so what about cadence

[elapid]

We know that efficiency is somewhat related to muscle fiber type with slow twitch fibers being more efficient. Simply training to increase the amount of ST fibers can improve efficiency. Everyone does that. Beyond that the two studies I know of are these: Lutrell, (Effects of short-term training using powercranks on cardiovascular fitness and cycling efficiency.) who demonstrated a 10% efficiency increase after 6 weeks of training on PowerCranks, compared to control (if this change were due to simple training effect the control group should have seen it also). This study suggests pedaling technique could be involved (although it might also be explained by stimulation of more ST fibers in HF and hamstring muscles from the different pedaling technique). The other is the case report of Coyle (Has Armstrong's cycle efficiency improved? discussion here) the Armstrong testing that showed an 8% efficiency improvement over several years. (An excerpt from the discussion linked before: "Given that only a 1-3% difference separates the winner from the middle of the pack in most Olympic finals, an 8% improvement in efficiency is astounding. ") It is unlikely this change came about by stimulating more ST fibers from additional training (despite what the author theorizes since this has never been shown in anyone else at this level) in the already world champion. Carmichael has separately posted that during this period Armstrong was working on developing his pedaling technique to eliminate the negatives on the backstroke and incorporate more of the circle into power production. Drugs have never been shown to change cycling or muscle efficiency.

Hence, there are two studies that show that efficiency can change and both suggest that pedaling technique might be the method to do this.

One study. Coyle's paper on Armstrong is 1. a case study and hence provides no scientific evidence, and 2. is so fundamentally flawed in both experimental design and mathematical ability (or lack thereof) that there is no credibility to this case report as any sort of evidence on anything let alone efficiency.

 

[FrankDay]

One study. Coyle's paper on Armstrong is 1. a case study and hence provides no scientific evidence, and 2. is so fundamentally flawed in both experimental design and mathematical ability (or lack thereof) that there is no credibility to this case report as any sort of evidence on anything let alone efficiency.

Huh? Case study constitutes just fine scientific evidence. It is part of the scientific observation process. It simply doesn't prove anything. How is a case report fundamentally flawed? There is no experimental design. He is simply reporting his test results. His mathematical ability is just fine. He made a simple error in one result that made no difference in the overall results. He has addressed all of the criticism of his paper. His academic reputation remains intact. OK, we accept you don't like this test result. Fine. There is still Luttrell.

 

[Aapjes]

Efficiency, as used by the scientists is usually defined something like this: "the ratio of the work done or energy developed by a machine, engine, etc., to the energy supplied to it, usually expressed as a percentage." That is the way I am using the term.

Efficiency is simply a very generic term that describes a relationship between effort expended and useful result obtained. There is no objective definition of efficiency. For instance, the efficiency of a traditional light bulb is much higher when the warmth produced is considered valuable. So the efficiency of a light bulb depends on where you use it. A light bulb is arguably more efficient in a research station in Antarctica than in a hot server room that already needs active cooling. Similarly, a cyclist that optimizes for cyclo cross races will suck in the TdF. You cannot simply call 1 cyclist more efficient than another without context.

Secondly, you can look at low level efficiency and high level efficiency. For a light bulb you can look at the lumen/watt or at the total environmental damage during the life cycle. Both are valid ways of judging the efficiency, but may give different results. High level efficiency is usually an aggregate of several smaller efficiencies, so it is not as easy to optimize.

Similarly, in cycling you can look at the efficiency of a single pedal stroke, but you can also look at what gives the best bang for the effort: optimizing the pedal stroke or spending a similar amount of training effort on another aspect of racing. For instance, a single smart decision during a sprint finish (such as choosing the right wheel) will save a sprinter much more energy at a critical time than a slightly better efficiency in his pedal stroke/cadence.

Ultimately, a racer cares only about 1 high level form of efficiency: the chance to win (major) races per year spent racing. He has only limited resources to optimize himself as a racer and right now I don't see any solid proof that spending resources on improving cadence or his pedal stroke is actually worth the effort.

Case study constitutes just fine scientific evidence.

Let's say that you want to prove something like the following: "In all/most cyclists, a high cadence is more efficient than a low cadence." There are two key aspects to this:
1. The statement is making a generic claim about many cyclists, rather than about Armstrong only.
2. The statement is claiming causation, rather than correlation.

Proving point 1 requires that you examine a large number of cyclists, since Armstrong may be an outlier. It's perfectly possible that he is an exception or that the perfect cadence is different for different riders. Drawing conclusions based on small samples is one of the major flaws in social and other crappy sciences, which is why scientific claims are often disproved later in these fields.

Proving point 2 requires that other factors than the one being examined are controlled for, so you know that the outcome is due to the change you are examining. A racer usually makes a lot of changes every year, so it's perfectly possible that Armstrong made another chance that had a big effect. Big sample sizes and control groups are very important to exclude other effects. Your reasoning that "Drugs have never been shown to change cycling or muscle efficiency," so it had to be the cadence chance is exactly the kind of sloppy reasoning that doesn't work in science. A great many very intelligent people thought they found scientific proof for their claims, only to later discover that they overlooked something (even in highly controlled lab settings, let alone in the real world). Coyle had very little knowledge of what changes Armstrong made exactly between his tests and was pretty sloppy in his experiments, so there are many possible errors he could have made and never noticed.

Case studies can be valuable in science, just not to prove these kind of claims.

 

[elapid]

Huh? Case study constitutes just fine scientific evidence. It is part of the scientific observation process. It simply doesn't prove anything. How is a case report fundamentally flawed? There is no experimental design. He is simply reporting his test results. His mathematical ability is just fine. He made a simple error in one result that made no difference in the overall results. He has addressed all of the criticism of his paper. His academic reputation remains intact. OK, we accept you don't like this test result. Fine. There is still Luttrell.

Frank, I am not feeding the troll and entering into any debate with you over efficiency and cadence. I am just stating that a case report is barely better than anecdotal evidence, as you already know from a previous thread where you posted the level of evidence of different types of scientific publications, and that Coyle's case report on Armstrong is fundamentally flawed because of his methodology. Coyle compared Armstrong's results at different times of the season and, for the most relevant time period, used a body weight provided by Armstrong (72-74kg), which is likely much lower than his actual body weight, rather than use a measured weight.

Coyle states on p. 2192 of his paper that Armstrong had an 8-9% increase in efficiency and this translated to an improvement in his power-to-weight ratio. To quote Coyle "Given this individual’s reduction in body weight from 78.9 kg (in 1992) to approx 72 kg during his victories in the Tour de France and given his increased muscular efficiency, his power- to-body weight ratio (i.e., power/kg) when cycling at 5.0 l/min is calculated to have increased by a remarkable 18% from 1992 to 1999". This is where his methodology and maths are wrong. Armstrong was tested preseason in 1992 (November) and preseason in 1999 (November), but instead of comparing Armstrong's body weight and power measured at both of these time points (78.9kg and 374W in 1992 and 79.7kg and 404W in 1999), Coyle decides to use Armstrong's self-reported racing weight of 72kg in 1999 rather than the measured 79.7kg. If he had compared apples-to-apples (preseason to preseason), then the power-to-weight ratios for 1992 would be 4.74 and 5.07 in 1999. This represent a 6.9% increase in power-to-weight ratio and not 18% as claimed by Coyle.

So with the previously reported problems in calculating efficiency and the poor methodology in using a non-measured body weight in the racing season to falsely overestimate improvement in power-to-weight ratios, this paper has no credibility and his academic reputation has taken a beating, as you well know, and is nowhere near intact. I am sure Coyle wishes he never wrote this useless case report.

 

[FrankDay]

Frank, I am not feeding the troll and entering into any debate with you over efficiency and cadence. I am just stating that a case report is barely better than anecdotal evidence, as you already know from a previous thread where you posted the level of evidence of different types of scientific publications, and that Coyle's case report on Armstrong is fundamentally flawed because of his methodology. Coyle compared Armstrong's results at different times of the season and, for the most relevant time period, used a body weight provided by Armstrong (72-74kg), which is likely much lower than his actual body weight, rather than use a measured weight.

How on earth can a case report have a flawed methodology? Coyle simply reported the results of his testing of a 7 time TDF winner. If he had carefully recorded and documented your testing over this period (same time of the year and actually weighing you) not a single person in the world would have cared and it never would have been published in one of the more prestigious journals in the world. The fact that the testing occurred at different times of the season and body weight reported by the rider is simply what it is. The fact is that different times of the season or different body weights have never been shown to be a factor in measuring cycling efficiency, the only finding of any import in these series of tests, is hardly worthy of mention for this discussion.

Coyle states on p. 2192 of his paper that Armstrong had an 8-9% increase in efficiency and this translated to an improvement in his power-to-weight ratio. To quote Coyle "Given this individual’s reduction in body weight from 78.9 kg (in 1992) to approx 72 kg during his victories in the Tour de France and given his increased muscular efficiency, his power- to-body weight ratio (i.e., power/kg) when cycling at 5.0 l/min is calculated to have increased by a remarkable 18% from 1992 to 1999". This is where his methodology and maths are wrong. Armstrong was tested preseason in 1992 (November) and preseason in 1999 (November), but instead of comparing Armstrong's body weight and power measured at both of these time points (78.9kg and 374W in 1992 and 79.7kg and 404W in 1999), Coyle decides to use Armstrong's self-reported racing weight of 72kg in 1999 rather than the measured 79.7kg. If he had compared apples-to-apples (preseason to preseason), then the power-to-weight ratios for 1992 would be 4.74 and 5.07 in 1999. This represent a 6.9% increase in power-to-weight ratio and not 18% as claimed by Coyle.

So, his body weight might have been in error in that statement. However, that doesn't negate the efficiency improvement measured because what is being discussed here is cycling efficiency, not power to weight. So, ONLY a 6.9% increase in power to weight ratio in a world champion, mostly from improving pedaling efficiency. Further, it isn't like there were just two measurements and we are left wondering which one is correct but there were a series of measurements and a definite trend showing increasing efficiency over time. Yes, let's ignore that finding because we don't like other things that happened in the paper rather than asking, how did he do it and can it apply to me?

So with the previously reported problems in calculating efficiency and the poor methodology in using a non-measured body weight in the racing season to falsely overestimate improvement in power-to-weight ratios, this paper has no credibility and his academic reputation has taken a beating, as you well know, and is nowhere near intact. I am sure Coyle wishes he never wrote this useless case report.

There were no problems in the reporting of gross efficiency. The paper has plenty of credibility because Coyle has plenty of credibility and continues to have credibility. Those who continue to criticize this as poor science I suppose are simply jealous because Armstrong wasn't coming to them for testing because it wasn't science but simply the reporting of data that interested many. Authors make minor errors like Coyle did all the time and the journal made an error by not checking his work prior to publication, something they would normally do but probably didn't because of the subject and who wrote the paper. An error in interpretation of the data does not negate the data. Coyle documented an 8% increase in pedaling efficiency in Armstrong after he was world champion. But, ignore it if you have to. I was asked to give links to the two papers that documented an improvement in cycling efficiency. That is what I did. The fact you don't like the Coyle paper doesn't mean it has no relevance to the point I was making.

 

[FrankDay]

Case studies can be valuable in science, just not to prove these kind of claims.

Luttrell was not a case study and had statistically significant results. I never claimed that Coyle/Armstrong proved anything but that the results were what they were and they suggested to me an explanation when taken with other information.

Anyhow, I was asked to provide links to the two papers I mentioned that documented cycling efficiency improvements. That is what I did.

 

[ustabe]

The difference is between those who operate at 450 watts and train 6 hours a day and those at 250 watts training 6 hours a week. So maybe we should be heading toward a two-tiered coaching system--one for those who want to improve, and one for those who just want to stop getting worse.

Frank, for all your talk about efficiency, all I hear is converting calories into muscle contractions. What about the second part, muscle contractions converted into moving forward? Is the work in the muscle contraction or the forward motion? And is it possible that for one system to operate more efficiently, the other has to operate less?

 

[elapid]

How on earth can a case report have a flawed methodology? Coyle simply reported the results of his testing of a 7 time TDF winner.

Don't know much about case reports, Frank. Like all other publications, there is a methodology. How you use the data is the methods, how you interpret the data is the results. Answered in previous post:

This is where his methodology and maths are wrong. Armstrong was tested preseason in 1992 (November) and preseason in 1999 (November), but instead of comparing Armstrong's body weight and power measured at both of these time points (78.9kg and 374W in 1992 and 79.7kg and 404W in 1999), Coyle decides to use Armstrong's self-reported racing weight of 72kg in 1999 rather than the measured 79.7kg. If he had compared apples-to-apples (preseason to preseason), then the power-to-weight ratios for 1992 would be 4.74 and 5.07 in 1999. This represent a 6.9% increase in power-to-weight ratio and not 18% as claimed by Coyle.

The fact that the testing occurred at different times of the season and body weight reported by the rider is simply what it is.

No, Frank, it is not what it is. I know comprehension is one of your weaknesses, but read the paper. Testing occurred at the same time: November (preseason) 1992 and 1999. The power used for the power-to-weight calculations was measured in November of both years. The body weight used in 1992 was the measured weight in November, but the body weight used in 1999 was not the measured weight in November but rather a self-reported and non-measured weight from the racing season.

The fact is that different times of the season or different body weights have never been shown to be a factor in measuring cycling efficiency ...

As stated in my previous post, I am no entering the debate over efficiency because I don't want to feed the troll:

Frank, I am not feeding the troll and entering into any debate with you over efficiency and cadence.

 

[FrankDay]

The difference is between those who operate at 450 watts and train 6 hours a day and those at 250 watts training 6 hours a week. So maybe we should be heading toward a two-tiered coaching system--one for those who want to improve, and one for those who just want to stop getting worse.

Everyone wants to improve. It is just that the better you are the more difficult it is to improve. That is why Armstrong's 8% efficiency improvement (after he won the world championship no less) is so notable. He looked around to see if he could find another way to improve other than just training more. He apparently found it and none of you guys seem the least bit interested in understanding how he did it. He is not the only one at that level to be working on pedaling technique (the last four Olympic road racing champions have done so also). He is just the only one in which we have documentation of the results. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

Frank, for all your talk about efficiency, all I hear is converting calories into muscle contractions. What about the second part, muscle contractions converted into moving forward? Is the work in the muscle contraction or the forward motion? And is it possible that for one system to operate more efficiently, the other has to operate less?

This is easy. Muscle contractions have an energy cost whether any work is done or not. Work has aspecific definition in this regards ("a force is said to do work when it acts on a body, and there is a displacement of the point of application in the direction of the force. For example, when you lift a suitcase from the floor, the work done on the suitcase is the force it takes to lift it (its weight) times the height that it is lifted." Trying to lift the suitcase without enough force to lift it off the ground costs energy but does zero work.) This is why it is important to be applying muscular forces to the pedal in the direction of the pedal motion, in other words, tangential to the pedal circle where the pedal is now. Any non-tangential pedal force application costs energy but does no work. Improve the direction of the muscle forces on the pedal (ignore the component of the total force due to gravity, as that cannot be altered) to be more tangential and efficiency improves. It is that simple.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

That is why Armstrong's 8% efficiency improvement (after he won the world championship no less) is so notable. He looked around to see if he could find another way to improve other than just training more. He apparently found it and none of you guys seem the least bit interested in understanding how he did it.

You are kidding , right? I mean April 1 has passed over your way too hasn't it?

This is why it is important to be applying muscular forces to the pedal in the direction of the pedal motion, in other words, tangential to the pedal circle where the pedal is now. Any non-tangential pedal force application costs energy but does no work. Improve the direction of the muscle forces on the pedal (ignore the component of the total force due to gravity, as that cannot be altered) to be more tangential and efficiency improves. It is that simple.

No, it's not that simple. It might be for an electric motor or dilithium crystals perhaps.

But at the end o the day, unless such an intervention improves performance, it's rather moot.

 

[FrankDay]

You are kidding , right? I mean April 1 has passed over your way too hasn't it?

No.

No, it's not that simple. It might be for an electric motor or dilithium crystals perhaps.

But at the end o the day, unless such an intervention improves performance, it's rather moot.

Sure it is that simple. Armstrong dominated all the the other dopers. Do you think the dope was more effective in him than the others? I suspect not. Therefore, is there something else going on? I suspect so and I suspect Coyle is telling everyone what it is. We tell the average person that making these changes could add 40% to their power. Few who try it are disappointed (even though they all may not see 40%). Armstrong, it would seem was able to gain close to an additional 8% from these technique changes in addition to what his doping gave him. No wonder he was so dominant.

Anyhow, ignore this information if you choose because you don't like the subject. The test results are what they are. I choose to not ignore them and think they are instructive.

 

[elapid]

Armstrong dominated all the the other dopers. Do you think the dope was more effective in him than the others? I suspect not.

I suspect that you know nothing about doping based on this post. Check out the Clinic. You may learn something. At the very least, your trolling behaviour will be well appreciated with lots of sparing partners to keep you busy for a while.

 

[ustabe]

Everyone wants to improve. It is just that the better you are the more difficult it is to improve. That is why Armstrong's 8% efficiency improvement (after he won the world championship no less) is so notable. He looked around to see if he could find another way to improve other than just training more. He apparently found it and none of you guys seem the least bit interested in understanding how he did it. He is not the only one at that level to be working on pedaling technique (the last four Olympic road racing champions have done so also). He is just the only one in which we have documentation of the results.

While most cycling insiders acknowledge that marginal gains can be made through pedaling technique, they hold that an 8% improvement is not credible. Anyway, you get no argument from me on the importance of pedaling technique. I believe in marginal gains.

I had to double-check just what constituted pedaling efficiency, according to Coyle, because I remember Lance's extraordinary climbing cadence as part of the formula. According to Coyle, the cadence is the result of accumulated type 1 muscle fiber, according to the summary posted by Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050615061032.htm):

This change in muscle type may account for the apparent ease with which Armstrong seems to be pedaling, albeit at a high cycling cadence.

Whereas the lab tests were held constant at 85 revolutions per minute (rpm) for comparison purposes, Armstrong’s “freely chosen cycling cadence during time trial races of 30- to 60-minute duration increased progressively during this y-year period from about 85-95 rpm to about 105-110 rpm. This increase in freely chosen rpm when cycling at high intensity is indeed consistent with increase in type I muscle fibers because cyclists with a higher percentage of type I fibers choose a higher pedaling cadence when exercising at high power outputs,” the report said. “Although this may initially seem paradoxical, higher cycling cadence serves to both bring muscle fiber contraction velocity closer to that of maximum power and reduce the muscle and pedaling force required for each cycling stroke,” it noted.

Coyle's report seems to attribute all of Armstrong's efficiency to the growth of type 1 muscle fiber (a physiological change). There is no mention of mechanical efficiency (technique), and the increase in climbing cadence is seen more as a symptom of type 1 muscle fiber rather than a change in mechanical efficiency. This begs the question, how did Armstrong grow type 1 muscle fiber while recovering, or so quickly after recovering, from cancer treatment? Coyle mentions a study at McMaster University that rather vaguely correlates interval training with increases in performance, but athletes in all disciplines have known and practiced that for decades.

So it appears, Frank, that in taking Coyle at his word, if you have type 1 muscle fiber like Lance, you will automatically pedal at a higher cadence, and if you don't you should pedal at whatever rate feels comfortable. Also, your consideration of mechanical efficiency appears either self-derived or drawn from other sources.

I won't go so far as to call Coyle a fraud, but I find it difficult to disbelieve that he is deliberately avoiding two obvious questions--first, the role of mechanical efficiency, and second, the source of so much type 1 muscle fiber in such a short time.

Recent disclosures about "the medical program" would indicate an extraordinary ability to recover from extraordinarily intense training post-cancer, or more likely between the 1998 comeback and the 1999 Tour de France.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Armstrong dominated all the the other dopers. Do you think the dope was more effective in him than the others? I suspect not.

This isn't the clinic so I'm going to refrain from taking this further.

We tell the average person that making these changes could add 40% to their power. Few who try it are disappointed (even though they all may not see 40%). Armstrong, it would seem was able to gain close to an additional 8% from these technique changes in addition to what his doping gave him. No wonder he was so dominant.

Oh my Lord, are you still making these ridiculous performance benefit claims? Surely not?

 

[veganrob]

Frank,
In one post you are claiming the ideal cadence is 60rpm. Then with Armstrong you are claiiming the reason for his superior efficiency is his 110 cadence. That is a huge difference.

 

[FrankDay]

While most cycling insiders acknowledge that marginal gains can be made through pedaling technique, they hold that an 8% improvement is not credible. Anyway, you get no argument from me on the importance of pedaling technique. I believe in marginal gains.

Cycling insiders? Ha ha ha. years ago all the "world insiders" believed it impossible that the earth was not the center of the universe. Proof, all you need do is look up and it is clear the sun circles us. Nice thing about science is occasionally you see a result that causes you to think that maybe what you believe now is actually wrong! This result should be one of those moments for all those cycling insiders. But, alas, no. Human nature wins out and people are attacking the messenger.

I had to double-check just what constituted pedaling efficiency, according to Coyle, because I remember Lance's extraordinary climbing cadence as part of the formula. According to Coyle, the cadence is the result of accumulated type 1 muscle fiber, according to the summary posted by Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050615061032.htm):



Coyle's report seems to attribute all of Armstrong's efficiency to the growth of type 1 muscle fiber (a physiological change). There is no mention of mechanical efficiency (technique), and the increase in climbing cadence is seen more as a symptom of type 1 muscle fiber rather than a change in mechanical efficiency. This begs the question, how did Armstrong grow type 1 muscle fiber while recovering, or so quickly after recovering, from cancer treatment? Coyle mentions a study at McMaster University that rather vaguely correlates interval training with increases in performance, but athletes in all disciplines have known and practiced that for decades.

Coyle's major error, IMHO, in that paper came in the discussion. He measured cycling efficiency and called it muscular efficiency, assuming the improvements came from a change in muscle type because he didn't have another explanation. Efficiency has been shown to increase with training from a change in fiber type but it has never been shown to occur in professional cyclists nor to be this large. He did no muscle biopsey's so it is not possible for him to know that his fiber type changed at all, let alone accounts for this change. No other professional cyclist, all of whom presumably train about as hard as Armstrong did, has been shown to see such a change. In fact, cycling efficiency has been shown to be so constant that cycling efficiency is presumed to be constant in any one individual and not changeable. Hence, those "cycling insiders" have come to believe it is a waste of time to even try. This is why this report bothers those "cycling insiders". If the credibility of the report can be attacked (minor math error) then the raw data can be disparaged by association. You are right to question why these other areas were not discussed.

So it appears, Frank, that in taking Coyle at his word, if you have type 1 muscle fiber like Lance, you will automatically pedal at a higher cadence, and if you don't you should pedal at whatever rate feels comfortable. Also, your consideration of mechanical efficiency appears either self-derived or drawn from other sources.

I don't take Coyle at his word regarding his discussion. All I take at his word is his raw data. Armstrong's cycling efficiency was shown to increase slowly, over several years, about 8%. I need an explanation to explain how this happened. Coyle's explanation doesn't work for me.

I won't go so far as to call Coyle a fraud, but I find it difficult to disbelieve that he is deliberately avoiding two obvious questions--first, the role of mechanical efficiency, and second, the source of so much type 1 muscle fiber in such a short time.

I agree. But, he is "avoiding" these points only in his discussion/interpretation, his data still remains valid. The discussion is the part of any paper others usually object to. Rarely do people object to the raw data because that would indicate fraud. I suspect he is doing this because he is one of those cycling insiders who have come to believe that one cannot change cycling efficiency through technique manipulations so he had to come up with something. Therefore, he doesn't mention it but he believes his data so he has to say something. Most of his critics have said 8% is impossible so they simply ignore the data. I say his data is his data but his explanation is impossible. It has to be something else. Luttrell may point us to the right explanation.[/QUOTE]

Recent disclosures about "the medical program" would indicate an extraordinary ability to recover from extraordinarily intense training post-cancer, or more likely between the 1998 comeback and the 1999 Tour de France.[/QUOTE]So, the entire peloton (at least the elites) were doping back then. What does this have to do with anything regarding cycling efficiency?

 

[FrankDay]

Oh my Lord, are you still making these ridiculous performance benefit claims? Surely not?

Surely we are. However, we don't claim that the entirety of that increase is from technique change it is just the total that many see. Most of our customers are not professionals and are quite average so they are seeing training effect increases also. My guess is about half the increase that these "40%" customers see comes from technique change and the other half is training effect (more time in the saddle). Armstrong saw 8%. It seems to me that much less technically adept riders might double that number. Unfortunately, it is impossible for us to separate out the two effects so we just report what our users report.

 

[FrankDay]

Frank,
In one post you are claiming the ideal cadence is 60rpm. Then with Armstrong you are claiiming the reason for his superior efficiency is his 110 cadence. That is a huge difference.

All I am reporting is what the studies have shown as ideal cadence (from an efficiency perspective). It is my opinion that ideal cadence varies with power, being higher for higher power. Hence, it doesn't surprise me that a cadence of 100 or so might be ideal for someone putting out 4-500 watts. Whereas most of these studies look at riders putting out much lower wattage. Cadence is a red herring anyhow as the real important metric, IMHO, is pedal speed.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

most of our customers are not professionals and are quite average so they are seeing training effect increases only.

ftfy
....

 

[coapman]

All I am reporting is what the studies have shown as ideal cadence (from an efficiency perspective). It is my opinion that ideal cadence varies with power, being higher for higher power. Hence, it doesn't surprise me that a cadence of 100 or so might be ideal for someone putting out 4-500 watts. Whereas most of these studies look at riders putting out much lower wattage. Cadence is a red herring anyhow as the real important metric, IMHO, is pedal speed.

While using standard 170 cranks, which technique gives the highest cadence ?

 

[FrankDay]

ftfy
....

I forgot, you are the expert on what our customers are seeing and reporting. Sorry about that, should have cleared that with you first. Thanks for fixing that.

 

[ustabe]

I don't take Coyle at his word regarding his discussion. All I take at his word is his raw data. Armstrong's cycling efficiency was shown to increase slowly, over several years, about 8%. I need an explanation to explain how this happened. Coyle's explanation doesn't work for me.I agree. But, he is "avoiding" these points only in his discussion/interpretation, his data still remains valid. The discussion is the part of any paper others usually object to. Rarely do people object to the raw data because that would indicate fraud. I suspect he is doing this because he is one of those cycling insiders who have come to believe that one cannot change cycling efficiency through technique manipulations so he had to come up with something. Therefore, he doesn't mention it but he believes his data so he has to say something. Most of his critics have said 8% is impossible so they simply ignore the data. I say his data is his data but his explanation is impossible. It has to be something else. Luttrell may point us to the right explanation.

We're listening to different "cycling insiders." Measured or not, mechanical efficiency has always been a valid topic on the "inside." Please stop laughing when I bring it up, it only ****es me off and makes you look like an arrogant blowhard that is trying to look like an iconoclast.

I apologize for misunderstanding the scope of Coyle's study of Armstrong. Until now, I was under the misconception that the study was only post-cancer. I hereby retract my comment about the medical program.

So according to Coyle, Armstrong showed an 8% gain in muscle efficiency over a 7-year period that included almost two years in treatment for and recovery from cancer. And the data, which some authoritative sources claim is suspect (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/sports/11iht-11cycling.16080289.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), shows mainly that Lance got faster because he became more efficient, that he lost little or no efficiency during the cancer years, and that, efficiency-wise, he was able to pretty much pick up where he had left off. And there is the contested weight loss. But at the ground level, we don't really know why, beyond the fact that Lance was training like hell and somehow recovering from it enough to keep on doing it.

As for cadence, all we are left with is the observation that the increase in Armstrong's uphill cadence coincides with his increase in efficiency. No apparent cause, no apparent effect, just two coincident observations, a heap of data signifying nothing. Or is it just important that Coyle simply generated data (that turned out to be suspect, anyway)?

So what are you saying about Luttrell? In the world of Frank Day, are PowerCranks a boon or a waste of time?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Everyone wants to improve. It is just that the better you are the more difficult it is to improve. That is why Armstrong's 8% efficiency improvement (after he won the world championship no less) is so notable. He looked around to see if he could find another way to improve other than just training more. He apparently found it and none of you guys seem the least bit interested in understanding how he did it.

Yes. It was Dr Michele Ferrari, via injections of EPO. You know, angiogenesis, cardiac muscle increase, all those good EPO by products that also provide increases in Hgb.

As for not understanding how he did it? I think you will find many, many people know this. Now. After the USADA reasoned decision.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Armstrong dominated all the the other dopers. Do you think the dope was more effective in him than the others? I suspect not.

I suspect you are wrong.

Regardless, he also had the UCI mgt team in his back pocket.

Did the others?

I am confident the answer is no.

 

[JayKosta]

While using standard 170 cranks, which technique gives the highest cadence ?

---------------------
It doesn't matter!
Cadence alone is meaningless, and the max rpm will vary depending on the person. Also, max rpm is NOT a successful way to pedal a bike.

Similarly, (--- removed extraneous wording ---) - regardless of what technique is used. For each individual and technique there is a cadence that is most effective. And the 'best' cadence for the person can change depending of the physical condition of the person.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA