Cadence: New Research

[Smokin Joe]

An interesting counter view on the modern trend for twiddling lower gears -

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...houldnt-try-to-pedal-like-chris-froome-191779

 

[screenman]

I read that I am correct in saying they tested at 50 watts?

 

[Dan B]

52/38 gearing? Oh for a cycle - literate proofreader...

 

[NorvernRob]

I read that I am correct in saying they tested at 50 watts?

Yes, and 'up to' 150w, so basically a pointless exercise.

 

[screenman]

Yes, and 'up to' 150w, so basically a pointless exercise.

Which is what I thought.

 

[Simpleton]

110rpm @ 50 watts!!!! This is an inefficient way of pedalling a bike??? You don't say. Ridiculous test.

 

[raleighnut]

Almost like in the 80s when MTBs came out, I used to pass a guy on one spinning like crazy and going nowhere whilst I cruised by at roughly 25mph on the Carlton in about 9th (of 12) at a cadence of around 70/75 on the way to work.

 

[ColinJ]

I don't pedal like Chris Froome - he pedals like me! (I was riding bikes 20 years before he was born.)

As for cadence ... I don't compete so I don't have to worry about maximum efficiency. I just pedal the way I want to - sometimes at a highish cadence, sometimes at a lower one.

 

[bpsmith]

The interesting thing, that has been missed, is that the outcome is that we are at our most efficient when putting out a third of our maximum power.

On this assumption, we are therefore equally efficient at a higher cadence spinning, as we are at a lower cadence grinding it out, as long as we are hitting a third of our maximum.

The real question is, are we then hitting the same speed at each of these options?

Would be interesting to hear from anyone with a power meter...

 

[Simpleton]

The interesting thing, that has been missed, is that the outcome is that we are at our most efficient when putting out a third of our maximum power.

On this assumption, we are therefore equally efficient at a higher cadence spinning, as we are at a lower cadence grinding it out, as long as we are hitting a third of our maximum.

The real question is, are we then hitting the same speed at each of these options?

Would be interesting to hear from anyone with a power meter...

Depends on how you define efficient. My MMP as measured on a wattbike is 408 watts. A third of this would be 170 watts, this is easily sustainable and for me would be all fat burning. But I feel like I could go faster and work better in a higher zone - I love pain.

 

[bpsmith]

Depends on how you define efficient. My MMP as measured on a wattbike is 408 watts. A third of this would be 170 watts, this is easily sustainable and for me would be all fat burning. But I feel like I could go faster and work better in a higher zone - I love pain.

I make it 136 watts.

Which is clearly even lower and further emphasises your point.

I guess it really is down to that definition of efficiency. They don't state any tests done with relation to speed. Two different things.

Try dropping to any gear and cycle as fast as you can. It's quite obvious when you're in a silly low gear, as you bounce up and down on the saddle. Perhaps this is what they mean maybe?

If so, it's stating the obvious somewhat.

 

[Tin Pot]

I read that I am correct in saying they tested at 50 watts?

Yes, but not correct in assuming this to mean they *only* tested at 50W.

The pedalling efficiency evidence from Formenti’s team was actually part of more significant research that could improve how sports scientists estimate energy consumption on stationary cycle ergometers

The actual report:

http://physreports.physiology.org/content/3/9/e12500

The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) suggests estimating human

during exercise on a cycle ergometer through an equation that considers individual's body mass and external work rate, but not pedaling rate (PR). We hypothesized that including PR in the ACSM equation would improve its

prediction accuracy.

Ten healthy male participants’ (age 19–48 years) were recruited and their steady‐state

was recorded on a cycle ergometer for 16 combinations of external work rates (0, 50, 100, and 150 W) and PR (50, 70, 90, and 110 revolutions per minute).

Including PR in the ACSM equation improved the accuracy for prediction of sub‐maximal

during exercise but it did not affect the accuracy for prediction of maximal

 

[Simpleton]

I make it 136 watts.

Which is clearly even lower and further emphasises your point.

I guess it really is down to that definition of efficiency. They don't state any tests done with relation to speed. Two different things.

Try dropping to any gear and cycle as fast as you can. It's quite obvious when you're in a silly low gear, as you bounce up and down on the saddle. Perhaps this is what they mean maybe?

If so, it's stating the obvious somewhat.

136 watts is a third of 410? Fair enough. I'd fall asleep with an output of only 136 watts. I find 250 about right, 280 at a push, 310 for the pain and 342 for the tears.