Cadence vs higher gears

[david k]

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]

but none of this takes into account cadence,

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

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.

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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!