The Low Carb High Fat Cyclist - Perpetual Motion

An update on my experiences with the Low Carb High Fat diet, now that it's almost a year that I've been following it. In the process it seems I've discovered the secret of eternal energy, and through my continuing studies, become further convinced that this is actually the way the human body evolved to be fueled over more than 99% of 2 million+ years of our evolution. That we lost it can only be viewed as yet another part of the saga of our on-going downfall.

My awakening to the health benefits of our ancestral metabolic state, has brought with it the grim knowledge that this won't be welcome information to many. Through blinkered thinking, self interest, and hasty public health decisions, we live in a world that is just so far down the track in the wrong direction. It seems increasingly evident to me that the 12,000 or so years of development of our sedentary culture or "civilization" as we like to think of it, while considered widely to be our crowning achievement, is also at the same time our curse. Author Jared Diamond notes in his great anthropological study The Third Chimpanzee that with the advent of agriculture the average height of populations decreased by 6 inches, and longevity by 10 years. Recent studies on diabetes and heart disease have similar observations. But more on that later.

It's immensely difficult to get through the barrage of erroneous and irresponsible information that is out there, not least of all because so many industries, and livelihoods, are now reliant on the established dogma.

What makes it doubly difficult, even without being constantly bombarded by propaganda, is the harsh reality that most of what we have come to identify as food, is actually better labelled "fun". Our bodies have got used to the sugar-rush associated with eating refined carbohydrates, and our days are organized around the need to satisfy our blood-sugar cravings at regular intervals. I'm aware that a lot of the struggle with the LCHF diet comes from the perceived lack of fun in real food. I mean, the most pivotal social occasions in almost every culture on the planet have evolved to be inseparable with the consumption of sugar and refined carbs. Dietary salvation, it would seem, comes with a certain social exclusion.

THE "CALORIES IN, CALORIES OUT" MYTH

One of the most damaging myths in modern circulation, and one that the exercise industry is bent on perpetuating, is that you can basically eat what you like if you have an active lifestyle. I myself used to accept the conventional wisdom that as a fit person I was free to indulge in pretty much anything I fancied in the knowledge that I would be able to "burn it off" later.

The reality is, unfortunately, that we don't lose weight with exercise if we eat wrongly. In fact if we eat correctly we'll reach our ideal body composition regardless of activity levels. Exercise stimulates our appetite as our bodies trigger the impulse to replace the fuel we've used up in energy. In his meisterwerk Good Calories, Bad Calories, Gary Taubes observes that all animals have a central governing system that regulates food intake according to energy expenditure against stored reserves. We humans lose weight if our bodies are able to access and efficiently utilize the stored fat which we all carry around. However, if we feed ourselves carbohydrate, we short-circuit the system. We bombard our blood with an instant hit of cheap and fast fuel - glucose - which our body happily uses for all of it's energy needs.

Glucose blocks the body's ability to use it's stored fat.

In addition, when we have no current energy demands and our blood sugar increases above what we can immediately use, our pancreas creates the hormone insulin which shunts all the blood-sugar to storage sites where it is converted to fat. This creates an immediate need for more sugar. Sugar and modern super-refined carbs start to enter our blood streams as soon as they enter our mouths, so the surges can be quite extreme depending on your body's insulin response. We then experience the sugar-craving which most of us call hunger.  

Insulin also blocks the body's ability to metabolize it's stored fat. 

This yoyo-ing between raised sugar and insulin levels creates the Metabolic Syndrome where the body is constantly craving sugar, which it then stores as fat, but which it cannot then access since insulin controls the release of triglycerides from adipose tissue,. As long as either sugar or insulin levels remain elevated, the fat stays where it is. By eating the wrong stuff we are literally starving our gradually expanding bodies.

PERFORMANCE FUEL

Thus you can see that, though we assume that those involved in endurance sports will have efficient fat-burning, aerobic metabolisms, most of us burn sugar rather than fat for a far higher percentage of our overall effort than we expect. When a marathon runner depletes their store of glycogen and blood sugar after about 2 hours of sub-threshold running, their body can't just flip a switch and change to burning fat.

It's an either-or situation. You're either adapted to burning sugar, or your adapted to burning fat. It takes days just to start the transition from one to the other. Even the most highly trained glucose-burner can store only around 2-hours-worth of sugar, whereas even the leanest of us is carrying enough fat to last several marathons back-to-back. Changing that will require re-calibrating our bodies at a cellular level to again use the super-efficient energy pathway we evolved over the past 2 million years as persistence-hunters.

Sport science for the past few decades has focused on finding ways of optimizing the delivery and storage of glucose to enable our glucose-fueled activity to keep going for longer. Only a rare few had the idea that maybe it was better to find ways of tapping into that vast reserve of fat that we all carry. We will all one day thank them. This is their legacy.

KETOSIS

In a fasted, or glucose-free state, our bodies will gradually learn to efficiently use the relatively slow-burn option of fat for fuel. Our liver produces Ketones from fat, which serve to fuel the organs which in modern humans have grown used to relying on sugar, and our bodies maximize the range of the aerobic energy pathway so that it becomes super-efficient at metabolizing Triglycerides from our fat storage for use in all activity. It will also regulate intake according to what is required for energy reserves, so hunger is a real sign for a need for nutrition, and not just a craving for more cheap, immediate fuel.

To get there is simple, but will need more than a little will-power, and will require days of minimized carbohydrate consumption. You will crave sugar for the first 4-5 days and you'll be cranky and lethargic to begin with. I achieved basic nutritional Ketosis in the only real way possible - cold turkey - within a week of cutting all refined carbs and any grains or starches. After 4-5 days I no longer experienced the cravings for carbohydrate. Having the strength to cycle at anything more than an easy spin took a couple more weeks to kick in however, as my body adapted at the cellular level, or what Dr Stephen Phinney calls Keto-Adaptation. But aside from some rather pathetic rides it was a fairly smooth and painless transition thereafter. The results on my energy levels and well-being were life-changing.

In my studies I've covered just about everything I can find - from the coaching methods, testimonials and evidence in the field of endurance sports, to the latest revelations in nutritional science. I realize that while LCHF is a path to good health for all humans, the demands of an athletic life deserve particular consideration. My past year has been my testing out of this theory, using my own body.


ON THE ROAD

My presentation here is mostly anecdotal. I don't have the resources to run meticulously controlled tests which might offer conclusive results. But what I've discovered is that I am able to keep going with the same level of energy for a very long time. As yet untested as to the actual range I might have. I have developed the ability to push the pace maximally through training. I do regular rides of over 100km on nothing but water. On longer rides I will eat. I try mostly to keep to the LCHF regime if I can. If I'm in a group that needs to refuel I'll generally go with the flow - it's one of the rare times when you can actually eat most things, simply because the body is already in the metabolically elevated, exercise mode and will correctly utilize whatever you give it.

Beyond a 4-hour ride I will get hungry. Literally just that though. Not lacking in energy or feeling depleted in any way. I haven't actually pushed the water-only test beyond this point yet. The longest rides I've done in the past year are just over 200km, and with groups, so I follow the group dynamic, which means having refueling stops, but I have phased out the use of isotonic drinks even on these rides, and now rarely drink anything other than water. In the past year I haven't ever experienced anything remotely resembling that feeling we call the "bonk", when our glycogen stores run out.

GLYCOGEN

So assuming that I can train my body to maximize it's ability to function within the fat-burning, aerobic energy pathway, there's still the issue of that potential glucose requirement for the higher-intensity effort that is assumed will have to come from the anaerobic pathway which relies on muscle glycogen - a stored form of glucose. In racing, and in training to improve our performance, it is commonly-held sport science dogma that we will need to make demands on this anaerobic system if we are to maximize our potential.

MY QUEST

The big question I had when I went into this was how to assess this demand. Much of the literature I was reading suggested that in the fully keto-adapted athlete, no additional carbohydrate would be needed. In fact it suggested that the preserved state of ketosis was ideal for recovery.  Other writings suggest that athletes will need to consume an additional amount of carbohydrate in their diet. Most however agree that there's no one-size-fits-all. The claim is that glycogen will also be synthesized from fat and protein, and at higher metabolic rates in the keto-adapted. Much literature also suggests that we can train our aerobic pathway to be efficient at remarkably high intensities, so that our fat-burnigh metabolism can take care of it all.

I have made the following observations from my own personal experience. This is what I currently believe is working for me, though I'm still experimenting, and I'm still yet to push the boundaries of the experiment in terms of distance, intensity, and (lack of) consumption:

• When riding 1-4 hours of endurance-based, mainly zones 1-3, but even with a fair amount of higher intensity, my body will not require additional carbohydrates under normal circumstances. I will not need to eat during the ride. My recovery drink will contain some added carbohydrate from fruit, but my meal afterwards with be a standard LCHF meal.
• If I am to do consecutive days of the above, I will include a little more carbohydrate in the recovery meal.
• On rides of over 4 hours I have nothing conclusive to offer really, as I haven't pushed the envelope by not eating. Up to now I eat whatever is available on these rides, due to their social nature mostly. I will get hungry at some point, though I haven't experienced any reduction in strength. Convenience and speed of digestion means carbs are the obvious choice. Recovery will involve a similar carbohydrate element to the above.
• If I train at an intensity of zone 4, or shorter durations in 5 or 6, I will include a similar additional carbohydrate element in recovery.
• If I train specifically for anaerobic endurance - zone 5 or above for maximal durations, I will include a fair amount of carbohydrates in recovery, and possibly more carbs in a subsequent meal within 2 hours of training.

So I'm still being rather conservative when it comes to recovery. I have so far had little real opportunity to test the full ketosis theory beyond 4 hours. I think I'm still holding onto the belief that, though we may no longer need carbohydrate supplements during exercise, the recovery process from intense effort will demand a slightly higher percentage of carbs than our basic LCHF formula. The test goes on....

THE NUMBERS

Below is the data analysis of a 4-hour ride I did a couple of months ago without consuming anything other than water. I was reasonably well-rested for the ride, so my glycogen stores will have been good (whether I actually tapped into them or not is still unclear). For the last 20km downhill of the ride we went quite hard, in fact my highest heart-rate reading for the ride of 179bpm was recorded during this section. Average HR for the ride was 145bpm (threshold is around 168bpm). My highest average 5-minute power output at 258w was in the last hour, while my highest average for 20 minutes, at 215w, was on the first climb (estimated FTP at 238w). My energy levels were consistent throughout.

I have plenty more of these but they all offer up pretty much the same picture, so I won't bore you with it here.

WHAT TO EAT?

Crucial to give a picture really, as most people can't imagine how they might eat if they took out the bread, rice and pasta etc. In fact it really is like only eating the nutritious stuff and jettisoning the fluff. You actually eat less in terms of volume. Just more fat.

As an example I covered a sample of my normal diet in my last post about the subject, but to summarize the principles: we're talking about replacing the calories you'd normally get from carbohydrates with fat. The protein content of your food should remain pretty much the same. Fat is denser in calories than carbohydrate so you need to eat less of it. The best fats are animal fats. Other good fats include coconut, palm kernel, almonds and olive. Saturates and Monounsaturates. NOT seed or corn oils. Omega 3s are essential, though not too much. The longer chain Omega 6s only in small quantities.

Those still duped by the Cholesterol myth can refer to my earlier posts below, or should read this or this.

Additional carbohydrate when needed should come from fruits. Not grains or starchy vegetables.

During a ride, if you're hungry, obviously carbohydrate is the easiest food to digest, but as long as you're not about to go "full gas" include as much good fat as you can comfortably digest, and some protein. I've found that half-boiled eggs (with butter?), some fruit, and tea with cream work pretty well, but mainly because that's easily available on most of my rides.

Dairy is awesome, but check that you're not lactose intolerant. Everything should be full fat.

Low fat = high carb.

My favourite recovery drink is full-cream milk and beetroot juice.

SO WHY DON'T THE PROS DO THIS?

The most interesting testimonials will come when those who ride, and win, grand tours are using a LCHF diet. I'm sure that within the extreme parameters of the effect that this kind of brutal event has on the body, things evolve that otherwise wouldn't. I still see top pros in these races obsessed with maintaining their blood sugar, and suffering withering melt-downs when they "hit the wall". That means their bodies are still reliant on carbohydrates as a primary fuel or that wouldn't happen. Of course the rigors of a 3-week race demand ridiculous levels of food consumption, which even then fall short of replacing spent reserves, and leave the athletes under-weight, with impaired immune systems and even reduced muscle mass. I'd be fascinated to learn how a body adapted to ketosis could evolve to deal with this extreme situation. It really is like a complete re-wiring of your metabolism.

While there may be teams or individuals that are secretly applying these principles, to my knowledge it is still at the "secret weapon" stage if it exists at all. I'd say it's a typical case of "you can't add to a cup that is already full". The pros are all advised by their appointed "experts". Very few of the doctors, coaches, and sports scientists recognized (entrenched) within the sport are open-minded enough to completely challenge the prevailing dogma. Couple that with the fear of losing even the slightest competitive advantage, and it should be easy to see why ideas become entrenched.

In fact it was the complete 180-degree turn on diet of one of my personal gurus, and one of the most respected sports scientists, Professor Tim Noakes, that prompted my interest in this food revolution in the first place. He has become an evangelist for this revolutionary cause, and though the book Real Meal Revolution was, until recently, only available in South Africa, it has now been published internationally. The website Real Meal Revolution remains one of the best resources for updates on what they call the Banting diet - the science, the testimonies, the recipes, and the growth of the movement, plus lists of acceptable and prohibited foods. Noakes has converted some top marathon runners and other sportsmen to the LCHF diet, with stellar results.

Of course there are plenty of other age-group and amateur athletes like myself out there already reaping the benefits of reverting to our ancestral metabolic state. Jeff Volek and Stephen Phinney's great book The Art And Science Of Low Carbohydrate Performance was first published in 2012. But for us it's much less of a risk, and we get to try all this out in a relatively non-lethal environment, since we don't make a living from winning.

I think we can anticipate a wave of young graduates from those currently in sports science and medical programs, unable to dismiss the unraveling evidence of dubious Public Health practices, and excited by the real science now being put forward by Noakes and a growing contingent of free thinking academics. These guys will be the coaches and team doctors of the near future.

SUMMARY

There's no doubt in my mind that this is the way to go. Whether your purpose is to become a better endurance athlete, lose weight, regain your health, or just improve the quality of your life, the LFHC diet works. There may be those who don't respond so well to it to begin with because of certain metabolic predispositions, but there is a growing body of resources for all of us to find the balance that suits us best.

This is still very much a work-in-progress, so expect more updates. I realise many of you will be hoping for more scientific testing and results. I will get deeper into it, but I'm no lab rat. My main purpose is to open minds to the possibilities. For now I again refer you to a blog post by an amazing Finnish endurance athlete, Sami Inkinen, who has data on a couple of scientific tests he did during his process of training the body to run on the LCHF diet.

Further information:
http://riders-cafe.blogspot.my/2015_02_01_archive.html
http://riders-cafe.blogspot.my/2015/04/nutrition-3.html
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/07/27/saturated-fat-cholesterol.aspx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDneyrETR2o
http://talkfeed.co.za/lchf-diet-elite-athletes-high-intensity-sports/ 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NvFyGGXYiI

Review: Dura Ace C24 9000 Wheelset

Tyre Type: Clincher
Rim Material: Carbon
Braking Surface: Alloy
Rim Depth: F:21mm, R:23mm
Rim Width: 20.8mm
Hubs: Dura Ace, sealed.
Weight: 1364g without skewers
Spoke Count: 16/20
Tyres used: Continental Grand Prix 4000. 23/25mm


The latest wheels in my hands for testing have no pretensions to the all-rounder throne. These are, unashamedly and in-your-face, climbing wheels, and I would suggest that they probably offer the benchmark for this type. In my search for a worthy climbing wheel I'd also considered the Mavic R-Sys SL, which claims an even lighter weight, but I'd come across a few horror stories about them, so decided to give them a miss in favour of these, which were actually a bit cheaper. Though nobody seemed to be raving about them exactly, they had no negative press that I could find.

I wanted to see how much better a pure climbing wheel fares in comparison to my normally favoured all-rounders. In the end, the only thing they might have lost out on is in not being deep enough to offer any aerodynamic assistance, but real evidence of even that is absent. These wheels work so well for me that I'm now loathe to use anything else for routes with even the slightest whiff of a hill

First of all, they don't seem to be any less aero than the 30+mm deep ones I've been using, so that assumption goes out the window. I'm not sure quite how they achieve this - my understanding of aerodynamics is evidently too simplistic - but there's plenty being written about these wheels if you care to get your head around the tech.

The low spoke count definitely gives these wheels a vertical compliance which is extremely welcome and immediately noticeable. However, any expected lateral compliance isn't there, apparently thanks to wider hub flanges - which means greater torsional rigidity. They respond very quickly indeed.

The word that best describes these for me is "nimble". The rims are very light so they really jump with direct responsiveness when you want them to. The acceleration is awesome. I really have become quite addicted to the way they feel, and the almost complete lack of time-lag between the thought and the action.

On a technical note, one slight issue I'm having is that the rims are a bitch to get tyres onto, so I dread getting a flat. I've heard this from other users of the DA 9000 range, especially those - like mine - that are built to take the new option of tubeless. However, once you wear the tyre in a bit and with a decent pair of cycling mitts, you should be able to fix a flat without destroying your hands.

Another tiny, pet peeve is that they're too quiet. I'm a bit of a freewheel-buzz addict, and these are among the most silent I've come across, but you know what: it didn't take long for me to completely forget my reservations about their lack of audible presence.

I think overall these do pretty much anything I'd want a climbing wheel to do so I can forgive them for being a bit muted.

ADDITIONAL NOTE - 14 November 2016.

The braking surface on these wheels is a little on the thin side, so given the fact that they get a fair amount of rain thrown at them in my environment, they are wearing a bit thin now, after perhaps around 10,000km of hilly riding in the tropics. If I'm careful I may get another few thousand out of them.

It would be an option to replace the rims, since the hubs still seem to have a few years of life in them at least, but from what I've heard, replacement Shimano rims are difficult to get hold of, and the 16/20 spoke count makes them an unusual find otherwise. 

I'd say you should not consider these if you're a nervous descender, or otherwise heavy on the brakes. I'd also say that if possible, you should use these on days when it is less likely to rain.

Developing Form

Form is often talked about as a component of cycling. Though there are wider (mainly aesthetic) issues that relate to the accepted norms of how cyclists dress and behave, the most important discussion of form refers to the technique applied in transferring our energy into moving ourselves forward on a bicycle. This is a component that, if one has it, is immediately apparent to the experienced eye, and like all subtle aspects of any skill, is easily overlooked, but will greatly improve the speed of your later development if addressed in the early stages.

Technique in any sport can be improved upon, but the percentage of difference this makes to the eventual outcome varies massively from sport to sport. However, the first rule of any sports coaching program is that technique must be perfected before any other work is done, as developing strength, speed or endurance without proper technical base is pointless, or even dangerous.

When we first approach cycling, the simple act of balancing ourselves and pushing down on the pedals to move forward seems to cover it. These are muscles we use daily for all sorts of normal stuff, and it may be hard to see initially how much more involved the technique might get. However, once we clip our feet into the pedals, it should be clear that we now have the potential to use a whole different set of muscles.

If we could get the legs to work equally all the way around the pedal cycle, in theory we would be able to generate a much more even force, and spread the load over a greater range of muscles, thus reducing the cost to our cardiovascular system, and enabling us to go faster for longer.

That's the theory. There are many views on this, and no real consensus in popular circulation. Some coaches insist that tests have shown no real advantage to the development of other sections of the cycle, and that the downward force from the quads is still the main driver. I have seen tests on video that claim to show that there's minimal difference, but these are tests on random cyclists, not on those who have specifically trained their bodies to work in this way.

Of course we have inherited a body that has evolved over millions of years to walk, jump or run, and so the most developed muscles we have in our legs are the ones that push down. If you take the average human and put them on a bike, and run tests to see how much positive difference pulling up on the pedals makes, I'm fairly sure it would be minimal.

If we are to get the other muscles in the leg to work for us, we will have to start developing them over many years before we start to see real changes. Those coaches however, that work with national track teams and can implement the appropriate exercises and monitor them over a longer period of the athletes development, will tell you that developing muscles that work through the entire pedal stroke is an essential part of becoming a world class cyclist.

What is perfect form? A time triallist has the most perfect form of any cyclist. If you think of Bradley Wiggins, Fabian Cancellara, Tom Dumoulin, or any of the other specialists in this discipline, you see that form in action: very little motion in the upper body, and a very smooth and almost effortless-looking pedal cycle. This is because they have eliminated unnecessary movement and balanced the muscle firing patterns and work-load to maximise the power going into the pedals all the way around the stroke. When it comes to pure transfer of power, they are the masters.

So what are the muscles, beyond those that activate automatically, that we can activate and develop to complete the 360-degree motion?

Though it might seem that the quadriceps and gluteus maximus are the main protagonists in the most basic of cycling actions - literally just stomping on the pedals, the actual activation of the glutes is a much less natural one than we're used to from a normal squatting or rising motion. As the largest muscle in the body, the glutes can really be developed for some serious power endurance, but will need some focus to get them to activate to their full potential.

The hip flexors are a muscle group that will probably have the least automatic engagement for most of us, but can really help your pedal stroke if we can effectively engage and develop them. It is these muscles that will give us a strong pull up and forward on the pedals. Then we also have the calves and muscles involved in the rotation of the ankle. By isolating and working on these additional muscles, we start to get a more complete rotational picture to our output.

So how do we isolate and develop the muscles needed to work through the whole pedal stroke? Well the use of standard strength training equipment has limited value aside from helping with the general strength improvement or size of the target muscles. Logically, the most valuable improvements are in drills using the actual bicycle cranks, with resistance adjusted to target specific muscular reactions and development.

A useful diagram showing the effective use of each muscle group in the pedal cycle

ONE-LEGGED DRILLS

The easiest way to identify and engage the other working muscles is to ride on a home trainer or stationary bike and do one-legged drills. Assuming we're clipped into the pedals, removing one foot from a pedal and cycling with one leg only will quickly identify where we need to improve strength. The first time you do this, you will probably have trouble keeping the pedals rotating smoothly, but keep the resistance low and persevere, concentrating on keeping everything except that leg as still as possible. To get used to it you should probably only do it for a max of 30 seconds before either switching feet or going back to using both legs in between each isolated side.

Start with a very light resistance and progress to a set alternating 1 minute per leg for a total of 10 minutes concentrating on a smooth pedaling stroke and keeping the upper body as motionless as possible. The motionless upper body is a real test of form as it indicates wasted energy. It will quickly identify how weak your core is. Specific work on your core should be a part of every athletes training schedule and should be done off-the-bike using dynamic abdominal and lower back exercises.

1+1 FORM DRILLS

This is for me the most effective drill. It can easily be done on a home trainer, but I prefer to do it out on the road - I have an ideal training route for it. Look for either a flat section or a fairly consistent upward gradient that gives you at least 20+ minutes of uninterrupted pedaling.

You are doing 1-minute-on, 1-minute-off drills using both legs but isolating muscle groups used in specific sections of the pedal stroke. The minute between each drill you should spin as easily as possible in a high cadence to recover.

For the minute on, isolate one muscle group used in the pedal stroke, concentrating on only using those muscles for the minute. I usually start by isolating the glutes. I'll do this 5 times (1+1x5=10 minutes) before switching to the next isolation - the ankles - for 5 reps. The next one will be the hip flexors and the upward pull on the backside of the pedal stroke. Another 5 times. Then finally I will combine the 3 above-mentioned muscle groups for another 5 intervals. If you run out of road, start again on another stretch or go back to the start. I'm lucky to have a stretch of 3-4% that lasts me for over 40 minutes of these. Keep the intensity of the effort low. These are not intervals designed to elicit a training effect from your cardiovascular/energy systems, so your heart-rate should not be significantly affected. The muscles will be easier to identify with reasonable resistance to begin with, but you should aim to work the cadence up to your normal spin to complete the picture.

I don't personally find a need to work on the quads and hamstrings in this way. Mainly because they are already well-utilised within my normal cycling stroke, and so the 1-minute recovery interval will, by default, involve these muscles. Others may have different deficiencies however, so keep asking the more experienced riders in your groups for suggestions on where your form weaknesses are.

BIG GEAR DRILLS

At the beginning of the program, or early season, I will deliberately use a higher gear - thus a much slower cadence for these drills. This ensures that you can concentrate on the consistent application of force on the correct part of the stroke. I call these Big Gear drills. As the program progresses I will gradually increase the speed of the cadence right up to my natural spin, though ensuring that I concentrate on the full stroke always. I will usually introduce this shift by increasing the cadence first over the last set of drills (the muscle groups combined).

TRAINING TO STAND - PISTOLERO DRILLS

For me the definitive contemporary example of the out-of-the-saddle style of climbing on a bicycle is Alberto Contador. His "dancing on the pedals" style is his trademark. He says himself that he has trained to be able to stand for up to 20 minutes continuously, and that though it may provoke a 4-5bpm rise in his heart rate, it generates more power, and gives him a significant respite for muscles used in the seated position.

Now most of us will have found that when we get to a steeper part of a climb, we can generate a brief surge of extra power by standing, possibly with a shift up in gearing, and use the full body to power through the steep bit. However, most of us will only be able to keep this up for 10-20 seconds before we go anaerobic, forcing ourselves to sit back down and shift back to the easier gear. The problem is that we are simply using our maximum force - stamping down hard on the pedals in order to achieve maximum leverage. While effective briefly, it is not sustainable.

If you pay attention to how the pro climbers do it however, you will see that most of the time when they stand, they are in the same gear as when they're sitting - meaning that they are maintaining the same cadence with either technique. This is a crucial point to understand in developing this ability. We have to train to stay out of the saddle at a higher cadence. which means a significantly lower resistance.

When we first try this, we will usually find it difficult because we're used to needing to increase resistance - shift up - or we go through the downward part of the stroke too quickly. This is because our pedal strokes are too one-sided - we push down mainly - and when standing we also have most of our body-weight added to the down-stroke. So the first step is to do the above drills working on the other sections of the pedal stroke so that we can then counterbalance with the rest of the stroke.

Again, the most important muscles to focus on are the glutes, hip flexors and ankles. The hip flexors are used to kick the leg up and forward, the glutes start over the top of the stroke and push forward and down, and the ankles maintain a rotational movement of the feet that assist it through the bottom of the stroke. The core plays an even more important role when you're standing since your only contact points with the bike now are your feet and hands.

Once you're starting to feel the effects of the above drills on your technique, the next step is the standing drills. Same approach: 1-minute on, 1-minute off. Again keep it as easy as you can. For the minute on, you should aim to not put too much pressure on the pedal down-stroke, but to keep the pressure light and rotational. It's very difficult at first (if not totally counter-intuitive) to limit the down-stroke, but persevere and you'll feel the change within a couple of weeks. If you find a minute too long, start with 30 seconds. In between you just need to sit back down, but try to keep the cadence high throughout. Eventually you should be able to do this without taking your heart rate up by too much.

Keep it as a regular part of your training week and it could become your secret weapon!

Related Articles:
http://riders-cafe.blogspot.my/2015/05/the-physiology-of-endurance-cycling.html

Review: Giro Factor Cycling Shoes

 Another item that works so well for me that I'm actually looking for my third pair at the moment.

Shoes are such a crucial element in cycling. I'm constantly reminded of the issues that poorly-suited shoes present from the comments of the people I ride with. "Hot spots", aching arches and pinched toes are just a few of the more obvious issues one can have when your poorly-fitting footwear plays such a critical role in transferring your energy into forward momentum.

Again, I've been lucky. Call it a gut-feeling perhaps, but having had positive experiences with all the carbon bits and pieces that the company Easton produces (I use bars, wheels, stems and seat posts made from the stuff), when the helmet-producing giant Giro came out with a range of cycling footwear using soles made from Easton's EC90 carbon, something resonated with me.

Sizing is pretty accurate in the Giro footwear range, with European sizes in 0.5 increments. There are also 3 different thicknesses of arch support inserted beneath the insole, so you can get pretty anal with fit.

My choice was the Factor model, rather than the lighter Prolight, entirely because I prefer the adjustable ratchet-buckle thing over the triple velcrose straps. I tend to generally find myself tightening the shoes after an hour or so of riding. I'm not exactly sure why, but I assume that the blood displacement in my working legs means that my feet actually shrink once I'm into my stride. Anyway I hate the feeling of loosely fitting shoes, so being able to tighten on the fly is a worthy feature.

The shoe fits fairly snugly. I worried initially that it was too snug and that I would start to feel pressure points while riding, but none appeared. It really fits my, fairly wide, foot very accurately (they do also have an even wider version labeled HV - high volume). I tried using the fatter arch support pads, but in the end the thinnest ones work for me. It is often recommended that one uses shoes with a bit more room on longer rides, but I do rides of over 200km in these quite regularly, and I've never had foot issues.

The shoe is very light, despite the fact that there are lighter ones in the range. The Easton sole is super light and stiff of course, and transfer of power is excellent. The padding has never caused any friction with my foot. The leather lip did initially rub the front of my upper foot, but that went as soon as the leather got worn in a little. I suppose if there was one thing I'd change it would be that the shoe closure finished a couple of millimeters lower down, but that's just for my anatomy.

They have suffered some serious deluges in their lifetime,  but thanks to the drainage hole in the sole, they don't stay waterlogged while on your feet, and they dry out fairly quickly once you take them off. The pads on the heels - for the aid of walking - don't last long, and I believe you can get replacements, but a bit of glue can work wonders, and it's hardly a primary concern. The first ones I bought around 4 years back are still going strong after a good 20,000+ kilometers.

Price-wise they're not exactly cheap, but then they aren't the most expensive either, and in this case the outlay is entirely justified since they do exactly what they're supposed to, and just keep on doing it.

Review: Kask Mojito

Starting with this one I'm doing short reviews of certain bits of cycling gear that I particularly like, this in the hope that it can be instructive for those looking to not have to go through 100 pieces of kit before they find one that actually works.

Of course it's always very subjective, and I can't pretend to have tried all competitive options, but I'm assessing the stuff based on how well it does what it's supposed to, and doing fairly long-term tests on stuff I actually use daily, so I can definitely address that element of wear-and-tear that is impossible to judge on a new item, and that isn't quite so subjective.

Anyway, to start this off I'm talking about my favourite helmet to date.

Kask are relative newcomers on the helmet market, but have been the recipients of a fair old boost in recent years thanks to their place on the heads of the riders from Team Sky. Not too shabby a recommendation really.

I've always been looking for helmets that don't give you that "mushroom-head" look - especially common to those of us with big heads who are forced to use the L-sized options. So the low-profile looks of the Kask helmets on the heads of the pros was definitely an initial draw.

This helmet first came to me by chance when on the search for a spare. It was light, the right colour, sat snugly on my head, and wasn't anywhere near the most expensive option.

That was about 3 years back. Since then it's rarely been off my head while cycling, and it's lasted very well. One of the main reasons is the great design of the straps, which are a breathable and fast-wicking material at the sides, but under your chin the strap is made of a leather-like material. This is a great and comfortable combination, and even on the sweatiest rides the straps don't stay wet, which is very good news in Malaysia I can tell you!

The internal padding has also lasted well, but then it's just a few simple, and easily replaceable pads, should they ever deteriorate to that point. Haven't had to deal with that so far. The system of the rear section that grips the back of your head has a very effective ratchet dial to tighten onto your head, and so far has held up structurally very well.

It's not the most aerodynamic design of course, and there are plenty of those out there now, but since maximum airflow is more my concern, I'm not too concerned with aero - you usually compromise one for the other by design.

Basically, this helmet has become an invisible part of my cycling experience, because it works so well that I never need to give it any thought. It's never soggy when I put it back on, the straps don't ever need re-adjusting, nothing rubs against any part of my head or neck.

The strongest recommendation for this helmet is that I've just bought another one. Not that there was anything wrong with the first - I just fancied having another colour option.

The Physiology of Endurance Cycling - Getting In Gear

In my role as director and guide rider for our cycling tours I'm often asked about how to gear up for our rides, most of which are relatively long, on consecutive days, and include a lot of climbing. In fact my preparatory correspondence with our riders includes clear recommendations on gear choice.

I recommend from the start that they should aim to get the lowest available gearing - ie a lowest combination of a 34-tooth chainring and a 28 or up to 32 largest sprocket on the back depending on their available range. This would be available within the range of the now-standard "compact" crankset configuration of 50/34, with the new Sram Wifli system also allowing the use of a cassette with up to a 32-tooth sprocket. While this is not going to be everybody's daily choice of gearing, for endurance rides it means we can spend more of the ride at a relatively high cadence, even on steeper gradients, which will mean that we can last longer without a significant build-up of muscle acidosis or fatigue. You can watch a recent GCN video if you need further convincing of the value of a compact when it comes to climbing.

However, I often find that though people will set themselves up with low gearing, they often don't really know how to make the most of their gear options, and many will still grind away on a higher gear, leaving  a cog or 2 "in reserve" for when they run out of strength, and I feel there are still a lot of similar myths out there on the biomechanics of riding a bike that are difficult to dispel. It's an old sport with a lot of baggage! This is my attempt to give a basic understanding of what your body goes through on longer rides and how to prepare for it with your equipment and training.

"COMPACT" GEARS

The term "compact" in cycling jargon currently refers to a smaller combination of chainrings on your crankset. The standard issue of chainrings for many years was a 53-tooth large ring, and a 39-tooth small ring. Now the most often-used compact setup is a combination of a 50 and a 34-tooth, though 52 with a 36 is another popular combination (often referred to as "pro compact"). Many people resist getting compact gearing through misplaced fears that moving to easier gearing will make them weaker riders through loss of power. There are a number of reasons why this is not true.

Firstly, we don't all necessarily generate maximum power by pushing a larger gear, and if you happen to be one of those who currently does, you would almost certainly increase both power and endurance by training your biomechanics to work at a higher cadence. Think of the image of Chris Froome on Ventoux in 2013, attacking with those repeated bursts of 120+rpm cadence that gave him a speed which nobody could match. You can laugh at his faith in the numbers, but he had trained specifically to pedal that fast, and knew not only that his power was highest at that cadence, but also that he would recover from that effort faster. I know myself from experience with power meters, that pushing a higher gear at a lower cadence, which feels instinctively like you're putting more power into the pedals, is often a gear or 2 higher (and a few rpm lower) than the one that actually registers the most power on the meter relative to the cost to your energy systems.

This however depends as I said on your own habits, physiology, training agendas and subsequent conditioning. If you're used to a slow cadence, then simply trying to spin faster will have the immediate effect of costing your energy system more. You will need to spend time developing the biomechanical adaptation to a higher cadence before you start to see the improved efficiency I'm referring to.

Secondly, unless you rely on entirely random opportunities to improve your cycling power, your choice of gearing will be based on the currently desired training effect. Just because you have an easier gear won't mean that you have to choose it. And if your body does tell you to back off, it's usually because it needs a rest, at which point it's very beneficial to your long-term development that you have the easier option and take it.

Thirdly, for those who worry about spinning out on a 50x11, if you train yourself to pedal at a higher cadence, you're going to get more speed out of a 50x11 than you got previously out of a 53x11, with better muscular endurance and less build-up of acid. You can refer to an earlier post where I touch a little more on the science of gearing.

There may be a good argument for having a couple of bikes with different gearing for different demands. I know Contador generally uses a 53/39 but changes for steeper terrain, and has been seen to change to a 50/34 for the climbs in the last week of the Giro or Vuelta. Obviously I'm not suggesting we mimic him. He, along with most top pros, has a power output that most of us amateurs will never get close to, and he weighs 62 kilos! I'm merely pointing out that even the worlds greatest climbers find a specific use for the easiest gearing. He's even been spotted with a 32 on the back. He makes sure he can always find his ideal cadence regardless of the terrain.

Contador using a Sram medium cage Wifli RD and 32-11 cassette.

ENDURANCE RIDING

Right, so it's clear that when we're training, we choose gearing according to the desired training effect, but that for endurance rides, a different set of considerations define our choices. What are they?

To answer this we will have to dissect an ideal approach to cycling technique over longer distances.

THREE CONSTANTS

My approach is that in endurance riding there are 3 constants that take precedence over all other considerations:

CADENCE > EFFORT > MOMENTUM

We don't need to obsess on exact rpm, bpm or kmh. It's more a question of a set of principles to keep in mind. Whether you like to use gadgets to monitor these constants for the rides themselves is up to you. Perceived information is perfectly adequate, and often better, than following a set of numbers. However, in order to train for this type of riding, we will need to know what is going on, so a measure and understanding of cadence, heart rate, and power output is of significant value.

CADENCE

As I've already pointed out, with a higher cadence we will resist fatigue longer. We should aim to develop an ideal cadence of above 90rpm. Some of us will find an optimum point above even 100rpm, but according to most of the research, for most of us it will be between 95-100rpm.

So we take our cadence as the primary constant. This means we will need to use our gearing to ensure that as much as possible whatever terrain we meet, we can stay close to our ideal cadence.

EFFORT

Our effort is the secondary constant. This can be measured by power, but for endurance purposes heart rate is perfectly adequate. For most of the ride we should be aiming to keep our effort at a pace we can sustain for the expected duration of the ride. This can be different for each rider as some of us have extended our ability to use our fat-burning aerobic system at higher intensities than others. If in doubt, for rides of expected duration of over around 5 hours, it's best to aim to keep your heart rate within zone 2, or low zone 3. That means we stay well below our lactate threshold as much as possible. As the ride gets longer, so the intensity goes down, It's better to be conservative.

MOMENTUM

Momentum, as the 3rd constant, is the first to be compromised in an endurance situation, but there are situations where we would choose to briefly compromise on the constancy of effort, to maintain momentum.

To illustrate what I mean we should look at a variety of terrain conditions.

ROLLING TERRAIN

This refers to terrain that is mostly maintaining the same altitude, but has recurring short rolling hills of anything from a few meters of road surface to 50 or so. Again it depends on the rider and situation. It would usually mean a surge in effort of no more than a few seconds. A peloton in full stride, or a solo Cancellara or Gilbert would probably consider a rise over a 100m stretch of road within this category, but even that may change after 300km in the saddle.

In this situation it will be better to maintain cadence and momentum at the temporary expense of effort, since we lose too much by constantly switching gear and slowing down to maintain a low heart rate. We should keep it to a point at which we can recover quickly between efforts so that our overall effort doesn't creep above our target zone.

So instead of switching gears all the time, we should select a gear that gives us enough resistance for a good spin on the flat, and push over each rise by getting out of the saddle. This of course increases our effort momentarily, but not enough to push our average out of our endurance zone. The added benefit of this is a regular change of position, which aids in resisting the onset of stiffness and cramps that can occur on long rides.

SEVERELY ROLLING TERRAIN

This is terrain that is repeatedly up and down, but with ascents that are too long to blast over without compromising the consistency of your effort, and usually with descents that allow you to get a bit of speed up.

The way you'd approach this for an endurance ride is to maintain quite a strict consistency of cadence and effort, which will mean quite an annoying amount of gear changing, but there's no way around it if we want to comfortably get to the end of the ride. As we hit the beginning of the ascent we shift down to the small chainring and then down the cassette as the gradient demands to maintain cadence and effort. We will lose quite a bit of momentum on the uphill to stay within our effort zone. As you crest the hill, keep the force on the pedals constant and shift up as you go over, shifting to the big chainring as soon as you pick up enough speed to do so while maintaining cadence. If you continue the work rate on the downhill you will pick up enough speed to retain some momentum into the start of the next ascent.

LONG HILLS

When we're looking at an hour or more of continuous climbing, we should aim to maintain cadence as much as possible, thus momentum is the first constant that we drop. As the gradient creeps up, or the length of the climb starts to take it's toll, our effort will start to push out of our desired zone. At this point, we will have to make a decision based on the remaining agenda. If we still have a long ride ahead of us, we will have no choice but to compromise on cadence in order to keep our effort within our endurance zone. If however, we are about to finish, or even just stop for a break, we might choose to maintain a good cadence and push our effort up towards our threshold. To illustrate I'll give an idea of an endurance approach to a 15km climb I often do. This would be my approach if the ride were over 150km or so.

At the start of the climb proper I'll probably work quickly down to a low combination as the road hits an average gradient of 5% for the first km or so, as I stay at my preferred cadence of around 95-100rpm and in my target effort zone. Then the road flattens out a little, and varies between 2-4% for most of the next 3km so I'll shift up a gear or 2, maintaining cadence/effort. Then there is a kick at 8% of around 200-300m before a flatter section, at which point I will probably be down to my lowest 34x28 but to maintain effort I'll allow for a drop in cadence. Once on the flatter section I'll shift up to maintain cadence until the road kicks up again, at which point I shift down and continue to maintain cadence and effort. The second half of the 15km climb is tougher, with more sections between 5-6% and some kicks up to 8-9%, so my cadence will creep down accordingly in order to keep my effort constant. Though in training on this same hill I would often use bigger gears, in this endurance situation I will probably be on my smallest compact combination for around half of the climb.


SHORT, SHARP HILLS

Think Flandrian "bergs" here. These are hills that are steeper than we can comfortably spin up even in our lowest gear. Say we have a ramp of anything from a few hundred meters to 1.5km at an average gradient above 15%. Most of us will be in extreme discomfort if we try to maintain an endurance effort, as we will be compromising too much on cadence even with the lowest gearing, so we will need to allow our effort to rise considerably while keeping a cadence and momentum that is sustainable. Once we're over the crest we'll need to ride easy until we recover and our heart rate comes back down to the lower end of our zone. We will benefit greatly on these climbs by being able to comfortably ride out of the saddle for longer durations, spreading the effort to full-body muscular power, and giving our body a chance to change position. Of course we need to train specifically for this if we want to be good at it. Check my post on standing form drills for ideas for training this skill.

The ability to confront this sort of terrain repeatedly over extended periods requires a superior ability to recover from anaerobic efforts of 1-5 minutes. However, it should be obvious that the lower the gearing, the easier we make the task, and the more likely we are to survive to the finish. Again, we have to maximize cadence during the climbs, and also return to our ideal fast cadence whenever we get a chance to recover. Though Fabian Cancellara is possibly one of the most decorated time-trialists in history, his preference for a high cadence is key to his latter-day ability to also dominate the spring classics of Flanders.

So hopefully this gives a basic introduction to the principles of endurance riding and the preparation needed, both physiologically, mentally, and mechanically. As always this is based on my own personal experience, and is part of a work in progress. There are surely many other ways to think about this, and I'm keen to hear how others have approached the same challenges with success. I keenly await points of discussion or ideas that add to or challenge the concepts I present here.

Review: Easton EC90 Aero Wheelset

Rim Material: Carbon Fibre
Rim Depth: 56mm
Rim Width: 21mm
Hubs: R4 SL
Spokes: Sapim double butted black
Bearings; Hybrid Ceramic Bearings
Weight: 1700g without skewers
Spoke Count: 18/20
Tyres used: Vittoria Rubino Pro. Continental GP4000. 23mm

OK, I've resisted this one for a while. These wheels have been knocking around in my collection for a couple of years, but I could never quite take them seriously.

THE BACKGROUND

You see, as soon as I'm anywhere that has hills, there are 2 things that just rule these wheels out: weight and braking surface. The second is probably more crucial for me. Weight is just about performance: a) you're dragging weight you don't need up a hill, and: b) you can't change pace as fast. Braking surface is about safety, much more significant, though with an indirect effect on performance as a result. Carbon just doesn't stop like alloy does. Most specific brake pads for carbon are virtually useless, and then if it rains you might just as well not have brakes at all. If you don't have confidence that your brakes can stop you, you don't ride fast.

So I live in a place that is surrounded by great hills. Actually it's hard to find a flat ride around here, and my most regular training route has at least one 15km stretch of descent, so you can see that a deep rim carbon clincher has little scope for me. My usual choice of wheels are relatively light, strong laterally, but forgiving of road roughness, with alloy rims, and I usually run 25mm tyres now.

Anyway, it's kind of unfair that these wheels never get much of an outing. I bought them a few years back for my TT bike which I hardly ever use now. They are great, fast wheels, when put to the purpose for which they're designed. So when I found myself doing a few days of long, relatively flat riding, I set my stiff race machine up with these and enjoyed getting low and fast. I then did a bit more than a week in a different area, almost completely pancake-flat except for one single nasty 15-18% grind for 3km on either side. The bike was once again my choice, considering the amount of flat, but I couldn't resist the occasional blast up that hill. This of course meant coming down at least one side, which I accomplished gingerly with a lot of screeching-of-rubber-on-carbon.

It was actually these rides that convinced me that these wheels could have a life beyond the flat time-trial. Between these rides I was experimenting with just about every carbon specific brake pad I could find. Most of which are pathetic (I mean I'd get better resistance with rolled up bits of sock in my brake shoes!)

The best performers were the good old SwissStop yellow pads. I think once I'd been down that hill a couple of times with the brakes on, the braking surfaces were a little less pristine and perhaps more primed so that the yellow pads actually worked quite well....in the dry at least. So now that I've discovered that I can stop relatively reliably, I'm starting to take them a bit more seriously.

THE RIDE

The wheels roll beautifully. Ceramic bearings of course. And they show their true colours once you're hitting some decent speeds, with a definite aero advantage. My reservations about the strength of carbon clinchers are beginning to fade, and the fears of weak points or general lack of durability have so far proved unfounded. I'm really enjoying riding these. They feel stiff and strong and yet I don't feel a lot of road vibration through them.

I still don't have the confidence to throw myself down hills like I do with my alloy rims, so it's hard to get a really good feel of these on some of my test descents, and they are definitely sluggish on the uptake going uphill - completely expected of this type of rim. As a result it's difficult to compare these to any of the other wheels I ride regularly since they are such completely different animals, but when I get onto a flat or slight downhill, they really come into their own.

THE X FACTOR

But maybe I'm missing the point here. Ever since triathletes started using the deeper rims, and companies like Zipp and Hed reciprocated with the coolest-looking wheels on the planet, deeper rims have become increasingly de rigeur for the majority of us, and offer another chance to spend a king's ransom on a bit of gear. It's not about performance, it's about style isn't it? Deep rims are sexy.

A quick glance through the pro peloton would confirm that on your average road race, pretty much every rider sports something between a 35mm and a 60mm rim, provided for them of course by their wheel sponsor. All carbon, and all tubular. Only on long climbs or windy days will you see anyone on anything more shallow. The rims are being built to take a serious hammering these days, with even the Paris-Roubaix riders choosing deep carbon for the cobbles! These guys must have sorted out the braking issues, but then they probably have the surfaces customized somehow.

Where the pros go, the rest of us will follow, and even guys I know who ride deeper carbon rims (mainly around cities) happily point out that the braking is woeful. They still ride them in preference to anything else. This means, I guess, that being safe has been traded for being fast and looking good.

The bling factor on these is definitely reduced by the fact that they sport the rather in-your-face, bold decal lettering of a few years ago, whereas newer offerings from most companies - including Easton - have gone more understated, if not downright "stealth". However, on the right bike (I have the right bike!), they still look pretty awesome.

Anyway, I'm not likely to be replacing these with anything more modern anytime soon, so I'm banking on them retaining some element of coolness for a few more years.

Bottom line is that, though these work perfectly well, for me they have limited value. On solo rides on quiet roads with moderate gradient and reliably dry weather these have some applicability. That unfortunately doesn't account for much that I do on a bike, so I'll still opt mainly for the more versatile and controllable shallow alloy rims.

I challenge anyone to recommend (or better still, lend) me a pair of deeper carbon wheels that they believe work as well, if not better than, my favourite alloy climbers on long rides with hills. Surely all those pros can't be riding dodgy stuff just because someone's paying them lots of money to do so (!!). Until then I'm relegated to being one of the "old school".

Other related posts:
Orbea Orca Build
My reviews of other wheelsets:
Fulcrum Racing 3
Rolf Prima Vigor
Soul S3.0