb on a 3-4% grade, which is longer than any hill I've :: tried so far. Do it 5 or 6 times in a row...maybe that will get you there (NOT). :) |
Badger_South wrote:
:: On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:01:37 GMT, "Peter Cole" :: wrote: :: ::: "Badger_South" wrote ::: :::: I'm only focussing on this stuff as part of a phase I'm going :::: through, though. I keep seeking out and testing myself on harder :::: and harder sections, which are not hard to find where I ride (lots :::: of 100-200 yd steeps). So far I'm doing pretty well for a my :::: condition with the hip injury and everything, I believe. ::: ::: We all go through phases, one of mine was beginning fixed gear ::: riding where I learned that cadence didn't have as much of an ::: effect as I had presumed it would. :: :: Yet ime, cadence, at least right now, is the focal point of my :: riding. (can you tell I just installed a cadence computer? ;-) But :: in actuality I rarely look at it. I just know that when I can 'spin :: up' I go faster with seeming less effort. YMMV. :: :::: If you don't mind my asking, what is the best way to learn the :::: 'blowing up' part? :: ::: The classic "blowing up" is more of a short-term phenomenon, where ::: you briefly exceed your cardio-vascular capacity and go into debt. ::: We all have a steady-state pace that we can sustain for several ::: minutes, when you push beyond that, your output drops precipitously ::: until you recover. This is more of an aerobic/anaerobic thing than ::: a fatigue thing. If you're climbing hills, or doing fast, ::: relatively short rides (like time trials), it's important to go to ::: your limit, without exceeding it, for your best time. Learning ::: exactly where that is takes time and knowledge of your body. Heart ::: rate monitors can help learning to pace, but given day-to-day ::: variations, I find listening to your body works better. :: :: OK, makes sense. Watching the TdF 2003, Millar talks about blowing :: up, so I've been looking at that pheonm. :: ::: The long-term fatigue limit is different. Fatigue accumulates in ::: your muscles, and eventually you get to the point where your output ::: drops off severely. Unlike blowing up, which is recoverable after a ::: few minutes, muscle fatigue doesn't go away with brief rest. If you ::: keep pushing, the muscles often go into spasms (cramping). Muscle ::: fatigue can be accelerated by periods of high level exertion, so if ::: you want to go long, you have to watch the pace, too. :: :: OK, all common sense stuff, but it helped to hear it. Very much :: thanks for taking the time to type all this out! ;-) :: :: I'm off to scout that 2 mile hill and ride. Good luck! :) |
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:29:15 -0400, "Roger Zoul" wrote:
Tom Keats wrote: :: In article , :: "Roger Zoul" writes: :: ::: So basically, you either have it or you don't. All those magical ::: training techniques are just fine tuning. :: :: Not necessarily. :: :: Robert Johnson stunk as a guitar player until :: he sold his soul to the devil ;-) :) I wonder if I sold my soul to the devil if I could win the TdF 7 times? Hmm.... That contract's already been signed and is currently in "fulfillment" status. I'm told there are other openings. Ron |
On 21 Oct 2004 03:55:10 GMT, (Hunrobe) wrote:
"Roger Zoul" wrote in part: Well, I've blow up twice by my counting. Once when I was doing a metric century and was foolish enough to try to race some little guy up a longish hill. Always a mistake. The best choice for most of you big dudes is concede the climbs to us normal sized guys and hope to catch us on the flats. ;-) Regards, Bob Hunt Normal-sized? Dude one of my jerseys would look like a nightshirt on you, lol. Best plan for you little itty bitty guys is to tuck in behind Roger-sized guys and pray for no gust of wind to blow you away. eg -B |
Hunrobe wrote:
The best choice for most of you big dudes is concede the climbs to us normal sized guys and hope to catch us on the flats. And the proper protocol after big dude catches one of us normal sized guys is to happily pull us across the flats until the next climb, where the process starts again. -- terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/ |
Terry Morse wrote:
Hunrobe wrote: The best choice for most of you big dudes is concede the climbs to us normal sized guys and hope to catch us on the flats. And the proper protocol after big dude catches one of us normal sized guys is to happily pull us across the flats until the next climb, where the process starts again. or not so happily -- it depends on how good of a conversationalist and/or charismatic you are. i may like climbing but i know my place: i weigh in at 178lbs. hint: i'm more likely to happily pull ya across the plains if you at least pretend to be in pain when you drop me. and take a little while to do so. a few hundred feet at least. -- david reuteler |
|
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 04:52:11 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
wrote: Hunrobe wrote: ||| "Roger Zoul" || || wrote in part: || ||| Well, I've blow up twice by my counting. Once when I was doing a ||| metric century and was foolish enough to try to race some little ||| guy up a longish hill. || || Always a mistake. The best choice for most of you big dudes is || concede the climbs to us normal sized guys and hope to catch us on || the flats. ;-) Well.....I bet that little dude up that hill.....after that, he flew away and I never say him again :) ....and after next spring, that will be you, 35lbs lighter! I'm teasing, but think of it...even though some loss of muscle might make you a bit weaker, the little guys have done about all they can to get that 5% advantage over you (making up numbers here for sake of argument), and you (and I) have the advantage of knowing if we can intelligently and protein-sparingly lose that adipose, we get a hyoouge boost. Imagine putting three bags of flour on your body and -just- before you get to that hard part, cutting those loose like a hot air balloon dumping ballast. With this in mind, my theory is that if you can drop the weight quickly, while not going -too- much beyond that 2lb per week after the first 14 days, the effect will be most strongly noticed. This is the reason that, imo, I got out off the flats so dramatically, going from no hill days per week to a week of 2 a week, and then right on to 7 days a week and looking for more challenges already. Sure the lighter guys are still gonna ride away from you, but they won't fly! ;-D -B (Next week I start the next phase, riding the hill route with a full camelback two days a week, and making those 'hard' days. Mine is 8lbs full, with some gear stowed in the bottom. Dumb idea? Good idea? don't know yet, but as a weight lifter, this is the kind of thing that seems logical. I might play with it and take off the weight on the last pass near my house where I have 2 miles of flats and try some speed work on the last part.). |
Badger_South wrote:
Next week I start the next phase, riding the hill route with a full camelback two days a week, and making those 'hard' days. Mine is 8lbs full, with some gear stowed in the bottom. Dumb idea? Good idea? don't know yet, but as a weight lifter, this is the kind of thing that seems logical. Dump the extra weight, just go faster instead. -- terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/ |
In article ,
"Roger Zoul" writes: Tom Keats wrote: :: In article , :: "Roger Zoul" writes: :: ::: So basically, you either have it or you don't. All those magical ::: training techniques are just fine tuning. :: :: Not necessarily. :: :: Robert Johnson stunk as a guitar player until :: he sold his soul to the devil ;-) :) I wonder if I sold my soul to the devil if I could win the TdF 7 times? Hmm.... Good news: we don't have to resort to such drastic measures. This article at the Cycling Performance Tips site: 'Training vs Genetics' http://www.cptips.com/trnvgen.htm might be of interest to both you and Badger. cheers, Tom -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca |
Badger_South wrote in message . ..
(Next week I start the next phase, riding the hill route with a full camelback two days a week, and making those 'hard' days. Mine is 8lbs full, with some gear stowed in the bottom. Dumb idea? Good idea? don't know yet, but as a weight lifter, this is the kind of thing that seems logical. I might play with it and take off the weight on the last pass near my house where I have 2 miles of flats and try some speed work on the last part.). Sure! the extra weight will have a positive training effect during your climbs. But it would be interesting to know if the marginal benefit is better or worse than ditching the weight and trying to increase your pace. Might be a differential for gaining stregth (with the weight) vs. gaining speed (without the weight. But I'd say no need to drop it for your finish on the flats. I think that marginal effort on the flats is tiny.Most of the track, sprinters and classics winners are a bit bigger than the pure climbers and GT type winners. Muscle counts as a positive on the flats. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:37 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com