# Cadence



## uclown2002 (15 May 2014)

Is there an optimum range that peeps strive for?

Just refitted my GSC 10 sensor and did a steady undulating 60 miler today.

Average cadence was 81.

No idea what to read into it so looking for some advice!


----------



## screenman (15 May 2014)

Too low and my dodgy knee does not like it, too high and my legs cannot keep up with me, somewhere in between works quite well. Or about 86 seems about average for me, I am trying to get it faster just to see what effect it has, takes time to change after this many years.

Out of interest what was you average speed and gear inch?


----------



## uclown2002 (15 May 2014)

screenman said:


> Too low and my dodgy knee does not like it, too high and my legs cannot keep up with me, somewhere in between works quite well. Or about 86 seems about average for me, I am trying to get it faster just to see what effect it has, takes time to change after this many years.
> 
> Out of interest what was you average speed and gear inch?


17.3 mph. I run a 50/34 compact with a 12-25 cassette.
Legs heavy after a century yesterday, so tried to keep a lower gear than normal.


----------



## uclown2002 (15 May 2014)

[QUOTE 3083601, member: 30090"]Between 95-110.[/QUOTE]

Wow!
Hard to imagine me achieving that but looks like I need to raise it.


----------



## screenman (15 May 2014)

uclown2002 said:


> 17.3 mph. I run a 50/34 compact with a 12-25 cassette.



Good speed for a 60, nice day out there today as well, could you have the same speed and distance on 90rpm? to be honest were you happy with the ride, if yes then no worries. There is something about more stress on knee's when grinding and I know my knee does not like it.


----------



## screenman (15 May 2014)

Always amazes me how you bounce about at 120rpm then smooth out again once you get past it.


----------



## screenman (15 May 2014)

That chain looks so close to your wedding tackle it would worry me.

Must admit in all my years of cycling I have never ridden a bent and it is something I must try before long.


----------



## uclown2002 (15 May 2014)

screenman said:


> Good speed for a 60, nice day out there today as well, could you have the same speed and distance on 90rpm? to be honest were you happy with the ride, if yes then no worries. There is something about more stress on knee's when grinding and I know my knee does not like it.


I do get some occasional knee pain but nothing serious, so maybe I do need to try higher cadence.
I'll have another go tomorrow!


----------



## Razzle (15 May 2014)

Just fitted my garmin to the bike, 2nd ride...
http://www.strava.com/activities/141497109/analysis

Avg cadence 94 - Felt pretty good to me as i've only just got it that ive not had time to build up the spinning


----------



## JasonHolder (15 May 2014)

Don't forget it takes time to adjust to biomechanical changes. 

Stick with it for a few weeks before you start looking for improvements. Quite normal for you to be worse the first few times you go out  I only ride a 39 tbh. 39 was all I ride today. Never touched the big chainring.


----------



## uclown2002 (16 May 2014)

Just looked at Laurens Ten Dam's stats on the Tour of California and his cadence is 90 rpm just about every day.


----------



## Rob3rt (16 May 2014)

Don't worry too much about hitting these arbitrary ranges like 95-110. You will identify what is efficient for you in due course.


----------



## uclown2002 (16 May 2014)

Ok set of again for 75 miler (~4000ft elevation) with heavy legs and a concerted effort to increase cadence,

Average cadence of 87 compared to ydays 81, and certainly felt more effective; obviously less grinding and more spinning.

Felt much more productive so thanks for help!


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (17 May 2014)

uclown2002 said:


> Just looked at Laurens Ten Dam's stats on the Tour of California and _*his*_ cadence is 90 rpm just about every day.


The important bit highlighted.


----------



## Cuchilo (17 May 2014)

Interesting stuff . Ive just looked at my last ride and mine averaged 79 . Next time I do the same route i'll up it and see what its all about .


----------



## ayceejay (17 May 2014)

When a person first starts to ride a road bike they invariably get into a big gear and grind it round until it hurts and this seems to be the normal way: what this means is that pedaling to a high cadence is _learned_ behavior.Back in the day we would ride fixed in a low gear to learn _twiddling_ as we called it, nowadays it is called_ spinning_ but the effect is the same. I am not a psychologist but it seems to me that you need to train your body _and_ program your mind to ride at a high cadence.


----------



## uclown2002 (17 May 2014)

Certainly I've had to concentrate on increasing cadence as it doesn't come naturally to me.


----------



## Cuchilo (17 May 2014)

I tried it today and had a pretty crap ride according to the stats on strava . The ride also had me out of my comfort zone and pulled on a few muscles that I didn't like . All very interesting and as it was only a lap of Richmond Park ( 7 miles )
The park was about the only place I could try and keep an eye on the Garmin without face planting a car and I tried to keep it at 90 but average is 85 for that lap .
I'll try it a few more times though as I was held up big time by cars from Kingston to Putney and that's the fastest part so you can really get up to the 20mph speed limit


----------



## JasonHolder (17 May 2014)

What if i told you, you can maintain 90rpm even if you're doing 8mph  
Yeah it takes time, what I do, because I coast ALOT when its on the books, is only look at current cadence when I'm properly putting power down, average is thrown way out otherwise.


----------



## Cuchilo (17 May 2014)

I don't get it to be honest . I wanted to change up most of the time but kept changing down to keep it at 90 . That slowed me down to be honest and then the twat in a BMW  
I will give it a few more goes as it a small milage and nice to see whats going on


----------



## ayceejay (17 May 2014)

Jason, as usual talks from the other end. 
What is the point of an increased cadence?
Can you go as fast with a lower gear for longer and with less bananas?


----------



## JasonHolder (17 May 2014)

The more efficient you get with time the bigger the gear you'll be able to spin. =speed gain
= less muscle fatigue+more stress on heart and lungs. #balancing act with your strong suite


----------



## Cuchilo (17 May 2014)

But I can push a bigger gear faster without dribbling and snotting like a twat . That's what I get from my first stats but time will tell .


----------



## JasonHolder (17 May 2014)

Economy aycehay. Economy =+speed over time! Sustainable. Survivability. Not all out speed.


----------



## Cuchilo (17 May 2014)

The stats didn't say I was dribbling and snotting like a twat BTW I just was .


----------



## Tyke (18 May 2014)

I might be wrong and I only started the spinning thing after the heart attack but the way I see it is if you spin a lower gear faster then you do the same speed with less strain regardless of cadence speed which will be a personal thing not a fixed number and as you improve your cadence will improve.

I find checking cadence a help in seeing improvement but only because my cadence is improving resulting in me going faster in any given gear and not because I don`t have the same as a tour rider thirty years younger than me.


----------



## Joshua Plumtree (18 May 2014)

Bit of a balancing act between the two for me; from personal observation, most of the fast guys in our local TT's seem to be pushing a big gear, can't see how you can develop enough power to enable you to do that if all you do is spin in a low gear during training, but I'm open to persuasion!  

Must agree that for general poodling around and fast club runs, spinning is the way to go, cutting through a head wind and hill climbing have become so much easier since I've learnt a little of the art of spinning.


----------



## 50000tears (18 May 2014)

When calculating a cadence average is this over the whole ride or just when you are actually pedalling? Guess it has to the latter or averages could get thrown out quite a lot if freewheeling times come into the calculation.


----------



## uclown2002 (18 May 2014)

Just when pedalling.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (18 May 2014)

50000tears said:


> When calculating a cadence average is this over the whole ride or just when you are actually pedalling? Guess it has to the latter or averages could get thrown out quite a lot if freewheeling times come into the calculation.


Entire ride. You can turn off including zeros in cadence averaging in garmins thus a true average.


----------



## uclown2002 (18 May 2014)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Entire ride. You can turn off including zeros in cadence averaging in garmins thus a true average.


Nice one. Just checked my Garmin and it had defaulted to 'Do not include zeros'


----------



## JasonHolder (18 May 2014)

Its a coping method chuchilo
Ulrich grinds-muscle strength runs out#screwed

Armstrong spins-aerobic capacity has limits, when reached- drop a gear and have all the muscle strength Ulrich has dumped ready to play with


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (18 May 2014)

JasonHolder said:


> Its a coping method chuchilo
> Ulrich grinds-muscle strength runs out#screwed
> 
> Armstrong spins-aerobic capacity has limits, when reached- drop a gear and have all the muscle strength Ulrich has dumped ready to play with


Now if cycling was a strength sport


----------



## JasonHolder (18 May 2014)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Now if cycling was a strength sport


I would be screwed then lol


----------



## Rob3rt (18 May 2014)

On a Garmin device you should have the following data averaging settings:

Power: Include zeros.

Cadence: Do not include zeros.


----------



## Cuchilo (18 May 2014)

50000tears said:


> When calculating a cadence average is this over the whole ride or just when you are actually pedalling? Guess it has to the latter or averages could get thrown out quite a lot if freewheeling times come into the calculation.


I take mine from strava segments as I ride in a lot of traffic . RP is a pretty clear run for 7 miles so I can compare from that at this stage anyway .


----------



## ayceejay (18 May 2014)

JasonHolder said:


> Its a coping method chuchilo
> Ulrich grinds-muscle strength runs out#screwed
> 
> Armstrong spins-aerobic capacity has limits, when reached- drop a gear and have all the muscle strength Ulrich has dumped ready to play with


That doesn't make sense Jason. Are you saying that when someone reaches their "aerobic capacity" they can continue on "muscle strength"?


----------



## Cuchilo (18 May 2014)

ayceejay said:


> That doesn't make sense Jason. Are you saying that when someone reaches their "aerobic capacity" they can continue on "muscle strength"?


I couldn't when I tried it . I just went home .


----------



## JasonHolder (18 May 2014)

Do you not ride? When you breach your aerobic threshold you turn anaerobic, and you're in a better position if you still have all your muscular strength, which will break down but it is better to keep it as long as you can. No strength is the premier reason why people walk up hills pushing a bike/ just go home cuch  lol


----------



## ayceejay (18 May 2014)

That is just completely wrong Jason. The words should be a clue 'aerobic' means with air (oxygen) and 'anaerobic' means without air. An endurance sport like cycling obviously relies heavily on aerobic capacity and this is the capacity that is built up during base miles. A body can only operate for a short time without oxygen but the anaerobic threshold can be increased too with appropriate training methods, when you reach your threshold you will know as the lactic acid will tell you, once you have reached this point no amount of preexisting strength will help at all.


----------



## 50000tears (18 May 2014)

JasonHolder said:


> Do you not ride? When you breach your aerobic threshold you turn anaerobic, and you're in a better position if you still have all your muscular strength, which will break down but it is better to keep it as long as you can. No strength is the premier reason why people walk up hills pushing a bike/ just go home cuch  lol



To phrase this slightly differently, when you cycle at an effort that uses more energy than your aerobic system can cope with you begin to cycle anaerobically. When you do this your muscles break down sugar and create lactic acid, this can then build up and make your legs sore and fatigued earlier than you might want. If you still have many miles ahead then you are going to have a tough time and will probably have to slow down a lot to get the job done. That is why spinning is always better than grinding when doing longer rides. Some lactic will build up if you face lots of hills that are hard to spin up but that is to be expected. 

Getting fitter is a process of increasing your aerobic capacity so that your body can take a bigger effort, and for longer, whilst still staying in an aerobic state.


----------



## 50000tears (18 May 2014)

ayceejay said:


> That is just completely wrong Jason. The words should be a clue 'aerobic' means with air (oxygen) and 'anaerobic' means without air. An endurance sport like cycling obviously relies heavily on aerobic capacity and this is the capacity that is built up during base miles. A body can only operate for a short time without oxygen but the anaerobic threshold can be increased too with appropriate training methods, when you reach your threshold you will know as the lactic acid will tell you, once you have reached this point no amount of preexisting strength will help at all.



He is not wrong, he just wasn't clear. You are right that anaerobic is 'without air' which is what happens when your muscles do not have enough oxygen to create the energy output you are demanding of them.


----------



## JasonHolder (18 May 2014)

I know what anaerobic means thanks. 
What if I told you more strength gives you a longer time to exhaustion. 

There it is, finally some words that are as descriptive as I wish them to be.


----------



## ayceejay (19 May 2014)

We have moved away from cadence, not that it matters but can you explain what you mean there Jason as once again this is a tad enigmatic.


----------



## JasonHolder (19 May 2014)

No you're winding me up sorry


----------



## ayceejay (19 May 2014)

JasonHolder said:


> No you're winding me up sorry


No I'm not. _more strength gives you a longer time to exhaustion_ is not clear to me so I am asking for an explanation, that's valid isn't it?
It may interest you to know that I started to say that I agree with you and then I thought: what does he mean _exactly_? So I asked.


----------



## Rob3rt (19 May 2014)

The term strength is misleading when applied to cycling. You should be more concerned with power. Strength and power are not the same!


----------



## 50000tears (19 May 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> The term strength is misleading when applied to cycling. You should be more concerned with power. Strength and power are not the same!



Agreed. The mistake made is that in peoples minds they think of strength in the same terms that a bodybuilder does which is not what we are doing at all. A better way to think of it IMO is that what we are doing is conditioning our legs to be able to withstand the ride and delay the onset of fatigue. I won't go into a long description of how typical strength work trains the fast twitch fibers in the muscle, whereas we train the slow twitch ones which determine how much your muscles can take before getting tired. Your legs don't get stronger per se in that they can lift more weight, but as Robert says, you gain more power.


----------



## Joshua Plumtree (19 May 2014)

A little confused!  Surely you can only maintain anaerobic effort for a limited length of time - last mile or so of a TT for instance - and it doesn't really matter which gear you're using, or how much power/strength you have in your muscles, or whether you're climbing a mountain or sprinting for the line, outcomes the same, you're gonna have to slow down.  

The secret is to train yer body hard enough so that you can generate the speed you're looking for without having to go anaerobic.


----------



## JasonHolder (19 May 2014)

Pardon me aycejay, thought you were  ill get back to you in a second.

Rob as always, words roll off your tongue like water off a ducks back  good schooling 
I make no mistake when I talk about strength, not talking about power, power is the rate of work after all correct? And strength isn't so yes you are correct but I'm not confusing the two. 

I feel cadence is another good fad the magazines etc have decided to press on, along with economy, nutrition etc however, they focus too much on these small fads when the major benefaire is still power and endurance. People get tired of being told how to make power and they still have to sell issues.
I talk of muscular connectivity strength, the kind that either allows you either to push a larger gear or not. If you can grind a 53-13 but cant grind the 53-12 you dont have the strength to. which is one principle of power in my eyes. You TT at 70rpm, as that's where the power is, let me assume you're a naturally very strong guy. If you weren't you couldn't turn that gear as the cross over point from cadence to strength to make power has far since past at that rpm.

Higher strength does improve time to exhaustion as well as a great deal more, and Ive personally always found this to be the case, both running and cycling. With more strength, load is reduced in relation to your maximal strength. Its a case of having the legs or not having the legs.
I would recommend everyone who can, if they periodize, do a coarse of weights, not flaffing around in the gym, i mean focused squat, lunge, dead lift and press.

You come away feeling very very light going up hill!
how ever, because the body runs the way it does, you find muscular fatigue is delayed and rather than having a huge spike in power output as strength goes up (which can be done through your specific training) as that is what makes you faster.

Yes plumtree, intensity above AT can be sustained for a period. It depends what level above. Intensity at Vo2 max.Now thats 5 minutes of pain then you die.

I am so glad everyone over whelmingly is chiming Cycling is an endurance sport!! now lets drop these HIT workouts early on and build the fitness first 
Good effort


----------



## JasonHolder (19 May 2014)

Plum tree, just to clear your unclear views up. The last mile of a TT is VERY far above AT.

Its above your VO2 as well normally. My AT is 168bpm but I can ride solidly at 180bpm for 30-40-50 minutes depending on various things.


----------



## Rob3rt (19 May 2014)

Some would argue that if you are finishing a TT with a huge burst of power in the last mile, then you didn't ride the rest of the race hard enough. Not sure I buy that one in the practical sense although theoretically speaking, it could be correct as you would theoretically gain more time by going a little harder over a longer duration than you would exploding in the last mile (where the power put in at ever increasing speeds has diminishing returns). Plus if you have the energy to go that hard in the last mile, you should theoretically have been able to eek a bit more out over the rest of the race and just be hanging on at the end.

It goes to show how much of it is mental really, I know that I always smash the last mile or so, getting more power out than any other point in the race, even when I feel like I am on the absolute limit for several miles leading up to that last mile.


----------



## JasonHolder (19 May 2014)

Nice one rob. I know Zero about TTs having only raced 1 as part of stages and never trained specifically for them ever. The mentality was put on your 54 chainring, disc, remove rear brakes, cages etc and ride your guts out. Totally out dated with what is available these days. 

Power management is much akin to climbing I would guess from what I've learnt off you. In that its faster to ride hard enough through the climb than to go easy and dig hard where your diminishing returns you mention rear their head.

Its so very hard yo be clear on here without writting a Bible, there's such a huge variance between what you do in training vs racing vs recreational cycling.


----------



## ayceejay (19 May 2014)

In my opinion an endurance athlete can get all the strength they need from doing the discipline they perform in. Unless you need the explosive action that a track rider does then I don't think building strength in the legs will pay dividends. Having said that, and this is why I wanted Jason to expand on his thoughts, fatigue in cycling will come from other parts of your body and exhaustion in your arms (for instance) will effect your performance. Core strength is the biggie at the moment and this is an area that supports your position on the bike. even with a proper bike fit, weakness here will give you sore back and shoulders leading to fatigue that no amount of leg strength can overcome and will certainly effect your performance. Sean Yates had a problem with his triceps once upon a time and this was the part of his body that tired first he improved this with press ups. The necessity for stretching has been done to death so I don't need to go there other than to say that flexibility will help with endurance and help keep exhaustion at bay.


----------



## JasonHolder (19 May 2014)

They can get all the strength from riding absolutely. But you can get more from weights. And more strength only has pros attatched.

Core is another fad like cadence, economy nutrition, I'd add flexibility to it as well.

Its all about strong as fark legs. Weak tris and cores (read simply untrained not particularly weak) (for the return) are only worth spending the time building up if yourr peaking out your legs/H&lungs, and are looking for marginal gains of the slightest. More legs work better.


----------



## ayceejay (19 May 2014)

Then I guess we shall just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## JasonHolder (19 May 2014)

We agree just fine. Cadence works, flexibility definitely works, I stretch more than anyone I know. Nutrition works, and economy works as well as harder core etc. BUT they add a cherry on the cake. Having good core high cadence etc means nothing without good legs.


----------



## Joshua Plumtree (19 May 2014)

The reason you push as hard as you can for the last mile in a TT is because it's generally recognised that it's very unlikely you'll 'blow up' so close to the finishing line. Now whether that's anaerobic, VO2 or anything else, is a mute point - doesn't really matter. Point is, you're going flat out with whatever energy reserves you have left, and isn't really related to how hard you've pushed the previous 9 miles.


----------



## Rob3rt (19 May 2014)

Joshua Plumtree said:


> The reason you push as hard as you can for the last mile in a TT is because it's generally recognised that it's very unlikely you'll 'blow up' so close to the finishing line. Now whether that's anaerobic, VO2 or anything else, is a mute point - doesn't really matter. Point is, you're going flat out with whatever energy reserves you have left, *and isn't really related to how hard you've pushed the previous 9 miles.*



Of course it is!


----------



## JasonHolder (19 May 2014)

You said "surely you can only maintain anaerobic effort for a limited length of time, last mile of a TT or so" 

Can near enough hold maximum heart rate for a mile flat.


----------



## Joshua Plumtree (19 May 2014)

Rob3rt said:


> Of course it is!


 
Perhaps I didn't phrase that correctly!  

How hard you've pushed in the first 9 miles will determine how much you have left for the closing stages but, still doesn't alter the fact that you're trying to ride flat out for that last mile, whether that's at 35mph or 5mph!


----------



## Joshua Plumtree (19 May 2014)

JasonHolder said:


> You said "surely you can only maintain anaerobic effort for a limited length of time, last mile of a TT or so"
> 
> Can near enough hold maximum heart rate for a mile flat.



If you've time to look at your hrm for the last mile then your not working hard enough!


----------



## MikeG (19 May 2014)

JasonHolder said:


> And more strength only has pros attatched.........



*EVERYTHING *in biology comes at a cost. Increase in strength can lead to, amongst other things, bigger muscles, which require more oxygen (and thus blood) to supply them. Bigger muscles means increased weight, which reduces climbing performance. Bigger muscles can lead to reduced flexibility. Bigger muscles certainly, without equivocation, lead to reduced endurance. To take extremes: how well do you think Chris Hoy would do in the Alps in the TdF? How well would Qintana do in a velodrome sprint?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (19 May 2014)

MikeG said:


> *EVERYTHING *in biology comes at a cost. Increase in strength can lead to, amongst other things, bigger muscles, which require more oxygen (and thus blood) to supply them. Bigger muscles means increased weight, which reduces climbing performance. Bigger muscles can lead to reduced flexibility. Bigger muscles certainly, without equivocation, lead to reduced endurance. To take extremes: how well do you think Chris Hoy would do in the Alps in the TdF? How well would Qintana do in a velodrome sprint?


Via a lovely little process called mitochondrial dilution.


----------



## Joshua Plumtree (19 May 2014)

I know I might be sounding a little like Jason but, has to be said nonetheless, it is possible to increase strength/power using weights in the gym without increasing muscle mass.


----------



## JasonHolder (19 May 2014)

Mike. Cycling is a balancing act between endurance strength power economy and all the rest of it.

You're unlikely to add 200g of muscle from 6 weeks of weights. So the increased weight up hills is a good trade off for massive strength gains when you need it up hill


----------



## ayceejay (19 May 2014)

That's what the man said "Increase in strength *can* lead to, amongst other things, bigger muscles".


----------



## MikeG (19 May 2014)

JasonHolder said:


> Mike. Cycling is a balancing act between endurance strength power economy and all the rest of it.
> 
> You're unlikely to add 200g of muscle from 6 weeks of weights. So the increased weight up hills is a good trade off for massive strength gains when you need it up hill



Agreed that it is all a balancing act, Jason, but you made an statement of absolutes: "_more strength only has pros_". I am just pointing out that physically this isn't true. It may help some aspect of your cycling to be stronger than you were, but it will come at a cost to some other aspect. Furthermore, (and I know we will never agree on this), you insist that additional strength helps up hills, and I insist that, beyond a point, it doesn't. Using the example I gave previously, I doubt you will find any cyclist with better leg strength than Chris Hoy, so why don't hill climbers look like him?. I'll tell you why..........because hill climbing is not primarily a strength problem, but an endurance problem.


----------



## JasonHolder (19 May 2014)

Nice one mike.  Primarily climbing hills fast is a strength problem if you have average strength


----------



## MikeG (19 May 2014)

As I said, we'll not agree on that. The science, as I have said before, is on my side.


----------



## JasonHolder (19 May 2014)

Enjoyed reading the article thank you! You do post some great reading material cheers.

"Since the cyclist has a finite power supply, he or she must necessarily slow down in
proportion to the steepness of
the hill, if steady-state aerobic
metabolism is to be maintained."

Yes but no body rides aerobic on
hills particularly whilst racing.

In the end, more strength + higher cadence = faster speeds.


----------



## 50000tears (19 May 2014)

http://easycycling.com/will-bigger-muscles-help-you-cycle-faster-uphill/


----------



## JasonHolder (19 May 2014)

Without reading the post yet ( I will) bigger leg muscles don't mean stronger.


----------



## JasonHolder (19 May 2014)

The simple asnwer is that if you want to get faster at cycling uphill" first paragraph spelling mistake made me stop reading.

I'm thin as an aids victim and can dead lift 130kg anytime you want. Squat 100kg. (That's abnormally strong) for not big muscles


----------



## uclown2002 (19 May 2014)

JasonHolder said:


> The simple asnwer is that if you want to get faster at cycling uphill" first paragraph spelling mistake made me stop reading.
> 
> I'm thin as an aids victim and can dead lift 130kg anytime you want. Squat 100kg. (That's abnormally strong) for not big muscles


I stopped reading your post after the third word for the same reason!


----------



## MikeG (19 May 2014)

JasonHolder said:


> In the end, more strength + higher cadence = faster speeds.



Faster speeds only win you sprints. Faster speeds are not what 99% of cycling, including competitive cycling, is about. It is how long you can maintain speed which counts. Otherwise, as I have said repeatedly, Chris Hoy would be King of the Mountains in the TdF.


----------



## ayceejay (19 May 2014)

_Yes but no body rides aerobic on
hills particularly whilst racing._
As I and others have told you anaerobic activity is unsustainable meaning that if you go into what used to be known as oxygen debt_ on _a hill you will have to repay that debt (recover) before you continue_. _To recover you will need to coast or ride easy and the overall result would be negative. This is the technique used in hill intervals and is effective in training to boost lactate threshold but not a wise thing to be doing in a race but as has been said fine on the final three yards of a TT.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (19 May 2014)

50000tears said:


> http://easycycling.com/will-bigger-muscles-help-you-cycle-faster-uphill/


"Muscle WEIGHS more than fat,"

Quality article


----------



## 50000tears (19 May 2014)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> "Muscle WEIGHS more than fat,"
> 
> Quality article



I know, I know. If only he had added "by volume" at the end he could have gotten away with it! Still correct in terms of muscle fiber types and that doing weights is not really a friend of the cyclist. 

It should be added that even when the pros talk of doing any weight work it is very high reps with low weights so nothing to generate additional bulk.


----------



## montage (21 May 2014)

MikeG said:


> Faster speeds only win you sprints. Faster speeds are not what 99% of cycling, including competitive cycling, is about. It is how long you can maintain speed which counts. Otherwise, as I have said repeatedly, Chris Hoy would be King of the Mountains in the TdF.



Interestingly, the Aussie track sprinters were known to have the highest peak powers (I cannot recall the Olympic cycle this was in) as their training prioritized this maximum effort. Unfortunately for them, other counties such as GB had a far larger emphasis on speed endurance, and their sprint team got pummeled. Even over a flying 200m, speed endurance is massive.

In road racing and crits, it is unlikely you will hit your peak power during the final sprint due to fatigue - it's all about speed endurance.


----------

