livedarklions

I think I've said several times in this thread that I have never measured my cadence. It's back-calculated based on speed and gears. I measure my speed and the gearing is intentionally selected. I don't care about cadence at all, as you suggest it just sort of adjusts itself to whatever I'm doing. TBH, one of the other posters keeps bringing up my cadence, but I don't think it's terribly interesting as I just think it's the obvious consequence of my gear preferences, which was the subject of this thread.

PeteHski

Sorry wasn't trying to come across that way at all. I thought we were friends. It's just a discussion about cadence. If that causes offence, then let's move on to something else instead.

livedarklions

Yes, we are friends, which is why I explained what it was that was bothering me about how you were framing this--"inability" is definitely a loaded word. If I had thought it was intentional, I probably would have lashed back or just ignored you. But yeah, I think it's time to move on because I think the subject is pretty much exhausted.

PeteHski

Okay I see what you mean. It was a poor choice of word - but honestly wasn't meant to be loaded.

ofajen

There are some useful takeaways from what has been measured and published in applied physiology literature.

One is that the optimal cadence for maximum external power (accounting for internal work) increases with workload by something around 10 rpm/100W. That fits nicely with people’s observations that their freely chosen cadence is lower at lower efforts and higher at higher efforts.

Second, in the main region of interest for most riders, maximum external power as a function of cadence is relatively flat, being near the top of a downward pointing quadratic function. If the optimal cadence for the peak is at 90 rpm, the maximum external power at 70 rpm and at 110 rpm are only down about 4%. So, for any non-paying cycling situation, riders can operate anywhere in that range (and well beyond) and still be totally effective for their needs.

Otto

CAT7RDR

^^^^^^^ Now that is helpful for this novice in not sweating my rpm range and keeping a cadence that is comfortable and sustainable for several hours.

Thanks for that post.

GhostRider62

Any research to back that up?

A study titled, "The Effect of Pedaling Cadence on Skeletal Muscle Oxygenation During Cycling at Moderate Exercise Intensity" suggest the differential is closer to 15%

This paper puts it closer to 7% but the conditions of testing were different as were the type of subjects

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3918546/

Let's assume it a range of 7-15% power differential from most optimal to least optimal cadence. If so, not a trivial difference.

livedarklions

I take all of these kind of studies with a huge grain of salt. This one is of trained competitive riders, and all it may be showing is that people trained for a certain kind of riding will do best if they do things as they were trained. Muscles adapt to higher loads by getting bigger and stronger, and CV systems adapt to spinning in other ways, so I always wonder if there were a study of habitual mashers, would the power differentials, etc. look quite different.

I don't think the researchers are doing anything "wrong", per se. It's just that you can never get an apples to apples comparison between people who ride competitively using one style vs. another. BTW, let's save the "that shows mashing is inherently inferior to spinning for speed" comments because while that should generally be true, that's a bit like saying because the most effective shot in the NBA is the dunk, therefore 5'4" people should dunk.

SpeedyBlueBiker

I don't know anything about power meters, watts, cadence, etc. I just have fun and ride the bike!

GhostRider62

I don't need a study to know that moving heavy limbs faster and faster is more efficient. The FT/ST ratio is a factor. The Italian study used fairly ordinary cyclists. I am of the opinion that self selection of cadence is more related to peak forces at the muscles and it is based upon efficiency. Cycists twiddling at 100 rpm at 100 watts look silly to my eye. Stick a Moxy onto their VL and look at oxygenation at a lower cadence, it would be really easy to do and really obvious what the result would be

PeteHski

Does anyone even do that? People who ride along at 100W are usually not the sort of people comfortable with 100 rpm cadence. The guys who are pedalling at 100 rpm are usually putting out serious wattage too. It's pretty obvious that it is inefficient to ride at 100W with 100 rpm cadence. Your HR would be much higher than at say 70 rpm. Low power cadence drills show that effect every time. I can get close to HR max well under my FTP doing cadence drills.

asgelle

Speaking for myself, I don't care at all about efficiency. I worry about fatigue, or more precisely delaying fatigue.

tomato coupe

Riding efficiently delays fatigue.

tomato coupe

Translation please?

asgelle

But it's not the be all and end all. There are much more effective ways to delay fatigue than improving efficiency.

GhostRider62

ST = Slow Twitch

FT = Fast Twitch

Moxy is device using near infrared to measure muscle oxygenation/deoxygenation.

tomato coupe

Thanks.

GhostRider62

I would love to learn a few of your tips.

I ride long distance and there is not a lot of research on that topic, I have learned quite a lot by accident but very curious of any ideas you have

GhostRider62

I see it all the time but certainly not amongst BF riders

I found it very insightful to look at TdF rider's power files. When the pace is easy and they are sitting in, they tend to have a lower cadence say in the middle 70's but then when the race is on or at the front, the cadence and power both increase.

tomato coupe

Nothing is.
Of course. Pedaling at 50 W would probably delay fatigue very effectively.

asgelle

What topic? Delaying fatigue? With the exception of maximum power sprints, all training is designed to delay fatigue. There's no shortage of research-based information on that.

GhostRider62

https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/F...cy_and.12.aspx

GhostRider62

You said there were better ways of delaying fatigue than improving efficiency. That made no sense to me nor does your statement all training delays fatigue WRT to long rides, say over 200km. In the past I would ask about such fatigue type questions on boards where all the top Physios used to hang out and they had no clue. I thought you might have had practical advice but clearly, you do not. In my experience, cadence, minimizing time over AT, and diet are the best ways of delaying fatigue on long rides, assuming one has done at least 70% of the distance in training

Moisture

livedarklions i find it so absurd how you think you possess some sort of superiority over other cyclists here by being a masher. I bet the more skilled guys here would smoke you.

You think the way you cycle is superior and most efficient simply because this is what you've stubbornly convinced yourself without ever trying anything else.

asgelle

I wrote training is designed to delay fatigue. That's different than all training results in delaying fatigue.
Wouldn't training to raise AT reduce time above AT on subsequent rides? But if you want to delay fatigue to the greatest extent and pace can be self-selected (rather than dictated by a time limit or keeping up with a group) then the best approach would probably be to limit intensity to below the point where blood lactate begins to rise above baseline.