HR at different Cadences but same Power

danowat

Cadence isn't irrelevent, talking about it is, I reckon most people self select the (delete as applicable) most efficient, most effective, most powerful cadence anyway.

Is there any value in training at different cadences?, probably, but I still reckon, in the heat of battle you'll revert to your self selected cadence anyway.

As for plums, I don't like them, especially not old, wrinkly antagonistic ones

bernithebiker

OK here's a question;

I can produce, lets say, 200W at a cadence of 70 in a 50/14 gear. This is 31.5km/h.

I can also produce 200W at a cadence of 85 in a 50/17 gear. This also gives 31.5km/h.

If the road starts to climb or if a headwind blows up, I will need to increase my power to maintain that speed.

So the question is; for a long ride like the Marmotte or the Etape, which scenario should I use? First or second? Which is the most efficient way to ride that will keep me as fresh as possible for the finish?

(I could have used more extreme examples like say cadence 50 in a 50/11 versus cadence 100 in a 50/23).

kevin69

i think that if you are close to a steady state, the cadence doesn't matter.
i.e. time trial type efforts, gently increasing slopes.

If you suddenly need to increase power (eg making a break; a sudden steep climb)
then your cv system (or at least your heart) will take 30s or so to react, but your
muscles can react in a second or two. In this case i'd expect to be able to go from
low force, high cadence to high force, high cadence quicker than going from
high force low cadence to high force high cadence.
So in this case, i think that high cadences are better, because you can react faster.

bernithebiker

kevin69 wrote:

i think that if you are close to a steady state, the cadence doesn't matter.
i.e. time trial type efforts, gently increasing slopes.

If you suddenly need to increase power (eg making a break; a sudden steep climb)
then your cv system (or at least your heart) will take 30s or so to react, but your
muscles can react in a second or two. In this case i'd expect to be able to go from
low force, high cadence to high force, high cadence quicker than going from
high force low cadence to high force high cadence.
So in this case, i think that high cadences are better, because you can react faster.

Fair enough, agree with that, bit like a car engine, higher revs = better response if you put your foot down.

But it doesn't answer my question; which is the most efficient long term? Clearly you don't want to slowly grind a tough gear for 6 hours. And you don't want to spin like crazy a light one either. So there must be a happy medium. But where? 75, 80, 90? How do you find it? Just when you feel 'comfortable'?

Trev The Rev

bernithebiker wrote:

kevin69 wrote:

i think that if you are close to a steady state, the cadence doesn't matter.
i.e. time trial type efforts, gently increasing slopes.

If you suddenly need to increase power (eg making a break; a sudden steep climb)
then your cv system (or at least your heart) will take 30s or so to react, but your
muscles can react in a second or two. In this case i'd expect to be able to go from
low force, high cadence to high force, high cadence quicker than going from
high force low cadence to high force high cadence.
So in this case, i think that high cadences are better, because you can react faster.

Fair enough, agree with that, bit like a car engine, higher revs = better response if you put your foot down.

But it doesn't answer my question; which is the most efficient long term? Clearly you don't want to slowly grind a tough gear for 6 hours. And you don't want to spin like crazy a light one either. So there must be a happy medium. But where? 75, 80, 90? How do you find it? Just when you feel 'comfortable'?

Some bloke on a bus told me this once.

You need to have the ability to pedal both hard and slow, along with easy and fast. The best cyclists can do a bit of each and while even the best cyclists have strength in one or the other, they also train these skills as well to improve the weaker of the two skills. You see, the rider that feels more comfortable mashing a bigger gear most likely has more ‘fast’ twitch muscle fibers (type II), whereas the rider that likes to ‘spin’ typically uses more slow twitch fibers (type I) and this is important because if your event is going to require you to pedal hard and slow, but in training you always pedal easy and quick, then you might not be ready for your event.

marz

bernithebiker wrote:

OK here's a question;

I can produce, lets say, 200W at a cadence of 70 in a 50/14 gear. This is 31.5km/h.

I can also produce 200W at a cadence of 85 in a 50/17 gear. This also gives 31.5km/h.

If the road starts to climb or if a headwind blows up, I will need to increase my power to maintain that speed.

So the question is; for a long ride like the Marmotte or the Etape, which scenario should I use? First or second? Which is the most efficient way to ride that will keep me as fresh as possible for the finish?

(I could have used more extreme examples like say cadence 50 in a 50/11 versus cadence 100 in a 50/23).

For me and generally I think for most riders, the second one, it's easier to spin out a climb rather than to grind it out. Plus I would aim for a +95rpm rather than a 85rpm as that seems to work best for me.

Tom Dean

bernithebiker wrote:

Just when you feel 'comfortable'?

This, unless you find a reason to do otherwise.

bernithebiker

Tom Dean wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

Just when you feel 'comfortable'?

This, unless you find a reason to do otherwise.

But how do you define 'comfortable'? Is it HR related? And should you be comfortable? Everyone knows cycling hurts sometimes, so should you put up with a little discomfort to go faster?

Tom Dean

It depends on the situation, you will always be aiming for a certain pace or a certain level of effort. So use what ever cadence feels easier for that pace, or faster for that effort.

Trev The Rev

Example test using heart rate to help find optimum cadence. (not on me)

Test 1. 20 minutes at usual self chosen cadence - 87 rpm Heart rate average 172bpm average 265 watts
Test 2. 20 minutes at 10 rpm less. - 77 rpm Heart rate average 176bpm average 247 watts
Test 3. 20 minutes at 10 rpm higher - 97 rpm Heart rate average 173bpm average 287 watts

Tests done a week apart minimising variables. Start tests with same starting heart rate after same warm up. These are tests at maximum effort.

Trev The Rev

Some eminent coaches Joe Friel & Hunter Allen do seem to think heart rate and cadence are worth looking at.

Joe Friel Quote: All I’ve got to go on is my experience in coaching athletes with power meters and heart rate monitors, including myself, for the past 10 to 12 years. I require all of the athletes I coach to have both devices and use them for every workout. I only coach four athletes a year, but they are a serious group and train a lot. So I’ve seen a lot of data over the years.End Quote.

http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2012/02/mo ... eters.html
Both the performance and the experience of creating the performance are important. These may be referred to as “output” (power and speed) and “input” (heart rate and RPE). End Quote

http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2011/05/sp ... tness.html
Quote:One of the best measures of fitness change is your output-input ratio.

Hunter Allen
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/ ... allen.aspx
Quote:So, once you have your average cadence for each interval, then this will help you determine the 'restricted cadence' of the next test. If your self-selected was 85rpm, then the next test should be a low cadence test with cadence restricted to 70rpm and below for each time interval. This means that you must set the resistance and gearing as such that you can go as hard as you possibly can, but stay under 70rpm. This will then give you a comparison to the self-selected cadence. Did you produce more power for some time intervals for the lower cadence? What about Heart rate? Was your heart rate lower per watt for the self-selected? What was the power/hr ratio for this compared to your self-selected? These are things you'll need to be asking yourself.End Quote

I find it a little odd that Dr Andrew Coggan does not agree with Friel & Allen.

Damn it - I've just advertised power meters again.