Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
(gear + cadence = power) <> perception?
Quote | Reply
i am 6 weeks into a dedicated indoor block and it seems that my personal cadence is staggeringly slow. if i combine a gear with a 95-100 cadence to hold 190w, i sweat buckets and after 10 minutes my heart is exploding out of my mouth. if i switch to a stronger gear and lower the cadence to 75-80, i can sit on 220 for 60 minutes or what seems like forever.

on the road or during races i 'spin' cause that's what i've read. i guess i've been doing it wrong the whole time.


am i nuts?

Quote Reply
Re: (gear + cadence = power) <> perception? [dsmallwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Power from a power meter or virtual power?

I'm the opposite of you (although not as extreme). I can spin a higher cadence for a long time but put me in a gear that I have to grind at (75-80 qualifies as a grind for me) and I won't last nearly as long.
Quote Reply
Re: (gear + cadence = power) <> perception? [dsmallwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah first I would ask, what are you using to measure power?

Secondly, cadence preference indoors on a trainer can be pretty weird, isn't always the same as outside.

Either way, let yourself select the cadence that feels best.



Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter
Quote Reply
Re: (gear + cadence = power) <> perception? [Zenmaster28] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
1st we need to know if 190W is 60%? 80%, 100%, 105% of FTP.

At sub threshold efforts, I wouldn't expect a dramatic difference in muscle fatigue, if you regularly train at that RPM (specificity).


The difference in exertion shouldn't be that significant unless at a higher cadence you add a lot of "overhead" from inefficient movement (bouncing upper body swaying, etc. Meaning you stop spinning smoothly.

For myself at least, RPE is roughly the same from 70-100RPM up to about 110%. But I also train a fairly wide range of cadence. Its probably a carry over from my years of MTB riding/racing. I usually to sprint at 110-130RPM, but grind up hills at 70-80RPM.


TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com
Quote Reply
Re: (gear + cadence = power) <> perception? [dsmallwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Do intervals where you let the cadence climb as far as you can stand it before you shift to keep going hard or harder. Your "high" peak will gradually move up from 90's to 100s to 110s to eventually even higher. Lifting your ceiling brings up your floor (easy) to low 90s. Works on all humans. Possibly all mammals.

----------------------------------------------------------
Zen and the Art of Triathlon. Strava Workout Log
Interviews with Chris McCormack, Helle Frederikson, Angela Naeth, and many more.
http://www.zentriathlon.com
Quote Reply
Re: (gear + cadence = power) <> perception? [texafornia] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ah. very good. i do find that the 75-80 creeps to 85 over time, without an increase in the RPE.

to the other questions:

- i'm using a wired PT on a standard trainer
- i thought 190 was ~95% based on 2 x 20" testing done at the start of the block

that's what gives me pause. i believe the PT is accurate. and when i spin at 100 rpm, which is what i did during the test, 190 does seem like a "fall off the bike at the end" level. which is why i am surprised at the lower RPE at the lower-cadence / higher-gear.



i plan to press on "self selecting" as Jack said but now i really want to take the bike off the trainer and try it outside.
Quote Reply
Re: (gear + cadence = power) <> perception? [dsmallwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You'll find that you're great at what you practice. That's why lower cadence seems better for you at this time. But if you practice what is proven faster by faster people, you'll get better at getting faster like they are.

----------------------------------------------------------
Zen and the Art of Triathlon. Strava Workout Log
Interviews with Chris McCormack, Helle Frederikson, Angela Naeth, and many more.
http://www.zentriathlon.com
Last edited by: texafornia: Nov 25, 14 10:15
Quote Reply
Re: (gear + cadence = power) <> perception? [dsmallwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have noticed this happening to me this winter as well. Like, big time happening. All summer I spin outside at an average of 85-88 rpm. At 75% FTP, I would average around 135-145 bpm.
Indoors at 85-88rpm @ 75% FTP I fell like I am working twice as hard. It isn't a case of airflow either, I have a massive fan that can leave me feeling cold if I turn it too high.
So this year instead of forcing that cadence, because I've always been told to "spin to win" and follow your natural cadence, I decided to slow the cadence down.
I started spinning at 75ish cadence and eventually dropped to 70rpm. At this cadence at 75% FTP my heart rate is usually around 120??? I feel like I could comfortably eat a steak dinner spinning at this cadence. My legs feel more torque of course, but with the benefit of a much more relaxed cardio system.
So I decided to just train at this cadence for my 2x20's as well. I instantly broke my 20 min record by a decent amount ~5-7%.
One nice day I did a two hour ride outside at almost my previous FTP (using this lower cadence.)

I am looking forward to next spring so that I may try this cadence on my 100 mile rides to see if they feel as fresh as last summer.
Quote Reply
Re: (gear + cadence = power) <> perception? [dsmallwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I did a little test a few months back where instead of using power to set my interval I used HR and cadence just to see the impact on power. Three 10 minute blocks, at the same HR, with cadences at 80, 90, and 100 RPM.

Average power for cadence@80: 294
Average power for cadence@90: 270
Average power for cadence@100: 260

HR was Z2 so that the previous intervals wouldn't skew results of the later ones. HR was highest for the 100 interval and lowest for the 90, with 3 BPM between the two averages.
Quote Reply
Re: (gear + cadence = power) <> perception? [Clempson] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Clempson wrote:
I did a little test a few months back where instead of using power to set my interval I used HR and cadence just to see the impact on power. Three 10 minute blocks, at the same HR, with cadences at 80, 90, and 100 RPM.

Average power for cadence@80: 294
Average power for cadence@90: 270
Average power for cadence@100: 260

HR was Z2 so that the previous intervals wouldn't skew results of the later ones. HR was highest for the 100 interval and lowest for the 90, with 3 BPM between the two averages.

and I'm sure you did those tests in random order, several days apart, w/ the same warm up, diet, rest, hydration, etc...? Sort of kidding, but sort of not. That data IS interesting, but we should both know mostly useless unless validly tested. I would test further extremes of 70 and 110 rpm's while you're at it.

______________________________________________________
Sub-9 IM. Navy SeaBee deep sea diver. Can Do!
Quote Reply
Re: (gear + cadence = power) <> perception? [dsmallwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
dsmallwood wrote:

am i nuts?
Don't know, but your cadence is fine.

Choose the gear you prefer and feel good with and focus on improving sustainable power.
Quote Reply
Re: (gear + cadence = power) <> perception? [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jackmott wrote:
Yeah first I would ask, what are you using to measure power?

Secondly, cadence preference indoors on a trainer can be pretty weird, isn't always the same as outside.

Either way, let yourself select the cadence that feels best.

Kind of the same for me. Outdoors I like to spin and even in a TT or a hill climb FTP effort I prefer to be around 100 rpm and even higher on a flat TT. I put it down to the fact that my aerobic capabilities are better in comparison to my ability to push a large (er) gear at a lower RPM.

On the other hand, when indoors I prefer to spin at around 100 rpm for my warm up, cool down and between intervals. But during my 20 minutes intervals at around 85-90% of FTP I find myself in the 89-91 range. It just feels more comfortable and the RPE is lower than if I try to hold the same power in my next lowest gear at what works out to be closer to 100 rpm.

I just ignore it and go with the flow.

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava
Quote Reply
Re: (gear + cadence = power) <> perception? [irontri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
true I only did the one test, but I did it to confirm my suspicions I had after a few long rides in the mountains where I would be riding at threshold for the entire climb, but have a very low HR. my coach doesn't believe in power training, but instead HR and wanted to readjust all my power zones because I was cruising up mountains in a Z2 HR while at what was supposed to be my threshold power. I didn't agree.
Quote Reply
Re: (gear + cadence = power) <> perception? [texafornia] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
>You'll find that you're great at what you practice. That's why lower cadence seems better for you at this time. But if you practice what is proven faster by faster people, you'll get better at getting faster like they are.

I have a natural TT cadence of around 80. Spent years trying to bring it up.

And it's not like I can't. I also race track where I can get to 120+ no problem, and race successfully.

But for TT I've just given up on trying to "correct" my cadence. I consistently self-select to 80 when it's really go-time, and I'm very happy with my power numbers at that cadence.

Giving up on trying to force myself to go higher.
Quote Reply
Re: (gear + cadence = power) <> perception? [Clempson] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Clempson wrote:
I did a little test a few months back where instead of using power to set my interval I used HR and cadence just to see the impact on power. Three 10 minute blocks, at the same HR, with cadences at 80, 90, and 100 RPM.

Average power for cadence@80: 294
Average power for cadence@90: 270
Average power for cadence@100: 260

HR was Z2 so that the previous intervals wouldn't skew results of the later ones. HR was highest for the 100 interval and lowest for the 90, with 3 BPM between the two averages.

If it was all in the same workout, it won't be valid, unless you repeated them 3 or 4 times in different orders, then repeated that multiple times during the week. Your HR will drift, sometimes a lot from a variety of factors. I would hold power constant, not HR.

My HR can still be zone 2 in some situations, 5' into a 100% effort.

Also I would use peak HR at the end of the interval, not average.

Was this a single leg power meter by chance? Stage or Vector S?


TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com
Quote Reply
Re: (gear + cadence = power) <> perception? [motoguy128] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
motoguy128 wrote:
If it was all in the same workout, it won't be valid, unless you repeated them 3 or 4 times in different orders, then repeated that multiple times during the week. Your HR will drift, sometimes a lot from a variety of factors. I would hold power constant, not HR.

My HR can still be zone 2 in some situations, 5' into a 100% effort.

Also I would use peak HR at the end of the interval, not average.

Was this a single leg power meter by chance? Stage or Vector S?
I understand this wasn't the most scientifically valid testing method, but I wasn't looking to get it published in anywhere either. Just checking a suspicion I had. The peak HR for each interval was not at the end of the interval, but somewhere in the middle with the entire interval moving in a 2-3bpm range when HR leveled off. The 100 interval had the highest peak, and the 90 the lowest peak with a 3bpm difference. I also did a good 20 minute warmup prior to starting with a bunch of superthreshold efforts of 1min on/off to try to minimize too much drift; I also made sure the 10min efforts were easy to prevent drift as well and keep legs fresh.

This was not a single leg powermeter, used a powertap G3; calibrated prior to starting the workout. If I ever want to do this again I'll consider holding power constant and seeing how that impacts the HR as the changing variable.
Quote Reply
Re: (gear + cadence = power) <> perception? [motoguy128] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: (gear + cadence = power) <> perception? [dsmallwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have been working high-cadence on the trainer lately. 100rpm minimum at all times. It was crazy hard at first, but I am getting much better at it and consistently putting more watts for more time than I felt was ever possible. Maybe you need some high cadence intervals to get conditioned at that cadence?
Quote Reply
Re: (gear + cadence = power) <> perception? [dsmallwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wouldn't worry about cadence too much, go with whatever works best for you. I've commuted ~10,000 miles on a singlespeed over the last couple of years, on a route with rolling hills, lots of stop-starts, sprints for lights, etc. So am working out 3-4 days a week over a full range of cadence from 50 to 130+. I assumed that would impact how I rode my other bikes but no - when I hop on the TT or road bike I cruise along at 85 just like I always have done, dropping slightly for climbs and raising slightly for descents or if I'm putting down a larger effort.
Quote Reply
Re: (gear + cadence = power) <> perception? [dsmallwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I used to train at 90-95rpm until last winter when I signed up for the Peak Centre race series on Computrainers. That was my first experience with a power meter. I did the first few races at 90+ rpm until I realized that I could hold a higher power for longer and more comfortably at around 80 rpm. Being the super-analytical type with two engineering degrees and a law degree, I obsessed about this since I wanted to make sure I could continue the stronger cycling into summer. Was it perception? Was I simply getting fitter? Was I recruiting different muscle groups? Had I made an adjustment to the bike? Was I sitting differently on the saddle, causing a change in angles and vectors?

What I finally concluded - temporarily, because I can never stop analyzing - is that I biked quite differently at a lower rpm. Cycling over 87 rpm meant that I had to expend energy stabilizing my hip so that I didn't rock side to side on the saddle (which would be extremely uncomfortable at that rpm and be too much At a lower rpm, I engage the hip and the gluteus in a more fluid motion and used the weight of the side of my body to push down the pedal. I didn't have the benefit of that weight when my hips were stable at the higher rpm, so I think the use of the weight (basically using gravity) is the extra force that was engaged, allowing for higher power at a lower effort.
Quote Reply
Re: (gear + cadence = power) <> perception? [dsmallwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The lower the cadence, the bigger the burden on the muscles. The higher the cadence, the bigger the burden on the heart. If you ride at too low of a cadence the leg muscles will fail early, and that's why 'spinning' tends to save the legs. So people with smaller muscle mass tend to have a higher cadence and people with larger (leg) muscles tend to have a lower cadence. Everyone lands at a different cadence b/c of this. Watching the Tour over the years is a great example of this. Drugs aside, some do great at a lower cadence (Ullrich) and some to great at a higher cadence (Armstrong, Contador). So to see your hr climb like that would be expected to some degree.

Badig| Strava


Quote Reply
Re: (gear + cadence = power) <> perception? [tjfry] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tjfry wrote:
The lower the cadence, the bigger the burden on the muscles. The higher the cadence, the bigger the burden on the heart. If you ride at too low of a cadence the leg muscles will fail early, and that's why 'spinning' tends to save the legs. So people with smaller muscle mass tend to have a higher cadence and people with larger (leg) muscles tend to have a lower cadence. Everyone lands at a different cadence b/c of this. Watching the Tour over the years is a great example of this. Drugs aside, some do great at a lower cadence (Ullrich) and some to great at a higher cadence (Armstrong, Contador). So to see your hr climb like that would be expected to some degree.

thank you.

i've used RPE, not a HR monitor, to gauge effort and i've spun so i could "save my legs". this makes me think i had decent leg strength but lacked the fitness for my heart to keep up. my legs weren't tired when i get off the bike but i was.

Quote Reply
Re: (gear + cadence = power) <> perception? [dsmallwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Don't forget that the inertial load is lower on trainer than on the road and leads to lower freely chosen cadence.

Francois-Xavier Li @FrancoisLi
"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing." George Bernard Shaw
http://www.swimrunfrance.fr
http://www.worldofswimrun.com
Quote Reply
Re: (gear + cadence = power) <> perception? [dsmallwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I am much like you. However I train to get a higher cadence because I find it much easier to respond to changes to speed in a bike race. When TT headwind gusting it takes more out of me with the low cadence. It takes more energy to speed the pedals up in a low cadence for me. So when I TT i will start in a higher cadence and hold my selected watts. When my hr starts rising too high i actually shift into a bigger gear and slow my cadence but hold same wattage. So for me I can spin until tired then cadence down and recover some hr wise but if I get tired in low cadence I cant recover accept decreasing watts. I think that for me I tire out my fast twitch muscles then use my slowtwitch muscles or vice versa. I am sure somebody will come in here and say Bullhit but it works for me.
Quote Reply
Re: (gear + cadence = power) <> perception? [dsmallwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
There's no one right answer on cadence that applies to everyone. I run 6 CompuTrainers four times a week and see all types of athletes and cadences. One athlete is a natural and smooth 110 rpm and couldn't spin at 75 to save his soul without stalling out and rocking so hard (260 FTP). Another athlete is quite comfortable at 75-80 and couldn't spin 110 rpm without bouncing around so much she'd fall off the trainer (170 FTP). Another guy is happy at 90 rpm (300 FTP).

I believe there are constraints, however. Below 65 rpm, the strain on the joints can be considerable, especially at high wattages. Not such a good idea for us "over 60" folks. Above 110 rpm, similarly, there is a lot of muscle activity in relation to power per revolution.
Quote Reply

Prev Next