# Cadence vs higher gears



## loki421 (12 Jul 2012)

Hi all,

I'm a new member here so I apologise in advance if this is a common question.

Basically I've been riding an 18 speed mountain bike for the last 6 weeks or so and I'm upgrading to a good road bike (Trek 1.1 2013, very excited!  ). For the last few weeks I've been trying to keep in the top gear up hills and it's been a real slog sometimes, but it is getting easier. My route takes me around 8 miles round the local country roads and some are quite hilly.

Anyway, as I'm going to be moving onto a road bike I'm hoping my distance will increase (as I've heard that once you've made the move you can go further and faster). So I'm wondering if I should stick to big gears and knacker myself out after 10 mile or so or gear down to pace myself over a longer route?

Today I experimented with a 12 mile route over some hilly terrain and geared down quite a lot. My average pace didn't seem to drop much, I've been hovering around 13mph lately and today I came back after 12 miles with an average pace of 12mph, so I'm leaning towards gearing down and making my life easier! lol.

Just wanted to get some input from some experienced cyclists. I'm trying get my fitness up to a level where I can join my local club, they ride every Sunday for about 50 mile at 14mph pace.

Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts


----------



## stephen.rooke (12 Jul 2012)

higher cadence means youll be less tired when riding, but build in some intervals in your rides in higher gears. youll soon be able to get a higher cadence in the bigger gears. i like to alternate quite a bit, if its windy i drop down a few gears and dont bother trying to fight it too much


----------



## MrJamie (12 Jul 2012)

I think its normal when you start out to try to push the biggest gear you can move to go faster, but if your cadence is really low youll probably find if you go a gear lighter youll actually be able to go as fast but easier. 

Less than a year ago I used to live in the big front ring (apart from hills ofc) and my cadence would be something like maybe 55-70rpm and to go faster id be pushing a bigger gear at <60, ive been trying to use the middle ring in general and keep my cadence 70-85 for the past few months. I was going for a flat strava segment earlier on a light trail at about 21mph (v.fast for me on the flat!) and noticed i was about 95rpm, somewhere along the line ive stopped grinding the gears and got comfortable at higher cadence  It definitely feels better, faster and like im putting less strain on my joints.


----------



## daSmirnov (12 Jul 2012)

I gear to maintain a cadence around 80-90 rpm, which may seem uncomfortably fast at first - but there's some around here who can spin at like 140 rpm. Sometimes I'll run a high-gear on the flat, out of the saddle to sprint if I wanna give my backside a rest. But the rest of the time I'll spin - just as fast and easier on the knees IMO.


----------



## TonyEnjoyD (12 Jul 2012)

Best to try and find your most comfortable cadence and use your gearing to maintain that.
As mentioned in earlier response, once you can comfortably cover your distance in that cadence, start building in some intervals either maintaining the speed using a higher gear - just one would count - then start to increase your cadence but not by too much - just to that comfortable but pushing a bit further/faster.
There is no set cadence, everyone is different.
Mine is around 85-90 and I use the gears to my advantage.

Hope this helps loki41 and welcome aboard


----------



## cyberknight (12 Jul 2012)

TonyEnjoyD said:


> Best to try and find your most comfortable cadence and use your gearing to maintain that.
> As mentioned in earlier response, once you can comfortably cover your distance in that cadence, start building in some intervals either maintaining the speed using a higher gear - just one would count - then start to increase your cadence but not by too much - just to that comfortable but pushing a bit further/faster.
> There is no set cadence, everyone is different.
> Mine is around 85-90 and I use the gears to my advantage.
> ...


Good post !
To start with look at the spped your doing on the flat in your normal gear and try dropping to 1 easier gear and maintaining the same speed by pedalling a bit faster and you will be suprised how less tireing it is on the legs.
Once you have experimented with gear choice and found the most comfortable leg speed for you then you can look at doing drills for power or leg speed.I do different things every day depending on how the body feels.Some days i will spin and other i will hit hllls in the big ring or sprint for landmarks.
Look at the pro peleton and you will see a wide range of cadence , wiggo was spinning away and then they cut to jens voight grinding the biigest ass gear he could and still nearly winning the stage .
I am a spinner by nature but it pays to find what works for you.


----------



## Andy_R (12 Jul 2012)

TonyEnjoyD said:


> Best to try and find your most comfortable cadence and use your gearing to maintain that.
> As mentioned in earlier response, once you can comfortably cover your distance in that cadence, start building in some intervals either maintaining the speed using a higher gear - just one would count - then start to increase your cadence but not by too much - just to that comfortable but pushing a bit further/faster.
> There is no set cadence, everyone is different.
> Mine is around 85-90 and I use the gears to my advantage.
> ...


+1

Your gears are there to help you maintain the same cadence. Pedal at the same speed rate all the time, use gears to go faster or slower. Simples.


----------



## HovR (12 Jul 2012)

You've tried "grinding" the gears, now try gearing down and spinning. You'll soon see what suits you - My personal experience is that spinning is far more efficient, and I can cycle further and faster whilst spinning compared to grinding.

Don't worry too much about speed for now, work on increasing your endurance and speed increase naturally follows.


----------



## HLaB (13 Jul 2012)

You've got to find the right balance for you, too high a cadence you may be wasting energy spinning when you don't need too and visa versa pushing too high a gear whilst damaging your knees will also tire you out. As above I'd work on increasing your endurance and speed will naturally follow.


----------



## GrasB (13 Jul 2012)

Best to try & keep your cadence between 60 & 120rpm. As a general rule you'll naturally hold a higher cadence the closer you are to maximum sustainable power you are, your cadence will naturally reduce the steeper the incline. Beyond that it's a case of balancing your muscle load & cardio vascular system. 

Too high a cadence causing excessive knee join wear & strain (the term 'damage' in this frame of reference means wear & strain) & so does too low a cadence, also just for fun producing too much power compared to your level of training at any cadence...


----------



## black'n'yellow (13 Jul 2012)

GrasB said:


> Best to try & keep your cadence between 60 & 120rpm.


 
that's quite a range there - I suspect most cyclists already fall into that category by default...


----------



## Sandra6 (13 Jul 2012)

According to my spin class instructor - a cyclist - the optimum cadence is between 80 and 110 rpm, and you really shouldn't be going any faster than that or it's wasted energy. 
I only use my highest gears when I'm coming down hill, but I do find once I've moved up to them I don't drop as many gears back down on the flat, or the next hill. 
If my cadence goes up too high I find I'm bouncing in the saddle so I have to gear up to get comfortable again. 
I think with a new bike you should play through them for a while and try different paces until you learn what suits you.


----------



## GrasB (13 Jul 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> that's quite a range there - I suspect most cyclists already fall into that category by default...


Most will most of the time, however especially when climbing riders often let the cadence drop well bellow 60rpm, sometimes as low as 30rpm. Also a lot of riders when descending will extend their cadence well up into the 130-140rpm range. If you've not got a good pedal motion then this can cause problems. However, if you can keep a smooth pedal motion you can extend that range further up & down (there's more scope to go upwards without putting undue stress on your soft & hard tissues).


----------



## Nearly there (13 Jul 2012)

Anyone with a compact or double set up spin on the smaller ring?


----------



## black'n'yellow (13 Jul 2012)

Nearly there said:


> Anyone with a compact or double set up spin on the smaller ring?


 
quoi?


----------



## GrasB (13 Jul 2012)

Sandra6 said:


> According to my spin class instructor - a cyclist - the optimum cadence is between 80 and 110 rpm, and you really shouldn't be going any faster than that or it's wasted energy.


Optimum cadence at what power output, on what cranks at what level of strength & fitness? Your optimum cadence is effected by many things:
* crank length
* power production
* biometric position
* inertial load
* pedal load
* muscle load
(that's not even close to being an exhaustive list)
Those last 2 end up being functions of the first 4 with further gearing & physiological factors added. For instance the higher the inertial load the lower your most efficient cadence for a given power output is, climbing is a high inertial load situation & struggling into a headwind delivers a low inertial load.


----------



## david k (13 Jul 2012)

i tried to cycle with a high cadence when i started, it felt odd but i continued. i now cycle with a high cadence which feels natural and it helps my knees and distance


----------



## GrasB (13 Jul 2012)

Nearly there said:


> Anyone with a compact or double set up spin on the smaller ring?


I can hit 30mph on a 33/13 at around 150rpm on my road bike, the 11 & 12t sprockets aren't available on the bottom chainring due to top chainring interference.


----------



## Garz (13 Jul 2012)

loki421 said:


> So I'm wondering if I should stick to big gears and knacker myself out after 10 mile or so or gear down to pace myself over a longer route?


 
Hi Loki,

I would only choose the big gear 'grinding' as it's known, to vary your training once you get a decent base level of fitness going. By this I would focus on increasing your mileage firstly till you feel comfortable with that and start to plateau.


----------



## Sandra6 (13 Jul 2012)

GrasB said:


> Optimum cadence at what power output, on what cranks at what level of strength & fitness? Your optimum cadence is effected by many things:
> * crank length
> * power production
> * biometric position
> ...


 Well you've lost me now. His theory (not mine) is that you should keep the cadence the same and gear up/down accordingly in order to keep it smooth. So, in a class situation, if we put more load on the spin bike and can't keep the same pedal speed we need to drop back, but on a road it would equal to going uphill -if you can't keep the same cadence you gear down until you can. 
It makes sense to me, but maybe I'm not explaining it right.


----------



## SquareDaff (13 Jul 2012)

My average cadence is 90 at the moment. I'm making a concious effort to get in to that figure meaning my low/high range is usually 80-105ish. I can maintain the same speeds but with less effort and as I'm increasing my distances then, as far as I'm concerned, that's got to help.

I do find that I need to drop back to period(s) of "grinding" to increase the strength of my leg muscles, otherwise I seem to weaken over a period of about 2 months of just spinning. Can usually accomplish this by putting a harder gear on a climb, getting out of the saddle and going for it. Wouldn't recommend that as a usual hill climb technique though.


----------



## SquareDaff (13 Jul 2012)

Sandra6 said:


> Well you've lost me now. His theory (not mine) is that you should keep the cadence the same and gear up/down accordingly in order to keep it smooth. So, in a class situation, if we put more load on the spin bike and can't keep the same pedal speed we need to drop back, but on a road it would equal to going uphill -if you can't keep the same cadence you gear down until you can.
> It makes sense to me, but maybe I'm not explaining it right.


Your explanation makes sense to me.


----------



## black'n'yellow (13 Jul 2012)

Sandra6 said:


> So, in a class situation, if we put more load on the spin bike and can't keep the same pedal speed we need to drop back,


 
doesn't sound like much of a work-out..?


----------



## black'n'yellow (13 Jul 2012)

SquareDaff said:


> I do find that I need to drop back to period(s) of "grinding" to increase the strength of my leg muscles,


 
it's not 'extra strength' you need - it is the ability to maintain power output - and the same is true for any cadence. Your legs are (in theory) already plenty strong enough to get you up hills...


----------



## SquareDaff (13 Jul 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> it's not 'extra strength' you need - it is the ability to maintain power output - and the same is true for any cadence. Your legs are (in theory) already plenty strong enough to get you up hills...


Fair point! I'm sure my legs would disagree with you at the top of some of the hills near me.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (13 Jul 2012)

SquareDaff said:


> Fair point! I'm sure my legs would disagree with you at the top of some of the hills near me.


Strength is irrelevant


----------



## Nosaj (13 Jul 2012)

1 word "souplesse"

http://www.velominati.com/tradition/look-pro-souplesse/


----------



## Sandra6 (13 Jul 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> doesn't sound like much of a work-out..?


 The idea is that as you get stronger you can work faster with more resistance. People often think spinning classes are all about how "heavy" you make the bike, but if you can't maintain a reasonable cadence you're not getting the work out, so it's better to go lighter and spin faster, but if you're little legs are going like the clappers then you need more resistance. 
It's like if you come to a hill you have the choice of staying in a high gear and going slower, or gearing down and going up it faster without feeling it so much in your legs - but after a few times (definition of few is anything from 3 to a hundred!) of going up that hill you'll be staying in a low gear and going up it at speed.


----------



## SquareDaff (13 Jul 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Strength is irrelevant


Really?!?!? Granted technique has an equal part to play but I'm pretty sure the strength to turn a bigger gear at a high cadence is just as important. If strengh doesn't play a part then why do Wiggins and co have massive thighs?!?


----------



## SquareDaff (13 Jul 2012)

Sandra6 said:


> The idea is that as you get stronger you can work faster with more resistance. People often think spinning classes are all about how "heavy" you make the bike, but if you can't maintain a reasonable cadence you're not getting the work out, so it's better to go lighter and spin faster, but if you're little legs are going like the clappers then you need more resistance.
> It's like if you come to a hill you have the choice of staying in a high gear and going slower, or gearing down and going up it faster without feeling it so much in your legs - but after a few times (definition of few is anything from 3 to a hundred!) of going up that hill you'll be staying in a low gear and going up it at speed.


I've been to spinning classes and remember coming out looking like someone had thrown a bucket of water all over me - and I'm not unfit 
The problem with cycling on the roads (or at least for me) is that you tend to stay in your comfort zone and your improvement stagnates until you alter your training in some way. At least with someone there to continually bully you into doing something you will improve.
It's why I alter my gear selections/average cadence targets regularly on shorter rides.


----------



## CopperCyclist (13 Jul 2012)

My average cadence is 215rpm at the moment...

My cadence sensor doesn't seem to work when you mount it next to the Di2 battery...!


----------



## SquareDaff (13 Jul 2012)

You just reminded me that I've not tried mine with the rechargeable front lights either. New wireless computer. The old one used to have interference when the lights were on constant low beam (but bizarely not high!)


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (13 Jul 2012)

SquareDaff said:


> Really?!?!? Granted technique has an equal part to play but I'm pretty sure the strength to turn a bigger gear at a high cadence is just as important.


Eh no. vo2max has a bigger part to play. If you can't get the oxygen to muscle,it can't work. It makes little to no difference if you can for example leg press 130kg, it won't help you climb a hill in any way.



> If strengh doesn't play a part then why do Wiggins and co have massive thighs?!?


You may need to take a look on ITV4 or indeed Eurosport this afternoon. Bradley Wiggins does not have massive thighs.


----------



## SquareDaff (13 Jul 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> You may need to take a look on ITV4 or indeed Eurosport this afternoon. Bradley Wiggins does not have massive thighs.


Compared to who? The likes of me and possibly a lot of others on here - or the other professional riders? I have been watching Wiggins on ITV4 and am aware he looks like a gangly piece of string. I suspect in person it's all solid muscle.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (13 Jul 2012)

SquareDaff said:


> Compared to who? The likes of me and possibly a lot of others on here - or the other professional riders? I have been watching Wiggins on ITV4 and am aware he looks like a gangly piece of string. I suspect in person it's all solid muscle.


Compare to whoever you like it doesn't change anything. It probably is solid muscle,lean muscle from endurance training not mass from strength training.

It's not strength that gets you up mountains or climbs - it's the ability to generate sustainable power and to do that you need oxygen, and lots of it.


----------



## black'n'yellow (13 Jul 2012)

SquareDaff said:


> Really?!?!? Granted technique has an equal part to play but I'm pretty sure the strength to turn a bigger gear at a high cadence is just as important. If strengh doesn't play a part then why do Wiggins and co have massive thighs?!?


 
Wiggins' legs are probably no stronger than yours or mine. What you or I do not have, however, is his ability to apply that strength repeatedly for several hours a day.


----------



## GrasB (13 Jul 2012)

Sandra6 said:


> Well you've lost me now. His theory (not mine) is that you should keep the cadence the same and gear up/down accordingly in order to keep it smooth. So, in a class situation, if we put more load on the spin bike and can't keep the same pedal speed we need to drop back, but on a road it would equal to going uphill -if you can't keep the same cadence you gear down until you can.
> It makes sense to me, but maybe I'm not explaining it right.


Okay simpler ones.
For me, my sustained (20>5 min) maximal power production on flat ground I need to be at 2.3-2.5m/s foot speed. If my foot speed it outside that range then my maximal power for a given duration is reduced. That foot speed that equates to 124-134rpm on 177.5mm cranks or 137 to 149rpm on 160mm cranks! So what is 'optimal' about 80-110 rpm if I'm at maximal effort?

Also 80-110rpm on 177.55mm cranks equals 89-122rpm 160mm cranks!


----------



## GrasB (13 Jul 2012)

SquareDaff said:


> Really?!?!? Granted technique has an equal part to play but I'm pretty sure the strength to turn a bigger gear at a high cadence is just as important. If strengh doesn't play a part then why do Wiggins and co have massive thighs?!?


To have more muscle fibres to distribute load across. The more fibres you have the less work is done by each so the risk of strain injury is reduced. Also the fibres can work faster under lower load so you can spin faster.


----------



## Hacienda71 (13 Jul 2012)

We need Jimbo back to show us his power graphs. 

On a 1 in 4 climb you can't maintain a high cadence even with a triple, you just have to grovel and grind your way to the top.


----------



## fossyant (13 Jul 2012)

SquareDaff said:


> The problem with cycling on the roads (or at least for me) is that you tend to stay in your comfort zone and your improvement stagnates until you alter your training in some way.


 
1 word for you. STRAVA



Adds motivation !


----------



## black'n'yellow (13 Jul 2012)

Sandra6 said:


> It's like if you come to a hill you have the choice of staying in a high gear and going slower, or gearing down and going up it faster without feeling it so much in your legs - but after a few times (definition of few is anything from 3 to a hundred!) of going up that hill you'll be staying in a low gear and going up it at speed.


 
maintaining a high gear/low cadence uphill does not necessarily make you slower - any more than a low gear/high cadence makes you faster. What matters is the power you can put through whatever gear you are in.


----------



## SquareDaff (13 Jul 2012)

fossyant said:


> 1 word for you. STRAVA
> 
> 
> 
> Adds motivation !


I have a Garmin Edge 800 and VR partner - same thing.


----------



## SquareDaff (13 Jul 2012)

OK - so Wiggins has legs no stronger than mine - but a superior cardio vascular system. And all his training adds no muscle at all - and when I talk about muscle I'm not talking about bulk. So in theory I could hop on his bike (after altering it to my personal specs obviously) and cruise along at his sort of speeds in his gear ratios at his cadence for a (significantly!!) reduced period of time. I say this as his training has obviously had no impact on muscular structure - just his circulatory system and energy storage.

I don't think so.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (13 Jul 2012)

SquareDaff said:


> OK - so Wiggins has legs no stronger than mine


Exactly. I'm pretty sure if I was to compete with Wiggo in a legpress contest, I would win though.



> but a superior cardio vascular system


Unless you have the backing of a highly profesisonal team,coaches and scientists then yes his certainly is better.



> And all his training adds no muscle at all - and when I talk about muscle I'm not talking about bulk.


 It will add very little,but what it does add will be highly functional and relative to the sport. IE: Slow twitch fibre = endurance



> So in theory I could hop on his bike (after altering it to my personal specs obviously) and cruise along at his sort of speeds in his gear ratios at his cadence for a (significantly!!) reduced period of time.


And the reduced period of time will be because of sustainable power output which you nor I will likely ever come close to matching.



> I say this as his training has obviously had no impact on muscular structure - just his circulatory system and energy storage.I don't think so.


Of course it has but the gains compared to weightlifting for example are minimal.


----------



## TonyEnjoyD (13 Jul 2012)

So, Loki421,

As you can see there's a lot of different approaches, mindsets and theories behind getting your cadence right, but from what I can fathom and I am not a pro and get bored with the technical Vo2/watts per revolution,Number of teeth on the ring I am using and whether I sit/stand/grind/spin on my big/small/wiry/super-dense muscle-fibre count, geomerty, triginometry, agebraic calculative....... aRGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I try to sit, and spin at a comfortable rate until I need/want to push it and find I improve as time and distance goes by.
No matter what, you will get good days, you will get great days, and you will get days when you think that you have had your legs replaced with pink sticks, but whatever you want to do, DO IT YOUR WAY and you will progress.


----------



## SquareDaff (13 Jul 2012)

Watch the days when you feel fantastic - it normally means you're about to come down with something!


----------



## 2wd (13 Jul 2012)

TonyEnjoyD said:


> No matter what, you will get good days, you will get great days, and you will get days when you think that you have had your legs replaced with pink sticks, but whatever you want to do, DO IT YOUR WAY and you will progress.


 
I'm glad its not just me who suffers like this

I've had days were I feel I could climb mountains and other days,same route half way round, where I've felt like ringing the Mrs to pick me up and sling the bike in the boot!

I've spent some time recently trying to learn and understand this subject to try and get the best enjoyment out of my chosen hobby

I find topics/debates like this a great help.

keep em coming


----------



## GrasB (13 Jul 2012)

Sandra6 said:


> It's like if you come to a hill you have the choice of staying in a high gear and going slower, or gearing down and going up it faster without feeling it so much in your legs - but after a few times (definition of few is anything from 3 to a hundred!) of going up that hill you'll be staying in a low gear and going up it at speed.


No, you'll get up the hill fastest by mixing it up. Spin for a bit then muscle your way up, then back to spinning. If you have multiple pedalling styles then use them to get even more mix.


----------



## User16625 (13 Jul 2012)

loki421 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I'm a new member here so I apologise in advance if this is a common question.
> 
> ...


 

It would take me much more than 10 miles to knacker myself out even if I tried. The reason for this is that once I cycle much beyond 20mph or so my lungs are working overtime even though my body is cruising. To push my body close to its limits is only possible for short bursts which makes wearing myself out in short distances impossible. I find that it only takes a moderate amount of effort to get quite breathless. Does anyone else find this happening to them? A recent lung test I had showed my lung capacity was considerably less than average for someone my age, weight and size so that explains my problem I guess.


----------



## loki421 (13 Jul 2012)

Wow, we thanks everyone for all your input, some really good advice here 

Think I'm going to stick with the higher candence and lower gears for a few weeks, then move it up a gear or two and try and stick to the same pace.

Can anyone recommend a good method to measure cadence or is it better to just buy a meter? If so, what would you recommend?

Thanks again for all the input, it's been really great to see so many different opinions, keep 'em coming


----------



## HovR (13 Jul 2012)

Nearly there said:


> Anyone with a compact or double set up spin on the smaller ring?


 
My road bike runs a double (42/52) and I far prefer to spin in the smaller ring. When doing this I can fairly easily maintain a decent pace (18 to 22 mph) for a sustained period, with bursts up to 28 to 30 mph possible for short periods of time.

I find I'm not comfortable in the 52 ring as I can't spin fast enough, so that's reserved for down hills.


----------



## black'n'yellow (13 Jul 2012)

HovR said:


> My road bike runs a double (42/52) and I far prefer to spin in the smaller ring. When doing this I can fairly easily maintain a decent pace (18 to 22 mph) for a sustained period, with bursts up to 28 to 30 mph possible for short periods of time.
> 
> I find I'm not comfortable in the 52 ring as I can't spin fast enough, so that's reserved for down hills.


 
At 30mph, you will ride at the same cadence (give or take) on 42/12 as you will on 52/15 - ironically, if you bothered to change up to the big ring, you would get an easier time, not a harder one, as the bigger ring gives you a better mechanical advantage for the same cadence...


----------



## Garz (13 Jul 2012)

Cadence can do funny things. When you 'spin' beyond your comfort zone you tend to not go any faster but bump up your heart rate if your not used to it. This works your C.V system. As others have mentioned you cannot neglect the harder gears as this is where you get your power levels up.

When you watch the pro's then never click to an easier gear to drop people, they always go into a harder gear and burst away. Spinning will not really benefit you for these situations however I do agree they are something people should work on the bike to get you more efficient or better pedalling action.


----------



## HovR (13 Jul 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> At 30mph, you will ride at the same cadence (give or take) on 42/12 as you will on 52/15 - *ironically, if you bothered to change up to the big ring*, you would get an easier time, not a harder one, as the bigger ring gives you a better mechanical advantage for the same cadence...


 
What's your problem? Seems like every other post of yours I read is either rude, or designed to disagree with another members point of view, which you then insist on debating until they back down..

No tact what so ever..


----------



## black'n'yellow (13 Jul 2012)

HovR said:


> What's your problem? Seems like every other post of yours I read is either rude, or designed to disagree with another members point of view, which you then insist on debating until they back down..
> 
> No tact what so ever..


 
ok, my apologies - take the word 'bothered' out. If I'd realised you were so sensitive I would never have used it. Aside from that, the comment is still valid...


----------



## HovR (13 Jul 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> ok, my apologies - take the word 'bothered' out. If I'd realised you were so sensitive I would never have used it. Aside from that, the comment is still valid...


 
That post started off so well, then you just went and ruined it.


----------



## black'n'yellow (13 Jul 2012)

HovR said:


> That post started off so well, then you just went and ruined it.


 
well that's just me all over 

I'm just trying to make the point that you are missing a trick by staying out of the big ring - there are so many 'cross-over' gears on 42/52 that in many cases you would be better off pushing the same cadence/gear inches in the 52...


----------



## HovR (13 Jul 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> well that's just me all over
> 
> I'm just trying to make the point that you are missing a trick by staying out of the big ring - there are so many 'cross-over' gears on 42/52 that in many cases you would be better off pushing the same cadence/gear inches in the 52...


 
Well, what you've failed to realize is that the bike in question, a 531 framed Dawes, is in fact a 5 speed at the rear. And the number of cross over gears? 0.

I've been riding this bike for more than long enough now to thoroughly test out the gear ratios, and my preferred ratios occur when on the 42 ring.

End of.


----------



## TonyEnjoyD (13 Jul 2012)

There's only one way to settle this......


----------



## black'n'yellow (13 Jul 2012)

HovR said:


> Well, what you've failed to realize is that the bike in question, a 531 framed Dawes, is in fact a 5 speed at the rear. And the number of cross over gears? 0.
> 
> I've been riding this bike for more than long enough now to thoroughly test out the gear ratios, and my preferred ratios occur when on the 42 ring.
> 
> End of.


 
Ah, well I failed to realise it because you failed to mention you were on an old clunker. Anyway, of course there will still be cross-over ratios - just not as many. Presume you have a 12 and something like a 15 or 16 do you not..? Either way, regardless of the actual maths, the comment still applies...but don't let that stop you ignoring sensible advice..


----------



## HovR (13 Jul 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Ah, well I failed to realise it because you failed to mention you were on an *old clunker*. Anyway, of course there will still be cross-over ratios - just not as many. Presume you have a 12 and something like a 15 or 16 do you not..?


 
How nice of you. If you're going to continue like this I can't be bothered to continue this "debate".


----------



## black'n'yellow (13 Jul 2012)

'clunker' - look it up. Anyway - you do have cross-over gears. I actually don't care if you use them or not. I'm just saying you would be daft not to use the big ring where you have the option.


----------



## fossyant (13 Jul 2012)

Give over for flip sake. Sheesh.


----------



## MrJamie (13 Jul 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> At 30mph, you will ride at the same cadence (give or take) on 42/12 as you will on 52/15 - ironically, if you bothered to change up to the big ring, you would get an easier time, not a harder one, as the bigger ring gives you a better mechanical advantage for the same cadence...


Sorry for the dumb question, but can you explain this? I get that the ratios are near enough the same, so the cadence would be the same, but what is this mechanical advantage? I always thought if the ratios were the same then the gears were essentially identical, from a user point of view.


----------



## black'n'yellow (13 Jul 2012)

MrJamie said:


> Sorry for the dumb question, but can you explain this? I get that the ratios are near enough the same, so the cadence would be the same, but what is this mechanical advantage? I always thought if the ratios were the same then the gears were essentially identical, from a user point of view.


 
Not dumb at all - the differences aren't huge, that's for sure, but friction loss is reckoned to be less on the big ring as it is effectively hanging onto the chain for longer on each turn of the crank.

I'm no scientist though, so my explanation will be crap, and the only link I can find which attempts to explain it is here: http://www.velominati.com/technique/sur-la-plaque-physics-of-the-big-ringle/


----------



## fossyant (14 Jul 2012)

Right, assuming chain displacement is not factored, anyone would be hard pushed to tell the difference between gear overlaps in resistance. Impossible. The main resistance on a bike is the blob of a human on top. 

Mechanically, it's better to keep a straighter chain, and in theory, bigger sprockets and chain rings spread load, but you would not notice it on a bike unless the chain was at a skewed angle. Running big to big and small small isn't good on the chain, and can be rough.

Running gears and chains at high angles of deflection promotes wear.

I can't tell the difference in resistance from switching a 39x16 to a 53x19, slight gear ratio change but no difference, even on an old bike, but rather well maintained one. That's my overlap gear.


----------



## black'n'yellow (14 Jul 2012)

fossyant said:


> I can't tell the difference in resistance from switching a 39x16 to a 53x19, slight gear ratio change but no difference, even on an old bike, but rather well maintained one. That's my overlap gear.


 
You should be able to tell the difference between 39/16 and 53/19, because you will be going almost 3mph faster for the same cadence. So it's not an 'overlap' gear.


----------



## Garz (14 Jul 2012)

So - in other words, stop 'debating' and agree to disagree that there's alot of talk wasted on gear ratio - virtually no difference here let's move on..


----------



## Garz (14 Jul 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> You should be able to tell the difference between 39/16 and 53/19, because you will be going almost 3mph faster for the same cadence. So it's not an 'overlap' gear.


 
Let's take this hypothetical example, and assume you were approaching a steady incline. It would be far easier to shift down one or two (back in the cassette) to maintain the same cadence in the lower ring than to either cross chain in the larger ring, or use the FD to drop into the lower ring and lose momentum.


----------



## black'n'yellow (14 Jul 2012)

Garz said:


> Let's take this hypothetical example, and assume you were approaching a steady incline. It would be far easier to shift down one or two (back in the cassette) to maintain the same cadence in the lower ring than to either cross chain in the larger ring, or use the FD to drop into the lower ring and lose momentum.


 
what speed are you approaching the incline at, and how long/steep is the incline..?


----------



## Garz (14 Jul 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> what speed are you approaching the incline at, and how long/steep is the incline..?


 
The exact speed and incline to support my hypothetical argument of course!


----------



## black'n'yellow (14 Jul 2012)

ok - but I think you're missing the point a bit. My point is that whatever gear you happen to be riding in the small ring - if there is a big ring equivalent, you will be more efficient in that gear...


----------



## Hacienda71 (14 Jul 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> ok - but I think you're missing the point a bit. My point is that whatever gear you happen to be riding in the small ring - if there is a big ring equivalent, you will be more efficient in that gear...



Even if it means you are riding with a carp chain line?


----------



## black'n'yellow (14 Jul 2012)

Hacienda71 said:


> Even if it means you are riding with a carp chain line?


 
depends what you mean by a crap chainline - if the situation demands it, I will cross chain and ride on big/big. But if you are still running out of gears at that point (ie you lack the power to maintain your current gear/cadence), then you will have no option but to shift down anyway....


----------



## Garz (14 Jul 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> But if you are still running out of gears at that point (ie you lack the power to maintain your current gear/cadence), then you will have no option but to shift down anyway....


 
..which is when it becomes inefficient in that gear!  Horses for courses.


----------



## black'n'yellow (14 Jul 2012)

Garz said:


> ..which is when it becomes inefficient in that gear!  Horses for courses.


 
inefficient from a cardio-vascular perspective, maybe....but that's not what this is about...


----------



## Garz (14 Jul 2012)

I think we need refreshing what this _*is*_ about


----------



## black'n'yellow (14 Jul 2012)

Garz said:


> I think we need refreshing what this _*is*_ about


 
I can't actually remember - someone will have to re-read the thread and let us know...


----------



## Licramite (21 Oct 2012)

so - if you had automatic gears that changed to put you in the right gear for your candence depending on the road slope - automatically so say you set your candence at 90 - it would automatically change gear to keep you at that you would go faster ?
and yes they have them in america.


----------



## black'n'yellow (21 Oct 2012)

Licramite said:


> so - if you had automatic gears that changed to put you in the right gear for your candence depending on the road slope - automatically so say you set your candence at 90 - it would automatically change gear to keep you at that you would go faster ?
> and yes they have them in america.


 
I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what you're asking - and there's only one 'n' in cadence...


----------



## Licramite (22 Oct 2012)

well the opinion seams to be better a good cadence than a higher gear.
so it sounds like if you had an automatic gear changer on the bike that gave you the right gear for your set cadence (say set at 90) as you go up and down hills , you just pedal at the same rate all the time , you would get a better overall speed ?

-does chainline make a difference? I have tried playing around with this since fitting a 52chainring and just using the cassette to keep the same cadence , but I see people saying about a crap chainline
my chainlines set up for middle chainring cassette ring 4 , should I change it so its normal position is outer ring small gear on casette - so best chainline highest speed.


----------



## black'n'yellow (22 Oct 2012)

Licramite said:


> well the opinion seams to be better a good cadence than a higher gear.
> so it sounds like if you had an automatic gear changer on the bike that gave you the right gear for your set cadence (say set at 90) as you go up and down hills , you just pedal at the same rate all the time , you would get a better overall speed ?


 
Mechanically, the two things that define your road speed are gear choice, and the rate at which that gear is turned (ie cadence). Whether the gear is selected 'automatically' or not is irrelevant. You speed will be limited by your fitness, not by your cadence, or gear choice.



Licramite said:


> -does chainline make a difference? I have tried playing around with this since fitting a 52chainring and just using the cassette to keep the same cadence , but I see people saying about a crap chainline
> my chainlines set up for middle chainring cassette ring 4 , should I change it so its normal position is outer ring small gear on casette - so best chainline highest speed.


 
sounds like you are over-thinking it. Just select a gear that enables you to ride at a cadence which is comfortable for you.


----------



## GrasB (22 Oct 2012)

No. People like to think the human legs are like a car engine & don't have a concept of perceived effort. This isn't true & thus you'll have changing cadence requirements due to differing situations. These situations means your optimal cadence changes dynamically as you ride -
The colder your legs are are the lower your cadence *needs* to be.
The steeper the climb the lower your optimal cadence.
The more power you put out the higher your optimal cadence.
Your position on the bike effect what cadence range you want to ride in.
Your perceived leg load will change what cadence you want to be riding at....


----------



## Licramite (22 Oct 2012)

so which do you think is more efficient for hill climbing:
I,ve seen riders pedalling like bazinga but moving slowely steadily up the hill
or is it better - which is what I do -
stay in a higher gear as long as possible till I struggle to turn the pedal and start dumping gears till I can (I,m ussualy standing on the damn things by then,) - but staying in a higher gear as possible.

or jump off and push the bike up the hill at a run

I think the slow but low pedal resistance method is to knackering - or am I just being to impatient and its best to be slow but steady than fast(ish) but struggling.


----------



## black'n'yellow (22 Oct 2012)

Licramite said:


> so which do you think is more efficient for hill climbing:
> I,ve seen riders pedalling like bazinga but moving slowely steadily up the hill
> or is it better - which is what I do -
> stay in a higher gear as long as possible till I struggle to turn the pedal and start dumping gears till I can (I,m ussualy standing on the damn things by then,) - but staying in a higher gear as possible.
> ...


 
Not sure if you're getting this. Your ability to ride quickly up hills is governed/limited by your fitness - not your gear/cadence. Your choice of gear and the cadence you ride at is a by-product of your physical ability - not the other way round.


----------



## david k (22 Oct 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Not sure if you're getting this. Your ability to ride quickly up hills is governed/limited by your fitness - not your gear/cadence. Your choice of gear and the cadence you ride at is a by-product of your physical ability - not the other way round.


but a high cadence will help, it allows your muscles to go for longer


----------



## black'n'yellow (22 Oct 2012)

david k said:


> but a high cadence will help, it allows your muscles to go for longer


 
No it doesn't - why do you think that..?


----------



## david k (22 Oct 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> No it doesn't - why do you think that..?


its the way it works mate, ill try to find a link. your muscles can work for longer at a higher rate but with less power output, i read it and tried it and it works for me


----------



## david k (22 Oct 2012)

http://www.bicycling.com/training-n...bicycling-training-tips-climbing-high-cadence

ignore the reference to LA, ha, ha


----------



## ayceejay (22 Oct 2012)

"The combination of a higher gear with higher pedaling rate will improve your climbing, but you need a training program to adapt." from the link.
Just to deconstruct that: if you push a high gear quickly you will go pretty fast, to be able to do this you need to improve your fitness.


----------



## black'n'yellow (22 Oct 2012)

david k said:


> its the way it works mate, ill try to find a link. your muscles can work for longer at a higher rate but with less power output, i read it and tried it and it works for me


 
Sorry, but it's not 'the way it works.' The only thing that will make your muscles work for longer is improved fitness. Cadence will have no influence on that.



david k said:


> http://www.bicycling.com/training-n...bicycling-training-tips-climbing-high-cadence
> 
> ignore the reference to LA, ha, ha


 
_"*The combination of a higher gear with higher pedaling rate will improve your climbing*, but you need a training program to adapt."_

The bit in bold is possibly the most blindingly obvious statement I have ever read. The other way of putting it (as ayceejay has already pointed out) is 'in order to go up hills quicker, you need to improve your fitness.' Cadence does NOT allow your muscles to 'go for longer' - that is arrant nonsense.


----------



## david k (23 Oct 2012)

nope, wrong again, it clearly demonstrates that riding a bike in a lower gear and higher cadence will help your muscles go for longer. This of course does not mean training is not a large part of getting better, but thats obvious or so I thought and the reason I never put that in my reply to a question about cadence.


----------



## david k (23 Oct 2012)

_The results demonstrated that prolonged pedaling at an intensity of 85% VO2 max at 50 rpm rather than 100 rpm resulted in greater fast-twitch fiber glycogen depletion and an increase in lactic acid. This was attributed to the increase muscle force required per pedal revolution at the lower cadence. Fatigue is delayed when using a high cadence near 100 rpm, compared to a low cadence near 50. _http://www.wenzelcoaching.com/Article-CadenceFactors.htm​​​​​​​​​


----------



## Rob3rt (23 Oct 2012)

Licramite said:


> well the opinion seams to be better a good cadence than a higher gear.
> so it sounds like if you had an automatic gear changer on the bike that gave you the right gear for your set cadence (say set at 90) as you go up and down hills , you just pedal at the same rate all the time , you would get a better overall speed ?
> 
> -does chainline make a difference? I have tried playing around with this since fitting a 52chainring and just using the cassette to keep the same cadence , but I see people saying about a crap chainline
> my chainlines set up for middle chainring cassette ring 4 , should I change it so its normal position is outer ring small gear on casette - so best chainline highest speed.


 
Give it a rest with all this automatic gear changing nonsense! Basing gear selection on cadence alone is a fools pursuit!


----------



## Licramite (23 Oct 2012)

"Give it a rest with all this automatic gear changing nonsense! Basing gear selection on cadence alone is a fools pursuit!"
- Fools step in were brave men fear to tread.- so who are really the bravest ?

david K come up with the most constructive comments. - but its self defeating - basically if your fit enough you can spin in a low gear for longer and this will get you up the hill quicker , but if your not fit enough you will burn out first so its probably better to go slow candence higher gear.

or maybe its saying stuff the gears take the pills.


----------



## Rob3rt (23 Oct 2012)

Licramite said:


> "Give it a rest with all this automatic gear changing nonsense! Basing gear selection on cadence alone is a fools pursuit!"
> *- Fools step in were brave men fear to tread.- so who are really the bravest ?*
> 
> david K come up with the most constructive comments. - but its self defeating - basically if your fit enough you can spin in a low gear for longer and this will get you up the hill quicker , but if your not fit enough you will burn out first so its probably better to go slow candence higher gear.
> ...


----------



## black'n'yellow (23 Oct 2012)

david k said:


> nope, wrong again, it clearly demonstrates that riding a bike in a lower gear and higher cadence will help your muscles go for longer. This of course does not mean training is not a large part of getting better, but thats obvious or so I thought and the reason I never put that in my reply to a question about cadence.


 
So, using your logic, why don't we all pedal at 180rpm everywhere so we can all ride 10 times longer..? That argument is a complete fallacy and I'm suprised you can't see that. The only thing that matters in performance cycling is sustainable power - your cadence will be a by-product of that. Of course fitter cyclists tend to have slightly higher cadence than untrained riders, but that is a symptom of fitness, nothing more. The only thing you need to manage consciously while riding is your effort level - everything else will take care of itself.




david k said:


> _The results demonstrated that prolonged pedaling at an intensity of 85% VO2 max at 50 rpm rather than 100 rpm resulted in greater fast-twitch fiber glycogen depletion and an increase in lactic acid. This was attributed to the increase muscle force required per pedal revolution at the lower cadence. Fatigue is delayed when using a high cadence near 100 rpm, compared to a low cadence near 50. _http://www.wenzelcoaching.com/Article-CadenceFactors.htm ​


You shouldn't quote stuff if you don't understand it - you need to read it again. Incidentally, how much cycling have you done and how much performance training to you undertake regularly? Edit - I've just seen your sig - am I reading it wrong, or have you _really_ only ridden 815 miles this year..?


----------



## black'n'yellow (23 Oct 2012)

Licramite said:


> david K come up with the most constructive comments. - but its self defeating - basically if your fit enough you can spin in a low gear for longer and this will get you up the hill quicker , but if your not fit enough you will burn out first so its probably better to go slow candence higher gear.


 
still not getting it..??


----------



## Rob3rt (23 Oct 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> still not getting it..??


 
You would have a more productive time rubbing your face on a cheese grater!


----------



## black'n'yellow (23 Oct 2012)

Rob3rt said:


> You would have a more productive time rubbing your face on a cheese grater!


 
 actually, I haven't shaved this morning...


----------



## Boon 51 (23 Oct 2012)

As a slant.. 
Hows the best way to work out your cadence with out a bike computer..


----------



## Sittingduck (23 Oct 2012)

Count the number of complete pedal revolutions in your head over a period of 10 seconds and multiply by 6, or 15 seconds and x4?


----------



## david k (23 Oct 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> So, using your logic, why don't we all pedal at 180rpm everywhere so we can all ride 10 times longer..? That argument is a complete fallacy and I'm suprised you can't see that. The only thing that matters in performance cycling is sustainable power - your cadence will be a by-product of that. Of course fitter cyclists tend to have slightly higher cadence than untrained riders, but that is a symptom of fitness, nothing more. The only thing you need to manage consciously while riding is your effort level - everything else will take care of itself.
> 
> You shouldn't quote stuff if you don't understand it - you need to read it again. Incidentally, how much cycling have you done and how much performance training to you undertake regularly? Edit - I've just seen your sig - am I reading it wrong, or have you _really_ only ridden 815 miles this year..?


 
Not sure what riding 815 miles this year has to do with it, would riding more make me automatically right? You judge people based on their mileage obviously. I've been a professional rugby player in the past and trained full time, does that make me automatically right? Obviously not, so stop trying to be a smart arse and contribute without the pathetic put downs.

If I have misunderstood the quote can you kindly point out what it means if it does not mean fatigue is less with higher cadence? There are people I ride with who share this view, maybe we are all wrong, you claim to have knowledge on this subject so please enlighten us.


----------



## black'n'yellow (23 Oct 2012)

david k said:


> Not sure what riding 815 miles this year has to do with it, would riding more make me automatically right?


 
no, but if you did ride your bike more, you might understand a bit more about cadence as it applies in the real world, as opposed to simply what you read on the internet.



david k said:


> If I have misunderstood the quote can you kindly point out what it means if it does not mean fatigue is less with higher cadence? There are people I ride with who share this view, maybe we are all wrong, you claim to have knowledge on this subject so please enlighten us.


 
How about we both ride up the same hill..? I'll ride up in 50/18 and you can spin up in 34/16. Leaving aside the question of who would get to the top first, which one of us would actually tire first..?? Answer me that, please....


----------



## david k (23 Oct 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> no, but if you did ride your bike more, you might understand a bit more about cadence as it applies in the real world, as opposed to simply what you read on the internet.
> 
> How about we both ride up the same hill..? I'll ride up in 50/18 and you can spin up in 34/16. Leaving aside the question of who would get to the top first, which one of us would actually tire first..?? Answer me that, please....


 
ive no idea how fit you are so couldnt answer that question.

however, if i rode up a very long hill with a high cadence low gear and then the same hill low cadence high gear, ensuring i got to the top in the same time which would tire me the most?

In my experience it would tire me less over a period of time using a higher cadence. Its my experience and discussions with friends that formed my opinion of high cadence is better, I only used an internet search to try to find information that supports my thoughts, and as far as I can see it does, however id happily be proved wrong


----------



## black'n'yellow (23 Oct 2012)

david k said:


> ive no idea how fit you are so couldnt answer that question.


 
you just did.



david k said:


> however, if i rode up a very long hill with a high cadence low gear and then the same hill low cadence high gear, ensuring i got to the top in the same time which would tire me the most?


 
You would have expended the same amount of energy for both climbs, regardless of cadence - so there would be no difference. Or are you disputing the laws of physics now..?



david k said:


> In my experience it would tire me less over a period of time using a higher cadence. Its my experience and discussions with friends that formed my opinion of high cadence is better, I only used an internet search to try to find information that supports my thoughts, and as far as I can see it does, however id happily be proved wrong


 
If that's your perception, then your perception is wrong.

'High cadence' means different things to different people. Nobody is suggesting riding at 50rpm everywhere. The fitter you become, the more you will begin to vary your cadence according to whatever terrain you are riding on. But the assertion that 'high cadence' is simply better - or conserves more energy - is nonsense.


----------



## david k (23 Oct 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> you just did.


 What? you really think people have been asking who will get up a climb quicker, someone very fit or someone not very fit? Thats not the question is it?


black'n'yellow said:


> You would have expended the same amount of energy for both climbs, regardless of cadence - so there would be no difference. Or are you disputing the laws of physics now..?


 Once again, no need for the smart arse comment, you just make yourself look like a cock. Anyhow, energy output isnt the only reason for pain in muscles is it? Don't ignore the amount of lactic acid and its affect on muscle pain, less pain means someone can push for longer. In fact it can get quite complicated when you read up on it, best just to stick with high cadence = less fatigue



black'n'yellow said:


> If that's your perception, then your perception is wrong.


 
I think its right and the stuff ive read suggest im right also so ill keep my own point of view


----------



## david k (23 Oct 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Compare to whoever you like it doesn't change anything. It probably is solid muscle,lean muscle from endurance training not mass from strength training.
> 
> It's not strength that gets you up mountains or climbs - it's the ability to generate sustainable power and to do that you need oxygen, and lots of it.


 yeh, and the bigger the muscle the more oxygen needed, big people tire quicker, distance runners are thin, sprinters are big


----------



## Tigerbiten (23 Oct 2012)

Boon 51 said:


> As a slant..
> Hows the best way to work out your cadence with out a bike computer..


100 rpm in a 100" gear is 30 mph.
If you know your speed and your gear inches you can work your cadence out.

Or plug your gears into Sheldon Brown's Gear Calculator, http://sheldonbrown.com/gears/
Then play around with the cadence setting and see which one is the closest match to your speed in each gear.

My cadence varies from around 70 rpm in 1st gear (~2.5mph) upto around 110 rpm in top (~50mph).
Average is 85-90rpm.


----------



## marzjennings (23 Oct 2012)

david k said:


> however, if i rode up a very long hill with a high cadence low gear and then the same hill low cadence high gear, ensuring i got to the top in the same time which would tire me the most?


 

Producing '200' watts of power to climb a hill is still '200' watts whether you spin it quickly or crank it slowly. Now one method may leave you with sore legs the other with aching lungs, but overall which is most tiring would depend somewhat on the individual.


----------



## david k (23 Oct 2012)

marzjennings said:


> Producing '200' watts of power to climb a hill is still '200' watts whether you spin it quickly or crank it slowly. Now one method may leave you with sore legs the other with aching lungs, but overall which is most tiring would depend somewhat on the individual.


thanks for your reply

i know what your getting at but im not talking about the effort taken, that would be equal just like any gearing system. I dont think the human body is that straight forward though. Bench press 100kg five times or 50kg twenty times. Do these have the same effect on the muscles? ask any weight lifter about each training approach, they work differently on the muscle


----------



## black'n'yellow (23 Oct 2012)

david k said:


> What? you really think people have been asking who will get up a climb quicker, someone very fit or someone not very fit? Thats not the question is it?


 
Actually it is the _only_ relevant question. Because cadence is not a factor in someone's ability to ride uphill.



david k said:


> Anyhow, energy output isnt the only reason for pain in muscles is it? Don't ignore the amount of lactic acid and its affect on muscle pain, less pain means someone can push for longer. In fact it can get quite complicated when you read up on it, best just to stick with high cadence = less fatigue


 
You really are struggling with this, aren't you. It's not complicated at all. Lactic acid build up (or more specifically, delaying its onset) is a direct result of improved fitness - not of higher cadence. Using your analogy, the only way to delay lactic build up is to ride at a lower effort (ie by shifting down and increasing your cadence) - but if you ride at a lower effort, you will obviously take longer to go up the hill.



david k said:


> I think its right and the stuff ive read suggest im right also so ill keep my own point of view


 
That's fine. But by doing so, you are ignoring the facts in favour of your own misconceptions, which is fairly ignorant. Pretty ironic, you calling _me_ a c0ck earlier...


----------



## david k (23 Oct 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Actually it is the _only_ relevant question. Because cadence is not a factor in someone's ability to ride uphill.
> You really are struggling with this, aren't you. It's not complicated at all. Lactic acid build up (or more specifically, delaying its onset) is a direct result of improved fitness - not of higher cadence. Using your analogy, the only way to delay lactic build up is to ride at a lower effort (ie by shifting down and increasing your cadence) - but if you ride at a lower effort, you will
> That's fine. But by doing so, you are ignoring the facts in favour of your own misconceptions, which is pretty ignorant.


 
You’re not following what I am saying, or are refusing to understand as it doesn’t fit your agenda, or maybe you’re a trainee troll, the old patronising, “_You really are struggling with this, aren't you_” is so obvious and just makes you look even more like a cock. My advice is to drop this obnoxious approach and speak in a civilised manner. Then we can have a decent debate without childish tit for tat. 

Now, back to topic, going down a gear but raising the cadence *doesn’t* slow you down, simple gearing v reps situation, low gear high revs or high gear low revs, simples. 

The build up of lactic acid and its effects on the muscles differs with the type of training you put your muscles through. Think of a weight lifter doing lots of reps compared to one doing heavy weights and fewer reps, or a sprinter compared to a distance runner. Then consider why they may be built differently. 

Long distance runners = Lighter body mass with slow twitch fibre muscles
Sprinters – Heavier body mass, quick twitch fibre muscles

Now, I don’t claim I am 100% correct but what I’ve experienced, what I’ve shared with fellow athletes (ok I’m pushing it calling myself an athlete now but I was back in the day), what I’ve read and what makes sense to me, is by using gearing to replicate lighter distance runners type of output I can go for longer rides without the same aches and pains in muscles.

Of course runners don’t have the option of gearing to help them; cyclists do, and can use these to their advantage. 

I don’t see any real noticeable difference in rides up to around 6/7 miles but anything past 10 and up to 50 it makes a difference for me. I’m 6 foot 2 and around 15 ½ stone and 39 years of age, I have a lot of (relatively) soft muscle left over from playing rugby but its took some time to get it going again, maybe this approach works because of my physical attributes, maybe somebody else would have a different experience I don’t know. But it works for me.

I'm happy to be put right, I'm willing to listen and change my view if proved wrong, but any patronising reply will be treated with contempt it deserves.


----------



## black'n'yellow (23 Oct 2012)

david k said:


> You’re not following what I am saying, or are refusing to understand as it doesn’t fit your agenda, or maybe you’re a trainee troll, the old patronising, “_You really are struggling with this, aren't you_” is so obvious and just makes you look even more like a cock. My advice is to drop this obnoxious approach and speak in a civilised manner. Then we can have a decent debate without childish tit for tat.


 
There's a lot of irony in that paragraph. That's the third time you've called me a cock and you've just called me a troll - and you are asking *me* to 'drop the obnoxious approach and speak in a civilised manner'... 



david k said:


> Now, back to topic, going down a gear but raising the cadence *doesn’t* slow you down, simple gearing v reps situation, low gear high revs or high gear low revs, simples.


 
Nobody said it does. Your original contention was that spinning a lower gear enables you to ride for longer than turning a higher gear. Other people, including me, have told you that is not the case and that your aerobic fitness is your limiter, not the rate at which you turn the cranks.




david k said:


> I'm happy to be put right, I'm willing to listen and change my view if proved wrong, but any patronising reply will be treated with contempt it deserves.


 
People with more experience than you of both riding and training have told you that you are wrong - but you are not willing to listen. I include myself in that group. But all I am getting is abuse. Anyway, you're obviously an expert - despite the overwhelming evidence on this thread to the contrary.


----------



## 400bhp (23 Oct 2012)

GrasB said:


> Optimum cadence at what power output, on what cranks at what level of strength & fitness? Your optimum cadence is effected by many things:
> * crank length
> * power production
> * biometric position
> ...


 
You do realise you're posting in the beginners forum don't you...


----------



## david k (23 Oct 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> There's a lot of irony in that paragraph. That's the third time you've called me a cock and you've just called me a troll - and you are asking *me* to 'drop the obnoxious approach and speak in a civilised manner'...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 ok


----------



## 400bhp (23 Oct 2012)

David - a word of advice. Although (in your eyes) B&Y might take a blunt approach to his tone, listen to what he is saying. He's right.


----------



## david k (23 Oct 2012)

​50 rpm rather than 100 rpm resulted in greater fast-twitch fiber glycogen depletion and an increase in lactic acid​_Fatigue is delayed when using a high cadence near 100 rpm, compared to a low cadence near 50. _http://www.wenzelcoaching.com/Article-CadenceFactors.htm

OK, people have told me I am wrong, although I climb a very steep hill near me regularly, when I try it in a high gear I tire quickly and hit the wall half way up. When I do it in a a lower gear and spin fast I make it up easier and quicker overall. Considering that and what I have read like the 2 quotes above, could somebody pelase tell me why I have it wrong. Other than just to say, "your wrong" and as I've cycled more than 815 miles I must be right.


----------



## david k (23 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> David - a word of advice. Although (in your eyes) B&Y might take a blunt approach to his tone, listen to what he is saying. He's right.


400bhp,
Im very happy to be proved wrong, but simply stating that people have riden more miles makes them right or Im right and thats it doesnt explain why i have it wrong. And if he takes that tone he should expect conversations to turn out like this
David


----------



## black'n'yellow (23 Oct 2012)

david k said:


> OK, people have told me I am wrong, although I climb a very steep hill near me regularly, when I try it in a high gear I tire quickly and hit the wall half way up. When I do it in a a lower gear and spin fast I make it up easier and quicker overall. Considering that and what I have read like the 2 quotes above, could somebody pelase tell me why I have it wrong. Other than just to say, "your wrong" and as I've cycled more than 815 miles I must be right.


 
Option A - If you attack the hill at a higher effort than you can maintain, you will hit (and exceed) your LT and/or VO2 max very quickly. It is not an easy thing to recover from, espcially if the road is still going up.

Option B - If you ride up the hill below your threshold (ie at a gear and an effort you can maintain) then you will be able to maintain a consistent effort all the way up.

Of course option B is quicker, because you have not hit the wall half way up. However, if you train yourself to perform option A, it will obviously be quicker and you will end up being able to ride option A in the same way as you are currently able to ride option B. It's called 'improvng your aerobic fitness'...


----------



## david k (23 Oct 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Option A - If you attack the hill at a higher effort than you can maintain, you will hit (and exceed) your LT and/or VO2 max very quickly. It is not an easy thing to recover from, espcially if the road is still going up.
> 
> Option B - If you ride up the hill below your threshold (ie at a gear and an effort you can maintain) then you will be able to maintain a consistent effort all the way up.
> 
> Of course option B is quicker, because you have not hit the wall half way up. However, if you train yourself to perform option A, it will obviously be quicker and you will end up being able to ride option A in the same way as you are currently able to ride option B. It's called 'improvng your aerobic fitness'...


but none of this takes into account cadence, what your describing is someone who gets fitter goes faster, nobody is disputing that as ar as i can see.
The question is in reference to higher cadence lower gear same speed = climb as quick for longer as per quotes i;ve given.

You claim overwhelming evidence contrary to my opinion, all I see is explanation that training will make you fitter, thats not evidence


----------



## black'n'yellow (23 Oct 2012)

david k said:


> but none of this takes into account cadence,


 
because cadence is *not* a limiting factor - seriously, I thought we'd just done all this..?



david k said:


> The question is in reference to higher cadence lower gear same speed = climb as quick for longer as per quotes i;ve given.


 
As above - I thought we'd just been through all this on the previous pages? Low gear/high cadence v high gear/low cadence = same amount of energy expended on the same hill within the same time.



david k said:


> You claim overwhelming evidence contrary to my opinion, all I see is explanation that training will make you fitter, thats not evidence


 
so you disagree that fitness is key to going up hills faster or for longer...?


----------



## david k (23 Oct 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> because cadence is *not* a limiting factor - seriously, I thought we'd just done all this..?
> As above - I thought we'd just been through all this on the previous pages? Low gear/high cadence v high gear/low cadence = same amount of energy expended on the same hill within the same time.
> so you disagree that fitness is key to going up hills faster or for longer...?


 
Been through it all? no, youve just said I'm wrong, nothing you've said has proved this. I've said I'm happy to be proved wrong so prove it. Simply saying I've only cycled 815 miles therefore I must be wrong isn't evidence. You keep taking it off topic and stating the obvious, stick to the topic, *Cadence V High gears*

Fitness is a very big part of any training obviously, everyone knows that and nobody disputes it, so back to topic. Cadence if kept high reduces lactic acid and helps you cycle for longer, that's the claim please prove it wrong. if you do ill happily accept i have seen it wrong all the way. But your evidence needs to be stronger than saying "people know more than you and therefore they are right and your not"


----------



## black'n'yellow (23 Oct 2012)

david k said:


> Been through it all? no, youve just said im wrong, nothing youve said has proved this. Ive said im happy to be proved wrong so prove it. Simply saying ive only cycled 815 miles therefore i must be wrong isnt evidence. You keep taking it off topic and stating the obvious, stick to the topic, CADENCE


 
Cadence is a complete non-issue. In any case, it cannot be discussed in isolation, because it is dependent on too many variables. Ask any cycle coach or sports scientist and they will tell you the same. As your cycling fitness improves, you will begin to realise this yourself - but you are clearly a long way from that point at the moment. This is why most racing cyclists (amateur and pro) focus on improving their sustainable power and optimising their weight in order to perform better. I don't know anyone who focuses on cadence - certainly none of my team-mates do and neither do I. Why do you think that is?



david k said:


> cadence fi kept high reduces lactic acid and helps you cycle for longer, thats the claim please prove it wrong.


 
Within certain parameters, your cadence is largely irrelevant in this situation. Lactic acid is building because you are asking your legs to perform beyond their ability, which is a symptom of under-training/lack of fitness - call it what you like. If you shift to a lower/easier gear your power and effort level will drop and the lactic build-up will subside.

ok - here's something I haven't asked you yet - when you talk of 'high cadence', what cadence are we actually talking about? What number?


----------



## david k (23 Oct 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> ok - here's something I haven't asked you yet - when you talk of 'high cadence', what cadence are we actually talking about? What number?


 
Don’t know, have a garmin 800 and hrm but no cadence sensor yet

When I first started cycling I stomped, I cycled the same rhythm as I walked, I’ve done lots of walking (there are reasons for this) and completed the 3 highest mountains in mainland UK amongst many others. I had to change this rhythm as it hurt my knees and tired my legs. I trained myself to turn my legs much quicker than felt natural and its worked for me, now quicker comes more naturally

You say I’m along way from being fit, you must realise this is all relative, you know little about my history apart from a few basic facts, ones persons 10 miler is as big a feat as another persons 100 miler. You really shouldn’t judge people on how far they can go. Remember, sport was my job when I was younger, trainings moved on and it was a different sport but it’s not as if I don’t understand the basics of getting fit. I’m very happy with my progression considering all things; I think you should stay clear of judging someone’s fitness or making fun out of their annual mileage unless you know their capabilities. 

I still don’t get why higher cadence does not affect a ride when my experience and what I’ve read suggest it does


----------



## black'n'yellow (23 Oct 2012)

david k said:


> Don’t know, have a garmin 800 and hrm but no cadence sensor yet


 
My guess is that what you consider to be a 'high' cadence might actually be a perfectly normal cadence for a regular cyclist.




david k said:


> You say I’m along way from being fit, you must realise this is all relative, you know little about my history apart from a few basic facts, ones persons 10 miler is as big a feat as another persons 100 miler. You really shouldn’t judge people on how far they can go. Remember, sport was my job when I was younger, trainings moved on and it was a different sport but it’s not as if I don’t understand the basics of getting fit. I’m very happy with my progression considering all things; I think you should stay clear of judging someone’s fitness or making fun out of their annual mileage unless you know their capabilities.


 
Remember this is a _'cycling_' forum - not an _'I used to be good at a completely unrelated sport'_ forum. No offence, but what you used to do before cycling is of no relevance to this discussion. As for your 'capabilities', I can only judge them on the information I can glean from the thread - namely that you have ridden less than 1000 miles so far this year, and that your height/weight puts you firmly in the upper end of the 'overweight' category according to the NHS chart. If you feel that either of those observations are inaccurate, then I am happy to be corrected.




david k said:


> I still don’t get why higher cadence does not affect a ride when my experience and what I’ve read suggest it does


 
This has been explained to you many times.


----------



## david k (24 Oct 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> My guess is that what you consider to be a 'high' cadence might actually be a perfectly normal cadence for a regular cyclist.


 you may be correct




black'n'yellow said:


> Remember this is a _'cycling_' forum - not an _'I used to be good at a completely unrelated sport'_ forum. No offence, but what you used to do before cycling is of no relevance to this discussion. As for your 'capabilities', I can only judge them on the information I can glean from the thread - namely that you have ridden less than 1000 miles so far this year, and that your height/weight puts you firmly in the upper end of the 'overweight' category according to the NHS chart. If you feel that either of those observations are inaccurate, then I am happy to be corrected.


Just pointing out that my knowledge doesnt come from scratch, sport is sport, the basics of fitness remain the same.
Yes I've cycled less than 1,000 miles so far this year, not sure why thats a big issue for you, so have many other people, its of no relevance when attempting to disprove my theory of high cadence allows you to cycle longer with less muscle fatigue
My height and weight does make me 'obese' in respect of NHS guidance, but as we all know this doesnt tell the full story as I'm sure you know, its quite a basic assumption. Again, not sure how it proves anything, I was suggesting that these facts may be why I consider cadence as I do, or maybe it doesnt, who knows?



black'n'yellow said:


> This has been explained to you many times.


 
Has it? All I've seen is you saying cadence doesn't affect your ability to ride for longer, how is that explaining? Show me something with a bit more credit


----------



## black'n'yellow (24 Oct 2012)

david k said:


> Has it? All I've seen is you saying cadence doesn't affect your ability to ride for longer, how is that explaining? Show me something with a bit more credit


 
if you want me to provide you with links to some worthless internet 'science' then I'm not going to do that. I actually don't care whether you believe me or not. You talk about 'high cadence' without actually knowing what a 'high cadence' is (I already asked you - you didn't know), so I can't really see the point in continuing this when you - quite literally and by your own admission - do not know what you are talking about. Doesn't alter the truth of it though - which you will learn for yourself sooner or later. Probably later.


----------



## david k (24 Oct 2012)

For example, we are cycling up a hill in a big gear (‘hard to push’). Because it’s hard to push, we’ve 
got a cadence of, maybe, 70 rpm. Each pedal stroke pushes hard and slowly against the pedal, propelling 
the bike forward at, say 12 miles per hour. As the pedal stroke takes a relatively long time and we are 
pushing a big gear, we use a lot of energy and produce a lot of lactic acid – the exercise is anaerobic. It’s like 
weight lifting: lift a big weight just a couple of times, you soon get tired arms. 
Lactic acid builds quickly in this case, we soon tire and our performance suffers. As it takes a finite 
time to flush this lactic acid from our muscles, we will also take longer to recover. This is all great strength 
training but not a lot of use in a race when you want to avoid the build of lactic acid as much as possible, 
and recover quickly after hard effort. Not only that, but the huge force we put on our knees/ankles, joints, 
muscles, etc, is much more likely to lead to injury. 
So what’s the alternative? Well, we can speed up our cadence and pedal an easier gear! This is far 
more aerobic than using big gears. 
Back to our hill example: we now drop a couple of gears so the force needed to push against and 
turn the pedal is lower, but we increase our cadence to maintain the same speed. 
‘Great’, I hear you say, ‘but where’s the advantage in that? We still have the same speed.’ 
Correct, but, because we are pushing less force per pedal revolution, we don’t produce anywhere 
near as much lactic acid, even at higher cadences, and so we can maintain the speed for longer and recover 
more quickly – it is aerobic exercise. Ultimately, we can end up ‘spinning’ an easy gear at a high cadence.
*source*: http://www.raf.mod.uk/raftriathlon/rafcms/mediafiles/498B1498_1143_D71E_469F6513AD1643D5.pdf


----------



## HovR (24 Oct 2012)

david k said:


> I still don’t get why higher cadence does not affect a ride when my experience and what I’ve read suggest it does


 
If I understand correctly, you are trying to argue that a higher cadence at any given speed will allow you to cycle for longer due to less lactic acid build-up, and is more efficient.

Black&Yellow is (I think) trying to explain that to be keeping that same speed you will be outputting exactly the same power no matter what cadence you are pedaling at, therefore cadence isn't a major factor regarding muscle fatigue, but rather your sustainable power output (before you start producing lactic acid) is.

That said, power output isn't the only factor to consider, and other factors such as possibly comfort on the bike between the two different riding styles may come in to play - This of course will be a personal thing.


----------



## david k (24 Oct 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> if you want me to provide you with links to some worthless internet 'science' then I'm not going to do that. I actually don't care whether you believe me or not. You talk about 'high cadence' without actually knowing what a 'high cadence' is (I already asked you - you didn't know), so I can't really see the point in continuing this when you - quite literally and by your own admission - do not know what you are talking about. Doesn't alter the truth of it though - which you will learn for yourself sooner or later. Probably later.


 
You seem to take issue with me not accepting your 'knowledge' with any doubt. Don't know why you find it difficult to discuss topics with people when they don't see things the same way as you. I've just posted an explanation which makes sense to me, you just keep saying I'm wrong, you expect me to believe you without doubt, then post something with an explanation rather than giving up.

Try opening your mind and discussing topics with people rather than insisting they see it your way without question. You may get a more constructive conversation if you didn't speak down to people or look down on cyclists who haven't cycled 1,000 miles yet this year.


----------



## david k (24 Oct 2012)

HovR said:


> If I understand correctly, you are trying to argue that a higher cadence at any given speed will allow you to cycle for longer due to less lactic acid build-up, and is more efficient.
> 
> Black&Yellow is (I think) trying to explain that to be keeping that same speed you will be outputting exactly the same power no matter what cadence you are pedaling at, therefore cadence isn't a major factor regarding muscle fatigue, but rather your sustainable power output (before you start producing lactic acid) is.
> 
> That said, power output isn't the only factor to consider, and other factors such as possibly comfort on the bike between the two different riding styles may come in to play - This of course will be a personal thing.


 
this explanation is different to the one I've posted, do you consider that wrong then?


----------



## Licramite (24 Oct 2012)

heres an interesting one - which kind of follows the disscussion.- this is not an example its what I did

on monday i got on my exercise bike - set the pedal resistance to 8 (10 is max) put on my speediest tunes - and hit the pedals for 30minutes
ok I only did 15k but I burned 460calories - unfortunately it doesn,t record candence but the spg was between 25 - 35

tonight I did the same 30minutes on pedal resistance 2 - did 20k and burned 500cal spg 35-40

I would have thought I would have burned the same number of calories (if you equate calorie burn with power produced)
but by in effect running on a lower gear I could expend more energy in the same time, so by pedalling slower (higher gear higher resistance) I couldn,t expend the same amount of energy in the time, so thier may be something in what armstrong said after all. he advocated lower gear higher candence.

ok you can now take the piss out of me for my rubbish preformance - 30minutes and you only did 20k ! - do some training.
honest I did all that when I was 25.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (24 Oct 2012)

Just want to say, I have had no great improvements in speed this last month or so, but because I am fitter I am climbing hills better in whatever gear which goes along with what b&y says it is fitness that matters.


----------



## HovR (24 Oct 2012)

david k said:


> this explanation is different to the one I've posted, do you consider that wrong then?


 



david k said:


> For example, we are cycling up a hill in a big gear (‘hard to push’). Because it’s hard to push, we’ve
> got a cadence of, maybe, 70 rpm. Each pedal stroke pushes hard and slowly against the pedal, propelling
> the bike forward at, say 12 miles per hour. As the pedal stroke takes a relatively long time and we are
> pushing a big gear, we use a lot of energy and produce a lot of lactic acid


 

I think there is a slight misconception here. As we are pushing the big gear, yes we are pushing the gear hard (expending energy), but because we have more development/gear inches per pedal stroke we don't have to pedal as fast (which saves us energy). In the faster gear, yes we don't have to push down on the pedals so hard (which is saving us energy) but we do have to pedal faster (which is expending more energy). This causes the two different approaches to require exactly the same power output.


I think the way you're tricking yourself in to thinking otherwise is because, for example, you might be trying to climb a hill in a 52x11 gear combination at 60RPM - This would theoretically give you a speed of 22mph, but you are unable to achieve this because the gear is too hard to push (you can't sustain the power output needed to push it).

Let's say you now drop down in to the 42x20 gear combination. Your cadence is faster (90rpm) and you're finding it easier to climb the hill, but you're not reaching the 22mph so your power output it less, which is really why you're finding it easier.

To reach that same power output (and make it a fair comparison) in your spinning gear, and the 22mph, you'd have to be spinning at 135ish RPM, which would not be sustainable for a long time just as the high gear ratio/low cadence combination wasn't.

That's my understanding of the physics involved anyway, I've tried to link it in to cycling scenarios although this isn't my area of expertise!


----------



## Licramite (24 Oct 2012)

you can't argue with that point B&Y is right - the fitter cyclist will go up hills quicker one way or another.

but the rest of us poor sods have to rely on technique - thiers some hills my way it is actually quicker to get off and run up than try and cycle.- but if it works
and I don,t know what armstrong was on as he danced up the hills - but I want some.

personally I find the low gear high candence doesn,t work for me - I burn out before I reach the top, I try and stay in as high a gear as I can , but I could be doing it all wrong. - hoping more experienced people will know how its done.


----------



## Tigerbiten (24 Oct 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> As above - I thought we'd just been through all this on the previous pages? Low gear/high cadence v high gear/low cadence = same amount of energy expended on the same hill within the same time.


Thats not quite correct.

From my understanding if you make a graph of Energy vs Cadence the line is an inverted U shape.
If the speed is kept constant then cadence is the inverse of the force needed on the pedals.
At a very low cadence (sub 50rpm) your muscles tire very quickly due to the force needed to turn each pedal stroke.
Up the cadence a bit and your effiency improves as you need less force is needed to turn the pedals.
Then you get the flatish top to the graph where upping the cadence make no real difference to effiency.
Once the cadence gets high enough (over 120rpm) your effiency drops as more of your energy is used to just spin the pedals as opposed to move the bike forward.
Most people find a cadence of somewhere in the range 60-110 the best.
Where in that range you like just comes down to your riding style.
But the faster you go, the highest point in the Energy/Cadence graph shift towards a higher cadence.
Which is why in my lowest gears I spin at only ~70 rpm, while in my high gears I'm spinning at ~100 rpm.


----------



## marzjennings (24 Oct 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Within certain parameters, your cadence is largely irrelevant in this situation. Lactic acid is building because you are asking your legs to perform beyond their ability, which is a symptom of under-training/lack of fitness - call it what you like. If you shift to a lower/easier gear your power and effort level will drop and the lactic build-up will subside.
> ?


 
But the point I think DK is trying to make that lactic acid build up, at a constant speed and incline, is quicker at low cadence compared to a high cadence, regardless of fitness. And there seems to be a fair amount of evidence to support that idea. Yes the fitter cyclist can absorb lactic acid faster than the unfit cyclist, able to produce more power for longer, but as any cyclist tends towards a low cadence (while maintaining the same power output) they will engage more fast twitch muscles which do produce lactic acid faster than slow twitch muscles. 

This differential will be more extreme for the unfit cyclist who's body is not trained to absorb lactic acid as well as the fit cyclist.


----------



## GrasB (24 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> You do realise you're posting in the beginners forum don't you...


Doesn't make it any less relevant as to why automatic gears on a bike doesn't actually make sense...


----------



## 400bhp (24 Oct 2012)

No, but few will understand it. Pitch to the audience.


----------



## black'n'yellow (24 Oct 2012)

david k said:


> *source*: http://www.raf.mod.uk/raftriathlon/rafcms/mediafiles/498B1498_1143_D71E_469F6513AD1643D5.pdf


 
_"blah blah...Lance Armstrong....blah blah...high cadence"_ Remember me telling you about 'worthless internet science'..? Do you even know who 'Mike Potts' is..? As far as I can tell, he is an engineering officer with the RAF and an amateur triathlete. I'm sure he is a good engineer and he may even be a good triathlete. Conveniently for you though, he also happens to have posted his opinions online, thereby providing you with the faux 'proof' that you are not an idiot after all. His views are no more valid than mine, or anyone else's. Get real.

I particularly enjoyed this bit - in relation to running cadence:

_"Watch any professional marathon runner and you’ll see that they have a high stride rate (running_ _cadence), normally around 80-100 strides per minute. These guys are consistently clocking sub-4:30 minute_ _miles so they must be doing something right!_"

You bet they're doing something right - they are running 100+ miles a week in training and are considerably fitter - and therefore running considerably faster - than you. Hence the higher stride rate....

Take a look at this vid of Armstrong here



You will see that his legendary 'high cadence' is actually no higher than anyone else's. Could it be that the whole 'high cadence' thing was just a ruse, invented by his coaching staff to explain away his improbable performances?

Q - _"why is he so quick all of a sudden?"_
A - _"oh, er, we told him to increase his cadence over the winter"_

It wouldn't be the first time that coaching staff had given out misinformation like that - it's part of the job.

For the last time - FORGET ABOUT CADENCE.


----------



## Licramite (24 Oct 2012)

well from the vid his cadence was 88 roughly, I only got a glimpse at the other guys but they seamed to be less than 60 (cept the guy in pink he matched armstrong) -
(counted his leg moves timed for 15secs multiplyed )
I couldn,t tell you what gear he was in. its hard to forget about cadence, its after all the number of times you turn the crack that turns the drive wheel. turn it more it more and you go further - simples-

if it all just comes down to fitness - reminds me of a joke

3 men come to river.
one says - god give me big arms to swim across - so god goes and he swims the river.
the other says - god give me big legs to swim tthe river - so god goes and he swims the river.
the third says , god make me a woman - so god does , and she looks round and crosses the bridge.

you can now rant at me and call me a fool.


----------



## black'n'yellow (24 Oct 2012)

Licramite said:


> you can now rant at me and call me a fool.


 
to be fair - 'fool' is not the word I was thinking of...

Assuming you were watching the same clip that I posted, there is no appreciable difference in cadence in any of the riders featured.



Licramite said:


> if it all just comes down to fitness - reminds me of a _bizarre and bafflingly-irrelevant, unfunny story_


 
fixed that for you...


----------



## ayceejay (24 Oct 2012)

Given that the required result is to make riding easier is 'cadence' the first avenue to explore? the easiest situation is riding downhill with the wind at your back when it may not be necessary to pedal at all .Conversely the hardest is probably going up hill into a head wind. As one is likely to encounter both of these extremes what is the best strategy? seems to be the question. If we add 'speed' or 'going faster' to our objective we need to consider a bigger question. It seems to me that reducing this question to "cadence vs higher gears" is oversimplifying.


----------



## Licramite (24 Oct 2012)

"to be fair - 'fool' is not the word I was thinking of..."

isnt it strange me and BnY are opposite ends of an argument - but we have the same opinion of each other.

watch the video you posted and count the leg movements , they are not the same. - of course you will say they are - Armstrong is pedalling faster. (except the guy in pink)

hes more than likely fitter.

oh the point ofthe story, - if you didn,t get it, - you can have all the muscle in the world but technology trumps it every time, this is why we have cars and buses an things.
and probably gears on bikes.


----------



## black'n'yellow (24 Oct 2012)

Licramite said:


> oh the point ofthe story, - if you didn,t get it, - you can have all the muscle in the world but technology trumps it every time, this is why we have cars and buses an things.
> and probably gears on bikes.


 
you really are 'off the scale' in so many ways.....


----------



## marzjennings (24 Oct 2012)

ayceejay said:


> Given that the required result is to make riding easier is 'cadence' the first avenue to explore? .


 
No, cadence is a piece of the puzzle, but the best way to make riding easier is to ride far and often. There are no shortcuts or tricks, just ride and then go ride again. 

A smooth effective cadence will help improve efficiency, but there's no point really worrying about that as a beginner.


----------



## Rob3rt (24 Oct 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> you really are 'off the scale' in so many ways.....


 
Are you thinking of the same scale I am?


----------



## david k (24 Oct 2012)

marzjennings said:


> No, cadence is a piece of the puzzle, but the best way to make riding easier is to ride far and often. There are no shortcuts or tricks, just ride and then go ride again.
> 
> A smooth effective cadence will help improve efficiency, but there's no point really worrying about that as a beginner.


seems like good sensible advice to me, +1


----------



## black'n'yellow (24 Oct 2012)

Rob3rt said:


> Are you thinking of the same scale I am?


 
almost certainly..


----------



## Licramite (24 Oct 2012)

sorry I couldnt get the link to work but this gives some advice on preformance tips sitesorry its a bit long but all sounds sensible stuff. hell I might even try some of it!*Form and Technique *This page will compile a number of comments on form and technique

*Pedaling*

*Smooth pedal stroke*

Using a fixed gear bike to improve smoothness in your pedal stroke.
Use of a fixed gear bike will focus you on your pedaling technique as well as increasing leg speed and strength. The mechanics of a fixed-gear bike require you to pedal as long as the bike is moving forward. Inexperienced riders should consider using a fixed-gear bike on a stationary trainer for the first couple of rides.
Pedaling continuously will develop a smooth pedal stroke as you spin down hills and increases leg strength as you climb the hills. Generally, gearing for a fixed-gear bike will be light (42x19, or about 60 gear inches), which is a nice balance for various types of terrain.
You might consider using an old road bike, adding a fixed-gear rear wheel from a used bike shop. Unthread your chain from the rear derailleur, shorten it, and place it around the small chainring in front and the single rear cog, and you're done. You can also use a track bike for this purpose. You will need to install at least one brake before you go out on the road.

One-Leg Pedaling
One-leg pedaling is another approach to adding strength (and variety to your indoor training at the same time). Normally, when you pedal with both legs, the leg that pulls the foot through the bottom of the stroke and back up to the top of the 360 degree "cycle" is under used (as the other leg, when pushing the crank through the downstroke has significantly more power and thus allows a bit of slacking).
Learning to pedal a complete, 360-degree circle with both legs working together will make you a better rider. Practicing with one legged drills will embed this idea into your pedaling style.

Warm up on the trainer for 20 minutes while pedaling with both legs.
Unclip one foot from the pedal. Rest it on a chair or stool just outside the left pedal circle.
Pedal at 90 rpm using your right leg, using an easy gear until you get accustomed to the feeling of one-leg pedaling. The muscles that lift your thigh and push the pedal over the top will fatigue quickly at first, but you'll improve rapidly.
After a few minutes, switch to the other leg.

*Cadence* - If you're relatively new to cycling, you are probably riding at a cadence that is below your optimum. Most new riders think they are getting a better workout if every pedal stoke is a strain and the quads are burning. Although there's a place for low-cadence workouts, during a normal ride, aim for a smooth spin at between 85-100 rpm (pedal revolutions per minute) which is much more efficient -- and easier on the legs, especially the knees.
Lance Armstrong has popularized high-cadence pedaling. He spins at about 90 rpm on even the steepest climbs, and he's regularly over 100 rpm in time trials. Does this mean you should be pedaling at a high cadence as well? Although your cadence can be increased through training, it may not fit with your personal physiology and biomechanics.
The make-up of your leg muscles (the ratio of fast-twitch to slow-twitch fibers), combined with your fitness, will self-select your cadence. For most experienced riders, ideal cadence is in the range of 80-100 rpm - and most tend to automatically pedal at around 90 rpm in normal condition . Non-cyclists tend to spin a bit lower at around 60-70 rpm.
Try this to see what cadence may be the best target for you.

Locate a protected 2-mile stretch of road (without significant cross streets or traffic). Ideally slightly rolling.
After you warm up for 15 minutes, ride the route hard in your biggest gear. Note your finish time and your heart rate if you have a monitor.
Recover for 15 to 20 minutes with easy spinning.
Ride the course again at the same heart rate (or perceived exertion if you don't have a monitor). But this time choose a rear cog that's one or two steps larger and allows you to keep your cadence about 100 rpm. Note your time for the same course.
After a day or two of rest, do the test in reverse - larger rear cog (lower gear ratio) first.
Compare your times. For most riders, the lower gear and higher cadence will produce faster times for less perceived effort.

Here are two drills that may be helpful in increasing your cadence and maintaining the smooth spin of a veteran.


Use a down hill to practice. Spin in a small gear on a slight descent, then gradually increase your cadence until your pelvis begins bouncing on the saddle. Back off about 5 rpm so (the bouncing stops). Hold that cadence and concentrate on a smooth pedal stroke for one minute. Cruise back up the hill and do it again. Relaxation is the key to pedaling at a high cadence without bouncing. Keep your elbows, shoulders and hips loose.
Use a that tailwind that you have stumbled across. Shift into a moderate gear and gradually increase your cadence until you're at 100-110 rpm. Hold it there for 30 seconds, then gradually ease back to 80 rpm. Repeat several times.
How do you estimate your cadence if you don't have a cadence fundtion on your computer? Set your computer display oto show seconds show. Using your right foot, count how many times it is at the bottom of the stroke during a 15 (or 30) second interval. Then then multiply by 4 (or 2). That will help you develop a sense of what 90-100 rpm feels like.

*Shifting*

The secret to smooth shifting, especially on hills, lies in planning. Anticipate you'll need an easier gear and shift a few seconds ahead of time - including shifting to an easier gear at the bottom of the hill while you still have momentum.
Just as you move the lever, ease up pedal pressure. The shift will occur during one crank revolution. If you time it right, you won't lose significant speed. And if you are worried, push a bit harder for several strokes before lightening the pressure on the shift stroke.
Bottom line: Any time you shift either derailleur, be conscious of your pedal pressure. Shifts made during a moderate application of power have the best chance of being smooth and quick.

*Paceline Training*

*Paceline Skills.* A great way to improve paceline skills while limiting risks. Excerpted from www.roadbikerider.com.
"With a few friends, find a hill several hundred yards long. It doesn't have to be steep. Ride up in a paceline. Work on pedaling smoothly and maintaining 12-18 > inches between bikes. Here's the key to this drill: Keep the speed low. Around 5-7 mph is perfect. Everyone should be pedaling with the same cadence. No one should be struggling to keep the pace. Low speed ingrains smooth technique. In a normal paceline, if you speed up, you quickly overrun the next wheel. If you let a gap open, it takes effort to close and this messes up riders behind. But at slow speed on a gradual hill, there's less penalty for mistakes -- and you can simply put a foot down if you make one. Trade the front position after short pulls. Just 20-30 minutes of this slow-motion drill will make you and your friends noticeably better when you're in a paceline that's traveling 3 times faster."
And a second article, same e-zine (roadbikerider.com):
"Catch a draft! The best way to learn good drafting technique is to pair up with an experienced rider. So if you're an old hand, help a new rider learn. If you're a newbie, find a grizzled vet who's willing to help. In this example, we'll assume you're the rookie.

Ride at a moderate pace on a low-traffic road. Put your front wheel about 3 feet behind your guru's rear wheel. As you feel comfortable and confident, get a bit closer -- maybe 2 feet, then 18 inches.
Notice how the draft is stronger when you're closer to your partner's wheel, weaker as you drift back. Notice how you feel more draft when speed increases.
Feel how the draft moves slightly to the side in a crosswind. Protection increases to the right of your partner's wheel when the wind is from the left, and vice versa.

Good drafting depends on smooth, even pedaling. If you pedal and coast, pedal and coast, you'll find yourself getting too close to your partner or too far back. Keep the crank turning and use slightly more or less pedaling force to maintain a constant gap.
Now practice rotating the lead.
The front rider checks over her shoulder for traffic, drifts a couple of feet to one side (determined by wind direction, road conditions or traffic) and slows slightly by soft-pedaling.
You take the lead not by accelerating but by keeping your speed constant as your partner slows. Pedaling will feel a bit harder because you're bucking the wind. Glance at your cyclecomputer to make sure your speed stays steady.
Stay close as you pass each other while rotating the lead. The closer your shoulders are, the less wind each of you will be pushing and the narrower your combined width. That's important so motorists can deal safely with your presence.
When you're the person dropping back, begin accelerating slightly when your front wheel is beside your partner's rear wheel. Then you can slip in behind before a gap opens."

*Cornering*

There are two challenges in cornering technique. The first is avoiding a loss of momentum when you are in a competitive situation and the other is just the opposite with too mush speed going into the corner and the edge of the road rapidly approaching.
*Slowing too much*
The secret here is to keep your momentum during turns. Novice riders will waste their momentum when cornering, while the more experienced will sweep through the curve and open a gap that costs others precious energy to close. Corner after corner, this efficiency really adds up.
A few tips:


Shift down before the turn. If the corner is tight (which will naturally make you slow), shift into a lower gear before you enter the corner, stop pedaling, and start leaning the bike. If you are in too large a gear, it will take more time to get back your momentum.
Practice standing versus sitting when exiting the curve. Cornering soaks up your speed, so you may choose to stand and sprint to regain momentum. However, standing uses more energy so in wide, sweeping corners you may opt to stay seated, and work a little harder to keep contact with the group (especially in a downhill turn). There are additional benefits of standing out of corners.
You use body weight to power the pedals and the tendency to shift to a lower gear.
Standing avoids the temptation to use more forceful pedal strokes in the saddle and increase knee strain.
Standing relieves saddle pressure - and even a few seconds will add up to decrease discomfort over the ride.
Standing will stretch your legs - and back. This will combat the stiffness that occurs with long rides.
If you get in the habit of standing for a few strokes after most turns, even if it isn't necessary to stay with the group, you'll ride more comfortably.
Be prepared to sprint. Be ready to invest a sudden burst of energy after each turn. But if you can stay seated, and still stay with the bunch, it will save you energy to use on that final sprint at the end of the day or in the hillier sections.
*Going too fast*


Lean into the curve. It's better to increase your cornering angle even though you may lose traction and fall to the inside. Consider the alternative - slide down or ride off the outside of the road and hit things like guardrails or trees with more than just road rash to deal with.
Stand. Give your tires more grip by standing and putting most of your weight on your outside pedal. Virtually all of your weight should be on it. Push your bike into the turn. The bike should always be angled more than your body.
Brake early, then not. Take off as much speed as you can before the turn, then release the levers. This goes against instinct, but braking in a turn makes a bike want to straighten, the opposite of what you need it to do. You can also feather the rear brake, but be ready to let up if the wheel grabs and threatens your control. Don't even think about using the front brake while turning. It is a sure way to send the bike where you're aren't aiming or cause the front wheel to slide out abruptly.
*Eye On Your Line*
Use your eyes to corner better. The next time you take a corner at speed, concentrate on eying your line. Don't stare directly in front of your wheel, watching for debris, cracks or potholes. You won't notice even more dangerous obstacles farther ahead. Instead, "sweep" the whole corner with your eyes before you enter.


Check your entry This is the section of pavement where you enter the turn and begin to lean the bike. Look for gravel, oil, potholes, slippery leaves, anything that could loosen your tires' grip.
Check the apex of your arc. Cracked pavement where the concrete curb meets the blacktop is a common danger. So is water -- from sprinklers or puddles on the roadside. In winter, this might be ice.
Check the exit. Sweep your eyes ahead, through the turn and up the road on the line you're riding. Don't let yourself spy the trouble as you are coming out of a successful corner.
Then, just before you begin the turn, look through it to visualize the correct line. The trick is to visualize your line just before you begin to lean the bike. Then you can spot hazards and make adjustments without risking control. Remember, the bike goes where you look. Focus on the best line all the way through the turn and that's the path your wheels will take.
It always helps to have another point of view. Here are a few tips sent to me by a coach in Maylasia, Nick Flyger. (Thanks Nick)
"For fast, accurate and safe cornering I teach people the following (most to least important)..."


Look where you want to go and ALSO shift your pelvis on the seat so it faces into the corner.
Keep you chest close to your top tube and handle bars, lowers the centre of gravity and prevents the unstable feeling. On highspeed descents I am practically kissing my handlebars.
Point your inside knee into the turn by sticking it inwards towards the apex of the corner. Some people (Lance among them) say keep it tucked on the tube. I feel this makes it harder to lower your centre of gravity, also GP motorbike riders practically put that inside knee on the ground and they are going much faster!
Keep pressure off the inside pedal but keep pressure on the outside pedal. However, that force must be directed vertical towards the ground not directed down the vertical line of the bike which is leaning inwards. Doing this correctly adds additional force in the direction of gravity helping to increase the friction on the tire and prevent it sliding out on you.
As you make the turn keep pressure on the outside hand. Sounds a little weird... "Turn the opposite way of the turn" but the front tire acts like a gyroscope, so pushing away from the turn causes the bike to lean into the turn! It's one of the reasons kids find it hard to learn to ride a bike. However once they gain confidence they go faster, the angular momentum of the wheel then helps them to stay upright because it is harder to turn the handle bars to lean or corner the bike, where as at slow speeds it is easy to over adjust and hit the pavement.
*Precision Steering (look where you want to go)*

Ever want to ride on a narrow strip - white line at the edge of the road or a surface with the grooves running the direction you are going? For example a bridge with a surface of flat timbers going the direction of the road? Or avoid a pothole or wet manhole cover (which can be as slippery as ice)?
Here are two secrets that might help:


The first is to *keep your eyes focused 20 - 30 feet ahead*.
Don't look down at the front wheel. It's tempting to look just ahead of the front wheel to make sure it's going where you want it to. But this results in frequent steering corrections that translate into wobbles that make you lose your line. You can practice on the road by riding on the white line along the edge of the road. Remember to keep your focus 20 or 30 feet ahead.

The second is to *look where you want to head*, not at the obstacle you want to avoid.

The common factor is to look where you want to go as staring at an obstacle makes you track to it. Your body (and bike) follows your eyes. First look at the obstacle to remember where it is, but then train your eyes on the best line around it. Let your peripheral vision, keep tabs on what you want to miss.


----------



## Fasta Asloth (24 Oct 2012)

For my tuppence worth...

Perhaps some more 'respectable' scientific data on the subject, make of it what you will, but to me sounds like it supports BnY's position more.... interestingly they also looked at the influence of fibre type composition... Extract taken after a search of pubmed (database of more respectable scientific publications, mostly peer reviewed.. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed).

*Effect of pedaling rates and myosin heavy chain composition in the vastus lateralis muscle on the power generating capability during incremental cycling in humans.*

*Source*

Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, Faculty of Rehabilitation, University School of Physical Education, Kraków, Poland. joanna.majerczak@awf.krakow.pl
*Abstract*

In this study, we have determined power output reached at maximal oxygen uptake during incremental cycling exercise (P(I, max)) performed at low and at high pedaling rates in nineteen untrained men with various myosin heavy chain composition (MyHC) in the vastus lateralis muscle. On separate days, subjects performed two incremental exercise tests until exhaustion at 60 rev min(-1) and at 120 rev min(-1). In the studied group of subjects P(I, max) reached during cycling at 60 rev min(-1) was significantly higher (p=0.0001) than that at 120 rev min(-1) (287+/-29 vs. 215+/-42 W, respectively for 60 and 120 rev min(-1)). For further comparisons, two groups of subjects (n=6, each) were selected according to MyHC composition in the vastus lateralis muscle: group H with higher MyHC II content (56.8+/-2.79 %) and group L with lower MyHC II content in this muscle (28.6+/-5.8 %). P(I, max) reached during cycling performed at 60 rev min(-1) in group H was significantly lower than in group L (p=0.03). However, during cycling at 120 rev min(-1), there was no significant difference in P(I, max) reached by both groups of subjects (p=0.38). Moreover, oxygen uptake (VO(2)), blood hydrogen ion [H(+)], plasma lactate [La(-)] and ammonia [NH(3)] concentrations determined at the four highest power outputs completed during the incremental cycling performed at 60 as well as 120 rev min(-1), in the group H were significantly higher than in group L. We have concluded that during an incremental exercise performed at low pedaling rates the subjects with lower content of MyHC II in the vastus lateralis muscle possess greater power generating capabilities than the subjects with higher content of MyHC II. Surprisingly, at high pedaling rate, power generating capabilities in the subjects with higher MyHC II content in the vastus lateralis muscle did not differ from those found in the subjects with lower content of MyHC II in this muscle, despite higher blood [H(+)], [La(-)] and [NH(3)] concentrations. This indicates that at high pedaling rates the subjects with higher percentage of MyHC II in the vastus lateralis muscle perform relatively better than the subjects with lower percentage of MyHC II in this muscle.


There is a link to the full article here for your bedtime reading....http://www.biomed.cas.cz/physiolres/pdf/57/57_873.pdf

Still looking at the other papers that have been published in the genuine scientific lit to see how reproducuble above data is...


----------



## Sittingduck (24 Oct 2012)

1.21 Jigawatts??!!


----------



## david k (24 Oct 2012)

_"For most riders, the lower gear and higher cadence will produce faster times for less perceived effort_." Interesting


----------



## Fasta Asloth (24 Oct 2012)

david k said:


> _"For most riders, the lower gear and higher cadence will produce faster times for less perceived effort_." Interesting


 
Or, for impartiality, you could also quote this...... from an actual study? "In the studied group of subjects P(I, max) reached during cycling at 60 rev min(-1) was significantly higher (p=0.0001) than that at 120 rev min(-1) (287+/-29 vs. 215+/-42 W, respectively for 60 and 120 rev min(-1))"

i.e. in this study, with the particular subjects used under set conditions - more power was generated at the lower rpm when maximal oxygen uptake is reached....


----------



## Noodle Legs (25 Oct 2012)

TonyEnjoyD said:


> So, Loki421,
> 
> As you can see there's a lot of different approaches, mindsets and theories behind getting your cadence right, but from what I can fathom and I am not a pro and get bored with the technical Vo2/watts per revolution,Number of teeth on the ring I am using and whether I sit/stand/grind/spin on my big/small/wiry/super-dense muscle-fibre count, geomerty, triginometry, agebraic calculative....... aRGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
> 
> ...



+1
Sounds like the words of common sense to me! 

Unless you are a pro or seriously competing why fry your brain with technical jargon which then leads you to overthink every aspect of your ride? For me it kills the whole ethos of why I ride in the first place- enjoyment!

If I was out for a ride the last thing I want on my mind is whether I achieved x watts/min or what my vo2 max is....I would just get tense worrying about all that and that would hinder my performance


----------



## 400bhp (25 Oct 2012)

Chris Doyle said:


> +1
> Sounds like the words of common sense to me!
> 
> Unless you are a pro or seriously competing why fry your brain with technical jargon which then leads you to overthink every aspect of your ride? For me it kills the whole ethos of why I ride in the first place- enjoyment!
> ...


 
Shh, don't tell GrasB


----------



## Noodle Legs (25 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> Shh, don't tell GrasB


lol

Just a thought!


----------



## GrasB (25 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> Shh, don't tell GrasB


What because I understand why automatic transmissions shifting doesn't work for cyclists? Put it this way I know of a very enthusiastic leisure/touring cyclists who has ridden on a NuVinci Harmony equipped bike. They then went out & purchased an N360 with manual shifting because the automatic shifting only managed to detract from an otherwise very nice & easy to use hub gear.


----------



## Licramite (26 Oct 2012)

I can see the problem with automatic gears on bikes for cyclists - but for non cyclists they would have a place.
for a cyclist they would be constantly putting the gars upto his candence and making him grind instead of allowing him the option of spinning.
but for non cyclists it would make life easier , I was out with some women who were non cyclists (not that I,m one really) and I was constantly telling them to change down as they were struggling with inclines.


----------



## 400bhp (26 Oct 2012)

GrasB said:


> What because I understand why automatic transmissions shifting doesn't work for cyclists? Put it this way I know of a very enthusiastic leisure/touring cyclists who has ridden on a NuVinci Harmony equipped bike. They then went out & purchased an N360 with manual shifting because the automatic shifting only managed to detract from an otherwise very nice & easy to use hub gear.


 
I've never fully understood one of your posts.


----------

