Why the high cadence?

[Paul Drawmer]

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 st 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

[Master Bean]

Do what is comfortable for you.

[louiebaby]

The two main points I think are:

1. Spinning (eg 90+ rpm) uses slow twitch or endurance muscles, rather than the strength muscles of the fast twitch.
2. Power is a function of how hard you push the pedals and how often you push the pedals. If you can do a higher cadence, you can get the same power with less effort per revolution.

Very keen to learn if I'm wrong or if there's more to it.

(I did hear that Lance and Co were going for higher cadences because that is more load on the cardiovascular system than the muscular system, which was easier to dope, and less easier to detect the doping. Again, happy to be corrected.)

[take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey]

Simple term...

Spinning uses CVS more.

Grinding places greater load on muscles so can increase muscle fatigue as you're closer to maximal muscles effort.

[sam.rog]

I spin at 90-93 as thats my comfort zone.

[Daveyraveygravey]

Most people say 90 rpm or thereabouts is the most efficient cadence. From what I have read, this is more for the elite top level pros who are likely to be doing really hard days, one after the other, for a week or three at a time. In this scenario, spinning makes recovery after the ride more effective. I guess this would also apply to us mere mortals attempting a multi day event such as lejog.

Getting out of the saddle also adds the benefit of rider weight on the pedals, but they also have to support that weight on their hands and feet. I've also read that gradient and gearing will alter the "spinning is better" mantra too. A gentle 5% hill of any length you are probably better sitting and spinning. But when you get to a short sharp pitch, possibly 10% or higher, you might get more out of getting out of the saddle.

To some extent, it depends a bit on the individual. If you're 5 foot and weigh 60 kg one technique will likely suit you more than if you are 6 foot 2 and 90 kg.

[johnpsanderson]

louiebaby said:

1. Power is a function of how hard you push the pedals and how often you push the pedals. If you can do a higher cadence, you can get the same power with less effort per revolution.

Yes, but per minute you’re doing more revolutions so the overall amount of work per hour done is the same....

I’ve always understood it’s about fast twitch/slow twitch fibres.

If you’re riding recreationally do what you prefer. But be aware pushing bigger gears puts more strain on your joints/etc. That might not matter to you. Likely you’ll fatigue more slowly if you ride at higher cadences, but you might need to train to get to that point.

If you were bunch racing, it’s easier to accelerate if you’re generally riding at higher cadences, so will always be advantageous.

[BugLebowski]

I've always thought of it as; higher cadence - requires more aerobic fitness, lower cadence - requires more muscular strength. I tend to find as my fitness improves through the season my average cadence goes up. Also it makes sense that a higher cadence is easier on the knees and joints if that is an issue for you.

[Jimbo.]

As penned by Michael Ferrari:

https://www.53x12.com/high-pedaling-cadence

...and...

https://www.53x12.com/high-rpm-further-observation...

...and...

https://www.53x12.com/pedaling-cadences-and-force-...

[Harpoon]

Good post by one of the coaches from Wahoo/Sufferfest:

https://forum.thesufferfest.com/t/from-the-coaches...

Sufferfest said:

Cadence in cycling refers to the speed at which you are pedaling measured in revolutions per minute, or rpm. The power you produce is a direct product of pedal speed, with Power = Angular Velocity (pedal speed) x Torque (force applied at the pedal).
Based on this formula, it’s easy to see that as your pedaling speed increases, the force per pedal revolution drops to maintain the same power.

Less force per pedal revolution means less strain on your muscles. Less strain means less muscular fatigue, which ultimately results in an increased time to failure. You can ride at a given power for longer before your legs give out. Imagine trying to hold 100% of your MAP at 30 rpm. Most people wouldn’t make it to the 2.5-minute mark, let alone a full 5 minutes.

At the same time, you would also struggle to hit the 2.5-minute mark at 100% of MAP riding at 140rpm. Riding at high cadences results in a higher cardiovascular strain, which is entirely due to decreased efficiency. Most riders will have an efficiency of around 23%, meaning 23% of the energy the body uses turns into the power you can deliver to the bike.

[numtumfutunch]

There was once a bloke who famously won 7 Tour de France using a high cadence which is possibly where it came from

Its also alleged he used other stuff too but I dont know anything about that

I personally prefer to spin at high frequency because:

a) Im weedy
b) I have a gammy knee

If I try and grind it out at a cadence sub 60 with high power then my knee dies and then so do I

Do whatever works for you and ignore fashion

Cheers

[Maximus_Meridius101]

At high cadences ( as long as the power is sufficiently high to make it so ) the fast twitch muscles become dominant, and fire at a requisite frequency and force, which to cut a long story short, reduces the glycogen depletion rate significantly. When you ‘grind’ ( or spin without enough power )all muscles work more equally, and the glycogen depletion rate is typically higher There are variations from cyclist to cyclist as to where the band of optimal cadence and power actually is, to make this work, but an average sort of regular cyclist should see benefits at 90 ( odd ) rpm, and with a power of over 150 Watts. That is subjective, but what a lot of newer cyclists do, is try and wang their legs around at relatively high cadences, because ‘Terry ‘ from their club said it’s more efficient / better, or they’ve seen the pro’s do it, so it must be worth doing, but don’t push hard enough, for long enough, to make it powerful enough to be a useful exercise. They end up expending lots of unnecessary energy just wanging their legs around. Also, if the glycogen depletion rate is down, so is oxygen demand, as glycogen depletion is an oxidation process. Obviously your aerobic fitness is critically important, as without the ability to absorb enough oxygen, use it efficiently, or get it round the body to where it’s needed, quickly enough, it’s all a bit of a moot exercise.

Edited by Maximus_Meridius101 on Thursday 15th April 00:56

[Paul Drawmer]

Thank you for the answers everyone. At my age and fitness I'm not looking to change much to enable me to get more enjoyment from my bike; having noted the effect of cadence on myself, I was wondering on how high cadence worked for those at the top.

Thanks to your answers, I have a much better understanding of high cadence.

[ian in lancs]

I get the science but I think people have a natural cadence and shifting it requires focussed training. Coming from a Mountain Bike background my Road Bike cadence is 70rpm average over a year and my running cadence 165. I'm 62 and 185cm tall.

[ShortShift811]

louiebaby said:

The two main points I think are:

1. Spinning (eg 90+ rpm) uses slow twitch or endurance muscles, rather than the strength muscles of the fast twitch.
2. Power is a function of how hard you push the pedals and how often you push the pedals. If you can do a higher cadence, you can get the same power with less effort per revolution.

Very keen to learn if I'm wrong or if there's more to it.

(I did hear that Lance and Co were going for higher cadences because that is more load on the cardiovascular system than the muscular system, which was easier to dope, and less easier to detect the doping. Again, happy to be corrected.)

I'd agree with this. Do what you're comfortable with, but you may find by training to spin a slightly higher cadence over time you'll benefit. I was very much a grinder when I started cycling a few years back, but using the turbo I've increased my spinning cadence on the flat to 90 - 95 rpm and even on a tough climb it's circa 80 rpm. Made a big difference for me.

[upsidedownmark]

Mostly all been said, but I'd also add that IME at least it depends on how hard you're actually trying to go. My cadence on a 5hr ride (70-80avg) will be a lot lower than it is on a 1h time trial (90-100avg). Going easy tends to be done by dropping cadence.

[Maximus_Meridius101]

ian in lancs said:

I get the science but I think people have a natural cadence and shifting it requires focussed training. Coming from a Mountain Bike background my Road Bike cadence is 70rpm average over a year and my running cadence 165. I'm 62 and 185cm tall.

You’d be correct as well. I think there was a ( not completely scientific) study or two, conducted, that seemed to indicate that there’s a ‘natural / comfortable’ Cadence, that most regular / leisure cyclists default to, and it’s about 70 rpms. To maintain the higher cadences, and have them scientifically / physiologically valuable ( at requisite power ) does take training, and concentration / focus for most people.

[Maximus_Meridius101]

upsidedownmark said:

Mostly all been said, but I'd also add that IME at least it depends on how hard you're actually trying to go. My cadence on a 5hr ride (70-80avg) will be a lot lower than it is on a 1h time trial (90-100avg). Going easy tends to be done by dropping cadence.

Indeed, lower cadences seem to be more comfortable / easier. However, it’s counter intuitive, but it should actually feel better, and help with recovery, and ‘bonk’ avoidance, to concentrate on higher power / higher cadence, as that’s what the data and science dictate. However, as has been said, it can’t work properly, without a certain level of aerobic fitness.

[Maximus_Meridius101]

ShortShift811 said:

I'd agree with this. Do what you're comfortable with, but you may find by training to spin a slightly higher cadence over time you'll benefit. I was very much a grinder when I started cycling a few years back, but using the turbo I've increased my spinning cadence on the flat to 90 - 95 rpm and even on a tough climb it's circa 80 rpm. Made a big difference for me.

And that right there is a case of “the proof of the pudding being in the eating”.

[Maximus_Meridius101]

louiebaby said:

The two main points I think are:

1. Spinning (eg 90+ rpm) uses slow twitch or endurance muscles, rather than the strength muscles of the fast twitch.

It’s the other way round. Powerful spinning actually engages / causes the fast twitch muscles to be dominant, which cause the glycogen depletion rate to drop.