Here is a bit of a turn around for me. I have well subscribed to the belief that a higher cadence will use less energy over the same distance, based on the teachings of Amy Taylor....and had no reason to doubt this....till today.

I came across this article, http://www2.bsn.com/cycling/articles/cadence.html
It is a little old, and may have been superseded but it sure makes for some interesting reading surrounding where the most efficient cycling cadence actually is. In the end it basically agrees that there'll be less lactic acid build up using a slightly higher cadence, but it kind of makes me think that in some cases perhaps slower may be better....mind you, that sort of suits me too.

When you look at it many of the top cyclists often chose to run bigger gears at a lower cadence than what would supposedly be recommended, but are they wrong to do so? I think you'd be hard pressed to call the preferred cycling style of a champion wrong, after all, they are the champ.

Enjoy.

Strange thing is I actually found this when I was looking for information on the purpose of doing sprint reps - still looking for the answer on that.

I agree with Thingone. The cycling commentators talk about

"Big Diesel engines" being the guys who have a lot of power and can just put it into a big gear and grind all day, as opposed to the climbers (japanese sports petrol engines) who tend to rev high and hard for shorter periods of time.

Different strokes for different folks. The bigger guys appear better off grinding, the smaller guys appear better off spinning.

Actually I guess putting Lance and Gordy side by side in a TT would show this exactly. Lance is very much into the high cadence, pointy toes approach and Gordy seems to run bigger gears, lower cadence and flatter footed.

I've never considered the toey versus flat footed thing before, it just occurred to me then and may not be related at all to the cadence.

I also agree.....different strokes for different folks.

I'm no expert and this is just from personal experience rather than any coaching guru.

I find that spinning stresses my lungs whereas grinding stresses my legs. So, if I have sore legs I spin but if I am gasping for air I grind.

If I am just cruising along with a good tailwind or in a big bunch (ie not putting out much power) I slow the cadence as I find it allows me to recover quicker.

Derryn Hinch wrote:I'm no expert and this is just from personal experience rather than any coaching guru.

I find that spinning stresses my lungs whereas grinding stresses my legs. So, if I have sore legs I spin but if I am gasping for air I grind.

If I am just cruising along with a good tailwind or in a big bunch (ie not putting out much power) I slow the cadence as I find it allows me to recover quicker.

Similar to my experiences (although I'm the opposite in a big bunch or tailwind and will spin there to save my legs for later). My approach is to know where you are strongest under given conditions and obviously play to your strengths, but train every area so you always have options and can minimise your weaknesses or even turn them in to another strength in your bag of tricks.

It's whatever works for you. Riders tend to use higher cadences as they gain experience but some riders do self select with Gordy rolling the big dogs and Armstrong using a high cadence. Efficiency is higher on low cadences but this doesn't equal more power at a given effort.

One of my quicker U17s keeps getting told his seat is too low but at high cadence on restricted gears his toes drop down and this pushes the knee forward. On his road bike the position and knee bend looks appropriate and his track bike saddle is 1cm higher but at 140rpm the toes drop and this gives the impression that his saddle is too low.

nzmatto wrote:Here is a bit of a turn around for me. I have well subscribed to the belief that a higher cadence will use less energy over the same distance, based on the teachings of Amy Taylor....and had no reason to doubt this....till today.

I came across this article, http://www2.bsn.com/cycling/articles/cadence.html

Um. Did you actually read that fully matto? What I took from reading that is that if you are doing long distance cycling, then the high cadence (around 90ish rpm) is the way to go because it uses predominantly slow twitch muscle fibers which mean you can keep going aerobically and not get as fatigued. Cycling at a lower cadence might be more efficient, but if the power output requires loading the fast twitch muscle fibers the body might not be able to sustain the exercise for as long as the higher cadence.

The article even comments on the different cadences for different people

individual differences in percentage of slow- and fast-twitch fibers may help to explain why some individuals prefer different cadence

Trail wrote:

nzmatto wrote:Here is a bit of a turn around for me. I have well subscribed to the belief that a higher cadence will use less energy over the same distance, based on the teachings of Amy Taylor....and had no reason to doubt this....till today.

I came across this article, http://www2.bsn.com/cycling/articles/cadence.html

Um. Did you actually read that fully matto? What I took from reading that is that if you are doing long distance cycling, then the high cadence (around 90ish rpm) is the way to go because it uses predominantly slow twitch muscle fibers which mean you can keep going aerobically and not get as fatigued. Cycling at a lower cadence might be more efficient, but if the power output requires loading the fast twitch muscle fibers the body might not be able to sustain the exercise for as long as the higher cadence.

The article even comments on the different cadences for different people

individual differences in percentage of slow- and fast-twitch fibers may help to explain why some individuals prefer different cadence

Yeah I did read it through to the end. I was trying to draw on the earlier parts of the article showing that it actually takes less energy to ride at the same speed in a lower cadence over a given distance, which is different to what I had learned in the past. It does make sense though. cars have higher gears now than they did in the 1970's partly cause there is more power in the engines, but also because they are more efficient at lower RPM's (within limits of course).
I do agree that over an endurance ride a rider will be less fatigued at a slightly higher RPM, and it will normally work out faster too. I have tested this theory myself over the Aka's loop and using lower gears, spinning more see's me coming home feeling better and I get there faster.

It was really good reading more about the slow and fast twitch fibers too, and how fast twitch will come into play at very high cadences, yet it appears when using the fast twitch fibers you will have less power available on a per stroke basis. Learning learning, learning.....i love learning. NB I am not (at all) saying Amy T was wrong, just saying it is interesting to see a different angle, and trust me Amy's climbing techniques are brilliant!!! spin spin spin!!!

Amy's study had no control group so begs the question: better than what?

The age old rule of thumb is to ride small gears to save the legs for the key moments of the race or ride where you unleash the big dogs. For Jens it's as the flag drops, for Contador it's 5-8km to go uphill and Cav it's when the finish flag comes into sight.

Yeh, I agree with Ferg. On the flat I used to grind out the big gears, but in training I started doing high cadence (95-100) on the flat, and noticed a significant improvement in my power when it came to doing sprints at the end of a long flat ride. If I was riding the flat with low cadence and then did my sprints, my legs would feel noticeably more fatigued.

High cadence usually gets me puffing, but definately leaves more in the legs for the end of the race.

Did a ride to Sumner and back last night at really high cadence (100-107), and when I hit Murray Ainsley on the way back I didn't drop below 25kph which is something I normally can't do very often. Overall Avg speed was just over 35kph, so I wasn't out for a cruise.

I'm sold on this concept.

nzmatto...youv'e just been added to my Xmas card list! you compared me to Lance!

Gordio wrote:nzmatto...youv'e just been added to my Xmas card list! you compared me to Lance!

Mate he's nothing compared to you. I don't see his name on the NZ World Road title 5x.

I think it was Eddy Merckx when asked should you spin the small gears or grind the big gears replied "Why don't you just spin the big gears"
I wish !!

People focus too much on an ideal cadence. Power is a product of torque and cadence. Torque is how hard you push on the pedals.
Most people have a preferred torque band and a preferred cadence band.
So puddling along at 200w is low torque and low cadence. As you put more effort out you raise both torque and cadence. And then when you sprint you give it max torque and max cadence.

If riders had one ideal cadence we would see sprints with guys bending crank arms as they put huge torque in to get 1500w+ at 95rpm. But we see 130rpm+ even for club sprinters...

forcing yourself to spin 95-105rpm when you are going easy means practising putting out no force (aka twiddling). Better to allow the body to operate in a wide range and select the cadence/torque combination that best suits the power you're asking it for.