Simon should do this test each day for 3 days in a row but each day you swap out what cadence goes first. This can eliminate the variable that fatigue/warm up could create regarding heart rate and lactate. Also no caffeine should be used before the test. Stimulants can spike HR and that can in turn spike lactate levels creating warped data. Love the idea of using the treadmill for testing. Makes it more real world. The Cosmed makes this possible and much more enjoyable. Also good to see the compacts on the Colnago.
Carb the fuck up, and spin it to win it! CycloCore does a good vid with his computer setup as well showing how the spin to win method is the most efficient.
durianrider I will admit since I took on some of Durians training tips I have come on a fair way, I now ride a compact with a 12-30 cassette and I can now get up many hills that would have me really struggling and at a really good pace. I have lost 15 pounds whilst increasing my ride speeds. If I was to do back to back days riding at 60rpm by the third day I would be fucked. I can ride daily without any issues keeping my cadence between 90-105 as it allows me to recover..
This video literally changed my riding style. I've embraced riding a slightly smaller gear, lower cadence, which has dramatically affected my riding in a very very good way. Thanks guys.
6 лет назад+5
Achilles tendon inflammation was causing delays in my training and physical impairment for common tasks like stairs. I thought, and others told me I was just getting old. A Garmin watch, Wahoo cadence and CycleOps power plus extensive research forced me to train above 80rpm. All my problems disappeared as long as I stayed above 80rpm. Amazing! I am 67 and just kicked out another century ride. If caadence>80 then injury=0...a nice formula! Biking, lifting & stretching will keep you young, I am evidence.
Really loving the GCN Does Science series. Regarding the linear relationship you saw between cadence, heart rate, and lactate levels I suspect that may be a result of increased muscle perfusion with the higher cadence "flushing out" lactate into the blood thereby increasing measurable levels vs a lower cadence --> lower heart rate --> lower perfusion so more lactate stays in the muscle with less being measurable in the blood. Would be interesting to do separate tests over days to see if the post-ride day lactate level is increased with the lower cadence (finally flushed out of the muscle) and how much muscle soreness the rider feels on the post-ride day with the different cadences. Great video & thanks guys.
For myself, I had always found that high cadence was less efficient until because of a knee injury, I couldn't push a "big gear" and had to spin higher. I actually trained for a higher cadence (95) and after 3 months begin hitting PR's on a regular basis riding over 50 miles (80K).
I'm just going to share my personal preference in cadence, as a ~120 lb endurance climber. I grew into a cadence of around 60-80 rpm. This is because I found that my heart gives out long before my legs do. So, I put more strain on my legs than my heart at the lower cadence. At least in the groups I've cycled with, this is unique to me, so I've sometimes had to explain this. I don't know the science behind it, however, but it definitely made a difference once I realized my issues.
I wonder if doing the high-cadence test before the self-selected test influenced Si's cadence selection. Maybe once he is used to working at a high cadence for a few minutes his self-selected cadence rises?
@ 3:50 there's a common and notable error in their understanding. He thinks because he's pedaling slowly he's using slow twitch fibers, but that's incorrect. At lower cadences there is more force on the pedals, and more force engages the fast twitch fibers. Slow twitch fibers will do all the work until such time as they can't provide the force required, then fast twitch come into play. Fast twitch fibers fatigue more easily and do not recover from the effort as fully as slow twitch fibers. #spin2win
You misheard that. What he says is that at his current power output he is using only slow twitch fibers, so he is not fatiguing, it just feels uncomfortably slow.
Something about grinding & churning the big gears at a low cadence makes me feel like a V8 driving, steak eating, poly womanizing, weight lifting, beastly man. But Lance went high cadence so I go high cadence.
From a purely mechanical point of view, irrespective of the training and conditioning of the athlete, higher cadences are less efficient, owing to the need to overcome the inertia of the reciprocating mass. The more frequently the legs have to change direction, the more energy required to do it.
Yes I found that when I did super high rpm, it is no different than redlining a car in low gear and burning out my legs. Redlining a car means the engine is spinning dangerously fast and is wearing itself out. If a higher gear or slower pace is not used, it will cook itself from all the heat and friction and overheat.
@@thetasurfers : The momentum that the crank possesses is imparted by the rider. Given equal power and torque output, leg mass and leg cadence directly reduce efficiency. Of course, in the real world there is a real causal correlation between leg mass, torque, and power, but that relationship depends largely on the nature of the mass-contractile or non-contractile tissue-and the manner in which the contractile tissue has been developed. Larger musculature from bodybuilding is going to have vastly less effect on performance than that from a long history of sprint and hill cycling, for example. Cadence is less efficient, but is similarly associated with performance. There is an ideal cadence as which to accelerate optimally, and higher cadence is associated with lesser chronic muscular fatigue.
@@jason200912 : The analogy does work to a point, but friction is the leg joints is, in fact, lower with higher cycling cadences. The overheating is due to inefficiency and consequently higher cardiovascular output. In simple physical terms, and given the same power output, higher cadences demand higher cardiovascular output whilst lower cadences demand greater muscular output. This is why we should shift down a gear (for lower load) if we are feeling muscularly fatigued, and why we should shift up a gear (for higher load) if we are feeling short of breath.
GCN gave me so much inspiration. Love your videos, guys! The more one measures the more faulty the conclusions out of the data will probably be and the more I read about it, the more confused I become. There are so many factors and my conclusion is that it's a totally individual thing. Factors, for example: body weight, bike weight, bike geometry and efficiency of power transmission, ratio of muscle power to body weight, variations in bike fitting, general physical condition, oxygen capacity per whatever, willpower, health of the heart, texture of the vein system and so on. One important question is what is one's goal. For example, I love long trips of 50 to 150 kilometers at 24 to 29 km per hour. Since I do not use either a heart rate monitor or a cadence sensor, I simply listen to my body to balance the lowest possible heart rate with max. possible strength with moderate muscle burning with moderate and constant breathing rhythm ... long driving mode;). I have no aching and I could probably ride the whole day long.
In periods when I run a lot and ride little, I can only produce power by spinning the pedals fast. Same for climbing, living in Amsterdam there are no climbs, so when I have the climb, I stick in the saddle and spin myself upwards.
For really steep sections or at the end of sprints I like high cadence 90-100 rpm. For long climbs 80-90 rpm and 70-80rpm for flat sections. I discovered lower cadence works better for me on flat sections when I was keeping up with some faster guys at lower cadence, but then they started walking away whenever I went to a faster spinning gear, but I was a bit fatigued that day so I'll check it out again.
I have found, as I am concentrating on 40K TT, but on a road bike, that there is huge difference in 90 to 100 Cadence. It all depends on what cog you are in and what power you are putting out. I control my power output by controling my cadence at 95. I know, roughly, how much more power I put in at 95 to maintain 95 for each different cog. On the flat I use a max of four cogs on 25 to 11. Riding into a strong wind I am on the lowest 19, then 17, 16 and 15. I can hit 40K/hr at 16. I stay in this range and out of corners drop a gear higher and pull out of the saddle and then drop back to get the cadence back up as fast as possible. Sometimes with no head wind I go up to 100 and try and stay there. Unfortunately I am bouncing at about 110. My experience is that I had to learn to spin at 95 and I did that by riding at about 32K/hr at 19. But I was only averaging about 220 to 230 Watts and much less with a tail wind. I do a stepped VO2 Max once a week and basically remain at 95 and push through the gears as above, at 15 I am doing about 360 to 380 Watts and repeat that five times. I have found, for me to be able to maintain the higher watts longer, was the increase in cadence. I suppose it comes down strength v ability to re-process oxygen. One thing I have learnt is I will never be any where near Bradley Wiggins or the pro level etc... not matter how hard I train. I reckon, with all things being equal, you need about 280 watts average on smaooth road to do 40K in 60 minutes.
What about something for the commuter or touring cyclist, not all of us are riding bikes to try and join the tour. Ideal cadence data appears to be based on a very high power output, not something the average commuter or touring cyclist maintains. Perhaps some data on what is the most efficient cadence to maintain 15,20,25, 30 km/h on level ground would be useful. Its possibly like the engine in a car, sure to most effectively use 80-90 % of the rated power the revs have to be right up there 3000+ rpm, but for light cruising, light throttle loads rpm is
Cadence is one of the metrics I look at to determine optimal crank length. A rider's self selected cadence varies on different crank lengths. When my cranks were too long, my self selected cadence was about 80rpm, but when I shortened them by 7.5mm, my self selected cadence rose to 95rpm. My average heart rate also dropped 17bpm and I'm riding significantly faster. I have chart comparisons on my blog showing this if you're interested in seeing it. Maybe something worthwhile to investigate in the future?
Crank length is another of those things that has no firm evidence to suggest that it has any effect at all, so it's interesting that you've found those results. Maybe we will take a look!
Global Cycling Network There's an abundance of research on this topic, but to see the full text you have to either pay a hefty price or have access to medical research databases to view them for free. It has been my research focus over the past six months, and I've done an exhaustive amount of reading. I'm going to work with the American College of Sports Medicine to research the accuracy/ repeatability of my crank arm length optimization test. I hope this test will lead to improved bike fittings worldwide, but I need influencial people (like you guys) to give it attention so that more cyclists will become aware of how their cranks affect performance. Crank length transformed me from being a consistent podium finisher to being a far-end finisher. I immediately experienced an altered pedaling technique, cadence, motor control and aero position. For the full season, I thought the issue was my training, but after changing my cranks, my technique and performance immediately restored back to normal - it was truly amazing. Check out this short list of articles related to crank length via this link and let me know what you think! scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=crank+arm+length+AND+cadence&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C15&as_sdtp=
+EatSleepTrain Smart this makes sense, i am a auto technician and high performance engine that operate at higher RPM would have connecting rods for more top end power. But engines that produce a lot of torque would have longer connecting rods. most of the big powerful sprinters like Marcel Kittel etc run longer crank arms. witch make sense, because for sprinting they need put down that power=torgue to get to across the finish line first.
I've found that for maximum sustained 20 minute power (which for me I measured at about 300 watts), was better at about 90 rpm than 96-100 rpm. Unfortunately I couldn't test lower because the bike ran out of resistance settings to make 300 watts. Mind you, this was one of those horrible wide saddles that you have to sit right on the tip, unless you are pedaling in a lower seat sitting position (which is useless for making any kind of power over 150-200 watts). The adjuster also had holes spaced just over an inch apart, and I had a setting where the saddle was just a bit too high as the next setting was too low for max power.
Mashing may be more efficient of your muscles are made for it. Like you've training slow twitch muscles in you're legs you're whole life. Great video as usual. The important take away is to train in different cadence zones.
I enjoyed the video a lot. What would be even more interesting is some videos where they do one of these experiments to show how it's done, then discuss the results from a larger trial with more reliable results.
i personally prefer to spin around 95 feels most comfortable, i tried slowing down to 80rpm a few times it felt a lot harder although my HR stayed about the same, so yeah whatever feels the best for you is probably the best way to ride
I found myself a few years ago while training for a Time Trial (flat course) that instead of pedaling 105-110 rpm that if I dropped it to 75-80 and used a much bigger gear (Ulriching it) I gained 1-2mph avg speed and HR dropped by 5 beats or so. The trade off is your leg muscles being able to maintain the exertion long enough to finish before failure.
Yeah very true.Just look at Ulrich muscle mass compared to lance or someone like Chris Froome. I think if you have the legs to push a big gear and it feels comfortable definitely try it out.
I tried a high cadence once when riding the length of the Bristol Bath Path. What an inefficient way of riding long distances. I soon dropped my cadence and pushed a bit harder. My speed increased and the effort decreased significantly. Cadence is entirely dependent on power output. So unless you can maintain 400 - 500 watts over a 2 - 3 hour ride there's no point in spinning at 100rpm. Most people will only managed perhaps 200 watts over that length of ride so 50 - 60 rpm would be far more efficient.
***** Completly agree! Wiggins is clean no doubt! People can say all they want behind the computer screen but when it comes to putting dinner on the table its a different playing field. If there not clean i still respect them just as much :)
Do a longer interval test too, 60 minutes, for example. The big benefit of spinning is it saves the leg muscles over time. Not that much fatigue is going to be generated in only 10 minutes.
In my experience it's important what you have done before the climb. If you cycle 60miles before its mostly not possible to ride with a low cadence and a lot power. If you only ride 10miles before, the possibility can be totally different.
Good video...I tend to be on the higher cadence side. Last season in a pan flat 40km ITT my cadence was 102rpm average and I tend to climb at about 95rpm on 6-8% climbs. The race will dictate your cadence too, if I'm sitting in I spin a lot more, 110rpm sometimes but if I do a turn on the front I'll drop down closer to 100rpm. Like he said at 60rpm, "don't ask me to accelerate". It may be efficient but if you're following an attack on a climb or launching an attack of your own you need to be able to wind the gear up. Froome is an extreme example but look at his cadence when he attacks.
I tend to average at about 75-80 rpm and 25kph (most of my rides have a lot of hills in though). For me, as a fairly new, low-level cyclist it feels the most comfortable. If I get to 100 it's like my legs are spinning wildly and I seem to be going nowhere, I doubt I could sustain that for very long so normally much above 80 and I'm changing into a higher gear.
To pedal efficiently at high cadence you need to train as turning legs around has costs in itself. Most of my riding is on big, long climbs and my cadence is around the 70 rpm mark, this is due to the slope (say 9-10% for the local roads) and gearing (34x30) I have and my w/kg. If I had a smaller gear I would comfortably pedal a bit faster. So I'm gear/power limited on climbs.
@@nekonarafirst, you must know 2 type of character muscle; fast twitch muscle & slow twitch musle, video you can search on YT with same word, second you must know your heart zone, ride on >zone 3 HR can made lactat acid, for long period it made chronic fatigue last but not least learn your ideal cadence; recovery cadence, average ideal cadence for your body with ideal gear ratio cassete, break cadence. Good bike just facility the most important how you blend with your bike, feel, sensivity?
@@nekonara if you compare itu to steady state cardio (like running) to weight lifting, it's (to some degree) can explain why the higher cadence breaks less muscle tissue than lower cadence. Lower cadence needs more strength just like weightlifting and breaks muscle tissue more. Someone had say this before "lower cadence is more for the strong heart, and lower cadence is more for the strong thigh muscle." Train to do both is still the best tho
We all known that Power = Torque x RPM. So for extracting few Watt, we press pedal harder, or spindle faster. The more force we apply to the pedal the more Legs muscle stress. Nether less , spinning faster results in cardio vascular tension. So we need to keep Cadence and Force balance to maintain durability of bicycling
I tend to use higher cadence on the hills and for a moderate effort of 150 to 200 watts that would be around 70 rpm but on a hill about 90 for a high effort of 300 watts. Bombing away from a light powers can go over 700 watts and 120 rpm. I don't have a power meter but am just going by perceived effort when compared to a gym bike that measured power.
Great work guys! Your "science" segments are my favorite and remind me of the Mythbusters show. The most important "takeaway" seems to be to keep an open mind and don't assume that accepted practice in the cycling world is always the best. And it shows just how much we still have to learn. Important Question: "Si, do you also have a daughter named Leia?" ;-D
Hey guys, Aaron here. Can you do a game for prizes - where you show videos of the pros printing, climbing etc and the viewers have to guess their cadence via submission?
Reaffirms what I always felt about cadence but for running. Whenever I try the 180cadence for any fast running or races I always tire out quicker and start breathing hard faster. While if I stay at the cadence want which is much slower than 180spm I can regulate my breathing with my steps and don't get tired as fast. I think optimal cadence is arbitrary and is different for everyone. Obviously if we're going to use elite runners at around 180spm+ and gauge that as optimal we need to be talking to regular people who race at those speeds as well not normal everyday people who's faster runs edge on 7 to 6 min miles or even slower. I think cadence is proportional to speed so to increase it independently means higher energy expenditure on a speed that doesn't require it. That lactate data speaks for itself.
This validates my experience. High Cadence = High Heartrate = More Lactate = Prone to Cramps. When I tried lower cadence at around 40rpm, my heartrate doesn't go higher than zone 2. Although it is painful on the legs/thighs, the general feeling after the ride is not that exhausting, and gets to zone 1 heart rate in less than a minute! Oval chainring do make it possible to go lower cadence, round chainring is just too heavy especially at 6 O'clock position.
I've often wondered about this when doing Zwift workouts on my Atom, 80rpm does seem to feel easier than 90rpm overall, even though I try and train at 90rpm because that's what people have told me.
Beautiful bike mate! Two other serious comments: 1) I know you recognize that these tests you do are not conclusive because you are doing a single repetition. There is second factor also which detracts from their reliability, which is time. You should assign the 3 treatments (in this case) to occur in random order, not nec 100, self-selected, 60. If you have a bunch of cycles and money on which to repeat the test, this would eliminate the time bias. If you did that, I would also adjust for self selected cadence level and maybe FTP too. (I'm a clinical statistician when I'm not biking.) 2) Dan, you made a comment about a junior cyclist not nec copying the cadence of a Wiggins because of the difference in power-output. I feel this misses the point of there possibly being different optimal cadences depending on power output. I feel there is a difference within individual. That is, if I am pushing at my FTP, my most efficient cadence is different than it is at .8FTP. I believe this can be explained because most riders are better able to recruit more muscle groups into the pedal stroke at different cadences. Thanks for my daily dose of cycling entertainment.
If they did all that they'd be starting to move from video production to actual sports science research, which is probably not what GCN want or have a budget for. But I would have liked to hear a bit more detail about the research that's already been published on cadence and what sort of experiments it involved.
In general, I always drive with a very high cadence, because over the years I have noticed that I am the fastest in this way without getting tired too fast.
You have to think what muscle was develop by a rider... If a rider is a spinner then his muscles are developed for spinning. If a person is a masher then he will have a hard time spinning with those big thighs... for me, I think spinning is the best. I use to be a masher until I car hit me and I can't put too much weight on my knee. Long story short, I found spinning, and now I found it less tiring than mashing.
use your cadence meter to see at what cadence you A: feel the most comfortable at and B: where you climb the fastest at yet can still accelerate at the top...... there in lies the answer ...your cadence will vary by terrain slightly but there is a reason bicycles now have 20-22 gears ..... s cadence that feels good to you can be maintained and the gears used for the increase or decrease of speed IF you know your body and your bike...then your cadence meter can show you where you live
You mention the lower cadence was utilising slow twitch muscle, surely the HR determines what energy source and twich muscles being used. I would suggest zone 4/5 is using fast twitch!
I remember selecting 90 for 300 watt 20 minute power runs and 96 rpm for 360 watt 4 minute VO2 runs. I think my power figures are a bit lower than that now as I haven't done much heavy cycling in a while. Because the bike I was using ran out of resistance levels I couldn't test at a lower cadence without reducing power. Also I was riding on the tip of a fat bottom saddle lmao. I have no idea how accurate the meter was and whether it reads higher than the PureGym bikes or whether I am less fit now which is likely as it certainly felt harder to keep it over 300 watts for more than a couple of minutes in there.
See this is an interesting experiment, I'd like to point out that the torque produced at 60 cadence is a lot greater than 80 and 100, meaning that though it may me more effect in this situation with a rolling platform, in a real life experiment when fighting gravity each pedal stroke is an acceleration and to maintain a speed at 60rpm you'd need to put out a significantly higher wattage than the other two. For a real life experiment how about 3 hill efforts hitting the bottom are are set speed of around 5 minutes at the different cadences with a long rest period to insure recovery. This would vary from rider to rider as the ability to cope at higher/lower cadence would differ but anyone can do it
That test surprised me because I thought the VO2 would be highest at 100 rpm but less lactate. One thing I have found though personally is that over spinning can actually give me the "jelly legs" as much as trying to churn out a big gear.
I ride mostly single-speed, using my carbon, geared, bike for "best". If you ride single-speed you get to train with every cadence there is, from egg-whisk downhills, to eye-popping, handlebar snapping, uphills.
I wonder how much the comparative results have to do with the rider's conditioning and technique. All my Strava PRs have been achieved seated, turning between 90-100rpm. Once on a very climb I decided to stand up and went all out. Upon plugging in the garmin at home I was amazed to see that my time was a massive 1'10" vs 55" PR! I can do that just cruising along sitting down. When I started cycling 4 years ago I read that high cadence was good for the knees (in line with GCN's advice) and have always been aiming for 90. The results could have been different if I hadn't - although I must say the knees feel good.
This is basically the difference in horse power (hp) and torque (bhp) as applied to a bicycle. Hp is always higher at higher rpm and bhp is always higher at lower rpm, therefore more torque is required at lower cadence (uphill) and more horsepower is required at higher cadence (flat). In combustion engine speak, the torque curve follows from torque to horsepower or low rpm to high rpm. How does this translate to the human body, though? That depends upon the actual combustion and compression relatives - oxygen verse available leverage which would be the fuel supply burn rate and cam shaft dimensions (diameter of piston shaft rotation = pedal to crank ratio Vs rear cog ratio). At lower rpm the body, as with the combustion engine, should burn less fuel but run an increased risk of something snapping due to torque to available/potential resistance. At higher rpm the body, again as with the combustion engine, should burn more fuel (and oxygen) but run a decreased risk of snapping anything even though the heart is pumping faster - yet, though it is faster overall it is actually lower per given output of required torque. Considering that the main thing that kills a gasoline fueled motor is wear of mating surfaces, a caveat should be included for cyclists: higher rpm (no matter the torque requirements, ie uphill or flat) = higher wear on all of your parts unless you are pushing the very far edges (ie insane uphills in higher gears or flatout chugging out of the saddle on flats in low gears). I'm in the camp of try to find your magical cadence - wherever you are comfortable and change gears accordingly, don't try to rocket science it unless you have a super manicured track inside of a bubble because if you are doing these kinds of experiments on yourself outside in the real world you run a severe risk of getting into serious trouble that you alone can not get yourself out of.
The conclusion of this test is incorrect. Higher lactate production is beneficial for a given VO2 level. There are many scientific papers that support this. More lactate production serves to maintain cytosolic redox i.e. reduce acidosis, make new glucose, and consume more protons from cytosol, as well as allow transport of proton from the cell. All these are advantageous to exercise performance. This test actually indicates that at RPM of 100, there was a better cycling performance as indicated by higher lactate levels.
Interesting. However, the real questions only involve self-selected cadences. Which is better: a rider with a lower self-selected cadence and a similar rider with a higher self-selected cadence? A more fundamental issue is: just how valid is the concept of a self-selected cadence? After all, whether I am on the flats, going up, going down; in a power, spin, or recovery interval; and/or even whether I am feeling fully charged up, fully bonked, or anywhere in-between--I am ALWAYS going EXACTLY at my self-selected cadence, whether or not I should be.
I dont think I can really say anything that hasn't been said but one thing I've noticed is that i prefer to pedal faster in the winter as putting a big force sort of clunking slower gears is really uncomfortable when the temperatures lower I feel.
I thought that part of the point of Lance's high cadence was to do with efficient burning of fuel for endurance. Now Lance was a man of numbers and wouldn't have taken this approach if it wasn't scientifically tested, however Ulrich was a masher and did just as well (what's a few minutes between friends, last place in the tour would have been hours behind and still a pro rider). So perhaps it doesn't make that much difference, or perhaps it depends on personal physic. Either way Simon and Lance have done scientific testing and come to, apparently, different results.
What about the affect on bone and joint health? I understand that low cadences are bad becaues you can put too much force through your knee. On the other hand the much higher forces involved in running are supposed to strengthen your bones over time, but I don't know if anything similar happens with pedaling hard at low cadence.
I don't think that there has ever been a link between cadence and bone health, but certainly pedalling at extremely low cadences can cause knee pain. Equally though, so can high cadences.
One thing ive found is that my body responds negatively to a low cadance high power type of cycling. That was after three summers doing 2x10km every day ( for 3 months). I started getting more and more tired and pain in my legs. The solution was changing to lower gear, higher cadance at the same speed ( around 25min for 10 km). I assume a lower cadance is going to work the muscles harder. They would then need more oxygen wich you wont get since the lower heart rate means you breathe less. But its just a theory.. Of course im not really a cyclist, just an amature with poor fitness..
It's always fun when GCN does the "science", although none of the experiments are ever designed to be valid. It would be very useful if you'd spend just a minute or two at the end and discuss the current state of the actual relevant research on the particular issue in question. You did that here in one sentence when you said something to the effect that current research supports "self selected" cadence, but it would be helpful if you'd go into a little more depth about the research. Your videos are very entertaining. Keep up the good work.
This. First there is a disclaimer that the tests aren't scientifically valid, then there is great fun, and then conclusions are drawn as if they are valid. So is there actual science to back up the claim of self selected cadence? Or is this jumping to conclusions?
I have very limited cycling experience. If I'm riding at a speed that feels fast to me on a flat road on my hybrid I will normally chose the highest gear, since that feels most comfortable to me. I don't actually know what sort of cadence I'm doing, but clearly I couldn't use a lower cadence without slowing down, so it's not entirely 'self-selected'. I'm curious about if many other cyclists do the same thing.
Hello there! This test is so wrong in so many ways, it's hard to know where to start the critique, so I'll just mention what appears to be the most significant point. This is when the rider says "don't ask me to accelerate" at 60 rpm. That is significant because climbs are not constant grade as in the test, but constantly changing and the rider must constantly change speed, so easier at higher rpm's, as the rider remarks. From a mathematical point of view, think of the grade as a curve, then a finer mesh better approximates the curve.
If we didn't consider friction it wouldn't matter whether he does 100 rpm or maby only 40 rpm. The energy he puts in would be exactly the same (if the distance, gradient and speed is the same too). However the more revolutions he does the more friction will turn his kinetic energy into heat energy, so he loses more power at higher cadences. But that also depends on various factors. Pedals for example where the friction increases under high loads can result in power loss at low cadences
Nice and detailed video, I hope GCN is going to do some more test into it :D I have a question though. If I was to guess, I would also relate the cadence to the physique of the cyclist: intuitively (to me), the longer the legs and the more inertia the cyclist has to overcome during the spinning, hence it would be more difficult (from a fatigue point of view) to get higher cadence. Can this be true??? Just as an example, to me it's more surprising to see Chris Froome going at high cadence then Lance Armstrong, because Froome is higher, so probably Froome's legs are longer then Armstrong...
I find that the older I am becoming the better I am at low cadence at least for tt's. On a trainer I can produce power from 90 rpm but on the road and in races I tend to use as big a gear as poss to get the best time. If I try to use a smaller gear and spin, I go slower. I can do below my age for a 25 and I am 53, but when I have tried to spin I am lucky to get 55!!
So let's talk about n engine for just a minute.... When you have higher rotation, torque tends to decrease, even if power tends to increase. But when you have a perfectly tuned and engineered engine, attached to a low weight car, you don't need so much torque, in order to obtain power, as you will have a higher rotation. That is the problem in phisics. When a machine based in alternative movement is created, just like an engine, or the legs of a cyclist, is hard to obtain high torque, at high rotation. In order to achieve that, you will need huge amounts of air and fuel entering the engine and a ignition system so well tuned that can burn it efficiently at high revs. The same thing with a cyclist. Training is the answer, and training at high cadence, and at the same time, producing high torque, in order to obtain high power. That is achieved by taking nutrients (fuel) and oxygen to the muscles, have a good exhaust system (in a cycling that would be taking the waste produces from the muscles) and having a perfect tuned aerobyc and neuro firing system in order to, efficiently (other than effectively), produce power. That is the graal of cycling for me (well, i understand it, but i can not achieve it... lol... this is a rela little engine :P ). And that is not at the reach of everyone. And having a coach that understand this phisics, can be so good, or so bad. That can take you to real work tuning you up, or taking the wrong pad, with your ego on command, lead you bad. Ask Ferrari, and he understand this perfectly, and know exactly what to do with a human body, in order to "tune" it for support that effort... If you know what i mean. That was exactly what he've done with Armstrong, a guy that he choose as a lab for his experiments, weakened by a desease that he tuned to exhaustion based (in my opinion) in this principle. And achieved a nearly perfect machine. Not legal though, but nearly perfect.
Humans are not mechanical machines. If you study machines you'll see that lower RPM is more efficient (usable power output relative to energy expended) due to "pumping loss" and higher RPM means, up to a point, you can rapidly increase power with minimal latency. With cycling you have both of those issues and the fact that at lower RPM, when performance starts to fade (human fatigue), you'll risk dropping power and potential to recover efficiently before you realize you should have shifted to a higher cadence. In addition, any athlete's effective cadence window can change due to conditions - including how well the athlete has been training to keep smooth at the upper and lower edges of his effective cadence window. "That was exactly what he've done with Armstrong, a guy that he choose as a lab for his experiments, weakened by a desease that he tuned to exhaustion based (in my opinion) in this principle. " Armstrong trained specifically to have a versatile cadence window AND he paid a lot of attention to making sure he had very close cogs suitable for the "crunch" points of each critical stage. That means instead of relying on standards cog sets he'd make sure that it critical stages he had, say, a 21-22-23-25 or maybe even a 21-23-24-25 or whatever he thought he would need during the critical mountain stages. It wasn't that his pedaling action was radically different. He was faster than the riders he attacked because he was relatively fresh and made sure he had every cog he might plausibly need so that he could recover easier than the others without blowing up.
I wonder how a mtb rider stats would compare to him on the same test on same bike, mtb tend to use slightly more effort on gradients? More resistance due to weight and tire drag? Would be interesting to compare the results on the same test same bikes - future video idea?
You have to "tune" your body to the cadence that is best. If you always climb at 70 and decide hmm im going to try 95-100 for this climb, your going to feel like its not efficient. If you train your body to work at the 95-100 or the 70 your going to likely be most efficient at one or the other. Ideally you want to train at all RPM's get your body efficient at all and then try the test.
Its all about maintaining the perfect amount of pressure on the pedals, its that simple. The amount that suits you and therefore cadence must vary depending on power output. If you want a decent power output you have to put some effort in but there must also be a limit so as to avoid knee damage. Spin to fast and you can't apply enough pressure to the pedals, they move away to quickly. Maintaining a perfect cadence to power output can only be fully achieved by using a CVT instead of gears. The bikes speed has to be taken out of the equation. I've been using a NuVinci CVT for the past 3 years. It took me a long time to refine my cadence. I now vary it hugely depending on the power requirement. Almost idling to 50 watts I'll choose 40 - 50rpm. Full power will be 80 - 90rpm. Riding continuously in that sweet spot is the best thing I've experienced on a bicycle.
Something else I should mention. For maximum efficiency its important not to spin faster than you need to. If you only need 100 watts to keep the bike moving drop the cadence right down.
Get GCN What about the distance covered in each cadence example? Maybe I totally missed something, but just pedaling for a set time limit means nothing, if the rider is able to climb 50 more meters with a certain cadence in the same time period. Would be very interesting for you guys to know do the experiment with Simon on a known climb using each cadence and see what gets him to the top fastest and with the most sustainable HR. Phil
Hi Phil, I think you're confusing cadence with power. As long as you have gears, cadence can vary but your speed and power can remain the same. So for example, on this treadmill, speed had to be constant otherwise Si would have rolled off the front or back of it. Because he was more efficient at different cadences though, the logic would be that he could ride faster in those cadences.
I switched last year from high cadence on the flats to low cadence high gear. My heart rate dropped for the same speed by a significant amount. I noticed your test shows this as well. I am now faster on the flats and have gears left when I get to the hills. When you use a high cadence the heart is doing the work. This was why Dr. Ferrari had Lance change to high cadence after cancer because his heart was the only muscle that had not wasted away.
Jason Phillips You can do some specific low cadence and high cadence training sessions but otherwise they are perhaps not the most useful training tool.
I got one after I started having knee issues and wanted to consciously keep my cadence higher since it seems to be a consensus that higher cadence is easier on the knees than grinding. It's also handy in high effort when I'm not thinking about my pedal speed and then notice I'm spinning at 115 and should probably shift.
I do the same thing. Knee problems suck. I find once I get used to the higher cadence it is a lot easier to keep speed over distance on flatter surfaces.
60RPM vs 90RPM: At 60RPM more muscle mass is used to create power than at 90RPM. So at 90RPM less muscle has to do more work, hence higher lactate levels and higher heart rate levels. At 60RPM more muscle mass has to create the same power, but the muscles do not have to work so hard to create the power, it creates power at a slow and steady rate, almost like walking, hence the lower lactate levels and heart rate. At 60RPM it looks almost like a oxidative fat burning state, vs the 90RPM oxygen fat burning and glucose breakdown to lactate state. Because you are working less muscle harder.
Cadence come down to physiology, length of bones and types of muscles someone has. Saying there is optimal cadence for everyone is like saying there one optimal heart rate number for everyone
The only solution to optimum. Cadence is to apply a different cadence as the situation demands. In other words 100 rpm is good on the flats and 60 to 90 on ascents of 6% or greater.
Don't get me wrong Greg Lemond is a CYCLING GOD!, and my Hero, who was responsible for getting me into cycling as a youth ... but I noticed inconsistencies/hypocrisies in his 1987 book 'Complete Book of Bicycling'. He recommends a MINIMUM 'Efficient' climbing cadence of 75 rpms ... but when watching NUMEROUS vintage footage of him riding the TDF he seemed to average in the low 60s rpms. Granted back then the pros' lowest gear was a MONSROUS 42t/24t 46" so any long grade over 10% would force riders into the low 60s rpm range at 350 watts. Hell when the gradients reached 15%+ they were all STRAIN GRINDING out of the saddle in the 40s and 50s rpms! So why didn't Lemond (or ALL of the pros back then) use at least a 28t freewheel instead of a 24t, and at least a 39t vs. 42t chainring (Campagnolo DID have a 135mm vs. a 144mm bcd crank back then)? Yeh a FEW of them thrashed their knees so bad as to abandon Stage races, but most of them managed just fine (and quite fast and efficient btw) climbing EXTREMELY LOW CADENCES by today's standards. Also the 'EPO' Era has to be put into consideration in regards to climbing cadences, since a doped up with EPO Pro Cyclist HAS TO climb at much higher cadences to reap the rewards of the artificial higher red blood cell count. Maybe it's just best to climb hills choosing cadence by 'feel', alternating btw. low/medium/high cadences to alternate giving your muscles/heart a break. Seems like just common sense to me without the need for any 'science'. Just ride the damned bike for God's sake!
Great video, thanks guys. I do have a question about how to interpret the results. Do any of the metrics you recorded allow you figure out at which cadence you are draining muscle glycogen faster? Conventional 'wisdom' states that you should always try to spin at a faster gear on the first climbs in a race/event in order to be fresher for the last climbs where you can rely on your muscular strength. I'm wondering if your results support or debunk this.
Both VO2 and lactate give an indication as to how much glycogen is used. The higher for each meaning more glycogen used. Our test didn't touch on strength endurance which is what you're referring too, and I suspect there is still merit to keeping your gears light at the beginning of a race. However, as this experiment does suggest, pedalling too fast would be detrimental.
Cadence, it is not as black and white as you think! On a hill going up, a ridding a low gear, high cadence is the way forward. Why - GRAVITY.... that 9.81m/s is constantly pulling you down!!! it is that simple. If you are in a high gear, and if you could get a high gear big enough, you would not be able to get up the hill..... the vector of gravity and the leaver of such a big gear may in fact see you actually, not only go forward, but it would actually work against you and you would go backwards. It is a physics thing!!! Try it!! Get a huge chain ring and try it on a steep hill. Another thing is that if you tried your test and increased the gradient you would find that you will get to a point where you would not be able to turn the gear. The fuels that your body uses when climbing are also different. For this test to be valid you need to increase the gradient, and test against various cadence.
Doesn't it usually come down to the composition of your muscles? If you have a lot of raw muscle power, a low cadence will allow you to mix up what muscles you use in a climb. If, like me, you have a better cardiovascular system, a high cadence will allow you to keep the same power without requiring more strength. So you ideal cadence should really be based on what genetic advantages and disadvantages you have.
How would a trainer affect the results? I'm guessing that at a higher cadence, we tend to coast more if we don't pedal fast enough which removes lactic acid from the muscles. This should reduce the burning sensation. Since the lactate was lower at a lower cadence, does that mean the FTP increased?
Simon should do this test each day for 3 days in a row but each day you swap out what cadence goes first. This can eliminate the variable that fatigue/warm up could create regarding heart rate and lactate. Also no caffeine should be used before the test. Stimulants can spike HR and that can in turn spike lactate levels creating warped data.
Love the idea of using the treadmill for testing. Makes it more real world. The Cosmed makes this possible and much more enjoyable. Also good to see the compacts on the Colnago.
The all great vegan has spoken, take notes minions
Jesus, don't ruin this great channel freakin vegan.
Carb the fuck up, and spin it to win it! CycloCore does a good vid with his computer setup as well showing how the spin to win method is the most efficient.
durianrider I will admit since I took on some of Durians training tips I have come on a fair way, I now ride a compact with a 12-30 cassette and I can now get up many hills that would have me really struggling and at a really good pace. I have lost 15 pounds whilst increasing my ride speeds. If I was to do back to back days riding at 60rpm by the third day I would be fucked. I can ride daily without any issues keeping my cadence between 90-105 as it allows me to recover..
Or perhaps because you ride more and have become leaner and fitter seems like the more obvious explanation.
This video literally changed my riding style. I've embraced riding a slightly smaller gear, lower cadence, which has dramatically affected my riding in a very very good way. Thanks guys.
Achilles tendon inflammation was causing delays in my training and physical impairment for common tasks like stairs. I thought, and others told me I was just getting old. A Garmin watch, Wahoo cadence and CycleOps power plus extensive research forced me to train above 80rpm. All my problems disappeared as long as I stayed above 80rpm. Amazing! I am 67 and just kicked out another century ride. If caadence>80 then injury=0...a nice formula! Biking, lifting & stretching will keep you young, I am evidence.
Really loving the GCN Does Science series. Regarding the linear relationship you saw between cadence, heart rate, and lactate levels I suspect that may be a result of increased muscle perfusion with the higher cadence "flushing out" lactate into the blood thereby increasing measurable levels vs a lower cadence --> lower heart rate --> lower perfusion so more lactate stays in the muscle with less being measurable in the blood. Would be interesting to do separate tests over days to see if the post-ride day lactate level is increased with the lower cadence (finally flushed out of the muscle) and how much muscle soreness the rider feels on the post-ride day with the different cadences. Great video & thanks guys.
For myself, I had always found that high cadence was less efficient until because of a knee injury, I couldn't push a "big gear" and had to spin higher. I actually trained for a higher cadence (95) and after 3 months begin hitting PR's on a regular basis riding over 50 miles (80K).
I'm just going to share my personal preference in cadence, as a ~120 lb endurance climber.
I grew into a cadence of around 60-80 rpm. This is because I found that my heart gives out long before my legs do. So, I put more strain on my legs than my heart at the lower cadence. At least in the groups I've cycled with, this is unique to me, so I've sometimes had to explain this. I don't know the science behind it, however, but it definitely made a difference once I realized my issues.
I wonder if doing the high-cadence test before the self-selected test influenced Si's cadence selection. Maybe once he is used to working at a high cadence for a few minutes his self-selected cadence rises?
I thought that was quite obvious, and am surprised to see that anyone thinks that might not be the case.
Agreed. Once I do 90rpm it feels weird at lower cadence.
@ 3:50 there's a common and notable error in their understanding. He thinks because he's pedaling slowly he's using slow twitch fibers, but that's incorrect. At lower cadences there is more force on the pedals, and more force engages the fast twitch fibers. Slow twitch fibers will do all the work until such time as they can't provide the force required, then fast twitch come into play. Fast twitch fibers fatigue more easily and do not recover from the effort as fully as slow twitch fibers. #spin2win
You misheard that. What he says is that at his current power output he is using only slow twitch fibers, so he is not fatiguing, it just feels uncomfortably slow.
sonuç olarak iyi
? 100 rpm 90 rpm 60 rpm
Something about grinding & churning the big gears at a low cadence makes me feel like a V8 driving, steak eating, poly womanizing, weight lifting, beastly man. But Lance went high cadence so I go high cadence.
SoSickWidit yea , most of the time I stay on my hardest gear and im used to it , I start pretty fast but after the start im hard to catch
Lance's cardio could support that.
There’s a time to spin and a time to grind.
People treat this like it’s an either/or debate. Lol
Hell yeah, bro. Comin through like a Mack truck!
Big block Chevy shidd.
From a purely mechanical point of view, irrespective of the training and conditioning of the athlete, higher cadences are less efficient, owing to the need to overcome the inertia of the reciprocating mass. The more frequently the legs have to change direction, the more energy required to do it.
but at the same time you have more momentum that is carried in the crank...
@@thetasurfers yes, but that momentum isn't gaining you anything to counteract the losses Peter cited.
Yes I found that when I did super high rpm, it is no different than redlining a car in low gear and burning out my legs.
Redlining a car means the engine is spinning dangerously fast and is wearing itself out. If a higher gear or slower pace is not used, it will cook itself from all the heat and friction and overheat.
@@thetasurfers : The momentum that the crank possesses is imparted by the rider. Given equal power and torque output, leg mass and leg cadence directly reduce efficiency. Of course, in the real world there is a real causal correlation between leg mass, torque, and power, but that relationship depends largely on the nature of the mass-contractile or non-contractile tissue-and the manner in which the contractile tissue has been developed. Larger musculature from bodybuilding is going to have vastly less effect on performance than that from a long history of sprint and hill cycling, for example. Cadence is less efficient, but is similarly associated with performance. There is an ideal cadence as which to accelerate optimally, and higher cadence is associated with lesser chronic muscular fatigue.
@@jason200912 : The analogy does work to a point, but friction is the leg joints is, in fact, lower with higher cycling cadences. The overheating is due to inefficiency and consequently higher cardiovascular output. In simple physical terms, and given the same power output, higher cadences demand higher cardiovascular output whilst lower cadences demand greater muscular output. This is why we should shift down a gear (for lower load) if we are feeling muscularly fatigued, and why we should shift up a gear (for higher load) if we are feeling short of breath.
GCN gave me so much inspiration. Love your videos, guys!
The more one measures the more faulty the conclusions out of the data will probably be and the more I read about it, the more confused I become. There are so many factors and my conclusion is that it's a totally individual thing. Factors, for example: body weight, bike weight, bike geometry and efficiency of power transmission, ratio of muscle power to body weight, variations in bike fitting, general physical condition, oxygen capacity per whatever, willpower, health of the heart, texture of the vein system and so on.
One important question is what is one's goal. For example, I love long trips of 50 to 150 kilometers at 24 to 29 km per hour. Since I do not use either a heart rate monitor or a cadence sensor, I simply listen to my body to balance the lowest possible heart rate with max. possible strength with moderate muscle burning with moderate and constant breathing rhythm ... long driving mode;). I have no aching and I could probably ride the whole day long.
In periods when I run a lot and ride little, I can only produce power by spinning the pedals fast. Same for climbing, living in Amsterdam there are no climbs, so when I have the climb, I stick in the saddle and spin myself upwards.
For really steep sections or at the end of sprints I like high cadence 90-100 rpm. For long climbs 80-90 rpm and 70-80rpm for flat sections. I discovered lower cadence works better for me on flat sections when I was keeping up with some faster guys at lower cadence, but then they started walking away whenever I went to a faster spinning gear, but I was a bit fatigued that day so I'll check it out again.
Since getting my Garmin for Christmas, this is something that's been crossing my mind a lot. Thanks guys!
Well worth knowing your cadence, it will improve your cycling!
I have found, as I am concentrating on 40K TT, but on a road bike, that there is huge difference in 90 to 100 Cadence. It all depends on what cog you are in and what power you are putting out. I control my power output by controling my cadence at 95. I know, roughly, how much more power I put in at 95 to maintain 95 for each different cog. On the flat I use a max of four cogs on 25 to 11. Riding into a strong wind I am on the lowest 19, then 17, 16 and 15. I can hit 40K/hr at 16. I stay in this range and out of corners drop a gear higher and pull out of the saddle and then drop back to get the cadence back up as fast as possible. Sometimes with no head wind I go up to 100 and try and stay there. Unfortunately I am bouncing at about 110. My experience is that I had to learn to spin at 95 and I did that by riding at about 32K/hr at 19. But I was only averaging about 220 to 230 Watts and much less with a tail wind. I do a stepped VO2 Max once a week and basically remain at 95 and push through the gears as above, at 15 I am doing about 360 to 380 Watts and repeat that five times. I have found, for me to be able to maintain the higher watts longer, was the increase in cadence. I suppose it comes down strength v ability to re-process oxygen. One thing I have learnt is I will never be any where near Bradley Wiggins or the pro level etc... not matter how hard I train. I reckon, with all things being equal, you need about 280 watts average on smaooth road to do 40K in 60 minutes.
I kept waiting for the Darth Vader bit. Almost gave up hope, but you never disappoint XD 7:38
What about something for the commuter or touring cyclist, not all of us are riding bikes to try and join the tour. Ideal cadence data appears to be based on a very high power output, not something the average commuter or touring cyclist maintains. Perhaps some data on what is the most efficient cadence to maintain 15,20,25, 30 km/h on level ground would be useful. Its possibly like the engine in a car, sure to most effectively use 80-90 % of the rated power the revs have to be right up there 3000+ rpm, but for light cruising, light throttle loads rpm is
Cadence is one of the metrics I look at to determine optimal crank length. A rider's self selected cadence varies on different crank lengths. When my cranks were too long, my self selected cadence was about 80rpm, but when I shortened them by 7.5mm, my self selected cadence rose to 95rpm. My average heart rate also dropped 17bpm and I'm riding significantly faster. I have chart comparisons on my blog showing this if you're interested in seeing it. Maybe something worthwhile to investigate in the future?
Crank length is another of those things that has no firm evidence to suggest that it has any effect at all, so it's interesting that you've found those results. Maybe we will take a look!
Global Cycling Network There's an abundance of research on this topic, but to see the full text you have to either pay a hefty price or have access to medical research databases to view them for free. It has been my research focus over the past six months, and I've done an exhaustive amount of reading. I'm going to work with the American College of Sports Medicine to research the accuracy/ repeatability of my crank arm length optimization test. I hope this test will lead to improved bike fittings worldwide, but I need influencial people (like you guys) to give it attention so that more cyclists will become aware of how their cranks affect performance. Crank length transformed me from being a consistent podium finisher to being a far-end finisher. I immediately experienced an altered pedaling technique, cadence, motor control and aero position. For the full season, I thought the issue was my training, but after changing my cranks, my technique and performance immediately restored back to normal - it was truly amazing. Check out this short list of articles related to crank length via this link and let me know what you think! scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=crank+arm+length+AND+cadence&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C15&as_sdtp=
+EatSleepTrain Smart this makes sense, i am a auto technician and high performance engine that operate at higher RPM would have connecting rods for more top end power. But engines that produce a lot of torque would have longer connecting rods. most of the big powerful sprinters like Marcel Kittel etc run longer crank arms. witch make sense, because for sprinting they need put down that power=torgue to get to across the finish line first.
I've found that for maximum sustained 20 minute power (which for me I measured at about 300 watts), was better at about 90 rpm than 96-100 rpm. Unfortunately I couldn't test lower because the bike ran out of resistance settings to make 300 watts.
Mind you, this was one of those horrible wide saddles that you have to sit right on the tip, unless you are pedaling in a lower seat sitting position (which is useless for making any kind of power over 150-200 watts). The adjuster also had holes spaced just over an inch apart, and I had a setting where the saddle was just a bit too high as the next setting was too low for max power.
Mashing may be more efficient of your muscles are made for it. Like you've training slow twitch muscles in you're legs you're whole life. Great video as usual. The important take away is to train in different cadence zones.
I enjoyed the video a lot. What would be even more interesting is some videos where they do one of these experiments to show how it's done, then discuss the results from a larger trial with more reliable results.
i personally prefer to spin around 95 feels most comfortable, i tried slowing down to 80rpm a few times it felt a lot harder although my HR stayed about the same, so yeah whatever feels the best for you is probably the best way to ride
I found myself a few years ago while training for a Time Trial (flat course) that instead of pedaling 105-110 rpm that if I dropped it to 75-80 and used a much bigger gear (Ulriching it) I gained 1-2mph avg speed and HR dropped by 5 beats or so. The trade off is your leg muscles being able to maintain the exertion long enough to finish before failure.
Yeah very true.Just look at Ulrich muscle mass compared to lance or someone like Chris Froome. I think if you have the legs to push a big gear and it feels comfortable definitely try it out.
I tried a high cadence once when riding the length of the Bristol Bath Path. What an inefficient way of riding long distances. I soon dropped my cadence and pushed a bit harder. My speed increased and the effort decreased significantly.
Cadence is entirely dependent on power output. So unless you can maintain 400 - 500 watts over a 2 - 3 hour ride there's no point in spinning at 100rpm. Most people will only managed perhaps 200 watts over that length of ride so 50 - 60 rpm would be far more efficient.
***** Froome can only hold 500 for 40 mins :)
Alex Swan Maybe, maybe not. As long as he doesn't test positive i will trust hes clean :) LOL
***** Completly agree! Wiggins is clean no doubt! People can say all they want behind the computer screen but when it comes to putting dinner on the table its a different playing field. If there not clean i still respect them just as much :)
Do a longer interval test too, 60 minutes, for example. The big benefit of spinning is it saves the leg muscles over time. Not that much fatigue is going to be generated in only 10 minutes.
I cant do high cadence as I find it very hard on my mucles but I can clime hills at low cadences
In my experience it's important what you have done before the climb. If you cycle 60miles before its mostly not possible to ride with a low cadence and a lot power. If you only ride 10miles before, the possibility can be totally different.
Good video...I tend to be on the higher cadence side. Last season in a pan flat 40km ITT my cadence was 102rpm average and I tend to climb at about 95rpm on 6-8% climbs. The race will dictate your cadence too, if I'm sitting in I spin a lot more, 110rpm sometimes but if I do a turn on the front I'll drop down closer to 100rpm. Like he said at 60rpm, "don't ask me to accelerate". It may be efficient but if you're following an attack on a climb or launching an attack of your own you need to be able to wind the gear up. Froome is an extreme example but look at his cadence when he attacks.
I tend to average at about 75-80 rpm and 25kph (most of my rides have a lot of hills in though). For me, as a fairly new, low-level cyclist it feels the most comfortable. If I get to 100 it's like my legs are spinning wildly and I seem to be going nowhere, I doubt I could sustain that for very long so normally much above 80 and I'm changing into a higher gear.
To pedal efficiently at high cadence you need to train as turning legs around has costs in itself.
Most of my riding is on big, long climbs and my cadence is around the 70 rpm mark, this is due to the slope (say 9-10% for the local roads) and gearing (34x30) I have and my w/kg. If I had a smaller gear I would comfortably pedal a bit faster. So I'm gear/power limited on climbs.
This was awesome. Thanks for posting!
i think higher cadence reduces muscle damage, which would result in faster recovery for stage races. just my layman theory.
Yes it is, especially if you ride grand fondo, it would not be lie.
how higher cadence reduce muscle damage? kindly explain. total newbs here 😅
@@nekonarafirst, you must know 2 type of character muscle; fast twitch muscle & slow twitch musle, video you can search on YT with same word, second you must know your heart zone, ride on >zone 3 HR can made lactat acid, for long period it made chronic fatigue last but not least learn your ideal cadence; recovery cadence, average ideal cadence for your body with ideal gear ratio cassete, break cadence. Good bike just facility the most important how you blend with your bike, feel, sensivity?
@@nekonara if you compare itu to steady state cardio (like running) to weight lifting, it's (to some degree) can explain why the higher cadence breaks less muscle tissue than lower cadence. Lower cadence needs more strength just like weightlifting and breaks muscle tissue more.
Someone had say this before "lower cadence is more for the strong heart, and lower cadence is more for the strong thigh muscle."
Train to do both is still the best tho
@@cesraihandary "Higher cadence is more for the strong heart, and lower cadence is more for the strong thigh muscle"
We all known that Power = Torque x RPM. So for extracting few Watt, we press pedal harder, or spindle faster. The more force we apply to the pedal the more Legs muscle stress. Nether less , spinning faster results in cardio vascular tension. So we need to keep Cadence and Force balance to maintain durability of bicycling
I seriously love you guys and these videos so much! Well done!
I tend to use higher cadence on the hills and for a moderate effort of 150 to 200 watts that would be around 70 rpm but on a hill about 90 for a high effort of 300 watts.
Bombing away from a light powers can go over 700 watts and 120 rpm. I don't have a power meter but am just going by perceived effort when compared to a gym bike that measured power.
Great work guys! Your "science" segments are my favorite and remind me of the Mythbusters show. The most important "takeaway" seems to be to keep an open mind and don't assume that accepted practice in the cycling world is always the best. And it shows just how much we still have to learn.
Important Question: "Si, do you also have a daughter named Leia?" ;-D
Hey guys, Aaron here. Can you do a game for prizes - where you show videos of the pros printing, climbing etc and the viewers have to guess their cadence via submission?
Just about to go out on a ride where 'Efficient Cadence' will be on my mind... thanks for added motivation.
Reaffirms what I always felt about cadence but for running. Whenever I try the 180cadence for any fast running or races I always tire out quicker and start breathing hard faster. While if I stay at the cadence want which is much slower than 180spm I can regulate my breathing with my steps and don't get tired as fast. I think optimal cadence is arbitrary and is different for everyone. Obviously if we're going to use elite runners at around 180spm+ and gauge that as optimal we need to be talking to regular people who race at those speeds as well not normal everyday people who's faster runs edge on 7 to 6 min miles or even slower. I think cadence is proportional to speed so to increase it independently means higher energy expenditure on a speed that doesn't require it. That lactate data speaks for itself.
What about the worm up? I think that Si became more suitable for the test in time (especially for the 3rd, low cadence test)!
2:06
I really wanted to see that or expecting the machine turned on.
This validates my experience.
High Cadence = High Heartrate = More Lactate = Prone to Cramps.
When I tried lower cadence at around 40rpm, my heartrate doesn't go higher than zone 2. Although it is painful on the legs/thighs, the general feeling after the ride is not that exhausting, and gets to zone 1 heart rate in less than a minute!
Oval chainring do make it possible to go lower cadence, round chainring is just too heavy especially at 6 O'clock position.
I've often wondered about this when doing Zwift workouts on my Atom, 80rpm does seem to feel easier than 90rpm overall, even though I try and train at 90rpm because that's what people have told me.
Beautiful bike mate! Two other serious comments:
1) I know you recognize that these tests you do are not conclusive because you are doing a single repetition. There is second factor also which detracts from their reliability, which is time. You should assign the 3 treatments (in this case) to occur in random order, not nec 100, self-selected, 60. If you have a bunch of cycles and money on which to repeat the test, this would eliminate the time bias. If you did that, I would also adjust for self selected cadence level and maybe FTP too. (I'm a clinical statistician when I'm not biking.)
2) Dan, you made a comment about a junior cyclist not nec copying the cadence of a Wiggins because of the difference in power-output. I feel this misses the point of there possibly being different optimal cadences depending on power output. I feel there is a difference within individual. That is, if I am pushing at my FTP, my most efficient cadence is different than it is at .8FTP. I believe this can be explained because most riders are better able to recruit more muscle groups into the pedal stroke at different cadences.
Thanks for my daily dose of cycling entertainment.
If they did all that they'd be starting to move from video production to actual sports science research, which is probably not what GCN want or have a budget for. But I would have liked to hear a bit more detail about the research that's already been published on cadence and what sort of experiments it involved.
Lol. Yes I agree. . ..just food for thought.
Diet and nutrition also plays a very large part in the lactate threshold of a rider. You may want to do an experiment on that as well.
In general, I always drive with a very high cadence, because over the years I have noticed that I am the fastest in this way without getting tired too fast.
You have to think what muscle was develop by a rider... If a rider is a spinner then his muscles are developed for spinning. If a person is a masher then he will have a hard time spinning with those big thighs... for me, I think spinning is the best. I use to be a masher until I car hit me and I can't put too much weight on my knee. Long story short, I found spinning, and now I found it less tiring than mashing.
use your cadence meter to see at what cadence you A: feel the most comfortable at and B: where you climb the fastest at yet can still accelerate at the top...... there in lies the answer ...your cadence will vary by terrain slightly but there is a reason bicycles now have 20-22 gears ..... s cadence that feels good to you can be maintained and the gears used for the increase or decrease of speed IF you know your body and your bike...then your cadence meter can show you where you live
Really interesting episode. I'm going to try low cadence on my next climb. Thanks!
Great video! Results are surprising! Thanks!
You mention the lower cadence was utilising slow twitch muscle, surely the HR determines what energy source and twich muscles being used. I would suggest zone 4/5 is using fast twitch!
I remember selecting 90 for 300 watt 20 minute power runs and 96 rpm for 360 watt 4 minute VO2 runs. I think my power figures are a bit lower than that now as I haven't done much heavy cycling in a while. Because the bike I was using ran out of resistance levels I couldn't test at a lower cadence without reducing power. Also I was riding on the tip of a fat bottom saddle lmao. I have no idea how accurate the meter was and whether it reads higher than the PureGym bikes or whether I am less fit now which is likely as it certainly felt harder to keep it over 300 watts for more than a couple of minutes in there.
See this is an interesting experiment, I'd like to point out that the torque produced at 60 cadence is a lot greater than 80 and 100, meaning that though it may me more effect in this situation with a rolling platform, in a real life experiment when fighting gravity each pedal stroke is an acceleration and to maintain a speed at 60rpm you'd need to put out a significantly higher wattage than the other two. For a real life experiment how about 3 hill efforts hitting the bottom are are set speed of around 5 minutes at the different cadences with a long rest period to insure recovery. This would vary from rider to rider as the ability to cope at higher/lower cadence would differ but anyone can do it
Love all the videos! Big fan! It would be nice it you put all the links below as with an iPad you can't tap on the screen for links.
That test surprised me because I thought the VO2 would be highest at 100 rpm but less lactate. One thing I have found though personally is that over spinning can actually give me the "jelly legs" as much as trying to churn out a big gear.
I ride mostly single-speed, using my carbon, geared, bike for "best".
If you ride single-speed you get to train with every cadence there is, from egg-whisk downhills, to eye-popping, handlebar snapping, uphills.
I wonder how much the comparative results have to do with the rider's conditioning and technique.
All my Strava PRs have been achieved seated, turning between 90-100rpm. Once on a very climb I decided to stand up and went all out. Upon plugging in the garmin at home I was amazed to see that my time was a massive 1'10" vs 55" PR! I can do that just cruising along sitting down.
When I started cycling 4 years ago I read that high cadence was good for the knees (in line with GCN's advice) and have always been aiming for 90. The results could have been different if I hadn't - although I must say the knees feel good.
This is basically the difference in horse power (hp) and torque (bhp) as applied to a bicycle. Hp is always higher at higher rpm and bhp is always higher at lower rpm, therefore more torque is required at lower cadence (uphill) and more horsepower is required at higher cadence (flat). In combustion engine speak, the torque curve follows from torque to horsepower or low rpm to high rpm. How does this translate to the human body, though? That depends upon the actual combustion and compression relatives - oxygen verse available leverage which would be the fuel supply burn rate and cam shaft dimensions (diameter of piston shaft rotation = pedal to crank ratio Vs rear cog ratio). At lower rpm the body, as with the combustion engine, should burn less fuel but run an increased risk of something snapping due to torque to available/potential resistance. At higher rpm the body, again as with the combustion engine, should burn more fuel (and oxygen) but run a decreased risk of snapping anything even though the heart is pumping faster - yet, though it is faster overall it is actually lower per given output of required torque. Considering that the main thing that kills a gasoline fueled motor is wear of mating surfaces, a caveat should be included for cyclists: higher rpm (no matter the torque requirements, ie uphill or flat) = higher wear on all of your parts unless you are pushing the very far edges (ie insane uphills in higher gears or flatout chugging out of the saddle on flats in low gears). I'm in the camp of try to find your magical cadence - wherever you are comfortable and change gears accordingly, don't try to rocket science it unless you have a super manicured track inside of a bubble because if you are doing these kinds of experiments on yourself outside in the real world you run a severe risk of getting into serious trouble that you alone can not get yourself out of.
The conclusion of this test is incorrect. Higher lactate production is beneficial for a given VO2 level. There are many scientific papers that support this. More lactate production serves to maintain cytosolic redox i.e. reduce acidosis, make new glucose, and consume more protons from cytosol, as well as allow transport of proton from the cell. All these are advantageous to exercise performance. This test actually indicates that at RPM of 100, there was a better cycling performance as indicated by higher lactate levels.
Hey ya GCN! Do a video on when a bike tire should be replaced and if so - the different types of tyres out there :)
Interesting.
However, the real questions only involve self-selected cadences.
Which is better: a rider with a lower self-selected cadence and a similar rider with a higher self-selected cadence?
A more fundamental issue is: just how valid is the concept of a self-selected cadence?
After all, whether I am on the flats, going up, going down; in a power, spin, or recovery interval; and/or even whether I am feeling fully charged up, fully bonked, or anywhere in-between--I am ALWAYS going EXACTLY at my self-selected cadence, whether or not I should be.
I dont think I can really say anything that hasn't been said but one thing I've noticed is that i prefer to pedal faster in the winter as putting a big force sort of clunking slower gears is really uncomfortable when the temperatures lower I feel.
Wow, great test, thanks!
I thought that part of the point of Lance's high cadence was to do with efficient burning of fuel for endurance.
Now Lance was a man of numbers and wouldn't have taken this approach if it wasn't scientifically tested, however Ulrich was a masher and did just as well (what's a few minutes between friends, last place in the tour would have been hours behind and still a pro rider). So perhaps it doesn't make that much difference, or perhaps it depends on personal physic.
Either way Simon and Lance have done scientific testing and come to, apparently, different results.
cutest little smile at 5:45 ^^ haha!
it would be good to see 3 cyclists doimg the same 3 tests and then compare the result as that should exclude unique abilities of individual cyclist.
What about the affect on bone and joint health? I understand that low cadences are bad becaues you can put too much force through your knee. On the other hand the much higher forces involved in running are supposed to strengthen your bones over time, but I don't know if anything similar happens with pedaling hard at low cadence.
I don't think that there has ever been a link between cadence and bone health, but certainly pedalling at extremely low cadences can cause knee pain. Equally though, so can high cadences.
One thing ive found is that my body responds negatively to a low cadance high power type of cycling. That was after three summers doing 2x10km every day ( for 3 months). I started getting more and more tired and pain in my legs. The solution was changing to lower gear, higher cadance at the same speed ( around 25min for 10 km). I assume a lower cadance is going to work the muscles harder. They would then need more oxygen wich you wont get since the lower heart rate means you breathe less. But its just a theory.. Of course im not really a cyclist, just an amature with poor fitness..
Magnus Danielsson I normaly was making minimum 30km per day at highest or cruising and I never had a problem
Well if you put your lungs to breathe faster the heart rate increases too
It's always fun when GCN does the "science", although none of the experiments are ever designed to be valid. It would be very useful if you'd spend just a minute or two at the end and discuss the current state of the actual relevant research on the particular issue in question. You did that here in one sentence when you said something to the effect that current research supports "self selected" cadence, but it would be helpful if you'd go into a little more depth about the research. Your videos are very entertaining. Keep up the good work.
This. First there is a disclaimer that the tests aren't scientifically valid, then there is great fun, and then conclusions are drawn as if they are valid. So is there actual science to back up the claim of self selected cadence? Or is this jumping to conclusions?
See and I'm a time trialist that averages a 95-100 cadence @ 300 watts. I think it's all about personal preference just like what you guys said.
I have very limited cycling experience. If I'm riding at a speed that feels fast to me on a flat road on my hybrid I will normally chose the highest gear, since that feels most comfortable to me. I don't actually know what sort of cadence I'm doing, but clearly I couldn't use a lower cadence without slowing down, so it's not entirely 'self-selected'. I'm curious about if many other cyclists do the same thing.
Hello there! This test is so wrong in so many ways, it's hard to know where to start the critique, so I'll just mention what appears to be the most significant point. This is when the rider says "don't ask me to accelerate" at 60 rpm. That is significant because climbs are not constant grade as in the test, but constantly changing and the rider must constantly change speed, so easier at higher rpm's, as the rider remarks. From a mathematical point of view, think of the grade as a curve, then a finer mesh better approximates the curve.
If we didn't consider friction it wouldn't matter whether he does 100 rpm or maby only 40 rpm. The energy he puts in would be exactly the same (if the distance, gradient and speed is the same too). However the more revolutions he does the more friction will turn his kinetic energy into heat energy, so he loses more power at higher cadences. But that also depends on various factors. Pedals for example where the friction increases under high loads can result in power loss at low cadences
Would not be talking about some pretty extreme cadences to see a real loss due to friction?
Nice and detailed video, I hope GCN is going to do some more test into it :D I have a question though.
If I was to guess, I would also relate the cadence to the physique of the cyclist: intuitively (to me), the longer the legs and the more inertia the cyclist has to overcome during the spinning, hence it would be more difficult (from a fatigue point of view) to get higher cadence. Can this be true???
Just as an example, to me it's more surprising to see Chris Froome going at high cadence then Lance Armstrong, because Froome is higher, so probably Froome's legs are longer then Armstrong...
I find that the older I am becoming the better I am at low cadence at least for tt's. On a trainer I can produce power from 90 rpm but on the road and in races I tend to use as big a gear as poss to get the best time. If I try to use a smaller gear and spin, I go slower. I can do below my age for a 25 and I am 53, but when I have tried to spin I am lucky to get 55!!
And the order of the tests could matter as well, or at least should be isolated as a possible variable ;)
So let's talk about n engine for just a minute.... When you have higher rotation, torque tends to decrease, even if power tends to increase. But when you have a perfectly tuned and engineered engine, attached to a low weight car, you don't need so much torque, in order to obtain power, as you will have a higher rotation. That is the problem in phisics. When a machine based in alternative movement is created, just like an engine, or the legs of a cyclist, is hard to obtain high torque, at high rotation. In order to achieve that, you will need huge amounts of air and fuel entering the engine and a ignition system so well tuned that can burn it efficiently at high revs. The same thing with a cyclist. Training is the answer, and training at high cadence, and at the same time, producing high torque, in order to obtain high power. That is achieved by taking nutrients (fuel) and oxygen to the muscles, have a good exhaust system (in a cycling that would be taking the waste produces from the muscles) and having a perfect tuned aerobyc and neuro firing system in order to, efficiently (other than effectively), produce power. That is the graal of cycling for me (well, i understand it, but i can not achieve it... lol... this is a rela little engine :P ). And that is not at the reach of everyone. And having a coach that understand this phisics, can be so good, or so bad. That can take you to real work tuning you up, or taking the wrong pad, with your ego on command, lead you bad. Ask Ferrari, and he understand this perfectly, and know exactly what to do with a human body, in order to "tune" it for support that effort... If you know what i mean. That was exactly what he've done with Armstrong, a guy that he choose as a lab for his experiments, weakened by a desease that he tuned to exhaustion based (in my opinion) in this principle. And achieved a nearly perfect machine. Not legal though, but nearly perfect.
Humans are not mechanical machines. If you study machines you'll see that lower RPM is more efficient (usable power output relative to energy expended) due to "pumping loss" and higher RPM means, up to a point, you can rapidly increase power with minimal latency. With cycling you have both of those issues and the fact that at lower RPM, when performance starts to fade (human fatigue), you'll risk dropping power and potential to recover efficiently before you realize you should have shifted to a higher cadence. In addition, any athlete's effective cadence window can change due to conditions - including how well the athlete has been training to keep smooth at the upper and lower edges of his effective cadence window.
"That was exactly what he've done with Armstrong, a guy that he choose as a lab for his experiments, weakened by a desease that he tuned to exhaustion based (in my opinion) in this principle. "
Armstrong trained specifically to have a versatile cadence window AND he paid a lot of attention to making sure he had very close cogs suitable for the "crunch" points of each critical stage. That means instead of relying on standards cog sets he'd make sure that it critical stages he had, say, a 21-22-23-25 or maybe even a 21-23-24-25 or whatever he thought he would need during the critical mountain stages. It wasn't that his pedaling action was radically different. He was faster than the riders he attacked because he was relatively fresh and made sure he had every cog he might plausibly need so that he could recover easier than the others without blowing up.
I wonder how a mtb rider stats would compare to him on the same test on same bike, mtb tend to use slightly more effort on gradients? More resistance due to weight and tire drag? Would be interesting to compare the results on the same test same bikes - future video idea?
works great in my shop and on road trips in my RV
You have to "tune" your body to the cadence that is best. If you always climb at 70 and decide hmm im going to try 95-100 for this climb, your going to feel like its not efficient. If you train your body to work at the 95-100 or the 70 your going to likely be most efficient at one or the other. Ideally you want to train at all RPM's get your body efficient at all and then try the test.
Self selection seems the way to go, maybe it reflects the individual riders own physiology. Beautiful bike.. Santa was good to some lucky rider!
Very interesting episode. Thank you.
Its all about maintaining the perfect amount of pressure on the pedals, its that simple. The amount that suits you and therefore cadence must vary depending on power output.
If you want a decent power output you have to put some effort in but there must also be a limit so as to avoid knee damage. Spin to fast and you can't apply enough pressure to the pedals, they move away to quickly.
Maintaining a perfect cadence to power output can only be fully achieved by using a CVT instead of gears. The bikes speed has to be taken out of the equation.
I've been using a NuVinci CVT for the past 3 years. It took me a long time to refine my cadence. I now vary it hugely depending on the power requirement. Almost idling to 50 watts I'll choose 40 - 50rpm. Full power will be 80 - 90rpm.
Riding continuously in that sweet spot is the best thing I've experienced on a bicycle.
Something else I should mention. For maximum efficiency its important not to spin faster than you need to. If you only need 100 watts to keep the bike moving drop the cadence right down.
It's all about maintaining the perfect amount of pleasure on the pedals ;)
Get GCN
What about the distance covered in each cadence example? Maybe I totally missed something, but just pedaling for a set time limit means nothing, if the rider is able to climb 50 more meters with a certain cadence in the same time period. Would be very interesting for you guys to know do the experiment with Simon on a known climb using each cadence and see what gets him to the top fastest and with the most sustainable HR.
Phil
Hi Phil, I think you're confusing cadence with power. As long as you have gears, cadence can vary but your speed and power can remain the same. So for example, on this treadmill, speed had to be constant otherwise Si would have rolled off the front or back of it.
Because he was more efficient at different cadences though, the logic would be that he could ride faster in those cadences.
I switched last year from high cadence on the flats to low cadence high gear. My heart rate dropped for the same speed by a significant amount. I noticed your test shows this as well. I am now faster on the flats and have gears left when I get to the hills.
When you use a high cadence the heart is doing the work. This was why Dr. Ferrari had Lance change to high cadence after cancer because his heart was the only muscle that had not wasted away.
So is there any reason to monitor cadence? If self selected cadence is optimal how would I use a cadence monitor and what is the goal?
Jason Phillips You can do some specific low cadence and high cadence training sessions but otherwise they are perhaps not the most useful training tool.
I got one after I started having knee issues and wanted to consciously keep my cadence higher since it seems to be a consensus that higher cadence is easier on the knees than grinding.
It's also handy in high effort when I'm not thinking about my pedal speed and then notice I'm spinning at 115 and should probably shift.
I do the same thing. Knee problems suck. I find once I get used to the higher cadence it is a lot easier to keep speed over distance on flatter surfaces.
60RPM vs 90RPM: At 60RPM more muscle mass is used to create power than at 90RPM. So at 90RPM less muscle has to do more work, hence higher lactate levels and higher heart rate levels. At 60RPM more muscle mass has to create the same power, but the muscles do not have to work so hard to create the power, it creates power at a slow and steady rate, almost like walking, hence the lower lactate levels and heart rate. At 60RPM it looks almost like a oxidative fat burning state, vs the 90RPM oxygen fat burning and glucose breakdown to lactate state. Because you are working less muscle harder.
7:18 it is different because inertial resonance
Cadence come down to physiology, length of bones and types of muscles someone has. Saying there is optimal cadence for everyone is like saying there one optimal heart rate number for everyone
gcn video always make me wanna ride ;-)
The only solution to optimum. Cadence is to apply a different cadence as the situation demands. In other words 100 rpm is good on the flats and 60 to 90 on ascents of 6% or greater.
Don't get me wrong Greg Lemond is a CYCLING GOD!, and my Hero, who was responsible for getting me into cycling as a youth ... but I noticed inconsistencies/hypocrisies in his 1987 book 'Complete Book of Bicycling'. He recommends a MINIMUM 'Efficient' climbing cadence of 75 rpms ... but when watching NUMEROUS vintage footage of him riding the TDF he seemed to average in the low 60s rpms. Granted back then the pros' lowest gear was a MONSROUS 42t/24t 46" so any long grade over 10% would force riders into the low 60s rpm range at 350 watts. Hell when the gradients reached 15%+ they were all STRAIN GRINDING out of the saddle in the 40s and 50s rpms! So why didn't Lemond (or ALL of the pros back then) use at least a 28t freewheel instead of a 24t, and at least a 39t vs. 42t chainring (Campagnolo DID have a 135mm vs. a 144mm bcd crank back then)? Yeh a FEW of them thrashed their knees so bad as to abandon Stage races, but most of them managed just fine (and quite fast and efficient btw) climbing EXTREMELY LOW CADENCES by today's standards. Also the 'EPO' Era has to be put into consideration in regards to climbing cadences, since a doped up with EPO Pro Cyclist HAS TO climb at much higher cadences to reap the rewards of the artificial higher red blood cell count. Maybe it's just best to climb hills choosing cadence by 'feel', alternating btw. low/medium/high cadences to alternate giving your muscles/heart a break. Seems like just common sense to me without the need for any 'science'. Just ride the damned bike for God's sake!
i hope you posting about comparing 23c and 25c . in korea riders always talking about this topic but nobody know what is better for road cycle
skory87 we're big fans of 25c tyres for everyday riding, but we'll have to look into it further!
thx!
Ui , you guys should also talk in terms of "gears " . I don't understand cadence.
6% incline may not seem much, until you try to cycle. I am already hammered with 3.5% incline.
Great video, thanks guys. I do have a question about how to interpret the results. Do any of the metrics you recorded allow you figure out at which cadence you are draining muscle glycogen faster? Conventional 'wisdom' states that you should always try to spin at a faster gear on the first climbs in a race/event in order to be fresher for the last climbs where you can rely on your muscular strength. I'm wondering if your results support or debunk this.
Both VO2 and lactate give an indication as to how much glycogen is used. The higher for each meaning more glycogen used. Our test didn't touch on strength endurance which is what you're referring too, and I suspect there is still merit to keeping your gears light at the beginning of a race. However, as this experiment does suggest, pedalling too fast would be detrimental.
Great reply, thanks!
Cadence, it is not as black and white as you think! On a hill going up, a ridding a low gear, high cadence is the way forward. Why - GRAVITY.... that 9.81m/s is constantly pulling you down!!! it is that simple. If you are in a high gear, and if you could get a high gear big enough, you would not be able to get up the hill..... the vector of gravity and the leaver of such a big gear may in fact see you actually, not only go forward, but it would actually work against you and you would go backwards. It is a physics thing!!! Try it!! Get a huge chain ring and try it on a steep hill. Another thing is that if you tried your test and increased the gradient you would find that you will get to a point where you would not be able to turn the gear. The fuels that your body uses when climbing are also different. For this test to be valid you need to increase the gradient, and test against various cadence.
Doesn't it usually come down to the composition of your muscles? If you have a lot of raw muscle power, a low cadence will allow you to mix up what muscles you use in a climb. If, like me, you have a better cardiovascular system, a high cadence will allow you to keep the same power without requiring more strength. So you ideal cadence should really be based on what genetic advantages and disadvantages you have.
How would a trainer affect the results? I'm guessing that at a higher cadence, we tend to coast more if we don't pedal fast enough which removes lactic acid from the muscles. This should reduce the burning sensation. Since the lactate was lower at a lower cadence, does that mean the FTP increased?
Did this completely change gear selection for the testers riding from hence forth? Because that does seem a very significant bit of information.
So I am wondering? You want a lower lactate level right? And also what is the VO2 measuring?