Cadence for climbing

timmjackson

hi tim here,

reading the posts with interest.Just a quick question to anyone,when i,m climbing hills of over 10%even if i can keep my cadence up sat down am i better off standing in a bigger gear to get up or will i expand too much energy for time gained.Some of our climbs just seem too steep too climb "efficiently".

phreak

Can't speak for other people but most of the hills around here tend to be quite steep but not very long so standing and powering up them is often easier than sitting and spinning. That's what I've found anyway. If the hills are longer then I prefer sitting as much as possible.

Alex_Simmons/RST

mclarent wrote:

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

Well the problem with the statement you quote is the premise that cadence determines muscle fibre type recruitment, when it's the intensity (power) at which we are riding that determines fibre type recruitment. Cadence is a red herring.

jp1985

Well the problem with the statement you quote is the premise that cadence determines muscle fibre type recruitment, when it's the intensity (power) at which we are riding that determines fibre type recruitment. Cadence is a red herring.

If we assume a constant average power output (e.g. 300watts) then cadence will impact muscle fibre recruitment.

Power = torque x angular velocity (more simply put power = force x velocity)

Therefore if cadence is reduced a greater application of force in each pedal stroke will be required to maintain average power output. Conversley if cadence is increased then force per pedal stroke is reduced for a given average power output.

Muscle fibres are recruited sequentiall from slow twitch type I motor units to fast twitch type II motor units dependant on the force being expressed. So lower cadences will activate a higher percentage of type II motor units while higher cadences will recruit a higher relative % type I motor units.

You state it is the intensity (power) that determines fibre type recruitment and that cadence is a red herring yet cadence is directly related to intensity (power = force * angular velocity)

In relation to the most efficient/optimal cadence most research suggests that it is the self selected cadence[/quote]

Alex_Simmons/RST

jp1985 wrote:

Well the problem with the statement you quote is the premise that cadence determines muscle fibre type recruitment, when it's the intensity (power) at which we are riding that determines fibre type recruitment. Cadence is a red herring.

If we assume a constant average power output (e.g. 300watts) then cadence will impact muscle fibre recruitment.

Power = torque x angular velocity (more simply put power = force x velocity)

Therefore if cadence is reduced a greater application of force in each pedal stroke will be required to maintain average power output. Conversley if cadence is increased then force per pedal stroke is reduced for a given average power output.

Muscle fibres are recruited sequentiall from slow twitch type I motor units to fast twitch type II motor units dependant on the force being expressed. So lower cadences will activate a higher percentage of type II motor units while higher cadences will recruit a higher relative % type I motor units.

You state it is the intensity (power) that determines fibre type recruitment and that cadence is a red herring yet cadence is directly related to intensity (power = force * angular velocity)

In relation to the most efficient/optimal cadence most research suggests that it is the self selected cadence

Thanks for the physics lesson, however the problem is that even though power = torque x angular velocity, even at low cadences, the forces in sub-maximal cycling (such as would be typical in aerobic efforts such as hill climbing) are still quite low, so that Type II muscle fibre recruitment, while maybe increased a fraction, isn't changed by much at all.

This was shown by Alquist et al. who found that the fiber type recruitment pattern was markedly similar when subjects pedaled for 30 min at 85% of VO2max and either 50 or 100 rpm:

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.


Look at it another way:

Let's assume for one moment that Type II muscle fibres are significantly recruited during such sub-maximal low cadence efforts.

Type II motor units rely much more so on glycogenolysis for ATP production and hence tend to be more fatigable than Type I units (seconds to minutes). If Type II units were being recruited, then the fact is we wouldn't be able to sustain such an effort for very long. IOW, Type II units are not in fact being recruited to any significant degree in such sub-maximal aerobic efforts, even at low cadences.

jp1985 wrote:

In relation to the most efficient/optimal cadence most research suggests that it is the self selected cadence

And that's exactly been my point through this whole thread, that cadence is a red herring and people should just pedal at the rate that feels right for them.

BigG67

jp1985 wrote:

In relation to the most efficient/optimal cadence most research suggests that it is the self selected cadence

And that's exactly been my point through this whole thread, that cadence is a red herring and people should just pedal at the rate that feels right for them.

I might debate that a little with reference to "feels right". Surely it' better to test what's faster/more sustainable - depending on desired outcome - rather than trusting feel?

Many times I've done what's felt right but is actualy wrong.

chrisw12

but many many many more times you've done something which felt right and was right.

Sometimes you have to trust yourself.

Alex_Simmons/RST

BigG67 wrote:

jp1985 wrote:

In relation to the most efficient/optimal cadence most research suggests that it is the self selected cadence

And that's exactly been my point through this whole thread, that cadence is a red herring and people should just pedal at the rate that feels right for them.

I might debate that a little with reference to "feels right". Surely it' better to test what's faster/more sustainable - depending on desired outcome - rather than trusting feel?

Many times I've done what's felt right but is actualy wrong.

What's the difference between what "feels right" and a "self selected cadence"?

When doing this form of testing, subjects are told to pedal at a given rate (be that 50 rpm, 85 rpm etc), or to pedal at any rate they feel is right for them, i.e. a "self selected cadence".

mclarent

Ok, probably missing something here, however...

The only time I've used "power" in training was when I did a VO2 test. I typically ride with high cadence, which I did that time, but as I span up on that test, the force required to push the (relatively low) power at the start required a significantly "harder effort" than that required once I had hit 85-90rpm. I had assumed that the reason for this was that it would require more "strength" than "aerobic", and that a strength type effort would exhaust my muscles quicker than an aerobic type? On that basis, higher cadence would be preferable for me, or is that a function of how my muscle are trained?

Alex_Simmons/RST

mclarent wrote:

Ok, probably missing something here, however...

Possibly

There really isn't much strength involved in endurance cycling performance. The forces are really quite low. You would have to be very frail not to have the strength to generate the forces required when riding a bike.

As an example, the specialist climbers in the TdF, making their presence felt for the last 20-min of a mountain top finish, the peak pedal forces are only around the equivalent of 24kg or a little more than 1/3rd of their body mass. That's also approximately the equivalent average force being applied by both legs.

So if you don't have the "strength" to push a peak force of 20kg or so with the largest muscle group in your body, then you have more problems than riding a bike uphill.

It's our ability to generate sustainable power, and not strength, that is our limiter.

mclarent

thanks - and congrats on your 1000th post

chill123

last year i improved no end on hills by doing the following workout a couple of times a week.

it was almost exclusively done in the gym on a stationary bike with intervals wacked up to almost full resistance, the rests at a real steady pace (70% MHR).

10 minute warmup
6 x 5 minute intervals at about 50 rpm riden out of the saddle with 5 minute rests in between.

After a couple of months of them the difference going up hills was huge!

mhuk

50rpm at max resistance - how are you knees?

I do the CTS Hill Climbing routine in the gym and it's helped my climbing no end; lots of suffering but no pain

acoggan

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

the problem is that even though power = torque x angular velocity, even at low cadences, the forces in sub-maximal cycling (such as would be typical in aerobic efforts such as hill climbing) are still quite low, so that Type II muscle fibre recruitment, while maybe increased a fraction, isn't changed by much at all.

An additional consideration here is that the minimal force at which a particular motor unit is recruited isn't fixed, but is dependent upon the speed of the movement (or actually, the intended speed of the movement). As a result, the pattern of motor unit recruitment is more closely related to the power output than it is to the cadence, and hence force, used to produce that power output. (IOW, pedaling faster doesn't necessarily reduce type II motor unit recruitment, because even though the force required to produce a particular power is lower, the minimal force at which type II motor units are recruited is also decreased.)

EDIT: And now that I've taken the time to read back through this thread, I see that you made the very same point in a post on Nov. 12th...as I should have known.

Grimone

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?

It's no secret that bigger gears and therefore a lower cadence on hills, will increase muscle mass.

You need to establish whether you have the strength in your legs for the larger gears when climbing, or whether you are a lot more comfortable finding a rythm whilst spinning a 'dinner plate' gear.

The only way climbing will improve is by you giving it some stick on the hills whenever possible, just train hard on the climbs and i'm sure you'll be fine!

To be fair, there aren't many people who can spin 90+rpm on steep climbs, those who can are called Contador or Dan Martin etc...

Alex_Simmons/RST

Grimone wrote:

It's no secret that bigger gears and therefore a lower cadence on hills, will increase muscle mass.

Secret or myth?

Grimone

I think its true :? Read somewhere that remaining seated and pushing a big gear uphill was what Francesco Moser used to do in training, to build stregth.

fuzzynavel

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Grimone wrote:

It's no secret that bigger gears and therefore a lower cadence on hills, will increase muscle mass.

Secret or myth?

I would have thought that this would make sense...

when lifting weights..light weight and high reps for conditioning.....big weights and low reps for muscle mass....I would have thought the same would apply on the bike....

jp1985

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Grimone wrote:
It's no secret that bigger gears and therefore a lower cadence on hills, will increase muscle mass.
Secret or myth?


I would have thought that this would make sense...

when lifting weights..light weight and high reps for conditioning.....big weights and low reps for muscle mass....I would have thought the same would apply on the bike....

Alex is right on this one

As you point out when weight training for hypertrophy you use a high load and few repetitions (no more than 12 reps) and strength training requires even lower reps ( < 8 ) while conditioning exercises use anything form 12-15 reps and up. But if you think about climbing a hill in a big gear there will be hundreds if not thousands of pedal revolutions. The relative intensity is far far less than that required to make gains in hypertrophy or strength.

What it may do is increaese the % of anaerobic work so increasing lactic acid production and providing a stiulus to improve lactate buffering capacity that will enhance subsequent performance but this is not strength

Alex_Simmons/RST

Some hypertrophy of slow twitch fibres does occur over time from riding at hard aerobic levels but it has nowt to do with big gear hill work. It is simply a matter of riding hard that does it.

But as far as strength is concerned, well that comes from neuromuscular adaptations / hypertrophy which require one to generate forces way way way above whatever we do when riding a bike up a hill or on the flat.

fuzzynavel

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Some hypertrophy of slow twitch fibres does occur over time from riding at hard aerobic levels but it has nowt to do with big gear hill work. It is simply a matter of riding hard that does it.

But as far as strength is concerned, well that comes from neuromuscular adaptations / hypertrophy which require one to generate forces way way way above whatever we do when riding a bike up a hill or on the flat.

I have done no weights on my legs whilst I have had my road bike and I have noticeable muscle mass changes. I now have bulging muscle down the outside of my thighs that I never had before. Perhaps it is more visible because I have lost some weight but my thigh measurement has stayed pretty constant whilst the amount of skin/fat I can grab from there has dropped considerably.
Is it conceivable that muscle growth will occur faster in an untrained specimen such as myself than it would in someone who has trained for years?

Alex_Simmons/RST

fuzzynavel wrote:

Is it conceivable that muscle growth will occur faster in an untrained specimen such as myself than it would in someone who has trained for years?

Many physiological adaptations see the largest change when starting from an untrained state.