Scientists say high cadence is inefficient

User avatar
Sweep
Posts: 5684
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 4:57pm
Location: London

Re: Scientists say high cadence is inefficient

Postby Sweep » 17 Feb 2019, 6:47pm

mnichols wrote: For example if a planned coffee stop is closed, and the next one is a few hours away and you're out of food, as has happened to me a few times when touring

Be prepared. My preferred coffee stops are usually behind churches. In extremis I have used a bus shelter. Fields etc handy. I carry a small espresso pot and stove. You should always have at least snacks/sugar with you or you run the risk of the bonk.and then you'd be stranded, at least temporarily.
Sweep

mnichols
Posts: 1424
Joined: 22 Apr 2013, 4:29pm

Re: Scientists say high cadence is inefficient

Postby mnichols » 17 Feb 2019, 7:21pm

foxyrider wrote:
mnichols wrote:
foxyrider wrote:This is all very well but what happened to just riding?


Few hours away! Where are you riding? Surely you carry emergency supplies and these days almost every petrol station / supermarket sells coffee.

As Mssr. Merckx says, Just Ride


My last tour was across the Indian Himalayas. It was four days between proper towns, although there was usually a roadside store most days, but not dependable

On my Canada to Mexico trip it could be 100 miles between towns, and sometimes they would be closed

E2E Spain could be 50 miles between towns, same on E2E of Italy and France
Cape to Cape of Japan, I couldn't speak the language of read the signs to know when the next one would be

User avatar
Sweep
Posts: 5684
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 4:57pm
Location: London

Re: Scientists say high cadence is inefficient

Postby Sweep » 17 Feb 2019, 7:26pm

Apologies mnichols, i did have an odd feeling at the back of my mind that you were an epic tourist..
My tours are uk tootles so far, definitely compared to yours?
Sweep

mnichols
Posts: 1424
Joined: 22 Apr 2013, 4:29pm

Re: Scientists say high cadence is inefficient

Postby mnichols » 17 Feb 2019, 8:23pm

Sweep wrote:Apologies mnichols, i did have an odd feeling at the back of my mind that you were an epic tourist..
My tours are uk tootles so far, definitely compared to yours?


Thanks, but no apology needed. I was just answering the question.

I have ran low or out of food a few times now, and then need to know how to cycle using my ample fat stores :-)

User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 10608
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: Scientists say high cadence is inefficient

Postby NATURAL ANKLING » 17 Feb 2019, 10:51pm

Hi,
Marcus Aurelius wrote:
ianrobo wrote:I wonder though about high cadence as really it is used for climbing and on the flat Froome and others do have cadences in the 70’s pushing higher gears


High force lower cadence pedalling forces the muscles to feed mostly on Glycogen / Carbs, and high force high Cadence pedalling forces the muscles to feed mostly from fat, so a rider with a low body fat percentage can’t afford to do high force High cadence pedalling for very long, and that’s why the skinny pros do it the way they do it.

Seems contrary to what you are saying?
https://www.polar.com/blog/running-hear ... breakdown/
"The aerobic system
The aerobic system (50–70% of your maximum heart rate) uses fat to create energy. It’s a slow system, but it doesn’t create lactic acid, so you can stay there for a long time. “This is the system you’re using during your easy runs,” Lakritz says.

The lactic threshold system
The lactic threshold system (70–80% of your max heart rate) is a combination of the aerobic and anaerobic systems and uses a combination of fat and carbohydrates to create energy. When training using this system, the body needs energy faster, so it uses carbs,” Lakritz explains. “The way the body uses carbs to create energy is much faster. The problem is that when the body uses carbs to create energy, it causes a byproduct called lactic acid to form.” In the lactic threshold system, the body can clear this byproduct as fast as it’s made – think tempo running.

The anaerobic system
The anaerobic system (80–95% of your max) uses mostly carbs. This is high-intensity running, so energy is needed quickly. “The body uses carbs so fast it can’t clear lactic acid fast enough, and the body goes fast, but only for short periods before it needs to slow down to clear the lactic acid,” Lakritz says. “This is used for speed training, such as interval running.”
If You Don't Try You Don't Do.....Don't Do You Don't Get...I'm Still Trying....Well Very..
You'll Find Me At The Top Of A Hill...............Somewhere...After Dark..

User avatar
Sweep
Posts: 5684
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 4:57pm
Location: London

Re: Scientists say high cadence is inefficient

Postby Sweep » 18 Feb 2019, 7:47am

mnichols wrote:
Sweep wrote:Apologies mnichols, i did have an odd feeling at the back of my mind that you were an epic tourist..
My tours are uk tootles so far, definitely compared to yours?


Thanks, but no apology needed. I was just answering the question.

I have ran low or out of food a few times now, and then need to know how to cycle using my ample fat stores :-)

Thanks for the nice reply. There shouldn't by the way have been a question mark at the end of what you quoted, should have been a full stop - tiddly small tab typing.
Sweep

User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 10608
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: Scientists say high cadence is inefficient

Postby NATURAL ANKLING » 18 Feb 2019, 10:35am

Hi,
mnichols wrote:My watts for effort definitely drop at lower cadence (70, 60 or lower) and i push out my highest watts at higher cadence ( 90 to 100). The difference is over 100 watts, maybe even 150.
Although I can't sustain high watts high power, or very low cadence for a few minutes. Below a cadence of 60 it's more efficient for me to stand, and i practice doing this for around 30 minutes (longest was 45) or intervals
My sustainable best sustainable wattage is at around 90 rpm, although I occasionally practice spinning at 100 for an hour an ignore the watts

It would be interesting to see some of your figures.
I have recorded my (all) cycling exertions since year 2000.
Its thought that max power comes out at 95 rpm for humans.
But as we know individuals are different.
This might be explained by different crank lengths, leg length, muscle type, training and what the trainings for, speed / endurance.
One day I put out my best on a under geared bike (turbo) and cadence was about 95, I was tied to the gearing so that's not conclusive.
Cadence is driven / controlled by foot speed (if we go for comfort for arguments sake), changing crank length changed foot speed (pedal speed if you like).
So if we assume that your muscles will tell you what cadence you prefer, altering the crank length including foot pedal position for and aft and even the saddle height, will affect your comfortable cadence.
Its taken that pro's pedal at low 70 when tootling along and speed up to 85-95 when pushing for the finish, sprints are any where above that.
High cadence is painfull at max power which is why you won't stay there that long.
My theory on Froomeys cadence is that when he's climbing he drops his heels and thus effectively shortens legs enabling him to keep that cadence for some minutes, remember also that standing is less efficient than sitting too, unless you wish to extract a fast acceleration to suffer further up the climb, or lessor exertion will keep HR low and utilise different muscles, I can find standing refreshing after a long day as sitting can be sore and the sitting muscles are sore to.
I found that when faltering on the turbo trying to maintain max for an hour..or was that 30 min :lol: ...dropping my heels in the saddle (you will need supple calf's) I was able to maintain that pace and extract the 20 watts to bring me back... but that's also a temporary torture which can only last 30 seconds.
Also watch your heart rate prone vs Sitting up, this is probably why TT Riders use a set up for a more open thigh to thorax angle?
You will notice froome limbering up on the turbo pre race, dropping his heels I assume not on full power, must be something in that?
When wiggo could not beat martin he had to copy him by lowering his cadence?

Last year I did a FTP of 347 W on a 20 minute test, @ 77 rpm average.
Last week I did a FTP of 310 W over 60 mins, at 70-74 rpm, only my second turbo ride this year and not feeling perky too.
Both on 170 cranks, but a bit quirky on the set up.
I have for several years concentrated on conventional pedals with 175 cranks, definitely notice a reduction of cadence with 175's.
Though for training on the road and long 250 mile day rides slower cadence suits energy draw of body fat?
If You Don't Try You Don't Do.....Don't Do You Don't Get...I'm Still Trying....Well Very..
You'll Find Me At The Top Of A Hill...............Somewhere...After Dark..

mnichols
Posts: 1424
Joined: 22 Apr 2013, 4:29pm

Re: Scientists say high cadence is inefficient

Postby mnichols » 18 Feb 2019, 6:03pm

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:It would be interesting to see some of your figures.
I have recorded my (all) cycling exertions since year 2000.


My indoor bike is a Spin Bike (keiser M3). It's great, and it shows cadence, power, and heart rate in the moment, but it isn't connected to anything and doesn't give you a summary at the end, so I can't use it for an FTP test. I just have to observe what I see, and draw conclusions as best I can.

I also found that when I was using another bike at a gym there was about a 50w difference against perceived effort between the two bikes. i.e., the gym bike said I was doing about 50w more than my bike on a 20 minute effort. I think it's like weighing yourself on different scales. It's better to stick to one and record progress on that rather than compare over different systems. One of my friends mentioned that he had increased his FTP on a turbo by 50w and when I asked him how, he said he'd changed the USB settings! I also have a another friend who should be able to win the tour based on his power to weight ratio showing on his system.

That said, mine is consistent with itself and I can see what works and what doesn't. I'm currently doing the GCN workouts on YouTube and I think they are great. I can try different things and see what gets the best results. I do that in the week, and then two long slow, base training rides at the weekend.

Tonight I've got to workout a training plan for this years tours.

Gearoidmuar
Posts: 2167
Joined: 29 Sep 2007, 7:35pm
Location: Cork, Ireland. Corcaigh, Éire má tá Gaeilge agat.

Re: Scientists say high cadence is inefficient

Postby Gearoidmuar » 19 Feb 2019, 5:58pm

From what I remember, Stephen Roche used to timetrial at 105 rpm. Delgado was slower in cadence, something like 95.

mattsccm
Posts: 2710
Joined: 28 Nov 2009, 9:44pm

Re: Scientists say high cadence is inefficient

Postby mattsccm » 19 Feb 2019, 8:47pm

Is this not just another step in attempting to understand the body rather than a definitive answer? After all fashions in this respect have changed many times over the years.
The fixed wheel rider has both approaches. Honking like a good 'in on the climbs and spinning madly on the way down.
Doubt its the end of the subject.

Marcus Aurelius
Posts: 413
Joined: 1 Feb 2018, 10:20am

Re: Scientists say high cadence is inefficient

Postby Marcus Aurelius » 20 Feb 2019, 5:13am

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,
Marcus Aurelius wrote:
ianrobo wrote:I wonder though about high cadence as really it is used for climbing and on the flat Froome and others do have cadences in the 70’s pushing higher gears


High force lower cadence pedalling forces the muscles to feed mostly on Glycogen / Carbs, and high force high Cadence pedalling forces the muscles to feed mostly from fat, so a rider with a low body fat percentage can’t afford to do high force High cadence pedalling for very long, and that’s why the skinny pros do it the way they do it.

Seems contrary to what you are saying?
https://www.polar.com/blog/running-hear ... breakdown/
"The aerobic system
The aerobic system (50–70% of your maximum heart rate) uses fat to create energy. It’s a slow system, but it doesn’t create lactic acid, so you can stay there for a long time. “This is the system you’re using during your easy runs,” Lakritz says.

The lactic threshold system
The lactic threshold system (70–80% of your max heart rate) is a combination of the aerobic and anaerobic systems and uses a combination of fat and carbohydrates to create energy. When training using this system, the body needs energy faster, so it uses carbs,” Lakritz explains. “The way the body uses carbs to create energy is much faster. The problem is that when the body uses carbs to create energy, it causes a byproduct called lactic acid to form.” In the lactic threshold system, the body can clear this byproduct as fast as it’s made – think tempo running.

The anaerobic system
The anaerobic system (80–95% of your max) uses mostly carbs. This is high-intensity running, so energy is needed quickly. “The body uses carbs so fast it can’t clear lactic acid fast enough, and the body goes fast, but only for short periods before it needs to slow down to clear the lactic acid,” Lakritz says. “This is used for speed training, such as interval running.”


Running isn’t cycling, different muscles used in different ways, and at different intensity. Cycling specific experiments have found the paradox in conventional understanding, and found an explanation.

Marcus Aurelius
Posts: 413
Joined: 1 Feb 2018, 10:20am

Re: Scientists say high cadence is inefficient

Postby Marcus Aurelius » 20 Feb 2019, 5:47am

Gearoidmuar wrote:From what I remember, Stephen Roche used to timetrial at 105 rpm. Delgado was slower in cadence, something like 95.


It’s all things relative though.

This is a friend of mine’s TT effort the other day.

Image

I’d describe him as a competent racer, and his idea of high cadence high force riding is up at 145 rpms, lower cadence high force is at 90 rpms.

Image

This was a typical stage type performance he put in the other day.

Again all things relative.

Image

This is a view of his stats over the time / distance / elevation, showing where and when his force / Cadence approach varied.

User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 10608
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: Scientists say high cadence is inefficient

Postby NATURAL ANKLING » 20 Feb 2019, 10:47am

Hi,
Clearly fantasy, average 300 what for power over 100 miles?
Graph lack units to those figures?
A lot of complete stops in speed?
If You Don't Try You Don't Do.....Don't Do You Don't Get...I'm Still Trying....Well Very..
You'll Find Me At The Top Of A Hill...............Somewhere...After Dark..

Marcus Aurelius
Posts: 413
Joined: 1 Feb 2018, 10:20am

Re: Scientists say high cadence is inefficient

Postby Marcus Aurelius » 20 Feb 2019, 2:28pm

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,
Clearly fantasy, average 300 what for power over 100 miles?
Graph lack units to those figures?
A lot of complete stops in speed?


Yeah, total fantasy. You clearly know your stuff :lol:

Image

Say hello to my little friend. For avoidance of doubt, those were his plots.

User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 10608
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: Scientists say high cadence is inefficient

Postby NATURAL ANKLING » 20 Feb 2019, 3:00pm

Hi,
Sorry I should be more careful of my mouth :oops:
I did not realise you were friends were world class :)

On running I do not agree, I posted a link on another post IIRC that said that if you cant raise your heart rate the same as another comparing running and cycling then you aren't as established in the lower.

But back on energy burn, high force high cadence will raise you heart rate in to anaerobic level which is then finite due to lactic acid and the total carb store in your blood and liver.

On Froome I am sure that he keeps within his very near too aerobic so he can carry on cycling for several hours.
He monitors his carb intake per hill like Boardman watched his red blood cell count daily :)
Obviously training a certain way helps with fat burn reliance, this is still controversial, no doubt your friend has the top info on that.
We mortals can only feel what already happened.
If You Don't Try You Don't Do.....Don't Do You Don't Get...I'm Still Trying....Well Very..
You'll Find Me At The Top Of A Hill...............Somewhere...After Dark..