Yesterday I completed an out-and-back 100 mile course with 7,300 feet of climbing. "Double Trouble Century"
I was the only recumbent cyclist among the nine of us. Since it was a circular out and back course riders had the option of just doing one loop (50 miles).
This course is a very difficult climbing course. Even more so given that we rode it counter clockwise. The last half included 19.5 miles of unremitting climbing with the grade of climb increasing (7-9%) the last 4 miles.
Physics and aerodynamics give the advantage to the recumbent on descents. Less wind resistance. Somewhat the same on flats but a very good upright bike cyclist can reduce or even eliminate these advantages (especially if several upright cyclists form a paceline and rotate taking the lead).
I chose to live in this terrain (Prescott, AZ) because, in fact, it is mountainous. Perhaps a consequence of my personality (adversity builds resilience and capacity) it is an even more demanding cycling terrain for recumbents. Hence the fact that I am the only recumbent cyclist out here. (There are a few other recumbent cyclists but they stick to the few flat areas and ride short, short distances for recreation).
It is an oft referred to prejudice that 'bents can't climb. To challenge this popular premise I've spent the past 3 years doing almost nothing but climbing (650,000 feet of climbing with 7,000 miles in '13). The assumption on my part was that my climbing speed would improve the more climbing I did.
I've learned that that is the `lazy man's' assumption. My speed did NOT improve. My stamina for climbing improved, of course, dramatically. (I would always be the only recumbent finishing cycling events ... and almost always the last to finish).
In 2014 I accepted the gentle and persistent advice of two outstanding recumbent cyclists: Jim Verhuel and Dennis Johnson. Both advised me to deal with the fact that there is no way to cycle faster without building power. And the way to build power is to a) get a power meter, b) do speed intervals and climbing tempo, c) carefully lose body weight (speed is a function of the power to weight ratio).
Without much surprise my climbing speed has improved using these principles. A careful training regimen to accomplish this outcome meant that I actually spent less time on the bike. Instead of taking off for 11 hours every other day on long, slow endurance training events I would do 3 - 4 hours of short, fast and intense training. The added `pain' of intense workouts was sufficiently mitigated by the fact that I had more time for friends, family and reading. An unexpected (I don't know why it would have been `unexpected') benefit has been the fact that I'm much faster. Very satisfying outcome.
TURBO TECHNIQUES:
Along the way, this year, I rediscovered a `turbo' factor to my training to ride faster. I call it `turbo' simply because there seems not to be another name for it. The `turbo' factor is comprised of two pedaling techniques. The first technique is `full power circle pedaling (FPCP).' The second technique is `ankle pedaling.'
Full power circle pedaling is nothing more than `pushing' with one leg while `pulling' with the other leg. (This can be done only if the foot is attached to the pedal with a cleat or cage). The `cost' of FPCP is the expenditure of more energy, i.e., increased heart rate and increased respiration. Makes sense doesn't it. Almost double the effort is rewarded with improved performance.
Ankle pedaling seems to add another 10-30% to performance while not increasing the effort (some time in another blog entry I'll discuss this odd fact). Feels like cheating :) Getting something for nothing.
Ankle pedaling recruits the shin and calf muscles. The shin and calf muscles can be very strong in some people. Use or overuse of these muscles can also cause painful splints, tendon damage and cramps. Fortunately for me I have experienced none of these problems; quite likely because I have actively used them (without overuse) in many years of cycling.
This year I have emphasized both FPCP and ankle pedaling in my training. Lots of intervals and tempo. For example, I would engage FPCP for 100 pedal strokes multiple times per training. As well, I would `metricize' (i.e., 50 ankle strokes multiple times per training) ankle pedaling.
I can understand why FPCP and ankle pedaling is received with mixed report by ultracyclists. Anything that stresses or increases steady low-level effort results in compromised performance on ultra events. Only so much juice in an orange. Better to roll along at an average speed of 11.5 mph for 20+ hours than to `hammer' at 13 mph and burn out in 17 hours.
This leads me to an increased appreciation for the accomplishment of Jim Verhuel. Two years ago he broke a course record (perhaps a world record) for the most miles covered in a 24 hour event (Sebring 24 Hour). Jim has been both an advocate (coach) and a practicing athlete in the use of the power meter (recumbent). He has combined both power training and ultra cycling. In my estimate, this goes beyond having been `gifted' the genes for athletic accomplishment. It takes dedicated and disciplined training.
So, on yesterdays `Double Trouble Century' I was able to finish the first lap `first' (besting second place by 10+ minutes). The other cyclists having dropped out or been slower. No small accomplishment, I admit, for a cyclist on a recumbent. It is more notable given that I was the oldest cyclist among us.
NOTE: (That others dropped out does not mean they were incapable of being `first.' They could simply have had something to do or someplace else to be. Cycling has been, for me, a `humility training machine.')
This result is attributable almost exclusively to the effect of focused training using the FPCP and ankle pedaling techniques.
Train fast to race fast.
On the second (`back') loop I did not have the stamina to maintain such a high level of performance. I am concluding that with more training I would develop the essential stamina to maintain a high level of performance for the second loop.
No comments:
Post a Comment