Newbie here. I aspire to become a grinder and like to work in the 55-65 cadence territory. It seems that the workouts in the training program I chose (low volume base sweet spot) make a static assumption about the duration of the workout without taking into consideration whether the power is delivered through grinding or spinning. Should there not be some time compression of the workouts if they are done at lower cadence? Thank you.
Larrythestanimal
Hi Larry, I’m just wondering why you are aspiring to become a grinder. I can’t think of any benefit of working at that low a cadence.
@krispenhartung, I have actually worked to expand my cadence since I wrote that email. But I am still favoring low cadence work to address my MTB weaknesses around steep climbs…
Low cadence, “strength” workouts are the biggest myth in triathlon. As a roadie, I tried several seasons of extended low cadence work in the 60 rpm range (30 minutes at a stretch for intervals) and it did nothing but produce repeated tendon injuries. Doing a one hour session with perhaps 5 x 4 min intervals at 50 - 60 rpm is just a waste of time. It is NOT endurance of strength that a cyclist needs…it is endurance of POWER. Any cyclist can get on a bike and produce 500W…but the real issue is how LONG you can endure that pace. It is a myth that needs to die. If you have a choice between a low cadence workout and a 2 x 20 threshold or Vo2 (4 x 8) session, you are FAR better off choosing the latter…otherwise you are simply WASTING TIME…time that is very precious to a multi-discipline athlete. Moreover, you are simply putting yourself at risk of an injury for no good reason.
I agree that low cadence work has the ability to cause injuries but I do not agree with your statement about it being a waste of time. In all cycling disciplines the majority of coaches will have you do low cadence strength efforts. The key is to build yourself into a rider capable of doing them first. If you look at track cycling programs, juniors will not be able to push a big gear until they reach a certain age. This is to prevent injuries. Once you have built enough riding up into your body then you can start putting the bigger gears on.
This is one reason why TrainerRoad does not tell you to go and smash out a 65RMP set at 100% - 125% FTP. Because you will bust yourself up and they will lose a subscriber.
When you look at someone lifting weights you know they are not going to grow by simply lifting a weight for high reps. It has it’s purpose but it’s the heavy low rep efforts that build strength.
To summarize, low cadence work will build strength and the ability to push a bigger gear. It has it’s place in disciplines such as track, road and even triathletes but you cannot just jump into smashing it as you will get hurt somewhere along your posterior chain.
Each rider should be able to choose what form of cadence work they do, yes. The problem I see with low cadence, high force, work is the strain the pedal stroke puts on your knees at the top of the stroke. As your foot moves over the pedal your knee joint takes a hit. Your knee isn’t made to do any strength work. It is simply a hinge joint. For many people it’s often best to stray away from some riskier efforts. Pro’s do specific workouts because pro’s have coach’s and doctors helping them. We often don’t have that luxury.
People would gain better improvements by working on weights in the gym while focusing on proper form and movements. Training your muscles to move weights the way those muscles are made to be used increases ability greatly. I try to remind myself that bike riding is mainly a cardio workout. It’s an endurance sport. Strength comes from moving weight.
I completely disagree. Watch the tour and you see climbs where spinning isn’t an option. Having the ability to ride at both low and high cadences is a beneficial skill.
Like anything, practice makes most better. My coach routinely assigns me intervals at 60 RPM. At first I didn’t like the idea but have grown to love the drills and it has definitely helped make me an overall better athlete.
But again, it is not “strength” that a cyclist lacks. It is endurance of the power needed at cycling/event specific cadences. I did years of low cadence work to the point of injuring my quadriceps tendons…and it never helped me turn a 52 x 15 faster or become a super time trialist (my favorite discipline). It is a myth…a myth that says “here is a shortcut to metabolically enhanced fitness”…“trust me, it works”. It makes zero sense to ride so far below specific-event cadences in an effort to enhance specific-event cadences. Why you would “build yourself” into a rider capable of riding at 60 - 65 rpm is questionable.
Juniors doing it right are benefiting mostly from extended time in the saddle at event-specific cadences. That is where their gains are coming from. The fact that their gearing is restricted is the proof. In many cases, these juniors are riding with considerably more power than most adults can produce after years in the saddle…AND perhaps years doing gym work…or low cadence work. IOW they have (putatively) less base strength, and yet they are cycling faster than fully grown adults. Something is amiss in this observation.
So why not simply increase the amount of time/intensity you ride at your event-specific cadence/gearing? The reason I suspect is that many see it as some type of short-cut to enhanced performance when it is probably more of a placebo. One, you won’t be able to do “enough” low cadence work to make any “verifiable” improvement at your event-specific cadence. Two, if you do attempt to do “enough” at such low cadences, it is highly likely that you will incur a needless injury, which will force you off the bike and onto the couch. This happened to me too many times to count. I don’t think it is really a requirement for a cyclist who possesses all the strength he or she will ever need to push the pedals around. For track cyclists I would make an exception. For everyone else I would not. For adult cyclists I would not prescribe low gear work at all…at least not in the 55 - 65 rpm range. It is just not a constructive use of available training time and some studies have shown it to be neutral from a performance standpoint.
In my current situation, I don’t have the endurance to properly use a 56 x 15, but I’m sure as hell not going to revert to low gear repeats to do it, because I know from experience that it is a dead end.
To go further, I would challenge ANY coach to verify what is being gained from a once a week session of doing low gear repeats, compared to ALL OTHER event-specific cadence work. IOW, how much time is being spent at low cadence vs. what is being spent at event-specific cadences. IOW, where are the “gains” really coming from? I imagine that this balance is skewed “heavily” in favor of event-specific cadences. A cyclist is NOT a weight-lifter. Even at 45 - 50 rpm, nothing he or she does (building power along a continuum) can be seriously compared with what a weight-lifter does.
Really, there are coaches prescribing low cadence work for strength? I would start looking for a new coach.
The purpose of low cadence work is to make your fast twitch fibres more aerobic, improve lactate clearance. Build fatigue resistance. It is one of the major tools for Grand Tour pros to build resilience.
I beg to differ. All the elite track sprinters I know spend considerable amounts of time lifting and lifting heavy. Check out the videos on Shane Perkins.
Check out the start of the kilo for Francois Pervis. You would give yourself a herniated disc doing that without lifting to build up the glutes, back, ham, lats etc
You cannot get a start like and compete at the elite level unless your body is well developed, through lifting.
I also find that low cadence work helps me stay injury free. You need to know your body though and when you have to stop in a work out
I don’t aspire to be a track cyclist or professional sprinter…where 1 to 4 minute anaerobic power is the focus. Lifting and low cadence cycling are the wrong tools for the toolbox. I can say this because I’ve done both in early attempts to become faster on a bike. Neither worked out. Now for core work I make an exception but, as I stated before, top gear-restricted Juniors under age 18 are going faster than many adult cyclists, and certainly faster than the average age group triathlete. Lack of “strength” doesn’t appear to be a problem for them. A road cyclist is primarily limited by endurance…not strength. Jacques Anquetil won the GP des Nations in 1953 at just 19 yrs old…a malnourished, scrawny-looking farmer’s kid. 180 km at 39.5 kph. I doubt he lifted weights to do it. He was faster than the BEST pro riders at his very first attempt…and he was never beaten the nine times he rode it. At the end of the day he turned the pedals over 17,000 revolutions in the over 3 hours he took to win it. I doubt you can duplicate that on the local leg press machine.
