Slowly slaying the high cadence myth....

[Twilkes]

"strength"

I know what you mean, and probably agree, but what is it that means that a pro and me can both be riding flat out at 90rpm, but they will be going much faster than me because they are applying more force to the pedal and thus producing more power for the same rpm. What physical attribute is it that enables them to do that?

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

I know what you mean, and probably agree, but what is it that means that a pro and me can both be riding flat out at 90rpm, but they will be going much faster than me because they are applying more force to the pedal and thus producing more power for the same rpm. What physical attribute is it that enables them to do that?

The actual force required to output 300w is around the equivalent of 12.5kg per leg. Which if you weigh more than 25kg and can climb stairs, you can already achieve.

What a pro can do is repeat that submaximal effort for hours through thousands of repetitions.

 

[Twilkes]

The actual force required to output 300w is around the equivalent of 12.5kg per leg.

What a pro can do is repeat that submaximal effort for hours.

Ah okay, that tallies with something i read yesterday about strength being e.g. the maximum force you can output on a one-time basis, so one single deadlift, whereas like you say pedalling needs to be done over and over again, so it's more of a sustainable/endurance strength.

This page has some charts showing force for an average power/cadence, and 294w at 80rpm (the first chart in Ron George's answer) averages out at around 210 Newtons, which translates to almost 21.5kgf (kilograms force) but I don't know how that relates to the kg unit you used. If it's the same unit and a total for both legs then it's not far off what you posted: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-pedaling-force-applied-by-a-bicycle-rider

None of this is helping me go faster though.

 

[matticus]

It's a traditional irritation; describing riders as "strong" when they mean some melange of fast/fit/long-lasting.
I've learned to live with it!

 

[matticus]

I am usually a spinner but I injured my knee on a long complex uphill junction when the lights turned against me. I had to accelerate uphill in too high a gear.
I avoid pushing hard gears to protect that knee.

Fake news.

 

[davidphilips]

Have been doing high cadence drills for about 6 months 2 one hour drills a week, what i have found it was about 2 months before i could maintain a higher cadence and only now after about 6 months does a higher cadence seem natural to me.

Before i started my average cadence would be about 80 now its about 90, pros are slightly higher ftp and can recover faster plus thought a pain i was having at the outside of hip was maybe a worn joint but it has gone away.

The down side is its hard work raising your natural cadence, it was and is for me and still is, still doing the drills and want to be able to spin faster my max is about 125 but my aim is to be able to spin for 10 minutes at 120.

Have read that there are cyclists that can raise there natural cadence in a few weeks with a few quick spin ups but for me its been and is really hard work?

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

Ah okay, that tallies with something i read yesterday about strength being e.g. the maximum force you can output on a one-time basis, so one single deadlift, whereas like you say pedalling needs to be done over and over again, so it's more of a sustainable/endurance strength.

This page has some charts showing force for an average power/cadence, and 294w at 80rpm (the first chart in Ron George's answer) averages out at around 210 Newtons, which translates to almost 21.5kgf (kilograms force) but I don't know how that relates to the kg unit you used. If it's the same unit and a total for both legs then it's not far off what you posted: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-pedaling-force-applied-by-a-bicycle-rider

None of this is helping me go faster though.

That is indeed the definition of "strength" Every weight you move in any motion is a percentage of your absolute maximum, but you move it for repetitions with the idea of adding some more weight on next week, or next month and ultimately raising your maximum.

Unlike cadence, you don't necessesarily train to increase it, but using higher cadences demands more of the CV system but reduces force applied.**

**This IMO is likely to be the point where poor bike setup correlates to knee/ITB/Hip issues

 

[HLaB]

I find I have a variable cadence. On a long group ride when I am getting pulled along it'll be down around 65rpm. When I am working it usually sits around 70-100rpm, depending upon the terrain etc I can spin upto 140-160rpm when required.
A solo ride tends to see less variation.
On the turbore my cadence seems to be around 95-105 when I am comfortable but I've seen extremes of 30 to 160rpm 🤯 The turbore higher cadence seems to have raised my solo cadences outside.

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

Without wishing to seem argumentative - why is that?

Surely you have to do the same amount of work, either pedalling slow or fast, so the CV system has to deliver the same fuel and oxygen, so has to work just as hard in both cases. Or am I wrong?

Now, if your slower cadence was brutally tooth-grindingly slow then maybe I could understand it, due to different metabolic pathways - maybe anaerobic work being done. But if slow is say 60 and high is say 90 then I imagine the metabolism is similar in both cases.

I've heard this stated before and I've always wondered this. If the CV system gets an easier ride at lower cadences then surely that implies that they are more efficient?

I'm not a biochemist so I don't really know what I'm on about.

Muscle contracting with higher frequency at lower intensity requires more musculature to stabilse itself, which in turn requires more glycogen and oxygen, so HR increases, efficiency decreases. Go the other way to a really low cadence(relative to you) on a climb like Sa Calobra is inherently going to be at or very near to being anaerobic, lactic doesn't clear, HR through the roof and the effort borderline if not unsustainable.

It's fair to say there's quite a large window in the middle, but perhaps at this point is also where gearing itself becomes a factor.

 

[rogerzilla]

I did this experiment 26 years ago on a turbo trainer, seeing what steady-state road speed I could get for a steady level 3 heart rate. 80rpm was definitely more efficient than 100rpm. I could squeeze out 300W for 20 minutes at that cadence (probably not these days!). At 100rpm, I was about 1 or 2 mph slower, which is a big power difference.

There are other considerations besides raw efficiency, though; 80rpm at that power output could be bad for the knees if I was capable of sustaining it all day, which I wasn't, or could hasten cramp.

 

[ColinJ]

Surely you have to do the same amount of work, either pedalling slow or fast, so the CV system has to deliver the same fuel and oxygen, so has to work just as hard in both cases. Or am I wrong?

Try lying on your back pedalling an imaginary bicycle... It would probably take a lot more effort to wave your legs about at 120 rpm than at 40 rpm!

 

[matticus]

...
Surely you have to do the same amount of work, either pedalling slow or fast, so the CV system has to deliver the same fuel and oxygen, so has to work just as hard in both cases. Or am I wrong?

Now, if your slower cadence was brutally tooth-grindingly slow then maybe I could understand it, due to different metabolic pathways - maybe anaerobic work being done. But if slow is say 60 and high is say 90 then I imagine the metabolism is similar in both cases.

I've heard this stated before and I've always wondered this. If the CV system gets an easier ride at lower cadences then surely that implies that they are more efficient?

I'm not a biochemist so I don't really know what I'm on about.

I'm just a physicist who's read a bit around sports fizzyology, so no ex-spurt; but I'd agree with the above.

(the only extra energy required for higher cadence is the energy needed to actually spin your legs. VERY difficult to measure, sadly!)

 

[Twilkes]

Without wishing to seem argumentative - why is that?

Surely you have to do the same amount of work, either pedalling slow or fast, so the CV system has to deliver the same fuel and oxygen, so has to work just as hard in both cases. Or am I wrong?

Now, if your slower cadence was brutally tooth-grindingly slow then maybe I could understand it, due to different metabolic pathways - maybe anaerobic work being done. But if slow is say 60 and high is say 90 then I imagine the metabolism is similar in both cases.

I've heard this stated before and I've always wondered this. If the CV system gets an easier ride at lower cadences then surely that implies that they are more efficient?

I'm not a biochemist so I don't really know what I'm on about.

There is something around the balance of slow and fast twitch muscle fibres, which is different for each rider, but I can never remember which way round they are or what they do; and also aerobic and anaerobic activity, including clearing blood lactate which builds up more quickly at lower cadences - I think the video on page 1 covers some of this.

From your example, if 60 is low, a high cadence would be 120+, so 90 somewhere in the middle. 90 doesn't feel particularly high to me.

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

There is something around the balance of slow and fast twitch muscle fibres, which is different for each rider, but I can never remember which way round they are or what they do; and also aerobic and anaerobic activity, including clearing blood lactate which builds up more quickly at lower cadences - I think the video on page 1 covers some of this.

From your example, if 60 is low, a high cadence would be 120+, so 90 somewhere in the middle. 90 doesn't feel particularly high to me.

Everyone will be different as to natural percentage of each.. Fast twitch being the fibres you would use to sprint in the final 200m of a TDF stage, slow twitch you would primarily use, getting there

 

[Fab Foodie]

Shall I send you the receipt from my physio?
Or you could just google for others' problems ...

Sure, they're way rarer than in running and can usually get sorted out, but you're in some sort of dream-world to deny them completely

What’s your problem?
I didn’t deny that it’s possible or in some casesit can happen.
But the ‘knee’ thing is trotted-out ad-nauseum every-time low cadence Is mentioned as if it’s some cast-iron fact, and I don’t believe that there’s any great evidence for it being the case.
If there is I’m happy to be wrong. But for now I think it’s mostly a bit of cycling myth for which a bit of anecdata does not make it true.