Cadence High Or Low

A_Sober_Paddy

Done a search and most cadence related threads are about cadence equipment and set as opposed to using cadence in training...

Hey all,

Just wondering is there any benefits over higher cadence or lower cadence? As in doing a spin at 30km/hr with a high cadence(Lighter gear) as opposed to a lower cadence(Heavier Gear)?

Does the different cadence affect different muscles, types of muscle fibres or anything?

Cheers in advance for help and feedback

Lumen

Higher cadence uses more energy but is less tiring.

I have never found an acceptable explanation for this apparent contradiction.

thebouldwhacker

Spin to win.

I once was a grinder, then I became a spinner, I go faster now.
Spinning will keep you going up a long climb or into a head wind far more efficiently than grinding.
How I rationalise the whole concept is as follows:
Imagine you have ten tonnes of sand to move from one side of the yard to the other, you have two buckets which can hold a large amount of sand. The question is do you fill the buckets to a level which you can just manage the load each trip or do you have lighter loads which are easy to carry.
The first method results in moving a large amount of sand each trip thus you will make less trips but the buckets are quite heavy. The second are light and take little effort, resulting in a higher frequency of trips. So which is better for you, get tired carrying heavy buckets or making more trips....

Inquitus

Lumen wrote: »

Higher cadence uses more energy but is less tiring.

I have never found an acceptable explanation for this apparent contradiction.

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/technique-cadence-matters-16394/

This goes some way to offering a theory on that Lumen, more oxygen used at higher cadence, but induces less muscle fatigue!

eeeee

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

Spin to win.

I once was a grinder, then I became a spinner, I go faster now.
Spinning will keep you going up a long climb or into a head wind far more efficiently than grinding.
How I rationalise the whole concept is as follows:
Imagine you have ten tonnes of sand to move from one side of the yard to the other, you have two buckets which can hold a large amount of sand. The question is do you fill the buckets to a level which you can just manage the load each trip or do you have lighter loads which are easy to carry.
The first method results in moving a large amount of sand each trip thus you will make less trips but the buckets are quite heavy. The second are light and take little effort, resulting in a higher frequency of trips. So which is better for you, get tired carrying heavy buckets or making more trips....

That makes loads of sense. I know in my head it is better to be a spinner, but I am naturally a masher/grinder-er away and I hate hills, (direct correlation!) I should spin more, track helps loads with the leg speed, and I can do it on track, but out on the road I get all mashy again. There was a thread tho topic recently which was interesting:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=89851293

No Pants

Higher cadence allows the muscles to process waste rather than letting it build up. At least that's my theory.

Lumen

Inquitus wrote: »

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/technique-cadence-matters-16394/

This goes some way to offering a theory on that Lumen, more oxygen used at higher cadence, but induces less muscle fatigue!

Yeah, well, ummm...among the references at the bottom is this very famous pile of total crap:

5] Coyle, F. (2005) Improved muscular efficiency displayed as Tour de France champion matures. J. Appl. Physiol. 98(6): 2191-2196.

Abstract here, enjoy!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15774697

couerdelion

The way I got told was slow cadence works your legs, high cadence works your heart. No one ever says my heart is too tired to keep going*








*Seek medical advice if your heart is feeling tired**

**This is not medical advice.

Daroxtar

As someone with feck all experience on the matter, I'd just like to say I felt far worse after grinding for 70 k than I did after spinning for 100k. Might just have been a fitness thing but I spun hard the last few times I went out and kept a higher average speed for a lot longer and recovered quicker afterwards.
My 2c worth

Harrybelafonte

Surely both can be used in training. Spinning won't necessarily make your legs stronger so I'm suggest that both methods need to be utilised for a more complete outcome. I think most like to pick one or the other. Gadetra mentioned track, but track training allows for spinning a bigger gear than you might do on a road bike. In pursuit you'd need to be able to spin maybe 50x15 @ 120rpm for over 5 mins which involves substantial strength requirements as would a sprinters ability to spin a bigger gear again at 140/150+. Training involves the ability to be able to spin @ maybe 200rpm in light gears for short bursts or 130-140rpm for longer sessions in bigger gears.

doozerie

I try to train both. Training with power is interesting in that respect as you can play around with different gear combinations and different cadences to achieve the same power output - sometimes when I am struggling to output a particular power figure in a high gear I find that I can sustain the same power quite comfortably in a lower gear at higher cadence. That helps me figure out what works best for me based on how I feel at any particular moment.

To oversimplify, high gears and low cadence trains strength, low gears and high cadence trains aerobic fitness. There is a lot more to it than that, but that generalisation works for me.

eeeee

doozerie wrote: »

To oversimplify, high gears and low cadence trains strength, low gears and high cadence trains aerobic fitness. There is a lot more to it than that, but that generalisation works for me.

So technically other sports that up your aerobic fitness can replace low gears high cadence training? I would be so happy if that is true!

Harrybelafonte

gadetra wrote: »

So technically other sports that up your aerobic fitness can replace low gears high cadence training? I would be so happy if that is true!

You'll maybe be aerobic ally fitter maybe, but you're not training your cadence then. Watch the mashers at the track. They're often the ones tiring soonest.

doozerie

gadetra wrote: »

So technically other sports that up your aerobic fitness can replace low gears high cadence training? I would be so happy if that is true!

I don't think so. While that might seem like a reasonable conclusion from my statement that's only because what I wrote really is a gross over-simplification. If you've never ridden low gears at high cadence, then regardless of whether you are aerobically very fit, I suspect that if you try high cadence you'd find yourself bouncing around on the bike and wasting energy. I think that to be able to spin efficiently you need to actually practice spinning and nothing will entirely replace that - it develops suppleness in your legs, trains your core to help keep your upper body stable, etc., some of which can be trained individually via other exercise but tying them together on the bike could remain a challenge.

So says me anyway, based on no scientific evidence whatsoever.

Smokeyskelton

Can anyone define the terms here.

Above what cadence would you be seen to be spinning, and below what cadence would you be deemed to be mashing?

And what the hell do you call it on the cusp, spashing?

fixie fox

Smokeyskelton wrote: »

Can anyone define the terms here.

Above what cadence would you be seen to be spinning, and below what cadence would you be deemed to be mashing?

>100 & <80

Lumen

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

In pursuit you'd need to be able to spin maybe 50x15 @ 120rpm for over 5 mins which involves substantial strength requirements

Please define "strength". Most people take that to mean "ability to generate high forces". Forces in cycling are very small.

If pursuit is done at VO2Max/120rpm, then there are the same force requirements at half VO2Max/60rpm. My VO2Max is pitiful (350W at best), but I can do 175W@60rpm without breaking a sweat. Do I need to do "strength" training?

Obviously faster cyclists have higher force requirements, but anyone training for competitive pursuiting isn't going to be asking for advice on the cycling forum.

The question is therefore whether a normal cyclist who wants to get faster will be helped by low-cadence high-power training. I'm not convinced.

Anyway, back to fast cyclists...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10589873

"The model estimates that Christopher Boardman averaged about 520 W when setting his 1996, 4000-m individual pursuit record of 4 min 11.114 s [in the superman position]"

Superman position is now illegal, so lets say 600W is required, pedalling at 120rpm with 175mm cranks (for sake of argument). Pedalling circumference is 1100mm and pedal speed is therefore 2.2m/s. Average force is therefore 272N. Lets say that peak force is 2x average force, giving peak force of about 350N.

That's the force required to lift 35kg. Not much.

rp

I thought the whole spinning a low gear thing was promoted by LA, but then it turned out he'd had to take drugs to keep that up, so we don't have to anymore?

Brian?

rp wrote: »

I thought the whole spinning a low gear thing was promoted by LA, but then it turned out he'd had to take drugs to keep that up, so we don't have to anymore?

Cyclists have always spun a high cadence. Armstrong spun slightly higher on ther mountains than others, it was a strange lie.

XtotheZ

Lumen wrote: »

Please define "strength". Most people take that to mean "ability to generate high forces". Forces in cycling are very small.

Torque?

Lumen

XtotheZ wrote: »

Torque?

That's just a force applied at a distance. It doesn't mean anything in itself w.r.t cycling anatomy and performance.

XtotheZ

Lumen wrote: »

That's just a force applied at a distance. It doesn't mean anything in itself w.r.t cycling anatomy and performance.

I thought Power was torque x Cadence? ie 4nm x 100rpm =400 watts.That was always my understanding of it and fitted quite well into my big ring training

Lumen

Yes, you can reformulate force power torque distance speed etc but to what end? :-)

No Pants

fixie fox wrote: »

>100 & <80

You would consider <80 to be mashing?

Brian?

No Pants wrote: »

You would consider <80 to be mashing?

I would have said less than 85 but it's all ball park.

No Pants

Brian? wrote: »

I would have said less than 85 but it's all ball park.

Looking at Garmin, I seem to average 79 - 81, with a max anywhere between 106 and 176. I wouldn't say that I mash. I do make the derailleur do a lot of work.

doozerie

Smokeyskelton wrote: »

Can anyone define the terms here.

Above what cadence would you be seen to be spinning, and below what cadence would you be deemed to be mashing?

I don't think there is a definitive answer. It's like the question of "ideal" cadence - some say anywhere between 80rpm and 100rpm, others say 90rpm to 110rpm, yet others possibly say something very different.

Views differ and of course it depends on circumstances - to take some ridiculous examples, 70rpm on the flat at 50kph is not mashing, 70rpm on the flat at 15kph is mashing, 70rpm on an extremely steep climb at 15kph is arguably not mashing, etc. There are many factors which include gradient, speed, gear ratio, riding style, and perhaps the most controversial of all, opinion.

Harrybelafonte

Lumen wrote: »

Please define "strength". Most people take that to mean "ability to generate high forces". Forces in cycling are very small.

If pursuit is done at VO2Max/120rpm, then there are the same force requirements at half VO2Max/60rpm. My VO2Max is pitiful (350W at best), but I can do 175W@60rpm without breaking a sweat. Do I need to do "strength" training?

Obviously faster cyclists have higher force requirements, but anyone training for competitive pursuiting isn't going to be asking for advice on the cycling forum.

The question is therefore whether a normal cyclist who wants to get faster will be helped by low-cadence high-power training. I'm not convinced.

Anyway, back to fast cyclists...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10589873

"The model estimates that Christopher Boardman averaged about 520 W when setting his 1996, 4000-m individual pursuit record of 4 min 11.114 s [in the superman position]"

Superman position is now illegal, so lets say 600W is required, pedalling at 120rpm with 175mm cranks (for sake of argument). Pedalling circumference is 1100mm and pedal speed is therefore 2.2m/s. Average force is therefore 272N. Lets say that peak force is 2x average force, giving peak force of about 350N.

That's the force required to lift 35kg. Not much.

I honestly understand almost nothing of what you written regarding the maths of it, so can give no rebuttal. All I can say is put your bike into whatever gear gives you maybe 90inch ratio. Start from standing and get it up to 120rpm and then hold it for five minutes. To me that requires strength. I cannot define it in terms of physics as my very little brain just can't cope with it.

piston

rp wrote: »

I thought the whole spinning a low gear thing was promoted by LA, but then it turned out he'd had to take drugs to keep that up, so we don't have to anymore?

I have a cycling manual and training guide printed in 1926 and it promotes a low gear and high cadence (twiddling as they used to say) so it definitely pre-dates Lance.

ROK ON

My tuppence worth.

My natural cadence is about 77-83.

I can cycle for five to six hours at this relatively low cadence and not be overly tired the following day.
However if I do 1 hour at a high cadence (>100), then I can barely get out of bed the following day - walking is a whole heap of fun if I can get out of bed.

For the past few winters I have pursued a combo of high cadence turbo sessions and small ring high cadence commuting.
I find that all this does is leave me tired.

I have concluded that high cadence does not really suit me.
Now when I say low cadence I don't really believe that I am mashing.
Pushing a 50/16 or a 53/19 at 80 rpm is hardly mashing - it's just pootling along.
I use my gears - all of them. It is just that pushing them at high cadence hurts.

SMacX

Lumen wrote: »

Yeah, well, ummm...among the references at the bottom is this very famous pile of total crap:

5] Coyle, F. (2005) Improved muscular efficiency displayed as Tour de France champion matures. J. Appl. Physiol. 98(6): 2191-2196.

Abstract here, enjoy!

{redacted}

Now don't jump on the party poopers neck here, but that is a study done by the (in)famous Dr. Coyle who relied very heavily on data *supplied* and not *collected* by the defrocked 7 (at the time 6) time winner of the TdF, HeWhoMustNotBeNamed......

Have a look at Paddy Doran's articles on StickyBottle and his coaching company peakendurancecoaching.

aindriu80

I read somewhere that if you weren't doing at least 80 on cadence you weren't doing anything puff

DaithiMC

Without going nuts on the science, I think the aim should be to establish your maximum sustainable pace compared with whatever numbers you can relate that to when on the bike, i.e., heart rate or power (power is probably a more precise way of doing this but heart rate monitors are cheaper and more of us have them).

There exists a maximum sustainable effort you can produce and you can get there at either low or high cadence. If you can relate that effort to a heart rate or power level then you can pick a section of road and assess which works more efficiently for you, high or low cadence. Usually the Maxlass or Maximum Lactate Steady State is determined in a threshold test but you could arbitrarily pick a heart rate level or power level and target that over, say a 5km piece of road, do it at high cadence and low cadence and assess your perceived level of effort, pace, time, etc. at the end of the run. It is a semi-quantitative experiment but could give some useful information. Discuss......

http://www.lactate.com/triathlon/lactate_triathlon_maxlass.html

Lumen

SMacX wrote: »

Now don't jump on the party poopers neck here, but that is a study done by the (in)famous Dr. Coyle who relied very heavily on data *supplied* and not *collected* by the defrocked 7 (at the time 6) time winner of the TdF, HeWhoMustNotBeNamed......

Yes, that was my point!

SMacX

Lumen wrote: »

Yes, that was my point!

Yes and I was supporting the point you were making by making a subsequent point that highlighted the specific point which was that the Dr. Coyle mentioned had made some invalid points based on the data points presented to him by HeWhoShallNotBeNamed.

My point exactly..... was to point out that Paddy Doran had some excellent points to make about cadence.....