Can you generate 30 Nm of torque now, even if for only 1 s?
If so, you can already produce sufficient torque. The issue is you can’t sustain it. Deliberately pedaling at a suboptimal cadence won’t help solve that problem.
Cog - the data I provided about gearing could be considered anecdotal because it is personal to me, however it wasn’t one-off or unreliable because after strength training gains it was repeated multiple times each week for months, and it wasn’t some sort of qualitative observation or assumption it was literally two numbers based on the number of projections on a front chainring and a rear cassette. It was factual.
I don’t know the extent of your research in this area, but you seem to be the ideal researcher for it because you doubt it is beneficial and you have access to resources. Have you considered doing this (or if you already have would you link me to studies you’ve conducted)?
In any case, many pro cyclists and coaches, who earn their livings racing, believe strength training improves performance. If you’re saying it’s just a placebo effect it is a pretty widespread one.
You seem to have mistaken me for an applied sports scientist.
Has anyone on this thread asked you what you think will solve the problem. If not, what do you believe the answer(s) is / are?
Do you know of any applied sports scientists that you believe do good research?
David Martin is the first name that leaps to mind.
Lots of others as well (many in the sports nutrition realm).
In my research I’ve had people ingest things (like carbohydrates, or nitrate), but only because I’m a PhD, not an MD, so can’t use drugs instead, and I study people, not rodents, so can’t just knock out a gene. IOW, I’m primarily interested in learning about physiology by manipulating it, rather than trying to improve performance. Of course, performance is the ultimate integration of all of the underlying physiological (and psychological) determinants, so it often an outcome of interest, but more as a functional readout.
Yes, it’s a somewhat arbitrary distinction.
I think most folks recognize the solution: train more and/or harder.
It just seems too simple, or they’ve run up against various constraints and it isn’t working, so they cast about for some “magic bullet”, mistakenly looking to pro cyclists for the answer.
Agree 100% train more and/or harder. Pros were largely not training with weights when I got into leg strength training to increase pedaling power.
I will concede one thing: I lifted three times per week, each session about 1.5 hours in duration. High intensity, high volume, absolutely dead legs that still had to pedal the bike after lifting as well as on non-lifting days. Would I have had the same benefit if I had skipped weights entirely and instead increased my riding by 4.5 hrs per week (3x 1.5 hrs)? As a percent of volume it’s quite significant, so I certainly would have gotten stronger, but whether that would have been more or less than I did is unknown.
What if you do some training to produce 35nm or 40nm of torque for a short time surely then that 30nm would feel easier? If that doesn’t increase your power maybe it might extend TTE? This would only work if muscular endurance is the limiting factor of course.
Muscle begins to fatigue within just a few seconds…“Lifting” the far left end of the force-velocity relationship therefore results in diminishing returns both the faster you pedal and the longer you go.
To put it in practical terms:
If you’re a track sprint cyclist or a BMXer, you should almost certainly be lifting weights. If you’re a track endurance cyclist or a crit racer who counts on their sprint for results, you might benefit from lifting weights. Anybody else, the direct performance benefits are at best unproven.
(Note: I bought a multi station home gym for $2500 almost 25 y ago, and used it just yesterday.)
I thinking of starting a coaching business where instead of high force at (nearly) zero speed, I’m going to advocate 200 rpm at zero torque.
There’ll be a running piece too: teeny tiny steps really really fast.
But doesn’t this also mean, that guys with superior Vo2 can “weaponize” high cadence and save the legs more in a Grand Tour for instance?
All makes sense and I guess my point is that structured training by watts alone doesn’t force us to train at different cadence/torque scenarios, especially if largely done indoors via Erg. We can, but most of us don’t or won’t. Outside or in, we’re always going to default to whatever is easiest for us individually, which as you pointed out probably isn’t super different.
But being forced into grinding on a climb while still seated or forced into spinning it up super high rpm but at low torque while on the flats in training might better prepare our physiology to cope with the demands on race day should we be forced into a less ideal (for us) wattage path.
Plus the aforementioned muscle recruitment benefits and whatnot.
Well I am back with some observations. It was interesting to see torque values at Threshold at my normal cadence which is torque 21-22 @ 88-90 cadence.
As expected, reducing cadence and increasing torque brought down HR and made the power production more manageable. Not really grinding at 25-27 @ 80 cadence.
Been doing Z2 rides based on HR while hitting torque values 20-25. Cadence controls the HR.
HR recovery is from intervals is great. Usually at baseline way before the next one.
Haven’t moved FTP setting as I am looking to increase TTE. In Build right now. Threshold intervals are getting longer but now they feel better. I now know what torque values cook my legs. Also know what torque values to spin and save my legs.
Bottom line, the more high value torque you use, the faster your legs get depleted. Torque in effect, has it’s own zones. I know 12-15 is all day. Threshold is 20-21 and 25-27 @ 85 cadence is gonna be Vo2 max in 3 to 5 min.