Cycling Cadence and Running Stride Rate

Reading from "Lactate Threshold Training" (Janssen 2001) recently, I saw a
section about pedaling frequency that seemed to confirm the advantages of
using a high cadence at certain times when cycle racing. This is of course
the style of Armstrong and Indurain, especially when climbing. Their success
using this technique makes it intriguing.

As I understand it, basically with a bigger gear (lower cadence), the muscle
contraction is longer and requires more power and will become anaerobic
sooner than will a higher cadence that requires less power per contraction.
Thus at the same speed, two equally fit athletes each using a different
cadence will be doing a different kind of workout. The cyclist using a
lower cadence will be getting more of a strength workout, and the cyclist
using a higher cadence will be getting a more aerobic workout and will
breathe harder as a result. But the one using the higher cadence will
recover faster and be able to go longer because there will be less muscle
damage. All this for Two riders of equal ability going the same speed.

It is the contraction force necessary that determines which muscles will do
the work. First, slow twitch (type I muscle fibers) always do the work
first unless the contraction requires greater speed or force than the type
I's can handle. If the force is greater, the medium twitch (type IIa's and
others) kick in, and while these are partially aerobic, they produce more
lactate than type I's, and thus fatigue more quickly. If the force
necessary is still greater, fast twitch (type IIb) muscles kick in, but
these will fatigue very quickly.

The surprising thing to me is that for the same workout effort, it can turn
out to be a strength workout or an aerobic workout. This certainly has
implications for both training and racing, and has clearly not been
exploited by many racers. Strength workouts require longer to recover from.
It now seems clear why Armstrong usually seems to have fresher legs than
other riders when climbing in the mountains day after day. The higher
cadence is more aerobic and saves on muscle fatigue.

The evidence seems clear on this for cycling, as it makes sense from a
muscle physiology point of view. I'm wondering if similar principles might
be true for running too. Is a shorter but faster stride more aerobic for
the same speed? I believe over-striding is known to have a tendency to wear
out the legs, and this might be a demonstration of this principle.

A separate but related question is: to what degree does the difference in
cycling cadence (and possibly stride rate in activities like running and
hiking) produce differences in hypertrophy? Thus, is hypertrophy after
endurance exercise a demonstration of this principle of it being more of a
strength workload as opposed to an aerobic workload? My understanding is
that type I muscle fibers do not experience hypertrophy to the same extent
of type IIa and IIb fibers. In my experience, high cadence cycling produces
less hypertrophy than low cadence cycling. Also, certain activities like
trail running in hilly areas tend to produce much more hypertrophy. To what
extent is this evidence that the workload is more anaerobic? Any other
ideas on this?

- Tony

"Tony" wrote in message
...

Reading from "Lactate Threshold Training" (Janssen 2001) recently, I saw a
section about pedaling frequency

Yunno, there's a world of difference between reading and understanding.
However, reading makes a fine start...

This is of course
the style of Armstrong and Indurain, especially when climbing. Their
success
using this technique makes it intriguing.

splutter

Uh? 'Their' success? Almost *EVERY* climber of note maintains high
cadence when climbing. In fact I'd go so far as to say that the big guys
like Armstrong and Indurain actually turn the pedals at a slightly lower
rate than the 'pure' climbers.

As I understand it, basically with a bigger gear (lower cadence), the
muscle
contraction is longer and requires more power and will become anaerobic
sooner than will a higher cadence that requires less power per
contraction.
Thus at the same speed, two equally fit athletes each using a different
cadence will be doing a different kind of workout. The cyclist using a
lower cadence will be getting more of a strength workout, and the cyclist
using a higher cadence will be getting a more aerobic workout and will
breathe harder as a result. But the one using the higher cadence will
recover faster and be able to go longer because there will be less muscle
damage. All this for Two riders of equal ability going the same speed.

Yes - in theory - but life is never that simple. You also have to factor
in body weight, bike weight, rider/bike aerodynamics, etc, etc. Cycling,
like life, cannot be reduced to a series of simplistic equations or formula.

snipped basic physiology examples lifted from textbook

Dear Tony,

If I wanted/needed a refresher course I'd buy the book.

It now seems clear why Armstrong usually seems to have fresher legs than
other riders when climbing in the mountains day after day

I think there is a rather more likely explanation being touted in a popluar
book on Armstrong at the mo'.

I'm wondering if similar principles might
be true for running too.

Simple answer? No.

Is a shorter but faster stride more aerobic for
the same speed?

Simple answer? No.

A separate but related question is: to what degree does the difference in
cycling cadence (and possibly stride rate in activities like running and
hiking) produce differences in hypertrophy?

OMG! I think you need to sit down and ask yourself *why* you're asking
these questions. Are you bored? A deviant troll? Wobbot's long-lost
brother?

Any other ideas on this?

Yup. I have an idea. Post something interesting. It could be what you
had for breakfast, what your boss said to you today, your views on world
peace, ANYTHING but this nonsense.

"Tony" wrote in message
Reading from "Lactate Threshold Training" (Janssen 2001) recently, I saw a
section about pedaling frequency that seemed to confirm the advantages of
using a high cadence at certain times when cycle racing. This is of
course
the style of Armstrong and Indurain, especially when climbing. Their
success
using this technique makes it intriguing.

Yep, we all know that Armstrong consistently maintains a higher
average cadence than anyone else on the TdF, hills or not - every
year people talk about it. Remember the talk of LA's cadence
vs. Ullrich over the years? I wasn't as much into cycling when Indurain
was ripping up the roads, but I remember that being discussed about
him as well. They are/were certainly amazing climbers, and the higher
cadence certainly helps.

As a runner, I can tell you that it's standard procedure to shorten
your stride and increase the cadence a little (as well as a bit of the
old arm-pumping) when climbing. I'd say it's a similar strategy.
Certainly taking slow, long strides when running up a hill (comparable
to pushing a high gear) would be less effecient.


It now seems clear why Armstrong usually seems to have fresher legs than
other riders when climbing in the mountains day after day. The higher
cadence is more aerobic and saves on muscle fatigue.

Well - said, and I agree. Often in marathon running you will see people
developing a shorter stride length and faster cadence as the race nears
the end, because fatigue it really taking over and the body simply
compensates and makes it as easy as possible. This makes me think
that people should do this from the start!

Interesting post - thanks for your thoughts.

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON)
www.allfalldown.org
www.absolutelyaccurate.com

SwStudio wrote in message ...
"Tony" wrote in message
Reading from "Lactate Threshold Training" (Janssen 2001) recently, I saw
a
section about pedaling frequency that seemed to confirm the advantages of
using a high cadence at certain times when cycle racing. This is of
course
the style of Armstrong and Indurain, especially when climbing. Their
success
using this technique makes it intriguing.

Yep, we all know that Armstrong consistently maintains a higher
average cadence than anyone else on the TdF, hills or not - every
year people talk about it. Remember the talk of LA's cadence
vs. Ullrich over the years? I wasn't as much into cycling when Indurain
was ripping up the roads, but I remember that being discussed about
him as well. They are/were certainly amazing climbers, and the higher
cadence certainly helps.

I know there are other cycling greats who have used the high cadence
technique so it's not a new thing, but its surprizing how resistant the
other racers are, particularly guys like ullrich. Pride perhaps.


As a runner, I can tell you that it's standard procedure to shorten
your stride and increase the cadence a little (as well as a bit of the
old arm-pumping) when climbing. I'd say it's a similar strategy.
Certainly taking slow, long strides when running up a hill (comparable
to pushing a high gear) would be less effecient.


It now seems clear why Armstrong usually seems to have fresher legs than
other riders when climbing in the mountains day after day. The higher
cadence is more aerobic and saves on muscle fatigue.

Well - said, and I agree. Often in marathon running you will see people
developing a shorter stride length and faster cadence as the race nears
the end, because fatigue it really taking over and the body simply
compensates and makes it as easy as possible. This makes me think
that people should do this from the start!

Well today I started an experiment of one. For two weeks I will do my runs
with very short strides and a quick turnover. My aim is to do 1.5x my usual
stride rate and see how this affects my training. Today I did an 80 min
trail run doing this and it felt seriously funny to run that way, and I
probably looked like charlie chaplin shuffling down the road frantically
with a load in his pants. My HR was at least 10 beats higher than normal,
but the run took the same amount of time as usual. All I can say so far is
that maybe there was a bit less loading than normal on the hills, and that
my legs felt very different than they usually do after the run, not better
necessarily, but just different. Will post more results of this later.

- Tony

Interesting post - thanks for your thoughts.

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON)
www.allfalldown.org
www.absolutelyaccurate.com

np426z wrote in message ...
"Tony" wrote in message
...

Reading from "Lactate Threshold Training" (Janssen 2001) recently, I saw
a
section about pedaling frequency

Yunno, there's a world of difference between reading and understanding.
However, reading makes a fine start...

This is of course
the style of Armstrong and Indurain, especially when climbing. Their
success
using this technique makes it intriguing.

splutter

Uh? 'Their' success? Almost *EVERY* climber of note maintains high
cadence when climbing. In fact I'd go so far as to say that the big guys
like Armstrong and Indurain actually turn the pedals at a slightly lower
rate than the 'pure' climbers.

Well they each won 5 tours de france. I didn't say they invented the
technique, but their success with it certainly demands a closer look at it
IMO.


As I understand it, basically with a bigger gear (lower cadence), the
muscle
contraction is longer and requires more power and will become anaerobic
sooner than will a higher cadence that requires less power per
contraction.
Thus at the same speed, two equally fit athletes each using a different
cadence will be doing a different kind of workout. The cyclist using a
lower cadence will be getting more of a strength workout, and the cyclist
using a higher cadence will be getting a more aerobic workout and will
breathe harder as a result. But the one using the higher cadence will
recover faster and be able to go longer because there will be less muscle
damage. All this for Two riders of equal ability going the same speed.

Yes - in theory - but life is never that simple. You also have to factor
in body weight, bike weight, rider/bike aerodynamics, etc, etc. Cycling,
like life, cannot be reduced to a series of simplistic equations or
formula.

snipped basic physiology examples lifted from textbook

Dear Tony,

If I wanted/needed a refresher course I'd buy the book.

lol, its a very minor point in the book.


It now seems clear why Armstrong usually seems to have fresher legs than
other riders when climbing in the mountains day after day

I think there is a rather more likely explanation being touted in a popluar
book on Armstrong at the mo'.

The jury hasn't even been selected on this. The success of Armstrong and
others using this technique makes it important for the future of cycling.


I'm wondering if similar principles might
be true for running too.

Simple answer? No.

Is a shorter but faster stride more aerobic for
the same speed?

Simple answer? No.

A separate but related question is: to what degree does the difference
in
cycling cadence (and possibly stride rate in activities like running and
hiking) produce differences in hypertrophy?

OMG! I think you need to sit down and ask yourself *why* you're asking
these questions. Are you bored? A deviant troll? Wobbot's long-lost
brother?

I think we all know who and what constitutes a deviant troll.


Any other ideas on this?

Yup. I have an idea. Post something interesting. It could be what you
had for breakfast, what your boss said to you today, your views on world
peace, ANYTHING but this nonsense.

"Tony" wrote in message
...
SwStudio wrote in message ...
"Tony" wrote in message
Reading from "Lactate Threshold Training" (Janssen 2001) recently, I
saw
a
section about pedaling frequency that seemed to confirm the advantages
of
using a high cadence at certain times when cycle racing. This is of
course
the style of Armstrong and Indurain, especially when climbing. Their
success
using this technique makes it intriguing.

Yep, we all know that Armstrong consistently maintains a higher
average cadence than anyone else on the TdF, hills or not - every
year people talk about it. Remember the talk of LA's cadence
vs. Ullrich over the years? I wasn't as much into cycling when Indurain
was ripping up the roads, but I remember that being discussed about
him as well. They are/were certainly amazing climbers, and the higher
cadence certainly helps.

I know there are other cycling greats who have used the high cadence
technique so it's not a new thing, but its surprizing how resistant the
other racers are, particularly guys like ullrich. Pride perhaps.

Ullrich does NOT use largely different gears. The difference you are seeing
is Ullrich under pressure trying to keep from blowing up compared to
Armstrong on the attack in the final kilometers. They are normally in the
same gear and Lance is moving ahead (remember, he is opening a gap when
spinning the fastest so all he is really doing differently is keeping in the
same gear while opening up a gap quickly). You can look at Ullrich in '97
(when he won) and he can be seen winning (stage 10?) in the mountains almost
by accident and spinning very smoothly and quickly (85 to 90).

"Tony" wrote in message
...
Reading from "Lactate Threshold Training" (Janssen 2001) recently, I saw a
section about pedaling frequency that seemed to confirm the advantages of
using a high cadence at certain times when cycle racing. This is of
course
the style of Armstrong and Indurain, especially when climbing. Their
success
using this technique makes it intriguing.

As I understand it, basically with a bigger gear (lower cadence), the
muscle
contraction is longer and requires more power and will become anaerobic
sooner than will a higher cadence that requires less power per
contraction.
Thus at the same speed, two equally fit athletes each using a different
cadence will be doing a different kind of workout. The cyclist using a
lower cadence will be getting more of a strength workout, and the cyclist
using a higher cadence will be getting a more aerobic workout and will
breathe harder as a result. But the one using the higher cadence will
recover faster and be able to go longer because there will be less muscle
damage. All this for Two riders of equal ability going the same speed.

It is the contraction force necessary that determines which muscles will
do
the work. First, slow twitch (type I muscle fibers) always do the work
first unless the contraction requires greater speed or force than the type
I's can handle. If the force is greater, the medium twitch (type IIa's
and
others) kick in, and while these are partially aerobic, they produce more
lactate than type I's, and thus fatigue more quickly. If the force
necessary is still greater, fast twitch (type IIb) muscles kick in, but
these will fatigue very quickly.

The surprising thing to me is that for the same workout effort, it can
turn
out to be a strength workout or an aerobic workout. This certainly has
implications for both training and racing, and has clearly not been
exploited by many racers. Strength workouts require longer to recover
from.
It now seems clear why Armstrong usually seems to have fresher legs than
other riders when climbing in the mountains day after day. The higher
cadence is more aerobic and saves on muscle fatigue.

The evidence seems clear on this for cycling, as it makes sense from a
muscle physiology point of view. I'm wondering if similar principles
might
be true for running too. Is a shorter but faster stride more aerobic for
the same speed? I believe over-striding is known to have a tendency to
wear
out the legs, and this might be a demonstration of this principle.

A separate but related question is: to what degree does the difference in
cycling cadence (and possibly stride rate in activities like running and
hiking) produce differences in hypertrophy? Thus, is hypertrophy after
endurance exercise a demonstration of this principle of it being more of a
strength workload as opposed to an aerobic workload? My understanding is
that type I muscle fibers do not experience hypertrophy to the same extent
of type IIa and IIb fibers. In my experience, high cadence cycling
produces
less hypertrophy than low cadence cycling. Also, certain activities like
trail running in hilly areas tend to produce much more hypertrophy. To
what
extent is this evidence that the workload is more anaerobic? Any other
ideas on this?

First, I think you are taking things a bit too literally here...the
difference between, say, a cadence of 70 vs. 110 is quite small when you
consider that the minimal (concentric) cadence is 0 and the maximum (at
least theorectically) up around 250, or even higher. There is therefore no
such thing as a true "strength" workout when pedaling, at least not in the
way you're viewing it.

Second, while intuitively appealing, the notion that varying your cadence
affects fiber type recruitment is far from proven (despite what Carmichael
might have you believe). In fact, the only study that has addressed this
question using the classical means of assessing motor unit recruitment
pattern (i.e., PAS staining) yielded results that suggest that cadence does
*not* have any significant influence (although the authors interpreted the
data differently).

Third, hypertrophy is a consequence of muscle use, period. The degree to
which hypertrophy occurs of course varies with the force requirement, but
some amount of hypertrophy will result even from very low force activities
(e.g., running).

Andy Coggan

In article ,
"Tony" wrote:

Yep, we all know that Armstrong consistently maintains a higher
average cadence than anyone else on the TdF, hills or not - every
year people talk about it. Remember the talk of LA's cadence
vs. Ullrich over the years? I wasn't as much into cycling when Indurain
was ripping up the roads, but I remember that being discussed about
him as well. They are/were certainly amazing climbers, and the higher
cadence certainly helps.

I know there are other cycling greats who have used the high cadence
technique so it's not a new thing, but its surprizing how resistant the
other racers are, particularly guys like ullrich. Pride perhaps.


For a sport that is so affected by technology, they sure don't have a
lot of "early adopters." "Real" cyclists used to laugh at aerobars until
Greg LeMond used them to make up an "insurmountable" deficit and win the
TDF by 8 seconds in a final stage time trial. Now they all use them.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

Any otherideas on this?
- Tony


From Peter Cavanagh and Michael Pollock's work back in the 70's one was
a comparison of Elite and Good Distance runners. See the Marathon in
Volume301 of the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1977 for
all aspects on the marathon.

Elite Marathoners (Frank Shorter was included in that group) numbered 9
(mean marathon time: 2:15:52) and good runners made up of 3 with a mean
time of 2:34:40.

When you are talking about 90 cycles a minute in biking, the equivalent
is 90 strides a minute which we all know as the 180 steps/minute ideal.

In the research between elite and good:
Elite: 191 steps/minute SD 10.74
Good 182 steps/minute SD 8.80

Elite stride length: 1.56 M SD 0.17 M
Good stride length: 1.64 M SD 0.16 M

If you want to see various people playing with the 90 cycles/stides or
180 steps/minute check out

http://www.breathplay.com

Ian Jackson was an early writer for Runner's World and was into
breathing and running form. He did a booklet for them on Running and
Yoga. He's worked with some top cyclists.

http://www.chirunning.com

Danny Dreyer has arrived at the same conclusions that I have. His
training program is all about "Running is falling and catching oneself
Gracefully." GAPO Well done CD. If you get a chance to take his
half day class I would say, Don't miss it, if you want to learn to run
gracefully over the surface of the earth.

I'm looking at taking Danny's certification program as my thinking
melds right into his program.


In health and on the run,
Ozzie Gontang
Director, San Diego Marathon Clinic, est. 1975
Maintainer - rec.running FAQ
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-faq/
Mindful Running:
http://www.mindfulness.com/mr.asp

Andy Coggan wrote:

"Tony" wrote in message

First, I think you are taking things a bit too literally here...the
difference between, say, a cadence of 70 vs. 110 is quite small when you
consider that the minimal (concentric) cadence is 0 and the maximum (at
least theorectically) up around 250, or even higher. There is therefore no
such thing as a true "strength" workout when pedaling, at least not in the
way you're viewing it.

Most of the recs for muscle tension types workouts (Carmichael and
Morris) are in the 50RPM range against a higher resistance than what
you'd use at a higher cadence. From the Force-Velocity curve, as you
move closer to isometric (0 RPM against maximal resistance), you are
increasing tension requirements. It is moving closer to a 'strength'
stimulus becuse of this. Strength-endurance would be a better description.


Second, while intuitively appealing, the notion that varying your cadence
affects fiber type recruitment is far from proven (despite what Carmichael
might have you believe). In fact, the only study that has addressed this
question using the classical means of assessing motor unit recruitment
pattern (i.e., PAS staining) yielded results that suggest that cadence does
*not* have any significant influence (although the authors interpreted the
data differently).

I think I know the study you're referring to, it used a fairly narrow
range of high cadences, didn't it. Also, did the study change
power/force requirements with the changing cadence?


Third, hypertrophy is a consequence of muscle use, period. The degree to
which hypertrophy occurs of course varies with the force requirement, but
some amount of hypertrophy will result even from very low force activities
(e.g., running).

Yes, hence all those super muscular runners. Right.

What you generally see with endurance training is a slight incrase in
size of some Type I fibers (and a decrease in others, both approaching
an optimal size:capillary ratio) and a loss of size in Type II, at least
with only low intensity endurance work.

LSD work at 20% of maximal force output can be maintained almost
exclusively with Type I fibers (until exhaustion at which point Type II
will come into play).

Running or cycling uphill (or faster) will have higher tension
requirements. Meaning greater recruitment of Type II fibers. This is
why it tends to be more anaerobic, b/c of increasing use of fibers that
tend to rely more on anaerobic glycolytic metabolism (which is the point
of training the Type II fibers to be more endurance and rely less on
anaerobic glycolysis with intervals).

distance cycling has higher tension requirements than distance runnning,
which is part of why cyclists tend to have more muscular legs.

Sprinters trump both of them. Of course, they also lift weights.

Lyle