marcoaleite wrote:...Aí pode ser onde deu tilt PAF, você tem que acostumar a fazer força e segurar a cadência alta, quem costuma fazer força socando passa apuros....
Pelo contrário, eu giro bem mais do que faço força. Andar à 115 rpm e fazer 105 rpm de média, é nenhuma.
O negócio é que está na hora de começar a treinar mais força também. E fazer força à 100 rpm é osso! Quem quiser se aprofundar um pouco mais no assunto, basta ler
esse artigo fantástico do Dr. Ferrari.
Em um ponto da parte 2, Dr. Ferrari fala o seguinte:
"Froome's attitude towards time trials is well known, but these differences between climbing and TT performances cannot be explained solely by the difference in body weight among athletes.
Contrary to the large majority of cyclists, Froome (but also Wiggins) is climbing with higher cadences (100-110 RPM) than in TT's (90-100 RPM), where he prefers to push important gears, perhaps also due to the use of longer cranks.
The extreme thinness, even with a significant reduction in lean body mass, evidently does not take away the power in his pedaling, which is particularly fluid, probably due to a reduction of internal friction and the cost of 'spinning the legs.' "
Quando o Clythio mencionou isso, julho passado, eu lí cuidadosamente o artigo do Dr. Ferrari e fui buscar algum conhecimento dentro das minhas limitações de entendimento do assunto (sou Engenheiro). Continua o Dr. Ferrari:
"Let's start by assessing the time to climb the last 15 km (1389m of altitude at 9%) of the ascent:
- Froome, 2013: 47'12 "- VAM = 1765 m / h - 6.08w/kg = 401W
- Armstrong, 2002: 48'33 "- VAM = 1718 m / h - 5.92w/kg = 438w
- Contador 2009: 48'57 "- VAM = 1702 m / h - 5.87w/kg = 364w
The climb is very exposed to highly variable winds and therefore performance comparisons over different years are always approximate, but we can hazard a guess that Froome has delivered a performance similar to or slightly higher than those of Armstrong and Contador, all in all in line with those developed by the best athletes in recent years.
What has caused a sensation and suspicion is the cadence held by Chris when climbing.
At 400w the ideal uphill cadence is between 90 and 95 RPM: Froome, when deeply engaged in the effort, is used to pedal on average over 100 RPM, with a cadence higher than that of Lance, who also developed higher average power outputs by about 40 watts (ideal cadence of 95-100 RPM).
But even more wonder have raised the pedaling cadences of 120-130 RPM expressed by Froome in the three short (15-20") accelerations that demolished the opponents.
If you want to accelerate violently on an uphill incline, even in a car, you need to downshift the gears and increase the number of "engine revs", in order to express the maximum power in a quick time.
Given the acceleration and speed (almost double that of the opponents) developed by Froome, I estimate an average power of about 700W for those 20", which correspond to an ideal cadence of 125 RPM. So the choice of Chris is the best, if you want to drop rivals off your wheel.
Of course such violent and repeated accelerations are possible only if the athlete is not already in "oxygen debt", displaying clear fitness superiority over the rivals who were sapped by the previous pace.
Particularly skeptical observers have noted that such high pedaling cadences require, for the same wattage, an increased consumption of oxygen due to the cost of "spinning the legs." It is a correct observation, considering that Froome is adopting cadences that are higher than those considered ideal for the power he generates.
With his "alien" physical morphology, very thin, with long, thin arms and legs, Chris compensates such higher cost by minimizing the weight of his rotating limbs.
The obvious muscle hypotrophy reduces internal friction and the probable decrease in strength is offset by the use of high pedaling cadences, which require, for the same wattage, a lower force peak at each push on the pedals.
The intake/supplementation (perfectly legal) of nitrates could further reduce the consumption of oxygen (Acta Physiol 2007; 191:59-66), improving mitochondrial efficiency (Cell Metabolism 2011; 13:149-159)."
Agora vamos discutir isso, esquecendo se o Queniano Albino estava dopado ou não.
Dificilmente um atleta amador com estrutura corpórea de ciclista de pista irá manter uma performance ótima em altas cadências. Fui beber na fonte do Coogan e do Carmichael.
Olhando para meus números agora com o medidor de potência, vejo que minha cadência ótima é na faixa dos 93-95 rpm. Nada mal para meu porte físico (tenho 1,66 com 77 kg e cerca de 68kg de massa magra). Perder massa muscular está fora de cogitação, por enquanto. Se eu for treinar o condicionamento para atingir altas cadências, existe uma possibilidade grande perder potência justamente pelo fator do biotipo.
Ou seja, para valores de FTP específicos maiores, o compacto será menos útil com a coroa de 34 dentes. Para comprovar isso, experimentei subir uma inclinação de 5% médios com o
duplo. Acabei me saindo melhor, mesmo com cadências mais baixas.
Bem treinado, enfatizando mais a resistência muscular, a tendência é ter o duplo como relação preferida.
Abraços.
P.