cadence question -- yes, that again
to my power people...
I'm relatively new to power, and I guess the short version of my question is "do I want to ride at harder gear and lower cadence, or lower gear, higher cadence to hit my daily goal (FTP test, zone workout, etc)?"
Long version...I notice that when I'm riding, I can hit "X" watts in "Y" gear at a cadence around 82 rpm, or I can hit "X" watts in "Z" gear at ~88 rpm. The lower cadence feels more natural, where the higher cadence feels more like I"m a mouse on one of those wheels going around...like my legs are going fast and I'm not getting anywhere for it. Is this spinning feeling just something I need to get used to, because ultimately it will help me more on the run? Or do I do what feels right?
0
Comments
P
Mike
Here's is my approach to getting it higher in the OS. The 80-85% I always try to stay above 90 RPM or higher if I can hold. During the main sets I try to mix it up a bit. Of course I want to hit the watts and lots of times the 80-85 RPM gets that for me but as the sets get longer you really feel it in your legs. I try to mix a minute or two of 90+ RPM to get my body used to the higher cadence plus higher watts. It has only been a few weeks for me but I certainly feel like I am on the right path and after 20 weeks of the OS I hope to always be above 90.
Hope that helps.
My notes:
this is helpful, thanks... but I have another, possibly more basic, question - how should I do my first test, which will be on the drainer? I'll be getting the PM one of these weeks - and will be starting OS in Jan, so this is still greek to me. Should my test (to determine watts) focus on a higher cadence or just riding as hard as I can ride...
a complicating factor is I don't necessarily always have the same resistance when I'm on the trainer, which makes a difference (have an old cycleops with the turn screw... not the lever that guarantees the same resistance each ride).
As for the test, just go for it. Don't over-think it. You'll have plenty of workouts after to worry about cadence, etc. Read Coach Rich's post on what it should feel like, and hold on.
Although I always focus pretty exclusively on the power output, I do try to mix up the cadence... One useful trick for peeps using a Computrainer, the Ergometer mode is great for this. It adjusts the load to provide a steady power output independent of cadence. I found this particularly useful during my FTP Testing.
ABSTRACT: The acute effects of prior cycling cadence on running performance and kinematics
JINGER S. GOTTSCHALL AND BRADLEY M. PALMER
Department of Kinesiology and Applied Physiology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO
Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 34, No. 9, pp. 1518–1522, 2002.
Purpose: To determine if cycling cadence affects subsequent running speed through changes in stride frequency. Methods: Thirteen male triathletes completed three sessions of testing on separate days. During the first session (control condition), the participants completed a 30-min cycling bout of high intensity at their preferred cadence, immediately followed by a 3200-m run at race effort. During the second and third sessions (fast condition and slow condition), the participants repeated the protocol but with a cycling cadence 20% faster or 20% slower than the control condition. Results: After cycling at a fast cadence, the 3200-m run time averaged nearly a min faster than after cycling at a slow cadence. Running stride frequency after cycling at a fast cadence was significantly greater than after cycling at a normal or slow cadence. Stride length did not differ between conditions. Joint kinematics at foot strike, mid-stance, toe-off, and mid-swing were not different between conditions.
Conclusion: Increased cycling cadence immediately before running increased stride frequency and, as a result, increased speed.
This may be good advice for a sprint triathlon. But do we really want to train to go faster for the first 3.2K of a marathon after a 112 mile bike? I think we want to save some of that energy for later in the day. I don't know what the "right" cadence should be for an Ironman bike. I do know that mine is in the range of 83-86 average over the whole distance.
I have pretty a narrow bandwidth in bike cadence, but the interchangability of bike to run cadence always stays in the back of my mind when riding. I'm continually trying to squeeze every last bit of juice from my run form and economy, and have an obsession with high run cadence aka stride frequency. (To Al's point, I try to get even more fanatical about that form awareness during long runs or late in the run during IM). So, if all things (power) are equal between lower candence and higher cadence cycling, but higher rpms on the bike is going to support form and efficiency on the run, 'high bike rpms' wins for this guy - at least from a multisport perspective.
very good info... until my power arrives (when I'm just noodling on my drainer), I'm paying a lot more attention to my cadence and what feels comfortable. Hopefully I can get comfortable in the 85-95 per protocol... not quite there yet - but I'm also out of shape, and I've never paid attention to cadence before, just to my HR (didn't put the computer on my new bike, the old bike is on the drainer now)...might have already been there...
ABSTRACT: SACCHETTI, M., M. LENTI, A. S. DI PALUMBO, and G. DE VITO. Different Effect of Cadence on Cycling Efficiency between Young and Older Cyclists. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 42, No. 11, pp. 2128–2133, 2010. Purpose: We investigated the difference in the cadence–efficiency relationship between young and older competitive cyclists. Methods: Eight young (24.3 T 5.3 yr) and eight older (65.6 T 2.8 yr) competitive cyclists participated in two laboratory sessions. The first consisted of an incremental maximal cycling test to determine the freely chosen pedal cadence and the maximal power output at V? O2max and the second for the determination of gross efficiency (GE), calculated as the ratio of external work and energy expenditure (V? O2). The latter test consisted of 6-min cycling exercise bouts at 40% and 60% of maximal power output and at a cadence of 40, 60, 80, 100, and 120 rpm. Results: GE was lower in older cyclists than that in young cyclists at all cadences considered and at both levels of power output (P G 0.01). Peak efficiency was reached at 60 rpm in young cyclists (21.2% T 1.9%), whereas in older cyclists this was observed already at 40 rpm and was not different from that at 60 rpm (18.3% T 0.6%). The decline in GE with the increase in cadence was more pronounced in older than in young cyclists (P G 0.01) and was mitigated by the increase in power output more in the latter than in the former. These observations were in line with a lower freely chosen cadence recorded during the maximal test in older than that in young (P G 0.01). Conclusions: The present data indicate that the effect of cadence on cycling efficiency is different between young and older cyclists and that it seems more disadvantageous for the latter to use high cadences. This may help explain why our older cyclists chose to pedal at lower cadences than the younger.
"With regard to the relationship between efficiency and FCC (freely chosen cadence), several investigations indicated that young cyclists normally choose to pedal on the road at higher cadences than those resulting as the most efficient in the laboratory setting." (ie. low cadence) This is discussion from the study above and backs up WJ and RS's experience when going from the trainer to outside.