A twitter thread is not scientific evidence. Just because someone coaches WT riders doesn't make them right. You are using the appealing to an authority fallacy there. You manipulated the question Dylan Johnson was asking. He asked if low cadence work was as good as lifting weights. He didn't say low cadence work was not effective at all.
Good video. FYI the easiest way to get torque is just by taking torque = power / (cadence*2pi/60), where power is just expressed in watts, cadence in rpm, and torque in newton meters. This probably gives a good intuitive feel for it as well, as you can see that it varies inversely with cadence. Ie 300w at 90rpm gives you torque = 300 / (2*pi*90/60) = 31.83. The same power at 45 rpm gives 63.66 Nm (exactly double). Jay Vine said 400w at 50rpm, which gives 76.4 nm, which is in line with him saying he worked up to over 70 nm. Cheers
I think Dylan Johnsons rationale was that current scientific studies didnt demonstrate performance gains from low cadence. Based on evidence availible at the time this seemed a sound prognosis. However, where some of what he said got a bit hazy is high torque - low cadence is not just, "mashing", especially if integrated as part of a training protocol with the overall load calibrated. The rationale of Strength and Conditioning coaches/studies is high weight low reps (3-6reps) will generate a best return for endurance athletes - when done well. Perhaps this last bit is key? Whilst no study historicall evidences the benefits of high torque - low cadence the rationale that it strengthens neuromuscular pathways does seem sound. Dylan Johnsons argument was high torque low cadence is essentially like lifting very high reps (highly specific) or endurance range ie 20 reps +. Science in a weight lifting context does not evidence this as the best ROI for endurance athletes. The argument made is for low reps heavy weight is it generates a stress/adaptation response resulting in strength gains (& the recruitment of fast twitch fibres depending accenuated by how lifts are done). There is empirical evidence for this approach. However, the question this video provokes is does high torque work more readily enable an elite cyclist to incorporate a greater body of work done than two or even three trips to the gym per week? This is harder to quantify but putting out 400 watts at 50 rpm /700nm may prove more beneficial to Jay Vine and create a sense of training momentum verses Jay Vine in the gym. It's clear UAE have a cohesive approach appearing to be doing less but higher quality Z2 with high torque intervals. Jay appeared to be asserting this was creating greater training momentum for him/ other UAE riders than his experience at Alpecin? Or it's honeymoon period. Id argue the cumulative effect of WVA being at Jumbo may be giving him a training advantage over MVDP now? The real skill of physiologists/ coaches is the integration and emphasis of each element into a plan with peaking considerations alongside the personal physiology of the athlete being taken into account. I agree with Charlie's assertion that a) there may be something in high torque even if the papers arent oublished yet b) a combo of both weights and high torque is probably the optimum if you have the time/capacity. 3-5years from now, will there be scientific studies supporting high torque training? Quite possibly. Finally, I'd be interested to know if studies could investigate if an approach where weight training is used in a cyclist training protocol to generate muscle/increase absolute strength and correct imbalances alongside high torque training being used to strengthen neuromuscular pathways.... the hypothesis would be weights to increase improve muscular performance with torque to maximise what you have and move towards specificity.... I'm no physiologist but seems it may be helpful....
I'm 62 years old. My average cadence for the past year was 60 rpm. High torque but not mad levels. In less than two years I've raised my VO2 from 155 to 177. As for sustained work? 4 Watts/kg for 100 minutes. 5 Watts/kg for 20 minutes (Denham 2 little chalfont TT) Strava KOM. It works. Ok, I train two to three hours each day, but there you go.
Honest question--not being sarcastic: Is there any specific *evidence* provided here, other than pros and coaches saying "this is what we do" (keeping in mind that pros and coaches swore by skinny tires at ultra-high psi until not that long ago)? That pros are setting new power PBs after training blocks or from season to season can't be surprising (and again, is there any clear evidence that it is specifically coming from the high torque sessions?).
No that's the issue. Pros / coaches say it work but no one has done proper studies on it. They compare the wrong types of intervals etc. That was my point. Like no scientific literature but coaches swear by it and therefore it is interesting to see if it works or not
EXACLYYY! Low cadence does not give you any physiological benefit rather than beeing used to it. If you have a race that you need low cadence, do it in training. If not, it's useless. The gains you think low cadence does are actualy from training in that specific zone (zone 3, 4.. etc)
The idea behind it is to achieve a switch in your muscle fibers or at least an adaptation to become more oxidative, so you decrease your vLamax with that
I would think that low cadence high torque permits you to train fast twitch fibers significantly longer than you could otherwise. You could engage NM type fibers for 4 minutes at a time or longer vs. 60sec at your preferred cadence. Can it provide an endurance adaption to those fast twitch fibers.
So many differing views, just do what you feel works. Since I did high resistance low RPM I got way better on climbs. It’s obvious it works because your legs have to work harder.
This season my coach prescribed a lot of torque work..im keen to see the results..from 4min reps at 70nm im now at 10min ~75nm @ 40rpm…i can see the progression..but will it translate to better performance for racing?!
@@brianmessemer2973 thanks for asking! What a coincidence! Last sunday i did a race and placed 2nd overall, this is my second time making a top 2 result this year. To be honest im not sure if its because of the low cadence work or not but this season im stronger than ever, i added about 10w all around my power curve comparing to last year wich is great but the thing i appreciate the most is that i can hold ftp numbers even after 4-5hrs (normally that was a problem for me)..when going into race season i started incorporating z4 work and eventually i switched fully to z4 without lc…last weeks race was long so i did a lc micxed with z4 workout and it payed off i guess
@@cfau6290 I’ll take that as anecdotal evidence that low rpm high torque training yields training benefits! That and all these videos I’m seeing. There’s no way pros would waste their precious training time on torque work if there wasn’t a physiological benefit to it. Best of luck in future and safe riding!
Low cadence does not give you any physiological benefit rather than beeing used to it. If you have a race that you need low cadence, do it in training. If not, it's useless. The gains you think low cadence does are actualy from training in that specific zone (zone 3, 4.. etc)
i mean why would you take the advice of a youtube influencer over people who get paid to study, research and implement what they know to the best athletes in the world lol
Typical pre season is usually a big z2 block then into some tempo and threshold work. Do you think a torque block should go before or after tempo ? And do you think it should be supplemented with gym ?
What's the point? Low cadence does not give you any physiological benefit rather than beeing used to it. If you have a race that you need low cadence, do it in training. If not, it's useless. The gains you think low cadence does are actualy from training in that specific zone (zone 3, 4.. etc)
My own recent personal experience confirms that torque training, even a very small amount, and maybe that's really all we need, does give a notable improvement in performance (FTP)...Just a couple of weeks ago I started adding a very brief session of about 5 minutes' worth of high torque-low cadence, a ride around my local block with a 1 km 4-5% climb in it, a ride on what would have normally been a no-ride recovery day. On the next day's session I was able, seemingly without any extra effort, to make a new personal best for the time around my normal course, and have been feeling stronger on all rides after that. Doing the little torque ride was the only change I made in my normal training over the last several months...I don't generally "train" in the sense that I deliberately seek to increase performance since I'm already satisfied with my fitness level which fits my time and money budget. No, this isn't rigorous science, but coupled with what the pros are saying, it's good enough to make me believe.
I am old school racer and these high low cadence high torque repeats were an absolute staple of my training when I was elite. Also a couple of days a week I ride a 75inch fixed gear in a hilly area, grinding up hill and skiing over 180rpm downhill. Amazing for fitness.
I can see LC being very beneficial if muscular endurance is a limiter. LC work permits you to put in a lot of work in that department without significantly taxing your CV system.
Jay Vine said *"Less gym work, more low cadence work"* seems that one manages to provoke the same physiological effect as the other, and it is wrong. Low cadence work is still endurance work. If you do a proper gym session with high loads you can't mimic that, maybe only sprints.
surely its context specific for example im never going to realistically ride at 130rpm unless sprinting but to have that as an option means its there as an option ?
A twitter thread is not scientific evidence. Just because someone coaches WT riders doesn't make them right. You are using the appealing to an authority fallacy there. You manipulated the question Dylan Johnson was asking. He asked if low cadence work was as good as lifting weights. He didn't say low cadence work was not effective at all.
Pro riders do it. That's fact. The point is there is no scientific literature on it. No one has done a study on the exact intervals they do.
Good video. FYI the easiest way to get torque is just by taking torque = power / (cadence*2pi/60), where power is just expressed in watts, cadence in rpm, and torque in newton meters.
This probably gives a good intuitive feel for it as well, as you can see that it varies inversely with cadence. Ie 300w at 90rpm gives you torque = 300 / (2*pi*90/60) = 31.83. The same power at 45 rpm gives 63.66 Nm (exactly double). Jay Vine said 400w at 50rpm, which gives 76.4 nm, which is in line with him saying he worked up to over 70 nm. Cheers
I think Dylan Johnsons rationale was that current scientific studies didnt demonstrate performance gains from low cadence. Based on evidence availible at the time this seemed a sound prognosis. However, where some of what he said got a bit hazy is high torque - low cadence is not just, "mashing", especially if integrated as part of a training protocol with the overall load calibrated. The rationale of Strength and Conditioning coaches/studies is high weight low reps (3-6reps) will generate a best return for endurance athletes - when done well. Perhaps this last bit is key?
Whilst no study historicall evidences the benefits of high torque - low cadence the rationale that it strengthens neuromuscular pathways does seem sound. Dylan Johnsons argument was high torque low cadence is essentially like lifting very high reps (highly specific) or endurance range ie 20 reps +. Science in a weight lifting context does not evidence this as the best ROI for endurance athletes. The argument made is for low reps heavy weight is it generates a stress/adaptation response resulting in strength gains (& the recruitment of fast twitch fibres depending accenuated by how lifts are done). There is empirical evidence for this approach.
However, the question this video provokes is does high torque work more readily enable an elite cyclist to incorporate a greater body of work done than two or even three trips to the gym per week? This is harder to quantify but putting out 400 watts at 50 rpm /700nm may prove more beneficial to Jay Vine and create a sense of training momentum verses Jay Vine in the gym. It's clear UAE have a cohesive approach appearing to be doing less but higher quality Z2 with high torque intervals. Jay appeared to be asserting this was creating greater training momentum for him/ other UAE riders than his experience at Alpecin? Or it's honeymoon period. Id argue the cumulative effect of WVA being at Jumbo may be giving him a training advantage over MVDP now?
The real skill of physiologists/ coaches is the integration and emphasis of each element into a plan with peaking considerations alongside the personal physiology of the athlete being taken into account.
I agree with Charlie's assertion that
a) there may be something in high torque even if the papers arent oublished yet
b) a combo of both weights and high torque is probably the optimum if you have the time/capacity.
3-5years from now, will there be scientific studies supporting high torque training? Quite possibly.
Finally, I'd be interested to know if studies could investigate if an approach where weight training is used in a cyclist training protocol to generate muscle/increase absolute strength and correct imbalances alongside high torque training being used to strengthen neuromuscular pathways.... the hypothesis would be weights to increase improve muscular performance with torque to maximise what you have and move towards specificity....
I'm no physiologist but seems it may be helpful....
Outstanding comment. I agree with all points and assertions.
Tldr ?
I'm 62 years old. My average cadence for the past year was 60 rpm. High torque but not mad levels. In less than two years I've raised my VO2 from 155 to 177. As for sustained work? 4 Watts/kg for 100 minutes. 5 Watts/kg for 20 minutes (Denham 2 little chalfont TT) Strava KOM. It works. Ok, I train two to three hours each day, but there you go.
Good for you, that’s awesome 💪
V02 max can’t be 100 plus
Honest question--not being sarcastic: Is there any specific *evidence* provided here, other than pros and coaches saying "this is what we do" (keeping in mind that pros and coaches swore by skinny tires at ultra-high psi until not that long ago)? That pros are setting new power PBs after training blocks or from season to season can't be surprising (and again, is there any clear evidence that it is specifically coming from the high torque sessions?).
I agree, to me it doesn’t make sense that the coaches would be transparent enough to share the method and be too secretive to share evidence.
No that's the issue. Pros / coaches say it work but no one has done proper studies on it. They compare the wrong types of intervals etc. That was my point. Like no scientific literature but coaches swear by it and therefore it is interesting to see if it works or not
EXACLYYY!
Low cadence does not give you any physiological benefit rather than beeing used to it. If you have a race that you need low cadence, do it in training. If not, it's useless.
The gains you think low cadence does are actualy from training in that specific zone (zone 3, 4.. etc)
The idea behind it is to achieve a switch in your muscle fibers or at least an adaptation to become more oxidative, so you decrease your vLamax with that
I think you put words into Dylan’s mouth, he didn’t say low cadence isn’t good, he is just saying gym work will be more effective.
Not sure if it makes sense, but I have been using low cadence work to train for hilly races. My home area is flat as a board.
Use a single speed to commute and get the best of both worlds. Grind up hills, and spin out on flats.
audio volume balance is sh.t !
I would think that low cadence high torque permits you to train fast twitch fibers significantly longer than you could otherwise. You could engage NM type fibers for 4 minutes at a time or longer vs. 60sec at your preferred cadence. Can it provide an endurance adaption to those fast twitch fibers.
So many differing views, just do what you feel works. Since I did high resistance low RPM I got way better on climbs. It’s obvious it works because your legs have to work harder.
Just because it's good for the pros DOES NOT mean it's good for the average athlete.
why would it be bad for average athletes?
I do train low cadence at times as when I do go up a wall of a climb it is good to be used to pedal slow and use low cadence when you run out of gears
@@CharlieCarbsandCycling it wears out your chain way faster ngl
@@2ball434 hahaha
This season my coach prescribed a lot of torque work..im keen to see the results..from 4min reps at 70nm im now at 10min ~75nm @ 40rpm…i can see the progression..but will it translate to better performance for racing?!
Update on this? How has your season gone thus far? Thank you for sharing
@@brianmessemer2973 thanks for asking! What a coincidence! Last sunday i did a race and placed 2nd overall, this is my second time making a top 2 result this year. To be honest im not sure if its because of the low cadence work or not but this season im stronger than ever, i added about 10w all around my power curve comparing to last year wich is great but the thing i appreciate the most is that i can hold ftp numbers even after 4-5hrs (normally that was a problem for me)..when going into race season i started incorporating z4 work and eventually i switched fully to z4 without lc…last weeks race was long so i did a lc micxed with z4 workout and it payed off i guess
@@cfau6290 I’ll take that as anecdotal evidence that low rpm high torque training yields training benefits! That and all these videos I’m seeing. There’s no way pros would waste their precious training time on torque work if there wasn’t a physiological benefit to it. Best of luck in future and safe riding!
Low cadence does not give you any physiological benefit rather than beeing used to it. If you have a race that you need low cadence, do it in training. If not, it's useless.
The gains you think low cadence does are actualy from training in that specific zone (zone 3, 4.. etc)
Going to the gym is good. Low cadence is good. Simple as
I don't know if tp lets you create custom field but you can find torque by dividing power with cadence.
i mean why would you take the advice of a youtube influencer over people who get paid to study, research and implement what they know to the best athletes in the world lol
Don't have access to what the pros think.
Typical pre season is usually a big z2 block then into some tempo and threshold work. Do you think a torque block should go before or after tempo ? And do you think it should be supplemented with gym ?
I think torque work can squeeze into z2, something like 5*4 of low z4 times two, two times a week
Do it at same time as tempo.
What's the point?
Low cadence does not give you any physiological benefit rather than beeing used to it. If you have a race that you need low cadence, do it in training. If not, it's useless.
The gains you think low cadence does are actualy from training in that specific zone (zone 3, 4.. etc)
My own recent personal experience confirms that torque training, even a very small amount, and maybe that's really all we need, does give a notable improvement in performance (FTP)...Just a couple of weeks ago I started adding a very brief session of about 5 minutes' worth of high torque-low cadence, a ride around my local block with a 1 km 4-5% climb in it, a ride on what would have normally been a no-ride recovery day. On the next day's session I was able, seemingly without any extra effort, to make a new personal best for the time around my normal course, and have been feeling stronger on all rides after that. Doing the little torque ride was the only change I made in my normal training over the last several months...I don't generally "train" in the sense that I deliberately seek to increase performance since I'm already satisfied with my fitness level which fits my time and money budget. No, this isn't rigorous science, but coupled with what the pros are saying, it's good enough to make me believe.
I am old school racer and these high low cadence high torque repeats were an absolute staple of my training when I was elite. Also a couple of days a week I ride a 75inch fixed gear in a hilly area, grinding up hill and skiing over 180rpm downhill. Amazing for fitness.
I can see LC being very beneficial if muscular endurance is a limiter. LC work permits you to put in a lot of work in that department without significantly taxing your CV system.
Jay Vine said *"Less gym work, more low cadence work"* seems that one manages to provoke the same physiological effect as the other, and it is wrong. Low cadence work is still endurance work. If you do a proper gym session with high loads you can't mimic that, maybe only sprints.
surely its context specific for example im never going to realistically ride at 130rpm unless sprinting but to have that as an option means its there as an option ?
Great workout with Hank and his crew, luv the banter to keep u distracted
Might be an elementary question but how do you measure your torque on the bike?
you can put it on your head unit as a field
link to wva vid?
ua-cam.com/video/26-Yveb41YE/v-deo.html&