Low cadences less efficient

Alex_Simmons/RST

sturmey wrote:

I have plenty of value to say, just not to idiots like you.

Who's the idiot?
That would be YOU my friend for eulogising someone and their supposed integrity when they have been proven to be a liar and a bullsh*tter on open forums - done with the intent to deceive and impress people into throwing money in their direction.
Couldn't give a cr*p what you think of him personally. That's irrelevant.

Likewise. I can see that intelligent debate is not your strong point.

jonomc4

Whilst all very interesting I shall try and get back on track.

I was listening to a 40 minute podcast from cycling 360 about cadence today - what they suggested was
1) a cadence of 65 is most efficient in terms of your style
2) a cadence of 65 is not efficient for flushing lactic acid - each revolution causes the leg muscle to contract and relax and this movement acts like a pump (e.g like a bladder on a manual blood pressure monitor) therefore purging the muscle of waste more efficiently, therefore it is better to aim for the higher cadence of 90 plus
3) people will have varying innate cadence levels (often people imagine theirs is higher than it actually is) therefore you should at a minimum buy a cadence monitor for your bike
4) you can quite quickly up your cadence with minimal training - but increase it gradually as going to high so you rock in the saddle is very inefficient - once again we get back to high cadence being a personal thing.
5) to get a higher cadence you need a) a good bike fit b) good technique c)gradual increase
6) higher cadence will tax you more aerobically though
7) No person has a set cadence - say 90 - your cadence will also vary depending on the terrain - they suggested that on a steep hill a cadence low than 90 may be better for most.
8) a pro cyclist will be better because they have a strong core and obviously a perfect bike fit and are very aerobically fit - therefore they can cycle at a higher cadence than most other cyclists

I think the above shows that all people are right to an extent it just depends on the person, their fitness, their technique, and bike.

bernithebiker

jonomc4 wrote:

Whilst all very interesting I shall try and get back on track.

I was listening to a 40 minute podcast from cycling 360 about cadence today - what they suggested was
1) a cadence of 65 is most efficient in terms of your style
2) a cadence of 65 is not efficient for flushing lactic acid - each revolution causes the leg muscle to contract and relax and this movement acts like a pump (e.g like a bladder on a manual blood pressure monitor) therefore purging the muscle of waste more efficiently, therefore it is better to aim for the higher cadence of 90 plus
3) people will have varying innate cadence levels (often people imagine theirs is higher than it actually is) therefore you should at a minimum buy a cadence monitor for your bike
4) you can quite quickly up your cadence with minimal training - but increase it gradually as going to high so you rock in the saddle is very inefficient - once again we get back to high cadence being a personal thing.
5) to get a higher cadence you need a) a good bike fit b) good technique c)gradual increase
6) higher cadence will tax you more aerobically though
7) No person has a set cadence - say 90 - your cadence will also vary depending on the terrain - they suggested that on a steep hill a cadence low than 90 may be better for most.
8) a pro cyclist will be better because they have a strong core and obviously a perfect bike fit and are very aerobically fit - therefore they can cycle at a higher cadence than most other cyclists

I think the above shows that all people are right to an extent it just depends on the person, their fitness, their technique, and bike.

Good stuff, I would agree with pretty much all of that.

3) getting a cadence meter is useful, but I've always got by just doing the occasional count check (over 10 to 30 seconds).

7) a less fit rider may be obliged to drop cadence on steep hills, but I would say if you're fit enough, keep the cadence high.

ric/rstsport

a lower cadence is more efficient, but as absolute power increases so does the most efficient cadence

lactic acid doesn't actually exist in the body, it's actually lactate. furthermore, contrary to popular belief lactate is NOT a waste product, but without which we wouldn't be able to cycle/exercise very hard (it's used as a fuel)

cadence will vary between people, but the most efficient is lower than most think

good bike fit is extremely important

higher cadences 'cost' more but can be less fatiguing. higher cadence help you react better to changes in velocity (e.g.in a road race)

most people (at least in the UK where hills can be steep) will have to travel at a cadence of less than 90 while going up a steep hill because most people use the same sized gearing (e.g. 39 x 25 lowest gear) and are thus constrained by their velocity, which is in turn constrained by their power output. For e.g. i used to live on the top of a 16% climb and my cadence in lowest gear would often be about 50 revs/min because i couldn't or didnt want to generate higher power at the end of my ride (and didn't want to buy lower gears)

Pro cyclists don't have stronger cores and nor do they have a perfect bike fit (seen the Schleks TT?). It tends to be that extremely aerobically fit people are *less* strong than otherwise matched less aerobically fit people, as aerobic machinery replaces contractile proteins with lots of aerobic training. furthermore, very little strength is required to ride a bike.

Ric

bernithebiker

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

most people (at least in the UK where hills can be steep) will have to travel at a cadence of less than 90 while going up a steep hill because most people use the same sized gearing (e.g. 39 x 25 lowest gear) and are thus constrained by their velocity, which is in turn constrained by their power output. For e.g. i used to live on the top of a 16% climb and my cadence in lowest gear would often be about 50 revs/min because i couldn't or didnt want to generate higher power at the end of my ride (and didn't want to buy lower gears)

Ric

Does this not show that most cyclists in the UK are using the wrong gearing? Surely a 36 or a 34 small ring is far better suited to the vast majority of UK cyclists, unless they live in Norfolk?!

What's the downside? A slight drop in max speed, but very few cyclists will be able to make use of that gear anyway, unless they have extended, straight descents.

The trend is often for new bikes to be sold with standard 39/53 gearing and so opting for compact is often seen as 'wimping out', which is a shame as I'm convinced that many beginner cyclists would benefit from lower gearing and higher cadences.

Using a compact allows me to have the tightest cassette possible (or almost) a 21-11 for normal riding round my way, but if doing an Etape type ride I'll whack on the 28-11.

ric/rstsport

yeah, i'd hazard a guess that most people have the wrong gearing.

imposter2.0

bernithebiker wrote:

The trend is often for new bikes to be sold with standard 39/53 gearing and so opting for compact is often seen as 'wimping out', which is a shame as I'm convinced that many beginner cyclists would benefit from lower gearing and higher cadences.

Beginners will always benefit from lower gears, but you've answered your own question there, I think. Gear choice is more of a fitness/output issue than a cadence issue. You will only struggle to turn a certain gear for a certain time if you do not have the fitness to maintain it.

bernithebiker

Imposter wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

The trend is often for new bikes to be sold with standard 39/53 gearing and so opting for compact is often seen as 'wimping out', which is a shame as I'm convinced that many beginner cyclists would benefit from lower gearing and higher cadences.

Beginners will always benefit from lower gears, but you've answered your own question there, I think. Gear choice is more of a fitness/output issue than a cadence issue. You will only struggle to turn a certain gear for a certain time if you do not have the fitness to maintain it.

True, but I would say most cyclists (apart from perhaps the top 5 %) will struggle to push a 39 - 25 up a prolonged 10% slope at anything like a decent cadence. Therefore, they would be better off on a compact, unless they're absolutely convinced that v.low cadences are the right thing for them.

keef66

Which is why I like my triple. I can maintain a pretty good cadence up most of the 'hills' round here with a bottom gear of 30 x 25

bernithebiker

keef66 wrote:

Which is why I like my triple. I can maintain a pretty good cadence up most of the 'hills' round here with a bottom gear of 30 x 25

I saw hundreds if not thousands of riders on the Etape 2 last year on the Tourmalet.

I would say 50% of them would have been better off on a triple, and yet probably only about 10% of that 50% were.

Fashion/image over common sense.

jonomc4

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

lactic acid doesn't actually exist in the body, it's actually lactate. furthermore, contrary to popular belief lactate is NOT a waste product, but without which we wouldn't be able to cycle/exercise very hard (it's used as a fuel)

Pro cyclists don't have stronger cores and nor do they have a perfect bike fit (seen the Schleks TT?). It tends to be that extremely aerobically fit people are *less* strong than otherwise matched less aerobically fit people, as aerobic machinery replaces contractile proteins with lots of aerobic training. furthermore, very little strength is required to ride a bike.

Ric

Agreed on Lactic acid - I just used that phrase as it is more easily understood - but basically the use of muscle causes waste products that need to be flushed - higher cadence = more flushing

I am not sure about pro cyclists not having a stronger core - but am happy to be corrected - I am aware pros do use gyms to varying degrees and things like Yoga. I would say when comparing a pro to an average cyclists their technique, core strength and bike fit will be greater/better - I know it is not true for all of them in all circumstances but as a general rule I would assume yes.

ric/rstsport

but that's *wrong*. Lactate is *not* a waste product, it's a fuel, without which we'd be significantly slower/have less endurance. I'm not aware of any evidence to suggest that a higher cadence 'flushes' waste products at a faster rate, either.

i would venture a guess that most pro cyclists do not use gyms. mainly because most pros know intrinsically that having extra muscle is a waste of time (i.e., it's likely to decrease power to mass ratio). Efficiency between pro cyclists and recreational athletes tends to be very similar, but technique may differ (e.g. better cyclists pull up less and push down more than worse cyclists). I would suggest that good bike fit is not all that common in pro cyclists.

ric

jonomc4

Sorry - not wanting another argument here - I was trying to show in my post that I agree lactate is not a waste product - I was agreeing with you - guess what I wrote is not that clear.
I was only basing my comment on the gym from a couple of interviews with pro's, one was Bradley wiggins who said he used a gym - but that was specifically after he broke his collar bone two years ago in the TDF - he said the strength work helped it out - but he may be talking about this because of the injury - on a personal level I go to the gym once a week for general health and because I don't make a living riding a bike
Re the bike fit of pro's - that does surprise me - after all they are on a bike for many hours a day - you would think a bike fit would be a very basic need for them?

ric/rstsport

apologies i'd read it that you were saying it was a waste product!

you only need to look at some of the riders and see that their positions are naff. even some star riders.

manxshred

Shlecks TT position is not probably not a bad position for him, but that doesn't mean it is a good position for winning a TT.
It is more probably that if he went to a more aggressive, aero position, his power would drop and he would be uncomfortable on the bike, meaning the position is useless to him anyway.

Some people can get to a good aero position while maintaining their power, while others can't.

ric/rstsport

you don't have to have an "aggressive, aero position" to be aero, testig has shown that there are other ways. either way, the Schlecks' positions are dire.

Richj

Interestingly British Cycling put a very high emphasis on high cadence, certainly within the youth section. I was at a talk recently (aimed at under 16's and under 14's) where they recommended training to very high cadences (130 rpm+). Saying that it was important for seniors to do the same.

I know youth racing is very different as they are on gear restrictions so it is important to get the most out of the gear you have, looking after your knees. The coach even suggested doing a 10 mile TT on rollers as part of training saying a lot of the talent team can hold 140rpm for 10 miles.

ric/rstsport

i used to do the same. but this is a different question to what i originally think we started with (that low cadences are less efficient).

with juvenile and junior gearing (and also with fixed gears on track) you have to learn to ride with a high cadence because you don't have the benefit of gears or larger gears and thus velocity is tied to cadence (because you can't shift to a bigger gear).

Froomes Edgar

jonomc4 wrote:

Whilst all very interesting I shall try and get back on track.

I was listening to a 40 minute podcast from cycling 360 about cadence today - what they suggested was
1) a cadence of 65 is most efficient in terms of your style
2) a cadence of 65 is not efficient for flushing lactic acid - each revolution causes the leg muscle to contract and relax and this movement acts like a pump (e.g like a bladder on a manual blood pressure monitor) therefore purging the muscle of waste more efficiently, therefore it is better to aim for the higher cadence of 90 plus
3) people will have varying innate cadence levels (often people imagine theirs is higher than it actually is) therefore you should at a minimum buy a cadence monitor for your bike
4) you can quite quickly up your cadence with minimal training - but increase it gradually as going to high so you rock in the saddle is very inefficient - once again we get back to high cadence being a personal thing.
5) to get a higher cadence you need a) a good bike fit b) good technique c)gradual increase
6) higher cadence will tax you more aerobically though
7) No person has a set cadence - say 90 - your cadence will also vary depending on the terrain - they suggested that on a steep hill a cadence low than 90 may be better for most.
8) a pro cyclist will be better because they have a strong core and obviously a perfect bike fit and are very aerobically fit - therefore they can cycle at a higher cadence than most other cyclists

I think the above shows that all people are right to an extent it just depends on the person, their fitness, their technique, and bike.

Point 8 leads me to believe that any correlation between anything that person says and the facts are purely coincidental. FFS.

bernithebiker

Care to elaborate and share your infinite wisdom?

Is it all complete cr*p or can we draw anything useful from it?

imposter2.0

bernithebiker wrote:

Care to elaborate and share your infinite wisdom?

Is it all complete cr*p or can we draw anything useful from it?

on its own, it just appears to be a series of random statements, of no particular relevance to anyone.

d87heaven

Imposter wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

Care to elaborate and share your infinite wisdom?

Is it all complete cr*p or can we draw anything useful from it?

on its own, it just appears to be a series of random statements, of no particular relevance to anyone.

Pretty much like every thread on here.

bernithebiker

Oh well, I found it quite useful, and none of those points could I disagree with......Clearly I haven't got a f&*^ing clue what I'm talking about........ :?

mamba80

the prob with all these training threads is that they get written by people who have based an increase in performance on something they think they did, when infact it prob had nothing to do with that at all.
Then the other issue is comparing what a 26yo pro does and corrolating it to what a 40yo with little ability or talent does on a 1/4 of the hrs with a job, home life and kids.
It has taken me many years to realise all of this applies to me

Froomes Edgar

bernithebiker wrote:

Oh well, I found it quite useful, and none of those points could I disagree with......Clearly I haven't got a f&*^ing clue what I'm talking about........ :?

Well point 8 is clearly bolleaux, so why would I trust the rest of it?

Besides, where's my f**king prize for riding like a c0ck?

Froomes Edgar

mamba80 wrote:

the prob with all these training threads is that they get written by people who have based an increase in performance on something they think they did, when infact it prob had nothing to do with that at all.
Then the other issue is comparing what a 26yo pro does and corrolating it to what a 40yo with little ability or talent does on a 1/4 of the hrs with a job, home life and kids.
It has taken me many years to realise all of this applies to me

Nah, Ric and Alex keep things based on science. Me too to an extent, although it's difficult to detect amongst the CONTEMPT

Alex_Simmons/RST

The body processes lactate just fine and doesn't require any cadence (high or low) to "flush lactic", nor is cadence relevant wrt lowering of blood lactate levels. The fastest way to lower blood lactate levels is to reduce power output to recovery level or lower (e.g. stop exercise or significantly reduce the energy demand).

As Ric mentioned, the cadence that happens to correspond to highest efficiency will vary depending on many things, but is typically a fair bit lower than what most trained cyclists and racers will ride at - that's because for most cycling events, riding at such cadences is less effective as we tend to produce more power more easily at higher pedalling rates, and normally we are interested in our sustainable power output, not how economical we are.

There are ultra endurance events where more consideration of efficiency can come into play, but they are not the domain of the vast majority.

I agree that many riders use gears ill suited to their capabilities.

mattshrops

<peeps out from behind the settee>

Has the nutjob gone now?