Fast Twitch Tri-FULL (Page 17)

-------------------------------- HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT -----------------------------------------

Think about how an increase in cadence, or "turnover", might affect your short-course performances.  This involves:

• footstrikes in running
• pedal revolutions on the bike
• arm strokes when swimming

As part of this "assignment", figure out your own cadences for run-of-the-mill workouts (that is, neither speedwork nor long, slow distance).  To do this, count single footstrikes/minute on the run, single pedal revolutions/minute on the bike, and both-arm strokes across the pool (that is, 25yards).  Of course, it is best to have a decent sample-size, so try to get about 6-10 samples for each discipline. 

Also, try not to alter your existing cadences in an attempt to arrive at some perceived "right answer".  One of the rewards of going through the increasd-cadence process is knowing where you began, once you eventually arrive at values that confer performance advantages.

There is no hurry to do this, though; mostly this is about a concept,  that being an increase in cadence in on or two or all three disciplines.    

Have fun!

My run cadence is in the mid 80's, bike is usually around 92-95 while racing in tris or TTing, and my strokes per minute is about 70-75 when doing distances over 500 yards.

In my efforts to get under 8 m/m in a 5K this year I've been running more, a lot more.  While I wanted to get my training pace down, some days it was, some it wasn't.  Someone here pointed out my training runs were a little slow for getting there.  Well, I've succesfully picked up the pace and better yet it feels fine while I'm doing it.

I ran two 5+ mile runs at 9:15 m/m and a 3.25 brick (time constrained) at 9:20 m/m after a negative split on a 16.8 mile ride.  The run felt odd and slow, but I figured that would be ok for a brick, yet it turned out pretty well.  I even manage a 9:32 m/m in a 8.6 mile run this weekend.  Previously I was right around 10 m/m on the long run.  Felt fine, including good enough to later in the day do some more tear-down on a playhouse; it's built better than many houses and the youngest kid is now 14, so it needs to go.

So thanks for pointing that pace out.  I needed to work on getting it down if I want to break 8 m/m in a 5K.

Now I need to find the time to squeeze a 5K in.  One kid has the state XC meet this coming weekend and we're looking at signing the other one up for a USTA tournament.  And she may do another tournament the following weekend.  She's getting in shape for the HS tennis season.  So, I may need to wait until December to get it in.  But it's looking good if I can get a flat-ish course and decent weather.

JASON -

Without giving away any "answers" here......

I looked at your tri results, and I'll just say that your stellar bike times can be explained, in large part,  by your cadence.  I have no doubts that you are doing that "against resistance", meaning that your power and wattage are high --- key to riding fast at high(er) cadence.  And you seem to do that with impunity!

I went to your results to try to help me do the math as to swim number your gave me, and how that factors into your times at those various races; it's gonna take some time to crunch that down to something i can understand.  The problem there is all mine, meaning that i can really only view it in terms of how strokes for any given person translate into speed. 

For me, I'm about 21spl for 25m (we're metre pools up here)....which would be close to 90/minute.....which is a far cry from your 70-75.  Your swim times are quite solid, so I'm guessing you have a strong kick that can accommodate (and complement!) a nice, long stroke.  Maybe?

More on the run later.  Stay tuned!

Yeah, fortunately FL is not far away.  I need to see if I can get the bike in the plane.  The baggage door is not quite big enough, and the dang back seats don't fold down (they do on newer models).  If it can then I can get to FL tri's pretty easily.  I may need to get checked out on a six seater in town, that will fit a bike and the family too, or the kids and two or three bikes.

There's a HM in the metro area in Feb and a couple of tri's in FL in March that I'm looking at.

Bike cadence is all over the place in training, hardly static. When racing is usually upper 80's to low 90's.  I use to race 95-100 rpm's but backed off to save the calf's and have expanded my power range on the trainer.

Swim I have no idea, I swim to survive!  Pool time starts in January.

Actually, my kick is quite horrible.  And I'm not joking abou that.  Ask me to kick 50 yards with a kickboard and it will literally take me about 2 minutes to finish.

I take about 19-20 strokes per 25 yards, and at cruising pace, it takes me about 25 seconds to swim 25 yards (1:40ish pace...in a pool).  So actually my math is a little off...maybe as low as 50 strokes per minute?

At my speed, I don't think I could do 90 strokes per minute.  If I'm swimming 1:40 per 100, that's 60 yards in one minute.  For me to take 90 strokes over 60 yards would mean I'm roughly taking 37.5 strokes per 25 yards...which would be pretty bad.

Steve,

I saw your post early this morning before I went to the pool so I tried it out. I was swimming 100s so it was pretty fast pace. I got about 18 strokes per length while doing the 100s in a 25 yard pool. I also counted for 1 minute, which ended almost perfectly at 75 yards, at 56 strokes.

When riding a stationary bike that my cadence is usually 88-91. I'm not sure how different it is on a real bike or during a race.

I have no idea what kind of turnover I get running. I'll try to get a count next time I run and post it.

I don't have numbers to quote for cadence on the swim or run, but I'll give some qualitative feedback.

For the swim, I know that when I try to increase cadence, I get into a "windmilling" form that becomes counterproductive. I need to stay relaxed and glide. Because I don't swim any more than I need to in training, when I do, I make sure to do as much of it as possible in relaxed, "fresh" form. I always try to capture that "first 200" feel and form, and do a lot of shorter intervals so I can do as much yardage in that form as possible.

Running comes down to keeping things light and smooth. My cadence is higher than most, though it's more born out of keeping my landing under my cg, keeping the landing light and gliding through the push-off.

On the bike, for sprints I'll have my cadence upwards of 100 rpm. My comfort zone in training is around 90-95, but it goes higher in races. My thoughts in the ride are to ride "faster", not "harder". When one thinks "harder", the cadence drops and muscle tension increases, both of which are detrimental to speed.

Congrats on getting your times down. I do think if you want to race faster, you have to train faster. Not all the time, but at least sometimes. I really enjoy adding some faster running to my medium distance runs...have you thought about adding a tempo portion to one of your runs...where you're doing a couple of 1/2 or 1mile pickups...probably around a 10k pace. IDK.

I'm thinking about a winter 5k too...not for PR purposes, but to keep racing and have something to focus on. Going to start back running this week, I think. I took a week off completely just to give my body time to rest. 

I have a high cadence on the run, same as Dave on the swim (attempts at higher stroke rates just cause flailing) and am so slow on the bike I would probably horrify you guys. I have tried to speed up my bike cadence, but unless I am doing intervals, I just end up slowing down again because it gets my heart rate up so high. 

What does that mean? Is it worth continuing to increase my cadence on the bike? Or am I more naturally suited to a lower cadence.  

Running cadence (before injury):  75-ish, definitely faster off the bike

Biking cadence:  all over the place outdoors, about 85-90 indoors (I've really worked on this on the trainer lately)

Swimming cadence:  about 24 spl for 25M pool @ "sprint" race pace, which is about 1:58/100M

IMO, cadence is highly personal.  FredD has a cadence in the 70's when racing and he does just fine on the bike across all distances.  The bottom line is being able to push more power and being able to sustain it for the duration of the bike leg.

Steve,

I think I was unclear with the knee issues.  The pain is actually behind the kneecap, not on the backside of the knee.  I need to reread what I type to make sure it makes sense   It's just your typical kneecap pain, chondromalacia or tracking issue (I *think* it's a tracking issue based on a few professionals who have watched me lunge and said my kneecap is not tracking completely correctly).  I did a little research and since the pain is right in the middle of the cap rather than the outer, inner or close to the bottom areas, that it's not attributed to anything other than irritation of the cartiledge.

The main reason I struggle with how much rest to take is that they rarely hurt DURING a run.  Now a few hours after into the next day, sometimes it's bad, sometimes not too bad.  

I've found that lunging is the absolute worst thing I can do as far as causing pain so I just don't do them anymore.  In class, I cue and walk around without participating in the sections that include lunging/squats and especially plyometric versions of either.  I firmly believe THAT is what has caused most of my pain in the first place!

As for my back and swimming, I like your idea about the pool buoy.  I believe my main problem is that my hip flexors are too tight and my gluts aren't firing as they should cause the arching.  I definitely keep my head down, especially now that it's indoor swim season.  I think the pool buoy will help a great deal!

So how about your injury?

JASON -

Ack!  I think my math is off as well - that 90/minute is way off, as in about twice as much.

If cruising (which is one of the one-and-a-half "speeds" I have), I'm down and back (50 meters) in about 48 seconds.  That'll take about 42-44 strokes, so allowing for the extra 12s to get to a minute, that would be maybe 10 strokes more.  That would bring my strokes/minute to ~55.  That makes much more sense!!

My most rapid turnover -- without becoming a flailing dervish -- is about 24 for once across the pool.  But at that point I am close to being inefficient, meaning my overall stroke mechanics start to fall apart.

I share yoy kickboard frustrations.  When I'm not only "on", but also working quite hard, I can make it the 25m in about 42 seconds.......and I cannot sustain that for too many lengths.  It is one of the reasons I kick virtually not at all in a wetsuit, figuring that I am saving a fair bit of my legs for the bike and run.  if I even remotely thought I had a kick that was decently propulsive, however, i would certtainly employ it in races.  But alas.........

Thanks for sending me back to my abacus to re-do my swim-stroke numbers!

QUINCY -

I'm not sure that anyone is truly "naturally suited to a lower cadence".  That is, i am sure that anyone without anatomical problems and who has a bike that fits them reasonably well can improve cadence with consistent training.  It worked for me, and as I have said before, it jived really well. with what my former coach used to preach:  becoming a strong cyclist as atriathlete takes about 5 or 6 years of consistent work.

I am focusing on your comment about your heart rate getting too high, as that is the flip side of riding at a low cadence.  Riding with low cadence requires a fairly high force to be applied to the pedals, which can be a problem for a triathlete who cannot afford to fatigue her leg muscles.  BUT!  To ride at the same speed at a higher cadence will be more taxing on the cardiovascular sytem, but less taxing on the legs.  So, I'm thinking that what you are working at -- increasing your cadence -- is doing what it should be doing, which is requiring more from your cardiovascular system.  

Most age-group triathletes will have a bike cadence of 70-80, but most coaches will get their athletes to work at getting in the 90-100 range -- and consistently at that.  (Again, keep in mind the time-frame for this and other aspects of cycling skills.)  Most people will think of 70-80 as being "mashing", and that's what high force at low(er) cadence can become.  "Bulls" can manage that quite well............but possibly/probably at significant risk of not running well off the bike --- or at least not as well as they are capable of. 

Another problem that low cadence "mashers" face is that they get "stuck" in just a few gearings.  The range of gearings we have at our disposal is vast and wonderful, and it is a shame to use only a small portion of what is available to us.  Increasing your cadence into the 90s will systematically open up more gearing options for you, and most importantly -- ones that can consistently contribute to your power output.

I think it was JASON who said this (or words to this effect) above somewhere, but the key to higher cadence is being able to apply it to harder gearings that will produce maximum force.  That is, cycling at high cadence (think small ring and largest cog) is really easy ---- but without any resistance to work against, all you do is spin like a crazy person.  That is, it's real easy to do 125rpm when you're in your easiest gearing, but that won't help your performance at all.

Have you ever "treated" yourself to one of Troy Jacobson's "Spinervals" DVDs?   He harps a lot on high cadence, but where the homicide/sadism enters the scene is when he is having the riders do it at increasingly tougher gearings.  He loves to see his "models" in the studio hit 110rpm in a 52/13 configuration, say.........and a heart rate of 187.........and watts at about 420.  Sweet Mother of Mercy!

Anyhow, I don't think you should accept a low cadence as part of your natural tendencies.  I don't see any reason for it, and I know that coaches work hard to get their athletes up into the 90s, and I know that bridging that gap betwen low 80s and mid-90s made a huge difference to my cycling.

A topic for later -- the evidence that triathletes who ride at consistently higher cadences run faster off the bike.  (How's that for a "teaser"?)

It would actually be awesome if I could get a huge bump in my cycling. I am almost always 1st or 2nd in my AG on the bike...so if there really is more speed to be found, it would put me that much closer to an AG win.

Just wondering though if it is one of those things that is triathlon "orthodoxy" (it is always better to have a higher cadence because that's what everyone says in Tri Talk), or if there is real science behind it. Not trying to dispute what you are saying, just not ready to buy off on it quite yet. 

As it is, since I don't train with power, it is hard for me to know for sure how changing cadence affects raw output. Yet another reason to get trainerroad up and running. Wonder what Shane thinks...and at the end of the day is cadence something that is more important for shorter distances or does it become more significant the longer you are going? 

QUINCY again -

Thinking about your comment that you are "so slow on the bike", and given that you are almost certainly a fairly-to-quite natural athlete, I really think you just have to spend lots of time improving your bike cadence.  My former coach also used to say that you want to get to a point where your legs and lungs are suffering about equally, and that's not too far off how it works for me.

One other thought is the concept of "spinning circles", and how desirable that is to strive for.  That is what a CompuTrianer emphasizes in its SpinScan screens -- attaining a consistency to your entire pedal stroke where power/force is applied evenly throughout a stroke cycle.  I mention this just because I'm wondering if part of your HR problems at higher bike cadences is due to a very uneven pedal stroke,, with the thought that pedal stroke inefficiences are like swim (you used the term "flailing") and run inefficiencies --- they lead to greater suffering, and more strain on both muscular and cardiovascular systems, and overall slower or more labored speeds! 

Sorry for asking all these Q's, I don't have a lot of time right now to check out logs and race reports, etc.

AMY

I haven't forgotten your question(so about my labrum, it's just that it seems to be changing some these days (last couple of weeks, actually), and I'm giving it another day or so (injection was last Wednesday) to see how it settles).

More on that and your knee, which seems to be a variant on chondromalachia patella, or patello-femoral syndrome -- basically "runnner's knee".  Thanks for clarifying that for me!

I have never trained for sprints, which is why I wanted this group to magically appear! I trained for HIM 2 years ago, and IM this year, but to save my shoulder, I only raced sprints leading up to the race.

I did the Endurance nation outseason plan for about 2 months and then switched over to Fink's IM plan. I continued to keep some intervals in my biking and running when I switched over to the IM plan and my biking improved...I am averaging over 21 mph in sprints now. I have not done the BT cycling plan.

Obviously I am not too organized. I basically just find a plan that I like and stick with it. I haven't even begun to try to figure out what plan/s I am going to use for sprint training. It seems more complex than IM...where you just kind of pick a plan and slog through it.

QUINCY once more -

Well, sure, it's a form of "orthodoxy".  I guess it's the same as heel-striking versus forefoot-striking, or bilateral- vs unilateral-breathing, or............and the list goes on and on and on.  We all know exceptions to various rules (call them orthodoxies, i guess), and they can be my bike guru who is a top-level triathlete --- and a confirmed heel-striker, or any huge swack of people who have great swims breathing to one side only.

For myself, I try the things that I hear preached over and over and over again.  I had implicit trust in my coach, who was also a high-level triathlete at all distances, and so when he suggested things to me, I gave them my best shot ---- otherwsie, why have him as a coach?   All of his suggestions about cadence on the run and bike were bang-on, and conferred benefits to me that were undeniable ------- and were mostly part of the orthodoxy. 

Note that I ommitted the swim from the last paragraph, and that's because many of the orthodox suggestions haven't worked for me.  In essence, I am the same swimmer I was 10 years ago, and that's very much MOP compared to the larger world (more likely to be FOPish in my age group, but that's only cold comfort, really).  I have worked at bilateral, and it doesn't help.  I have worked at high elbows (both on the pull and on the recovery), and it doesn't help.  I work at generating my kick from my hips, and it hasn't helped.  That said, though --- I haven't found anything that HAS helped, so what am I to conclude from that?

One obvious thing to conclude is that I am a naturally mediocre swimmer.  That never ceases to be a tough pill to swallow, especially given all the hours I have devoted to swimming (which I love with a passion, so it's not a total loss), but it makes me confront my limitatations pretty much daily.

Over the years, though, the work I put into becoming a better cyclist and runner paid off time and time again.  I don't believe for a moment I was a natural at either........or else I wouldn't've had to work so hard, right?  If I looked back to how I ran 15 years ago and biked 12 years ago, I'd see colossal changes --- both in form, technique, and results.

The reason I read so much (especially back when I started), and definitely why i got a coach, was that (a) I wanted to improve, and (b) I knew I wouldn't get there by relying on my "natural abilities".  That was just completely counter-intuitive to where I thought I wanted to get to, and if nothing else I was willing to try anything that seemed to be espoused by people I respected and trusted.  That was just my own "core value" when it came to training for performance!

As for "real science" behind it, I think it's there.  It probably wouldn't lock into 90-100, say, but would say that having a range of cadence is hugely beneficial.  That just makes sense to me, and I think i said it earlier that having a wider range of cadence also opens up a fuller spectrum of gears you can choose from.  It seems win-win to me, and I guess mostly it's worked that way for me.  (For the science aspects, maybe check out Joe Friel's website -- if he still has one.  I'm sure he does, but i just don't know what it is.)

QUINCY once, once more -

Whew!  You're giving me too much to think about!

This one goes to your final question about bike cadence and race distance, and I am sure it works for just about everyone who races across the distances that what they can do in sprints and olys is much harder in half-irons and irons.  In my own experience, what I can do in a sprint or oly becomes an at-my-own-risk enterprise in half-irons.  In fact, I have indeed tried it and paid certain prices when it came to the final miles of the bike, and then how adept I felt on the run. 

As you know from your own long-distance training and racing, so much of that comes down to be consistent over the course of the day, and staying within a much narrower band of "gambling".   For me, that means not going to the edge too much, with the edge being speed.  At half-irons, I view speed as being relative, which means I'm not trying to hammer the bike and not trying to actually sprint the run.  It turns out that what I can sustain in a sprint or oly cannot be sustained in a half-iron -- and that includes high cadences on the bike.  (I still like to think i am working towards that (sustaining short-course efforts on long-course races).......but i wonder if time is running out!)

So for me, high bike cadence is huge in short course, and much less so in half-irons and beyond.  I mean, that's why i brought up the topic of cadences-across-the-disciplines on the previous page, because I think it has merit and and is definitely something to work on as we try to make productive sense of our off-seasons.

Quick final thought is that you don't need to train with power to see how it affects your raw output.  (THAT is something I might say is part of an "orthodoxy"!)  We don't use fancy gizmos to gauge how increased run cadence impoves our performance, and the same goes for swimming.  I will admit that for people who are lucky enough to either afford or have access to power meters and their ilk, that knowledge can really help.   For me, though, i had none of that stuff* and just relied on working and working and working at it -- and the results proved that the effort wasn't in vain (unlike with swimming......)

*As for the CompuTrainer, I used in primarily for cycling efficiency (i.e., the SpinScan visual data), and hardly at all as a power aid.  i paid attention, from time to time, to my wattage, but for me the CT wasn't at all the same as Power Tap and power meters and other similar machines that i can't afford and don't really keep track of.  (Back in maybe '05, D3 was offering a discount to its athletes on PowerTaps, I think it was, and I came oh-so-close to springing for one.  I have occasionally wondered what all it would've done for me had I been able to affortd it!)

I've drafted my own training plan to take me to the June 2nd Sprint A-race. I'm looking at 3-3-3 training days per week for the S-B-R during the 5-6 months of training and plan on starting the cycling plan early Feb ~17 weeks before the race.

Ever see the analogy KathyG post once in awhile about a house's Roof and the Ceiling?