The great cadence debate

pgibbo

I see the newest addition to the coaching team over at trisutto has posted an article on cadence. Interesting read.

BTH

pgibbo wrote: »

I see the newest addition to the coaching team over at trisutto has posted an article on cadence. Interesting read.

Read it earlier. More nonsense. There is no optimal cadence that works for everyone, same as there is no perfect swim stroke that everyone should aim for and no running shoe everyone should be wearing.

Nonsense.

pgibbo

I agree there's no one size fits all and he does state that lower cadences aren't for everyone. I don't think it's nonsense though. I seem to recall recently yuou saying that your normal cadence (100 or so I think) wouldn't be sustainable for 180km of an IM. Have you changed your thoughts on that?

Personally I don't think my rec-fems couldn't handle a cadence as low as 72

BTH

My normal cadence is around 90. My last long spin I averaged 90 (and I'm not fit now) and I expect to be the same for IM.

I have regularly averaged over 100 for a sprint tri and that is too high for me for an ironman, but 90 is very comfortable.

zico10

BTH wrote: »

My normal cadence is around 90. My last long spin I averaged 90 (and I'm not fit now) and I expect to be the same for IM.

I have regularly averaged over 100 for a sprint tri and that is too high for me for an ironman, but 90 is very comfortable.

There is no way you're pushing the biggest gear you have at 100rpm. In the few gears I use in a race, I couldn't possibly hold such a cadence for half an hour. It doesn't bother me though, when the way to a faster bike split is pushing as high a gear as you possibly can for as long as you can. In a sprint triathlon of all distances, it should be just about maximum output.

Which is more important going faster, or keeping your cadence above 90? My advice to you would be to drop the chain down a few cogs and you'll go faster with a lower cadence. To my mind, that's the point of the article.

peter kern

BTH wrote: »

Read it earlier. More nonsense. There is no optimal cadence that works for everyone, same as there is no perfect swim stroke that everyone should aim for and no running shoe everyone should be wearing.

Nonsense.

i would half agree the stuff he posts is now is total marketing ****e but still to call it nonsens is also nonesense as there is always some truth in it besides the marketing ****e that he is the only coach in the wolrd etc . but he has proven it many times ( and it dosnt always work like with any coach ) that he knows how to develop champs.

but the thing is iam sure he earns now 4 times as much when he wrote stuff that was better .... there is so many suckkers that only listen to ****e

tommy_tucker

zico10 wrote: »

There is no way you're pushing the biggest gear you have at 100rpm. In the few gears I use in a race, I couldn't possibly hold such a cadence for half an hour. It doesn't bother me though, when the way to a faster bike split is pushing as high a gear as you possibly can for as long as you can. In a sprint triathlon of all distances, it should be just about maximum output.

Which is more important going faster, or keeping your cadence above 90? My advice to you would be to drop the chain down a few cogs and you'll go faster with a lower cadence. To my mind, that's the point of the article.

This guy would disagree with you and i think he might know a few things about riding a bike as fast as possible https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bN2zpgun0vc . But tony martin uses a low cadence which shows cadence is personal not one fits all.


Also common practice is to set up your drive train so that you spent most of your time in the middle of the block where the chain is straight and most efficient and the smaller cogs are only used for downhills. Thats why tony martin uses a 58 big ring.

peter kern

tommy_tucker wrote: »

This guy would disagree with you and i think he might know a few things about riding a bike as fast as possible https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bN2zpgun0vc . But tony martin uses a low cadence which shows cadence is personal not one fits all.


Also common practice is to set up your drive train so that you spent most of your time in the middle of the block where the chain is straight and most efficient and the smaller cogs are only used for downhills. Thats why tony martin uses a 58 big ring.

found that on a forum
just watching tony martin in the last timetrial and his cadence seems very low ,i know hes using a massive gear ,
are there benifits to to riding at a low cadence, big gear or is this something that works for him only ?,

tommy_tucker

peter kern wrote: »

found that on a forum
just watching tony martin in the last timetrial and his cadence seems very low ,i know hes using a massive gear ,
are there benifits to to riding at a low cadence, big gear or is this something that works for him only ?,

Think its just personal preference tbh, not 100% sure if there are benifits, jan ullrich use to do it too.

sconhome

Surely at high cadence you are using fast twitch muscles, low cadence is power and slow twitch? Presumably a lot depends on what you have trained and which one you are genetically predisposed to having an abundance of?? (actually vise versa, which you have and which you trained)

BTH

zico10 wrote: »

There is no way you're pushing the biggest gear you have at 100rpm.

Of course I'm not pushing my biggest gear. If I was I would be doing 60kmph, which I'm obviously not.

zico10 wrote: »

the way to a faster bike split is pushing as high a gear as you possibly can for as long as you can.

Is the way to a fast run split all about pushing off from your standing foot as hard as you can or is it a combination of cadence, stride length and efficiency as well as fitness obviously. For me to push as high a gear as I possibly can for a sprint tri I would be sitting in 54*12 for 30min at a cadence of 60-70. And I'm pretty sure I can do that, but I dont think thats the fastest way for me to complete a sprint tri. And I've broken 40kmph for a sprint averaging 100rpm.

zico10 wrote: »

In a sprint triathlon of all distances, it should be just about maximum output.

I have out biked people in sprint tri who I am certain have a higher max power output than I do. Is the secret to a fast sprint swim having a fast kick or is it a combination of factors. Why is cycling fast all down to one factor and one factor only?

zico10 wrote: »

Which is more important going faster, or keeping your cadence above 90? My advice to you would be to drop the chain down a few cogs and you'll go faster with a lower cadence. To my mind, that's the point of the article.

I don't go into a race aiming for a cadence of over 90. I dont look at my bike clock at all except for an occasional glance to see how far I've covered, and generally I dont need to do that as I usually have good knowledge of the bike course so I know hereabouts I am. I race almost entirely by feel and I choose a gear and cadence that come naturally to me. For sprints for the last couple of years that has been in and around 100. I will continue to race by feel, it works for me. For IM I will keep and eye on HR, but cadence will be whatever feels natural.

When I am in top shape, and feeling strong on the bike I know my cadence will drop closer to 90 without having to force it. But its been a couple of years since I've felt at that level. Instead I've tended to spin a little more, relying more on efficiency and aerobic fitness than on power. I've still been able to go fairly fast using this approach. I also know I'll never be a low 80 cadence person as it just doesnt feel natural to me.

MojoMaker

Isn't that Cam Watt's point though? Not many people are comfortable at 75rpm naturally (particularly if coming from a road cycling background), you have to train yourself to adapt to lower cadence cycling in order to realise the gains he claims in triathlon-specific cycling. Food for thought anyway.

Cameron Watt wrote:

You can make massive gains by bringing your cadence down to 75 and benefit by the reduced heart rate especially for the upcoming run. It is much more trainable at an amateur level with time restraints to get “bike strong” than build the massive aerobic capacity to deal with spinning 100 cadence for literally hours and hours on end, then run off the bike.
‘But won’t the bigger gears destroy my legs for the run?’ I hear many ask. Without the proper adaptation and specific on bike strength training – of course they will! But that’s the point. It is a far more time effective method than trying to spin your way to improvements, which take years and thousands of dedicated high rpm training sessions.
If you are looking for the fastest and most effective way to improve your bike / run performance lowering your cadence is the best bet.

tunney

zico10 wrote: »

In a sprint triathlon of all distances, it should be just about maximum output.

Ability to corner?
Ability to brake effectively?
Ability to follow the course?

So many things can affect bike splits.

peter kern

that is not his point i think his point is that if you are not going fast with a fast cadcance try to develop strenght.his other point being that the longer the race cadcence tends to drop.
the point would be more that few people really have the feeling for a smooth pedal stroke and the most important force in tting is roughly from 1 till 5 oclock and you need to hit that one.(and i dont really care how you hit it)
I would not try a good cyclist to go lower cadance.but often ask cyclists that go slow on fast cadance to push a higher gear. (
cadence also depends on the terrain of the course and wind etc.

I think what you see in tri the ratio of good cyclist vs not good cyclist is 3 to 7 so more likely than not what is said in the above article is good advice for the greater good . there is still to many triathletes that want to cycle like lance when that is not the best for them
gender is also an point to consider.

at the end its not that much about cadance but going fast
at the end there really is no discussion aobut cadance there is a discusion of going fast and if people start to cramp on the run because they push a too hard gear thats not good either .
the whole problem is there is so many factores to influnce everything
did he cramp beasue of nutrition or pushing the gear or becaseu he is suuepteble to craming using a wrong shoe or the pacing wasnt right .........

MojoMaker wrote: »

Isn't that Cam Watt's point though? Not many people are comfortable at 75rpm naturally (particularly if coming from a road cycling background), you have to train yourself to adapt to lower cadence cycling in order to realise the gains he claims in triathlon-specific cycling. Food for thought anyway.

peter kern

tunney wrote: »

Ability to corner?
Ability to brake effectively?
Ability to follow the course?

So many things can affect bike splits.

even if wellingtion had gotten her swim up to scratch she would have struggled to get those aspects right for itu racing

hf4z6sqo7vjngi

peter kern wrote: »

at the end its not that much about cadance but going fast

This is it for me, if you can hold a cadence of 100 and go fast, great. Same applies with low cadence and going fast.
Whatever works for the individual and gets them from A to B the better.

tunney

Isabella Teeny Remote wrote: »

This is it for me, if you can hold a cadence of 100 and go fast, great. Same applies with low cadence and going fast.
Whatever works for the individual and gets them from A to B the better.

Well no. At some stage science gets involved and says "hey you're wrong". but hey this is boards so lets ignore science!!

peter kern

tunney wrote: »

Well no. At some stage science gets involved and says "hey you're wrong". but hey this is boards so lets ignore science!!

not at all disagreeing with you.
at the same time most studies do have responders and non responders.

and sometimes science changes its mind
milk is good milk is bad for sport etc.

its good to read papers but they are not always the gospel either and you always want to know by whom ( the reasearcher) do they get paid for
ie a scientist thats paid by gatorarade might not be that unbiased etc.

zico10

tunney wrote: »

Ability to corner?
Ability to brake effectively?
Ability to follow the course?

So many things can affect bike splits.

Granted, but none of them have anything to with cadence.

zico10

BTH, after Kilkee in 2014, I remember you being p!ssed off after what you thought was a poor performance. I shouldn't have outsplit you on the bike that day, but I did. I wasn't overly happy with my bike split that day either, by the way. Like you at the time, I was also trying to spin with a high cadence. Somebody cycled faster me than me that day, that just no way should have done. After the race, I evaluated my performance and came to the simple conclusion, I wasn't pushing hard enough. Since then, no matter the distance, it's been about pushing a big gear during a race. I'm glad to say, this hasn't affected my run all that much.

I went back to Kilkee last year and with this new approach, I improved my bike by 2 minutes 23 seconds. I did this on a day when bike splits for the vast majority were slower. I'll admit I might have been stronger on the bike in 2014, but I wouldn't have improved by 2 minutes 23 seconds, if I had stuck with my old approach to the cycle of spinning an easier gear with a higher cadence.

Chapeau to Fabian Cancellara or anybody else who can hit speeds of 50+km/hr at such a high cadence. If you manage to go that fast at 100rpm, then ignore what I'm saying. As it stands though, you're not even cycling as fast as me. I'm not saying you have to cycle at 80rpm. Maybe just try drop it down one gear, taking it from 100rpm to 95rpm. Honestly, when were you last happy with a race did? Maybe you need to try a different approach. I don't think you've anything to lose.

sconhome

Does this discussion have a link to the tosh that is people trying to cycle at 180spm in order to match the 'optimal' 180spm for running? Cos that is bunkus too.

BTH

sconhome wrote: »

Does this discussion have a link to the tosh that is people trying to cycle at 180spm in order to match the 'optimal' 180spm for running? Cos that is bunkus too.

What is bunkus? That 180spm is the optimal run cadence or that one should match that on the bike?

BTH

zico10 wrote: »

BTH, after Kilkee in 2014, I remember you being p!ssed off after what you thought was a poor performance. I shouldn't have outsplit you on the bike that day, but I did. I wasn't overly happy with my bike split that day either, by the way. Like you at the time, I was also trying to spin with a high cadence. Somebody cycled faster me than me that day, that just no way should have done. After the race, I evaluated my performance and came to the simple conclusion, I wasn't pushing hard enough. Since then, no matter the distance, it's been about pushing a big gear during a race. I'm glad to say, this hasn't affected my run all that much.

I went back to Kilkee last year and with this new approach, I improved my bike by 2 minutes 23 seconds. I did this on a day when bike splits for the vast majority were slower. I'll admit I might have been stronger on the bike in 2014, but I wouldn't have improved by 2 minutes 23 seconds, if I had stuck with my old approach to the cycle of spinning an easier gear with a higher cadence.

Chapeau to Fabian Cancellara or anybody else who can hit speeds of 50+km/hr at such a high cadence. If you manage to go that fast at 100rpm, then ignore what I'm saying. As it stands though, you're not even cycling as fast as me. I'm not saying you have to cycle at 80rpm. Maybe just try drop it down one gear, taking it from 100rpm to 95rpm. Honestly, when were you last happy with a race did? Maybe you need to try a different approach. I don't think you've anything to lose.

You seem to suggest that you were consciously trying to spin a high cadence. I dont consciously spin with a high cadence, that is just what comes naturally to me.

I was relatively pleased with some of the sprint races I did last year. Ennis100/Spiddal95/Lanesboro97/Loughrea98. All high cadence bike legs. All using high cadence to hide a lack of real fitness. A lack of fitness that gets found out at the longer races like Kilkee in 2014 and 2015. Its been almost 4 years since I was very happy with a race (CK tri 2012, 97cad, I had the second fastest bike that day in a very strong NS field) and thats down to a complete lack of consistency in my training over that time and not the cadence my body naturally selects.

tunney

"I'm great"

"No I'm great"

"no no I'm better than you"

"Woooohooo look at me"

If all you have is N=1, be quiet.

sconhome

BTH wrote: »

What is bunkus? That 180spm is the optimal run cadence or that one should match that on the bike?

Both.

Or look at it as 90rpm whichever way.

If it is not natural to you it becomes forced and wrong.

zico10

tunney wrote: »

If all you have is N=1, be quiet.

And listen to tunney, because he's invariably right and everybody else is stupid.

tunney

zico10 wrote: »

And listen to tunney, because he's invariably right and everybody else is stupid.

Tunney hasn't given his opinion on this. You have, except you (and others) have wrapped it up as fact.

zico10

tunney wrote: »

Tunney hasn't given his opinion on this. You have, except you (and others) have wrapped it up as fact.

Would you be so kind as to enlighten us then?

I merely gave my own experiences, I never presented them as fact or recommended to anybody bar BTH, that they might consider lowering their cadence. This was a solution to what I perceived were my poor bike splits. BTH cycling at 100rpm, seemed excessively high to me, and I thought he could afford to push a harder gear for a little more effort, without it impacting on his run.

peter kern

to put this into relation 2014 was also a year when you cycled very little until you went to france.
so you have too many variables despite the fact that i agree with you that you were spinning too much 2014 .

zico10 wrote: »

BTH, after Kilkee in 2014, I remember you being p!ssed off after what you thought was a poor performance. I shouldn't have outsplit you on the bike that day, but I did. I wasn't overly happy with my bike split that day either, by the way. Like you at the time, I was also trying to spin with a high cadence. Somebody cycled faster me than me that day, that just no way should have done. After the race, I evaluated my performance and came to the simple conclusion, I wasn't pushing hard enough. Since then, no matter the distance, it's been about pushing a big gear during a race. I'm glad to say, this hasn't affected my run all that much.

I went back to Kilkee last year and with this new approach, I improved my bike by 2 minutes 23 seconds. I did this on a day when bike splits for the vast majority were slower. I'll admit I might have been stronger on the bike in 2014, but I wouldn't have improved by 2 minutes 23 seconds, if I had stuck with my old approach to the cycle of spinning an easier gear with a higher cadence.

Chapeau to Fabian Cancellara or anybody else who can hit speeds of 50+km/hr at such a high cadence. If you manage to go that fast at 100rpm, then ignore what I'm saying. As it stands though, you're not even cycling as fast as me. I'm not saying you have to cycle at 80rpm. Maybe just try drop it down one gear, taking it from 100rpm to 95rpm. Honestly, when were you last happy with a race did? Maybe you need to try a different approach. I don't think you've anything to lose.

peter kern

this is good stuff to read by a scientist focusing more on what he dosnt know than what he knows.


Examining the use of noncircular chainrings on non cyclists or untrained/novice individuals certainly crossed our minds. Having said that, of all people , we've probably spend the most time looking at joint biomechanics as it relates to the task of cycling more than anyone else. We observed that trained cyclists, especially those in Cat 1& 2, displayed characteristics that were extremely reliable (meaning that they don't deviate much from each other, see the work by my colleague Steve Elmer http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/21448081). With novices, the deviations were much greater with some presenting characteristics that, if you pardon my choice of word...."goofy". Strange for the average person to look at cycling to be as simple as pedaling a crank round and round but the coordination and joint trajectories are remarkably different between novices (non bike owners) and trained cyclists. Hence, the rationale to examine the use of these noncircular chainrings on trained cyclists. That is not to say that non cyclists would've responded similarly or differently..we just don't know that and we certainly value your suggestions that that would be something to look into in the future. This is just the tip of the iceberg and we're just beginning to chip away at it. We've included addition limb trajectory data (to our knowledge, we're perhaps the first to report it), in a manuscript that is under review, so keep an eye out for it when it eventually gets published.

http://trstriathlon.com/elliptical-chain-rings-dont-work-because-you-wont-let-them/

mossym

peter kern wrote: »

this is good stuff to read by a scientist focusing more on what he dosnt know than what he knows.

interesting Peter, unlrelated, but there was a similar paper i saw somewhere on running and measuring variability in new runners versus experienced runners (and i think tying it back to injury)

bigger variance in running versus cycling expected i'd think, so interesting to see they saw the same here.

gone off topic. sorry