Cadence vs higher gears

[black'n'yellow]

ive no idea how fit you are so couldnt answer that question.

you just did.

however, if i rode up a very long hill with a high cadence low gear and then the same hill low cadence high gear, ensuring i got to the top in the same time which would tire me the most?

You would have expended the same amount of energy for both climbs, regardless of cadence - so there would be no difference. Or are you disputing the laws of physics now..?

In my experience it would tire me less over a period of time using a higher cadence. Its my experience and discussions with friends that formed my opinion of high cadence is better, I only used an internet search to try to find information that supports my thoughts, and as far as I can see it does, however id happily be proved wrong

If that's your perception, then your perception is wrong.

'High cadence' means different things to different people. Nobody is suggesting riding at 50rpm everywhere. The fitter you become, the more you will begin to vary your cadence according to whatever terrain you are riding on. But the assertion that 'high cadence' is simply better - or conserves more energy - is nonsense.

 

[david k]

you just did.

What? you really think people have been asking who will get up a climb quicker, someone very fit or someone not very fit? Thats not the question is it?

You would have expended the same amount of energy for both climbs, regardless of cadence - so there would be no difference. Or are you disputing the laws of physics now..?

Once again, no need for the smart arse comment, you just make yourself look like a cock. Anyhow, energy output isnt the only reason for pain in muscles is it? Don't ignore the amount of lactic acid and its affect on muscle pain, less pain means someone can push for longer. In fact it can get quite complicated when you read up on it, best just to stick with high cadence = less fatigue

If that's your perception, then your perception is wrong.

I think its right and the stuff ive read suggest im right also so ill keep my own point of view

 

[david k]

Compare to whoever you like it doesn't change anything. It probably is solid muscle,lean muscle from endurance training not mass from strength training.

It's not strength that gets you up mountains or climbs - it's the ability to generate sustainable power and to do that you need oxygen, and lots of it.

yeh, and the bigger the muscle the more oxygen needed, big people tire quicker, distance runners are thin, sprinters are big

 

[Tigerbiten]

As a slant..
Hows the best way to work out your cadence with out a bike computer..

100 rpm in a 100" gear is 30 mph.
If you know your speed and your gear inches you can work your cadence out.

Or plug your gears into Sheldon Brown's Gear Calculator, http://sheldonbrown.com/gears/
Then play around with the cadence setting and see which one is the closest match to your speed in each gear.

My cadence varies from around 70 rpm in 1st gear (~2.5mph) upto around 110 rpm in top (~50mph).
Average is 85-90rpm.

 

[marzjennings]

however, if i rode up a very long hill with a high cadence low gear and then the same hill low cadence high gear, ensuring i got to the top in the same time which would tire me the most?

Producing '200' watts of power to climb a hill is still '200' watts whether you spin it quickly or crank it slowly. Now one method may leave you with sore legs the other with aching lungs, but overall which is most tiring would depend somewhat on the individual.

 

[david k]

Producing '200' watts of power to climb a hill is still '200' watts whether you spin it quickly or crank it slowly. Now one method may leave you with sore legs the other with aching lungs, but overall which is most tiring would depend somewhat on the individual.

thanks for your reply

i know what your getting at but im not talking about the effort taken, that would be equal just like any gearing system. I dont think the human body is that straight forward though. Bench press 100kg five times or 50kg twenty times. Do these have the same effect on the muscles? ask any weight lifter about each training approach, they work differently on the muscle

 

[black'n'yellow]

What? you really think people have been asking who will get up a climb quicker, someone very fit or someone not very fit? Thats not the question is it?

Actually it is the only relevant question. Because cadence is not a factor in someone's ability to ride uphill.

Anyhow, energy output isnt the only reason for pain in muscles is it? Don't ignore the amount of lactic acid and its affect on muscle pain, less pain means someone can push for longer. In fact it can get quite complicated when you read up on it, best just to stick with high cadence = less fatigue

You really are struggling with this, aren't you. It's not complicated at all. Lactic acid build up (or more specifically, delaying its onset) is a direct result of improved fitness - not of higher cadence. Using your analogy, the only way to delay lactic build up is to ride at a lower effort (ie by shifting down and increasing your cadence) - but if you ride at a lower effort, you will obviously take longer to go up the hill.

I think its right and the stuff ive read suggest im right also so ill keep my own point of view

That's fine. But by doing so, you are ignoring the facts in favour of your own misconceptions, which is fairly ignorant. Pretty ironic, you calling me a c0ck earlier...

 

[david k]

Actually it is the only relevant question. Because cadence is not a factor in someone's ability to ride uphill.
You really are struggling with this, aren't you. It's not complicated at all. Lactic acid build up (or more specifically, delaying its onset) is a direct result of improved fitness - not of higher cadence. Using your analogy, the only way to delay lactic build up is to ride at a lower effort (ie by shifting down and increasing your cadence) - but if you ride at a lower effort, you will
That's fine. But by doing so, you are ignoring the facts in favour of your own misconceptions, which is pretty ignorant.

You’re not following what I am saying, or are refusing to understand as it doesn’t fit your agenda, or maybe you’re a trainee troll, the old patronising, “You really are struggling with this, aren't you” is so obvious and just makes you look even more like a cock. My advice is to drop this obnoxious approach and speak in a civilised manner. Then we can have a decent debate without childish tit for tat.

Now, back to topic, going down a gear but raising the cadence doesn’t slow you down, simple gearing v reps situation, low gear high revs or high gear low revs, simples.

The build up of lactic acid and its effects on the muscles differs with the type of training you put your muscles through. Think of a weight lifter doing lots of reps compared to one doing heavy weights and fewer reps, or a sprinter compared to a distance runner. Then consider why they may be built differently.

Long distance runners = Lighter body mass with slow twitch fibre muscles
Sprinters – Heavier body mass, quick twitch fibre muscles

Now, I don’t claim I am 100% correct but what I’ve experienced, what I’ve shared with fellow athletes (ok I’m pushing it calling myself an athlete now but I was back in the day), what I’ve read and what makes sense to me, is by using gearing to replicate lighter distance runners type of output I can go for longer rides without the same aches and pains in muscles.

Of course runners don’t have the option of gearing to help them; cyclists do, and can use these to their advantage.

I don’t see any real noticeable difference in rides up to around 6/7 miles but anything past 10 and up to 50 it makes a difference for me. I’m 6 foot 2 and around 15 ½ stone and 39 years of age, I have a lot of (relatively) soft muscle left over from playing rugby but its took some time to get it going again, maybe this approach works because of my physical attributes, maybe somebody else would have a different experience I don’t know. But it works for me.

I'm happy to be put right, I'm willing to listen and change my view if proved wrong, but any patronising reply will be treated with contempt it deserves.

 

[black'n'yellow]

You’re not following what I am saying, or are refusing to understand as it doesn’t fit your agenda, or maybe you’re a trainee troll, the old patronising, “You really are struggling with this, aren't you” is so obvious and just makes you look even more like a cock. My advice is to drop this obnoxious approach and speak in a civilised manner. Then we can have a decent debate without childish tit for tat.

There's a lot of irony in that paragraph. That's the third time you've called me a cock and you've just called me a troll - and you are asking me to 'drop the obnoxious approach and speak in a civilised manner'...

Now, back to topic, going down a gear but raising the cadence doesn’t slow you down, simple gearing v reps situation, low gear high revs or high gear low revs, simples.

Nobody said it does. Your original contention was that spinning a lower gear enables you to ride for longer than turning a higher gear. Other people, including me, have told you that is not the case and that your aerobic fitness is your limiter, not the rate at which you turn the cranks.

I'm happy to be put right, I'm willing to listen and change my view if proved wrong, but any patronising reply will be treated with contempt it deserves.

People with more experience than you of both riding and training have told you that you are wrong - but you are not willing to listen. I include myself in that group. But all I am getting is abuse. Anyway, you're obviously an expert - despite the overwhelming evidence on this thread to the contrary.

 

[400bhp]

Optimum cadence at what power output, on what cranks at what level of strength & fitness? Your optimum cadence is effected by many things:
* crank length
* power production
* biometric position
* inertial load
* pedal load
* muscle load
(that's not even close to being an exhaustive list)
Those last 2 end up being functions of the first 4 with further gearing & physiological factors added. For instance the higher the inertial load the lower your most efficient cadence for a given power output is, climbing is a high inertial load situation & struggling into a headwind delivers a low inertial load.

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

 

[david k]

There's a lot of irony in that paragraph. That's the third time you've called me a cock and you've just called me a troll - and you are asking me to 'drop the obnoxious approach and speak in a civilised manner'...



Nobody said it does. Your original contention was that spinning a lower gear enables you to ride for longer than turning a higher gear. Other people, including me, have told you that is not the case and that your aerobic fitness is your limiter, not the rate at which you turn the cranks.



People with more experience than you of both riding and training have told you that you are wrong - but you are not willing to listen. I include myself in that group. But all I am getting is abuse. Anyway, you're obviously an expert - despite the overwhelming evidence on this thread to the contrary.

ok

 

[400bhp]

David - a word of advice. Although (in your eyes) B&Y might take a blunt approach to his tone, listen to what he is saying. He's right.

 

[david k]

​

50 rpm rather than 100 rpm resulted in greater fast-twitch fiber glycogen depletion and an increase in lactic acid​

Fatigue is delayed when using a high cadence near 100 rpm, compared to a low cadence near 50. http://www.wenzelcoaching.com/Article-CadenceFactors.htm

OK, people have told me I am wrong, although I climb a very steep hill near me regularly, when I try it in a high gear I tire quickly and hit the wall half way up. When I do it in a a lower gear and spin fast I make it up easier and quicker overall. Considering that and what I have read like the 2 quotes above, could somebody pelase tell me why I have it wrong. Other than just to say, "your wrong" and as I've cycled more than 815 miles I must be right.

 

[david k]

David - a word of advice. Although (in your eyes) B&Y might take a blunt approach to his tone, listen to what he is saying. He's right.

400bhp,
Im very happy to be proved wrong, but simply stating that people have riden more miles makes them right or Im right and thats it doesnt explain why i have it wrong. And if he takes that tone he should expect conversations to turn out like this
David

 

[black'n'yellow]

OK, people have told me I am wrong, although I climb a very steep hill near me regularly, when I try it in a high gear I tire quickly and hit the wall half way up. When I do it in a a lower gear and spin fast I make it up easier and quicker overall. Considering that and what I have read like the 2 quotes above, could somebody pelase tell me why I have it wrong. Other than just to say, "your wrong" and as I've cycled more than 815 miles I must be right.

Option A - If you attack the hill at a higher effort than you can maintain, you will hit (and exceed) your LT and/or VO2 max very quickly. It is not an easy thing to recover from, espcially if the road is still going up.

Option B - If you ride up the hill below your threshold (ie at a gear and an effort you can maintain) then you will be able to maintain a consistent effort all the way up.

Of course option B is quicker, because you have not hit the wall half way up. However, if you train yourself to perform option A, it will obviously be quicker and you will end up being able to ride option A in the same way as you are currently able to ride option B. It's called 'improvng your aerobic fitness'...