Cycling Cadence and Running Stride Rate

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
On 2004-07-09, Tony wrote:
Ozzie Gontang wrote in message
. ..
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

Thanks, interesting stuff. I'll be counting strides some to see what my
rates are.

A note about this: I've gradually gone from about 180/min to about 186/min.
But this involved a good year of consistent training including good milage
and
consistent speed work. If you're interested in pushing cadence, consider
doing
some strides, and focusing on turnover in these. Forcing gait changes in a
long
run could be harmful or cause injury (partly because this is dealing with
symptoms
and not getting at deeper biomechanical issues), but doing short technical
drills that focus on turnover could improve your economy and gradually
address
correct weaknesses that could contribute to a lower cadence.

My current steps/min seems to be about 170, though on trails I think its
slower, more like 160. The other day's run I did a much higher step rate
than normal but I didn't count so I don't know what it is. Then like when
you change anything in your routine, I was a bit sore the next day. Good
advice not to push changes too fast.

- Tony

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Andy Coggan wrote in message ...
"Tony" wrote in message
.. .

"The slower the fibre the lower the threshold for recruitment (the easier
it
is to activate the fibre), as well as being more fatigue resistant. As
you
move up the continuum the fibres recruitment threshold increases, but its
fatigue resistance decreases

"This plays a vital role in how muscle fibres are recruited. During
muscle
contraction fibres are recruited in an orderly manner referred to as the
'size principal'.1 Basically the small slow fibres with their low
recruitment threshold are recruited first and as increasing force is
required the larger fast twitch fibres are recruited along the continuum.

"As can be seen slow fibres are recruited first, with fast fibres being
recruited when greater effort and loads are required."

The way I read this is that when a light force is required, the slower
fibres (type I first) are recruited because they have a low threshold for
recruitment. It's the force necessary not necessarily the speed.

The speed of movement - or more specifically, the speed of the *intended*
movement - does enter into the picture, however, in that it lowers the
force
at which any particular motor unit is recruited. Hence, fast twitch (as
well
as slow twitch) fibers will be recruited during very rapid ("ballistic")
movements even if the actual force generated is quite low.

Don't
confuse slow fibres here with relative speed of contraction here.
In the
case of a higher cadence the contraction may be somewhat faster but the
force required is less, and that's why the slow fibres can handle the
force
necessary. As the force necessary increases with a low cadence, faster
fibres are needed more to meet the force demand. At some point the
actual
speed of the contraction necessary may be important, but this does not
seem
to be in the case of high-cadence cycling.

Au contraire, it appears that it is quite relevant. To wit: the time
available to reach peak force when pedaling at typical cadences is close to
that typically defined as a "ballistic" contraction. Hence, the lowering
(via disinhibition) of the threshold for recruitment of faster contracting
motor units may explain why pedaling at 50 vs. 100 rpm seemingly results in
comparable motor unit recruitment patterns, despite that two-fold
difference
in force being generated.

This could be; I don't know what the threshold is for a ballistic
contraction. I know when I try to pedal upwards of 160 rpm my legs tire
very fast. When I ride a slow rpm, about 60, in a big gear, my legs seem to
tire more quickly than normal, but not in the same way as a sprint exhausted
160+ rpm.

- Tony

Andy ("don't believe everything Chris Carmichael tells you") Coggan

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
On 2004-07-09, Tony wrote:

The way I read this is that when a light force is required, the slower
fibres (type I first) are recruited because they have a low threshold for
recruitment. It's the force necessary not necessarily the speed. Don't

Force = mass * acceleration. So to send the weight flying, you need a high
rate of acceleration. Even if the weight is very light, for example, only
60% of 1 rep max, the force required to accelerate it to a high velocity
is substantial.

confuse slow fibres here with relative speed of contraction here. In the
case of a higher cadence the contraction may be somewhat faster but the
force required is less,

Not true. The peak forces may even be higher. The main difference is
probably that you get a less even production of force (much like if you
lift
a light weight quickly, as opposed to lifting a heavy weight slowly)

Once you get used ot spinning at a high cadence the force seems to be very
even, but you may have a point here.


and that's why the slow fibres can handle the force
necessary. As the force necessary increases with a low cadence, faster
fibres are needed more to meet the force demand.

Could you explain how the "force increases with low cadence" ?

Of course the overall force will be the same. Pedaling for one minute at 100
rpm vs. 60 rpm the force required for each pedal rotation is 1/100th and
1/60th of the total force for that minute, respectively. So what I was
talking about was the force required for each pedal stroke.


At some point the actual
speed of the contraction necessary may be important, but this does not
seem
to be in the case of high-cadence cycling.

I don't see how you get high cadence witout increasing the speed of
contraction.

Of course there is an increase in contraction speed, the question is, as you
and Andy rightly pointed out, is whether or not the contraction speed of a
higher cadence forces recruitment of faster twitch or if slow twitch alone
can handle it. Obviously I don't know the answer to this question. As you
continue to increase the cadence you'll reach a point where only type IIb
(the fastest twitch fibres) can handle the contraction speed necessary. So
it might be a wash, as your comments suggest it might be, or it may offer a
competative advantage. My experience with higher cadence cycling suggests
to me it 1) builds less bulk 2) allows you to ride hills more aerobically.


Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
On 2004-07-09, Tony wrote:
Sprinting requires both a fast contraction rate and a very high force.
If
you go beyond a certain threshold of speed requirement, then probably
type
I's can't handle the speed, but the force required is what determines
whether other fibres are recruited if speed of contraction isn't an
issue.
Spinning on the bike at 100-120 rpm vs. 50-60 rmp probably won't be too
fast
for type I fibres to handle,

How do you know ?

Don't know.


but the force requirements per stroke are
clearly greater for 50-60 rpm.

The power output is the same each way, so I'm hard pressed to see how one
way
could involve substantially and uniformly less force production (speed
*is* part of the force production equation).

The force production is the same, but which combinations of muscles are
doing the work is the question. Janssen does not give footnotes and most of
the bibliography is in Norwegian(?) so I cannot point you to the specific
studies to back up the claims. The section in his book on pedaling
frequency is 5 pages long and points out that the pedalling frequency for
the hour record is near constant throughout history at just over 100 rpm.
Later he states:

"If a cyclist trains on an ergometer with a constant workload (e.g., 300
watts) but at different frequencies, the differences between workouts are
enormous. With the low frequency, the rider will feel sore leg muscles.
With higher frequencies, breathing will become more difficult. So a high
frequency espcially burdens the cardiovascular system, and lower frequencies
use muscular strength.

"The training stimulus changes with varying frequencies and a constant
workload. In other words, a workout with a frequency of 60 RPM at 300 watts
is mainly a weight-training workout. The same load at 300 watts and a
frequency of 100 RPM trains the cardiovascular system. Graph 26 shows the
relationship between workload and frequency."

This meshes perfectly with my experience so it makes sense to me.

- Tony


Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

In article , "Tony" qtrader2
@(remove)hotmail.com says...
Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
On 2004-07-09, Tony wrote:
Sprinting requires both a fast contraction rate and a very high force.
If
you go beyond a certain threshold of speed requirement, then probably
type
I's can't handle the speed, but the force required is what determines
whether other fibres are recruited if speed of contraction isn't an
issue.
Spinning on the bike at 100-120 rpm vs. 50-60 rmp probably won't be too
fast
for type I fibres to handle,

How do you know ?
A few years ago I noted that the Aussi Teams Pursuit team achieved
maximum power at approx 134 rpm plus or minus 2 rpm. What you have to
keep in mind it that power is a product of torue (force on the pedal
times the crank length) times RPM. At he cadense gets faster the force
on the pedal get less butt he RPM increases. There is a cross over point
where this maxes out. I suggst it is the 134RPM. Obviously you wouldnt
want to sustain that cadense for too long. I think it's safe to say tha
tit's easier to ride at higher cadense than a lower cadense. Keep an eye
an Lance when he is climbing or TimeTrialing. His cadence is about 100-
120RPM.

Chook


Don't know.


but the force requirements per stroke are
clearly greater for 50-60 rpm.

The power output is the same each way, so I'm hard pressed to see how one
way
could involve substantially and uniformly less force production (speed
*is* part of the force production equation).

The force production is the same, but which combinations of muscles are
doing the work is the question. Janssen does not give footnotes and most of
the bibliography is in Norwegian(?) so I cannot point you to the specific
studies to back up the claims. The section in his book on pedaling
frequency is 5 pages long and points out that the pedalling frequency for
the hour record is near constant throughout history at just over 100 rpm.
Later he states:

"If a cyclist trains on an ergometer with a constant workload (e.g., 300
watts) but at different frequencies, the differences between workouts are
enormous. With the low frequency, the rider will feel sore leg muscles.
With higher frequencies, breathing will become more difficult. So a high
frequency espcially burdens the cardiovascular system, and lower frequencies
use muscular strength.

"The training stimulus changes with varying frequencies and a constant
workload. In other words, a workout with a frequency of 60 RPM at 300 watts
is mainly a weight-training workout. The same load at 300 watts and a
frequency of 100 RPM trains the cardiovascular system. Graph 26 shows the
relationship between workload and frequency."

This meshes perfectly with my experience so it makes sense to me.

- Tony

On 2004-07-10, Tony wrote:

[snip]

You may be right after all. Take a look at this.

http://www.bsn.com/Cycling/articles/cadence.html

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

tony,

i am a runner also (4:20 mile and 1:58 800m) i am also a cyclist that
has successfully improved my riding leaps and bounds by changing my
cadenence from big gears at 70rpm's to spinning at 105rpm's. i have also
improved my 4 mile cross country race by taking shorter strides up the
hills. being suited more physiologicaly for shorter flat track races, i
take short quick strides uphill and and stride out down the hills and on
the flats making up time on the pure climbers. my strength in
crosscountry is my kick at the end where i have a disproportionately
long stride (similar to a sprint cyclist using a 55x11 chainring in a
sprint finish). this is my opinion based on my experiences.



--

eddy eagle wrote:
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?

Shoes leave footprints.

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
On 2004-07-10, Tony wrote:

[snip]

You may be right after all. Take a look at this.

http://www.bsn.com/Cycling/articles/cadence.html

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Thanks, very interesting. Its a hard thing to prove or disprove with so
many variables, including the variability of individuals, but its very
interesting that both trained cyclists and trained non-cyclists tend to use
a similar cadence, which is higher than the one found to be most
oxygen-efficient in other studies. Some factor is causing the trained group
to choose this higher cadence. It may be the same reason elite runners use
a high turnover, though there the biomechanics of running is probably the
major factor.

Just experimenting with a shorter stride in a weeks worth of running
suggests to me that something similar is going on with running in terms of
muscle recruitment, but this is of course far murkier than is the case in
cycling. (I know how you love it when people jump to conclusions).
Seriously though, when trail running and walking up steep sections I used to
use long slow steps when going up the steep stuff. Shortening the stride
seems to wear out the legs less for both power hiking and running uphills,
though I never really thought about that before. I always relied on
strength when tackling difficult sections before, and while it was natural
to use that available power, it doesn't work as well for my goal of being a
more fluid endurance trail runner. That type II power wears out after a
couple of hours of running, so it seems best to spread it out more, and that
should make healing easier too.

- Tony