Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[JMBeaushrimp]

since Wiggins mentioned 'the gears' in the same sentence, one possibility is that he meant (or Kerrison did) something about drivetrain efficiency and cadence (maybe more force = higher chain tension = improved drivetrain efficiency?)


"something to do with rolling resistance and with the gears."

Or, lower RPMs means lower drivetrain resistance/friction all around since you're not working the DT as fequently.

Holy F*ck! What am I saying! I can't believe I got sucked into this discussion...

 

[usedtobefast]

A ickle amateur theory re cadence: Cycling being , essentially an aerobic sport rather than a power sport ...higher volumes of oxygen available (EPO) might be best utilised via higher cadence? .
I've always likened the "engine" of an endurance cyclist to be like that of a small ,high revving, car engine, the power coming not from grunt but by fine tuning the oxygen supply and upping the revs.
Might be hogwash mind cus its not somat I've done the science on.

Anyone here better on the theory feel free to put me right,

i was trained on cadence. we didn't have HRM, much less PM. it made sense to me. the faster you spin in any given gear, the faster you get to the finish.
and spinning higher rpm would seem to be "lighter" on the bike, rather than mashing a lower rpm.

 

[131313]

Two theories:

1) reduced cadence = fewer steering movements = less tire scrub = reduced Crr; and/or

2) Kerrison playing mind games w/ his own rider (something GB is known to do).

I think I'll go with 2.

or

3) making multiple nonsensical claims about additive marginal gains to explain a dramatic increase in performance.

regarding drivetrain efficiency and rolling resistance, people have been riding and racing bikes long enough that I'm willing to believe all of the available avenues have been explored, and since there's no great consensus on optimal cadence and or gear selection outside of a fairly broad range I just don't see it mattering a whole lot. I'm not saying that differences don't exist, just that they're very small, tiny when compared to things like tire selection.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I think I'll go with 2.

or

3) making multiple nonsensical claims about additive marginal gains to explain a dramatic increase in performance.

regarding drivetrain efficiency and rolling resistance, people have been riding and racing bikes long enough that I'm willing to believe all of the available avenues have been explored, and since there's no great consensus on optimal cadence and or gear selection outside of a fairly broad range I just don't see it mattering a whole lot. I'm not saying that differences don't exist, just that they're very small, tiny when compared to things like tire selection.

I'm not sure you meant to be ironic, but your ending actually made me laugh out loud...

 

[Krebs cycle]

Two theories:

1) reduced cadence = fewer steering movements = less tire scrub = reduced Crr; and/or

2) Kerrison playing mind games w/ his own rider (something GB is known to do).

or 3) Wiggins doesn't exactly know what he is on about, so take what he says with a grain of salt.

With that in mind, this is how I would interpret the cadence issue....

Track pursuit rider has adapted his motor control patterns to force/velocity relationship which favours high cadence. Quite important for a 4km event in which every 100th/sec counts. Big gear/low cadence = lose precious time at the start. Bread and butter stuff for track riders.

High cadence on the track is bad for long TTs due to poorer efficiency. Start not so important in long TTs. Also relevant is that TT bikes are not fixed gear like track bikes.

Spend time training at lower cadences (similar to those being used by the world champion) with bigger gearing in order to move force/velocity relationship into more optional range needed for best efficiency.


Doesn't really seem like rocket science to me and I doubt it is for you either!

 

[Zam_Olyas]

I want to know when Science of cycling by bradley wiggins or some **** will be made like the lance one

 

[131313]

I'm not sure you meant to be ironic, but your ending actually made me laugh out loud...

No, I didn't. Tire selection can actually make a significant difference. Over a 50K TT, along the lines of a couple of minutes from the best to the worst tire. That said, at this point I think most teams with GC contenders have figured this out. Tires probably matter more than any other piece of equipment.

 

[131313]

High cadence on the track is bad for long TTs due to poorer efficiency.

except that at the power levels at which these TT's are done, the difference in efficiency is marginal, if it exists at all. Plus, it's not all about pedaling economy. That potential .25% gain in pedaling economy comes at the expense of higher force requirements. There's a reason 99.9% of professional cyclists TT within a reasonably narrow range of cadence.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

No, I didn't. Tire selection can actually make a significant difference. Over a 50K TT, along the lines of a couple of minutes from the best to the worst tire. That said, at this point I think most teams with GC contenders have figured this out. Tires probably matter more than any other piece of equipment.

Well, it is the primary interface...

I wouldn't say it matters more than any piece of equipment, but in my experience what the guys are riding on (vs. what the sponsors tell the public they are riding on) does make a difference - agree with your point.

My parenthetical point above is the point - "I'm riding the same $60 clinchers as my hero!".

You gotta keep the bike industry rolling...

 

[BroDeal]

Is there a relationship between PEDs and cadence? If lower cadence is a more musclular effort and higher cadence puts the burden on the cardiovascular system, will optimum cadence increase with the use of blood doping?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Is there a relationship between PEDs and cadence? If lower cadence is a more musclular effort and higher cadence puts the burden on the cardiovascular system, will optimum cadence increase with the use of blood doping?

I would say yes.

 

[Krebs cycle]

except that at the power levels at which these TT's are done, the difference in efficiency is marginal, if it exists at all. Plus, it's not all about pedaling economy. That potential .25% gain in pedaling economy comes at the expense of higher force requirements. There's a reason 99.9% of professional cyclists TT within a reasonably narrow range of cadence.

At supramaximal power (as in pursuit) this may be true, but at threshold power (as in road TTs) the effect of cadence on GE is more pronounced.

The true percent difference really would depend on how big the change in cadence has been. If Wiggins is talking about a change from 100 to 95rpm, then maybe there is only a marginal effect. However even a change of 10rpm would seem to make at least 1% or more in GE....

Figure is from this paper....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19229554

However, you'll notice that I mention the force/velocity relationship which is considered to be an important factor. Inherent in this is that motor co-ordination also plays a role....

J Exp Biol. 2010 Feb 1;213(3):487-92.
Muscle coordination is key to the power output and mechanical efficiency of limb movements.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20086134

What this implies is that it would take time to alter your optimal torque/angular velocity producing characteristics. It doesn't happen overnight just by altering cadence.

 

[thehog]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/...ins-olympic-time-trial?cat=sport&type=article

"If I'm unbeaten in long time trials this year, that's because we've put a lot of thought into it. We worked a lot on cadence this winter."

Posted this to the the Sky thread. Cannot believe he is bashing this crap out:

This is genius:

"...powering the gear a lot rather than spinning along, and that forward momentum for the same power has helped me go a bit further"

That beggars belief. Powering the gear? and Forward momentum? That's a new concept! Forward momentum.

 

[131313]

At supramaximal power (as in pursuit) this may be true, but at threshold power (as in road TTs) the effect of cadence on GE is more pronounced.

Define "more pronounced". I think it's reasonable to assume that most TT's by guys at that level are >90% of vo2. I haven't seen any literature which suggest anything close to 1% difference in GE @ 90% of vo2 when comparing wide ranges of cadence, say 60-100 rpm, at least with trained cyclists.

http://www.edb.utexas.edu/coyle/pdf...Intl J of Sports Med, 13(5) 407-411, 1992.pdf

"We conclude that under the conditions of the
present experiment, DE increases with increased pedalling
rate. This resulted in unchanged GE while cyclingbetween 60
and 100RPM at intensitiesof80% VOzmaxor greater, despite
the significantincrease in the CUe."

 

[mewmewmew13]

Posted this to the the Sky thread. Cannot believe he is bashing this crap out:

Next he will be introducing 'coefficient of friction'....

 

[Krebs cycle]

Define "more pronounced". I think it's reasonable to assume that most TT's by guys at that level are >90% of vo2. I haven't seen any literature which suggest anything close to 1% difference in GE @ 90% of vo2 when comparing wide ranges of cadence, say 60-100 rpm, at least with trained cyclists.

You are citing a paper form 1992. I'm looking at a review article from 2009. You appear to have completely ignored the figure that I posted from the paper and you probably didn't bother to click on the link either....

Eur J Appl Physiol. 2009 May;106(1):1-14. Epub 2009 Feb 20.
Efficiency in cycling: a review.
Ettema G, Lorås HW.
Source
Human Movement Science Programme, Faculty of Social Sciences and Technology Management, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. gertjan.ettema@svt.ntnu.no
Abstract
We focus on the effect of cadence and work rate on energy expenditure and efficiency in cycling, and present arguments to support the contention that gross efficiency can be considered to be the most relevant expression of efficiency. A linear relationship between work rate and energy expenditure appears to be a rather consistent outcome among the various studies considered in this review, irrespective of subject performance level. This relationship is an example of the Fenn effect, described more than 80 years ago for muscle contraction. About 91% of all variance in energy expenditure can be explained by work rate, with only about 10% being explained by cadence. Gross efficiency is strongly dependent on work rate, mainly because of the diminishing effect of the (zero work-rate) base-line energy expenditure with increasing work rate. The finding that elite athletes have a higher gross efficiency than lower-level performers may largely be explained by this phenomenon. However, no firm conclusions can be drawn about the energetically optimal cadence for cycling because of the multiple factors associated with cadence that affect energy expenditure.

10% is a significant amount. The force/velocity relationship is one of those other factors that effects the energy expenditure. So you can't just look at studies (such as the Sidossis study you linked to) which acutely manipulate the cadence and make definitive conclusions, but even if you do then the relationship has been show to exist....

At 80% VO2max in trained cyclists....

 

[BroDeal]

We should hold a contest to pick which one of Armstrong's cover stories Wiggins will use next.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

In an interview today he was talking about sacrifices needed for the TDF and said that because of his family " i wont be able to do it 6 times like Lance did".

So while he can never resist taking another pot shot at Contador for 2 atoms of clen, Lance is still a hero.

Or that Armstrong (for the time being at least) has won more Tours then anyone else so is an obvious comparison. I think you are looking for connections that are not there sometimes.

 

[masking_agent]

So, is Tim Kerrison (or is it Shane Sutton?) destined to be the next Chris Carmichael?

When can we expect "Kerrison Training Systems" to hit the internet?
.

LOL! bahahahha!!! I love it !!! Great line !!!

 

[Krebs cycle]

Posted this to the the Sky thread. Cannot believe he is bashing this crap out:

I can't believe you are sucking it up hook line and sinker.

this bit "...powering the gear a lot rather than spinning along, and that forward momentum for the same power has helped me go a bit further"

...is clearly wrong and shows that Wiggins doesn't completely understand whatever it is that his physiologist (Tim Kerrison) has explained to him.

Fact remains that a vast array of scientific literature indicates that cadence has some influence on cycling energetics and this would explain why (as 131313 posted) most TT specialists tend to use pretty similar cadences. If they used widely different cadences then it would indicate that rpm is pretty irrelevant. If Wiggins was using a sub-optimal cadence previously because he had adapted that way from his track background, it would make perfect sense to spend time working on that and moving it towards something better suited to long TTs.

 

[BroDeal]

Fact remains that a vast array of scientific literature indicates that cadence has some influence on cycling energetics and this would explain why (as 131313 posted) most TT specialists tend to use pretty similar cadences. If they used widely different cadences then it would indicate that rpm is pretty irrelevant. If Wiggins was using a sub-optimal cadence previously because he had adapted that way from his track background, it would make perfect sense to spend time working on that and moving it towards something better suited to long TTs.

Where is the evidence that Wiggins was using cadences outside the norm? In 2010 was he doing time trials at 130 RPM? I personally never noticed because until this year he never won anything of significance on the road.

 

[131313]

1) I clicked the link, it just went to the abstract...so I have no idea of the protocol

2) did basic laws of biology change over the last 20 years? If so, then I'm not sure your field of science really passes for such, no offense.

 

[thehog]

I can't believe you are sucking it up hook line and sinker.

this bit "...powering the gear a lot rather than spinning along, and that forward momentum for the same power has helped me go a bit further"

...is clearly wrong and shows that Wiggins doesn't completely understand whatever it is that his physiologist (Tim Kerrison) has explained to him.

Fact remains that a vast array of scientific literature indicates that cadence has some influence on cycling energetics and this would explain why (as 131313 posted) most TT specialists tend to use pretty similar cadences. If they used widely different cadences then it would indicate that rpm is pretty irrelevant. If Wiggins was using a sub-optimal cadence previously because he had adapted that way from his track background, it would make perfect sense to spend time working on that and moving it towards something better suited to long TTs.

I actually didn't even read your post. But I've noticed a new lead in:

"Fact remains that a vast array of scientific literature indicates..."

You and Masterfacer use this a lot and generally what follows next is just random links and some cagey report.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Where is the evidence that Wiggins was using cadences outside the norm? In 2010 was he doing time trials at 130 RPM? I personally never noticed because until this year he never won anything of significance on the road.

I never said there was any. I'm simply defending science and reason once more against ignorance.

If Wiggins had focused his track training for many years to produce the best times over 4km with a fixed gear that saw him hitting top speed at 130rpm+, then it would be expected that when he reduced his cadence to 90-100rpm for road TTs, this would be sub-optimal in terms of energetic efficiency for him.

So if he alters his training focus and spends much more time working on becoming efficient at 90-100rpm then please explain how it is impossible to achieve even a 0.5% improvement in torque production or efficiency?

So it makes no difference whether or not he actually did change his avg cadence in road TTs. If he did, then great, a physiological rationale exists for improving performance. But even if he didn't, a physiological rationale still exists for improved efficiency. There is scientific evidence to back all this up.

 

[Krebs cycle]

1) I clicked the link, it just went to the abstract...so I have no idea of the protocol

2) did basic laws of biology change over the last 20 years? If so, then I'm not sure your field of science really passes for such, no offense.

What is it you are trying to prove? By the looks of your posts it seems as though you are trying to imply that there is no effect, or only an insignificant effect, of cadence on cycling energetics. I post the abstract of a recent REVIEW article on this very topic which says that cadence accounts for about 10% of the variability in cycling energy expenditure. You ignore that and say "your science is bogus". ???

You should know that cadence is an important consideration in cycling performance and it is something that elite cyclists spend a great deal of time perfecting. Why is it so outrageous for Wiggins to suggest that he has been working on it? To a cyclist or a sport scientist it sounds like a normal and obvious thing to do, to the lay public it is probably a little bit informative.

But to the clinic it is only interpreted as LA propaganda and de facto evidence of doping. This is what really beggars belief.