As I answered you initially, whether how you produce power matters depends on your perspective, i.e., the adaptations under consideration.

Also as I answered initially, multiple analytical tools are available (and have been for a long time) for assessing such questions.

Regardless, as I (and others) pointed out before, torque isn't really relevant - what truly matters is the force and speed of muscle contraction, so best to think in those terms.

Power = torque x angular velocity.

IOW, if you know two, the other is calculable, i.e. the interrelationship is fixed.

Instead of thinking about cadence and torque, how about looking at pedal force and foot speed...especially since that's what your body "sees"?

And then, we're back to talking about QA plots...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

You forgot the "scl scntst" named "Red" ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Who is this "we"? Likely the only reason cadence was looked at "for generations" was because it was the only variable that was easily measurable. That does not mean that taking action based on that variable was actually useful.

i don't disagree. and, that's also what i said. cadence was used because cadence was calculable. some of these smart guys above are introducing additional metrics that i think may also be helpful. i don't know. angular velocity. the speed of muscle contractions (tho i don't know how you measure that).

by "we" i mean all the people - literally everyone, virtually without exception - of any import and excellence in cycling who came before you.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

...actually, tangential velocity (i.e. "foot speed"). "Angular velocity" is just cadence in different units. There's a difference.


Tangential velocity/foot speed is basically a direct proxy for muscle contraction speed.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

You have specifically cited the the importance of cadence to support your argument that torque might be important. However in the case that cadence is effectively a secondary signal – i.e. it is not cause but result – your argument is rendered moot. What people have believed about cadence for generations is irrelevant; as I'm sure you know coaches and athletes have adhered to many erroneous beliefs over the years.

We monitor "results" as important metrics all the time. Most of the "causes" are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to monitor in real-time and, in addition to that, there are multiple causes that lead to the result.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

I have a serious question about running. Are there running coaches who specify stride rate independent of run pace or stride length? If so, do they also sometimes specify stride length independent of stride rate?

coaches routinely talk about stride rate. 180 steps a minute. they very rarely talk about stride length as a specific metric. 6 feet. 7 feet. that's not done. that i know of.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Do they talk about muscle fiber types, and differential recruitment?

Not good ones.

Now you're just playing with him...

I don't see an obligatory train wreck either. But you probably have the data already. Power and cadence gives you torque (average per rotation) with a little bit of post-processing, from there a few exploratory scatter plots will tell you if there is a pattern indicating a relationship.
Ramp test data tells me that as power demand increases, I choose to use a higher cadence, I do upshift as speed increases but not enough to keep cadence constant.
With a cubic power curve, 26% faster = doubling the power. So on a constant gear, 26% increase in cadence 59% increase in torque. Constant cadence, 100% increase in torque. Constant torque, 100% increase in cadence therefore 59% reduction in gearing for 26% higher speed. So I'm certainly choosing to reduce the increase in torque that would have been required for a constant cadence, but definitely not keeping it constant.
I could check on two turbotrainers with completely different power curves to see what consistency I exhibit, if any.

Am I making the right choices? Who could tell me, apart from my own internal feedback?
My first guesses are that I have chosen a crank length that provides the "right" balance between pedal force and limb articulation, and then choose a cadence that provides the "right" balance between pedal force and speed. A shorter crank and lower gear could provide unchanged pedal force and speed for a given power, it would be produced with a higher cadence and reduced limb articulation. What is most effective for (a) an individual performance and (b) positive adaptation for individual future performances are further questions that I lack the knowledge to answer. I probably couldn't even fathom the correct intermediate questions.

Here’s one from Steve magnets:

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/...tride-frequency.html

Cheers,
Maurice

resist... being... that... coggan!

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

just answering a question, brother. not offering my opinion. i don't ascribe to stride rate as a useful metric. but that was not what i was asked. i was asked, "are there running coaches that..."

but there is a fundamental difference between running and cycling, which is quite obvious to those of use who do both, and which render comparisons not very helpful. there is no "stride length in cycling or, to put it another way, there is 1 stride length. not changeable. unless you change the crank length. and then there's another. not changeable. not coachable.

so, it's not helpful to try to draw a conclusion by comparing the two sports.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

If I’m reading Steve’s article above correctly he delineates between force production (stride length) and force frequency (stride rate)

Similar variables to cycling no?

Anyways, laymen’s summary: people are different, don’t pidgeon hole improvements in performance to one variable (pose method) to the exclusion of other obvious variables.

2c
Maurice

I understand your point, but there are coaches that ascribe to all kinds of crazy ideas or are stuck with ideas that are 30 years old.

It doesn't seem helpful to answer "yes" when the science has been pretty clear on the point of running cadence and many renouned coaches on this forum have made the point repeatedly.

The cycling equivalent of stride length is gear inches. Given your history I'm sure you know this.

throttle back, pard! if you want to yell at me, can you start another thread for that purpose? perhaps there was an agenda to the question. i don't know. what i do know is that the easiest way to see a fight, other than turning on HBO on saturday night, is to get 2 coaches in 1 room. the answer i gave was straightforward and directly to the point. further - and while i don't agree with focusing on stride rate - there is still waaaaaay more "coaches" fixated on this than on any other metric in running. it's running's version of 220 minus your age. you may go postal or even go fedex on my ass, but that doesn't change the answer to the question i was asked.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Not yelling. Just conversing. Can't be bothered to yell at the internets much anymore.

I agree that there are a bunch that still focus on it like 220-age. I put them in the same mental group.

That's a good suggestion. In fact, if you took into consideration crank length (and thus how much/how fast muscles shorten at a particular cadence), and also drew lines demarcating different regions based on physiological data, you might really be on to something.

Hey, I'm just trying to protect you from the cat that keeps batting you around.

i don't mind being batted around a little.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman