Why the high cadence?
Discussion
yellowjack said:
I understand the science, but can't seem to apply that to riding a bike out on the roads/trails. I looked at the last two weeks of Strava data. Highest average cadence? 59 rpm. Lowest average cadence? 49 rpm. So 54.66 rpm average cadence over the 6 rides. Total 255 miles, at an average speed (overall) of 12.5 mph.
There are reasons that contribute to being slow. Riding a road bike on footpaths, byways, and bridleways has an effect (VeloViewer tiling). As does lots of stopping to take photos and read a map. As does having a plate in my right leg/ankle. But even with those excuses taken into consideration, my figures look like utter crap next to some of you folks. But hey? I enjoy my riding, and despite my low cadence I can keep going all day.
As I've already said, a while back I tried to "train" my cadence up, but as soon as I take my mind of the cadence number on my GPS unit, my cadence just drops back below 60 rpm again. But, as I'm never going to race against a pro cyclist (except maybe that time that ex pros Yanto Barker and Magnus Bäckstedt were on the same start grid at Battle On The Beach as I was...
) I don't feel the need to train as they do. 55 rpm seems to work for me. If, as I ride more, that goes up naturally, then all well and good. But if it stays were it is (or even falls further) then that's good too, so long as I can get up hills without walking and can carry on doing all day exploration rides...
It does take a lot of focus and concentration to keep everything in the zone. As soon as your mind drifts, you’ll revert to your natural mode ( which is rarely actually even close to scientifically ideal, unless a trained and experienced athlete, and even then it still requires a certain degree of focus and concentration). That’s the way it works. Unless you’re actually competing, and trying to find every single edge / gain ( no matter how marginal ) it’s not actually that important, unless you’re looking at it from a scientific experiment angle really. Personally I don’t bother too much with it, but it is interesting to have the power and cadence boxes prominently displayed on the H.U. and only use those two boxes to reference during the ride, then look at and compare the training effect and recovery data displays after the ride. It’s just a bit of intrigue for me really. There are reasons that contribute to being slow. Riding a road bike on footpaths, byways, and bridleways has an effect (VeloViewer tiling). As does lots of stopping to take photos and read a map. As does having a plate in my right leg/ankle. But even with those excuses taken into consideration, my figures look like utter crap next to some of you folks. But hey? I enjoy my riding, and despite my low cadence I can keep going all day.
As I've already said, a while back I tried to "train" my cadence up, but as soon as I take my mind of the cadence number on my GPS unit, my cadence just drops back below 60 rpm again. But, as I'm never going to race against a pro cyclist (except maybe that time that ex pros Yanto Barker and Magnus Bäckstedt were on the same start grid at Battle On The Beach as I was...
) I don't feel the need to train as they do. 55 rpm seems to work for me. If, as I ride more, that goes up naturally, then all well and good. But if it stays were it is (or even falls further) then that's good too, so long as I can get up hills without walking and can carry on doing all day exploration rides...oddball1313 said:
88/89. never tried to have a target, that’s just what is my natural cadence
I saw a bar graph (each bar being a cadence number) pulled I presume from Strava pro’s in races over the last 12 months or similar. It looked like a pyramid shape with 87 I think being the most common. But of course many above and many below. Saddle set back makes a huge difference to my cadence. But even with it in the wrong position on one of my bikes I still managed to produce the exact same watts. The forces are so small that the body can just adapt and still the limiter is how much oxygen your body can pump and use etc. Hence EPO blood doping being the most effective cheat.
I'm not sure average cadence is that useful.
On a hilly ride I might spin approx 90rpm on hills but occasionally click up a couple of gears and get out the saddle to stretch and relieve pressure dropping my cadence. On Downhill may not be pedalling at all for a bit. My natural cadence is around 88 but my average on a ride will be in 70s.
Tried low cadence 'strength' drills in off season (low as 40 but more typically 50-60) on the turbo to improve TT. Horrible even 50-60% FTP was painful and unpleasant. Difficult to know how much it helped as didn't race last year.
We used to use really high gears up until the Armstrong era. 53/39 and 23 was a 'softy' hill set up. Compact chain sets made huge difference to mere mortals.
I think if you have a decent spread of gears you will naturally find a cadence and as you cycle more the body will find an efficient sweet spot which for most is likely to be higher than where we started.
On a hilly ride I might spin approx 90rpm on hills but occasionally click up a couple of gears and get out the saddle to stretch and relieve pressure dropping my cadence. On Downhill may not be pedalling at all for a bit. My natural cadence is around 88 but my average on a ride will be in 70s.
Tried low cadence 'strength' drills in off season (low as 40 but more typically 50-60) on the turbo to improve TT. Horrible even 50-60% FTP was painful and unpleasant. Difficult to know how much it helped as didn't race last year.
We used to use really high gears up until the Armstrong era. 53/39 and 23 was a 'softy' hill set up. Compact chain sets made huge difference to mere mortals.
I think if you have a decent spread of gears you will naturally find a cadence and as you cycle more the body will find an efficient sweet spot which for most is likely to be higher than where we started.
oddman said:
I'm not sure average cadence is that useful.
On a hilly ride I might spin approx 90rpm on hills but occasionally click up a couple of gears and get out the saddle to stretch and relieve pressure dropping my cadence. On Downhill may not be pedalling at all for a bit. My natural cadence is around 88 but my average on a ride will be in 70s.
Tried low cadence 'strength' drills in off season (low as 40 but more typically 50-60) on the turbo to improve TT. Horrible even 50-60% FTP was painful and unpleasant. Difficult to know how much it helped as didn't race last year.
We used to use really high gears up until the Armstrong era. 53/39 and 23 was a 'softy' hill set up. Compact chain sets made huge difference to mere mortals.
I think if you have a decent spread of gears you will naturally find a cadence and as you cycle more the body will find an efficient sweet spot which for most is likely to be higher than where we started.
You need your cadence and power to be normalized for variance caused by terrain and environment, for them to be really useful metrics, for training purposes. Average and normalized figures will be almost identical on a flat TT type route / effort, but if you stick some terrain and environment in, the normalized figures are more useful.On a hilly ride I might spin approx 90rpm on hills but occasionally click up a couple of gears and get out the saddle to stretch and relieve pressure dropping my cadence. On Downhill may not be pedalling at all for a bit. My natural cadence is around 88 but my average on a ride will be in 70s.
Tried low cadence 'strength' drills in off season (low as 40 but more typically 50-60) on the turbo to improve TT. Horrible even 50-60% FTP was painful and unpleasant. Difficult to know how much it helped as didn't race last year.
We used to use really high gears up until the Armstrong era. 53/39 and 23 was a 'softy' hill set up. Compact chain sets made huge difference to mere mortals.
I think if you have a decent spread of gears you will naturally find a cadence and as you cycle more the body will find an efficient sweet spot which for most is likely to be higher than where we started.
take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:
Have you not turned on 'terrain variance compensation mode' on your garmin? Rookie mistake.
I've been using it for two weeks and have gained an extra 500 Watts peak power.
Joking aside, that’s pretty much exactly what your doing, if you choose the NP figure from the power menu on a Garmin ( it’s certainly on the full function newer ones, like the Edge 1030 et.al.) you won’t gain 500 Watts, unless your doing something extreme, but your NP figure will be more representative of your true effort, than your Average power, if you have any degree of variance, due to terrain ( for example).I've been using it for two weeks and have gained an extra 500 Watts peak power.
NGRhodes said:
Higher cadence (does not need to be as high as spinning) can help by:
Less force on knees.
Uses muscle groups more evenly leading to better efficiently.
Promotes more efficient pedalling strokes (more circular action rather than down pumps on pedals).
Easier to stay in seat.
I don't disagree that there's less force on knees but as someone with a relatively low cadence, I wouldn't be using different muscles, more efficient at pedalling or more planted in my seat if I increased my RPM.Less force on knees.
Uses muscle groups more evenly leading to better efficiently.
Promotes more efficient pedalling strokes (more circular action rather than down pumps on pedals).
Easier to stay in seat.
Like in swimming and running, some folk are more comfortable doing things differently. Find me a pro cycling race where everyone stays seated and pedals at 100+ RPM.
Source: sports science graduate/ used to be quite handy at triathlon.
Maximus_Meridius101 said:
Normalised cadence, never heard of this...?Maximus_Meridius101 said:
Doesn’t talk to normalised cadence Paul Drawmer said:
Please can someone explain why it is reckoned to be better to spin than grind?
I know I'm an overweight old man, but I have always struggled with high cadence.
Yesterday I did an hour on the turbo trainer at a steady speed. Whilst keeping the speed (and obviously the power) constant, I did 1 minute in each gear, working my way up and down the block.
The following trace shows how my HR tracks the cadence, showing that trying to do 100+rpm knocks the s
t out of me, and I can travel further, faster by keeping to about 70rpm.
So for a normal old club rider, is it just best to do as you feel comfortable, and why do elite cyclists work better at high cadence?
Strava link
www.strava.com/activities/5117937139/analysis
It's a bit of a generalisation to say that elite cyclists work better at high cadence but, in your turbo-trainer example, the simplest explanation is that faster cadence = greater onus on heart & lungs ; slower cadence = greater onus on leg muscles. For elite pro's with bullet-proof cardiovascular systems, spinning up hills means less cumulative leg muscle fatigue (the heart will recover better on descents than than leg muscles).I know I'm an overweight old man, but I have always struggled with high cadence.
Yesterday I did an hour on the turbo trainer at a steady speed. Whilst keeping the speed (and obviously the power) constant, I did 1 minute in each gear, working my way up and down the block.
The following trace shows how my HR tracks the cadence, showing that trying to do 100+rpm knocks the s
t out of me, and I can travel further, faster by keeping to about 70rpm. So for a normal old club rider, is it just best to do as you feel comfortable, and why do elite cyclists work better at high cadence?
Strava link
www.strava.com/activities/5117937139/analysis
Edited by Paul Drawmer on Wednesday 14th April 10:13
In your case, biomechanically, you are probably more comfortable at the slower cadence and, when you try and spin above your comfort level, you are loading your heart more for a given power output. As your heart might be marginally less bullet-proof than an elite riders, I'd suggest sticking with what you are comfortable with.
ian996 said:
......... As your heart might be marginally less bullet-proof than an elite riders, I'd suggest sticking with what you are comfortable with.
You might just be correct. At 74 I think I might be 'past my best'!My original question was not with the aim of me emulating elite athletes, I was just wondering how it worked for them.
Following several comprehensive replies, with many detailed explanations; I now understand what they're doing, and am even more in awe of their achievements.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff