I'm with you now. Yes I do find it interesting. Not being him I wouldn't want to say why 95 rpm leaves him feeling flat the next day compared to 105 rpm at the same power. Possibly, more muscle contractions might aid active recovery better than fewer? Difference in force is minimal. Heart rate increase at 105 rpm minimal. Would the recruitment of muscle fibres be much different at 95rpm to at 105rpm?

But if 105rpm feels different to 95rpm, which it does, it shouldn't be impossible that the feeling the next day is different.

But if you subscribe to the only relevant factor being watts then you would have to say it's in his mind.

But if it feels hard it is hard, so you could say if it feels better the next day it was better.

Me tongue is in me cheek mate.

Your opinion?

would you read my follow up.

I'm not Robert, but I think this chart is better:

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au

I wish I'd done that.

Sorry missed it. To clarify then, which power made you feel better the next day the higher of the lower? And what was the difference in the wattage?

what I don't really understand is, that I like riding in, lets say 39*13 at 90-95 RPM - if I move to 53*18 which is "very close" to the 39*13 and try to spin at 90-95, it feels completely different in spite of the fact that they are very close in gear inches - so with the same cadence, they should feel the same shouldn't they?

Would there be a little more friction in 39/13 than 53/18 with a bit more chain cross over?(Depending on the sprockets you have.)

Also seem to remember that smaller sprockets are less efficient than larger sprockets.

That's interesting. Under the same conditions? How different?

I think its psycho-somatic if I'm honest - so if I'm sat in with a group, and this happens every week I ride with them, we're all dawdling along and I'll see what everyone else is doing and they're in the big ring, lower cadence, so I go out of the 39, in to the big ring - same sort of gear inches - though it probably isn't and it feels like my cadence is less, or I'm pushing harder and I just switch back to spinning along

I am guessing that the gears are not as close as I think they are, as there should not be any physical difference if the gear inches are the same should there?

39/13 = 3, while 53/18 is actually a tiny bit (~2%) lower, at 2.94. So at the same speed you'd be spinning just a bit less than 2% faster.

If one does 60 minutes at an average 250 watts at an average 85 rpm one day but the next does 60 minutes at an average of 250 watts but 105 rpm both rides score the same TSS but the 60 minutes at 105rpm required 20 more rpm to achieve. Which would use the most oxygen? Which would cause the higher heart rate? Which would stress the cadio vascular system more?

i definitely can not tell the difference between 91 rpm and 89.x, I am not related to the princess and the pea, either way, it feels different or I think it feels different and the only real way for me to address it, is to actually spend more time in the big ring and get over it

this is similar to noticing yesterday with a ridiculously strong headwind that on the out and back X watts downwind feels easier than X watts up wind - but it shouldn't other than for the fact that down wind you can freewheel and not lose much speed, but if you are pushing a given number of watts, the perceived effort shouldn't change but it feels different

the concrete example of this was my FTP test, its a 9.55km loop and pushing 270 watts in to the wind feels a damn sight harder than pushing it down wind but a watt is a watt right? I cant explain these things

Plot your pedal force - pedal speed (or equivalently, your cadence - crank torque) for the upwind and downwind parts of your ride.

are you saying there is a material difference? I thought a watt was a watt irrespective of other factors

I will do this though

Sit on bike. Detatch chain. Spin pedals at 50rpm, zero power. Spin pedals at 100rpm, zero power.

Check heart rate after 10 minutes at 50 rpm, check heart rate after 10 minutes at 100 rpm.



All watts are not created equally.

No, I'm trying to see if there is a material difference.

Umm, it will take more watts to spin at 100rpm than 50rpm if the chain is off.

CV is going to do whatever the body demands of it. You aren't training CV*


*save for very rare high out put occasions.

---

36 kona qualifiers 2006-'23 - 3 Kona Podiums - 4 OA IM AG wins - 5 IM AG wins - 18 70.3 AG wins
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Garmin Glycogen Use App | Garmin Fat Use App

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...articles/PMC3918546/

""When competitive cyclists perform prolonged exercise that simulates racing conditions (i.e., variable, low-moderate submaximal cycling), a higher cadence results in excess energy expenditure and lower gross efficiency compared to a lower cadence at the same power output.""

Might be of some interest.

As the higher cadence results in excess energy expenditure and lower gross efficiency for the same power output you might argue that a training session at high cadence gives greater training stress than a session at low cadence at the same power.

Over time could this added stress, greater metabolic cost, have cumulative training benefits?

To quote further from the above link.


""This “optimal” cadence minimizes the amount of muscle activation for a given power output and increases as power output is elevated (Coast and Welch, 1985; MacIntosh et al., 2000); effects that may be linked to the force-velocity relationships of the contracting muscles (Coast and Welch, 1985; MacIntosh et al., 2000). However, the higher oxygen uptakes observed while pedaling at 100 rpm suggests that this cadence also causes greater muscle activation and energy turnover. Higher pedal frequencies necessitate higher oxygen uptakes at a given power output due to elevations in internal work associated with concomitant increases in repetitive leg movement (Coast and Welch, 1985; Gasser and Brooks, 1975). ""

So, if there is greater muscle activation, elevation in internal work, higher oxygen uptake etc for a given power, training at higher rpm may well have additional training benefits.

Old school English cycling training made use of training over winter on a fixed gear which necessitated a high cadence. A modern twist on this might be to turn your daily commute from an easy moderate power output at low cadence to a high cadence session at the same power and speed. On cold days it will keep you a little bit warmer too. When in a group or in traffic or when the plan is to keep power within certain limits one could opt for a higher cadence at the same power.

There could be long term cumilative gains in deliberately choosing the higher cadence option for a given power in training.

I will do this on my next ride on the same stretch in 2 weeks time

Thanks. I'll be interested to see what you get.

dont mistake CV with metabolic. CV will respond to just about anything metabolic throws at it.

---

36 kona qualifiers 2006-'23 - 3 Kona Podiums - 4 OA IM AG wins - 5 IM AG wins - 18 70.3 AG wins
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Garmin Glycogen Use App | Garmin Fat Use App

Are you saying the metabolic cost is the same for a given power at both 80rpm and 100rpm?

i'm saying it doesn't mater what the metabolic cost is.... the CV will respond to whatever load is demanded of it.

---

36 kona qualifiers 2006-'23 - 3 Kona Podiums - 4 OA IM AG wins - 5 IM AG wins - 18 70.3 AG wins
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Garmin Glycogen Use App | Garmin Fat Use App