Interesting take on bike cadence and training
Some of you may have seen this, but I came across an interview with Chris Carmichael, Lance Armstrong's cycling coach. There were a couple of interesting points, I thought.
I found this quote most interesting. It pertains to cadence, and correlates with some coaches I've been with and/or been exposed to that preach low cadence for triathletes.
"You start to develop efficiencies at certain pedal cadences the more time you spend at them," explains Carmichael. "Generally, at lower pedal cadences, say 60 to 80 rpm, people have the greatest efficiency (on flat terrain). Once you get above this level, you start to lose efficiency and you start to consume more oxygen and your heart rate increases."
This is one of the things I've seen mentioned with regard to cadence several times. For a triathlete, lower stress on the aerobic system on the bike leaves more room for better runs, where the aerobic system is taxed far greater. To be fair, Carmichael does say that training at higher cadences can provide adaptations to provide efficiencies at the higher cadences. However, Sutton and other coaches that promote lower cadence claim that those efficiences are not available to most triathletes who are unable to devote full training to cycling...and most certainly to age groupers. Hmm...now there's a can of worms for the EN community.
Another point Carmichael made was, "Aerobic development—that is, increasing Lance's ability to transport oxygen to his working muscles—takes up 95 percent of our focus in training. I see a lot of triathletes focusing on getting their lactate threshold up as high as possible," he says. "But there's a point of diminishing returns. If your lactate threshold is 85 to 90 percent of your VO2 capacity, it's just not going to get any higher. So what you've got to do now is go back and build a bigger engine, which means you've got to grow your VO2."
More food for thought.
Comments
Isn't that the point of the mini-periodization in our OS plans: 8 weeks starting out to build FTP, then 6 weeks of VO2 work? Alternate raising the roof and ceiling.
Yes, it would seem so to me. As RnP say...the OS is the time to get fast.
Carmichael goes on to quantify that aerobic development is 95% of Lance's training, with tempo rides being the bulk of that with lengths up to around 2 hours. So, he spends the signficant majority of his time pushing VO2 max and relatively little training time above LT. (Assuming the 95% number provided by Carmichael isn't an exercise in hyperbole.)
So, it seems to still be a bit of a different approach.
This is rather interesting. Over the last few weeks I've discovere that I am simply most comfortable on my tri-bike when I'm spinning at about 85-95 rpms. Any less than 85 seems to be grinding to me, and I can't sustain it. Maybe I need to train myself more at lower cadence if my efficiency is greater there. It sure doesn't FEEL that way to me.
This is interesting as Carmichael states just the opposite in his books on Training/Armstrong. And it has been often stated that Armstrong rides at higher cadences.
In the interview/aritcile does Carmichael indicate that he has changed his thinking? Supported by some new data? Just curious.
Frankly I find myself far more comfortable and efficient at a higher cadence 95 v 85....I have always wondered wether this was a by-product of my running background...............
My notes:
When I ride my bike I observe how cadence relates to power relates to comfort relates to RPE relates to what is the cadence that I naturally gravitate to. This season that number has been quite high, as 98-100rpm+ is where I see the best combination of high watts + low RPE + high comfort + seems to work well with the running legs.
http://www.training4cyclists.com/cycling-pedalling-frequency-–-fast-or-slow/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+CyclingTrainingTips+(Cycling+Training+Tips)
lots of info from scientific studies quoted through-out that website btw. and at one time he had a link to EN;-)
@ Linda - Thanks for finding that. That article is confirming what Carmichael said above...and in agreement with the triathlon (and cycling) coaches I mentioned in my initial post. There are many such studies that point to lower cadence as being a better method for MOST people, including a couple of triathlon-specific studies where running speed vs. running endurance were tested. Maybe that's why some triathlon coaches coach it! It just appears to be somewhat ill-received here at EN. We all want to spin like Lance at 110rpm.
I feel like I'm really getting a lot out of the EN way of tri training and I'll see in AZ!
my 2 cents if you want to read up on scientifically based info on cycling-specific training, checkout that web site lots of info based upon actual scientific studies, like-wise go with Daniels for running. Just my opinion of course, but from what I've seen at least in the plans and wiki, the EN style of training is very consistent with the actual science presented by those 2 and puts it all together. I've read some other "flashier" tri-specific training books/plansover the years but never felt that there seemed to be much science behind them that I could tell... Carmichael definitely flipped his cadence advice over the years.
All talk of high/low cadence, scientific studies, etc aside, my intent was to call a full stop on:
As far as the scientific studies...every coach worth his or her salt is basing their style on current science and proven methodology, including those who disagree with us. That's one of my gripes at times as I see people drinking such-and-so's Kool-Aid and bashing every differing opinion. Fact is, some opinions are simply wrong. For example, as a physician, it's widely known that 99.9% of what the sports world thinks about electrolyte intake is medically false, and scientifically disproven with no qualification. But we listen to Gatorade, et al, and their rhetoric and advertising.
Or just as bad...as in this case..."I don't like Carmichael, so he must not know what he's talking about." Forget the fact that we're discussing a study that showed lower cadence results in high VO2 peaks and lower RPE. Forget that there are lots of other studies out that say the same thing. Personally, I don't know Carmichael, never read his books, never followed his advice, and in fact, never read anything he's ever said until I came across the above referenced interview on active.com. I do KNOW that what I posted from Carmichaels interview corroborates much advice given by many triathlon coaches (including Brett Sutton, who many consider one of the best tri-coaches on earth - I'm not taking a side here - incidentally, Sutton attempts to find the cadence suitable for the individual, but advocates the mid-80s mostly) and is backed by many studies, just like the one you put forth, Linda. Truth be told, it's common knowledge that a higher cadence has a higher aerobic and metabolic cost. Heck, that's common sense. Go and pedal 80, then 100, and see which one stresses the aerobic system more. The real question is, does this additional aerobic stress result in a price to be paid later? Or more aptly, is the cost of the higher cadence worth it over the course of the race?
The big rub here is, and I've stated this many times, I do think it's somewhat indvidualistic. For some, the aerobic cost is too much to pay...for others, it isn't. We should be using the science and the studies to help us better understand training as a whole but never forget that humans are different in many ways, that age groupers are not pros, that the 155 pound triathlete isn't the 210 pound triathlete, etc.
Like you, Linda, I prefer Daniel's methods for running. But we are a huge minority in the triathlon space (and much of running, for that matter)! HUGE! Does that mean everybody else is wrong? There's a lot of science that contradicts Daniels. But the reason I like it is that it provides pace targets. Many disagree. This time of year, one of the knocks we hear is the heat...you can't use Daniel's paces in heat. I think most of us can affirm that, to some degree. It's absolutely fact that heat has a huge effect on run pace. In fact, Galloway simply said don't even try to pace above 85 degrees! Does that mean Daniel's method is inappropriate as a training method?
@Jeremy - please check out the thread about the Ben Greenfield interview with Dr. Noakes. The discussion is about his assertion that you mirror above:
(EDIT - Removed redundant quotation)
After Peter Reid won his second Ironman WC, he added Carmichael to his stable of coaches, to up his game so he wouldn't have to rely on his run so much. He had a disastrous few years (DNF, dispondent "retirement"). He dropped Carmichael, went back to his own counsel for training, and won his third race in Kona. Just sayin' ...
@ Linda - Carmichael may very well have changed his coaching tune on the bike over the years. I honestly couldn't say. I'm not sure I would consider that a fault though. I would be more concerned about a coach that DIDN'T change with experience and current "best practices". In fact, our very own Endurance Nation methods weren't always what they are today.
@ Al - I'm not defending Carmichael in any way or validating him as a coach. I frankly don't know enough about him to say. But we know that there are a number of stories of athletes that thrive under some coaches, and not under others, and vice versa. That's rather common. If there was 'one' best way for every athlete, it would be too easy. But...I think you're overstating Reid's difficulty. He won Kona in 2000 (under Carmichael). He fell apart in 2001, but came back and was 2nd in Kona in '02, then won again in '03. There's a lot of info/explanation/details of those times directly from Reid here: http://www.slowtwitch.com/headings/regions/canada.html, including an article titled "Peter Reid's Demise Greatly Exaggerated". It's interesting reading anyway.
Guys, I'm sorry I caused the stir. I just thought it was an interesting interview. I didn't know there was so much dislike for Carmichael here. I didn't mean for it to turn into a discussion about him, LA, or CTS.
Lots of data on 90 rpm being close to optimal on the run, most folks have noticed that if you bike much lower than 80, it's actually very hard to get yourself running back up at 90, so that's where the bike near 90 rpm advice comes from. The efficiency loss/tradeoff seems worth it in light of those considerations...
That's true, Mike. But most triathlon coaches that advocate lower cadence are talking low/mid 80s...not mid-60s. Lots of data that says that cadence range allows optimial endurance on the run, and taxes the aerobic system much less than 90+. While 90rpm may seem to allow one to get back up to 90 cadence on the run, the truth is, most age groupers don't hold 90 on the run because of the way they rode the bike, whether it be too much hammer on the legs or too much stress on the aerobic system or a little bit of both. There are also some coaches who say that there's a neuromuscular cost to be paid riding high cadence. My best understanding is that, in short, asking the legs to fire at 90+ cadence for 5 hours on a bike then another 4 hours on the run is sub-optimal, if not impossible for many triathletes. I'm not saying I agree or disagree...that's just one of the points I've heard mentioned a few times.
Personally, for whatever reason, I run MUCH better off the bike if I'm in the low/mid 80s. 90-100 cadence feels right when I'm riding, I feel fast, and I have no trouble maintaining it. But for some reason, that cadence hurts my run. I'm not super-honken fast, but I've been on the AG podium in every race this year, including an overall Masters win. I slowed my bike cadence down on the advice of a coach in the off season this last winter. Seems to have worked for me.
That's the fun and challenge of triathlon...balance and finding the right compromise that allows each of us to perform to our maximum potential.
+1 on this. I've never made any effort to work one way or the other on my bike cadence (like Tucker is saying above), but looking back after the fact, I note three things: I will tend to push my cadence towards 90 in a race, ending up averaging in the "low-mid 80s"; I tend to train at a lower cadence than I race, except doing FTP intervals; and I both train and race at a low 90s cadence on the run. I'm too old get an overall Masters win (those damned 40-45 y/os!), but, like Jerry, I do pretty well. So I see no reason to make a big effort to change what seems to come naturally.
In training, I just go with whatever feels right on the day. In the last month I've nailed a 2 x 20 at FTP at 75rpm and another one at 95rpm... both just felt right that day so I went with it.
Also, in races if I am starting to feel like I'm fading or my PE is not quite in line with my watts, sometimes I'll purposely raise or drop my cadence by 10-15 rpm just to shock the legs for about 5 minutes. After that i stop paying attention again and let it work itself out.