Optimal cadence

Trev The Rev

Is there an optimal cadence?

There is no set optimal cadence - everyone is different so it is rider specific, but does this perceived 'optimal' cadence enable a rider to produce their best possible power over a given distance or time? Would a looser less narrow more variable cadence range allow more average power?

Many riders find they can maintain more power outdoors than they can indoors on a turbo. One reason this might be is that outdoors it is impossible to hold your optimal or chosen cadence due to wind & undulations etc. Is the more variable cadence you are forced to use outdoors more effective than the more set cadence used on a turbo?

By constantly shifting cadence over & below what one perceives as the optimal cadence the rider can possibly average a greater power. This may be due to a slight shift in the emphasis of the systems used and or shifts in the muscle fiber use or even very slight changes in position.

It is also possible that there are micro rests outdoors which enable some riders to average more power.

amaferanga

Why not go discuss this on the Wattage list? There's already a discussion on cadence and I'm sure they'd welcome your views.

danowat

Trev The Rev wrote:

Is there an optimal cadence?

It is also possible that there are micro rests outdoors which enable some riders to average more power.

No.

&

Micro intervals like Michael Hutchinson?

GiantMike

Trev The Rev wrote:

Is there an optimal cadence?

Many riders find they can maintain more power outdoors than they can indoors on a turbo. One reason this might be is that outdoors it is impossible to hold your optimal or chosen cadence due to wind & undulations etc. Is the more variable cadence you are forced to use outdoors more effective than the more set cadence used on a turbo?

By constantly shifting cadence over & below what one perceives as the optimal cadence the rider can possibly average a greater power. This may be due to a slight shift in the emphasis of the systems used and or shifts in the muscle fiber use or even very slight changes in position.

It is also possible that there are micro rests outdoors which enable some riders to average more power.

Optimal for what? Power output? Surely, by definition, every variable has an optimal value or range? So, YES there is.

Maybe road riding provides a better (read different) resisting force to work against meaning the measured power is higher - can be resolved through experimentation.
Maybe the cooling effect outdoors is different outdoors and this affects power output - can be resolved through experimentation.
Maybe riders try harder on the road than on the turbo.
Maybe powermeters are so flawed as a training aid, and some people rely on them to the exclusion of all other measurements, that all powermeter measurements are actually meaningless.
Maybe the reported powermeter inaccuracies means a pm over-reads on the road and under-reads on the turbo - can be resolved through experimentation.

GiantMike

amaferanga wrote:

Why not go discuss this on the Wattage list? There's already a discussion on cadence and I'm sure they'd welcome your views.

There's no point responding to him; you're on his foe list. I think this is bypassed if I quote you though.

danowat

GiantMike wrote:

Optimal for what? Power output? Surely, by definition, every variable has an optimal value or range? So, YES there is.

Well, yes, however, there isn't a "catch all" optimum, and any "optimum" would be entirely individual, however, I think this optimum would change, as in my experiance, my optimum (or even prefered) cadence depends on conditions and fatigue, so no, I don't think there is a single optimum cadence.

Trev The Rev

GiantMike wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

Is there an optimal cadence?

Many riders find they can maintain more power outdoors than they can indoors on a turbo. One reason this might be is that outdoors it is impossible to hold your optimal or chosen cadence due to wind & undulations etc. Is the more variable cadence you are forced to use outdoors more effective than the more set cadence used on a turbo?

By constantly shifting cadence over & below what one perceives as the optimal cadence the rider can possibly average a greater power. This may be due to a slight shift in the emphasis of the systems used and or shifts in the muscle fiber use or even very slight changes in position.

It is also possible that there are micro rests outdoors which enable some riders to average more power.

Optimal for what? Power output? Surely, by definition, every variable has an optimal value or range? So, YES there is.

Maybe road riding provides a better (read different) resisting force to work against meaning the measured power is higher - can be resolved through experimentation. Possibley - inertia?
Maybe the cooling effect outdoors is different outdoors and this affects power output - can be resolved through experimentation. I think this is well known, one reason lab tests can be misleading.
Maybe riders try harder on the road than on the turbo. Or find the road more comfortable. Possible
Maybe powermeters are so flawed as a training aid, and some people rely on them to the exclusion of all other measurements, that all powermeter measurements are actually meaningless. Some people probably do rely on them too much but I wouldn't go that far.
Maybe the reported powermeter inaccuracies means a pm over-reads on the road and under-reads on the turbo - can be resolved through experimentation. Possible due to the way the power meter measures power but some people produce more power on a turbo than on the road

Tom Dean

Trev The Rev wrote:

By constantly shifting cadence over & below what one perceives as the optimal cadence the rider can possibly average a greater power. This may be due to a slight shift in the emphasis of the systems used and or shifts in the muscle fiber use or even very slight changes in position.

Will you provide some evidence for this, or just start another thread?

GiantMike

Trev The Rev wrote:

There is no set optimal cadence - everyone is different so it is rider specific, but does this perceived 'optimal' cadence enable a rider to produce their best possible power over a given distance or time? Would a looser less narrow more variable cadence range allow more average power?

How specific are you being with your term 'optimal cadence'? If I do a turbo session and my average cadence I get a steeply sided bell-curve around 80 but it's probably out to 70 and 90 too.

A cyclist on a turbo and a cyclist on the road face so many differences that trying to identify cadence as a factor is impossible.

I think this is another of your threads where you pass off an unanswerable question as a theory, get people to respond then say 'show me the evidence'. Like the one where you asked if there was any evidence so say that training with a pm was better than training without, at the end of which we all decided there was no evidence and then you stated that you thought pms were brilliant. Without any evidence.

Trev The Rev wrote:

Do not assume I do not agree with training with power. I am in fact very pro power meters, they are in my opinion the holy grail in training.

Is there an optimum seat angle? In there an optimum top tube length? Is there an optimum work-out? Is distilled water better than tap water?

Trev The Rev

Tom Dean wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

By constantly shifting cadence over & below what one perceives as the optimal cadence the rider can possibly average a greater power. This may be due to a slight shift in the emphasis of the systems used and or shifts in the muscle fiber use or even very slight changes in position.

Will you provide some evidence for this, or just start another thread?

I used the words 'can possibly' and 'this may' so no I won't but if you want to provide some evidence to the contrary I would read it.

Tom Butcher

GiantMike wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

Is there an optimal cadence?

Many riders find they can maintain more power outdoors than they can indoors on a turbo. One reason this might be is that outdoors it is impossible to hold your optimal or chosen cadence due to wind & undulations etc. Is the more variable cadence you are forced to use outdoors more effective than the more set cadence used on a turbo?

By constantly shifting cadence over & below what one perceives as the optimal cadence the rider can possibly average a greater power. This may be due to a slight shift in the emphasis of the systems used and or shifts in the muscle fiber use or even very slight changes in position.

It is also possible that there are micro rests outdoors which enable some riders to average more power.

Optimal for what? Power output? Surely, by definition, every variable has an optimal value or range? So, YES there is.
.

Interesting idea that varying cadence may be more efficient than a fixed cadence. Certainly even in extended turbo intervals I find it easier (hard to distinguish if it's physically or psychologically) to switch the gear sometimes to vary resistance for the same watts.

danowat

Tom Butcher wrote:

Interesting idea that varying cadence may be more efficient than a fixed cadence. Certainly even in extended turbo intervals I find it easier (hard to distinguish if it's physically or psychologically) to switch the gear sometimes to vary resistance for the same watts.

Surely down to muscle fibre's in use at a certain cadence tiring, and adjustment of cadence brings other fibre's in to use?

I don't think it allows you to create more power, however, I think it would enable you to maintain a higher average power.

If the above is true, it's certainly possible for alternating cadence to be more efficient from a physiological point of view, and in such a case, would blow the idea of an optimum cadence out of the water.

Fill ya boots boys......

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=e ... CCwQgQMwAA

Trev The Rev

danowat wrote:

Tom Butcher wrote:

Interesting idea that varying cadence may be more efficient than a fixed cadence. Certainly even in extended turbo intervals I find it easier (hard to distinguish if it's physically or psychologically) to switch the gear sometimes to vary resistance for the same watts.

Surely down to muscle fibre's in use at a certain cadence tiring, and adjustment of cadence brings other fibre's in to use?

I don't think it allows you to create more power, however, I think it would enable you to maintain a higher average power.

If the above is true, it's certainly possible for alternating cadence to be more efficient from a physiological point of view, and in such a case, would blow the idea of an optimum cadence out of the water.

Fill ya boots boys......

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=e ... CCwQgQMwAA

Exactly what I' mean. There is much talk about cadence being unimportant and concentrating on power. I'm looking at possibly averaging more power over a given time by deliberately shifting cadence & force rather than settling to a narrow cadence / force range.

danowat

Well, try it and find out

Trev The Rev

danowat wrote:

Well, try it and find out

I have and I do.

GiantMike

Trev The Rev wrote:

I'm looking at possibly averaging more power over a given time by deliberately shifting cadence & force rather than settling to a narrow cadence / force range.

I think you're mixing cause and effect.

danowat

Trev The Rev wrote:

danowat wrote:

Well, try it and find out

I have and I do.

And your findings are?............

GiantMike

danowat wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

danowat wrote:

Well, try it and find out

I have and I do.

And your findings are?............

Wait. I need to get some popcorn and a drink.....

GiantMike

....OK, sorted.

Trev The Rev

danowat wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

danowat wrote:

Well, try it and find out

I have and I do.

And your findings are?............

3% to 4% more watts over 20 minutes.

danowat

Trev The Rev wrote:

danowat wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

danowat wrote:

Well, try it and find out

I have and I do.

And your findings are?............

3% to 4% more watts over 20 minutes.

What was the testing protocol?, what cadence bracketing did you use?, how did you determine which cadence bracketing to use?

GiantMike

Trev The Rev wrote:

danowat wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

danowat wrote:

Well, try it and find out

I have and I do.

And your findings are?............

3% to 4% more watts over 20 minutes.

3-4% more power compared to what? Fixed cadence? Or are you comparing figures within a narrow cadence band against a wider cadence band?

How many times did you run the experiment and did you get any results that went against your 3-4% improvement gain result?

How did you remove all the other variables to determine that it was variable cadence that was responsible for the 3-4% power gain? Was this on the road or on a turbo trainer?

How did you determine when to go above or below your 'perceived optimal cadence'? Did you vary your cadence according to a pre-defined plan or did you respond to changes within your body? Did you vary power output with cadence or shift gear/resistance to maintain power?

How did you measure your effort?

Trev The Rev

Over the years I have done many 20 minutes tests sessions. I found averaging around 90 rpm is what I naturally settle to on the road but my best results on a turbo were nearer 100rpm. I did many tests with different resistance trying to work out what would be best for me on the track. It was doing sessions trying out different cadences, I found I averaged a higher power doing tests where I was doing 2 minutes on 100, 2 minutes on 95, 2 minutes on 90, or 2 minutes on 80 then 2 minutes on 100 up to 105rpm.

For the track a gear which I can use 100rpm to 105rpm on worked best. But on a turbo varying from 80 to 105 works better than holding 90 rpm or 100rpm or 80rpm. On the road I tend to average around 87 rpm but the range with gears is perhaps 80 to 100rpm, but on fixed I might be averaging 90rpm but doing 105 rpm on the flat, 150 or more down hill and 30 rpm up a steep hill.

I tend to go faster on fixed.

I measured using power. Changed gear to increase or decrease cadence but maintain power. Obviously on fixed the terrain and gear dictated cadence.

I also found on a Concept 2 rower I could do faster times varying stroke rate.

I did get some conflicting results. I tend to vary by 3% from session to session anyway even if I make sure I'm equally rested etc. But the 3% to 4% allows for that.

GiantMike

Trev The Rev wrote:

It was doing sessions trying out different cadences, I found I averaged a higher power doing tests where I was doing 2 minutes on 100, 2 minutes on 95, 2 minutes on 90, or 2 minutes on 80 then 2 minutes on 100 up to 105rpm.

So these were maximal tests?

Herbsman

So the conclusion is pedal harder and/or faster, and thus produce more power? Wow... I never would have guessed>

danowat

My typical, self selected cadence in an average 10 mile TT varies from 80-110rpm, with the most being done at 95rpm.

I'd say, that due to the nature of cycling, and the gaps between gears, most people vary their cadence naturally within quite a range, so I don't think it's something people need to do consciously

Trev The Rev

GiantMike wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

It was doing sessions trying out different cadences, I found I averaged a higher power doing tests where I was doing 2 minutes on 100, 2 minutes on 95, 2 minutes on 90, or 2 minutes on 80 then 2 minutes on 100 up to 105rpm.

So these were maximal tests?

As maximal as possible given I was self testing.

slunker

I find in long road races 90-100 miles that the first half of the race my cadence is around 85-90 then creeps up as i begin to fatigue and end up doing 100+ rpm in the last few miles. I know the power is fading as I near the end but spinning helps my legs from cramping. I try to replicate steday cadence on the turbo but after 4-5 minutes I have to change, whether going faster or slower rpm.

I think like 90% of cycling it's just what suits you. Looking closely at a pro peleton they all have different cadence.

danowat

slunker wrote:

I find in long road races 90-100 miles that the first half of the race my cadence is around 85-90 then creeps up as i begin to fatigue and end up doing 100+ rpm in the last few miles.

Complete opposite for me, my cadence drops with fatigue, I was barely hitting 70 rpm at the end of a 12hr TT.

GiantMike

Trev The Rev wrote:

It was doing sessions trying out different cadences, I found I averaged a higher power doing tests where I was doing 2 minutes on 100, 2 minutes on 95, 2 minutes on 90, or 2 minutes on 80 then 2 minutes on 100 up to 105rpm.

So did you try any other periods? 1 min or 3 mins for example?

Trev The Rev

GiantMike wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

It was doing sessions trying out different cadences, I found I averaged a higher power doing tests where I was doing 2 minutes on 100, 2 minutes on 95, 2 minutes on 90, or 2 minutes on 80 then 2 minutes on 100 up to 105rpm.

So did you try any other periods? 1 min or 3 mins for example?

I tried one minute changes 2 minutes and 3 minutes, I found 60 second changes worked really well over the last few minutes, probably this is more in the mind than anything else. Changing the sensation comes as a relief, still pain but a different pain.