(**Before I begin, I want to wish my boy a Happy Birthday! He’s 12 today.**)
This morning, I spun easy for an hour on the trainer. I kept it easy, trying to loosen up the legs for tomorrow’s long climbing intervals.
Yesterday, I read an article in VeloNews summarizing training methods, technique, etc. discussed at the “Serotta Science of Cycling Symposium.”
Here is one of the summaries from the article.
“Martin (Jim Martin, Ph.D. of the University of Utah) skewered sacred cows about crank length, pedaling technique and rider positioning. We were forewarned, though, as he said at the outset that many of us would find his conclusions “irritating.”
His studies of 16 bike racers of various heights doing maximal sprint power tests of under four seconds duration on cranks of 120, 145, 170, 195, and 220mm showed no statistical difference between crank lengths. Seat height to the pedal was maintained throughout, but fore-aft saddle position and handlebar height were not readjusted with crank length changes, despite variations with crank length of pedal-to-knee relationship and saddle-to-bar drop. This also led to Martin’s assertion that he could see no point to positioning the knee over the pedal spindle.
Further Martin tests showed no statistical relationship between metabolic cost and either pedaling rate (RPM) or crank length, using nine trained cyclists riding 145, 170 and 195mm cranks who pedaled at 30-, 60-, and 90 percent of their lactate threshold at 40, 60, 80 and 100 RPM. On the contrary, power output and pedal speed (pedaling rate times crank length), accounted for over 98 percent of the variation in metabolic cost.
In another test, Martin had 10 racers perform a 30-second maximal sprint on 120mm and 220mm cranks at 135RPM for the 120mm and 109RPM for the 220mm. he found that, while the rate of fatigue was less for longer cranks, the fatigue per revolution was identical. This led him to suggest that track sprinters, rather than spinning at high RPM, should select the gear at or just below the one at which they produce maximum power output. The higher gear, as fatigue per revolution would be constant, would get the rider to the finish sooner, as fatigue would take more time to set in. …”
With that article in mind, I was curious about my spin cadence with a 175 mm crank.
Now this this is just an observation… I don’t know what it means or if it means anything, but I found it extremely interesting.
I checked my cadence while spinning the small ring comfortably. It was 102 RPM. I checked again a few minutes later in the same gear — 102 RPM. I found it curious that my RPM stayed so consistent, so over the next hour I kept checking.
No matter what gear I spun, the cadence remained at 102 RPM. I guess that’s the cadence my body likes to spin.
But I was curious what would happen if I simulated a climb. So, I changed the resistance and got into an easy climbing rhythm. I came up with 84 RPM. I checked again — still 84 RPM. I switched between easy and climbing a number of times, and I kept coming up with 102 RPM and 84 RPM.
Interesting – and a bit weird. I’ll have to do some research to figure out what this means. If anything.