Optimal Cadence

dennisn
dennisn Posts: 10,601
edited December 2007 in Workshop
Here's a really good article on the subject from 1996. Actually before Lance.

http://www2.bsn.de/Cycling/articles/cadence.html

Dennis Noward

Comments

  • oldwelshman
    oldwelshman Posts: 4,733
    Interesting article :D
    So in a nutshell, it looks as if cyclists have evolved to the correct cadences?
    95ish for endurance as that cadence seems better for using slow twitch fibres which minimise lactic acid build up and fatigue, and lower cadences for steep power climbs and sprints which employ fast twitch fibres.
    Took years of research and several articles to come up with that ? :D
    I am sure some one will be along to disagree shortly :D
    http://s290.photobucket.com/albums/ll245/oldwelshman/
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK5Bfqj5fxY
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    oldwelshman wrote:
    Interesting article :D

    I am sure some one will be along to disagree shortly :D

    Very strange. Nothing yet. I would have bet that all sorts of folks would have posted
    their agreement or denial.

    Dennis Noward
  • chrisw12
    chrisw12 Posts: 1,246
    dennisn wrote:
    oldwelshman wrote:
    Interesting article :D

    I am sure some one will be along to disagree shortly :D

    Very strange. Nothing yet. I would have bet that all sorts of folks would have posted
    their agreement or denial.

    Dennis Noward

    Sorry, I'm in the microwave culture and that's too long a read for me.

    Besides, I know the answer, there is no answer, ride your bike and find your own answer because caddence is such a red herring and so different for so many people that unless someone does a study on ME, all that literature is irrelevant.
  • simbil1
    simbil1 Posts: 620
    I bet the majority of readers can't be bothered with an article that long :lol:

    Interesting stuff, I think the arguments towards the end of the article are well worth a look.
    http://picasaweb.google.com/thefirstsimbil/Bikes
  • Mike Willcox
    Mike Willcox Posts: 1,770
    For me it's a case of my own anecdotal evidence compared to the coaches who base their "facts" on peer reviewed studies.

    I know that I started winning 10 mile TT's when:

    1) I pedalled at 100+ rpm

    2) I did sprint interval training.

    According to the "experts" neither has any impact on a rider's ability to ride TT's. I suggest that they re-examine their science and make it fit the above rather than tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

    By the way my optimal cadence reduced for 25 mile TT's 95 rpm and for 50 mile TT's 90 rpm.
  • disney
    disney Posts: 51
    It will be interesting to see what the new funded Kent University study will produce about training techniques
  • chrisw12
    chrisw12 Posts: 1,246
    disney wrote:
    It will be interesting to see what the new funded Kent University study will produce about training techniques

    I think this is the problem with cycling science, while nuclear phsics and the cure for camcer get zillions of money and the top universities and the top people looking for answers, we get those those renound scientists at Kent university looking for an answer. :wink:

Categories