Cadence and speed data
- Thread starter Tin Pot
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
ayceejay
Guru
- Location
- Rural Quebec
Your figures show a self evident truth: peddling faster in one gear will get you to your destination sooner than peddling slower in that gear. If it is your intention to do this regularly then you will need to improve your efficiency to maintain the higher level of effort. Will training to improve cadence help you to achieve this? Possibly.
Improving your aerobic capacity is the way to go, will peddling at a higher rate help you with this? Possibly.
I see nothing wrong in training with cadence, especially if you are on rollers as it will add variety to an otherwise boring experience.
Improving your aerobic capacity is the way to go, will peddling at a higher rate help you with this? Possibly.
I see nothing wrong in training with cadence, especially if you are on rollers as it will add variety to an otherwise boring experience.
ayceejay
Guru
- Location
- Rural Quebec
There is loads of stuff on the inter web Citius - you know like that.
OP
OP
Tin Pot
Guru
Indeed - even if it just adds variety to these 30 mile commutes, it'll be worth it.
I'm starting to recognise a few stretches where I can open up, would be good to have target cadences for the hills and flats.
Citius
Guest
Have target effort levels - not target cadences. I'm not getting through to you, am I ?
Citius
Guest
Realistically, it would depend on what your objectives are and what benefit you are expecting from that drill. If you have cause to ride like that in any events that you might do, then there could be a benefit - otherwise, just riding normally would probably give you the same/similar benefit
Citius
Guest
Can you clarify what you mean by that?
OP
OP
Tin Pot
Guru
It's a funny one is cadence. I think it became a big talking point after Armstrong started winning the TdF whilst spinning his legs like a washing machine. But was this because it was better for him, or better for everybody, or just because he had so many red blood cells (from EPO) that using his (now amazing) CV system (blood, heart and lungs) more and his leg muscles less made sense, especially over a 3-week tour where legs can tire much quicker than the CV system? Interestingly, Jan Ullrich, who usually pedalled at around 80-85rpm, tried to mimic Armstrong's higher cadence, but he actually ended up going slower, and so Jan reverted back to using a lower cadence. Froome has recently reignited this debate too, as he too spins like a madman. I have also noticed that if Wiggins is doing a stand-alone TT (like the World TT Champs), he tends to pedal at around 85-90rpm, but if he TTs in the middle of a Tour, he pedals at around 100rpm (presumably to save his leg muscles for the following stages). There are also pros, equally as good as each other, who have vastly contrasting cadences (e.g. Martin vs. Cancellara).
I did some experimenting with cadence a few years ago, just to see which cadence seemd fastest for me in a c20-minute TT, and wondered whether I should work on different cadences in order to improve.
My natural cadence is usually around 85-90.
I did several runs on the same course over the course of a few weeks at as close as I could to 80/85/90/95/100rpm, recording power and HR.
For me, I found 85ish was best in terms of maintaining a high power - at 80, my leg muscles started hurting too much near the end, and once I got it to 95+ my HR / breathing rate got too high to maintain the power. Pretty much as I expected then!
I did think "does this mean I should train at higher/lower cadences to improve these possible weaknesses?". I haven't really bothered, but I do, on occasion, purposefully ride at low / high cadences, for example...
Low cadence - this time of year, when it is too icy to ride in the hills, I will do the odd turbo session at lower cadences in order to keep some leg strength for when the weather gets better again.
High cadence - I will consciously spin at a high cadence (95-100rpm) in an easy gear for an hour or two the day after doing steep hills, more to help the muscles the recover for the next week's training, but still working the heart and lungs.
Other than that, I just ride at what feels best (which seems to be supported by an increasing amount of research too)
Yeah, I was watching Gomez win last years IM 70.3 Staffs again last night - it was either Guillarme or Thomske had passed him easily on a low cadence with Javier spinning his legs. Of course, come the run Gomez flies past at a pace I can't imagine.
So there are two questions; does cadence improve race day performance in bike or tri events?
Does training at specific cadences improve the gains from workouts?
Whilst the first is interesting, low cadence may be more energy efficient, it's not the thrust of this thread.
The second is.
Citius
Guest
Does what cadence improve race day performance? If you mean the 'correct' cadence, then yes.
Yes, providing you train at the cadence you will be using in the event.
This is all very interesting - but I'm geared mostly towards what Citius has said. Looking at the training text, it looks as though cadence has been used as an instruction but the result is higher power outputs as a result of the increased pedalling speed. So at a given resistance (ie gearing), an increase in cadence will produce an increase in power and (where there is no matching forces against a rider out on the road of gradient/rolling resistance/headwind) therefore an increase in speed.
However, I do agree that out-of-seat climbing uses different muscles in different ways to other performance cycling and, therefore, training in that fashion (sessions of periodic slow cadence, standing, high resistance) will be more specific for you if you climb in that way. Essentially, you are recreating the actual riding as much as possible.
Not questioning/arguing - just showing a keen interest; For your last post Citius, isn't that a theoretical efficiency? I thought there had been studies previously showing that a slower cadence is theoretically more efficient (I'm guessing power is produced at all points in the rotation rather than allowing an element of inertia?), but riders preferred a higher cadence than that.
Certainly for myself, if I slow my cadence to 60rpm then my options are to either produce less power (due to no compensatory increase in resistance), or an increase in resistance to maintain the same power, like a steep, seated climb. For the latter I know it doesn't take very long for me to get a lactate build-up and have to back off - much quicker than if I up the cadence and combine resistance/cadence settings to get the same output.
However, I do agree that out-of-seat climbing uses different muscles in different ways to other performance cycling and, therefore, training in that fashion (sessions of periodic slow cadence, standing, high resistance) will be more specific for you if you climb in that way. Essentially, you are recreating the actual riding as much as possible.
Not questioning/arguing - just showing a keen interest; For your last post Citius, isn't that a theoretical efficiency? I thought there had been studies previously showing that a slower cadence is theoretically more efficient (I'm guessing power is produced at all points in the rotation rather than allowing an element of inertia?), but riders preferred a higher cadence than that.
Certainly for myself, if I slow my cadence to 60rpm then my options are to either produce less power (due to no compensatory increase in resistance), or an increase in resistance to maintain the same power, like a steep, seated climb. For the latter I know it doesn't take very long for me to get a lactate build-up and have to back off - much quicker than if I up the cadence and combine resistance/cadence settings to get the same output.
Citius
Guest
Not sure about 'theoretical' - it's proven in the sense that assuming you can maintain your desired road speed, the lowest cadence at which it is possible to do this will conserve the most energy. There are lots of other reasons for maintaining a higher cadence at times though, but the assumption that 'high cadence is always best' tends to overlook some of the facts.
