What's with this super high cadence stuff anyway?

SimonAH

Right, can someone explain this high cadence thing to me?

Why is it so universally accepted that a higher cadence is a more efficient way of propelling your steed? Now I fully appreciate that many things are counter-intuitive but to me I would have thought that if you are pedalling faster in a lower gear then you are wasting energy on;

1) A faster moving chain (therefore friction losses in the chain and jockey wheel)
2) Lifting your trailing leg more often than you need to through it’s dead spot (and that’s a heavy chunk of meat to be lifting up….or pushing up with your power stroke depending on how you ride).
3) Additional losses in stretching your leggings or friction on your trousers…

Where are the advantages hiding?

tgotb

I appear to have b*gger-all leg strength. More specifically, if I "push" too hard, my legs get knackered in no time. Spinning away like a mad dervish is the only way I can generate any power without killing my legs...

dhope

Bit of googling suggests high cadence will improve CV, low will improve strength, which sounds fairly sensible.

soundninjauk

I just find a higher cadence easier for me.

wgwarburton

Hi,
I looked into this a while back- there doesn't seem to be any hard evidence that a high cadence is more efficient or easier on the knees, but it does often seem to be observed that (with exceptions, obviously) those who spin faster are often quicker and those who grind slowly often suffer knee pain.

Mostly on here it's about lighthearted ribbing between the well-informed and intelligent high-cadence riders with good, smooth technique and the deluded who think that a Big Gear makes them look macho :-)

It's down to physiology- some people are faster and more comfortable at high cadence, others at lower. There's no "right answer" but it may be worth experimenting to see what works for you.
If you find that you "bounce" in the saddle at high cadence, it might be worth working on your "souplesse", or smoothness, as it may improve your overall efficiency.
Fixed winter training is supposed to help maintain fitness and technique when conditions don't allow a full training regime- you have to power up & spin down so you get better at it and your cycling is better for it next season.

Cheers,
W.

rick_chasey

Blame Armstrong.

It makes little accelerations, ones that you don't notice, a little easier.

Maxticate

Is it simply that you can maintain it for a longer period as it is an aerobic activity?

Pushing a gear that requires a higher effort from your leg muscles will propel you along quicker but move your body chemistry closer to its lactate threshold. The point at which lactate in the blood increases rapidly and you tie up. By exerting less effort through the leg muscles in a lower gear you can maintain a longer effort.

With training you can raise your lactate threshold allowing you to push a bigger gear at what after training becomes an aerobic effort.

cjcp

The thing to do is to find out what's right for you. Find that cadence when it feels most smooth, so you shouldn't be battling to push the pedals, nor bouncing out of the saddle.

MarcBC

I have never been a high gear person, even when time trialing 30 years ago on fixies. Standard for me during the winter was a 66" gear and racing was around 75"-79". I had mates who who would push 108" plus however, on the flatter courses yet we would both do similar times for 10s and 25s.

The biggest difference for me was on track where my lower gearing helped massively with getting a jump on opponents in the sprint. It was a matter of timeing however, so that they could not get their higher gears churning and pass me on the line.

As others have said each to their own.

notsoblue

I tried riding at higher cadence, and it just didn't seem comfortable to me. My comfort zone appears to be 85-90RPM. Any faster and I'm bouncing on the seat, any lower and I'm mashing.

shouldbeinbed

I ride a big gear low cadence usually, its how I'm comfortable and I'm not a speed monster but it is very apparent that my acceleration from standing start is very poor compared to more spinny riders.

Zachariah

But 90rpm is actually on the faster side - if you watch any casual cyclists, they're almost invariably going much slower (40-60rpm). Above 90rpm on the majority of gears and you're approaching 20mph on pretty much any bike, which is way faster than most people cruise.

itboffin

I'm working on cadence control turbo sessions at the moment, 30 mins sessions with 5 min intervals at increasing cadence, damn hard sticking to an exact cad.

What I have noticed out on the road is my cadence has suffered since being ill, just getting back now to my normal which is 95-100.

Last year I did a nice lumpy social ride with Attica, we rode side by side at the same pace and i expect the sameish effort but it was clear our cadence were different.

Tiz a personal preference kinda like gear ratios of geometry, i'm only just finding out what works for me now, another good reason to own a turbo.

Next stop a power meter.

asprilla

I would have thought that grinding away in a high gear is going to engage a greater number of fast twitch muscle fibres than slow, and spinning at your spinniest will do the opposite.

Fast twitch fibres are for maximum effort for the minimum duration, and vice versa, so it stands to reason that spinning is more efficient over time.

SimonAH

Asprilla wrote:

I would have thought that grinding away in a high gear is going to engage a greater number of fast twitch muscle fibres than slow, and spinning at your spinniest will do the opposite.

Fast twitch fibres are for maximum effort for the minimum duration, and vice versa, so it stands to reason that spinning is more efficient over time.

Iwould agree with that - but I think that the mechanical losses must counteract it to a point. There must be a flat spot on the graph that equates to the most efficient cadence for a given physique?

gaz545

160rpm looks cooler than 80rpm

itboffin

gaz545 wrote:

160rpm looks cooler than 80rpm

is that metric or imperial?

gaz545

itboffin wrote:

gaz545 wrote:

160rpm looks cooler than 80rpm

is that metric or imperial?

:?

greg66_tri_v2.0

SimonAH wrote:

Right, can someone explain this high cadence thing to me?

Find 2.5 kilo bag and a 25 kilo bag.

Lift the 25 kilo bag 10 times.

Lift the 2.5 kilo bag 100 times.

Now, which exercise felt easier?

itboffin

Greg66 wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

Right, can someone explain this high cadence thing to me?

Find 2.5 kilo bag and a 25 kilo bag.

Lift the 25 kilo bag 10 times.

Lift the 2.5 kilo bag 100 times.

Now, which exercise felt easier?

What's a Kg?

SimonAH

Greg66 wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

Right, can someone explain this high cadence thing to me?

Find 2.5 kilo bag and a 25 kilo bag.

Lift the 25 kilo bag 10 times.

Lift the 2.5 kilo bag 100 times.

Now, which exercise felt easier?

Ah, but if you assume that the mechanical losses are roughly equal per lift then the power lifter has expended an awful lot less energy......

greg66_tri_v2.0

SimonAH wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

Right, can someone explain this high cadence thing to me?

Find 2.5 kilo bag and a 25 kilo bag.

Lift the 25 kilo bag 10 times.

Lift the 2.5 kilo bag 100 times.

Now, which exercise felt easier?

Ah, but if you assume that the mechanical losses are roughly equal per lift then the power lifter has expended an awful lot less energy......

Has he? If the heights of the lift are equal, then the energy expended in both exercises (measured as the amount of potential energy imparted to the bag at the top of the lift) is equal - height x mass gravity x no of lifts comes to the same number.

The issue is which exercise causes the greater biomechanical fatigue. Take it to an extreme. Three lifts of a 300kg bag or 900 of a 1 kg bag. A large proportion of the population would not be able to do the former, and of those who could very few could manage a fourth or fifth lift. Yet I bet most people could do the latter.

Zachariah

Ah, but we're forgetting a vital variable - Time. The argument being made regarding cycling assumes they both cover the same distance (and course) in the same time, just that one is mashing a high gear while one is spinning a low one, and why should one be better than the other.

With the examples of the weights above, I seriously doubt that many (if anyone) would be able to lift the 1kg weight 900 times in the same time it takes the few people to lift the 300kg weight three times. Hence the work being done is not exactly the same.

The simple reason spinning up a hill is better than mashing a huge gear is biomechanics. The person hasn't been born who can go up col d'huez on 53x11 in the same time it takes to spin up it at a lower gear, because human beings can't (yet) generate the torque required (over the same time). Equally, nobody has yet shown they can spin a low gear fast enough to do a sub-20min 10-mile TT. It's the way we're made.

meanredspider

Greg66 wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

Right, can someone explain this high cadence thing to me?

Find 2.5 kilo bag and a 25 kilo bag.

Lift the 25 kilo bag 10 times.

Lift the 2.5 kilo bag 100 times.

Now, which exercise felt easier?

This is all about power

And that's the secret to high cadence.

Power = pedal force x pedal angular velocity

So you can either apply more force to the pedal (mashing) or turn the pedals faster (spinning) to increase power. Or, of course, both

To bring the analogy to the motoring world, you can either fit a bigger engine (the "muscle car" technique) or rev the nuts off the thing (the motorbike approach).

As per the bag example above, your ability to sustain heavy loads is far more limited. The other problem is the balance of muscle mass vs power. The world's strongest man might be able to pull trucks but isn't very quick over 100m (less still over 10k). Cycling over longer distances rewards lightness and aerobic fitness (as does marathon running) whereas track sprinting moves far more towards strength (Chris Hoy) in short explosive power..

Most of us are travelling more than sprinting distance, hence the cadence thing.

Dudu

Rick Chasey wrote:

Blame Armstrong.

It makes little accelerations, ones that you don't notice, a little easier.

I started using a higher cadence when Armstrong was 10. A lot of small efforts put less strain on you joints and muscles than a few big efforts, especially if you pedal smoothly. And you do go faster - try using one gear lower than usual for a regular ride like a commute or a training run and you'll find out.

snailracer

Zachariah wrote:

... The person hasn't been born who can go up col d'huez on 53x11 in the same time it takes to spin up it at a lower gear, because human beings can't (yet) generate the torque required (over the same time). Equally, nobody has yet shown they can spin a low gear fast enough to do a sub-20min 10-mile TT. It's the way we're made.

+1
You also gain a few % in transmission efficiency by running on a larger cog (i.e. lower gear) - larger cogs are simply more efficient.

rick_chasey

Dudu wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Blame Armstrong.

It makes little accelerations, ones that you don't notice, a little easier.

I started using a higher cadence when Armstrong was 10. A lot of small efforts put less strain on you joints and muscles than a few big efforts, especially if you pedal smoothly. And you do go faster - try using one gear lower than usual for a regular ride like a commute or a training run and you'll find out.

Well arn't you old!

SimonAH

snailracer wrote:

Zachariah wrote:

... The person hasn't been born who can go up col d'huez on 53x11 in the same time it takes to spin up it at a lower gear, because human beings can't (yet) generate the torque required (over the same time). Equally, nobody has yet shown they can spin a low gear fast enough to do a sub-20min 10-mile TT. It's the way we're made.

+1
You also gain a few % in transmission efficiency by running on a larger cog (i.e. lower gear) - larger cogs are simply more efficient.

It is obvious that if you take the far extremes (it's easier to lift a bag of sugar 10,000 times than hoist a ten tonne block above your head) then the comparisons become gross - but that's not what's on the table here. And by the way I'm not arguing for one or t'other, just trying to understand the issue.

Big cogs do bend the chain less => less friction, BUT the chain goes round it a lot more because you're pedalling faster, and round the jockey wheel a lot more, 'cos you're pedalling faster therefore actually overall your energy losses will be higher.

More importantly though each leg must weigh what, a minimum of ten kilos? If you are cycling for an hour at 110 rpm you have lifted a weight of36 tonnes by one foot, or if you prefer 10Kg by 3.6Km vertically more than if you'd been stroking along at eighty rpm.

dhope

SimonAH wrote:

More importantly though each leg must weigh what, a minimum of ten kilos? If you are cycling for an hour at 110 rpm you have lifted a weight of36 tonnes by one foot, or if you prefer 10Kg by 3.6Km vertically more than if you'd been stroking along at eighty rpm.

I doubt the maths on that... the back foot rising must be helped by the front foot pushing down. You're not pushing with one foot and separately pulling with the other, the two are one movement. I expect the difference is far less than the weight of a leg.

ballspondroad

http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/articl ... slow-20920

SimonAH

dhope wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

More importantly though each leg must weigh what, a minimum of ten kilos? If you are cycling for an hour at 110 rpm you have lifted a weight of36 tonnes by one foot, or if you prefer 10Kg by 3.6Km vertically more than if you'd been stroking along at eighty rpm.

I doubt the maths on that... the back foot rising must be helped by the front foot pushing down. You're not pushing with one foot and separately pulling with the other, the two are one movement. I expect the difference is far less than the weight of a leg.

Accepted, but it's still going to be a pretty significant number.