Cadence, How do you use it as a training tool?

[wogamax]

Two cents.

You don't use cadence as a training tool. You train at different cadences. Sort of a play on words, I know

Chris Carmichael (CTS) and Troy Jacobson (Spinervals) each feature DVD's that have workouts with specific cadence targets. I only have Carmichael's TT DVD, where he tells you to shift by about 15 rpm during the workout. "Coach Troy" does maximum spin ups, claiming good is getting past 120, better 140-150, etc. His intervals are only about 30 seconds in that exercise.

The one puzzling thing about setting my own time trial PR this year was that upon downloading I noticed I wasn't in any given 5 rpm cadence band for more than 15% of the time. It got me thinking

[rockymtnway]

I've used spin ups and also tried to focus on higher cadance on longer rides, but come race day, I end up around 78-82rpm as where I feel I produce the most power (on my MTB). I don't think it hurts any to train at higher cadances and it probably does help smooth out my pedal stroke some, but I just don't think you ever change the way you ride the bike all that much. It's hard to undo 30 years of doing.

[drjones96]

I've noticed some trends in my own training since I started cycling about 6 years ago.

Initially I was just a 'newbie' on a bike who struggled to do everything so I pretty much disregard the first year or two of my "training".

After that I worked really hard at being able to spin in the 90-95rpm range for most of my rides. So for any given terrain I just put it in a gear that I could spin like that (unless the hills got steep enough that I couldn't do it). This seemed to work my cardio pretty hard. I was in pretty good shape in that respect. And pretty much continued this way of riding for about 2 years. But in the last couple of years my cadence has dropped and my speed has increased.....so I'm leaning more toward a big gear masher. BUT I feel as though my Cardio is weak because I can't sustain high rpm efforts for more than a few seconds without blowing up. So I think this is something that I need to work on.....getting back to a higher cadence....but at the same time be able to put out the power when I need to.

[peterpen]

Generally speaking, higher cadences will rely more on type 1 and type 2a muscle fibers, which are fueled aerobically. Lower cadences (specifically the higher forces they require to maintain the same watts and thereby keep up with the pack) will rely more on type 2B fibers, which have more limited fuel sources.

The more I spin, the more I can save those high force efforts for when I need them (attacks, covering moves, sprints.) But you have to train your body to make use of these traits - you can't ride around at 85 rpm and then expect to spin at 100 comfortably in a race. fwiw, I'll average 100rpm in a crit, and around 90rpm in a hilly RR, coasting included.

[STARNUT]

this is close to a runners stride legnth. I had a friend in college that was getting her masters in Kinesiology. She told me that the optium spin on your bike was what came naturally, similar to a runners stride legnth.

I for one can't spin at 120+. I'm 5'11"-6'0" tall with a 34 inch inseam. I ride a 54cm bike with a mile of seatpost, a 175 crank, and a 90 mm stem. huh? ya I know. My comfort zone, where I make the most power, is right around high eighties to low ninties. I too was sucked into the Lance craz and tried to ride at 200 rpms and tried for quite a while and was never comfy doing it. My legs are jsut to long to turn over that fast. My guess is dow whats comfortable and above all whats smoothest.

Starnut

[peterpen]

... My legs are jsut to long to turn over that fast. ...

There are plenty of trackies with longer legs spinning comfortably at 140rpm.

But yer right - if you can't get comfortable doing it (and put out the power) there's no point. I see some guys spinning at 110rpm - and still going straight out the back on climbs.

[Skillgannon]

Cadence can also be used as a training tool for speedfamiliarisation type work, like HCLR (high cadence, low resistance drills), where cadence is the objective measure of performance, not speed.

[efahl]

I'm 5'11"-6'0" tall with a 34 inch inseam.

Hey, me too. I hadn't measured my cadence in decades, so I took a ride on #3 son's road bike with cadence on the computer to see what I was doing. Turns out I naturally ride at about 110-115, 100 felt like I was mashing and 120 was fairly common during normal cruising (only rode about 10-12 miles, at maybe 23 mph average).

[STARNUT]

There are plenty of trackies with longer legs spinning comfortably at 140rpm.

But yer right - if you can't get comfortable doing it (and put out the power) there's no point. I see some guys spinning at 110rpm - and still going straight out the back on climbs.

I am one. I'm a recovering trackie . I just simply don't find it comfy to ride at 120 all day. I had assumed that since I used to be a track rider I have no problem going a la' Lance; wrong. Low rev high torque for me.

I'm 5'11"-6'0" tall with a 34 inch inseam.

Hey, me too. I hadn't measured my cadence in decades, so I took a ride on #3 son's road bike with cadence on the computer to see what I was doing. Turns out I naturally ride at about 110-115, 100 felt like I was mashing and 120 was fairly common during normal cruising (only rode about 10-12 miles, at maybe 23 mph average).

.

Do you have trouble finding pants that fit too . No one ever stocks a 30-34 or 31-34, but that have piles of 36-32

Starnut

[efahl]

Yes, finding pants that fit is always a problem for bikers I think. I usually wear blue jeans with at 30-33 or maybe 31-34, but the thighs are almost always too tight when the waist is small enough.

[John979]

Outside the "Colorado Clic" of CTS and Training Peaks, there seems to be a growing trend, especially among those who coach by power, away from cadence-specific training other than finding your personal "optimal" cadence and working to a relatively narrow band around-it.

The reason is simply: beyond this narrow cadence range, one's ability to produce power drops off. Since the actual goal of training is simply to produce more power, anything that does not lend itself to this goal is counterproductive. For example, my MAP (maximal aerobic power) at 60 RPMs is about 15% less than that at my natural 85-90 RPMs. Therefore, any extended work at 60 RPMs is sub-optimal and should be avoided. The same for super-high RPM exercises.

Interestingly, the training plans and routines of most "power gurus" are quite simple, and not a Chinese menu of 500 exercises with little evidence of their efficacy.