Is a high 100+ cadence recommended for sprint or olympic distance?
I have raced at 70 and at 110. Seem to be a little quicker on the run.
Is a high 100+ cadence recommended for sprint or olympic distance?
I have raced at 70 and at 110. Seem to be a little quicker on the run.
70 is way too low… i would keep it at least 95, but try to keep it over 100. you will be wasting way too mucxh energy at 70.
I’m MOP for bigger races, top 10 in local sprints. I try to keep a cadence between 95 & 105 for sprints and 90-100 for 1/2 IM distance.
Personally, anything much below 90 and I’m burning way too much energy for far too little speed. I’m fairly even in all 3 events, endurance is my limiter and I’ve found these cadence ranges to be critical.
I’m sure other people can do much better than I with much different cadences, this is only what I have found to work for me.
I did a bunch of tests on the Computrainer comparing speed/heart rate/power output/cadence. Totally unscientific but about as systematic as I was willing to get. Over 20 trials on the same course (Compu-Trainer Ten Mile Beginner) I saw my best performances at an average of 78 rpm. I have never been a “spinner” but have done work to improve my pedalling technique for years. In my opinion, each person has an “ideal” or best cadence for their physiology. There are a ton of factors that influence what that may be: Muscle fiber dispensation (slow vs. fast), body dimensions, stroke volume, VO2 max, Anaerobic threshhold, respiratory volume, etc. I don’t think there is any one universal “best” cadence for everyone. It’s an individual tendency.
your most efficient cadence. That is, the one that gets the most power to the wheel for the same effort in the same position. For most people that is probably around 85 or so, your 78 number based upon fairly systematic testing reflects that.
If one thinks that high cadences help out on the run then bring the cadence up the last 10-15 minutes of the bike to warm things up but no need to ride the entire race at high cadence.
Excellent thought. I concur.
It became immediately obvious to me that my pedal stroke was inefficient last week when I began training with a device that demands you use your hip flexors to raise the pedal up on the back half of the stroke. (We all know which device I am referring to, and if you don’t know, I’m not going to tell you, because I want to keep it a secret!)
But, I’m a relatively fast cadence guy (108 is where I usually feel best), so I realize I’ve been wasting energy 216 power strokes per minute! Maybe this is ONE of the reasons that my “coach” told me to run lower rpm’s in Time Trials and I’d go faster. He was right, I drop down to about 90 for TT’s and am about a minute faster in 10 miles.
I wonder, if using this new device and getting a better pedal stroke (meaning more efficient, or, at least less wasteful…two terms which do not neccessarily mean the same thing), if I’ll be able to be even faster by being able to ride at my normal higher cadence without the wasted energy on each stroke? i.e., is a lower cadence best for most people because it limits the inefficiencies in an inefficient stroke? And can having a better stroke result in being able to be faster at a higher cadence than you previously ran? Time will tell…
you don’t lose the energy required to make your legs pump up and down, which increases as the cube of the cadence, by my calculations. This “improved efficiency with lower cadence” can only go so far however as lower cadences require higher pressure on the pedals for the same power and our muscles can only increase so far. The better the cyclist (the more power one can sustain) the higher this “optimum” cadence probably is.
Frank
Also, I bet another reason lower cadences are limited in their effectiveness is the decrease in blood flow to a specific muscle while it is actively contracted.
Just as the heart muscle is perfused only during diastole, the pressure in a contracted skeletal muscle inhibits blood flow through that muscle. Something I imagine that could be called the “contract-relax ratio” is probably most efficient at a certain value (probably varying from person-to-person and muscle-to-muscle), and that ratio may play a very important role in an individual’s most efficient cadence, not only from an oxygen delivery standpoint, but from a waste product removal standpoint as well.
I’d bet there are different cadences associated with what is most efficient over short distances, medium distances, and long distances, too, for these as well as other reasons (such as decreased maximum cardiac output when big muscles groups are contracted long enough to decrease venous return; especially if increased intrathoracic pressures are present as a person’s breathing patterns are changed during the “big effort”, etc.)
Regardless of how I “feel”, I go faster at rpm’s about 87-90 for distances of 20 miles or less, 95-100 for longer distances (up to about 60 miles), and above 60 miles, I vary cadence more, but tend to be over 100. Why I “FEEL” best at about 108 on my training rides, I don’t know. It just seems to be where I find myself when my speed is very good, I’m relaxed, I feel like I’m not working hard, and I feel like I could ride like that all day (it’s not true, but I feel that way at the time being).
if, after 6-12 months on the PC’s (after you have developed the ability to ride at higher caadences on them), if higher cadences still “feel” more comfortable/powerful than moderate cadence (80-90).
Actually, lower cadences are better for blood flow. You are correct that no blood flow occurs in the muscle once the pressure in the muscle exceeds blood pressure. In fact, any blood in the muscle will be squeezed out. This means that there will always be a certain amount of time after relaxation occurs (another constant delay adding to this filing delay) before the blood vessels are refilled and oxygen exchange can occur. this time is fixed (always the same regard less of cadence) so at higher cadences this constitutes a higher and higher percentage of the total diastolic filling time reducing the percentage of the total time available for blood flow.
this is one of the major factors that limit heart rate, where most of the physiolgicaal work on this phenomenon has been done.
It makes sense that as you increase cadence there is a point where maximal oxygen delivery and/or waste removal is reached…any further increase in cadence will exceed the system’s ability to operate efficiently, any lower cadence would be sub-optimal use of the system’s ability.
I would also imagine there is a lower limit where the muscle is contracted too long so that O2 delivery and/or waste removal is hampered by the lack of blood flow during the contraction; also, in order to generate enough power at this low cadence the muscular force required may be too high for the muscle to achieve, as you alluded to.
It would be nice to be able to find those values by going to a physiology lab and have the limits tested, as well as finding out where you were most efficient. I’m sure it must be done somewhere all the time! It would help to be able to train smarter and race faster…until then, I’ll just continue to work hard and recover easy.
This means that there will always be a certain amount of time after relaxation occurs (another constant delay adding to this filing delay) before the blood vessels are refilled and oxygen exchange can occur. this time is fixed
This is a generalisation. So-called ‘neuromuscular fatigue’ is higher at lower cadence. Also, energy requirements per revolution are lower at higher cadence for the same output effort.
I’m disregarding the cube-of-the-cadence pumping effort, which I’m going to have to confirm before I can fully accept; I think the acceleration of the legs is largely done by the mechanical system of linkages (joints) driven by the pedals, and not by explicit forcing of the legs. In other words, if I took a system of logs on hinges and hooked them together into the configuration of a thigh and shin (assume a stiff ankle), and connected them to a spinning crank, it would require zero energy (assuming no losses from friction) to keep it running. At least, that’s my gut feeling; I have to check it. But if you have calcs you’d like to send me, that might help see where you’re coming from on this point.
“This is a generalisation. So-called ‘neuromuscular fatigue’ is higher at lower cadence. Also, energy requirements per revolution are lower at higher cadence for the same output effort.”
Of course this is a generalization. But it has nothing to do with neuromuscular fatique, it is a property of biomechanical systems. Relaxation is not instantaneous. Only force on the pedal is lower at higher cadences, overall energy requirements remain the same or may actually increase as chain losses must increase at higher cadences.
“I’m disregarding the cube-of-the-cadence pumping effort, which I’m going to have to confirm before I can fully accept; I think the acceleration of the legs is largely done by the mechanical system of linkages (joints) driven by the pedals, and not by explicit forcing of the legs. In other words, if I took a system of logs on hinges and hooked them together into the configuration of a thigh and shin (assume a stiff ankle), and connected them to a spinning crank, it would require zero energy (assuming no losses from friction) to keep it running. At least, that’s my gut feeling; I have to check it. But if you have calcs you’d like to send me, that might help see where you’re coming from on this point.”
The reason for this energy loss is obvious is you look at the thighs. In order to conserve energy between the legs the energy must be transferred from one leg to the other to keep the total energy of the system constant. But if you watch your thighs they are both accelerating and decelerating at the same time. Energy is a scalar not a vector, the fact that one is accelerating up while the other is accelerating down is of no consequence to this calculation. The faster one pedals the higher the accelerations and energy requirements.
It seems to me I have read that a lower cadence uses less oxygen per unit output than a higher cadence because of the need to use energy to accelerate the legs faster at higher cadence. Anecdotally, I have always gone faster when I use a cadence of less than 90, and have done my fastest short TT’s (5 to 10 miles) with cadences of around 70 (maximum mashing!). Over 90 and I feel that I’m not getting as much power for the effort. Lance armstrong probably lost the first TT of the last TdF due to going too high on his cadence - 120 I think is what they counted. At that high cadence the power drops quite a bit I imagine.
This thread is getting a little long - it seems hard to read in this new format - so forgive me if I’m rehashing old ground.
I thought this was obvious but maybe it needs to be pointed out anyway. Cadence has always seemed to be a trade off between raw strength and aerobic fitness.
Cycling at lower cadence would then be appropriate for someone who is strong but with a weaker aerobic system. I have always had a stronger aerobic system so in racing I compensate by spinning at a higher cadence. If your strength and aerobic fitness were evenly matched you would presumably find a middle ground of say 85-90?
Regarding the Lance TT he lost, I think most of us would consider 120 to be far too high for long term riding. I believe I read an article about Lance talking about his enormous aerobic capacity and using this as the reasoning for high cadence.
“Relaxation is not instantaneous. Only force on the pedal is lower at higher cadences,”
Ahh, but at lower cadences not only is recovery time increased, but muscle contraction time is increased as well, in addition to the higher force. I think this has some deleterious effect (whether neuromuscular fatigue is the correct term, I may be wrong).
“The reason for this energy loss is obvious is you look at the thighs.”
Not obvious to me (despite engineering training). I haven’t studied it out, but will give it some thought.
Interesting discussion from a few years ago. I am at work on a long slow Saturday with nothing to do nad the front page is not filling up fast enough so I dug DEEEEEP in the archives for this.
I tried to spin a higher cadence for years and watched my cycling get worse each year and this year I have reverted to a slower cadence and find it much easier to run off of the bike. Anyone else experience this?
Wow. This was a long time ago. I’m amazed at how much lower my cadence dropped from my old-time 108.
One of the things pointed out to me since then that helps me accept a lower cadence is that the energy requirement increases as the speed of the foot increases. So, the longer the crankarms, the lower the cadence should probably be for a given rider (I’m talking about significantly different crankarm lengths…2.5 or maybe even 5 mm one way or the other might not make enough of a difference to measure…I don’t know).
Also, the higher the power a rider is putting out, the higher in that rider’s “good cadence range” he will probably have to stay in order to keep it up for a long time.
It seems apparent that there is a different range for different people, based upon I-don’t-know-how-many varibles, but, the variables include genetics, physical conditioning, power output, environmental issues, crankarm length, experience, assumptions, and others.
There is a great discussion of this in Burke’s “High Performance Cycling.” They discuss muscle fiber type as playing a major role. Cadences of ~105 start to get closer to the contraction rate of Type I fibers. That is one of the theories as to why Lance rides so well at a higher cadence. It is an endlessly fascinating discussion. And one of the most interesting points is that the physiological “optimum” cadence often is NOT the cadence that feels the best, so pro-cyclists will often ride what feels right, even if lab testing dictates something different. The mental aspect of cadence is hugely important…