Low Cadence, High Torque Drills

harringtonp

Are these used widely ? I get the impression they are.

Just digested "Beyond Average Power" in Coggan and Allen and was initially a little surprised to see that they dismiss these drills. And they go into a lot of detail as to why.

niceonetom

Good question. As far as I know low-cadence high-torque drills are quite common - they seem to be particularly favoured by the Italians for some reason. Aldo Sassi had all his riders do SFR drills (Salite Forza Resistenza)... but the actual science to support it seems thin on the ground. The Italians recommending it all seem to place great emphasis on form and technique, seeing the drills as as much about proper muscle recruitment (i.e. using the core and not pulling on the bars) as about building real strength. They might also claim that it builds resilience in preparation for climbing at high cadence and power later.

Care to elaborate on Coggan's misgivings? I know he is adamant that self selected cadence is best for optimal power output, but that's not what these drills are about - provoking a training effect. It's a given that you'll produce more power (or the same power more efficiently) at a higher cadence but forgoing the power now in order to stimulate some kind of adaptation is what we should be after. Coggan seems to be so focused on the PM data that he might unfairly dismiss anything that an SRM doesn't immediately see.

I don't know. I was planning on doing some SFR in the new year, maybe bring some of the off-the-bike strength work I've done onto the bike. It would be nice to have a little more scientific backing before doing it though.

Lumen

Why we don't use strength-endurance anymore
by Dr Andy Coggan
http://www.aboc.com.au/tips-and-hints/why-we-dont-use-strength-endurance-anymore

12 sprocket

Lumen wrote: »

Why we don't use strength-endurance anymore
by Dr Andy Coggan
http://www.aboc.com.au/tips-and-hints/why-we-dont-use-strength-endurance-anymore

I notice that article was last up dated on 2008-06-17 (by Dr Andy Coggan — last modified 2008-06-17) I wonder has he changed or modified any of his views on Strength endurance in the intervening years?

That's a few years ago now and a lot of the Professional teams if not all are still training with low cadence sessions. They usually do what works. THe other sessions as described by Dr Coggan do have their place in training to a greater or less extent depending on the event being trained for especially.

niceonetom

Lumen wrote: »

Why we don't use strength-endurance anymore
by Dr Andy Coggan
http://www.aboc.com.au/tips-and-hints/why-we-dont-use-strength-endurance-anymore

That's an interesting article and I should probably read it again and do some more googling before commenting but...

It strikes me slightly as a case of we don't understand how it could work therefore is doesn't which leads to one of those bees-can't-fly situations. A failure to understand a mechanism isn't proof is doesn't exist exist.

There are other ways of tackling this and I'd be much more persuaded by empirical testing - let's see if it does work and then try to work out how.

Here's an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about. I could probably point out a few methodological weak spots in that study but if a few of them exist and they tend to agree I would be more persuaded than I am by Coggan.

EDIT: Here's another study.

harringtonp

12 sprocket wrote: »

I notice that article was last up dated on 2008-06-17 (by Dr Andy Coggan — last modified 2008-06-17) I wonder has he changed or modified any of his views on Strength endurance in the intervening years?

That's a few years ago now and a lot of the Professional teams if not all are still training with low cadence sessions. They usually do what works. The other sessions as described by Dr Coggan do have their place in training to a greater or less extent depending on the event being trained for especially.

2nd edition is 2010 and it certainly hasn't changed by then. Article covers a lot of what is in the chapter with some extra stuff (power stomp, standing start) included. The chapter is more visual showing all the charts and therefore probably easier to absorb.

Lumen

Here are a couple of slowtwitch threads that I was scanning last night.

(Jan 2012) Training benefits of low cadence at FTP+
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/792935-Training-benefits-of-low-cadence-at-FTP

(Jan 2010) Interesting article about going faster up a hill
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=2648825;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=-1;

From what I remember Coggan objects to the "neither one thing nor the other" nature of long "low" cadence drills, but (as harringtonp says) he does like power stomps/standing starts.

harringtonp

niceonetom wrote: »

That's an interesting article and I should probably read it again and do some more googling before commenting but...

It strikes me slightly as a case of we don't understand how it could work therefore is doesn't which leads to one of those bees-can't-fly situations. A failure to understand a mechanism isn't proof is doesn't exist exist.

There are other ways of tackling this and I'd be much more persuaded by empirical testing - let's see if it does work and then try to work out how.

Here's an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about. I could probably point out a few methodological weak spots in that study but if a few of them exist and they tend to agree I would be more persuaded than I am by Coggan.

EDIT: Here's another study.

Neither of those links are actually clear on what the high resistance drills are:

In the second link:

" Both groups replaced part of their usual training with 8 30-minute sessions consisting of sets of explosive single-leg jumps alternating with sets of high-intensity cycling sprints performed at either low cadence (60-70 min−1) or high cadence (110-120 min−1) on a training ergometer. "

If the high intensity sprints are short and from zero or low initial speed then they are in fact "power stomp" training and not the traditional strength endurance stuff. And this would be in agreeement with the "Alternatives to SE training" section in lumen's link

Harrybelafonte

Pardon my ignorance here, but why would you not do Low Cadence, High Torque drills? And could you not do them and High Cadence, Low Torque drills as well?

Lumen

niceonetom

The work is at the near maximal intensity he might adopt in a prologue time trial, followed immediately by what amounts to weight training on the bike, a big-gear effort at low-pedal revolutions, at close to breaking point, all at an oxygen-deprived altitude between 1500m and 2,200m. After a rest he repeats it. All this, Kerrison believes, will prepare Wiggins's legs for the steepest climbs on this year's Tour. "When I came in, people believed Brad was only good up to about a 7% gradient; now he can cope with up to 13%."

LINK!

i_surge

Without reading the links in much detail I thought Allen/Coggan were advocates of doing short high torque seated starts in a big gear until about 80rpm but are dismissive of building "strength" by riding all day at 40-60 rpm.

Here: http://www.hunterallenpowerblog.com/2013/11/four-keys-to-powerful-winter-training.html

Have they changed their mind and why? Is it part of the whole leg strength is overrated and if you can climb a stairs then you have enough strength for cycling argument (aerobic system being the real limiter not leg muscles). That argument is used to dismiss weight training for cyclists usually.

Maybe it depends what you call "high" torque...anything over 30 seconds is probably "medium" torque.

Lumen

niceonetom wrote: »

The work is at the near maximal intensity he might adopt in a prologue time trial, followed immediately by what amounts to weight training on the bike, a big-gear effort at low-pedal revolutions, at close to breaking point, all at an oxygen-deprived altitude between 1500m and 2,200m. After a rest he repeats it. All this, Kerrison believes, will prepare Wiggins's legs for the steepest climbs on this year's Tour. "When I came in, people believed Brad was only good up to about a 7% gradient; now he can cope with up to 13%."

LINK!

Yes, but that's pure specificity training to prepare for running out of gears at altitude. No case is made for performance improvements which would be relevant to racing in Ireland.

petethedrummer

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

Pardon my ignorance here, but why would you not do Low Cadence, High Torque drills? And could you not do them and High Cadence, Low Torque drills as well?

You should probably only practice the type of cadences and resistances you're likely to experience in a race. I don't see the point of cycling round for hours at a ridiculously slow cadence. You are only going to teach your legs to turn very slowly.

On the face of it, it seems like a good idea. Much like the thought that swinging a weighted bat might make your normal bat speed faster or cycling with weights on your legs might make you a better cyclist. But it doesn't work like that. you just mess up your game/race pace skills (motor recruitment).
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=baseball-bat-speed-all-star

Harrybelafonte

petethedrummer wrote: »

You should probably only practice the type of cadences and resistances you're likely to experience in a race. I don't see the point of cycling round for hours at a ridiculously slow cadence. You are only going to teach your legs to turn very slowly.

On the face of it, it seems like a good idea. Much like the thought that swinging a weighted bat might make your normal bat speed faster or cycling with weights on your legs might make you a better cyclist. But it doesn't work like that. you just mess up your game/race pace skills.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=baseball-bat-speed-all-star

This is the thing though, we experience different pedalling requirements during races, sit in the bunch and gently spin (or mash, your preference), sprint (corners, finsih etc) initial hard push and fast spin, fast spin on breaks, strength and cadence on hills, etc? Then if you're doing track you need the combination of strength (standing starts, repeated sprints etc) and a high cadence ability. Am I way off here?

petethedrummer

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

This is the thing though, we experience different pedalling requirements during races, sit in the bunch and gently spin (or mash, your preference), sprint (corners, finsih etc) initial hard push and fast spin, fast spin on breaks, strength and cadence on hills, etc? Then if you're doing track you need the combination of strength (standing starts, repeated sprints etc) and a high cadence ability. Am I way off here?

Yep you should practice anything relevant to the racing you're doing. But the chances of any of us being in a race scenario where you're pedalling round at 40-60 rpm against a large resistance for a sustained period of time are fairly slim. If you're doing that in an Irish race, you've probably been dropped or you've cycled in to a swimming pool full of treacle.

Harrybelafonte

petethedrummer wrote: »

Yep you should practice anything relevant to the racing you're doing. But the chances of any of us being in a race scenario where you're pedalling round at 40-60 rpm against a large resistance for a sustained period of time are fairly slim. If you're doing that in an Irish race, you've probably been dropped or you've cycled in to a swimming pool full of treacle.

So we keep the training on this part to a minimum right? Might be useful for hill sprints during race?

I'm just thinking out loud at this point.

Lumen

petethedrummer wrote: »

Yep you should practice anything relevant to the racing you're doing

What I took from Allen was that specificity isn't a goal in itself, adaptation is the goal. Specificity will probably produce adaptation, but cyclists seeking competitive advantage need to meter their efforts carefully to achieve maximum adaptation for minimum recovery, because recovery is the ultimate limiter.

petethedrummer

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

Might be useful for hill sprints during race?

Probably best to just go to a hill and sprint up it a few times during your training spin!

petethedrummer

Serious question. What is the difference between specifity and adaptaion?

quozl

petethedrummer wrote: »

Serious question. What is the difference between specifity and adaptaion?

Specificity is how relevant it is to the action that you want to train. IE if you're training to race at 90 rpm then you're better off training at 90rpm than say 30 rpm, or you're better off training by cycling rather than training by running.

Adaptation are the changes that occur in your body in response to a training stimulous/overload. Things like increased cappilirisation (sp?) or improved mitochondrial efficiency.

petethedrummer

I may have been loose with my terms and I want to get this clear.

So specifity is to do with motor recruitment and the order of neurons firing.

quozl wrote: »

Specificity is how relevant it is to the action that you want to train. IE if you're training to race at 90 rpm then you're better off training at 90rpm than say 30 rpm, or you're better off training by cycling rather than training by running.

And adaptation is the generalised response to any training stimulus.

quozl wrote: »

Adaptation are the changes that occur in your body in response to a training stimulous/overload. Things like increased cappilirisation (sp?) or improved mitochondrial efficiency.

So under these new clarified(for me!) headings does Low cadence High Resistance provide any value?

It's not specific and may be detrimental to specificity(?). It may produce an adaptive response but can that adaptive response not be got through specific means?

harringtonp

petethedrummer wrote: »

You should probably only practice the type of cadences and resistances you're likely to experience in a race. I don't see the point of cycling round for hours at a ridiculously slow cadence. You are only going to teach your legs to turn very slowly.

On the face of it, it seems like a good idea. Much like the thought that swinging a weighted bat might make your normal bat speed faster or cycling with weights on your legs might make you a better cyclist. But it doesn't work like that. you just mess up your game/race pace skills (motor recruitment).
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=baseball-bat-speed-all-star

Good article that even though its baseball. To contrast with low cadence, nobody in cycling debates the value of high cadence work, and every warmup routine you come across usually has a few single or two minutes of fast spinning.

"During warm ups, players swung fastest with the light and standard bats, averaging 101.4 and 82.1 kilometers per hour, respectively. Both were far quicker than hacks with the heavy bat, which averaged just under 67.6 kilometers per hour. More important, players practicing with the light or standard bats were able to maintain higher velocities on their real swings—averaging 83.7 and 80.5 kilometers per hour, respectively. The heavy bat practice group averaged 77.2 kilometers per hour with their real swings—not as quick as the other two groups.

Steven Zinder, a researcher who helped conduct the study, said the findings do not prove that swinging faster makes a hitter better, although from a biomechanical perspective that makes sense. "If you want to swing faster, you need to practice by swinging faster," says Zinder, now an assistant professor of sports medicine in the exercise and sport science department at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "Training to swing fast made you swing the normal bat faster. With the heavy bat, you're training yourself to swing more slowly."

petethedrummer

harringtonp wrote: »

Good article that even though its baseball. To contrast with low cadence, nobody in cycling debates the value of high cadence work, and every warmup routine you come across usually has a few single or two minutes of fast spinning.

Well a warm up is a warm up and that's a seperate issue.

Does anyone actually do fast spinning sessions at cadences over and above what you would normally do in a road race as part of training?

harringtonp wrote: »

Steven Zinder, a researcher who helped conduct the study, said the findings do not prove that swinging faster makes a hitter better, although from a biomechanical perspective that makes sense. "If you want to swing faster, you need to practice by swinging faster," says Zinder, now an assistant professor of sports medicine in the exercise and sport science department at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "Training to swing fast made you swing the normal bat faster. With the heavy bat, you're training yourself to swing more slowly."

The conclusion probably is: practice with THE bat you're going to use in the game to make you better at hitting with THAT bat.

Does this specifity/motor function somewhat explain why most pros hate switching to a spare bike during a race? I'm guessing they are probably very highly tuned to their race bike and even a minor change results in a loss of power. I would also presume that aside from cardiovascular superiority pros can achieve much greater muscular efficiency than amateurs so probably notice this more. Or am I talking rollocks?

MediaMan

I can see merit in the argument that low cadence high resistance (LCHR anyone?) training might not be much use to people who are already well adapted for serious cycling, but I certainly believe it is of great value to those who are still getting to that stage. In particular I found that doing high resistance intervals up modest hills has done a lot to build my leg strength and technique and has resulted in improved performance on hills subsequently.

The difficulty with this stuff, especially for the amateur, is that it is very difficult to determine cause and effect, because there are so many variables in both training and in subsequent performance.

Harrybelafonte

petethedrummer wrote: »

Does anyone actually do fast spinning sessions at cadences over and above what you would normally do in a road race as part of training?

I don't do it for road but have found they (intervals at 120and 130rpm) help me on some of the shorter sharper climbs in road races. If legs are tired I can spin up some of the drags rather than get up out of the saddle and tire legs more. Would that make sense?

Darkglasses

Lumen wrote: »

Why we don't use strength-endurance anymore
by Dr Andy Coggan
http://www.aboc.com.au/tips-and-hints/why-we-dont-use-strength-endurance-anymore

I have none of the scientific knowledge that the rest of ye have, but just wanted to throw in my two cents that the kind of low cadence work outs described in this article did absolutely nothing for me. Did them in spin classes with a trainer with a triathlon background, miserable and unproductive. My heart-rate stayed low, generally just felt like a waste of time trying to turn over a gear that I couldn't really manage.