FTP cadence vs. race day cadence

Here´s one I have been wondering about for a while now. Maybe this is a no-brainer, in which case take my apologies for my ignorance.

During my latest 3-4 FTP tests (1x20 minutes) I have been become aware, that I can put out more watts at a lower cadence. I used to ride happily around 92-95 RPM (as per my coach´s guidance) - but always felt that it was easier to maintain same watts at lower cadence. Lately I am as low as 70-75 RPM and this definitely seems to give me some output, maybe 7-10 watts (discounting any non-existing low-season improvements between tests).

If I truly put out more watts on a lower cadence in the 20-min test, would I need to adjust my IM race day cadence accordingly?
Unfortunately not much chance to test on the road right now - as its close to freezing here.

Thanks. T

I have noticed the same thing with my riding and tests. I naturally ride at 90-4 but I do tend to put out more watts at 75-80. Somethings that I think about is that I don’t know how long I can hold the lower cadence before my legs give up. Another consideration is that coming off the bike to the run is very natural with a ~90 rpm cadence and will that be disrupted with a slower cadence?

Also keep in mind that “optimal” cadence will likely be different on a trainer and on the road. FTP may also be a bit difference. So ideally you would have an indoor and outdoor FTP.

I found I put out more power when in the low 80’s so I pedal low 80’s all of the time unless I’m trying to limit power.

Think about it this way. Imagine your bike crank was not connected to a drive train and you were just spinning in circles putting zero watts to the road riding at 95 RPM. You’d still be consuming energy even though your powertap picks up zero watts (imagine a snapped chain). So there is some metabilic cost moving the mass of your legs around and I’d imagine that it is higher at 95 RPM than 70 RPM…the question is “how much work are we amortizing those additional revolutions over”

If you ride at 70 RPM and put out 250W then your body put 17.5 Kilojoules of work to the road in a minute. If you rode at 250W at 90 RPM, you’d have moved the mass of your legs around for 20 more revolutions to put the same 17.6 Kilojoules to the road.

This is probably why RAAM riders select low cadences, because it just ends up being inefficient to move your legs through that many circles at low crank torque putting out low watts…the body just ends up self selecting what is optimal. Most guys seem to have a higher average RPM for a 1 hour TT compared to a full Ironman too.

This is something I’ve also recently noticed on the trainer.

To understand it better I’ve been doing intervals of varying wattage zones (sweet spot / threshold / VO2) at varying cadence (ie 90 / 100 /80) to see what felt better. As per devashish_paul suggests, the longer the interval the lower cadence I seem to preference. Without covering up wattage its hard to tell if this corresponds to higher/better output but I can definitely say that based on RPE lower cadence feels more sustainable for anything like IM or half IM type output.

What does this mean in practice? Not a huge deal. I do my harder stuff @ 95-98 and easier stuff @ 85-88.

Hmmmmm, I’ve found that it is easier for me to grind up hills than spin. So if I need to put out higher wattages, my cadence drops.

But, I can happily spin along at 95+ rpm with lower watts in Z2 (I was at 100 rpm average after half an hour the other night).

The question, as others have alluded to is what the lower cadence, higher power does over time (hours) before the run. And, what the effect would be over multiple days.

And, the other question is how much of this is affected by training. If I train more at high rpm and a certain wattage, will I get to the stage where I am more efficient than at lower spin rates and higher wattages?

Interestingly, I have found that I’ve reached a higher 30 min FTP by keeping my rpm above 90 than keeping closer to 80. I feel more “on top” of the gear at 90.

Things I’ve discovered in my short year of triathlon experience…

low cadence allows me to go faster (push more watts). However, I also come off the bike with HEAVY legs

High cadence keeps me at a more normal speed (push less watts). However, when I come off the bike my legs feel like they are flying across the pavement

Actual difference in sprint tri’s (5k run) only has my low cadence miles being about 10 seconds a mile slower… but the biggest factor is mentally

When I have the heavy legs… I feel like I’m trying to hold off the field… When I have light legs I feel like I’m running everyone down.

My next training race will have me using a low cadence for most of the race and then spinning my legs for the last 2 minutes…

This may just be a simple case of HTFU, but for me, it’s a real factor in race day performance.

Just Google high vs low cadence cycling and you’ll find a million different opinions.
I spent a fair portion of this past season fretting over my cadence vs power vs run speed. Paul D is correct. One can certainly get the
job done either way…recently retired Chrissie reportedly would push big gears at lower cadence and still ran like a fiend. Remember
that Force X Cadence = Power. As the cadence goes down, more force is theoretically required to maintain the same power. This extra force
may be source of muscular fatigue over a longer race. Also, the converse is also true. A higher cadence may require less force on the pedals
but at some point the muscle fibers say enough. I eventually found a comfortable but narrow range that set me up for consistently good runs.
Keep testing the ranges in training, FTP testing, and racing. You’ll quickly find the best fit for you.

Yes, the lame point is that cadence is very self-selective as previous mentioned.

There’s also trainability and adaptation factors that need to be taken into consideration when selecting the best cadence range, but there will generally be a downside when cadence gets too high or too low. I remember reading this statement courtesy of Dean Phillips.

Doc

Let your cadence self-select–there isn’t an intrinsic value to keeping your cadence between 90-95 (or any other generic) range.

Agreed ^^

Keep in mind that the whole higher cadence trend started when Voldemort was time trialing very successfully with a very high cadence. In very general terms high cadence stresses O2 delivery and cardiovascular systems more than muscle strength and muscle endurance. If one has an artificially elevated O2 delivery system (EPO) then their optimum cadence swings in favour of high cadence/low resistance. We therefore may need to rethink the lessons learned and assumed from LA’s example

Thanks for many good replies. I learned another thing:
I run a SRM DA on a Tacx iVortex. When pushing around the red line (290w) at 90-95 RPM, the deviation between the two watt outputs is around 10% (Tacx shows approx 320w) but when i lowered the cadence to around 70-75, the Tacx shoots up as much as 30w more (SRM still at 290w), ie around 350w.

Why the difference?

A few more points.

Let’s take 2 wattages

Ftp at 250w

Ironman at 185w

Now to get to the delta you could exclusively drop crank torque by 15 percent and keep cadence constant or you could keep crank torque constant and drop cadence.

In practice, I THINK most riders end up dropping a bit of crank torque and a bit of cadence as they go down in wattage and go up in duration…same thing in running…we tend to drop cadence marginally and we go with smaller stride length at slower run speed (equivalent to lower wattage)…seems like this is just how humans function when foing at higher effort versus lower effort.

Also I think coach Doc Sutton is on to something with the lower RPM ironman riding…people view ironman cadence and think of a 5 hour ride when really it is a ten plus hour event where the hamstrings and the hip flexors are being used…so perhaps RAAM cadences are closer to what is optimal for Ironman wattages, saving the cadence muscle groups for the run.

Never thought that people with superior aerobic systems could benefit from higher cadence,but then how do explain Ullrich “mashing” at only 90 RPM…maybe he never clued in!!!

Let your cadence self-select–there isn’t an intrinsic value to keeping your cadence between 90-95 (or any other generic) range.

Agreed ^^

Keep in mind that the whole higher cadence trend started when Voldemort was time trialing very successfully with a very high cadence. In very general terms high cadence stresses O2 delivery and cardiovascular systems more than muscle strength and muscle endurance. If one has an artificially elevated O2 delivery system (EPO) then their optimum cadence swings in favour of high cadence/low resistance. We therefore may need to rethink the lessons learned and assumed from LA’s example

No, it didn’t. High cadence in cycling has been around for a lot longer than Lance. Indurain is a perfect example. He spun his gears while climbing,'as one example.

Cadence in bike racing is a different beast than cadence in TT’s or triathlons. Using the best cyclists in the world as a cadence model is probably not the best model.

As others noted, let your cadence self-select, but also spend time trying diffent cadences. You may find that a higher or lower cadence is more efficient but still needs to be developed to maintain across and entire bike leg.

dev, you’re not quite getting to the impact of the load on cardiovascular fitness and/or muscular strength.

low cadence (high torque) requires more muscular strength but less cardiovascular fitness. high cadence (low torque) requires more cardiovascular fitness but less muscular strength.

this remains paradoxical to me, since the total workload (watts or N-m-sec^-1) is the same, but i guess that’s just the way living energy systems work. moving parts of your body at high speed even with low torque raises heart rate and oxygen consumption more than moving the same parts at lower speeds with higher torque.

dev, you’re not quite getting to the impact of the load on cardiovascular fitness and/or muscular strength.

low cadence (high torque) requires more muscular strength but less cardiovascular fitness. high cadence (low torque) requires more cardiovascular fitness but less muscular strength.

this remains paradoxical to me, since the total workload (watts or N-m-sec^-1) is the same, but i guess that’s just the way living energy systems work. moving parts of your body at high speed even with low torque raises heart rate and oxygen consumption more than moving the same parts at lower speeds with higher torque.

left around the block or right around the block. it doesn’t matter which way you go you still end up at the same place.

actually on second thoughts, perhaps this is mostly explained precisely by the extra motion involved with high cadence (running, cycling, probably even swimming). moving those parts of your body N times through space rather than (say) N*0.6 in order to cover the same distance has got to cost something … as you noted.

actually on second thoughts, perhaps this is mostly explained precisely by the extra motion involved with high cadence (running, cycling, probably even swimming). moving those parts of your body N times through space rather than (say) N*0.6 in order to cover the same distance has got to cost something … as you noted.

Correct…we can only measure pace or power, which is the output of everything the body does to put that mechanical energy out. What we cannot directly measure is the input energy. For example if I put my treadmill at zero miles per hour and do jumping jacks in place the measure power/pace is zero, yet I am getting tired. That’s the extreme case of moving your body around to do no work, yet it is tiring. Same as spinning you legs around with a snapped chain delivering zero watts to your powertap.

Years ago Carmichael gave a good example…if I have to lift 2000 lbs by squatting I can do it in 10 lifts of 200 lbs or 40 lifts of 50 lbs. In the case of the former, I end up moving my own 140 lb body weight 10x. In the case of the latter, I move my own 140 lbs body weight 40 times. So really the latter case is easier from a muscular force per stroke perspective, however, the total work is 30x140 lbs more (well it might not be the entire 140 lbs, but all the static upper body weight and some of the leg weight that you have to move upward from the squat position).

So yes, lower cadence is probably less overall work for you body, provided that the crank torque does not get so high that it takes the muscles quickly to failure. At IM race pace or RAAM race pace, the crank torque is not high, so the low cadence makes sense (see my posting above where I postulate that for most riders as power drops away from FTP, generally crank torque and RPM go down somewhat). Low RPM at FTP or higher (high crank torque) probably takes you close to “failure” after a lot less revs…that’s probably also why sprinters sprint at such high RPM versus having really massive gears (like 64 tooth pizza plates) and keeping the RPM down.

The human body is probably able to generate only so much force so fast. For example 100m runners, generally they say these guys take 4.7 strides per second (in the range of 47 strides for 100m)…that averages out to 141 RPM. I’ll have to go count the strides that Usein Bolt takes, but generally humans only produce so much ground force per stride at the very top end, when trying to maintain speed.

The ultimate in producing ground force is the long jump, but once they take that long jump stride, RPM goes down and overall speed is going down, even though the ground force was really high. So sprinting and jumping in running give us some good boundaries on what the human body wants to do from the perspective of force and RPM. Now strap us into pedals and things change somewhat, but I don’t think they change that much. We just adapt what we are naturally programmed to do but inside the constraints of the bike/pedal system.

Let yourself self select cadence.

The research shows that gross efficiency doesn’t really change with varying cadences between 80-100rpms.

As speed and power increase cadence typically will as well.

I’ve got over 4220 power files and there is a strong preference for the same person to have decreasing cadences as the duration goes on. It’s extremely rare when I have someone racing sprints/oly at a higher cadence then a half.

I pulled data from an athlete who raced across all distances one season. Their avg rpms were:sprint 99, olys, 97, HIM, 92, IM 87
sample was sprint N=2, olys N=2, HIM, N=3, IM N=1

To answer your question, I think you will unconsciously lower your cadence with a long event.

I’d advise you, once it’s thawed out, to do some longer rides testing your theory. Do some 2-3 hr rides (just do the same route) testing 2-3 cadences and see what you prefer. Multiple runs will be needed at each cadence. So you can increase fitness and figure it out for yourself.

Hey Brian, from that data for that single athlete, does the average include coasting or not include coasting?