low or high cadence I'm a bit confused

[CoachFergie]

Huh? We all are most comfortable with what we are most familiar with. I can see how such a racing style might have developed when shifting was done with friction shifters on the down tube. Not real easy to do quickly or with any assurance where you would end up. And, of course, there is a natural tendency for beginners, who may have access to newer technology at the beginning of their careers, to race like those who came before you and are better than you. Just because new technology comes along that might allow a change in style does not mean that it invariably occurs even though an argument can be made in its favor.

When was the last time you raced in a criterium?

 

[Martin318is]

Huh? We all are most comfortable with what we are most familiar with. I can see how such a racing style might have developed when shifting was done with friction shifters on the down tube. Not real easy to do quickly or with any assurance where you would end up. And, of course, there is a natural tendency for beginners, who may have access to newer technology at the beginning of their careers, to race like those who came before you and are better than you. Just because new technology comes along that might allow a change in style does not mean that it invariably occurs even though an argument can be made in its favor.

Regarding your comment - what percentage of riders in the world right now would you say were on electronic shifting? The arguments you are putting forward are more suitable to CVT than indexed shifting...

Ignoring that question for the moment, can you tell me what happens to your legs when you have been pushing a gear at a lowish cadence for a long period and then suddenly have to accelerate? (or worse, do so again 30seconds later, and again, and again) Can you not see that there are numerous circumstances where "efficient" cadence is not necessarily the most comfortable one to race at?

Note that I am NOT arguing that a rider must stay over X rpm to succeed. I just pointed out that most research for ideal cadence applies for TT style efforts, not close racing - or even group riding.

 

[FrankDay]

Regarding your comment - what percentage of riders in the world right now would you say were on electronic shifting? The arguments you are putting forward are more suitable to CVT than indexed shifting...

Ignoring that question for the moment, can you tell me what happens to your legs when you have been pushing a gear at a lowish cadence for a long period and then suddenly have to accelerate? (or worse, do so again 30seconds later, and again, and again) Can you not see that there are numerous circumstances where "efficient" cadence is not necessarily the most comfortable one to race at?

Note that I am NOT arguing that a rider must stay over X rpm to succeed. I just pointed out that most research for ideal cadence applies for TT style efforts, not close racing - or even group riding.

I have never seen any research that suggests that anything bad happens to the legs when one goes suddenly from one intensity and speed to another rapidly. Soccer players do that all the time without too much difficulty.

All I am trying to say is that I think energy management seems to be not very well done, to my way of thinking, by many cyclists.

 

[Martin318is]

I have never seen any research that suggests that anything bad happens to the legs when one goes suddenly from one intensity and speed to another rapidly. Soccer players do that all the time without too much difficulty.

All I am trying to say is that I think energy management seems to be not very well done, to my way of thinking, by many cyclists.

I can tell you through experience - it HURTS. Think of it as being similar to being hit in the quads with a hammer. This is why most experienced riders do not race that way. Sure, some riders are suited to doing it but a lot aren't. You can pick them in a race field by the way that they stand up to accelerate in those circumstances and immediately sit straight back down as the twang of pain hits.

All I am trying to say is that racing isn't just a set of mathematical equations based upon laboratory testing. If it were then - as the joke goes - get everyone's VO2 max etc on the startline and we can all go home.

 

[FrankDay]

I can tell you through experience - it HURTS. Think of it as being similar to being hit in the quads with a hammer. This is why most experienced riders do not race that way. Sure, some riders are suited to doing it but a lot aren't. You can pick them in a race field by the way that they stand up to accelerate in those circumstances and immediately sit straight back down as the twang of pain hits.

All I am trying to say is that racing isn't just a set of mathematical equations based upon laboratory testing. If it were then - as the joke goes - get everyone's VO2 max etc on the startline and we can all go home.

Look, I do a lot of "mind experiments" seeing if I can find areas where improvement might be found. You might very well be right that what you are advocating is the only reasonable way humans can race. But, the potential is there for, perhaps, a better way.

Oh, and you would have to get more than their VO2max, need their efficiency also (and a drag number if we are talking TT), and maybe some way of measuring fatigueability(?). Then we could all go home, maybe.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I have never seen any research that suggests that anything bad happens to the legs when one goes suddenly from one intensity and speed to another rapidly. Soccer players do that all the time without too much difficulty.

All I am trying to say is that I think energy management seems to be not very well done, to my way of thinking, by many cyclists.

There are far, far more important things that impact energy management in mass start racing than the gear one chooses to ride in.

 

[FrankDay]

There are far, far more important things that impact energy management in mass start racing than the gear one chooses to ride in.

Well, if one doesn't consider all of the impacts on energy cost, even the small ones, one cannot optimize it.

On the crank length thread Martin was willing to throw away approximately a 1% gain in power simply because it was small compared to what everyone is used to. To me, I don't see why a racer would want to ever give away a single watt. But, the world listened to Martin. Bunch of sheep to my way of thinking.

 

[CoachFergie]

Some of us do real experiments. We actually measure stuff and make comparisons to see what works. Many a theory in my head has been blown out of the water by the data. I tested two ergs with covers on the fan on and off and what I felt was some pretty clear differences were not as real as I imagined when I looked at the power data.

We have tried big gears and small gears. We do it on track all the time. Especially when riders go from U17 (restricted to 6.610 roll out in NZ) into U19 (no restriction on track). They don't start riding 108" gears because Bradley Wiggins does. They experiment with gears till they find what works for them.

They realise what works for them will not work for others. But when making these decisions the measures used make all the difference. Hence the use of a power meter.

 

[CoachFergie]

Well, if one doesn't consider all of the impacts on energy cost, even the small ones, one cannot optimize it.

On the crank length thread Martin was willing to throw away approximately a 1% gain in power simply because it was small compared to what everyone is used to. To me, I don't see why a racer would want to ever give away a single watt. But, the world listened to Martin. Bunch of sheep to my way of thinking.

That was at worst .5% for the tallest and the shortest riders using a 170mm crank.

 

[FrankDay]

That was at worst .5% for the tallest and the shortest riders using a 170mm crank.

Whatever, 0.5% of 500 watts is 2.5 watts. Why do you want to give those away? I know. It's too much work to change your cranks and your sponsors don't make cranks of the most powerful length. You are letting the bike manufacturers limit your potential. Why?

 

[CoachFergie]

Whatever, 0.5% of 500 watts is 2.5 watts. Why do you want to give those away? I know. It's too much work to change your cranks and your sponsors don't make cranks of the most powerful length. You are letting the bike manufacturers limit your potential. Why?

At the level that Martin was studying (sprinters) it's 6 watts and it was the maximum possible loss of power for the tallest and shortest of riders if they used a 170mm crank. For people closer to the average height the possible gain would be far less and that is not worth bothering over when there are training and dietary interventions that have far larger evidence based gains.

Burgomaster (2006) 100% gains in power from doing 12-18 minutes of Short Interval Training in a two week period or Jeukendrup suggesting that if one mixes two different types of Carbohydrate one can take up more carbohydrate than the 60gr/hr that we previously thought was the limit.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Well, if one doesn't consider all of the impacts on energy cost, even the small ones, one cannot optimize it.

On the crank length thread Martin was willing to throw away approximately a 1% gain in power simply because it was small compared to what everyone is used to. To me, I don't see why a racer would want to ever give away a single watt. But, the world listened to Martin. Bunch of sheep to my way of thinking.

You are confusing efficiency for effectiveness.

In mass start (crit) racing, race nouse, knowing when and when not to expend energy, cornering skill, bunch positioning, ability to read a race, knowing how to draft effectively are far, far more important. Farting about in gears you are not all that comfy with is taking your focus away from stuff that is orders of magnitude more important.

Crikey, imagine using such silly gear choices in a classic hot dog crit!

In fact I'm often looking for race data that indicates the rider did the least amount of work for sizable portions of a race, not the best power numbers.

But when the time comes to put the smack down, they can and do.

Gear choice should be something you don't even think about - it's second nature. That comes from lots of race experience.

My local crit circuit has 10 corners. You should come and race it some day.

 

[Martin318is]

Look, I do a lot of "mind experiments" seeing if I can find areas where improvement might be found. You might very well be right that what you are advocating is the only reasonable way humans can race. But, the potential is there for, perhaps, a better way.

Oh, and you would have to get more than their VO2max, need their efficiency also (and a drag number if we are talking TT), and maybe some way of measuring fatigueability(?). Then we could all go home, maybe.

note the "etc" in my comment

I do understand what you are trying to get at and I'm trying to not be blindly dismissive of it - after all, doing something for 1000 years doest mean its the best way to do that thing or humans would still be around campfires. the point I was trying to get at earlier is that when you are one rider against the clock you are much more able to control your actions such that you work in an "ideal" efficient manner. When you are in a mass start road race that becomes a lot more difficult to arrange and when you are in a crit it starts approaching some form of barrier where you are governed much more by how you operate at your limit. It may be the case that there are things that any rider can improve but beyond the standard ones, they will be different for every person based upon their makeup

 

[Martin318is]

Well, if one doesn't consider all of the impacts on energy cost, even the small ones, one cannot optimize it.

On the crank length thread Martin was willing to throw away approximately a 1% gain in power simply because it was small compared to what everyone is used to. To me, I don't see why a racer would want to ever give away a single watt. But, the world listened to Martin. Bunch of sheep to my way of thinking.

do me a favour and use his entire name? Im pretty sure that you are not referrinf to me but even I am not sure

 

[FrankDay]

do me a favour and use his entire name? Im pretty sure that you are not referrinf to me but even I am not sure

Ooops. I meant Martin of the Martin crank length study that has been mentioned before in other threads.

 

[FrankDay]

note the "etc" in my comment

I do understand what you are trying to get at and I'm trying to not be blindly dismissive of it - after all, doing something for 1000 years doest mean its the best way to do that thing or humans would still be around campfires. the point I was trying to get at earlier is that when you are one rider against the clock you are much more able to control your actions such that you work in an "ideal" efficient manner. When you are in a mass start road race that becomes a lot more difficult to arrange and when you are in a crit it starts approaching some form of barrier where you are governed much more by how you operate at your limit. It may be the case that there are things that any rider can improve but beyond the standard ones, they will be different for every person based upon their makeup

Part of what we do under stress depends upon what we have done in training in anticipation of that stress. If we think there is a better way then one must put the effort in during training to respond differently. If we are happy with the way we are then such efforts are not necessary. We all have limited time so where is our time best spent? Each person must make that determination for themselves.

 

[FrankDay]

You are confusing efficiency for effectiveness.

In mass start (crit) racing, race nouse, knowing when and when not to expend energy, cornering skill, bunch positioning, ability to read a race, knowing how to draft effectively are far, far more important. Farting about in gears you are not all that comfy with is taking your focus away from stuff that is orders of magnitude more important.

Crikey, imagine using such silly gear choices in a classic hot dog crit!

In fact I'm often looking for race data that indicates the rider did the least amount of work for sizable portions of a race, not the best power numbers.

But when the time comes to put the smack down, they can and do.

Gear choice should be something you don't even think about - it's second nature. That comes from lots of race experience.

My local crit circuit has 10 corners. You should come and race it some day.

My guess is after one or two races with the same people on that course you know almost exactly what to expect at each and everyone of those corners such that you could anticipate a surge need 95% of the time and be in the "best" gear for the anticipated need. Anyhow, I would expect you to do whatever you thought worked best for you and not necessarily change everything you do just because I see a possible small advantage to another way.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

My guess is after one or two races with the same people on that course you know almost exactly what to expect at each and everyone of those corners such that you could anticipate a surge need 95% of the time and be in the "best" gear for the anticipated need. Anyhow, I would expect you to do whatever you thought worked best for you and not necessarily change everything you do just because I see a possible small advantage to another way.

You guess wrong then. Come and ride some crits. I don't know how many countless one I've raced (on that one circuit) and they are always different in some way. Part of what makes them so much fun, you don't know what to expect.

A Quadrant Analysis on pedal forces & velocities might give you some clues as to why one probably doesn't want to be bogged down in too big a gear.

 

[180mmCrank]

You guess wrong then. Come and ride some crits. I don't know how many countless one I've raced (on that one circuit) and they are always different in some way. Part of what makes them so much fun, you don't know what to expect.

.

Isn't it a bit of both? The course has a certain set of macro characteristics but any given race will play out a little differently?

T

 

[CoachFergie]

My guess is after one or two races with the same people on that course you know almost exactly what to expect at each and everyone of those corners such that you could anticipate a surge need 95% of the time and be in the "best" gear for the anticipated need. Anyhow, I would expect you to do whatever you thought worked best for you and not necessarily change everything you do just because I see a possible small advantage to another way.

My collection of power meter data from 16 cyclists in a 9 race series would suggest that there are large differences. Same course and same riders each week but every race a different power profile. With variations in the weather a vastly difference speed profile. This was an out and back course with only 4 corners. Add 100 more corners and I would expect the variability to be even higher.

 

[oldborn]

Fargo who cares about your awesome power files.
You are on wrong forum IMHO, went back to wattage group s.. forum, wattage midnight fever guru power forum, slowtwitch how awesome power is forum ( I mean you guys are all over world) and sell your ideas to dudes who are spending their money on PM

I think this is only place on world where we are talking about PM in critique way, and you could not get it over that.

P.S. Are you taking new clients?

 

[Martin318is]

Ooops. I meant Martin of the Martin crank length study that has been mentioned before in other threads.

No probs - most of the people in the conversation know who you meant - its just that some don't

 

[Boeing]

A PubMed search for "cycling and cadence" showed over 150 scientific studies have been published on cadence. The main issues with cadence are economy and efficiency (which usually occur at lower rpms) and muscle fatigue (which is usually less at higher rpms). While there are some contradictory papers, most studies show that performance is decreased and cardiovascular workload is increased at higher cadences. A sample of the results is provided below:

- "higher forces during the low-cadence intervals are potentially beneficial to improve performance" in Effects of low and high cadence interval training on power output in flat and uphill cycling Eur J Appl Physiol 2011.

- "The energetically optimal cadence decreased after prolonged cycling exercise at a high as well as at a low fixed cadence (P < 0.01). According to the generalized muscle equations of Hill, this indicates that most likely more type I muscle fibres contribute to muscular power output after fatiguing cycling exercise compared to cycling in the beginning of an exercise bout." in The energetically optimal cadence decreases after prolonged cycling exercise Eur J Appl Physiol 2010.

- "increase in cadence (from 60 rpm to 90 rpm) improves the efficiency of pedalling and the recruitment in both groups (non-cyclists and cyclists)" in The efficiency of pedalling and the muscular recruitment are improved with increase of the cadence in cyclists and non-cyclists Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 2009.

- "Low-cadence interval training (60-70 rpm) is probably more effective than high-cadence training (110-120 rpm) in improving performance of well-trained competitive cyclists. The effects on performance may be related to training-associated effects on testosterone and to effects on maximum oxygen uptake." in Effects of low- vs. high-cadence interval training on cycling performance in J Strength Cond Res 2009.

- "At a given work rate, very similar efficiency values were obtained at highly different cadences. The discrepancy in the freely chosen pedal rate (FCC)-work rate relationship between the ergometer cycling group and the free cycling group may be related to the manner in which one can regulate work rate. FCC depends not only on work rate but is also affected considerably by the manner in which the work rate can be controlled by cadence." in Freely chosen pedal rate during free cycling on a roller and ergometer cycling Eur J Appl Physiol 2009

- "Freely chosen pedal rate was found to be approximately 80 rpm at all workloads and was significantly higher than the most economical cadence (50 rpm)." in Factors associated with the selection of the freely chosen cadence in non-cyclists Eur J Appl Physiol 2009

- "Within the past 10 years, a number of papers have been published that have brought novel insight into the subject. For example, under the influence of spinal central pattern generators, a robust innate voluntary motor rhythm has been suggested as the primary basis for freely chosen cadence in cycling. This might clarify the cadence paradox in which the freely chosen cadence during low-to-moderate submaximal cycling is considerably higher and thereby less economical than the energetically optimal cadence. A number of factors, including age, power output, and road gradient, have been shown to affect the choice of cadence to some extent. During high-intensity cycling, close to the maximal aerobic power output, cyclists choose an energetically economical cadence that is also favorable for performance. In contrast, the choice of a relatively high cadence during cycling at low-to-moderate intensity is uneconomical and could compromise performance during prolonged cycling." in Factors affecting cadence choice during suboptimal cycling and cadence influence performance Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2009

- "During cycle bouts of short duration (<15 min), it has been well argued that experienced cyclists, trained runners and triathletes adopt high cadences (80-100 rpm) systematically above the energetically optimal cadence (EOC) at which the oxygen uptake is minimal (55-65 rpm). The choice of a high cadence has been shown to be dependent upon several factors, such as the aerobic fitness level, the reduction in forces applied to the cranks, the lower extremity net joint moments and minimal neuromuscular fatigue. However, with increasing exercise duration the FCC has been reported to be close to the EOC exclusively in endurance athletes practising a variety of activities ..." in Which factors determine the freely chosen cadence during submaximal cycling J Sci Med Sport 2010

- "Lower cadences were more effective during the recovery phase for both intensities and freely chosen pedal rate was the best technique during the propulsive phase." in Cadence and workload effects on pedaling technique of well-trained cyclists Int J Sports Med 2008

- "Cardiac output (CO) was higher at 100 rpm ... VO2 at both workloads was greater at 100 than 80 rpm as was HR. Results suggest that increases in O2 demand during low submaximal cycling (50 % VO2max) at high cadences are met by HR-induced increases in CO. At higher workloads (65 % VO2max), inability of higher cadences to increase CO and O2 delivery is offset by greater O2 extraction." in Cardiovascular effects of cadence and workload Int J Sports Med 2008

- "A high pedaling cadence (i.e., 120 rpm) reduces performance (i.e., W(max)) and anaerobic threshold during an incremental test in well-trained cyclists." in Med Sci Sports Exerc 2006

Here are some general articles on cadence from the web:

http://www.mybetterhealthforums.com/optimal-pedaling-cadence-what-is-best-and-why/index.html

http://jon-sparks.suite101.com/cadence-for-better-pedalling-a12791

http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/coachcorn/cadence.html

http://beginnertriathlete.com/cms/article-detail.asp?articleid=433

great post and after 2 nights reading it I am digesting bits slowly

I wonder how much it has to do with the athlete and body type. for instance fast twitch and slow twitch athletes.

High Cadence isnt an option sometimes for me. For example climbing a sustained climb is a 39-25-26 or even 28 at 90+ is quite a task

this statement I find interesting

"the choice of a relatively high cadence during cycling at low-to-moderate intensity is uneconomical and could compromise performance during prolonged cycling?

 

[kielbasa]

Ever changed gear while accelerating hard? It's not pretty.

In these races, if you have to wait the time it takes for a gear change to accelerate, then it's often too late.

I don't claim to having been a great crit rider (1 win + couple of primes/5 years), but I made it a habit of shifting down before each turn and rarely had the need to accellerate out of saddle.

 

[Martin318is]

yep and THAT is going to be all about positioning, etc. further towards front you are (while still out of the wind) the closer it gets to a 'normal' road race where you can ease through corners - the further towards the back the more you are going to need to sprint every corner.

before anyone says the obvious though - EVERYONE in the field knows this (or should) so they all try to be at the front. Hence the interesting pacing issues in a crit and the fact that a lot of it will be dependant upon who you are racing against and how clever/strong they are