Tri Talk HomepageTri Talk EventsTri Talk ForumsBlogsTri Talk TrainingTri TradeTriPlayerWikiTeam Tri Talk
Cadence
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TriTalk.co.uk Forum Index -> Training
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Buzz_




Joined: 19 May 2007
Posts: 400

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:55 pm    Post subject: Re: Cadence Reply with quote

tuckandgo wrote:
If you wanted to change that, it would change with training. That is exactly what is used to be like for me. Now I just keep churning along.

I get that you can train yourself to be comfortable at a different cadence, just not sure why a low cadence would be desirable? If, as eJc says, 90 is roughly the most mechanically efficient, then why train to use 70?

I'm sure I could improve my low cadence efficiency by smoothing out the pedal stroke, but that is effectively what riding at a higher cadence is achieving for me anyway. And then I can maintain a similar high turn-over on the run.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
explorerJC




Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 15880
Location: Farthingstone

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TRO Saracen wrote:
explorerJC wrote:
TRO Saracen wrote:
stemming from the sudden impact on the quad as your contact with the ground is much harder.

.


why?



You are likely to be running faster and also the drop in height from the previous landing point: much more momentum and force as your foot hits terra firma the stresses are higher - steep hill it is almost a breaking effect rather than accelerating off to control speed - watch your quad when running downhill having to absorb this.

It's probably minimised with great technique, light Lange-esque footfall off a high cadence etc but most of us live in the real world and smash our quads up when we run down hill. I certainly do *remembers Boston marathon 2013*


it is minimised with appropriate form....but was unaware that the real world disabled anyone from learning to run well...
_________________
www.appliedtri.co.uk Tri and Du coaching

www.naturalrunningform.co.uk Natural Running Form Coach

2018 Training Camps http://www.appliedtri.co.uk/training-camps/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
tuckandgo




Joined: 03 Sep 2012
Posts: 422

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:06 pm    Post subject: Re: Cadence Reply with quote

Buzz_ wrote:
tuckandgo wrote:
If you wanted to change that, it would change with training. That is exactly what is used to be like for me. Now I just keep churning along.

I get that you can train yourself to be comfortable at a different cadence, just not sure why a low cadence would be desirable?


It uses less energy for the same power output. (is that what is meant by mechanically efficient?). Your HR will be lower. That is saving more for the run

Sutton swears by it.
As do a lot of the top UK longer distance time trialists (we are not trying to do a '25' as fast as possible in a long distance triathlon).
That's good enough for me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mungo




Joined: 29 Sep 2016
Posts: 391
Location: Preston

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have just put the new Compact Dura ace chainset on my Tt bike...
I'm a spinner!
Going OK on it, that said most of my rear blocks are 11-23.
_________________
Keep Triing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
explorerJC




Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 15880
Location: Farthingstone

PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:32 am    Post subject: Re: Cadence Reply with quote

tuckandgo wrote:
Buzz_ wrote:
tuckandgo wrote:
If you wanted to change that, it would change with training. That is exactly what is used to be like for me. Now I just keep churning along.

I get that you can train yourself to be comfortable at a different cadence, just not sure why a low cadence would be desirable?


It uses less energy for the same power output. (is that what is meant by mechanically efficient?). Your HR will be lower. That is saving more for the run

Sutton swears by it.
As do a lot of the top UK longer distance time trialists (we are not trying to do a '25' as fast as possible in a long distance triathlon).
That's good enough for me.


mechanically efficient is about the equipment, biomechanically efficient is about the levers and set up for them etc, so in both cases there will be some variation..as for the science, you use less energy for the cadence you have trained to use most efficiently..
_________________
www.appliedtri.co.uk Tri and Du coaching

www.naturalrunningform.co.uk Natural Running Form Coach

2018 Training Camps http://www.appliedtri.co.uk/training-camps/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mungo




Joined: 29 Sep 2016
Posts: 391
Location: Preston

PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As Jc says what ever works for you, I do lots of spinning and high cadence watt bike work, 95 rpm feels natural for me.
Pushing a big gear at 70 rpm feels more like a leg weights session than cycling.
Pretty sure it would hurt my slowly improving run speed in a race.
_________________
Keep Triing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
explorerJC




Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 15880
Location: Farthingstone

PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mungo wrote:
As Jc says what ever works for you, I do lots of spinning and high cadence watt bike work, 95 rpm feels natural for me.
Pushing a big gear at 70 rpm feels more like a leg weights session than cycling.
Pretty sure it would hurt my slowly improving run speed in a race.


almost...it's not so much what works for you, it's more what you work it to..
_________________
www.appliedtri.co.uk Tri and Du coaching

www.naturalrunningform.co.uk Natural Running Form Coach

2018 Training Camps http://www.appliedtri.co.uk/training-camps/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mungo




Joined: 29 Sep 2016
Posts: 391
Location: Preston

PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JC
I get that, I am doing some min on min off heavy cadence work which....
which makes my granny gear easier to pedal.
As long as I get near 2:30 70.3 and 5:45 full distance bike splits what would it matter?

You said before" there is no such thing as a natural cadence"
Do you mean there is a preferred cadence?
_________________
Keep Triing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
explorerJC




Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 15880
Location: Farthingstone

PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mungo wrote:
JC
I get that, I am doing some min on min off heavy cadence work which....
which makes my granny gear easier to pedal.
As long as I get near 2:30 70.3 and 5:45 full distance bike splits what would it matter?

You said before" there is no such thing as a natural cadence"
Do you mean there is a preferred cadence?


what matters is how much substrate you have remaining for the run...

Yes, there is a preferred cadence. However, this isn't necessarily optimal cadence...
_________________
www.appliedtri.co.uk Tri and Du coaching

www.naturalrunningform.co.uk Natural Running Form Coach

2018 Training Camps http://www.appliedtri.co.uk/training-camps/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Magnacarter




Joined: 07 Jul 2010
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess we're all unique physiologically.

My last Outlaw was at 98rpm, was a bike leg pb, and I ran well off the bike (also a run pb).... and that feels like a completely natural cadence for me nowadays.... if I lookback over my iron distance races (and indeed otyer distances too), I have consistently increased my cadence

I did start, when I first got on back on a bike in my mid 40's with a cadence around 85, but then intentionally worked on lifting it, successfully... so yes, it has been an intentional process.

The same for me as someone said above, a low cadence feels like a weight session, and I find myself with a short period to reducing performance. I am sure that over time, this has improved somewhat, but it still feels 'wrong'.

I am very light in build (63kg at 5'6"), and lean, and I wonder if this plays a part... I'm not what would be called muscular, and have never considered myself strong, so perhaps physiolgocally suited to performance through leg speed, not just leg power alone.

I'm no expert, just an interested observer.... fascinating subject though...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
explorerJC




Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 15880
Location: Farthingstone

PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Magnacarter wrote:
I guess we're all unique physiologically.

My last Outlaw was at 98rpm, was a bike leg pb, and I ran well off the bike (also a run pb).... and that feels like a completely natural cadence for me nowadays.... if I lookback over my iron distance races (and indeed otyer distances too), I have consistently increased my cadence

I did start, when I first got on back on a bike in my mid 40's with a cadence around 85, but then intentionally worked on lifting it, successfully... so yes, it has been an intentional process.

The same for me as someone said above, a low cadence feels like a weight session, and I find myself with a short period to reducing performance. I am sure that over time, this has improved somewhat, but it still feels 'wrong'.

I am very light in build (63kg at 5'6"), and lean, and I wonder if this plays a part... I'm not what would be called muscular, and have never considered myself strong, so perhaps physiolgocally suited to performance through leg speed, not just leg power alone.

I'm no expert, just an interested observer.... fascinating subject though...


It is anecdotal, but higher cadences rely on efficient physiology and lower ones muscular strength....

I would point out that researchers recommend optimal mechanical efficiency at around 90...

And, just for fun, I will repeat that if you train to a certain cadence it may feel 'natural' but is in fact learned behaviour
_________________
www.appliedtri.co.uk Tri and Du coaching

www.naturalrunningform.co.uk Natural Running Form Coach

2018 Training Camps http://www.appliedtri.co.uk/training-camps/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Buzz_




Joined: 19 May 2007
Posts: 400

PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:11 pm    Post subject: Re: Cadence Reply with quote

tuckandgo wrote:
Buzz_ wrote:
tuckandgo wrote:
If you wanted to change that, it would change with training. That is exactly what is used to be like for me. Now I just keep churning along.

I get that you can train yourself to be comfortable at a different cadence, just not sure why a low cadence would be desirable?


It uses less energy for the same power output. (is that what is meant by mechanically efficient?). Your HR will be lower. That is saving more for the run

As someone else mentioned, I have aerobic fitness to burn, leg strength is what gives out first. Low cadence trashes my legs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tuckandgo




Joined: 03 Sep 2012
Posts: 422

PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:05 pm    Post subject: Re: Cadence Reply with quote

Buzz_ wrote:
tuckandgo wrote:
Buzz_ wrote:
tuckandgo wrote:
If you wanted to change that, it would change with training. That is exactly what is used to be like for me. Now I just keep churning along.

I get that you can train yourself to be comfortable at a different cadence, just not sure why a low cadence would be desirable?


It uses less energy for the same power output. (is that what is meant by mechanically efficient?). Your HR will be lower. That is saving more for the run

As someone else mentioned, I have aerobic fitness to burn, leg strength is what gives out first. Low cadence trashes my legs.


That's because you are trained that way.

I'm not saying everyone should switch to low cadence - that's an individual choice - but saying that your legs get tired/you have aerobic fitness to burn/you like spinning/whatever is because that is how you are trained.

So low cadence (or a shift to high if you use low) requires training for several months before making any evaluation as to whether it works for 'you'.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PhilleusPhogg




Joined: 11 May 2015
Posts: 299

PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Have been reading this thread with interest, since I'm a definite 'spinner' and find muscular strength/endurance is definitely the limiting factor for me on longer rides. This is something I'd like to address.

So whilst on the Wattbike at work yesterday I decided to finally pay attention to the PES and Polar View at different cadences and powers to see what happened. Here's what I saw:

When I am 'spinning' in zone 2 at 95-100rpm, my pedal stroke is horrifically inefficient. This ties in with my experiences out riding, since even on an easy ride in zone 2 I will gradually see a degradation in 'easy' power after a couple of hours.

When I was at 110% FTP in the intervals (riding at my preferred 100-105rpm) I'm actually a lot more efficient, which is probably not so surprising.

When I tried zone 2 at 80-85rpm my PES was actually much better. I found it easy to concentrate on engaging the core and glutes better and it felt smooth.

So I think I might try a winter of less 'easy spinning' and concentrate more on technique at lower intensities. From there I will see if I find slightly lower cadences at higher power become more comfortable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mattsurf




Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Posts: 641
Location: Zug, Switzerland

PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

explorerJC wrote:


It is anecdotal, but higher cadences rely on efficient physiology and lower ones muscular strength....

I would point out that researchers recommend optimal mechanical efficiency at around 90...

And, just for fun, I will repeat that if you train to a certain cadence it may feel 'natural' but is in fact learned behaviour


I read Brett Sutton's article on Cadence with interest. Last winter I made a concerted effort to increase my cadence to 90rpm, but over last season I have dialled it back a little to around 85rmp on average. Last season I rode better than ever before, but that may be because running injuries meant that I spent more time on the bike.

Whenever I do an ftp test (20 minute version) my cadence is around 95, maybe I should have a look at my ftp at a lower cadence but pretty sure it will be lower

However, when I look at my power vs heart rate, I notice that for a given power (around 220w), my HR is slightly lower at 80rpm than 90rpm, however, if I drop my cadence to 70rpm my quads begin to ache pretty quickly.

My conculsion is that an important factor is torque; power = torque * angular velocity (ie cadence). If I am riding at 170W @ 70rpm, this is the same torque as riding at 220W @ 90rpm, so it may make sense for a rider at 17mph average to cycle at 70 rpm while a rider at 22mph will be a 90rpm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TriTalk.co.uk Forum Index -> Training All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3
  Share
 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum





Home | About TT | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions | Advertising | Contact TT
Copyright ©2003-2015 TriTalk®.co.uk. All rights reserved.