Biking Cadence : high or low ?
This morning will racing on Zwift I jumped around people to look at their stats and realized that most of people are in 85-95RPM cadence. I never paid attention to my cadence even in the run. I went back to my last year rides and most of them (98,73%) are in the 65-67RPM range.
So in the quest to always get better, I start wondering if I was doing right, my guess is no since most people are in the 85-95. I am also wondering if that could be a reason why my bike speed, VI, IF are so awful on race day.
What are the pro and cons from a triathlete perspective of having a high vs low bike cadence ??
Thanks
So in the quest to always get better, I start wondering if I was doing right, my guess is no since most people are in the 85-95. I am also wondering if that could be a reason why my bike speed, VI, IF are so awful on race day.
What are the pro and cons from a triathlete perspective of having a high vs low bike cadence ??
Thanks
Tagged:
0
Comments
You're doing the same amount of work(watts stay the same) but each pedal stroke is easier. Over 3-6 hours, that adds up to less tired legs.
A somewhat flawed analogy from weight lifting. On a bench press, I can maybe lift 70kg 4 times, and then fail the fifth try. But if I try 35 kg, I could do that maybe 20-25 times before I get tired. The physics would say I did more work using the lighter weight with more reps. Same thing with cadence.
Very important for you to understand, to achieve the same speed @85 rpm, as you get @65,you'll need to use an easier gear ("lighter weight"). Don't try to pedal 85 rpm with the same gear you use at 65.
Everyone has a cadence that works best for them. The large majority of successful triathletes average 80-95 in a race. Me, I'm about 82-84 in an IM, 89-92 in an Olympic. YMMV.
Cadence only matters if it impacts your ability to run off the bike. And for you FP it indeed may be impacting the run
What was your average cadence at the major races? For comparison, at IMLOU mine was 89. I did an OLY in June and spun at 99. But that's me
According to lab work, the cadence with the lowest aerobic cost is usually around 60 - 65 rpm, which suggests there is some support for a lower cadence (than 90). That said, as @Paul Curtin points out, what is really important is how it might impact on your run.
Plenty of IM Pros have a cadence below 80 at Kona, so I think that suggests cadence is pretty much an individual thing.
When I joined EN and I started to drink the Cool Aid, I pushed my cadence up to the 90 - 95 range, which was where he then current thinking was.
Now, I don't even have it displayed on my head unit. The last major race I did I averaged 85.
At at the end it seems to be a personal choice. You can even see it in the pro peloton that some guys like Froome spin at high cadence vs Quintana who goes on lower cadence.
An easy way to test for you would be to do three 20 min rides on the same course (Zwift will be ideal for this) at the same wattage output (what you think would be your race day target) at 70, 80, and 90 RPM. You can analyze your HR, TSS, speed, and overall perceived effort and decide if a change in cadence maybe valuable or not.
http://trisutto.com/low-cadence-triathlon/
I pulled this key section out of that post:
" In fact, most if not all tests showed that subjects who were not trained produced more power and sustainable speed at cadences between 60 ... and 70 cadence. Any higher and the efficiency was lost. I’ve read studies from USA, Australia , England , and even France, and all come with the same conclusion, that over 70 cadence the subjects watt to power endurance was significantly less than the under 70 cadence group. The same riders under the same conditions lost as much as 10% of their vital scores.
In all cases heart rate began to climb at the various cadence levels, and once the riding novices were asked to hold 100 cadence, not only did their performance diminish greatly, but also their heart rate rose to levels approaching 15% below max for the entire tests"
I highlighted the key thing - he's talking about untrained, novice cyclists. That may apply to some beginning triathletes, or even those in their first 3-5 years of cycling. But for someone like me, who, while never a racer, has been cycling regularly all his adult life, it may be a different story. I think @Jorge Duque has a good suggestion above - try out various cadences and see what happens to your HR ... and I would also suggest doing a brick afterwards, to see what trashes your legs more.
I'd also re-emphasize the point I made above: when comparing cadences, it's essential to be generating the same watts. On the road, trying to maintain the same gearing @ 85 you use @ 60 will of course tire you out more.
I also firmly believe that, especially in an IM, concentrating on a running cadence of 90 within the first mile and for the rest of the way is a lower energy cost than plodding along with slower strides. Even if it means taking very short, mincing little strides. Again, each individual "hop" at a faster cadence with a shorter stride will cost less energy then trying to jump farther with a lower cadence, assuming one is going at the same speed.
I went back into my data and here are my conclusions:
I train at 65-67RPM on the trainer all the time !!!
I ride outside in the 72-78RPM range
I race at 85-88RPM including a good amount of coasting.
the higher is my RPM, the higher is my VI with a low IF, when my RPM are low my IF goes up.
IMO that means I am not training the way I am racing which differs on how I train for the run & swim where.
Maybe inconsciently my legs want to rest so therefore the coasting happens
@Jorge Duque I love your suggestion, in the next 2 weeks I will do the same distance race but one going at my "normal" cadence and the other one will be in the 85-90 and will see from there how my body reacted.
As some as said above its also important to keep in my mind that we have a short run after 112M bike ride.
1. To go from a lower cadence to a higher cadence takes a few weeks of training in order for your body/cardio system to adapt. Initially, your HR will be higher because your body isn't used to that cadence. I've experience this when increasing my swim stroke rate and running cadence. At first it feels like more work, then after the adaptations occur it starts to feel like less work and that is the ideal time to conduct any low vs. high cadence tests.
2. @Francis Picard - make sure you're comparing apples to apples. My cadence on a flat course is in the low 90s and on a hilly course, low to mid 80s. This is due to some coasting down hills and lower cadence going up hills.
3. I suggest practicing and becoming efficient at low and high cadences. Then no matter what race day throws at you (e.g. stuck in the small ring), you're comfortable putting out XXX watts between mid 60 to mid 90 cadences. This also allows you to select the most comfortable cadence based on your riding situation/terrain.
4. Bottom line, there is no definitive research/studies on the best cadence, so do what comes natural for your body and don't try to force a specific cadence.
Generally, I ride hills at a slower (more power producing) cadence, ride in a group at higher spinning cadence and race at whatever the legs feel like on race day. For me, this all equates to a lower cadence overall than my peers, and therefore I'm called a "masher". That's fine, I don't take it personally!
"Prepare for the worst, hope for the best"...to me that means train at EVERY cadence.
You never know what feelings, fitness, capabilities, challenges, etc, you'll find on race day, so prepare yourself by getting used to pedaling at/in several cadence ranges, so you know what you'll feel like on race day!
I'm not familiar with the scientific studies presented above (nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night), but most studies involving are cycling-specific, not triathlon-cycling; where we have to get off and run after. So keep that in mind too.
the workouts I write for my athletes, have them alternating which bike workouts they do their transition runs after. So, one week I'll have them run after a vo2 session, then the next week after a ftp session. This enables you to know what it feels like off the bike in a multitude of scenarios as well. YMMV.
Look at the IM pros. They average anywhere from 80 - 95 rpms on very low V.I.s
Cadence tends to be a very personal thing but most trained athletes fall within that range. Sure a 6-9% grade hill is going to drive a lower cadence on the hill and should be included in your training for an A race with such elevations, but, in general, target the range above in your training, give a few weeks for your body to acclimate and discover an improved w/kg. Find your niche in that range, train like you race, kick some a$$ in the spring.
I tend to be a low 80s guy myself.
SS
When I do ride a higher cadences I do see the HR jump up a little low to mid 90's. One other observation from my LP riding which has some slogging up the hills at a very low cadence. I notice that the low cadence riding you can really increase your power thus making you more susceptible to VI variance if you are not on top of monitoring your power. Even better if you feel this before the 3s averaging shows up. It's definitely a talent I have not acquired let alone mastered.
http://blog.trainerroad.com/higher-cadence-crank-length-and-power-output/
If you're going to compare high cadence stuff to low cadence stuff, you must first acclimate to the different ranges like @Derrek Sanks said. At first a higher cadence will feel harder with a higher HR (I've been working on this a lot on the run), but I agree with Al that less energy per stroke (or step) seems to me like it should be better or more sustainable over the long course if you are trained/adapted to it. But to what @tim cronk said, don't overthink it too much. If you force yourself into an unnatural (or un-adapted) cadence during a race, that's probably worse.
Indoors my cadence is simply lower than outdoors. Part of that is because I'm on rollers (not a normal trainer), so my pedal stroke has to be very smooth which breaks down a bit at higher cadence (I also have a lower turnover on my treadmill than outside). In the past I worked on some spinning and cadence drills on my bike. Try doing ~110-120 cadence for 30 seconds to start. It seems nearly impossible the first couple times but after a while it's not so bad and then once 110-120 gets "not so bad", then 90 cadence feels downright "easy". Some of this super-cadence stuff is actually really good at smoothing out your pedal stroke. If you have imbalances, you will bounce on your saddle when you try this (especially on rollers). But after a while (many weeks of trying it) it starts to smooth out. And you can try this with literally zero change to your workouts by just doing like 2x or 3x 30" as part of your warm-up and/or cool down and don't worry what the Power reading is, just try to be fast and smooth.
When I'm doing longer FTP sets, I generally shift gears every 5 mins or so and switch between various cadence windows, part of this is just finding a new way to keep my power where it needs to be and part of it is just to keep me sane.
results :
high cadence 90 RPM - 2 minutes - AV watts 276, HR 171
low cadence 65 RPM - 2 minutes - AV watts 291, HR 151
Will try again in 2 weeks and post the results
Maybe go for thirty minutes @ Z2 w/kg, one with low cadence, one with high, and see what shakes out...try to hit the same w/kg for each, setting the gears wherever they need to be. Sit in with a "B" or "C" Group Ride on Zwift (not a race, not a workout) and play around with this at an IF of 0.7-0.75, which is where you'll be on IM race day, no?
I found that increased cadence actually helped my HR on hard climbs and on some harder efforts. I find myself falling back to about 85RPM on easier rides. I have also found that just switching up the cadence during a ride helps to make my legs feel fresher. I now find myself spinning at around 100 during portions of my races on both flat sections and climbing (more for climbing). I do switch it up and cant keep the high cadence for an entire ride (or I just don't want to).
I think if you do what @Al Truscott suggests and do some longer efforts for a period of time your HR will drop and be similar at both levels within a few weeks. I think when you initially switch to a higher cadence you are doing something your body is not used to and will react with a higher HR.
Here is one benefit of higher cadence on Zwift that I know works. Whenever you start a super steep section feel like you are spinning out of control >110 cadence (more like >120 in my experience) and when you start the climb your watts will be high and MUCH easier to maintain for 10 or so seconds. A good place to try this is up the stairs in the tunnel in London that goes from the subway area back up to the road. I also use this technique on the steep section after the box hill KOM.
When I spun at higher cadence I was in a easier gear than when spinning at low cadence.
With this recast, then, a lot of the stuff on Zwift, or on stationary, or in the OS, become noise. There might very well be a optimum cadence for work that is targeting steady-state efforts, or v02 efforts, but I don't think it would necessarily be the same as riding a bike for 5 - 5.5 hours. Sure, it's the same basic moving parts (legs, lungs, a chain, wheels, etc), but there's a big role of specificity that comes in.
That said, I think the literature also supports that there's a big role of individual variability. I've tried to stay on Tim's or Al's wheels across almost any terrain imaginable, and the only thing I can conclude is we are different guys who have found what works best for our particular morphologies and metabolisms. Also, I think there might be a lot of variability between how much it really matters to someone - for example, I remember @Jeremy Behler talking about the annoying cadence gap between the 14 and 16 cogs, and he could clearly discern between what might be a difference of 3-4 rpm ... i, on the other hand, probably couldn't tell the difference between any given gear, and a shit-lined shoe. I suspect that those who have spent a lot of time on different bikes on different terrain (thinking of John Withrow, Satish Punna, Dino Sarti, or anyone else with >6 different bikes in their quill) have probably spent a lot of time jumping between different cadences, and just replicate that on their tri bikes (not that Jeremy doesn't do a lot of riding outside tri ... just that he noted an awareness when talking about that annoying gap!)
Here's what I'd suggest, in response to the refined question: test and find out where your individual sweet spot might lie. The exercise would be intended to identify the efficiency at various cadences at a given power level - just making a cocktail napkin protocol here, but maybe once a month, try:
full warm-up
5' at 65rpm, power as 70% ftp (save as interval)
3-5 rest, easy spin at <50% ftp
5' at 70rpm, power as 70% ftp (save as interval)
3-5 rest, easy spin at <50% ftp
5' at 75rpm, power as 70% ftp (save as interval)
3-5 rest, easy spin at <50% ftp
5' at 80rpm, power as 70% ftp (save as interval)
3-5 rest, easy spin at <50% ftp
5' at 85rpm, power as 70% ftp (save as interval)
3-5 rest, easy spin at <50% ftp
5' at 90rpm, power as 70% ftp (save as interval)
3-5 rest, easy spin at <50% ftp
5' at 95rpm, power as 70% ftp (save as interval)
3-5 rest, easy spin at <50% ftp
5' at 100rpm, power as 70% ftp (save as interval)
3-5 rest, easy spin at <50% ftp
5' at105rpm, power as 70% ftp (save as interval)
3-5 rest, easy spin at <50% ftp
5' at 105rpm, power as 70% ftp (save as interval)
3-5 rest, easy spin at <50% ftp
You get the idea. Then, plot these out and see what your AVG HR was doing in each of these intervals, note where it starts to spike up, and make a decision about what to do with that information. After a few months, plot all three curves on top of each other, and I think you will see there are some optimal sweet spots for you, at that output),
(This is kind of like the swim ramp test that Mike Roberts has shared from the Swimsmooth protocol).