Holding a Sensible Cadence?

[531colin]

I generally run 24T front and 34T rear.....but I still expect to walk Park Rash tomorrow.
Long ago, my original training was as a biologist, and I'm afraid there have been a few things posted on this thread which I don't recognise as being "generally held as correct". I'm not saying they are wrong, I'm saying I don't recognise them as being stuff which is generally held to be true.
I would be interested to know where the posters information comes from.

.........
High cadence is high power output but is limited in hours.
Lower cadence means that a higher proportion of body fat is used compared with carbs which is limited with no food intake.......

I don't think either of those statements is necessarily correct. You can turn the pedals quickly but with very little force, or you can turn them slowly with great force. I wrote a bit about fat and carbohydrate metabolism here https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=87870&p=1228590&hilit=glycogen#p1228590....I can't provide references, but its stuff that (I think) most students of biology would recognise.

.......... I notice with Froome he does not high spin all the time, he does drop to 80-85 every now and then which changes the muscle fibres he uses and so helps his legs against fatigue.

Again, I'd like a reference, please.
A few seconds Googling found this.....https://www.ukopencollege.co.uk/myfiles/file/Anat&phys4.pdf, which says that fast twitch fibres use anaerobic glycolysis....Froome can't be using anaerobic glycolysis most of the time, your body simply doesn't work like that.

[gaz]

... I notice with Froome he does not high spin all the time ...

But shoud you try to emulate Froome? http://www.cyclingweekly.com/fitness/wh ... ome-191779

[Mick F]

I couldn't give a toss about my cadence.
I pedal at a speed that's comfortable for me. No doubt it varies a bit at any time, but generally I care not a jot.

It works for me, and when I took cadence figures over many many years, my average cadence was 67rpm.
Since getting rid of all that stuff, I don't give cadence a second thought ................ unless we have yet another discussion about it on here.

I ride, I can ride long and hard and fast, I'm happy, and I don't care about cadence.

[[XAP]Bob]

I couldn't give a toss about my cadence.
I pedal at a speed that's comfortable for me. No doubt it varies a bit at any time, but generally I care not a jot.

It works for me, and when I took cadence figures over many many years, my average cadence was 67rpm.
Since getting rid of all that stuff, I don't give cadence a second thought ................ unless we have yet another discussion about it on here.

I ride, I can ride long and hard and fast, I'm happy, and I don't care about cadence.

I am interested in what my cadence is/was rather than fanatical about setting it to something, and my tendency is the opposite to Micks...
I average up into the 90s, with 'sprints' often at 110+. Note that that is predicated on commuting, which isn't the same as an all day ride.
I don't know what my cadence does on longer rides, because I haven't measured (m)any.

[althebike]

Gaz
An interesting article about Froome and his cadence, but there is a bigger picture the test was not designed to cover.By changing cadence during a ride, you employ different muscle fibres that allow the other fibres a bit of recovery time therefore delaying fatigue.
Another thing I noticed was that the report said Froome used his big chainring with his big cassette , this cross chaining is not the most efficient way to pedal as the chain will be operating in a bent mode.

[Samuel D]

By changing cadence during a ride, you employ different muscle fibres that allow the other fibres a bit of recovery time therefore delaying fatigue.

You’ve said that twice now, but like 531colin, I wouldn’t mind a reference that supports it.

Another thing I noticed was that the report said Froome used his big chainring with his big cassette , this cross chaining is not the most efficient way to pedal as the chain will be operating in a bent mode.

Friction Facts and others have shown that larger sprockets produce a slight efficiency gain despite the cross-chaining that is needed to use them, except in the most extreme cases. Using larger sprockets reduces the articulation of each chain link and therefore the energy lost to friction in the chain. This apparently offsets the increased friction from cross-chaining.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
There are many papers on cycling efficiency, but I am not sure they are all done by enthusiast, so the knowledge that could be useful is always hidden in the words and abbreviations.

I will try and dig out / up some of them.

Its always been my belief that high cadence at low power is inefficient.
And high power at low cadence is also.
Froomey's high cadence normally comes at high power also.

[tatanab]

Its always been my belief that high cadence at low power is inefficient.
And high power at low cadence is also.
Froomey's high cadence normally comes at high power also.

I think that is true. I recall in the 1970s Tony Doyle riding a 25 mule timetrail in 56 minutes when limited to a 72" gear, and he did not even ride fixed but just screwed dwon his rear mech. It wasn't his ability to maintain high revs that was such an eye opener, but his ability to put down power at those revs.

[Mick F]

Physiology.
Simple word, but we're all different.

When I ran, I wasn't a sprinter, but a middle distance runner.
When I swam, I couldn't swim fast, but I could swim length after length without tiring, some of them underwater,
I'm a plodder, not a sprinter.
I have low cadence, not a high cadence.

I'm happy in my skin.

[hayers]

May be a slight aside, but I struggled to be comfortable with higher cadences until I swapped to slightly shorter cranks - only from 172.5 to 170mm but definite cause and effect (no other changes at the same time).

I was changing to help my knees through less motion - but suppose the increase in my natural cadence helped too.

I have since read that tandem pilots and stokers with mismatched cadence tendencies can even things out with longer cranks to slow the faster pedaler and vice versa.

[althebike]

https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/cgi/view ... ntext=ijes
This goes on for a bit but part of its conclusion is this
" Many devoted cyclists and coaches still advocate a HCLF for the fear of leg fatigue from the higher gear selections. However, this study shows increased myocardial demand with a HC selection over time.
In conclusion, LCHF vs. HCLF may allow for the same power to be accomplished for an extended time period through varied pedal cadences. "
( low cadence high force, and high cadence low force)
The anecdotal evidence I believe came from Froomes book the climb which I no longer have , he mentions, to the effect, that lowering cadence periodically during a long climb allows his breathing rate to recover.
I see no reason to disagree, because it lowers my breathing rate when I try it too. The assumption of course, is that power is the same for both cadences.
The unscientific bottom line is that if you are uncomfortable at a particular cadence, then why do it.

[althebike]

Samuel D
cross chaining I guess this is why I seem to ride better keeping in the larger chainring, I guessed it was an efficiency thing but did not really understand why.
What about wear and tear? would the cassette or chainrings wear faster if the chain was not moving in a straight line?
When I stood behind my bike during a service, I was amazed at how much sideways bend went on the chain, I thought that could not be good either.

[Peter W]

It seems logical that, for those of us who ride two wheels for our own joy and satisfaction, (i.e. not racing, or training for any particular purpose) the breathing/heart-rate combination would dictate a natural or comfortable cadence and effort on climbs. Bowling along on the flat, anything can be fun.

But I must say, efficiency not withstanding, the mere thought of a bent chain-line would throw me into a rage beyond human endurance!! It just seems so silly. (And ugly.)

[Samuel D]

https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1746&context=ijes

On muscle fibres, though, all it says is this:

“Type I or Type II muscle fiber recruitment may differ based on these two choices. While one may utilize a slow twitch, oxidative pathway, the other may use a fast twitch, glycolytic contribution for energy production.”

May. They didn’t test this.

I agree with you and Froome and everyone else who has noticed that higher cadences are more demanding of the cardiovascular system, so lower cadences allow some recovery there. On the other hand, lower cadences at high power outputs tire the leg muscles earlier.

So when you’re riding well within your limits, pretty much any cadence works, at least for a while.

When I’m pushing very hard, I have no choice but to use a high cadence. I quickly reach the point where I can’t sustain the needed force at low cadence for more than a few seconds before fatigue hits.

Contrariwise, when I’m cruising along at a gentle speed, high cadence as I see some of my companions use feels plainly wasteful.

What about wear and tear? would the cassette or chainrings wear faster if the chain was not moving in a straight line?

Yes, cross-chaining’s effect on wear is greater than on efficiency. Among other bad things, cross-chaining causes the visible plastic deformation of the teeth that you see on aluminium chainrings. The chain rollers, being straight cylinders with only so much play on their bushings, bear against only the edge of the tooth as the chain engages the chainring.

[Tangled Metal]

Having recently got into recumbent riding I read you need to spin up hills. I took that as low gears and higher cadence.

I'm an upright rider who uses higher gears at lower cadence. It works for me in uprights. I currently use gears based on 50t big chainring (only use that one 90% of the time) and a 12t-32t cassette. I use all the cassette with big chainring and it's comfortable and gets me where I'm going at reasonable pace.

However I tried spinning on my recumbent and I simply didn't get anywhere fast, admittedly on a steep hill but it didn't work i couldn't keep a fast enough cadence to work the gear and get somewhere. It felt hard, inefficient and my muscles were burning from the effort. So I went into my middle chainring and sped off.

I guess my point is that whatever is right according to sports science or received wisdom is only right if it's right for you. I don't spin very well, it's hard for me to maintain a 80rpm or higher cadence for example and get anywhere quickly. It tires me quicker. Especially hills, I can ride in my saddle, without any body roll in quite high gears. Drop the gears and raise the cadence and I'm all over the place and slowing down. I suspect it's my high leg strength. Years of walking in the hills and regular gym visits where I really did more strength training in my legs and core than upper body. Well in my view I was strong enough in my arms for my needs but stronger legs and core helps with hills and carrying a load. Plus I lived on a steep hill when I did a lot of riding as a kid.

So I think NA is right in that you have to ride in a way that works for you. It's irrelevant what Froome does IMHO.