Campag4life

Man. You make a statement about carbs and stimulants and then you say it isn't them directly. I don't need to google stimulants. Maybe you should.
Deliberately putting protein in a body to not feel one's energetic best at the beginning of a century to me is poor advice. Sorry. Anybody that has done centuries and I have done my share both competitively and not, know about pacing themselves independent of their food intake.

Campag4life

We will simply have to disagree. Of course riders generally stay seated stamping out a hard steady pace because this is the most efficient way to climb. Then, whether attacked or not, a given rider will get out of the saddle and recruit different muscles to alternate muscle groups and give muscles a rest. This isn't about poor technique. And yes, if attacked a rider may get out of the saddle as well. Again to recruit different muscles to keep pace. That isn't about poor technique either. We just don't agree.

Doge

I've done hundreds of centuries - 140-160 miles commuting over many years, and many rides over 200 miles. Carbs are a great fuel, but live by carbs, die by carbs. You need to know how to regulate effort. Those asking how to eat for a century don't know that, or they wouldn't ask. Not being jacked up on the first 25 miles helps with that.

You are not doing anything to feel less energetic, rather you are pacing yourself and not stimulating yourself (carbs or drugs) too early in the ride, particularly for those not used to doing that.

Doge

On this we agree.
Let the record show I didn't bring up racing.
But now we are on the topic - Froome, or Sagan may not be the best examples for the "common" BF riders.

Sagan - does about everything but ride a steady pace. Against the worlds best TT riders - he does not show up (a TT in a stage race is different). Same can be said for about every other road racer.

Campag4life

I have figured it out, you are from the parallel universe...lol


https://www.bicycling.com/food/eat-light-your-bike

Campag4life

Glad we found some common ground.

redlude97

I agree, and apparently at least one well respected coach as well https://tailwind-coaching.com/2013/07...art-1-podcast/

Carbonfiberboy 

Wow, do I disagree! The secret to riding long distance well lies between our ears. The major effect of caffeine on performance is to stimulate fat burning. It's easy to ignore the stimulant effect. That's just discipline. Best to start well caffeinated and keep a slow drip going for the duration.

What I need for the heartbreaker climb starting at mile 100 is glycogen in my legs. The way to make sure that's there is to keep the carbs coming for the first 3 hours, right from the start, every 15 minutes, never stopping. Not silly complex carbs either, maltodextrin and whey protein. In fact, I take a bolus of whey protein with a little sugar about 1/2 hour before a start. Protein preserves muscle, not so much for during this event, but for the next event.

One is not going to be able to stay with the group early at a pure fat-burning pace, below VT1. There's going to be VT2 pace here and there as selections are made. High GI carbs are not a stimulant, rather they make repeat high effort performances possible, again and again, by sparing glycogen. If you're not in condition to do that, it's not the carbs fault. I never touch fat during a hard long distance event of under 12 hours. Sure, it's helpful on 400k rides and up because one can't ride them so hard that slow digestion becomes a big issue. Bodyfat is actually more accessible than is digested fat.

As far as appropriate cadence goes, a local long distance record holder usually pedals ~60 cadence. He does pass rides on a ~100" fixie when he's setting fixie records. It's personal.

In general, high cadence increases oxygen consumption over lower cadence. Thus high VO2max riders can pedal uphill at a higher cadence than the rest of us, which enlarges their advantage. If I pedal hard climbs at 95, I'm much slower than at 80, simply because I run out of air. So the trick is to find the lowest cadence that gets you up the climbs the fastest on any particular ride, without running out of glycogen (legs). That's going to be personal.

OTOH, I see many riders who, convinced that high cadence is better, pedal along at 100 when they're just sitting in. Much better to drop it to 80 or below if leg effort is low. Conserve energy, always, which also means staying with the group.

redfooj

septuagenarian bench racers rejoice

Campag4life

Well stated CFB. A bit of forewarning however. Because you have made so many good points, be prepared for some serious backtracking, Doge-ing, obfuscation, denial, outright changing the subject and then of course, the inevitable kid in racing story and even off putting kernel of truth throw in.
Almost predictable.

gregf83 

That’s exactly what I was referring to. In an all out effort of whatever distance it’s not necessary, or advised, to be changing positions between standing and sitting.

In a race, riders will do many things to get more comfortable. That doesn’t mean, however, that what you are seeing is optimal for performance. Riders sit up and ride with their hands on the tops of their bars because it’s comfortable, not because it’s fast or efficient. Contador has some odd ‘hitches’ in his saddle position while he’s time trialing, no idea what they’re for.

Campag4life

Greg, maybe all said we are talking past one another and conversation is a bit tedious with the written word. Don't know. But based upon what you wrote, I didn't agree and really still don't. Max efficiency in a given position is only part of the equation. I for example even on the flat get out of the saddle once in a while to stretch my legs and restore more blood flow to where I sit on the saddle. In doing so I recruit different muscles which gives the muscles I typically use when hammering a rest which feels good. Riders do the same while in the saddle all the time...move around the saddle to recruit different muscles and give other muscle groups a rest to stave off fatigue. Has nothing to do with how good or flawed technique is. Again, my opinion.

gregf83 

Shifting around in the saddle because your ass is sore is not recruiting different muscle groups. Your quads are doing just as much work; they don’t get a ‘rest’ in a time trial.

Campag4life

I think we have established we aren't talking past one another. You really believe what you write. I said nothing of shifting fore or aft in the saddle because 'one's @$$ is sore'...lol. Racers since the early days have 'ridden the rivet' to open hip angle and recruit different muscles than riding on the rear of the saddle for climbing for example. Different muscles is the point.

gregf83 

If they're riding the rivet they generally stay that way for the duration of the effort. One doesn't generally change in the middle of a hard effort.

My point is that if you have two sets of muscles it's better to attempt to use them in a balanced manner rather than going back and forth between over and underutilization. It's a similar principle to maintaining a constant power output on flat TT vs an uneven power profile. If your quads get tired and you find you can remove some of the work on them by engaging your glutes my point is that perhaps you should use the glutes a little more in the first place so your quads don't fatigue as quickly. Better to have all available muscle groups fatigue at the same rate rather than having some unused muscles.

I think if you watch someone like Bradley Wiggins during his 1 hr record there wasn't a lot of shifting going on.

Campag4life

I see what you mean. But not going to stop me from getting out the saddle to restore blood flow and stretch my legs once in a while.

Doge

The primary component missing in those doing their first centuries and asking how to eat.

I've seen such posts on BF. Rider asks what to eat and has a plan to ride X mph. Advice goes all science on fueling - carbs, glycogen, get those lipids going. Rider then reports - felt great and actually went X+ mph and quit about mile 75 cause legs were too sore. In other words - they failed.

More fuel = more exhaust. De-tuning the front end allows an inexperienced, un-disciplined rider to slow down a bit, and accumulate less lactic acid and stand a better chance of survival.

Doge

This is almost a repeat of a prior thread. The issue in this thread and in that thread I link below is not fueling/eating. The issue is a symptom of too much lactic acid build-up, and inability to get rid of it. In linked thread rider didn't suffer from fueling issues, rather exhaust ones.

--------------------------------
To this thread - RPM has a lot to do with handling waste build-up. If you are going long, you may want to use lower pedal force, higher RPM to minimize build-up. If going short, it is not so clear 80rpm is much worse than 95rpm. Just mix it up.
---------------------------------

Similar thread from before. Linked thread is on eating, this thread is about RPM. The results of too much waste product in the muscles are the same.
OP:What to eat

A post similar to what is above. Factually true.
A TT racer contributes something also factually true:The result - clipped, of course:
I recall the rider went out faster than plan. This rider did not bonk (IMO). Just too much lactic acid.

Doge

Sure they do. That is what the Di2 sprint shifters are for. Take it up to 120rpm, burn, shift 85rpm torque to 110.

wphamilton

Only if you assume that higher RPM means lower pedal force, as you do here. Correctly IMO. That's the baseline assumption for the question - for the same speed or power output what changes with RPM. But all the talk about special cases obliterates that.

Some examinations of this question have seen that the self-selected cadence is the most metabolically efficient, and the less trained cyclists selected slower cadences than did the highly trained cyclists. Obviously "training" has something to do with that, and I'd posit further that the highly trained, or elite cyclists, trained specifically at the higher cadences. That's not to say there is no reason for the higher cadence, but it does suggest that those reasons are in spite of, rather than because of, the difference in efficiency.

redlude97

He probably would have done this regardless of what he did or didn't eat during the first hour or two. That's kind of just the nature of those rides. I get what you are saying that keeping fueling low will help psychologically keep the pacing on target, but would you agree that a disciplined rider would perform better with fueling starting before and during the start of the ride and continuing if they know their threshold levels and how to stay below them?

redlude97

Where are these examinations? At what power level or percentage of threshold are these performed at?

wphamilton

The couple I'm thinking about are one from 4-5 years back, which looked at 2 groups of cyclists. Recreational and "highly trained" and at various submaximal power levels. The earlier ones examined only trained cyclists, or only an arbitrary output etc.

I don't keep those bookmarked or anything. Here is an example from one of the very early studies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2586163/ One part is interesting to our current question:

"The most energetically economical cadence has been shown to fall in the range 40–70 rpm, but to increase with increasing power output. The freely chosen cadence (FCC) of experienced cyclists and well trained triathletes approximates 85–95 rpm. In this context, Brisswalter et al7 showed that, at the end of 30 minutes of exercise at 80% of Pmax, triathletes choose a cadence close to the energetically optimum cadence (EOC)."

redlude97

Another interesting finding from the paper:

Doge

Yes. But by disciplined I don't mean just will power. I mean someone that knows what and how much of what they need. Most know this for rides they often repeat.

I was/am putting the focus on the muscle fatigue and RPM part. Like cranks short, long, some high rpm, some lower, it is not clear it matters for lab tests for power. Just seems power is pretty overrated if you can't finish. That is the fatigue part.
Chris Carmicheal said this is why he got Lance into the high rpm (he could have doped and gone 85rpm or doped and ridden 100RPM). But Lance also had some cardio bandwidth to spare.

Higher RPM takes more rider energy (as VO2 would show) at the same watts to the machine.

If the rider does not have the cardio bandwidth to support that (I don't) then revving less may help.