Cadence for climbing

phreak

The past year or so I've tried to ride with a high cadence and generally when I climb I keep it at around the 90 mark. I've found recently that on very steep climbs this isn't possible, even on the granny ring (compact) and my legs tire very quickly.

So I guess my question is two fold. Is that a good cadence to be riding climbs at? And should I train more at a lower cadence to build up strength?

fuzzynavel

phreak wrote:

The past year or so I've tried to ride with a high cadence and generally when I climb I keep it at around the 90 mark. I've found recently that on very steep climbs this isn't possible, even on the granny ring (compact) and my legs tire very quickly.

So I guess my question is two fold. Is that a good cadence to be riding climbs at? And should I train more at a lower cadence to build up strength?

Just keep pushing the same gear. you will get used to it. Just try to get further up the climb each time before packing it in.

BUICK

I've read before that a lower cadence is actually more optimal on climbs but can't recall where I read it, I'm afraid. I seem to remember that for hill climbs 70rpm was considered to be closer to an 'ideal' cadence for efficiency's sake - but as always, it will vary from person to person, I'm sure.

ConsciousPilot

Ive been following one of the Polar training programs with my CS200CAD. The training incorporates both low and high cadence work on hills. I found generally that the higher cadence (=>80rpm) uphill gives me a higher heart rate than say 50-60rpm with higher gear (speed about the same). Still can't decide which is the best. I guess it must be a personal thing

iainf72

It depends on so many factors there is not a "right" answer without more information.

Certain muscle fibre types will favour a lower cadence others a higher cadence.

phreak

Thanks for the tips. I came across this recently.

http://www.davelloydcoaching.com/cyclin ... ue-by-dave

So might try a few of these and see how that impacts my climbing.

bahzob

BUICK wrote:

I've read before that a lower cadence is actually more optimal on climbs but can't recall where I read it, I'm afraid. I seem to remember that for hill climbs 70rpm was considered to be closer to an 'ideal' cadence for efficiency's sake - but as always, it will vary from person to person, I'm sure.

Depends what objective is. If just getting up then maybe low cadence is an option (though personally I dont think so). However if you want to climb quickly then its definitely a question of keeping up high cadence.

peanut

there is no right cadence .Anyone that suggests there is is talking tosh. You need to find the cadence and gear that suits you and the individual circumstances. What would suit a 500 yard 30% is hardly going to be the same as a 4 mile at 20%
If you watch the pro's on the Nat hill climb circuit they all use widely different gear ratios and cadences even on the same hill on the same day.

There are some excellent hill climbing articles in C+ back issues this year. written by top hill climbers . The bottom line is find the pace that suits you and try to maintain it within your aerobic capacity

If you do a search on `hill climbing technique' you get 2000+ results
some good articles here
http://www.bikeradar.com/search/search.php?search_term=hill%20climbing%20technique&search_nb=20&search_tribe=&search_page=2

Alex_Simmons/RST

phreak wrote:

So I guess my question is two fold. Is that a good cadence to be riding climbs at? And should I train more at a lower cadence to build up strength?

The cadence you ride at is a natural consequence of the power you are able to generate, the forces acting against and the gear you are in.

Only way to change cadence is to produce more (or less) power, change the forces acting against you or change gear. IOW, don't worry about it and just pedal up the way you feel you are best able. Experiement and see what gear works for you. As one gets fitter, that might need to change over time.

phreak wrote:

And should I train more at a lower cadence to build up strength?

The forces involved in low cadence riding are way too low to induce changes in one's strength.

Low cadence climbing will help you climb better at low cadences.

Alex_Simmons/RST

iainf72 wrote:

It depends on so many factors there is not a "right" answer without more information.

Certain muscle fibre types will favour a lower cadence others a higher cadence.

Muscle fibre type recruitment is influenced by the power at which we are riding, and not the cadence we happen to be turning the cranks at.

cf
Ahlquist LE, Bassett DR Jr, Sufit R, Nagle FJ, Thomas DP. The effect of pedaling frequency on glycogen depletion rates in type I and type II quadriceps muscle fibers during submaximal cycling exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 65:360-364, 1992.

DaveyL

Alex, can you explain this case study quoted in Coggan and Allen's book on the rider who could not maintain a certain wattage while climbing at 70 rpm for more than a few min, but who could sit much more comfortably at the same wattage at 100 rpm?

Alex_Simmons/RST

Not sure, what page is that?
Might be the difference between being capable and being comfortable.

DaveyL

Hi Alex,

It's on page 10: "Whenever Steve had to pedal at a slower cadence than 70 rpm at his threshold for more than five minutes, he was dropped. There were also many cases in which Steve was able to stay with the same athletes at and above his threshold wattage as long as his cadence was over 95 rpm."

Alex_Simmons/RST

DaveyL wrote:

Hi Alex,

It's on page 10: "Whenever Steve had to pedal at a slower cadence than 70 rpm at his threshold for more than five minutes, he was dropped. There were also many cases in which Steve was able to stay with the same athletes at and above his threshold wattage as long as his cadence was over 95 rpm."

Really you'd have to ask Hunter about the specifics but I'd hazard a guess that climbing in a bigger gear meant he couldn't cope as well with the many small accelerations that happen in road race hillclimbs.

A quadrant analysis of the files in question would help to pin point what is actually going on.

DaveyL

Thanks for your reply Alex - it's interesting that they can pull such data out of a powermeter and I think it's a nice example of how even more powerful it becomes when you couple it with another metric.

Hope the next column is coming along nicely!

boybiker

The way i look at hill climbing is that

1, Its going to hurt.
2, its going to hurt a lot.

So I tend to go up a couple of gears as I get to the foot of a hill, stand up and try to set a rhythm, I try to ignore the fact that it hurts until I cannot maintain the rhythm at which point I go down a gear just keep grinding away, eventually the pain does stop.It doesn't matter what cadence you use, just keep counting the turns it helps to concentrate on that rather than the pain.
This maybe down to the fact that a professional who kind of coaches me when he can be bothered says that riding is 10% technique and 90% learning to hurt yourself while being able to hurt the other guy more.

bahzob

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Really you'd have to ask Hunter about the specifics but I'd hazard a guess that climbing in a bigger gear meant he couldn't cope as well with the many small accelerations that happen in road race hillclimbs.--

Quote in this months Cyclosport points towards this: Comment from sprinter Wouter Weylandt in this months re climbing El Angliru this year. Asked the question "do you use a compact?" he said no, just had bigger than normal sprockets.

But then added "Very low gears are for if you are racing on a climb like El Angliru. Climbers need flexibility to attack and accelerate."

Somewhat of a paradox that it may be "climbers" who fit a compact while sprinters dont but makes sense.

polemann

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

The cadence you ride at is a natural consequence of the power you are able to generate, the forces acting against and the gear you are in.

Call me stupid. When riding uphill at 70RPM vs 95RPM riding one or the other doesn't mean I am necessarily producing more or less watts (power). Isn't power output to do with how much pushing your doing on the pedals not how many times you push them around.

Also, and I realise the physics involved is complex. But in laymans terms. In cyclists 1 is riding along at 50RPM producing 300 WATTS and cyclist two is riding along a 90RPM producting 300WATTS would they be travelling at the same speed? I assume that everything else is identical.... rider size, winds, friction, bikes, etcetc,

Alex_Simmons/RST

polemann wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

The cadence you ride at is a natural consequence of the power you are able to generate, the forces acting against and the gear you are in.

Call me stupid. When riding uphill at 70RPM vs 95RPM riding one or the other doesn't mean I am necessarily producing more or less watts (power). Isn't power output to do with how much pushing your doing on the pedals not how many times you push them around.

Power = torque x angular pedal velocity.
hence at same power, lower rpm simply means a higher torque is being applied.

polemann wrote:

Also, and I realise the physics involved is complex. But in laymans terms. In cyclists 1 is riding along at 50RPM producing 300 WATTS and cyclist two is riding along a 90RPM producting 300WATTS would they be travelling at the same speed? I assume that everything else is identical.... rider size, winds, friction, bikes, etcetc,

That is correct. Where have I said anything contradicting that basic premise?
In the case you cite, the only difference would be the gear they are riding.

Hence cadence being an outcome of the power, resistance forces and gear.

Alex_Simmons/RST

bahzob wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Really you'd have to ask Hunter about the specifics but I'd hazard a guess that climbing in a bigger gear meant he couldn't cope as well with the many small accelerations that happen in road race hillclimbs.--

Quote in this months Cyclosport points towards this: Comment from sprinter Wouter Weylandt in this months re climbing El Angliru this year. Asked the question "do you use a compact?" he said no, just had bigger than normal sprockets.

But then added "Very low gears are for if you are racing on a climb like El Angliru. Climbers need flexibility to attack and accelerate."

Somewhat of a paradox that it may be "climbers" who fit a compact while sprinters dont but makes sense.

I don't see the paradox. Sprinters will always struggle more on climbs simply because they are at or beyond their sustainable aerobic power, whereas the climbers have something in reserve. Hence the sprinter doesn't last and can't cope when pushed into the red zone often. It's similar in endurance track racing. Classic ploy of the enduro rider is to attack, attack and attack until the sprinters can't cope and drop out.

a_n_t

boybiker wrote:

The way i look at hill climbing is that

1, Its going to hurt.
2, its going to hurt a lot.

depends how quickly you want to get to the top!

polemann

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Where have I said anything contradicting that basic premise?

No where -- I was asking the question for my own understanding no challenging yours.

bahzob

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

I don't see the paradox. Sprinters will always struggle more on climbs simply because they are at or beyond their sustainable aerobic power, whereas the climbers have something in reserve. Hence the sprinter doesn't last and can't cope when pushed into the red zone often. It's similar in endurance track racing. Classic ploy of the enduro rider is to attack, attack and attack until the sprinters can't cope and drop out.

I meant paradox that climbers wanting to attack a hill take "easy" option of a compact.

There is a bit of a mythology that taking a big gear to a hill is "hard" in some way. It isnt. As per OT it can be harder turning small gear over fast.

Also on cadence there is low and very very low. Its not uncommon to see riders barely managing 50rpm (often less) let alone 70 (check out a video of a climb on a typical sportive). At these revs I think the theory of power = torque v angular velocity breaks down in practice. As a rule of thumb I would say 60rpm is the minimum revs for effective climbing. Anything below that then bite the bullet and get some smaller gears.

phreak

Goodness, I wouldn't dream of going that low. I don't think I ever get below 70 on a usual ride and in most instances not below 80.

Alex_Simmons/RST

bahzob wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

At these revs I think the theory of power = torque v angular velocity breaks down in practice.

The laws of physics don't magically stop because we happen to pedal a gear that's too big.
Answer is simple, use an appropriate gear for the job at hand. If one can't produce the power to drive the easiest gear "comfortably", then either get more suitable gearing or just suck it up and grind it out.

mclarent

Does the choice of gears / cadence change the muscle type you're using?

Alex_Simmons/RST

mclarent wrote:

Does the choice of gears / cadence change the muscle type you're using?

That kind of depends on what you mean by the question.

In terms of muscle fibre type recruitment, it is the intensity (power) that dictates muscle fibre type recruited. Cadence (or gears) per se doesn't influence that. It's how hard we are going.

e.g. fast twitch fibres are recruited at zero and very low cadences at the start of a track time trial and also at 160 rpm in a track match sprint. It is the effort level/intensity/power that dicates fibre type recruitment and not the speed of the cranks or gear used.

mclarent

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

mclarent wrote:

Does the choice of gears / cadence change the muscle type you're using?

That kind of depends on what you mean by the question.

In terms of muscle fibre type recruitment, it is the intensity (power) that dictates muscle fibre type recruited. Cadence (or gears) per se doesn't influence that. It's how hard we are going.

e.g. fast twitch fibres are recruited at zero and very low cadences at the start of a track time trial and also at 160 rpm in a track match sprint. It is the effort level/intensity/power that dicates fibre type recruitment and not the speed of the cranks or gear used.

Interesting, thanks.

bahzob

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

bahzob wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

At these revs I think the theory of power = torque v angular velocity breaks down in practice.

The laws of physics don't magically stop because we happen to pedal a gear that's too big.
.

Not saying that laws of physics change. But what can happen is that as revs decrease it becomes harder to effectively apply force in direction of pedal travel. Its especially the case if standing. If you watch someone labouring up a hill you can see that much of the effort is applied while the crank is near vertical, so they are almost trying to push the pedal through the crank to the bottom bracket, which of course is impossible. So they generate a lot of input effort for not much effective output.

mclarent

Ok, I know this subject is controversial (not why I'm bringing it up again) but just found this quote and wanted some opinions?

While some research suggests the most efficient cadence for cycling is in the 75 RPM range top cyclists typically maintain a cadence of 90-to 100 RPM. Slower cadences need more strength for one revolution and recruits more fast twitch muscle fibers. Conversely fewer fast twitch fibers are recruited at higher cadences. Since the fuel in our bodies used to fire the slow twitch fibers is much more abundant (fat) the endurance racer should ride around the 90 RPM range.

from http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/techctr/gearing.html

liversedge

phreak wrote:

Goodness, I wouldn't dream of going that low. I don't think I ever get below 70 on a usual ride and in most instances not below 80.

Come down to the surrey hills and ride up barhatch lane (max 21%) or white downs (18%). I'd like to see someone turning 80rpm all the way up them in a 39x25 or 34x28 for that matter!!!!