Power and Cadence
Folks, I posted this early in the general discussion area and Coach Rich asked me to repost this in the power forum. There have been a few responses already that can be read in the general discussion area.
You know all that business about riding smooth, particularly for IM distance events, keeping that variability index nice and low? Well, here is the question: Sometimes, in order to keep close to my power goal for a ride I need to drop my cadence down below 80, not a lot necessarily (unless it is a very, very steep hill), but normally I try to ride with a cadence in the range of 82-90. I know the response could be, well, get a different cassette or ride with a compact and not a 53/39. But is the whole idea of riding with a relatively high cadence a bit of a passe concept with the adoption of a power meter? In other words does riding smooth ultimately trump cadence? I mean, if I have to really speed up my cadence in order to keep it in some magic window, but that spikes my power or drops it (as I simultaneously change gears), then it seems that the power is more important here. Thoughts?
Comments
My thoughts:
We can certainly discuss the physiology component of higher vs lower cadence. In general, a lower cadence engages the muscles more which is presumably more taxing in that regard than a higher cadence. In general, a higher cadence raises the heart rate which is presumably more taxing in that regard than a lower cadence.
The point I want to make is there is a happy medium that's going to be highly individualistic. A rider should chose a cadence that works for them for that ride as all rides are not created equally.
I 100% agree that cadence in the run is very important but matching it up with your bike cadence is not. It should also be noted that most triathletes run with a cadence in the 80's. Very few run with what I consider a more efficient 90+ cadence.
I would also like to get Rich and Patrick's thoughts on cadence for the different tri distances as they have looked at thousands of power files. I remember reading something from Brian Stover in which he saw (almost universally) that his athletes rode higher cadences the shorter the race - sprint>oly>HIM>IM - which makes sense.
Hi - thank you for starting this thread. I'm not experienced or smart enough to add anything of value to the discussion, but I'm typically a low cadence/bigger ring masher and always feel somewhat guilty/bad about it, so I'm very interested in this discussion. Carry on!
The physiological cost i.e. equals mashing or very high cadence outside your sweet spot will effect you on the run. The muscle fibers you recruit for biking , the ones that can go for hours, want to be used verses going to slow/ mashing or to fast as that will wear you out faster. Sure a watt is a watt as read by the PM but the cost of that watt is what should be of a concern. We all get the concept that you climb a hill and your watts will vary but sooner or later you got to get up the hill or go so slow you fall off the bike cause you don't have momentum. That is why R says to go compact and more gears is better gears.
Just want to pick up on what Bob had to say -- One of the things I appreciate most about RnP is that with EN there is a lot of challenging of traditional triathlon dogma using science and math. I am not saying that the high cadence issue is dogma in the sense that it is false; but I am saying that it is a concept we tend to think is true because the idea is repeated over and over in much of the cycling and triathlon literature, and from many coaches. I read an article in one of the tri magazines during the 2012 season that Mirinda Carfrae's coach Matt Steinmetz was specifically working with Rinny on raising her average cadence into the 80's (low 80's from what I recall). She is a phenomenal runner as we all know. Lance Armstrong is famous for high cadence riding, but not all top pro cyclists subscribe to that technique. It's sometimes hard to get that perfect gear when the terrain changes--sometimes a gear feels too hard and the next one feels too easy (requiring a cadence that feels uncomfortable or unnatural to maintain a given power output to echo Bob). So, maybe it is okay to open up the idea of what we define as ideal cadence a bit, liberalize it if you will, so that in the sum of things power output stays smooth. In other words we would probably all agree that 120 rpms might be too high and 50 rpms might be too low, but is 82 really worse than 87 or 90? Is 79 really worse than 82? Are there trade offs when the primary goal is smoothness? Is there a hierarchy that says smoothness first, comfort second, then ideally, if possible keep cadence in the 82-90 range? Where is the science to back up what we believe to be the case?
Kenneth,
Here's the article you referenced: http://triathlon.competitor.com/201...inda_63351
That article left me scratching my head when I first read it because I do think of Steinmetz as a tri bike guru and his assertions regarding Carfrae and cadence bordered on Beginner Triathlete Mentor Program novice coaching bullshit. It was a kneejerk reaction to "I can't beat Chrissie Wellington" so something must need fixing. News to Mirinda... nobody was going to beat Chrissie Wellington. Not you, not Cave, not Dibens, not Steffan, etc. You were the second best female triathlete on the planet. Switching bikes and bike fit were probably a good thing. Messing with your cadence was not and that was proven this past year. Carfrae could have ruled women's triathlon this year with Wellington on hiatus. Instead, she took a huge step back. Her experiment with cadence and Steinmetz as her coach was a failure, IMO.
Thread hijack over.
Kenneth, fair enough but she also had less than stellar performances at some other events like IMFL and IM Melbourne. Still podiums if I'm not mistaken but was soundly beaten. Like I said, she should have ruled this year and she didn't.
The only expert analysis is my own uneducated opinion.
I'd say power trumps cadence - especially because there are no hard and fast, yet accurate rules on cadence. Sure, 85-90 is a good place to start - but depending on the rider, putting out 215W @ a cadence of 95 may be more taxing than putting out the same power @ a cadence of 85. Yes, power is power and watts are watts - but that ignores some aspect of individual physiology and whether one persons muscle makeup is more conducive to higher or lower cadence. But, there's a limit to that, as Al mentioned in his first point.
I've read things about optimal cadence of 85-90 and for me having to lower my cadence by 10-20rpm would de very difficult and way more taxing on the muscles and joints vs my preferred 95-105.
Both cadences feel the most confortable for the work being done.
I have no idea why.
Last season I began experimenting with this myself. Prior to 2012 I never had a power meter so my objective metrics weren't as precise as they were for 2012. I learned quickly that my "sweet spot" for cadence, highest power and optimal percieved exertion brought my cadence down to 83-85 (during my IM before this I avg. 91 cadence). This concerned me at first as my natural running cadence is 93 and "most' of the literature says you can't spin at 83 and expect to run 26.2 at 93.
So I experimented with a lot of transtition runs. I found that I was able to begin feeling more comfertable running within 10-15 minutes when my cycling cadence was close to my running cadence. When I dropped down to 83 on the bike it took 30-40 minutes on the run before it began to feel comfertable. After these "uncomfertable" early miles on the run my legs felt very similar in both scenarios. This was invaluable for me when it came to race execution. I decided to race with the lower cadence simply because I was faster on the bike with it (83-85). I had PR rides and runs at the HIM and IM distances with this strategy.
The most important piece was that I tested what was ideal for my body, so I was comfertable with being "uncomfertable" for the first several miles and knew my running legs would come around and they did allowing me to execute well.
This is interesting - the difference in RPE during a run after cycling and how long it takes to feel right again.
What I've done in the past in some events is to cycle normally at my normal feeling cadence (often around 83-85), but then towards the end, change gears to get the cadence up a bit to something like 95-100. My thinking was that it would help increase blood flow, and hasten activation of the posterior chain, which is used for running and parts of which go into sleep mode when cycling. Not sure if that is a valid theory or not - but it seems to work for me.
Yup at IMFL this year 15 mins. before T2 I bumped my cadence up to 95-100 (from 85). and then during the last 3-4 mins I maintained this cadence and got out of the aero position to open up my torso and hips, alternating between sitting upright and standing. I was spinning, stretching and becasuse I'd already shifted gears to the marathon in my mind it was like I was already running while still on my bike. This strategy worked well for me. After mile 5 on the marathon my running legs came back to me fully, about 35 mins in, exactly as it did with my training simulations
Something to keep in mind is that my trainiing simulated the demands of this course. IMFL is flat and that's what my training simulated staying in the TT position for 5-6 hours on flat terrain. Next year I'm racing IMCanada which is supposed to be a hilly course (new location so it's not fully known). As I begin my last 12 week build I'll simulate that terrain and find my "sweet spot" cadence for that terrain. I truly believe that this will change slightly depending on the course and personally I've found that the more I can simulate race conditions in training the better I can execute and set myself up for a great day of racing.
IOW I believe the answer to this discussion is not black and white. It will change as the course changes, your training changes and as your fitness changes. The more Type 2A muscle fibers we can recruit the better as they begin to take on Tyoe 1 qualities, which help us as endurance athletes. My invitation is to play with finding your "sweet spot" to maximize this. Hope this helps!
Awesome Kenneth! I will be able to give you some course info too once the snow in Whistler clears. I live in West Vancouver which's a short 75 minute drive to Whistler. I'll be doing some training and my RR's on the course. So I'll be able to dissect the map elevations with more specificity for the bike and run. Whistler's one of my favorite places in the whole world, I grew up Snowboarding there, it's an awesome place! Please send the map my ride link. Look forward to meeting you!
I'm going to jump onto this thread....I looked here for the answer to something other than the discussion in the thread has addressed specifically but this has been an excellent discussion and I'm sure this group could address my fundamental question.
I have always been, like Sukhi, a higher cadence rider...which I think came from my running background...however as with Sukhi I got a powermeter last year and started to watch, learn, and question....
So specifically now when doing FTP (&r even MAXVO2 work...)...I can hit the power number in one gear @ 90-95rpm or another gear @80-85 rpm....and I can complete the sets either way...in fact in workouts I will do both...(in Max VO2 sets I can hit target ..say 280...in one gear at 110-115 rpm...or in another @ 95)....
so yes I have done the "work" but how you accomplish the wear (gear/cadence combination) has a different muscular adaptions/physiological impact ...Yes or No?
...and if Yes...is there a way to determine which you would benefit most from?
I continue to do both...but think I need to do more high rpm work in the MAX VO2 workouts....and more of the lower rpm work in the FTP sets...
Thoughts/feedback?
@Joseph, it would be great to know at what cadence you feel more comfertable at or easier to hold power? RPE is not an objective measure, but can be very reliable when using objective metrics to validate it with training.
Also, I'd consider the course you're racing. If it's hilly and you know you're going to be doing some grinding I'd definitely throw some lower cadence work in there. If you're racing IMFL or AZ where the course's are much flatter the lower cadence work may not be as important. However, if your RPE is lower with a specific cadence it may be good to maximize that on a flatter course, b/c in the end you'll likley put out higher power numbers, which would = faster bike split.
Lots to consider, again keep asking the question, "how can I recruit more Type 2A Muscle fibers". From the perspective of an exercise physiologist, that's what I look at. Yet the composition of all our bodies are slightly different and RPE can give us clues to those differences.
Thanks for raising that consideration Sukhi...and think I need to pay more attention to this as the Saturday rides get to be longer and especially RPE in Z3....right now...with the length of the sets being relatively short 10-15 min (occasionally 20) and not much of it in aero postion...it doesn't make too much difference (though I neeed to pay attention and think about it...)....
Because I'm doing an early season IM (TX)...I'm trying to extend my Saturday rides beginning this month....and I will experiment with the cadence and pay close attention to RPE (and now that I think of it HR) to see how they are reflected in the extended Z3 time ...which I will hopefull be spending in Aero (at least start spending more time there)...........
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/cycling/quadrant-analysis.aspx