Hi Cadence Never Worked for Me

[Waldo]

https://road.cc/content/news/256189-high-cadence-pedalling-inefficient-amateurs-says-new-study

[nooneline]

Interesting. But be careful about generalizing too far from this. The sample size is very small: 9 people. And they're not cyclists - they're just "healthy, active individuals."

This makes me wonder whether or not the effect is similar in people who have experience pedaling at higher cadences - with cycling experience, do you have adaptations to make you more aerobically efficient at those cadences?

[false_Aest]

W T F kind've of a sample size is 9?

"healthy, active individuals" what does this mean exactly?


Someone that walks 1 mile a day?
Someone who rides 50 miles a week?
Someone like me who's got an extra 10-15lbs of fat but rides 7-15 hours a week?
Someone who can run repeated 7min miles but hasn't been on a bike in 10 years?


If road.cc needs content they'd do better by riding their bikes in horse **** and making drawings and posting that to their website.

[prototoast]

My working theory (not scientifically tested) is that a efficient cadence is highly correlated with leg size. I'm not obese, but I'm heavy for a cyclist, and with heavier-than average legs (read: cankles). I figure that no matter how easy or hard I'm pushing the bike, with every pedal stroke, I have to lift the weight of my own leg.

I couldn't access the source article, but I'm curious if they controlled for height / weight / leg mass. I would think that since pros tend to skew much skinnier, that would be an important contributor to their pedaling efficiency.

[Ti Designs]

And things like this form people's opinions about what can or can't be learned or changed.

Try this simple test: Take 20 people, hand them all 3 items and tell them to juggle. Those who haven't learned won't be able to, and yet the chances are that one of them will (the one who at some point had way too much time). You could at this point throw out the person or persons who could juggle as outliers and them make the assumption that people can't juggle, or you could realize that motor skills can be learned...

What I really want to know is how so many studies are done at centers for higher education, and yet they forget about the learning process...

I'm not saying that learning how to pedal faster will make you more efficient, but there's always going to be a trade-off between muscle tension and the number of times the muscle is fired. In other words, being able to spin faster is never going to harm your performance. Motor skills don't weigh anything, and here's the amazing thing - learning another motor skill isn't going to cause one you already have to fall out of your head.

Few new riders can spin that well because they've learned many of their motor skills from walking. To better understand why new riders tend to sway side to side (which can't work at higher cadence) I spent a morning watching people run stadium steps. The big rowers (who were doing specific workouts based on technique) went straight up without any hip rotation. Most people rotated their hip over the next step, which is exactly what they do on the bike.

[Mzilliox]

all this article says is that higher rpms work better for people who are used to pedalling. is this a surprise to anyone, or groundbreaking? and folks not used to pedalling go a bit faster at lower rpm. this would be exactly what i have seen in real life from new cyclists, they cant spin fast, or dont even think to, so they grind at 60 rpm. today that works better for them, because they know nothing. but in 3 weeks of riding, would that still be the best choice? of course not.

my wife is finally after 3 years starting to understand why higher cadence works better.

file under why did anyone feel the need to put this in writing?

[Waldo]

Well, after 33 years of riding, which includes 26 double centuries, I know what works for me and it ain't high cadence.

[54ny77]

You generally need high cadence and a doping budget to achieve meaningful success.

Speaking of which, whatever happened to Chris Carmichael? Has he quietly faded into the sunset?

[redir]

I never used to pay attention to cadence until I started doing Zwift workouts this winter. Zwift is always reminding me to keep a 'cadence of 90 - 100." That seems incredibly fast to me. Just last night I was doing a workout where I had to do 275 watts for 4 minutes rest at 175 and then do 330 watts for four minutes, and so on. What I found was that trying to keep 330 watts at a 95 cadence I'd watch my power meter jump from 290 to 310 back to 300 up to 320 and so on. But if I clicked on one more gear up and kept the cadence at 85 I could ride 330 watts plus or minus 5 no problem.

Now, maybe that just means I suck at keeping a proper cadence, but I liken it to what this article says and that I should go with what feels natural to me. And for the record I'm a cat 2 and have been at this for 20 years ;)

[Ti Designs]

Now, maybe that just means I suck at keeping a proper cadence, but I liken it to what this article says and that I should go with what feels natural to me. And for the record I'm a cat 2 and have been at this for 20 years ;)

And I'm gonna guess that your strength is climbing...

[MattTuck]

For recreational riding, I support riding whatever cadence feels comfortable.

For racing, I do think there are advantages to a higher cadence that let you respond to attacks more quickly.

Also, agree with the above sentiment -- you can get published with a sample size of 9? No wonder so much junk science gets pedaled around nutrition and sports.

[Mark McM]

I think this study successfully found the answer to the question it asked. But like many other studies, it didn't ask a particularly useful question. And, as is often in the case for studies that ask narrowly focused questions, it is probably not wise to extrapolate the conclusions of this study to a wider set of questions.

To sum it up: "nothing to see here folks, move along."

[makoti]

Interesting. But be careful about generalizing too far from this. The sample size is very small: 9 people. And they're not cyclists - they're just "healthy, active individuals."

This makes me wonder whether or not the effect is similar in people who have experience pedaling at higher cadences - with cycling experience, do you have adaptations to make you more aerobically efficient at those cadences?

I brought that up on a FB group & was told that's plenty. I have a hard time trusting data from such a small test group

[wallymann]

high cadence is essential to me. been riding for +30 years...if i so much as muse about big-ish gears, my legs go 'pop' and OTB i go.

[William]

https://redirect.media.tumblr.com/image?url=/810bc3406a2936ffa663f342c79443bb/tumblr_nklztrUDEN1t3w37po1_540.gif


Mash gears at a high cadence, that was my bag baby!




:)
W.

[Lewis Moon]

I was always told that the high cadence "revolution" came about because, on EPO, you could make up for small leg muscles by spinning high gears...

I use a bunch of different cadences. For climbing constant grades on smooth roads I try to keep it ~90 (I have long legs and swing 175s). However, on bumpier flat roads, I'll dip to ~80. It really seems like lower cadence helps in those circumstances. If it's a smooth road and I'm really hammering, I'll go about 85.

[redir]

And I'm gonna guess that your strength is climbing...

Well at 190lbs in the heyday of my racing 'career' climbing was not the best but I did get 3rd, as a cat 3, in a race that had an 8 mile finish climb. I was more of an all rounder, could not sprint to save my life. TT's were actually my best.

[Gummee]

Mash gears at a high cadence, that was my bag baby!

What was that old saying? Think it went:

New riders mash big gears
Good riders spin little gears
Great riders spin big gears

M

[BobbyJones]

In the 80's, I don't remember anyone pushing high cadence for "efficiency" reasons. It was all about being able to respond to pack changes quickly.

However, that could've just been the characters I was hanging around with.

[msl819]

I never used to pay attention to cadence until I started doing Zwift workouts this winter. Zwift is always reminding me to keep a 'cadence of 90 - 100." That seems incredibly fast to me. Just last night I was doing a workout where I had to do 275 watts for 4 minutes rest at 175 and then do 330 watts for four minutes, and so on. What I found was that trying to keep 330 watts at a 95 cadence I'd watch my power meter jump from 290 to 310 back to 300 up to 320 and so on. But if I clicked on one more gear up and kept the cadence at 85 I could ride 330 watts plus or minus 5 no problem.

Now, maybe that just means I suck at keeping a proper cadence, but I liken it to what this article says and that I should go with what feels natural to me. And for the record I'm a cat 2 and have been at this for 20 years ;)

Having just picked up zwifting this winter too, I’d be curious what FTP you are working off of. 4 mins at 330 sounds like a doozy of a workout

[tsarpepe]

No wonder so much junk science gets pedaled around nutrition and sports.

It would be nice if science, esp. about cycling, is PEDALED. But I think you mean "peddled."

[steelbikerider]

Seems to me, the cadence issue isn't really an issue. The majority of 1 hour records on the track are set at a cadence between 95 and 110 rpm. You can google and look it up. I have before but am too lazy now.

While admittedly that kind of leg speed over time is beyond most cyclists' capabilities, you do get a standard time reference, a large sample size, lots of testing to find optimum gearing and cadence and similar testing conditions.
I am talking about elite cyclists under 50.

[Clean39T]

It is not efficient for me to spin my tree-trunks and size-15 feet at over 100rpm...at least not with my current level of motor-skillz...

I settle in to something in the mid-80s most of the time, and that seems about right.

Little gears help me stay in that range when the gradient hits 15% - and I consider going up hills like that with anything more than 70rpm to be "high cadence".

But spinning on the flats at 110rpm. Fuggedaboutit.

[Clean39T]

And things like this form people's opinions about what can or can't be learned or changed.

Try this simple test: Take 20 people, hand them all 3 items and tell them to juggle. Those who haven't learned won't be able to, and yet the chances are that one of them will (the one who at some point had way too much time). You could at this point throw out the person or persons who could juggle as outliers and them make the assumption that people can't juggle, or you could realize that motor skills can be learned...

What I really want to know is how so many studies are done at centers for higher education, and yet they forget about the learning process...

I'm not saying that learning how to pedal faster will make you more efficient, but there's always going to be a trade-off between muscle tension and the number of times the muscle is fired. In other words, being able to spin faster is never going to harm your performance. Motor skills don't weigh anything, and here's the amazing thing - learning another motor skill isn't going to cause one you already have to fall out of your head.

Few new riders can spin that well because they've learned many of their motor skills from walking. To better understand why new riders tend to sway side to side (which can't work at higher cadence) I spent a morning watching people run stadium steps. The big rowers (who were doing specific workouts based on technique) went straight up without any hip rotation. Most people rotated their hip over the next step, which is exactly what they do on the bike.

I am intrigued by this. How do I entrain better motor skills so I'm not fighting myself? Kick, pull? Work on releasing tension in my body (hands, etc.)? Better core strength?

I've been riding for almost 30 years, but that doesn't mean I haven't been doing it wrong the whole time.

Though I do still think I'm at a disadvantage with being tall, with a northern-european bone structure, and gigantic feet. At least I'm part Welsh, so I know how to suffer.. Me and G. It's what makes us good climbers. Lolz.

[Blue Jays]

"...Well, after 33 years of riding, which includes 26 double centuries, I know what works for me and it ain't high cadence..."

Concur with your post.
I will bet many riders with track cyclist physiques (and competent on the road) don’t spend the whole ride spinning tiny gears.

[Joxster]

I’m happiest riding around 100rpm, on adult gears. Keeping a decent rpm keeps the lactic away.

[mt2u77]

I don't think I really embraced a high-ish cadence until I started riding big miles every day. Low cadence with high peak forces always made my knees sore for the next day's/afternoon's ride. Increasing my cadence and decreasing peak force seemed to help my recovery. I typically find myself around 90 rpm if I self select.

Of course there is a limit. I sometimes play around with cadence during erg workouts, and I notice an ever so slightly higher heart rate for the same power starting around 110 rpm. Thrashing your legs in circles is not free.

[laupsi]

The majority of 1 hour records on the track are set at a cadence between 95 and 110 rpm

this is what I was about to post and yes it is a true statement. while under the tutelage of Joachim, I was taught to ride at a higher cadence. yes, I was your typical masher, starting out in the late 80's, being on the smaller side size wise, I would grind up hills and flats and had a pretty powerful sprint; at that time :)

I now spin, or should I say, my cadence is almost always above 90. what I've found is that it does take a bit of mental aptitude and perseverance, but now a habit or my standard. spinning at higher cadences does "save my legs". Also, those big power efforts, esp over longer durations, are perceived to be somewhat easier.

once while getting a bike fit the fitter told me, "a person can use to anything". I do believe that habit has a way of telling us what is "right" or at the very least, "what is right for me".

[jimoots]

I’m under 140 pounds, do loads of k’s (10-15 hours a week consistently) have a pretty decent FTP and absolutely LOVE to mash a big gear.

How big a gear?

I find it a lot more comfortable doing hard efforts between 60-75rpm. If my cadence gets too high, perceived effort goes through the roof for the same wattage.

What does that mean? Absolutely nothing.

I’m convinced we all have our own preferences as to how we ride. What works for me may or may not work for you!

[godfrey1112000]

Well, after 33 years of riding, which includes 26 double centuries, I know what works for me and it ain't high cadence.

👌
The same after 31 years

[marciero]

If you read the abstract, you see that there is nothing like the sweeping conclusion made in the title of the road cc article. I think the results of the study are of interest-well, not to me personally right now but perhaps to other researchers- and invite further inquiry. The small sample size is notable but lots of medical studies involving humans have small sample sizes. As long as the experimental design is sound one interprets the results in that light, rather than dismissing them. I would bet that one of the co-authors is a statistician who did the design and analysis.

[Heisenberg]

I'm not saying that learning how to pedal faster will make you more efficient, but there's always going to be a trade-off between muscle tension and the number of times the muscle is fired. In other words, being able to spin faster is never going to harm your performance. Motor skills don't weigh anything, and here's the amazing thing - learning another motor skill isn't going to cause one you already have to fall out of your head.



this.

being comfortable riding between 60-110rpm and being able to make power anywhere in that range is what high cadence/leg speed is all about. and even enormous legs that "shouldn't" spin that fast, can. the ability, for me, came from a few years of really boring leg speed drills, as well as big gear workouts.

that's what you're after - being versatile and able to effectively change gears (within your own body) without diminishing horsepower. leg speed is a good skill to learn for racing. casual riding? maybe not.

it has nothing to do with how many double centuries one has completed. at all.

[MoparPorsche]

Sample size small, but corresponds to my experience. Thank You!!! One day I may reach professional status and get efficient at +100 rpm. But on second thought I am 57 now, so I probably won't never reach professional status. Oh Well!!!

[paredown]

What I remember from BITD was doing spring training and our sometime coach forcing us (often by setting our derailleur screws in) to stay in low gears at speed--and then do impromptu sprints where it felt like your knee caps were going to fly off. That, and motor pacing in seriously low gears--again with the knee caps at risk. Typically that was early spring...

I suppose the idea was to train your body to a new standard--and it certainly seemed to help to have the ability to spin and especially accelerate at a high cadence--it added (for the lack of a better word) a kind of elasticity to one's riding, and it really paid of on the track where you were really winding up for sprints. It also seemed like a critical skill when the pack was surging.

Now that I'm old and slow I don't notice so much, but a few years ago while touring with a group of older riders, one of the guys who was (and been doing) far more riding than me commented on my relatively high cadence, so the training must have stuck, although now it is a survival skill--of not pounding myself and getting home in one piece.

[redir]

Having just picked up zwifting this winter too, I’d be curious what FTP you are working off of. 4 mins at 330 sounds like a doozy of a workout

I'm doing the programmed Zwift workout called FTP builder. I chose it not so much because I care about building my FTP but because it looked good and fit my time with about 5 one hour sessions per week.

But anyway it starts off with doing an FTP test and then uses that number to schedule workouts. Starting off my FTP was 3.9 watt/kg

We'll see what happens at the end of the 6 week term :D

Riding 4 minutes at 330 is just enough to push it. I think that workout has you do that 6 times with 2 minute rests, I'm quite happy when the 6th time is over and I don't have to do it again.

[Gummee]

I am intrigued by this. How do I entrain better motor skills so I'm not fighting myself? Kick, pull? Work on releasing tension in my body (hands, etc.)? Better core strength?

I've been riding for almost 30 years, but that doesn't mean I haven't been doing it wrong the whole time.

Though I do still think I'm at a disadvantage with being tall, with a northern-european bone structure, and gigantic feet. At least I'm part Welsh, so I know how to suffer.. Me and G. It's what makes us good climbers. Lolz.

Easy way to learn to spin faster: ride a fixed gear in somewhat hilly terrain.

The downhills'll learn ya to spin. Quick!

The uphills'll make ya stronger!

M

[nooneline]

this.

being comfortable riding between 60-110rpm and being able to make power anywhere in that range is what high cadence/leg speed is all about. and even enormous legs that "shouldn't" spin that fast, can. the ability, for me, came from a few years of really boring leg speed drills, as well as big gear workouts.

that's what you're after - being versatile and able to effectively change gears (within your own body) without diminishing horsepower. leg speed is a good skill to learn for racing. casual riding? maybe not.

it has nothing to do with how many double centuries one has completed. at all.

There are some studies that show that limiting training to certain cadence zones is less effective than self-selecting a comfortable cadence. So, I'd say that you're right.

But I also think that the element that's missing from the study in the OP (as well as a few related ones that I dug up) is what happens when fatigue is introduced. Low cadence, high force (aka muscular power production) is more fatiguing - this power-production system can't last as long as the aerobic one, which kicks in under lower force, higher cadence. Low cadence might be more efficient initially, but cycling isn't only about efficiency.

[msl819]

I'm doing the programmed Zwift workout called FTP builder. I chose it not so much because I care about building my FTP but because it looked good and fit my time with about 5 one hour sessions per week.

But anyway it starts off with doing an FTP test and then uses that number to schedule workouts. Starting off my FTP was 3.9 watt/kg

We'll see what happens at the end of the 6 week term :D

Riding 4 minutes at 330 is just enough to push it. I think that workout has you do that 6 times with 2 minute rests, I'm quite happy when the 6th time is over and I don't have to do it again.

I am doing the 4 week FTP booster program as well. Like you, not because I really care about my FTP, but because I want to get on, do the next workout, and just do what it tells me to do. I brought my FTP info over from a Peloton so I’ll be interested to see what the FTP test shows at the end. 3.9 w/kg is dang good though, kudos to you. This is also pretty much my first foray into training with power so I am still figuring out all the data.

[summilux]

I just had a quick read of the full paper. It is a reasonably good journal and seems to be decently performed. The small sample size (6 men, 3 women) is fairly typical of exercise physiology studies because you have to pay people to do this and unless you are doing a Nike or Red Bull funded study there just isn't enough $$ floating around in the academic world. The participants are likely to be all Japanese (the senior author on the paper is Japanese): thin and shortish by North American/European standards. They are youngish, reasonably fit but are not putting out huge power numbers.

As a heavy cyclist, I like to mash.

[benb]

I was typically pretty high cadence... although before I had a PM I did more high cadence drills. After getting the PM I have done more intervals.

I used to spend a lot of time keeping my cadence above 90... now I would find in those intervals I seem to self select something like 85rpm.

I think you need to keep practicing spinning at higher speed or you lose it pretty fast.

Also it seems like fit things can affect it.. lower my seat a little and my self-selected cadence goes up.

That interval progression workout on Zwift sounds good... I have such a problem overheating on the trainer but that's the kind of workout I like/should be doing more of.

[benb]

I just had a quick read of the full paper. It seems to be decently performed. The small sample size (6 men, 3 women) is fairly typical of exercise physiology studies because you have to pay people to do this and unless you are doing a Nike or Red Bull funded study there just isn't enough $$ floating around in the academic world. The participants are likely to be all Japanese (the senior author on the paper is Japanese): thin and shortish by North American/European standards. They are youngish, reasonably fit but are not putting out huge power numbers.

As a heavy cyclist, I like to mash.

Those #s kind of imply it's not trained cyclists in the study.. the power #s are way too low if the upper range is 200W at ventilatory threshold, which is probably around FTP. They are short/small but the #s are still low.

169w @ 72kg is roughly listed as the peak which is only 2.3W/kg.

[redir]

I am doing the 4 week FTP booster program as well. Like you, not because I really care about my FTP, but because I want to get on, do the next workout, and just do what it tells me to do. I brought my FTP info over from a Peloton so I’ll be interested to see what the FTP test shows at the end. 3.9 w/kg is dang good though, kudos to you. This is also pretty much my first foray into training with power so I am still figuring out all the data.

Yeah it's pretty cool isn't it. Honestly I could barely ever ride indoors before Zwift. The programmes keep me on my toes and paying attention and the hour goes by fast. I dare say on some days I even look forward to it.

Today I rode to work for the first time in months so the real world was refreshing. BTW I am using rollers on Zwift so I don't get that virtual in world resistance experience. The rollers do have mag resistance but they are not 'smart.' So today in the real world when I felt resistance do to hills I was almost confused!

But the rollers work well for the training program because even though I might be climbing that virtual mountain up to the snowy peak I can still maintain a cadence of 90 in what ever gear is necessary.

[msl819]

Yeah it's pretty cool isn't it. Honestly I could barely ever ride indoors before Zwift. The programmes keep me on my toes and paying attention and the hour goes by fast. I dare say on some days I even look forward to it.

Today I rode to work for the first time in months so the real world was refreshing. BTW I am using rollers on Zwift so I don't get that virtual in world resistance experience. The rollers do have mag resistance but they are not 'smart.' So today in the real world when I felt resistance do to hills I was almost confused!

But the rollers work well for the training program because even though I might be climbing that virtual mountain up to the snowy peak I can still maintain a cadence of 90 in what ever gear is necessary.

I am on a Kickr so it coupled with Zwift doing a workout, I am not even changing gears. I am sure there will some readjusting to the great outdoors. Spinning up some of our hills at 90 plus rpms at say 225 watts won’t cut it, I would fall over I’d go so slow. I have enjoyed the cadence as well. I can be too much of a masher being a bigger guy so spinning I feel has helped my cardio vascular endurance more than I expected.

I will say though... my avatar can be a bit of a jerk as he randomly swerves into oncoming riders for no reason!

[Heisenberg]

I just had a quick read of the full paper. It is a reasonably good journal and seems to be decently performed. The small sample size (6 men, 3 women) is fairly typical of exercise physiology studies because you have to pay people to do this and unless you are doing a Nike or Red Bull funded study there just isn't enough $$ floating around in the academic world. The participants are likely to be all Japanese (the senior author on the paper is Japanese): thin and shortish by North American/European standards. They are youngish, reasonably fit but are not putting out huge power numbers.

As a heavy cyclist, I like to mash.

this alone would tell me the study is wholly irrelevant for minimally trained cyclists (eg, everyone here).

There are some studies that show that limiting training to certain cadence zones is less effective than self-selecting a comfortable cadence. So, I'd say that you're right.

But I also think that the element that's missing from the study in the OP (as well as a few related ones that I dug up) is what happens when fatigue is introduced. Low cadence, high force (aka muscular power production) is more fatiguing - this power-production system can't last as long as the aerobic one, which kicks in under lower force, higher cadence. Low cadence might be more efficient initially, but cycling isn't only about efficiency.

yes, this. while i'll often jump out of the saddle on long climbs to evenly distribute fatigue/stretch, lower cadence does fatigue muscle groups faster, and is harder to maintain power after a long time in the saddle. high torque does that, no matter the power output. it can even be evidenced in heartrate - for a given wattage, input HR is typically 5% higher at low cadence (60-75rpm) than at higher (85+).

i'll only kick into mashing when i'm fatigued in a competitive setting in order to hit muscles that haven't been "used up" yet.

[XXtwindad]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557094/

Interesting study I came across while doing some research for a blog posting. The study shows some evidence that high cadence (tandem) cycling can mitigate the effect of Parkinson's.

There's been a growing body of evidence that high intensity activity may help combat neurological diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.

I do high intensity intervals on the exercise bike, which definitely enhances my mood and makes me a more efficient climber on the big hills near my home.

[dnc]

But I also think that the element that's missing from the study in the OP (as well as a few related ones that I dug up) is what happens when fatigue is introduced. Low cadence, high force (aka muscular power production) is more fatiguing - this power-production system can't last as long as the aerobic one, which kicks in under lower force, higher cadence. Low cadence might be more efficient initially, but cycling isn't only about efficiency.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hh2DcgpnkU
That high gear TT rider had no problem with muscle fatigue, he adapted the strongest and most fatigue resistant muscle in the lower body with up to 100 % slow twitch fibers for use in his technique around TDC and down towards 2 o'c. The soleus and its powerful plantar flexion force gave him additional maximal torque in this sector. All other cyclists leave it lying idle.

[Mzilliox]

I am on a Kickr so it coupled with Zwift doing a workout, I am not even changing gears. I am sure there will some readjusting to the great outdoors. Spinning up some of our hills at 90 plus rpms at say 225 watts won’t cut it, I would fall over I’d go so slow. I have enjoyed the cadence as well. I can be too much of a masher being a bigger guy so spinning I feel has helped my cardio vascular endurance more than I expected.

I will say though... my avatar can be a bit of a jerk as he randomly swerves into oncoming riders for no reason!

im confused as hell. If i spun 90 rpms at 225 watts uphill id be getting close to beating KOMs here. another guys is talking about 3.9watts per kg, and those are pro numbers... id be unbeatable at 4watts per kg...

you guys are effing strong! i mean im not fast, but im not slow either. if i put out over 3watts per kg im getting PRS and KOMs on all my rides, just sayin.

this leaves me wondering a lot about electronic riding and power meters and things. are we all really using the same metrics?

[makoti]

im confused as hell. If i spun 90 rpms at 225 watts uphill id be getting close to beating KOMs here. another guys is talking about 3.6watts per kg, and those are pro numbers...

you guys are effing strong! i mean im not fast, but im not slow either. if i put out 3watts per kg im getting PRS and KOMs on all my rides, just sayin.

Yeah, "won't cut it" is very relative. 90rpm @ 225w? I'm bragging. :beer:

[Mzilliox]

With Uran’s 63kg weight, his average power-to-weight ratio was 3.8w/kg

this is winning a stage at the tour, 3.8watts per kg averaging a bit over 80rpm.

[redir]

im confused as hell. If i spun 90 rpms at 225 watts uphill id be getting close to beating KOMs here. another guys is talking about 3.9watts per kg, and those are pro numbers... id be unbeatable at 4watts per kg...

you guys are effing strong! i mean im not fast, but im not slow either. if i put out over 3watts per kg im getting PRS and KOMs on all my rides, just sayin.

this leaves me wondering a lot about electronic riding and power meters and things. are we all really using the same metrics?

I think what he's saying is you can't spin at 90rmp up some of the hills because there simply are no gears to do it. I live in the mountains so I can relate. In zwift I can spin 90rmp up any virtual mountain, on the rollers, but in the real world even my 11x32 is not enough to spin 90 up a cat 1 climb so I put it in my lowest gear and mash, the only thing left to do.

[echappist]

im confused as hell. If i spun 90 rpms at 225 watts uphill id be getting close to beating KOMs here. another guys is talking about 3.9watts per kg, and those are pro numbers... id be unbeatable at 4watts per kg...

you guys are effing strong! i mean im not fast, but im not slow either. if i put out over 3watts per kg im getting PRS and KOMs on all my rides, just sayin.

this leaves me wondering a lot about electronic riding and power meters and things. are we all really using the same metrics?

main detail left out: for what duration?

4 w/kg for 1 hour is a good amateur; doing it for 3 hours, and one'd be looking at a cat-1

the really impressive stat is not the w/kg for a set duration, but rather how long someone could maintain that effort.

At my best, I could do ~4.6 w/kg for an hour; a pro could do ~6.5 w/kg. So was I 70% as strong as a pro? That would depend on how one defines strong. I could do 6.5 w/kg for maybe 3 minutes max; that pro does it for 60 minutes (20x the duration).

A sort-of unrelated analogy would be comparing 97% purity to 99.5% purity. On the face of it, the 97% if 97.5% the way there to the 99.5%, but if one's measure purity, the 97% contains 6x the amount of contaminant in the 99.5%.

[redir]

From what I understand 4 watts/kg puts you in cat3/2 territory and that's right where I am. Kind of sad, all this modern exercise science. You got your number and that's it buddy no room for improvement :) When I do pro 1/2 races, or did I should say, I could hang in the field no problem till the end of the race but forget about going off the front or getting in a break. In crits I'd often get dropped because the intensity is just too much, road races are different.

[Mzilliox]

From what I understand 4 watts/kg puts you in cat3/2 territory and that's right where I am. Kind of sad, all this modern exercise science. You got your number and that's it buddy no room for improvement :) When I do pro 1/2 races, or did I should say, I could hang in the field no problem till the end of the race but forget about going off the front or getting in a break. In crits I'd often get dropped because the intensity is just too much, road races are different.

that makes sense then, thanks for all the clarification.

[muz]

you guys are effing strong! i mean im not fast, but im not slow either. if i put out over 3watts per kg im getting PRS and KOMs on all my rides, just sayin.


You should move to the Bay area! I am a decent climber, but my PR's are 50% to 100% higher than the best times in the local climbs. Levi Leipheimer has many of the Sonoma KOMs, but there are climbs where even he is off the top 10!

[marciero]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557094/

Interesting study I came across while doing some research for a blog posting. The study shows some evidence that high cadence (tandem) cycling can mitigate the effect of Parkinson's.



Worth noting that the study only found statistically significant improvement for the group doing "dynamic" cycling, where "The motor did the majority of the work to turn the pedals but individuals were encouraged to push on the pedals and to not be passive." But no improvement for the "static" cycling, where
" individuals cycled on the instrumented bike, at a self-selected speed, without the motor assist."

[FlashUNC]

this.

being comfortable riding between 60-110rpm and being able to make power anywhere in that range is what high cadence/leg speed is all about. and even enormous legs that "shouldn't" spin that fast, can. the ability, for me, came from a few years of really boring leg speed drills, as well as big gear workouts.

that's what you're after - being versatile and able to effectively change gears (within your own body) without diminishing horsepower. leg speed is a good skill to learn for racing. casual riding? maybe not.

it has nothing to do with how many double centuries one has completed. at all.

To further this point, there's a difference between capability and personal preference. If you do the leg speed work, sure, your preference might still be to Jan Ullrich is along at 70 rpm. But having the tool in the toolkit to hit 100-110 with power if the situation needs it is nothing but a benefit.

And yeah, it takes a ton of boring drills to get there. Training the stuff we suck at is always the hardest bit. Who wants to spend precious saddle time working on the things we're terrible at? It's why I still haven't sorted out trackstanding after all these years.

[Mzilliox]

You should move to the Bay area! I am a decent climber, but my PR's are 50% to 100% higher than the best times in the local climbs. Levi Leipheimer has many of the Sonoma KOMs, but there are climbs where even he is off the top 10!

oh i get it, i rode around Redlands with a buddy, where pros do Redlands classics. i was amazed how far off the KOM times we were from out efforts, haha.
i guess sometimes i forget folks running in cat 1 or 2 would bother chatting on a bike site. silly me

[Mzilliox]

To further this point, there's a difference between capability and personal preference. If you do the leg speed work, sure, your preference might still be to Jan Ullrich is along at 70 rpm. But having the tool in the toolkit to hit 100-110 with power if the situation needs it is nothing but a benefit.

And yeah, it takes a ton of boring drills to get there. Training the stuff we suck at is always the hardest bit. Who wants to spend precious saddle time working on the things we're terrible at? It's why I still haven't sorted out trackstanding after all these years.

this is why i can climb and not sprint. i can spin, i have really fast legs, ill often have rpm numbers in the 130s, but my torque and overall strength on flats is lame. i have a great little jump, just no actual sprint.

i need to work on power this year, grind them big gears inefficiently!:fight:

[smead]

Go fixed, spin like hell and mash up grades all in the same hour, whether you want to or not. I love always being in the right gear.

[laupsi]

Never been naturally strong myself, all gains come through hard work/time. Doing a series of 8 week training sessions through TR, beginning in late Nov., mainly on smart trainer, am 53 years old, been racing/trading since late 20’s, working cadence above 90. Have experienced steady TP improvement this season, about 1.5-2% per every 8 weeks. Last ramp rest, 2 weeks ago at 3.88 W/K. Test consisted of 20’ of work, ave cadence of 95.

I believe it highly improbable that I could ride at that power for 1 hour at any cadence. Says something about my trust in these tests! But also believe my best chance to achieve this power would be to ride at high cadence, rather than 80 or below and I have no problem riding at lower cadences.

Not sure what my point here is cause I know many would say opposite, it simply is what it is, For Me.