So I am riding my new CompuTrainer and I start to notice that I am putting out more wattage pushing a harder gear and feel more comfortable at around 80-85 rpm range. So I always hear 90 rpm is ideal etc, but as soon as I go to 90 at an easier gear it doesn’t feel as comfortable on the aerobars and my wattage goes down.
Just wondering what other people are doing for cadence and does it truly matter or is wattage more important…?? I watch Lance with the super high cadence and Jan with the lower power stroke and I start thinking that if you are more of a power cyclist a lower cadence is probably better anyways. What do you think…?? I know that a higher cadence will give you better acceleration, but triathlon is more about a sustained effort over a longer period of time.
Plus, try pushing that fat gear at 80rpm for two hours. Then do the same (another time) at the same watts in a lower gear at 90 or whatever rpm. Note the difference. Maybe try a brick run, too. Note the big difference!
I’m a masher by nature (prefer ~80-85 rpm). When I ride a high cadence (say 90-110 most of the time), covering my usual route in the same time, my legs feels much lighter afterward.
No such thing as the perfect cadence for everyone. Even with pro cyclists there is quite a range. I’m a natural spinner but some other people can be natural mashers. You just got to find what works most effeciently for you.
So I am riding my new CompuTrainer and I start to notice that I am putting out more wattage pushing a harder gear and feel more comfortable at around 80-85 rpm range. So I always hear 90 rpm is ideal etc, but as soon as I go to 90 at an easier gear it doesn’t feel as comfortable on the aerobars and my wattage goes down.
Just wondering what other people are doing for cadence and does it truly matter or is wattage more important…?? I watch Lance with the super high cadence and Jan with the lower power stroke and I start thinking that if you are more of a power cyclist a lower cadence is probably better anyways. What do you think…?? I know that a higher cadence will give you better acceleration, but triathlon is more about a sustained effort over a longer period of time.
Like many people have stated… No one cadences suits all.
I will say this, I personally believe if you can get good power at a higher cadence (anywhere between 90-100) that you may be better off in triathlons. Why? I believe it was an interview with Peter Reid where he stated that he believes that most Age groupers spin anywhere from slightly to way to low. Sure, some people can put out huge numbers at lower cadences… However, that will do you little to no good if you have to death march the marathon with trashed quads.
But even for this theory… I know of guys that push a very heavy gear that run quite well thank you. There are exceptions to all rules.
…and your Spinscan and pedal balance sucks at the higher cadence too, doesn’t it? But as soon as you start to crank, Spinscan smoothes out and you can maintain 50/50 power balance on the pedals, right? In fact, I’ll bet that when spinning faster, your left leg looks like it is carrying more of the load than the right, correct?
I received a response to this from the Yahoo CT users group. I will look for it and PM you with it.
I have become a god to you with this single Post, correct?
I’ll find it tonight in my E-mail. Basically, he is saying, yeah everybody’s different, but, most people are probably better off (because of the “run” thing we do afterwards), with a higher cadence AND, we (you and I) are untrained. He suggests starting at that cadence we like to be in and move it up a bit, meanwhile trying to maintain the same watts and Spinscan. Then move up the cadence again, etc.
I’m assuming that what I said about power balance and Spinscan numbers was correct? If not, ignore this: My take is that the reason your left appears stronger at the higher cadence is because, if you really think about it, you lack the control with your left that you have with the right, and you are actually “throwing” the left leg on the downstroke (which creates a bit more power), whereas the right is doing more of a controlled spin. You can probably prove this to yourself with one-legged spins–your left will get whacky (unsmooth) pretty quickly–and you will see what I mean about “throwing” the left leg on the downstroke.
Damn! And you were doing so well there for a moment…
Uh-oh. Just when I though I had this figured out. I am supposed to be driving my HR through the roof?
Don’t assume that a round pedal stroke is the most physiologically efficient. It may not be. Pedalling a perfect circle is a complex motor task our bodies are ill suited for.
The reason we are told to pedal in circles is because chainrings happen to be circular. It they were triangular we’d have to learn to pedal in triangles.
That may be why things like Biopace and Rotorcranks work for some riders.
When I ride a high cadence (say 90-110 most of the time), covering my usual route in the same time,
Monk calls you a dirty rotten liar.
And Aztec calls you a… a… a… shoot, I don’t know the word. I go with this: “a very bad man.”
I read somewhere that (to paraphrase) “the more power your produce, the more likely you are to produce that power at a higher cadence”. I think the article studied a whole bunch of people, and found that the strong riders seemed to have cadences of 95±5, while the weak riders were more like 85±5, and the average riders were 90±5.
My question is this: Could it be that optimal cadence is determined more by “pedal stroke smoothness” than by “power output”? The fact that strong cyclists tend to have smooth pedal strokes would support the data from the article I read. But perhaps power output is only correlated to higher optimal cadence, and not causal.
The answer to my question is important because it addresses the question of “should I try to achieve a higher cadence?” If the relationship is power/cadence, then the answer would be “train for Lance-like cadence when you can produce Lance-like power”. If the relationship is stroke smoothness/cadence, then the answer would be “work on smoothing your pedalstroke, and don’t be surprised to see your optimal cadence go up as your strokes smooths out.”
In other words: Is higher optimal cadence a valid goal in and of itself, or should it happen as a byproduct of achieving a smoother pedal stroke?
And Aztec calls you a… a… a… shoot, I don’t know the word. I go with this: “a very bad man.”
Monk says “your Momma”, and mockingly grabs a part of his anatomy.
The reason we are told to pedal in circles is because chainrings happen to be circular. It they were triangular we’d have to learn to pedal in triangles.
I’ll get Frank Day to work on this right away.
Query–wouldn’t a perfectly smooth pedal stroke put too much emphasis on the hammies?