That is fine if you are trying to break the hour. Trying to win a triathlon is such a completely different thing you simply cannot compare the 2 and say you should pedal at over 100 rpm in triathlon. There is no correct answer here - you have to try these things out for yourself. I challenge you to ride at 100+ rpm for 6 hours then run your best marathon off the bike.

---

http://mobile.twitter.com/BLambTriathlete
Athlete of the Week
Meet the Team
Headwear

Point taken, 100 rpms might not be optimal for a full Ironman. The original poster did not state he was a full distance Ironman athlete, he was asking about acceptable cadence for trainer rides. My point is whatever you train is what you will be good at and that most Hour Records are done close to 100 rpms. Not everyone on this forum is a long distance triathlete which includes me so riding 6 hours then running a marathon in not applicable in my case.

---

BoulderCyclingCoach.com

Serious question. How would one go about figuring out if they are pedaling at 180N pedal force or any N pedal force for that matter? For example, I have a rear hub powertap. Can I extract that information somehow? Thanks,

James N.

Practical answer: either Golden Cheetah or WKO+ or Raceday creates a pedal force-pedal speed plot.

Pedantic answer: watts = pedal force (in N) * pedal speed (in m/s), so since you know watts and cadence and your crank length, you can figure out your pedal speed.

Serious answer: optimal pedal force is about as useful as optimal cadence. Cadence is a red herring. People who prescribe cadence do cargo cult science.

Gotcha. Thanks!

93 rpm.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Point taken, 100 rpms might not be optimal for a full Ironman.

I think there is plenty of evidence that optimal cadence scales with effort, so I'd expect the optimal IM pro cadence to be well under 100 rpm.

Another thing to consider is that non-pros who are putting out lower power levels may very well have an optimal cadence that is lower for the same duration of event. From my personal experience though, I favor a cadence in the 90-95 range for 1hr efforts, on power that is a lot less than pro. So maybe not a huge factor there.

It's a tradeoff between the inherent "wasted" energy of moving your legs around vs the optimal force and repetition rates that will result in the highest sustainable power. In other words just spinning your legs around fast takes more energy. It's also less aero. So when you favor higher cadence you take that loss so that you can reduce the force applied. Of course you will have to repeat that force at a faster rate.

I noticed when Andy Coggan came to Moriarty a few years back he used some huge gears and low cadence. I figured it was something he'd been experimenting with. I don't recall him saying anything about it though, like how much if anything he gained from it.

See my previous post, or the whole thread....

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...rch_string=;#5439156

---

David T-D
http://www.tilburydavis.com

Yikes! <duck and cover>

---

AndyF
bike geek

Anybody?..............

---

http://mobile.twitter.com/BLambTriathlete
Athlete of the Week
Meet the Team
Headwear

No, I've just always pedaled slowly. Even in my youth, for example, I would self-select a cadence of 88 rpm (i.e., 22 pedal strokes in 15 s) in flat TTs. Presumably it is the result of being heavily skewed to the slow-twitch end of the spectrum.

ETA: Here's that TT, BTW. As you can see, I was pretty much on pace on the way out, and was averaging 79 rpm. The altitude and effort started getting to me after the turn-around, though, and I averaged only 75 rpm on the way back.

I find just the opposite in my own cycling. In a 6-hour TT (non-triathlon) I averaged about 80 RPM. That's almost purely aerobic. In a 40K TT I'll do about 90. Mostly aerobic, but dipping a bit into anaerobic capacity at times. In a 4K pursuit about 110. Dipping significantly into anaerobic territory.

I'm pretty sure rockdude is comparing equivalent efforts. You are just showing that optimal cadence varies with effort.

I heard some talk concerning Lance's high cadence climbing back in the day that claimed he was saving glycogen. I suspect that EPO shifts the curve a little.

I don't know what Chrissie's cadence was, but in footage of her in all but the last few miles at Kona, she looked to be in the 60s. It did appear that she upped the cadence at the end. I presumed this was to loosen up her legs for the run.

---

_________________
Dick

Take everything I say with a grain of salt. I know nothing.

Optimal cadence A as established by determining the least amount of internal work for a given external work output, varies according to the individual, total work rate and fatigue.

The best performing cadence for racing is always slightly faster than A. This is because of small rises or need for acceleration. A small rise, for example, reduces cadence while maintaining, if not increasing power. This reduction is costly if you were at the optimal cadence at the time of the rise. It is more efficient to absorb a momentary increase in power resulting from a rise from a higher cadence. The converse isn't true however. That is, it isn't critical to have do deal with a sudden decrease in power from a dip. You simply coast.

---

Armando Mastracci, Founder of Xert, an advanced data analytics and training platform. Blog, Podcasts

+1 @rruff

The one thing we should add to this is that there is a distinction between optimal cadence and optimal gearing. In many ways, cadence is red herring in that people will self-select optimal cadences naturally. What doesn't always happen is that people will choose the gear that gives them a cadence that is closest to optimal. In other words, if given the choice between poor gear A and better gear B, athletes will always choose B. But if the athlete isn't aware that B is better and that it is there for them to choose, they may just stay in gear A.

We've found that when people ride with Bioshift for example, people are often surprised that it shifts for them at times and they almost always say "hey, that feels good." They're just not aware that they should shift and they just suffer through a bad gear. A common mistake is to wait until the gear becomes *so* inefficient before they make a change .. the so-called lazy shifter.

So the moral of the story is shift often. Always look for a better gear even before you need it. Anticipate. Always be choosing. Cadence will then be a red herring.

---

Armando Mastracci, Founder of Xert, an advanced data analytics and training platform. Blog, Podcasts