Cycling Training · Public discussion

Why fast pedaling makes cyclists more efficient, article

Started by upstateSC-rider · · Last activity · 8 posts · 2,176 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Training
Published
30 September 2004
Last activity
3 October 2004
Original author
upstateSC-rider
Posts
8
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
2,176
Views / 30 days
0
Topics

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–8 of 8
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Got this artice from active.com. Found it interesting and thought others might enjoy it. Pretty interesting...

    Why fast pedaling makes cyclists more efficient
    By Hunter Allen BS, Elite Coach
    www.peakscoachinggroup.com
    9/17/2004

    Recently we reported that cyclists are usually more efficient on both hills and flat terrain when they pedal quickly (at about 80-85 rpm) rather than at slower cadences.

    Now, a new study suggests that the greater efficiency may be related to the rapid rate at which glycogen is depleted in fast-twitch muscle fibers during slow, high-force pedaling.

    To determine the actual effects of slow and fast pedaling on leg-muscle cells, scientists at the University of Wisconsin and the University of Wyoming asked eight experienced cyclists to cycle at an intensity of 85% V02max for 30 minutes under two different conditions.

    In one case the cyclists pedaled their bikes at 50 revolutions per minute (rpm) while using a high gear. In the second case, the athletes pedaled in a low gear at 100 rpm. The athletes were traveling at identical speeds in the two instances, so their leg-muscle contractions were quite forceful at 50 rpm and moderate -- but more frequent -- at 100 rpm.

    As it turned out, the athletes' oxygen consumption rates were nearly identical in the two cases, and heart and breathing rates, total rate of power production, and blood lactate levels were also similar.

    However, athletes broke down the carbohydrate in their muscles at a greater rate when the 50 rpm strategy was used, while the 100 rpm cadence produced a greater reliance on fat.

    The greater glycogen depletion at 50 rpm occurred only in fast-twitch muscle cells. Slow-twitch muscle cells lost comparable amounts of their glycogen at 50 and 100 rpm, but fast-twitch cells lost almost 50 percent of their glycogen at 50 rpm and only 33 percent at 100 rpm, even though the exercise bouts lasted for 30 minutes in each case.

    This rapid loss of carbohydrate in the fast-twitch cells during slow, high-force pedaling probably explains why slow pedaling is less efficient than faster cadences of 80-85 rpm.

    Basically, as the fast fibers quickly deplete their glycogen during slow, high-strength pedaling, their contractions become less forceful, so more muscle cells must be activated to maintain a particular speed. This activation of a larger number of muscle cells then leads to higher oxygen consumption rates and reduced economy.

    This scenario, in which slow pedaling pulls the glycogen out of fast-twitch muscle cells, may sound paradoxical but it isn't; after all, slow pedaling rates are linked with high gears and elevated muscle forces, while fast cadences are associated with low gears and easy muscle contractions.

    Since fast-twitch fibers are more powerful than slow-twitch cells, the fast-twitch fibers swing into action at slow cadences, when high muscular forces are needed to move the bicycle along rapidly.

    On the other hand, "fast" pedaling rates of 80-100 rpm are not too hot for the slow-twitch cells to handle. Slow-twitch cells can contract 80-100 times per minute and can easily cope with the forces required to pedal in low gear.

    Another possible paradox in the Wisconsin/Wyoming research was that fast pedaling led to greater fat oxidation, even though maximal fat burning is usually linked with slow-paced efforts.

    Basically, the higher fat degradation at 100 rpm occurred because the slow-twitch cells handled the fast-paced, low-force contractions. Slow-twitch fibers are much better fat-burners than their fast-twitch neighbors.

    Fortunately, there's a bottom line to all this: During training and competition, cyclists should attempt to use fast pedaling rates of 80-85 rpm, both on the flat and on inclines.

    Compared to slower cadences, the higher pedaling speeds are more economical and burn more fat during exercise. Ultimately, the high pedaling rates also preserve greater amounts of glycogen in fast-twitch muscle fibers, leading to more explosive "kicks" to the finish line in closing moments of races. (European Journal of Applied Physiology, 1992)

    Lou.

    __________________

  2. That's a well written and informative article. It is fairly common knowledge now among cyclists that high RPM is the way to go, but I have never heard or seen it explained in such an accesible format. I will recommend this article to others. Thanks!

  3. upstateSC-rider said:

    Got this artice from active.com. Found it interesting and thought others might enjoy it. Pretty interesting...

    Why fast pedaling makes cyclists more efficient
    By Hunter Allen BS, Elite Coach
    www.peakscoachinggroup.com
    9/17/2004

    Recently we reported that cyclists are usually more efficient on both hills and flat terrain when they pedal quickly (at about 80-85 rpm) rather than at slower cadences.

    Now, a new study suggests that the greater efficiency may be related to the rapid rate at which glycogen is depleted in fast-twitch muscle fibers during slow, high-force pedaling.

    To determine the actual effects of slow and fast pedaling on leg-muscle cells, scientists at the University of Wisconsin and the University of Wyoming asked eight experienced cyclists to cycle at an intensity of 85% V02max for 30 minutes under two different conditions.

    In one case the cyclists pedaled their bikes at 50 revolutions per minute (rpm) while using a high gear. In the second case, the athletes pedaled in a low gear at 100 rpm. The athletes were traveling at identical speeds in the two instances, so their leg-muscle contractions were quite forceful at 50 rpm and moderate -- but more frequent -- at 100 rpm.

    As it turned out, the athletes' oxygen consumption rates were nearly identical in the two cases, and heart and breathing rates, total rate of power production, and blood lactate levels were also similar.

    However, athletes broke down the carbohydrate in their muscles at a greater rate when the 50 rpm strategy was used, while the 100 rpm cadence produced a greater reliance on fat.

    The greater glycogen depletion at 50 rpm occurred only in fast-twitch muscle cells. Slow-twitch muscle cells lost comparable amounts of their glycogen at 50 and 100 rpm, but fast-twitch cells lost almost 50 percent of their glycogen at 50 rpm and only 33 percent at 100 rpm, even though the exercise bouts lasted for 30 minutes in each case.

    This rapid loss of carbohydrate in the fast-twitch cells during slow, high-force pedaling probably explains why slow pedaling is less efficient than faster cadences of 80-85 rpm.

    Basically, as the fast fibers quickly deplete their glycogen during slow, high-strength pedaling, their contractions become less forceful, so more muscle cells must be activated to maintain a particular speed. This activation of a larger number of muscle cells then leads to higher oxygen consumption rates and reduced economy.

    This scenario, in which slow pedaling pulls the glycogen out of fast-twitch muscle cells, may sound paradoxical but it isn't; after all, slow pedaling rates are linked with high gears and elevated muscle forces, while fast cadences are associated with low gears and easy muscle contractions.

    Since fast-twitch fibers are more powerful than slow-twitch cells, the fast-twitch fibers swing into action at slow cadences, when high muscular forces are needed to move the bicycle along rapidly.

    On the other hand, "fast" pedaling rates of 80-100 rpm are not too hot for the slow-twitch cells to handle. Slow-twitch cells can contract 80-100 times per minute and can easily cope with the forces required to pedal in low gear.

    Another possible paradox in the Wisconsin/Wyoming research was that fast pedaling led to greater fat oxidation, even though maximal fat burning is usually linked with slow-paced efforts.

    Basically, the higher fat degradation at 100 rpm occurred because the slow-twitch cells handled the fast-paced, low-force contractions. Slow-twitch fibers are much better fat-burners than their fast-twitch neighbors.

    Fortunately, there's a bottom line to all this: During training and competition, cyclists should attempt to use fast pedaling rates of 80-85 rpm, both on the flat and on inclines.

    Compared to slower cadences, the higher pedaling speeds are more economical and burn more fat during exercise. Ultimately, the high pedaling rates also preserve greater amounts of glycogen in fast-twitch muscle fibers, leading to more explosive "kicks" to the finish line in closing moments of races. (European Journal of Applied Physiology, 1992)

    Lou.

    __________________


    Yes, good explanation. But 80-85 rpm really isn't high; believe it's a standard cadence for most long-distance riders. Most of us would say instead that 50 is way too low.

    Also, believe that the glycogen-depletion in the fast-twitch fibers isn't really a function of cadence, but how hard you're pushing the pedals. IE, if I go into a big gear, say 53/16, (that's big for me), and ride at 90 rpm, I'll deplete my legs pretty quickly even thought cadence is good. This is around 22-24 mph. If I start out with a group at this speed, I know I'll pay the price later.

  4. This study seems to indicate that the optimal cadence changes over time:

    ncbi.nlm.nih.govquery.fcgi

  5. Hm....this study seems to indicate that a lower-than-expected pedalling cadence is better than a higher-than-expected cadence:

    Quoted post said:

    Metabolic responses such as VO(2) and blood lactate concentration were generally higher at W90(FCPR+25) than at W90(FCPR-25) and W90(FCPR). Endurance time was negatively related to VO(2max), W90 and % MHC I, while positively related to power reserve. In conclusion, at group level, endurance time was longer at FCPR and at a pedalling rate 25% lower compared to a pedalling rate 25% higher than FCPR.

    ncbi.nlm.nih.govquery.fcgi

  6. This study seems to indicate that a higher cadence, at least at the end of the bike leg, is better for triathletes after the bike-to-run transition:

    ncbi.nlm.nih.govquery.fcgi

    Quoted post said:

    CONCLUSION: Increased cycling cadence immediately before running increased stride frequency and, as a result, increased speed.

  7. antoineg said:

    This study seems to indicate that the optimal cadence changes over time:

    ncbi.nlm.nih.govquery.fcgi


    The abstract only talks about optimal cadence vs. workload for short efforts (<5 mins). Am I missing something?

  8. antoineg said:

    Hm....this study seems to indicate that a lower-than-expected pedalling cadence is better than a higher-than-expected cadence:ncbi.nlm.nih.govquery.fcgi


    This study result says the FCPR was the most efficient point for max endurance at 90% effort, which seems to answer our question.

    Wonder though....is the outcome driven by the fact that these cyclists were most comfortable at their FCPR because they naturally train at it? What if they decided to imitate Lance, and trained for a year or two at FCPR+25 (98 rpm) vs the FCPR (78 rpm)? Would this change the FCPR, or improve the result at FCPR+25%?

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.