How to increase speed?

[No E-mail]

I've taken up cycling over the last year and have enjoyed the sport
quite a bit. I routinely cycle about 100miles a week. I seem to
average around 17-18mph solo on some rolling hills over 26miles
(Sandhill Rd to Canada Rd if you're near Palo Alto). Anyway, I'm
trying to take the next step and increase my speed to average over 20
mph.

My end goal is to average 23mph but that's probably a lofty goal at
the moment.

I bought a cadence computer and have been trying to cycle 90-100rpms
all the time. I found I am usually in this range naturally except
going downhill when I go around 70 at a higher gear but I have been
trying to push it higher on a lower gear now. I seem to average 85-88
or so over a ride including breaking/stopping so seems pretty good I
think.

I've read some rough estimates on adjusting saddle height and realized
my bike was about 2inches too low and that seemed to have increased my
average speed 1-2mph.

I average about 10-12mph climbing and probably ~20 on flats, 25-28
slight downhill, ~33 steeper downhills. I can push myself to go
~15-16mph if I get out of the saddle and push like crazy uphill but I
quickly tire in these cases.

My main limiting factor seems to be fatigue from burning quads. I
don't feel I push my heart rate that high. Wearing my heart meter,
I'm probably around 160bpm on flats, ~180 on hills. I can push to
around 190-200bpm comfortably running. My resting HR is around 50-55
depending on the time/day.

What should I do next in my goal to increasing average speed? Is
there a book I should read or training problem I can follow?

I seem to pass most people who are shorter than I am but tall people
seem to be usually faster. I'm about 5'7, 155 pounds, male. Do
taller people have a natural advantage like in running with their
longer stride? Isn't that what the bike gears suppose to equalize?

Just post here for everyone's benefit. Thanks in advance.

[jazzDom]

"Serious Cycling" is a good book. My personal recommendations are to
find the best riders around and try to keep up with them. I do it as
much as I can stand, even though it is quite humiliating, but you get
better faster. Eventually you will be the one people are chasing.

Breathing is another thing you can work on. I have been working on
various breathing rhythms which have uneven inhale/exhale times, such
as 3/2 or 4/2, always with the exhale being the longer. this seems to
feed my muscles more efficiently with a lower HR and allow for longer
efforts.

Aerobars make you faster if you can ride them comfortably.

All that being said, I would recommend not listening to most of the
folks in here. (perhaps me too) Too many people trying to one-up
eachother about silly things.

My $.02

[psycholist]

"No E-mail" > wrote in message
...
> I've taken up cycling over the last year and have enjoyed the sport
> quite a bit. I routinely cycle about 100miles a week. I seem to
> average around 17-18mph solo on some rolling hills over 26miles
> (Sandhill Rd to Canada Rd if you're near Palo Alto). Anyway, I'm
> trying to take the next step and increase my speed to average over 20
> mph.
>
> My end goal is to average 23mph but that's probably a lofty goal at
> the moment.
>
> I bought a cadence computer and have been trying to cycle 90-100rpms
> all the time. I found I am usually in this range naturally except
> going downhill when I go around 70 at a higher gear but I have been
> trying to push it higher on a lower gear now. I seem to average 85-88
> or so over a ride including breaking/stopping so seems pretty good I
> think.
>
> I've read some rough estimates on adjusting saddle height and realized
> my bike was about 2inches too low and that seemed to have increased my
> average speed 1-2mph.
>
> I average about 10-12mph climbing and probably ~20 on flats, 25-28
> slight downhill, ~33 steeper downhills. I can push myself to go
> ~15-16mph if I get out of the saddle and push like crazy uphill but I
> quickly tire in these cases.
>
> My main limiting factor seems to be fatigue from burning quads. I
> don't feel I push my heart rate that high. Wearing my heart meter,
> I'm probably around 160bpm on flats, ~180 on hills. I can push to
> around 190-200bpm comfortably running. My resting HR is around 50-55
> depending on the time/day.
>
> What should I do next in my goal to increasing average speed? Is
> there a book I should read or training problem I can follow?
>
> I seem to pass most people who are shorter than I am but tall people
> seem to be usually faster. I'm about 5'7, 155 pounds, male. Do
> taller people have a natural advantage like in running with their
> longer stride? Isn't that what the bike gears suppose to equalize?
>
> Just post here for everyone's benefit. Thanks in advance.

You would do well to forget about average speed. Easy to say ... tough to
do. If you want to learn to go fast, you've gotta practice going fast.
That means speed intervals! Since you seem to want to be able to ride at
sustained high speeds, you might do something like start by doing sessions
where, after a warmup, you ride as hard as you can sustain for a minute,
then spin easy for three minutes. Repeat several times. The next week, try
bumping the hard effort to 90 seconds and reduce the recovery time between
intervals accordingly. Each week, keep stretching the hard effort a bit.
You can't do this every day. Do it two or three times a week. You might
also try a longer ride on the weekends where you do at least three hours
with the first being easy, the second being as hard as you can sustain for a
solid hour, then another easy.

Just some thoughts. I can tell you from direct experience. If you keep
going out and riding at 20 mph and hope it'll gradually creep up ... forget
it. It won't happen. You need the intervals to learn to ride hard and
sustain a hard effort. Oh, and when I say rest/recover between intervals, I
mean go so slow and easy you'll be embarrassed to be seen. Don't compromise
your recovery by trying to raise your average speed during an interval
workout!

Bob C.

[Local]

I would calculate your maximum heart rate. It is probably lower for
cycling than running.

[Peter Cole]

"No E-mail" > wrote in message
...
> I've taken up cycling over the last year and have enjoyed the sport
> quite a bit. I routinely cycle about 100miles a week. I seem to
> average around 17-18mph solo on some rolling hills over 26miles
> (Sandhill Rd to Canada Rd if you're near Palo Alto). Anyway, I'm
> trying to take the next step and increase my speed to average over 20
> mph.
>
> My end goal is to average 23mph but that's probably a lofty goal at
> the moment.
>
> I bought a cadence computer and have been trying to cycle 90-100rpms
> all the time. I found I am usually in this range naturally except
> going downhill when I go around 70 at a higher gear but I have been
> trying to push it higher on a lower gear now. I seem to average 85-88
> or so over a ride including breaking/stopping so seems pretty good I
> think.

I wouldn't worry too much about cadence, just do what feels natural.

> I've read some rough estimates on adjusting saddle height and realized
> my bike was about 2inches too low and that seemed to have increased my
> average speed 1-2mph.

Saddle height is probably the most important fit dimension. Assuming
comfortable position, the important thing for speed is aerodynamics.

> I average about 10-12mph climbing and probably ~20 on flats, 25-28
> slight downhill, ~33 steeper downhills. I can push myself to go
> ~15-16mph if I get out of the saddle and push like crazy uphill but I
> quickly tire in these cases.
>
> My main limiting factor seems to be fatigue from burning quads. I
> don't feel I push my heart rate that high. Wearing my heart meter,
> I'm probably around 160bpm on flats, ~180 on hills. I can push to
> around 190-200bpm comfortably running. My resting HR is around 50-55
> depending on the time/day.
>
> What should I do next in my goal to increasing average speed? Is
> there a book I should read or training problem I can follow?

Muscle fatigue is complex. There are circulatory aspects, strength, endurance
and adaptation aspects. While runners seem to start cycling with good C-V
fitness, they need some time to develop the cycling specific adaptations. This
is measured in years, not months. The absolute best way for you to get faster
is to find a group to ride with.

I'm surprised by such a large difference in max HR between cycling and
running, hill climbing and sprinting seem to be able to red-line most cyclists
without too much difficulty.

> I seem to pass most people who are shorter than I am but tall people
> seem to be usually faster. I'm about 5'7, 155 pounds, male. Do
> taller people have a natural advantage like in running with their
> longer stride? Isn't that what the bike gears suppose to equalize?

Climbing is about power to weight ratio, speed on flats is about power to
drag. Taller people usually have naturally worse power to weight and better
power to drag. This makes them better time trialists than climbers, typically
(of course there are always exceptions).

[Jeff]

> I would calculate your maximum heart rate. It is probably lower for
> cycling than running.

Care to elaborate on that apparently odd statement? Your max heart rate
is a function of your physiology and shouldn't depend on what kind of
exercise you are doing.

Jeff

[Jeff]

> I would calculate your maximum heart rate. It is probably lower for
> cycling than running.

Care to elaborate on that apparently odd statement? Your max heart rate
is a function of your physiology and shouldn't depend on what kind of
exercise you are doing.

Jeff

[Curtis L. Russell]

On 26 Jul 2004 10:27:05 -0700, (Jeff) wrote:

>Care to elaborate on that apparently odd statement? Your max heart rate
>is a function of your physiology and shouldn't depend on what kind of
>exercise you are doing.
>
>Jeff

Well, that isn't true on a recumbent, at least for me. One of the
questions I asked when moving to a recumbent is why I could not get
the heart rate up to the same levels as before per the Polar (moving
back to the Trek moved the ranges back to the old).

The two doctors that I asked said it wasn't unusual for a different
rate for a radically different positions when exercising. OTOH,
neither gave me a specific explanation why the reclined position was
lower.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[the black rose]

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On 26 Jul 2004 10:27:05 -0700, (Jeff) wrote:
>
>
>>Care to elaborate on that apparently odd statement? Your max heart rate
>>is a function of your physiology and shouldn't depend on what kind of
>>exercise you are doing.
>>
>>Jeff
>
>
> Well, that isn't true on a recumbent, at least for me. One of the
> questions I asked when moving to a recumbent is why I could not get
> the heart rate up to the same levels as before per the Polar (moving
> back to the Trek moved the ranges back to the old).
>
> The two doctors that I asked said it wasn't unusual for a different
> rate for a radically different positions when exercising. OTOH,
> neither gave me a specific explanation why the reclined position was
> lower.

I've seen this said too. One explanation I saw said it had to do with
the fact that your body weight is being supported by the bike, not your
legs, which means you just don't have to work as hard, and on a
recumbent, this is even more so since you are, well, recumbent. But I'm
just repeating in garbled fashion something I read and didn't pay close
attention to, so feel free to ignore.

-km

--
the black rose
proud to be owned by a yorkie
http://community.webshots.com/user/blackrosequilts

[Bill]

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:25:51 GMT, the black rose
> wrote:

> Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>> On 26 Jul 2004 10:27:05 -0700, (Jeff) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Care to elaborate on that apparently odd statement? Your max heart
>>> rate is a function of your physiology and shouldn't depend on what
>>> kind of
>>> exercise you are doing. Jeff
>>
>> --
My two cents on max heart rate.
I bike normally at about 160-164, long distance speed.
Getting out of the saddle to attack a hill gets me to 172-174.
Running some sprints (not jogging) will get me up to 176-180.
I hate jogging so I really run like I mean it, which is rare
because I am mainly on the bike. Anything that raises your
heart rate is a good thing, biking is just more fun.
FWIW, I am 55, 5'7", 145 pounds, so my max heart rate doesn't
go by the accepted formula.
Maybe the difference is just because I don't run that much
but there is a difference, at least for me.
Any bikers want to go out and run and come back and post
your results?
Bill Baka


Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

[Roger Zoul]

Peter Cole wrote:
|| "No E-mail" > wrote in message
|| ...
||| I've taken up cycling over the last year and have enjoyed the sport
||| quite a bit. I routinely cycle about 100miles a week. I seem to
||| average around 17-18mph solo on some rolling hills over 26miles
||| (Sandhill Rd to Canada Rd if you're near Palo Alto). Anyway, I'm
||| trying to take the next step and increase my speed to average over
||| 20
||| mph.
|||
||| My end goal is to average 23mph but that's probably a lofty goal at
||| the moment.
|||
||| I bought a cadence computer and have been trying to cycle 90-100rpms
||| all the time. I found I am usually in this range naturally except
||| going downhill when I go around 70 at a higher gear but I have been
||| trying to push it higher on a lower gear now. I seem to average
||| 85-88
||| or so over a ride including breaking/stopping so seems pretty good I
||| think.
||
|| I wouldn't worry too much about cadence, just do what feels natural.


What if grinding up a hill at 40cad feels natural? Will that be good for the
knees in the long run?

||
||| I've read some rough estimates on adjusting saddle height and
||| realized
||| my bike was about 2inches too low and that seemed to have increased
||| my average speed 1-2mph.
||
|| Saddle height is probably the most important fit dimension. Assuming
|| comfortable position, the important thing for speed is aerodynamics.
||
||| I average about 10-12mph climbing and probably ~20 on flats, 25-28
||| slight downhill, ~33 steeper downhills. I can push myself to go
||| ~15-16mph if I get out of the saddle and push like crazy uphill but
||| I quickly tire in these cases.
|||
||| My main limiting factor seems to be fatigue from burning quads. I
||| don't feel I push my heart rate that high. Wearing my heart meter,
||| I'm probably around 160bpm on flats, ~180 on hills. I can push to
||| around 190-200bpm comfortably running. My resting HR is around
||| 50-55 depending on the time/day.
|||
||| What should I do next in my goal to increasing average speed? Is
||| there a book I should read or training problem I can follow?
||
|| Muscle fatigue is complex. There are circulatory aspects, strength,
|| endurance and adaptation aspects. While runners seem to start
|| cycling with good C-V fitness, they need some time to develop the
|| cycling specific adaptations. This is measured in years, not months.
|| The absolute best way for you to get faster is to find a group to
|| ride with.
||
|| I'm surprised by such a large difference in max HR between cycling
|| and running, hill climbing and sprinting seem to be able to red-line
|| most cyclists without too much difficulty.
||
||| I seem to pass most people who are shorter than I am but tall people
||| seem to be usually faster. I'm about 5'7, 155 pounds, male. Do
||| taller people have a natural advantage like in running with their
||| longer stride? Isn't that what the bike gears suppose to equalize?
||
|| Climbing is about power to weight ratio, speed on flats is about
|| power to drag. Taller people usually have naturally worse power to
|| weight and better power to drag. This makes them better time
|| trialists than climbers, typically (of course there are always
|| exceptions).

[Pål-Dag]

Local wrote:
> I would calculate your maximum heart rate. It is probably lower for
> cycling than running.
maximal heart rate is a physological parameter which is independent of
activity as such. If a person achieve a higher rate by running, that
simply means that the leg muscles are not strong enough and/or the
technicaøl cycling skills does not allow the rider to produce an output
on the bike that allows him/her to reach maximal cardiovascular
performance, i.e. you get a peripheral (leg muscles) fatigue before the
limits for cardiac output occurs

Pål-Dag line MD PhD

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 26 Jul 2004 10:27:05 -0700, (Jeff) wrote:

>> I would calculate your maximum heart rate. It is probably lower for
>> cycling than running.
>
>Care to elaborate on that apparently odd statement? Your max heart rate
>is a function of your physiology and shouldn't depend on what kind of
>exercise you are doing.

When most people say max heartrate they mean the maximum heartrate
that can be obtained in the activitiy in question. A more accurate
term is "sport-specific maximum heartrate." That varies significantly
between running and cycling.

JT

[Sam]

Hire a coach to work with you to develop a good training plan.


"No E-mail" > wrote in message
...
> I've taken up cycling over the last year and have enjoyed the sport
> quite a bit. I routinely cycle about 100miles a week. I seem to
> average around 17-18mph solo on some rolling hills over 26miles
> (Sandhill Rd to Canada Rd if you're near Palo Alto). Anyway, I'm
> trying to take the next step and increase my speed to average over 20
> mph.
>
> My end goal is to average 23mph but that's probably a lofty goal at
> the moment.
>
> I bought a cadence computer and have been trying to cycle 90-100rpms
> all the time. I found I am usually in this range naturally except
> going downhill when I go around 70 at a higher gear but I have been
> trying to push it higher on a lower gear now. I seem to average 85-88
> or so over a ride including breaking/stopping so seems pretty good I
> think.
>
> I've read some rough estimates on adjusting saddle height and realized
> my bike was about 2inches too low and that seemed to have increased my
> average speed 1-2mph.
>
> I average about 10-12mph climbing and probably ~20 on flats, 25-28
> slight downhill, ~33 steeper downhills. I can push myself to go
> ~15-16mph if I get out of the saddle and push like crazy uphill but I
> quickly tire in these cases.
>
> My main limiting factor seems to be fatigue from burning quads. I
> don't feel I push my heart rate that high. Wearing my heart meter,
> I'm probably around 160bpm on flats, ~180 on hills. I can push to
> around 190-200bpm comfortably running. My resting HR is around 50-55
> depending on the time/day.
>
> What should I do next in my goal to increasing average speed? Is
> there a book I should read or training problem I can follow?
>
> I seem to pass most people who are shorter than I am but tall people
> seem to be usually faster. I'm about 5'7, 155 pounds, male. Do
> taller people have a natural advantage like in running with their
> longer stride? Isn't that what the bike gears suppose to equalize?
>
> Just post here for everyone's benefit. Thanks in advance.

[Sam]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
om...
> > I would calculate your maximum heart rate. It is probably lower for
> > cycling than running.
>
> Care to elaborate on that apparently odd statement? Your max heart rate
> is a function of your physiology and shouldn't depend on what kind of
> exercise you are doing.
>
> Jeff

However, it is common for an untrained person not to be able to achieve the
same maximal HR cycling compared to running. For one thing, if people are
untrained as cyclists their legs tend to give out before their hearts/lungs
do.

So there is some benefit to having a mode specific HRmax.

[Peter Cole]

"Roger Zoul" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Cole wrote:
> ||
> || I wouldn't worry too much about cadence, just do what feels natural.
>
>
> What if grinding up a hill at 40cad feels natural? Will that be good for the
> knees in the long run?

Peak pedal force is the same, whether pedaling at 40 rpm or not. Climbing is
no different than sprinting. I don't know of anyone who damaged their knees
from cycling, it's generally used as a therapy for people who have damaged
their knees doing other things.

[the black rose]

Terry Morse wrote:
> There was a lively discussion of this subject a few months ago,
> differentiating VO2max (actual max. cardio output) and VO2peak (max.
> cardio output for a specific exercise). VO2peak is always less than
> or equal to VO2max:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3kn4u
>
> Summary: Since a trained cyclist can attain actual VO2max while
> cycling, VO2peak and VO2max are the same in that case, and the same
> is likely true for that trained cyclist's VO2peak when running.

Jiminy Christmas, there are 550 posts in that discussion. Any other
interesting tidbits you can remember, or do we need to read all 550 to
find out? ;-)

-km

--
the black rose
proud to be owned by a yorkie
http://community.webshots.com/user/blackrosequilts

[Luigi de Guzman]

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:40:14 GMT, "Peter Cole"
> wrote:

>Climbing is about power to weight ratio, speed on flats is about power to
>drag. Taller people usually have naturally worse power to weight and better
>power to drag. This makes them better time trialists than climbers, typically
>(of course there are always exceptions).

Yeah. Like Induráin!

-Luigi

[Luigi de Guzman]

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 10:08:31 -0400, Luigi de Guzman
> wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:40:14 GMT, "Peter Cole"
> wrote:
>
>>Climbing is about power to weight ratio, speed on flats is about power to
>>drag. Taller people usually have naturally worse power to weight and better
>>power to drag. This makes them better time trialists than climbers, typically
>>(of course there are always exceptions).
>
>Yeah. Like Induráin!

I am a moron. I should have typed "Like Merckx!" but was thinking of
Induráin for some reason. blah.

-Luigi

[Terry Morse]

the black rose wrote:

> Terry Morse wrote:
> > There was a lively discussion of this subject a few months ago,
> > differentiating VO2max (actual max. cardio output) and VO2peak (max.
> > cardio output for a specific exercise). VO2peak is always less than
> > or equal to VO2max:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/3kn4u
> >
> > Summary: Since a trained cyclist can attain actual VO2max while
> > cycling, VO2peak and VO2max are the same in that case, and the same
> > is likely true for that trained cyclist's VO2peak when running.
>
> Jiminy Christmas, there are 550 posts in that discussion. Any other
> interesting tidbits you can remember, or do we need to read all 550 to
> find out? ;-)

Well, I did say it was a lively discussion. :-)

The gist was that VO2peak while running or cycling is the same for a
sufficiently trained athlete. Only the un- or under-trained subject
will show VO2peak differences between running and cycling.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

[Ewoud Dronkert]

On Tuesday 27 July 2004 16:09, Luigi de Guzman wrote:
>>Yeah. Like Induráin!
>
> I am a moron. I should have typed "Like Merckx!" but was thinking of
> Induráin for some reason. blah.

Moreover, it's InduraÃ*n.

[Diablo Scott]

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:

> On Tuesday 27 July 2004 16:09, Luigi de Guzman wrote:
>
>>>Yeah. Like Induráin!
>>
>>I am a moron. I should have typed "Like Merckx!" but was thinking of
>>Induráin for some reason. blah.
>
>
> Moreover, it's InduraÃ*n.

Vocal accent is on the "a", normal Spanish dipthong with the "i", there
is no written accent mark.
http://www.arrakis.es/~angelman/indu.htm

--
My bike blog:
http://diabloscott.blogspot.com/

[Diablo Scott]

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:

> On Tuesday 27 July 2004 16:09, Luigi de Guzman wrote:
>
>>>Yeah. Like Induráin!
>>
>>I am a moron. I should have typed "Like Merckx!" but was thinking of
>>Induráin for some reason. blah.
>
>
> Moreover, it's InduraÃ*n.

Vocal accent is on the "a", normal Spanish dipthong with the "ai", no
written accent, no hidden accent on the capital I.

http://www.arrakis.es/~angelman/indu.htm


--
My bike blog:
http://diabloscott.blogspot.com/

[Jenko]

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 July 2004 16:09, Luigi de Guzman wrote:
>
>>>Yeah. Like Induráin!
>>
>>I am a moron. I should have typed "Like Merckx!" but was thinking of
>>Induráin for some reason. blah.
>
>
> Moreover, it's InduraÃ*n.

No, no, no. He should have typed Merkxs.

Jenko

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 07:21:15 -0700, Terry Morse >
wrote:

>The gist was that VO2peak while running or cycling is the same for a
>sufficiently trained athlete. Only the un- or under-trained subject
>will show VO2peak differences between running and cycling.

How does someone use information about VO2peak in designing training?

JT

[Frank Miles]

In article <BWqNc.170621$IQ4.91617@attbi_s02>,
Peter Cole > wrote:
>"Roger Zoul" > wrote in message
...
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>> ||
>> || I wouldn't worry too much about cadence, just do what feels natural.
>>
>>
>> What if grinding up a hill at 40cad feels natural? Will that be good for the
>> knees in the long run?
>
>Peak pedal force is the same, whether pedaling at 40 rpm or not. Climbing is
>no different than sprinting. I don't know of anyone who damaged their knees
>from cycling, it's generally used as a therapy for people who have damaged
>their knees doing other things.

While on a loaded bike tour in the Canadian Rockies, one of the riders
(thinking he was in a lower gear than he actually was) really honked up a
mountain road. He complained of knee pain all the next day, and dropped out
of the tour the day after that. Hard to know exactly what happened to the
tissues: was it bone? cartilage? tendon? mental?

In any event your claim that you cannot damage knees in cycling seems far
too broad to be correct, though probably true for most it may not hold for
some, especially with unknown uniquely weird knees.

-frank
--

[Peter Cole]

"Frank Miles" > wrote in message
...
> In article <BWqNc.170621$IQ4.91617@attbi_s02>,
> Peter Cole > wrote:
> >
> >Peak pedal force is the same, whether pedaling at 40 rpm or not. Climbing
is
> >no different than sprinting. I don't know of anyone who damaged their knees
> >from cycling, it's generally used as a therapy for people who have damaged
> >their knees doing other things.
>
> While on a loaded bike tour in the Canadian Rockies, one of the riders
> (thinking he was in a lower gear than he actually was) really honked up a
> mountain road. He complained of knee pain all the next day, and dropped out
> of the tour the day after that. Hard to know exactly what happened to the
> tissues: was it bone? cartilage? tendon? mental?
>
> In any event your claim that you cannot damage knees in cycling seems far
> too broad to be correct, though probably true for most it may not hold for
> some, especially with unknown uniquely weird knees.

I didn't say it couldn't be done, just that I didn't know of anyone who has. I
know a lot of riders who put in a lot of miles. The idea that low cadence is
in itself harmful is particularly dubious (which was the context & the
argument for spinning). Cycling has neither impact or twisting forces, the two
major culprits of knee injury. Sore knees are not necessarily damaged knees.
Things that can happen from bad pedaling style are tendonitis (particularly in
the achilles, which may become permanent) and Morton's neuroma, these are well
known, yet people always fret about knees. I haven't seen those problems
except in rumor/hearsay.

[Roger Zoul]

Peter Cole wrote:
|| "Roger Zoul" > wrote in message
|| ...
||| Peter Cole wrote:
|||||
||||| I wouldn't worry too much about cadence, just do what feels
||||| natural.
|||
|||
||| What if grinding up a hill at 40cad feels natural? Will that be
||| good for the knees in the long run?
||
|| Peak pedal force is the same, whether pedaling at 40 rpm or not.
|| Climbing is no different than sprinting. I don't know of anyone who
|| damaged their knees from cycling, it's generally used as a therapy
|| for people who have damaged their knees doing other things.

Well, I don't know what your experience or background is, but I read lots of
people who claim that grinding in too high a gear is one of the two major
reasons for knee pain - and hence is the where the recommendation for
spinning at high cadence originates. Also, your statement suggests that
cycling is never harmful to the knees, which we know is not true -- improper
fit on the bike very definitely can have a negative impact on the knees.

Certainly, it is true that cycling can be beneifical to the knees, but it is
not a foregone conclusion.