How much does your body type effect the proper cycling/running cadence??? I guess the reason I am asking is that last year I focuses very hard to maintain a 95 rpm cadence for all my races. Which worked fine, for international races I am typically around 24+ mph, then get off and run 6:30’s or so. I have found this year that I am able to maintain more in the 25+ mph range when i ride around th 80-85 rpm’s. I havent real given it a solid test to see how the run feels. On my Sunday 80 mile ride I was spent almost all my time in the 54/15-12 gears and really only went up to 19 or 21 when the climbs got steep but even then I felt much stronger pushing up the hills with a big gear. Which do you all prefer, I know I have read study after study about a high cadence, but even running I notice a much easiear and faster pace when i let my stride go long verse trying to take smaller steps with a high turn over. But I am not the size of most of the Triathletes I know or have met.
I am just a hair under 6’4" and weigh about 175 at race weight. I ride 650 wheels with a 54/42 12-21 gearing for most courses. Does the fact that I am tall mean that a lower cadence is more comfortable or is there a better explanation?? or am I just full of it and need to go back to focusing on the high cadence?? Jan Ullrich is a tall guy for pro cyclist… he pushed a big gear… works for him???
Being under 5’ 8", 20 mph on a good day cyclist, and someone who hasn’t seen a series of 6:30 miles in 20 years, my ability to offer advice to you is limited.
Regardless, I couldn’t help but wonder why a guy your size is using a 650 bike. The reason to get 650 wheels is to be able to get the front end low enough to get a good aero position. At 6’ 4", that shouldn’t be an issue in your case. It makes me wonder if you have an excessively aggressive bike position. If you are too low, you would probably be better served by a low cadence. The right answer is to get the right position though. Maybe you should go visit Tom D.
I only know that a low cadence doesn’t work for me. I am underpowered. I am sure there are much bigger and stronger kids out there who wouldn’t be fazed by the greater forces required by lower cadences. You may be one of them. I am not.
I think you should try to train at the higher cadence and then do whatever works in races. Over time you will get comfortable at higher rates and the race cadence will probably rise. In theory you might be fresher for the run using the higher cadence in races now, but if you are struggling to hold a cadence that is unnatural you will probably dissipate any theoretical advantage. Ordinarily people recommend shorter cranks for higher cadences, but at your height 180mm cranks are short (if I were blown up to your height I would be using 195mm to get the same proportions I have with 175mm).
Most of the cadence research seems to have been on racing cyclists who all tend to be similar (smaller) size. At some point leg mass could become high enough that more energy would be needed to maintain speed at a higher cadence than a lower one, but where that occurs I have no idea and may be outside the range of human proportions.
Below a certain cadence (~70 for me) the muscular tension can become great enough to impair blood flow, but in the range you are talking about that shouldn’t be an issue.
I doubt there would be any serious question that the longer your levers (Arms and legs) the slower your “ideal” cadence compared to the average short-levered person. I know I’m faster on a bike in a time trial situation at cadences lower than 90. If it doesn’t hinder your run, do it. We aren’t all built the same, there’s no reason to think we all function best at the same cadence.
Ken in MI wrote "At some point leg mass could become high enough that more energy would be needed to maintain speed at a higher cadence than a lower one, but where that occurs I have no idea and may be outside the range of human proportions. "
Increasing cadence always requires more energy regardless of leg mass or size. Most of the loss is in the thighs, which are fairly massive parts of the body. Unfortunately, high power (hence speed) cannot be achieved at low cadences because of the human inability to produce infinite force. Therefore, cadence/power is always a trade off. For any one particular training situation there will be an optimum cadence for that person. The problem is finding it.
I added about 1 MPH to my 40K bike splits when I went from 85 RPM to 100RPM race cadences. I’m 6’5". 205 LBS and while I don’t necessarily feel as fast when I am spinning, the HR monitor and bike computer don’t lie.
Miguel Indurain was 6’2" or so and was one of the first top pros to climb seated with a high cadence. I hear that Ullrich is also adapting to a higher cadence for this season.
I’m 6’3", 215 lbs. I’m a cyclist first, with a comfortable cadence of 90-100. I surprise the hell out of 160-pounders as I pass them on long grades, spinning my 25- and 27- sprockets as they mash their 23’s or whatever. My cycling took a major turn for the better a couple years ago when I started focusing on RPM instead of MPH. I placed 5th in my age group (45-49) in the bike at Wildflower this year.
Running is another matter. I started practicing the Pose method last year, which caused me a lot of pain in the first couple of months. But I shortened my stride and can now run comfortably at about 85, over 90 in a sprint. It’s become more natural to me now, but I’m still working to get my run cadence higher.
Should a beginner rider concentrate on cadence or higher gears? I have read articles espousing both types of training but as a beginner which should I concentrate on?