Cycling UK Forum

Mick F wrote:The way I look at it, is the better you are at doing something, the less the effort.

The effort is probably the same or higher. The tolerance and/or perception of that effort is what is different, based on a range of different factors.

Mick F wrote:Efficiency.
This is the word that applies.
Converting oxygen into movement.

If you mean 'aerobic efficiency', then almost certainly. Efficiency itself is too broad a term.

There almost certainly isn't a 'definitive' answer. Road surfaces will vary, so the ideal pressure on one section of road might be entirely unsuitable for the next.

Assuming your tyres are already inflated (you haven't said what the current pressure is), then the best you can hope for is to try a series of pressures above/below where you are now and see what results you get..

RickH wrote:I suppose there is a corollary with bench pressing weights. There's a massive weight you can only push once & then need a rest. Halve the weight & you could probably push it a number of times. Halve it again & you can probably more than double the number of presses. Etc.

Weight training is largely anaerobic/strength-related, whereas the discussion here up until now has been mostly aerobic/endurance related, so the comparison might not be exactly on point, tbh.

RickH wrote:But, at least with pedalling a bike, there comes a point where you are using more of your energy on spinning your legs round than actually propelling the bike.

Which comes back to the point made earlier (which 'marcus' is variously agreeing/disagreeing with) that higher cadences place a higher metabolic demand on the body than lower cadences.

As ever, you've just cherry picked the bits that suit you.

If you read on below, it explains why this might be the case..

http://myworldfromabicycle.blogspot.com ... cling.html

If you can find the source material - ie the original study on which Hunter Allen's opinion article is based, I'd be grateful. I've searched, but cannot find any relevant study conducted by either of the two universities he mentioned.

Meanwhile, Ric Stern's recent article on the same/similar issue is well worth a read, although I notice you are all over the comments section of that one as well..

https://road.cc/content/feature/cycling ... dal-256654

531colin wrote:I've found them for you. All here....https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=128106&hilit=glycolysis&start=45

My word. IIRC, he got a ban on BR for persisting with this kind of stuff..

Marcus Aurelius wrote:I could do, but it would be a pain in the posterior to dig them out.

Indulge us. You can't claim 'science' without offering evidence. Pubmed is actually very easy to search.

Marcus Aurelius wrote: ‘Convention’ counts for little. Experience and ‘proof of the pudding being in the eating’ are far more important *hint* ( watch the techniques employed by the pro peloton).

'Convention' is what the science shows us. Earlier you were referring to scientific studies to make a point - and now you are dismissing it in favour of 'experience', when it doesn't suit your narrative.

Also, please enlarge on what the 'techniques employed by the pro peloton' actually means.

Marcus Aurelius wrote:It’s a case of horses for courses. If you want out and out speed, and don’t need to worry so much about fuelling, grinding a massive gear could achieve just that. The relatively very high cadence / high power approach is a very specific mode targeting exercise. Many studies have been carried out into the whole cadence at suitable power to make it worthwhile technique. Most of them found that peak mechanical efficiency is achieved at ( insert power ) and 70-80 rpms. Higher RPMS still seemed to leave riders in ‘better nick’ after the exertion however. That was a bit of a curiosity. It was looked into / studied, and the conclusion was that it’s because the fast twitch muscles are effectively ‘better at their job’ than slow twitch muscles. So you need to engage less cells to achieve the same effect. This leads to lower fuel demand / glycogen oxidation, and therefore oxygen demand. So ( as long as the power your spinning at is sufficient to engage this muscle usage mode ) riding at higher RPM / cadence will result in eeking out your fuel stores, for longer, on longer efforts. It’s a very specific situation, which takes a fair bit of time to get right, as most people naturally want to settle back to slightly lower cadences, once their focus starts waining.

Can you provide links to the studies you are referring to? I referred to some earlier - which explained that higher cadence led to higher metabolic demand - and provided links. Given that your opinions seem to run contrary to convention on this, perhaps you could do the same?

Jdsk wrote:Is cadence now being used in two different ways: how fast you're turning the pedals and what a computer displays at the end of a run?

Jonathan

Not sure what you mean by 'being used', but average cadence, 'real time' cadence and max cadence are probably the most typical numbers that a recording device might tell you.

geocycle wrote:Is cadence usually measured over a whole ride? I think my gizmo gives the mean, but this probably also includes freewheeling. I would have thought median might be a better measurement?

Average cadence on a ride is about as useful as knowing average temperature over a year. It tells you nothing specific or actionable. (Climate scientists need not reply).

Cadence is easy to measure, with or without electronics. Just count the number of pedal revs over 15 seconds and then multiply by 4. However you calculate it, the number (as Mick correctly points out) will be equally redundant.

RickH wrote:I would say there is a third thing

3) Practice

I would say 'practice' is fundamentally the same as my first point, ie your aerobic/cv fitness.

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Shortening the cranks will increase your cadence without any affect on your muscles et cetera.
Lengthening the crank but also slow your cadence.

Shortening/lengthening crank length within the scope of generally available crank lengths does not have any appreciable impact on cadence. Cadence is influenced by your personal preference, the gear you are pushing and the power/pedal force you are able to impart. Studies have demonstrated that crank length plays little or no part in that. If your preference is to pedal at 70rpm, shortening your cranks will not change that.

Summary/analysis of a range of studies on crank length/cadence effects here: http://myworldfromabicycle.blogspot.com ... -just.html

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:So the opposite is true lower cadence gives a lower heart rate

It might be true for a given power output (ie 200w @ 100rpm v 200w @ 65rpm). But your HR depends on your level of exertion and it is still perfectly possible to apply high pedal forces at low rpm, which will still result in a high HR.

davidmcarthur32 wrote:"largely self selecting", in other words individuals ride at a cadence that comes natural at any given time. Some people I am sure try to force it, they wouldn't be able to maintain this unnatural (for them) cadence for long. What I am trying to ascertain is this, there are quite ordinary individuals (not Olympic class athletes) who have a cadence of 80/90. Can they maintain 80/90 for, say, one hour?

How long anyone can maintain a given cadence for depends on the two factors I listed earlier. You can't really talk about how long someone can maintain a cadence for without knowing how much pedal force they are applying. Higher cadences have a higher metabolic demand than lower cadences, but it's generally possible to train yourself to ride at any reasonable cadence/power level for certain amounts of time if that's what your target events or preferences dictate..

davidmcarthur32 wrote:Grandad, I am trying to understand cadence/rpm, how long can you maintain your comfortable cadence of 75/80?

Your ability to maintain a particular cadence will depend on two things:

1 - your aerobic capacity/cardiovascular fitness
2 - how much force you are applying to the pedals at any given time

The two are obviously inter-related, but other than that there is nothing much more to understand about cadence - it's simply the speed at which you cause the pedals to rotate. As a metric, it is largely self-selecting and will likely increase as your fitness improves. If you are currently regaining your fitness, then there is nothing much to be gained by trying to ride at a particular cadence right now. Concentrate on time in the saddle and effort level - and your cadence will find its own way..

Bonefishblues wrote:So when a sprinter is starting, why aren't they rocking for one reason or another, as opposed to very obviously trying to stay as upright as possible? I think I may be slightly dense, but can you spell it out. Words of one syllable welcomed!

Presumably you are referring to the standing start of a kilo, or a team sprint? The emphasis for both is on getting the weight forward out of the start gate - not sideways - in the first 10-20m or so. Canting the bike sideways at low/zero velocity, while pushing 100+ gear inches will just mean the bike will head in that direction, rather than forwards. Most will lead with the left pedal, for the same reason, so that the bike stays straight coming out of the gate. Most sprinters will generally be back in the saddle after the first 150m or so, regardless. Same principle applies to IP and TP starts as well, incidentally. Nobody will rock the bike at the start for the same reason.

More generally, the aim when standing is not necessarily to lean the bike to one side or the other. The objective is to apply more pedal force by using your body weight over each pedal. Which can also be achieved by transferring your body weight from side to side, rather than rocking the bike as such. It amounts to much the same thing, but there is an observable difference between the two techniques - and rocking the bike will recruit far more muscles than simply transferring body weight. Lots of overhead shots of bunch sprints (in Tdf coverage, etc) where this can be observed.

Marcus Aurelius wrote:Track sprinting is about as controlled an environment as you’ll find.The surface, even the air pressures inside the velodrome are tightly controlled

This is not correct. No velodrome yet built has any effective means of controlling air pressure. Not without it being a completely sealed environment. Think about it.

T-800 wrote:Ah you know him from BR too

I do - although I'd struggle to remember any more than a handful of his 10 different usernames