Sir @Coach.Mac.C hopefully you can help confirm or debunk one of my key understandings of cadence builds. From what I’ve read in relation to NMC, keeping power (or more correctly resistance) low is an important part of the drill as it means your NM system is fully responsible for the firing pattern. As I understand it, higher resistance can act like a bit of a crutch to a poor natural pedalling technique as you end up relying to some extent on the feedback from the force from the pedal.
Similar reason as to why pedalling technique is often at its best (in a technical sense) on something like GOAT as you get a lot of feedback and, as it is a slow grind, even more time for your muscles to react to the feedback.
I’m hoping for a confirm here. I can hit 4 figures on my Wattbike Pro with it set to minimum resistance when doing Cadence Builds. As this is not compatible with the power or RPE “targets” I use this as an excuse not to do Cadence Builds. I like having that excuse
When I had a coach, he had a graph in WK05 that showed my optimum cadence was 93. I forget what the axis of the graph were. On the turbo I find I can happily spin high 90s-lo-100s. But I do notice once I go much higher I can feel the dead spots in the pedal stroke.
I would recommend the Elements of Style video for working on a smooth cadence. It is a drill video. I have done it several times and it has helped me quite a bit.
I’ve done that a few times as well, and the cadence drills. But the dead spots are more a function of anatomy and circular rings. I just don’t hit it enough on the road to justify Q Rings.
I had a bad spell mid plan and dropped back a bit.
But analysing my Full frontals in Training peaks is interesting. I know that have got stronger and need less cadence. My best ftp score was achieved at a cadence of 80. Early ftp’s in FF were typically at about 95 cadence.
So I have to try to stay low. But if I keep up the cadence exercises, maybe the effect of high cadence on HR may be less.
One thing to note is I am currently not hitting such high peaks in cadence builds, I had put this dow to altering set up of my Wattbike to more accurately reflect road bike setup.
I find that I can maximise my FTP by mixing up my cadence over the 20 mins rather than keeping it constant throughout. So I might start out at 90+ and then drop down to 80 in a higher gear as my breathing starts to get too heavy. Kind of spreads the stress out between cardio at high cadence and leg muscles at low cadence.
I look like something out of the toaster right enough.
Amazing stats. I really liked one of the GCN videos for things like this … before it’s power levels were corrected it was a straight 2x20 ftp but with super fast cadence to start then decreasing every 3mins.
Was doable because every 3mins you knew it would get ‘easier’ (psychological and aerobically)
Sometimes mimics the 20min but in FF
An interesting post - sorry to drag this out of the grave. I’d been doing a few of the cadence work intervals - and they always feel strange to me. I naturally have a reasonably high chosen cadence - I ususally choose to pace my 20 minute efforts around 90-95RPM, and VO2 max efforts at around 100-105RPM. Below about 80, I much prefer to stand.
I was looking for some research to back up your post and your argument about NMC. But weirdly, the evidence all seems to point the other way - if choosing between low and high cadence intervals only, low seems to be better, but if the option is there to ride at a chosen cadence for work, this elicits better training results and you get faster. They also seem to say that the idea of using the bike as ‘strength training’ is pretty poor as a solution compared to actual strength training - this is something you’ve addressed with your strength program, though it’s all mostly bodyweight which unfortunately for a fit person won’t be stressful enough - but remains in all of your videos whenever ‘low cadence time’ pops up - the meme of “this is basically a gym session”.
I really enjoyed this blog. And… I’ll be really interested to hear Macs take on the articles. I’ve enjoyed getting better at high cadence work. I’m definitely working better across a range of cadence now. When I’m feeling fresh or excited (Or both) my cadence trends to be 95-105. That drops as the fatigue sets In.
When I’m really tired though I still fall back to slugging it out at a very low cadence (usually standing) and just grinding it out, sometimes as low as 50. My hr doesn’t tend to change a lot below 80 cadence, but shifting position means I can force out that last bit of lactic acid that’s just waiting to make a pain shake.
With goat it never feels hard enough unless I either ramp it up a lot or I’ve done a hard map session first. In that case it feels just right…
I’ve learnt what works for me over the years and how my body responds, but curious for a more informed take on it and what it means.
Ride at the cadence that feels natural for you. The same goes for sitting vs. standing when climbing.
The first thing I look for when I read these kinds of studies is the number of participants. It is invariably not large. Given the difficulties I understand why this is the case, but it does cast a shadow over a lot of exercise science.
In addition, as one of the articles points out, it is hard to define what you are actually studying.
Yep. I agree. But the truth is there isn’t a whole lot of large N studies on niche subjects like training cadence. Obviously, we don’t want to draw inference from 3 people, but it’s not a truism that having 10 people in a study makes it irrelevant if the statistical analysis is done correctly. If ten people drink poison and the other ten drink cola, we can be reasonably confident if the first ten die that there’s an issue. We don’t need to poison 500 people!
My point, I suppose - is the opposite; the SUF model prescribes something that is contrary to the (limited) evidence, and the justification is “this seems like a logical chain of thought” - which you should be able to agree is a lower level of evidence than even small-n studies. I’m not saying they’re wrong - I’m just excited to hear the evidence against!
The reason why your poison example works for so few people is that there is a very strong scientific model and understanding of why that should happen. There is no certain biological model for exercise or recovery, so you need a much stronger correlation with larger numbers to establish the causation.
Even careful statistics with small numbers do not categorically rule out false positives, nor is the population studied necessarily representative of other people to whom you want to apply the results.
As you say, logical chains of thought are not enough. There were logical chains of thought for the idea that stretching prevents injury, or the narrow window of eating after exercises helps recovery, or any of a number of other ideas. When studied none of these ideas panned out.
Still interested to hear a reply from the coaches to the studies.
It’s also interesting that, at least the road plan i am on prescribes cadence builds basically twice a week every week for the entire plan. Is spinning out at low watts really that beneficial? Is there any science behind this?
I’d really love to see what I’ve missed. I hope that I’m wrong, but if I’m not my gut tells me the whole cadence thing is literally just to keep people entertained and paying subscriptions.
While the research studies you linked in the thread may not support our methods, that doesn’t mean our methods are simply for “entertainment and to keep people paying subscriptions.” It’s difficult to find any research on cadence and cycling that shows clear benefit to whatever they’re studying, however, there are still many reasons why we feel the cadence builds, holds and drills workouts are beneficial to cyclists, and not just recreational cyclists- elites as well. I am not going to read and break down every study, and I am probably the least “sciency” coach on staff so I don’t have research studies in my back pocket to prove my points, but I will give you some food for thought and hopefully help you see some other points of reasoning.
As @Coach.Mac.C so eloquently already described, neuromuscular coordination is important for cycling economy (the ability to do more work with less oxygen) and requires training. Nobody can get on a bike for the first time and ride at 200 rpms. And while riding at 200 rpm may not feel important or translatable to improving your cycling fitness or performance because you don’t ride at that cadence out on the road, your cycling economy and neuromuscular coordination are, and training at high cadences develops those traits. By developing these traits, you’re able to train harder at high intensities and at both ends of the cadence spectrum, which essentially gives you the ability to ride at any given cadence without negative consequences. Even if it has no “proven” benefits, there are also no negative effects. Like others have commented in this thread, if you ride at low cadence all the time and you reach muscular fatigue, your ride is over if you don’t have the ability to ride at a higher cadence.
Additionally, on this point, think about all the “what-if’s.” What if you’re out riding and your Di2 battery dies (or your cable or shifter breaks) and you’re stuck in your small chainring. You’re going to be a lot happier that you’ve done some high cadence training, and the same goes for riding a big gear/low cadence…I’ve been in a MTB race with a broken shifter on a long climb. I was in much too big of a gear when it broke because I had just been on a brief flat spot and it broke when shifting to a smaller gear when the hill pointed up again. But I was able to continue riding and finished the climb and race because I was able to grind it out at low cadence.
In regard to your low cadence “strength training” point, we are not proposing that low cadence riding, nor does our strength training program take the place of weight or resistance training for building strength. Similar to high cadence training, they are simple, effective tools that are beneficial to your cycling that are useful for many people.
My final thought- Just because anecdotal evidence isn’t “proven” by literature doesn’t mean it has no merit. All of the people who have commented about how using these workouts in training has improved their cycling in various aspects is meaningful. If you’ve given these workouts a fair shake and haven’t found them valuable in YOUR cycling performance, then by all means, skip them. But that doesn’t mean you or anyone else can deem the methods and workouts ineffective.
@Coach.Suzie.S Well this stuff is working for me! First MTB race this weekend in over a year and I was definitely well prepared thanks to the SUF plans - including the cadence work. It was an up and down course and so my cadence stretched from the low 60s all the way up to 141. I definitely appreciate the NM training and now that the race is over I am back to doing some air and bar squats once or twice a week in addition to the drills.
@Coach.Suzie.S I for one love the cadence work, as I’ve seen and felt the benefits in my pedal efficiency, riding form, and economy of effort (plus they make me appreciate low cadence efforts even more!)
My question is - was your 200rpm comment allegory, or is that a thing? Honestly I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of someone spinning a crank at nearly 4 revolutions per second. I think I spun out at 160rpm ONCE in SUF, and I thought my bike - or my body - was going to fall apart!
The “200 Club” is real and has many “members” here already. Some debate exists about the accuracy of individual measuring equipment but it seems, without doubt, that some people can reach cadences of 200+.
I am not one of these people. 192 rpm is my highest recorded.
just to clarify, I’m not saying doing it with resistance negates all the benefits 
