Using Caedence meter to go faster?

CyclingObsession

Ive heard a lot of talk about using cadence meters and low or high cadence to increase your average speed, can anyone explain this too me, I tried searching the net but I am lost.

danowat

What makes you think it's your cadence that's stopping you going faster?

oldwelshman

dont listen to them its rubbish, your av speed will go up as you get fitter and stronger.

bahzob

Its a fact that the cadence of elite cyclists is much higher than the average one.

It will typically average 85-95 rpm. Furthe the cadence is distributed quite tightly around the mean. An example is from a pro who rode the Fleche Wallon. (red line = 80 rpm) (Note please no-one mention Jan Ulrich, his cadence was only relatively slow compared to other pros)



The same graph for the average cyclist riding an equivalent event, say a sportive, would be more like this:



With a lower average and a much wider spread of cadence. (Most riders are probably worse, the graph is mine and I was one of the top finishers, those finishing mid/back would be have even slower cadence especially when the going got tough)

Since most cycle computers don't store cadence most folks probably think they look just like the pros and so can be in denial about this, but its pretty obvious, when you ride past as many as I have.

So there is a correlation between cadence and performance.

However it does not follow that simply increasing cadence will improve performance, the correlation is more likely to be due to other of factors:
- Pros are more likely to be born with the luck to have a naturally good pedalling style along with good lungs etc. (e.g. David Millar mentions some tests he did that demonstrate this in his bio). That's one reason they end up being good enough to be pros in the first place.
- Pros and elite riders are likely to have spent time track riding which is good training to develop a faster and more efficient pedal style.
- Pros have the ability to use all the gears on their bike, so they can keep high cadence regardless of gear. Average riders tend to have gears too big, especially for long hard efforts.
- Pros have better technique resulting from some/all of the above.

Better technique results in better performance due to the following:
- Pedalling involves using a variety of muscles. As with any skill if you use all the muscles involved in a harmonised, co-ordinated fashion then you will be better than if you use some too much and others not enough. Chances are many average riders are not using some muscles that could help pedal much if at all.

- Linked to this, the biggest fail with average riders is that they are quad heavy. Most of the focus/effort is directed towards a big maximal push during the downstroke. This leads to peak forces each rev that are very high, especially so if during periods of high demand and too high gearing. The stroke loses momentum during the dead spots every rev. So if you look at the force applied each rev it is very spiky with high highs and low lows. Timing the application of max force so that it happens best from a mechanical efficiency POV will be hit and miss. This leads to quicker fatigue. The equivalent for a pro is much smoother. Peak force each rev may well be less but it will be executed at the optimal time and end power will be much more since power=average effective force over time not max force applied per rev. (All this is why top riders like Lance Armstrong famously found a high rev style more "efficient". This style places less load on individual muscles and more on the overall cardio system, which is very well developed and less of a limiter (and in his case it was ofc boosted to boot...))

If you want to improve then for most average riders time spent working on pedal technique will be time well spent. If you improve your technique then average cadence will most likely go up as a result as will your ability to sustain more power longer.

It did for me, after a long lay off I got back on my bike this summer and, more through good luck than good judgement, spent some time working on my pedalling. Despite spending only 3 months training in comparison to 3 years last time I was amazed to find I ended up producing significantly more power (+25W FTP). And with due modesty, my old figures/performances were already pretty damn good and my pedalling better than most. I expect the average rider using this forum will get at least as much if not more benefit.

An example of how cadence follows good technique is below. It is from a recent ride of mine over typical sportive type terrain, I wasn't thinking about cadence, just pedalling smoothly. The end result is far closer to a pro profile.



I appreciate others may disagree. But with due respect they may not be typical. Oldwelshman for example, you have spent a lot of time on the track which is a great way to develop pedal skill. But your experience is not necessarily representative of many folks here.

It's not that you are wrong, your average speed will ofc go up as you get fitter and stronger. It did for me when I was training last time. But it severely pisses me off that it would have gone up even more if I had sorted out my pedalling back then, so all the training I did would have resulted in even better results.

Herbsman

Do you not think the difference in cadence distribution between the pro and amateur is not just a matter of the pro having higher average cadence but a matter of being much fitter therefore being able to pedal faster in a bigger gear than the amateur?

sub55

Cadence is a red herring!

You'll go better pedaling at a rate that is comfortable to you , if you want to change gear , press the button .
With time and experience it will probably rise slightly . What the actual rpm is does not matter.

dw300

Pros never stop for cake or have to negotiate traffic lights.

bahzob

dw300 wrote:

Pros never stop for cake or have to negotiate traffic lights.

Nor did I in any of the graphs. And if I had it would only make a marginal difference to them. The first col is so high because its 0 revs.

bahzob

Herbsman wrote:

Do you not think the difference in cadence distribution between the pro and amateur is not just a matter of the pro having higher average cadence but a matter of being much fitter therefore being able to pedal faster in a bigger gear than the amateur?

I think the point you are making is that a pro can turn over a 53x11 at 95rpm while an amateur can only turn it over at, say 50rpm?

Yes that's the case. But that doesn't alter the fact that turning too big a gear at too low revs is the wrong way to pedal. Or that being "fitter" is not just a question of your VO2. It also means your muscles work in the best possible way to deliver force in a manner that maximises output and minimises fatigue.

So the point is you shouldn't have a gear on your bike that you can't turn over at 75+rpm. Having them may mean you have the same gear as the pros but not that you can ride like them.

bahzob

sub55 wrote:

Cadence is a red herring!

You'll go better pedaling at a rate that is comfortable to you , if you want to change gear , press the button .
With time and experience it will probably rise slightly . What the actual rpm is does not matter.

This statement is incompatible with the reality that elite riders all pedal at a noticeably higher cadence and smoother style than most non-elite riders.

It also makes the assumption that what is "comfortable" is always best. It's not, often it just means you have got used to bad habits.

As I originally said this does not mean you just need to pedal quicker to get better. If you work on your technique you will apply force more evenly/smoothly through a larger proportion of each revolution.

This results in higher power and less fatigue.

Higher cadence follows pretty much as a natural outcome of this.

sub55

bahzob wrote:

sub55 wrote:

Cadence is a red herring!

You'll go better pedaling at a rate that is comfortable to you , if you want to change gear , press the button .
With time and experience it will probably rise slightly . What the actual rpm is does not matter.

This statement is incompatible with the reality that elite riders all pedal at a noticeably higher cadence and smoother style than most non-elite riders.

I have to disagree with you , your statement implies that there is a step difference between the elites and everybody else. This is simply not true. Its a common knowledge that a novice rider has a tendency to a slower cadence than an experienced rider. But once you get up to a particular standard , there's no difference there.
I competed as a first cat road man and have competed against elites , so are you telling me i have lost a race because my cadence was 10 rpm slower than the elite. I don't think so, there is no step change.
In answer to the original post , if you want to go faster you need to stress your cadio vascular system through hard work. Everything else will follow from that. End off.

Herbsman

bahzob wrote:

Herbsman wrote:

Do you not think the difference in cadence distribution between the pro and amateur is not just a matter of the pro having higher average cadence but a matter of being much fitter therefore being able to pedal faster in a bigger gear than the amateur?

I think the point you are making is that a pro can turn over a 53x11 at 95rpm while an amateur can only turn it over at, say 50rpm?

Yes that's the case. But that doesn't alter the fact that turning too big a gear at too low revs is the wrong way to pedal. Or that being "fitter" is not just a question of your VO2. It also means your muscles work in the best possible way to deliver force in a manner that maximises output and minimises fatigue.

So the point is you shouldn't have a gear on your bike that you can't turn over at 75+rpm. Having them may mean you have the same gear as the pros but not that you can ride like them.

No, the point is that the difference in cadence distribution is a result of being a more capable rider, not the other way around.

dw300

http://app.strava.com/rides/23591881 - 1h 53m - 89rpm avg

http://app.strava.com/rides/22904652 - 1h 58m - 89rpm avg

http://app.strava.com/rides/22173518 - 2h 33m - 91rpm avg

http://app.strava.com/rides/21835866 - 1h 34m - 87rpm avg

http://app.strava.com/rides/21752198 - 1h 58 - 87rpm avg

My outdoor rides for the last month, I'm averaging about 88-89rpm ..

Am I a pro - no.
Does high RPM give me more endurance - yes.
Does high RPM give me the power of a pro - no.

So the difference between me and a pro is not the cadence, it's the torque their legs produce, and that they can turn a bigger gear than me. That's down to leg strength and cardio-vascular system.

SBezza

I would forget about comparing our cadence to that of a pro, hell even they have a great variability in cadence. They use the same gears as us in the main (if you have a standard crank set), yet have a great deal more power (hence why they are pro's), they can turn a bigger gear faster due to this extra power they can produce.

Ride at a cadence that is comfortable for you, and don't worry about what others ride at. FWIW I can quite happily do turbo sessions at over 100 rpm and produce the power, but on a road I am alot more comfortable around the 85-90 mark, I have a similar cadence independant of my gears (TT bike is standard, road bikes are compact).

Now I wouldn't suggest riding at 50 rpm, as it is probably not ideal at all, but don't try and get to the high 90's just because the pro's do it.

Pedalling faster in the same gear is faster if you can sustain it, but to do this would mean getting fitter and more powerful

Tom Dean

bahzob wrote:

This results in higher power and less fatigue.

Evidence please.

Trev The Rev

Wiggins claimed recently he reduced cadence for more power in TTs this year. Armstrong increased cadence to shift stress from the muscles to the cardiovascular system to reduce muscular fatigue.
Ulrich tried increasing his cadence but found it did not work for him
Not sure cadence is a red herring but cadence is a personal thing which depends on muscle type, build, fitness levels.

bahzob

The above make a number of similar errors. I won't bother to answer all individually:

- I said several times: increasing your cadence does not by itself generate more power. What does achieve this is learning to pedal better, higher cadence will most likely follow as a result of this.
- There is a step difference between elite riders and average ones. If cadence was just a "personal" thing or didn't matter that would not be the case. That is not saying you have to be a pro to pedal well and a first cat rider is likely, by definition, to be better than average. Within any population there will be some who are naturally good at some things, including pedalling. And some types of training, especially track riding, will help develop this skill. But it's just foolish to say that the average rider pedals like a pro, especially when under the cosh. Take a look at the final climb up any etape. They style of 99% these riders bares no resemblance to top riders when under an equivalent level of pressure.
- Pros will fine tune their cadences true. However they are still in a different league. Ullrich is textbook example, many average riders no doubt assume they pedal just like him. They don't, take a look at this, the mere fact is is regarded as a "grinder" sort of proves my point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpPWTaE-0gM
He is riding at his absolute limit you can be sure. You can be equally sure no average cyclists will look anything like as smooth when at their limit.
- The notion that how much power you can produce is purely down to "leg strength" is simplistic. It skates over the complicating factor that "leg strength" results from a large number of muscles. "Strength" comes from utilising all of these in the best manner which involves a skill factor in terms of using all in a balanced and co-ordinating way. That skill can be trained and improved.


- Again. The reason why pedalling better generates more power and less fatigue is not hard to understand. Its a combination of how you use your muscles and which muscles you use:

How you use your muscles:
>> The average force per rev to produce the same amount of power is less if you pedal well with a higher cadence (that is basic physics). This puts less stress on the individual leg muscles, transferring it to the cardio system which is less of a limiting factor once you attain a reasonable level of fitness.
>> The force generated each revolution is more even. A bad style has irregular force each rev with peak forces significantly greater and these by themselves rapidly lead to fatigue. This is made worse if timing of the application of this peak force is poor (chances of which become increasingly likely as you get more fatigued). Riding in the real world can also have an impact. Sudden shifts in terrain/pace can push the peak force requirement beyond what the rider is capable of resulting in very rapid failure.
>>> It's the same as doing 2 training sessions, one steady state, the other short all out intervals with long rest. If both have the same average power the second will leave you significantly more fatigued and tired the next day because its more stressful.

What muscles you use:
- A bad style is typically quad heavy, with 2 noticeable big pushes generating a big force spike each rev and loss of momentum as the pedals go through the dead spot. Force will typically only be applied around 50-55% of a revolution. Other muscles which could assist the stroke are pretty passive.
- These muscles can assist the stroke, most especially maintaining momentum through the dead spot. One effect is that force is applied for a greater portion of each rev (65-70%). This by itself leads to a bit more power since the muscles can generate some (and some is better than nothing). But the main benefit is to keep up momentum so that the big muscles like the quad can generate more overall force.

I continue to find it baffling that people think everyone who rides a bike is doing so in the best possible way and cannot learn to do it any better. As I have said it reminds me of the days a while back when I was posting here about how training with power was better than any other method. People disagreed with that and were wrong as time and British Cycling have shown. So I guess the message is that while pedalling, like power is capable of being trained a closed mind isn't.

Trev The Rev

Don't think I disagree with anything you have said bahzob.

Tom Dean

Trev The Rev wrote:

Don't think I disagree with anything you have said bahzob.

What more endorsement do you need

Trev The Rev

Tom Dean wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

Don't think I disagree with anything you have said bahzob.

What more endorsement do you need

People have been known to question their judgement when I agree with them. Best I re read what he said and come up with something I don't agree with.

No can't find anything. Good point about Ullrich.

I find that as cadence increases stroke efficiency increases. That graph on a Wattbike illustrates that well. Isn't this efficiency why in the old days training through winter on a small fixed gear was recommended?

EssexCyclist

bahzob - what program are you using to get the cadence distribution graphs?

I am of the opinion that everyone can achieve 80% of their potential with relative ease, however beyond that takes a great concentrated effort. Anyone who skips over cadence as just a 'result' of a ride, a recorded figure, is inhibiting their own development.

Very good debate, and one I thoroughly enjoyed reading :-)

Tom Dean

Trev The Rev wrote:

I find that as cadence increases stroke efficiency increases.

Can you explain what you mean by stroke efficiency and how you have come to this conclusion?

Tom Dean

bahzob wrote:

The above make a number of similar errors. I won't bother to answer all individually

I'm sure my question didn't contain any errors, maybe you missed it.

Tom Dean wrote:

bahzob wrote:

This results in higher power and less fatigue.

Evidence please.

I won't bother to address all your individual points. Please show some evidence.

paul2718

what program are you using to get the cadence distribution graphs?

Golden Cheetah can generate this type of plot.

Paul

Trev The Rev

Tom Dean wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

I find that as cadence increases stroke efficiency increases.

Can you explain what you mean by stroke efficiency and how you have come to this conclusion?

Tom,

From tests on a Wattbike.

As cadence increased stroke efficiency improved as shown by the graph on the display.
By efficiency I mean force being exerted through more of the pedal stroke as opposed to only on a short part of the down stroke.

I can't speak for how Wattbike calculates this, or if when the Wattbike shows what in their opinion is a good pedaling style, it does indeed produce more power than a choppy stroke.

I can tell you that my stroke was very good, according to the Wattbike people, when up nearer or over 90 rpm.

I am primarily interested in how to produce the highest sustainable power. I am not interested in style for styles sake.

Trev.

Tom Dean

ok so back to the question I keep asking bahzob: is there any evidence that pedalling 'smoothness' has any bearing on sustainable power?

Trev The Rev

Tom Dean wrote:

ok so back to the question I keep asking bahzob: is there any evidence that pedalling 'smoothness' has any bearing on sustainable power?

Not that I am aware of.

It all sounds logical, but how much force can you generate pushing over the top or scraping back at the bottom? Would using these various muscles burn more fuel than an up and down piston like style? Would any increase in power be sustainable, or would it be less sustainable.

Dr Coggan has done some work which proved there is no increase in power if you use clipless pedals, toe clips & straps or ordinary shoes on flat pedals. You would have thought seeing as you can only push down and hold your foot in place on flat pedals you would produce less power but you don't - not in Dr Coggan's test anyway.

http://wustl.academia.edu/AndrewRCoggan ... _2622-2630

See the bit headed - Responses while cycling with and without toe clips and shoe cleats. You would have thought ordinary shoes on flat pedals would produce less power seeing as you can't push over the top and scrape back at the bottom. For all the vast expense marketing clipless pedaling systems there is not a shred of evidence these systems are more efficient for sustainable power. Obviously it helps if you can pull up doing a track start or a hill climb, but for sustained power in a time trial for example, they do not increase power.

Tom Dean

Trev The Rev wrote:

It all sounds logical, but how much force can you generate pushing over the top or scraping back at the bottom? Would using these various muscles burn more fuel than an up and down piston like style? Would any increase in power be sustainable, or would it be less sustainable.

Precisely. The fact the muscles can be used in a different way does not imply there is extra power available, or that force applied in a different part of the cycle comes at lower physiological 'cost'.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Trev The Rev wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

ok so back to the question I keep asking bahzob: is there any evidence that pedalling 'smoothness' has any bearing on sustainable power?

Not that I am aware of.

It all sounds logical, but how much force can you generate pushing over the top or scraping back at the bottom? Would using these various muscles burn more fuel than an up and down piston like style? Would any increase in power be sustainable, or would it be less sustainable.

Dr Coggan has done some work which proved there is no increase in power if you use clipless pedals, toe clips & straps or ordinary shoes on flat pedals. You would have thought seeing as you can only push down and hold your foot in place on flat pedals you would produce less power but you don't - not in Dr Coggan's test anyway.

http://wustl.academia.edu/AndrewRCoggan ... _2622-2630

See the bit headed - Responses while cycling with and without toe clips and shoe cleats. You would have thought ordinary shoes on flat pedals would produce less power seeing as you can't push over the top and scrape back at the bottom. For all the vast expense marketing clipless pedaling systems there is not a shred of evidence these systems are more efficient for sustainable power. Obviously it helps if you can pull up doing a track start or a hill climb, but for sustained power in a time trial for example, they do not increase power.

Indeed. The primary advantage of being clipped into a pedal is being able to maintain the same position on the pedal no matter what you are doing. Others have done MAP tests both with and without being clipped in with no significant difference in power generation.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Tom Dean wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

I find that as cadence increases stroke efficiency increases.

Can you explain what you mean by stroke efficiency and how you have come to this conclusion?

Efficiency is a measure of energy output as a ratio of energy input. In the context of cycling performance and physiology/biomechamics, we define it as energy output (power at cranks/wheels) as a proportion of energy input (rate of energy metabolism). There's a little more to it than that, but that is sufficient for the purposes of a forum discussion.

Since peak force to average force is not a measurement of either energy nor output and input, calling it "efficiency" is a complete misnomer and totally misleading. It falsely leads one down the path that a higher "efficiency" is better.

There is no evidence to suggest that a lowering of this ratio (peak force to average force) results in either improved efficiency (real efficiency that is) nor improved power output.

Indeed the only evidence we do have shows quite the opposite, which when you consider the muscles involved are inherently less efficient than the major muscles used when cycling, it's not surprising.

As for cadence, don't overcomplicate it.

Focus on effort level and choose a gear that's appropriate. Provided cadence is not silly fast or slow, there is no great issue. In certain specific circumstances, one does need to learn to pedal faster or have a wider band of cadence they are comfortable with (e.g. track racing or dealing with very steep hills - although I would suggest the latter be fixed with appropriate gearing). As fitness improves and a rider progresses from doing "exercise" to something approaching "racing", their power will improve and their naturally preferred cadence will rise.

Pro riders do not, on average, pedal any faster than club/amateur level racers, and nor do pro riders, on average, have efficiency levels higher than club/amateur level racers. What pro riders do is pedal with high power outputs.

As has been said, cadence (per se) is a red herring. You cannot discuss cadence alone as a performance issue, since it is a dependent variable.

Trev The Rev

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Efficiency is a measure of energy output as a ratio of energy input. In the context of cycling performance and physiology/biomechamics, we define it as energy output (power at cranks/wheels) as a proportion of energy input (rate of energy metabolism). There's a little more to it than that, but that is sufficient for the purposes of a forum discussion.

Since peak force to average force is not a measurement of either energy nor output and input, calling it "efficiency" is a complete misnomer and totally misleading. It falsely leads one down the path that a higher "efficiency" is better.

There is no evidence to suggest that a lowering of this ratio (peak force to average force) results in either improved efficiency (real efficiency that is) nor improved power output.

Indeed the only evidence we do have shows quite the opposite, which when you consider the muscles involved are inherently less efficient than the major muscles used when cycling, it's not surprising.

As for cadence, don't overcomplicate it.

Focus on effort level and choose a gear that's appropriate. Provided cadence is not silly fast or slow, there is no great issue. In certain specific circumstances, one does need to learn to pedal faster or have a wider band of cadence they are comfortable with (e.g. track racing or dealing with very steep hills - although I would suggest the latter be fixed with appropriate gearing). As fitness improves and a rider progresses from doing "exercise" to something approaching "racing", their power will improve and their naturally preferred cadence will rise.

Pro riders do not, on average, pedal any faster than club/amateur level racers, and nor do pro riders, on average, have efficiency levels higher than club/amateur level racers. What pro riders do is pedal with high power outputs.

As has been said, cadence (per se) is a red herring. You cannot discuss cadence alone as a performance issue, since it is a dependent variable.

Alex,

Obviously pros have higher power outputs and that is not because they have a higher cadence it is a combination of force & cadence. However if you watch a pro race you will see that they spend a great deal of time at a higher rpm than your average UK time trialler. I don't think cadence is a red herring. As I said earlier Wiggins claims he worked on lowering his cadence and increasing force for greater power output in TTs this year. We all know how Armstrong worked on increasing his cadence & power. We also know a sprinter like Cavendish will work on riding to a fast cadence to get himself over the mountains and still have a sprint at the finish. All that said, Ullrich as shown earlier, an alleged grinder, still climbed at 85 to 90 rpm.

I don't agree cadence is a red herring, if it were, why would Wiggins or Armstrong look at it and work on it? But I agree cadence on its own without looking at the force and thus the power is pointless. I think to just look at power output without looking at force x cadence would be a mistake. Power is the result of force x cadence so only looking at the result (power) without looking at how the power was achieved would be a mistake. A bit like looking at speed alone without looking at how it was achieved - you need to look at power, aerodynamics and weight.

So yes cadence alone is a red herring, just as force alone is a red herring. The result of the two, power, is what is important, but you need to look at cadence & force to see how the power is produced.

I assume we agree?

Trev.

PS. When I used to word ' efficiency ' I was referring to even power throughout the pedal stroke. When I did tests on a Wattbike there is a diagram which shows this, the idea being to get the diagram round thus indicating good force for more of the stroke. This tended to happen naturally as cadence increased (with me anyway). I have always thought trying to pedal, as Obree for instance advocates, and trying to achieve this is a waste of time, seeing as I have a good stroke once up to my normal rpm. What are your thoughts on this?

I also had a left right imbalance which showed up on Garmin Vector, Look Keo Power and Wattbike, again I was 50/50 once cadence was up over 85rpm.