Lower cadence "harder" gear or higher cadence "easier" gear?

AstraMonti

I am thinking of doing Wicklow 200 just to have a goal. I am not sure if i will be able anyway because work wants my life for the next two months.

I am trying to get into a training mood and mode and i have a question. My feet muscles are not very strong, i can cycle for many many kms in flat, but when its uphill, i am dieing very fast. So.. what would it help me more? Is it better to use a harder gear but with lower cadence or a lighter one but with much faster cadence? Obviously the speed will be the same, but i don't know about the effort. I remembered the thread Mashers vs spinners (or something like that) and it has some info (a lot actually), but what would you recommend about a newbie (i have done 800kms since mid December)?

Enlighten me!

Thanks

P.s. the title is totally ridiculous lol

TinyExplosions

Cadence is a personal thing really, some people are spinners, some are grinders, and really there's not one 'best' way as it depends on your physical makeup. Best way to train for the W200 is just to get the kms in, and as many hilly ones as possible. Go on as many Saturday spins as you can and you'll be fine!

Diarmuid

What weight and height are you? The cadence question is more of a personal preference but if you use a very low cadence you are more likely to build up lactate acid.

AstraMonti

Thanks Tiny! Although the next Saturdays i will be working I can make it up on Sunday though..

I am 1.90m and 80kgs. When i am on the middle disk my cadence is 95+, when i am on the big one and on uphill (not wicklow uphill.. then it goes to 10 ) it gets down to 70-75avg.

Raam

Try and keep it at about 90 or so. This should help keep you somewhat fresh and not make your leg muscles go dead as quick as they would with a lower cadence.

For hills... just keep at them. The power will come.

blorg

Higher cadence is reputed to work the heart more while preventing lactic build-up in the muscles. Lower is easier on the heart but harder on the muscles. Your cadences sound fast enough as it is to me. You shouldn't be on the big ring for hills anyway. Personally I like to spin up long hills at a high cadence and think this works best with regard to not tiring your legs. I can grind up them when I have no other choice (e.g. on a fixie) but this takes a lot more out of me. 800km is a fair bit since mid-December and I don't think you will have any problem with the W200.

tunney

Where exactly is the evidence or research to say that lactic acid builds up quicker when using lower cadences????

B0ll0cks me thinks.

flickerx

spinning vs mashing
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055423197

Tackleberry

flickerx wrote: »

spinning vs mashing
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055423197

I think this is getting more complicated than it needs to be...

The ideal cadence whether you're a tank or a lightweight, riding on flat or uphill, is 85-100rpm, the correct gearing will follow this - you can see pro's when they race or train they are constantly spinning at this same rate regardless of terrain, they adjust their gears to allow them to keep that ideal rpm.

There may be certain muscular and anaerobic benefits to grinding heavy gears at a low rpm, or fat-burning and aerobic benefits of spinning light gears at high rpm's, but I've always been told 85-100rpm is a happy medium between both worlds and for your W200 build-up this rev range would suit you best - you can worry about the two extremes once you've got that core fitness and base in your legs.

Lower cadences isn't really the correct term methinks, I think he meant it more in terms of lower / harder gears, and in this regard its def true that kind of effort is far more anaerobic.

AstraMonti

Tackleberry wrote: »

Lower cadences isn't really the correct term methinks, I think he meant it more in terms of lower / harder gears, and in this regard its def true that kind of effort is far more anaerobic.

Yes its not the the correct term but its the only way to explain it. When i am on a harder gear, i don't have the power to keep a high cadence so i have to push more but with lower cadence. Should i keep doing that or just try to keep an average of 90+ cadence regardless of gear?

Sorry for confusion, does the above make any sense?

Diarmuid

AstraMonti wrote: »

I am 1.90m and 80kgs.

well you're not overweight so it's just a case of training hard! The rule of thumb for an idea climber is (weight in pounds)/(height in inches) <= 2. But it's pretty hard to get there

Maybe have a look at The Cyclist Training Bible. There's a new edition out later this month so it will be a good time to buy then,

Raam

Diarmuid wrote: »

well you're not overweight so it's just a case of training hard! The rule of thumb for an idea climber is (weight in pounds)/(height in inches) <= 2. But it's pretty hard to get there

Maybe have a look at The Cyclist Training Bible. There's a new edition out later this month so it will be a good time to buy then,

1.97, yay!

Where did you read that, BTW?

TinyExplosions

Diarmuid wrote: »

well you're not overweight so it's just a case of training hard! The rule of thumb for an idea climber is (weight in pounds)/(height in inches) <= 2. But it's pretty hard to get there

2.9 -no wonder I'm crap at the hills!

tunney

Diarmuid wrote: »

well you're not overweight so it's just a case of training hard! The rule of thumb for an idea climber is (weight in pounds)/(height in inches) <= 2. But it's pretty hard to get there

Maybe have a look at The Cyclist Training Bible. There's a new edition out later this month so it will be a good time to buy then,

Wow - that would have me under 140lbs at 5 10........

Chips Lovell

3.0 on the button. D'oh.

Chips Lovell

To get under 2.0 I'd have to weigh 68kg or 10 and half stone. Never going to happen. I haven't been that weight since I was 13.

Raam

el tonto wrote: »

To get under 2.0 I'd have to weigh 68kg or 10 and half stone. Never going to happen. I haven't been that weight since I was 13.

Do you even want to?

tunney

**Tells self** But you're a TTer its okay

Chips Lovell

Raam wrote: »

Do you even want to?

In a word, no. To even get near it I would have to lose a whole load of upper body muscle. I've long resigned myself to the fact that I'm only going to be an average climber at best.

cantalach

tunney wrote: »

Where exactly is the evidence or research to say that lactic acid builds up quicker when using lower cadences????

I'm not aware of research finding that lactic acid builds up quicker or reaches higher levels at lower cadences. There seems to be little difference either way. There is plenty of evidence however that lactic acid (aka "plasma lactate") dissipates much more slowly after low cadence efforts. In other words, cadence affects how quickly you recover for the next day's stage. The link below is to a paper that appeared in the American Journal of Physiology and stated "These findings indicate that, with respect to plasma lactate, recovery is quicker after pedalling at a faster rate [...]"

http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/279/6/R2229

kenmc

2.46 for me. reckon if I get a bit taller I can bring this number down closer to 2....

irishmotorist

tunney wrote: »

Where exactly is the evidence or research to say that lactic acid builds up quicker when using lower cadences????

I don't have any evidence, but from what I understand of these things it makes sense to me.

If you're going along in a high gear and a low cadence, you're working your muscles hard and your heart less hard. This means (to my logic anyway) that your muscles need oxygen to them as they're working but your heart isn't working quite so hard so it's not delivering it's max oxygen to the muscles.
Conversely, when you're at a high cadence, your heart is booting along firing oxygen through your body but your muscles aren't working quite as hard and don't need quite as much oxygen.
I'm open to correction on these but from reading a few different sources along the way, that's how I perceive things to work.

LDB

1.9 for me. In theory then I should be better on hills than I am ... hmmm

Morgan

AstraMonti wrote: »

Yes its not the the correct term but its the only way to explain it. When i am on a harder gear, i don't have the power to keep a high cadence so i have to push more but with lower cadence. Should i keep doing that or just try to keep an average of 90+ cadence regardless of gear?

Sorry for confusion, does the above make any sense?

Change your gears to keep your cadence the same. If you're pedalling too slow, shift down. If you're pedalling too fast, shift up.

tunney

irishmotorist wrote: »

I don't have any evidence, but from what I understand of these things it makes sense to me.

If you're going along in a high gear and a low cadence, you're working your muscles hard and your heart less hard. This means (to my logic anyway) that your muscles need oxygen to them as they're working but your heart isn't working quite so hard so it's not delivering it's max oxygen to the muscles.
Conversely, when you're at a high cadence, your heart is booting along firing oxygen through your body but your muscles aren't working quite as hard and don't need quite as much oxygen.
I'm open to correction on these but from reading a few different sources along the way, that's how I perceive things to work.

I'm not saying that the same power at a low cadence wouldn't result in local muscle fatigue, however I am doubting if this is due to a localised lactic threshold being passed.

Vélo

1.88 for me!!!!!!

I presume I'm working it out correctly. I'm 5' 7" and weigh 9 stone.

126/67 = 1.880597.

irishmotorist

tunney wrote: »

I'm not saying that the same power at a low cadence wouldn't result in local muscle fatigue, however I am doubting if this is due to a localised lactic threshold being passed.

Again, as far as I understand, lactic acid will build up because your heart isn't getting enough oxygen to your muscles. This seems to me to relate somewhat (not 100% obviously) to your cadence. If you've got a higher cadence, more oxygen is going around and you're less likely to accumulate lactic acid. If you've got a lower cadence, there is less oxygen (due to the heart not working as hard) and therefore more lactic acid.

AstraMonti

So if i have got this straight.. its better fatigue and endurance wise to keep a higher cadence to keep the heart running harder and procude more oxygene for the muscles?

alfalad

Anyone under 2 is either a stick insect or under 5 foot!!
Honestly I'm not a jealous 2.52!! I'd have to give up eating for lent to get down to 2!

DirkVoodoo

2.1 for me...most of it must be in my hair.

Oh well, I guess cycling isn't for me. Of course, most of these BMI related studies are total bullplop.

short circuit

AstraMonti wrote: »

So if i have got this straight.. its better fatigue and endurance wise to keep a higher cadence to keep the heart running harder and procude more oxygene for the muscles?

I am not sure if its as simple as that ... you've to find the right cadence for you where you have the right level of endurance (stay aerobic) and still not face muscle fatigue (anaerobic). Each person will have this at a different cadence.

If you go too high ... your legs might not tire ... but you could be out of breath ... if you go too low ... you could be breathing light ... but your leg muscles could be ready to break ...

Ideal would be to have a powermeter and heartrate and find the best combination for you ... again this will change depending on whether its a 40k time trial or the Wicklow 200.

Lastly ... I've done of the above ... I get my bike out and keep going the fastest I think I can for the duration I have set out to do ... and then adjust cadence as I am feeling on the road ... all very scientific ...

Vélo

alfalad,

You've just worked wonders for my confidence.:(


By the way I'd be about 1.5 only for my manhood...confidence restored:D

alfalad

Aquinas73 wrote: »

alfalad,

You've just worked wonders for my confidence.:(


By the way I'd be about 1.5 only for my manhood...confidence restored:D

Well to be 2 or under is impressive going!! Clearly in better shape than myself so it should be confidnce building!! I was a fat kid, so not sure i have ever been under 2!!!

MCOS

alfalad wrote: »

Anyone under 2 is either a stick insect or under 5 foot!!
Honestly I'm not a jealous 2.52!! I'd have to give up eating for lent to get down to 2!

About 2.5 myself. I noticed at a recent event that the guy with the fastest bike split was quite 'stocky', then again he was also about 4ft tall! The rest of the top 10 were a variety of stick insects. They all had very impressive looking bikes though


Quick question and it relates somewhat to this thread. Please xcuse my lack of jargon also! In a group ride a few weeks ago I put my chain on the small cog in front for the first time. I noticed that I had to use a very small ring on the cassette to mimic the cadence of the guys in front of me (they had a few gears left on their cassette). The cassette I have is a SRAM PG1070 11-28, I'm not quite sure what that means. Sorry if I'm not making sense

Should I get a new cassette with smaller rings?

Gavin

Possibly you have a compact and they were on standard doubles?

irishmotorist

AstraMonti wrote: »

So if i have got this straight.. its better fatigue and endurance wise to keep a higher cadence to keep the heart running harder and procude more oxygene for the muscles?

That's the general idea of what I've picked up, though as Tiny points out, people tend to be more naturally inclined towards either one or the other.

Diarmuid

Jeez... nothing like an equation to get a bit of competition going
Don't know where I heard it originally but it's referenced here.
I'm at 2.1, where does that leave me on the leaderboard?

MCOS

Diarmuid wrote: »

I'm at 2.1, where does that leave me on the leaderboard?

with the hobbits

MCOS

Gavin wrote: »

Possibly you have a compact and they were on standard doubles?

Not sure what this means?

Diarmuid

AstraMonti wrote: »

So if i have got this straight.. its better fatigue and endurance wise to keep a higher cadence to keep the heart running harder and procude more oxygene for the muscles?

I think you are getting a bit too hung up on cadence. Just keep it in the 80-100 range and you'll be fine. You need to concentrate more on your training rides than anything else.

niceonetom

2.2 and working on it. 2.1 by the summer. maybe.

regardless of whether one cadence or another might get a particular individual up a hill faster, or over a TT course quicker, do any of you favour changing cadence for training purposes? i.e. yes - i could get up this hill faster in a bigger gear (or spinning a smaller one) but i'm prepared to go sacrifice some speed in order to maintain a gearing/cadence?

i ask because i've been experimenting with fast cadences (110 plus) on the turbo on the back of some notion that fast cadence work can build better vascularisation and capillarisation in the muscles, thereby giving them more O2 when the gearing in increased and the cadence is allowed to drop to a more normal tempo?

i've certainly found that a session of really spinny work does seem to give my legs a hell of a "pump".

it's old school thinking, that you get the leg speed first and the gears will come with time... but some people say this is all discredited now. i don't know who to believe.

i fully expect some to solidly advocate big gear stuff (tunney: RAAAAAAAAAR ) and say strength is more important than turn over, and i've experimented with that too (i have done the sally gap in the big ring of a compact, once) but on a longer spin the lactic certainly does make the legs very heavy doing that kind of thing.

i'm asking not "what will make me go faster now?" but "what will make me get faster in the future?".

Diarmuid

MCOS wrote: »

Quick question and it relates somewhat to this thread. Please xcuse my lack of jargon also! In a group ride a few weeks ago I put my chain on the small cog in front for the first time. I noticed that I had to use a very small ring on the cassette to mimic the cadence of the guys in front of me (they had a few gears left on their cassette). The cassette I have is a SRAM PG1070 11-28, I'm not quite sure what that means. Sorry if I'm not making sense

Should I get a new cassette with smaller rings?

Unless you find yourself spinning out in your hardest gear a lot I wouldn't change it. Better to have some margin at the 28 end than the 11 end. Especially for a 2.5er only joking!!

Gavin

MCOS wrote: »

Not sure what this means?

Sorry! A compact chainset has a smaller inner chainring, around 36 teeth and a slightly smaller large chainring, 50 teeth.

A standard double would be 39/40 on the inner ring and 52 and up on the outer.

So if you have a compact, when you're on the smaller chainring, you need to gear into a lower cog to maintain the same gearing ratio as someone with a double chainring on a medium cog on the rear.

Chips Lovell

Gavin wrote: »

Sorry! A compact chainset has a smaller inner chainring, around 36 teeth and a slightly smaller large chainring, 50 teeth.

Most compact chainsets sold now have a 34 tooth inner ring, which would make quite a difference compared to someone running the standard 39 tooth inner ring.

Gavin

el tonto wrote: »

Most compact chainsets sold now have a 34 tooth inner ring, which would make quite a difference compared to someone running the standard 39 tooth inner ring.

ah right, didn't know that. Not too familiar with the whole thing, 36 was the first size inner compact ring I found when googling.

A manly 40-52 is where it's at.

Chips Lovell

Gavin wrote: »

A manly 40-52 is where it's at.

53-39 is pretty much the standard these days for full sized rings. And I'll stop being a knowitall now.

tunney

Gavin wrote: »

ah right, didn't know that. Not too familiar with the whole thing, 36 was the first size inner compact ring I found when googling.

A manly 40-52 is where it's at.

52??? ya big girl! (53 is standard)

Chips Lovell

tunney wrote: »

52??? ya big girl! (53 is standard)

You're the one with the 55 tooth big ring, aren't you? Macho man.

blorg

42 is the classic inner chainring, why would anyone need more than 42-21 to get up anything?

Chips Lovell

blorg wrote: »

42 is the classic inner chainring, why would anyone need more than 42-21 to get up anything?

I remember on the W200 last year, sy was telling us about those days. Talk about grinding it out.

tunney

el tonto wrote: »

You're the one with the 55 tooth big ring, aren't you? Macho man.

Nah 53-39 for me. You're confusing this with my contempt for triples.