Yesterday I did a long (ok 2 1/2 hrs is long for me) indoor group ride on an interactive trainer.
So speed, cadence, watts, hills, you name it were up on the big screen. No place to hide.
What was interesting was that toward the end we did two sets over an identical (5k) course.
In the first I did all the usual things, kept my cadence to 90+ , changed up and down to maintain that and to manage the watts
(mine are not boastable numbers, so I won’t post the amounts, they were in the 3 digits :0)
The second ride ( I was knackered) I lowered the cadence, stayed in the big ring and just kept the watts within manageable rates. Not expecting much.
The cadence dropped into the low seventies, I never lost breath and nothing hurt too much. Measured against the others in the group I improved, slightly.
It was 40 seconds faster.
Big deal, forty seconds, but we on here, pay big money to save forty seconds over 40K.
Anyone else find that a lower cadence suits them.
I am, admittedly not young.
(Of course this is an entirely scientific experience and I am sure reproduceable so please don’t question my objectivity).
I usually tend towards lower cadences. The only time I get up to 95+ is on really fast flat (or slight downhill, -0.5 to -2%). Any time the road goes up, my cadence falls to the 70s
I have considerably stronger legs than a ‘typical cyclist’ so I suspect it’s perceived to be more efficient to push a big gear at slower cadence than try and spin my, comparatively, huge legs. Or I don’t have enough core strength, since core strength always seems to be the answer.
I’m not sure what your question is exactly. A slower cadence lends itself to more power. Keeping the higher cadence makes it much easier to run off the bike.
I’m not sure what your question is exactly. A slower cadence lends itself to more power. Keeping the higher cadence makes it much easier to run off the bike.
This guy, on the other hand, recommends slower cadence for triathletes: http://trisutto.com/the-great-cadence-debate/
I understand that to be the case, however could that be accomplished by using a faster cadence for the last “x” minutes of a ride.
Obviously different for each distance.
Why did you have to drag color into the discussion?
On a serious note, on the trainer I struggle to turn 85 rpm.
On the same bike outside I crank along at 90 to 100 rpm and never think about it. In fact, I don’t even display cadence on the outside settings on the 910.
Not sure why, and never really worried about it. I turn what feels right at the moment.
i’m so glad you brought this up because i’ve been thinking about it a lot over the years.
here’s what i’m confident in stating: effort level and cadence scale together, on flat courses. you will pedal a faster cadence as the event decreases in length, increases in intensity. you’ll pedal a faster cadence over a flat 5mi tt than you will over a flat 500 mile tt, and the cadence you’ll pedal will scale as the effort scales.
here’s what i’m mostly confident stating: economy does not necessarily match utility. riding the most economic cadence (the cadence used to burn the least oxygen over the effort) may be lower than the cadence that will grant you the best outcome.
here’s where i start to get out over my skis: power = torque x rpm. if you lower the rpm you need to increase the torque. that means recruiting more fibers, and that means recruting type ii fibers. that means recruiting a fiber that trends toward the use of glycolytic versus anaerobic respiration. what seems to benefit you now, because it’s less stressful on your aerobic fatigue system, may pay a penalty later as you are now generating more neuromuscular fatigue. that’s the potential downwide to pedaling with a lower cadence.
that said, here are some countering arguments:
what is a higher intensity effort for a pro might be a lower intensity effort for you. his or her 4:45 IM bike split is a higher intensity, shorter duration effort than your 6:15 bike split. if the pro roe a 6:15 effort (maybe over 135mi) he or she might ride your IM cadence. but because the pro’s effort is shorter in duration, that athlete’s 85rpm might be appropriate whereas your 78rpm might be best for your longer duration (and therefore lower intensity) effort.
there is probably some variability in appropriate cadence based on your physiology. do you lean more toward type ii fibers? maybe pedalling a slower cadence takes more advantage of the fiber types you favor. if you’re a type i guy, maybe pedaling the faster cadence is right in your wheelhouse.
i invite the ex fizzers to tear me to shreds on the above.
I understand that to be the case, however could that be accomplished by using a faster cadence for the last “x” minutes of a ride.
Obviously different for each distance.
Anyone do that?
I have found that works for me. My natural cadence is 75-80 rpm. If I try to spin faster than that for very long, I get tired more quickly. But as I approach T2, I will drop into an easier gear for the last couple hundred yards. It also makes dismounts easier.
First of I am flabbergasted by your response and presence (genuflects).
As far as which muscles are involved. As most courses have a variety of terrains, steady state effort is almost impossible (and we mortals in AG don’t surge), I would contend (without any science ) that the glycolytically (is that a word) stressed muscles would recover over time as you revert to anaerobic based effort. The interval between effort governs that.
Higher performing athletes have a natural ability to operate and recover. Training amplifies that.
That is the difference between elite and AG.
Cadence is the result.?
The vast majority of Tri guys (people, persons?) do sprints, olympic and halfs. Lately there seems to have been a preponderance of responses about IM.
(btw my favourite IM distance (Montreal Esprit) disappeared a year or so ago and I’m still pissed (you hear that Danny) where will I go to celebrate 70.)
Your response was directed somewhat in that direction.
Now I have to admit that I am average (at best) in all three disciplines. (And bloody awful in at least one).
And what I have noticed is that, in fact, I am almost the same speed for any distance (beyond a 100m)
My best swim time for Olympic is exactly the same as my best swim for IM (time per 100m)
My best 40k was the split I had on the way to my best IM bike (Montreal, lap splits, very accurate, honest I didn’t draft).
My best run, (has never happened, ask anyone), is, once again the same up to Half distance.
The wheels always come off on the marathon, however I do it, pun intended.
I don’t believe I am alone in that sort of performance, as far as my level in AG competition is concerned.
I have a feeling that in trying to conform to the accepted norm, some are defeating themselves in the process.
Just a thought.
I agree. Cadence is individual, n=1. There is no right answer for everyone. We’re all different.
I had a new athlete in the CompuTrainer studio all winter, big guy. Masher. He was making all the power efforts, but a a cadence of 60-70. I asked him why. He said, “I’m a big guy so I’m a masher, and big guys who are mashers pedal slowly.” That’s a generally-held concept in cycling circles (albeit wrong) and he subscribed to it.
Over the winter, his cadence increased gradually, as did his FTP. From around 65rpm and 260 watts to 85rpm and 310 watts for an hour. He was actually embarassed and asked if he were “doing it wrong” because he was no longer a masher in his eyes, but becoming a spinner. That’s one of the beauties of doing power- or erg-based workouts on the Computrainer where speed and shifting don’t matter; it’s only the power. The outcome is that most athletes discover their natural cadence. And it may mean that a big guy is not necessarily a masher. Or a skinny guy a spinner.
Credit to Slowman for the application of cadence with regards to duration and intensity, but that’s applicable once an athlete finds his natural cadence.
Higher cadence taxes your cardiovascular system more and lower cadence taxes your muscular system.
You rode the 5K twice. With the lower RPMs was your HR lower? and higher RPMs your HR higher?
For me at same watts, higher cadence means higher HR, and vice versa.
I’ve worked with different coaches. One worked on raising my cadence so often in doing TTs my cadence would be in the 95 to 100 range. Next coach believed in lower cadence and he worked on getting my cadence down in the upper 70s. My FTP was higher with lower cadence. For me I think I’m more limited by cardiovascular system so makes sense than lower cadence may be better for me.
I’ve worked with different coaches. One worked on raising my cadence so often in doing TTs my cadence would be in the 95 to 100 range. Next coach believed in lower cadence and he worked on getting my cadence down in the upper 70s. Last coach I worked with had me self select.
Your statement is very much in line with how I’ve come to think about cadence, particularly with efficiency vs event specific “optimal” performance.
I also have a hypothesis that riders will naturally select to increase torque over cadence until they reach some value that acheives a balance of unweighting their arms and saddle that they can sustain for the length of an event. I think this is probably the condition that is most “efficient” for the rider, essentially utilizing their weight as much as tolerable with minimal muscle activation.
Thereafter a rider would increase gearing to maintain that torque, but increasing power.
This is just based on what I think I’ve observed looking over many of my training rides, but this would likely not apply to short sprint efforts.
Unless you’re racing a fixed gear on a track, then training with cadence in mind becomes important
Er, how so? Other than being able to tolerate the cadence necessary to go the speeds that’ll occur in the races you’re doing. As a metric speed (or power) seems more universal.
That is an actual question, not trying to be snarky. I’ve been racing track for one season, most of the races likely had speeds ranging from 18 to (briefly) 32 mph. With my gearing (90) that’s a 70ish to 125ish cadence with very little time spent at those extremes. While I wouldn’t self select a cadence of 125, my cadence isn’t the limiting factor at those speeds.