Fred Doucette's Half-Iron and Ironman Focused Group! -CLOSED! (Page 40)

Fred Doucette - 2011-01-27 6:01 PM  Often I am prescribed a cadence of 45-55.

GoFaster - 2011-01-28 8:35 AM
What's the intended benefit of a cadence this low?  Even in an out of the saddle climb up a sharp incline I'm not pushing a cadence that low very often.  Just looking to learn something new and how I can maybe benefit.

GoFaster - 2011-01-28 8:35 AM
What's the intended benefit of a cadence this low?  Even in an out of the saddle climb up a sharp incline I'm not pushing a cadence that low very often.  Just looking to learn something new and how I can maybe benefit.

jsiegs - 2011-01-28 3:35 PM Been reading the cadence stuff with interest.  Been TDY so I have been busy with work and travel so haven't posted anything though.  Sorry if I'm saying anything already discussed.

I used to bike in the 60-70 range.  That was for touring, no racing or anything, just a cross country trip, it's where I pedaled without ever thinking about it and being a noob roadie.  Did the trip again, and everything I heard was "higher cadence = higher efficiency" so I tried to up it and was probably in the 80's when I did the trip again.  When I had my first race experience years later, I still was hitting the 80's in training but found my cadence in the 90's during the races.  The past year or so, I've been trying to raise my avg cadence in training - I figured if I'm gonna race like that, I should train like that (it's tough, when I get lazy, my cadence drops with the easier effort).  So that's where I am, I've focused holding higher cadence (low 90's), and now my "comfortable" cadence - where I naturally fall generally avgs low 90's  on the trainer this winter.   This year, I my highest race avg was 97 and lowest 92 (very hilly courses though).

I definitely agree with what others have said - my HR is lower at the same power when at a low cadence.  However, I don't currently have the endourance to hold that nearly as long as my higher cadence  (at the same power).  My muscles get tired quicker, and that's why I've kept with the high cadence. But I guess that's just what I'm adapted too.  I know from the 20 min power tests (which do put a strain on my aerobically) I will switch to a harder gear to recover aerobically but it takes a toll on my legs.

It's always been a focus of mine to up the cadence (from personal experience it's very easy to adapt to a new "natural" cadence given time and focus) but it' seems like I should stop that.  Although, I fatigue quicker in my muscular system than my aerobic system (same with running/swimming), so perhaps that is a reason to work low cadence? Or a reason to stick with my cadence now?  I tried it today (well, did my workout a gear harder than I normally would) and ended up at 87 avg, where I'm usually 92-93.  My left upper hammy/butt muscle got a little sore during, nothing that was close to stopping my workout or that will affect anything in the future, but it was interesting to me that that slight change showed up in a negative way.  I'm sure that it will be something that goes away if I plan to keep at it though.

Well, that wasn't all that cohesive, and I'm really not sure what I was trying to say.  Perhaps, actually, I'm just hoping that someone will tell me that all is not lost and I'll be ok even if my cadence hasn't been optimal...anyone???

ETA: I think there was an optimal cadence discussion going on in the winter cycling plan thread that I was confusing with the discussion here, so i'm waaay off topic

jsiegs - I thought I was too, but I trained myself to be a high cadence guy, so I know I can change what is "natural" to me.  Do you think it's worth training to a lower cadence?  I.e. is the effort worth the benefits?