What cadence produces your highest FTP?
- Thread starter Quadsweep
- Start date
anecdotally, that is as i would expect it actually... don't really know about rats... but for humans i really wouldn't expect a calve muscle to benefit that much from an "extra heart" pumping affect, especially in cycling where the calve muscle is not really that involved in alot of 'pumping' action.. [Edit]unless your are doing a whole lot of toeing action or even for that matter in walking or running.. maybe a rationale for toeing?[Edit]acoggan said:
are there any similar studies on human and/or on the large muscles of the upper leg i.e. thighs, hamstrings, glutes etc.. these are the muscle i'd expect to benefit from such an affect.
This is why the line will rise mike.
Ric said: "it's probably likely that everyone is more efficient at 90 versus 100 revs/min, as the most efficient cadence is generally quite "low" (in bikie terms). and we're likely more efficient at 80 rather than 90 revs/min at a given power output.
However, as the absolute power output increases the most efficient cadence will be higher than at a lower absolute power output."
It's a great article by RChung"
As you force yourself to make more power, you should and probably have to spin faster, as the massive torques you would need to, say produce 500 watts at 70 rpm would overload your muscles.
Also efficiency only really matters to endurance cyclists- for sprinters that are not limited by aerobic capacity burning more energy is not such a bad thing.
Ric said: "it's probably likely that everyone is more efficient at 90 versus 100 revs/min, as the most efficient cadence is generally quite "low" (in bikie terms). and we're likely more efficient at 80 rather than 90 revs/min at a given power output.
However, as the absolute power output increases the most efficient cadence will be higher than at a lower absolute power output."
It's a great article by RChung"
As you force yourself to make more power, you should and probably have to spin faster, as the massive torques you would need to, say produce 500 watts at 70 rpm would overload your muscles.
Also efficiency only really matters to endurance cyclists- for sprinters that are not limited by aerobic capacity burning more energy is not such a bad thing.
mikesbytes said:
on page two of this thread Dr. Ferrari is quoted as saying this... basically what you are say.. as well as the "muscle pump" comment...mises said:
"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. "
Just to ilustrate different (pedal) strokes for different folks...mises said:
I can't do a solo ride and have my average cadence be less than 95. For my Ironman I averaged 96 and I've done rides of 8 hours at that same cadence. When ever I really want to produce power, in shorter TT situations, when I'm chasing someones wheel or when I'm in a break, I seem to self select about 105.
The only rides I seem to average less than 95 on are group rides where I might be doing a fair bit of soft pedaling and socializing in the peloton. Even those never average below 90.
I think that may also be because in a peloton, I rarely want to be cruising at the top end of my comfortable cadence range. If I ever need to chase when someone jumps I want to be able to accelerate at least a few pedal revolutions before I need to switch gears. So I tend to select a cadence closer to the low end of my comfortable range when I'm in a twitchy competitive group.
Thanks to all who provided the technical, and phisiological hypotheses and explanations. Like one regular poster on this forum says, "Science is Cool."
Alright, this is my hypothesis.
Power generation is limited by two factor, (mostly) metabolic capacity and (maybey slightly) force production.
When we go over our threshold fatigue sets in. Greater efficiency or greater sustainable metabolic capacity means at a given power one is at a lower % of their threshold.
Similarily when we load our muscular system we close off blood supply, tear muscle fibres etc, and do all sorts of things i don't think we fully understand. There is an absolute maximum amount of torque we can produce (this is quite high, but will limit sprinting power) and also, probably a maximam sustainable torque as well (probably quite small, which may limit power generation over longer periods of time)
As lower cadences are more efficient, they tend to result in lower cardiovascular stress, but (one would expect) more muscular stress as the torques and therefore forces are higher.
The big question is, if this is the case, can a someone who is adept at creating big sustainable forces (big gear riding capability) ride at a lower cadence and de-stress their cardiovascular system, or vice versa.
If this is the case then it would suggest there would be some benefit to at least maintaining a certain amount of lean muscle mass, as it would be reasonable to assume this greater mass would allow the option of using a more efficent, lower cadence, or similarily the ability to use the same cadence but have a better resistance to muscular fatigue.
If one discounts the existence of muscular fatigue or force production as a (somewhat) limiting factor one is left with no goood reason not to ride in low, efficient cadences, unless someone can come up with another benefit intrinsic to higher cadences.
Higher cadences mean 2 things, more velocity and less torque. If they have any benefits, it needs to be associated with one of these variables.
There are probably three theories here:
1: higher velocity means greater pump action and blood flow
2 lower forces means less muscular stress resulting in, (alngside other possible positives like less muscle tear and damage) less blood flow restriction through "venous occlusion" (is this the right term, I am no doctor???)
Power generation is limited by two factor, (mostly) metabolic capacity and (maybey slightly) force production.
When we go over our threshold fatigue sets in. Greater efficiency or greater sustainable metabolic capacity means at a given power one is at a lower % of their threshold.
Similarily when we load our muscular system we close off blood supply, tear muscle fibres etc, and do all sorts of things i don't think we fully understand. There is an absolute maximum amount of torque we can produce (this is quite high, but will limit sprinting power) and also, probably a maximam sustainable torque as well (probably quite small, which may limit power generation over longer periods of time)
As lower cadences are more efficient, they tend to result in lower cardiovascular stress, but (one would expect) more muscular stress as the torques and therefore forces are higher.
The big question is, if this is the case, can a someone who is adept at creating big sustainable forces (big gear riding capability) ride at a lower cadence and de-stress their cardiovascular system, or vice versa.
If this is the case then it would suggest there would be some benefit to at least maintaining a certain amount of lean muscle mass, as it would be reasonable to assume this greater mass would allow the option of using a more efficent, lower cadence, or similarily the ability to use the same cadence but have a better resistance to muscular fatigue.
If one discounts the existence of muscular fatigue or force production as a (somewhat) limiting factor one is left with no goood reason not to ride in low, efficient cadences, unless someone can come up with another benefit intrinsic to higher cadences.
Higher cadences mean 2 things, more velocity and less torque. If they have any benefits, it needs to be associated with one of these variables.
There are probably three theories here:
1: higher velocity means greater pump action and blood flow
2 lower forces means less muscular stress resulting in, (alngside other possible positives like less muscle tear and damage) less blood flow restriction through "venous occlusion" (is this the right term, I am no doctor???)
frenchyge said:
Well I got only two answers.....Spunout said:
The answer is - it doesn't really matter.... just pedal and crank out the power as best you can!
In this particular test - it was the rising blue line (or near enough, despite being done on computrainer). But the test before that it was a flat cadence line to start with then cadence fell as power increased. I have another from someone with a steady decline in cadence as power increased.
Only a small sample of course.... YMMV
Huh, who'd a thunk it.
Normally for testing on a CT, we instruct the athlete to hold a constant cadence. When the cadence drops, the test is over (even if they manage to grind out the step).
I do remember (being tested myself) being instructed to hold the cadence, but a few steps in my cadence increased to my self-selected cadence...which rises with the power.
Normally for testing on a CT, we instruct the athlete to hold a constant cadence. When the cadence drops, the test is over (even if they manage to grind out the step).
I do remember (being tested myself) being instructed to hold the cadence, but a few steps in my cadence increased to my self-selected cadence...which rises with the power.
Forgot possible the most important one:
3. Lower forces leads to less recruitment of fast twitch muscle fibres which are less efficient and run out of glycogen faster. This is probably the primary reason for efficiency falling off below a certain cadence.
There are probably three theories here:
1: higher velocity means greater pump action and blood flow
2 lower forces means less muscular stress resulting in, (alngside other possible positives like less muscle tear and damage) less blood flow restriction through "venous occlusion" (is this the right term, I am no doctor???)[/QUOTE]
3. Lower forces leads to less recruitment of fast twitch muscle fibres which are less efficient and run out of glycogen faster. This is probably the primary reason for efficiency falling off below a certain cadence.
There are probably three theories here:
1: higher velocity means greater pump action and blood flow
2 lower forces means less muscular stress resulting in, (alngside other possible positives like less muscle tear and damage) less blood flow restriction through "venous occlusion" (is this the right term, I am no doctor???)[/QUOTE]
Similar threads
