Using Caedence meter to go faster?

2»

Comments

  • Alex_Simmons/RST
    Alex_Simmons/RST Posts: 4,161
    Trev The Rev wrote:
    Power is the result of force x cadence
    This is how we measure power, not how we generate it.
    RST Sport : Coaching - Training Plans - Powermeters -- My blog -- AeroCoach Australia
  • Trev The Rev
    Trev The Rev Posts: 1,040
    Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
    Trev The Rev wrote:
    Power is the result of force x cadence
    This is how we measure power, not how we generate it.

    Well we generate power by pressing on the pedals (force), slowly or faster (cadence). Not sure I understand your point.
  • Trev The Rev
    Trev The Rev Posts: 1,040
    Trev The Rev wrote:
    Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
    Trev The Rev wrote:
    Power is the result of force x cadence
    This is how we measure power, not how we generate it.

    Well we generate power by pressing on the pedals (force), slowly or faster (cadence). Not sure I understand your point.

    Here is what Wiggins said recently. Not sure he expresses himself clearly but he has been working on lowering his cadence.

    Quote:If I'm unbeaten in long time trials this year, that's because we've put a lot of thought into it. We worked a lot on cadence this winter. After Tony Martin won the world championship last year, my physiologist Tim Kerrison went away and looked at the figures; I still lost a minute and 20sec, which was high given the power I averaged. To keep my usual high cadence and go faster than Tony, I'd have had to average a power output that would have been mind blowing. So something else had to change.

    Tim studied it over the winter and decided maybe it was the cadence which was the problem. They worked out Tony's rpm compared to mine and something to do with rolling resistance and with the gears. Tim and I then started working a lot on torque because I've always had good cadence coming off the track, and good power production. What we tried to do was keep the power production and bring the cadence right down, then see how it worked respiratory wise, so we started doing a lot of low cadence work on climbs for those powers – torque work we call it. So at the Tour, in the time trials I was making what I call a Jan Ullrich-esque effort – powering the gear a lot rather than spinning along, and that forward momentum for the same power has helped me go a bit further. It's made me stronger, too.End Quote
  • dw300
    dw300 Posts: 1,642
    You can only compare cadence when looking at riders pushing the same or very similar gears, ie. you might out-power someone who is riding a bigger gear, by using 10-15rpm higher cadence. But if you're a climber with little short legs, and can't push a big gear like Wiggins or Cancellara then riding at 180rpm is not going to help you compete with them .. well, it might, but it wouldn't be physically possible.

    If everyone was made to ride the same gearing, then the guys with fastest cadence would win, but that's because they have the strongest legs and the best cardiovascular fitness. The cadence is simply a result of these things. Working on your cadence (or pedalling technique) is futile unless you are also training to push bigger gears than you previous could. In fact, in my opinion, if pedalling technique does make a difference at all, it's at lower cadences. At high cadence there's so much inertia in your legs that it's very hard to pedal nicely.

    Your physiology probably determines whether your cadence is slightly higher or slightly lower than average .. the last few rpm. When you look at guys of similar power performance, physiological factors like leg length and strength could explain the preference of small differences such as a gear lower and higher cadence, or a gear higher and lower cadence.

    Personally, and speaking as someone with a high cadence anyway, i think that you can try and increase your cadence till you're blue (or red) in the face, but at some stage you're going to have to change gear and work on generating more torque for ultimate speed.
    All the above is just advice .. you can do whatever the f*ck you wana do!
    Bike Radar Strava Club
    The Northern Ireland Thread
  • Trev The Rev
    Trev The Rev Posts: 1,040
    dw300 wrote:
    You can only compare cadence when looking at riders pushing the same or very similar gears, ie. you might out-power someone who is riding a bigger gear, by using 10-15rpm higher cadence. But if you're a climber with little short legs, and can't push a big gear like Wiggins or Cancellara then riding at 180rpm is not going to help you compete with them .. well, it might, but it wouldn't be physically possible.

    If everyone was made to ride the same gearing, then the guys with fastest cadence would win, but that's because they have the strongest legs and the best cardiovascular fitness. The cadence is simply a result of these things. Working on your cadence (or pedalling technique) is futile unless you are also training to push bigger gears than you previous could. In fact, in my opinion, if pedalling technique does make a difference at all, it's at lower cadences. At high cadence there's so much inertia in your legs that it's very hard to pedal nicely.

    Your physiology probably determines whether your cadence is slightly higher or slightly lower than average .. the last few rpm. When you look at guys of similar power performance, physiological factors like leg length and strength could explain the preference of small differences such as a gear lower and higher cadence, or a gear higher and lower cadence.

    Personally, and speaking as someone with a high cadence anyway, i think that you can try and increase your cadence till you're blue (or red) in the face, but at some stage you're going to have to change gear and work on generating more torque for ultimate speed.

    I assume you mean inertia in the context of momentum?

    One of the advantages on training on fixed or single speed is you are forced to train at both extremes, you have no choice but to pedal faster or with more force depending on terrain.

    I have a theory that variable cadence - alternating between a high and low cadence, enables you to average a higher sustainable power than riding only in a narrow range of cadence. But this seems to be an heretical idea.
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    You also agreed with bahzob's theory that higher cadence is better and your Wiggins example suggests there is an ideal cadence in a given situation (if only we each had a team of professionals to analyse our data and find out what it is). Where did anyone say you need to stay within a narrow range?
  • amaferanga
    amaferanga Posts: 6,789
    Trev The Rev wrote:
    Trev The Rev wrote:
    Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
    Trev The Rev wrote:
    Power is the result of force x cadence
    This is how we measure power, not how we generate it.

    Well we generate power by pressing on the pedals (force), slowly or faster (cadence). Not sure I understand your point.

    Here is what Wiggins said recently. Not sure he expresses himself clearly but he has been working on lowering his cadence.

    Quote:If I'm unbeaten in long time trials this year, that's because we've put a lot of thought into it. We worked a lot on cadence this winter. After Tony Martin won the world championship last year, my physiologist Tim Kerrison went away and looked at the figures; I still lost a minute and 20sec, which was high given the power I averaged. To keep my usual high cadence and go faster than Tony, I'd have had to average a power output that would have been mind blowing. So something else had to change.

    Tim studied it over the winter and decided maybe it was the cadence which was the problem. They worked out Tony's rpm compared to mine and something to do with rolling resistance and with the gears. Tim and I then started working a lot on torque because I've always had good cadence coming off the track, and good power production. What we tried to do was keep the power production and bring the cadence right down, then see how it worked respiratory wise, so we started doing a lot of low cadence work on climbs for those powers – torque work we call it. So at the Tour, in the time trials I was making what I call a Jan Ullrich-esque effort – powering the gear a lot rather than spinning along, and that forward momentum for the same power has helped me go a bit further. It's made me stronger, too.End Quote

    That makes no sense. He's saying that he went faster with the same power output? How the heck would that work?

    What Wiggins (or any cyclist for that matter) says he does and what he actually does are often very different. Wiggins is good at riding a bike - he's not a scientist so it's quite possible he doesn't really understand what it is he's doing in his training and that quote above his just is misunderstanding of it.
    More problems but still living....
  • Trev The Rev
    Trev The Rev Posts: 1,040
    As I said he does not express himself clearly, in fact what he says makes it clear he does not really understand what his coach was working on which was I assume, lowering his cadence slightly but increasing the force (bigger gear) so he increased power which he could sustain by shifting the emphasis a little from the cardiovascular system (in Wiggin's words respiratory wise) to the muscles. Perhaps his coach found he was running out of breath with too high a cadence?

    Fact is Wiggins claims his coach was looking at cadence, force & power so his coach does not believe cadence is a red herring.

    However, Wiggins might have been saying all that tongue in cheek, as a wind up, something many cyclists, particularly time triallists, are not very good at detecting.
  • Alex_Simmons/RST
    Alex_Simmons/RST Posts: 4,161
    Coaches often use ruses (such as "magical" interval sessions or special "cadence" work) to get cyclists to keep on training hard when their mental desire is fading.

    Some coaches believe the BS, so don't perceive it as a ruse. Others know it's BS but also know psychology and what motivates their athletes (or they learn that with experience), and so use all sort of ways and tricks to keep them doing the work.

    Providing some variety in training is a normal way to help keep motivation high. The nature of that variety can take many forms.
    RST Sport : Coaching - Training Plans - Powermeters -- My blog -- AeroCoach Australia
  • Trev The Rev
    Trev The Rev Posts: 1,040
    Ferrari is disgraced, but perhaps he knew it was all BS and was only tricking Armstrong into working on his cadence to relieve boredom.

    When the Armstrong high cadence 'fad' was all the rage several years ago I argued that perhaps the high cadence style worked particularly well with EPO.

    http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=15

    As you believe cadence to be a red herring would you agree a variable cadence alternating between high and low is more or less effective in producing sustainable power than maintaining a narrow band of cadence? Or being an irrelevant red herring, would any old cadence do as long as it is producing the required power?

    To quote Mr Ferrari:
    Moreover, in terms of equal power output supplied by the cyclist, a cadence of 60 RPM requires a 34% more of applied force to each push on the pedals, compared to a cadence of 90 RPM. This means a heavier load for muscles, tendons and lower limbs-lumbar joints. End Quote.

    Do you agree a faster cadence is less stressful on muscle fibre, tendons and joints for a given power? Or was all this from Ferrari just a cover for Armstrong's increased power due to EPO, testosterone, human growth hormone, and blood transfusions?
  • Alex_Simmons/RST
    Alex_Simmons/RST Posts: 4,161
    Trev The Rev wrote:
    Do you agree a faster cadence is less stressful on muscle fibre, tendons and joints for a given power?
    Not really. The forces might be lower, but to maintain a given power you are applying them more often and with reduced efficiency.

    But let's for the moment assume it is the case. Then why don't we all pedal at 180rpm? According to this fallacious logic, that would be half as stressful on muscle fibre, tendons and joints for a given power. I'll guarantee you'll have problems if you attempted to do all your pedalling at 180 rpm.

    The primary "strain" on a cyclist is metabolic and the forces are really quite low. Once that's understood, then much of the discussion fades into insignificance. No one is suggested we pedal at 55rpm or 155rpm. Provided you are not pedalling stupidly fast or slow and considering the specific circumstances, then all one really needs be concerned with is effort level and choosing an appropriate gear.

    Most of the problems you describe comes from poor bike fit and/or attempting to do more training than one is ready for (either acutely or chronically).

    As for Ferrari, the sooner people like him are rubbed out of the sport the better. Unfortunately he still operates and is still permitted to sell his coaching services, which I consider to be an absolute disgrace.
    RST Sport : Coaching - Training Plans - Powermeters -- My blog -- AeroCoach Australia
  • Trev The Rev
    Trev The Rev Posts: 1,040
    Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
    Trev The Rev wrote:
    Do you agree a faster cadence is less stressful on muscle fibre, tendons and joints for a given power?
    Not really. The forces might be lower, but to maintain a given power you are applying them more often and with reduced efficiency.

    But let's for the moment assume it is the case. Then why don't we all pedal at 180rpm? According to this fallacious logic, that would be half as stressful on muscle fibre, tendons and joints for a given power. I'll guarantee you'll have problems if you attempted to do all your pedalling at 180 rpm.

    The primary "strain" on a cyclist is metabolic and the forces are really quite low. Once that's understood, then much of the discussion fades into insignificance. No one is suggested we pedal at 55rpm or 155rpm. Provided you are not pedalling stupidly fast or slow and considering the specific circumstances, then all one really needs be concerned with is effort level and choosing an appropriate gear.

    Most of the problems you describe comes from poor bike fit and/or attempting to do more training than one is ready for (either acutely or chronically).

    As for Ferrari, the sooner people like him are rubbed out of the sport the better. Unfortunately he still operates and is still permitted to sell his coaching services, which I consider to be an absolute disgrace.

    Alex,

    I think broadly we agree, no one is suggesting an rpm of 55, 155 or 185. I see your point of view.

    In your opinion is there any difference in 300 watts at 80 rpm compared to 300 watts at 100 rpm in the way the body is stressed? Does the higher rpm put more stress on the cardiovascular system?

    I agree 100% with your comments about Ferrari.

    Trev
  • oldwelshman
    oldwelshman Posts: 4,733
    On the road my cadence is about 80 to 90, on the track much higher, not through choice.
    My HR is always 10 to 16 higher on th etrack and I average higher HR on th etrack than I have ever on the road.
    http://s290.photobucket.com/albums/ll245/oldwelshman/
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK5Bfqj5fxY
  • Alex_Simmons/RST
    Alex_Simmons/RST Posts: 4,161
    Trev The Rev wrote:
    In your opinion is there any difference in 300 watts at 80 rpm compared to 300 watts at 100 rpm in the way the body is stressed? Does the higher rpm put more stress on the cardiovascular system?
    The question is not possible to answer with anything other than generalities.

    Since in general the higher cadence is less efficient, then the higher cadence will result in the CV system working harder. But efficiency is rarely a consideration at play in cycling events (except perhaps for ultra endurance events), it's effectiveness that matters.

    Let's turn this around.

    Why don't people talk about riding within a certain torque range? Or learning to ride at a particular torque that's higher/lower than they do now?

    Yet such questions are as equally (in)valid as ones about cadence.

    It's because cadence is easy to measure, and hence has always had a disproportionate amount of attention paid to it.
    RST Sport : Coaching - Training Plans - Powermeters -- My blog -- AeroCoach Australia
  • Alex_Simmons/RST
    Alex_Simmons/RST Posts: 4,161
    oldwelshman wrote:
    On the road my cadence is about 80 to 90, on the track much higher, not through choice.
    My HR is always 10 to 16 higher on th etrack and I average higher HR on th etrack than I have ever on the road.
    You have a choice of what gear you put on the bike. It just may not be as effective.
    RST Sport : Coaching - Training Plans - Powermeters -- My blog -- AeroCoach Australia
  • Trev The Rev
    Trev The Rev Posts: 1,040
    Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
    Trev The Rev wrote:
    In your opinion is there any difference in 300 watts at 80 rpm compared to 300 watts at 100 rpm in the way the body is stressed? Does the higher rpm put more stress on the cardiovascular system?
    The question is not possible to answer with anything other than generalities.

    Since in general the higher cadence is less efficient, then the higher cadence will result in the CV system working harder. But efficiency is rarely a consideration at play in cycling events (except perhaps for ultra endurance events), it's effectiveness that matters.

    Let's turn this around.

    Why don't people talk about riding within a certain torque range? Or learning to ride at a particular torque that's higher/lower than they do now?

    Yet such questions are as equally (in)valid as ones about cadence.

    It's because cadence is easy to measure, and hence has always had a disproportionate amount of attention paid to it.

    Yes agreed. Perhaps too much attention is paid to cadence because it is easy to measure. You are right the only reason we don't talk about force or torque is because we don't measure it (other than as part of a power calculation).
    Now we can measure power we talk about power - but if cadence is of no importance, you could argue gear selection is of no importance, seeing as power is all that matters and cadence is a red herring, and just ride fixed. Said with tongue slightly in cheek with a big smile.

    But we do use gears in order to find a 'comfortable' cadence.

    I'm interested in how best to produce the power so I am interested in torque/force and cadence and how, when and what allows you to produce more or less power for a given time.

    We agree entirely that power is the best thing to measure. I also think that within reason any cadence will allow good power which is why so many people can produce good power and speed on fixed even on undulating terrain. I even think there may be advantages in using a wider cadence range rather than a very narrow band.

    But at the end of the day it is the power you produce that matters.

    Thanks for your time Alex.

    Trev.
  • sub55
    sub55 Posts: 1,025
    oldwelshman wrote:
    On the road my cadence is about 80 to 90, on the track much higher, not through choice.
    My HR is always 10 to 16 higher on th etrack and I average higher HR on th etrack than I have ever on the road.

    Sadly i dont get to use my track bike very often , but when i do i invariably end up with a higher cadence .
    However it has shorter cranks and although ive never calculated it out , i suspect my foot speed is pretty much the same .
    constantly reavalueating the situation and altering the perceived parameters accordingly
  • sub55
    sub55 Posts: 1,025
    Trev The Rev wrote:
    Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
    Trev The Rev wrote:
    In your opinion is there any difference in 300 watts at 80 rpm compared to 300 watts at 100 rpm in the way the body is stressed? Does the higher rpm put more stress on the cardiovascular system?
    The question is not possible to answer with anything other than generalities.

    Since in general the higher cadence is less efficient, then the higher cadence will result in the CV system working harder. But efficiency is rarely a consideration at play in cycling events (except perhaps for ultra endurance events), it's effectiveness that matters.

    Let's turn this around.

    Why don't people talk about riding within a certain torque range? Or learning to ride at a particular torque that's higher/lower than they do now?

    Yet such questions are as equally (in)valid as ones about cadence.

    It's because cadence is easy to measure, and hence has always had a disproportionate amount of attention paid to it.

    Yes agreed. Perhaps too much attention is paid to cadence because it is easy to measure. You are right the only reason we don't talk about force or torque is because we don't measure it (other than as part of a power calculation).
    Now we can measure power we talk about power - but if cadence is of no importance, you could argue gear selection is of no importance, seeing as power is all that matters and cadence is a red herring, and just ride fixed. Said with tongue slightly in cheek with a big smile.

    But we do use gears in order to find a 'comfortable' cadence.

    I'm interested in how best to produce the power so I am interested in torque/force and cadence and how, when and what allows you to produce more or less power for a given time.

    We agree entirely that power is the best thing to measure. I also think that within reason any cadence will allow good power which is why so many people can produce good power and speed on fixed even on undulating terrain. I even think there may be advantages in using a wider cadence range rather than a very narrow band.

    But at the end of the day it is the power you produce that matters.Thanks for your time Alex.

    Trev.


    no it's not. :mrgreen: it's the power you can sustain for the required period of time that matters
    constantly reavalueating the situation and altering the perceived parameters accordingly
  • Trev The Rev
    Trev The Rev Posts: 1,040
    But at the end of the day it is the power you produce that matters. Agreed.

    And how much or how little a given sustained power takes out of you.

Categories