If you're noticably faster, you would be crazy not to keep doing this in cycling races. The only possible drawback is when doing a triathlon, you might go 5 mins faster on the bike, but 10 slower on the run. But you won't know till you try!

Well certainly I'll try this a few more times Zwift races and all that. Actual triathlons are a bit different because there's the whole aerodynamics-of-being-out-of-the-saddle issue to contend with. That will more than eat up any watts I save.

I'm just really mistrustful of thinking things like, "Hey I've discovered the secret of climbing"

If you say cadence three times in one post, you might summon RChung.

Personally, all my power PR’s over 20ish minutes tend to be around 75 rpm, especially on flat roads since it gives me margin to respond/accelerate during brief, slightly declining road imperfections without changing gears.

Higher cadence = higher HR.

Low cadence works great for triathlon too. Taxing the heart less means you can use those beats for the run. Caveat: you have to train your muscles at lower cadences.

Low cadence is more efficient at low power.

Try a max 20' test or 4x4' @ VO2 max with high/low cadence - i'd be surprised if low cadence was easier.

---

#######
My Blog

I am not disputing your point about efficiency, but these climbs were both around an hour or so long, so arguably they were FTP tests in and of themselves, no? I was trying to put out as much consistent power as I could for one hour

I dont know if that is "low power" and I have no idea how efficient I was compared to my normal, seated effort at cadence 90. All I know is that I was able to hold more power for the hour. That was the goal.

So if I were to do either of those tests as I did these climbs and perform worse riding in this low-cadence, out of the saddle manner compared to how I normally ride, I'm not sure what that would even mean.

I suppose it would mean that you do whatever works for you.

I'm going to focus on TT this year (thus my return to ST after years absence) and I've noticed the following so far:

When trying a 20-30 min TT effort while holding a steady and even power I naturally hit 100+ RPM on short sharp climbs, 92-94 RPM cruising on the flat & downhill.
What I discovered is that on the downhills I'm not able to hold a high power at 'normal cadence'.
I then tried pushing 60-65 RPM on the downhills and found it easy to hold TT power on the downhills.

So now: 92-95 RPM on the flats. Spin up the short hills and grind downhill.

Or in summary: I do what works for me.

---

#######
My Blog

How are you managing that? A 100 tooth chainring?

I typically run a 54T that is 1x and either an 11-28 or 12-25. Downhill on either I'm almost always spinning up pretty good to keep going. How exactly are you grinding downhill? That would imply like 70rpm or even less.

On a 54/11, that's only like 28mph for over 70rpm. A grinding 65rpm is like 25mph in a 54/11.

Where I live it's rolling terrain of +2->4 degree slope all the time so the hills aren't big enough or long enough to get a 54x11 up to full speed.
Once the gradient goes down I drop it into 54x11. By the time I hit 50km/h i'm still only at 75 RPM.

---

#######
My Blog

I get your strategy on the hill route, we have similar routes here. The math on the gears and speeds and cadence just aren't making sense to me.

How?

54/11 at 75rpm on a 25mm tire is 46.6kph. It takes over 80rpm to hit 50kph on a 54/11. Even for a 28mm rear tire, it takes over 80rpm. 5rpm isn't trivial.

Not saying you don't do it, I just don't get it. Perhaps not watching the bike computer during the downhill and you're spinning faster than you think?

Several trainers give inaccurate readings at low cadence. Have you verified with a power meter or climbing a real hill at similar rpm?

When I say I am holding significantly higher watts, I'm not comparing it to my riding on the roads. I'm comparing it to riding the same Zwift course on the same bike on the same trainer. I do Alpe du Zwift all the time. Practically every other ride.

But if it matters, it's a TACX Neo 2 on the same bike with a Pioneer crank-based power meter. They're extremely close.

Edited to add: Oops: I understand now what you were saying. I will admit I did not compare the Pioneer vs TACX specifically at low cadence. Maybe that is it. That would make a lot more sense. I'll try that the next time I ride

i think when mike woods won the ventoux virtual stage he said his running background allowed him to to stand and grind the whole race, where in real life he couldn't do something like this because of the aero penalty

Incidentally is the TACX Neo 2 supposedly one of those trainers?

No worries. Something to check.

As the Tacx Neo is the only Direct Drive trainer available, I'd expect it to be the most accurate and reliable.

However, its design is different to the others and I haven't had the opportunity to test one.

In general, the most recent gens of all trainers are far more reliable than those of even a couple of years ago.

A few years ago, I was hit with persistent AFIB, and I was on medication to control it for about a year and half. One of the effects of the medication was that as long as my heart was in rhythm my HR wouldn't go above 115bpm. With my normal 95rpm cadence, I found myself going anaerobic at about 100w. What I found was that by lowering my cadence, I could put out more power at 115bpm (but still well below my pre-AFIB FTP). I settled in at about 65-70rpm until I was taken off the medications, and even now my new normal cadence is high 70s with my FTP a bit higher than before the AFIB...

---

"I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10, and I don't know why!"

N=1 experience is that when my cadence drops, for the same power (roughly speaking as when outside the power is jumping around) my speed is a tenth or two faster at lower rpm.

And then there is this https://journals.lww.com/...ficiency_and.12.aspx

Similar results were reported in that old MIT Press book on cycling.

A few notes to add to your thinking.

HR means nothing. when comparing short term data, ride x vs x.

Your high cadence seated is just VERY inefficient. you are pedaling air with great effort. likely a high amount of seat pressure and arm pressure.

At the low cadence you keep the chain under constant load at 58, due to more load on the pedals then the hands and the seat, you would do even better with the chain under constant load the whole time at 65, then 75, then 80 rpm, while seated. This is skill.

you are on the trainer so nothing compares to the real world especially up hills, no balance needed on the trainer but on the road up hill at that cadence you are doing a lot of adjustments under load and no momentum.


Keep getting better. good luck

---

Technique will always last longer then energy production. Improve biomechanics, improve performance.
http://Www.anthonytoth.ca, triathletetoth@twitter

Even if the power difference is real (could be a trainer artifact), it wouldn't necessarily be faster in reality. Standing would have more aero drag and more tire/road friction. It's also tough to do these sorts of comparison tests. Do you have a lot of experience with max efforts on a climb like that? What is your typical variance?

Low cadence is inherently more efficient, because even with no resistance it takes power to move your legs. Efficiency is pretty irrelevant in cycling though.

It's still very interesting that you got a better result by doing something so different from your norm!

Yeah I'm still not sure what to make of it. After the virtual Ventoux I figured, "Meh. Fluke".

But the Virtual Alpe du Huez was different because I do that course All. The. Time. And when I do it, I'm averaging something like 8.x mph so it's not like wind resistance is a thing. Not even virtual wind resistance.

But so far I've got 2 data points. I need to investigate. When spring rolls around I need to investigate in the real world.

The one thing I can't figure: Why 60-70 seated felt so terrible but 50-60 out-of-the-saddle felt so much better.

Comparing seated cadence to out of the saddle cadence doesn't make any sense to me. Those are two very different positions

Seems normal; most people stand if their cadence drops too low for comfort. When standing your leg extension isn't controlled by the saddle height so you'll normally have straighter legs, and you can easily put all your weight into the stroke.

My best power comes off of a cadence in the mid 70’s.

I haven’t been running off this cadence, but plan to try it out.

When racing I have historically tried to keep mid to high 80’s and spin a bit higher as I get ready to run.

As others have said, my heart rate stays lower when I go mid 70s with my cadence. It seems to stay in an aerobic range for what used to be anaerobic effort of power.

Spinning into the 90’s now seems really awkward and inefficient. Like for each pedal stroke I am wasting energy on the up motion - if that makes any sense....

I also believe I have heard on a podcast that the higher your power output the more likely a lower cadence makes sense.

I think it’s worth experimenting.

I actually speculate that it has to do something with glute/hamstring chain power as well as possibly leg length (on top of practice, but OP clearly didn't' practice standing) that makes someone prefer standing vs sitting for prolonged hard climbs.

I'm a sitter. I almost never stand. Even when it's a 21%+ incline and I'm moving at walking pace, I do better seated. My standing is nearly sitting, my butt is just off the saddle. When I do the Alpe du Zwift on a group ride/race as hard as I can I NEVER come close to standing, similarly as I do outside.

I've actually tried to practice standing as some bike training videos I've done have incorporated them, but my power drops dramatically and it feels terrible even if I power it out.

I'm short and very stocky - I was able to leg press 1000+ lbs in high school with zero weight training on my legs. I looked like a T-rex of sorts in my old sports videos from back then - everyone around me looks normal, and I look like the "WTF is up with the huge legs/butt on the small kid?" I do notice that on every group ride I've done, there are sections where even the strongest guys are out of their seat, and I"m one of the rare folks still sitting (even though I'm completely dying.)

I'd probably be a good candidate for track sprints and keirin racing where big legs are a premium (mind you I'm nowhere as jacked as those guys as I don't lift my legs, ever!) but that's not my cup of tea.

I could also see how the lightweight pro riders kinda have to stand to get more leverage on the pedals given how crazy thin they are. I don't have that problem!