Cadence and time trialling

kevin_stephens

I know, I know - I pedal too slowly in too high a gear!

10 mile TT, PB 27:30 most of the time in high gear with avg cadence around 75

heart rate mostly 92% to 96%

problem is when I try and spin in a lower gear i just slow down

a) should I be over worried about cadence, or concentrate over winter in getting stronger and faster with my present style? or

b) If I learn to spin faster my times will get quicker at same % MHR?

If (b), is there any trick to improving cadence apart from the obvious of spinning on winter base miles?

I am 49, short with short legs which are strong from climbing rock and ice , I am relatively new to cycling and especially time trialling

Thanks for any pertinent training advice

Kevin

BeaconRuth

Cadence during TTs is a very personal thing. I've never looked very hard for the science-based reasoning for using any particular cadence, mainly because I think the most efficient cadence for you is the cadence you've trained yourself to be used to. I've never seen evidence that, say, 85rpm is always less efficient than 90rpm - and I think that for most people they have more to gain by worrying about other areas of their training and performance than worrying about 4 or 5 extra revs of the pedals per minute.

That said, 75rpm seems very low to me - as you said yourself. To me, riding at 75rpm is just bad cycling, irrespective of any question of speed. You're unlikely to have a relaxed and fluid pedalling style and you won't be responding quickly to changes of pace (not that that's important for a tester, but being agile on a bike is not a bad aim for everyone).

The way to become more efficient at pedalling at a higher cadence is to pedal at a higher cadence. Do you ever ride with some really experienced riders? I find the best way to learn to pedal is to mix it with some of the old blokes who've "been there and done it". It's a joy just to watch the smoothness of their pedalling, the ease with which they roll along, finding the right gears for every undulation.......... relaxed, fluid, easy........ Watch and copy!

Ruth

ut_och_cykla

a) should I be over worried about cadence, or concentrate over winter in getting stronger and faster with my present style? or

No not worried - its not nuclear fission but faster would be better for knees amongst other things as well as what Ruth says. Optimum cadence is a balance between speed of bike, comfort, optimal delivery of nutrients and oxygen to muscles amongst other things.

b) If I learn to spin faster my times will get quicker at same % MHR?

Who knows. But your speeds will decrease whilst you are training cadence. But then you're traing cadence not speed. After a period you might notice a gradual increase in speed at a higher cadence or a slight increase in cadence for the same speed. I believe that higher cadences generate higher heart rates.

If (b), is there any trick to improving cadence apart from the obvious of spinning on winter base miles?

Do higher cadence 'drills' for some of the time on your bike - as intervals in rides or as certain rides. Some people swear by cycling fixed wheel bikes to improve cadence but as ruth says everyone has their own 'comfy' cadence. But you won't get to be a better cyclist by being 'comfy' all the time

binlinus

Kevin Stephens wrote:

b) If I learn to spin faster my times will get quicker at same % MHR?

If (b), is there any trick to improving cadence apart from the obvious of spinning on winter base miles?

I think you've answered your own question. And it's also one very good reason for doing a long steady ride. If you do some long rides over the winter and make the goal of those rides to spin at a high cadence or around 90 rpm with occasional bursts of 120 rpm for a minute or two then you will improve your pedalling speed and efficiency.

In the spring you will have to find your own cadence again and do whatever works best for you.

Bin

kevin_stephens

Thanks everybody

Just downloaded my HRM for last few 10s and average cadence is around 80, (inc pb now 27:07)but lots of ups and downs depending on the headwind/tailwind.

I definetly need to increase cadence, if only because I run out of gears at 53/11 down wind

I do go on slow club runs and fast club runs, I may try keeping in my small 34 chainring for the slow runs and see how it goes, keep off the fast runs for a while because they keep me in my bad habits, but I'm going to try and concentrate on solo rides aiming for 85% MHR at cadence at 90-95 and forget about the speed for a while

I gather the nuclear option would be to get a fixie, but that seems really scarey

Ric_Stern/RST

BeaconRuth wrote:

Cadence during TTs is a very personal thing. I've never looked very hard for the science-based reasoning for using any particular cadence, mainly because I think the most efficient cadence for you is the cadence you've trained yourself to be used to.

I agree. In general people tend to self-select the most optimal cadence

I've never seen evidence that, say, 85rpm is always less efficient than 90rpm

That's because you won't see that. A *lower* cadence is more *efficient* than a higher cadence at a given power output. A lower cadence at a given power reduces VO2 and HR. As the absolute power output increases the most efficient cadence will increase (compared to a lower power output). The most optimal cadence will be higher than the most efficient cadence.

ric

Mike Willcox1

I can't see how you can look at the subject of cadence without looking at the effect the cadence has on the rider keeping the bike in a straight line and the muscle endurance required to keep it going over a period of time.

IMO my best performances over 10 miles were using a cadence of 100 rpm; over 25 miles with 95 rpm and 50 miles at about 90 rpm. I frequently used to climb out of the saddle to get the revs up when I felt the pace was slacking.

mike kluge

Hi Kevin

Have a search on Google for "Chris Carmichael" and "Cadence". Carmichael was long-term coach to Lance Armstrong (famed for his higher than average cadence) and he has suggested that higher cadences allow for faster recovery both after and during a race.

I also remember Tony Rominger saying that he'd experimented with cadence during preparation for his hour record attempt. From what I've read over the years, it seems cadences approaching 100rpm are considered fairly optimum.

From my own experiences over the years (as a "big-gear" masher), it feels like lower cadences seem to rely on a lot more "muscle" on the downstroke to get the pedals round. Developing a more round pedal stroke seems to be the key to mastering higher cadence (i.e. pulling up as well as pushing down with your feet, using your ankles more etc).

Interestingly, I had some time off the bike recently and spent a lot of time in the pool instead. When I came back to the bike I found that I was able to ride at higher cadences a lot more easily than I was used to - I think because my legs had I'd got used to a much faster swim kick. The back pain I'd suffered in longer TT's was also much reduced...oh, and my times weren't worse....!

Anyway, I am sure some smart arse out there will try and debunk all of this - Armstrong was a drugs cheat, Carmichael blah blah, no evidence etc.

Good luck.

iainf72

Carmichael was only Lance's pretend coach. :P

Here's the real fella's take on it

http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=15

http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=27

Ric_Stern/RST

mike kluge wrote:

Hi Kevin

Have a search on Google for "Chris Carmichael" and "Cadence". Carmichael was long-term coach to Lance Armstrong (famed for his higher than average cadence) and he has suggested that higher cadences allow for faster recovery both after and during a race.

he wasn't.

I also remember Tony Rominger saying that he'd experimented with cadence during preparation for his hour record attempt. From what I've read over the years, it seems cadences approaching 100rpm are considered fairly optimum.

with the exception of Graham Obree (~95 revs/min IIRC) all other recent holders have used > 100 revs/min.

From my own experiences over the years (as a "big-gear" masher), it feels like lower cadences seem to rely on a lot more "muscle" on the downstroke to get the pedals round. Developing a more round pedal stroke seems to be the key to mastering higher cadence (i.e. pulling up as well as pushing down with your feet, using your ankles more etc).

when analysed with force measuring pedals, we see that better riders in general tend to push down more and pull up less than less good riders.

However, as i stated earlier in this thread, it's well known that the most optimal and efficient cadence increases as absolute power does. What does this mean? It means that people who don't break the Hour Record or win the TDF or aren't Div1 pros will generally find an optimal cadence that is lower than this (>100 revs/min).

Ric

Mike Willcox1

I used to to do 30 second sprints intervals with 30 seconds rest, sets of 5, with one minute rest between sets; starting off with one set and working up to 4 sets over time.

Each sprint I would be pedalling up to 120 rpm and breaking my balls to keep it going to the very last second before I could no longer keep it going for another sprint. Going at +100 rpm for a "10" after that in a gear of +100 inches is a doddle after that.

Unfortunately since my three aborted come backs I've not been able to get to that stage in my training. Hopefully next year!

SteveR_100Milers

IME mashing gears gives you major lower back problems - as I have found out in the longer distance TT's. The temptation in the desperation to build up speed is to up your gearing, but the fastest times I have done have all been when I have controlled my effort better and deliberately ridden at a higher cadence between 90 and 110 RPM. I did this for the 100 TT and was far more comfortable at the end than the 50 I did previously where I had tried to force my way round the course...

Nick Dwyer

I think it's probably simpler than it seems:

Basically - lower cadence is mechanically more efficient on the basis of lower frictional loses, mechanical inertia etc etc. Power is Torque (angular force) x Angular Velocity (rpm) So for a qiven power higher pedalling force is required at lower speeds, leading to the use of stronger fast-twitch muscles which tire more easily and generate more lactate. Lower cadence also puts more strain on your knees (for a given power output)

Higher cadence is mechanically less efficient, but uses slow twitch muscle which produces less lactate, primarily sources it's energy supply from fat (by operating at a lower intensity) - so they tire less quickly. An analysis of Pro Ironman Triathletes found that their average cadence was 90rpm.

It's a personal thing - but the consensus is that you should aim to pedal at or > 85 rpm on even terrain. Conversely go to high and you start to throw away energy throw mechanical inefficiencies, friction, inertia etc and plain lack of coordination

I did a cyclefit recently on a CompuTrainer spin scan which measures pedalling force throughout the stroke - and it would seem that an even pedalling stroke, including unweighting the leg makes for greater efficiency, even power generation and less fatique. It's just harder to do/coordinate - so it becomes a neuromuscular issue - not one of brute force or strength. The more 'round' or even the pedalling stroke - the higher the average power - the faster you go over distance.

I guess that's the difference between us amateurs and the pro's ? Asside from a good set of genes, a high VO2 max - the more you do - the better you become.

Joe Friel talks about one-legged drills on indoor trainers etc - maybe he has a point. You have to train your legs to fire correctly to be more efficient.

-nick

Alex_Simmons/RST

Nick Dwyer wrote:

The more 'round' or even the pedalling stroke - the higher the average power - the faster you go over distance.

While this may sound plausible, in reality it's another myth that needs busting.... Attempts to apply a more even force to pedals around the whole stroke in fact reduce a cyclist's effective power.

binlinus

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Nick Dwyer wrote:

The more 'round' or even the pedalling stroke - the higher the average power - the faster you go over distance.

While this may sound plausible, in reality it's another myth that needs busting.... Attempts to apply a more even force to pedals around the whole stroke in fact reduce a cyclist's effective power.

Do I understand you correctly here? If I'm pedalling pushing down on the downward stroke then relaxing just at the bottom of the stroke (not puling up except if I'm standing out of the saddle) then the smooth stroke I have is no benefit. I've been told I have a smooth pedal stroke becasue the last time I went on the back of the tandem the guy in front commented that I'd obviously been riding a lot and said my pedalling was smooth. I've never deliberately tried to do anything other than train pedalling at various cadences from about 50 rpm to about 120. I did a lot of long distance touring before I started serious high-intensity training and so I just got a lot of pedalling done.

I wouldn't say it is a particularly conscious effort to pedal smoother it's just lots of experience. As I said, I don't pull up on the pedal stroke I just relax. The power comes from the down stroke. But I would stay it is smooth all the same because as one leg is relaxing the other is starting to push. At top dead centre I'm obviously not applying as much power but the momentum of pedalling is carrying the cranks around.

Could you explain?

By the way I have a friend who while is much fitter than myself has a terrible pedalling action. At least until I read your post, I thought it was terrible. His bike makes all sorts of clicks and clunks as the chain snatches on the cogs through his pedal stroke. A few of us laugh because the guy is very fit. But he seems to be almost fighting the bike as he pedals. He wears out bottom brackets quicker than anybody i know. He makes no attempt to apply a smooth stroke, he just clatters away. Has he got the right idea?

Bin

Ric_Stern/RST

see, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entre ... d_RVDocSum

Ric

Nick Dwyer

While this may sound plausible, in reality it's another myth that needs busting.... Attempts to apply a more even force to pedals around the whole stroke in fact reduce a cyclist's effective power.

There's no myth to bust - the key is raise the average power - anyone can stomp on the pedals and produce a high but short lived effort - but over time - higher average power is the key. So whatever it takes to raise it - do it!

I've found from using a CompuTrainer - and also a humble Turbo Trainer that measures power - that an even pedaling stroke works for me - and I have the power traces and the race results to prove it. the goal is to move as far and fast as you can for a given energy expenditure. The key is therefore not to waste energy, be comfortable and avoid injury. Slow cadences and high pedalling forces stress the knees and burn up all your carbs.

I can't see how anything but a 'smooth', fast pedalling stroke can work.

-nick

Ric_Stern/RST

Nick Dwyer wrote:

While this may sound plausible, in reality it's another myth that needs busting.... Attempts to apply a more even force to pedals around the whole stroke in fact reduce a cyclist's effective power.

There's no myth to bust - the key is raise the average power - anyone can stomp on the pedals and produce a high but short lived effort - but over time - higher average power is the key. So whatever it takes to raise it - do it!

I've found from using a CompuTrainer - and also a humble Turbo Trainer that measures power - that an even pedaling stroke works for me - and I have the power traces and the race results to prove it. the goal is to move as far and fast as you can for a given energy expenditure. The key is therefore not to waste energy, be comfortable and avoid injury. Slow cadences and high pedalling forces stress the knees and burn up all your carbs.

I can't see how anything but a 'smooth', fast pedalling stroke can work.

-nick

Unfortunately, the computrainer doesn't tell you what it purports to (spin scan is a fallacy).

Mike Willcox1

Let's be honest. I cannot see how a rider can conciously exercise that amount of control over one pedal revolution so that they can differentiate between when and where they are pushing down and/or pulling up on the pedals @ rates of +95 rpm.

The thing is that in the act of riding smoothly at this rate with speed ( resistance rather pure spinning), then the optimum method will become automatic. It's really that simple.

Nick Dwyer

The thing is that in the act of riding smoothly at this rate with speed ( resistance rather pure spinning), then the optimum method will become automatic. It's really that simple.

I agree - the harder we try to decompose the technique the more confusing it gets. No-one can consciously coordinate leg push/pull at high cadences, the harder you try - the more it goes wrong.

A smooth, even pedal stroke is the key and how you get there depends on a) talent and b) time on the bike.

-nick

Ric_Stern/RST

Nick Dwyer wrote:

A smooth, even pedal stroke is the key and how you get there depends on a) talent and b) time on the bike.

-nick

Except we see that better riders (including TdF winners) generate more power on the downstroke and less on the upstroke compared to less good riders who produce a more even pedalling style.

Ric

SteveR_100Milers

Ric_Stern/RST wrote:

Nick Dwyer wrote:

A smooth, even pedal stroke is the key and how you get there depends on a) talent and b) time on the bike.

-nick

Except we see that better riders (including TdF winners) generate more power on the downstroke and less on the upstroke compared to less good riders who produce a more even pedalling style.

Ric

Surely you mean FORCE? Increasing power means the pedal speed would need to be raised on the downstroke compared to the upstroke, or the resistance similarly changed....I agree to what I think you mean - I cant see that anyones hamstrings are stronger than their quads, I know mine arent, and I pull up massively when climbing and can leg curl a fair weight on them...