Ideal Quadrant Analysis for Ironman & IM 70.3
I am trying to do some figuring out on what an ideal quadrant analysis might look like for an Ironman or a 70.3.
I got to watch a video where Hunter Allen did a power analysis on some pro's from Kona and he broke out what he thought Ideal Quadrant Analysis should look like. I am not sure if what he prescribed was strictly for Kona or for Ironman in general. I know him and Coggan wrote the book on training with power, but I am pretty sure they wanted input from our coaches in version two for triathletes.
Allen's break down looked like this (roughly):
Quadrant 1: 5% or less
Quadrant 2: 15% or less
Quadrant 3: 50-55%
Quadrant 4: 30-35%
As you play with different ratios you can see how it might work out.
Here is my question, why not more Quadrant 4 time vs. Quadrant 3 time?
A quick recap for those not familiar with Quadrant Analysis:
Q1 High Force, High Cadence (above FTP, Cadence above 90 rpm)
Q2 High Force, Low cadence (above FTP, Cadence below 90 rpm)
Q3 Low Force, Low Cadence ( Below FTP, Cadence below 90 rpm)
Q4 Low Force, High Cadence ( Below FTP, Cadence above 90 rpm)
My thought here and from looking at some power files on better cyclist is that a higher cadence would be better than a lower cadence or more time in Q4 would be better than Q3? What if you rode Ironman Wisconsin and your average cadence came back at 93 RPM, vs 85 RPM. Everything else stayed the same, NP, AVP, VI, TSS. Would this be better to have more time in Q4 vs Q3? If not why?
Things that I see that make me think more time in Q4 would be better are Mirinda Carfrae working with Mat from Retul to change her riding style and work with power. Mirinda use to be a pedal masher which would make me think she has a lot of time in Q2 & Q3. Mat has said he is working to change her riding style so she doesn't mash up hills (Q2). I would think he is pushing to get more Q3 and Q4 out of her. Thus less muscle taxing on the legs so she can run better off the bike.
On a side note I end up watching a lot of TDF footage and while these guys are no means triathletes, even when climbing hills they are keeping a high cadence 90+. My thought is they are keeping the high cadence because this is more efficient and will help them get back on the bike the next day and day after that and keep going vs. if they mash the pedal it is too taxing on the legs and hurts them later on?
Would the same thought process not apply to Ironman? Go after as much Quadrant 4(Cadence 90+, below threshold) time on the bike possible to set you up for the run?
Comments
It's not that one style or quadrant is better than another, I think it's more the actual distribution across the quadrants that belies good vs poor effort. That said, my 80 rpms isn't your 80 rpms. There are plenty of reasons why we don't all ride 90 rpms and that's it all day long....leg strength, aerobic fitness, comfort level, etc. So there's no "one" answer...and the "natural" demarcation of 90 rpms as the "standard" is weak in this case. BUT, I do think that there is more Q3 because that's where we tend to ride as triathletes: far below FTP in an IM and lower than 90 rpms in the aeroposition (guessing most are 80-90). So according to those standards we'll fall lower....that said, we should all work on the parts of our pedal stroke that ARE weak...but not on race day.
I noticed by default the "T-cadence" is set to 86 in my WKO on every file so it is not the average cadence as those are different. If I change it just 2-3 rpm either way, it radically changes the results of the QA.
Anyone happen to know how we should go about determining a T-cadence?
Matt, I'd guess T-cadence would be the average cadence for a longer (ie. 2x20 type) FTP test, in other words wherever you tend to self-select when you're putting out your threshold power. Don't know if WKO pulls that out automagically or not.
There are lots of different thoughts on where cadence distribution should end up. We can all agree to minimize Zones I and II. The ratio of Zones III to IV is a bit of a mystery, but I'd be inclined to agree that it should be somewhat heavier Zone III, as there will be a balance between energy cost (ie. high cadence) and muscular fatigue. I would expect most people to hold a slightly higher cadence for a 2x20 or a 40kTT than they would in an IM, meaning that more of your pedaling would be in Zone III.
The cadence that divides the left and right "halves" of the diagram is set at the "self selected cadence at FTP"....more or less exactly what Mike suggested.