Cycling Cadence and Running Stride Rate

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" 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

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" wrote in message
...
Andy Coggan wrote:

"Tony" 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;

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

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.

Cat Dailey wrote:

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...

Andy Coggan wrote:


"Tony" 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

"eddy eagle" wrote in message
om...
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

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.

Please don't crosspost this stuff to rec.bicycles.racing - nobody here is
interested.

Andy Coggan

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
Andy Coggan wrote:

"Tony" 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.

Closer, but not close enough to matter. If it did, then endurance-trained
cyclists would be stronger than untrained individuals, which they are not.

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.

50 vs. 100 rpm:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=1385118

Also, did the study change
power/force requirements with the changing cadence?

Since power was held constant, average effective pedal force would have
differed between trials by a factor of two.

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

I see you've been reading my research! ;-)

(and a decrease in others

I am not aware of any data to support this statement.

, both approaching
an optimal size:capillary ratio) and a loss of size in Type II, at least
with only low intensity endurance work.

Again, I am not aware of any data suggesting that endurance training results
in atrophy of type II fibers.

Andy Coggan (Coggan AR on PubMed)

In article . net, Andy
Coggan wrote:

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
Andy Coggan wrote:

"Tony" wrote in message

Somebody wrote:

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.

I don't know who wrote this but I think you're right. This past winter
I did one-legged squats once per week for about 5 weeks. Then I started
doing intervals near LT (4mMol) power (HR was lower than HR @ 4mMol)
using 40-50 rpm's, on a hill. Each week the total time of the intervals
was increased, begining with 4 x 3' and working up to 7 x 5'. Even
after not doing the squats for about 8 weeks when I tried another
session of them I could do higher resistance and more of them, not that
this alone meant I could ride faster, but strength as most would define
it, and strength endurance definitely increased.

I think Armstrong uses high cadences to reduce the force needed to
produce a given power. His demonstrated ablities, and his mention of
rarely producing more than 4-6mMol of lactate indicates that he isn't
using a lot of Type 2 fibers even when he is producing high power
output.

-WG

"Andy Coggan" wrote in message news:vy2Hc.8981
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

Please don't crosspost this stuff to rec.bicycles.racing - nobody here is
interested.

Andy Coggan

Not true at all, Andy.--Shayana Kadidal

"Andy Coggan" wrote in message news:vy2Hc.8981
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

Please don't crosspost this stuff to rec.bicycles.racing - nobody here is
interested.

Andy Coggan

Not true at all, Andy.--Shayana Kadidal

In article , 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?
Maybe I could save enough on shoe replacement to justify the expense of the books.


I believe that the value of the book is that for many it will make
sense and show them to run lightly. It will save on shoe wear, and
even moreso on the effects of inefficient and improper form and style
years down the road.

Ozzie