Does Cadence "Really" matter on the bike
Background: I've been training for and racing Long Course Triathlon for ~8 yrs. I have a Master's Degree in Bioengineering and I am a self-described Biohacking nerd. When I started riding my bike in earnest back in ~2010 my "self-selected" cadence was in the ~80rpm range. Because I believed that a higher cadence was more efficient and would set me up better for the run, I moved to shorter cranks (170mm) and I did over-speed drills and really focused on it for many months/years and got my "normal" self-selected (outdoor) cadence up to the ~90-95rpm range. I ride indoors on rollers and almost always, my "indoors" cadence has been ~10rpm lower than my "outdoor" cadence.
I didn't do a single bike training workout from July 2016 through October 2017 with my only bike rides over this period being leisurely commutes on my Fat Bike as planned "easy" recovery rides from my more intense run work.
While we're at it, my run cadence is in the low 80's. I've tried and tried to get it up (used a metronome for months and months), but as soon as I stop using it, I'm right back to the low 80's. I believe that a higher run cadence (low 90's) should be more efficient for longer endurance running, but just can't get there without serious and constant focus.
This year I started bike training again and only did Zwift rides (mostly races) as my winter training. Until about a month ago I did all of these on my road bike and didn't look at cadence a single time. The only thing I was looking at was the back of the group I was trying desperately too not get dropped from. I switched back to my much more comfortable Tri bike about a month ago and have recently seen a nice pickup in my Power numbers (on the order of 30+Watts) across the board (Same P1 Powermeter pedals used on both bikes). And I recently got outside for a few rides.
I occasionally share my workout files with some of my other tri nerd friends and they have recently commented on how CRAZY LOW my Cadence is (near ~70 for my hard rides). There is no coasting on my rollers so it's not because of that. I figured it was just because I was on my rollers... But on Saturday I got outside for a 4 hr ride and HAMMERED the entire time. It was near a lifetime best for 4 hr power (254W NP, VI 1.06), and my HR was low (avg HR 135, max 147)... but my average Cadence was 71.
Physiologically, I feel REALLY Fit right now. My limiter in past IM races has ALWAYS been my legs on the run. I have commented numerous times that my legs are too wimpy to push hard enough to get my HR up (on the bike OR on the run). My max HR is ~172bpm.
I would MUCH rather put extra stress on my Cardiovascular System than on my muscular system, and if you believe this article: http://www.triathlete.com/2015/08/training/what-is-the-ideal-bike-cadence-for-you_120914 then you believe that "a higher cadence “burns fewer matches” and tends to stress your cardiovascular system more, while cycling at a lower cadence stresses your muscular system more."
But if you believe this one http://www.cyclingweekly.com/fitness/why-amateurs-shouldnt-try-to-pedal-like-chris-froome-191779 then maybe not, but I think the test was at very low power with very high cadence... "At a low exercise intensity of 50W, they found that pedalling in a small gear at 110 rpm put more than 60 per cent of their power into moving parts of their own body, including thighs, knees and feet while only 40 per cent of it actually went into spinning the cranks. It was a massively inefficient way to ride."
And this interesting YouTube video on the physiology of cycling cadence confused the outcomes/conclusions even more... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jh-5TYAtJI
I've personally given this advice before (which is actually copied straight from the first article I linked to):
Does Cadence "Really" matter on the bike?
I didn't do a single bike training workout from July 2016 through October 2017 with my only bike rides over this period being leisurely commutes on my Fat Bike as planned "easy" recovery rides from my more intense run work.
While we're at it, my run cadence is in the low 80's. I've tried and tried to get it up (used a metronome for months and months), but as soon as I stop using it, I'm right back to the low 80's. I believe that a higher run cadence (low 90's) should be more efficient for longer endurance running, but just can't get there without serious and constant focus.
This year I started bike training again and only did Zwift rides (mostly races) as my winter training. Until about a month ago I did all of these on my road bike and didn't look at cadence a single time. The only thing I was looking at was the back of the group I was trying desperately too not get dropped from. I switched back to my much more comfortable Tri bike about a month ago and have recently seen a nice pickup in my Power numbers (on the order of 30+Watts) across the board (Same P1 Powermeter pedals used on both bikes). And I recently got outside for a few rides.
I occasionally share my workout files with some of my other tri nerd friends and they have recently commented on how CRAZY LOW my Cadence is (near ~70 for my hard rides). There is no coasting on my rollers so it's not because of that. I figured it was just because I was on my rollers... But on Saturday I got outside for a 4 hr ride and HAMMERED the entire time. It was near a lifetime best for 4 hr power (254W NP, VI 1.06), and my HR was low (avg HR 135, max 147)... but my average Cadence was 71.
Physiologically, I feel REALLY Fit right now. My limiter in past IM races has ALWAYS been my legs on the run. I have commented numerous times that my legs are too wimpy to push hard enough to get my HR up (on the bike OR on the run). My max HR is ~172bpm.
I would MUCH rather put extra stress on my Cardiovascular System than on my muscular system, and if you believe this article: http://www.triathlete.com/2015/08/training/what-is-the-ideal-bike-cadence-for-you_120914 then you believe that "a higher cadence “burns fewer matches” and tends to stress your cardiovascular system more, while cycling at a lower cadence stresses your muscular system more."
But if you believe this one http://www.cyclingweekly.com/fitness/why-amateurs-shouldnt-try-to-pedal-like-chris-froome-191779 then maybe not, but I think the test was at very low power with very high cadence... "At a low exercise intensity of 50W, they found that pedalling in a small gear at 110 rpm put more than 60 per cent of their power into moving parts of their own body, including thighs, knees and feet while only 40 per cent of it actually went into spinning the cranks. It was a massively inefficient way to ride."
And this interesting YouTube video on the physiology of cycling cadence confused the outcomes/conclusions even more... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jh-5TYAtJI
I've personally given this advice before (which is actually copied straight from the first article I linked to):
You should train at various cadences to increase your comfort level and to improve your fitness. Over-gearing, or big gear work, can help you develop strength, and practicing pedaling with a higher cadence at a range of intensities can help improve pedaling efficiency. Form work such as one-legged pedaling drills and spin-ups can also help improve your pedal stroke.
Don’t let a preoccupation with cadence cloud what’s really important: making sure you develop the ability to maintain your goal power through your most efficient application of cadence during your goal event.
I really only care about getting around an entire Ironman course as quickly and efficiently as possible and that includes a 26.2 mile run... So my question is...Does Cadence "Really" matter on the bike?
Tagged:
1
Comments
I'm generally a "masher" with extremely low cadences as well, which a lot of people seem to generalize for me because I'm a "bigger guy".
Occasionally, I do try to have workouts with higher cadences as well. Just this last winter, I did a lot of indoor spin classes at the local gym with my P1s, and tried to pick up the cadence more than I usually would. And it succeeded, higher averages. But as soon as I moved to be back outside on the bike, my cadences reverted to my "natural selection" of lower turnovers.
I do think that some people, coaches as well as athletes, are too focused on achieving a specific number (for whatever reason) when it related to cadence. Personally, I think you should train for everything. Overgearing, hamster spinners and everything in between, because you never know what race day will throw at you!
In the past I've always tried to have a high cadence based on all I heard/read about what's best for triathletes. This OS I started experimenting with high (88-93) and low (74-79) cadences during trainer rides. I find when I ride at Z4 watts that it's easier to maintain watts at a lower cadence and my Hr is lower. At a higher cadence, my Hr is higher and it takes more focus/effort to maintain Z4 power. However, at Z2 watts, a high cadence is more comfortable, efficient, less taxing, lower Hr.
I'm thinking by building muscle strength endurance with low cadence/high power workouts that it will carry over to stronger riding at lower watts at any cadence.
Since I haven't been doing a lot of immediate runs of the bike, I don't know how a lower cadence affects my run.
Detailed thoughts: I do not use cadence as a metric to guide my training or racing. HR, watts, RPE - those I track and act on. But I have observed the following:
- When training (including races on Zwift, FTP and VO2 intervals), my cadence will usually vary between 90-95 during work intervals.
- When racing, my cadence correlates with distance: Sprint ~ 95, Oly ~92, HIM~ 85-87, and IM 82-3. I have no idea why this is, nor do I care. I let my results speak for themselves.
- When running, my cadence will be 90-92, except when doing fast intervals (which I no longer do), and then it can be as high as 100. During a race, I do monitor run cadence, and try my darnedest to keep it at 90, no matter the distance. I don't think there's a connection, for me at least, between my bike cadence and my run cadence.
You can find all sorts of data and research on correlations between cadence, HR, RPE, power, etc. But IMO the only things I care about are: (1) is my training effective at getting me ready to race? and (2) are my races successful? which for me means a podium, if not a first place. So, for me at least, all that data is unnecessary clutter. I'd rather focus on working hard when training, and finding a pace/cadence/power output during a race that I *feel* I can maintain all the way to the finish. Over the past 2 decades, that's produced the rut I describe above.Tangentially, it's kinda hard for me to imagine that @John Withrow 's legs are...wimpy.
http://blog.trisutto.com/category/cycling
Super interesting. I would still rather tax my Cardiovascular system more than my legs... Even if @A@"Al Truscott" thinks it's funny that my wimpy legs are my weak link, I think it's all relative and this is relative to my stronger Cardiovascular system (in my mind anyways)...
But unlikely I really do much to try to force a high cadence... But I probably won't worry too much about it either.
IM pros turn any where from 80 - 95 rpm on their IM bike splits.
So, cadence appears to be a highly individual thing. Find that small range that allows you, your body type/physiology to be efficient and sustain power. Train at that level.
Crush your competition.......
@John Withrow it looks like you right, GNC test approve it. I was on webinar with Jesse (QT2) “The Great Cadence Debate” http://www.qt2systems.com/greatcadencedebate/ he talked about how good the team doing with high cadence, then he talked about moving to low cadence then I lost it…. From the plot he gave if your FTP 250W your cadence need to be around 76, for 190W 70 (for female about 5 cadences low), it takes about a few week to get it.
@Satish Punna This is "probably" true of most people inside of EN. And I might also be in this category and don't know it, or am not willing to admit it yet. Do extra heartbeats throughout the day cause our legs to fry? Or can we still have okay legs but have the rest of our system (Central Governor) slow everything down and then eventually shut us down (think Julie Moss in 1982). I've been doing serious IM training for years, and intensely for the last 6+ moths. I am very fit. If you put me on a hand bike or rowing machine and forced to sit on it and propel myself forward for a couple of hours, my arms will want to fall off and I would get crushed by someone way less fit than I am, but who has trained for that type of event. Clearly my Arms/shoulders/back/lats would be my limiter in this case even though my Cardiovascular system is very well developed...
What is fitness???
I have 2 very different experiences at the end of an Ironman (let's say after Mile 18 to keep it consistent with the EN themes...)
My first Ironman (Lou 2011) I collapsed across the finish line just under ~12 hrs and needed fluids in the med tent for 1+ hours, my legs were cramped for days and I couldn't walk down steps for a few days. Clearly my legs were over-taxed, but "During the last 8 miles of the run" my limiter was Heartbeats.
In my 2nd IM (NYC in 2012) I had an epic collapse at mile 23 of the run as I was running along just fine. I'm pretty sure this was nutrition/hydration related, but my "system" shut down and stopped me in my tracks and after a ~30 min aid station ordeal I limped my way the last 3 miles to the finish line. Limiter was Heartbeats!
Fast Forward a couple IM's, in 2013 I tried a KQ attempt at Lake Placid. I thought I was very fit. Got passed halfway through the marathon and tried to race as hard as I could to "win"... Result was that I don't remember much of the last out-and-back mile, dreaded the last half of the Oval and literally collapsed across the finish line and don't remember much about the hour+ in the med tent. Limiter was definitely Heartbeats!
Crushed my training in 2014. Raced super conservatively on the bike but still came off the bike in 1st in the XC group. Ran a big PR Marathon, but never got to the dark place. Smiled at the finish line, no med tent, no terrible soreness the next day. Qualified for Kona. Limiter, neither...
Training suffered over the next few months (getting new job, relocating, selling house, etc.). Kona was pretty horrible. Super windy, bike effort was hard. Leg cramping last 5-6 miles. Limiter, Heartbeats And Legs, but mostly legs!
Even less training over next 6 weeks, and more family/home stress. Still felt really fast and fit, but CTL had gone way down. At Cozumel, came off the bike in 1st in the XC, but pushed through a lot of wind (but low-ish HR). Quads were cramping almost immediately off the bike, but otherwise felt great. Forced myself to run hard through the leg pain until the halfway point of the run then literally limped/walked the last ~10+ miles... Limiter, Definitely my legs!
Fast forward to 2016, Not ideal OS and spring training. Did a lot of work through the summer, and still tried a KQ attempt at Vineman. Came off the bike and felt AWESOME (and in first in the XC)! About 16 miles in got terrible Calf pains/cramps on the steep downhills that eventually turned into Quad pain/cramps... Willed myself to suffer through it and goofily run the entire marathon... Limiter, Definitely my legs!
====================================================================
There are clear times when I have felt great, but my legs literally swelled up or clogged up or cramped up. Does that mean that I had too many heartbeats throughout the day? Or does that mean that my leg muscles weren't strong/trained enough? I know when we train something over time (like our legs for running or riding a bike), we get capillary development and muscle adaptations as the fibers break down and rebuild stronger faster, etc. We also get better at Oxygen delivery and waste removal at a cellular level.
So do Heartbeats or muscle fitness matter more (I know they both matter)? What if my muscles weren't prepared for a specific impact (i.e. downhill running or uphill). An Ultra runner can literally keep a ~135 Heart rate and run for 40+ hours without stopping on a flattish or gradual moderately hilly course and not really have sore legs after the event. Put that same Ultra runner on an intensely hilly course and keep the same 135 HR and they could potentially risk a DNF from blowing out their quads or calves on the downs. Put that same VERY fit ultra runner on a track and make him do 20x 200 meter ALL out repeats and he will be shelled for the rest of the day...
Can we separate Heartbeats from Muscular Leg fitness? Can we know ahead of time which is more important for a specific person on a specific course on a specific day?
Thoughts?
Your body over the hill.
Now, @John Withrow's screed above...it's apples and oranges, or something like that. Sure, we've got heart rate limits. But that's not because we're trying to save heartbeats. HR is simply a reflection of how much work your muscles are being forced to do. If you have done even the minimum of training for an IM, your heart, as a muscle, is superbly trained, and is not a limiter, at least at IM speeds. What are limiters are:
- How "fit" your muscles are: the number of mitochondria, the size of the network of capillaries, the number of muscle fibers...
- How you are using, and replacing, fuel within the muscles - glycogen vs fat, nutrition intake and absorption.
- Hydration status - probably not a big factor until you get more than about 6-7% dehydrated. But at some point, if you don't have enough blood volume, all the heartbeats in the world aren't going to get enough blood to the muscles to carry the fuel to do the work they have trained to do.
Bottom line, as some one once said, "Fitness is in the muscles". HR is a downstream result of how hard the brain is asking the muscles to work.FWIW, I remember recently reading an interview on Slowtwitch with Sam Gyde, M40-44 age group winner at IMTX, where he speaks to his 172.5 crank length and His 75rpm riding style. He also road at a "conservative" 260 for his IM
So I agree with the really smart people. Find a cadence that your engine can support and just pedal away.