Cadence
Comments
-
"but the process is predominately anaerobic"
Oh no it isn't. Try pedalling slowly while holding your breath, see how far you get.0 -
Where's Bhima when you need him ?0
-
redddraggon wrote:Don't concentrate on cadence.
You'll find that as you increase your fitness you'll naturally increase your cadence.
I agree. Guys like Kelly, Ulrich, were not what you would call spinners as compared to,
say, LA. Yet great riders all. I suggest that, like "red..." says, as you become a better rider your cadence should, on it's own, without you really even trying, increase to somewhere between 80 and 100, which conventional wisdom(these days) has decided is where most people end up. Lots of Pro riders are in this range and there is NO ONE telling them they must be there. It's whatever feels right to them. As I recall there is something of a discussion / argument as to whether spinning simply feels easier than pounding or actually is easier in the long haul????????0 -
keef66 wrote:"but the process is predominately anaerobic"
Oh no it isn't. Try pedalling slowly while holding your breath, see how far you get.
You may wish to google "facepalm".
Just because something is "predominately anaerobic" doesn't mean the process doesn't require any oxygen at all.
Both aerobic and anaerobic pathways are always working within your body. Depending on what activity you're doing however will determine which one is predominately in use."A cyclist has nothing to lose but his chain"
PTP Runner Up 20150 -
I was being flippant.
You are suggesting that cycling at a low cadence involves predominantly anaerobic metabolism in the leg muscles. I suggest you need Google more than I do.
The only time you're relying on predominantly anaerobic processes is when you're going flat-out, and you can't do that for long.0 -
I have taken your suggestion and been Googling.
http://www.teachpe.com/anatomy/energy_systems.php
A-level PE revision on the subject of energy systems in the body.
Explains it all quite succinctly I think.0 -
Breathing is just as much about removing CO2 as it is about getting oxygen, so though you might be right about it not being predominantly anaerobic your reasoning is flawed.keef66 wrote:"but the process is predominately anaerobic"
Oh no it isn't. Try pedalling slowly while holding your breath, see how far you get.0 -
its been proven lower cadence is more energy efficient.ShockedSoShocked wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Except that it isn't.terongi wrote:A higher cadence is simply more energy efficient over a sustained period.
It may not be much but in general, lower cadences are more efficient that higher cadences. IOW, at same power, there is a lower O2 utilisation at lower cadences than higher ones.
Surely there's less O2 utilisation because you're relying upon energy stores within your muscles (low cadence) as opposed to your CV system (higher cadence)? The energy stores in your muscles are limited, so over a long period of time a higher cadence would be more beneficial?0 -
It depends on what you are doing - for example one of the UKs top timetriallists rides very big gear at a low cadence with 165mm cranks. He can knock out almost 290 miles in 12 hours on that.
When we are novices our natural cadence is linked to the speed we walk at - as we become "fitter" we become more used to riding at higher cadences and the neural pathways are strengthened - it just takes a little while..0 -
Hate to admit it, :oops: but I was so right when I posted this earlier '...There is so much bs said about it <cadence>. We've had at least one gem already and I'm sure there will be more. I wait with interest.'
and some of you have surpassed my expectations and that's without Bhima adding his thiughts
0 -
Where is all the evidence about lower cadence being more efficient ?
I have see info on the net claiming both hi and low cadence being most efficient so interetsed to see clear definitive evidence, links please?
My cadence varies from about 30 to 200 0 -
oldwelshman wrote:Where is all the evidence about lower cadence being more efficient ?
I have see info on the net claiming both hi and low cadence being most efficient so interetsed to see clear definitive evidence, links please?
My cadence varies from about 30 to 200
Well 0 cadence is the most efficient, spinning like a lunatic is the least efficient, so draw your graph from those two points.
Have a look on the wattage forum for a bit more 'researched' answers than we are getting here. There's a good one here:- http://groups.google.com/group/wattage/ ... 9051?hl=en
You'll have to register though.
Also a power meter, a look at some quadrant analysis and a read of Dr Coggans work would be a better starting point than some of the answers given here. Chung's pretty good as well and often quoted on the subject and on fish.
(Not saying a power meter is the be all and end all... but I THINK, it does shed a bit of light onto the 'best' cadence on an individual basis, rather than the generalisations we are getting here.)0 -
Typical response from a maths teacher
I did look on the net quite a bit previously but there was so much contradictory info/data could not make much use of it and to be honest as you probably know it does not make much difference anyway 0 -
oldwelshman wrote:Typical response from a maths teacher
I did look on the net quite a bit previously but there was so much contradictory info/data could not make much use of it and to be honest as you probably know it does not make much difference anyway
Bingo, something sensible at last. 0 -
I remember reading an article that proposed the theory that higher cadences FEEL like less
work to your body and therefore convinces your brain that it's true. Once the brain is convinced, that's it, your cadence goes up(to a point) and your brain says all is good and YOU feel better 'cause your brain says so.
Something like that, anyway. Maybe I can find the article and post a link.
Sorry for the not so scientific babbling.0 -
That's true, however "predominantly anaerobic", to me anyway, would suggest a majority of energy being provided through anaerobic metabolism.ShockedSoShocked wrote:Just because something is "predominately anaerobic" doesn't mean the process doesn't require any oxygen at all.
Both aerobic and anaerobic pathways are always working within your body. Depending on what activity you're doing however will determine which one is predominately in use.
A kilometre time trial on the track, is just predominantly anaerobic, maybe 50-60% or a tad more of the total energy requirement comes from anaerobic metabolism.
for most people, an full blown effort of about 90 seconds is about half-half .
Go to a 3km or 4km pursuit and it's down to 25-30%ish from anaerobic metabolism.
For general road rides, anaerobic metabolism accounts for <2% of the energy requirement.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Except that it isn't.terongi wrote:A higher cadence is simply more energy efficient over a sustained period.
It may not be much but in general, lower cadences are more efficient that higher cadences. IOW, at same power, there is a lower O2 utilisation at lower cadences than higher ones.
However what matters is power, not efficiency, and so we use gearing/cadences that are most effective, not efficient.
The reason lower cadences are more efficient, is because the body is simply used to that cadence! Build a more efficient body by pedalling at a continual higher cadence, the body will then adapt and become efficient at that higher cadence long term! By doing so you naturally increase your power not to mention endurance.
Maximum cadence efficiency peaks around 120RPM. After that it starts to deteriorate. Pedalling at 100RPM is well within the confines of efficiency. If the body is not used to that, then of course, it won't be efficient.
High cadences may not be as efficient percentage wise as low with a small training schedule. But the extra benefits you gain such as a higher lactic acid threshold to name but one, far outweigh the gains of efficiency as a advantage. Even long term efficiency is a small thing compared.Airwave wrote:I recently got a computer with cadance.I was surprised how low my normal cadance was.Without thinking about it,normal would be between 70-80rpm.So i decided to increase it gradualy up to 90-95rpm.That was 5weeks ago.At first it felt wrong spinning like a lunatic but now 90-100rpm feels very comfortable&
Just like what i have been saying...terongi wrote:A higher cadence is simply more energy efficient over a sustained period.
As mentioned above, high cadence is hard on your heart and lungs.
Low cadence in high gear is hard on your legs.
It is much easier to train you heart to sustain high efforts and recover quickly than your leg muscles. We all know that feeling when your legs blow on a hard ride, you never get the strength back and you feel terrible for days after. But if you go into the red with your heart rate, then you can often come back again after a few minutes recovery.
High cadence does not come naturally; it has to be learnt. It always feels weird at first and you have to get used to it.
Just like what i have been saying...Tom1990 wrote:
Fast cadence puts more strain on your heart and lungs than low cadence. As your cardiovascular fitness improves, you will be able to pedal at higher cadences than before, as your heart and lungs will be able to cope better than before with the demand.
The point of cadence drills is to influence neuromuscular adaptation. This will result in an improved pedal stroke, and train the body to be able to spin faster. As I said, higher cadences put more strain on the heart and lungs, but these can recover faster, and last longer than skeletal muscles (where most strain is put from turning lower cadences) before fatigue starts to set in.
Just like what i have been saying. Building a bigger engine. Increasing mitochondrial ATP production.0 -
oldwelshman wrote:Where is all the evidence about lower cadence being more efficient ?
I have see info on the net claiming both hi and low cadence being most efficient so interetsed to see clear definitive evidence, links please?
My cadence varies from about 30 to 200
Efficiency has nothing to do with low cadence. It's about your body being efficient to cope with your most often used cadence. If you train at 60RPM then your body becomes more efficient at 60RPM. If you train at 80RPM then your body becomes more efficient at 80RPM. The reason you decide on a certain cadence is because your body feels comfortable(natural) at that period of fitness during that time. You then predictably slot into that style of cadence for future riding/training and the body adapts around that all too familar cadence. If you decide to increase your cadence at the same intensity for a prolonged time then you become out of breath quite quickly. Why? Because the body cannot deliver the oxygen and blood to the muscles fast enough, and the heart and lungs are not used to that exposed exercise.
Adapt your body further and a higher cadence will feel comfortable! By sustained training at a higher cadence your body has no choice but to adapt.
Voila!
Health warning note:
Until the body has adapted well to the new cadence(takes months), the heart rate can be much higher. Always keep a safe eye on your heart-rate.
Higher cadence is only advised, if you are very healthy and have no heart problems. Always consult a Doctor before undertaking a more rigorous training programme.0 -
No, the reason the body is more efficient at lower cadences is because the O2 utilisation at same power output is less at lower cadences. Training yourself to ride at higher cadences may or may not be beneficial and you may/may not get better at it but it won't change the basic physiological fact that your gross metabolic efficiency will still be higher at lower cadences.giantsasquatch wrote:The reason lower cadences are more efficient, is because the body is simply used to that cadence! Build a more efficient body by pedalling at a continual higher cadence, the body will then adapt and become efficient at that higher cadence long term! By doing so you naturally increase your power not to mention endurance.
But as I keep pointing out (and which I think you are also saying) is that efficiency is essentially irrelevant, it's power output that matters.
Of course if you want to redefine the meaning of efficiency, then all bets are off.
Any discussion of cadence without also considering the torque or power at the same time is a red herring.
I mean, do you ever hear anyone say "I really should try to ride some intervals with an average torque of 100Nm today"? Never. But it's essentially the same thing saying "I'm going to ride some intervals with XX cadence".0 -
More problems but still living....0
-
Have two teaspoons of olive oil 45 mins before your ride if you want to improve your cadence-- Dirk Hofman Motorhomes --0
-
One for each knee joint :idea: ............like your thinking Phil!phil s wrote:Have two teaspoons of olive oil 45 mins before your ride if you want to improve your cadence0 -
Here's a quote from a web article that I have a copy of but can't find a web link to.
"In simple terms the hypothesis would be that the feelings we perceive in the legs
during cycling lead us to select a pedaling rate rate so that we minimize the perceived effort of the task, even if we are using more oxygen."
From - Cycling Science - Summer 1996 - What determines Optimal Cadence -
Anthony P. Marsh, Ph.D. - California State University0 -
I pedal faster than the average chap, especially here in Cambridge, where they all mash, and I've found, beyond all this talk of efficiency and power, blah blah, is that those tiny little accelerations you need to hold wheels and what not are just easier to do.
There's none of the stamping for a revolution or half a revolution, just spin the legs a little faster and you're there. I find it easier on my brain.
It's similar with uphill gradient changes. It gives me that bit more room and time to work out whether to change down or not. Feels smoother than when I used to mash it more.Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
giantsasquatch wrote:oldwelshman wrote:Where is all the evidence about lower cadence being more efficient ?
I have see info on the net claiming both hi and low cadence being most efficient so interetsed to see clear definitive evidence, links please?
My cadence varies from about 30 to 200
Efficiency has nothing to do with low cadence. It's about your body being efficient to cope with your most often used cadence. If you train at 60RPM then your body becomes more efficient at 60RPM. If you train at 80RPM then your body becomes more efficient at 80RPM. The reason you decide on a certain cadence is because your body feels comfortable(natural) at that period of fitness during that time. You then predictably slot into that style of cadence for future riding/training and the body adapts around that all too familar cadence. If you decide to increase your cadence at the same intensity for a prolonged time then you become out of breath quite quickly. Why? Because the body cannot deliver the oxygen and blood to the muscles fast enough, and the heart and lungs are not used to that exposed exercise.
Adapt your body further and a higher cadence will feel comfortable! By sustained training at a higher cadence your body has no choice but to adapt.
Voila!
Health warning note:
Until the body has adapted well to the new cadence(takes months), the heart rate can be much higher. Always keep a safe eye on your heart-rate.
Higher cadence is only advised, if you are very healthy and have no heart problems. Always consult a Doctor before undertaking a more rigorous training programme.
When racing you have to be adaptalne and efficient at a range of cadences, this is probably why testers struggle racing pumpint out one cadence.
It is very difficult in a road race to climb at 120 rmp yes on a decent maye have to do 180, on a track you have to be able to pedal high cadence.
To train and stick to once cadence is crazy IMO.0 -
oldwelshman wrote:giantsasquatch wrote:oldwelshman wrote:Where is all the evidence about lower cadence being more efficient ?
I have see info on the net claiming both hi and low cadence being most efficient so interetsed to see clear definitive evidence, links please?
My cadence varies from about 30 to 200
Efficiency has nothing to do with low cadence. It's about your body being efficient to cope with your most often used cadence. If you train at 60RPM then your body becomes more efficient at 60RPM. If you train at 80RPM then your body becomes more efficient at 80RPM. The reason you decide on a certain cadence is because your body feels comfortable(natural) at that period of fitness during that time. You then predictably slot into that style of cadence for future riding/training and the body adapts around that all too familar cadence. If you decide to increase your cadence at the same intensity for a prolonged time then you become out of breath quite quickly. Why? Because the body cannot deliver the oxygen and blood to the muscles fast enough, and the heart and lungs are not used to that exposed exercise.
Adapt your body further and a higher cadence will feel comfortable! By sustained training at a higher cadence your body has no choice but to adapt.
Voila!
Health warning note:
Until the body has adapted well to the new cadence(takes months), the heart rate can be much higher. Always keep a safe eye on your heart-rate.
Higher cadence is only advised, if you are very healthy and have no heart problems. Always consult a Doctor before undertaking a more rigorous training programme.
When racing you have to be adaptalne and efficient at a range of cadences, this is probably why testers struggle racing pumpint out one cadence.
It is very difficult in a road race to climb at 120 rmp yes on a decent maye have to do 180, on a track you have to be able to pedal high cadence.
To train and stick to once cadence is crazy IMO.
What you say by there, I find to be true and is why I don't think cadence is a complete red herring. I have a low low cadence and some of my best power figures have come at a low low low cadence when climbing. This hasn't been a problem when tt'ing in fact I think my low cadence helps me do relatively better at the longer distances, it's also why I think that low cadence MAY be more efficient. Now whenever I ride with other people it turns out to be a near disaster, any acceleration and my low cadence will not cope with it, even a two up with weaker riders has been a nightmare. But it does not matter as accelerations make no difference to the events I target
As for this '...To train and stick to once cadence is crazy IMO..' again agree but tbh on the road it is pretty impossible to stick to one cadence any way, this is why I think you have to be careful with doing a lot of turbo work. IME the brain will not allow me to ride at one cadence anyway. When I climb it goes lower, when I'm tired it goes lower, when I'm on fast bit's it goes higher. It continually varies to suit my power requirements. In this regard it is definitely for me a red herring.0 -
The first winter I had a fixie, I was riding about 10 miles each way on a fairly hilly route.
When i got back on my regular road bike I found that my 'natural' cadence had gone up from low 80's to about 90 on the flat.
At first I thought this was down to all the spinning like a sewing machine on the downhills, but reading this I think it might be down to the strength I gained on the uphills. Is that right?
It seems a bit bizarre that in that case the best way to raise your cadence would be to actually run a bigger gear occasionally?0
