Cadence vs higher gears

[Licramite]

you can't argue with that point B&Y is right - the fitter cyclist will go up hills quicker one way or another.

but the rest of us poor sods have to rely on technique - thiers some hills my way it is actually quicker to get off and run up than try and cycle.- but if it works
and I don,t know what armstrong was on as he danced up the hills - but I want some.

personally I find the low gear high candence doesn,t work for me - I burn out before I reach the top, I try and stay in as high a gear as I can , but I could be doing it all wrong. - hoping more experienced people will know how its done.

 

[Tigerbiten]

As above - I thought we'd just been through all this on the previous pages? Low gear/high cadence v high gear/low cadence = same amount of energy expended on the same hill within the same time.

Thats not quite correct.

From my understanding if you make a graph of Energy vs Cadence the line is an inverted U shape.
If the speed is kept constant then cadence is the inverse of the force needed on the pedals.
At a very low cadence (sub 50rpm) your muscles tire very quickly due to the force needed to turn each pedal stroke.
Up the cadence a bit and your effiency improves as you need less force is needed to turn the pedals.
Then you get the flatish top to the graph where upping the cadence make no real difference to effiency.
Once the cadence gets high enough (over 120rpm) your effiency drops as more of your energy is used to just spin the pedals as opposed to move the bike forward.
Most people find a cadence of somewhere in the range 60-110 the best.
Where in that range you like just comes down to your riding style.
But the faster you go, the highest point in the Energy/Cadence graph shift towards a higher cadence.
Which is why in my lowest gears I spin at only ~70 rpm, while in my high gears I'm spinning at ~100 rpm.

 

[marzjennings]

Within certain parameters, your cadence is largely irrelevant in this situation. Lactic acid is building because you are asking your legs to perform beyond their ability, which is a symptom of under-training/lack of fitness - call it what you like. If you shift to a lower/easier gear your power and effort level will drop and the lactic build-up will subside.
?

But the point I think DK is trying to make that lactic acid build up, at a constant speed and incline, is quicker at low cadence compared to a high cadence, regardless of fitness. And there seems to be a fair amount of evidence to support that idea. Yes the fitter cyclist can absorb lactic acid faster than the unfit cyclist, able to produce more power for longer, but as any cyclist tends towards a low cadence (while maintaining the same power output) they will engage more fast twitch muscles which do produce lactic acid faster than slow twitch muscles.

This differential will be more extreme for the unfit cyclist who's body is not trained to absorb lactic acid as well as the fit cyclist.

 

[GrasB]

You do realise you're posting in the beginners forum don't you...

Doesn't make it any less relevant as to why automatic gears on a bike doesn't actually make sense...

 

[400bhp]

No, but few will understand it. Pitch to the audience.

 

[black'n'yellow]

source: http://www.raf.mod.uk/raftriathlon/rafcms/mediafiles/498B1498_1143_D71E_469F6513AD1643D5.pdf

"blah blah...Lance Armstrong....blah blah...high cadence" Remember me telling you about 'worthless internet science'..? Do you even know who 'Mike Potts' is..? As far as I can tell, he is an engineering officer with the RAF and an amateur triathlete. I'm sure he is a good engineer and he may even be a good triathlete. Conveniently for you though, he also happens to have posted his opinions online, thereby providing you with the faux 'proof' that you are not an idiot after all. His views are no more valid than mine, or anyone else's. Get real.

I particularly enjoyed this bit - in relation to running cadence:

"Watch any professional marathon runner and you’ll see that they have a high stride rate (running cadence), normally around 80-100 strides per minute. These guys are consistently clocking sub-4:30 minute miles so they must be doing something right!"

You bet they're doing something right - they are running 100+ miles a week in training and are considerably fitter - and therefore running considerably faster - than you. Hence the higher stride rate....

Take a look at this vid of Armstrong here

You will see that his legendary 'high cadence' is actually no higher than anyone else's. Could it be that the whole 'high cadence' thing was just a ruse, invented by his coaching staff to explain away his improbable performances?

Q - "why is he so quick all of a sudden?"
A - "oh, er, we told him to increase his cadence over the winter"

It wouldn't be the first time that coaching staff had given out misinformation like that - it's part of the job.

For the last time - FORGET ABOUT CADENCE.

 

[Licramite]

well from the vid his cadence was 88 roughly, I only got a glimpse at the other guys but they seamed to be less than 60 (cept the guy in pink he matched armstrong) -
(counted his leg moves timed for 15secs multiplyed )
I couldn,t tell you what gear he was in. its hard to forget about cadence, its after all the number of times you turn the crack that turns the drive wheel. turn it more it more and you go further - simples-

if it all just comes down to fitness - reminds me of a joke

3 men come to river.
one says - god give me big arms to swim across - so god goes and he swims the river.
the other says - god give me big legs to swim tthe river - so god goes and he swims the river.
the third says , god make me a woman - so god does , and she looks round and crosses the bridge.

you can now rant at me and call me a fool.

 

[black'n'yellow]

you can now rant at me and call me a fool.

to be fair - 'fool' is not the word I was thinking of...

Assuming you were watching the same clip that I posted, there is no appreciable difference in cadence in any of the riders featured.

if it all just comes down to fitness - reminds me of a bizarre and bafflingly-irrelevant, unfunny story

fixed that for you...

 

[ayceejay]

Given that the required result is to make riding easier is 'cadence' the first avenue to explore? the easiest situation is riding downhill with the wind at your back when it may not be necessary to pedal at all .Conversely the hardest is probably going up hill into a head wind. As one is likely to encounter both of these extremes what is the best strategy? seems to be the question. If we add 'speed' or 'going faster' to our objective we need to consider a bigger question. It seems to me that reducing this question to "cadence vs higher gears" is oversimplifying.

 

[Licramite]

"to be fair - 'fool' is not the word I was thinking of..."

isnt it strange me and BnY are opposite ends of an argument - but we have the same opinion of each other.

watch the video you posted and count the leg movements , they are not the same. - of course you will say they are - Armstrong is pedalling faster. (except the guy in pink)

hes more than likely fitter.

oh the point ofthe story, - if you didn,t get it, - you can have all the muscle in the world but technology trumps it every time, this is why we have cars and buses an things.
and probably gears on bikes.

 

[black'n'yellow]

oh the point ofthe story, - if you didn,t get it, - you can have all the muscle in the world but technology trumps it every time, this is why we have cars and buses an things.
and probably gears on bikes.

you really are 'off the scale' in so many ways.....

 

[marzjennings]

Given that the required result is to make riding easier is 'cadence' the first avenue to explore? .

No, cadence is a piece of the puzzle, but the best way to make riding easier is to ride far and often. There are no shortcuts or tricks, just ride and then go ride again.

A smooth effective cadence will help improve efficiency, but there's no point really worrying about that as a beginner.

 

[Rob3rt]

you really are 'off the scale' in so many ways.....

Are you thinking of the same scale I am?

 

[david k]

No, cadence is a piece of the puzzle, but the best way to make riding easier is to ride far and often. There are no shortcuts or tricks, just ride and then go ride again.

A smooth effective cadence will help improve efficiency, but there's no point really worrying about that as a beginner.

seems like good sensible advice to me, +1

 

[black'n'yellow]

Are you thinking of the same scale I am?

almost certainly..