ajemm

Same here. I bought a sensor late last fall and realized my cadence was in the mid 60s range. I worked on it over the winter and it started to increase. I just finished a 100km ride today and averaged 80 rpm for the first time. For most of the ride I was pedaling 90-95. Just find a gear combination you can turn over at a higher cadence and work at it.

e_guevara

First problem: How do you get your max HR? There are several methods ranging from the simple max HR = 220 - age, to those that factor in your resting HR (Karvonen). There are problems associated with each method like inaccuracies (the above equation is highly inaccurate - ± 7-11 BPM variations), to variation of values due to improving physical condition (resting HR lowers due to training). The OP might be in some physical condition that may limit his max HR making all the methods useless. How will the OP choose what is right for him? An assessment of a sports physician may be needed.

Second problem: How do you get your target zones? Again there are a lot of recommendations on target zones. Most have 5, others less, others more.

Third problem: On the road, HR varies depending on the riding condition, i.e. winds, hills, general feeling while riding (e.g. woke up on the wrong side of the bed). If the OP does not understand the relationships, it is likely that he will go out of zone. Another factor to consider is heart rate lag.

Too many things for the OP to consider at his stage of cycling.

RPE is simpler, and is used by a lot of physicians and sports coaches to assess patients and athletes alike.

Cadence training need not be complicated. I learned to train my legs without a cadence meter nor an HR monitor. I used a my rough version of RPE (didn't know much about training then), and a 30-second counting method. After buying a new computer with cadence, I found out that I was already hitting the 85~90 target just by "feel" alone.

I use my HR monitor for tempo training and interval training on a trainer where the environment is controlled.

I'm sure all of us "know our limits" as to how much we can exert. Going by RPE gives a conservative limit to avoid fatiguing. For a more advanced athlete, the knowledge of max HR allows the athlete to "push harder beyond normal", something that most average cyclists do not need. More so for someone who is just beginning to get into cycling, or training, for that matter.

Machka 

This ^^

StanSeven

Best post yet! This is exactly why studies haven't produced a single conclusion on cadence - there's no basis to support what the ideal is. In fact one showed that people left alone will gravitate to the cadence most effective for them.

achoo

That's not supported at all by these:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicat...82b9760398.pdf

www.researchgate.net/publication/43131458_Different_effect_of_cadence_on_cycling_efficiency_between_young_and_older_cyclists/file/60b7d51b2b3b32b6f2.pdf

And note that the test periods in those two papers are 5 and 6 minutes. A five minute interval is good for ANAEROBIC work....

Also, note this:

Metabolism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fats tend to be burned to produce lower force efforts while glycogen (carbohydrates) tends to fuel higher force efforts. For any given power output, a lower cadence needs more force, so pedaling at a lower cadence tends to burn glycogen, which is both less efficient and much more limited in quantity.

Not only that, but one of those papers I linked alludes to work that indicates pedaling at a lower cadence results in faster muscle exhaustion - which IMO might very well be related to the limited supply of carbohydrates.

achoo

It's more likely that there are too many studies using short intervals more appropriate for measuring anaerobic efforts "polluting" the data. Where's the study that compares the efficiency and endurance of trained cyclists where each cyclists is measured for three HOURS each at 60, 70, 90, and 90 RPM?

gregf83 

I don't know if you read those studies but they corroborate what I said. Quote from the 2nd study:
And from the first study:


Which is pretty much what I said, i.e. lower cadences are more efficient.

Brian Ratliff

First, muscular efficiency is not the same as energy efficiency. Yes, the high torque is likely more efficient because you have large numbers of muscle cells pulling simultaneously, as opposed to small groups of cells alternating (anaerobic is about force, not speed, and individual muscle cells either contract or don't contract, they don't modulate their force). No, you cannot pedal at high power and 60rpm for any good length of time because the aerobic system cannot supply energy that fast. High torque automatically means anaerobic.

Second, the power output used in this study is embarrassingly low (100, 150, 200W) and did not vary according to fitness level. The more highly trained athletes are most likely using a different energy system to come up with that kind of power than the lower trained athletes.

Cycling is all about energy efficiency. Muscular efficiency doesn't come into play because cycling is not a torque driven activity (absolute forces on the pedals are pretty low compared to, say, jumping). The vast majority of people are going to be most energy efficient around 80-95rpm. This is just fact born out by a century of bike racing and touring. Humans are mostly alike in this regard, it turns out. So, no, there are very very very very few special snowflakes that aren't going to benefit from riding at a cadence of 80-95rpm.

StanSeven

You're exactly right Brian. The problem with these cadence threads is many posters keep stressing higher and higher cadences so newbies think 80 or 85 isn't good enough. 80-85 may be ideal for many but someone wouldn't know it from here.

Brian Ratliff

Usually, the difference between 80 and 95rpm is purely situational for an experienced cyclist. I've had 60 mile solo training rides where my average cadence is 85rpm. I get into a race or group ride and my cadence goes up to 95+rpm. I usually time trial around 80rpm. I might climb with a cadence as low as 75rpm. But I'm a sprinter with big, heavy legs and lots of torque on tap. Lighter riders with less power tend to ride higher rpm.

big chainring 

63" fixed gear and a long downhill run.

gregf83 

You're getting confused between efficiency and optimal cadence. Because one pedals at 85-95 rpm doesn't mean it's the most efficient, it just means it's the most comfortable. I'm not suggesting you should pedal at 60 rpm, however, the reality is it is more economical and efficient to pedal at low cadences even though your knees might get sore. I think you'll find that riders doing very long TTs (e.g. Ironman) use a lower cadence than someone like Tony Martin or Cancellara doing a 1 hr TT @ 110rpm.

I find it very easy to noodle around at a relatively low cadence but when higher power is required (like a crit) my cadence naturally goes up. I probably use similar force on the pedals just push more often.

Efficiency, by definition is energy out divided by energy in. In this case power divided by caloric expenditure.

Brian Ratliff

This is just wrong. Has nothing to do with joint comfort. Never has. Where do you even get this?

Also, every few people TT at 110rpm average. 85-90 is more typical, unless you are a doped up Lance Armstrong.

of what? is the question. Muscles, no doubt, have a peak efficiency at 60rpm, which is basically walking frequency. But the net efficiency of the whole system is nowhere close to 60rpm. You'd have to read deeper into the paper to find out what they are actually measuring. It is not a simple measurement because it is really quite difficult to measure how much caloric energy goes into the muscle tissues. The body is made up of a lot of different energy paths, both in parallel and in series.

In the meantime, try an experiment on the trainer. Mount a rear wheel speed sensor. Ride at a "tempo" type pace at your cadence for a bit; note the speed of the rear wheel. Ride like that for, say, 10 minutes. Now, shift up until your cadence is 60rpm and ride at the same rear wheel speed for another 10 minutes. Report back with your results. $20 says you don't even make it to 10 minutes at 60rpm.

gregf83 

Cancellara used to be around 110. I don't have a lot of data but Laurens ten Dam was at 95 this weekend.

Quote:

of what?

The tests are generally looking at net system efficiency. Caloric expenditure is calculated based on measure VO2 input. Gross efficiency includes the caloric expenditure for your baseline metabolism, delta efficiency subtracts that out and looks only at the incremental energy used for riding.

I do 5 min hill repeats above threshold at 50RPM so I'm fairly sure I could ride tempo at 60rpm for 20min. When my powermeters are back in service I'll give it a try though.

RollCNY

This test has nothing to do with efficiency. It may have a great deal to do with sustainability, or economy and conservation of resources, but nothing to do with efficiency.

Most efficient is, by definition, the least amount of waste. Lifting your foot to top of stroke is waste. The most efficient system would be 1/2 revolution to get your trip distance. You never lift your foot again, just straight force into motion. Of course, that is impossible, but that would be the most efficient conversion of energy.

This is why, IMHO, the term efficiency is worthless in bicycle discussions. A single speed bike is always more efficient than a geared bike. Always. Straight chain line and no frictional RD losses, and lower system weight. That does not make it the wisest choice for a long trip, based on it being potentially an inferior choice for the body's system of power delivery. From a system performance standpoint, your body can perform longer and more consistently with the less efficient system.

Brian Ratliff

???

Look; stop being a pedant for a moment and look at the larger point. The concept of "efficiency" cannot be divorced from it's definition. Just what is measured is important. In the researcher's case, yes, it may be that if you squirt 200kJ of energy into a muscle cycling at 60rpm every second, you get closer to 200kJ of energy every second transmitted to the pedals. BUT, this is looking at the muscles in isolation. The conversion of chemical energy in food to kJ muscular output is extremely non-linear and highly dependent on the force used to create that output. It is quite possible that anaerobic energy intake from the muscle is more efficient than aerobic energy intake... up until those anaerobic reservoirs need to be refilled. But system wide, starting from food and ending with power-to-the-road, aerobic energy production is the more efficient process for converting Caloric intake to power to the road over long time periods.

woodcraft

No, it's much about speed.

You'd be more efficient at 5 mph, and then, who needs high RPMs?

Isn't going fast pretty much inefficient by definition?

Brian Ratliff

The definition of efficiency cannot be divorced from it's definition. What you are noticing is that "efficiency" is a function of power. Of course it is. Sitting on your ass all day is extremely efficient, which is why the whole nation is so fat.

bikefoo

You guys lost me. I'm sticking with pedal how I feel like pedaling, pedal faster when possible, and pedal better circles

bahula03

Rich Gibson 

I have an application for my phone (ipbike) which shows the cadence, but the problem is having to keep looking at it. Better is a small credit card sized metronome I bought from a music store 10 years ago. I mounted it on a converted handlebar reflector and let it beep as I ride. This way I'm not glued to the phone that much. I also have a free metronome app for my Samsung Galaxy S4, but it's difficult to change the pace when ipbike is running; I have to keep switching back and forth.

Rich

RollCNY

Brian, you keep using the same word "efficiency" to talk about multiple things, and then repeatedly say you can't separate the definition of efficiency from efficiency. What I was saying is that the efficacy of how your body produces force has little to do with the mechanical efficiency of how fast you pedal. Efficiency is already defined in physics: work out divided by work in, or power out divided by power in. Mechanically, higher cadence means more foot distance travelled against air resistance which means more loss. That's all I am saying.

From a converting food to energy and performing longer, I have not said anything contrary to your posts, nor would I. There are many good reasons to pedal at a decent cadence. But mechanical efficiency isn't one of them. It has nothing to do with how the body converts energy. It has to do with doing extra work.

Brian Ratliff

First statement: of course it does. That's why people talk about cadence in the first place. Your body produces high forces inefficiently because the energy chain from calories to output is inefficient. This is why we have to stop after a sprint and recover after burning a match. This is why a long distance cyclist can do 1000kJ of work during a ride but a sprinter can't put out nearly as much total work during a sprint workout.

What the researchers have found is the muscles themselves are fairly efficient at high forces. The inefficiencies are in the energy paths, not the muscles. The muscles are efficient at 60rpm; the energy systems are efficient at 80-95rpm (lower force, higher muscle velocity). Since cycling is an energy system dominated activity, not a force dominated activity, the energy system efficiency dominates the total efficiency of the system. Now, you can imagine that an activity featuring low total force at 60rpm is extremely efficient, right? We call that "walking", which humans do very well, very efficiently.

Second statement: this is a minor secondary effect. Either that or it is a trivial truth. Nobody here is arguing about the drivetrain efficiency on the bike, which I think is what you are talking about here.

rekon

Hmm... I'm not sure I understand this whole cadence debate. I ride at a low cadence with a high gear and push the heck out of my pedals! Is there any type of fitness benefit doing the contrary (high cadence/low gear)? Seems like you would get a good work out doing either. Problem with low gears/high cadence IMO is I feel like I don't go as fast..

e_guevara

Here's an article from Hunter Allen, a USAC Level 1 coach, regarding pedaling efficiency:

Why Fast Pedaling Makes Cyclists More Efficient

The study was conducted by scientists at the University of Wisconsin and University of Wyoming.

The setup:
And the results:
So what the study reveals is that the fast-twitch muscles consume more glycogen (50%) than the slow-twitch muscles (33%) for the same power output for the same duration.

For reference:

Skeletal Muscle Types

• Slow-twitch muscles (Type I): Can carry more oxygen and sustain aerobic activity using fats or carbohydrates as fuel. Slow twitch fibers contract for long periods of time but with little force. - Muscles that are recruited during low torque, high cadence pedaling.
• Fast-twitch muscle (Type II): Fast twitch fibers contract quickly and powerfully but fatigue very rapidly, sustaining only short, anaerobic bursts of activity before muscle contraction becomes painful. They contribute most to muscle strength and have greater potential for increase in mass. - Muscles used high torque, low cadence pedaling.

Another one for reference:

Mechanical Power
Average power is defined as the amount of work (energy expended) per unit time.
In rotational systems, power is the product of the torque RPM,
where

So the take away from this is that: The muscles use a smaller amount of energy to produce a certain amount of output power for the same duration by pedaling at a high cadence than at a lower one.

Less energy (system input) for the same amount of power (system output) is in my book a more efficient system.