Perfectly. Within a moderate range, cadence can loosely reflect percentage of threshold power.

roughly this is what i've witnessed across 70+ athletes over the years

lazy day ride up to about IM effort (70% of FTP) = 75 and below

Half IM effort (80-85% of FTP) = 80s

Threshold like effort (sprint, only, 40k TT, 90-100% FTP) = high 80s to mid 90s

Supra Threshold efforts = 95+

---

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

do you not think its worth it trying to spin at a higher cadence even when at lower %'s of FTP e.g. spinning at 90-100 when at 70% ftp?

I don't know why I do this, but what I have absolutely noticed is that I can spin at 90+ but as soon as my energy levels drop from poor nutrition the cadence just drops immediately

just relaying what i've seen from file analysis. This is also how i personally ride. Every research study about cadence suggest that self selection is the way to go (and the numbers I posted are roughly the result of the science of self selection). Only rarely do I intervene in an athlete's cadence... like when they are doing their 5minute efforts at 45 rpms.

---

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

Spinning on low Watts is useful at times as it can improve pedalling efficiency in the long term.

However trying to overspin at low efforts when out riding will sacrifice your overall physiological efficiency for that ride (HR will be high relative to the Wattage), so it isn't a good idea to do it on the majority on your rides.

The reason that cadence goes higher as intensity increases is that your body is trying to limit the force of each contraction of the leg muscles to keep it comfortable. If they contract more times then they don't have to contract as forcefully each time.

I hope this helps.

I doubt this is true.

So you don't think that high cadence intervals are useful then?

Yes and the reason why self selection is the way to go is because our brain is remarkably good at working out by feel, what cadence and what force is the best to generate the power to give the speed the brain wants.

People should learn to trust their brain and its ability to do things by feel rather than become reliant on numerical feedback.

Just my opinion.

What's a high cadence interval?

Is that supposed to be in pink?

I have found that easy recovery rides spent spinning a high cadence at a low power leave my legs feeling fresher later in the day and into the next day than the same poser at low cadence. For numbers an average power of 120-130 at a cadence of 105ish seems good for me. Same power at lower cadence like 95 and I feel flat following.

Other than this I don't watch cadence when I ride.

My two cents.

And Powercranks will boost your FTP by 40%. Evidence for both claims is similarly non-existent.

Hmmm. It's interesting that you can feel the difference between those two.

Could very well be a placebo and of course there are many other factors that could make an effect. But I feel better on the recovery days when I keep the cadence high. Might have something to due with muscle contraction velocities and blood flow rather then simply crank torque.

Again, could just be in my head. That is why these discussions happen though. To tease out anecdote that has no truth. But remember, I will not dismiss my confirmation bias.

Perhaps he's a descendant of the Princess of pea fame;)

Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

So there were other factors not just cadence, as I went back and looked at the rides where I felt good and felt flat following.

This week recovery ride, felt very good/fresh following:

Tuesday:

Avg watts: 125, cadence 106, HR 105


Last Thursday, did not feel like it helped recovery:

Avg watts: 141, cadence 90, Hr 112.


I think in retrospect I screwed up the Thursday recovery ride. The power was higher than it should have been and the cadence was low for me. This is why we keep the records.

Look at the plot above with cadence on the x-axis and crank torque on the y-axis. Imagine a region around 95-105 rpm with watts above 300, then imagine a region around 90-95 with watts between 250 and 300. What is your cadence (for the same terrain) when your power is in the 200 - 250 range? For many people, it will be a little lower still. For the same terrain, when you increase power you generally increase both cadence and crank torque -- you don't just hold cadence constant and move vertically up to higher crank torque. The amount that you increase cadence and crank torque (for the same terrain) turns out to be individual. Some people increase their crank torque more and their cadence less, some people increase their cadence more and their crank torque less -- but almost everyone increases both a little rather than holding one of them constant. The particular pattern you have for a particular terrain determines the power expansion path.

Things are a little different when you're climbing vs. on the flat. Power expansion paths differ for climbs and flats, which is why I've been specifying "the same terrain."

Are you saying that you don't believe people can feel the difference between 95rpm and 105 rpm?

No. I was saying that it's interesting that there's difference between the two in the way he feels the next day, with the 125 watts at 95 rpm leaving him feeling "flat" the next day compared to 125 watts at 105 rpm. You don't find that interesting?

I agree, completely physiological in nature and dependent on the athletes muscle fiber composition. Most people do find a natural range in that 87-93rpm range, but it all depends. You can't tell someone they aren't doing it right, because honestly there is no right answer. Some people are more efficient at 100rpm, but I can't ever do that. It shows in FUEL testing myself in my physiology lab that my energy cost is lower for the same power outputs at lower RPM's.


For me it's easier to ride a race @ 75rpm / 330watts / HR 150bpm


When I try do efforts @ 90RPM / 330watts / HR 165bpm.


Find out what is most efficient for you, and stick with it. Or you can take time to teach your body to be more efficient at other rpms, but that takes much longer and most of us can't take the time to train that much.


Hope this helps

---

Carson Christen
Sport Scientist / Coach
Torden Multisport

It's worth noting that when I said "efficient" in my first post on this thread, I was talking about a more efficient pedalling action (making more of your pedalling force tangential rather than radial).
This would lead to higher power out as measured, even if you aren't actually producing any more force.

I have no idea if intervals like this can lead to purely physiological improvements in efficiency.

Trev,

I'm thinking that a fellow with an FTP of 260 or so probably isn't harming his "recovery" too much when pedaling at an IF of less than .50 whether he pedals with a cadence 105 or 95. It's such an easy effort for him in either case that other factors are more likely to have caused the feeling of flatness.

Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

Correct, and I went back and looked at the rides I was thinking about, and there was a difference in the watts as well as a 15rpm difference in the cadence.

Good guess, FTP is around 270ish.

There might be something to be said for doing high cadence drills in order to reduce any detriment to riding at a cadence far higher than the preferred cadence (i.e. broadening one's power band), but I don't think the literature does much to promote the idea that training high cadence improves one's pedaling "technique" so to speak.

I do know that I'm becoming less affected by being out of my preferred cadence "band" as result of joining my university's track cycling team. Not sure how much that translates into power versus being up in my head, but I'd like to think there's a neuromuscular component in there somewhere.
.

---

The question of who is right and who is wrong has seemed to me always too small to be worth a moment's thought, while the question of what is right and what is wrong has seemed all-important.

-Albert J. Nock