Cadence and Training

I'm not sure if you will find a lot of info or programs pertaining just to increasing your cadence in the training books. There are a couple books that I like and that are pretty widely accepted, Joe Friels training bible, which everybody knows, and another that I particularly like, David Morris' Performance Cycling.

They talk a fair bit about cadence in the books, although the main thrust is more on power and endurance.

I spent a few months this winter, during the rainy season here, working indoors on an ergo machine, and I think that is a great way to train for higher cadence and smoother pedalling stroke. I suspect that the best way to increase cadence is just to do it for hours and hours, etc.

On an indoor bike you can really concentrate on what you are doing, you can maintain a constant cadence for hours, you can do one-foot practices, which really help smooth out your stroke (and also makes you realize just how choppy and ineffecient your normal stroke is).

I find that when I am riding on the road, there are way too many real-life distractions, like hills, cars, interesting clouds, or whatever, that make it difficult to maintain a steady cadence.

I have a recording cadence/speed/HR monitor, and sometimes like to look at the cadence while riding, but not very often, and the real benefit is uploading to pc and seeing a graph of the entire ride and averages, etc.

I find that I keep 95 - 100 rpm now in most flat sections, which is a good bit faster than quite a few other people I see, and I feel great doing it and will just naturally fall into that range whenever possible, because of so many hours spent riding at that speed on the trainer.

I also still go to the trainer even now, in the summer, for touch-up sessions. I think they are quite valuable, even though a lot of folks think I am a nut for riding inside, while it's nice outside. Oh Well!

Hope that is some help!

Whit

I know that this may invite a storm of protest, but I believe that current thinking is leaning towards the idea that there is little to be gained by artificially altering your natural cadence / pedalling mechanics. This is not to say that you do not need a wide range of cadences at which you can produce effective power (to better enable you to deal with a wide array of situations), but that the most efficient cadence for you may well be the one at which you most naturally pedal. Case in point would be Armstrong / Ullrich, both of whom have profoundly different cadences yet both produce awesome amounts of power: in different ways.
Time spent trying to work on pedalling drills may be more usefully spent training your aerobic energy systems, so that whatever cadence you choose the working muscles will get what they need to function without fatiguing.

Lindsay.

"there is little to be gained by artificially altering your natural cadence / pedalling mechanics... the most efficient cadence for you may well be the one at which you most naturally pedal."

That's kinda what I always thought too, why would 100 rpm be "better" than 80 rpm? Seems to make sense. But I must say that I pedal faster now than I used to, and I feel better and stronger and like I can do it longer. Altho maybe that is just better aerobic conditioning too?!

"Time spent trying to work on pedalling drills may be more usefully spent training your aerobic energy systems."

The pedalling drill I was talking about is meant to increase the efficiency of your stroke, which helps across the board, at any cadence. You usually just do a few one-legged intervals while you are in the midst of your aerobic exercise. It's compementary with your aerobic work, not exclusionary.

Whit

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by biker-linz
I know that this may invite a storm of protest, but I believe that current thinking is leaning towards the idea that there is little to be gained by artificially altering your natural cadence / pedalling mechanics.

I agree.

I would add that there is one huge benefit to a higher cadence, particularly when getting back onthe saddle after a long departure. Your knees.

At a higher cadence, there is less work/force per revolution, and thus less stress on your knees. Above 85-90, is it that important? Don't know, but compare 65 to 85, and my knees notice it.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by biker-linz
I know that this may invite a storm of protest, but I believe that current thinking is leaning towards the idea that there is little to be gained by artificially altering your natural cadence / pedalling mechanics.

Yes, I protest. I believe that most people learned how to bike as kids and still revert to the "Slow Grind" especially uphill. I know you have seen what I am talking about. Remember when you had a crappy 10 speed bike that didn't shift well, so you just used a couple of the rear cogs? (Am I dating myself here?)

I have been working on increasing my average cadence from about 80 to around 95, and I can see a big difference. Now I can crank up a pretty decent hill at 90 RPM and then bump up a gear or two at the top and not lose momentum.

As for guidance, I just picked a goal to spend more time at 90-100 RPM, and use a $20 cyclocomputer with cadence. I really like the Cateye Astrale and Astrale 8 because you can show Cadence as the primary number to be displayed. I treat it like the Tachometer in my car.

That is my experience for what it is worth.

Hey Randy, I completely understand what you're saying, although I came to cycling rather late in life. I nearly posted again because I was reading an article from 1992 that seems to show that higher cadences are more efficient in terms of fat utilisation as an energy source. However, the low cadence group in this study wads pedalling at 50rpm, and few, if any, competitive cyclists would use such a cadence.
However, I would ask what you think the advantage is that you have gained from artificially changing your natural cadence from 80 - 95 rpm, as most studies show that physiological stress would be identical at these two cadences, and effiency would be virtually identical. This is not to say that there is a point below or above which things would change: 50rpm, anybody?:-)

Lindsay.

Don't believe you can talk about best cadence without also discussing load (peak pedal forces) or power output. I think the higher the required power output, the higher the most efficient cadence point is for a specific cyclist. Seems to me there is a trade-off of how much peak pedal force the legs can produce for a given time period vs aerobic economy.

Believe most experienced riders probably ride this way anyway. EG, when running in the pack, or with a tailwind, don't most of us shift to a bigger gear and slow the cadence? I'll routinely use 75-80 rpm when the going is easy. Hills, headwinds or pulling at the front means more power: 100-110 works better for me then.

Driving a manual transmission car, I follow pretty much the same pattern. Cruising on the flat at 40 mph, 5th gear and 2000 rpm is fine. For climbing hills at 40, I'll often shift down into 3rd, and use 3200 rpm, just to keep a light load on the motor.

If you are wondering about Cadence you are thinking about improving yourself. Read the Friel BIBLE, there is just so much more you should and would probably like to know. Cadence, like hill climbing, like sprinting, like power, like endurance, like efficiency etc etc etc has a role in improving your cycling and should be thought about in the context of what you want to achieve and what you must do to get there and not just as a thing on it's own.

I would just like echo what dhk is saying. Obviously, at lower cadences the peak torque at the crank is higher for a givem power output. However, it seems that the physiological 'cost' for different ways of producing the same power is very similar, so it seems best to have a good 'range'. I've been checking out Andy Coggan's quadrant analysis idea recently, and I can highly recommend it. On the subject of Joe Friel's bible, I did find it very helpful when I first started training, but I do think that there is a lot more to discover on this subject. Like most of us, JF has his own opinion on many different subjects and, although it's a good book, I have found it to sometimes contain misleading or poorly researched information. That is one of the joys of hanging out on forums like this: I can constantly challenge and be challenged- and in doing so, learn.:-)

Lindsay.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by biker-linz
Hey Randy, I completely understand what you're saying, although I came to cycling rather late in life. I nearly posted again because I was reading an article from 1992 that seems to show that higher cadences are more efficient in terms of fat utilisation as an energy source. However, the low cadence group in this study wads pedalling at 50rpm, and few, if any, competitive cyclists would use such a cadence.
However, I would ask what you think the advantage is that you have gained from artificially changing your natural cadence from 80 - 95 rpm, as most studies show that physiological stress would be identical at these two cadences, and effiency would be virtually identical. This is not to say that there is a point below or above which things would change: 50rpm, anybody?:-)

Lindsay.

dhk took the words right out of my mouth (or keyboard) I was going to use exactly the same manual transmission analogy, but I don't think I could have done as good a job - dhk, you are right on the money!

All I can add is that the reason I am "working on" my cadence is that I realized that I still had bad habits that I picked up as a kid, partly due to a reluctance to shift gears (cheap, misadjusted bike). In order to apply the techniques I use with a manual transmission (Need to pass someone? Drop down to 3rd gear and punch the gas) I needed to train for higher cadence. This is especially important for me, as I don't think I can generate the kind of force that some other riders can. In order not to get dropped on hills, I think I need to be able to sustain a very high cadence (105-115). It seems to be working by the way - I haven't done any club rides yet this year but I feel significantly faster now than last year, especially on long climbs.

If you are a powerful rider, then high cadence may be of less importance, because low cadence pedal mashing is very effective if you can deliver sufficient force to the pedals.

So I am the little Honda Civic 5 spd, trying to compete with the Camaros and Buicks - that little engine has to wind up to a much higher RPM to generate the same torque as the muscle cars!

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by jhuyser
Just starting to get back into road biking. Been looking all over the internet. Is there anywere or any one that has some type of training program for a beginner to start working on increasing there candence training? Does anyone understand what i am getting at. Like working out with weights; x amount for 2 minuts then x amount for 4 minutes etc.

You might try getting hold of a copy of the Lance Armstrong/Chris Carmichael/Peter Nye book "The Lance Armstrong Performance Program: Seven Weeks to the Perfect Ride" (Rodale.2003, ISBN 1-4050-2101-0).
The training regimes offered in that book are easy to understand and include a mix of cadence work and other exercises for developing different aspects of technique, strength, speed & power. The book's criticised by some as "too basic". It's true that there are much more comprehensive training bibles out there but I reckon this book's alright for starters.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by jhuyser
Just starting to get back into road biking. Been looking all over the internet. Is there anywere or any one that has some type of training program for a beginner to start working on increasing there candence training? Does anyone understand what i am getting at. Like working out with weights; x amount for 2 minuts then x amount for 4 minutes etc.

The more I try varying cadence the more benefits I see. I try to incorporate one day a week where I keep above 80 rpms and on recovery rides I will go for 10-15 minutes above 90 rpms.
I look at this like having an engine with a wider power band. Before it seemed like I would have to change gears alot in order to keep in my "sweet spot" for rpms.
Being an old fart, training at higher rpms helps me from pulling a muscle when I try to catch a buses draft.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Randybaker99

This is especially important for me, as I don't think I can generate the kind of force that some other riders can.

I think it's very unlikely that you are unable to generate enough force to produce the same power at 70rpm as at 120rpm. This a misconception that I carried for a long time, too.:-) To be honest, the actual forces involved are pretty low (unless you're sprinting from a standing start). Just look at touring and leisure cyclists who nearly all use low cadences. As Ric is fond of pointing out, elite cyclists are no stronger in their legs than untrained subjects. The problem is not the forces involved, but getting enough fuel to the working muscles, and clearing away the waste. However, I absolutely agree that you need a wide range of cadence / force combinations so that you are able to produce your power in a lot of different 'ways'. I just don't agree that one cadence is 'better' than another.

Lindsay.

"Force" (or strength) is one thing, power is another. Power (the thing that makes fast sprinters fast) comes from being able to turn bigger gears at high cadence. You won't ever build 'power' (and therefore speed) without mixing some high cadence work into your training.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by biker-linz
I think it's very unlikely that you are unable to generate enough force to produce the same power at 70rpm as at 120rpm. This a misconception that I carried for a long time, too.:-) To be honest, the actual forces involved are pretty low (unless you're sprinting from a standing start). Just look at touring and leisure cyclists who nearly all use low cadences. As Ric is fond of pointing out, elite cyclists are no stronger in their legs than untrained subjects. The problem is not the forces involved, but getting enough fuel to the working muscles, and clearing away the waste. However, I absolutely agree that you need a wide range of cadence / force combinations so that you are able to produce your power in a lot of different 'ways'. I just don't agree that one cadence is 'better' than another.

Lindsay.

I have heard this viewpoint about elite cyclists and "untrained subjects" before (from Ric), and it is tough for me to swallow. So, does this mean that a guy who weighs the same as me but can leg press 300 lbs (I can't!) is going to generate exactly the same forces as me in a hill climb? Then there is no benefit to weight training? If there is an actual study that backs this up, I would like to see it.

We agree that as the distance increases, aerobic capacity becomes the overriding factor, but I have been looking for improvement in hill climbing where previously I have gotten out of the saddle, only to be dropped by folks who are staying seated at higher cadence.

Also, I certainly agree that the best approach is to be able to use a range of different cadences, as the situation calls for.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Randybaker99
[B]I have heard this viewpoint about elite cyclists and "untrained subjects" before (from Ric), and it is tough for me to swallow. So, does this mean that a guy who weighs the same as me but can leg press 300 lbs (I can't!) is going to generate exactly the same forces as me in a hill climb? Then there is no benefit to weight training? If there is an actual study that backs this up, I would like to see it.
[/quote]

if you're both the same size and ride up together (i.e., same velocity) then your power will be the same. if you pedal at the same cadence while doing this, then the forces will be the same.

as an idea at 300 W up a climb at 75 revs/min the average force over the pedal cycle between *both* legs is ~ 225 Newtons (~24.5 kg). pretty much anyone can generate that force. whether those persons can sustain it for 30-mins is an entirely different matter (and completely dependent upon VO2max, and lactate threshold).

there's a few studies that show no benefit to weight training to endurance cycling performance. it will also likely be detrimental to ECP (as you'll weigh more and have a lower capillary and mitochondrial density).

Quoted post said:

We agree that as the distance increases, aerobic capacity becomes the overriding factor, but I have been looking for improvement in hill climbing where previously I have gotten out of the saddle, only to be dropped by folks who are staying seated at higher cadence.

What a great thread, one of the best I've read and has covered all of my own experiences with cadence over the last few months. Don't know if I can add much but would like to raise the issue of HR relating to cadence and also, a bit off thread, HR relating to position on bars. I sit staring at the figures on the various bits and pieces connected to the bike whilst on the turbo, really just for something to do and have started experimenting with cadence adjustment and handlebar position in relation to HR. I suspect that a lower cadence, only at lower powers at present (150W), may result in slightly lower HR, couple of beats. Now position is a different matter, resting on the aeros instead of the hoods, I suspect is lowering it by 3 or 4. Has anybody else experienced this or am I just so bored that I am hallucinating

Sean

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
if you're both the same size and ride up together (i.e., same velocity) then your power will be the same. if you pedal at the same cadence while doing this, then the forces will be the same.

Yes, that is pretty self-evident - simple physics. What I am implying is that if the other rider is generating 325 Watts to my 275 (hypothetical numbers!), then I get dropped. My idea is that by practicing seated climbing at higher cadence (say 100 RPM), I will be able to generate and sustain higher wattage than if I am out of the saddle and grinding at about 60 RPM.

Where does this extra wattage come from? 1) my pedalling efficiency seems to be greatly improved - smoother stroke, more muscle groups brought into play, and less energy wasted by my weak core muscles. 2) transitions are greatly improved - I find myself accelerating near the top of the climb and I am ready to shift to a higher gear sooner (this feels just like proper shifting on a 5-speed car, as mentioned earlier). 3) I have much better range of cadence in the 90-110 zone - at 60 RPM it is very hard for me to move up to 70, this results in not being ready for the top of the hill and a poor transition. 4) shifting is much, much smoother at a higher cadence, I notice that I lose focus due to rough shifting at 60 RPM but it is not a problem at 100 RPM.

Quoted post said:

there's a few studies that show no benefit to weight training to endurance cycling performance. it will also likely be detrimental to ECP (as you'll weigh more and have a lower capillary and mitochondrial density).

The problem here is that in order for this premise to have any validity we need a very specific definition on "endurance". If we are talking about the RAAM, then yes I agree that weight training would be of little or no value. But if a 60-90 minute club ride qualifies as "endurance cycling" then we disagree.

Quoted post said:

there's a number of reasons you could be dropped in no particular order: 1) lack of fuel, 2) can't sustain a high enough power, 3) your weigh more than the others, 4) a combination of 1 to 3.

I'll take 2) and add that I believe I can generate and sustain more power at 100 RPM than at 60 RPM (not in the same gear!!!). I would need a powermeter to prove it though.

Quoted post said:

rather than worrying about what cadence you can or can't cycle at, all you need to concentrate on is improving your sustainable power output.

Again I believe the path to higher power output (for me) is higher cadence - not 130 RPM, but 90 to 110.

Quoted post said:

the idea of pedalling at high cadences for most people uphill is generally impractical, because most people can't generate a high enough sustained power to keep the cadence high with the gearing that most people have (typically, most people i know have either a 42 x 21, 39 x 21 or 39 x 23 lowest gear).

This is why I bought a triple, even though most of the grades I encounter are not more than about 7% - 39x23 is more than sufficient to stay seated.

Quoted post said:

if you have a mass of 70 kg, 9 kg bike, and a few kg for clothing, drink, food etc. and you ride a 9% grade. at ~ 300 W with a 39 x 23 bottom gear, you'll be pedalling at 60 revs/min (12.7 km/hr). if you wanted to pedal at (e.g.) 90 revs/min you'd need to either travel at 19.4 km/hr and generate ~ 445 W (which you'd be able to win the TdF with) or get a bike with a much lower gear (about a 30 chainring and a 26 rear sprocket).

Right, at 9% I am going to be out of the saddle. My goal is not to do away with all out of the saddle riding, just to not use it as a crutch. The hill climbing I have been unsatified with is 6 or 7% grades, where a seated climb is quite feasible, though not easy without practice.

Please don't think that I am obsessing on cadence to the exclusion of other aspects like endurance, training at LT, etc. But I did decide that cadence was a limiting factor for me and I needed to address it.

Ric, thanks for sharing your opinions on this topic. Even though we disagree on some points, you have me thinking hard to defend my position!

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Randybaker99
The problem here is that in order for this premise to have any validity we need a very specific definition on "endurance". If we are talking about the RAAM, then yes I agree that weight training would be of little or no value. But if a 60-90 minute club ride qualifies as "endurance cycling" then we disagree.

bit short on time here, but i'm defing endurance as anything greater than about 90-*seconds*.

ric