Cadence....discuss

[JV911]

Buggered if I could do 90 - 95rpm up a 4 - 6% hill that is less than 8km. I'm more in the mid 70's to 80's.

yep, if the hill is sufficiently steep you won't have a choice as to what cadence you do...it's not like bikes have a Continuously Variable Transmission

[KenGS]

Buggered if I could do 90 - 95rpm up a 4 - 6% hill that is less than 8km. I'm more in the mid 70's to 80's.

yep, if the hill is sufficiently steep you won't have a choice as to what cadence you do...it's not like bikes have InfinitelyVariable Transmission

fixed

[ft_critical]

Cadence, it is all about pedalling technique at the right heart rate. If you can master those, and provided your stem isn't too long, you should be fine averaging somewhere between 40 and 140RPM.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Focus on improving power output

if power = torque x rpm it may be possible to produce more power (with less torque) at a higher rpm, no?

250w on the flat feels easier (by HR, perceived effort, burning quads etc) at say 90rpm on the flats compared to 250w at 60rpm on a hill...at least that's what i think i'm finding with the PM. but you don't really have a choice on a hill if it's steep enough and you're already in 39x25

Don't confuse how we measure power with how we produce it*. We can't bio mechanically isolate the pedal speeds and torques as if we can control one over the other independently.

IOW - what we can control is the power we produce (i.e. the effort level) and the gear we choose to use. Cadence is simply an outcome.

If cadence drops too low on climbs, then you don't have gearing appropriate for the riding you do at your current fitness level.


* I think what happens is that since cadence is easy to measure, it gets elevated in people's minds as something more important than it really is. e.g. have you ever heard anyone suggest you should ride with an average effective pedal force of between X & Y Newtons? Because that would be just as "valid" or meaningless as specifying a cadence on its own.

Specifying a cadence along with a power output or an effort level, is a reasonable instruction, although I'd be more inclined to specify an effort/power level and suggest a cadence range as a guide.

[twizzle]

Watched with interest... so I'm going to make a couple of comments.

From what I've read, preferred (self-selected) cadence seems to be influenced by the predominant muscle fibre type, TT'ers (slow twitch) tend to have a lower cadence than road cyclists (fast twitch). There are (as far as I can tell) two issues associated with cadence, which is (1) efficiency and (2) muscle damage.

1. As power increases, the cadence which provides the least VO2 requirement increases, ie. you have to pedal faster to maintain efficiency. But someone who is predominantly slow-twitch won't achieve the same efficiency at higher cadence as a fast-twitch athlete - in other words, you will burn out faster. I'm slow-twitch (I have NO sprint), I tend to sit on a cadence of around 80 - 90rpm, and even when going flat-out I rarely spin faster than 105rpm. Other cyclists (ie. Chaderroti) are happy at 100+rpm and can really wind it up in a sprint.

2. High force levels at the pedals damages ligaments/tendons/muscles/cartilage - ie. don't try and sprint at 40rpm because you are going to hurt yourself.

So... my basic advice is to stick to the cadence you are comfortable with as long as you remember to increase the cadence somewhat when pushing hard so that you don't stuff the knees etc.

[Wayfarer]

FWIW... Triat$&@n coaches have suggested to me to pedal training at 40-50RPM to develop strength quickly, and racing at 60RPM to better preserve glycogen/carbohydrate stores for the run.. Lower cadences burn fat more predominantly, as opposed to high cadences which feed off carbs. These days though, I start at about 95RPM, spin that for a few hours, then when i'm tired, i go down to about 60. I think that high cadences are also influenced by heart size; eg Lances ridiculously high cadences were due to his large heart size and ability to push out an extreme value of aerobic power. It's something you have to train for though..

[toolonglegs]

FWIW... Triat$&@n coaches have suggested to me to pedal training at 40-50RPM to develop strength quickly, and racing at 60RPM to better preserve glycogen/carbohydrate stores for the run.. Lower cadences burn fat more predominantly, as opposed to high cadences which feed off carbs. These days though, I start at about 95RPM, spin that for a few hours, then when i'm tired, i go down to about 60. I think that high cadences are also influenced by heart size; eg Lances ridiculously high cadences were due to his large heart size and ability to push out an extreme value of aerobic power. It's something you have to train for though..

OMGosh!!!.

[thomashouseman]

Watched with interest... so I'm going to make a couple of comments.

From what I've read, preferred (self-selected) cadence seems to be influenced by the predominant muscle fibre type, TT'ers (slow twitch) tend to have a lower cadence than road cyclists (fast twitch). There are (as far as I can tell) two issues associated with cadence, which is (1) efficiency and (2) muscle damage.

1. As power increases, the cadence which provides the least VO2 requirement increases, ie. you have to pedal faster to maintain efficiency. But someone who is predominantly slow-twitch won't achieve the same efficiency at higher cadence as a fast-twitch athlete - in other words, you will burn out faster. I'm slow-twitch (I have NO sprint), I tend to sit on a cadence of around 80 - 90rpm, and even when going flat-out I rarely spin faster than 105rpm. Other cyclists (ie. Chaderroti) are happy at 100+rpm and can really wind it up in a sprint.

2. High force levels at the pedals damages ligaments/tendons/muscles/cartilage - ie. don't try and sprint at 40rpm because you are going to hurt yourself.

So... my basic advice is to stick to the cadence you are comfortable with as long as you remember to increase the cadence somewhat when pushing hard so that you don't stuff the knees etc.

Re. point 1: I think I'm ULTRA-Slow Twitch.
Re. Point 2: Good advice!

[brentono]

Let's clear up a few anomolies creaping in, before, like much of Googling, urban legend becomes fact.
Everybody has both fast and slow twitch fibers, in their muscle mass, in varying ratios. OK.
People with a greater fast twitch fibers, tend to have explosive power, and greater slow-twitch, endurance.
The first tend to the Track, the latter to the Road. Though they are found in either disclipline.
Muscles with predominantly fast-twitch fibers exhibit higher maximum and optimal shortening velocities and
are up to 5 times as powerful (per unit muscle mass) as slow-twitch muscles.
Types of twitch rate muscle fiber can determine the type of pedaling rates that can be achieved.
Pedaling rate, in conjunction with crank length, determines pedal speed and thereby sets shortening velocity
for uniarticular muscles that span the hip, knee, and ankle.
The twitch fiber types sets the time within which muscles must become excited, produce force while shortening,
and relax before lengthening.
Maximal cycling power is influenced by pedaling rate, muscle size and fiber composition, and fatigue.
So to sum up, have talked about pedalers, those who have high ratios of fast-twitch fibers, who can more
easily attain higher cadence levels. Then there are those that have higher ratios of slow-twitch fibers and
are more comfortable with lower cadence, higher gears, and endurance events (sluggers as we used to call them)
Each muscle fibre type can be crossed trained, so many variations can be produced.
Each body type/muscle fiber type/ can be trained and enhanced, with a lot of hard effort.
Hope that helps.
Cheers,
BrentonO

[human909]

Let's clear up a few anomolies creaping in, before, like much of Googling, urban legend becomes fact.
Everybody has both fast and slow twitch fibers, in their muscle mass, in varying ratios. OK.
People with a greater fast twitch fibers, tend to have explosive power, and greater slow-twitch, endurance.

Correct.

So to sum up, have talked about pedalers, those who have high ratios of fast-twitch fibers, who can more
easily attain higher cadence levels. Then there are those that have higher ratios of slow-twitch fibers and
are more comfortable with lower cadence, higher gears, and endurance events (sluggers as we used to call them)

Incorrect. What does cadence have to do with it the fast twitch vs slow twitch distinction. Fast twitch/slow twitch is the difference between anaerobic and aerobic power. It has no direct implication on ideal cadence.

[brentono]

It has no direct implication on ideal cadence.

Incorrect
There is no such thing as "Ideal Cadence"
(unless your talking about power. The apex of that relationship is generally reported
to occur at ~120 to 130 rev/min (rpm), and power can vary by up to 25% within a range
of pedaling rates from 60 to 120 rpm)
Cheers,
BrentonO

[human909]

It has no direct implication on ideal cadence.

Incorrect
There is no such thing as "Ideal Cadence"
(unless your talking about power. The apex of that relationship is generally reported
to occur at ~120 to 130 rev/min (rpm), and power can vary by up to 25% within a range
of pedaling rates from 60 to 120 rpm)
Cheers,
BrentonO

Did I say there was such thing as a fixed ideal cadence? No I did not. Don't try to throw a straw man argument into the mix.

[twizzle]

So to sum up, have talked about pedalers, those who have high ratios of fast-twitch fibers, who can more
easily attain higher cadence levels. Then there are those that have higher ratios of slow-twitch fibers and
are more comfortable with lower cadence, higher gears, and endurance events (sluggers as we used to call them)

Incorrect. What does cadence have to do with it the fast twitch vs slow twitch distinction. Fast twitch/slow twitch is the difference between anaerobic and aerobic power. It has no direct implication on ideal cadence.

Too simple a view, IMHO, ratios of Type I / Type IIa / Type IIb muscle tissue have far more implications than just "the difference between anaerobic and aerobic power".

Given the amount of research still being carried out on the subject of cadence, I think it's fair to say that there's no black/white in regards to cadence selection. But, there's nothing wrong with the observation that the sprinters tend to ride with higher cadences than the TT'ers.

[brentono]

It has no direct implication on ideal cadence.

Incorrect
There is no such thing as "Ideal Cadence"
(unless your talking about power. The apex of that relationship is generally reported
to occur at ~120 to 130 rev/min (rpm), and power can vary by up to 25% within a range
of pedaling rates from 60 to 120 rpm)
Cheers,
BrentonO

Did I say there was such thing as a fixed ideal cadence? No I did not. Don't try to throw a straw man argument into the mix.

"It has no direct implication on ideal cadence"
Don't try to throw a Tin Man Fallacy into the mix.
(as stated before, don't bother stalking me, if you want "silly debates" go see Christine, I'm out)
Won't bother responding to any more of your posts, got better things to do.

Types of twitch rate muscle fiber can determine the type of pedaling rates that can be achieved.

Cheers,
BrentonO

[ft_critical]

So to sum up, have talked about pedalers, those who have high ratios of fast-twitch fibers, who can more
easily attain higher cadence levels. Then there are those that have higher ratios of slow-twitch fibers and
are more comfortable with lower cadence, higher gears, and endurance events (sluggers as we used to call them)

In spite of my previous sarcastic comment, your thoughts above do prompt a question Brenton. So sprinters are a ball of fast twitch and high RPM . But when they climb they 'appear' to prefer to grind up the climb. Why is that? Not a leading question, I don't know the answer.

[brentono]

So to sum up, have talked about pedalers, those who have high ratios of fast-twitch fibers, who can more
easily attain higher cadence levels. Then there are those that have higher ratios of slow-twitch fibers and
are more comfortable with lower cadence, higher gears, and endurance events (sluggers as we used to call them)

In spite of my previous sarcastic comment, your thoughts above do prompt a question Brenton. So sprinters are a ball of fast twitch and high RPM . But when they climb they 'appear' to prefer to grind up the climb. Why is that? Not a leading question, I don't know the answer.

"But when they climb they 'appear' to prefer to grind up the climb."
They. Who? "appear" (can be deceptive) to grind up the climb... whom did you have in mind, or is that ALL sprinters.
What you are asking is very broad.
Will just give you my point of view (FME) on hills, I personally would select a lower gear, and maintain higher cadence.
Hill climbers (purist) are a breed in themselves, usually lightweight (lowering the gravity forces on hills, greater power to weight)
Being lighter, would expect them to have a greater slow-twitch muscle ratio, greater endurance and historically have
personally noticed, that they could vary between low and higher cadence depending on the type of rider
(due to the way they trained, I could only presume) I tend to think of the older climbers like Lucien Van Impe, and others
of the period, and realise, that methods have changed these days, though the basics must prevail.
Just some thoughts, hope they may be a small answer to your question, with more detail,
I may be able to elaborate further.
Cheers,
BrentonO

[human909]

In spite of my previous sarcastic comment, your thoughts above do prompt a question Brenton. So sprinters are a ball of fast twitch and high RPM . But when they climb they 'appear' to prefer to grind up the climb. Why is that? Not a leading question, I don't know the answer.

I would have prusumed that sprinters do grind up hills but to be honest I don't have the fact either way. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. To put simply the sprinters are overall stronger so they can happily crank much more comfortably in higher gears. But they can't necessarily produce power because except for short burts, power is dependent on the cardio system not the muscles. Either way maybe a car analogy would make things clearer for you:

Sprinters are like a big V8 they have the power when they want it and even on the steady cruise they are happy sitting in a higher gear and low revs. Hill climbers and general endurance are like a small 4 cylinders. They simply don't have the power for the final sprint but for general cruising they are far more fuel efficient. And except for short distances oxygen efficiency is all important. Because ultimately it is the cardio, the oxygen delivery system that is the limitting factor in cycling.

This is same for running too. Compare the difference between sprinters and marathon runners in body shape. Going back to the aerobic/anaerobic discussion 400m is generally considered a anaerobic sprint event whereas 800m is more of an aerobic event. This is because the body can really only perform deep in the anaerobic zone for around 1 minute. For cycling this is around 800m.

[ft_critical]

"But when they climb they 'appear' to prefer to grind up the climb."
They. Who? "appear" (can be deceptive) to grind up the climb... whom did you have in mind, or is that ALL sprinters.

I meant ALL sprinters. But now that I think about it, it reminds me that people have said there are two types of sprinters, Power Sprinters (Greipel) and Speed Sprinters (Cav.) Perhaps that influences they way they climb.

I am a sprinter. I can climb a bit, but I grind up at 60-65RPM usually, then stand and pick up the cadence for sections to give myself a break or for fun.

Also I am reminded of several BA articles on climbing that suggest that climbing seated is more efficient for larger cyclists. I extrapolate this to, larger cyclists are better off pushing bigger gears rather than spinning up.

I also think that Sprinters only have a very short time in which to use that high RPM, i.e., they can't spin high RPM for 30min climb, but they can for a 1min sprint. (Inventing here) I think that with all that muscle mass it must be more efficient to reduce the number of rotations on a climb. Downhill, well obviously, they have all that weight to make this easier so they can spin down.


Anyway, just shooting the breeze on this as I don't have enough knowledge for an informed opinion.

[brentono]

Anyway, just shooting the breeze on this as I don't have enough knowledge for an informed opinion.

Ah, Yes, if these debates were just black and white, it would be easy, pick a side, eh!
I am not here for any argument, and only give my point of view, from my own personal experience.
Sometimes I will use recent Scientifc data, that I personally can relate to, and understand from own cycling.
Have found Dr. Jim Martin, very informative in that respect.

Personally, as a Sprinter, on hills, I had fairly good ability over most of the hills I encountered in Aussie races.
Won a Senior Open Hills Classic, and a State Junior Road Championship over hills, and competed OK
in the Australian Jnr Road Champs over the same hilly coarse. I did a lot of my Sprint training in the Hills.
"they can't spin high RPM for 30min climb"... don't remember too many 30 min climbs in my time.
So, I can only say, that if you train, you can succeed, and adapt to most conditions.
Being heavier, you can probably push larger gears, out of the seat, up hills, using your weight more,
I would have thought. Though my style was more in the seat, and pedal at higher RPM.
Good Luck with your racing, at least you have some experience, and are able to give your
own perspective, on many of the points discussed here, on the site.
Cheers,
BrentonO

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Sprinters don't ride hills.

Oh - you mean roadies that can sprint a bit? They ride hills like most roadies do - the best way they can.

[brentono]

Sprinters don't ride hills.

Oh - you mean roadies that can sprint a bit? They ride hills like most roadies do - the best way they can.

"I did a lot of my Sprint training in the Hills."

They ride hills like most roadies do - the best way they can

... and suffer

Cheers,
BrentonO

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Sprinters are like a big V8 they have the power when they want it and even on the steady cruise they are happy sitting in a higher gear and low revs. Hill climbers and general endurance are like a small 4 cylinders. They simply don't have the power for the final sprint but for general cruising they are far more fuel efficient. And except for short distances oxygen efficiency is all important.

I think analogies with cars and internal combustion engines are misleading.

[brentono]

Sprinters are like a big V8 they have the power when they want it and even on the steady cruise they are happy sitting in a higher gear and low revs. Hill climbers and general endurance are like a small 4 cylinders. They simply don't have the power for the final sprint but for general cruising they are far more fuel efficient. And except for short distances oxygen efficiency is all important.

I think analogies with cars and internal combustion engines are misleading.

+1
human909: You are a genius at straw man arguments and red herrings.
Cheers,
BrentonO

[casual_cyclist]

A casual conversation with a coach " if you learn to spin at 100 cadence comfortably at an easier gear then you slowly introduce a higher gear, this will improve you quicker than trying to push a higer gear with a lower cadence."

Oh dear.

What will improve you "faster" is training at the right effort levels in the right doses.
Cadence is a red herring.

This article appears to support this assertion:

For many years, scientists, coaches and athletes have attempted to determine the optimal pedal rate to apply during a variety of cycling tasks. While numerous investigations have been conducted, the best possible cycling cadence remains unclear.

from http://www.fims.org/default.asp?pageID=213202031

If you are doing triathlons, you might want to read this: http://www.trainingbible.com/joesblog/2 ... ng-in.html

This study is really interesting and confirms Alex's assertion:

Macintosh and his co-workers have shown that optimal cadence for 100, 200, 300 and 400w cycling occurs at 57, 70, 86 and 99rpm respectively(9). This casts some doubt on the age-old advice that cyclists should aim for 95rpm because ‘that’s what the pros do’

from: http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/cycling ... ider-42241

[Alex Simmons/RST]

And except for short distances oxygen efficiency is all important.

I'm curious as to your take on this especially considering that, on average, professional cyclists are no more or less efficient than your typical trained club racer.