Just gonna throw it out there, this low cadence stuff is out of favor even climbing at the Giro or TdF. You’re watching Froome or even Lance back when spinning 90 to 100 rpm up mountains.
It’s a little bit of “wrong kit for the jobâ€. If you’re grinding 60 rpm up a 10% grade you need a 34t and 32 cog.
Just sayin…
In racing? Most definitely! Why? Because a faster spin is more efficient!
But low cadence drills in training? They tax the muscles more and can help you target your ability to produce force over a longer interval and are especially helpful if training time is limited but you need to have that stimulus target the muscular system as opposed to the cardiovascular system.
Just gonna throw it out there, this low cadence stuff is out of favor even climbing at the Giro or TdF. You’re watching Froome or even Lance back when spinning 90 to 100 rpm up mountains.
It’s a little bit of “wrong kit for the jobâ€. If you’re grinding 60 rpm up a 10% grade you need a 34t and 32 cog.
Just sayin…
Fair, but if we train to race the muscular effort would be sprints or bridge efforts at a very high relative power. Like tabatas or crit race intervals.
If I don’t have much time to train, I certainly don’t have time for yet another type of workout.
Just thinking it through. I can’t say I agree given my availability of time. Maybe someone with more than I have would benefit.
Never enough ftp. Not sure I understand this concept helps that. I’d rather not wreck my knees on purpose. I have a heart and lungs.
Just gonna throw it out there, this low cadence stuff is out of favor even climbing at the Giro or TdF. You’re watching Froome or even Lance back when spinning 90 to 100 rpm up mountains.
It’s a little bit of “wrong kit for the jobâ€. ** If you’re grinding 60 rpm up a 10% grade you need a 34t and 32 cog**.
Just sayin…
Or a motor in your seat tube 
I seems like you’re getting frustrated. If you are going to be in the coaching industry you need to be prepared to have people question what you say. Also, can you answer his question? You didn’t before.
Example: How are you determining what the most efficient pedal cadence is for your athletes?
I’m also confused on how pedal cadence isn’t a consideration versus hard you are racing. Is one cadence effective at all powers?
In the study below, you mention how oxygen costs were at its lowest around 60rpms which seems counter to how you were saying that higher cadences are more efficient than lower cadences. The New Oxford American Dictionary defines efficiency as "An activity that is performed successfully with a minimum of waste or unnecessary effort, " Its my understanding that the most efficient athletes do things at the lowest energy cost, so… huh. If the lowest energy costs were at lower rpms, wouldn’t that mean…ah… but, but the cadence is low!!! That tension on my legs is what will make me more fatigued!!!
I would assume you would agree that most things in triathlon are trainable? If you train someone to do something, over time that athlete will adapt? Why wouldn’t you think that, knowing lower cadences (to your study) provided lower oxygen costs, you wouldn’t think… “yea, 60 is pretty low, probably not very realistic for a long distance race, but 70-75rpms seems reasonable for that duration, maybe I should train them to race around that?” Or are you just stuck on the cadence aspect providing the fatigue…
So, if you have a study that you just shared that claims that 60rpms provided the lowest energy cost to athletes, why are you using the anecdotal/opinion part about how its the cadence that’s making the athlete fatigued? Have you thought that maybe its the athletes lack of endurance training thats fatiguing them, or the lack of pacing? not pin pointing the cadence aspect? Oh, go ride at higher cadences and your long ride ride will be easier because you’re more efficient!!!?
Bottom line… You need to open your mind to every option. Its not 60rpms, its certainly not 100rpms. But I would certainly try and learn more than what you’re reading in Friel’s books instead of being so short sided with believing that higher cadences are more efficient because it “causes less muscle strain”.
Also, most of what I am saying is about long course racing. Not so much about OLY and Sprints.
Yes, they should pedal at the most efficient cadence for them no matter what the distance.
Also, bikeradar has an article on it with a bunch of studies that are cited https://www.bikeradar.com/...dence-matters-16394/
“The lowest oxygen cost at around 60rpm, for both experienced and inexperienced cyclists, supports the idea that ‘grinding’ reduces oxygen cost… It seems that we all make a complicated assessment of the sensory data coming back from our legs, lungs and head. Grinding lower cadences may be a lower oxygen cost, but the neural system gets tired sooner.“
And later in the article…
“The legs act as a more effective blood pumping system when the cadence is higher – if you hit a faster cadence the heart output increases . For the same power output (200Watts as used by Gotshal, 1996) higher cadences make for better muscle blood flow, and in-line with reduced muscle strain data, it makes for better endurance. At 200 Watts (around 20mph) if you spin 100rpm your strain works out at just two Watts per rev, whereas at 60rpm your strain is over three Watts per rev.
Any rider who has ever ridden with power and cadence data to view, using SRM, Polar, PowerTap, Ergomo, Tacx or Cateye, can feel the difference that changes in cadence produce in leg tension, if Wattage stays constant. And here’s the crux: If you use this variety of gearing, power and perceived effort, you can vary training to develop your ability – in other words: Get fitter, faster and better. Now who doesn’t want that!â€
Just gonna throw it out there, this low cadence stuff is out of favor even climbing at the Giro or TdF. You’re watching Froome or even Lance back when spinning 90 to 100 rpm up mountains.
It’s a little bit of “wrong kit for the jobâ€. ** If you’re grinding 60 rpm up a 10% grade you need a 34t and 32 cog**.
Just sayin…
Or a motor in your seat tube
Bazinga!!!
Lol.
We are horrible at using decent, descriptive, consistent terminology in this business. Triathlonpal is like a personification of this. Efficiency suddenly has 5 different meanings all at the same time. Same goes with fitness, performance, endurance, etc. It’s a mess.
We are horrible at using decent, descriptive, consistent terminology in this business. Triathlonpal is like a personification of this. Efficiency suddenly has 5 different meanings all at the same time. Same goes with fitness, performance, endurance, etc. It’s a mess.
It’s a constant source of communication problems on ST.
Technical discussions require unambiguous consistent language or the discussions become confusion and frustration where nothing is achieved.
That’s why those with a technical background continually try to use technical language, sometimes to the annoyance of those without such a background who don’t understand the purpose or importance.
I do believe there was something to bear that out just a few posts back, where an entire thread was written off as “just semantics”.
Just gonna throw it out there, this low cadence stuff is out of favor even climbing at the Giro or TdF. You’re watching Froome or even Lance back when spinning 90 to 100 rpm up mountains.
It’s a little bit of “wrong kit for the jobâ€. If you’re grinding 60 rpm up a 10% grade you need a 34t and 32 cog.
Just sayin…
You’re skirting one answer to why big gear train has value; climbing. Your theoretical 10% grade? Even with a 34/32, it’s nearly a 4 watts/kilo effort to hold 85 rpm up that. That’ll redline a lot of triathletes in a hurry.
I did the TrainerRoad drills to increase my comfortable cadence range, and it led to a higher FTP. Unfortunately, I got grooved into to making power in a narrow rev range (~85-95 rpm). I fatigue much faster holding 120% of FT at 70 rpm than holding 120% of FTP at 90 rpm. When I hit a steep hill, even in the lowest gear, I quickly fall out of the bottom of my power band. There’s a limit to how much low gear the drivetrain can accommodate, and carrying a wide range cassette creates another issue for a narrow-power-band rider; gaps between gears. This spring, my training objective isn’t to increase my FTP, but rather to broaden my powerband by doing more “big gear” workouts.
“The precise discussion of precise ideas requires the precise use of precise words” - not me
.
You’re skirting one answer to why big gear train has value; climbing. Your theoretical 10% grade? Even with a 34/32, it’s nearly a 4 watts/kilo effort to hold 85 rpm up that. That’ll redline a lot of triathletes in a hurry.
I did the TrainerRoad drills to increase my comfortable cadence range, and it led to a higher FTP. Unfortunately, I got grooved into to making power in a narrow rev range (~85-95 rpm). I fatigue much faster holding 120% of FT at 70 rpm than holding 120% of FTP at 90 rpm. When I hit a steep hill, even in the lowest gear, I quickly fall out of the bottom of my power band. There’s a limit to how much low gear the drivetrain can accommodate, and carrying a wide range cassette creates another issue for a narrow-power-band rider; gaps between gears. This spring, my training objective isn’t to increase my FTP, but rather to broaden my powerband by doing more “big gear” workouts.
+1, this is what I have always read from other smart people, and my coach has always told me as well. Not only are you going to grind a little bit up sustained climbs, but having a wide range of comfortable cadences will allow you to avoid shifting too often and will help maintain momentum as the gradient naturally varies. For example, on a slight roller you might just reduce cadence to 75-80 in the same gear, to crest the hill instead of shifting.
I’m not going to make any scientific declarations, but I always thought cadence was self-selecting. If you tell me to ride @ 80% for 3 hours, I am going to subconsciously pick the cadence that makes that effort as easy as possible, which is usually slightly higher than 90rpm, for me. But there are natural variations that can call for reduced/elevated cadence which you can do drills for.
damn it, I see I’m late to the pile on.
damn it, I see I’m late to the pile on.
Come on, we have been waiting for you.
What do you consider low rpm?
I just pulled up my Strava for Paris Mountain to eat some humble pie. 75rpm.
I think I do most of this work outdoors vs indoors and just do it without thinking. Hence why it didn’t make sense. Oh well.
What do you consider low rpm?
I just pulled up my Strava for Paris Mountain to eat some humble pie. 75rpm.
I think I do most of this work outdoors vs indoors and just do it without thinking. Hence why it didn’t make sense. Oh well.
I meant something like 50rpm not without thinking, but doing it on purpose to work on “strength”.
Oh, well I consider 70 rpm a grind. 50 rpm, man. It very well may work, I couldn’t justify the hurt on the knees though. Me personally.
I’m not old. But I’m not a 25 y/o bike racer either. That kind of thing could turn out real bad for some people. First thing over on Bikeradar they always talk about with people with knee issues wanting to vacation at Ventoux or something is to rent a bike with a triple on it. Not suffer up a double crank at something like 50 rpm.
I do the time crunched stuff myself, but this sounds like a way to train long-ride endurance in shorter time. Even the time crunched plans do back to back days with more TSS to simulate the TSS of the full century or long ride event.
I can buy this if we’re talking 70rpm, because yeah, you’ll have to do that up a climb. But, 50? Need to train more period to not spin 50rpm. Or lose weight. Lol.
What I am going to say is what I have heard from numerous people and my own experience, there is not scientific data that I have.
When it comes to best cadence for racing (triathlon), you really want a high cadence, the closer to you run cadence the better. That way your legs are moving the same speed running as cycling. This allows you not to have to adjust as much to the difference. If you were to cycle at 70-75rpm that would only work out to a 140-150 running cadence, which is fairly low for most people. Now if that is your run cadence then maybe that rpm works for you, but for most it would definitely be faster.
On the side of Low Cadence Bike training I know it has helped my racing significantly, especially with the ability to climb hills. I also as odd as some people may think, that my actual race cadence increased in speed last year, after doing more low cadence work on the bike.
What I am going to say is what I have heard from numerous people and my own experience, there is not scientific data that I have.
When it comes to best cadence for racing (triathlon), you really want a high cadence, the closer to you run cadence the better. That way your legs are moving the same speed running as cycling. This allows you not to have to adjust as much to the difference. If you were to cycle at 70-75rpm that would only work out to a 140-150 running cadence, which is fairly low for most people. Now if that is your run cadence then maybe that rpm works for you, but for most it would definitely be faster.
On the side of Low Cadence Bike training I know it has helped my racing significantly, especially with the ability to climb hills. I also as odd as some people may think, that my actual race cadence increased in speed last year, after doing more low cadence work on the bike.
That’s another great point! The transition from bike to run is another thing to think about when choosing race cadence. And even on the run the quicker cadence is more efficient.
I’ve found the same thing that low cadence drills on the bike didn’t actually lower my race cadence any, but the high cadence drills have increased my self-selected cadence out on the road.
And even on the run the quicker cadence is more efficient.
economical not efficient.
In running it’s running or run economy not run efficiency.
most people, > 95% of all people in fact, will self select the most economical running cadence for themselves.