Originally Posted by RChung (Post 23369489)

ISTR a study of pro cyclists that showed that work efficiency was maximized at lower cadences -- but I always thought this was an argument that while racing, pros don't tend to maximize efficiency, they're more interested in racing results no matter how inefficient it may be. Race cars get much lower mileage than economy cars, but they're usually not trying to maximize mileage (race cars have their own efficiency and fuel consumption goals, but those goals aren't to maximize overall economy, they're to get acceptable economy compared to the other cars they're competing against).

I've looked at the cadence and power (and crank torque) of several pro races. Although their *average* cadence is relatively high, they tend *not* to stay within a narrow cadence band: they're not automatons, their cadence band spans the range from slow to very fast, depending on the race situation. That said, the range in power is "wider" than the range in cadence, so they *tend* to vary their crank torque to modulate power (that is, they vary both cadence and crank torque to produce the power they want, but they vary crank torque more than they vary cadence).

When I've looked at data from me and some of my friends (and we're definitely not pros) the overall pattern of wide cadence range, not being automatons, and modulation of power more by crank torque than cadence, seem to describe us, too.

Originally Posted by cyclezen (Post 23369636)

My impressions and observations, on myself, would agree with this.
There are/were always times in a race (mass start) when the pace steadies out. at that point I always quickly searched for the most 'efficient' gear/cadence. That was when my HR would settle down to a lower steady rate. Before on-bike 'Power' meters, you had HRMs, and those still are the best reading of 'efficiency'. The best effciency of work done results in the lowest HR at whatever work load. Often it meant, while sitting in or moving around in a line or echelon, that a greater gear with lower rpm showed a lower HR, often very substantial... It's actually a reason I still highly desire single tooth step cog ranges in my most used gear range.

I'm not looking for the besr/max efficiency. I'm still looking to being able to ride Quickly' for the times/distance that I'm riding.
My considered opinion is that efficiency affects the entire combined cadence and torque (power) range one have available and might use. Having a high cadence range doesn't mean you need to use it, but it does mean you should be more efficient in the gear and cadence ranges that you might need or want.
If I can hold 110 rpm with the needed torque, then riding at 90 rpm is likely more 'efficient'. Doesn't mean I need to use 110 constantly, the impact of efficiency affects all levels of effort.
Ride On
Yuri

Originally Posted by Trakhak (Post 23368706)

(The consensus in the sport science community seems to be that you can't load your muscles enough while cycling to see more than a fraction of the strength improvements achievable through the use of weights and other forms of resistance training.)

Originally Posted by wheelreason (Post 23370602)

Yes, but that's only because no one is doing on a bike what is required for strength gain. 3 sets of 6-8 reps with near failure at the last rep (2 or 3 times a week). You would need a fairly steep grade, you'd be just pushing down a small range of the circle at a really low "cadence" and your "ride" would be over in a couple of minutes.

Originally Posted by PeteHski (Post 23370592)

Is it not a balance between cardio efficiency (lowest HR) and muscular fatigue (lowest crank torque)? For example, a relatively low cadence to achieve the lowest HR for a given power output might cause faster muscle fatigue due to the relatively high crank torque. I often alternate between lower and higher cadence to give my cardio system or legs a bit of recovery.

Originally Posted by Trakhak (Post 23370641)

In fact, no one can do on a bike what is required for strength gain (or muscle development) because the amount of force that can be applied to the pedals is limited by body weight and arm strength.

Originally Posted by PeteHski (Post 23370592)

Is it not a balance between cardio efficiency (lowest HR) and muscular fatigue (lowest crank torque)? For example, a relatively low cadence to achieve the lowest HR for a given power output might cause faster muscle fatigue due to the relatively high crank torque. I often alternate between lower and higher cadence to give my cardio system or legs a bit of recovery.

Originally Posted by Trakhak (Post 23370641)

In fact, no one can do on a bike what is required for strength gain (or muscle development) because the amount of force that can be applied to the pedals is limited by body weight and arm strength.

Originally Posted by terrymorse (Post 23370707)

Sprints can increase muscle strength. There's at least one study that demonstrated it. There also are my sore quads after a ride with lots of sprints.

Originally Posted by PeteHski (Post 23370580)

If I lose fitness, my average cadence tends to drop a little, along with average power. So I guess that means I tend to compensate for a lack of fitness by reducing cadence rather than pedal force. Or maybe both!

Originally Posted by Trakhak (Post 23370820)

Yes, of course. I was thinking of the comparison between the limits of strength training on bikes versus the lack of practical limits with weight equipment.

Which reminds me: a local racer here in Baltimore who had raced locally, nationally, and internationally for many years was surprised when he began being beaten in sprints by a Johns Hopkins undergraduate. Chatting with the young guy after a race, he remarked that he thought that weight work was a waste of time for bike racers. The young guy replied, "I work out with weights."

The next week, I saw the older guy checking out gym equipment in our bike shop/fitness center.

Originally Posted by Trakhak (Post 23370820)

Yes, of course. I was thinking of the comparison between the limits of strength training on bikes versus the lack of practical limits with weight equipment.

Which reminds me: a local racer here in Baltimore who had raced locally, nationally, and internationally for many years was surprised when he began being beaten in sprints by a Johns Hopkins undergraduate. Chatting with the young guy after a race, he remarked that he thought that weight work was a waste of time for bike racers. The young guy replied, "I work out with weights."

The next week, I saw the older guy checking out gym equipment in our bike shop/fitness center.

Originally Posted by cyclezen (Post 23371054)

Bobbie Phillips ?

Originally Posted by Trakhak (Post 23371711)

Yep, the Baltimore Bullet himself. Very savvy guy. Once when he stopped by the bike shop where I worked, I asked if that was the bike he raced on. He said that he had a few bikes, all set up differently for different races. The bikes with the lightest wheels were for races that were too hilly or otherwise didn't suit him. The ones with the heavier, more reliable wheels were for the ones where he figured he had a shot at winning.

Originally Posted by cyclezen (Post 23371846)

LOL! Bobby (sorry I miss-spelled earlier...) was the consummate Bike Racer/Sprinter... While I lived in Severna Pk for a while, just over bridge from Naval Academy, We both raced for the Wheelmen. He was already a 'Veteran' in '82, but often raced Cat 1,2 . Just a shark on wheels... Crit Meister ! When I felt that shadow come around me, 90% of the time it was Bobby ! LOL !
His parents were at Every Event, as far as I could remember. They were dyed-in-the-wool rider/racer enthusiasts and always there. Awesome people !
great memories !
Ride On
Yuri

Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy (Post 23372302)

OP: See this post I just put up: https://www.bikeforums.net/general-c...l#post23372298
Works like a charm.

Originally Posted by cyclezen (Post 23372390)

Did very similar thing these past 3 rides... But on-road, trying to keep uphills to a minimum...
Trying spin 95-105, strong mental focus on pedal technique, not power or speed - but using a gear which offers a degree of resistance. For me resistance is important, because if pedal technique and fluidity falls off, you're failing. So it requires a constant focus to keep the pedal revs smooth and still powering to some degree thru each stroke.
If the pedal technique stays fluid, then your musculature is 'learning' to balance and eliminate opposing forces in each pedal stroke. Without some level of force/power, increasing efficiency seems to take a longer period and without a load on each stroke the reduction of opposing forces doesn;t seem to happen as strongly - for me...
Rides are shorter when doing this. 20 miles is about all I can handle at the moment, and still retain the level of pedaling fluidity and cadence desired, without falling apart.
This will all improve in the coming weeks and months... I looking to focus on this for the next 5 months, and since we can ride 365 here, that will take me to end of Feb.
I think this will offer the greatest benefits, in these coming months, for me.
Ride On
Yuri

Originally Posted by imakecircles (Post 23373717)

Have you ever tried clipping in with only one foot and pedaling single legged for a number of reps per side? After doing this on the rollers (you can also do it on the road), I find that when resuming using both legs, pedaling feels easier, smoother, and my cadence increases.