Cycling Cadence and Running Stride Rate

Tony

Reading from "Lactate Threshold Training" (Janssen 2001)
recently, I saw a section about pedaling frequency that
seemed to confirm the advantages of using a high cadence at
certain times when cycle racing. This is of course the style
of Armstrong and Indurain, especially when climbing. Their
success using this technique makes it intriguing.

As I understand it, basically with a bigger gear (lower
cadence), the muscle contraction is longer and requires more
power and will become anaerobic sooner than will a higher
cadence that requires less power per contraction. Thus at
the same speed, two equally fit athletes each using a
different cadence will be doing a different kind of workout.
The cyclist using a lower cadence will be getting more of a
strength workout, and the cyclist using a higher cadence
will be getting a more aerobic workout and will breathe
harder as a result. But the one using the higher cadence
will recover faster and be able to go longer because there
will be less muscle damage. All this for Two riders of equal
ability going the same speed.

It is the contraction force necessary that determines which
muscles will do the work. First, slow twitch (type I muscle
fibers) always do the work first unless the contraction
requires greater speed or force than the type I's can
handle. If the force is greater, the medium twitch (type
IIa's and others) kick in, and while these are partially
aerobic, they produce more lactate than type I's, and thus
fatigue more quickly. If the force necessary is still
greater, fast twitch (type IIb) muscles kick in, but these
will fatigue very quickly.

The surprising thing to me is that for the same workout
effort, it can turn out to be a strength workout or an
aerobic workout. This certainly has implications for both
training and racing, and has clearly not been exploited by
many racers. Strength workouts require longer to recover
from. It now seems clear why Armstrong usually seems to have
fresher legs than other riders when climbing in the
mountains day after day. The higher cadence is more aerobic
and saves on muscle fatigue.

The evidence seems clear on this for cycling, as it makes
sense from a muscle physiology point of view. I'm wondering
if similar principles might be true for running too. Is a
shorter but faster stride more aerobic for the same speed? I
believe over-striding is known to have a tendency to wear
out the legs, and this might be a demonstration of this
principle.

A separate but related question is: to what degree does the
difference in cycling cadence (and possibly stride rate in
activities like running and hiking) produce differences in
hypertrophy? Thus, is hypertrophy after endurance exercise a
demonstration of this principle of it being more of a
strength workload as opposed to an aerobic workload? My
understanding is that type I muscle fibers do not experience
hypertrophy to the same extent of type IIa and IIb fibers.
In my experience, high cadence cycling produces less
hypertrophy than low cadence cycling. Also, certain
activities like trail running in hilly areas tend to produce
much more hypertrophy. To what extent is this evidence that
the workload is more anaerobic? Any other ideas on this?

- Tony

Np426z

"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZPBGc.351$Al5.109@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...

> Reading from "Lactate Threshold Training" (Janssen 2001)
> recently, I saw a section about pedaling frequency

Yunno, there's a world of difference between reading and
understanding. However, reading makes a fine start...

> This is of course the style of Armstrong and Indurain,
> especially when climbing. Their
success
> using this technique makes it intriguing.

<splutter>

Uh? 'Their' success? Almost *EVERY* climber of note
maintains high cadence when climbing. In fact I'd go so far
as to say that the big guys like Armstrong and Indurain
actually turn the pedals at a slightly lower rate than the
'pure' climbers.

> As I understand it, basically with a bigger gear (lower
> cadence), the
muscle
> contraction is longer and requires more power and will
> become anaerobic sooner than will a higher cadence that
> requires less power per
contraction.
> Thus at the same speed, two equally fit athletes each
> using a different cadence will be doing a different kind
> of workout. The cyclist using a lower cadence will be
> getting more of a strength workout, and the cyclist using
> a higher cadence will be getting a more aerobic workout
> and will breathe harder as a result. But the one using the
> higher cadence will recover faster and be able to go
> longer because there will be less muscle damage. All this
> for Two riders of equal ability going the same speed.

Yes - in theory - but life is never that simple. You also
have to factor in body weight, bike weight, rider/bike
aerodynamics, etc, etc. Cycling, like life, cannot be
reduced to a series of simplistic equations or formula.

<snipped basic physiology examples lifted from textbook>

Dear Tony,

If I wanted/needed a refresher course I'd buy the book.

> It now seems clear why Armstrong usually seems to have
> fresher legs than other riders when climbing in the
> mountains day after day

I think there is a rather more likely explanation being
touted in a popluar book on Armstrong at the mo'.

> I'm wondering if similar principles might be true for
> running too.

Simple answer? No.

> Is a shorter but faster stride more aerobic for the
> same speed?

Simple answer? No.

> A separate but related question is: to what degree does
> the difference in cycling cadence (and possibly stride
> rate in activities like running and hiking) produce
> differences in hypertrophy?

OMG! I think you need to sit down and ask yourself *why*
you're asking these questions. Are you bored? A deviant
troll? Wobbot's long-lost brother?

> Any other ideas on this?

Yup. I have an idea. Post something interesting. It
could be what you had for breakfast, what your boss said
to you today, your views on world peace, ANYTHING but
this nonsense.

Swstudio

"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Reading from "Lactate Threshold Training" (Janssen 2001)
> recently, I saw a section about pedaling frequency that
> seemed to confirm the advantages of using a high cadence
> at certain times when cycle racing. This is of
course
> the style of Armstrong and Indurain, especially when
> climbing. Their
success
> using this technique makes it intriguing.

Yep, we all know that Armstrong consistently maintains a
higher average cadence than anyone else on the TdF, hills or
not - every year people talk about it. Remember the talk of
LA's cadence
vs. Ullrich over the years? I wasn't as much into cycling
when Indurain was ripping up the roads, but I remember
that being discussed about him as well. They are/were
certainly amazing climbers, and the higher cadence
certainly helps.

As a runner, I can tell you that it's standard procedure to
shorten your stride and increase the cadence a little (as
well as a bit of the old arm-pumping) when climbing. I'd say
it's a similar strategy. Certainly taking slow, long strides
when running up a hill (comparable to pushing a high gear)
would be less effecient.

> It now seems clear why Armstrong usually seems to have
> fresher legs than other riders when climbing in the
> mountains day after day. The higher cadence is more
> aerobic and saves on muscle fatigue.

Well - said, and I agree. Often in marathon running you will
see people developing a shorter stride length and faster
cadence as the race nears the end, because fatigue it really
taking over and the body simply compensates and makes it as
easy as possible. This makes me think that people should do
this from the start!

Interesting post - thanks for your thoughts.

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org
www.absolutelyaccurate.com

Tony

SwStudio wrote in message ...
>"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> Reading from "Lactate Threshold Training" (Janssen 2001)
>> recently, I saw
a
>> section about pedaling frequency that seemed to confirm
>> the advantages of using a high cadence at certain times
>> when cycle racing. This is of
>course
>> the style of Armstrong and Indurain, especially when
>> climbing. Their
>success
>> using this technique makes it intriguing.
>
>Yep, we all know that Armstrong consistently maintains a
>higher average cadence than anyone else on the TdF, hills
>or not - every year people talk about it. Remember the talk
>of LA's cadence
>vs. Ullrich over the years? I wasn't as much into cycling
> when Indurain was ripping up the roads, but I remember
> that being discussed about him as well. They are/were
> certainly amazing climbers, and the higher cadence
> certainly helps.

I know there are other cycling greats who have used the high
cadence technique so it's not a new thing, but its
surprizing how resistant the other racers are, particularly
guys like ullrich. Pride perhaps.

>
>As a runner, I can tell you that it's standard procedure to
>shorten your stride and increase the cadence a little (as
>well as a bit of the old arm-pumping) when climbing. I'd
>say it's a similar strategy. Certainly taking slow, long
>strides when running up a hill (comparable to pushing a
>high gear) would be less effecient.
>
>
>> It now seems clear why Armstrong usually seems to have
>> fresher legs than other riders when climbing in the
>> mountains day after day. The higher cadence is more
>> aerobic and saves on muscle fatigue.
>
>Well - said, and I agree. Often in marathon running you
>will see people developing a shorter stride length and
>faster cadence as the race nears the end, because fatigue
>it really taking over and the body simply compensates and
>makes it as easy as possible. This makes me think that
>people should do this from the start!

Well today I started an experiment of one. For two weeks I
will do my runs with very short strides and a quick
turnover. My aim is to do 1.5x my usual stride rate and see
how this affects my training. Today I did an 80 min trail
run doing this and it felt seriously funny to run that way,
and I probably looked like charlie chaplin shuffling down
the road frantically with a load in his pants. My HR was at
least 10 beats higher than normal, but the run took the same
amount of time as usual. All I can say so far is that maybe
there was a bit less loading than normal on the hills, and
that my legs felt very different than they usually do after
the run, not better necessarily, but just different. Will
post more results of this later.

- Tony
>
>Interesting post - thanks for your thoughts.
>
>cheers,
>--
>David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org
>www.absolutelyaccurate.com

Tony

np426z wrote in message ...
>"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ZPBGc.351$Al5.109@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
>
>> Reading from "Lactate Threshold Training" (Janssen 2001)
>> recently, I saw
a
>> section about pedaling frequency
>
>Yunno, there's a world of difference between reading and
>understanding. However, reading makes a fine start...
>
>> This is of course the style of Armstrong and Indurain,
>> especially when climbing. Their
>success
>> using this technique makes it intriguing.
>
><splutter>
>
>Uh? 'Their' success? Almost *EVERY* climber of note
>maintains high cadence when climbing. In fact I'd go so far
>as to say that the big guys like Armstrong and Indurain
>actually turn the pedals at a slightly lower rate than the
>'pure' climbers.

Well they each won 5 tours de france. I didn't say they
invented the technique, but their success with it certainly
demands a closer look at it
IMO.

>
>> As I understand it, basically with a bigger gear (lower
>> cadence), the
>muscle
>> contraction is longer and requires more power and will
>> become anaerobic sooner than will a higher cadence that
>> requires less power per
>contraction.
>> Thus at the same speed, two equally fit athletes each
>> using a different cadence will be doing a different kind
>> of workout. The cyclist using a lower cadence will be
>> getting more of a strength workout, and the cyclist using
>> a higher cadence will be getting a more aerobic workout
>> and will breathe harder as a result. But the one using
>> the higher cadence will recover faster and be able to go
>> longer because there will be less muscle damage. All this
>> for Two riders of equal ability going the same speed.
>
>Yes - in theory - but life is never that simple. You also
>have to factor in body weight, bike weight, rider/bike
>aerodynamics, etc, etc. Cycling, like life, cannot be
>reduced to a series of simplistic equations or
formula.
>
><snipped basic physiology examples lifted from textbook>
>
>Dear Tony,
>
>If I wanted/needed a refresher course I'd buy the book.

lol, its a very minor point in the book.

>
>> It now seems clear why Armstrong usually seems to have
>> fresher legs than other riders when climbing in the
>> mountains day after day
>
>I think there is a rather more likely explanation being
>touted in a popluar book on Armstrong at the mo'.

The jury hasn't even been selected on this. The success of
Armstrong and others using this technique makes it important
for the future of cycling.

>
>> I'm wondering if similar principles might be true for
>> running too.
>
>Simple answer? No.
>
>> Is a shorter but faster stride more aerobic for the
>> same speed?
>
>Simple answer? No.
>
>> A separate but related question is: to what degree does
>> the difference
in
>> cycling cadence (and possibly stride rate in activities
>> like running and hiking) produce differences in
>> hypertrophy?
>
>OMG! I think you need to sit down and ask yourself *why*
>you're asking these questions. Are you bored? A deviant
>troll? Wobbot's long-lost brother?

I think we all know who and what constitutes a deviant
troll.

>
>> Any other ideas on this?
>
>Yup. I have an idea. Post something interesting. It could
>be what you had for breakfast, what your boss said to you
>today, your views on world peace, ANYTHING but this
>nonsense.

Chris

"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vRIGc.30671$MT5.5859@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
> SwStudio wrote in message ...
> >"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> Reading from "Lactate Threshold Training" (Janssen
> >> 2001) recently, I
saw
> a
> >> section about pedaling frequency that seemed to confirm
> >> the advantages
of
> >> using a high cadence at certain times when cycle
> >> racing. This is of
> >course
> >> the style of Armstrong and Indurain, especially when
> >> climbing. Their
> >success
> >> using this technique makes it intriguing.
> >
> >Yep, we all know that Armstrong consistently maintains a
> >higher average cadence than anyone else on the TdF, hills
> >or not - every year people talk about it. Remember the
> >talk of LA's cadence
> >vs. Ullrich over the years? I wasn't as much into cycling
> > when Indurain was ripping up the roads, but I
> > remember that being discussed about him as well. They
> > are/were certainly amazing climbers, and the higher
> > cadence certainly helps.
>
> I know there are other cycling greats who have used the
> high cadence technique so it's not a new thing, but its
> surprizing how resistant the other racers are,
> particularly guys like ullrich. Pride perhaps.

Ullrich does NOT use largely different gears. The difference
you are seeing is Ullrich under pressure trying to keep from
blowing up compared to Armstrong on the attack in the final
kilometers. They are normally in the same gear and Lance is
moving ahead (remember, he is opening a gap when spinning
the fastest so all he is really doing differently is keeping
in the same gear while opening up a gap quickly). You can
look at Ullrich in '97 (when he won) and he can be seen
winning (stage 10?) in the mountains almost by accident and
spinning very smoothly and quickly (85 to 90).

Andy Coggan

"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZPBGc.351$Al5.109@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
> Reading from "Lactate Threshold Training" (Janssen 2001)
> recently, I saw a section about pedaling frequency that
> seemed to confirm the advantages of using a high cadence
> at certain times when cycle racing. This is of
course
> the style of Armstrong and Indurain, especially when
> climbing. Their
success
> using this technique makes it intriguing.
>
> As I understand it, basically with a bigger gear (lower
> cadence), the
muscle
> contraction is longer and requires more power and will
> become anaerobic sooner than will a higher cadence that
> requires less power per
contraction.
> Thus at the same speed, two equally fit athletes each
> using a different cadence will be doing a different kind
> of workout. The cyclist using a lower cadence will be
> getting more of a strength workout, and the cyclist using
> a higher cadence will be getting a more aerobic workout
> and will breathe harder as a result. But the one using the
> higher cadence will recover faster and be able to go
> longer because there will be less muscle damage. All this
> for Two riders of equal ability going the same speed.
>
> It is the contraction force necessary that determines
> which muscles will
do
> the work. First, slow twitch (type I muscle fibers) always
> do the work first unless the contraction requires greater
> speed or force than the type I's can handle. If the force
> is greater, the medium twitch (type IIa's
and
> others) kick in, and while these are partially aerobic,
> they produce more lactate than type I's, and thus fatigue
> more quickly. If the force necessary is still greater,
> fast twitch (type IIb) muscles kick in, but these will
> fatigue very quickly.
>
> The surprising thing to me is that for the same workout
> effort, it can
turn
> out to be a strength workout or an aerobic workout. This
> certainly has implications for both training and racing,
> and has clearly not been exploited by many racers.
> Strength workouts require longer to recover
from.
> It now seems clear why Armstrong usually seems to have
> fresher legs than other riders when climbing in the
> mountains day after day. The higher cadence is more
> aerobic and saves on muscle fatigue.
>
> The evidence seems clear on this for cycling, as it makes
> sense from a muscle physiology point of view. I'm
> wondering if similar principles
might
> be true for running too. Is a shorter but faster stride
> more aerobic for the same speed? I believe over-striding
> is known to have a tendency to
wear
> out the legs, and this might be a demonstration of this
> principle.
>
> A separate but related question is: to what degree does
> the difference in cycling cadence (and possibly stride
> rate in activities like running and hiking) produce
> differences in hypertrophy? Thus, is hypertrophy after
> endurance exercise a demonstration of this principle of it
> being more of a strength workload as opposed to an aerobic
> workload? My understanding is that type I muscle fibers do
> not experience hypertrophy to the same extent of type IIa
> and IIb fibers. In my experience, high cadence cycling
produces
> less hypertrophy than low cadence cycling. Also, certain
> activities like trail running in hilly areas tend to
> produce much more hypertrophy. To
what
> extent is this evidence that the workload is more
> anaerobic? Any other ideas on this?

First, I think you are taking things a bit too literally
here...the difference between, say, a cadence of 70 vs. 110
is quite small when you consider that the minimal
(concentric) cadence is 0 and the maximum (at least
theorectically) up around 250, or even higher. There is
therefore no such thing as a true "strength" workout when
pedaling, at least not in the way you're viewing it.

Second, while intuitively appealing, the notion that varying
your cadence affects fiber type recruitment is far from
proven (despite what Carmichael might have you believe). In
fact, the only study that has addressed this question using
the classical means of assessing motor unit recruitment
pattern (i.e., PAS staining) yielded results that suggest
that cadence does *not* have any significant influence
(although the authors interpreted the data differently).

Third, hypertrophy is a consequence of muscle use, period.
The degree to which hypertrophy occurs of course varies with
the force requirement, but some amount of hypertrophy will
result even from very low force activities
(e.g., running).

Andy Coggan

Harold Buck

In article <vRIGc.30671$MT5.5859@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>,
"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote:

> >Yep, we all know that Armstrong consistently maintains a
> >higher average cadence than anyone else on the TdF, hills
> >or not - every year people talk about it. Remember the
> >talk of LA's cadence
> >vs. Ullrich over the years? I wasn't as much into cycling
> > when Indurain was ripping up the roads, but I
> > remember that being discussed about him as well. They
> > are/were certainly amazing climbers, and the higher
> > cadence certainly helps.
>
> I know there are other cycling greats who have used the
> high cadence technique so it's not a new thing, but its
> surprizing how resistant the other racers are,
> particularly guys like ullrich. Pride perhaps.

For a sport that is so affected by technology, they sure
don't have a lot of "early adopters." "Real" cyclists used
to laugh at aerobars until Greg LeMond used them to make up
an "insurmountable" deficit and win the TDF by 8 seconds in
a final stage time trial. Now they all use them.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Th-
en it was every other day. . . ."
- Homer J. Simpson

Ozzie Gontang

Any otherideas on this?
> - Tony

From Peter Cavanagh and Michael Pollock's work back in the
70's one was a comparison of Elite and Good Distance
runners. See the Marathon in Volume301 of the Annals of
the New York Academy of Sciences 1977 for all aspects on
the marathon.

Elite Marathoners (Frank Shorter was included in that group)
numbered 9 (mean marathon time: 2:15:52) and good runners
made up of 3 with a mean time of 2:34:40.

When you are talking about 90 cycles a minute in biking, the
equivalent is 90 strides a minute which we all know as the
180 steps/minute ideal.

In the research between elite and good: Elite: 191
steps/minute SD 10.74 Good 182 steps/minute SD 8.80

Elite stride length: 1.56 M SD 0.17 M Good stride length:
1.64 M SD 0.16 M

If you want to see various people playing with the 90
cycles/stides or 180 steps/minute check out

http://www.breathplay.com

Ian Jackson was an early writer for Runner's World and
was into breathing and running form. He did a booklet
for them on Running and Yoga. He's worked with some
top cyclists.

http://www.chirunning.com

Danny Dreyer has arrived at the same conclusions that I
have. His training program is all about "Running is
falling and catching oneself Gracefully." GAPO Well done
CD. If you get a chance to take his half day class I
would say, Don't miss it, if you want to learn to run
gracefully over the surface of the earth.

I'm looking at taking Danny's certification program as my
thinking melds right into his program.

In health and on the run, Ozzie Gontang Director, San Diego
Marathon Clinic, est. 1975 Maintainer - rec.running FAQ http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-
faq/ Mindful Running: http://www.mindfulness.com/mr.asp

Lyle McDonald

Andy Coggan wrote:

> "Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message

> First, I think you are taking things a bit too literally
> here...the difference between, say, a cadence of 70 vs.
> 110 is quite small when you consider that the minimal
> (concentric) cadence is 0 and the maximum (at least
> theorectically) up around 250, or even higher. There is
> therefore no such thing as a true "strength" workout when
> pedaling, at least not in the way you're viewing it.

Most of the recs for muscle tension types workouts
(Carmichael and Morris) are in the 50RPM range against a
higher resistance than what you'd use at a higher cadence.
From the Force-Velocity curve, as you move closer to
isometric (0 RPM against maximal resistance), you are
increasing tension requirements. It is moving closer to a
'strength' stimulus becuse of this. Strength-endurance would
be a better description.

>
> Second, while intuitively appealing, the notion that
> varying your cadence affects fiber type recruitment is far
> from proven (despite what Carmichael might have you
> believe). In fact, the only study that has addressed this
> question using the classical means of assessing motor unit
> recruitment pattern (i.e., PAS staining) yielded results
> that suggest that cadence does *not* have any significant
> influence (although the authors interpreted the data
> differently).

I think I know the study you're referring to, it used a
fairly narrow range of high cadences, didn't it. Also, did
the study change power/force requirements with the
changing cadence?

>
> Third, hypertrophy is a consequence of muscle use, period.
> The degree to which hypertrophy occurs of course varies
> with the force requirement, but some amount of hypertrophy
> will result even from very low force activities
> (e.g., running).

Yes, hence all those super muscular runners. Right.

What you generally see with endurance training is a slight
incrase in size of some Type I fibers (and a decrease in
others, both approaching an optimal size:capillary ratio)
and a loss of size in Type II, at least with only low
intensity endurance work.

LSD work at 20% of maximal force output can be maintained
almost exclusively with Type I fibers (until exhaustion at
which point Type II will come into play).

Running or cycling uphill (or faster) will have higher
tension requirements. Meaning greater recruitment of Type II
fibers. This is why it tends to be more anaerobic, b/c of
increasing use of fibers that tend to rely more on anaerobic
glycolytic metabolism (which is the point of training the
Type II fibers to be more endurance and rely less on
anaerobic glycolysis with intervals).

distance cycling has higher tension requirements than
distance runnning, which is part of why cyclists tend to
have more muscular legs.

Sprinters trump both of them. Of course, they also
lift weights.

Lyle

Dan Stumpus

Ozzie:

Remember my thoughts on how elite runners tended to shuffle
(higher stride rate and shorter stride length)?

This data comparing the elite with the sub-elite seems to
support that observation. The difference is even more
striking when you compare elites to the merely above-
average runner.

The Cavanagh/Pollock results seem to imply that running
economy is the major difference between the groups, not just
VO2 max. A longer stride at a given speed means more
vertical lift (and less efficiency).

I had a 76.4 vo2 max (predictive of 2:15 marathon), but
couldn't get to
2:30, due to my poor economy (too much bounce). I got
trounced in short races by a guy with a 62 vo2max who was
smooth as silk -- short quick shuffle steps and very
little bounce.

-- Dan

"Ozzie Gontang" <gontang215@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:060720042238267497%gontang215@sbcglobal.net...
> Any otherideas on this?
> > - Tony
>
>
> From Peter Cavanagh and Michael Pollock's work back in the
> 70's one was a comparison of Elite and Good Distance
> runners. See the Marathon in Volume301 of the Annals of
> the New York Academy of Sciences 1977 for all aspects on
> the marathon.
>
> Elite Marathoners (Frank Shorter was included in that
> group) numbered 9 (mean marathon time: 2:15:52) and good
> runners made up of 3 with a mean time of 2:34:40.
>
> When you are talking about 90 cycles a minute in biking,
> the equivalent is 90 strides a minute which we all know as
> the 180 steps/minute ideal.
>
> In the research between elite and good: Elite: 191
> steps/minute SD 10.74 Good 182 steps/minute SD 8.80
>
> Elite stride length: 1.56 M SD 0.17 M Good stride length:
> 1.64 M SD 0.16 M
>
> If you want to see various people playing with the 90
> cycles/stides or 180 steps/minute check out
>
> http://www.breathplay.com
>
> Ian Jackson was an early writer for Runner's World and
> was into breathing and running form. He did a booklet
> for them on Running and Yoga. He's worked with some top
> cyclists.
>
> http://www.chirunning.com
>
> Danny Dreyer has arrived at the same conclusions that I
> have. His training program is all about "Running is
> falling and catching oneself Gracefully." GAPO Well
> done CD. If you get a chance to take his half day class
> I would say, Don't miss it, if you want to learn to run
> gracefully over the surface of the earth.
>
> I'm looking at taking Danny's certification program as my
> thinking melds right into his program.
>
>
> In health and on the run, Ozzie Gontang Director, San
> Diego Marathon Clinic, est. 1975 Maintainer - rec.running
> FAQ http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-faq/ Mindful Running:
> http://www.mindfulness.com/mr.asp

Cat Dailey

"Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in message
news:10eo4pgbilebh48@corp.supernews.com...
> Andy Coggan wrote:
>
> > "Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > First, I think you are taking things a bit too literally
> > here...the difference between, say, a cadence of 70 vs.
> > 110 is quite small when you consider that the minimal
> > (concentric) cadence is 0 and the maximum (at least
> > theorectically) up around 250, or even higher. There is
> > therefore
no
> > such thing as a true "strength" workout when pedaling,
> > at least not in
the
> > way you're viewing it.
>
> Most of the recs for muscle tension types workouts
> (Carmichael and Morris) are in the 50RPM range against a
> higher resistance than what you'd use at a higher cadence.
> From the Force-Velocity curve, as you move closer to
> isometric (0 RPM against maximal resistance), you are
> increasing tension requirements. It is moving closer to a
> 'strength' stimulus becuse of this. Strength-endurance
> would be a better
description.
>
> >
> > Second, while intuitively appealing, the notion that
> > varying your
cadence
> > affects fiber type recruitment is far from proven
> > (despite what
Carmichael
> > might have you believe). In fact, the only study that
> > has addressed this question using the classical means of
> > assessing motor unit recruitment pattern (i.e., PAS
> > staining) yielded results that suggest that cadence
does
> > *not* have any significant influence (although the
> > authors interpreted
the
> > data differently).
>
> I think I know the study you're referring to, it used a
> fairly narrow range of high cadences, didn't it. Also, did
> the study change power/force requirements with the
> changing cadence?
>
> >
> > Third, hypertrophy is a consequence of muscle use,
> > period. The degree to which hypertrophy occurs of course
> > varies with the force requirement,
but
> > some amount of hypertrophy will result even from very
> > low force
activities
> > (e.g., running).
>
> Yes, hence all those super muscular runners. Right.
>
> What you generally see with endurance training is a slight
> incrase in size of some Type I fibers (and a decrease in
> others, both approaching an optimal size:capillary ratio)
> and a loss of size in Type II, at least with only low
> intensity endurance work.
>
> LSD work at 20% of maximal force output can be maintained
> almost exclusively with Type I fibers (until exhaustion at
> which point Type II will come into play).
>
> Running or cycling uphill (or faster) will have higher
> tension requirements. Meaning greater recruitment of Type
> II fibers. This is why it tends to be more anaerobic, b/c
> of increasing use of fibers that tend to rely more on
> anaerobic glycolytic metabolism (which is the point of
> training the Type II fibers to be more endurance and rely
> less on anaerobic glycolysis with intervals).
>
> distance cycling has higher tension requirements than
> distance runnning, which is part of why cyclists tend to
> have more muscular legs.
>
> Sprinters trump both of them. Of course, they also lift
> weights.
>
> Lyle
>
Hey Lyle...is that you...Lyle of the Ketogenic Diet book? If
so WHAT ARE YOU DOING POSTING TO THIS NUTTY GROUP???
Seriously, good to see you are still alive and kicking.

Cat the ex-speedskater back to cycling chick who you
corresponded with about weight training and dieting a few
years back;

Eddy Eagle

Ozzie Gontang <gontang215@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<060720042238267497%gontang215@sbcglobal.net>...
> Any otherideas on this?
> > - Tony
>
>
> From Peter Cavanagh and Michael Pollock's work back in the
> 70's one was a comparison of Elite and Good Distance
> runners. See the Marathon in Volume301 of the Annals of
> the New York Academy of Sciences 1977 for all aspects on
> the marathon.
>
> Elite Marathoners (Frank Shorter was included in that
> group) numbered 9 (mean marathon time: 2:15:52) and good
> runners made up of 3 with a mean time of 2:34:40.
>
> When you are talking about 90 cycles a minute in biking,
> the equivalent is 90 strides a minute which we all know as
> the 180 steps/minute ideal.
>
> In the research between elite and good: Elite: 191
> steps/minute SD 10.74 Good 182 steps/minute SD 8.80
>
> Elite stride length: 1.56 M SD 0.17 M Good stride length:
> 1.64 M SD 0.16 M
>
> If you want to see various people playing with the 90
> cycles/stides or 180 steps/minute check out
>
> http://www.breathplay.com
>
> Ian Jackson was an early writer for Runner's World and
> was into breathing and running form. He did a booklet
> for them on Running and Yoga. He's worked with some top
> cyclists.
>
> http://www.chirunning.com
>
> Danny Dreyer has arrived at the same conclusions that I
> have. His training program is all about "Running is
> falling and catching oneself Gracefully." GAPO Well
> done CD. If you get a chance to take his half day class
> I would say, Don't miss it, if you want to learn to run
> gracefully over the surface of the earth.
>
> I'm looking at taking Danny's certification program as my
> thinking melds right into his program.
>
>
> In health and on the run, Ozzie Gontang Director, San
> Diego Marathon Clinic, est. 1975 Maintainer - rec.running
> FAQ http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-faq/ Mindful Running:
> http://www.mindfulness.com/mr.asp

The chirunning.com site leads off with this quote: "A good
runner leaves no footprints." – Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

If that be true does that mean that shoe wear would be
drastically reduced? Maybe I could save enough on shoe
replacement to justify the expense of the books.

Lyle McDonald

Cat Dailey wrote:

> "Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
> message news:10eo4pgbilebh48@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Andy Coggan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>First, I think you are taking things a bit too literally
>>>here...the difference between, say, a cadence of 70 vs.
>>>110 is quite small when you consider that the minimal
>>>(concentric) cadence is 0 and the maximum (at least
>>>theorectically) up around 250, or even higher. There is
>>>therefore
>
> no
>
>>>such thing as a true "strength" workout when pedaling, at
>>>least not in
>
> the
>
>>>way you're viewing it.
>>
>>Most of the recs for muscle tension types workouts
>>(Carmichael and Morris) are in the 50RPM range against a
>>higher resistance than what you'd use at a higher cadence.
>>From the Force-Velocity curve, as you move closer to
>>isometric (0 RPM against maximal resistance), you are
>>increasing tension requirements. It is moving closer to a
>>'strength' stimulus becuse of this. Strength-endurance
>>would be a better
>
> description.
>
>>>Second, while intuitively appealing, the notion that
>>>varying your
>
> cadence
>
>>>affects fiber type recruitment is far from proven
>>>(despite what
>
> Carmichael
>
>>>might have you believe). In fact, the only study that has
>>>addressed this question using the classical means of
>>>assessing motor unit recruitment pattern (i.e., PAS
>>>staining) yielded results that suggest that cadence
>
> does
>
>>>*not* have any significant influence (although the
>>>authors interpreted
>
> the
>
>>>data differently).
>>
>>I think I know the study you're referring to, it used a
>>fairly narrow range of high cadences, didn't it. Also, did
>>the study change power/force requirements with the
>>changing cadence?
>>
>>
>>>Third, hypertrophy is a consequence of muscle use,
>>>period. The degree to which hypertrophy occurs of course
>>>varies with the force requirement,
>
> but
>
>>>some amount of hypertrophy will result even from very
>>>low force
>
> activities
>
>>>(e.g., running).
>>
>>Yes, hence all those super muscular runners. Right.
>>
>>What you generally see with endurance training is a slight
>>incrase in size of some Type I fibers (and a decrease in
>>others, both approaching an optimal size:capillary ratio)
>>and a loss of size in Type II, at least with only low
>>intensity endurance work.
>>
>>LSD work at 20% of maximal force output can be maintained
>>almost exclusively with Type I fibers (until exhaustion at
>>which point Type II will come into play).
>>
>>Running or cycling uphill (or faster) will have higher
>>tension requirements. Meaning greater recruitment of Type
>>II fibers. This is why it tends to be more anaerobic, b/c
>>of increasing use of fibers that tend to rely more on
>>anaerobic glycolytic metabolism (which is the point of
>>training the Type II fibers to be more endurance and rely
>>less on anaerobic glycolysis with intervals).
>>
>>distance cycling has higher tension requirements than
>>distance runnning, which is part of why cyclists tend to
>>have more muscular legs.
>>
>>Sprinters trump both of them. Of course, they also lift
>>weights.
>>
>>Lyle
>>
>
> Hey Lyle...is that you...Lyle of the Ketogenic Diet book?

Shhh..

> If so WHAT ARE YOU DOING POSTING TO THIS NUTTY GROUP???

had some questions that only the runners could adequately
answer for me.

> Cat the ex-speedskater back to cycling chick who you
> corresponded with about weight training and dieting a few
> years back;>

Yeah, well I moved back into speedskating last year.
Training for it anyhow. Only to find out that the 10k
distance I like is all but gone. Blech. Why are you an ex-
speedskater?

Lyle