Anciens coureurs réticents à vélo
21 watchers
Jun 2015
2:02pm, 25 Jun 2015
19,913 posts
|
eL Bee!
It's in settings on the Garmin 800 (so it may be that that data set is carried over) I'll have to have a peek in in TP and GC as well - but my average cadences definitely don't include freewheeling which is how I want it because I'm only interested in what I pedal *when* I'm pedalling! |
Jun 2015
2:38pm, 25 Jun 2015
76,688 posts
|
GregP
I haven't got my 800 with me - but I *have* got my 500 *and* my 920xt (don't ask). Hold on.
|
|
Jun 2015
2:40pm, 25 Jun 2015
76,690 posts
|
GregP
Oh I see - cadence is set to 'non-zero average' on the 500 - that's what we want, yes?
|
|
Jun 2015
2:42pm, 25 Jun 2015
76,691 posts
|
GregP
70-odd sounds about right for me. Does this work as a TP link? tpks.ws
|
|
Jun 2015
3:33pm, 25 Jun 2015
19,914 posts
|
eL Bee!
That's the fella on the Garmin. TP link works, and yes just over 70 looks about right. This is mine from yesterday (I was actively spinning the gear!) tpks.ws |
|
Jun 2015
3:44pm, 25 Jun 2015
76,702 posts
|
GregP
That's a whole bunch of cadence. Nice work LB. Always enjoy looking at other people's TP files. |
Jun 2015
7:49pm, 25 Jun 2015
1,546 posts
|
Canute
I was interested to see from Vraps post that cycling cadence that is optimal for efficient for oxygen consumption is only 60 /min. This is somewhat lower the usual value of 90 (ie 180 steps/min), typically recommended as appropriate for distance runners. In fact that number for runners is based on a small unrepresentative data sample. The optimum cadence varies according to speed but, at typical paces for recreational distance runners (eg 8 min/mile) 180 steps/min is a reasonable value. The main energy costs of running are getting airborne, overcoming braking (when foot is in front of centre of mass) and limb re-positioning. Cost of getting airborne and braking can be reduced by increasing cadence, but these costs do not occur when cycling. Thus is not surprising that the most efficient cadence for running is somewhat higher than that for cycling. However efficiency is not all that matters. Both during running and cycling stress on the legs decrease at higher cadence, and it might be better to tolerate loss of efficiency for the sake of preserving the leg muscles. I myself usually adopt a very high cadence when running (often above 200 steps per minute) as I have arthritic knees and I prefer to minimise impact forces despite the loss of efficiency This morning on my way to work I measured my cadence while cycling along on level road, using the mid-range gear ratio that I habitually use on a level road. My cadence was 78 /min, The gear ratio was 36/16. For a 27 inch wheel this corresponds to a speed of 14 mph. More typically I amble along at around 12 mph, and at that speed, my cadence would be 67 with that gear ratio. In fact to me this cadence feels quite slow because I am used to a much higher cadence when running. Nonetheless it appears that my current cadence on the bike, like my cadence when running, is higher than the value most efficient for energy consumption, but probably quite good for preserving the legs. It appears that the elderly brain unconsciously learns how to look after elderly legs |
Jun 2015
7:57pm, 25 Jun 2015
13,902 posts
|
GlennR
In ml line of work we make a distinction between economy, efficiency and effectiveness when attempting to measure value for money. As far as I can see all three apply to running and cycling too. They probably also apply to swimming, but since my swimming is neither economic, efficient, nor effective I'm not the right person to ask. |
|
Jun 2015
8:15pm, 25 Jun 2015
19,915 posts
|
eL Bee!
Oxygen consumption is just one element of efficiency Muscular strength/conditioning is the other - and they sit at either end of an imaginary and sliding scale! And at higher power outputs you need to reduce the muscular work per pedal stroke to keep it going. So as a general rule of thumb - if I want to ride fast on a particular ride (so requiring more power) I will need to pedal faster - reducing the nett amount of torque at the crank at each pedal stroke(compared to riding at a lower cadence) , but doing it more often So a ride of a couple of hours at say 230W would need me to pedal at around a cadence of 100rpm If I were to ride the same ride at say 150W - it would be perfectly feasible to ride with relatively higher torque at the crank, but less often (say a cadence of 85-90rpm) and the nett effect would still be a nice easy ride In fact at lower speeds it is often much more comfortable to ride at lower cadences so that you are not sat too heavily in the seat!! Our CV systems (as runner, runners-turned-cyclists, and cyclists) are often the stronger factor and the weak point is our muscular strength/conditioning - so we need to pedal in such a way that maximises what we *can* do with our puny muscles, and to a degree it is to increase power output at the wheel without overloading our musculoskeltal system! |
|
Jun 2015
8:51pm, 25 Jun 2015
13,904 posts
|
GlennR
In my case it's not the muscles as such but the tendons/ligaments. Oddly, the problem is mainly on the outside of my left knee (ITB maybe?) rather than the right patella tendon that the nice surgeon at Addenbrookes so kindly repaired for me.
|
Related Threads
-
TriSport Fetch: The smell of 220
May 2024
-
Pro cycling thread
May 2024
-
Zwifters
May 2024
-
BIKE THREAD
May 2024
-
The fat-tyre thread
May 2024
-
cycling and knee support recommendation required please
Apr 2024
-
Recommend me a cycle navigation app, please
Apr 2024
-
Bike maintenance for dummies.
Apr 2024
-
Cycling for Noobs
Apr 2024
-
Peloton
Apr 2024
