Slow down to learn how to go fast...

[Ti Designs]

Every time I take out a new coaching client two things happen. First, there is a "let's test the coach" period where they go as hard as they can. I guess the thinking there is "if he's faster than I am, I can learn from him". Problem - it's November. I've taken most of October off, so I'm not faster than anyone right now, and damn proud of it! So the only time I can gain the respect of coaching clients in in season when I'm not taking on new clients - perfect!!! Somehow they miss the point about being slow in the winter and fast in the summer, then they train all wrong so they're almost fast in the winter and about the same in the summer. But that's not what this rant is about.

The second thing I can count on happening is related to the first. My coaching is all based on teaching new riders techniques. Anyone can coach cat 2's, they know how to ride so you keep track of their training log and you tell them which workouts to do - what's hard about that? Newer riders (non-racers, 5's, 4's and even some 3's) need work on technique more than just lots of workouts. So when I work with riders it's mostly about how it's done, not how fast you're going while you learn. So few people have the ability to slow things down and really learn. From the first pedal stroke they want to know if it works, which to them means speed. This is frustrating as hell to me. It's like saying "I'm going to teach you how to juggle by throwing 5 objects up in the air". It's just not going to work, the only thing you'll learn is how to get out of the way of falling objects. I explain this to people - intelegent people, they nod in agreement and understanding, then they get on the bike and try to go as fast as they can.

My point in all of this is to help y'all take a step back and see the big picture. Last season I had a bunch of clients whom I rode with. Most of them didn't learn much 'cause they were trying to ride fast. In my own training I did exactly what I would have had them do - hey, I need as much technique work as the next guy (I have no idea how Mr Miyagi stayed in form once he had the kid to wax all his cars). Don't assume that because a rider is showing good form and good speed in-season that they do that all year round. Slow down and learn a thing of two about how to go fast.

[jblande]

nice to hear from you again

[ergott]

Funny, that same statement holds true in music as well.

[victoryfactory]

Slow down and learn a thing or two about how to go fast.

Yep, +1. Also I've noticed as I get older that you
may not get faster, but you can get
better on the bike. But it's hard to tell that to a "Johnny Racer" who you are
coaching, no? It's not only power and speed, but power and speed under control that wins races.
Same goes for every sport, I think.
What's the point of bombing a golf ball 300 yds off the tee if you can't hit a fairway?

VF

No power or speed but out of control

[Lifelover]

"Slow is smooth and smooth is Fast"
William

Who was it that said somehting to the effect of Amercian riders ride too fast when training and too slow when racing?

[rugbysecondrow]

I enjoyed reading this and I like having TI back, drop'n knowledge!

I am not a fast rider relative to serious cycling athletes, but I am pretty fast for somebody my size (230#).

I have a buddy I ride with who is fit, who is a tall skinny guy that has the potential to be a pretty strong rider. Truthfully, if he trained right we would not be on the same level, he would be a solid to top notch A group rider . With that said, I really enjoy riding with him about 2/3 of the year. In the Spring and Fall we are the same speed. In the Summer, I am faster than him (which I enjoy). In the winter, he is faster than me (which I do not enjoy). The point is that I train to peak in the summer while he tries to ride fast all the time. I like to ride slower in the winter and try to incorporate one or two new points of focus each winter, but he doesn't have that slower gear and doesn't seem to get that.

Anyway, I concur with TI and going slow and more deliberate allows your body to heal, allows you to work on technique as well as reestablishing a strong base. This is true for Riding, Running, and other sports. The off-season is the off-season for a reason, you have to train differently.

[93legendti]

Good thread...thanks Ti

[dogdriver]

"When pulled, push. When pushed, pull."-- An old Japanese guy

[Smiley]

Nobody is Faster than TiDesigns period. Dude showed up at Tour Du Toga a bunch of years ago and schooled everybody whilst on a fixee in Saratoga no less.

[sg8357]

In Pin Shooting the phrase is "You can't miss fast enough to win"

[djg]

I enjoyed reading this and I like having TI back, drop'n knowledge!

I am not a fast rider relative to serious cycling athletes, but I am pretty fast for somebody my size (230#).

I have a buddy I ride with who is fit, who is a tall skinny guy that has the potential to be a pretty strong rider. Truthfully, if he trained right we would not be on the same level, he would be a solid to top notch A group rider . With that said, I really enjoy riding with him about 2/3 of the year. In the Spring and Fall we are the same speed. In the Summer, I am faster than him (which I enjoy). In the winter, he is faster than me (which I do not enjoy). The point is that I train to peak in the summer while he tries to ride fast all the time. I like to ride slower in the winter and try to incorporate one or two new points of focus each winter, but he doesn't have that slower gear and doesn't seem to get that.

Anyway, I concur with TI and going slow and more deliberate allows your body to heal, allows you to work on technique as well as reestablishing a strong base. This is true for Riding, Running, and other sports. The off-season is the off-season for a reason, you have to train differently.

Is this a problem? I really don't know why folks would show up (and pay for) coaching and not try to follow the advice the coach has to offer -- it's one thing to bail after a period of time because you're unhappy with the situation, but it seems pointless to show up and not even try. You would hope that more folks would be receptive to drills, if only because coaching in so many other sports involves drill work on particular aspects of the sports. In ball sports, there's even a good deal of work that doesn't involve the ball.

OTOH, if a recreational cyclist can ride with pals and group rides he likes -- faster sometimes during the year and slower others, but basically hanging, getting a workout, and having fun -- then what's the problem?

[victoryfactory]

I know a guy who is really into bikes.
he was so gung ho, every time he went out he was racing everybody and
putting pressure on the others as well as fighting with the cars and drivers.

He also crashed about every other time he went out.

He still is into cycling but he never rides! "Riding around here is too dangerous", he sez!

Ha HA Ha Ha

VF

[Ralph]

Maybe his advice applies to more than racers. I'm an old retired guy who tries to ride most mornings here in Central Florida.

But even here it's kinda cool in early AM this time of year (hi 40's to mid 50's usually), and I don't like to ride, if I can help it, all bundled up in cold weather gear. So I've been waiting until 9:30-10 AM lately to go out, when temps are usually up in the 60's, and in 70's before I get home. Thankfully, usually low humiduty here this time of year.

I think I'll start walking a few miles most days in early AM, and just ride on warm mornings for a while. Then pick up mileage again in spring. Walking helps with balance and uses some different muscles, which won't hurt a thing.

[SEABREEZE]

Lots of wisdom in this thread...

[Bob Ross]

when I work with riders it's mostly about how it's done, not how fast you're going while you learn.

^^^This.
For the past couple years I've been a co-leader for a 12-week instructional program my cycling club sponsors that's designed to teach riders with wildly varying levels of experience to ride together in a cohesive, cooperative, wicked fast paceline.

That's the goal of the program. Which means by week 12 we'll all be riding together in a cohesive, cooperative, wicked fast paceline...not in week 1 or 2! But some folks don't get that.

One of the most powerful & important drills we use is called the "10/10" drill, which comes around week 4 when we introduce single rotation: 10 seconds pulling at the front of the paceline, then rotate off

...all the while going at 10mph.

The riders laugh and think it's silly going that slow, and a lot of them have a hard time restraining themselves to keep the pace that slow, but if they can't learn to execute a simple pull-off-the-front-&-rotate-to-the-back at 10mph they never manage to execute it smoothly, under control, and safely at >24mph.

Slow Is Fast.


[edit: "Slow is smooth and smooth is Fast" <<< that's what I meant]

[jr59]

I think it's great that a pro coach posts here.

But I have a question about this rant.
Isn't it the mark of a good/great coach to be able to make his students/players understand that being a hammer doesn't work.

The ability to teach is simply the the ability to make your riders/players, students understand what you want them to do.
The really good ones do it better than the run of the mill ones.

When a player did not improve under me as a coach, ( and yes I coached sports at a high level), I always found myself at fault. I did not teach them well enough, or they had an unreachable goal. No 6'2 guy is going to play in the post in the NBA.

May I suggest that you try to screen your students better, and make them understand what will make them better.

Just my thoughts, and I am not knocking your coaching. It would be impossible for me to judge that.

I'm the guy that on another forum, ALWAYS tells people to hire a coach, before they buy new wheels, or a power tap, or whatever. I think a good season/ or session of coaching will always lead to greater and quicker improvement.

[FlashUNC]

Well said.

I've got a friend who just picked up riding about two years ago, and is convinced the only solution to every situation is ride hard, ride at the front, and ride till you can't turn the cranks anymore.

Needless to say, I generally beat him in the town limit sign sprint, because he has absolutely zero technique or understanding of how to ride beyond "push the pedals down really hard, really fast."

Some folks don't get that there's a universe of skills and techniques that can make you a better rider (faster even) that have zero to do with hill repeats or sprint intervals.

[benb]

I think this speaks to who cyclists tend to be as people.

How often does someone walk into a martial arts Dojo/Gym and "test" the teacher/sensei?

And yet this does seem to be the reaction of almost all cyclists, at least below a certain level of racing & at the rec level.

I raced a few years ago, I really don't see myself starting again, I would enjoy riding more group rides at a recreational level, but the behaviors mentioned in this thread drive me bonkers every time I go ride with people. Half-assing my training (about 1/2 what I did when I was racing) I'm fast enough to not get dropped, but I'm not fast enough to have any influence to suggest changing the retarded behaviors in the group. (e.x. Hey guys if we work on the paceline discipline we can easily go 20% faster!)

The one time I hired a coach was over the internet, so I never actually rode with the coach.. it did help me, but I didn't get to find out if I would have been a tool riding with the coach just like everyone else.

[Uncle Jam's Army]

This is not a problem for me.... I go slow all the time, even when I try to go fast.

[Ti Designs]

Isn't it the mark of a good/great coach to be able to make his students/players understand that being a hammer doesn't work.


It is, and in seeking out a coach they have admitted that there is something to be learned, so it shouldn't be that hard to get across. But then I have this other theory that guys in lycra can't think and any four guys on bikes is a bike race.

As a general rule in cycling, coaching women is done on trust, coaching men is done on respect. Women tend to come into the sport thinking they're not very good and don't know anything - I can work with that. Trust is something you earn over time, always being there, always doing what you say you're going to do. My riders know I'm going to be on time and they know they can trust sitting inches off my wheel. In some cases that's come back to bite me, one of my Harvard riders was only comfortable drafting my wheel. I tried to solve the problem by lending my wheel to one of the other women in the race, but that didn't work... Coaching guys is different. There's almost always a test the coach period on the first ride. There are also differences between younger and older guys. A friend of mine is a golf coach, we've noticed the same thing. The young kids try to crush the ball every time, and they wind up in the woods. The older guys don't have time for that crap, they hire the golf pro.

It's the young guys that so often I find frustrating. They want to go fast all the time, which means they limit themselves to being sorta fast. They understand the drills, but they just want to skip to the fast part. I've adopted tactics to coach them, like I only let them see the part of the plan they're on now, otherwise they skip steps. This season I'm going to try video, just to let them see what they're doing. But there's just so much temptation out there. There are riders going fast in the winter, there's cyclocross (which makes training for a season that starts in March impossible) and there's that idea that training hard now will make you faster in 5 or 6 months...

[TMB]

I know a guy who is really into bikes.
he was so gung ho, every time he went out he was racing everybody and
putting pressure on the others as well as fighting with the cars and drivers.

He also crashed about every other time he went out.

He still is into cycling but he never rides! "Riding around here is too dangerous", he sez!

Ha HA Ha Ha

VF

We've never met have we???

[jr59]

This is not a problem for me.... I go slow all the time, even when I try to go fast.

Aren't we all! :D

[jr59]

It is, and in seeking out a coach they have admitted that there is something to be learned, so it shouldn't be that hard to get across. But then I have this other theory that guys in lycra can't think and any four guys on bikes is a bike race.

As a general rule in cycling, coaching women is done on trust, coaching men is done on respect. Women tend to come into the sport thinking they're not very good and don't know anything - I can work with that. Trust is something you earn over time, always being there, always doing what you say you're going to do. My riders know I'm going to be on time and they know they can trust sitting inches off my wheel. In some cases that's come back to bite me, one of my Harvard riders was only comfortable drafting my wheel. I tried to solve the problem by lending my wheel to one of the other women in the race, but that didn't work... Coaching guys is different. There's almost always a test the coach period on the first ride. There are also differences between younger and older guys. A friend of mine is a golf coach, we've noticed the same thing. The young kids try to crush the ball every time, and they wind up in the woods. The older guys don't have time for that crap, they hire the golf pro.

It's the young guys that so often I find frustrating. They want to go fast all the time, which means they limit themselves to being sorta fast. They understand the drills, but they just want to skip to the fast part. I've adopted tactics to coach them, like I only let them see the part of the plan they're on now, otherwise they skip steps. This season I'm going to try video, just to let them see what they're doing. But there's just so much temptation out there. There are riders going fast in the winter, there's cyclocross (which makes training for a season that starts in March impossible) and there's that idea that training hard now will make you faster in 5 or 6 months...

LOL ! It's always the young guys that are the most diffcult. In any coaching, not the very young ones, they are like a sponge. It's the older young ones, they already know everything. Even if they don't know a darn thing. And the internet makes it even worse. " I read on the internet that xxxx did this" so I should do xxxx.

All that being said; There is NO BETTER felling in the world than seeing a student/player/rider "get it", after beating your head in all year teaching him.

It's the look, when you tell him to do something and he understands.

I coached for my pay, I had to live. But,
I coached to see that look.

Good luck, and I wish you were closer.
I would hire you, so you could make me less slow!

[RPS]

Ti, playing Devil’s advocate:

Is it possible you have a problem with your message because your students at times sense you don’t actually believe it? I’m in no way questioning your cycling knowledge or ability to coach students of all levels, including beginners, but I have to wonder if based on many comments you have made over the years if you yourself don’t equate speed with “know-how”. And I know it’s natural for most people to brag about how good they are because they are faster – it happens all the time. Fast guys almost always act like they know more. But we all know guys who are really fast who suck at riding, right?

As an example, your statement below suggests that you think Cat 2s have better technique than Cat 3s, 4s or 5s, right? Well, that premise holds true if they are fast and therefore became Cat 2s because they have superior technique. However, if they suck at pedaling but were born with enough natural talent to have become Cat 2s in spite of poor technique they could benefit from your drills as much as the next guy. Why assume that technique and speed have a direct correlation? Isn’t that what you are chastising your students for trying to demonstrate to you? :confused:

I think we can all agree that good technique leads to improved speed. However, if you equate speed with good technique (whether directly or indirectly), IMHO you will be undermining your own message.

The second thing I can count on happening is related to the first. My coaching is all based on teaching new riders techniques. Anyone can coach cat 2's, they know how to ride so you keep track of their training log and you tell them which workouts to do - what's hard about that? Newer riders (non-racers, 5's, 4's and even some 3's) need work on technique more than just lots of workouts. So when I work with riders it's mostly about how it's done, not how fast you're going while you learn. So few people have the ability to slow things down and really learn. From the first pedal stroke they want to know if it works, which to them means speed. This is frustrating as hell to me. It's like saying "I'm going to teach you how to juggle by throwing 5 objects up in the air". It's just not going to work, the only thing you'll learn is how to get out of the way of falling objects. I explain this to people - intelegent people, they nod in agreement and understanding, then they get on the bike and try to go as fast as they can.

P.S. -- I know you don't mean everything you write literally.

[dd74]

Good thread. Subscribing.

[flydhest]

In some cases that's come back to bite me, one of my Harvard riders was only comfortable drafting my wheel. I tried to solve the problem by lending my wheel to one of the other women in the race, but that didn't work...


See, that's one of the funniest things ever. It's like the time I made a 9 tooth cog by filing two off of an 11-tooth cog. I spaced them out, though, to make sure the chain wouldn't slip.

[craptacular]

Riding hard every time doesn't allow you to recover. I know sub 14 5k runners who don't run much faster than 7:30 or 8 minute miles on a lot of their runs. There are times to ride hard and fast, and times to recover. Anyone who can't grasp that is either young enough to handle the stress, or too dumb to notice.

[FlashUNC]

I'm curious as to the coaches in the thread, their thoughts on the old "Spend the winter in the small ring doing long rides at slow speeds" training mantra?

I know there's been some pushback in some corners on this idea recently, but wonder what the coaches around these parts have to say.

Personally, I think it gets too damn cold to ride with any real speed in the winter, so I keep slow on the trails with the cross bike. Course, being fat and lazy doesn't help either.

[Ray]

This is not a problem for me.... I go slow all the time, even when I try to go fast.
Yeah, I have the 'go slow' part of the training regimen down COLD. Its the rest of it I have a problem with. Hence, I don't go slow to go fast. I just go slow. Fortunately I'm cool with that. Otherwise I'd be going to someone like Ti in order to learn how to go slow better!

-Ray

[Ti Designs]

Is it possible you have a problem with your message because your students at times sense you don’t actually believe it? I’m in no way questioning your cycling knowledge or ability to coach students of all levels, including beginners, but I have to wonder if based on many comments you have made over the years if you yourself don’t equate speed with “know-how”. And I know it’s natural for most people to brag about how good they are because they are faster – it happens all the time. Fast guys almost always act like they know more. But we all know guys who are really fast who suck at riding, right?

I'm not one of those guys who speed came easily to - well, not any more. I was one of those kids who just wanted to ride hard, but I had the good luck of finding a good coach who set me on a training plan. Then there was the back injury followed by a few months of not being able to walk, then the experience of relearning how to walk. Much of what I teach now comes from learning how to fire muscles that I never gave a second thought to before the injury. When I got back on the bike I was forced to figure out how it all related to the pedal stroke. At this point, 28 years after an injury that should have kept me off the bike, I am a product of know-how. It's not just knowing how to go fast, it's knowing how I've aged and what my body can or can't withstand. If I'm fast it's because I've figured it out, not because I was so gifted from the start that I could pedal in squares and still be fast. I believe in what I'm telling my students because it's what I do, 'cept I do far more of it than most of them.

As an example, your statement below suggests that you think Cat 2s have better technique than Cat 3s, 4s or 5s, right? Well, that premise holds true if they are fast and therefore became Cat 2s because they have superior technique. However, if they suck at pedaling but were born with enough natural talent to have become Cat 2s in spite of poor technique they could benefit from your drills as much as the next guy. Why assume that technique and speed have a direct correlation? Isn’t that what you are chastising your students for trying to demonstrate to you?

You are dead-on here. There are plenty of Cat 2's who picked the right parents and never bothered to learn anything about technique. I'm somewhat filtered from them because I almost never take on upper level racers unless they are specifically looking for technique work. There are lots of coaches out there who would love to take on a few Cat 2's if for nothing more than bragging rights. I coach 1's and 2's, but they started with me as 4's and 5's so they've had their share of technique work.

This brings up another related subject - who do you learn from? If these young kids are coached on respect, they're going to flock to the big names in racing. There are two problems there. 1)having a big name in racing means you were born with the talent. Most of them have never given much thought to technique, how can they be expected to teach it? 2)They coach based on what works for them, and people buy into this idea. The thinking becomes "train like a pro to race like a pro". Well, if you put a cat 4 on a pro's training schedule you get a dead cat 4, not another pro...


I'm curious as to the coaches in the thread, their thoughts on the old "Spend the winter in the small ring doing long rides at slow speeds" training mantra?

I know there's been some pushback in some corners on this idea recently, but wonder what the coaches around these parts have to say.

Ah, base mileage! What George Mount would call putting money in the bank. There are lots of reasons, pick one that works for you! Part of it is simple injury prevention. Connective tissue has to be strengthened before the harder stresses are put on the body. A zillion low intensity stress cycles does that so well. For me it's all about forcing my body to run on what I'm feeding it, not what it started with. It's about setting up what you need to eat when the pressure is off. There's time to experiment with feeding schedules and types of food. Every year, the day before the PMC, lots of people ask me what they should eat on the ride. It's like when your girlfriend asks "Do these pants make me look fat?" - There's no good answer to that. Learning how to adapt your body to an endurance sport takes time.

There has been a movement away from the base mileage camp, mostly due to Chris Charmichael's book "the Time Crunched Athlete". CC claimed that most riders can ride just as well on 5 hours of training per week or less. In most cases it's total BS, but in the world of marketing if one makes a claim they must all make that claim. I lost a number of clients to this last year, I noticed they're all back this year...

[jmeloy]

is agreat example of why I love this forum. Ought to be a sticky?

[draper]

Funny, that same statement holds true in music as well.

As I read the OP, I thought this same thing.

[dekindy]

If only Janet Evans had listened to her coach she would have adopted an orthodox stroke technique and count and been a great swimmer. Oh wait, she is considered the best female long distance swimmer of all time and her records in the 400, 800, and 1,500 set in the late eighties still stand and she has five Olympic medals. Just think how good she could have been if her coach could have gotten her to listen and change from her windmill stroke and high spoke count. Dumb teenager!

Ok, that was the counterpoint. One of the best examples of what you are talking about is from the movie, Days of Thunder, when the crew chief's (coach) strategy proved to be the winner.

I have not met or observed great coaches so I am biased in that I believe that most of the greats did it their way instead of someone else's way.

[rounder]

Great stuff Ti. You should post more often. I don't race and don't plan to race. But i respect knowledge when i see it. Anybody who is into bikes can learn from your posts.

[djg]

. . .
In some cases that's come back to bite me, one of my Harvard riders was only comfortable drafting my wheel. I tried to solve the problem by lending my wheel to one of the other women in the race, but that didn't work...
...

This is awesome.

Woulda been even funnier if it had worked, but it's still good stuff.

[Bob Loblaw]

TD is making a great point with this thread. I wish I'd gotten the same advice when I was a junior. Instead, my junior coach's idea of coaching was to set the team loose and try to kill each other every ride. In his defense, he was just a volunteer trying to help.

I think a lot of people suffer from "slowness paranoia," the fear that if they ride too many slow miles, they will be unable to ride fast. Even though I know better, I still feel that way sometimes. Day before yesterday I was out for 26 miles, felt good and pushed it a little harder than I needed to for no reason other than some vague idea I wasn't working hard enough. The only result was yesterday's training suffered and Friday's will too.

There was a domestic pro who wrote a blog for Velonews (maybe Ted King?), and one of the things he said that stuck with me was something to the effect of, "If you see me out riding, by all means introduce yourself and strike up a conversation, but I will probably be going too slow for you. Don't worry, I have a power meter and a computer, I know exactly what I'm doing."

Riding fast is easy. Going slow takes real discipline.

BL

[zap]

edit

I have a buddy I ride with who is fit, who is a tall skinny guy that has the potential to be a pretty strong rider. Truthfully, if he trained right we would not be on the same level, he would be a solid to top notch A group rider . With that said, I really enjoy riding with him about 2/3 of the year. In the Spring and Fall we are the same speed. In the Summer, I am faster than him (which I enjoy). In the winter, he is faster than me (which I do not enjoy). The point is that I train to peak in the summer while he tries to ride fast all the time. I like to ride slower in the winter and try to incorporate one or two new points of focus each winter, but he doesn't have that slower gear and doesn't seem to get that.

Anyway, I concur with TI and going slow and more deliberate allows your body to heal, allows you to work on technique as well as reestablishing a strong base. This is true for Riding, Running, and other sports. The off-season is the off-season for a reason, you have to train differently.


If you are talking about BBC A/B/C ride categories, none of this (time off-go slow-any sort of training method) applies because........

.......pretty much any normal human being can ride at a BBC A or PPTC A (Washington, D.C. or Baltimore bike clubs) pace if they wanted too given enough hard miles in the saddle. Plenty of folks ride hard all year round with their buddies because they want to. Figure they ride at a Cat 4 level but have no interest in going round in circles in an office park but rather ride hard in the hilly countryside for 4-6 hours with their cycling buddies.

Now, if you want to reach Pro/1/2 levels, thats a different story imho. Since I'm a lowly cat 3 and have failed to reach the worthy categories, I defer to those that have made it and are teaching others who hope to achieve the same.

[rugbysecondrow]

I have seen some great athletes, world class rugby players. Two commonalities, 1) they worked harder than everybody else. Extra sprints, more time on the sled etc. 2) they took instruction well and became experts in technique. Sure, they had raw ability, but they didn't rely just on that.

Barry bonds is an example of one of the greatest at his craft. Aside from the steroid issues, he had his father and Willie Mays honing his technique from the earliest age.




If only Janet Evans had listened to her coach she would have adopted an orthodox stroke technique and count and been a great swimmer. Oh wait, she is considered the best female long distance swimmer of all time and her records in the 400, 800, and 1,500 set in the late eighties still stand and she has five Olympic medals. Just think how good she could have been if her coach could have gotten her to listen and change from her windmill stroke and high spoke count. Dumb teenager!

Ok, that was the counterpoint. One of the best examples of what you are talking about is from the movie, Days of Thunder, when the crew chief's (coach) strategy proved to be the winner.

I have not met or observed great coaches so I am biased in that I believe that most of the greats did it their way instead of someone else's way.

[jr59]

edit






.......

Now, if you want to reach Pro/1/2 levels, thats a different story imho. Since I'm a lowly cat 3 and have failed to reach the worthy categories, I defer to those that have made it and are teaching others who hope to achieve the same.


You could always try hiring a coach to help you improve. :D

[benb]

It's only worth hiring a coach if you care about how fast you can ride around the office park with 100 other people who also care about riding fast around the office park.

Zaps post hits the mark for me.

[rugbysecondrow]

I disagree. All i was pointing out was that even for the recreational rider, it is important to have an offseason. Even with group rides, they seem to peak in the summer while using the winter for base miles.

Let me also add that for nearly any athletic activity you care about, you should train specifically for it. That should include a proper off season.n this is not rocket science or new information. If somebody never wants to get better, then that is fine. If somebody wants to improve, they should train well and train smart.

edit




If you are talking about BBC A/B/C ride categories, none of this (time off-go slow-any sort of training method) applies because........

.......pretty much any normal human being can ride at a BBC A or PPTC A (Washington, D.C. or Baltimore bike clubs) pace if they wanted too given enough hard miles in the saddle. Plenty of folks ride hard all year round with their buddies because they want to. Figure they ride at a Cat 4 level but have no interest in going round in circles in an office park but rather ride hard in the hilly countryside for 4-6 hours with their cycling buddies.

Now, if you want to reach Pro/1/2 levels, thats a different story imho. Since I'm a lowly cat 3 and have failed to reach the worthy categories, I defer to those that have made it and are teaching others who hope to achieve the same.

[aoe]

If only Janet Evans had listened to her coach she would have adopted an orthodox stroke technique and count and been a great swimmer. Oh wait, she is considered the best female long distance swimmer of all time and her records in the 400, 800, and 1,500 set in the late eighties still stand and she has five Olympic medals. Just think how good she could have been if her coach could have gotten her to listen and change from her windmill stroke and high spoke count. Dumb teenager!

Ok, that was the counterpoint. One of the best examples of what you are talking about is from the movie, Days of Thunder, when the crew chief's (coach) strategy proved to be the winner.

I have not met or observed great coaches so I am biased in that I believe that most of the greats did it their way instead of someone else's way.

You should get points for just being able to incorporate "Days of Thunder" into this thread. Cole Trickle and Rowdy Burns...gotta love em.

I get your point about Janet Evans, although you could use an equal(or greater) number of examples of world-class athletes who credit their success to their coaches.

[Ti Designs]

I think a lot of people suffer from "slowness paranoia," the fear that if they ride too many slow miles, they will be unable to ride fast. Even though I know better, I still feel that way sometimes. Day before yesterday I was out for 26 miles, felt good and pushed it a little harder than I needed to for no reason other than some vague idea I wasn't working hard enough.


Yup. With my Harvard team riders I spend a lot of time with them on trainers going over pedal stroke and teaching them how to isolate muscles within the pedal stroke. For example, lots of riders use their quads from 11:00 all the way to 6:00 and sometimes beyond. That's more than 50% duty cycle, and there's no blood flow when the muscle is under tension, so intensity really isn't sustainable. These are the same people who claim their quads burn on hills, but somehow they're never very fast up them. What I teach my riders is that the quad extends the leg from the knee, so it's only able to push the pedal forward, not down. In isolation I teach them how to only kick forward from 11:00 to 2:00, which is only a 25% duty cycle. That means the muscle is getting blood flow the other 75%, thus it is sustainable. If you learn how to do this on the trainer, then you go outside and try to go fast, you'll go right back to what you were doing before and none of it works. It takes time and practice, which is exactly what base mileage is. As many times as I've explained this to them, most of my riders can't shut off the need for speed.

Today I decided I can't train with the team any more - a few of them want to go way too fast and the rest just follow. I'm not sure if it's sitting on the saddle or clipping into the pedals, but something about being on the bike is causing their brains to shut down...

[zray67]

+1

[dancinkozmo]

..ive heard the term "junk miles" bandied about on the internets.
..could someone please explain the difference between training slowly and riding "junk miles" ?

[BillG]

..ive heard the term "junk miles" bandied about on the internets.
..could someone please explain the difference between training slowly and riding "junk miles" ?

Junk miles aren't slow. Junk miles are doing exactly what Ti is describing, going too fast in an unsystematic way resulting in no improvement. You should ride (relatively) slowly for technique, base miles, and recovery, and do intervals to improve.

[Wilkinson4]

I ride just to ride nowadays and there really is no structure but back in the day it was called LSD. Long Steady Distance training. Building the base this time of the year and working on technique and your spin. Spin a small gear efficiently, and you can spin a large one with power as your training incorporates some of those hard efforts. But not all the time for sure.

I know via facebook a young gun. He is 16 and has loads of potential. He has a 5kw per/kilo rating now and is just balls to the wall. Ti needs to talk to him and tell him to slow down to go fast, and go fast when scheduled to go faster:)

mIKE

[Bob Ross]

..ive heard the term "junk miles" bandied about on the internets.
..could someone please explain the difference between training slowly and riding "junk miles" ?


Around here (NYC) the term "junk miles" usually refers to all the miles at the beginning and end of an out&back ride where you're going through city traffic with red lights and stop signs and crappy pavement, basically all the riding it takes to get out of the city before you can actually start to enjoy your ride

...at whatever speed you then choose to take it.

[stephenmarklay]

I am a little late to the party here but I appreciate the OP, I started getting serious about a year and a half ago and met with a coach right away. I used his services for about 6 months.

I learned a lot being coached. It was hard for me to put all the pieces together from the books I was reading i.e. Friel, Carmichael etc.

The good about the training is that he had be doing base with no intensity riding for the winter. It worked to my advantage as my first target race was a success (2nd for a 3 race local event in combined Cat 4/5).

Two things I did not like however were as follows. As things progressed and training increased I had difficulty keeping up with the program. That is, on intensity days I was not getting my HR high enough (tired) and just not feeling like I was doing well. I never had much response to those emails.

The other thing is that, while I had full confidence in his program, he never felt like he should explain anything. For me it is just as important to understand why as it is the how.

So in a nutshell, I think if you help your clients understand what they are experiencing (and what they should be experiencing) and tell them why you are training them the way your are - you are already ahead of the game.

My only other gripe was that if I read a books on the subject it was frowned upon. I felt like I was being trained to be a dependent thinker :no:

This year I am on my own. Taking what I learned and building on that. I feel better this time around and my body feels good. I think just having a bit of training experience helps. I am doing what everyone hates right now. Logging a lot of endurance training time. Its snowing so that means inside.

On the pedal stroke issue, last year it was about getting the hours and then intensity (do what I was told). This year I have improved my pedal stroke. Now I feel much better and I don't feel my legs are nearly as wasted after riding (long or hard), I now pedal from the hips. I read a lot about improving my stroke, getting the leg out of the way(everyone), focus on hamstrings (Allen Lim), Ankling, speed drills, tension drills, one leg drills etc.

In the end I went for feel.

I don't like speed drills since spinning to the verge of bouncing did not seem like a great use of time (if I am almost at the point of bouncing I assume that I am still applying too much force down when I should be transitioning to pulling through),

Ankling - I settled on keeping my ankles loose and let my foot apply force in the direction that the force is (Newtons 3rd law),

One leg drills put a lot of tension on the hip flexors and this is a not a powerful action and I felt like focusing on them was too intense for all but short efforts. I just can't imagine that 30-60 seconds at a time will train my CNS to fire muscles in the right way. I think getting the leg out of the way comes natural if you are starting the pull through at the right time.

I kind of do focus on Hamstrings as Allen suggests but it is really more of a hip/glute/hamstring trust that I am doing. I think that the tension drills can help with this.

The funny thing is that yesterday after not doing one leg drills I unclipped a foot on the rollers and found not only were there were no dead spots, I felt no strain in my hip flexors.

So this is the way I am pedaling...

[forrestw]

..ive heard the term "junk miles" bandied about on the internets.
..could someone please explain the difference between training slowly and riding "junk miles" ?

I think of junk miles as being training at say 3-5% below aerobic threshold. It's a very tempting pace, you can sustain it for long periods and you're going 'fast'.

The problem with this is that it's hard enough to require significant recovery time, but it won't build aerobic threshold. Basically it's a 'hard-base' effort.

Coaching wisdom says you're better off doing those miles in easy-aerobic pace, which I take to be say 75-85% of AT. Equally, as I understand it, your threshold - building efforts are going to be 98-99% and 102-104% of AT. The former is pretty darned hard to sustain for hours on end, basically long-race pace and will build your endurance-at-power the latter is what will increase speed.

I have worked with coaches who are dead set against a base training period. The reason they give is that most people don't have enough hours in the week to put in as many base miles as the body can sustain.

[stephenmarklay]

I think of junk miles as being training at say 3-5% below aerobic threshold. It's a very tempting pace, you can sustain it for long periods and you're going 'fast'.

The problem with this is that it's hard enough to require significant recovery time, but it won't build aerobic threshold. Basically it's a 'hard-base' effort.

Coaching wisdom says you're better off doing those miles in easy-aerobic pace, which I take to be say 75-85% of AT. Equally, as I understand it, your threshold - building efforts are going to be 98-99% and 102-104% of AT. The former is pretty darned hard to sustain for hours on end, basically long-race pace and will build your endurance-at-power the latter is what will increase speed.

I have worked with coaches who are dead set against a base training period. The reason they give is that most people don't have enough hours in the week to put in as many base miles as the body can sustain.

I am sure that this will evoke a lot of responses. I basically do avoid that "Zone 3" or Tempo or RPE 5-6 right now in favor of longer rides and higher frequency. Now that I am a month in, my base two may include a but of this "no mans land" and when I am doing my build I will keep do some for aerobic maintenance.

I think it gets a bad rap as it is is the intensity that weekend warriors or recreational cyclist do when they ride hard. So us with our noses in the air don't dare lower ourselves or our heart rate to that level and if we do we might as well be able to talk to our friends like riding is something about nothing (Zone 1 & 2).

I think from a scientific standpoint it would be pretty difficult to prove that Zone 3 work is junk.

In the end, my new motto in life is everything in moderation. I will get some of it all and focus on certain things at certain times (yes Tudor Bompa). I like to think of everything as layering. In that way it makes sense to start easy and work toward hard and then rest a bit and do it again (during the year)

[Ti Designs]

The other thing is that, while I had full confidence in his program, he never felt like he should explain anything. For me it is just as important to understand why as it is the how.

There's good and bad there. Some riders will skip steps if they see the whole program laid out in front of them, and sometimes coaching decisions come down to what's effective vs. what's right. I just sent one of my Harvard kids home with instructions on doing speed work in January. It's not the right thing to do, but being a senior and needing upgrade points quickly it's the most effective way. For a coach I tend to be very up front with my riders, I feel I need that respect going both ways and I don't have to worry about bringing in the clients, so I have that luxury.



My only other gripe was that if I read a books on the subject it was frowned upon. I felt like I was being trained to be a dependent thinker :no:

Again it comes down to the coach needing some level of control. I've had riders who decided that if one coach is good, three coaches is better. Overtraining can't be far behind... And then there are all the books making claims that people just want to hear - the time crunched athlete by Chris Charmichael is perhaps the best example. Why do base mileage if this book says you can reach the same point in far less time? I don't mind arguing points on why I have my riders do what they do, I just don't want to make a full time job out of it...

[stephenmarklay]

There's good and bad there. Some riders will skip steps if they see the whole program laid out in front of them, and sometimes coaching decisions come down to what's effective vs. what's right. I just sent one of my Harvard kids home with instructions on doing speed work in January. It's not the right thing to do, but being a senior and needing upgrade points quickly it's the most effective way. For a coach I tend to be very up front with my riders, I feel I need that respect going both ways and I don't have to worry about bringing in the clients, so I have that luxury.





Again it comes down to the coach needing some level of control. I've had riders who decided that if one coach is good, three coaches is better. Overtraining can't be far behind... And then there are all the books making claims that people just want to hear - the time crunched athlete by Chris Charmichael is perhaps the best example. Why do base mileage if this book says you can reach the same point in far less time? I don't mind arguing points on why I have my riders do what they do, I just don't want to make a full time job out of it...

I appreciate your thoughts on this. Really, the burden is on the student to be just that. I know it is difficult to have the student question the training when he/she has not been their and done that. There are a million ways to set up a program (or so it would seem) and a million and one reasons that each is wrong (or right) so I understand you have to choose and move on.

Again, I was not at all questioning the plan or methods my coach was using. I only wanted to understand it. I took it on faith and reputation that it had value. I know that many times this is not the case. The guys that want to run you ragged in the winter may not appreciate or value what you are doing.

Everyone is different but myself, I am a student, with a zeal to learn. I would still be with my coach if he were a teacher.

In the end I read (continue too) and go with the tested methods. Base, build, peak, race. It may not be perfect but it will do in a pinch.

[forrestw]

I think it gets a bad rap as it is is the intensity that weekend warriors or recreational cyclist do when they ride hard. So us with our noses in the air don't dare lower ourselves or our heart rate to that level and if we do we might as well be able to talk to our friends like riding is something about nothing (Zone 1 & 2).

I think from a scientific standpoint it would be pretty difficult to prove that Zone 3 work is junk.

To be clear, I don't think that (zone3=junk) is what I was saying, rather that the tendency / temptation to ride at the high end of zone 3 is 'junk miles'.

To try to be more clear, training zones 1-5 are usually based on % of max HR, so for my max = 180, z3 = 126-144. I don't find these zones to be very good markers in any case, 4 years ago my mid-season AT was around 146, now it's closer to 155, and I've learned (right or wrong) to pace my efforts to that AT value, not to nominal zones.

I know for my own part I've done better (healthier, improved capacity and speed) as I've gained the discipline to slow down both in the off season and in mid-season LSD work.

[dancinkozmo]

..sounds like in a nutshell the idea is to do lots of hours riding slower than you think is doing any good and sprinkling in some days where you try and go VERY VERY hard ?

[jlwdm]

...

To try to be more clear, training zones 1-5 are usually based on % of max HR, so for my max = 180, z3 = 126-144. I don't find these zones to be very good markers in any case, 4 years ago my mid-season AT was around 146, now it's closer to 155, and I've learned (right or wrong) to pace my efforts to that AT value, not to nominal zones.
...

That is why zones are based on LTHR not max HR. LTHR can be raised and should be periodically re-measured. Max HR is not really measurable. You can tell the max you have hit but not your max.

Jeff

[jlwdm]

..sounds like in a nutshell the idea is to do lots of hours riding slower than you think is doing any good and sprinkling in some days where you try and go VERY VERY hard ?

As Joe Friel says world class athletes train more in the lower zones than the average cyclist. But they also train hard in high zones in the right way allowing proper recovery between hard workouts.

Jeff

[William]

LOL ! It's always the young guys that are the most diffcult. In any coaching, not the very young ones, they are like a sponge. It's the older young ones, they already know everything. Even if they don't know a darn thing. And the internet makes it even worse. " I read on the internet that xxxx did this" so I should do xxxx.

All that being said; There is NO BETTER felling in the world than seeing a student/player/rider "get it", after beating your head in all year teaching him.

It's the look, when you tell him to do something and he understands.

I coached for my pay, I had to live. But,
I coached to see that look.

Good luck, and I wish you were closer.
I would hire you, so you could make me less slow!


That “look” is one of the best things about coaching/instructing. I’ve been training people for quite a while (outside cycling) and that look of understanding that appears on their faces and confirms that the principals and techniques that you are teaching is understood is priceless. Now, imo one of the keys is being able to explain what your trying to get across in a way that the student understands. This can require multiple approaches until you lock into a mode of communication that they can associate with. Many times hitting the right analogy is what opens the way to understanding. This tends to be easier in private training, but It can get a little harder when working with groups. In these situations you can usually fairly quickly figure out an approach that the majority of the group can understand, but then you have to watch at an individual level to see who isn’t getting it, or those who say they understand but you can tell they don’t. Then it requires some fine tuning and focused communication to figure out how to best get into their heads.

As I mentioned already, I’ve trained many folks over the years and I’ve had a few people that where tough nuts to crack. But, if you keep at it you can almost always get through…..and to me that look of understanding is one of the most rewarding things of all.

One of my mantras has been pointed out already….”Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast”. A lot can be learned applying that line of thought/action.




William

[Bob Ross]

lots of riders use their quads from 11:00 all the way to 6:00 and sometimes beyond. That's more than 50% duty cycle, and there's no blood flow when the muscle is under tension, so intensity really isn't sustainable. These are the same people who claim their quads burn on hills, but somehow they're never very fast up them. What I teach my riders is that the quad extends the leg from the knee, so it's only able to push the pedal forward, not down. In isolation I teach them how to only kick forward from 11:00 to 2:00, which is only a 25% duty cycle. That means the muscle is getting blood flow the other 75%, thus it is sustainable.

So what's happening from 2:00 to 6:00?

[93legendti]

So what's happening from 2:00 to 6:00?
Here you go:

...Let's break down the pedal stroke into four quadrants, and four muscle groups adding power within them.

Quads - kicking over the top from 11:00 to 2:00
Glutes - pushing down from 1:30 to 4:30
Hamstrings - pulling back from 4:30 to 7:30
Hip flexors - pulling up from 7:30 to 12:00

Now let's look at where most of the power is - about 90% is in the first two muscle groups. The muscles that fight gravity all day long are strong - glutes and quads hold your body up. Hip flexors only lift you feet off the ground. You could spend a lot of time working on them and still never see significant gains in power output.

The reason I have my riders doing one leg pedal stroke drills has more to do with comfort on the bike and not wasting energy. The real goal is to generate a smooth pedal stroke at high RPMs by getting the foot up and out of the way of the pedal as it comes over the top. When you see someone bouncing at high RPMs (or sometimes not so high - different problem) there are two reasons. 1) they are pushing straight down to the bottom of the pedal stroke. 2) the pedal is coming over the top with weight on it from the rider's foot. That force lifts the hip which causes the bouncing in the saddle. Now think about what happens when you bounce in the saddle. One hip is pushed up, the SI joint adjusts and takes the spine with it. The muscles that fan across the lower back fire to stabilize the spine, and this happens 100+ times a minute - does that sound comfortable to you???

My bottom line is this: You can get what you need in terms of pedal stroke work on the back side and top of the pedal stroke with one leg drills. Power cranks can be used to do the same thing, but there's a danger to them that nobody speaks about. If you put a set of those things on your bike and go out for a ride, you're either going to feel foolish when you have to call someone to come pick you up, or your going to give yourself tendinitis. With power cranks you start on the trainer, for just a few minutes. You build up the time over weeks, and it's almost a month before you get out on the road.

And just to be clear, there are four major muscle groups that go into a pedal stroke, just doing one leg drills is a small part of the whole, and not the part that's going to get you up a hill.

[Ti Designs]

So what's happening from 2:00 to 6:00?

Body weight on the pedal, glutes being the muscle that extends the femur down from the hip. That's what I've been working on a lot on the last hour of my base mileage rides. I've been on the fixed gear for a number of hours, so I'm in some state of tired, and my way home takes me over a number of hills. So the task is to get over the hills - on a fixed gear so there's no option of finding a super low gear, but stay in zone 3. The simple answer is to put the body weight on the pedal as if I were sitting on a chair with that foot on the floor, and let gravity do much of the work. Base mileage is about making that second nature, teaching your body that the increase in resistance at the pedals is the cue to move the body weight over the pedals and shift the emphasis to the bigger muscles.

So here's the breakdown:

11:00 - 2:00 the quads kick forward.
2:00 - 5:00 the glutes (and gravity) push down.
4:00 - 8:00 the hamstrings pull back.
8:00 - 12:00 the hip flexors lift up.

There are a few places with overlap, which is one of the harder things to teach. The easy example is using the quads. Think about the path of your foot if the quads fire in isolation, then think about the path of the pedal over the top - not the same. In order to round up and over the top the quad supplies most of the power, but the hip flexor still has to fire to 12:00. It really comes down to learning which muscles push in the right direction. If the pedal is at 3:00 and the quads fire, you're foot is pushed forward, not down. The pedal is going down, not forward. The result is the rider getting pushed back in the saddle and wasting a lot of effort in the process. The real problem is that the body's natural reaction to trying to push the pedal down is to use the quads. You almost have to trick the body into using the right muscle...

[nathbdp]

How can you tell if a rider is not pedaling with the right technique?

Thanks, BTW!

[MadRocketSci]

There are a few places with overlap, which is one of the harder things to teach. The easy example is using the quads. Think about the path of your foot if the quads fire in isolation, then think about the path of the pedal over the top - not the same. In order to round up and over the top the quad supplies most of the power, but the hip flexor still has to fire to 12:00. It really comes down to learning which muscles push in the right direction. If the pedal is at 3:00 and the quads fire, you're foot is pushed forward, not down. The pedal is going down, not forward. The result is the rider getting pushed back in the saddle and wasting a lot of effort in the process. The real problem is that the body's natural reaction to trying to push the pedal down is to use the quads. You almost have to trick the body into using the right muscle...

Ok everytime I see this thing about quads doing no work at 3:00, I wanna call BS, so I'm actually going to do it this time. No offense intended, disclaimer, i'm not an physiologist, kinesiologist, or even remember much from my dynamics courses, so please show me the error of my ways...but, to me:

Quads aren't used only to do things akin to kicking someone in the nads. This notion of extending the lower leg at the knee joint is one-half the story. Quad activity also should act to rotate the upperbody/thighs about the knee joint, particularly if the lower leg is fixed. If there is a change in knee joint angle (upper wrt lower leg angle), the quad should be doing work.

So when you are pressing down on the pedal at 3:00, there is a delta angle in the knee as the crank turns. Yes the foot is going down, not forward, but your thigh is rotating about the knee. This could be due either to your glutes opening your hip angle or your quads opening the knee angle. What am I not seeing?

Another example: if you're squatting, you're using quad, as the burning sensation will tell you (unless you have mastered the southern shaolin kung-fu horse stance and feel nothing). I contend you could do this on a frictionless surface, so that the quad action is not there to keep your foot from moving horizontally. It is to keep your upper body/thigh from falling to the ground. If you push harder with your quads then you will rotate your upper body/thigh about your knee joint, as above. Still no kicking involved. I'm not sure what role the glutes play, as real analysis would involve math constructs by Lagrange, Hamilton, or Kane, but I'm pretty sure the quads have to be involved.

I do agree 100% that involving the glutes as much as possible on a climb is the way to go.

[Ti Designs]

Sit on a chair, lean forward from the hips, keeping the back straight. Your feet kinda know where they need to be, but we'll play around with position a bit to make the point. If your feet are under your center of gravity your quads are probably doing very little work. Move your feet back a bit and your center of gravity will now be in front of your feet which means your quads will fire just to keep you from falling on your face. I use this little test to set fore/aft saddle position, center of gravity has far more to do with it than knee over pedal spindle. Anyway, if you're on that chair with your body weight on your feet and your quads are doing next to nothing, and the floor started to sink, one of two things would happen. You could rotate from the hip, falling forward with the floor that's falling away from you - that's how body weight is transfered without active extension of the knee. It's more likely you'll do what your body is programmed to do and try not to fall, which means using the quads.

There are two things that keep most people from using their quads well in climbing. The first is this idea that your upper body should remain still. Nope. If you're leveraging body weight on the pedals, you have to drop that body weight on the pedals - that means displacement. The second thing is your defensive reaction to falling. When I'm teaching people on the trainer with the pedal stopped at 3:00 it's easy to get people to put their body weight onto the pedal. Then I allow the cranks to turn in a very large gear and as soon as it starts to move most people either sit up or use their quads to keep their torso from falling. Watch some of the best climbers from the side, they're dropping their full weight on those pedals...

[stephenmarklay]

Thanks for the the analysis Ti Designs. I will read and reread this to make sure I understand.

For the record my coach never touched on these kind of topics...

I have been pretty happy with my stoke this year compared to last year. I have a big bubble of a butt and I intend to use it as a weapon :banana:

[shiftyfixedgear]

Is it O.K if I print out this thread and give copies to riders who leave me in the dust on organized rides ? I want to explain to them that my plodding pace is only intended to teach me how to go fast later :)

I'm only working on TECHNIQUE ! Honest !

Where's my donut ?

[RADaines]

There are two things that keep most people from using their quads well in climbing. The first is this idea that your upper body should remain still. Nope. If you're leveraging body weight on the pedals, you have to drop that body weight on the pedals - that means displacement. The second thing is your defensive reaction to falling. When I'm teaching people on the trainer with the pedal stopped at 3:00 it's easy to get people to put their body weight onto the pedal. Then I allow the cranks to turn in a very large gear and as soon as it starts to move most people either sit up or use their quads to keep their torso from falling. Watch some of the best climbers from the side, they're dropping their full weight on those pedals...
Watch some videos of Eddie Merckx climbing, this will illustrate this concept very well. Following many of the postings by Ti Designs, I have made significant improvements in my climbing, and I am still working on it. Great tips, many thanks.

[93legendti]

Watch some videos of Eddie Merckx climbing, this will illustrate this concept very well. Following many of the postings by Ti Designs, I have made significant improvements in my climbing, and I am still working on it. Great tips, many thanks.
I believe that vids of Greg Lemond climbing also illustrate this.

In the in '90 TdF tape (now dvd) on the stage to Luz Ardiden, Greg gets away with Miguel Indurain and there's sustained footage of Greg climbing-good stuff.

[bobswire]

Sit on a chair, lean forward from the hips, keeping the back straight. Your feet kinda know where they need to be, but we'll play around with position a bit to make the point. If your feet are under your center of gravity your quads are probably doing very little work. Move your feet back a bit and your center of gravity will now be in front of your feet which means your quads will fire just to keep you from falling on your face. I use this little test to set fore/aft saddle position, center of gravity has far more to do with it than knee over pedal spindle. Anyway, if you're on that chair with your body weight on your feet and your quads are doing next to nothing, and the floor started to sink, one of two things would happen. You could rotate from the hip, falling forward with the floor that's falling away from you - that's how body weight is transfered without active extension of the knee. It's more likely you'll do what your body is programmed to do and try not to fall, which means using the quads.

There are two things that keep most people from using their quads well in climbing. The first is this idea that your upper body should remain still. Nope. If you're leveraging body weight on the pedals, you have to drop that body weight on the pedals - that means displacement. The second thing is your defensive reaction to falling. When I'm teaching people on the trainer with the pedal stopped at 3:00 it's easy to get people to put their body weight onto the pedal. Then I allow the cranks to turn in a very large gear and as soon as it starts to move most people either sit up or use their quads to keep their torso from falling. Watch some of the best climbers from the side, they're dropping their full weight on those pedals...

How does your "core" come into play while climbing in a seating position?
At least for me I find using my back/core muscle group have helped in my climbing ability beyond quads while seated.
Using a rower has been beneficial for me since it helps strengthen the quads, back and core.

[stephenmarklay]

How does your "core" come into play while climbing in a seating position?
At least for me I find using my back/core muscle group have helped in my climbing ability beyond quads while seated.
Using a rower has been beneficial for me since it helps strengthen the quads, back and core.

That is a good question. Core has to come into play seated and standing. I do think the rower is good to build muscular endurance in the low back and hips/glutes. I ride my trainer in the positions I will race (low on the hoods and drops, standing and standing hands in drops).

I focus on my center of gravity standing. I did martial arts/boxing and used this concept to generate greater force as well. The idea is to ground yourself in martial arts. Rotating the hips, centering the weight and dropping the center of gravity is what I do standing. I look for the balance point and thrust my hips.

Clear as mud I am sure. Maybe just maybe TiDesigns can shed light on what I said :) (or scratch his head)

[MadRocketSci]

Sit on a chair, lean forward from the hips, keeping the back straight. Your feet kinda know where they need to be, but we'll play around with position a bit to make the point. If your feet are under your center of gravity your quads are probably doing very little work. Move your feet back a bit and your center of gravity will now be in front of your feet which means your quads will fire just to keep you from falling on your face. I use this little test to set fore/aft saddle position, center of gravity has far more to do with it than knee over pedal spindle. Anyway, if you're on that chair with your body weight on your feet and your quads are doing next to nothing, and the floor started to sink, one of two things would happen. You could rotate from the hip, falling forward with the floor that's falling away from you - that's how body weight is transfered without active extension of the knee. It's more likely you'll do what your body is programmed to do and try not to fall, which means using the quads.

There are two things that keep most people from using their quads well in climbing. The first is this idea that your upper body should remain still. Nope. If you're leveraging body weight on the pedals, you have to drop that body weight on the pedals - that means displacement. The second thing is your defensive reaction to falling. When I'm teaching people on the trainer with the pedal stopped at 3:00 it's easy to get people to put their body weight onto the pedal. Then I allow the cranks to turn in a very large gear and as soon as it starts to move most people either sit up or use their quads to keep their torso from falling. Watch some of the best climbers from the side, they're dropping their full weight on those pedals...

Gonna have to question this too. Technically, if everything is static, then your quads are doing no "work" in the physical sense, since work requires a displacement (linear or angular) of some kind. But I don't think that's the type of work you're talking about. If your cg is over your feet, there is no torque. However, your quads have to be in a state of tension because you are not in a state of minimum energy. Things seek a state of minimum energy, and if your knee angle decreased your cg would go down, thus reducing your potential energy. thus your quads need to "fire" to keep that from happening. if you do that ski tuck squat your describing, feel your quads....are they limp like olive garden pasta? I would doubt it.

Gravity is between you and the earth. When your torso is falling you relieve the bike from some of its duty of keeping you from falling towards the center of the earth. Therefore there is less pressure on your contact points (butt, feet, hands). Now when your torso is accelerating upwards, there is a reaction force at your contact points to move your cg up. This is where you would have additional force on your pedals due to upper body motion. However, I wonder if this is more efficient than keeping your upper body still yet relaxed. You'd have to move your upper body from side to side to keep from loading the wrong pedal with a downward force. This wastes energy. All I think this is good for is a boost, especially when your other muscles are tired. You don't see Lance or Schleck doing it on a sustained climb. And you see those other guys mentioned doing it on a breakaway when every other muscle is cooked and it's the last thing they've got.

I like the idea of reducing quad action for glute, but i'm an upper body motion skeptic. I use it as above, towards the end when my legs need some help.

[RADaines]

These guys are using a lot of upper body motion, but I don't think that they are being inefficient. My understanding was that this was a technique that allowed greater use of the glutes (but of course I could be mistaken). At any rate, great video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZXiGPXZVw0&NR=1

[stephenmarklay]

From what I see; these guys are putting the hammer down. The combination of tired legs and the need to generate a lot of power has them shifting weight. It works.

[Ti Designs]

Gravity is between you and the earth. When your torso is falling you relieve the bike from some of its duty of keeping you from falling towards the center of the earth. Therefore there is less pressure on your contact points (butt, feet, hands). Now when your torso is accelerating upwards, there is a reaction force at your contact points to move your cg up. This is where you would have additional force on your pedals due to upper body motion.


Years ago there was a magazine about the science and physics of cycling and bikes. I got into huge arguments with many of the editors 'cause of things they printed which may have made sense by the numbers, but when talking about actual cycling they fell flat. This is just such an argument. From a science standpoint it makes sense, freefall does eliminate the forces of gravity from the contact points and lifting the riders mass will increase the force on at least one of those points. That said, it's completely backwards.

[stephenmarklay]

Ok I am am shifting gears! Since the tread was about riding slower to ride faster I wanted to comment on that.

Last year I did the long slow rides in the winter, per my plan. Just starting I did a functional threshold test and was set up with my "training zones".

I did not have power so I just kept my HR in the proper zone.

Fast forward to this today. I am still going about this the same way but with a but more thought. I am now recording my average HR for the ride, my average speed on the rollers (I have two sets so I am careful my reference), and my average cadence.

I just finished my first base period and while failed to meet my last week goal for hours I noted that my power steadily increased over the 3 weeks. Not a lot but an increase for sure. On my rollers (totally not relative to the real world) with all things equal (gear, cadence, resistance) I am about 1-1.5mph faster over an endurance ride from 3-5 hours (yes on the rollers :crap:). My last ride yesterday at 4.5h was the fastest yet.

So while I am riding slow metabolically I am still trying to go fast :)
I will work a little higher in my Zone 2 for Base 2 (my range is around 130-146) and my last ride average was 138. I will shoot for 140-145 average.

The nice thing about riding on a trainer is the ability to just hit your zone and go. I get more solid zone 2 inside this way. Four hours on the trainer is like 5 or more outside as I see more zone 1 when I am cruising outside. It is just harder to keep it even.

My $.02 but with the deflated dollar it is worth a bit of pocket lint.

[MadRocketSci]

These guys are using a lot of upper body motion, but I don't think that they are being inefficient. My understanding was that this was a technique that allowed greater use of the glutes (but of course I could be mistaken). At any rate, great video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZXiGPXZVw0&NR=1

What i'm seeing here is tired hard as nails guys who are pushing harder gears than riders today have to. They are using every mechanism and muscle at their disposal just to keep those low (for today's standards) cadences. upper body motion like that today will trigger paul sherwen's lips to automatically utter the words "suitcase of courage."

[MadRocketSci]

Years ago there was a magazine about the science and physics of cycling and bikes. I got into huge arguments with many of the editors 'cause of things they printed which may have made sense by the numbers, but when talking about actual cycling they fell flat. This is just such an argument. From a science standpoint it makes sense, freefall does eliminate the forces of gravity from the contact points and lifting the riders mass will increase the force on at least one of those points. That said, it's completely backwards.

Not talking about numbers here, just fundamental principles of physics. Ignore them if you will, but I think it would help to find other explanations that are more consistent with the universe in a qualitative sense. At least for those of us who are very interested in your thoughts and techniques but need to have explanations that are physically plausible in order to fully embrace them. Again, I'm not talking about the actual technique, but the underlying principle.

The 3:00 thing still makes no sense at all. I think that explanation should be removed from your arsenal, and i'm surprised that i would be alone in suggesting it. The "which muscle to use at which part of the pedal stroke" is gold - i incorporated it into my climbing a while back and thank you for the improvement it has given me.

[stephenmarklay]

The issue you bring up is that you cannot isolate the movement to the knee or hip. The quads insert at both places. You are correct.

There is always more than one muscle and joint involved. There is however a predominance of one motion over the other at a given rotation of the pedal stroke. (Since it is hard to think about the 3 o'clock position think about the 11 o'clock position. Sitting in that chair, pull your knee toward your chest. Now pretend you are rounding over the top of the pedal stroke. You have to use your quads to extend the knee more than you will extend your hips. Once you are over your pretend top you start to extend your hips.)

At 3 o'clock a lot more hip extension is going on vs knee extension. This is due to the constraint of the pedal rotation thus there is a greater involvement of the hip extensors at that angle. Likewise rounding over the the top, to the point that the the knee angle stop changing much, is dominated by the quads extending the lower leg as above.

The hamstrings get involved during those same angles to a more or lesser degree but do play strongly along with the quads rounding over the top.

So I agree at 3 o'clock the glutes are the dominate muscle. This obviously depends on fore/aft position as it comes down to what is dominant at a given angle hip or knee extension.

[MadRocketSci]

actually, at 3:00 I think you can choose to emphasize either the quad or the glute. Emphasizing the quad at 3 is probably what most people do when they learn to ride a bike as kids. It is natural, you can feel it, and it works. However, the better way that Ti designs has shown is to emphasize the glutes at 3 to give the quads more of a break. However, this is not intuitive and requires some thinking and practice. It is very cool when it starts to work.

The thing i'm objecting to is that the quad can only "kick" the foot forward at 3:00, and thus only acts to push you back on the seat. This is wrong. The quad can work at 3 by rotating the upper leg about the knee, resulting in downward pressure on the pedal, rather than rotating the lower leg about the knee, which would result in that forward pressure. We all used to pedal this way, and many probably still do.

[stephenmarklay]

Ok I agree with you both. I guess that just makes me lame.

I actually think last year I did exactly as you state and overworked my quads and had lots of quad fatigue.

So far this year driving with my hips I have much less fatigue.

[1centaur]

Heel position at 3 o'clock to emphasize glutes? Feels like pushing the heel is what does it and toe down or even flat is very much quads even at slightly behind KOPS.

[Ti Designs]

Not talking about numbers here, just fundamental principles of physics.


Yes, but without a clear picture of what really happens (or should happen). In the movie Stars and Water Carriers there is a good clip of Eddy Merckx climbing a steep pitch filmed from the side. Watch him climb, look at your evaluation of energy use within the pedal stroke and see if you don't think it's backwards.


actually, at 3:00 I think you can choose to emphasize either the quad or the glute.


This is true and most people use the quads 'cause it's the muscle the body is wired to use. It adds energy to the system in that it increases the distance from the hip to the ankle by extending the leg at the knee, but look at the amount of torque needed and then look at the size of the muscle. Keep in mind there are two lever arms at work here, both the femur and tib/fib. In contrast, look at the ratio of muscle size to lever arm of the glutes to femur length.

[stephenmarklay]

I played with some of this on an easy spin today. It is hard for me to do a lot more that keep my ankles free and drive down with my hips. My hope is that with "free" ankles I "waste" less energy applying force tangential to the direction of motion. I did find that it is not a perfect system that way but hey...

I did do some spin ups to 125 rpm or so and while I am not super efficient I was reasonably smooth. It seems that when one starts to bounce on the saddle it is an indication that they are forcing the quads to do more work than needed and pushing down (extending the lower leg) past what is needed.

I also have had a lot better luck driving hard from 1 to 4 give or take. Getting the mud off the the shoe or pedaling circles does not do much for me.