Importance of Cadence
#76
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,842
Bikes: Trek Domane SL6 Gen 3, Soma Fog Cutter, Focus Mares AL, Detroit Bikes Sparrow FG, Volae Team, Nimbus MUni
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 896 Post(s)
Liked 2,063 Times
in
1,081 Posts
Used to be a newb would have their tires too low, cadence too low, and seat too low.
Now we have road tubeless at 50psi and mashing as an option, and my bike fitter just lowered my saddle a cm because of some new idea.
SoI guess we just look for backwards helmets.
Now we have road tubeless at 50psi and mashing as an option, and my bike fitter just lowered my saddle a cm because of some new idea.
SoI guess we just look for backwards helmets.
#77
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Mississauga/Toronto, Ontario canada
Posts: 8,721
Bikes: I have 3 singlespeed/fixed gear bikes
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4227 Post(s)
Liked 2,488 Times
in
1,286 Posts
There is no such thing as a wrong cadence.
#78
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,036
Bikes: addict, aethos, creo, vanmoof, sirrus, public ...
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1274 Post(s)
Liked 1,392 Times
in
710 Posts
If UCSB is anything like what it was like in the mid-Naughties when my brother was there, I'm pretty sure that dude would have crashed in exactly the same way and at exactly the same way if he'd been riding a Big Wheel.
(My perceptions of UCSB may be skewed by the fact that bro lived in Isla Vista...)
--Shannon
(My perceptions of UCSB may be skewed by the fact that bro lived in Isla Vista...)
--Shannon
#79
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Humboldt County, CA
Posts: 832
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 405 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 430 Times
in
286 Posts
Well, there is such a thing as a wrong cadence, for a particular rider with a particular body on a particular bike on a particular road at a particular time...
So, yeah, there's not really such a thing as a wrong cadence. Sometimes you wanna spin, sometimes you gotta mash. Having a wider comfortable powerband has to be better than having a narrower one, right?
--Shannon
So, yeah, there's not really such a thing as a wrong cadence. Sometimes you wanna spin, sometimes you gotta mash. Having a wider comfortable powerband has to be better than having a narrower one, right?
--Shannon
#80
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
Why would I need to put any weight on the pedals when the pedals themselves are balanced weight at the ends of the cranks.? Guess what, without muscle operating on them, they're not moving because the chain is holding the crank in place. Do you expect to get a perpetual motion machine? Balance has absolutely nothing to do with it. Your conception of the entire mechanism is completely wrong. We're basically walking on the pedals.
You're confounding two things here, I'm not claiming that lifting your legs provides any power to the drive train, but I'm very aware that I'm not letting my ascending leg be a completely dead weight on the pedal. I'm riding platforms, so I'm not under any delusion that doing so in any way propels the bike. Regardless, are you actually claiming that no muscular energy from either leg is expended in putting the leg back to the top? Because that's clearly a stupid assertion-leg power is the only thing advancing the chain, and if the chain doesn't advance, the crank arms don't move. I'm shocked that I'd have to spell this out to anyone who's actually ridden a bike.
Likes For livedarklions:
#81
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
#82
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
OK, you told him to change cranks to change how he rides his bike…. So the words didn’t directly come out but it’s still there.
Sorry I’m not nearly as impressed by you as you are. And your link about research proving elite cyclists don’t lift on the upstroke only stated that the elites have the ability to generate higher downstroke power than non-elite cyclists. That does not exactly prove anything about whether either the elite or non-elite groups (a whopping 15 total riders in the entire test) generate power on the upstroke or how much.
Sorry I’m not nearly as impressed by you as you are. And your link about research proving elite cyclists don’t lift on the upstroke only stated that the elites have the ability to generate higher downstroke power than non-elite cyclists. That does not exactly prove anything about whether either the elite or non-elite groups (a whopping 15 total riders in the entire test) generate power on the upstroke or how much.
He's got to explain how the leg goes from the bottom of the crank back up to the top without the use of any muscle power from either leg, and he can't do it sensibly, so he's pulling out this red herring.
#83
Perceptual Dullard
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,417
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 918 Post(s)
Liked 1,149 Times
in
491 Posts
Likes For RChung:
#84
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,418
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4399 Post(s)
Liked 4,844 Times
in
2,997 Posts
He's read the full article. Go to the link and download the article yourself. In particular, he's referring to figures 6 and 7, and the bottom paragraph on page 104 that continues to the top of page 105. Those figures and that paragraph directly contradict your assertion above: the "elite" riders don't pull up as much as the lower skilled riders and, in fact, have less "round" pedal strokes. The elite riders stomp down harder when they push down, and unweight or lift their ascending legs less than the lower skilled riders.
The only time I pull-up on the upstroke is when doing single leg cadence drills and it just reminds me how weak my hamstrings and hip-flexors are relative to my quads and glutes. They are simply less powerful muscle groups.
#85
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,418
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4399 Post(s)
Liked 4,844 Times
in
2,997 Posts
It's totally beside the point anyway. The lifting of the leg doesn't generate much if any power because those muscles are evolved only to lift the weight of the leg. The muscles used on the downstroke are evolved to propel our entire weight when walking or running, and are therefore much more powerful.
He's got to explain how the leg goes from the bottom of the crank back up to the top without the use of any muscle power from either leg, and he can't do it sensibly, so he's pulling out this red herring.
He's got to explain how the leg goes from the bottom of the crank back up to the top without the use of any muscle power from either leg, and he can't do it sensibly, so he's pulling out this red herring.
The weight of the leg itself does cancel out over a half-stroke. You are simply creating and releasing potential energy each time you raise and lower your leg. BUT you still have to expend energy in raising that leg (even if using the other leg to do it) even though you effectively get that energy back in terms of powering the bike forward. So having heavier legs raises your minimum energy expenditure required to pedal. It's no different to standing on the spot and raising your knee in the air and then letting it drop down again. It requires a minimum amount of energy (mgh) to lift your knee in the first place, even though that energy is released as you let it drop back down.
So in a way both of you have a valid point!
#86
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,418
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4399 Post(s)
Liked 4,844 Times
in
2,997 Posts
Well, you asked for it.
I grind in the mid-60s in the 53x11 combo in the flat and it works great for me. Higher cadence/lower gear definitely decreases my speed and endurance which I think are pretty great for a 60 y.o.
From what I've seen and heard from other people, it's highly unusual to be able to push a big gear like this for as many miles as I do.
Does the idea that some people are outliers really bother you so much?
I grind in the mid-60s in the 53x11 combo in the flat and it works great for me. Higher cadence/lower gear definitely decreases my speed and endurance which I think are pretty great for a 60 y.o.
From what I've seen and heard from other people, it's highly unusual to be able to push a big gear like this for as many miles as I do.
Does the idea that some people are outliers really bother you so much?
#87
Junior Member
I definitely agree that there is no meaningful power generated on the up-stroke. Enough studies of hundreds of elite cyclists have repeatedly shown that to be the case at normal cadence and higher power levels.
The weight of the leg itself does cancel out over a half-stroke. You are simply creating and releasing potential energy each time you raise and lower your leg. BUT you still have to expend energy in raising that leg (even if using the other leg to do it) even though you effectively get that energy back in terms of powering the bike forward. So having heavier legs raises your minimum energy expenditure required to pedal. It's no different to standing on the spot and raising your knee in the air and then letting it drop down again. It requires a minimum amount of energy (mgh) to lift your knee in the first place, even though that energy is released as you let it drop back down.
So in a way both of you have a valid point!
The weight of the leg itself does cancel out over a half-stroke. You are simply creating and releasing potential energy each time you raise and lower your leg. BUT you still have to expend energy in raising that leg (even if using the other leg to do it) even though you effectively get that energy back in terms of powering the bike forward. So having heavier legs raises your minimum energy expenditure required to pedal. It's no different to standing on the spot and raising your knee in the air and then letting it drop down again. It requires a minimum amount of energy (mgh) to lift your knee in the first place, even though that energy is released as you let it drop back down.
So in a way both of you have a valid point!
Likes For NumbersGuy:
#88
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,418
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4399 Post(s)
Liked 4,844 Times
in
2,997 Posts
Was trying to stick to a specific point.
#89
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
I don't measure cadence and you're right, that's too high for me to sustain for long so it's definitely a bad estimate. I can get to that speed in the flat with a lot of effort, and regularly can keep in the 20-24 mph range in the flat on that gear combo.
#90
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,418
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4399 Post(s)
Liked 4,844 Times
in
2,997 Posts
So that means your cadence is actually somewhere down in the 50s, which is obviously very low by any standard. It obviously works for you, but it is a pretty extreme outlier for sure.
#91
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 4,083
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2333 Post(s)
Liked 2,097 Times
in
1,314 Posts
My optimal cadence varies by load. There is no single best cadence for me.
At lower power levels on long distance rides, I am noodling at 70-72 rpm whereas at threshold on a TT, I prefer 91-94 rpm.
If I am in a criterium sucking hind teet, I might be at 110 rpm coming out of a corner hanging on for dear life.
Pulling back strongly stresses the weakling psoas aka hip flexors with often the feeling recorded as lower back pain on long rides
At lower power levels on long distance rides, I am noodling at 70-72 rpm whereas at threshold on a TT, I prefer 91-94 rpm.
If I am in a criterium sucking hind teet, I might be at 110 rpm coming out of a corner hanging on for dear life.
Pulling back strongly stresses the weakling psoas aka hip flexors with often the feeling recorded as lower back pain on long rides
Likes For GhostRider62:
#92
Junior Member
Sure, but the "mgh" part of raising your leg is at least fully recoverable. I was keeping it simple. I didn't even consider the simple fact that more total mass anywhere on the bike/rider increases the total power required to accelerate or climb a hill.
Was trying to stick to a specific point.
Was trying to stick to a specific point.
Unfortunately, scientific and other studies often have a confirmation bias and are designed around proving a hypothesis. They aren't always the most objective in their methods, often don't include a wide enough variety of test subjects, and focus on evaluating a very narrow set of results, ignoring other factors and results which they don't deem relevant to what they are trying to prove or disprove. Scientific "fact" also remains treated as such until enough new evidence is produced to disprove it and define the new "fact". Humans tend to like to define everything in terms they can relate to, and can struggle with things that are highly complex and can't be defined in one of the boxes we'd like them to go in. The old idea of the atom being protons, electrons and neutrons. We're now up to 18 predicted types of elementary particles, of which 16 are "prove" having been detected by experiments. Pluto is a planet, not a planet, both it and Eris are both dwarf planets. We come up with words and give them definitions most can grasp and then sometimes those definitions don't work any longer when new evidence is uncovered.
I'm happy to not stick everything into a defined box. I get on my bike and push the pedals at a comfortable rate. If it's getting harder than I want or I'm going uphill, I shift to a lower gear. If it's getting too easy or I want to go faster, I shift to a higher gear. I'm not competing or functioning without the ability to take in more fuel. I'd rather make sure I enjoy my riding rather than make sure I'm riding at an ideal cadence.
Likes For NumbersGuy:
#93
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
It hovers around 60 per my speeds, a bit above, a bit below. But yes, it's a pretty high speed at a very low cadence.
#94
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,418
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4399 Post(s)
Liked 4,844 Times
in
2,997 Posts
Understood. I'm just trying to point out that it seems much of the commentary (here and elsewhere) around higher cadences being "better" or "the right way" tend to look at singular components of the process, and how, if extracted and evaluated in a vacuum with zero outside factors, they are irrefutable evidence that lower cadence is worse.
Unfortunately, scientific and other studies often have a confirmation bias and are designed around proving a hypothesis. They aren't always the most objective in their methods, often don't include a wide enough variety of test subjects, and focus on evaluating a very narrow set of results, ignoring other factors and results which they don't deem relevant to what they are trying to prove or disprove. Scientific "fact" also remains treated as such until enough new evidence is produced to disprove it and define the new "fact". Humans tend to like to define everything in terms they can relate to, and can struggle with things that are highly complex and can't be defined in one of the boxes we'd like them to go in. The old idea of the atom being protons, electrons and neutrons. We're now up to 18 predicted types of elementary particles, of which 16 are "prove" having been detected by experiments. Pluto is a planet, not a planet, both it and Eris are both dwarf planets. We come up with words and give them definitions most can grasp and then sometimes those definitions don't work any longer when new evidence is uncovered.
I'm happy to not stick everything into a defined box. I get on my bike and push the pedals at a comfortable rate. If it's getting harder than I want or I'm going uphill, I shift to a lower gear. If it's getting too easy or I want to go faster, I shift to a higher gear. I'm not competing or functioning without the ability to take in more fuel. I'd rather make sure I enjoy my riding rather than make sure I'm riding at an ideal cadence.
Unfortunately, scientific and other studies often have a confirmation bias and are designed around proving a hypothesis. They aren't always the most objective in their methods, often don't include a wide enough variety of test subjects, and focus on evaluating a very narrow set of results, ignoring other factors and results which they don't deem relevant to what they are trying to prove or disprove. Scientific "fact" also remains treated as such until enough new evidence is produced to disprove it and define the new "fact". Humans tend to like to define everything in terms they can relate to, and can struggle with things that are highly complex and can't be defined in one of the boxes we'd like them to go in. The old idea of the atom being protons, electrons and neutrons. We're now up to 18 predicted types of elementary particles, of which 16 are "prove" having been detected by experiments. Pluto is a planet, not a planet, both it and Eris are both dwarf planets. We come up with words and give them definitions most can grasp and then sometimes those definitions don't work any longer when new evidence is uncovered.
I'm happy to not stick everything into a defined box. I get on my bike and push the pedals at a comfortable rate. If it's getting harder than I want or I'm going uphill, I shift to a lower gear. If it's getting too easy or I want to go faster, I shift to a higher gear. I'm not competing or functioning without the ability to take in more fuel. I'd rather make sure I enjoy my riding rather than make sure I'm riding at an ideal cadence.
Likes For PeteHski:
#95
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
Right, and no one is claiming we all routinely pull "back strongly". That's not to say we don't pull back at all, and that people don't vary in how much they pull back.
#96
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
Understood. I'm just trying to point out that it seems much of the commentary (here and elsewhere) around higher cadences being "better" or "the right way" tend to look at singular components of the process, and how, if extracted and evaluated in a vacuum with zero outside factors, they are irrefutable evidence that lower cadence is worse.
Unfortunately, scientific and other studies often have a confirmation bias and are designed around proving a hypothesis. They aren't always the most objective in their methods, often don't include a wide enough variety of test subjects, and focus on evaluating a very narrow set of results, ignoring other factors and results which they don't deem relevant to what they are trying to prove or disprove. Scientific "fact" also remains treated as such until enough new evidence is produced to disprove it and define the new "fact". Humans tend to like to define everything in terms they can relate to, and can struggle with things that are highly complex and can't be defined in one of the boxes we'd like them to go in. The old idea of the atom being protons, electrons and neutrons. We're now up to 18 predicted types of elementary particles, of which 16 are "prove" having been detected by experiments. Pluto is a planet, not a planet, both it and Eris are both dwarf planets. We come up with words and give them definitions most can grasp and then sometimes those definitions don't work any longer when new evidence is uncovered.
I'm happy to not stick everything into a defined box. I get on my bike and push the pedals at a comfortable rate. If it's getting harder than I want or I'm going uphill, I shift to a lower gear. If it's getting too easy or I want to go faster, I shift to a higher gear. I'm not competing or functioning without the ability to take in more fuel. I'd rather make sure I enjoy my riding rather than make sure I'm riding at an ideal cadence.
Unfortunately, scientific and other studies often have a confirmation bias and are designed around proving a hypothesis. They aren't always the most objective in their methods, often don't include a wide enough variety of test subjects, and focus on evaluating a very narrow set of results, ignoring other factors and results which they don't deem relevant to what they are trying to prove or disprove. Scientific "fact" also remains treated as such until enough new evidence is produced to disprove it and define the new "fact". Humans tend to like to define everything in terms they can relate to, and can struggle with things that are highly complex and can't be defined in one of the boxes we'd like them to go in. The old idea of the atom being protons, electrons and neutrons. We're now up to 18 predicted types of elementary particles, of which 16 are "prove" having been detected by experiments. Pluto is a planet, not a planet, both it and Eris are both dwarf planets. We come up with words and give them definitions most can grasp and then sometimes those definitions don't work any longer when new evidence is uncovered.
I'm happy to not stick everything into a defined box. I get on my bike and push the pedals at a comfortable rate. If it's getting harder than I want or I'm going uphill, I shift to a lower gear. If it's getting too easy or I want to go faster, I shift to a higher gear. I'm not competing or functioning without the ability to take in more fuel. I'd rather make sure I enjoy my riding rather than make sure I'm riding at an ideal cadence.
I think there's a selection bias inherent in the studies of trained competitive cyclists as to which method is "superior". Basically, most of them are comparatively light body types trained in spinning, and I think that introduces a couple of confounding variables--a) people are generally better at doing things they are trained to do and b) the efficiencies for them don't necessarily translate to other body types, differing strengths and/or infirmities.
Where these conversations tend to break down is people seeming to think there's a "one size fits all" method to cycling that will optimize speed/performance/efficiency without looking at the rather obvious fact that the main component of the vehicle (our bodies) and the engine (our legs & cv system) both vary so widely from person to person.
Likes For livedarklions:
#97
Cheerfully low end
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 1,977
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 646 Post(s)
Liked 1,044 Times
in
667 Posts
You are simply creating and releasing potential energy each time you raise and lower your leg. BUT you still have to expend energy in raising that leg (even if using the other leg to do it) even though you effectively get that energy back in terms of powering the bike forward. So having heavier legs raises your minimum energy expenditure required to pedal.
We’ve discussed this in the Singlespeed forum. FG riders know this well because they have the choice to not do this internal work and have their legs serve to brake the bike motion. Or they can do only the internal work of keeping up and just let the bike move as it would due to external forces.
For SS and other freewheel riders, we can choose not to do that internal work and we coast. If we do only the internal work, we just manage not to coast and again the bike does what it would based on external forces.
Otto
Likes For ofajen:
#99
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
Sure, but the "mgh" part of raising your leg is at least fully recoverable. I was keeping it simple. I didn't even consider the simple fact that more total mass anywhere on the bike/rider increases the total power required to accelerate or climb a hill.
Was trying to stick to a specific point.
Was trying to stick to a specific point.
I suspect this is the point where the engineer misses the issue that the physiology means that the energy needed to do the work of loading the potential energy is greater than that potential energy due to the inherent inefficiencies of muscle.
I'm neither a physiologist nor an engineer, but I can figure out that if there is energy loss of any kind per revolution, this energy loss is going to be greater at 90 rpm than 60 rpm. My advantage is in being able to put out a lot more torque per revolution on a sustained basis than "normal", so for me it would be unnecessary to reduce the gear and increase the cadence with all of the consequent energy loss per revolution.
BTW, I do vary my cadence a lot on a ride, I often spin a relatively low gear on hills, and will spin a low gear for a short burst to accelerate initially from a stop. I also will ride with a faster cadence in a lower gear into a headwind, and occasionally will do something similar in great heat. Not sure why, but I suspect the faster moving legs are a bit better at dissipating heat. I don't know if the higher torque actually generates more heat internally, but that could also be the case. These could easily be additive factors.
#100
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
Or we just stop looking for "one size fits all".
Likes For livedarklions: