How many of you use cadence for training ?

[Milkfloat]

Can you show me this evidence?

Lots of pages to dig through, help yourself. https://scholar.google.co.uk/schola...g&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=2011&as_vis=1

 

[Citius]

Are you saying that a low cadence is definitely more economical? On re reading this, you definitely seem to be.

How low is low? How high is high?

There's a huge jump from saying that there is no evidence that a higher cadence is more economical (which I can fully believe) to saying that a higher cadence definitely promotes the opposite of economy.

If you are asking me to tell you how fast you should pedal, I can't do that. Nobody can, or should - it's up to you. The metabolic cost of a high cadence is going to be higher than the metabolic cost of a low cadence. That doesn't mean you should pedal everywhere at a low cadence - it just means it is something to consider if economy is one of your considerations.

 

[Citius]

Lots of pages to dig through, help yourself. https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=fast+slow+cadence+cycling&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=2011&as_vis=1

I see a lot of stuff there on oxygen uptake etc, but nothing which reinforces your claim that higher cadence is more efficient over a longer period. The link I posted earlier (http://myworldfromabicycle.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/ideal-cadence-for-competitive-bicycling.html) provided a good summary of a lot of the studies which are slightly more relevant than some of the links you just googled.

 

[Milkfloat]

I see a lot of stuff there on oxygen uptake etc, but nothing which reinforces your claim that higher cadence is more efficient over a longer period. The link I posted earlier (http://myworldfromabicycle.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/ideal-cadence-for-competitive-bicycling.html) provided a good summary of a lot of the studies which are slightly more relevant than some of the links you just googled.

I think we are partly talking about roughly the same thing. This article describes low cadence as being at 80 RPM - for the average novice that is high cadence.

However - it also states a few other things

"Ideal cadence is more important for time trialing, where every second counts, because it's a race against the clock. In the case of the elite cyclists above, clearly an 80 cadence is the most efficient to ride at (coincidentally 350 watts happens to be their average lactate threshold). Time trialing at a lesser efficient cadence of 60 or 100 would cost approximately 9 watts of power (my estimate) and would result in about a 30 second time difference over a 40 kilometer time trial. (my calculations come from the American College of Sports Medicine formula and the bike calculator)."

"In Professional Road Cyclist, Low Pedaling Cadence Are Less Efficient
Found that professional road cyclist riding at power outputs greater than 360 and 420 watts are more efficient at 100 rpm than 60 and 80 rpm"

Obviously I am cherry picking the quotes out there, but these are from your article.

Pick any pro race team (road) in the world and show me any cyclist averaging 60 RPM or less?

 

[Citius]

Pick any pro race team (road) in the world and show me any cyclist averaging 60 RPM or less?

I'm sure there isn't such an example. As I've said before, I am not advocating high cadence, or low cadence. I'm simply saying that 'training cadence' is a fallacy and a massive diversion for someone who is intent on improving performance.

 

[windyrider]

Try this http://www.torqfitness.co.uk/news/optimal-pedal-cadence, interesting stuff and this guy recommends "If you really don’t have a clue how fast you should be spinning your legs, get a cycle computer that measures cadence and try to stick at about 90 rpm, you won’t be far away from your optimum." Now it is worth noting that this chap is a mountain biker, whereas I am a roadie, and recently taken to increasing the RPM on my rides. In the old days (2 week ago) a longish ride average RPM of 62 these days I'm averaging 70 RPM, results well several new PB's on Strava so obviously happy with that but it is tiring and requires concentration to keep it going.

Bike radar had this to say
"Interestingly, a Japanese group [3] studying ‘college-aged cyclists’ found that the cadence with the lowest oxygen cost (VO2) was not the same as that producing the lowest muscular fatigue. Measuring the electrical activity of cycling specific muscles, called an electromyogram (EMG), they found 80-90 rpm had significantly lower EMG activity than any other cadence (70rpm, 100rpm) [3].

However, the lowest amount of oxygen was used when pedalling at 60-70rpm, significantly less than 80-100rpm [3]. So, muscles have better neural efficiency when spinning, but this increases oxygen cost. To what extent these can be further trained is not clear, but the fact that professionals can ride at high cadences for hours and that club-level riders tend to ride in ever lower cadences as they tire, suggests cadence is a vital parameter for training."

Improve cadence, and it seems you will get faster, alas you have to get fitter at the same time.

 

[ayceejay]

Remember that "improving performance" in the context of riding sportives would be an improvement in endurance rather than focusing on speed and consequently different criteria apply. It is obvious that a cadence at either end of the spectrum is a waste of energy. Aerobic activity is more sustainable than anaerobic activity and this would be the focus of endurance training, that it is to do light load work over increasingly longer periods, so the crux of this argument seems to be, is there a benefit in training with a focus on cadence so as to arrive at an optimum (not fixed) ?

 

[Citius]

Improve cadence, and it seems you will get faster

Other way round, I would suggest. Improve fitness and it seems you will spin faster (by default).

 

[Brava210]

I use cadence solely for Zwift as I find it a real incentive, especially as the weather is so rubbish

Gary

 

[outlash]

I was under the impression that sportives weren't races anyway... If you want to train and get competitive, slap a race number on your back .

 

[Citius]

I was under the impression that sportives weren't races anyway... If you want to train and get competitive, slap a race number on your back .

To be fair, the OP didn't say they were races. Lotss of people see them as performance targets though.

 

[outlash]

True, and as you say, there's a whole host of people who see sportives as you describe. And if you want to buy into that pseudo-competitive side of things, then off you go. I'd rather train for competition and do it properly.

 

[The Hat]

Dont bother with cadence, its such a personal thing really. I sticl to power and heart rate.

 

[Cuchilo]

I was told the other day that high cadence would be good for me as I am a slight chap so couldn't go for power of lower cadence . Someone at my club just grinds at a lower cadence and totally smokes me on any TT . Actually they all smoke me on any TT but that's not the point .
My normal cadence is around 78 I think . That's what I am happy with and I let my legs do my riding . My quads do my riding if I think about it . When they start to hurt I drop a gear and spin faster .

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

My quads do my riding if I think about it . When they start to hurt I drop a gear and spin faster .

And you don't need a number on a screen to tell you when this is right?