Cadence is a function of power.
As the race distance increases your average power is lower, therefore lower average cadence.

Yeah, if riding a single speed.

 
Just like "Rest high, train low", cadence should be "Train high, race whatever."

---

----------------------------------------------------------
Zen and the Art of Triathlon. Strava Workout Log
Interviews with Chris McCormack, Helle Frederikson, Angela Naeth, and many more.
http://www.zentriathlon.com

There is no universally applicable answer to your question. It "depends." The best thing you can do is first start by self-selecting the cadence that feels best to you. From there, experiment with dropping or raising your cadence. As a general rule, if you feel like your legs are the first to go, increase cadence. If you feel like your lungs are the first to go, decrease cadence. You have to find what works best for you, and in order to do that, you have to experiment.

---

Amateur recreational hobbyist cyclist
https://www.strava.com/athletes/337152
https://vimeo.com/user11846099

I'll explain and I'll use small words so that you'll be sure to understand, you warthog faced buffoon.

Well that escalate quickly.

Those are short cranks.

What is your inseam?

What is the professional circuit?

Crank length shouldn't have anything to do with your cadence as it relates to power. Changing chainrings would, but that's not what you're asking. Ride whatever cadence you're comfortable at and whatever you can maintain effectively for your race duration.

More like .... Train High AND Train Low to allow you to race whatever is needed ;-)

---

-------------------------
Dave Latourette
http://www.TTENation.com

Princess Bride.

Hahaha!

---

---------------------------------------------------------------

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/profile/domingjm

...inconceivable.

where do you feel most efficient/strong? That is where you should ride.

Train all cadences to become more efficient across the board so when the course requires it you can ride well (think downhill from Hawi, you better be able to ride at 100+ rpms for awhile). Or if you need to power up a hill you are good with lower cadences.

150s are some short ass cranks....

Do you also worry about low vs. high crank torque? Why or why not?

Some thoughts from Brett Sutton's squad

http://blog.trisutto.com/the-great-cadence-debate/

How much truth is to be found in this? Is this just one mans view or a general consensus? (that you should go lower cad on the long distances).

Just looking at the 2 trainingpekas articles about Lionel at Kona (87 cad) and 84 (ocenside) (which i guess should have been the other way around according to the link). That does not seem like low cadence. Or is low just "below" 90?

Personally i have done 93 cad for 70.3 and 89 for full, and wondering if you should just stick with natrual or try to lower it.

Eh? The chainring size most definitely does *not* influence your preferred or ideal cadence. It will likely influence which gear you use on the cassette...;)

The crank length effects foot and leg speed, so *does* influence cadence. It's normal for a person who uses shorter cranks to self-select a higher cadence.

when you write stuff like this, it makes me think that having a couple of beers over 90 minutes talking with you would yield some valuable and lasting ideological approaches.

if, that is, i could get from you some unnuanced answers that my limited brain could understand. which is not a given.

who was it. alan couzens? who wrote here a few weeks ago that muscles like to operate over their full range of motion. the full span of contraction. or some such thing. which to me doesn't make sense unless you attach a lot of caveats that take into consideration the issues a mechanical engineer faces. yes, my muscle "likes" to operate a certain way. but, what if that preference collides with inefficient use? in other words, in long distance running the major trunk and lower leg muscles don't come close to being used through their full range, because it such use would clash with the mechanical advantage those muscles operate under during typical running. indeed, it's my view - solely through observation - that runners learn (teach themselves) to truncate the shortening of their muscles as they get more proficient (they don't overstride when they get better).

so, pardon the digression, but as an untrained amateur this is what fascinates me about physiology, and why i think maury hull and jim martin have enjoyed some advantages over those simply trained in the life sciences: as mechanical engineers they recognize (if i can speak for them without permission) that there's always a tension between life science ideals and mechanical realities.

on this question of cadence, what i find is that i ride as if i'm keeping torque constant. that is, my cadence varies by 25 beats during a ride, depending on whether i'm riding at 60 percent of my FTP or 120 percent of it. that means cadence is a by-product, rather than a driver. torque is the driver. and we had this discussion some weeks ago, and i felt like you were kind of arguing for that, but not fully so. i never did understand how you felt about that. as to who's fault that was, it's all me, sweetheart, not you.

just, as to this guy's question, i no longer believe that cadence is the metric that ought to drive behavior, but that doesn't mean there isn't a behavior-driving metric of value out there for us.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

What do you mean truth? The blog wasn't written to be deceitful or lie. Different people will hold different opinions.

It's the advice that Brett Sutton gives his athletes, his squad uses, and underpins his training programmes.

I'm not going to get into a pedantic internet argument about it. It's the approach they use, and the blog gives some justification for it. Make your own mind up.

If your knees are in good shape you could always do strength reps on the bike and see if your natural cadence drops. I doubt it would hurt anything... except maybe your knees.

You use energy just to make your legs do the pedal circle, even with no power output. It isn't a trivial amount. But the other aspect is the effect on muscle fatigue. Low cadence increases force during the stroke. So will you fatigue quicker with a higher force and slower on-off rate, or a lower force but quicker on-off rate?

It's normal for optimal cadence to be lower if the event is longer because power output is lower. It changes the balance.

Perhaps, but in any event we'd have had a couple of beers.

I think both theory and data show that

1. we constantly change both cadence and crank torque to meet demand;
2. "cadence and crank crank torque" are determined by crank length, pedal force, and foot speed;
3. the trade-off between cadence and crank torque depends on (among other things) the type of race, the length of race, the terrain, the weather, and sometimes race tactics.

Here is a plot showing cadence and crank torque for the *same guy* in three different types of races:



It's clear that he didn't use the same cadence on the flat crit, the semi-rolling road race, or the mostly flat TT. (The red dotted lines show his power output). Here are cadence, crank torque, and power plots for a different rider, but on a pure hillclimb (I think he finished either 2nd or 3rd):



I think taken together, this means that the cadence and crank torque riders use in one race may not be transferable to other races. I think the cadence and crank torque riders use on a trainer in their basement may not be transferable to hilly rides on the road, or even TTs.

I think this means that you should train to meet the demands of the rides or races you do, and that focusing solely on cadence is a red herring.

i think certainly for the crit, and largely for the road race, the other factor is the dynamics of the race that are beyond your control. maybe that's what you mean by race tactics - not necessarily your tactics, but the tactics of others that determine what power and cadence you're forced to ride.

i hear you on the trainer issue, i just still struggle with: do i ride the trainer differently because the trainer requires different responses from me than the open road? or, without the input of the open road, i ride more appropriately on the trainer, and if i transfered what i learn from the trainer to the road i'd be more effective on the road? on the one hand, it's intuitive to me that what i ride on the road is appropriate for the road. on the other hand, what cadences i choose on the trainer are what i see good riders do on the road.

i would love to see what your plots look like for a rider who's forced to pedal, variously, 80 percent, 90 percent, up to 120 percent of his FTP on his trainer.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Low cadence works for some others have a high cadence. My coach, who I have discussed this with, says self selected cadence is the best way to go. I read an article by Brett Sutton (who is advocate of low cadence) that he has had some athletes who he coached ride 80-85 and some as high as 96 (I think she was a world champion if I recall correctly) so "it depends" is correct. I will quote Dr. Andrew Coggan and take a few liberties..high cadence(my words) is "descriptive not prescriptive". Try both and see which your body prefers and go with that. :)

---

"see the world as it is not as you want it to be"

Spoke to the winner of a local tri yesterday and asked his cadence. He said 110 and on hills 120. I believe him as I saw him racing, it was insane how fast his feet were going

He didn’t advocate that he said do what feels best. And I asked about bike racing, he’s never done it so I guess 110 feels good to him. For me my heart rate increases too much