Lower cadence = more power?

mcstrangelove

During bike workouts, in trying to hold all my z4-5 intervals I seem to be more successful at a lower cadence (65-75 rpms) and a harder gear. Not really "mashing"...but almost.   However, I keep my rpms at 85-95 in z1-3 intervals and long rides just fine, it's just the z4-5 intervals that get the low-cadence treatment.  Is this a bad habit? Cheating?

John Stark

Lots of discussion on this in the past.  I agree with the point that cadence will simply work itself out.  Just ride what works.  Yes, there are some benefits to pushing harder on the pedals at a low cadence, but knee issues can occur.  But agian, whatever works for you stick with it.

And for me, when I do IF work on my tri bike I am in the 95 to 100 rpm range.  On my road bike I am more like 85-90.  It is just what it is.  No need to over think.

William Jenks

John's right. Another truism is that this seems to be true for the short run, but it doesn't generally mean you can sustain that power for very long run.

tgarson

Speaking of running, one of the oft mentioned points in the great debate over this is the effect that the low cadence high power efforts have on your run. Potentially, you could find that you are able to hold higher wattage more comfortably at a lower cadence during training, but that this would have a detrimental effect on your run performance in a race scenario due to effectively increasing the tax on your leg musculature versus offloading some of that to your cardiovascular system as *might* occur at a higher cadence.

I'm really paraphrasing theories that I've heard in the past that seem to make intrinsic sense to me, so take it with a grain of salt.

Dave Campbell

Was in attendance at a Carmichael Training Sustems seminar this weekend and a question was asked from the audience, "if I'm riding along at high cadence and get a leg cramp, will shifting to a lower gear and mashing more help minimize the cramping?" The presenter answered "Mashing will recruit more muscle fibers than spinning will and maybe the extra help would rescue the cramping fibers??" He indicated he had know scientific proof, but thought it was possible. I thought this was interesting because our plan is to get around the course using the at a certain zone by recruiting as few muscle fibers as possible. Saving for the run. Personally, I see the same thing Mac does on the trainer, but can hit Z4/5 outdoors in the 85-90+rpms range with no problem. Especially if on a slight incline or into a headwind where I have more gear choices.

On the other hand, this spring, I've done a LOT of climbing, long climbs in the 4-12 mile variety and have done most of that work in the 60-70 rpm range due to the grades. This has made me much stronger and when I hit the flats to do FT intervals, I can do them at anywhere from 60-90rpms. I personally prefer about 85-90 though.

ebe4zippy

Coach Rich often talks about training rides are not "racing" and it is all about getting the most stress load on the system to build you up. I think hitting the #'s any way you can is the way to go...as long as you stay injury free

Coach Rich

Yes, do what you gotta do to get the watts, but...

Train how you race

Low cadence cycling is the bane of the long course run, therefore you should plan to race at 90rpm+. Therefore you need to devote a good portion of your cycling to creating watts in the aerobars at the cadence you'll expect to see during the race.

I'm personally having a helluva time reconciling a road bike FTP with a tri bike FTP with a cadence that feels confortable on the tri bike vs what feels right on the road bike. The net is that while my FTP on the road bike is probably about 300-305w, I'm now convinced that my tri bike FTP is about 280w and that I'm most comfortable generating those watts at 100-105rpm, very different from my road bike. Doesn't help that I'm also carrying a lot of fatigue in my legs which I'm sure is affecting both my FTP and the cadence that feels comfortable (ie, legs are toasty = low cadence kills me so I'm gravitating towards higher rpms to see the watts I want to see.

But...I'll also purposely do very low cadence, high watts riding in the last 30' or so of a long ride, as a method to recruit every last muscle fiber that wasn't already cooked during the ride. It's also just friggin' hard....

jelmermd

 I'm no expert on this subject, but for a n=1 I analyzed my performance on a recent 70.3, couldn't figure out why my legs were shot for the run after keeping to a steady and appropriate power setting based on recommendations.  Then I noticed my average RPM was consistently around 76.  I am now of a mind that the wattage recommendations are intending for those more spinning (85-95) then those mashing (70-80) and that my low cadence led to increased leg fatigue.   I've been practicing a higher cadence since and think there's truth in this.   Just my take...

jerryf

Yeah...and now for the monkey wrench...

There are others, including very well known coaches like Brad Sutton, who advocate a LOW cadence for long course.  Now, I'm no expert and don't claim to have an answer, but I've studied this ad nausium.  This low cadence vs. high cadence arguement has been around for a long time, as we all know.

For the science of it...Sutton and other advocates of lower cadence for triathletes point out that cycling for triathlon is not the same as cycling in general.  They cite what someone above me mentioned...that lower cadence recruits more muscle groups, therefore spreading the workload, resulting in less fatigue.  There is also a few studies that have shown a benefit to the run with a lower cadence.  I don't have the cites at hand, but I do recall that there is enough evidence to thorougly muddy the waters and cause me to look crossways at anyone who claims high cadence is gospel.  I do recall one study that showed that coming off the bike with higher cadence allowed the test group to run faster than low cadence cyclist, but that the low cadence cyclists ran further.  Again, in line somewhat with what the proponents of low cadence preach...and possibly point to a difference in philosophy depending on whether one is doing long course or short course.

 

Anyway...I just wanted to point out that the cadence question is not settled, by any means.  Not among pro cyclists, pro triathletes, and certainly not among us AGers.  I think we have to find our own way, to some extent.  That's one of the great things about the "big day" training sessions in our plans here at EN.

YMMV,

Jerry

John Stark

@Jerry - Love the oposing view.  Like everything else we do, it is all individual and we need to test what works for each of us despite what the best authorities say.  And test it often.

Rock on everyone!