so what about cadence

[Boeing]

http://wap.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=2004/letters09-20#Cadence

Everyone please have read of this. It summarizes pretty much everything being said and argued in a logical and cohesive manner.

I went looking for this link again, anyone?

 

[M Sport]

I went looking for this link again, anyone?

I think this will be it http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=2004/letters09-20#Cadence

 

[Boeing]

I think this will be it http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=2004/letters09-20#Cadence

thank you for the link

 

[JayKosta]

I have been doing indoor training on an exercise bike that provides many levels of resistance, and displays HR, Watts, speed, cadence, etc.
I don't know if the values for speed, and Watts are accurate, but they are repeatable, and I trust them for day-to-day comparison.
I trust the HR and cadence numbers to be accurate.
My comfortable 'spin' cadence is mid-80s, and that seems to give the best values for watts and HR. Note: I'm age 65, and a 'decent cyclist', but not at 'race level'.

Those measurement functions provide good info about the effects of various resistance, and cadence choices.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[FrankDay]

I really track cadence more than anything else while I am riding. I live in a hilly area so it can change drastically from flat to up hill. On the flats I try to maintain high 90s. I often get into the 100+ range but up shift if I anticipate being in that range for a while. I use leg strain in conjunction with cadence to do a lot of my shifting.

I am a little stocky at 190 pounds US. My height is around 5 feet 9 inches. I am 54 years.

What is an average cadence for an average rider on the flats?

What is an average cadence for an average professional on the flats?

I would love a heart rate monitor but I am too cheap. It may scare me anyway. In the past when I have done a heart stress test for a physical the doctors give up because I cannot get my heart rate as high as they want. So, don't worry about killing me with your answers.

Study after study has looked at cadence and determined that the average cyclist rides at a cadence (90-100) that is above the most efficient cadence (60-70) for them. Why has always eluded explanation.

I believe I understand why. We evolved as running animals and the most efficient running cadence is around 90 for most people. Hence, that cadence feels natural. But efficiency has to do with pedal speed so a 90 cadence on the crank length that most people ride results in a way too high pedal speed for optimum efficiency. So, it "feels" right but it isn't optimum.

There are two fixes. Either slow the cadence to something that doesn't feel natural or shorten the crank length to something that allows the rider to ride at the natural cadence and optimum pedal speed.

 

[42x16ss]

 

[ustabe]

Study after study has looked at cadence and determined that the average cyclist rides at a cadence (90-100) that is above the most efficient cadence (60-70) for them. Why has always eluded explanation.

I believe I explained that in my first post. While we are more efficient at lower cadences, our desire avoid joint replacement surgery before we're 60 takes precedence. Higher cadences enhance muscle suppleness and circulation and put less strain on joints, and connective tissue. Spinning also lets the legs apply more power with less strain on demand, as when climbing or facing a gust of wind.

For long climbs most of us drop down to a more efficient cadence, but as soon as we top out, the spin comes back to let the legs recover. Most of us will also time trial at lower cadences.

By the way, the reason racers "mashed" the mountains in those olden days was primarily because of equipment limitations--5, 6, or 7 cogs to a freewheel, rear derailleurs that couldn't handle rear cog spread greater than 12 teeth, a rear cog larger than 26, and a total cog spread of greater than 24.

I would like to know more about these mashing studies. Primarily, were the test subjects pro cyclists, experienced and well-coached amateurs, or weekend duffers? Bradley Wiggins, after his year of winning practically everything he targeted (2011), cited higher cadence, not bigger gears, as fundamental to his improvement. And everyone who is familiar with the sport remembers the effectiveness, doping aside, of Lance Armstrong's windmill style of climbing. Do the mashing studies indicate that Armstrong would have been even faster had he done more big-gear chuffing up those mountains in the manner of Jan Ullrich?

My personal experience recalls that I was pretty inefficient when I first tried to maintain 90 rpm, but after the feet learned where the pedals were and the motion became automatic, 95-100 became natural and that thrashing sensation didn't start til around 130. I've always looked at rpms like IQ points--while they are not the last word or the final goal, we could all benefit from having a few more of them. And, with practice and training, they are attainable.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Most of us will also time trial at lower cadences.

I don't. My TT cadence is usually 95-100 rpm, pretty much the same for road races and crits. Track races are somewhat higher though. Not that cadence really means all that much per se.

 

[rhubroma]

Personally the more one rides the more one gets in touch with which cadence vs. power output and their own efficiency is most convenient given the situation.

There are times when sitting in it's nice to work on a higher cadence, while concentrating on breathing, to keep the legs elastic and supple. This can be varied with lower cadence, to maintain the same speed while decreasing the respiratory workload, to in a sense calm down the breathing and relax a bit.

When the situation requires maximum effort the cadence gets determined by whichever rate allows you to remain hitched on to the riders you are following, which is almost always never too high nor too low.

I have also found that in long races, with multiple long climbs (say between 8-16 K), then the further on I'm almost always doing a higher cadence on the climbs then before when I was fresher.

I realize there is nothing scientific about this assessment, however the experienced rider figures out cadence on a "touch and feel" basis. What I can confirm, though, is that for me the business of high cadence for high cadence sake alone is bogus and not at all the best way to maximize performance and efficiency, rather a varied approach is key.

 

[oldcrank]

For what it is worth, the BikeCult web-site has a page
dealing with the Hour Record and it appears that from
the riders they had gearing information for 100-105.7
was the cadence* range for the majority of the riders.

The time period covered was 1914 to 1996 and the
only exceptions were Obree 92.9(1993), 94.9(1994)
and Indurain 99.7rpm(1994).

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the information.

*EDIT-obviously, the numbers are average cadence
so actual cadence would vary both above and
below during the Hour.

 

[FrankDay]

For what it is worth, the BikeCult web-site has a page
dealing with the Hour Record and it appears that from
the riders they had gearing information for 100-105.7
was the cadence* range for the majority of the riders.

The time period covered was 1914 to 1996 and the
only exceptions were Obree 92.9(1993), 94.9(1994)
and Indurain 99.7rpm(1994).

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the information.

*EDIT-obviously, the numbers are average cadence
so actual cadence would vary both above and
below during the Hour.

Cadence means almost nothing without corresponding crank length (and rider size) information. I think it is pretty clear the most important metric is pedal speed. One cannot calculate that without knowing both cadence and crank length.

Further, I suspect optimum pedal speed varies with power output (increasing power efficiently requires increasing both cadence and force on the pedals). Looking at the cadence (or pedal speed) of someone putting out 400 watts for the hour record than then trying to apply their cadence or pedal speed to yourself, putting out 250 watts, is sure to lead you astray. But, such comparisons is, of course, what cyclists do.

 

[FrankDay]

For what it is worth, the BikeCult web-site has a page
dealing with the Hour Record and it appears that from
the riders they had gearing information for 100-105.7
was the cadence* range for the majority of the riders.

The time period covered was 1914 to 1996 and the
only exceptions were Obree 92.9(1993), 94.9(1994)
and Indurain 99.7rpm(1994).

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the information.

*EDIT-obviously, the numbers are average cadence
so actual cadence would vary both above and
below during the Hour.

Cadence means almost nothing without corresponding crank length (and rider size) information. I think it is pretty clear the most important metric is pedal speed. One cannot calculate that without knowing both cadence and crank length.

Further, I suspect optimum pedal speed varies with power output (increasing power efficiently requires increasing both cadence and force on the pedals). Looking at the cadence (or pedal speed) of someone putting out 400 watts for the hour record then then trying to apply their cadence or pedal speed to yourself, putting out 250 watts, is sure to lead you astray. But, such comparisons is, of course, what cyclists do.

 

[FrankDay]

While we are more efficient at lower cadences, our desire avoid joint replacement surgery before we're 60 takes precedence. Higher cadences enhance muscle suppleness and circulation and put less strain on joints, and connective tissue. Spinning also lets the legs apply more power with less strain on demand, as when climbing or facing a gust of wind.

There is zero reason to believe any of the above is true. If it were, why not pedal at cadences of 150 or 200 or 250? The problem is forces on the pedal have little to do with forces on the joints. There are more forces on the knee joints simply walking and especially running than when riding a bike seated, even at low cadences. Forces on the joints also include the forces that come from accelerating the foot up to pedal speed before you can apply an ounce of force to the pedal. Your explanation is simply a rationalization (without any scientific support) to explain what you currently do as being best.

Efficiency matters. Most races are won in the last 10%, not the first 10% or even 90%. If you expend less energy in the first 90% you have more left in the tank when it really counts.

 

[oldcrank]

Cadence means almost nothing without corresponding crank length (and rider size) information. I think it is pretty clear the most important metric is pedal speed. One cannot calculate that without knowing both cadence and crank length.

That information is available for many of the Hour Record riders, my friend.
http://www.bikecult.com/bikecultbook/sports_recordsHour.html

Again, I cannot vouch for the accuracy of any of the information.

 

[FrankDay]

That information is available for many of the Hour Record riders, my friend.
http://www.bikecult.com/bikecultbook/sports_recordsHour.html

Again, I cannot vouch for the accuracy of any of the information.

Interesting. Unfortunately the information is incomplete. For instance, there is no cadence information for Sosenka. Most would look at him riding 190 cranks and say: "see, longer is better." But, if we compare his height (2m) to Boardman (1.76m) and compare crank lengths (190 vs 170) we see that if Sosenka were brought down to Boardman's height and his crank scaled accordingly, he was really only riding 168mm cranks. So, is longer better? I guess it depends upon how you want to look at the data.

And both these folks were putting out over 400 watts for the hour. If you can do that feel confident in applying this data to yourself. In my opinion this data simply has no meaning for most of us.

 

[oldcrank]

In my opinion this data simply has no meaning for most of us.

I agree, my friend. As a pursuiter, all that matters is what my
time is, how it compares to those I am competing against,
and can I back it up in the finals.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

One of my client's hour records (48.3+ km) was run at 112 rpm average. Another client with the record in different age category (47.9+ km) averaged 102 rpm.

Horses for courses.

 

[Armchaircyclist]

As a person transitioning from running to cycling, this is an interesting topic thanks for the input.
To me it feels like I am "spinning" at 75rpm, so I guess I have to work on increasing my cadence. I don't usually measure it on the road, but I'm guessing I'm quite frequently at around 60... The 75 is reached with the bike mounted on a roller-trainer.

I'm 44 years old, and have signed up for a 170km ride with 2000m total elevation, 2 and a half months left to prepare. I've been trying to get 1 hour or more average time on the bike per day, plus 1 longer ride of maybe 3 hours/per week. Crossing my fingers it will be enough

 

[FrankDay]

One of my client's hour records (48.3+ km) was run at 112 rpm average. Another client with the record in different age category (47.9+ km) averaged 102 rpm.

Horses for courses.

What does that information mean without also knowing the size of the rider and the crank length ridden?

 

[ustabe]

There is zero reason to believe any of the above is true. If it were, why not pedal at cadences of 150 or 200 or 250? The problem is forces on the pedal have little to do with forces on the joints. There are more forces on the knee joints simply walking and especially running than when riding a bike seated, even at low cadences. Forces on the joints also include the forces that come from accelerating the foot up to pedal speed before you can apply an ounce of force to the pedal. Your explanation is simply a rationalization (without any scientific support) to explain what you currently do as being best.

Efficiency matters. Most races are won in the last 10%, not the first 10% or even 90%. If you expend less energy in the first 90% you have more left in the tank when it really counts.

If most races are won in the last 10%, they are also lost in the first 90%. That is, matching accelerations, making the climbs, closing the gaps, fighting the crosswinds, and keeping the legs supple and warm for the final wind-up. And trying to do that at "efficient" cadences is a guarantee for a short race and a short career.

It's funny, because the guys who spin do it because all the other guys are doing it, and they do it because the guys who came before them did it, and they do it because all the trainers say you'd better do it if you're going to have your legs at the end of the race or the end of the season or a few seasons before the end of your career.

And then the exercise physiologists show up with data that shows that spinning is inefficient and 100 years of experience has to be thrown away. Well, efficiency is good, wasting time and energy is bad, so what's the problem?

I'm 61 now, and I would have given up cycling in my early 20s had I not been taught cadence. I would have also had to give up running, skiing, hiking, rock climbing, and walking up and down the stairs. Swimming in my teens had given me low-level cartilage damage to the knees, and bike touring at efficiently low cadences (I sure felt fast) led to more damage and inflammation.

After a few months of staying off my legs I started on club rides with a racing group. Just stay in the small ring for a few weeks. It was like learning to walk all over again. It felt slow and inefficient. But it came together when we started using the big ring and the cadences didn't go down.

Cadence is a skill. It requires training. The benefits aren't immediate or easily measured. Lance didn't wake up one day and say, I could be a faster climber by gearing down and turning the cranks faster than everybody else. He trained to be fast that way. Just like you don't train for swimming by thrashing at the water, you work on arm position, body position, breath control, starts and turns, strength, and cadence. And you don't train for cycling by mashing on the pedals.

I can understand the desire to break it all down quantitatively-- a rider with this much slow twitch, this much fast twitch, femurs this long, feet this long, cranks this long (well, he really should be on shorter cranks), should be turning the cranks this fast for maximum output over this distance. But I don't think you'll get the most highly skilled cyclists to risk blowing up a season or a career for such a study. The old-fashioned way worked for Anquetil and Merckx and it will work for me. And as for doing it with unskilled cyclists, well, they might be strong, but they are untrained.

 

[FrankDay]

If most races are won in the last 10%, they are also lost in the first 90%. That is, matching accelerations, making the climbs, closing the gaps, fighting the crosswinds, and keeping the legs supple and warm for the final wind-up. And trying to do that at "efficient" cadences is a guarantee for a short race and a short career.

It's funny, because the guys who spin do it because all the other guys are doing it, and they do it because the guys who came before them did it, and they do it because all the trainers say you'd better do it if you're going to have your legs at the end of the race or the end of the season or a few seasons before the end of your career.

And then the exercise physiologists show up with data that shows that spinning is inefficient and 100 years of experience has to be thrown away. Well, efficiency is good, wasting time and energy is bad, so what's the problem?

I'm 61 now, and I would have given up cycling in my early 20s had I not been taught cadence. I would have also had to give up running, skiing, hiking, rock climbing, and walking up and down the stairs. Swimming in my teens had given me low-level cartilage damage to the knees, and bike touring at efficiently low cadences (I sure felt fast) led to more damage and inflammation.

After a few months of staying off my legs I started on club rides with a racing group. Just stay in the small ring for a few weeks. It was like learning to walk all over again. It felt slow and inefficient. But it came together when we started using the big ring and the cadences didn't go down.

Cadence is a skill. It requires training. The benefits aren't immediate or easily measured. Lance didn't wake up one day and say, I could be a faster climber by gearing down and turning the cranks faster than everybody else. He trained to be fast that way. Just like you don't train for swimming by thrashing at the water, you work on arm position, body position, breath control, starts and turns, strength, and cadence. And you don't train for cycling by mashing on the pedals.

I can understand the desire to break it all down quantitatively-- a rider with this much slow twitch, this much fast twitch, femurs this long, feet this long, cranks this long (well, he really should be on shorter cranks), should be turning the cranks this fast for maximum output over this distance. But I don't think you'll get the most highly skilled cyclists to risk blowing up a season or a career for such a study. The old-fashioned way worked for Anquetil and Merckx and it will work for me. And as for doing it with unskilled cyclists, well, they might be strong, but they are untrained.

I guess I am not sure what your point is. I am now 70 and an ex ultramarathoner (longest run 72 miles). I am not a competitive cyclist (no need to worry about surges, sprinting, etc.) but a triathlete but when I was riding standard length (175) cranks my evolved preferred cadence was about 60 and now that I am riding 130 mm cranks my preferred cadence is in the 80-90 range. I have zero issues with my knees. Further, I am trained as a physician and I can not think of a single reason, barring injury, as to why I should have any knee issues from those cycling choices.

Your point seems to be lets just do things the way things have "always" been done. And, since the elites probably won't participate in such a study there is nothing to be learned anyhow. So, why don't you forget trying to look at the science to see if we can find ways to improve. I am happy with what I am doing so you should be also.

 

[ustabe]

I have zero issues with my knees. Further, I am trained as a physician and I can not think of a single reason, barring injury, as to why I should have any knee issues from those cycling choices.

Your point seems to be lets just do things the way things have "always" been done. And, since the elites probably won't participate in such a study there is nothing to be learned anyhow. So, why don't you forget trying to look at the science to see if we can find ways to improve. I am happy with what I am doing so you should be also.

You're lucky to have healthy knees. Occasionally I injure my knees, and I use spinning as therapy. In my estimation it's healthier than cortisone shots.

Hinault, Fignon, and LeMond all missed races due to knee inflammations. They were also trained by Cyrille Guimard, who advocated big cranks, sitting behind KOPS, big gears, and lower cadences. Some say it was the cranks, some say it was sitting in the back seat. Personally, my knees are happier from sitting back, and most contemporary pro riders are on the big cranks now, so I'm going to blame the gearing and the cadences.

By the way, I think your short-crank paradigm is worth more study, but without higher cadences and lower gearing I see nothing but trouble.

Maybe in a parallel universe you could coach a cohort of riders up through juniors using short cranks, big gears, and low cadences. Maybe in that universe there wouldn't be junior gear restrictions. Maybe they'll have to be triathletes.

 

[FrankDay]

Maybe in a parallel universe you could coach a cohort of riders up through juniors using short cranks, big gears, and low cadences. Maybe in that universe there wouldn't be junior gear restrictions. Maybe they'll have to be triathletes.

Here is how "non-thinking" the typical cycling coach is, considering one supposes they are in the business to help their clients to win.

One presumes the reason for the gear restrictions is to limit the speed of juniors. Gear restrictions do this because people are self limited to certain cadence restrictions and top speed is a combination of cadence and gearing. If I can get to a higher cadence than you in the same gearing I am going to be going faster than you.

One way to minimize the effects of the gearing restrictions is to shorten the cranks because high cadences (and higher cadences) are more easily achieved with shorter cranks. Hence, with shorter cranks, the effects of gear restrictions would be less. Further, shorter cranks would better fit younger riders. But, no, we slavishly make them ride adult cranks because… well, because we have always done it this way even though shorter cranks are readily available.

Gearing restrictions for juniors is like the UCI setting a limit on gear size for track racing. No gears bigger than 75 in and you can kiss the thought of any more world records good-bye but you can be assured riders would gravitate to shorter cranks as a result because they would be able to achieve higher speeds as a result and, hence, be more competitive.

 

[FrankDay]

By the way, I think your short-crank paradigm is worth more study, but without higher cadences and lower gearing I see nothing but trouble.

I rowed crew in college. The knee range of motion would probably be close to what would be seen with a 250-300mm crank length. Further the forces were huge compared to what cyclists see at stroke rates of 30-40. We never saw knee issues unless someone twisted it running or playing another sport (which we did all the time at the Naval Academy). Smooth knee action with a restricted movement plane (such as seen with cycling and rowing) simply does not injure knees. People can see a tendonitis if they try to do a lot more than the knee is used to or increase stress too fast, but that is something different and it will resolve with rest (something professionals have trouble doing).

Our bodies adapt to repeated stress. Once well adapted that stress rarely, in and of itself, causes injury. The problem usually is that people frequently are not very smart when making changes.

 

[ustabe]

One presumes the reason for the gear restrictions is to limit the speed of juniors. Gear restrictions do this because people are self limited to certain cadence restrictions and top speed is a combination of cadence and gearing. If I can get to a higher cadence than you in the same gearing I am going to be going faster than you.

Your presumption is wrong. Junior gear restrictions are to prevent stress injuries to tissue that is still growing, to ensure that juniors still have functioning legs by the time they're seniors. Little League baseball similarly imposes restriction on young pitchers, based on the number of pitches and required rest periods.

Junior riders, using gear restricted bikes, often compete against unrestricted seniors, and the best ones often win. Greg LeMond, for example, was well known for beating the best senior riders while still a junior, and his coaches were damned proud of him for doing it.

Your presumption of "cadence restriction" is also wrong. While there might be a cadence limit, much like there is a limit to how fast a human can run 100 meters, that limit hasn't been found. And cadence is not a sprint, it's an endurance race. It's not about achieving a burst of 200 rpm, it's about maintaining 100, 110, or 120 rpm over several hours, over varying terrain. While statistical evidence might be obscure or even non-existent, the coaching establishment holds that cadence is a skill that can be taught and developed, more so than pushing bigger and bigger gears. Even though we walk at 75 rpm, 100 or more rpm for propelling a bicycle is an attainable goal that can be taught to anyone who is inclined to learn it. If there is a restriction against developing cadence, it exists only in the individual's determination.

There seem to be two arguments against learning cadence. One is, I pedal slowly and I just don't see any point to disturbing my comfort level by learning how to pedal faster. The other is, there is no empirical evidence that pedaling faster is more efficient, so I'm not going to disturb my comfort level by learning how to pedal faster until it is scientifically proven to be worthwhile. To each his own.

This discussion has given me two unscientific hunches for why I believe cadence works. One is the flywheel effect of spinning feet keeping everything turning through the "dead zone" of the pedal stroke. The other is simply less time spent in the dead zone and less energy and skeletal stress spent powering through it. Speaking for myself, my cycling days would have ended 40 years ago had I not learned to disturb my comfort level and tap into 100 years of cycling tradition.

It's your choice. Go with the flow of tradition (and hour records) or go against it because it hasn't been scientifically proven.