Cadence on climbs

The cadence that feels comfortable on the flats will work fine on hills too. For steep hills of 8%+, cadence may drop just because you run out of gears on the low end, and you'll just have to deal with it at the time or stand up.

85-95rpm is a nice endurance cadence range for hills too.

What sort of cadence should you be aiming for on hills of
a) 2-4%
b) 5-7%
c) 8% plus

THis all depends on you. we are all not lance and we don;t pedal at 95-100 rpm up l'alpe d'huez nor are we jan who would go up at about the same speed at a cadence of 80-85. For us mortals, it is best to use a personal preferance. idealy you will have a power meter and will be able to measure ur average power output from the gradients mentioned above. If you don;t have a power meter, use a stop watch. assend the hill consciously using different cadences, find out what works best for you.

Unfortunatly, there is no magical candence for climbs with these cadences. However, remember that higher is usually better. It allows for faster acceleration and recovery.

Personally, I like a climbing cadence that brings my upstroke leg well past the 12 o'clock position without my needing to push it over the top. If the cadence drops too low (e.g., below ~60), I find I need to push it over the top on the downstroke and this seems to be more strain on my leg and glute muscles. It's the same on or off the saddle. When the hill gets steep and I run out of gears on the low end, I get off the saddle, but I still like my downstroke to bring my upstroke leg past 12 o'clock so I can mainly use gravity for the downstroke. This seems to be easier on my back as well.

Higher is better for the long run. 83 is ideal for me. But watch it and not over doing it since it will cause your HR to shoot through the roof.

sergen said:

After using the search function, I note that it's good to train for an optimal cadence of around 85-95 when cycling on the flat. But there doesn't seem to be any info on climbing cadence.

What sort of cadence should you be aiming for on hills of
a) 2-4%
b) 5-7%
c) 8% plus

Many thanks.

I find my optimum cadence through experimentation. I find a hill of constant 10% grade or so with a long steady straightaway of about a couple of miles. That's to minimize variables in my testing. Then I go up that hill at a constant 12mph and measure my cadence and heartrate. Then I go down, recover fully and try a different gear with higher cadence at the EXACT same road-speed (this ensures equal effort and energy-output), and I watch my heartrate for that gear & cadence. Then I go down and repeat with a higher lear/lower-cadence. I end up finding that for me, being a little more muscle-bound than most hill-climbers, the cadence that's most efficient and gives me the highest-speed with lowest-heartrate is about 85-90rpm.

Some of the scrawny hillclimbers may use higher-candences to maximize their weaker leg-strength. Other more stronger sprinters may use a lower candence than me. Then the optimum cadence also changes with the grade of the hill as well; I'll spin faster on an 8% grade and slower on a 12% grade. Endless experimentation, note-taking and playing with gearing is the key here. The secret's in the data and that's specific to each rider.

DannoXYZ said:

I find my optimum cadence through experimentation. I find a hill of constant 10% grade or so with a long steady straightaway of about a couple of miles. That's to minimize variables in my testing. Then I go up that hill at a constant 12mph and measure my cadence and heartrate. Then I go down, recover fully and try a different gear with higher cadence at the EXACT same road-speed (this ensures equal effort and energy-output), and I watch my heartrate for that gear & cadence. Then I go down and repeat with a higher lear/lower-cadence. I end up finding that for me, being a little more muscle-bound than most hill-climbers, the cadence that's most efficient and gives me the highest-speed with lowest-heartrate is about 85-90rpm.

Your thesis seems to be that, at a given speed, the cadence that results in the lowest heartrate is the optimal cadence. This approach will usually result in a very low cadence (e.g., 60rpm) and is not necessarily one's optimal climbing cadence. Experimentation is a good idea, but heartrate is a poor optimization variable. What one wants is the cadence that results in the maximum average power for the duration of the climb.

[b]"Your thesis seems to be that, at a given speed, the cadence that results in the lowest heartrate is the optimal cadence. This approach will usually result in a very low cadence (e.g., 60rpm) and is not necessarily one's optimal climbing cadence"[/b]

What do you define as "optimum climbing cadence"? Not 60rpm from the data I have. Super-low RPMs around 60 tends to build quite a lot of lactic-acid, causes quick muscle-fatigue and cramping as well as drives the heart-rate through the roof. Note that I'm talking about different gears at the SAME speed. If you take a 40x21 gear that you've been hammering at 80rpm then slow down to 60rpm, yeah, your heartrate will drop, but you'll also be going slower as well. My assertion is lowest heartrate for any given maximum SPEED up a hill, and at any given speed, there's a cadence that's the most efficient, as in providing the necessary power to maintain that speed with the lowest amount of muscular exertion and metabolism (HR is a good indicator of exertion and power-output and the AT-threshold is a real limit of how long you can hold a certain effort).

[b]" What one wants is the cadence that results in the maximum average power for the duration of the climb."[/b]

It depends upon the hill. If it's a long hill were you have to balance maximum-speed at your anaerobic threshold for a long time, you want the maximum-power output at that threshold. So on any given hill, the highest average power-output also gives the highest average speed and lowest overall time. If for a given level of fitness, there's a theoretical speed at which you can cover a hill. Let's say that comes out to 15mph on a 10% grades at an aerobic limit of 88% max-HR. You have three possible gears you can use on that grade at 15mph and one gear gives you 80rpm @ 90% max-HR for that speed, the next one gives you 85rpm @ 88% max-HR and the next one gives you 90rpm @ 90% max-HR. Which one do you think you'll be able to sustain the longest at 15mph???

However, if the hill is a short 5-10minute one like on a circuit-race with a downhill for recovery, then you can run an aerobic deficit and make an interval out of it wher e your HR climbes 88-90-92-94-96, etc. and time it so that hit 99% or so at the very top. In which case, you cover the hill in the least amount of time possible. But again, there's a cadence that's most efficient with speed vs. HR.

These figures will vary from rider to rider and only through lots of training and collecting data will you find the most optimum configuraiton for you.

There are races where I'll have a two-step straight-block, 12-13-14-15t for the flats and 20-21-22-23t for the hills just to get the optimum gearing for the longest stretches of the course.

DannoXYZ said:

What do you define as "optimum climbing cadence"?

[font=Arial][font=Verdana]I define optimal climbing cadence as that cadence that allows one to produce the desired power (sometimes maximum) over the duration of the climb with the least fatigue. In an event in which one can choose a pacing strategy (e.g., TT), increasing power on climbs (sometimes by as much or more than 100w) is likely to be the best strategy. My personal experience is that HR is positively correlated with cadence (lower cadence = lower HR), but that lowest HR is usually not the cadence that results in the least fatigue (RPE). As Ric Stern said in another thread, “Almost certainly your HR will be lowest at a given power output at a lower rather than higher cadence. This is because lower cadences are more efficient. The most efficient cadence will increase as power increases. However, it is likely that more moderate (i.e., approaching 'normal'😉 or a 'normal' cadence will be less fatiguing than the most efficient cadence. Additionally, you are probably best just self-selecting a cadence that feels 'good' and allows you to generate the most power for the task that you are doing (irrespective of HR).”[/font][/font]

DannoXYZ said:

Super-low RPMs around 60 tends to build quite a lot of lactic-acid, causes quick muscle-fatigue and cramping as well as drives the heart-rate through the roof.

[font=Arial][font=Verdana]I don’t know about the lactic acid because I have never measured it, but I agree that I feel that it accelerates muscle fatigue. As to HR, I disagree. My personal experience is that my HR is lowest at the lowest cadence at a given power (speed). I think this is normal.[/font][/font]

DannoXYZ said:

Note that I'm talking about different gears at the SAME speed.

[font=Arial][font=Verdana]Of course. You’re talking about holding speed (power) constant and varying cadence by selecting different gears.[/font][/font]

DannoXYZ said:

My assertion is lowest heartrate for any given maximum SPEED up a hill, and at any given speed, there's a cadence that's the most efficient, as in providing the necessary power to maintain that speed with the lowest amount of muscular exertion and metabolism (HR is a good indicator of exertion and power-output and the AT-threshold is a real limit of how long you can hold a certain effort).

[font=Verdana]This is the essence of our disagreement. I simply don’t buy your argument that HR is a good proxy (indicator) for exertion and a predictor of how long one can hold a certain power (effort). I agree that HR varies with cadence at a constant power output (speed). I even think HR varies positively with cadence, at least within the range of 60-110rpm and 200-400w (I haven’t personally tested it outside those ranges). But, I disagree that HR is a good proxy for exertion and fatigue.[/font]

DannoXYZ said:

You have three possible gears you can use on that grade at 15mph and one gear gives you 80rpm @ 90% max-HR for that speed, the next one gives you 85rpm @ 88% max-HR and the next one gives you 90rpm @ 90% max-HR. Which one do you think you'll be able to sustain the longest at 15mph???

[font=Verdana]I have two problems with this statement of facts and question. First, it’s not my experience that HR declines, then increases with increasing cadence. For me, HR increases progressively from 60rpm to 110rpm at all power levels from 200w-400w. Second, by your triple question marks you obviously feel that only an idiot would not be able to figure out that the right answer is 85rpm at 88% MHR. Well, I’m that idiot because I don’t agree that it is the right answer. Rather, I would rely on RPE to decide on cadence at a given power.[/font]

[font=Verdana]As I said in my first response, you clearly have a thesis about the optimal cadence for climbing and I equally clearly disagree with your thesis.[/font]

[b]"I define optimal climbing cadence as that cadence that allows one to produce the desired power (sometimes maximum) over the duration of the climb with the least fatigue. "[/b]

How do you measure fatigue?

[b]"But, I disagree that HR is a good proxy for exertion and fatigue."[/b]

What is HR measurements good for then? I'm talking about steady-state equilibrium here. Sure, we can go anaerobic and utilize phosphocreatine exclusively for massive instanenous power-output and the HR won't show any changes or correlation with that effort, but it will catch up eventually.

[b]"The most efficient cadence will increase as power increases..."[/b]
[b]"For me, HR increases progressively from 60rpm to 110rpm at all power levels from 200w-400w"[/b]

Are you saying then that you don't correlate climbing speed with power output? What is your maximum steady-state power-output? At what RPM does that power-output occur and what would you use for maximum-speed up a hill? We can break it up into a 20km 10%-grade hillclimb-TT or a short 12% 5km hill in a circuit-race. Which gear would you select and what cadence would you have for the kinds of power-output you'd be using? I'm just asking for specifics as each person's optimum will be different.

Others have mentioned 85-90rpm, others mention 83rpm. I find that the fastest possible speed for me on a 10% grade is 85rpm. If you can climb at 60rpm and that's where you get the fastest speed on a hill-TT, then that's fine too. We can try to explain it any numbers of ways, but it comes down to just the numbers in the end, what's yours?.

DannoXYZ said:

How do you measure fatigue?

Perception. I have no objective measure of fatigue.

DannoXYZ said:

What is HR measurements good for then?

How fast my heart is beating. But, it is not very useful for managing output.

DannoXYZ said:

Are you saying then that you don't correlate climbing speed with power output?

Climbing speed is directly correlated with power output.

DannoXYZ said:

What is your maximum steady-state power-output?

At this point, ~275w for 40K, ~300w for 20K, ~400w for 5 min.

DannoXYZ said:

At what RPM does that power-output occur and what would you use for maximum-speed up a hill? We can break it up into a 20km 10%-grade hillclimb-TT or a short 12% 5km hill in a circuit-race. Which gear would you select and what cadence would you have for the kinds of power-output you'd be using? I'm just asking for specifics as each person's optimum will be different.

I can produce those watts at various RPMs from 60-100 but my self-selected cadence would be ~85-95, depending on grade. However, my lowest HR would be at ~60RPM. That's my point -- lowest HR at a given power is not necessarily optimal.

[quote="DannoXYZ"]I
Some of the scrawny hillclimbers may use higher-candences to maximize their weaker leg-strength. Other more stronger sprinters may use a lower candence than me.


It's not about leg strenth. i can out ride guys who can leg press damn near double what i can and i leave them in dust! im considered a slim climber but i can put out as much power as Lance A or any other Elite.just about any cyclist can, sustaining it is the trick.

I have a simple question. What gear is Lance riding up the big mountains in Europe. Say alpe duhez? If his cadence is 85-90 and he is riding 42-17 then he will be dropping blokes in 42-23 doing the same cadence. I never hear of people referring to the size of the gear being used at particular cadences.

Does anyone know what size gears are being used in the pro peloton for climbing big hills?

Bye the way this is my first real post on this site so it would be nice if someone answered my question.:o

MPCRUSHER said:

I have a simple question. What gear is Lance riding up the big mountains in Europe. Say alpe duhez? If his cadence is 85-90 and he is riding 42-17 then he will be dropping blokes in 42-23 doing the same cadence. I never hear of people referring to the size of the gear being used at particular cadences.

Does anyone know what size gears are being used in the pro peloton for climbing big hills?

Bye the way this is my first real post on this site so it would be nice if someone answered my question.:o

I don't know for a fact what gear LA uses on climbs such as Alpe d'Huez, but I'd work back from power. I'd guess Lance is putting out ~500w on that climb and the hill is ~11% avg. grade. That would give him ~12.6mph and he could turn 85-90 cadence in, say, a 39/21 to 39/23.

RapDaddyo said:

I don't know for a fact what gear LA uses on climbs such as Alpe d'Huez, but I'd work back from power. I'd guess Lance is putting out ~500w on that climb and the hill is ~11% avg. grade. That would give him ~12.6mph and he could turn 85-90 cadence in, say, a 39/21 to 39/23.

i did some number crunching using the durations of the climbs in the Tour to the nearest 30-secs in my daily analysis "View from the lab - Ric Stern's Tour de France Science" at cyclingnews.com see http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/2005/diaries/ric/?id=ric0504

Although velocity was higher than this and power lower.

Ric

My 2 cents probably wont mean much, but im getting up the hills better at a relativly high cadence (around 80-85) and in a gear that keeps my HR at or just below LT. Of course there is the occasional push up some steeper sections that require a little more oomph, but im talking in general about longish slogs that take a few minutes to get up.

I think my cadence is slow but my uphill speed is steady and effective these days. Yesterday I overtook some club riders up a long, steady climb and not because I was trying to show off or anything. I was going at my normal pace. After about 15 minutes there was hardly anyone in sight behind me. Of course, I practised this climb in Winter, rain and hail so I know which gear I need to be in and my cadence is instinctive.
These days I do a lot of climbing on the big chain ring, provided the incline isn't particularly steep. I get a real pull on the big ring and then try to stabilise my cadence evenly. I'm faster and more efficient when seated. However, I also feel fine standing up.

Thanks for your thoughts. So I guess If you wanted to climb hills alongside Lance you would have to either push a bigger gear than him at a slightly slower cadence or use a smaller gear at a much higher cadence.

Your either stronger than he is or fitter than he is take your pick:eek:

MPCRUSHER said:

Thanks for your thoughts. So I guess If you wanted to climb hills alongside Lance you would have to either push a bigger gear than him at a slightly slower cadence or use a smaller gear at a much higher cadence.

Your either stronger than he is or fitter than he is take your pick:eek:

If you wanted to ride with Lance (or any pro) and they were to ride at their normal intensity on the climb, you would not need to be *stronger* than the other rider (if e.g., you rode a bigger gear and pedalled at a lower cadence). Conversely, if you rode a smaller gear at a higher cadence you would not be fitter than Lance (or the other rider).

If you are both riding at the same velocity, and this is a race effort for you both over the duration of the climb then you are both as fit as each other as your power to mass ratio, and therefore velocity would be the same, irrespective of your cadence.

Pedalling at a lower cadence does not make you stronger, but would require you to generate more force than the other rider. However, as the forces involved in cycling are very low to moderate a small increase in force does not affect your strength.

ric

Some of this also applies to martial arts. A well trained martial artist who's small in stature and not specifically strong can punch harder than a big guy who works out. It's essentially a whole new ball game. Some of the effectiveness of a martial arts punch or kick has more to do with speed than strength.

ric_stern/RST said:

If you wanted to ride with Lance (or any pro) and they were to ride at their normal intensity on the climb, you would not need to be *stronger* than the other rider (if e.g., you rode a bigger gear and pedalled at a lower cadence). Conversely, if you rode a smaller gear at a higher cadence you would not be fitter than Lance (or the other rider).

If you are both riding at the same velocity, and this is a race effort for you both over the duration of the climb then you are both as fit as each other as your power to mass ratio, and therefore velocity would be the same, irrespective of your cadence.

Pedalling at a lower cadence does not make you stronger, but would require you to generate more force than the other rider. However, as the forces involved in cycling are very low to moderate a small increase in force does not affect your strength.

ric