I think your answers need to be a work in progress, I have been trying to figure out how much effort and what cadence for the last 25 years and still don't have any clue. As the body ages variables change.

I used to put it in the big gear and wind it up on the bike. Often not having enough left on the run. Now that I am a old fart I seem to be pushing a smaller gear and still don't have too much left in the tank for the run. I think there are too many variables to really do a scientific study. Your preception of how you feel may trick you as well. I have gotten off the bike and felt like I was running slow with a huge effort and found my splits wern't as slow as I thought.

My advice to people I train is to do a continous effort during the bike. Taking it easier on the hills and expending the same effort the whole way. I guess that would be like saying ride at 200 watts (or other number) the whole time whether climbing, in the wind, or downhill. Hope that helps. G

First, train yourself to have a wide range of comfortable cadences. Spend significant time at everything from 70 to 100 over the course of at least 6 weeks.

Then, tape over the cadence display on your bike and do some 15-20 minute hard efforts on the CT over the course of a few weeks. Pick your goal power level (say, your estimated power for a 40k TT). Then, try various cadences and find which one allows you to complete the interval in the most comfort, with the best feeling in your legs when you're done.

Cadence is a self-selected variable. You should choose the cadence that results in the lowest perceived exertion. That is the one that allows you to ride long and fast, and still run well after.

I spent years "forcing" a 90-95 cadence all the time. When I got a power meter and started focusing on power and PE instead, I found that my best cadence was down around 80 for steady-state riding. Only when I'm moving into a maximal <5 minute effort do I find that fast cadences are helpful.

We're all different -- you should seek to discover your own preferences.

PB, my guess is that all your guesses sound right to me.

Experience, how you feel on any given day, and how well you run afterward are all big factors, as you said. If you find a majic formula, let me know!

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

In your opinion, which works best for a relatively weaker rider, lower or higher cadence? (weaker as in ability to generate force ex. weight lifting but not aerobically)

I'm interested in that question too. My own observations seem to dictate high cadence--more rpms, less torque ie force.

 

---

�The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it.� -Michelangelo

MoodBoost Drink : Mood Support + Energy.

"I'm also guessing a cadence slightly above my optimum time trial cadence would be best for the Oly race since I will be running after."


You're right about that one. Your optimal 40km TT cadence will probably be lower than what you would want to ride in the 40km during an Olympic distance Triathlon. You will have to run a 10km afterwards and therefore you don't want to ride too low of a cadence. Riding at lower cadence (with same Power Output) recruits more FT fibers, uses more CHO as substrate, produces more lactate, etc. In other words you don't have as much left on the run.

If you have a Powermeter you could ride a 25km course at race intensity. Then go on a 5km run right afterwards. Keep course and nutrition pre and during the trials the same. Also make sure that you conduct those trials under similar conditions (rested, no interference on course, wind condition, time of day, temp, same equipment, etc.) The first trial you can ride at cadence x. Time your run. Then, another week you could do trial 2 where you ride at same Power but with a difference cadence, e.g x+5. Same with trial 3, e.g x+10. Time your run. In addition, also record how you felt during the bike and run during both trials. Split times for the run could also be helpful.

If you were to do those trials, also make sure that the bike course is similar to your race course. Not that you will be climbing alot during your trials when the race takes place on a completely flat street.

You could do those trials every week as your intense workout. Do it for 6 weeks (every trial x2) and see if your data is somewhat useful.



Then of course you could forget about testing optimal cadence and just race at what you feel is best for you. We have a tendency to ride at our most efficient cadence. Just keep in mind that you have to run a 10km afterwards.

---

�The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it.� -Michelangelo

MoodBoost Drink : Mood Support + Energy.

I'm thinking it's relative to your individual strength. If you are pushing at x effort and you do best at 90 rpms, then an effort of x+(0.0125*x) might require 100 rpms. And, x-(0.0125*x) might be best at 80 rpms. It's just a general rule that at a certain point, the higher your power output, the higher your cadence must be, but, at lower outputs, you are much more efficient (calorically) at lower rpms. It's why I think the best RAAM riders average much lower rpms than the best Criterium riders...big difference in wattage being produced.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

No easy answers like this -- you've got to go out and find out. Trial and error.

That being said, controlled lab tests have generally showed that lesser power outputs beg for lower cadences. This is in part why mortals like us should not try to emulate Lance. When Lance is attacking up a Alp at 105 rpms, he's cranking out 450 watts. When I'm "attacking" the overweight ladies in the TNT group at my super-human 230 watts, I find that a cadence around 75-80 does the trick. More than that and my power begins to fade; less than that and my power also begins to fade.

BTW -- ability (or inability) to generate force is not the limiter faced by a rider with modest ability. Any of us can generate the forces required. It's the inability to maintain those forces repeatedly that is our limiter. The limiter is one of fuel processing, or oxygen. The limiter in triathlon cycling is always aerobic power production, not force.

It is tempting for me to think, "Well, I'm not very strong. I can barely squat half my weight. Therefore, I will pedal faster than the other guy to make up for my lack of strength." Wrong approach. Even the very weak (from a strength standpoint) can generate plenty of force on the bike. Again, the limiter is feeding the force-generating process rapidly enough to maintain it. That is a purely aerobic limiter. It is trained the old fashioned way -- lots of bike riding.

Even "weak" riders might benefit from low-ish cadences (70s-80s). The only way to know for sure is to run some self-experiments.

If I were forced to make a guess, I would guess that a typical MOP age grouper in a long-course race should not be pedaling at more than about 80-82. Exceptions will surely exist, but I think this is right for most people, and would be a good place to start for someone without access to a power meter.

I totally agree.

Too many people over-reach in two aspects of their cycling. By watching what the big studs are doing, they figure on doing the same. The big studs (1) ride big gears, and (2) at higher rpms.

So, the MOP'r puts big gears on his/her bike -- but then can't stay on top of those gears on climbs. They end up riding too hard, or at too low a cadence -- and usually both.

The MOP'r also tries to ride around at 90-95 rpms like the big stud(ettes). Very bad choice. They burn waaaaay too many calories way too fast and crater way too early.

Not true at normal power levels for a 40k, and within normal cadence ranges.



Also not true -- within the normal cadence ranges (say, 60-110), a lower cadence usually results in a more efficient effort. That means, fewer calories burned and fewer by-products like lactate.



That, however, might very well be true, and is why we each have to run our own tests. Some people find that, despite the loss of efficiency, a higher cadence results in more fatigue-resistance. Others like to do the bulk of the bike at their best power cadence, and then do the last 5 minutes of the ride at 90-95 in order to loosen up the legs and get some rythm going before the run.

I saw one study that suggested that higher rpms help with fatigue resistance, despite the drop in efficiency.

Again, it's all a trade-off and everyone is different. I have been running very well after dropping my cadence down below 80, and then finishing up the ride with some faster, low power spinning right before transition.

Yup, and also depends on the type of racing one has in mind. This being an IM forum (mostly) my comments are based on IM racing.

I am totally at the opposite end of the spectrum from Ashburn. Over thel ast 5 years of using the CT I know that my highest sustainable power is by using high cadence of 90-100 on flat and rolling. Big hills is a different issue all together, in those cases its survival time! Having ridden with a roadie group for the last 6 months and started road racing, my cadence is even higher but that is specific to the type of racing. So recently my highest sustainable (average) power is achieved by cadence in the range of 100-105.

What this shows is cadence is highly trainable but to some extent is highly individual.

---

__________________________________________________
Simple Simon
Where's the Fried Chicken??

Try doing intervals at different cadences and see what happens to your watts and RPE. The optimal cadence is that which allows you to produce the most power (sustainable) for a given duration. Most people do pretty well with their self selected cadences. There will be differences in what is optimal for each person given specific biomechanical and physiological differences. Also, the longer duration the event, the lower the optimal cadence - the SRM equiped IMH guys averages low-mid 80s IIRC.

I don't believe a higher cadence is required for the whole duration of an Oly tri just because you are running hard after, but it may help to raise your cadence slightly to match you projected running cadence in the last few kms of the bike.

Joel

---

>>>>
JoelFilliol.com - check out the Real Coaching Podcast

you disagree with all the reasons I've given for why a (relatively speaking) lower cadence is not appropriate during the 40km cycling of an Olympic distance triathlon, yet you agree with my conclusion that it is not appropriate to ride at the (relatively speaking) low cadence because you don't have anything left for the run. If all my reasoning is faulty, then what do you believe is the reason for this?

You also said that "within the normal cadence ranges (say, 60-110), a lower cadence usually results in a more efficient effort. That means, fewer calories burned and fewer by-products like lactate." From the research articles I've read, Delta efficiency increases with increasing cadence.

---

�The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it.� -Michelangelo

MoodBoost Drink : Mood Support + Energy.

I think Joel's post sums the cadence argument up nicely.

I tried the high cadence ala Lance technique for a couple of seasons and it didn't really work for me. Lance is just so much more powerful than most of us and needs to pedal at those fast cadences to break up the workload. The last couple of seasons I've just let cadence take care of itself. Not worrying about cadence is one less thing to stress over.

I noticed on Gordo's site where he said he averaged in the low 80's for his ride. Looks like he ran pretty well for riding with such a low cadence.

My point is that there is not a clear set of factors that all point in the same direction. There are competing issues and no simple solution. Some factors favor lower cadence; others favor higher cadence.

We each need to take the time to keep good training logs and collect data. Then we can decide what to do.

Delta efficiency rises as absolute power rises. The predominant weight of literature finds that, at a given sub-maximal power (70% of VO2max is often used) cadences in the 65-75 range are more efficient than in the 95-100 range. But again -- efficiency is only part of the equation in triathlon. There are a host of competing factors that each athlete has to work out for him/herself.

I did not mean to disagree with your entire post -- I disagree with the reasons why you reach the conclusion that you did, but I think your conclusion itself has merit.

"That being said, controlled lab tests have generally showed that lesser power outputs beg for lower cadences."

it's not about power output per se, 240w versus 300w versus 360w. it's about type I v type II fiber recruitment in each individual. when you're forced to recruit fast twitch fibers to do the work, these fibers burn glycogen at a rate 50% faster than slow twitch fibers.

so, at an effort level that's high, you're better off riding at a higher cadence, even though it's energetically more costly.

yes, RAAM riders ride low cadences, because the power requirements are low and economy becomes the more important issue.

but whether you're able to put out 230w or 430w as a power average for a 40k event, it's fiber recruitment that's the key. otherwise, economy would rule and everyone would be pedaling at 70rpm.

if i had to make a wild, over-arching, over-generalized, link between events and average cadences, it would be:

4km pursuit fixed gear: 110rpm
hour fixed gear: 105rpm
sprint tri (15mi bike): 100rpm
40km: 95rpm
half IM: 90rpm
IM: 85rpm
RAAM: 70rpm

this would take into consideration the balance between neuromuscular elements of fatigue v aerobic considerations.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Just for grins, I went and looked at some of my rides/races from last year

20mi duathlon: cadence 99 (230W, 23.5mph)

20mi triathlon: cadence 98 (238W, 24.4mph)

40KTT: cadence 103 (~279W, 24.9mph)

56mi solo ride: cadence 95 (230W, 22.2mph)

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

"~279W, 24.9mph"

all other things equal, i'd recommend continuing whatever it is that allows you to ride 50w better than during all your other efforts.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Ken, you obviously have a much better aerodynamic positioning than I do! I have to get over 300 watts to average 25 mph. Good job! Or, just plain bad job on my part...but, I can't do much about how I'm built.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

and...

By definition, Type II fibers use less oxygen to perform a given amount of work.

Efficiency (O2 consumption) only tells part of the story when explaining optimal cadence. Respiratory quotient or some other measure for fuel usage must be considered as stated above.

"Efficiency (O2 consumption) only tells part of the story when explaining optimal cadence."

which is why figuring optimal seat angle, cadence rate, etc., by juxtposing heart rates and power readings, won't work. (but that doesn't keep people from attempting to doing that anyway, and charging $400 per session).

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

"Ken, you obviously have a much better aerodynamic positioning than I do! I have to get over 300 watts to average 25 mph. Good job! Or, just plain bad job on my part...but, I can't do much about how I'm built. "

Don't feel bad, I think* I'm fairly aero, and use all the standard issue TT gear, but like you, it takes 300w to get me over 25 MPH. I am 6'0", 84k with bike, by the way. Riding at 300w is not too bad, for 30 minutes, for 60 minutes 300w is about my average (for now).

I figure I need over 325w avg over 1 hour to go over 27 MPH. To get there, I am working hard.

*(http://www.printroom.com/...2733&image_id=31)

Like not running just before, and having the luxury of not being able to get off the bike after? That was the district TT; the other two were in a duathlon or triathlon.

In fact, I lowered my aerobars an inch or more after the TT for those other races.

I think the more striking statistic is 279W/24.9mph vs. 238W/24.4mph; 15% less power, and only 2% less speed. Those two are pre- and post-lowered positions.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"