Importance of Cadence
#126
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Highlands Ranch, CO
Posts: 1,221
Bikes: '13 Diamondback Hybrid Commuter, '17 Spec Roubaix Di2, '17 Spec Camber 29'er, '19 CDale Topstone Gravel
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 590 Post(s)
Liked 445 Times
in
260 Posts
If you REALLY care about your knees (possibly for some good reason), forget about cadence and just get a power meter. If you don't get a PM, and you end up hurting your knee(s) because you couldn't properly monitor the stress to them, then the insurance deductible for a knee MRI will be equal to, if not more than, a power meter, so why not just plunk down the money for a PM now, and avoid the future injury and knee Dr. altogether? You'll thank me later.
Last edited by Riveting; 09-30-21 at 03:09 PM.
#127
Senior Member
If I'm not mistaken, power meters actually use pedaling RPM as an input to be used in calculating the power data that they provide. Power meters are, themselves, cadence aware even if they're not showing the cadence to the rider or the rider is not paying attention to the cadence.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of power monitors. Once they come down in price by 50% or so, I may even get one.
Do power meters report pedaling force directly, separate from watts? I would certainly that would be possible.
Last edited by Harold74; 09-30-21 at 03:53 PM.
#128
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Highlands Ranch, CO
Posts: 1,221
Bikes: '13 Diamondback Hybrid Commuter, '17 Spec Roubaix Di2, '17 Spec Camber 29'er, '19 CDale Topstone Gravel
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 590 Post(s)
Liked 445 Times
in
260 Posts
If I'm not mistaken, power meters actually use pedaling RPM as an input to be used in calculating the power data that they provide. Power meters are, themselves, RPM aware even if they're not showing the RPM tor the rider or the rider is not paying attention to the RPM.
#129
Senior Member
#130
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,433
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4408 Post(s)
Liked 4,861 Times
in
3,007 Posts
#131
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,433
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4408 Post(s)
Liked 4,861 Times
in
3,007 Posts
Likes For PeteHski:
#132
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,433
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4408 Post(s)
Liked 4,861 Times
in
3,007 Posts
The problem is that cadence doesn't tell you that you are putting extreme stress on the knees or not . You can be putting a ton of stress on your knees at any cadence, by simply pushing too hard at that cadence. Cadence is simply how fast your feet and cranks are moving, and has absolutely nothing to do with the stress/power being applied to the drivetrain through the knees. A "mashing" cadence of 50 is fine at 50 watts, and a cadence of 90 is stressful at 1,000 watts, yet traditional cadence wisdom would state the opposite. Without knowing the watts, you and the cadence meter are simply in the dark about the stress being applied to the knees.
I ride with a power meter and it always amazes me how perception of "power" can be quite misleading at times. We "feel" pedal force more than we "feel" pedal speed and so our brains tend to associate a high pedal force with a high power output, regardless of cadence. But quite often I find I can generate more power from a lower gear, even though it "feels" easier (at least until your HR starts to climb!). The classic example is dropping into the small chainring at the start of a steep climb. It feels instantly like your power has just dropped off a cliff as you spin up and then you glance at your power meter and find that you are actually putting out more power than you were just before you down-shifted. But your senses are confused both by the reduction in pedal force in the lower gear and your deceleration as the slope kicks in. The fact that you are spinning much faster goes pretty much unnoticed by your brain until your lagging HR responds and you start breathing more heavily.
#133
cycles per second
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,930
Bikes: Early 1980's Ishiwata 022 steel sport/touring, 1986 Vitus 979, 1988 DiamondBack Apex, 1997 Softride PowerWing 700, 2001 Trek OCLV 110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked 71 Times
in
48 Posts
I'm going to be honest here - that does not count as evidence that you are riding at your optimum cadence. It is simply evidence that you ride pretty fast.
#134
Cheerfully low end
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 1,978
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 646 Post(s)
Liked 1,044 Times
in
667 Posts
But quite often I find I can generate more power from a lower gear, even though it "feels" easier (at least until your HR starts to climb!). The classic example is dropping into the small chainring at the start of a steep climb. It feels instantly like your power has just dropped off a cliff as you spin up and then you glance at your power meter and find that you are actually putting out more power than you were just before you down-shifted. But your senses are confused both by the reduction in pedal force in the lower gear and your deceleration as the slope kicks in. The fact that you are spinning much faster goes pretty much unnoticed by your brain until your lagging HR responds and you start breathing more heavily.
If it isn’t that particular article, I apologize; I’ve read several articles about cadence on their site and it may be a different article.
Anyway, the point being that a climb is a situation where you might choose to gear a bit higher to avoid putting out too much power. But to your comment, yes, climbing in that lower gear probably does let you increase power.
Otto
#135
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'm going to be honest here, I don't really think anyone is producing evidence here, just a bunch of assertions and suppositions..
#136
Cheerfully low end
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 1,978
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 646 Post(s)
Liked 1,044 Times
in
667 Posts
https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/fil...12500.full.pdf
Otto
#137
Senior Member
Riveting I went for a ride after reading you most recent comments and noodled on power vs cadence the the whole way. I believe that I've warmed up to your perspective substantially. Here's how I see it now:
Yes, one could fire up excel after a PM ride, juggle some numbers, and know their pedaling forces. And, similarly, it would be programmatic child's play for the PM manufacturers to show pedaling force in real time if they cared to. At the end of the day, however, I don't think that most folks are interested in managing the magnitude of the their pedaling force. And those that are interested in managing it are likely nursing existing knee injuries, not trying to prevent new ones. Heck, I don't even know what a desirable level of pedaling force is from the perspective of knee health.
It seems reasonable to me to assume that for each rider, in each circumstance, there exists a "Goldilocks" RPM that maximizes power output. I think that a precise definition of "mashing" is not merely pedaling slowly with high force but, rather, pedaling at an RPM lower than the individual's Goldilocks RPM. The consequences of mashing in this context being:
1) By definition, sub-optimal power generation and;
2) Pedaling at an unnecessarily high pedal force for a particular power level.
One doesn't normally ride targeting a particular magnitude of pedal force for the sake of knee health. However, when one is pedaling sub-Goldilocks (mashing), they can certainly increase power output while lowering pedal force. And that's clearly a good thing for knee health regardless of the magnitude of the Goldilocks pedaling force.
As a hypothetical, imagine Jane cycling at her Goldilocks cadence of 90 RPM yet pedaling with a massive amount of pedal force compared to average folks. Is Jane mashing? I would say not. Rather, I would say that Jane is merely a very strong rider. Is Jane taxing her knees similarly to a 40 RPM rider pedaling at the same level of pedal force? I suspect so although I'm sure there are some physiological nuances to it that I don't understand. Most importantly, is there a cadence other than 90 RPM at which Jane could generate the same or better power out put at a lower pedal force? I think not.
So yeah, of the ride parameters that riders actually manage, power is the parameter of greatest interest for knee health. Or so it currently seems to me.
Yes, one could fire up excel after a PM ride, juggle some numbers, and know their pedaling forces. And, similarly, it would be programmatic child's play for the PM manufacturers to show pedaling force in real time if they cared to. At the end of the day, however, I don't think that most folks are interested in managing the magnitude of the their pedaling force. And those that are interested in managing it are likely nursing existing knee injuries, not trying to prevent new ones. Heck, I don't even know what a desirable level of pedaling force is from the perspective of knee health.
It seems reasonable to me to assume that for each rider, in each circumstance, there exists a "Goldilocks" RPM that maximizes power output. I think that a precise definition of "mashing" is not merely pedaling slowly with high force but, rather, pedaling at an RPM lower than the individual's Goldilocks RPM. The consequences of mashing in this context being:
1) By definition, sub-optimal power generation and;
2) Pedaling at an unnecessarily high pedal force for a particular power level.
One doesn't normally ride targeting a particular magnitude of pedal force for the sake of knee health. However, when one is pedaling sub-Goldilocks (mashing), they can certainly increase power output while lowering pedal force. And that's clearly a good thing for knee health regardless of the magnitude of the Goldilocks pedaling force.
As a hypothetical, imagine Jane cycling at her Goldilocks cadence of 90 RPM yet pedaling with a massive amount of pedal force compared to average folks. Is Jane mashing? I would say not. Rather, I would say that Jane is merely a very strong rider. Is Jane taxing her knees similarly to a 40 RPM rider pedaling at the same level of pedal force? I suspect so although I'm sure there are some physiological nuances to it that I don't understand. Most importantly, is there a cadence other than 90 RPM at which Jane could generate the same or better power out put at a lower pedal force? I think not.
So yeah, of the ride parameters that riders actually manage, power is the parameter of greatest interest for knee health. Or so it currently seems to me.
Last edited by Harold74; 09-30-21 at 09:28 PM.
#138
Perceptual Dullard
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,420
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 919 Post(s)
Liked 1,156 Times
in
494 Posts
In addition, some power meters simultaneously transmit on a non-ANT+ mode. Typically, this is a high frequency mode at 64 Hz, and it transmits crank torque and sometimes (but not always) crank position.
Typically, riders modulate their power far more with crank torque (or pedal force) than they do with cadence. Here is a plot taken from a ~five hour ~160 km ride, that included some flats, a couple of rolling hills, and one big climb (and descent), showing power, cadence, and crank torque in Nm. (Each dot is a one-second observation; the ride was ~5 hours long so there are ~18000 dots in each panel). As you may be able to see, the linear correlation between power and crank torque is much higher than between power and cadence. While it's true that cadence should be interpreted in the context of crank torque (or pedal force), the correlation between power and crank torque is so strong that you can basically just look at power instead of crank torque. Indeed, because cadence varies much less than power or crank torque, it's a poor candidate for a "control variable." Cadence is a red herring.
Last edited by RChung; 10-01-21 at 01:38 AM.
Likes For RChung:
#139
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
Well, here’s Formenti’s paper on internal work. See table 2, page 8. And I remembered two of the values incorrectly: 90 rpm work ran about 0.6 W/kg, not 0.7 and 110 rpm work ran around 1.0 W/kg, not 1.1.
https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/fil...12500.full.pdf
Otto
https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/fil...12500.full.pdf
Otto
I do know I don't fall into the range of the sample on age or frequency of exercise. I'm quite a bit higher on both of those than the highest test subject.
#140
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,433
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4408 Post(s)
Liked 4,861 Times
in
3,007 Posts
There are two ANT+ standards used by power meters: the PWR standard transmits power and cadence. The CTQ standard transmits crank torque and cadence. With the CTQ standard, the head unit knows the crank length.
In addition, some power meters simultaneously transmit on a non-ANT+ mode. Typically, this is a high frequency mode at 64 Hz, and it transmits crank torque and sometimes (but not always) crank position.
Typically, riders modulate their power far more with crank torque (or pedal force) than they do with cadence. Here is a plot taken from a ~five hour ~160 km ride, that included some flats, a couple of rolling hills, and one big climb (and descent), showing power, cadence, and crank torque in Nm. (Each dot is a one-second observation; the ride was ~5 hours long so there are ~18000 dots in each panel). As you may be able to see, the linear correlation between power and crank torque is much higher than between power and cadence. While it's true that cadence should be interpreted in the context of crank torque (or pedal force), the correlation between power and crank torque is so strong that you can basically just look at power instead of crank torque. Indeed, because cadence varies much less than power or crank torque, it's a poor candidate for a "control variable." Cadence is a red herring.
In addition, some power meters simultaneously transmit on a non-ANT+ mode. Typically, this is a high frequency mode at 64 Hz, and it transmits crank torque and sometimes (but not always) crank position.
Typically, riders modulate their power far more with crank torque (or pedal force) than they do with cadence. Here is a plot taken from a ~five hour ~160 km ride, that included some flats, a couple of rolling hills, and one big climb (and descent), showing power, cadence, and crank torque in Nm. (Each dot is a one-second observation; the ride was ~5 hours long so there are ~18000 dots in each panel). As you may be able to see, the linear correlation between power and crank torque is much higher than between power and cadence. While it's true that cadence should be interpreted in the context of crank torque (or pedal force), the correlation between power and crank torque is so strong that you can basically just look at power instead of crank torque. Indeed, because cadence varies much less than power or crank torque, it's a poor candidate for a "control variable." Cadence is a red herring.
#141
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,433
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4408 Post(s)
Liked 4,861 Times
in
3,007 Posts
It was interesting to watch Joss Lowden's hour record breaking ride yesterday. Cadence came up in the commentary. She chose to ride at a target cadence of just over 90 rpm, while most previous record attempts have been at 100+ rpm. So she chose a "relatively" low cadence by these standards. Her reasoning was to keep her HR slightly lower i.e. less cardio stress and more muscular load. It certainly worked for her in this case!
Watch from 32:30 for the discussion about cadence. Quite on topic.
Watch from 32:30 for the discussion about cadence. Quite on topic.
#142
Cheerfully low end
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 1,978
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 646 Post(s)
Liked 1,044 Times
in
667 Posts
Thanks for posting these plots. One thing you can note in the rpm vs ct plot is that there is a large oval with a high density of low to middle level torque with a median rpm around 90 and a second oval with a high density of medium to medium high torque with a median value around 70 rpm. Might the first one be mostly flats and the second one be mostly climbing?
Otto
Otto
#143
Newbie
This is simple physics, the pedal would not move since it is in equilibrium (the same weights at the same distance from the center of rotation)
#144
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 was interesting to watch Joss Lowden's hour record breaking ride yesterday. Cadence came up in the commentary. She chose to ride at a target cadence of just over 90 rpm, while most previous record attempts have been at 100+ rpm. So she chose a "relatively" low cadence by these standards. Her reasoning was to keep her HR slightly lower i.e. less cardio stress and more muscular load. It certainly worked for her in this case!
Watch from 32:30 for the discussion about cadence. Quite on topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxCGdh9izdU
Watch from 32:30 for the discussion about cadence. Quite on topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxCGdh9izdU
I don't have time to watch the video, but I looked it up--the gearing was 64X15. 90 rpm on such a big gear for an hour! Now that's an outlier!
#145
Senior Member
Exactly. Any force produced by the muscles would go into spinning the cranks (moving the bike). Because the two sides are in equilibrium, no force is required to raise the opposite leg.
#146
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,433
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4408 Post(s)
Liked 4,861 Times
in
3,007 Posts
It's a very big gear, but the aero drag is super low. Way lower than a normal rider. So road speed is very high (30 mph) relative to the power output. This is not a gear she would ever use on the road.
Likes For PeteHski:
#147
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
You're basically arguing that if two items are balanced on a scale, no force is needed to throw them off balance. While the force needed to do so may be small, it is not zero, and the more you want them off-balance, the stronger that force needs to be. Also, the heavier the items, the more force needs to be applied to increase to lift them. Imbalancing a pair of 1 ton weights by one ounce will not cause the lighter side to rise by as much as if you imbalance a pair of 8 oz. weights by the same amount. Heavier legs are going to require more energy to be lifted than lighter ones, there is no perpetual motion magic introduced because of balance between the sides.
#149
Perceptual Dullard
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,420
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 919 Post(s)
Liked 1,156 Times
in
494 Posts
Thanks for posting these plots. One thing you can note in the rpm vs ct plot is that there is a large oval with a high density of low to middle level torque with a median rpm around 90 and a second oval with a high density of medium to medium high torque with a median value around 70 rpm. Might the first one be mostly flats and the second one be mostly climbing?
Otto
Otto
#150
Senior Member
1) When I look at the graphs, I see a rider deliberately holding cadence to roughly constant, preferred values which forces power to vary linearly in relation to crank torque. As such, I don't feel that power winding up being linearly related to crank torque says much of anything about the value of RPM data since the rider essentially contrives that outcome.
2) I don't feel correlation is particularly meaningful in this context. As you likely know, correlation is a statistical tool useful where a clear mathematical relation between the variables is not well understood. It's great for stuff like stock performances etc. With power meter data, the relationship between the variables is well understood and dirt simple.
3) To an extent, I think that cadence having a non-linear, steeply sloping trend speaks to the importance of cadence. It suggests that being in the right cadence zone has a larger impact on power generation than does crank torque. This is complicated, of course, by the rider possibly intentionally targeting certain cadences rather than naturally floating towards cadences that are the most efficient.