Slowly slaying the high cadence myth....

[Venod]

Have you seen the cadence Roglic uses, very similar to Froome, seems like high cadence suites some top riders, Jan Ulrich was the last top rider I remember with a notable low cadence.

 

[davidphilips]

Have you seen the cadence Roglic uses, very similar to Froome, seems like high cadence suites some top riders, Jan Ulrich was the last top rider I remember with a notable low cadence.

Far as i know if you actually put a cadence watch on it, he rode at like 90 rpm. It just seemed slow relative to Lance Armstrong?

 

[johnblack]

87 average, but 95+ climbing, I rely on my cardio rather than leg strength on anything other than short steep stuff, my knees say thank you.

 

[PK99]

Have you seen the cadence Roglic uses, very similar to Froome, seems like high cadence suites some top riders, Jan Ulrich was the last top rider I remember with a notable low cadence.

This post prompted me to look at pics of these 3 riders.

Ulrich was well muscled, quite heavily built for a top cyclist

Froome, in particular, is almost skeletal with huge lung capacity, minimal body fat, and muscles like pieces of string. Roglic is also skinny

@CXRAndy 's post suggests they are matching cadence style to physiology

 

[cyberknight]

Last club ride i looked at my cadence at the end just out of interest , i didnt consciously keep an eye on it more than usual.
Average for the ride 80 , max of 109 rpm .
I am heavy legged rider and do find i tend to push bigger gears than some of the lightweight riders.

 

[Sharky]

I ride 50x14 fixed for time trials and although I don't have a cadence sensor, by using the "BikeCalc" website, I get the following stats.
My time gives me a 21mph ride, which equates to a 75 rpm average.
At the slowest point, going over the bridge, my speed dropped to 15mph or less, which equates to 54 rpm and on the fast return leg, I just topped 30mph in places, giving a max 107 rpm.

 

[itboffin]

Last club ride i looked at my cadence at the end just out of interest , i didnt consciously keep an eye on it more than usual.
Average for the ride 80 , max of 109 rpm .
I am heavy legged rider and do find i tend to push bigger gears than some of the lightweight riders.

I'm the same 80s avg and grind out hills in a big gear at low cadence so long as the gradient stays below 8% then I have to spin, I used to always ride hills out of the saddle now always seated apart from Wales a few weeks ago when we went 25-30+% that was awful in fact it was the first time I considered stepping off

 

[itboffin]

I’ve tried to spin 95+ but I can’t it quickly burns and i fade whereas I can push a lower cadence at the same speed for hours, I see no reason to change

 

[davidphilips]

I’ve tried to spin 95+ but I can’t it quickly burns and i fade whereas I can push a lower cadence at the same speed for hours, I see no reason to change

Thats where i was about 6 or 7 months ago, nothing wrong with it but in my case anyway what i found i could go on club runs and even do quite well on long fast runs at a steady pace but was getting dropped on some of the faster club runs when the pace would keep changing?
Know theres lot of imfo on the net and some say they could change there cadence in a few weeks but for me its been an ongoing process but well worth the time i have and still am putting into it.

 

[Daninplymouth]

I’ve just started using a cadence sensor, my rides seem to be around 85rpm average. Not sure if it’s because I find it fairly hilly around here so I am up and down the gears a lot rather than then just picking a tough gear and grinding away. On hills I tend to spin up at 90-100 and iv found if I drop below 80 it feels more of a slog which is surprising as I actually have decent leg strength

 

[Fab Foodie]

@CXRAndy 's post suggests they are matching cadence style to physiology

Which is pretty much my original point (and belief) that people find their best cadence tends to be that which is most natural for them, and by definition suits their physiology....

 

[Fab Foodie]

This is where I start to struggle. I hesitate to weigh in here because I'm not a biochemist and these things can get a bit heated. But I'll try anyway. I'm not trying to pick an argument, but I'm not convinced.

Glycogen (and other carbohydrates) is what powers muscles. Fat doesn't do this. You can't burn fat and not glycogen/other CH. You might convert the fat to glycogen/other CH indirectly but you cannot power muscles with fat instead of glycogen (or other CH). Fat is like money in your wallet. You can convert it to petrol, but you can't burn it directly in the engine.

We may do that conversion (Fat->CH) when recovering from exercise and equally we may do it continuously during exercise but the whole area is just so complex I just can't believe (at least not without evidence) that a simple trigger like pedalling faster while maintaining the same power output has a simple effect of switching pathways.

I remain unconvinced that there is some kind of underlying rule that in general a higher cadence (within sensible limits) is generally better than a lower one for everyone.

Explanations based on biochemistry fail to convince me. Explanations based on what professional cyclists do seem to me to be irrelevant.

What I can believe that some people derive a lot of benefit from selecting a higher cadence, because it suits them (for reasons unknown). But by the same token, it doesn't suit others.

I can also believe that lower gearing enables quicker acceleration so a high cadence may be useful in crit racing, but not in TTs where acceleration is not at a premium. I can believe it, but because I do neither activity, I don't really care.

The elephant in the room is that, for non-competitive cyclists, it really doesn't matter.

For someone who doesn't really care about this, I seem to have spent an inordinate amount of time ... er ... caring about it.

Oh, just one more thing. If you have a cadence meter and look at your average cadence at the end of a ride, think carefully about what it means. The distribution won't be a symmetrical gaussian bell curve. You won't have spent a lot of time at your average, and a bit above and a bit below. Instead the curve will be shaped like an escarpment. Like this picture wot I found on the internets.
View attachment 547770
You'll have spent plenty of time at various values below your average (mean), a majority of your time at a value above that (the mode), and very little at values above that peak. Statistically the mean will be less than the mode. Your most commonly used cadence will be somewhat higher than what your Garmin says is your average. This is because you often pedal very slowly (when starting/accelerating) but you pedal very fast much less often. The skew may be less pronounced depending on your riding style, eg if you pedal frantically on long downhills. Riding fixed will probably affect it too, but I don't know how.

From a lapsed Biochemist....the basics (as I learned them a very long time ago)!

Yes glycogen is the primary CHO fuel of muscles. Glucose in the blood gets converted to glycogen before it can be burnt, Glucose is not burnt directly.
There is NO pathway to convert fat to glycogen or glucose in the body.
Yes your muscles can burn fat directly, but it is inefficient compared to glycogen burning.
Unless the world has changed you burn a percentage of glycogen even when fat burning.
Glycogen is stored in muscles and the liver.
When you 'bonk' you basically deplete your glycogen to a very low level, that doesn't stop you moving, but as we all know it's hard to maintain any pace.
The Brain (one of the largest energy consumers in the human body), uses glycogen as its primary source of fuel and cannot run directly on fat, the body will try to protect the brains fuel supply as long as possible, it's no surprise that when you bonk you also get a bit muzzy headed.
Fat can be converted to 'Ketone bodies' which can be used by the brain and muscles, again this is inefficient compared to glycogen operation (or the expected energy delivered if it was possible to burn fat) - this is the basis behind Ketonic diets, that the body adapts to 'burning fat' indirectly via the Ketone route in a near complete state of constant glucose depletion.
Muscle (Protein) can also be broken down and used as the energy supply of last resort.

I expect these days it's far more complicated than that!

 

[Fab Foodie]

I've edited, but not corrected, my post above. I've left it wrong for the general amusement of all.

(But my eventual conclusion still stands. I'm still unconvinced by biochemical arguments for high cadence)

Yes me too, but the biochemistry is part of one's general physiology/performance...none of it moves without biochemistry!

 

[davidphilips]

Interesting read on cadence, the sentence that really summed it up was (Whatever your case may be, there just aren’t too many riders who can’t benefit from a quicker, more relaxed (i.e. less forceful) cadence).
https://www.trainerroad.com/blog/does-ftp-change-with-cadence/

 

[CXRAndy]

My own experiences has been, I've tried lower cadences and higher cadences over multi day rides. Ive also had a season where I altered my diet to ween off fast carbs.

I found the combination of high cadence and eating protein and fats allowed me to ride without feeling I was ever going to bonk or lose performance. After 5+ hr rides I still had a fair bit of zip in the legs.

I trained only upto 3.5 hours at cadences of 95-100rpm on a turbo using Trainer Road.