|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cycling Cadence and Running Stride Rate | Tony | Racing | 48 | July 13th 04 07:00 AM |
HR versus Cadence (was Powercranks) | DaveH | Techniques | 8 | March 3rd 04 08:07 AM |
cadence on cycle-computer reading wrong.... | Yuri Budilov | Techniques | 3 | February 25th 04 04:02 AM |
Wheels and Gearing for Alpine Event? | bsouche | Techniques | 74 | February 3rd 04 02:12 PM |