cadence, economy and strength

[the brother]

This is related to another thread on the relevance of strength training and performance.
I was under the impression that higher cadences(90,100+) were more economical than lower(60ish) because they required a lower percentage of the maximal force that the cyclist can apply, for the same power output.
If this isn't the case then can someone please enlighten me!

Why are higher cadences used by the pros? Is it a question of economy and if so why is it more economical?

Why does LA seem to use a higher candence then many others?

 

[bikeguy]

As I understand it cycling at a low cadence actually requires less power output because you don't need to raise the recovery leg as many times. However (according to what I've read) if the muscles are worked at a lesser amount of their maximum force potential, the lactic acid doesn't build up as much (which is good), and overall it is better to cycle at 90-100 rpm. In my case, however I do better at 70-75 rpm than 90-100 and indeed sometimes I'm at 60-65 rpm, this may have something to do with the fact my muscles are quite strong (I've deadlifted 240 kg, and 140 kg for 30 consecutive reps at 80 kg bodyweight, 6 feet) or that my lactate threshold is exceedingly high. Overall I find 70-75 rpm to be the best for me.


In my case I find it better that my legs burn first (I can go farther and faster) rather than that I start huffing and puffing first(ventilatory capacity exceeded) . I end up huffing and puffing very quickly (within 4 minutes) when I'm spinning at 90-100 rpm and under a significant workload, and in fact it feels like my ability to deliver force to the pedals is compromised, it's like my muscles can't in any efficient manner "catch up" to the pedal.

I'm sure RicStern can give a better explanation than I can as regards optimal cadenceand the reasons behind it.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by the brother
This is related to another thread on the relevance of strength training and performance.
I was under the impression that higher cadences(90,100+) were more economical than lower(60ish) because they required a lower percentage of the maximal force that the cyclist can apply, for the same power output.
If this isn't the case then can someone please enlighten me!

Why are higher cadences used by the pros? Is it a question of economy and if so why is it more economical?

Why does LA seem to use a higher candence then many others?

In general higher cadences are less efficient than lower cadences at a given power output. in general, the literature shows the most efficient cadence to be closer to 60 revs/min, rather than 100 revs/min.

this efficiency is thermodynamic mechanical efficiency, and is basically, the effeiciency that allows you to produce a specific power for the lowest energy input. at higher cadences you have to expend more energy to turn your legs at that (higher) velocity.

however, it feels more comfortable, because in part peak forces are reduced at higher cadences. it's also easier to accelerate from a higher cadence than a lower one.

during cycling (except for e.g., a standing start sprint) the forces are very low to moderate pretty much whatever the cadence.

as the absolute power output increases, so does the most efficient cadence. Pros absolute power is way higher than your average rider, and their most efficient cadence will be higher.

under given conditions at a given velocity, power will be the same whatever the cadence. your ability to do e.g., dead lifts and weight training isn't related to endurance cycling performance as forces are very to low moderate (e.g., climbing an alpine pass during a mtn TT, by a top 5 rider on GC in an event such as the TdF, will likely require an average force on the pedals of ~ 250 Newtons -- which is equal to about 25 kg, between both legs).

In general your best and most optimal cadence will be self selected under the conditions that you're riding under. additionally, at some points you may have no control over your self selected cadence. for e.g., riding up a steep climb (e.g., 15%) may mean you are riding at your 'sustainable' power output limit (e.g., 350 W). that power under given conditions will produce a specific velocity (say 15 km/hr). at that velocity you may not have a gear low enough to pedal as the cadence you want. for e.g., if you're lowest gear is 39 x 23, that may mean you're only pedalling at 60 revs/min**. pedalling faster, will mean you'll have to ride at a faster velocity, which in turn will mean you'll have to produce more power. if you can't produce more power then you can pedal faster.

**i haven't checked what cadence and speed is associated with 39 x 23 at 60 revs/min. i just estimated it!! i.e., wanted to give you an idea of what happens.

ric

 

[the brother]

Originally posted by ricstern
In general higher cadences are less efficient than lower cadences at a given power output. in general, the literature shows the most efficient cadence to be closer to 60 revs/min, rather than 100 revs/min.

this efficiency is thermodynamic mechanical efficiency, and is basically, the effeiciency that allows you to produce a specific power for the lowest energy input. at higher cadences you have to expend more energy to turn your legs at that (higher) velocity.

however, it feels more comfortable, because in part peak forces are reduced at higher cadences. it's also easier to accelerate from a higher cadence than a lower one.

during cycling (except for e.g., a standing start sprint) the forces are very low to moderate pretty much whatever the cadence.

as the absolute power output increases, so does the most efficient cadence. Pros absolute power is way higher than your average rider, and their most efficient cadence will be higher.

-From this am I right to think that as your peak power increases through training you should force yourself to ride at a slightly higher cadence and is there a general rule which says what the most efficient cadence is for a specific absolute power?(is absolute power the same as peak minute power from a ramp test?)

at some points you may have no control over your self selected cadence. for e.g., riding up a steep climb (e.g., 15%) may mean you are riding at your 'sustainable' power output limit (e.g., 350 W). that power under given conditions will produce a specific velocity (say 15 km/hr). at that velocity you may not have a gear low enough to pedal as the cadence you want. for e.g., if you're lowest gear is 39 x 23, that may mean you're only pedalling at 60 revs/min**. pedalling faster, will mean you'll have to ride at a faster velocity, which in turn will mean you'll have to produce more power.

-When I start to struggle to turn the pedals seated I tend to get out of the saddle.
Is the point at which you get out of the saddle to climb related to strength or power. ie are you able to produce more POWER standing than seated or are you able to produce more FORCE in this position?
How much less efficient is it to cycle out of the saddle compared to seated?

Thanks

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by the brother
-From this am I right to think that as your peak power increases through training you should force yourself to ride at a slightly higher cadence and is there a general rule which says what the most efficient cadence is for a specific absolute power?(is absolute power the same as peak minute power from a ramp test?)

depending on where you read your info, peak power may have different connotations -- for e.g., myself and some of the researchers i've worked with define peak power as the highest power you reach in (say) a 5-second peak (sprint) power test. other researchers define as the highest average at the end of an incremental test to exhaustion...

however, getting back on track...! as the power that you can sustain (whether this is endurance pace, TT pace, or hill climb pace) for large periods of time increases your most efficient cadence will most likely increase. however, you'll most likely already be cycling above that cadence at whatever feels most comfortable, and that's generally the cadence you should choose (assuming it's within a normal range, e.g., 80 - 105 revs/min).

absolute power refers to a specific power, rather than stating it relative to e.g., MAP. In other words, at TT effort you might ride at 75%, after a period of training you may still be riding at the same relative (to MAP) power -- 75%, but your absolute power may have increased from (e.g.) 300 to 320 W.

Along with several other researchers, i term the highest average 1-minute power as MAP (maximal aerobic power).

-When I start to struggle to turn the pedals seated I tend to get out of the saddle.
Is the point at which you get out of the saddle to climb related to strength or power. ie are you able to produce more POWER standing than seated or are you able to produce more FORCE in this position?
How much less efficient is it to cycle out of the saddle compared to seated?

Thanks

you may get out of the saddle to relieve certain muscles or to help generate extra power. if it's because you want to go faster (and i don't mean by sprinting say the last 10-secs of a climb) then your limiter is cardiovascular and metabolic, i.e., VO2max and LT aren't high enough. It's nothing to do with strength or force generating capacity.

ric

 

[the brother]

Originally posted by ricstern


you may get out of the saddle to relieve certain muscles or to help generate extra power. if it's because you want to go faster (and i don't mean by sprinting say the last 10-secs of a climb) then your limiter is cardiovascular and metabolic, i.e., VO2max and LT aren't high enough. It's nothing to do with strength or force generating capacity.

ric

OK I may be showing my ignorance now but....
When I get to a point going uphill where I have no more gears to go to(I don't have the gearing that I probably should have to make these climbs more manageable), I get out of the saddle. It isn't that I'm trying to go faster, purely that I want to keep moving!
I havent reached my VO2 max although I may be on the more painful side of LT.
I get out of the saddle because it makes it possible to turn the cranks.
Does this not imply I can generate greater force while throwing bodyweight from one pedal to the other?
Does this not therefore mean that if I was able to produce more force seated I would be able to ride steeper gradients while in the same gear.

Sorry Ric. Do you still feel like you are going round in circles.
Fully understand if you want to refer me to "the answer you gave some moments ago"

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by the brother
OK I may be showing my ignorance now but....
When I get to a point going uphill where I have no more gears to go to(I don't have the gearing that I probably should have to make these climbs more manageable), I get out of the saddle. It isn't that I'm trying to go faster, purely that I want to keep moving!
I havent reached my VO2 max although I may be on the more painful side of LT.
I get out of the saddle because it makes it possible to turn the cranks.
Does this not imply I can generate greater force while throwing bodyweight from one pedal to the other?
Does this not therefore mean that if I was able to produce more force seated I would be able to ride steeper gradients while in the same gear.

Sorry Ric. Do you still feel like you are going round in circles.
Fully understand if you want to refer me to "the answer you gave some moments ago"

Presumably, if you're trying to stay at a constant velocity and it's hurting you, you'd get out of the saddle to relieve some muscles and use others or to generate more power (which you can do when you stand -- maybe i didn't make that too clear in the previous message). however, i'm guessing that you're struggling on these hills and if it's say a short one (e.g., up to say 5 or so mins) then that's because your VO2max isn't high enough, and if it's a long one then (say 10+ mins) then that's because your LT and VO2max aren't high enough.

if you want to ride steeper gradients in the same gear (and presumably at the same cadence) then you need to generate more power, these are a function of LT and VO2max.

you can well exceed your average force and power generating capacity and that of an elite TdF pro when climbing (assuming you're healthy with no functional disability), just by sprinting for a few seconds.

it's actually possible, that you generate the same force when riding at your steady effort uphill compared to a pro on the same hill. because, most likely you'll be able to generate less power and thus a slower velocity whilst most likely using the same gear ratios as a pro, and because they're travelling at a greater velocity their pedalling cadence will also be higher, it's likely the force at the pedals is the same or roughly similar.

ric

 

[the brother]

cheers Ric

Originally posted by ricstern
Presumably, if you're trying to stay at a constant velocity and it's hurting you, you'd get out of the saddle to relieve some muscles and use others or to generate more power (which you can do when you stand -- maybe i didn't make that too clear in the previous message). however, i'm guessing that you're struggling on these hills and if it's say a short one (e.g., up to say 5 or so mins) then that's because your VO2max isn't high enough, and if it's a long one then (say 10+ mins) then that's because your LT and VO2max aren't high enough.

if you want to ride steeper gradients in the same gear (and presumably at the same cadence) then you need to generate more power, these are a function of LT and VO2max.

you can well exceed your average force and power generating capacity and that of an elite TdF pro when climbing (assuming you're healthy with no functional disability), just by sprinting for a few seconds.

it's actually possible, that you generate the same force when riding at your steady effort uphill compared to a pro on the same hill. because, most likely you'll be able to generate less power and thus a slower velocity whilst most likely using the same gear ratios as a pro, and because they're travelling at a greater velocity their pedalling cadence will also be higher, it's likely the force at the pedals is the same or roughly similar.

ric

 

[n crowley]

Originally posted by the brother
OK I may be showing my ignorance now but....
When I get to a point going uphill where I have no more gears to go to(I don't have the gearing that I probably should have to make these climbs more manageable), I get out of the saddle. It isn't that I'm trying to go faster, purely that I want to keep moving!
I havent reached my VO2 max although I may be on the more painful side of LT.
I get out of the saddle because it makes it possible to turn the cranks.
Does this not imply I can generate greater force while throwing bodyweight from one pedal to the other?
Does this not therefore mean that if I was able to produce more force seated I would be able to ride steeper gradients while in the same gear.



Another way of putting it, if by changing your technique, you
could reproduce the same increased power effect when seated
as that of riding out of the saddle, could you ride steeper gradients while in the same gear. The answer is yes, this is
what the linear (anquetil's) technique does. It enables you to
combine full arm resistance with leg power when seated and
while you will not be able to gain the benefit of your total
bodyweight on the pedal, the fact that you can very effectively
eliminate the negative propulsion effect of the dead spot area
when climbing by making this area part of your main power
stroke, can compensate for this. By using this same technique
on flat roads, you can comfortably cruise in a higher gear than
what could be done with the normal pedalling styles. With this
technique, instead of throwing the bike from side to side, that
power is diverted back to the pedals and eliminates all energy
wasting movement on the bike. But then the experts do not
even believe that such a technique exists.

 

[lyot]

i suggest this article by Dr. Michele Ferrari could add some value to the discussion ..

http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=15


greetings..

 

[n crowley]

Dr Ferrari's latest article on pedalling efficiency dated 5 july also on that
page is a perfect example of how the pedalling of Anquetil was viewed by the
experts, his explanation is total nonsense.

 

[stormer94]

This is related to another thread on the relevance of strength training and performance.
I was under the impression that higher cadences(90,100+) were more economical than lower(60ish) because they required a lower percentage of the maximal force that the cyclist can apply, for the same power output.
If this isn't the case then can someone please enlighten me!

Why are higher cadences used by the pros? Is it a question of economy and if so why is it more economical?

Why does LA seem to use a higher candence then many others?

Cool thread, I'm debating these things right now myself. I'm tired of climbing in 39-23 at 75-80 rpm and huffing 160-165 pulse. I got in a new rear cassette today and am gonna try the same hills tomorrow and see if I can ride 39-25 at 85-90rpm instead, and at a lower pulse, say 155 or so. Even if I drop a mph, that would be fine if I'm not suffering as bad. Gonna try a 39-27 in a few days after that. Short hills, but steep.