• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

so what about cadence

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Whats the best cadence for YOU? Get a power meter and you will find out.

Ive power meters on all 5 bikes now. Don't even race anymore. Am fitter than when I used to race in Belgium though. Why? Cos using a power meter has taught me how to produce power. Not possible unless you have a power meter to really know what works for YOU in the moment.

I was always taught 'ride the biggest gear you can manage! grunt it out!'. Thats so 1980's. Now its 'ride any gear that lets you spin over 80rpm wether you are going easy or hard'.

I eventually put compacts on all my bike with a 28 on the rear. After coming back from Thailand last week, I ordered a 32 for the rear for my next visit. I can hold just on 6 watts per kg for 10mins.

Now I finally understand why Contador often runs a 34x32 and so did Porte recently. When Cobo dropped wiggins and froome in 2011, he was running a 34x32. Sky missed the train by putting too hard a gears on their climbers bikes. They got dropped. Watch the vid on youtube and read the interviews after.

If your cadence drops under 80, you are giving power away to your mates. If you are just cruising around it doesnt matter as much BUT its good to spin even when going easy to you train your body to do it. You also burn more fat when spinning as you are not contracting the muscle as much. Grinding burns more sugar and you also lose more water due to higher muscle contraction. Don't believe me? Go grind around at 3 watts per kg for 5 hours then do that course spinning above 80rpm and see how you feel at the end of it. You will also recover WAY faster.

The more the muscle contracts, the more sugar you burn. If you spin your legs, you get momentum to help you. You will burn less sugar and burn more fat. Simple as that.

Hey, works for Froomedawg. ;)
 
I also used to just run 39x21 as the lowest gear. I thought anyone who rode easier gears than that was soft as! Then one day Luke Roberts in 2002 came out to the morning TT bunch and was spinning so fast. He blew us all away on the leg back. I couldnt work it out why he was spinning so fast. He had an SRM on but I didnt understand the concept of power and thought you needed a PHD in sports science to understand it. You don't though! All you do is go bang out your local climb as hard as you can. Then upload to strava and see what your power meter recorded as your average wattage for that climb. Now you will know what you can hold for 10mins or however long that climb was.

So next time you want to set a fast time, you have an approximate wattage to start the climb at. Thats how teams control races now. If someone attacks, they look at their wattage and either say 'yep, its time to go' or 'nah, see you in a few mins mate cos thats suicide pace and you will lactate in a few mins'.

I had also raced with SOG and would spin like crazy. I just couldnt work it out. But all those pro's have been using power since the 90's so learn how to spin. Now I can climb as fast as Robert's. Only way is cos now I know how to pace on the climbs vs attacking and blowing up like I used to do all the time.

Everyone who gets a power meter and starts looking at it, they will improve out of sight. You an NEVER go too hard if you are watching your numbers. You can never blow on a climb cos you went too hot at the start. Its pretty cool after a few weeks you learn what is too hot, and what is not. Want to go ride 500km of tarmac in 24 hours? Just keep it under 3 watts per kg.

I put one on my gf's bike and now she loves climbing. I just tell her to stay around 3watts per kg and she does anything easily. I always used to have big gears on her bike and tell her to 'push push push!' but thats just so much pain and so inefficient. Now its 'spin, spin spin!'.

Power meters are also so much cheaper now. I remember looking into SRM back in 2003 and they were like 7k or something. Now a power tap or stages cycling power meter is under a grand brand new. Strava makes it easy to analyze your wattage over various segments on your ride so you can see if you didnt eat and drink enough and faded OR you kept your wattage but your mates picked the pace up at the end and you got dropped.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
ustabe said:
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.
If that is the stated reason for junior gear restrictions then it is even dumber than I thought. If one wanted to reduce stress on the joints gear restriction is the bass ackwards way of doing it. High cadences may reduce forces on the pedal for any give power but higher cadences increase the forces on the joints. In addition, knee joint stress is increased the more the knee is bent. If the authorities wanted to reduce knee stress and injury in juniors they should put limits on crank length. Show me a single medical study that demonstrates that gear restriction prevents joint injury in junior cyclists.
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.
And, Lebron and Kobe went right to the NBA. Sometimes exceptional people are exceptional. Every generalization will have an outlier.
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.
The limit hasn't been found? How fast can you tap your finger on the table? The limit for most people is about 5/second, or about 300 per minute. If anyone can pedal faster than that I want to see it. Further, no sane road cyclist maintains 100, 110, 120 rpm over several hours. Road cyclists are always coasting going around corners, downhill, etc. Just because their races last several hours doesn't mean they are pedaling 100% of that time. The longer the race the lower the average cadence (and the lower the average power). Anyhow, why would anyone really about cadence? I thought the key thing to worry about was power and how long that power can be maintained? My understanding is the key element that determines that is pedal speed. Cadence only comes into play because pedal speed and crank length means a certain cadence and cadence is easier to measure than pedal speed. High cadences are necessary to generate the highest short term power. Perhaps people have, wrongly, extrapolated from this that high cadences are best for all circumstances. There is zero evidence to support that notion.
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.
Actually, the scientific evidence is that, generally, pedaling faster (at least faster than about 60) is LESS efficient.
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.
There is no flywheel effect when pedaling fast. Take your chain off and pedal as fast as you can. Most can get up to a cadence of 175-200. Then stop pedaling. Most won't do more than a single revolution. The problem is the thighs. They are pumping up and down, not going in a circle, and they are massive.
It's your choice. Go with the flow of tradition (and hour records) or go against it because it hasn't been scientifically proven.
It is everyone's choice. Go with tradition or look at the scientific data (what is there and what is missing) and see if tradition can be improved upon.
 
Jan 13, 2010
491
0
0
durianrider said:
I also used to just run 39x21 as the lowest gear. I thought anyone who rode easier gears than that was soft as! Then one day Luke Roberts in 2002 came out to the morning TT bunch and was spinning so fast. He blew us all away on the leg back. I couldnt work it out why he was spinning so fast. He had an SRM on but I didnt understand the concept of power and thought you needed a PHD in sports science to understand it.

Thanks, durian.

Every year 180 pro riders who are hooked up to power meters start the Tour de France, and if even one of them thought he could generate enough power to even make the time cutoffs by chundling along like a weekender out on a seven-hour century but in a bigger gear, we'd certainly have heard about it.

Frank, I'm done here.
 
FrankDay said:
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.

And yet it doesn't seem to be the case with professional cyclists.

4eqkl.jpg


After spending the past few weeks observing a higher pulse rate when doing ERG workouts of a specific wattage at a cadence of 75 than those with a cadence of 85 it has become clear to me that I'm more efficient at 85RPM than 75RPM at least when working out at .9 IF or greater efforts.

That said, if you're noodling around at 100 watts then I'm sure a cadence of 50 would be more efficient and just fine.
1081-medium_fday4.jpg


As always YMMV.

Hugh
 
FrankDay said:
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.
--------------------------------------

It might be due to how 'efficiency' is defined for the studies. It all depends on what factor is thought to be most important to optimize, and that depends on the rider's goal for the event.

In competitve cycling, there are several possible definitions of what is most 'efficient'. e.g. -
1) Sustainable power : calories
2) Sustainable power : O2 usage
3) Sustainable power : muscle 'fatigue'

My guess is that #3 is used by many riders to determine
'what cadence to be competitive and FINISH'.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
JayKosta said:
--------------------------------------

It might be due to how 'efficiency' is defined for the studies. It all depends on what factor is thought to be most important to optimize, and that depends on the rider's goal for the event.

In competitve cycling, there are several possible definitions of what is most 'efficient'. e.g. -
1) Sustainable power : calories
2) Sustainable power : O2 usage
3) Sustainable power : muscle 'fatigue'

My guess is that #3 is used by many riders to determine
'what cadence to be competitive and FINISH'.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
1 and 2 are, essentially, the same thing. Regarding #3, why on earth would it seem plausible that burning more calories or using more oxygen to generate the same power would result in less muscle fatigue? What reason do you have to believe that #3 has little or no relationship to 1 and 2?

As I have said before, it seems to me that 90ish is the most efficient running cadence for endurance running. Our species evolved as endurance runners so this cadence is ingrained in our system as feeling natural when on the bicycle as the motions are closely related. The fact is that this cadence is less efficient when done on a bicycle (at least when done with the crank lengths that people currently use). Why? I believe it is because we are using cranks that are too long so pedal speed is not optimum. Whether I am right or not serious endurance athletes should use their brains and figure out how to improve the situation as it simply makes no sense that reduced efficiency should ever result in improved performance. But no, all we hear (unless one is talking to me) is "this is the way it was, is, and always will be - learn to like it!"
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
sciguy said:
And yet it doesn't seem to be the case with professional cyclists.

4eqkl.jpg


After spending the past few weeks observing a higher pulse rate when doing ERG workouts of a specific wattage at a cadence of 75 than those with a cadence of 85 it has become clear to me that I'm more efficient at 85RPM than 75RPM at least when working out at .9 IF or greater efforts.

That said, if you're noodling around at 100 watts then I'm sure a cadence of 50 would be more efficient and just fine.
1081-medium_fday4.jpg


As always YMMV.

Hugh
Your data confirms my thoughts. Optimum cadence (and crank length) depends on power. The higher the power the higher the optimum (most efficient) cadence. Most of the people reading this are not professional cyclists so until they start training like 20 yo pros and put out power like 20 yo pros they probably should not be pedaling like 20 yo pros if they want to optimize their performance.
 
FrankDay said:
Your data confirms my thoughts. Optimum cadence (and crank length) depends on power. The higher the power the higher the optimum (most efficient) cadence. Most of the people reading this are not professional cyclists so until they start training like 20 yo pros and put out power like 20 yo pros they probably should not be pedaling like 20 yo pros if they want to optimize their performance.

The problem I see with the efficiency studies you keep referring to is that most if not all were done at extremely low power efforts and or unskilled cyclists. Yes, for people just noodling around at low power a low cadence makes sense. For those of us working at closer to our maximum whether it be 400 watts or 250 watts it would appear that there is evidence that a higher cadence and therefore foot speed may well be very appropriate.

Please explain the difference between what a 20 something year old is doing that me as a 60+ year old is doing that would change my ideal cadence when working at a high percentage of my maximum power.
My own personal data seems to align nicely with the pro's data despite my advanced years and much lower max power.

Hugh
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
sciguy said:
The problem I see with the efficiency studies you keep referring to is that most if not all were done at extremely low power efforts and or unskilled cyclists. Yes, for people just noodling around at low power a low cadence makes sense. For those of us working at closer to our maximum whether it be 400 watts or 250 watts it would appear that there is evidence that a higher cadence and therefore foot speed may well be very appropriate.
I don't have an issue with this view except I don't believe it depends upon how close you are to you maximum. I have always held that the most efficient cadence will depend upon the power being put out at the time of the measurement. What the studies clearly show is that cadence affects efficiency and that for any power and any person there will be a cadence (or small range) that maximizes efficiency for that person at that power.
Please explain the difference between what a 20 something year old is doing that me as a 60+ year old is doing that would change my ideal cadence when working at a high percentage of my maximum power.
My own personal data seems to align nicely with the pro's data despite my advanced years and much lower max power.

Hugh
It has nothing to do with the max power you can attain compared to them but the power you are riding at when testing. Your efficiency and optimum cadence should change whenever you change power. The power you sustain, as I understand it, is pretty close to the sustainable power of those 20 yo's so I would expect your optimum cadence to be close to theirs, understanding that there are other variables also (such as your muscle fiber mix, build, relative crank length, and position) that might modify efficiency (and your or their optimum cadence) somewhat.
 
Most efficient does not mean it's optimal or suitable for the task. Not everything is about fuel economy.

For cycle racing, we are chasing performance. Efficiency may or may not be a factor to be overly concerned with.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Alex Simmons/RST said:
Most efficient does not mean it's optimal or suitable for the task. Not everything is about fuel economy.

For cycle racing, we are chasing performance. Efficiency may or may not be a factor to be overly concerned with.
Could you make an argument for me where, in a race that is long enough to require refueling, that for two equally trained and genetically identical individuals putting out the same effort that less efficiency could somehow result in better performance.
 
FrankDay said:
Could you make an argument for me where, in a race that is long enough to require refueling, that for two equally trained and genetically identical individuals putting out the same effort that less efficiency could somehow result in better performance.

Rider 1 rides at a cadence that taxes his legs less than rider 2, but uses more fuel. In the early parts of the race, food intake is not a major issue, so rider 2 doesn't have an advantage over rider 1. At the end of the race, rider 1 is less tired and out-sprints rider 2.

Alternatively, we know that the fastest winner in Paris-Brest-Paris (1200 km) rode an average of 30 km/h. Clearly this is a much more efficient speed than the 40+ km/h speeds that the pro's ride during their short races. So why don't the pro's just slow down and ride more efficiently?
 
FrankDay said:
Could you make an argument for me where, in a race that is long enough to require refueling, that for two equally trained and genetically identical individuals putting out the same effort that less efficiency could somehow result in better performance.
----------------------------------
What criteria are you using for "same effort that less efficiency" ?
What physiological difference is there if one rider had to consume more calories, used more O2, or drank more water?
Does having to eat more, or use more O2 actually cause a decrease or increase in performance / how? Especially if the body/blood chemistry remains in a sustainable aerobic condition.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
JayKosta said:
----------------------------------
What criteria are you using for "same effort that less efficiency" ?
Same oxygen consumption, same calories burned for same effort works for me. Less power under these circumstances means less efficiency
What physiological difference is there if one rider had to consume more calories, used more O2, or drank more water?
If a rider has had to consume more then they have less readily available enery available in the cells and need to transport more from the periphery (fat, liver) to continue to generate energy. They will simply have less available at the end of the race.
Does having to eat more, or use more O2 actually cause a decrease or increase in performance / how? Especially if the body/blood chemistry remains in a sustainable aerobic condition.
Well, our ability to absorb nutrition is limited. It goes down if we are dehydrated. The more calories we burn above what we can take in means we are depleting our stores faster. Hence, efficiency matters in races where we depend upon using peripheral energy stores, most aerobic events. This would be especially the case where the athlete hasn't taken the care to try to train these transport mechanisms (the athlete who always takes in energy with them on every training ride, in other words, most of them).
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Aapjes said:
Rider 1 rides at a cadence that taxes his legs less than rider 2, but uses more fuel. In the early parts of the race, food intake is not a major issue, so rider 2 doesn't have an advantage over rider 1. At the end of the race, rider 1 is less tired and out-sprints rider 2.
Could you give me an example of how one taxes ones leg less but uses more fuel? I believe you are under the misconception that because higher cadences require less pressure on the pedals for any given power that this results in less stress on the legs. If that were true we should all be riding at a cadence of 140. Try that and see how you do.
Alternatively, we know that the fastest winner in Paris-Brest-Paris (1200 km) rode an average of 30 km/h. Clearly this is a much more efficient speed than the 40+ km/h speeds that the pro's ride during their short races. So why don't the pro's just slow down and ride more efficiently?
What you want to do is be more efficient than your competition is in the same race, not be as efficient as possible. In race car racing, where the rules ensure all the cars are very equally balanced, if you were as fast as everyone else and could always do the distance in one less pit stop than all your competition you would win pretty much everything.
 
FrankDay said:
...
The more calories we burn above what we can take in means we are depleting our stores faster. Hence, efficiency matters in races where we depend upon using peripheral energy stores, most aerobic events).
...
-------------------------
Yes, I agree with that.
My reading indicates that the max calorie intake is approximately 360Cal/h - and that translates to a power (watt) level of a moderate pace recreational ride.

Also, I agree with your earlier position -
"I have always held that the most efficient cadence will depend upon the power being put out at the time of the measurement. What the studies clearly show is that cadence affects efficiency and that for any power and any person there will be a cadence (or small range) that maximizes efficiency for that person at that power."

So there isn't a particular 'cadence number' that's best in all circumstances.
For ME, the cadence choice is the slowest rpm that 'feels sustainable' (based on experience) and which produces the desired power.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
JayKosta said:
-------------------------
Yes, I agree with that.
My reading indicates that the max calorie intake is approximately 360Cal/h - and that translates to a power (watt) level of a moderate pace recreational ride.

Also, I agree with your earlier position -
"I have always held that the most efficient cadence will depend upon the power being put out at the time of the measurement. What the studies clearly show is that cadence affects efficiency and that for any power and any person there will be a cadence (or small range) that maximizes efficiency for that person at that power."

So there isn't a particular 'cadence number' that's best in all circumstances.
For ME, the cadence choice is the slowest rpm that 'feels sustainable' (based on experience) and which produces the desired power.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
That is why it is so stupid for cyclists to look at the pros and say "they are riding at a cadence of X and winning TDF so obviously that is best so I need to do that also."(when the pros are training 6 hrs a day and putting out 400 watts and they are practicing 1 hr a day and putting out 250 watts.) What is really stupid is a coach saying such a thing. It simply represents follow the leader thinking rather than thoughtful evaluation of the data.
 
FrankDay said:
Could you make an argument for me where, in a race that is long enough to require refueling, that for two equally trained and genetically identical individuals putting out the same effort that less efficiency could somehow result in better performance.

If they were able to refuel sufficiently to meet the overall demands of the race, then the less efficient athlete who is able to produce more power when it matters (e.g. a race selection move, bridge, sprint, setting up a break, escaping the break) will more than likely defeat his more efficient buddy.

IOW it's not a fuel economy drive, but one where power output at critical moments dictates the outcomes (along with of course race strategy, skill, tactics, nouse, craft etc)

Why do you think roadie sprinters win so many races? They are unlikely to be the riders with the highest GE given they are blessed with a higher proportion of fast twitch. Instead they employ far more effective ways to save energy for when it matters.

I'm not saying a rider shouldn't seek to conserve energy through GE improvement, and there are events where that matters more than others.

But in road racing for instance, I suspect it is far outweighed by other more important factors.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Alex Simmons/RST said:
If they were able to refuel sufficiently to meet the overall demands of the race, then the less efficient athlete who is able to produce more power when it matters (e.g. a race selection move, bridge, sprint, setting up a break, escaping the break) will more than likely defeat his more efficient buddy.
why would the more efficient athlete put out less power. Remember, if the athletes are identical then at the end of the race not only does the more efficient athlete have more fuel in the tank but for the same energy expenditure he/she would put out MORE power because he/she is more efficient.
IOW it's not a fuel economy drive, but one where power output at critical moments dictates the outcomes (along with of course race strategy, skill, tactics, nouse, craft etc)
You got it backwards, for the same energy expenditure the more efficient athlete puts out MORE power.
Why do you think roadie sprinters win so many races? They are unlikely to be the riders with the highest GE given they are blessed with a higher proportion of fast twitch. Instead they employ far more effective ways to save energy for when it matters.
Roadie sprinters win so many races because they are protected for most of the race, saving energy for their high proportion of fast twitch fibers when it really counts. Do you have any evidence that the less efficient sprinter usually wins amongst the sprinters?
I'm not saying a rider shouldn't seek to conserve energy through GE improvement, and there are events where that matters more than others.
Then why are you saying that. give me an example where being less efficient is an advantage everything else being equal.
But in road racing for instance, I suspect it is far outweighed by other more important factors.
Sure, like how well they are trained or doped or the strength of the team. Everything is not always equal.
 
StyrbjornSterki said:
In the olden days, back when rear clusters only had six or seven cogs, cyclists had to train to spin because their gear ratios were much further apart. And they generally had a smaller big gear, like a 52/12, so they also needed to learn to spin for the sake of top speed. Plus, when shifters were on the downtube, you telegraphed your intention to shift to your competitors every time you reached for the shifter lever.

But 8-speed clusters came along about the same time as dual-control shifting (Ergo/S.T.I.) and cyclists suddenly had 12 or 13 closely spaced and functional gear ratios at their fingertips. And they could shift without ever turning loose of the handlebars. That took away most of the incentive to learn to spin. Spinning became an anachronism and you can't ride high cadence if you don't have a smooth spin.

There are exceptions but a smooth spin is a rarity any more, even among the pros. You can see it in their upper bodies swaying side to side and you can hear it in the noises from their tires and chains announcing each individual pedal stroke.

THIS ^

rhubroma said:
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.

...AND THIS^

As far as the OP question- IF you feel comfortable & get the speed & results you desire-then don't pay too much attention to what the Pros are doing, since they have the entire time & get paid to work on that 100 time more than the rest of us. I do believe you're doing quite fine as the way you describe your pedaling-which in a way is also a result of an adaptation due to the lost of muscle strength as your body ages, and also a compensation for the greater endurance you've acquired over the years-so your body feels more comfortable spinning than mashing -that's the typical trade off ...
 
You can't just talk about a more efficient rider, since there are different kinds of efficiency:
1. distance per calorie use
2. power delivered per amount of muscle damage
3. amount of power needed to ride x distance at y speed at the front
4. amount of power needed to ride x distance at y speed in someone's wheel
5. amount of power needed to ride x distance at y speed in the bunch
6. watts per kilogram
7. chance to win per amount of power delivered
8. etc.

In bicycle racing there is no single kind of efficiency that will win you races (except nr 7, but that one is cheating, really). You can be the most aerodynamic rider in the world with the most power of everyone, but be terrified of bunch riding. Then you'll win less than a sprinter with perfect positioning and great punch at long rides. So who is more efficient? For TT's, the 1st rider is, for flat stages, the 2nd rider. For mountain stages, probably neither.

Personally I think that the main advantage of a higher cadence is that it reduces the chance of overcooking your legs, since it requires a conscious action to shift before you can put the hammer down. So you are less likely to burn a match early when you still feel good. But I guess that is highly personal.

The fact that many pro's have ugly riding styles and some like low cadences shows that at best, we are talking about marginal gains. If you don't already have a power meter on your bike, there is little reason to care beyond what works for you. If you do have a power meter, do your own measurements.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Aapjes said:
You can't just talk about a more efficient rider, since there are different kinds of efficiency:
1. distance per calorie use
I guess one might use such a definition but it certainly is not a standard definition used by those doing bicycle research
2. power delivered per amount of muscle damage
??? Muscle damage??? Could you elaborate. Exactly how would one measure this?
3. amount of power needed to ride x distance at y speed at the front
I guess one might use such a definition but it certainly is not a standard definition used by those doing bicycle research
4. amount of power needed to ride x distance at y speed in someone's wheel
I guess one might use such a definition but it certainly is not a standard definition used by those doing bicycle research
5. amount of power needed to ride x distance at y speed in the bunch
I guess one might use such a definition but it certainly is not a standard definition used by those doing bicycle research
6. watts per kilogram
I guess one might use such a definition but it certainly is not a standard definition used by those doing bicycle research
7. chance to win per amount of power delivered
??? Exactly how does one calculate this?
Efficiency, as used by the scientists is usually defined something like this: "the ratio of the work done or energy developed by a machine, engine, etc., to the energy supplied to it, usually expressed as a percentage." That is the way I am using the term.
In bicycle racing there is no single kind of efficiency that will win you races (except nr 7, but that one is cheating, really). You can be the most aerodynamic rider in the world with the most power of everyone, but be terrified of bunch riding. Then you'll win less than a sprinter with perfect positioning and great punch at long rides. So who is more efficient? For TT's, the 1st rider is, for flat stages, the 2nd rider. For mountain stages, probably neither.
Yes, lots of things can win or lose races. Why measure anything at all? It is simply that the more power one has the better one is likely to do. Efficiency is simply a component of gettting power to the wheel that the rider might be able to manipulate to improve outcome.
Personally I think that the main advantage of a higher cadence is that it reduces the chance of overcooking your legs, since it requires a conscious action to shift before you can put the hammer down. So you are less likely to burn a match early when you still feel good. But I guess that is highly personal.
In a tactical race a higher, less efficient cadence, might offer a tiny advantage if it allows one to jump or respond quicker to opponents actions. It has nothing to do with "overcooking" or not "overcooking" the legs
The fact that many pro's have ugly riding styles and some like low cadences shows that at best, we are talking about marginal gains. If you don't already have a power meter on your bike, there is little reason to care beyond what works for you. If you do have a power meter, do your own measurements.
Efficiencies of bicycle riders vary from 16% to about 26%. Most are around 20%. If one could increase ones efficiency from 20 to 22% (demonstrated in two separate studies as possible) that represents a 10% increase. At 300 watts that would be a 30 watt increase, hardly marginal in my book.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
veganrob said:
Do these studies just say it is possible or do they provide techniques to achieve this increase. If so would you please be kind to provide links. Thank you
We know that efficiency is somewhat related to muscle fiber type with slow twitch fibers being more efficient. Simply training to increase the amount of ST fibers can improve efficiency. Everyone does that. Beyond that the two studies I know of are these: Lutrell, (Effects of short-term training using powercranks on cardiovascular fitness and cycling efficiency.) who demonstrated a 10% efficiency increase after 6 weeks of training on PowerCranks, compared to control (if this change were due to simple training effect the control group should have seen it also). This study suggests pedaling technique could be involved (although it might also be explained by stimulation of more ST fibers in HF and hamstring muscles from the different pedaling technique). The other is the case report of Coyle (Has Armstrong's cycle efficiency improved? discussion here) the Armstrong testing that showed an 8% efficiency improvement over several years. (An excerpt from the discussion linked before: "Given that only a 1-3% difference separates the winner from the middle of the pack in most Olympic finals, an 8% improvement in efficiency is astounding. ") It is unlikely this change came about by stimulating more ST fibers from additional training (despite what the author theorizes since this has never been shown in anyone else at this level) in the already world champion. Carmichael has separately posted that during this period Armstrong was working on developing his pedaling technique to eliminate the negatives on the backstroke and incorporate more of the circle into power production. Drugs have never been shown to change cycling or muscle efficiency.

Hence, there are two studies that show that efficiency can change and both suggest that pedaling technique might be the method to do this.