Gonchar

Robert said:

Suppose - just suppose - I have it in my head that I do indeed have an
optimal cadence range (we'll say between 90 and 95 revs/min). Can any of
you answer the following questions:

1. Why would this notion be a disadvantage to me

2. Should I then try to train at different cadences, e.g. 80 rpm

3. If I do 2) what will this gain me

4. If I notice that, for the same speed, a cadence of 80 causes knee
pain (whereas a cadence of 96 does not), how shall I go about
eliminating that discomfort

5. Are there any sensible articles available on the web or authoritative
source that answer any or all of the above questions

Define "optimal." Let's call it the cadence that you self-select -
that you pick because you feel you can generate a lot of
power without your legs burning, or that doesn't make your
knees hurt, or that lets you ride long distances without
fatigue. Suppose it turns out that this "optimal" cadence
depends on the circumstances, so it isn't always 90 or 95.
That doesn't mean that training at some other cadence
is a good idea or that you should deliberately adjust your
cadence. It just means focusing so much on cadence
is misleading.

Here's an experiment. Figure out what cadence you
ride at when on the flat and when climbing.
For ex, find two sections of road, each
that allows you to ride for a few minutes (2,5, etc) at a
steady pace, but one is flat and the other is uphill
(climbing seated, maybe like a 5% grade). Try riding
them as you normally would. Don't stare at the cadence
meter. If you have a computer that does average speed,
and you ride steadily in one gear, you can figure out
the average cadence afterward from the avg speed and
gear ratio. I haven't looked at a ton of power or cadence
files, but practically every time we talk about this, people
say that they climb at a lower cadence than when riding
on the flat, and it isn't because they've run out of low
gears. I know this is true for me.

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Back when I had a coach, he used to make us
ride in the 42x19 all spring long. Later he added hill intervals where
we had to stomp up in the 53x13 and spin down in the 42x19. I don't
know if it worked or not,

Cadence is a red herring.

Not exactly Robert. When you push really big gears your muscles are
contracted for a longer time. Although it probably isn't a great deal longer
it sure as hell feels like it. On a long day in the saddle if you spin up
hills instead of grind, your legs aren't nearly as beat.

I never had any luck "training" for higher cadences, but when I had been
racing for awhile I noted that I was riding in the 15-17 for most of the
races while before that I'd been in the 12 or 13 almost all the time. When
the pack really started moving or I had to close a big gap I'd need to
larger gears but most of the time I was easily spinning.

Here I am now maybe 8 or 10 years after I stopped racing and my cadence is
slowed to what it was when I started racing. Moreover, even when I try to
"train" for higher cadences it doesn't seem to make any difference.

Tom Kunich said:

"sonarrat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

"Sonarrat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

>I can hardly even keep my cadence above 90, but that might be just poor
>technique rather than a natural proclivity. I definitely do ride
>strongest at 70-80 rpm.

Are you racing? As you build strength racing you sort of automatically
gain a higher cadence.

Me? Race? I might be 23, but I may as well be a fatty master for the kind
of shape I'm in.

Some people can drive themselves to train as hard as they would in a race.
This is the kind of riding it takes to build up the sort of strength that
causes higher cadences. And the reason for that is that a peloton generally
rides at the speed of the slower members of the group. So when you get
stronger you drop into lower gears in order not to outrun the peloton (or to
end up on the front all the time). Over time you'll be accelerating in
smaller gears and your cadence will grow.

My thing is that I tend to "spin out" easily. At 90 rpm I start to get
that slipping-transmission feeling, and I don't like that. It feels
like I have to work harder to keep my legs moving than is efficient for
producing forward motion, so I slip down into a gear where it's a little
bit harder to pedal, but it feels more natural because I have steady
pressure on the pedals. That helps me stay relaxed.

"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Robert said:

Donald Munro said:

Robert wrote:

>Who cares? The point is that different riders choose different cadences
>to reach the same power output. For you to say that cadence is a red
>herring discounts the importance of the rider finding the ideal one.

Why do you think such an ideal one exists. More likely the 'ideal'
cadence varies along with all the other variables.

Because if I use a different cadence than my preferred one, I cycle not
as well (worse endurance, lower speed for given comfort level, or both).

It's up to each cyclist to find their own optimal cadence. What's so
strange about that?

The antithesis is that there is no optimal cadence. Please
consider this seriously. Many act as if such is the case
with no hindrance.

I think Roberts point is that there IS no optimal cadence within certain
limits. That each individual has his own cadence which he feels most
comfortable at during any particular power output.

I don't believe that myself. That is, I agree with his thesis but that the
limits within which each individual feels comfortable is quite narrow and
that with very few outliers I think that 65-75 on climbs is pretty normal
and 90-95 on flats as well.

I believe that the significant factor is the contraction speed of human
muscles and that's pretty much fixed.

"sonarrat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

My thing is that I tend to "spin out" easily. At 90 rpm I start to get
that slipping-transmission feeling, and I don't like that.

As you get stronger the same power output as before occurs much lower on
your output curve. This means you're more relaxed to develop the same power
and hence it's much easier for you to spin.

What I can't figure out is why you ride at 90ish at top speed on the flats
and develop your max power and yet on climbs your power output is the same
but at a lower cadence for comfort.

Robert Chung said:

I don't focus on cadence. Power is proportional to cadence * torque

Power is cadence * torque dumbass. Power is proportional to both
cadence and torque.

Quoted message said:

so in
the course of riding we're all constantly adjusting all three together,
particularly in response to crank inertia. So even if you think there's
some benefit to training cadence separately from torque

I believe that there is an optimal cadence and torque combination for
maximum power transfer. Once identified, there is benefit in
maintaining cadence but dropping torque for sub-maximal efforts because
it preserves muscular strength and reinforces the motor control needed
ride at that optimal cadence. I agree that this sweet spot can vary
somewhat with conditions.

Quoted message said:

(Do marathon
coaches train their runners to take teenylittlestepsrealfast early in
training but h u m o n g o u s...s l o w...s t r i d e s later on?)

Sounds like marathon coaches all ride singlespeeds.

Quoted message said:

it
still doesn't make sense to prescribe a particular cadence without also
specifying a particular torque, and none of the coaches who prescribe
cadence targets appear to specify torque limits at the same time.

In a historical sense, cycling coaches focused on cadence because they
didn't have good ways to measure torque or power. However, they had
watches so cycling mythology built up around the thing they could measure,
which was cadence. But it's a red herring.

How many novice cyclists have you heard say that they use big gears to
get a good workout? They equate high torque with hard work. With
experience and perhaps a little knowledge of physics, some come to
realize that cadence is an equal partner to torque in the generation of
power. If coaches focus on it, it's because the role of cadence is
less intuitive.

Spin to win.

Bret

Bret said:

Robert Chung said:

I don't focus on cadence. Power is proportional to cadence * torque

Power is cadence * torque dumbass.

You're right. I meant that since power is generally expressed either in hp
or watts, cadence is usually measured in rpm, and torque can be measured
either in ft-lbs or Nm, you generally have to multiply by a conversion
constant to get the units to match up.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Robert Chung schreef:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But I cannot leave yet. We here at Chung Training Systems, Inc.
still have many Chungs to train.

Can you put together a chart that shows how many?

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~dronkert/mosim/opdr1/tau37.gif

I'd like it better if it had more bounce and sizzle. How about making it
into a pictogram?

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Quoted message said:

Robert said:

Suppose - just suppose - I have it in my head that I do indeed have an
optimal cadence range (we'll say between 90 and 95 revs/min). Can any of
you answer the following questions:

1. Why would this notion be a disadvantage to me

2. Should I then try to train at different cadences, e.g. 80 rpm

3. If I do 2) what will this gain me

4. If I notice that, for the same speed, a cadence of 80 causes knee
pain (whereas a cadence of 96 does not), how shall I go about
eliminating that discomfort

5. Are there any sensible articles available on the web or authoritative
source that answer any or all of the above questions

Define "optimal." Let's call it the cadence that you self-select -
that you pick because you feel you can generate a lot of
power without your legs burning, or that doesn't make your
knees hurt, or that lets you ride long distances without
fatigue. Suppose it turns out that this "optimal" cadence
depends on the circumstances, so it isn't always 90 or 95.
That doesn't mean that training at some other cadence
is a good idea or that you should deliberately adjust your
cadence. It just means focusing so much on cadence
is misleading.

That makes sense and I agree in general that one shouldn't decide in
advance what a good cadence is and then try to match it. Instead, I
settle into a gear I like, then I occasionally look down to see what
cadence I happen to have. By then I will have sensed that any cadence
slower than the one I'm in would have caused my legs to burn a bit.

On the flats I consistently settle into about 92 rpm. Not 85 or 100,
even if I can comfortably spin my 177,5 cranks at 105 if I want.

Sometimes, though, I do use the cadence figure prescriptively,
especially towards the end of a long ride. As an example, in Sweden we
have an annual ride/race called Vättern Rundan which is 300 km (approx.
190 miles). I take about 10 hours to do it but I notice that my cadence
tends to drop to around 75 in the latter stages (by then I'm usually
pretty tired). That cadence will make my legs numb if I keep using it,
so I will deliberately up my cadence to about 85 to get the legs feeling
alive again. This is one of those times that I find my cadence sensor to
be actually useful.

Quoted message said:

Here's an experiment. Figure out what cadence you
ride at when on the flat and when climbing.
For ex, find two sections of road, each
that allows you to ride for a few minutes (2,5, etc) at a
steady pace, but one is flat and the other is uphill
(climbing seated, maybe like a 5% grade). Try riding
them as you normally would. Don't stare at the cadence
meter. If you have a computer that does average speed,
and you ride steadily in one gear, you can figure out
the average cadence afterward from the avg speed and
gear ratio. I haven't looked at a ton of power or cadence
files, but practically every time we talk about this, people
say that they climb at a lower cadence than when riding
on the flat, and it isn't because they've run out of low
gears. I know this is true for me.

I agree with this as well.

On the flats my cadence tends to be around 92 (this and other figures
intended to be approximate and illustrative only).
On a 5% incline my cadence would be around 88, sitting.
Standing on the same incline, I will shift two cogs longer (e.g. 16t to
18t) and use a cadence around 78.
On a downhill, in a nice long gear, it creeps up to about 100 for some
odd reason.

Cheers, Robert

Bob Schwartz said:

That reminds me, did you have red herring with the andouillette?
Did it taste like [censored]?

That reminds me of a phrase I've never quite understood: what's a
[censored]-eating grin?

Tom Kunich said:

"sonarrat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

My thing is that I tend to "spin out" easily. At 90 rpm I start to get
that slipping-transmission feeling, and I don't like that.

As you get stronger the same power output as before occurs much lower on
your output curve. This means you're more relaxed to develop the same power
and hence it's much easier for you to spin.

What I can't figure out is why you ride at 90ish at top speed on the flats
and develop your max power and yet on climbs your power output is the same
but at a lower cadence for comfort.

You've got it backwards. On the flats, I grind a low gear, because it's
not comfortable for me to spin the gears too fast and get that
pedal-through-the-floor feeling. When I climb, my cadence is faster,
because I can spin quicker more comfortably - which is in line with what
you're trying to say.

Robert Chung said:

Quoted message said:

But I cannot leave yet. We here at Chung Training Systems, Inc.
still have many Chungs to train.

Can you put together a chart that shows how many?

Okay. In honor of your yearly vacation, I define the Chung
Score as the ratio of rbr posts in July to average rbr posts per
month for the rest of the year. If July was the same as any other
month, that would be 1 Chung. So here's the data,
with rbr and fr.rec.sport.cyclisme added in the spirit
of friendly competition. Data from groups.google.com,
July 2006 is a little low because it isn't over yet.

Historical data showing the July Effect:
<http://www.ucolick.org/~bjw/misc/rbr/rbr.nposts.hist.gif>

Correlation between rbr and fr.r.s.c
(not much of one except for the July Effect)
<http://www.ucolick.org/~bjw/misc/rbr/rbr.frsc.nposts.gif>

The plot you've been waiting for, the Chung Score
(July posts/remainder of the year average)
<http://www.ucolick.org/~bjw/misc/rbr/rbr.julyratio.gif>

As you can see, the July Effect has always been strong,
but in 2003-2005 was exceptionally strong in rbr, due
perhaps to LANCE. rbr is falling off overall (see first plot)
even in 2005, as the LANCE greenhouse effect diminished
or perhaps due to the Imminent Death of Usenet.
In 2006 the seasonal variation of the July Effect was
back to pre-industrial levels.

rbr appears to be limping along without the SuperWanker,
but what's really surprising is July 2006 in fr.rec.sport.cyclisme.
Their Chung Score is down below 1 (I expect it to come up
to about 1 by the end of the month). Maybe they were all out
watching the best Tour of the last N years instead of talking
about the UberAssHole?

Robert said:

Suppose - just suppose - I have it in my head that I do indeed have an
optimal cadence range (we'll say between 90 and 95 revs/min). Can any of
you answer the following questions:

1. Why would this notion be a disadvantage to me

It's only a disadvantage if you think of it as prescriptive rather than
descriptive.

Quoted message said:

2. Should I then try to train at different cadences, e.g. 80 rpm

Not particularly, unless there are specific neuromuscular adaptations
you're trying to achieve.

Quoted message said:

3. If I do 2) what will this gain me

Not much, unless there are specific neuromuscular adaptations you're
trying to achieve.

Quoted message said:

4. If I notice that, for the same speed, a cadence of 80 causes knee
pain (whereas a cadence of 96 does not), how shall I go about
eliminating that discomfort

First, why would you ever ride in a way that causes discomfort? Don't do
that. But, in a greater sense, this is an illustration of why focusing on
cadence is a problem. If you're getting knee pain, it is almost surely
because the force at the knee is too high, not that the muscular
contraction speed of your leg flexors and extensors is too slow. In this
situation, pedal force, not cadence, is the problem. Even at 80 rpm,
reducing the pedal force should make the pain go away which you could do,
for example, by reducing drag force: so get aerobars (that's a silly way
to do it, of course: I'm just pointing out that it's force, not leg speed,
that is the problem).

Quoted message said:

5. Are there any sensible articles available on the web or authoritative
source that answer any or all of the above questions

Here.

Quoted message said:

Define "optimal." Let's call it the cadence that you self-select -
that you pick because you feel you can generate a lot of
power without your legs burning, or that doesn't make your
knees hurt, or that lets you ride long distances without
fatigue. Suppose it turns out that this "optimal" cadence
depends on the circumstances, so it isn't always 90 or 95.
That doesn't mean that training at some other cadence
is a good idea or that you should deliberately adjust your
cadence. It just means focusing so much on cadence
is misleading.

Exactly.

Quoted message said:

Here's an experiment. Figure out what cadence you
ride at when on the flat and when climbing.
For ex, find two sections of road, each
that allows you to ride for a few minutes (2,5, etc) at a
steady pace, but one is flat and the other is uphill
(climbing seated, maybe like a 5% grade). Try riding
them as you normally would. Don't stare at the cadence
meter. If you have a computer that does average speed,
and you ride steadily in one gear, you can figure out
the average cadence afterward from the avg speed and
gear ratio. I haven't looked at a ton of power or cadence
files, but practically every time we talk about this, people
say that they climb at a lower cadence than when riding
on the flat, and it isn't because they've run out of low
gears. I know this is true for me.

Here are a couple of other experiments:

1. Freely choose the gear and cadence that lets you ride at a low power,
low speed: say, 10 mph on the flat. Did you choose 90-95 rpm?

2. Freely choose the gear and cadence that lets you do a high power, high
speed sprint (not from a standing start but from your comfortable cruising
speed). Now repeat the sprint while maintaining your cadence in the range
of 90-95 rpm. In which sprint did you attain the highest speed and/or
power?

Now, what does "optimal" mean? Can you see that "optimal" depends on
specific circumstances? If so, then there isn't one optimal or ideal
cadence.

Tom Kunich said:

What I can't figure out is why you ride at 90ish at top speed on the
flats and develop your max power and yet on climbs your power output is
the same but at a lower cadence for comfort.

Crank inertia.

Robert Chung said:

Quoted message said:

Donald Munro wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You mean you always ride with the same cadence regardless of terrain,
gradient or wind ?

I do, at least within a very narrow range. Particularly now that I have
a modern bike with brifters and 10 cogs.

You have data files with your recorded cadence? You're saying the cadences
lie within the same very narrow range for: 1) flat TTs; 2) steep hill
climbs; and 3) crits?

I guess the issue is the definition of "narrow band". Say about 10 rpm.
I don't do crits but if I did, I suspect any cadences that were
significantly outside of my range would only occur during a jump when
it is impractical to shift.

Quoted message said:

I've seen a fair number of data files from all sorts of riders on all
sorts of terrain. You'd be the first to have an identical pattern
regardless of the type of ride.

I don't have any such files, but I've been thinking of getting a
computer that records such things. I ride with a very low cadence
(60-70) so perhaps this means I can get "bigger" differences with
smaller cadence changes and thus my range is narrow?

Joseph

Robert Chung said:

Robert said:

Suppose - just suppose - I have it in my head that I do indeed have an
optimal cadence range (we'll say between 90 and 95 revs/min). Can any of
you answer the following questions:

1. Why would this notion be a disadvantage to me

It's only a disadvantage if you think of it as prescriptive rather than
descriptive.

That's fine. I mention in another sub-thread that only in certain
situations do I use cadence figures prescriptively.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2. Should I then try to train at different cadences, e.g. 80 rpm

Not particularly, unless there are specific neuromuscular adaptations
you're trying to achieve.

OK, why would I or any other rider want to train consciously at a lower
cadence?

Quoted message said:

----snip-----

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

5. Are there any sensible articles available on the web or authoritative
source that answer any or all of the above questions

Here.

Of course I should've realised ;-) got a link?

/Robert

Robert said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2. Should I then try to train at different cadences, e.g. 80 rpm

Not particularly, unless there are specific neuromuscular adaptations
you're trying to achieve.

OK, why would I or any other rider want to train consciously at a lower
cadence?

Your question shows that you're still not getting it. You'd train at a
lower or a higher cadence to train specific neuromuscular adaptations: for
example, if you're training for standing starts, or on a fixed-gear, or
for sprints. But in each of those situations, you're training not only at
a specific cadence but also at a specific torque or power for that
cadence, e.g., you train for sprinting by doing sprints. There's nothing
that says that training at 80 rpm (or 120 rpm) at low torque (=low power)
transfers to 80 rpm (or 120 rpm) at high torque (=high power). Training
cadence independently of power or torque is a red herring.

Quoted message said:

Of course I should've realised ;-) got a link?

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/wattage and the links pointed to from
there. In particular,
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/wattage/components/components.html

Quoted message said:

but what's really surprising is July 2006 in fr.rec.sport.cyclisme.
Their Chung Score is down below 1

When did Bruce start raising his profile in frsc?

Robert Chung said:

Robert said:

Quoted message said:

>2. Should I then try to train at different cadences, e.g. 80 rpm

Not particularly, unless there are specific neuromuscular adaptations
you're trying to achieve.

OK, why would I or any other rider want to train consciously at a lower
cadence?

Your question shows that you're still not getting it. You'd train at a
lower or a higher cadence to train specific neuromuscular adaptations: for
example, if you're training for standing starts, or on a fixed-gear, or
for sprints. But in each of those situations, you're training not only at
a specific cadence but also at a specific torque or power for that
cadence, e.g., you train for sprinting by doing sprints. There's nothing
that says that training at 80 rpm (or 120 rpm) at low torque (=low power)
transfers to 80 rpm (or 120 rpm) at high torque (=high power). Training
cadence independently of power or torque is a red herring.

Quoted message said:

Of course I should've realised ;-) got a link?

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/wattage and the links pointed to from
there. In particular,
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/wattage/components/components.html

Very interesting to see this. Especially the second link as you pointed
out. I'll have to digest slowly this evening, but now I understand much
better what you're trying to tell me.

Your real empirical data didn't harm either ;-) One of many things that
I found interesting here was to follow the data points along a given
power contour (e.g. 300w) and see that there were many torque/cadence
combinations used. In addition, all the occurrences of a cyclist in the
middle of a peloton "pedalling air" (close to zero torque at anything
between 40 and 80 rpm) are faithfully reproduced, notably in the road
and crit graphs.

Thanks for taking the trouble to lead me through your reasoning.

BTW how did you get into this area originally - from the physiology /
sports medicine side, the product side (power meters), or as an
ex-competition rider?

Cheers,

Robert B