What cadence produces your highest FTP?

[11ring]

Don't tell a trackie that.... I don't see build have any relationship to a track rider's ability to pedal quickly (but that's an observation only, not a statment of fact).

This makes my point- trackies produce LOTS of power, so the "base load" is very small compared to the power they generate, even with their monster legs. Also they are cleary not limited by aerobic capacity in the same way as road cyclists, so efficiency is less of a consideration. Hour record riders do NOT spin at 160 rpm like trackies. Nor do they have moster legs, for that matter.

 

[Alex Simmons]

This makes my point- trackies produce LOTS of power, so the "base load" is very small compared to the power they generate, even with their monster legs. Also they are cleary not limited by aerobic capacity in the same way as road cyclists, so efficiency is less of a consideration. Hour record riders do NOT spin at 160 rpm like trackies. Nor do they have moster legs, for that matter.

I'm still trying to get my head around the "base load" you mentioned.... Hour record is a good analogy as I was talking about sprinters, not the object of this discussion. Often you use a shorter crank when sprinting on the track as well.... so the vertical movement of legs qwould be reduced accordingly. I still don't see what leg size has to do with pedal speed.

Oh God, it's another cadence thread and I'm typing.. I'm outta here

 

[Alex Simmons]

At what cadence do you produce the highest FTP?

But, in answer to the OP...

I don't know and I don't care. I just pedal when going hard and let my body tell me what's right and the right hand will click accordingly.

Now I'm really outta here

 

[11ring]

"base load" is just a word i made up as i don't think there is a correct term. Basically the energy requirments of just spinning the pedals.

Say barry is a big fat sprinter who weights 90 kg. Tust sitting on the trainer and spining at 100 rpm might push his HR to say 110 bpm, and will require a certain amount of O2 and energy, lets say 350 Joukles per second. This is his 100 rpm o watt metabolic power requirment.

On the other hand luke is a skinny ass climber who doesn't eat with twigs for legs. At 100 rpm O watts his HR might be only 90 bmp, and he might use only 200 joules per second just to spin the pedals. that is his 100 rpm o watt metabolic power requirment.

As barry's "base load" is higher, to get the same efficiency as luke he has to A produce more power, or B spin at a lower cadence to lower the demands of the "base load"

for an ilustration of this principle, look at the legs of migrating animals like horses and buffalo. they have very skinny moving parts (lower legs) so only a small amount of energy is used just lifting their legs up and down.

 

[meandmybike]

Ric surely efficency is super important, you more than others stress that we are primarily limited by our cardiovascular capacity. If higher cadences require more O2 and glycogen then you (should) tire quicker, or conversely at a given % of VO2 max you should have lower power output at higher cadences.

What is a difficult question to answer is why lower cadences that ARE more efficient can leave your legs feeling completety drilled.

There are some suggestion that higher cadences can cause a "pump effect" and improve muscular blood flow, (a few articles on Pubmed at least). If it is not due to the actual velocity of movement then the only other option is to conclude that (low cadence fatigue) is due to the higher forces involved, which suggests that force generating capacity is comewhat important.

Actually, I have seen studies where the most efficient cadences were found to be very low, much lower than any cyclisty would ride in by choice. (like 60 rpm or lower)

Dr Ferrari's take on high cadence being the way to go:



Training
High Pedaling Cadence
By: Michele Ferrari
Published: 10 Mar 2003

The Art of Spinning... Read about the concepts and advantages of having a high pedaling cadence while training/racing.


Pedaling at 60 RPM (revolutions per minute) or at 90 RPM during an uphill course: what are the effects on performance, tiredness and recovery?




At 60 RPM it takes 1.0 second for the crank to make a complete revolution (360º), at 90 RPM it only takes 0.66 seconds that is 34% less.

The contraction time of the muscles involved in pedaling, decrease thus of that same percentage.
During the muscle contraction phase, blood flow (and so the oxygen carrying) to the single fiber, especially the most profound ones, lessens because of the increased pressure within the working muscles.

Moreover, in terms of equal power output supplied by the cyclist, a cadence of 60 RPM requires a 34% more of applied force to each push on the pedals, compared to a cadence of 90 RPM. This means a heavier load for muscles, tendons and lower limbs-lumbar joints.

It is easy to realize the advantages of a more “agile” pedaling cadence, especially when the rider is busy with an all-out effort, as soon as the oxygen carrying becomes the limiting factor of his performance.

Also the recovery between 2 or more efforts, within just one training session or race, or even within the next days, takes advantage from an agile pedaling cadence, whereas the risk of injuries or overworking lesions increases with lower RPMs.

A high pedaling cadence also improves the pumping function of skeletal muscles, the most important factor in defining systemic venous return of the blood to the heart.
This peripheral pump plays a critical role in circulatory functional
capacity, and can be viewed as a second heart.




In conclusion, high pedaling cadences are favorable to riders, as demonstrated by the examples of great champions such as Miguel Indurain and Lance Armstrong.






Links:

http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=27

http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=15

http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=36

 

[Spunout]

All of them?

 

[mises]

I simply take Ferrari's comments to mean a cadence higher than what would technically be the most efficient in a lab.

 

[doctorSpoc]

Ric surely efficency is super important, you more than others stress that we are primarily limited by our cardiovascular capacity. If higher cadences require more O2 and glycogen then you (should) tire quicker, or conversely at a given % of VO2 max you should have lower power output at higher cadences.

What is a difficult question to answer is why lower cadences that ARE more efficient can leave your legs feeling completety drilled.

There are some suggestion that higher cadences can cause a "pump effect" and improve muscular blood flow, (a few articles on Pubmed at least). If it is not due to the actual velocity of movement then the only other option is to conclude that (low cadence fatigue) is due to the higher forces involved, which suggests that force generating capacity is comewhat important.

Actually, I have seen studies where the most efficient cadences were found to be very low, much lower than any cyclisty would ride in by choice. (like 60 rpm or lower)

i think Ric means efficiency as in terms of the amount of "energy in" to power out is irrelevant.

in a drag race between a honda civic and a mustang the civic will use it's fuel more efficiently but the mustang wins even though it uses it's fuel much less efficiently, this is because in an absolute sence it produces way more power for the duration of the race in than the civic.

in a TT you're not going to exhaust your fuel reserves, even in a road race you replentish your reserves by eating... efficient use of fuel by your body is not important the only thing that is important at the end of the day is absolute power output. if you have be use your fuel reserves less efficiently to produce more power so be it... producing more power is the deal. higher cadence has to be less efficient since you are moving your legs, more lifting the weight of your legs though gravity more as you pedal, more friction within you joint, mechanics of the bike etc but if it produces more power then so be it.. just eat more.

 

[SolarEnergy]

I take this thread as some sort of a poll.

For what it's worth, I generate my best FTP power on flat at little under 90rpm. But that's me.

 

[doctorSpoc]

I take this thread as some sort of a poll.

For what it's worth, I generate my best FTP power on flat at little under 90rpm. But that's me.

yup... for me it's about ~105.

 

[11ring]

Problem is, energy use is not just like a tank of petrol. The more calories or kilojoles you burn, the more oxogen you need to burn that extra energy. Humans are limited in their capacity to utilise and process oxygen. Hence a drop in efficiency means either higher demands on the cardiovascular system or lower power outputs at the cranks.

The analogy would be the civic and the mustang, but both using a carburettor from a 1000cc motorbike and a clogged fuel pump.

i think Ric means efficiency as in terms of the amount of "energy in" to power out is irrelevant.

in a drag race between a honda civic and a mustang the civic will use it's fuel more efficiently but the mustang wins even though it uses it's fuel much less efficiently, this is because in an absolute sence it produces way more power for the duration of the race in than the civic.

in a TT you're not going to exhaust your fuel reserves, even in a road race you replentish your reserves by eating... efficient use of fuel by your body is not important the only thing that is important at the end of the day is absolute power output. if you have be use your fuel reserves less efficiently to produce more power so be it... producing more power is the deal. higher cadence has to be less efficient since you are moving your legs, more lifting the weight of your legs though gravity more as you pedal, more friction within you joint, mechanics of the bike etc but if it produces more power then so be it.. just eat more.

 

[jws]

efficiency is mostly dependent on muscle fiber type (and also duration and intensity to a lesser degree), but lower cadences (around 60rpm) are more efficient. style doesn't mean much in cycling, unlike swimming or rowing.

like DocSpoc said, who cares if you're efficient if your power is low.

don't waste your time messing with cadence unless you've already trained yourself with artificial cadences and need to retrain your mind.

 

[Spunout]

I take this thread as some sort of a poll.

For what it's worth, I generate my best FTP power on flat at little under 90rpm. But that's me.

PB 20 minutes: 101 RPM with a max of 120.

 

[doctorSpoc]

Problem is, energy use is not just like a tank of petrol. The more calories or kilojoles you burn, the more oxogen you need to burn that extra energy. Humans are limited in their capacity to utilise and process oxygen. Hence a drop in efficiency means either higher demands on the cardiovascular system or lower power outputs at the cranks.

The analogy would be the civic and the mustang, but both using a carburettor from a 1000cc motorbike and a clogged fuel pump.

i'm not getting what you are saying.. oxygen intake should not limiting either unless you are at VO2max.. so your clogged fuel pump analogy is not that good since at race and TT pace you still have capacity to take in more oxygen... most races and TTs last longer than ~1-2 minutes (i.e. not done at VO2max pace) so that can't be the case.. using more energy and as a consequence more oxygen and less efficiently is just a consequence of going faster at higher power..

if you want to be very efficient the best way to do that would be to ride at L1 and about 30rpms... you'll be very efficient but also very slow... the faster you go the less and less efficient you will be.

and in addition if you consider the pumping affect mentioned by Dr. Ferrari (Dr. Dope)... it would seem that the inefficiency of higher cadences can be more than offset by the ability to... i'm guessing get more oxygen to the muscle and remove wastes faster...

 

[11ring]

Lactic threshold is at a certain % of VO2 max. Sustainable power is limited by aerobic capaity. This is ABC stuff.

If two riders are both at 85% Vo2 max, the more efficient one will go faster.

I am not advocating riding in lower cadences, just highlighting the implications of changes in efficiency.

Actually, as i pointed out earlier, given these implications, why are lessefficient cadences faster. The only reasonable conclusion is that there are benefits intrinsic to higher cadences which belance their relative inefficiency.

i'm not getting what you are saying.. oxygen intake should not limiting either unless you are at VO2max.. so your clogged fuel pump analogy is not that good since at race and TT pace you still have capacity to take in more oxygen... most races and TTs last longer than ~1-2 minutes (i.e. not done at VO2max pace) so that can't be the case.. using more energy and as a consequence more oxygen and less efficiently is just a consequence of going faster at higher power..

if you want to be very efficient the best way to do that would be to ride at L1 and about 30rpms... you'll be very efficient but also very slow... the faster you go the less and less efficient you will be.

and in addition if you consider the pumping affect mentioned by Dr. Ferrari (Dr. Dope)... it would seem that the inefficiency of higher cadences can be more than offset by the ability to... i'm guessing get more oxygen to the muscle and remove wastes faster...

 

[gvanwagner]

i think Ric means efficiency as in terms of the amount of "energy in" to power out is irrelevant.

in a drag race between a honda civic and a mustang the civic will use it's fuel more efficiently but the mustang wins even though it uses it's fuel much less efficiently, this is because in an absolute sence it produces way more power for the duration of the race in than the civic.

in a TT you're not going to exhaust your fuel reserves, even in a road race you replentish your reserves by eating... efficient use of fuel by your body is not important the only thing that is important at the end of the day is absolute power output. if you have be use your fuel reserves less efficiently to produce more power so be it... producing more power is the deal. higher cadence has to be less efficient since you are moving your legs, more lifting the weight of your legs though gravity more as you pedal, more friction within you joint, mechanics of the bike etc but if it produces more power then so be it.. just eat more.

Well, at 277 watts your going through about 1000kj per hour and ignoring efficiency and doing the 1:1 ratio- I knwo I sure can't take in 1000kcal per hour while riding. You will run out of gas sometime in fact substrate availibility is one of the big limiters in subthreshold exercise- but not only.

I guess it's a moot point anyway because I produce the most power at ~80-85. Something to note though that at any intensity from 150-600 watts and any duration from 30s to 5hr- If I begin to lose power or RPE goes up then I tend to lower cadence a bit to compensate for either. That's just a subconcious response for me.


Greg

 

[mikesbytes]

Theres a lot of interesting science in this thread. But theres another way to view it.

What cadience is the optimum point between fatigue and performance ?

 

[Spunout]

What cadience is the optimum point between fatigue and performance ?

It depends.

 

[mikesbytes]

It depends.

On what ?

 

[ric_stern/RST]

On what ?

To quote R Chung, "cadence is a red herring"

Ric