- Status
BikeCentric said:
Yes I know there are very serious questions on Coyle's conclusions, but I've never seen this part of his work questioned before. I've never seen people say Armstrong's improved cadence was part of some mythical story - it's something that was very noticable.
BikeCentric said:
No, because I'd already explained that point. The second attempt was furthering tutoring.
I'm detecting some hostility from you. You shouldn't be embarrassed to find out something new.
Not everybody finds that a high cadence suits their style of riding so I wouldn't worry about it. It's mainly for the pros.
BikeCentric said:
No, because I'd already explained that point. The second attempt was further tutoring.
I'm detecting some hostility from you. You shouldn't be embarrassed to learn something new.
A super high cadence doesn't work for everybody so I wouldn't worry about that. It's really only for the pros.
- Apr 9, 2009
- 1,916
- 0
- 10,480
- Apr 9, 2009
- 1,916
- 0
- 10,480
Still waiting on data showing Armstrong (or any other pro for that matter) TT'ing at 110 RPM.
I think it was BroDeal who said facts are like Troll kryptonite.
I think it was BroDeal who said facts are like Troll kryptonite.
BikeCentric said:
What would constitute data?
I've seen several articles referencing Lance pedaling at 110 RPM while time trialing... but they don't reference any supporting data. What would suffice for you?
This article suggests a "high" cadence is "95 - 105 RPM".
http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=57
If that's true... would it be shocking if some pro did pedal at 110 RPM? Is an extra 5 revolutions per minute something that just could not happen or would be totally stupid for a pro-cyclist?
I'm not a cyclist by any stretch... I honestly don't know.
- Aug 13, 2009
- 12,854
- 2
- 0
Fleche Wallone, 1996
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-O2_KwWMUg
Even our local troll would have to admit that little has changed in the last 14 years. Same weight, same cadence. That is some pretty high revs on the Mur.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-O2_KwWMUg
Even our local troll would have to admit that little has changed in the last 14 years. Same weight, same cadence. That is some pretty high revs on the Mur.
- Aug 13, 2009
- 12,854
- 2
- 0
- Apr 9, 2009
- 1,916
- 0
- 10,480
- Apr 9, 2009
- 1,916
- 0
- 10,480
kurtinsc said:
My point in this whole exchange is that 110 RPM is very high. That is pretty much the upper end of what any cyclist is going to spin outside of short bursts in sprints and to close gaps and what not.
And yes it's unheard of for a cyclist to time trial at 110 RPM which by definition means to consistantly spin the gear right around 110 RPM for long periods of time (20 minutes plus).
So again, if anyone has data on any pro TT'ing at 110 RPM I'd love to see it because I've never heard of it. Data simply means cadence data from either a cyclometer or power meter.
kurtinsc said:
Indeed. Armstrong has already done a TT at 104 this year, but according to Bikecentric "no pro has ever TTed at 110".
Perhaps he should provide the data for such a bold claim? How does he know this? Or is he just one of these people that throws around definitive statements to get a reaction?
Anyhow, it wasn't me who brought it up. I merely agreed with someone who said Armstrong's cadence wasn't as fast as before he retired. I wasn't expecting it to be hugely controversial.
Race Radio said:
He was climbing pretty well there in 1996. Interesting. Chris Carmichael later claimed he did 90 to 100 on the big mountains in the Tour:
"Lance Armstrong’s high cadence climbing style allows him to spare his leg muscles by increasing the demand he places on his aerobic system. He is able to reduce the stress he applies to his leg muscles during the course of each pedal stroke, but he also has to turn his legs over more quickly. Increasing the frequency of muscle contractions places a high demand on his aerobic system and leads to a high heart beat and respiration rate. The benefit of relying more heavily on his heart and lungs rather than his leg muscles is that the cardiovascular system doesn’t fatigue in the same way skeletal muscles do. Once your leg muscles are pushed too far, there’s no way to maintain your power output and speed. In contrast, as long as you provide enough food and water, your aerobic engine can continue delivering power much longer. This also leaves more fuel in the tank for launching decisive attacks in the final kilometers of long climbs."
"Armstrong has developed a huge aerobic engine over years of training, and climbing mountains with a high pedal cadence shifts the stress from his legs to this engine. Instead of making his leg muscles push against massive resistance, he lightens the load and turns them over faster. The energy cost of maintaining a cadence of 90-100 rpm on steep climbs is very high, but with enough food and drink, the aerobic system can handle it. The same cannot be said for leg muscles. Climbing with a low cadence means using a lot of muscular energy to overcome a huge resistance with every pedal stroke. When your aerobic system can't keep up with the demand for energy, your body produces it anaerobically, but at a significant cost. Lactic acid is a byproduct of producing energy anaerobically. As it accumulates in muscles, first you feel a burn and then your muscles start to lose power."
http://www.cyclingforums.com/archive/index.php/t-155501.html
- Apr 3, 2009
- 12,613
- 8,472
- 28,180
Race Radio said:
Cadence clearly slower but he's hitting a 20% climb.
Not like he wasn't with Ferrari by this time in '96.
- Apr 3, 2009
- 12,613
- 8,472
- 28,180
Look guys, the issue isn't about Armstrong's cadence. Clearly if you look at him earlier in his career in big climbs (evidence is scant, not too many shots of the autobus) he had a different style.
Point is why change your style to that which reduces load on the muscles and increases load on the aerobic system. Because if you increase the ability of your aerobic system, it makes sense to take advantage.
Look at the size of guys' legs in the '80's and the gears they rode. What were some of the drugs of choice back then? Steroids. What do they do? Decrease recovery time and allow for more stress on the musculature. More stress, more size, more power, bigger gears.
Point is why change your style to that which reduces load on the muscles and increases load on the aerobic system. Because if you increase the ability of your aerobic system, it makes sense to take advantage.
Look at the size of guys' legs in the '80's and the gears they rode. What were some of the drugs of choice back then? Steroids. What do they do? Decrease recovery time and allow for more stress on the musculature. More stress, more size, more power, bigger gears.
- Mar 18, 2009
- 14,644
- 81
- 22,580
In L.A. Confidential there is a section where LeMond confronts Coyle about his higher cadence B.S. and in the process reveals to Coyle that Armstrong is working with Ferrari. Coyle was shocked to find out.
Evidently he got over the shock and continued to make excuses for Armstrong.
Evidently he got over the shock and continued to make excuses for Armstrong.
- Apr 9, 2009
- 1,916
- 0
- 10,480
Eyjafjallajokull said:
The troll kryptonite of logic and fact has vanquished you yet again. As usual you cannot back up any of your outlandish claims with any facts whatsoever. Enjoy your banning yet again.
red_flanders said:
With respect, that wasn't the point of our exchange. The point was LA's TTing cadence speed. I merely said that it was widely reported that LA's TTing cadence was as high as 110 before he retired. BikeCentric made the bold statement that "no pro in history has ever TTed at 110", despite LA doing 104 a few months ago, and he got hostile when the logic was not found to be in his favor. Now he has thrown up the straw man that he is right unless anyone can produce a power meter to disprove him. As if we all have access to power meters of the pro's TT performances.
The doping matter is a very big matter, but not strictly relevant to whether a certain cadence was achieved or not.
Anyway that issue has now being exhausted. Just a bit annoying when someone tries to be the know-it-all and gets all hostile when they are wrong. Good to see him taken down a peg.
- Apr 12, 2009
- 1,087
- 2
- 0
- Apr 3, 2009
- 12,613
- 8,472
- 28,180
Eyjafjallajokull said:
Sorry for the misdirect.
I did have a hard time understanding how anyone could factually confirm Armstrong "did one" at 104. Does someone have a live feed from his cadence meter?
http://twitpic.com/1hcdws
Oh yeah. He's going for #8
TDF podium
1.Lance
2.Cadel
3.Andy
4.Contador
Poor theHog ain't going to like this.
Oh yeah. He's going for #8
TDF podium
1.Lance
2.Cadel
3.Andy
4.Contador
Poor theHog ain't going to like this.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 36K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
Teams & Riders The Red Bull - Bora - Hansgrohe team thread
- Latest: red_flanders
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram