TT average cadence goal

blown04svt · December 2014

What cadence rpm do you target as an average for TT training?
I have my tt bike set up in my rollers, mainly so that I can keep riding in the position once/twice a week during winter but recently I have been trying to work on my cadence as it has always been low (70-75rpm) so doing this in the same 30 minute session. Normally keep HR between 135/140bpm average and target 92-95 base cadence with a few minute intervals 110+ giving me a final average in the high 90's.

Does this sound worthwhile or can anyone give me some pointers?

alihisgreat · December 2014

Its supposed to be beneficial to work both high and low cadences during training? (although do them in different sessions)

High cadences improves your form and efficiency, getting the body used to firing muscles at the right time and staying stable even when you're spinning high cadence is useful. Low resistance and high cadence is what you want here.

Low cadence improves muscular endurance and therefore form and efficiency, because you don't want any muscle groups tiring out and making you lose your form and efficiency when you're pushing a big gear... so stressing them in low cadence sessions is a benefit. Low cadence and high resistance is what you want here.

Then you bring the two together and ride at your optimum cadence in your normal training sessions?

blown04svt · December 2014

I do a lot of seated low cadence work in my commute rides.. I have noticed the benefit from this but now I feel I need more cadence to help me during TT where staying seated and in position is key even on a climb.
My ride on the rollers are low resistance so makes sense with what you are saying. All my rides and outside with the exception of this session on the TT bike, although once weather improves that will be out on the road too.

xscreamsuk · December 2014

My training has sessions at 60 rpm, and other sessions up to 150 rpm. All structured by the coach. In a TT my avge cadence is almost always around 96, on a casual ride / commute it's nearer to 90.

napoleond · December 2014

I don't look at cadence whatsoever. It is what it is, i.e. Whatever feels comfortable.

okgo · December 2014

NapoleonD wrote:

I don't look at cadence whatsoever. It is what it is, i.e. Whatever feels comfortable.

This.

Why the cycling market is so infatuated with cadence I do not know.

imposter2.0 · December 2014

As above. Train your effort - not your cadence.

meanredspider · December 2014

Why the cycling market is so infatuated with cadence I do not know.

Well, as a guess, power = torque x rpm. If you can maintain effective pedal force at a higher cadence, that's more power.

I'm not sure why comfort has anything to do with anything - "I finished as an also-ran but I was comfortable" said no-one (competitive) ever. You should be riding at whatever cadence allows you to deliver the highest average power even if that means you're blowing through your 'arris...

imposter2.0 · December 2014

meanredspider wrote:

Well, as a guess, power = torque x rpm. If you can maintain effective pedal force at a higher cadence, that's more power.

Unfortunately, maintaining 'effective pedal force' is the really hard bit (you know, the bit you need to train for) - regardless of cadence. But I'm sure you know that already...

Alex_Simmons/RST · December 2014

meanredspider wrote:

Why the cycling market is so infatuated with cadence I do not know.

Well, as a guess, power = torque x rpm. If you can maintain effective pedal force at a higher cadence, that's more power.

While that's a correct statement of the physics and is how power is typically measured, physiology tells us that the two variables in that equation (i.e. cadence and torque, or more correctly pedal speed and pedal forces), are not independent variables. IOW simply seeking to change one of those two variables doesn't mean performance (power) will improve.

Hence why a focus on effort and choosing an appropriate gear is what matters most.

gavbarron · December 2014

meanredspider wrote:

You should be riding at whatever cadence allows you to deliver the highest average power even if that means you're blowing through your 'arris...

No, you should be riding at the cadence that allows you to deliver the highest power in the most efficient manner.

It is widely believed the most efficient cadence is in the region of 90-100rpm. The problem is that people forget about the power bit and assume 95rpm is better than 75rpm without noting power output. A higher cadence is great as long as you maintain the same power output but if all you've done is pick a lower gear and spin faster then you have achieved nothing.
Conversely, some people are just better grinding a bigger gear, look at Jan Ulrich climbing a mountain stage.

I'm not a rapid rider but I'm ok (low 20's for a 10) and I never worry about cadence, there is so much more to concentrate on to get faster first

Alex_Simmons/RST · December 2014

gavbarron wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

You should be riding at whatever cadence allows you to deliver the highest average power even if that means you're blowing through your 'arris...

No, you should be riding at the cadence that allows you to deliver the highest power in the most efficient manner.

It is widely believed the most efficient cadence is in the region of 90-100rpm.

Not in the scientific literature it's not where it's been shown that low cadences are generally more efficient.

The cadence preferred by most cyclists is rarely the most efficient. But riding at the most efficient cadence is not really the goal either of performance cycling, although such a strategy does have it's place in ultra endurance events ridden at sub-maximal power levels.

gavbarron · December 2014

Kinda sweeping statements really. Which scientific literature? Not all of it that's for sure. Depending which you read will obviously alter your opinion, and as with any study, the results are often contested by a different study producing different results.
As for 'performance cycling' whatever that may be, yes, on a track max power is the goal but even they have desired cadences they try to achieve depending on gear and the length of the event. I'd argue traditional road cycling, and in particular, multi stage events, require efficiency at any given power output as the energy consumed during each stage is greater than can be replaced during the event so if a rider can maintain the same power output in a more efficient manner by changing cadence then they will.
The guy that targets Max power as his sole objective with no other regard for all other factors pertaining to effective racing, is usually the tit that jumps off the front of a race flat out and then dies in epic fashion and blows out the back because he had no idea how to distribute his power/effort efficiently for the duration of the event

meanredspider · December 2014

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Why the cycling market is so infatuated with cadence I do not know.

Well, as a guess, power = torque x rpm. If you can maintain effective pedal force at a higher cadence, that's more power.

While that's a correct statement of the physics and is how power is typically measured, physiology tells us that the two variables in that equation (i.e. cadence and torque, or more correctly pedal speed and pedal forces), are not independent variables. IOW simply seeking to change one of those two variables doesn't mean performance (power) will improve.

Hence why a focus on effort and choosing an appropriate gear is what matters most.

For sure - my point isn't that cadence is the answer but that it's a key parameter and that being comfortable (especially in training) may not be the best approach. If testing was my thing, I'd be experimenting with cadence.

gavbarron wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

You should be riding at whatever cadence allows you to deliver the highest average power even if that means you're blowing through your 'arris...

No, you should be riding at the cadence that allows you to deliver the highest power in the most efficient manner.

I'm not sure that statement actually means anything. Again, nobody finished a TT thinking "I finished last but I was the most efficient". You want to finish having given it everything AND delivered the most power you could. That MIGHT mean riding at a cadence that wasn't comfortable.

Remember the OP is asking about TTs not multi-stage events (the clue is in the title)

blown04svt · December 2014

Lots of interesting replies guys thank you, An yes as pointed out in a recent reply this is in relation to 10/25 mile TT's. I am not asking to be comfortable or to repeat the next day. Just empty the tank with every bit of power I have, My past approach (which reading some of the replies probably works well) is to keep push a gears until I can not get ontop of it then knock it back 1, This is where a half gear would help OR.... having a bigger cadence/power range?
Or of course more power but at 5'7" and 62kg I not built with big power.
I think my conclusion is to carry on with my spin sessions so my legs and fast twitch fibres stay active but focus on 'pushing' tall gears out on the road to increase leg strength.

imposter2.0 · December 2014

blown04svt wrote:

I think my conclusion is to carry on with my spin sessions so my legs and fast twitch fibres stay active but focus on 'pushing' tall gears out on the road to increase leg strength.

Sounds like you need a better understanding of 'leg strength' before you go much further. It's unlikely to be a limiting factor - and 'pushing tall gears out on the road' will not increase your leg strength anyway.

Alex_Simmons/RST · December 2014

gavbarron wrote:

Kinda sweeping statements really. Which scientific literature? Not all of it that's for sure. Depending which you read will obviously alter your opinion, and as with any study, the results are often contested by a different study producing different results.

Here's a summary of the relationship as reported in the literature:

http://www.ismj.com/pages/311417173/ISM ... ycling.asp

Efficiency and economy

Numerous studies have examined the influence of pedalling frequency on the efficiency and economy of cycling 6, 27, 44, 46, 48, 71, 72. Generally, when cycling at constant power outputs, lower cadences have been found to result in reduced oxygen cost (i.e. improved gross efficiency) compared with higher cadences 6, 15, 27. Improved efficiency of cycling observed at lower pedalling rates is likely to be dictated by the relationship between muscle shortening velocity and the efficiency of muscle contractions (percent Type I and Type II active fibres). For instance, under in vitro conditions, it has been observed that the efficiency of skeletal muscle contractions is augmented with increasing speed of contraction, until a maximum is reached (i.e. an economically optimal shortening velocity) 35. The most economical cadence appears to be extremely low (~50-60rpm) when cycling at low power outputs (?W), but increases to approximately 80-100rpm with increasing workloads (~350W) 26, 44, 58

gavbarron wrote:

As for 'performance cycling' whatever that may be,

The OP is asking specifically about time trialling.

gavbarron wrote:

yes, on a track max power is the goal but even they have desired cadences they try to achieve depending on gear and the length of the event. I'd argue traditional road cycling, and in particular, multi stage events, require efficiency at any given power output as the energy consumed during each stage is greater than can be replaced during the event so if a rider can maintain the same power output in a more efficient manner by changing cadence then they will.

In TT, then maximal sustainable power to aerodynamic drag ratio is the objective as that results in the fastest average speed.

In road cycling then sure efficiency is important, but saving energy via a multitude of strategies and tactics are far more important than pedalling with an objective of increasing efficiency. Saving energy is about riding with as little power output as much as possible. And races are won with strategic use of maximal power capability, over various durations, with little or no concern for energy efficiency.

Still, if one did choose to pedal in the most efficient manner, then they would pedal with lower cadences, not higher ones. The fact they don't tells you that chasing an efficiency outcome in road racing via cadence isn't high on a road cyclists' priorities.

gavbarron wrote:

The guy that targets Max power as his sole objective with no other regard for all other factors pertaining to effective racing, is usually the tit that jumps off the front of a race flat out and then dies in epic fashion and blows out the back because he had no idea how to distribute his power/effort efficiently for the duration of the event

Well really all this is a red herring because the discussion is about time trialling, but even here you are presenting a fallacy that how one paces themselves impacts efficiency.

And just so it's clear, efficiency in cycling is a measure of energy delivered to the cranks as a proportion of energy metabolised.

blown04svt · December 2014

Imposter wrote:

blown04svt wrote:

I think my conclusion is to carry on with my spin sessions so my legs and fast twitch fibres stay active but focus on 'pushing' tall gears out on the road to increase leg strength.

Sounds like you need a better understanding of 'leg strength' before you go much further. It's unlikely to be a limiting factor - and 'pushing tall gears out on the road' will not increase your leg strength anyway.

Care to go into detail or just an insult to my lack of knowledge?

meanredspider · December 2014

blown04svt wrote:

Imposter wrote:

blown04svt wrote:

I think my conclusion is to carry on with my spin sessions so my legs and fast twitch fibres stay active but focus on 'pushing' tall gears out on the road to increase leg strength.

Sounds like you need a better understanding of 'leg strength' before you go much further. It's unlikely to be a limiting factor - and 'pushing tall gears out on the road' will not increase your leg strength anyway.

Care to go into detail or just an insult to my lack of knowledge?

Do a quick search in this forum on "increasing leg strength" and you'll understand that it's a topic that probably pops up once a month and has provoked hot debate (not least of all because there are various definitions of "strength"). I don't think anybody has yet come up with a really clear and definitive answer to the discussion (and maybe there isn't one) but it's probably fair to say that the weight of opinion is that you should focus on your aerobic engine and let your legs sort themselves out.

mm1 · December 2014

Studies showing that lower cadences are more efficient have been around for ages ( Dr Vaughan Thomas, Science in Sport 1965), but fast riders have continued to pedal at 100 rpm plus. It is difficult to imagine anyone who can't pedal fast responding to changes of pace in a road race or a bunched event on the track and compared with the really big gear mashing that went on in TTs in the late 60s / early 70s most of the quickest testers now seem able to whip round a fairly big gear really fast. There are some exceptions, like Nick Bowdler, but its hard to imagine them performing in any form of racing other than domestic TTs.

imposter2.0 · December 2014

blown04svt wrote:

Imposter wrote:

blown04svt wrote:

I think my conclusion is to carry on with my spin sessions so my legs and fast twitch fibres stay active but focus on 'pushing' tall gears out on the road to increase leg strength.

Sounds like you need a better understanding of 'leg strength' before you go much further. It's unlikely to be a limiting factor - and 'pushing tall gears out on the road' will not increase your leg strength anyway.

Care to go into detail or just an insult to my lack of knowledge?

Strengthening your legs is unlikely to make any difference to your cycling performance - especially in the context of a TT effort. It is often said that the vast majority of riders (and even non-riders) already have sufficient leg strength to compete at the highest level. What they may not have is an efficient aerobic engine.

But as mentioned above, there are a stack of threads on this topic, so worth having a look...

blown04svt · December 2014

Very interesting, Will go search the strength threads next

RChung · December 2014

The responses in this thread make me happy.

okgo · December 2014

You will find your zone quite natrually I think.

Out of curiosity I just checked my last 5 rides, all done in the last few days, around 250 miles worth, every ride I averaged 88rpm with the exception of one where I averaged 87. I don't have it displayed on my screen at any point, I just ride what feels right at the power I am trying to ride at so clearly that is about what I find perfect, I doubt any good would come of me attempting to average 95 rpm, or 80 rpm. However in my last 10 mile TT I averaged 97 rpm, so there is usually a difference I would think when you start closing hip angles vs road bike.

fish156 · December 2014

okgo wrote:

You will find your zone quite natrually I think.

Out of curiosity I just checked my last 5 rides, all done in the last few days, around 250 miles worth, every ride I averaged 88rpm with the exception of one where I averaged 87. I don't have it displayed on my screen at any point, I just ride what feels right at the power I am trying to ride at so clearly that is about what I find perfect, I doubt any good would come of me attempting to average 95 rpm, or 80 rpm. However in my last 10 mile TT I averaged 97 rpm, so there is usually a difference I would think when you start closing hip angles vs road bike.

But I doubt that many of your 250 January miles were ridden at 'race pace'. Maybe you naturally pedal faster when you're emptying the tank for 10 miles? Perhaps that or you just need to but that 58t chainring?

mamba80 · December 2014

re on the bike "strength training" why do coaches like Hunter Allen and Friel (and many others) suggest low cadence strength workouts? if they are pointless and we all have the natural strength to win a Grand Tour.

imposter2.0 · December 2014

You'd have to ask them....

bahzob · December 2014

mamba80 wrote:

re on the bike "strength training" why do coaches like Hunter Allen and Friel (and many others) suggest low cadence strength workouts? if they are pointless and we all have the natural strength to win a Grand Tour.

Not just coaches. Bradley Wiggins has written about how spending some time and drill focussed on his cadence and how he pedalled was a key factor in his 2012 successes.

"Strength" however is the wrong word. Wiggins called these "torque" workouts which is closer to the truth. It is not about absolute leg strength as such but about applying "strength" (force) in the optimum way as the pedal rotates. So you want to use the various muscles that can turn the pedal in a way that optimises the conversion of linear force into what you actually need: torque.

The difference between force/strength and torque is easy to understand. If your pedal is at 12 o'clock you can push down with all your "strength" and go nowhere. You will only actually move if the pedal is at around 11:59 and even then it will be inefficient, getting progressively better until just before 09:00. (looking from the left). For the largest muscles that generate most power this is the sweetspot in terms of converting force>torque. Other muscles operate slightly later or earlier in a revolution. None at all should be active from 06:00 to 12, as this will just generate resistance. Hence the (good) advice to imagine scraping the mud off your cleats at the bottom of the stroke.

This conversion of brute strength to useful power is the difference between skilled and unskilled participants in many sports. Pro golfers are not "stronger" than amateurs, pro cricketers/baseball players not noticeably stronger than part timers, pro footballers do not have hugely stronger legs than you or I. In all cases they can hit/throw a ball harder/faster because their muscles fire in a direction and time that results in more useful torque and less wasted effort.

Cycling is ofc much less skilled than these sports. Nonetheless you can pedal in a way that is less efficient than ideal. If you apply peak force before or after the sweetspot and/or do not use all the muscles capable of delivering power and/or do not relax your leg on the upstroke then you are wasting an opportunity to get better. You can still move a bike forward, just not as well as you might. The difference is not huge but big enough to be noticeable just by looking. At high load (i.e. when it matters) most amateurs look quite different from pro cyclists, their pedal stroke looks choppy and forced while that of the pro is much smoother despite producing both higher absolute and relative to max power.

Cadence drills can help you improve:
- low rpm high resistance allows you to get used to recruit all the muscles that can generate torque and apply this at the best time.
- high rpm low resistance helps embed the timing to get the best force>torque conversion at normal riding speed and relax the leg on follow through.

The drills are not complicated. In my experience the best are
- When keeping power constant (e.g.during the work portion of intervals) vary cadence from 50-100. For short intervals just use a different cadence for each, for longer ones start low build to fast then back to "normal".
- Do a ramp style tests by increasing cadence (and thus power) from slow to fast. You may surprise yourself in terms of results especially if your normal reaction is it decrease cadence as power goes up.

If you following a training plan there is simply no downside to applying the above. You just do them as part of your normal routine. Indeed adding focus on cadence can actually help as it gives a bit of variety to long workouts and for short intense ones concentrating on cadence can help keep the mind off thinking about pain.

I know others disagree and believe that as if by magic everyone pedals perfectly and all you need to do is "increase your power" without worrying about how you are actually doing it at the most basic level. To me this just sounds like the hack golfer belief that to hit a ball further all you need to do is "hit it harder" and is similarly wrong.

mamba80 · December 2014

Imposter wrote:

You'd have to ask them....

well actually you were one who said it was a waste of time so i was asking you and mrs...as you guys seem to know more than many renowned coaches including BC coaches who have given my daughter "Strength" workouts.
I was also lucky enough recently to chat with a former PR winner who said strength workouts were an essential part of a riders training....at all levels.

Thankyou bahzob, i dont always agree with everything you say but its always very interesting to read your posts, thanks for the post.

meanredspider · December 2014

mamba80 wrote:

I was asking you and mrs...as you guys seem to know more than many renowned coaches

I was actually far more balanced and objective in what I wrote than saying it's a "a waste of time". I'm actually more equivocal and believe it probably depends upon you and your specific goals and weaknesses (as does pretty much everything in this sub-forum).

My own experience, though, matches the broad sentiment of what I wrote and I'm undoubtedly limited by my aerobic engine. After all, except for the steepest climbs (which is outside the scope of TT-ing), you can gear your way out of trouble. From then on it's just whether your heart and lungs can keep the job going (in the crudest possible sense). I've certainly built muscle mass on my legs buts that's probably as much to do with me being big and to do with my tendency to compensate for lack of aerobic capacity by grinding my way up at lower cadences (I'd compare myself with a Diesel engine rather than a revvy motorbike engine which isn't a bad analogy to this discussion). I'm not fast.

okgo · December 2014

fish156 wrote:

okgo wrote:

You will find your zone quite natrually I think.

Out of curiosity I just checked my last 5 rides, all done in the last few days, around 250 miles worth, every ride I averaged 88rpm with the exception of one where I averaged 87. I don't have it displayed on my screen at any point, I just ride what feels right at the power I am trying to ride at so clearly that is about what I find perfect, I doubt any good would come of me attempting to average 95 rpm, or 80 rpm. However in my last 10 mile TT I averaged 97 rpm, so there is usually a difference I would think when you start closing hip angles vs road bike.

But I doubt that many of your 250 January miles were ridden at 'race pace'. Maybe you naturally pedal faster when you're emptying the tank for 10 miles? Perhaps that or you just need to but that 58t chainring?

I have done a few hard intervals and the cadence is the same, just in a bigger gear. Another 60 miles today and guess what...average cadence 88rpm.

TT average cadence goal

Comments

Categories