What cadence produces your highest FTP?

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

At what cadence do you produce the highest FTP?

Is there an optimal FTP cadence, that seems to be an average best, with male riders?

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/rechung/wattage/cadence/cadence-plots.html

Self-selected, in my case. Of course, that's all I ever ride (gearing and grade permitting), so it's difficult to make a comparison.

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/rechung/wattage/cadence/cadence-plots.html





Without a doubt each person has a cadence range that produces the most power for him or her. I am far more effecient at 90 than 100 on flat terrian but others are opposite. Also, I produce better power at 80 while climbing than at 85-95 and again others are the opposite. It probably has something to do with muscle fiber type.

The article is not good IMHO.

Without a doubt each person has a cadence range that produces the most power for him or her. I am far more effecient at 90 than 100 but others are opposite. It probably has something to do with muscle fiber type.

it's probably likely that everyone is more efficient at 90 versus 100 revs/min, as the most efficient cadence is generally quite "low" (in bikie terms). and we're likely more efficient at 80 rather than 90 revs/min at a given power output.

However, as the absolute power output increases the most efficient cadence will be higher than at a lower absolute power output.

It's a great article by RChung

ric

Hmmmm....first it was a poor article by RChung, then Ric said it was a great article and out comes the edit button http://cyclingforums.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Hmmmm....first it was a poor article by RChung, then Ric said it was a great article and out comes the edit button http://cyclingforums.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif


I editied it before Ric posted as I thought I was harsh. Honest Engine I did

:o

I editied it before Ric posted as I thought I was harsh. Honest Engine I did

:o
LOL - alright then ;)

it's probably likely that everyone is more efficient at 90 versus 100 revs/min, as the most efficient cadence is generally quite "low" (in bikie terms). and we're likely more efficient at 80 rather than 90 revs/min at a given power output.

However, as the absolute power output increases the most efficient cadence will be higher than at a lower absolute power output.

It's a great article by RChung

ric



Interesting Ric. Would that imply that most of us TT at too high of a cadence and would probably do better at 80-90 instead of the common 95-102 or so?
I for one go faster pushing at about 90.

I editied it before Ric posted as I thought I was harsh. Honest Engine I did

:o

Tis true, was edited before i finished my post!

ric

Interesting Ric. Would that imply that most of us TT at too high of a cadence and would probably do better at 80-90 instead of the common 95-102 or so?
I for one go faster pushing at about 90.

potentially some of us may TT at too high a cadence, however, i was answering your point about efficiency. That is we're more efficient at lower versus higher cadence, but efficiency may not have much of a role in performance outcomes (i.e., we don't care if we're efficient or not, so long as we can generate the best power we can).

ric

Study quoted int his article http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0965.htm

potentially some of us may TT at too high a cadence, however, i was answering your point about efficiency. That is we're more efficient at lower versus higher cadence, but efficiency may not have much of a role in performance outcomes (i.e., we don't care if we're efficient or not, so long as we can generate the best power we can).

ric


Oh, I was using the wrong term by saying efficiency.

What I meant is that we all have cadences that we can produce peak FTP and mine is about 90 while others can produce more FTP in a slighly easier gear and a cadence of 100.

Saying 90 or 100 or 2000 is all fine, but the fact is, that a high cadence is not always possible or feasible in some places/situations....ie....a steep climb.

As I recall from earlier postings, Ric will tell you this, not being able to pedal at a high cadence, happens right at his doorstep.

Saying 90 or 100 or 2000 is all fine, but the fact is, that a high cadence is not always possible or feasible in some places/situations....ie....a steep climb.

As I recall from earlier postings, Ric will tell you this, not being able to pedal at a high cadence, happens right at his doorstep.

Yup. like in that study that Eldrack cites, it suggests we should ride at 85 revs/min uphill. That's not possible where i live (at least on some climbs).

Yup. like in that study that Eldrack cites, it suggests we should ride at 85 revs/min uphill. That's not possible where i live (at least on some climbs).


Ya I heard south Wales has some good steep climbs
:eek:

About the tt cadence, I was referring to a typical fairly flat to rolling course.
I like to climb at about 80 as this is where I produce the most watts. Case in point, the other day, after reading a Carmichael article on cadence and climbing, I tried 95 rpm's on a local long climb. Well my power sucked no matter how hard I tried and was down to 325 watts compaired to my usual 350. :( :eek:

Ric surely efficency is super important, you more than others stress that we are primarily limited by our cardiovascular capacity. If higher cadences require more O2 and glycogen then you (should) tire quicker, or conversely at a given % of VO2 max you should have lower power output at higher cadences.

What is a difficult question to answer is why lower cadences that ARE more efficient can leave your legs feeling completety drilled.

There are some suggestion that higher cadences can cause a "pump effect" and improve muscular blood flow, (a few articles on Pubmed at least). If it is not due to the actual velocity of movement then the only other option is to conclude that (low cadence fatigue) is due to the higher forces involved, which suggests that force generating capacity is comewhat important.

Actually, I have seen studies where the most efficient cadences were found to be very low, much lower than any cyclisty would ride in by choice. (like 60 rpm or lower)

Re Timans 90 rp vs 100 rpm, vs ???rpm

As far as the "best" cadence , or fastest, for a particular rider i think this depends on 2 things, power requirements and the rider themselves.

When you have riders with big heavy legs they are going to use alot of energy just turning the pedals. Everyone will have, say a "base load" at 0 watts for a given cadence. It is reasonable to assume that the size of the moving parts (legs in this case) affects the size of this base load.

When you have riders with big legs and high cadences and low power, efficiency is going to be very low too, as a big % of energy used is just lifting big thighs up and down, not actaully pushing the rider forward. As power increases this "base load" becomes a smaller percentage of total work (in metabolic terms) done and efficiency increases.

This is why the "best cadence" increases with power output.

Also, the smaller the base load, the more efficient a ridr will be at high cadences. Fit skiny people can efficiently spin faster then more muscular riders.

The contentious point is, are more muscular or bulkier riders actaully more adept at riding at lower cadences for longer periods, or are they just forced to by virtue of their higher "base load demands".

My situation as cadence applies to my TT's..... As I tire I need to lower my cadence to maintain power. However, if I allow my cadence to drop too fast, I end up tiring and unable to maintain power at the end. Therefore, I try to maintain an "uncomfortably high" cadence throughout the TT and it seems to work for me. Average cadence for the entire TT will be around 88-89, but I start in the 95 range and end around 80. As a reference, my last 5 40k TT's were under 55min.

Fit skiny people can efficiently spin faster then more muscular riders.Don't tell a trackie that....;) I don't see build have any relationship to a track rider's ability to pedal quickly (but that's an observation only, not a statment of fact).