# Cadence, Speed and hill climbing.



## willhub (27 Aug 2012)

Hi.

Well not many people who know me think of me as a spinner, but over the past months I seem to have gone through a transition. Started doing some threshold training on the turbo, and doing a few spin classes, and my cadence has shot up.

Normally, my cadence was around 85-89 average over a ride, it's now between 94 and 100, I did a training ride last week, 40 miles hard, averaged 97.

I don't know if that's good or not, there is a Strava segment just coming out of a village near me, and when I go for that, my cadence is around 107, and I'm thinking to myself, that seems too fast, so I adjust gear to find I'm doing between 94-97, and I'm finding my legs can't take it anymore, I start to slow down and the legs are just in agony.

The other problem is, going up hills, it's slowed me down on hills, I'm off up a 10-20% hill in 38-25 and thinking "I want to pedal faster", but can't as I've ran out of gears, and the such low cadence kills me.

I don't know what to do.

Should I stick at it? Maybe even try raise my cadence even higher
Should I try to lower my optimal cadence to around 95?
Should I practice and practice at hills so I am able to cope at higher speed/ pedalling faster

I just can't decide if me changing to spinning was a good move, all I know is I really don't feel comfortable at anything under 95 now, just feels like super grinding to me.


----------



## black'n'yellow (27 Aug 2012)

willhub said:


> and I'm finding my legs can't take it anymore, I start to slow down and the legs are just in agony.


 
this has nothing to do with the right/wrong cadence - and everything to do with the fact that you do not have the required fitness to maintain whatever effort you are trying to maintain.


----------



## endoman (27 Aug 2012)

I've just started a new coached training plan. One of my aims is hill climbing season in October, never done it before and just want to have fun. One of my sessions is a cadence session, I did it today, reached 195 rpm, and held 160 for a minute. Hard work! I rode some hills yesterday at high cadence for me, 100 plus, set new Strava bests. My overall has gone up in 2 weeks from 85 to 95. Not tried it on anything above 10% yet though. I have another 6 weeks to go with the plan, will be interesting to see how it pans out. 

I'd keep at it, look at the cadence of contador and Froome in the Vuelta, spinning at 100 plus on the climbs.


----------



## black'n'yellow (27 Aug 2012)

endoman said:


> I'd keep at it, look at the cadence of contador and Froome in the Vuelta, spinning at 100 plus on the climbs.


 
because they have the fitness to maintain their power output in a particular gear - if it was all down to cadence, then we would all be able to ride up there with them - which we obviously can't. You are putting the cart some distance before the horse...


----------



## amaferanga (28 Aug 2012)

Cadence is a read herring. You want to find the cadence that allows you to produce the most power.


----------



## jdtate101 (28 Aug 2012)

Spinning too fast can be counter productive, as sometimes it will not allow you sufficient time on each stroke to get the power down. Typical climbing cadence is 80-100rpm, but some bigger set riders find 60-70 better. It's very much a personal choice. For example I did a climb in california where going uphill on a 6% climb at 70rpm was very hard work, but just upping to 85 in a lower gear made it much easier to deal with.

Another factor is if you are spinning very fast transitioning to standing maybe much harder to do as you will naturally have to slow down, or jump up the gears to also slow your stroke. Nothing in the world saps energy as fast as spinning too quickly out of the saddle.


----------



## montage (28 Aug 2012)

Train at a variaty of cadences, and maybe look at a new cassette. Fixies and single speeds are perfect for this


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (28 Aug 2012)

I'm no expert so found the commentary on how Contador lost 1st place on Saturday to Valverde and Rodriquez informative. http://www.itv.com/itvplayer/video/?Filter=323840 Watch Contador from about 35 minutes in and then listen to the commentary at 42 mins in about the change from spinning + lactic acid to a higher grindier gear.


----------



## black'n'yellow (28 Aug 2012)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Watch Contador from about 35 minutes in and then listen to the commentary at 42 mins in about the change from spinning + lactic acid to a higher grindier gear.


 
Not sure if you've misunderstood that, or if I've misunderstood what you said. Contador changed down into a lower gear/higher cadence and then found he couldn't maintain his power or momentum. He was caught and passed by two fellas pushing a higher gear at a higher road speed...


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (28 Aug 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Not sure if you've misunderstood that, or if I've misunderstood what you said. Contador changed down into a lower gear/higher cadence and then found he couldn't maintain his power or momentum. He was caught and passed by two fellas pushing a higher gear at a higher road speed...


 
I got the impression AC was spinning but when he belatedly saw the threat, he changed up but couldn't get back up to speed. As I said, though, I'm absolutely no expert on hills!


----------



## marzjennings (28 Aug 2012)

willhub said:


> I don't know what to do.
> 
> I just can't decide if me changing to spinning was a good move, all I know is I really don't feel comfortable at anything under 95 now, just feels like super grinding to me.


 
Spinning is good, but so is also begin able to pedal at a low cadence to muscle through some climbs and sprints.

I'd guess you may need to focus on your leg strength for a while.


----------



## black'n'yellow (28 Aug 2012)

marzjennings said:


> I'd guess you may need to focus on your leg strength for a while.


 
fitness - not leg strength. It's important not to confuse the two.


----------



## marzjennings (28 Aug 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> fitness - not leg strength. It's important not to confuse the two.


 
No, leg strength, getting some muscle on the bones. I assumed if the OP can knock out a hard 40 miles and average 97rpm his 'fitness' level isn't too bad, but that if pushing a lower cadence is difficult then he needs to work on just strength. Agreed that any additional muscle mass needs to be conditioned to perform over the long haul, but sometimes it's just a leg strength thing,


----------



## black'n'yellow (28 Aug 2012)

I'm beginning to lose count of the number of time I've said this, but if the OP can climb stairs or get up out of a chair unaided, then he already has all the leg strength he needs to cycle - as do you or I. The trick is converting that existing strength into a repeated aerobic effort - which comes through training.

Muscles don't tire because they are not strong enough - they tire because they are not used to performing at whatever effort you are requiring them to perform at, or for the length of time you are requiring them to perform for.


----------



## jim55 (28 Aug 2012)

so what woud u say is the best approach to climbing ,im more of a grinder and i really struggle to get spinning as high as some people have mentioned here ,when i spin (relative term )i really feel that im getting nowhere ,id say my fitness is pretty rubbish,but im pretty strong in the legs (maybe this is the prob )i squat a bit but seem to run out of puff on the bike .
iv tried to go out and increase my cadence and not use the longer gears ,that lasts for a mile or so when i realise that im getting nowhere about 10 mph and revert to getting out the saddle and horsing (relativly)a bigger gear ,
whats the best approach ,not only on hills but even on the flat ?get the cadence up?


----------



## LegsRsore (28 Aug 2012)

Good question


----------



## black'n'yellow (28 Aug 2012)

jim55 said:


> so what woud u say is the best approach to climbing ,im more of a grinder and i really struggle to get spinning as high as some people have mentioned here ,when i spin (relative term )i really feel that im getting nowhere ,id say my fitness is pretty rubbish,but im pretty strong in the legs (maybe this is the prob )i squat a bit but seem to run out of puff on the bike .
> iv tried to go out and increase my cadence and not use the longer gears ,that lasts for a mile or so when i realise that im getting nowhere about 10 mph and revert to getting out the saddle and horsing (relativly)a bigger gear ,
> whats the best approach ,not only on hills but even on the flat ?get the cadence up?


 
Other than finding a cadence you are comfortable riding at, your actual cadence is largely irrelevant - so please don't worry about it in the context of hill climbing.

The two factors which have the most impact on your climbing ability are 1) your sustainable power output and 2) your body weight.

Lose body weight and your power/weight ratio will effectively improve. Train your cardio vascular system to tolerate prolonged efforts either in or out of the saddle (ideally both) and your sustainable power output will improve.


----------



## marzjennings (29 Aug 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> I'm beginning to lose count of the number of time I've said this, but if the OP can climb stairs or get up out of a chair unaided, then he already has all the leg strength he needs to cycle - as do you or I. The trick is converting that existing strength into a repeated aerobic effort - which comes through training.
> 
> Muscles don't tire because they are not strong enough - they tire because they are not used to performing at whatever effort you are requiring them to perform at, or for the length of time you are requiring them to perform for.


Yes, I saw you write that before and you were wrong then too. Repeating an opinion doesn't magically make it a fact. 

The OP may have enough strength to climb some stairs, that doesn't mean he has enough leg strength to travel up hill as fast as he wants. 

I'm sure Hoy and the like only build up their leg strength to look good and nothing to do with going faster. And I bet even skinny old Wiggins himself is carrying a lot more muscle mass on his legs than he needs to just climb some stairs.


----------



## Rob3rt (29 Aug 2012)

marzjennings said:


> Yes, I saw you write that before and you were wrong then too. Repeating an opinion doesn't magically make it a fact.
> 
> The OP may have enough strength to climb some stairs, that doesn't mean he has enough leg strength to travel up hill as fast as he wants.
> 
> *I'm sure Hoy and the like only build up their leg strength to look good and nothing to do with going faster.* And I bet even skinny old Wiggins himself is carrying a lot more muscle mass on his legs than he needs to just climb some stairs.


 
I wish people would stop referring to Chris Hoy and other track sprinters as examples in this context.


----------



## black'n'yellow (29 Aug 2012)

marzjennings said:


> Yes, I saw you write that before and you were wrong then too. Repeating an opinion doesn't magically make it a fact.
> 
> The OP may have enough strength to climb some stairs, that doesn't mean he has enough leg strength to travel up hill as fast as he wants.
> 
> I'm sure Hoy and the like only build up their leg strength to look good and nothing to do with going faster. And I bet even skinny old Wiggins himself is carrying a lot more muscle mass on his legs than he needs to just climb some stairs.


 
Epic failure, on so many levels. Only an idiot would compare Hoy to Wiggins. I'm not sure I can even be bothered to put you straight, but here goes...

Hoy is a track sprinter. The sprint is a discipline which relies on maximal/anaerobic effort for a short period. Wiggins is an endurance cyclist who relies on submaximal/aerobic performance to get him up mountains and to the end of time trials. I'm willing to bet a fiver that there are many people here (possibly even you) that could squat more than Wiggins could. Does that make you a better rider than him..? No, of course it doesn't. Why do you think that is?

Now for the strength thing. You are confusing strength with power. Open up another tab, google both definitions, make sure you've understood them and then read on. If you can climb stairs, then you already have the strength needed to lift/propel your entire body weight, one leg at a time. Do you think this would be less, or more than the strength you would need to put through the pedals when you are climbing hills? I'll give you a clue - it's significantly more than you would need. Ergo - your leg strength is already sufficient. You may indeed already have more leg strength than Wiggins - but are you a better climber? Unlikely, I would suspect.

What Wiggins will have is a better power output and a better power/weight ratio than you - in other words, he can convert his 'stair climbing leg strength' more efficiently into repeated, sub-maximal aerobic efforts - otherwise known as power output. Or to put it another way, you may both have the same leg strength, but he could still be walking up the stairway in the Empire State Building towards the 102nd floor, while you are already knackered from climbing the steps up to the entrance. One of the principal reasons for that is that you probably don't ride 30+ hours per week training in the off season developing this aerobic base.

All of the above is generally understood by anyone with an interest in aerobic exercise. So don't tell me I'm wrong please - that is extraordinarily ignorant of you.

Below is a quote from a qualified coach and sports scientist that I lifted from another forum. I've highlighted some bits to help you understand. If you want to tell him he is wrong then I will be glad to give you his details:



> I'm for doing training that is specifically going to aid cycling performance. The type and nature of events that you are targeting will dictate whether specific strength work done with weights makes sense or not.
> 
> For example, I would have some riders focussed on track TT & sprint do weights. Even then the nature of the weights performed and balance with bike training needs to be considered. Many are actually better off not doing weights at and focussing their sprint work on the bike.
> 
> ...


 


Next week: Marz Jennings will argue that black is actually white.


----------



## marzjennings (29 Aug 2012)

Rob3rt said:


> I wish people would stop referring to Chris Hoy and other track sprinters as examples in this context.


 
That's why I added Wiggins too.


----------



## black'n'yellow (29 Aug 2012)

marzjennings said:


> That's why I added Wiggins too.


 
Wiggins is hardly the best example of a rider carrying 'muscle mass' (as you put it) though is he..? I think I'm carrying more muscle mass than he is...


----------



## Nigelnaturist (29 Aug 2012)

For the record I did a ride last wk over 30km with a 25ft per mile avg climb at 22.9km/h with a cadence of 83avg, yesterday I did a 50km ride @ 25.8Km/h over the same elevation gain, with a cadence of 89avg. I know they are not great speeds, but to me they are a quite an improvement on two months ago when I started I did 47.89km @ 15.77Km/h though that did have a climb rate of slightly more at 30.5ft per mile. I don't know the cadence for that ride, plus I had several stops which I didn't last night.


----------



## marzjennings (29 Aug 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Wrote a lot of bs.


 
To which I may try and reply to.

I didn't compare Hoy to Wiggins, but mentioned them as two independent examples of cyclists who will be carrying more muscle mass on their legs than is required to just climb a set of stairs. Sorry you failed to comprehend that.

I'm not sure how bench pressing helps cycling, but I have read than many cyclists use weights to increase leg strength. Even Wiggins has been known to do weighted lunges in the gym. I used to hit the gym a lot, but found I was spending a lot of time reconditioning new muscle mass to meet my cycling needs, whereas, and as your quoted section states, I could have met my strength goals through different training routines on the bike.

I do agree that the key to climbing is maximizing one's power to weight ratio and why the watt/kg and Wiggins are king in this. We have to trade how much leg strength we need compared to the type of cycling we like to do. The speed, duration, distance, climbing, etc. But cyclist's often push more power through a single pedal stroke than is required to lift their own body mass or climb a single stair step. For example during sprints and short climbs. And why you need more strength than just standing from chair.

The OP seems to have ran out of gears to climb as fast as they would like, and I still surmise that they need to work on there leg strength to give them that extra speed. 

The coach you quoted isn't wrong and even recommends that to build length strength one should do more sprint work on the bike. And he may be right about endurance riding, but I don't ride endurance events (my longest race this year will be 100 miles) and can therefore carry more muscle mass and I don't have to sacrifice power when I need it.

But to state that stair climbing strength is sufficient is to climb the Alpe d'Huez is an over simplification and wrong.


----------



## black'n'yellow (29 Aug 2012)

marzjennings said:


> The coach you quoted isn't wrong and even recommends that to build length strength one should do more sprint work on the bike.


 
for *anaerobic sprint work in track events* - did you miss that bit?



marzjennings said:


> And he may be right about endurance riding, but I don't ride endurance events (my longest race this year will be 100 miles) and can therefore carry more muscle mass and I don't have to sacrifice power when I need it.


 
Hello? You *DO* ride endurance events. Any distance which requires aerobic effort (as opposed to anaerobic) *IS* an endurance event. A mile-long race is an endurance event. Look it up.



marzjennings said:


> But to state that stair climbing strength is sufficient is to climb the Alpe d'Huez is an over simplification and wrong.


 
You are either unable to understand what I and others have written - or you are deliberately ignoring it in order to perpetuate your baseless argument that leg strength is an issue in endurance cycling. I'm guessing the former, seeing as you didn't even know what 'endurance' meant. Remember, you are not arguing against me - you are arguing against accepted practice, conventional wisdom and sports science. Why are you even arguing this stuff when you are obviously clueless? The fact that you have the nerve to flippantly dismiss my previous post as 'BS' just shows how ignorant you must be.


----------



## marzjennings (29 Aug 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> for *anaerobic sprint work in track events* - did you miss that bit?
> Hello? You *DO* ride endurance events. Any distance which requires aerobic effort (as opposed to anaerobic) *IS* an endurance event. A mile-long race is an endurance event. Look it up.
> You are either unable to understand what I and others have written - or you are deliberately ignoring it in order to perpetuate your baseless argument that leg strength is an issue in endurance cycling. I'm guessing the former, seeing as you didn't even know what 'endurance' meant. Remember, you are not arguing against me - you are arguing against accepted practice, conventional wisdom and sports science. Why are you even arguing this stuff when you are obviously clueless? The fact that you have the nerve to flippantly dismiss my previous post as 'BS' just shows how ignorant you must be.


 
No I didn't miss that, and again there are many times in a ride we switch from aerobic to anaerobic effort to get though a section. Sometimes, for the type of riding I like, I just have to muscle through and to do that I need muscle.

And for some a mile could be considered a sprint and over that distance which 'shape' of cyclist is going to perform better. The large legged rider or the skinny?

There is no accepted practice or conventional wisdom in this space, there are two sides to an argument that's been going on for years. Maybe you tend towards the Ric Stern way of thinking, and I maybe the Joe Friel and James Wilson way of training. If you want to start posting competing quotes we could do that all day. 

The OP was not asking about tips for endurance riding, but some ideas about improving their climbing. And I still suggest improving leg strength will help.

Endurance riding, as you know, is a trade off between mass and leg strength and finding that optimal watt/kg ratio is tough. There is a point at which additional muscle weight is not going to help the endurance cyclist. But from what I've read and seen, you still require more leg strength than just stair climbing power if you want to ride faster than the minimum speed required to get from A to B. And again the OP wasn't asking about just making a climb, but going faster on a given climb. More power over a fixed distance to get a shorter time. Their options are either spin faster, find a lower gear or as I propose, switch to a high gear and push harder. And to push harder you need more leg strength.


----------



## black'n'yellow (29 Aug 2012)

marzjennings said:


> The OP was not asking about tips for endurance riding, but some ideas about improving their climbing. And I still suggest improving leg strength will help.


 
Unless he meant climbing anaerobically (ie sprinting the whole way at a maximal effort), then we are talking ENDURANCE riding. Try saying the word out loud yourself - it may help your understanding.



marzjennings said:


> Endurance riding, as you know, is a trade off between mass and leg strength.


 
No! Endurance riding is about sustaining a given power output over a given distance. Endurance riding has NOTHING to do with leg strength. Leg strength is not a limiter to endurance riding. Show me some evidence to the contrary.



marzjennings said:


> And to push harder you need more leg strength.


 
Ohhhh - once again, you've not grasped it. To push harder, you need to be able to tolerate a higher effort. This does NOT mean 'stronger' legs (incidentally, did you actually look up the dictionary definitions of 'strength' and 'power'? It doesn't sound like you did)- it means training your body to produce more sustainable power. Strength is not a limiter. Sustainable power is.

You are clearly still struggling with the basic definitions of endurance, strength and power. Which probably explains why you are still not getting it.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (29 Aug 2012)

You're arguing with someone who is always going to be right (in his head only) and has no understanding of anything really. 

Just FYI


----------



## ayceejay (29 Aug 2012)

I should probably stay out of this but...
'Fitness' is the combination of strength, flexibility and stamina (endurance).
What this means is that anyone with the strength to climb stairs could ride a bike up Alpe d'Huez, _eventually_. If you want to do it quicker or more comfortably then it is stamina and flexibility that needs work and while working on these your strength will increase too. Working on strength only will not cut it.
The only way I know of to increase your performance on hills is to ride hills, interval training seems to work.
Flexibility will help prevent your shoulders or back from ruining your plans.


----------



## black'n'yellow (29 Aug 2012)

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


> You're arguing with someone who is always going to be right (in his head only) and has no understanding of anything really.
> 
> Just FYI


 
thak christ for that - I was beginning to think it was me... 



ayceejay said:


> What this means is that anyone with the strength to climb stairs could ride a bike up Alpe d'Huez, _eventually_.


 
agreed, but the point is that strength is not the limiting factor - fitness/sustainable power is...


----------



## ayceejay (29 Aug 2012)

"Working on strength only will not cut it."


----------



## black'n'yellow (29 Aug 2012)

yep, saw that - I think we're in agreement...


----------



## oldfatfool (29 Aug 2012)

Can't be arsed reading all the crap, but in answer to the OP it is the watts (power) you can sustain at a given cadence. No use being able to spin at 110 rpm if you can only hold 200 watts at that cadence for any given period of time, ie you hit a hill and stall.

So we have

The Tractor, low cadence, massive power,The grinder

The V8 muscle car ~ high power high cadence ~ The good all rounder

The Moped ~ High cadence, low power ~ You

Work on hill repeats and muscle tone to increase your power and then the higher cadence on the hills will come.


----------



## black'n'yellow (29 Aug 2012)

oldfatfool said:


> Can't be arsed reading all the crap, but in answer to the OP it is the watts (power) you can sustain at a given cadence. No use being able to spin at 110 rpm if you can only hold 200 watts at that cadence for any given period of time, ie you hit a hill and stall.
> 
> So we have
> 
> ...


 
Hang on - I thought we'd moved on from the point that cadence is largely irrelevant..?


----------



## User6179 (29 Aug 2012)

oldfatfool said:


> Can't be arsed reading all the crap, but in answer to the OP it is the watts (power) you can sustain at a given cadence. No use being able to spin at 110 rpm if you can only hold 200 watts at that cadence for any given period of time, ie you hit a hill and stall.
> 
> So we have
> 
> ...


 
You missed out the Transit van - good on the the flat but poor power to weight ratio= Crap at hills .


----------



## marzjennings (29 Aug 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> No! Endurance riding is about sustaining a given power output over a given distance. Endurance riding has NOTHING to do with leg strength. Leg strength is not a limiter to endurance riding. Show me some evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Ohhhh - once again, you've not grasped it. To push harder, you need to be able to tolerate a higher effort. This does NOT mean 'stronger' legs (incidentally, did you actually look up the dictionary definitions of 'strength' and 'power'? It doesn't sound like you did)- it means training your body to produce more sustainable power. Strength is not a limiter. Sustainable power is.


 
But some level of leg strength is required to complete an endurance ride. You've (or the data you've sourced) set the bar, the required leg strength, at the ability to climb a set of stairs. I do not argue that if one is able to climb a set of stairs one could also condition you legs to maintain that 'power' for the duration of an endurance event. the point is, what if you want to improve on the ride time for endurance event.

Say a person expends 150w to climb a 3m set of stairs in about 10 seconds. And they develop their level of fitness to continually knock out 150w for 100miles, which would give them about 6 hour run time(with no more leg strength, as you point out). Not bad, they have produced a sustaining power output for a long, enduring ride. Say now they want to do the same distance but quicker. They need more power (if body mass and aero position are already optimum). Maybe they want to ride 100 miles in 5 hours, which could mean they need to produce 240w continuously. So they train and the achieve their goal, 100miles in 5 hours. Awesome.

After all that training, guess what, their legs will be stronger, bigger maybe, more toned for sure. They'll be climbing those stairs 2 at at time in half the time they used to. Stronger legs producing more power to travel faster over an long, endurance, ride. Leg strength will now be greater than required to climb a set of stairs.

Your position that 'stair climbing' strength is sufficient to complete an endurance ride is correct, unless you also include a time objective, i.e. go faster up a climb. At that point I feel leg strength is key to producing the additional power required.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (29 Aug 2012)

Or a better CV system which is where the power is generated.


----------



## black'n'yellow (29 Aug 2012)

marzjennings said:


> But some level of leg strength is required to complete an endurance ride.


 
Well, obviously. I don't think anyone has ever disputed that. If you had no strength in your legs, you would not be able to walk, run, ride a bike, or stand-up without assistance.



marzjennings said:


> You've (or the data you've sourced) set the bar, the required leg strength, at the ability to climb a set of stairs. I do not argue that if one is able to climb a set of stairs one could also condition you legs to maintain that 'power' for the duration of an endurance event. the point is, what if you want to improve on the ride time for endurance event.


 
Sounds like you're beginning to understand at last (which is certainly a step forward from you previously calling it 'BS'). I'm going to be mixing my metaphors here, so bear with me. Let's assume that the amount of strength you need to climb each stair is 'nominal' and nothing like a maximal effort - because if it was, you would need time to recover from it before attempting the next stair. If you want to improve on your 'ride time', then you need to work on increasing the amount of effort you put through each leg from 'nominal' towards the next level which we can hopefully agree to call 'nominal +1'. Given that increase, we then need to increase our ability to maintain that 'nominal +1' effort for the duration of the effort. In both cases, you are not using anything like your maximal strength, which we have already agreed is more than is needed to climb stairs. Perhaps if you were walking upstairs carrying another heavy person on your back, you might be using a level of effort to climb each stair which may be closer to your maximal leg strength - but that's another issue.




marzjennings said:


> Stronger legs producing more power to travel faster over an long, endurance, ride. Leg strength will now be greater than required to climb a set of stairs.


 
No, not 'stronger legs' - but a highly-trained muscle set and cardio-vascular system which is better able to respond to the demands you are placing on it. This is where you are still going wrong - If you tried to squat 180lbs (or whatever) _before_ the improvement in your fitness, then I seriously doubt if your 'leg strength' will have changed much to the point where you would be able to squat any more _afterwards_. Whichever way you look at it, the important point to consider is that squatting 180lbs (or insert weight of your choice, as I know sod all about lifting/pressing) will absolutely not give you the cardiovascular improvements or improvements in sustainable power that I was talking about earlier.



marzjennings said:


> Your position that 'stair climbing' strength is sufficient to complete an endurance ride is correct, unless you also include a time objective, i.e. go faster up a climb. At that point I feel leg strength is key to producing the additional power required.


 
See above comments on 'nominal+1'. Higher sustainable power will give you the time improvements - not more strength.


----------



## marzjennings (30 Aug 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> ...wrote more stuff...


 
I've been trying to think why I consider that the claim that 'stair climbing' ability provides all the strength required for cycling as a bogus suggestion. The suggestion is that average power/strength requirements per stair step versus per pedal stroke are greater. And from what I've read this is true, especially considering endurance events. The problem is cycling peak/spike power/strength requirements can far exceed the power/strength requirements to climb a single step. Exceeding even the maximal leg strength of our stair climber. 

For me the power and strength range to be a proficient cyclist exceeds (upper and lower limits) those of the stair climber and therefore the cyclist must develop stronger legs than stair climbing can develop alone.

Anecdotally I see this happening in two ways. One, as my daughter develops as I cyclist I can see how she builds stronger legs to overcome the small inclines on our rides. Yes there is some technique development and conditioning also going on, but in her lowest gear there were times she couldn't even turn the pedals. Now she can climb with no problem other than being out of breath at the top.

And two, almost every new cyclist I know has found stairs to be easier after they have begun cycling. Not just in being less out of breath after a flight of stairs due to improved fitness, but also at each step. Showing for me that their cycling has developed additional leg strength above their minimum required to climb each step. Though admittingly probably within their original stair climbing maximal strength.


----------



## black'n'yellow (30 Aug 2012)

marzjennings said:


> I've been trying to think why I consider that the claim that 'stair climbing' ability provides all the strength required for cycling as a bogus suggestion. The suggestion is that average power/strength requirements per stair step versus per pedal stroke are greater. And from what I've read this is true, especially considering endurance events. *The problem is cycling peak/spike power/strength requirements can far exceed the power/strength requirements to climb a single step*. Exceeding even the maximal leg strength of our stair climber.


 
Of course they can - and they often do. But is the requirement likely to exceed your maximal strength?? NO. Pretty much the only time when you will ever exert anything like a maximal force on the pedals is from a standing start in a high gear, like on the track. Once the bike is underway, it is practically impossible to exert a maximal force on the pedals anyway.

Walk up some stairs while carrying an ever-increasing series of weights on your back. Of course the effort gets harder, but you will not have exceeded your maximal strength until your legs cannot physically lift your bodyweight onto the next stair up. The strength required to do that is far in excess of anything you will ever put through the pedals, except perhaps for the situation I described earlier - and even then only for a split second.



marzjennings said:


> For me the power and strength range to be a proficient cyclist exceeds (upper and lower limits) those of the stair climber and therefore the cyclist must develop stronger legs than stair climbing can develop alone.


 
I don't know why your strength requirement would be any different to any other cyclist on the planet. I can only assume your understanding of the issues is at fault.



marzjennings said:


> Anecdotally I see this happening in two ways. One, as my daughter develops as I cyclist I can see how she builds stronger legs to overcome the small inclines on our rides. Yes there is some technique development and conditioning also going on, but in her lowest gear there were times she couldn't even turn the pedals. Now she can climb with no problem other than being out of breath at the top.


 
You don't say how old your daughter is, but I suspect this 'phenomenon' has more to do with physics that physiology. Or she may just be getting fitter.



marzjennings said:


> And two, almost every new cyclist I know has found stairs to be easier after they have begun cycling. Not just in being less out of breath after a flight of stairs due to improved fitness, but also at each step. Showing for me that their cycling has developed additional leg strength above their minimum required to climb each step. Though admittingly probably within their original stair climbing maximal strength.


 
Nope - you're still grasping at this 'strength' thing. Unless the maximal strength has increased (which you agree it probably hasn't), then those are nothing more than efficiency gains - which are entirely consistent with the usual types of improvement seen in 'new' cyclists.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (30 Aug 2012)

marzjennings said:


> And two, almost every new cyclist I know has found stairs to be easier after they have begun cycling. Not just in being less out of breath after a flight of stairs due to improved fitness, but also at each step. Showing for me that their cycling has developed additional leg strength above their minimum required to climb each step. Though admittingly probably within their original stair climbing maximal strength.


If you find stairs easy after cycling you didn't work hard enough on the bike beforehand.


----------



## marzjennings (30 Aug 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Of course they can - and they often do. But is the requirement likely to exceed your maximal strength?? NO. Pretty much the only time when you will ever exert anything like a maximal force on the pedals is from a standing start in a high gear, like on the track. Once the bike is underway, it is practically impossible to exert a maximal force on the pedals anyway.
> .


 
No, see this is where I disagree, the untrained cyclist, whose only demonstrated level of fitness/strength/power is that they can climb a set of stairs, will have attempt to exceed their current maximal strength at some point as they develop as a cyclist.

This is where I think Stern get's it wrong, I believe he over estimates the potential maximal strength the untrained stair climber is capable of. Why would the body develop a lot more strength than it requires to climb stairs if climbing stairs is the hardest thing a body ever does. 

And as to practically impossible to exert maximal force when underway, you've obviously never ridden a mountain bike or a single speed up a mountain where it's possible to exert to failure in a single pedal stroke.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (30 Aug 2012)

marzjennings said:


> No, see this is where I disagree, the untrained cyclist, whose only demonstrated level of fitness/strength/power is that they can climb a set of stairs, will have attempt to exceed their current maximal strength at some point as they develop as a cyclist.


The changes are cardiovascular not strength



> And as to practically impossible to exert maximal force when underway, you've obviously never ridden a mountain bike or a single speed up a mountain where it's possible to exert to failure in a single pedal stroke.


Failure of your cardiovascular system not lack of strength.

How many times does this need to be said?


----------



## black'n'yellow (30 Aug 2012)

marzjennings said:


> No, see this is where I disagree, the untrained cyclist, whose only demonstrated level of fitness/strength/power is that they can climb a set of stairs, will have attempt to exceed their current maximal strength at some point as they develop as a cyclist.


 
I notice you are now moving into the realms of pure speculation, but anyway it's unlikely. They will probably have tried to exceed their VO2 max on numerous occasions though. The two are not the same thing.



marzjennings said:


> This is where I think Stern get's it wrong, I believe he over estimates the potential maximal strength the untrained stair climber is capable of. Why would the body develop a lot more strength than it requires to climb stairs if climbing stairs is the hardest thing a body ever does.


 
Nobody said that climbing stairs is the hardest thing you will ever do  The 'stairs analogy' is just a good, practical, everyday example to illustrate strength that most people (most people apart from you, that is) seem to understand...



marzjennings said:


> And as to practically impossible to exert maximal force when underway, you've obviously never ridden a mountain bike or a single speed up a mountain where it's possible to exert to failure in a single pedal stroke.


 
In which case you have the wrong gearing for the prevailing terrain, or the terrain is (to all intents and purposes) unrideable. Once again, you are confusing physics with physiology. Please give up.


----------



## marzjennings (30 Aug 2012)

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


> The changes are cardiovascular not strength
> 
> Failure of your cardiovascular system not lack of strength.
> 
> How many times does this need to be said?


 
Obviously a lot more, because so far I haven't been convinced there is not wall all cyclists will experience. Not a wall where an effort has been repeated a couple of times and that last pedal stroke was too much. Agreed that's fatigue.
A wall were a rider is unable to turn a pedal even once, whether because they've just notched it up a gear, just started a climb, turn a corner on switch back or even notched up the resistance on a gym bike.
They are unable to push the pedal down at all. They are standing on the pedal, pulling against the bars down through the pedal and the bike won't move. BMX start, track sprint, heavy commuter bike on an uphill start at traffic lights. All requiring massive strength to just push the pedal once.
There must be some point at which more strength is required, muscle mass must be developed, otherwise we'd all look like marathon runners rather than cyclists.


----------



## marzjennings (30 Aug 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> The 'stairs analogy' is just a good, practical, everyday example to illustrate strength that most people (most people apart from you, that is) seem to understand...
> .


 
The stairs analogy is a great analogy if drawing someone into the cycling for exercise or fun. If you can climb some stairs then you're strong enough to go ride. Easy, got that from the start.

Where the analogy breaks down and where you and others have used it, is to say that if you can climb stairs you already have all the leg strength you'll ever need and the rest is just conditioning.

If that idea is limited to just endurance riding, and following training and conditioning to get from a to b without collapsing, then I guess I have no argument.

My argument is that to excel as the type of cyclist you want to be, you will at some point go beyond the strength 'ceiling' set by stair climbing alone.


----------



## black'n'yellow (30 Aug 2012)

marzjennings said:


> There must be some point at which more strength is required, muscle mass must be developed, otherwise we'd all look like marathon runners rather than cyclists.


 
Not sure what you're on about - professional endurance cyclists DO look like marathon runners. Just because you might not resemble one, doesn't mean the analogy is incorrect.

Other than that, you are STILL confusing physics with physiology - and becoming somewhat tedious in the process. A pro rider racing up alpe d'huez will only be putting about 25kg of force through each pedal stroke - about the same as most people could manage - even you. It is also, however, a HUUUGE amount less than most people's maximal capacity. The difference with a trained ahtlete is, they have trained their CV and muscular system to repeat that effort for upwards of 20-30 minutes at a time without recovery.


----------



## black'n'yellow (30 Aug 2012)

marzjennings said:


> My argument is that to excel as the type of cyclist you want to be, you will at some point go beyond the strength 'ceiling' set by stair climbing alone.


 
once again - stair climbing sets *NO CEILING.* - it's just an analogy. See my post above about applied forces. No endurance cyclist should ever need any more strength than he/she already has.


----------



## Thomk (30 Aug 2012)

Increasing leg "strength" may delay fast twitch muscle fibre fatigue. If we agree that even in aerobic cycle events fast twitch muscle fibres are used to some extent (perhaps on steep hills or a sprint finish for example) then increasing muscle strength should have at least some merit.


----------



## black'n'yellow (30 Aug 2012)

Thomk said:


> Increasing leg "strength" may delay fast twitch muscle fibre fatigue. If we agree that even in aerobic cycle events fast twitch muscle fibres are used to some extent (perhaps on steep hills or a sprint finish for example) then increasing muscle strength should have at least some merit.


----------



## Thomk (30 Aug 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


>


 And. It is very possible that, especially for fairly new cyclists, strength training could couse the body to begin to use more slow twitch muscles and less fast twitch muscles which would also have a beneficial effect on endurance. You just seem a little rude, as well as being strangely dogmatic.


----------



## black'n'yellow (30 Aug 2012)

For anyone new to exercise, then almost any type of exercise will be better than nothing. for regular cyclists, you are better off working on the causes of fatigue, as opposed to pushing weights in the gym in the hope of fixing some 'fast twitch' problem. sorry if you think that is dogmatic..


----------



## Thomk (30 Aug 2012)

That I agree with


----------



## ayceejay (30 Aug 2012)

I have read back through this thread in an attempt to see where the log jam is and I think it is this:-
_ if you can climb stairs you already have all the leg strength you'll *ever need* and the rest is just conditioning. _
This is where the either/or thinking comes from because no one has actually said this and the basis of black 'n' yellows argument (as far as I understand it) is that improvement in strength will come as a by product of appropriate exercise. The stamina required to ride a bike will not come from strength training in the gym.
My own attempt at an analogy: if the activity you are training for is similar to pushing a heavy rock up a hill and then letting it roll down the other side you will need to emphasis your strength work. If your activity requires you to chase the rock down the hill and push it up another one over and over, strength *alone* will not serve you well.


----------



## black'n'yellow (30 Aug 2012)

ayceejay said:


> This is where the either/or thinking comes from because no one has actually said this and the basis of black 'n' yellows argument (as far as I understand it) is that* improvement in strength* will come as a by product of appropriate exercise.


 
Almost - but not quite. No 'improvment in strength' is necessary. All that is needed is to be able to get better at converting your available strength (which you already have - you don't need more) into a repeated aerobic effort at any given level, depending on how fast you want to ride, or how long/steep the hill is.



ayceejay said:


> My own attempt at an analogy: if the activity you are training for is similar to pushing a heavy rock up a hill and then letting it roll down the other side you will need to emphasis your strength work. If your activity requires you to chase the rock down the hill and push it up another one over and over, strength *alone* will not serve you well.


 
er, no. Not really. I think. I don't really understand that analogy at all, to be honest. I'll have a go at my own analogy though - _"if you want to be a better endurance cyclist - you don't need to get stronger, you need to get fitter."_ That'll probably do.


----------



## Nebulous (31 Aug 2012)

I came to cycling seriously pretty late in life, as part of a weight loss / fitness thing for several reasons:-
I've always enjoyed being on a bike.
I wasn't convinced at my age that my knees could cope with running.
I've always had strong muscular legs.

About 22 months on I'm much faster, pushing out more power, on less muscular legs, that are probably less 'strong.' I haven't tried any weights for ages, so I don't really know.

The whole I can do this because I have strong legs thing was a total blind alley. Pushing myself until I thought my lungs would burst, and my heart would pop out of my chest was much more effective. I still have some way to go, and can't work out if there is anything I might be better suited for, possibly longer TTs? I'm sure however that being able to take in more oxygen has contributed far more to the gains I've made than the fact my leg strength has always been one of my stengths.


----------



## willhub (2 Sep 2012)

I've started lowering my cadence slightly, I get more power out around 97 now if I concentrate, I have to force my ankles down so my feet are more level though.

Yesterday over 140 miles my average cadence was only 81, in fact, the last 40 miles I was struggling to keep above 90, my legs just would not do it, seems like it must take more energy to spin them. It was a shock to the system having to push out between 30 and 60 rpm for quite a way due to hills too. A 33% + 38-25 did not help, and going up a hill called Blakey Bank in 38-23 because I forgot about the 25 was just as bad too.

And pushing up a 33% in 38-25 takes MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more strength than is used just walking up the stairs, and you're going slower too.


----------



## oldfatfool (2 Sep 2012)

willhub said:


> And pushing up a 33% in 38-25 takes MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more strength than is used just walking up the stairs, and you're going slower too.


 
Not if you think about it, if you walk up the steps you might climb two steps a second, the equivalent of 1 rpm on the bike and with each step (single pedal stroke) you are lifting your entire body weight vertically.


----------



## willhub (2 Sep 2012)

Going up a 33% climb you can be fighting to keep the bike moving, I certainly feel like I'm pushing much harder than going up the stairs, I can walk up stairs easy compared to a 33% climb on a bike.


----------



## black'n'yellow (2 Sep 2012)

willhub said:


> Yesterday over 140 miles my average cadence was only 81, in fact, the last 40 miles I was struggling to keep above 90, my legs just would not do it, seems like it must take more energy to spin them.


 
It might have something to do with the fact that you had already ridden 100 miles and they (your legs, that is) might have been getting a bit tired. Which is a fitness issue, not a strength issue. Look up the phrase 'muscle fatigue' when you get a moment...



willhub said:


> Going up a 33% climb you can be fighting to keep the bike moving, I certainly feel like I'm pushing much harder than going up the stairs, I can walk up stairs easy compared to a 33% climb on a bike.


 
Have you read/understood the rest of the thread? It doesn't sound like it. Nobody said that climbing a hill on a bike was as *hard* as walking upstairs - of course it flippin well isn't. But - and here's the thing you may have missed from the earlier posts - if you can walk upstairs unassisted (ie without the aid of a nurse, or a stair-lift), then you don't need any more leg strength than you already have. How you apply that available strength and convert it into power is called 'fitness'.


----------



## MacB (2 Sep 2012)

B&Y is correct, despite his atrocious level of communication ability 

Terminology and semantics are getting in the way a bit as well and the key is the difference between strength and power output. Strength will tend to vary as a by product of whatver activity and training you choose to do. But, as B&Y so eloquently points out, the inherent strength most of us possess, that enables us to walk/ climb stairs, run, etc...has a maximal effort capacity far in excess of anything you would put into a single turn of the pedals under general cycling conditions.

Perhaps a better example than stair climbing would be lifting weights. I could walk into the garage now and press 100lbs with relative ease. If I wanted to do so 50 times in a row I would need to factor in recovery time. By training I could reduce the amount of recovery time required, any strength improvement would be a by product but it wouldn't be a requirement.


----------



## PK99 (2 Sep 2012)

MacB said:


> Perhaps a better example than stair climbing would be lifting weights. I could walk into the garage now and press 100lbs with relative ease. If I wanted to do so 50 times in a row I would need to factor in recovery time. By training I could reduce the amount of recovery time required, any strength improvement would be a by product but it wouldn't be a requirement.


 
And if you pressed 50 lbs 100 times you would do it with ease without recovery time


----------



## marzjennings (3 Sep 2012)

oldfatfool said:


> Not if you think about it, if you walk up the steps you might climb two steps a second, the equivalent of 1 rpm on the bike and with each step (single pedal stroke) you are lifting your entire body weight vertically.


 
But on some climbs, especially off road and with a single speed you will be pushing down through the pedals in excess of one's body mass. i.e. more power than required to climb one step (and more strength).


----------



## marzjennings (3 Sep 2012)

MacB said:


> \
> Terminology and semantics are getting in the way a bit as well and the key is the difference between strength and power output. Strength will tend to vary as a by product of whatver activity and training you choose to do. But, as B&Y so eloquently points out, the inherent strength most of us possess, that enables us to walk/ climb stairs, run, etc...has a maximal effort capacity far in excess of anything you would put into a single turn of the pedals under general cycling conditions.
> \.


 
For general cycling maybe stair climbing strength is sufficient. But the extremes of riding will exceed the strength needs for stair climbing.


----------



## oldfatfool (3 Sep 2012)

marzjennings said:


> But on some climbs, especially off road and with a single speed you will be pushing down through the pedals in excess of one's body mass. i.e. more power than required to climb one step (and more strength).


Your not thinking about it, even on your 33% gradient the rise is only 4" every 1' set of stairs is nearer 100%+


----------



## black'n'yellow (3 Sep 2012)

marzjennings said:


> But on some climbs, especially off road and with a single speed you will be pushing down through the pedals in excess of one's body mass. i.e. more power than required to climb one step (and more strength).


 
I can't believe that you are still not getting this - you now seem to have forgotten everything you were agreeing to on the earlier pages? I keep telling you - the 'stair' thing is an ANALOGY (look it up). It is not intended to be used as an actual physical measure or comparison. The fact that you cant ride your single speed up a mountain simply means you are not fit enough to do it - or you have gone beyond your aerobic capacity into anaerobic territory. Either way, it's not a strength issue.



marzjennings said:


> For general cycling maybe stair climbing strength is sufficient. But the extremes of riding will exceed the strength needs for stair climbing.


 
Your leg strength is not a limiter in aerobic cycling. Remember, we are talking about aerobic cycling here - not sprinting, or your strange obsession with riding single speeds beyond your own capability. Seriously, we've already had this discussion.


----------



## antonypo (3 Sep 2012)

This is just the discussion i'm interested in. I am a novice who cycles as fast as i can 24.5 miles every other day. I have improved from 16 ish miles per hour average to almost 18 BUT have now plateaued. I am about 1st over weight but lost nearly 2. In your opinion am I at this level now unless i up the miles or will it improve if i stick at it? I cant really fit in any more miles as i work shift etc. At 50 am i reasonably fit as plenty of people pass me? p.s. I HATE THE BLOODY WIND!


----------



## Peter Armstrong (3 Sep 2012)

Like anything, you gotta break the boundary to break the mould


----------



## black'n'yellow (3 Sep 2012)

antonypo said:


> This is just the discussion i'm interested in. I am a novice who cycles as fast as i can 24.5 miles every other day. I have improved from 16 ish miles per hour average to almost 18 BUT have now plateaued. I am about 1st over weight but lost nearly 2. In your opinion am I at this level now unless i up the miles or will it improve if i stick at it? I cant really fit in any more miles as i work shift etc. At 50 am i reasonably fit as plenty of people pass me? p.s. I HATE THE BLOODY WIND!


 
Depends what your goals are. If your goal is weight loss, then you need to look at your diet - weight loss will improve your power/weight ratio anyway. If your goal is outright speed over a fixed distance (ie 24.5 miles) then adding some HIIT and some longer steadier rides into the mix would probably help. But if all you do is go out and try and hit a 'PB' every ride, you will end up frustrated.


----------



## antonypo (3 Sep 2012)

Whats HIIT ?


----------



## Rob3rt (3 Sep 2012)

High Intensity Interval Training, i.e. Intervals with an effort above your current sustainable limit, with a brief rolling rest between them.


----------



## fenlandpsychocyclist (3 Sep 2012)

Want to gain hill climbing strength?
Chuck the lightweight bike in the shed, pull out an old low-tech heavy mountain bike out and go ride up a
random track.
Plenty of chances for high intensity interval training, plus you get to lift the bike high over your head whilst
climbing over styles, etc. (A bit of free weight training).

Get over the fact you'd be knackered after "only" doing 30 miles in a whole day, you've probably
put in a harder effort than if you'd done 100 miles on a lightweight roady on tarmac!!


----------



## fenlandpsychocyclist (3 Sep 2012)

antonypo said:


> p.s. I HATE THE BLOODY WIND!


 
Try cycling kings lynn to peterborough in february while the fenland winds are in full effect.
Where else in the uk can you have a "hill" like this that pegs you to 8mph down on the drops for
35 miles.

Jody Cundy lives in the fens by the way.


----------



## PK99 (3 Sep 2012)

fenlandpsychocyclist said:


> Want to gain hill climbing strength?
> Chuck the lightweight bike in the shed, pull out an old low-tech heavy mountain bike out and go ride up a
> random track.
> Plenty of chances for high intensity interval training, plus you get to lift the bike high over your head whilst
> ...


 
Alternatively, on a road bike - find a hill, ride up -roll down > repeat till knackered


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (3 Sep 2012)

PK99 said:


> Alternatively, on a road bike - find a hill, ride up -roll down > repeat till knackered


You mean squats and deadlifts are not how it should be done? Damn how do i get rid of these t-rex legs?


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (3 Sep 2012)

Some interesting reading for those interested. Should shed some light for those seeking answers. Hopefully. 

http://www.flammerouge.je/content/3_factsheets/constant/functhresh.htm

And this for climbing technique etc:

http://www.flammerouge.je/content/3_factsheets/how/doiclimb.htm


----------



## black'n'yellow (3 Sep 2012)

fenlandpsychocyclist said:


> Want to gain hill climbing strength?


 
No I don't - have you not read the thread..??


----------



## GrasB (3 Sep 2012)

The key to really fast hill climbing in physiological terms requires 3 things:

Maximising of muscular engagement during *aerobic* power production
Minimising of muscle mass (note this means reducing your absolute strength!)
Maximising blood oxygen capacity
It's worth remembering that your cardiovascular system is the weak link in all of this. Minimising your muscle mass reduces CV load for the same power, so there for by *reducing* your strength you actually increase your power production for prolonged climbing!


----------



## marzjennings (3 Sep 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> I can't believe that you are still not getting this - you now seem to have forgotten everything you were agreeing to on the earlier pages? I keep telling you - the 'stair' thing is an ANALOGY (look it up). It is not intended to be used as an actual physical measure or comparison. The fact that you cant ride your single speed up a mountain simply means you are not fit enough to do it - or you have gone beyond your aerobic capacity into anaerobic territory. Either way, it's not a strength issue.
> 
> Your leg strength is not a limiter in aerobic cycling. Remember, we are talking about aerobic cycling here - not sprinting, or your strange obsession with riding single speeds beyond your own capability. Seriously, we've already had this discussion.


 
You seemed to have missed the point where I agree with the analogy in regards to general cycling strength requirements. What I am stressing, and which you failed to understand, is that the analogy falls short in regards to the extreme powers limits required in cycling.

The discussion wasn't concluded with you being right. My opinion and those of many coaches is that strength training (whether on the bike or in the gym) is an important part of a cyclist's development. And as yet there is very little scientific knowledge to support either side of the argument.


----------



## marzjennings (3 Sep 2012)

oldfatfool said:


> Your not thinking about it, even on your 33% gradient the rise is only 4" every 1' set of stairs is nearer 100%+


Depends on how fast you want to climb that 33% gradient.


----------



## Rob3rt (3 Sep 2012)

This thread is so painful I am compelled to add to the pain by making a completely non-constructive post about how painful this thread is!


----------



## oldfatfool (3 Sep 2012)

marzjennings said:


> Depends on how fast you want to climb that 33% gradient.




You are getting confused between Power and strength. The strength req'd to climb at 10mph and 1mph is the same, the power req'd is vastly different, see my earlier post re: cadence. also http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?id=5770&pg=fullstory

So in answer to the OP you are strong enough you just aren't fit enough ie you don't have the POWER


----------



## black'n'yellow (3 Sep 2012)

marzjennings said:


> You seemed to have missed the point where I agree with the analogy in regards to general cycling strength requirements. What I am stressing, and which you failed to understand, is that the analogy falls short in regards to the extreme powers limits required in cycling.


 
give me an example (or two) of where someone might need such 'extreme power'......please.....


----------



## marzjennings (3 Sep 2012)

oldfatfool said:


> You are getting confused between Power and strength. The strength req'd to climb at 10mph and 1mph is the same, the power req'd is vastly different, see my earlier post re: cadence. also http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?id=5770&pg=fullstory
> 
> So in answer to the OP you are strong enough you just aren't fit enough ie you don't have the POWER


 
Really. Knocking out 150w at 90rpm, may get some to 1mph up 33% slope. Ramping up to 10mph using a crude calculation is about 10 times the power. You think a rider can knock out 1500w by just pedaling faster? 

You can only rev a 80cc moped engine so far, after a point and to go faster you need a bigger engine.


----------



## oldfatfool (3 Sep 2012)

marzjennings said:


> Really. Knocking out 150w at 90rpm, may get some to 1mph up 33% slope. Ramping up to 10mph using a crude calculation is about 10 times the power. You think a rider can knock out 1500w by just pedaling faster?
> 
> You can only rev a 80cc moped engine so far, after a point and to go faster you need a bigger engine.


Your just trolling aren't you? You can get an 80cc engine to rev a lot higher than a 3ltr diesel but I know which will get you up an hill faster,ie as more power.


----------



## black'n'yellow (3 Sep 2012)

marzjennings said:


> Really. Knocking out 150w at 90rpm, may get some to 1mph up 33% slope. Ramping up to 10mph using a crude calculation is about 10 times the power. You think a rider can knock out 1500w by just pedaling faster?
> 
> You can only rev a 80cc moped engine so far, *after a point and to go faster you need a bigger engine*.


 
What - like a bigger heart and lungs, maybe..?? Oh, hang on - that's the same thing as fitness, isn't it. Anyway, congratulations - your utter cluelessness has now reached uncharted territory.. 

You still haven't answered my last question, by the way...


----------



## marzjennings (3 Sep 2012)

oldfatfool said:


> Your just trolling aren't you? You can get an 80cc engine to rev a lot higher than a 3ltr diesel but I know which will get you up an hill faster,ie as more power.


 
You may be able to rev a 80engine higher than a 3ltr engine, but at some point those additional RPM's do not add anymore power. That's why power bands peak at a given rpm depending on engine size. Same for cyclists, power does increase with cadence, but at some point (for some that maybe around 160rpm) power output starts to drop off.

It's a simple experiment, ride down hill in a low gear, at some point you will spin out. Can't spin faster to go faster. The only option then is the change up a gear and do more work.


----------



## oldfatfool (3 Sep 2012)

marzjennings said:


> It's a simple experiment, ride down hill in a low gear, at some point you will spin out. Can't spin faster to go faster. The only option then is the change up a gear and do more work.


 
But that is not a lack of strength is it?

Anyway


----------



## marzjennings (3 Sep 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> What - like a bigger heart and lungs, maybe..?? Oh, hang on - that's the same thing as fitness, isn't it. Anyway, congratulations - your utter cluelessness has now reached uncharted territory..
> 
> You still haven't answered my last question, by the way...


 
You can fit a better air intake and add fuel injection, you can tune the crap out of small engine. You can develop an awesome VO2max, but if all that 'fitness' is just driving two skinny rubber bands and may need to work on that leg strength. Sometime 

Your last question, the one regarding your lack of google skills. I am not getting into a copy/paste competition. 

Plus you've never had to pull hard on your bars to push your pedals around (i.e. do more work than a single stair step)? Really?


----------



## marzjennings (3 Sep 2012)

oldfatfool said:


> But that is not a lack of strength is it?
> 
> Anyway


 
No, but it is an example of doing more work to produce more power rather than doing the same work but quicker. 

I was countering to your point that there's no need to do more work, just pedal faster. Increasing cadence is only useful up to a certain point, after which more work needs to be done and potentially, as in climbing a hill, more strength is required. This is not rocket science.


----------



## oldfatfool (3 Sep 2012)

marzjennings said:


> No, but it is an example of doing more work to produce more power rather than doing the same work but quicker.
> 
> I was countering to your point that there's no need to do more work, just pedal faster. Increasing cadence is only useful up to a certain point, after which more work needs to be done and potentially, as in climbing a hill, more strength is required. This is not rocket science.


That wasn't my point, if you pedal faster in the same gear you are doing more work, as well as being exasperating you can't bloody read!!

Ah well never mind, oh and just to give you an answer to your other post, pulling on the handlebars is because you have run out of fuel nothing to do with strength, try climbing a few hundred stairs and by the top you will be pulling on the bannister.

I am bored now with trying to explain simple Physics to a Texan.Good night


----------



## fenlandpsychocyclist (3 Sep 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> No I don't - have you not read the thread..??


 
Just glanced through it ... have better things to do like ride my bike.


----------



## black'n'yellow (3 Sep 2012)

marzjennings said:


> You can fit a better air intake and add fuel injection, you can tune the crap out of small engine. You can develop an awesome VO2max, but if all that 'fitness' is just driving two skinny rubber bands and may need to work on that leg strength. Sometime


 
Nope - sorry - you are still clueless. Contador - love him or not - has an awesome VO2 max, but has legs like a stick insect - and don't get me started on Wiggins - who has the entire body of a stick insect and an awesome VO2 max as well. Tell me how that works? Like 'o-f-f' says, I think you are just trolling, because nobody is really that dumb.




marzjennings said:


> Your last question, the one regarding your lack of google skills. I am not getting into a copy/paste competition.


 
No, seriously come on, it was a fair question. I asked you to name a couple of examples of where a rider might need 'extreme power'..? You're obviously on to something here, so I'm interested to know more...




marzjennings said:


> Plus you've never had to pull hard on your bars to push your pedals around (i.e. do more work than a single stair step)? Really?


 
Of course I have - many, many times. But (and here's the part you still aren't getting) - I've never had to exceed anything close to my maximal leg strength.


----------



## black'n'yellow (3 Sep 2012)

fenlandpsychocyclist said:


> Just glanced through it ... have better things to do like ride my bike.


 
awesome


----------



## marzjennings (3 Sep 2012)

oldfatfool said:


> That wasn't my point, if you pedal faster in the same gear you are doing more work, as well as being exasperating you can't bloody read!!


 
Actually you're doing less work (if slope and wind speed haven't changed). You may be producing more power, but work and power are not the same thing as you must know, understanding physics better than me.


----------



## oldfatfool (3 Sep 2012)

marzjennings said:


> Actually you're doing less work (if slope and wind speed haven't changed). You may be producing more power, but work and power are not the same thing as you must know, understanding physics better than me.


feck me there is thick, very thick and then there is Marz thick.


----------



## marzjennings (3 Sep 2012)

oldfatfool said:


> feck me there is thick, very thick and then there is Marz thick.


 
400 watts = (400 joules per second) x (60 seconds per minute) = 24,000 joules per minute for each rider.
(24,000 joules) ÷ (80 rpm [Ullrich]) ÷ (2 legs) = 150 joules per pedal stroke
(24,000 joules) ÷ (100 rpm [Armstrong]) ÷ (2 legs) = 120 joules per pedal stroke

Same speed, same watts (power), different cadence, different work being done.

I'm too think to do the maths myself and so looked it up here ... link


----------



## black'n'yellow (3 Sep 2012)

still no answer to my question then Marz..? Examples of where this 'extreme power' is needed please....


----------



## ianrauk (3 Sep 2012)

Looks like this will be another thread that's going to be closed.


----------



## black'n'yellow (3 Sep 2012)

ianrauk said:


> Looks like this will be another thread that's going to be closed.


 
why? What rules are being broken? I've asked Mr Jennings a fair question, but am not getting an answer. Asking for an answer is not unreasonable, seeing as the statement I am questioning is one of the main planks of his weak (make that baseless) argument.


----------



## ianrauk (3 Sep 2012)

Simple. it's getting far too personal with all the jibes.


----------



## black'n'yellow (3 Sep 2012)

ianrauk said:


> Simple. it's getting far too personal with all the jibes.


 
Then edit some of the replies and warn the posters responsible.


----------

