Building Cadence.....

[kimikaw]

Decided to start a new thread on this topic. The OP in the new and full of questions thread asked about cadence. There was some great advice there to try to work up to a cadence in the 85-100 rpm range. I'd been counseled by some biking friends to use my gears to keep a steady cadence, but had not sense to how fast I actually was pedaling.

With the new bike I got a new bike computer, and now can measure cadence. On my first long ride on the new bike, I did nearly 27 miles, used my typical pedal speed. Discovered I ride in the 65-70rpm range. And naturally up-shift when I start pedaling over 70rpm. Told this to a couple of bike friends, who universally expressed concern that I was using too high of gears, pedaling too slowly / too hard to take advantage of any pedal momentum/spin, and could damage my legs/knees. I meanwhile realized I was never going to develop any real speed without a much higher average cadence.

Which lead to last night's ride. Intentionally focused on cadence, keeping it up around 85rpm. OMG, I could barely breath. Sure it's easier to pedal (from a leg pushing point of view), and was in lower gears. But aerobically it was tough. Really surprised me.

So how do I build cadence....I'm guessing doing exactly what I did, and the aerobic piece will come. Probably answering my own question. Maybe the real question: Is this common to for a beginning biker (too slow cadence)? Is this much aerobic affect (heart rate up, breathing hard) normal as you push higher cadences? Will I still build leg strength if I solely focus on the higer pedal rates and lower gears?

[sarahspins]

Honestly... I say go with what your are comfortable with... anything over 60 is pretty "safe" on your joints (at least, that's what my PT has always told me). If you were much under that, then I would worry.. but 65-70 is fine... especially if you really aren't moving very fast - I think a slower cadence puts more stress on your joints at 20mph than it does at 12mph.

I think keeping a steady cadence (>60) and moving at your own pace is more important than trying to hit 85 if your body just can't keep up, KWIM? I think it will come in time.. like I said yesterday, I was surprised mine was as high as it is, because I really thought I was still pedaling much slower (I know I was slower starting out). I definitely notice that I am moving faster in the same gears compared to a few months ago.

As far as I am concerned you build leg strength either way... I think it's the amount of time you're actually out on the bike more than the cadence you maintain.

[OakLeaf]

I think a slower cadence puts more stress on your joints at 20mph than it does at 12mph.


It's the force, not the speed.

Climbing is when cadence is most likely to be very low, and it's also where there's automatically a large amount of force involved. In my actual riding, there's a WHOLE lot more force on my knees driving 65 rpm up a 15% grade at 5 mph than there would be, say, descending a 1% grade at the same cadence at 25 mph.

All other things being equal (grade, wind including whether or not you're drafting, road conditions, bike), then yes, there will be more force at a higher speed than a lower one - but all things are almost never equal, on a bicycle. ;) That's why people spend thousands for power meters.

[sarahspins]

All other things being equal (grade, wind including whether or not you're drafting, road conditions, bike), then yes, there will be more force at a higher speed than a lower one - but all things are almost never equal, on a bicycle. ;) That's why people spend thousands for power meters.

That's what I meant... all things being equal.. I realize that rarely happens, but still.. lol :P

But I do think that with increased fitness comes the ability to maintain a faster cadence... so it should come with time :) I don't think that 65-70 is dangerous at all.

[BalaRoja]

That's what I meant... all things being equal.. I realize that rarely happens, but still.. lol :P

But I do think that with increased fitness comes the ability to maintain a faster cadence... so it should come with time :) I don't think that 65-70 is dangerous at all.

Actually, something you can try just for fun, is to put your bike in the smallest/easiest gear combo you have and then spin as fast as you can for several minutes. Moving your entire lower body that quickly is going to stimulate your heart beat - even though you may not be generating very much wattage/power.

I think if you want to ride at higher cadences then you have to practice at it. If you train yourself to pedal at 65rpm's then you get best at doing just that. Kind of like riding in one position all the time on the bars and then switching - you probably need to adjust a bit but then get better at it.

The good thing is you can train yourself to pedal at different cadences but I believe most people will still have a preferred or as some say, 'self-selected' cadence that they fall back into during a typical ride. When I started riding again a few months back, my cadence was typically around 70-80 and now I'm more comfortable in the 90-100 range. I've had my share of knee injuries so I tend to prefer a higher cadence.

Contrary to what some might imagine, a lot of success at the top levels of sprinting on the track is actually being able to apply force at really, really high cadences (think 135+ rpm) which results in huge power outputs rather than using even greater force per pedal stroke at obviously lower rpm's. Watch any of the top women sprinters or the guys, in the 200 meters or the kilo and you'll see they usually get up to 150, sometimes even 200 rpm for substantial periods.

Basically you can pedal quicker, you can pedal with more force, or do both. The combination of these is your equivalent power. That in conjunction with the amount of rolling resistance, wind resistance (which considers your frontal area and drag), and the resistance of gravity you overcome = speed.

The bottom line though is your comfort and staying injury free. So if it works for you and you have no problems, then stick with what is working.

[kimikaw]

Thanks everyone, great advice.

While the 65rpm cadence seems to be my current go to and settle in tempo, I want more speed. And I now know unless I can build cadence, I'm not really going to build speed. Heck on a flat without a significant headwind, I can auto-pilot at 65-70rpm at my highest gear/speed. So pedalling faster my only option.

I think for me it's not only a fitness/ get more aerobically fit for biking, but also a mindset shift. It bothers me (mentally) to be in the easier, spinning gears. Seems wrong, like my legs should be "working" more. I think it's the last 15 or so months focused on strength training, building muscle, making sure I was using high enough resistance on machines to really bring value. One thing forcing myself to ride at that higher cadence/lower strength output did was showed me what kind of opportunity I had to progress my riding. Between the gasping for air, and realizing if I developed both the aerobic capability and greater leg strength, I will go faster, be a better rider.

[246marathon]

Hello everyone. This is my first time replying on this forum (or any forum for that matter!). I started biking in the last month, after spending the last 25 years as a distance runner - anything from the mile to the marathon. Now that I am older (43), I have developed structural foot pain and have chosen to bike since running everyday is painful. Duathlons next summer are my goal and I must say - thanks to my sister in law, I LOVE BIKING!!! It's nice to get excited about something again and look forward to seeing what I can do on a bike. Anyway.....

The cadence issue is something I also struggle with sometimes. Most of my rides are anywhere from 75-90 or more but I often feel like I sacrifice mph in order to keep the cadence at a reasonable level. Most winter training I have researched as said to ride a lot of miles in the 80-90 rpm range to build an aerobic base. But I sometimes don't feel like my heart rate gets very high (may be because of all the running), and I am switching gears often, especially when I come to a long hill, in order to keep the cadence. Am I OK doing this for the winter to build a base, or should I also add more resistance and slow down the cadence some in order to gain power? I have tried both, and when my cadence was lower and I felt like I was giving it everything because the resistance was higher, my legs were spent very quickly. At 80-85 rpm, I can go 20-25 miles very easily, and follow that with a run.

Since I am new to this whole biking thing, is what I am doing OK, and then in the spring adding some intervals of very high cadence, and some of low cadence and high resistance for strength? Any help anyone has would be great. Having run and coached runners, I am thinking that doing some of the same types of workouts, only geared for the bike, will help increase my overall speed for the sprint duathlons next year.

I want to say that it is very refreshing to see answers/information presented in a way that doesn't make novices like myself, feel like our questions are ridiculous. It is especially nice to link up with so many women who are passionate about the same things. I thank you and look forward to reading more about you all in the future!

"See in yourself not the limits, but the stars"

[OakLeaf]

I sometimes don't feel like my heart rate gets very high (may be because of all the running)

I think you're right - for one thing, any given person's MHR for cycling will be around 5 bpm lower than their MHR for running - and also to me, running is just way more aerobically demanding. I'm running much more now than I ever did, and one thing I found this summer is that I never, not once, ran out of air on the bike. I don't race or push myself terribly hard on the bike, but last year there were definitely hills where I was struggling for breath, and sprints where oxygen was as much a limiting factor as muscle. Since I started running more, that's just not the case.

Still, you can get your HR pretty high on the bike. IME I just have to work at it a lot harder than I do running.

[BalaRoja]

Hello everyone. This is my first time replying on this forum (or any forum for that matter!). I started biking in the last month, after spending the last 25 years as a distance runner - anything from the mile to the marathon. Now that I am older (43), I have developed structural foot pain and have chosen to bike since running everyday is painful. Duathlons next summer are my goal and I must say - thanks to my sister in law, I LOVE BIKING!!! It's nice to get excited about something again and look forward to seeing what I can do on a bike. Anyway.....

The cadence issue is something I also struggle with sometimes. Most of my rides are anywhere from 75-90 or more but I often feel like I sacrifice mph in order to keep the cadence at a reasonable level. Most winter training I have researched as said to ride a lot of miles in the 80-90 rpm range to build an aerobic base. But I sometimes don't feel like my heart rate gets very high (may be because of all the running), and I am switching gears often, especially when I come to a long hill, in order to keep the cadence. Am I OK doing this for the winter to build a base, or should I also add more resistance and slow down the cadence some in order to gain power? I have tried both, and when my cadence was lower and I felt like I was giving it everything because the resistance was higher, my legs were spent very quickly. At 80-85 rpm, I can go 20-25 miles very easily, and follow that with a run.

Since I am new to this whole biking thing, is what I am doing OK, and then in the spring adding some intervals of very high cadence, and some of low cadence and high resistance for strength? Any help anyone has would be great. Having run and coached runners, I am thinking that doing some of the same types of workouts, only geared for the bike, will help increase my overall speed for the sprint duathlons next year.

I want to say that it is very refreshing to see answers/information presented in a way that doesn't make novices like myself, feel like our questions are ridiculous. It is especially nice to link up with so many women who are passionate about the same things. I thank you and look forward to reading more about you all in the future!

"See in yourself not the limits, but the stars"

Good for you on your new goals and for taking up cycling. Sometimes that how it is - you try new things and they can be very rewarding. Sounds like you are in the right place.

You probably generate a higher max heart rate while running because it is clearly a highly weight bearing activity whereas cycling isn't quite as weight bearing. Steep hills on a bike will have you bearing the most weight while on a bike and should get your heart rate fairly high. Most people I've talked to who do triathlons always mention a higher max heart rate on runs than biking so you wouldn't be alone there.

About your cadence question - from everything I've seen, brand new riders are more likely to use a lower cadence, say 60ish. (not without exceptions obviously) Whereas more experienced people tend to use a higher cadence, roughly 90ish.

There are a lot of advantages to a higher cadence. One of the more obvious ones is that it is easier to accelerate if you are spinning comfortably at 85 rpms, than if you are grinding at 55 - assuming you are going the same speed (20 mph at 85rpms & 20 mph at 55 rpms) because each pedal stroke at 85rpms requires less force. Another thing is how it tends to generate less muscle fatigue - a higher cadence - in your legs than if using a bigger gear. It seems like you've noticed that in your own training already when you use a higher cadence and have an easier time running later. It probably is 'saving your legs' a bit. I bet serious triathletes and ladies here who participate in multi-sport competitions can give you a more insightful response on the bike then run angle.

The corollary of all this is that a higher cadence you will feel your heart rate and cardiovascular system be more taxed. As I mentioned in another response, get on your bike and get in the granny gear and spin to 100+ rpms for as long as you can - you can even do this will going downhill - and you'll notice how your heart beat speeds up very quickly, even if you are basically coasting down a hill.

If you are a duathlete, then I assume your bike goals in a race are along the lines of a time trial. Meaning the faster you go, the better your result since it is all about overall time right?

In that case, just use whatever cadence you are more comfortable with. Try different ones for a few weeks to get used to how they feel and I bet you'll soon find your happy cadence spot, whether that's 60, 80 or 110 :)

[tctrek]

I am working with a coach and she actually sets up my workouts with a specific cadence range that I should aim for. Except for climbs and hill repeats, my cadence must always be over 70 rpm.

So, it's about finding the right gear where I can keep the required cadence and the required heart rate. My heart rates normally run pretty high so this would not apply to everyone, but for example at a 70-80 rpm, I would want enough resistance to get my hr up to 152-155 and sustain that hr/cadence combination for an 8-10 minute interval. Then recover for 8 mins and do it again! For the 85-95 cadence, I find the gearing to maintain my hr at 159-162.

These intervals have really helped me to pick up my cadence and as I get better at them, I can use more gear and keep the same hr/cadence so I end up going faster!! I've increased my avg speed by 3 mph in 2 months and I credit these intervals.

Of course, I should disclose that I am an absolute geek when it comes to all this data. It fascinates me and doesn't detract at all from my pure joy of riding.

[sarahspins]

My heart rates normally run pretty high so this would not apply to everyone, but for example at a 70-80 rpm, I would want enough resistance to get my hr up to 152-155 and sustain that hr/cadence combination for an 8-10 minute interval. Then recover for 8 mins and do it again! For the 85-95 cadence, I find the gearing to maintain my hr at 159-162.

Okay, bear in mind I am relatively new to the whole monitoring HR thing, but my resting heartrate is always high... and has been for as long as I remember. In fact, the only time I remember it being "normal" was when I was severely hypothyroid after having my daughter (TSH was 16.7 or something stupid)... so how does a higher heart rate effect your max? Mine is not so far off from yours... and I know what my resting HR is (and it's higher than average) and now I'm wondering just how abnormal that is.

[tctrek]

Okay, bear in mind I am relatively new to the whole monitoring HR thing, but my resting heartrate is always high... and has been for as long as I remember. In fact, the only time I remember it being "normal" was when I was severely hypothyroid after having my daughter (TSH was 16.7 or something stupid)... so how does a higher heart rate effect your max? Mine is not so far off from yours... and I know what my resting HR is (and it's higher than average) and now I'm wondering just how abnormal that is.

Well, my heart rate upon waking is about 68. But once I'm walking around, going to work, etc. it runs around 83. When I get on the bike, it immediately goes to 100-105. On a super easy recovery ride, it runs around 125-130. One time I was doing a very long 7-8 degree climb and I sustained a heart rate of 173 for 22 minutes.

So, that's how high my heart rate is! Some people freak out when they hear it, but it's really normal for me. I've been checked by doctors and they say I have a hummingbird heart -- it's small and beats fast :D:D.

[kimikaw]

Lucked into another beautiful fall day, and was able to get about a 14 mile ride in after work. Kept an average cadence of 84rpm. So pretty good improvement from Sunday's 64. On a much, much hillier route, too.

And, wasn't sucking air as bad as on Monday. Amazing how quickly bodies acclimate to physical stress.

I think it's a bit of developing a muscle memory at the higher cadence versus the lower I'd been doing.

That said I once again feel it more in my hams and glutes post-ride. Just the faster cadence or the clipless pedals or all of the above?

And best of all didn't fall...getting hang of the clipless! :D Great day!

[KnottedYet]

Before getting too excited about high cadences (and in the 1970's we thought 60 rpm was hot stuff!) take a gander at your muscle: are you more a slow twitch or a fast twitch kind of gal?

Are you the sort who can go forever and not run out of steam, or are you a little bunny rabbit who goes very very fast? When you were in track, did you run 50/100/200 m, or were you in the 400m and up?

Forcing a slow twitch athlete to go at a higher rpm than they are built for is going to put their best asset (slow twitch fibers) to waste while stressing the small portion of fast twitch they have. (we all have some of each)

Force a distance runner (slow twitch) to race a short sprint, and not only with they lose, they'll also likely be gasping for breath and puking at the end of the race. (it's quite a spectacle! I've done it!) But no-one is going to point at the distance runner and say she's a poor runner and out of shape.

Don't kick yourself if your rpm doesn't meet some mythical "good" number. There's nothing magical about higher numbers, what's magical is riding well by taking advantage of your strengths and feeling fabulous! There are many different riders: Do what feels right.

[salsabike]

Before getting too excited about high cadences (and in the 1970's we thought 60 rpm was hot stuff!) take a gander at your muscle: are you more a slow twitch or a fast twitch kind of gal?

Are you the sort who can go forever and not run out of steam, or are you a little bunny rabbit who goes very very fast? When you were in track, did you run 50/100/200 m, or were you in the 400m and up?

Forcing a slow twitch athlete to go at a higher rpm than they are built for is going to put their best asset (slow twitch fibers) to waste while stressing the small portion of fast twitch they have. (we all have some of each)

Force a distance runner (slow twitch) to race a short sprint, and not only with they lose, they'll also likely be gasping for breath and puking at the end of the race. (it's quite a spectacle! I've done it!) But no-one is going to point at the distance runner and say she's a poor runner and out of shape.

Don't kick yourself if your rpm doesn't meet some mythical "good" number. There's nothing magical about higher numbers, what's magical is riding well by taking advantage of your strengths and feeling fabulous! There are many different riders: Do what feels right.

What a good post this is...

[Crankin]

TC Trek, my HR is pretty similar to yours, except my resting HR is down in the 50s when i awake. Just looking at my bike makes it go up to 90-100! Seriously, I know it goes up to 130 when I get on the bike and then might settle down until I climb. I stopped wearing my HR monitor about 2 years ago, since I was just focusing on that...
I have also been described as a hummingbird.

[jp4995]

Are you the sort who can go forever and not run out of steam, or are you a little bunny rabbit who goes very very fast? When you were in track, did you run 50/100/200 m, or were you in the 400m and up?

I am most definitely a fast-twitch gal. I ran the 200 and the 400 quite well in high school track but I was barely able to run 2 miles straight even though I was in tip-top shape.

Right now if I try and go for a run my HR hits 170-180 within the first 2 minutes of a run (and that's on an easy run) and stays there. My resting HR is around 78. My HR does recover fairly fast so if I go for a run I have to alternate jogging and walking.

However, I've been biking for a month now (almost at 200 miles total!), and I am able to do 15-20 miles averaging 12.5-13.5 mph without any issues. My HR generally sits around 130-140 most of the time and gets up to a max of 170 when I'm really pushing. I rarely feel out of breath unless I'm really pushing hard for a long time.

[ny biker]

Before getting too excited about high cadences (and in the 1970's we thought 60 rpm was hot stuff!) take a gander at your muscle: are you more a slow twitch or a fast twitch kind of gal?

Are you the sort who can go forever and not run out of steam, or are you a little bunny rabbit who goes very very fast? When you were in track, did you run 50/100/200 m, or were you in the 400m and up?

Forcing a slow twitch athlete to go at a higher rpm than they are built for is going to put their best asset (slow twitch fibers) to waste while stressing the small portion of fast twitch they have. (we all have some of each)

Force a distance runner (slow twitch) to race a short sprint, and not only with they lose, they'll also likely be gasping for breath and puking at the end of the race. (it's quite a spectacle! I've done it!) But no-one is going to point at the distance runner and say she's a poor runner and out of shape.

Don't kick yourself if your rpm doesn't meet some mythical "good" number. There's nothing magical about higher numbers, what's magical is riding well by taking advantage of your strengths and feeling fabulous! There are many different riders: Do what feels right.

I don't understand this. Which is the slow twitch person and which is the fast twitch - the one who can "go forever and not run out of steam" or the "bunny rabbit"?

And what if you're average when it comes to speed?

[OakLeaf]

The idea makes sense, but I don't know about the numbers.

I'm one of those slow-but-steady types. An all-out sprint for me is some people's marathon pace. :rolleyes: But 100 miles on a bici has never really been a big deal for me. My natural cadence has always been in the high 80s. When I put on my first cadence monitor in 1985 that's what it was, and even though I normally try to keep it a bit higher (like, low 90s), that's what I revert to when I'm fatigued.

Then you look at pro riders, and see cadences much higher. As someone was pointing out, track riders (probably the most fast-twitch of the bunch) keep cadences of 120+. Lots of road racers have a natural cadence right around 100. That's kind of where I came up with the range of 85-100.

I think for a new rider, the question is (1) lessening the shearing forces on the knees, which for a lot of people means learning to increase their cadence (less power per pedal stroke at any given speed) and (2) learning to pedal smoothly. I don't for a minute think that everyone (or anyone, really!) should maintain a cadence of 140 all the time, but I strongly believe that everyone should be able to maintain a cadence of 140 for 60-120 seconds, without bouncing. Learning to do that will teach you to smooth your pedal stroke at any cadence. It's easy to pedal in squares at 70 rpm. Not so much at 140.

[jp4995]

I don't understand this. Which is the slow twitch person and which is the fast twitch - the one who can "go forever and not run out of steam" or the "bunny rabbit"?

Slow twitch people are the ones able to "go forever" and fast twitch people are the natural sprinters. Muscles have both slow and fast twitch fibers, but some people may have "more" of one or the other. "Slow twitch people" is more of a generalization- some people are natural endurance athletes and can't run a fast sprint even with a lot of conditioning (and vice versa).

If you Google "fast twitch fibers" there are numerous articles available. There are also a lot of fitness routines that are supposed to help you activate one type of fiber or the other, but I have no idea how valid those are.

[kimikaw]

The idea makes sense, but I don't know about the numbers.

I'm one of those slow-but-steady types. An all-out sprint for me is some people's marathon pace. :rolleyes:

.................................

but I strongly believe that everyone should be able to maintain a cadence of 140 for 60-120 seconds, without bouncing. Learning to do that will teach you to smooth your pedal stroke at any cadence. It's easy to pedal in squares at 70 rpm. Not so much at 140.

Like you I'm one of the slow and steady. When I swam competitively in HS, I did the long races, couldn't sprint for the life of me (and honestly, wasn't very fast at the long ones relative to my competitors either :mad:). But that said, once I get in a groove, I can go and go. I hope to get my natural go to cadence in the mid-80's because even after only a couple of rides in that range, I see the advantages of the easier/smoother pedal force and ability to speed up.

Now to that 140rpm thing, boy, I get over 100 and I have one bouncy butt. Trying to take advantage of the many downhills around here to practice smoothing things out at the higher rpms - (while basically in a glide, because on these hills I would need to be up there around 140 to actually apply force).

[ny biker]

Okay, so I'm a slow twitch person since I am not fast but I do long rides.

And my cadence averages above 90 rpm.

But you're saying I should not be able to do that?

Still lost.

p.s. I never ran track.

[Starfish]

If you are thinking about using any kind of audio to help build your cadence, you might be interested in the Zooming CDs. Below is a post I did about them from some other thread. I love the Zooming because it is all timed and orchestrated for a perfect 90rpm spin, but it is all a big breathing meditation, along with great prompts for all kinds of other things to work on, from relaxation of the shoulders to stretching the back through breathing, etc.

I am amazed at how long I can keep up a 90rpm spin using these, and how much it trains my breathing at the same time. Just a thought if you want something to use on the trainer.

-------------------------------------------------

I haven't done much yet with podcasts, but along those lines, I REALLY like a cycling CD I bought and loaded onto my iPod. It is the Zooming CD from Ian Jackson. I ordered the set, which also has audio for both walking and running programs. I use the Zooming workout the most (it is specifically for cycling).

http://www.breathplay.com

I also bought a Spinerval audio only workout that I put on my iPod. It is a 45 minute high cadence interval workout. I think it is good.

[makbike]

Find a cadence that works best for you. If you are fairly new to riding maintaining a cadence of 90 rpms probably is not reasonable. I would suggest first focusing on simply learning what your workable cadence is and what it feels like. If your bike computer provides this information that is a huge plus. Focus on maintaining this cadence for with time you will find it will increase as will your speed. Remember too, the cadence you settle into on flats is going to be different from the cadence you settle into when climbing but regardless of the topography of that area adjusting and maintaining a workable cadence is important. Hopes this helps.

[Yelsel]

I have a high maximum heart rate; about 195 for cycling, 205 for running, and perhaps an even higher max for kettlebells.

Cycling has a lower heart rate for three reasons (none of which has to do with weight bearing!) -- in order of importance*.
1. Fewer muscles used -- mostly leg muscles, little active upper body motion.
2. Position of body relative to heart -- easier to pump blood to upper body, which is at 45 degrees or greater, so not pumping directly against gravity
3. Better cooling at faster mph -- a lot of blood pumping capacity can go to dumping core heat.

If you even sit up straight while on a trainer (no other upper body motion), heartbeat raises 2-3 beats per minute... Your heart rate will also be higher on a climb, especially when out of the saddle and actively using upper body (even more if cooling drops from a speed drop) -- you will be closer to your "running MHR" and not necessarily over your lactate threshold.

*for the triathletes -- swimming MHR can be 10-15 beats/min lower than biking...
1. Smaller muscles used, arms and upper body, which require less oxygen.
2. Body perpendicular to gravity, so easier to pump blood.
3. Excellent cooling from water, little blood capacity needed for cooling.

MHR is genetic at birth, but declines with age based primarily on how sedentary / active the person is. A competitive athlete might see no drop in MHR with age, while sedentary people have a drop of about 2/3 of a beat per year. (This is a compilation of the most recent studies; the first study that was done had many flaws I won't go into, but it spawned the ubiquitous 220-age "MHR formula" that will never die... this formula has a drop of 1 beat per year.)

The real reason to know your maximum heart rate is knowing when different energy systems are used. The lactate threshold is about 75-85% MHR, depending on training - this describes a particular blood concentration of lactate, but effectively is about when half of the energy is produced aerobically and half anaerobically. Knowing your lactate threshold is important for setting race / distance pace, tempo pace (faster but sub-lactate threshold) and for training to raise the lactate threshold. It seems like a lot of cyclists don't want to go above the lactate threshold... however, lactic acid / lactate is a fuel that your body will process better with increased training. It is *not* lactic acid buildup that makes muscles sore, it is excess H+ / hydrogen atoms from processing the lactic acid into ATP / fuel. As the body becomes more efficient above the lactate threshold, it also becomes more efficient at removing H+ ions.... I definitely exceed my lactate threshold on some short steep grades here, but my muscles don't get sore. (I think strength training really helped with using lactate effectively, since weights are anaerobic).

Exercise Science is kind of a hobby for me...

Oops, well on topic I just naturally spin at about 80-90 rpm on my road bike... What I do is spin up in a lower gear, then if I feel like I can apply more power I upshift, and keep doing this until my cadence starts dropping. The upshifting is new, which is exciting because I must be getting stronger!

[OakLeaf]

Very interesting Yelsel.

Can we continue the hijack... and can you answer a question for me? I don't know my RHR, but when I'm driving to a run or ride with my HR strap on, it's in the low 50s. Max for running is around 185. I did see 187-188 a couple of times in the hot weather and I think those are probably accurate - they don't look like spikes on the graph.

But I'm not even beginning to work until it gets up around 140... as auto-calculated by my Garmin, HR zone 2 begins at 146. So all the subsequent zones are really narrow, like 9 bpm. It calculates my LT (beginning of zone 5) at 172, which jibes really well with how I feel, and with where my HR goes when I'm running intervals.

But that's like 92-93% of my MHR. Is that even possible?


ETA: and actually, even though I've increased my running and cycling volume, and my running intensity, considerably since I entered menopause, my MHR has dropped by like 5-7 bpm just in the last couple of years. I think hormones maybe have as much to do with it as training. :(

[KnottedYet]

Okay, so I'm a slow twitch person since I am not fast but I do long rides.

And my cadence averages above 90 rpm.

But you're saying I should not be able to do that?

Still lost.

p.s. I never ran track.

Nope. Fast twitch and slow twitch is more about your "natural" rpms. If you are a fast twitchy person, your natural rpms are higher both in running and in biking.

Don't get confused over "short" or "distance" runner vs "short" or "distance" biker. They are quite different kettles of fish (run vs bike) and I only use the run example because so many of us are familiar with it. I didn't mean to confuse you.

How long you ride is more about you having found your most efficient rpm and keeping muscles, heart, and lungs working happily together.

Here's a more bike related example: I went for a ride with a friend of mine who is a high rpm guy. I'm a slow rpm gal. We were both going about 18 mph for several miles, both happy and chatting and comfortable. I'm mashing at 65-70 rpm and he's twirling at closer to 100. But we're going the same speed and for the same distance. We're each in our groove, our bodies and bikes are in their "happy place."

If he had switched to a higher gear and tried to go at 65 rpm, his legs would have hurt and he would have felt slow and inefficient. If I had switched to a smaller gear and tried to go 100 rpm I would have been out of breath and my legs would have been on fire, and I would have felt slow and inefficient. Neither of us would have had any fun.

He's a fast twitch (high rpm, runs better in a sprint) and I'm slow twitch (low rpm, run better in a distance).

Find "your happy place" whatever your own personal sweet spot is in the rpm spectrum, and you can ride as fast and as far as you want because the gearing of the bicycle gives you the ability to do so within your sweet spot.

In my mind, that's one of the beauties of the bike; the way it elegantly allows you to work at your body's most efficient mode, and for miles and miles and miles!

How often does a sprint runner get to sprint for miles? How often does a distance runner get to shift into a "big ring" and run super fast? It's cool beans!

ETA: clarified bike example by adding gearing choices for changing rpms.

Edit AGAIN To Add: you won't find your sweet spot unless you try all kinds of rpms. If changing up or down doesn't make the heavens open up and the angels sing, don't fret. It could be you were at your sweet spot already! And don't worry if your sweet spot isn't the same as someone else's... they seldom are and there's no reason for them to be.

[tctrek]

Definitely agree. DH is a slow-twitch rider > He rocks a big gear, low (60-70 rpm) cadence and that's where he's best. It's very difficult for me to keep up with his power when he rides like that. When he tries to ride at a high cadence, he's very uncomfortable and out of sorts. He loses speed and is not happy when I pass him. Either way, he has a very low heart rate, but it does go up when he rides a faster cadence.

[tctrek]

TC Trek, my HR is pretty similar to yours, except my resting HR is down in the 50s when i awake. Just looking at my bike makes it go up to 90-100! Seriously, I know it goes up to 130 when I get on the bike and then might settle down until I climb. I stopped wearing my HR monitor about 2 years ago, since I was just focusing on that...
I have also been described as a hummingbird.

A waking heart rate of 50 is fabulous!! I've been tempted to ditch my HR monitor, but this season I have actually forced myself to stay in certain ranges and it has actually helped me. Hills where my heart rate used to go to 170, now goes to 160. So, I don't freak out about it, but I am conscious of it and I have figured out how to influence it a little.

It's funny how riding at the faster cadences used to really elevate my hr, but tonight I rode with an average cadence of 90 and an average hr of 147. Not bad for an old broad :D:D:D!

[OakLeaf]

As I said, my natural cycling cadence all my life has been around 85-87, and I'm pretty sure my natural running cadence is even a little higher than that.** You'd still have a hard time convincing me that I'm predominantly fast-twitch.

I've never, ever been fast. In high school we didn't have XC, but I ran the mile (longest distance we had) much better than I did the shorter distances. In a recent 10-mile event - that I wasn't actually racing, but just entered for practice - I kicked the last mile or so just about 20 sec/mile slower than my PR 5K.

In cycling, my best event was the 40K ITT.

In weight lifting, I do tend to be strong for my size and sex, but I think it has more to do with the fact that I put on muscle more easily than a lot of women. Pound for pound of lean mass, really it seems to me that my 1RM's ought to be higher than they are.

You really think based on my cadences alone that I should be predominantly fast-twitch???


___________________
** (That's based on old-fashioned timing and counting - I usually get right around 95. I'm totally coveting a footpod for my new GPS watch, solely for cadence since I do not do treadmills, but haven't found one in stock anywhere yet.)

[KnottedYet]

As I said, my natural cycling cadence all my life has been around 85-87, and I'm pretty sure my natural running cadence is even a little higher than that.** You'd still have a hard time convincing me that I'm predominantly fast-twitch.

I've never, ever been fast. In high school we didn't have XC, but I ran the mile (longest distance we had) much better than I did the shorter distances. In a recent 10-mile event - that I wasn't actually racing, but just entered for practice - I kicked the last mile or so just about 20 sec/mile slower than my PR 5K.

In cycling, my best event was the 40K ITT.

In weight lifting, I do tend to be strong for my size and sex, but I think it has more to do with the fact that I put on muscle more easily than a lot of women. Pound for pound of lean mass, really it seems to me that my 1RM's ought to be higher than they are.

You really think based on my cadences alone that I should be predominantly fast-twitch???


___________________
** (That's based on old-fashioned timing and counting - I usually get right around 95. I'm totally coveting a footpod for my new GPS watch, solely for cadence since I do not do treadmills, but haven't found one in stock anywhere yet.)

No. Did someone say that?
You sound like a pretty classic slow-twitch to me.
Low-side cadence on the bike, mile runnner, lots of oomph left at the end of a long run.

The cool thing is you already know your natural cadence, so all the angsting over rpms is long gone for you.

I don't know how to emphasize this enough: Everyone Is Different. Everyone Has Their Own Unique Best Cadence.

If a person is happily riding along at (for example) 85-87 rpm, don't feel you have to change it up to 95-100 just because someone says that's better, or you think you are fast twitch and have to be just like another fast-twitch. Don't look at someone else's cadence that might be even lower and start thinking you have to slow yours down to match theirs just because they run like you do.

Ride your ride.

Play with cadence until you find your sweet spot. Be your own expert.

"Fast twitch" and "slow twitch" aren't cliques in high school that you have to join one or the other. It's a concept that helps to explain why some folks seem quite happy riding at rpms that would kill someone else. A concept that is meant to explain why "one size fits all" doesn't work on the bike, and why no-one should feel they are a bad rider or an inexperienced rider just because of their rpms.

There is no black and white in fast and slow. No dividing line. It's a gradation of grays.

I've said it before: I worked on some very cool research with Dr. Haushka on the embryological development of fast and slow twitch fibers back in the 1980's. It is fascinating stuff, and I encourage anyone interested in it to look up some of the original research. Your proportion of fast to slow in your muscles is as unique as your fingerprints. Find your sweet spot and ride!

[jusdooit]

Ok trying to sort this out in my feeble brain. I have a higher cadence in smaller gears, but less speed. If ride 20 miles, avg speed is 13-13.5. Bigger gears equal lower cadence, but more speed, avg 14-14.5. So the ideal for speed is to be able to maintain the cadence from my smaller gears while pushing a big gear.
I'm asking because I have a hill that I typically end up in my smallest granny gear by the time I get to the top with my speed dropping to 7.5 or 8. Last week I was determined to stay in my big chain (have a double) all the way to the top. I did end up cross chaining some, but made it with a speed of about 10.0. I had to force myself to maintain a higher than average cadence for me in a big gear, but it improved my speed.
Is my logic correct?

[Trek420]

A lot depends on your goal. In training there may be advantages at times to pushing a big gear. Think of it as weight lifting on a bike. Whether you're normally a sit and spin gal or you just tend to use a big gear sometimes it's good to climb a harder hill in a lower gear or accelerate in a lower gear .... you get my drift. I've heard this called and "under speed drill"?

OTOH if you just tend to use lower RPM and/or bigger gears that is fine but learning to spin a bit has advantages from range of motion, acceleration, just using different muscles, bike handling and so on.

A lot has been made of spinning always especially in recent years with Lance's style of high RPM in all kinds of racing. It may feel like it's the law you must be high RPM always.

I'm sure if you're a marathon runner you'd work on sprinting, if you're a sprinter you'd work on endurance. But you'd still tend to be either a distance or sprint runner. :cool: I think of it like that.

[Yelsel]

I would love to hear what KnottedYet has to say about this... poking about with actual muscle fibers is awesome!

But I think people are overestimating the importance of muscle twitch fibers. Most people are born with about a 50/50 ratio; it is the top-level athletes that have very skewed proportions... up to 80/20.

There is actually a whole gradation of muscle fiber types... but these are lumped into slow twitch and fast twitch, with a further split in fast twitch. As might be expected by the names... fast twitch contract rapidly, slow twitch more a slow and steady ratcheting. If you pick up a baby, that is fast twitch. Holding the baby is slow twitch.

I - slow twitch fibers -- exclusively aerobic, need oxygen. Endurance fibers.
IIa - fast twitch a -- use both aerobic and anaerobic pathways equally well, but still contract rapidly.
IIb - fast twitch b -- use anaerobic pathways (no oxygen) exclusively; best for short sprints. In the 50 to 100 yard dash, athletes do not need to breathe at all, and some don't!

The IIa is where it gets interesting. You can train these muscle fibers to be more efficient at aerobic use -- by increasing the number of mitochondria (and in general increasing number of capillaries to the muscle). Mitochondria are the "powerhouses" of the cell, where glycogen (glucose molecules) is turned into ATP (adenosine triphosphate - the typical energy "currency" of the cell.) IIa fibers are also sometimes called "switch" fibers because depending on training, you can run these fibers equally well with oxygen or without. So IIa fibers will still contract rapidly, but you can use them much longer without fatigue, since you are using the aerobic pathway. Another way of stating this: if you are training to raise your lactate threshold, you are training your IIa fibers to better utilize oxygen / use the aerobic pathway.

I suspect that cadence is going to be a function of a lot of the body's systems, not just muscle fiber ratios... while they are individual at a fine scale for each person (by both nature and nurture), for the "average" person the ratios are roughly the same. (Though one can argue whether even non-competitive people self-selecting for a sport, or even interested in sports at all, are "average"!).

VO2 max -- the body's ability to utilize oxygen -- is another important factor. I suspect this might even be more important than actual muscle fiber composition for cadence... Lance Armstrong has an extremely high VO2 max, the highest in cycling and as high as most competitive Nordic skiiers (which requires the most oxygen use) -- 81 mL / m / kg (Utilizes 81 milliliters of oxygen per minute, per kilogram of body weight). Women have a lower VO2 max then men; the top women skiiers are typically in the high 70s. This is partly due to typically lower lean mass and higher body fat percentage; even correcting for kg of lean body mass (or just muscle mass), women are still lower. This is likely because our hearts are smaller and even at their most efficient will have a lower stoke volume (amount of blood transported in one heartbeat).

There is a genetic ceiling for each person with respect to max VO2, though unless you are a competitive athlete with serious training, we don't usually reach this. (The ability to rapidly increase max VO2 is partly genetic and partly training type, which is why an experienced coach is invaluable at helping to efficiently train to your genetic potential; in comparison training to raise lactate threshold is fairly standard.) As far as the limiting factors on utilizing oxygen, there is a debate about oxygen transport (cardiovascular system) vs. utilization (ability of mitochondria to use delivered oxygen). I fall on the side of transport limitations, because heuristically it makes sense that women's VO2 max is lower (scaled by muscle mass) because our heart and blood volume is proportionally less than in men, rather than we suck at growing capillaries and mitochondria, which should not be gender specific!

As a side note: the limiting factor is *not* lung capacity or oxygen-carbon dioxide gas exchange in the lungs; sedentary asthmatics are limited by these, but 4-6 weeks of 1 hour low-intensity exercise 5x/week or 30 minutes of moderate-intense activity 3x/week will increase VO2 max to equal that of a control group. This is because asthmatics can rapidly increase lung capacity through exercise (gas exchange efficiency is only slowly or not reversible, since it involves scarring in the lungs... as an asthmatic, I am happy that it is not a limiting factor though!). Exercise does not reduce intensity or severity of asthmatic reactions, which was originally a hope. But it does rapidly lead to a better quality of life after a short period of discomfort.

Heart rate and stoke volume (pumping volume) are part of the VO2 max metric. Raising lactate threshold (essentially the body's capacity to utilize oxygen / run systems aerobically) is part of training the "switch" IIa fast fibers to better utilize oxygen. As a cyclist improves max VO2 and raises her lactate threshold, she will generate more power, and should be more comfortable in a higher cadence if she trains that way. (It is also quite possible to generate more force at lower cadences... I really don't have a sense of how much influence Lance's fast spinning has as a cycling trend, vs. how much it is always more efficient to have a fast cadence. Michael Phelps' swimming style does seem to be a genuine innovation worthy of emulating in swimming; I really don't have a sense of how important Lance's fast cadence is to cycling. Guess I should finish the books on cycling physics. :) ) Muscle fatigue should be lower for higher cadences... which would be opposite as far as distance cycling = slow twitch fibers if high cadences = fast twitch fibers (lower fatigue / longer distances). Maybe that is part of the equalizing factor leading to a wide range of people cycling?

One last comment: muscle strength depends on a lot of factors; it is possible to significantly increase muscle strength, at least up to a point, without increasing muscle *size* - hypertrophy. One of the biggest limiting factors in strength is actually tendon and bone strength (there is a "tension meter," the golgi apparatus, built in to every tendon to help your brain limit your muscle fibers to acceptable rate / force of contraction -- in times of great stress, such as lifting a car from a spouse, your brain will override this tension limitation, though it really messes up your muscles / tendons / ligaments / bones.) Conversely, you can build up size without increasing functional strength that much (extreme bodybuilding / muscle isolation is the culprit in this!). Hypertrophy = increasing muscle fiber thickness; this happens almost exclusively in fast twitch fibers. Some animals also produce new muscle fibers; but either humans do not, or do it so slowly the effect is negligible.

@Oakleaf -- I'll take up more on heartrate later in a new thread. The short answer is that the Garmin is just using a formula 220-age if you do not set your max heart rate manually; so you haven't necessarily dropped your max heart rate. Your Garmin has no clue what your maximum heart rate actually is, and is just merrily assigning you one and decreasing it every year by rote.

[ny biker]

Yeah my head is going to explode.

I'm out.

[OakLeaf]

@Oakleaf -- I'll take up more on heartrate later in a new thread. The short answer is that the Garmin is just using a formula 220-age if you do not set your max heart rate manually; so you haven't necessarily dropped your max heart rate. Your Garmin has no clue what your maximum heart rate actually is, and is just merrily assigning you one and decreasing it every year by rote.

No, it isn't 220-age. You have to do a certain number of all-out anaerobic efforts, and then it calculates your LT based on the point where your speed increases but your HR doesn't any more. I'm giving my max based on the highest I ever see on a hot day on about the fourth or fifth all-out-sprint interval, when I'm deep in oxygen debt but not too fatigued to push as hard as I can. I'm figuring that's my max. I'm not sure how it calculates the start of zone 2, but as I said, both the LT and the start of zone 2 jibe really well with how I feel. There's 95 BPM between my RHR and the start of zone 2, as auto-calculated by the Garmin....

Unless maybe I'm 32 years old and somebody forgot to tell me about the last almost-18 years. :D;)

[KnottedYet]

Yelsel, that was very cool and very well explained!

My fast/slow twitch stuff was a student research project a quarter century ago, and it was all embryological. (basically: what tells a muscle fiber to develop into either a fast or slow twitch?) Dr. Hauschka called my work "elegant," which ended up having a big impact on me as a college student.

I never did any work directly on adult athletes, which would have been a lot of fun. (that's the kind of cool stuff the kineseology majors got to do)

Self-selection is a big factor, and I know I see a lot of it in my patients. But I think there are a lot of folks (especially women) who are getting into sports later in life and never had a chance to self-select. Lack of opportunity being the stronger factor.

How do you know you are a talented cellist if you never had exposure to music? How do you know you are fabulous at time-trials if you never had a bike until you were in your 30's? And it was a comfort bike?

Anyway, I do think the emphasis in all the biking magazines on "the higher the better" in rpms is over the top. Why should a woman feel bad if she's happy at 85 rpm like Oakleaf? What if a woman is slow-twitch (use it as a shorthand for the myriad of factors that make her more efficient at unfashionable rpms) and she never had any high performance athletic training before and so doesn't know her physiology well enough to be confident in her difference?

How many 20-80 women never had the chance?

Someone earlier mentioned riding a cadence of 140 and being able to maintain it. Cool, that's her ability. Call it "fast twitch" for short. It would be just as much nonsense for me to turn to her and say "that's too fast" as it would be for me to turn to Oakleaf or TCTrek's husband and say "that's too slow."

I'm far too interested in the brainwashing "I'm not good enough" aspect, because I see it so much in my patients and because I see it lurking around discussions of rpms. I'm oversensitive to it. It makes me angry. It makes me very angry that women in particular are steam-rollered by it.

There are no magic numbers. Their are YOUR numbers, and as long as you are happy and your body is happy and your bike is happy, there is no need to feel you don't measure up to some magic number some man in some training facility says is right. (not that I'm dissing Andy Pruitt. He's great. But take everything with a grain of salt. EVERYTHING. Because real life isn't one-rpm-fits-all.)

[246marathon]

Hello again. It has been very interesting reading the replies. I have an exercise science master's degree (from 18 years ago), and you all made me have to think about all of that again! I don't believe that I fall directly into the either one fast/slow twitch categories by themselves. I ran cross country and track in college (and coached both for 4 years), running the 10,000, 5,000, 3,000, mile, and the 4x400 and 4x800. I also ran a 2:46 marathon but could do short fast workouts with the best of them. So....

Having only recently started biking, I am still trying to figure things out for a sprint duathlon next year. I can figure out the running/training, but the biking is another story. I try and keep my cadence at 70-80 rpm for 20-25 miles as an aerobic base building workout, but the mph are only about 14-15. If I increase the cadence, I have to down shift and often feel like my legs are moving too fast for the pedals. I can hit 90-100 for a period, but the speed drops lower 12-14mph. Which is best for aerobic training completely and does anyone have any good workouts to increase speed a little now and work up to a huge increase later in the spring when racing season starts?

You ladies are awesome!!



"See in yourself not the limits, but the stars..."

[KnottedYet]

I can figure out the running/training, but the biking is another story. I try and keep my cadence at 70-80 rpm for 20-25 miles as an aerobic base building workout, but the mph are only about 14-15. If I increase the cadence, I have to down shift and often feel like my legs are moving too fast for the pedals. I can hit 90-100 for a period, but the speed drops lower 12-14mph. Which is best for aerobic training completely and does anyone have any good workouts to increase speed a little now and work up to a huge increase later in the spring when racing season starts?


Wahine would be the perfect person to answer this question. She does coaching/training as well as rehab. (I only do rehab)

I hope she comes a'wanderin' by!

Remember: fast and slow twitch aren't really separate categories, they are ends of a spectrum. If your speed drops when you raise your rpm to 90-100, I'd be inclined to say that your body just isn't as efficient at higher rpms. How to change that efficiency vs. how to work within the strengths you already have to increase your speed, and which is the better investment, is the kind of question to ask someone like Wahine.

(Yelsel, do you have some info on this?)

[Yelsel]

Self-selection is a big factor, and I know I see a lot of it in my patients. But I think there are a lot of folks (especially women) who are getting into sports later in life and never had a chance to self-select. Lack of opportunity being the stronger factor.

I'm far too interested in the brainwashing "I'm not good enough" aspect, because I see it so much in my patients and because I see it lurking around discussions of rpms. I'm oversensitive to it. It makes me angry. It makes me very angry that women in particular are steam-rollered by it.


I definitely hear you here! And it makes me both angry and sad when women preface their questions as "stupid." I'm not going to say there are no stupid questions ("Is this going to be on the test?" is among the top ones -- I've told students the answer is always going to be "Yes"). But people who worry about having stupid questions rarely do.

[kimikaw]

I try and keep my cadence at 70-80 rpm for 20-25 miles as an aerobic base building workout, but the mph are only about 14-15. If I increase the cadence, I have to down shift and often feel like my legs are moving too fast for the pedals. I can hit 90-100 for a period, but the speed drops lower 12-14mph.
.."

Exactly my experience. The higher cadence / lower gear it feels like I'm moving too fast, not efficient. My goal is to get aerobically fit enough to maintain the 85-90rpm range (which feels pretty good) but with the power/strength I was pushing at 65rpm. Suspect that will both give me speed, but optimize my riding, find my zone. We'll see...but that's my plan/theory.

And thanks to all who have joined in and responded in this thread. Fascinating stuff, from the fast/slow twitch to the heart rate stuff.

[Yelsel]

Having only recently started biking, I am still trying to figure things out for a sprint duathlon next year. I can figure out the running/training, but the biking is another story. I try and keep my cadence at 70-80 rpm for 20-25 miles as an aerobic base building workout, but the mph are only about 14-15. If I increase the cadence, I have to down shift and often feel like my legs are moving too fast for the pedals. I can hit 90-100 for a period, but the speed drops lower 12-14mph. Which is best for aerobic training completely and does anyone have any good workouts to increase speed a little now and work up to a huge increase later in the spring when racing season starts?


My base building last winter was cut short by a stress fracture... so I didn't get past anything very basic before being out of the game.

I love Joe Friel's training manuals -- it takes a lot of time to read and develop a plan, but you are essentially ending up with a detailed training plan tailored to you for under $20; it takes into account lots of factors such as amount (and distribution) of time to train, age / experience in sport, particular strengths and weaknesses... and also includes cross-training suggestions. Also you work the schedule to incorporate tapers for big "A" races, and utilizing "B" and "C" = less important races as training. The Cyclists' Training Bible is most specific to cycling, but the general heart rate manual is also very good; and it sounds like you could use the Triathlete Training Bible as well.

For the base building portion specifically, there is a great book written by one of Joe Friel's past mentees (so fits in same training methodology) Base Building for Cyclists (http://www.amazon.com/Base-Building-Cyclists-Foundation-Performance/dp/193138293X). Unfortunately I did not get very far in reading / incorporating this before getting sidelined for the season.

For specific workouts, I tend to slot in Coach Troy's Spinervals. (There are specific suggestions for different types of workouts in the Friel methodology... I just find it easier to work to a DVD rather than a timer.) I joined the Coach Troy DVD club and get a DVD up to $35 retail for $22.95 each month (or $35 off a more expensive package, and also 10% off other purchases); the first thing I got was the Base Building series. The "recovery / technique" DVDs also fit well into base building. I also have the "travel" series but again didn't have a chance to use them last winter. I also just got an on-off bike strength Spinerval series that I think will work to use for the aerobic base-building phase -- as well as kettlebells, which is my preferred form of strength training right now.

Base building is not just biking farther and farther at a steady 75% heart rate / race pace. There is also tempo work -- a few heartbeats below the lactic threshold (body gets better at using lactate for a fuel and transporting hydrogen ions; H+ ions are what causes muscle soreness); interval work within the aerobic limits (low to race pace, low to tempo, or race pace to tempo pace); and also biking for a long time at a low heartrate / below 65% -- this is where the body gets more efficient at using fatty acids (aka fat) for a fuel over carbs, which is important for a long race. The books / DVDs above can help with scheduling these different types of base building through the season, and how to gradually transition in true interval, strength, power etc. work towards the end of the off season.

Carmichael just brought out a book (http://http://www.amazon.com/Time-Crunched-Cyclist-Fast-Powerful-Hours/dp/1934030473/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255313271&sr=1-1) on making the most of training 3-6 hours per week -- which to be honest, is all most of us have. And duo/triathletes also need to be very efficient with time. I have not purchased this yet, only given it a brief skim; it appears to be for those that already have a high level of fitness, and rather than base building ramping up to more intense work, there are several cycles of intense work throughout the year. With your base from running this plan might work for you.

I have all this just because I would like to work up to centuries, double centuries, and longer race events just as a participant. As a competitor, you might like to get more feedback from a coach, either locally or through the internet. There are also a lot of "camps" around in the off and shoulder season that could really be beneficial.

And I would love to give more specifics... but my biking / athletic mini-library is currently in brown boxes that are indistinguishable from brown boxes that are holding books for storage for the next year... and it is going to take me awhile to sort through them and find the athletic (and knitting, and unread) books. :(

[246marathon]

Thanks ladies for all of your help. It is so nice to get replies that are so useful. I just wanted to add one question. I do understand that I need to increase my cadence to a higher level, but I have a difficult time keeping the speed up because I have to reduce the resistance to get the rpms up to a reasonable level and one that is maintainable. I feel great cranking along at 18 mph, 80 rpms, on a nice flat surface. If I tried to increase the cadence at that resistance, it would be extremely difficult, and I would have to lower the gears. Then, I feel like my legs are moving too fast for the pedals - good thing my feet are clipped in!! Anyway, I plan on getting a trainer and some of the spinerval DVDs. It is already getting nasty here in northern Indiana. I just want to make sure that I am doing things right. I plan on doing some intervals soon - Higher rpms with lowere resistance for a period of time, then a rest period. Or, should I increase the resistance to a very tough level, lower rpms, but go for a short period of time and then rest, etc.....? Any help would be great.

"See in yourself, not the limits, but the stars..."

[Yelsel]

If you will be using the Spinervals, they recommend an approximate gear combo / resistance, along with (typically) the heart rate you should be aiming for. Heart rate is related to power output (though it lags relative to power)... so you will be getting the right workout for your capabilities at the moment.

Another book you might want to take a look at is Ride Fast (http://www.amazon.com/Ride-Fast-Speed-Your-Weeks/dp/1594860580), which is aimed at increasing speed, culminating in a personal time trial / race. The book is aimed at cyclists that have gotten bored with riding due to not being able to break the 20 mph barrier. It assumes (I hope!) that the cyclist already has a reasonable base.

If you feel you already have a reasonable base from running, and/or want to try some shorter more intense workplans, the book above or Carmichael might be the plan for you.

[carinapir]

I do understand that I need to increase my cadence to a higher level, but I have a difficult time keeping the speed up because I have to reduce the resistance to get the rpms up to a reasonable level and one that is maintainable. I feel great cranking along at 18 mph, 80 rpms, on a nice flat surface. If I tried to increase the cadence at that resistance, it would be extremely difficult, and I would have to lower the gears.


I'm a newbie rider so I can only give you my experience. First, I think that 80-85 rpms is pretty good. There is not much resistance at that leg speed so you are saving your knees and muscles to some extent.

Second, yes, if you want to practice higher RPMs, you might just have to reduce the resistance/gear. It might feel like you are out of control at first but, as others have probably already said, as you perfect a smooth pedal stroke that should start to go away. When I started to focus on cadence I wanted to go from about 65 rmps to 80-85 rpms and while it did feel funny at first, I soon got the hang of it. I can now go comfortably over 90 rmps in short bursts to pass other riders.

Lastly, I don't know exactly how it happened but I am beginning to become strong enough to push one gear higher at my target of 80-85 rpms for a few minutes as long as there is no headwind. I don't know how exactly one should train up to this but I think that the general idea is that once you have one gear down at your optimum rpm, you can begin working on the next gear. I don't mean that that is the exact process, but that's just how I think of it. You have to teach your body or find your optimum rpm and then become strong enough to push that rpm at a higher gear. That's how I am "self-training" anyway.

[przc]

Just wanted to bump this thread back to the begining i found it very helpful and thought other new riders would also.