Cadence
Another thread got me thinking about cadence. I didn't realize som many peo[ple around here tend to be on the slower cadence end of the spectrum. I know I might be a little outside the average but my typical cadence when working (85% FTP and up) is 95+ and my sweet spot when racing is usually 96-102. On my trainer this time of year I tend to work through a larger range, primarily going lower for short periods (1-3min at a time) and find that the higher force of turning a bigger gear tends to be easier on my breathing and HR but has a different burn in the legs for a given power output. In many ways it's easier to push bigger watts with a slower cadence but I know that isn't effecient for me over longer periods of time and I'd run like crap off a low cadence, high force ride. In a time trial it's not important how torched my legs are at the finish but for tri you obviously want your legs to be as fresh as possible. I also think it's important to work on bringing your cycling cadence up to match the optimal run turn-over (190-200 fpm). I'm curious to hear from everyone how theyr cycling cadence compares to their run turn-over. For me, everything from tempo pace and faster is usually right arounf 200 fpm.
Comments
+1 Joel...I was surprised as well by the lower cadence numbers when I first joined. My thinking on this was that coming from my running background I tended to lean to a higher cadence...I'm not as high as you but tend to have my sweet spot between 90-95...and feel better when I go +5 v -five...
I have begun to play with Cadence with Power (virtual power on trainer road)...as a second data point...I feel like I am increasing my effect comfort range by working lower gear in 75-85 range and higher gearing 95-105 and hitting my FTP targets during the VO2 work...
it will be interesting to see how this plays out in my FTP tests and in my cadenc/power when we get back to threshold work.
I don't pay attention to cadence on the bike unless I notice it below 80 or above 100; then I try to re-calibrate my effort to get back in that range. To understand how this plays out in a race, I went back to my most recent IM (AZ) and checked the cadence for various segments of the race. Overall average was 82. But each of the 3 laps showed an increasing average. And when I dove deeper, and looked at segments of the ride when I was not turning or slowing down at aid stations, or coasting for some other reason, I discovered for the second and third laps, my "usual riding" cadence was 88-91, regardless of the slope (IM AZ has nothing steeper than 3-4%, and even that for less than a mile each lap.)
As to running, the times I check it, it is always 90-94. I'm kinda locked in at that rate, unless I am sprinting hard at the end of an interval session, then it goes up. Otherwise, my speed is directly proportional to my stride length.
For reference, I am 5'10". I assume the taller one gets, the harder it is to hit a high cadence, and the opposite for shorter.
Joined the Lance Hi Cadence Club back when it was so popular. That's when I started getting a little more serious with this stuff. It was good foundation work.
Now, I don't think a about it too much. I usually hang in the 80's for maximum return on the watts info, but hang in the 90s when outdoors. No conscious change, just by feel.
Basically, whatever it takes to go faster if in my small group, or whatever it takes to hang on a wheel if it's my group ride that flies thru 50-70 miles of rollers.
I do throw in some Hi Force / Lo Cadence work in the spring to get ready for the spring rides thru these parts and the occasional training ride in the Gaps. Short 5' intervals at X watts with a cad of mid 50s, and 2' recovery with hi cadence of 95-100. Just trying to cover all bases.
I tend to be more like Al's description in that I really don't spend a lot of time/energy focusing on cadence as long as I am somewhere between 80 and 100 (usually I am camping out between 85 - 90) and nailing my wattage number for that interval..........
I don't spend any time fpcusing on cadence or run turn-over accept when I intentionally drop into a bogger gear on the trainer for those 1-3min intervals. I naturally developed a high run turn-over many years ago when I started to increase my volume and it automatically transferred over to the bike. I don't know that there has been any study to suggest a specific cadence range on the bike is optimal - more likely an individual thing. But for running I believe it's been observed that something int he 190-200 fpm range is most economical. I guess I'm lucky in that I don't have to try to run or ride in those ranges - it just happens. So that's why I was a little surprised to see so many triathletes in lower ranges on the bike, aprticularly since it may have detrimental implications for their run. Bobby McGee is a running coach who has been working with triathletes to overcome some of the effects of riding on their run and specifically advocates a faster cadence. Here is a short YouTube clip from Bobby - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nNWskyiwbM
I agree with you Joel that the physics of running require you to run in better form the faster you run. High correlation between good running form/cadence and higher vDOT folks out there. I am not sure that how well you run off the bike is determined nor correlated with bike cadence. For me, running well off the bike has a lot to do with how much energy I put on the back wheel (watts) during the bike leg relative to my bike fitness level (FTP) regardless of the cadence I used on the bike..........
Warmup ~87
2 mi at TP 94
Recovery mile 84 ramping to 88
MP-HMP 92
recovery 83-85
MP 90-91
I'd like to figure out how to make a speed vs cadence graph. Might be kind of interesting to see if it's linear or not, and how much of the additional speed comes from cadence vs stride length.
Cadence will definitely drop during slower running. I don't know off the top of my head where I am when I'm doing WU or recoveries but it likely isn't as quick as when I'm at race pace, even marathon race pace. One time when I think it is important to focus on cadence is during later stages of the IMrun when you are obviously fatigued and cadence will tend to decrease. My primary focus when my legs are tired is to maintain a quick light turn-over while running. Minimizing contact time with the ground (as Bobby mentions in that video clip) can help minimize additional fatigue in the legs and maintain economy.
@Shaughn - the issue of cycling cadence impacting running off the bike is related to a mis-match (or not) of cadence. If you just spent 3-7 hours turning your legs @ 84rpm chances are getting to 100rpm on the run isn't going to be something that happpens easily. And a lower cycling cadence may be inhibiting development of a more economical run cadence.
What if we looked at it a different way. Consider I turn 84 rpm on the bike @ .65 IF for the IM leg vs. turning 84 rpm on the bike at .80 for that leg. Do the same math using 95 cadence as well.
I am much more likely to run the Marathon split faster under the .65 IF scenario using either of the above bike cadences than I am uynder the .80 IF scenario under either cadence as the data would indicate.....
Thoughts?
SS
Apples and oranges - that's why we have gears. You are likely to run the best marathon split coming off the appropriate intensity ride but I can ride .65 IF at either 80 or 100 rpm. But that .65 IF @ 80-rpm requires more force per pedal strokle and different muscle fiber recruitment which might impact your legs for running. In addition (and more to my original point) is that riding at a cadence closer to the optimal run turn-over range may help make the transition from bike to run by avoiding the need to switch not just the mechanics but also the rate at which your legs are turning over. Now if your run cadence is lower as well this might not apply but we are still left with a likely sub-optimal run cadence that people might want to invest some time in addressing during training with drills.
Joel and I each need to push each other on this one. I need to figure out how to acheive his vDOT and he needs to hit my w/kg ratio and then we have both come out winning!
SS
Joel,
I'm in my 3rd OS this year I have found that I have increase my FTP cadence intervals more to the 95-100 range (weeks 1-8) up from 90-95. When I entered the VO2 phase I found myself lowering the cadence to 85-90. I have in the past used a wide range of cadences in the OS typically 85-100 but mostly 85-95. All of my OS work is on the trainer.
I don't have a foot pod so only subjective data an a some counting of foot strikes but have found that my running cadence was harder to increase in the VO2 segment with lower bike cadence. Unfortunatley I have had knee issues so my running has only been consistent in the last few week of the OS so this may also be a factor.
Gordon
My observation is that, largely, cadence on the bike is a personal thing. For me, sweet spot for FTP is somewhere around 88, VO2 just a little higher, but I can drift off and find myself going along at 82 every once in a while if I don't pay attention.
Old skool cycling literature demonstrated that we are all most efficient at a cadence much closer to 60-70 rpm. However, in endurance events, that no longer holds true due to fatigue from the higher muscle tension. So, it's no surprise that when we start to fatigue at 90+rpm, many of us try to shift down a gear or two, add some resistance, and try to muscle through it.
For me, when I try to ride at 95+ on the trainer, I wear out very quickly. Outside, however, that's pretty much where I naturally gravitate to, like William. My suspicion is that it has to do with flywheel weight and the natural resistance over the top of the pedal stroke, but that's just a hunch.
The bike is a different beast. My self selected "outside" cadence is around ~80-85. However, with just a little bit of concentration I'm able to keep that in the mid 90's and I've found that helps me immensely on longer rides. Last yr at IMLou, my average Cadence was ~95 which I was very happy with. My indoor cadence is a totally different thing. I use the e-motion rollers and no matter how hard I try, I get a bit unstable and actually bounce a bit once I get into the mid-90's. I do most of my work in the 80-85 range, but it is not uncommon for me to drop down into the high 70's for some of the harder efforts or near the end of longer sets. I try to keep it higher if possible and try to be smooth, but just very hard with hard efforts longer than a minute or two. I've tried my wife's Computrainer for the first 8 wks of the OS and also couldn't get my cadence very high for very long on that thing either. I don't stress out about it all that much as I know as soon as I get outside it will immediately be higher.
70s sounds awful low but she does ride a 54 big ring and 11-23.
A recent Brett Sutton take on cadence: http://www.teamtbb.com/?option=com_content&task=view&id=1363
My head hurts from trying to read that "article". Did Brett Sutton himself really write that? Aside form being very poorly written from an editorial perspective, I really don't know what the main point was. Was he saying that lower cadence is better because studies of untrained cyclists show their HR increases as their cadence increases and approaches 100rpm? And from the perspective of being a triathlete, was there any point aside from suggesting whatever keeps yur HR lowest n the bike is best because you still need to run? Wow...a bit shocked at the quality of that piece.