It seems to me that most training advice recommends relatively high cadences, but where is the evidence that high cadences provide a better training benefit? I came across an article which actually suggested the reverse, i.e. lower cadences providing more training benefit:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19675486
Do we make any changes in our training based on the results of one article? Probably not, but it’s worth opening up for discussion.
Depends on your training objectives. Low cadence/big gear intervals are excellent for leg strength (but for endurance or peak power purposes you’ll want to do a different protocol)!
High cadence works slowtwitch fibers more, low cadence works fasttwitch fibers. So depends what your goals and weaknesses are.
High cadence works slowtwitch fibers more, low cadence works fasttwitch fibers. So depends what your goals and weaknesses are.
wait, what??? cadence is related to circumferential pedal velocity, which can be used as a proxy for muscle contractile speed.
Try sprinting at 130rpm for 20", it’ll be almost entirely a fasttwitch effort.
High cadence works slowtwitch fibers more, low cadence works fasttwitch fibers. So depends what your goals and weaknesses are.
wait, what??? cadence is related to circumferential pedal velocity, which can be used as a proxy for muscle contractile speed.
Try sprinting at 130rpm for 20", it’ll be almost entirely a fasttwitch effort.
“Slower cadences need more strength for one revolution and recruits more fast twitch muscle fibers. Conversely fewer fast twitch fibers are recruited at higher cadences.”
http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/techctr/gearing.html
I read it on Slowtwitch so it must be true!
one would expect an ambassador of Trainingpeaks would have read this article.
Some relevant nuggets:
CPV = CCL2*Pi/60
Where CPV = circumferential pedal velocity (in m/s), C = cadence (in rev/min), CL = crank length (in m), and again the constants 2, Pi, and 60 serve to convert the data to the proper units. While technically muscle shortening velocity or at least joint angular velocity should be used instead of CPV, CPV has been shown to be an excellent predictor of joint angular velocity and, by extension, muscle shortening velocity. Indeed, since crank length is generally constant, especially for a given individual, one could just as well use cadence instead of CPV. However, the latter has been used here to be consistent with scientific convention and to emphasize the relationship of such cycling-specific plots to the more general force-velocity curve of muscle.
Once again, threshold power (and the associated cadence) provides a useful basis for comparison, and in particular for separating relatively low force from relatively high force pedaling effort. (It cannot be overemphasized that the absolute forces generated while cycling are usually quite low, such that strength is rarely a limiting factor to performance. An example of how quadrant analysis can be used to demonstrate this point is provided at the end of this article.) In particular, one factor contributing to the curvilinear relationship between exercise intensity and various metabolic responses (e.g., glycogen utilization, blood lactate concentration) is the recruitment of type II, or fast twitch, muscle fibers. Specifically, when pedaling at a typical cadence and a power output well below lactate threshold, there is little engagement or utilization of fast twitch fibers, but with progressive increases in power output, a progressively greater fraction of the total motor unit pool will be recruited to generate the required force. Based on scientific studies using a wide variety of techniques (e.g., EMG spectral analysis, muscle biopsies), it appears that threshold power represents not only a threshold in terms of the power that an athlete can sustain, but also somewhat of a threshold in terms of fast-twitch fiber recruitment. To state it another way: when pedaling at a typical self-selected cadence, functional threshold power appears to occur at the power (and thus force) at which significant fast twitch fiber recruitment first begins. Thus, AEPF and CPV at an individual’s threshold power can be used to divide the force-velocity scatterplot from any of their rides into four quadrants, as shown in Fig. 3. This division is somewhat arbitrary, in part because of the gradation in force and thus motor unit recruitment that occurs when cycling. Also, exercise duration plays an important role in fiber type recruitment, but this is not considered in the figure (to do so would require a three-dimensional plot of AEPF vs. CPV vs. time, which is too complex for routine use). Nevertheless, data points that fall into these four quadrants can be interpreted as follows:
Quadrant I (upper right): high force and high velocity. At the extreme, this would represented by sprinting, but most any extended supra-threshold effort on level ground (e.g., attack or bridge attempt during a race) would entail “quadrant I pedaling”. Perhaps not surprisingly, mass start racing on the track (e.g., points race) invariably entails a significant amount of such high force, high velocity pedaling, due to the typical aggressive nature of such racing and the use of a fixed gear.
Quadrant II (upper left): high force but low velocity. Typically, “quadrant II pedaling” occurs when climbing or accelerating, especially from a low speed. Indeed, a standing start, in which the initial CPV is zero, is the one situation in cycling where strength is truly limiting, i.e., only when CPV is zero will AEFP be maximal. Racing off-road (i.e., cyclocross or mountain bike racing) also often involves a significant amount of such high force, low velocity pedaling. However, even a race held on pavement may require a large percentage of such pedaling, if the climbs are steep and/or the rider is overgeared.
Because AEPF is sufficiently high, pedaling in both quadrant I and quadrant II would be expected to entail significant recruitment of fast twitch fibers.
in case that was tl:dr for you, this means that fast twitch muscle recruitment can be engaged at all sorts of cadences.
as for how this is relevant for the OP, it means you ride at the cadence specific to the event in which you’ll be participating. You foresee yourself needing to grind up a 1.5 mile long hill at 70rpm, then do 70rpm repeats, by all means.
Yep, if you read the sensational (but also brilliant) Michele Ferrari on the topic (52x11.com) he recommends high cadence for slow twitch dominant riders and lower for fast twitch. You can certainly train both ends of the spectrum (and maybe should) but most training should be at your optimal racing cadence which is determined by your muscle comp mostly. He does give some fairly narrow ranges though, I think around 95-110 and 75-90 rpm respectively iirc so nothing too extreme in either direction.
this means that fast twitch muscle recruitment can be engaged at all sorts of cadences.
as for how this is relevant for the OP, it means you ride at the cadence specific to the event in which you’ll be participating. You foresee yourself needing to grind up a 1.5 mile long hill at 70rpm, then do 70rpm repeats, by all means.
I never said it wasn’t 
“Slower cadences need more strength for one revolution and recruits more fast twitch muscle fibers. Conversely fewer fast twitch fibers are recruited at higher cadences.”
Screw the high cadence training. Low cadence at around 60 rpm for all training sessions should be the way to go. Then on race day, ramp up your cadence to 90 rpm. This training, including some hill repeats helped cut a substantial amount of time on most people that did this for a year.
Mix it up… thats what cycling is all about anyway train fast high cad. and slow and Low! Just Ride!
good luck with your strategy of only riding at 60rpms and then switching to 90 for racing. LOL!
good luck with your strategy of only riding at 60rpms and then switching to 90 for racing. LOL!
this lololol
it took me a good couple of months to go from low 80s to mid 90s…
I tend to hate high cadence workouts on the indoor trainer, so I usually throw in low cadence workouts.
Once I get outside, I usually focus on high cadence/hill workouts.
Right on, brother.
I don’t pay any attention to cadence at all.
I try not to go under 20 mph! Oh wait that’s Jordan :0) well… I try too.
Lance Watson discussed this a few years ago. If I recall, he felt that some early period low cadence workouts increased strength and later, adding high cadence workouts improved cycling power.
Joe Friel incorporates some low cadence workouts along with high cadence workouts in his ‘training bibles.’ One combined workout of his includes several high cadence (100+), high effort, several minute intervals followed by a 20 minutes of lower cadence moderately high effort riding.
Can we compare and contrast what is meant by strength and cycling power?
If I recall, he felt that some early period low cadence workouts increased strength and later, adding high cadence workouts improved cycling power.
I guess I should say muscular endurance and power, but I certainly may be wrong about that, too.
I guess I should say muscular endurance
What other kind of endurance is there?