A SPECTOS DE LA IDENTIDAD : PÚBLICOS , PRIVADOS , ÍNTIMOS

The optimum cadences from most ergometer studies tend to be up to 90 rpm (Coast and Welch, 1985), though higher optimum cadences can be expected when using field data (Foss and Hallen, 2004), or when testing elite athletes The optimum cadences yielded from this study range from 68 to 120, although these are dependent on data processing constants. Foss and Hallen (2004) claim that cadences adopted by elite athletes are higher than those typically found in ergometer studies, around 90-105. Ergometer studies often include cyclists that are not necessarily elite athletes, or who may be triathletes (and therefore not necessarily as highly trained in cycling as are the athletes whose sole professional sport in cycling). In our study using field data we use competitive but not elite athletes – indeed optimum cadences for a non-linear model with sensible choice of data processing constants yields optimum cadences that are greater than some ergometer studies but less than those claimed by Foss and Hallen (2004), at around 83 and 70 rpm for athletes 1 and 2 respectively.

We also find some differences between optimum cadences for each athlete, supporting suggestions made by Coast and Welch (1985) that athletes may have their own individual optimum cadences. They claimed that this may be due to different individual skill levels. Coast and Welch (1985) suggested that increased athlete skill enabled athletes in their study to sustain higher cadences, of 91 rpm, than athletes in a study by Hagberg (1981), who achieved 83 rpm. Assuming no smoothing of raw power output, heart rate and cadence measurements (i.e. when k=1 in our study), cadences from our study are not as high as the 91 rpm found in the Coast and Welch study. Given the competitive but not elite levels of skill of the athletes involved in our study, it may be that the athletes in our study are not skilled enough to sustain higher cadences.

Differences between optimum cadences found in ergometer studies and those found in field data may be due to who devises the test or schedule. In ergometer studies the cadences at which athletes are tested tend to be chosen by academics (Coast and Welch, 1985). In the field data in our study, the training schedule is likely to be devised by coaches and tailored to the individual athlete, as the coaches are likely to have significant knowledge and understanding of the athlete’s skill and objectives, and it is the athlete’s success that forms the basis of the schedule, not necessarily knowledge that an academic can obtain. The high optimum cadences in our study compared to some ergometer studies may therefore suggest that field data may be useful in calculating an individual optimum cadence for competitive cyclists. The environmental differences between road cycling and ergometer tests (Jobson et al, 2007) may have been a factor in optimum cadences from this study being higher than those found in some ergometer studies.

Alternatively differences in optimum cadences may also represent higher levels of fitness; if an athlete’s optimum cadence is higher than another athlete, the athlete with the higher fitness is able to maintain a higher cadence without tiring or his technique deteriorating – indeed each athlete trains according to his own individual training schedule, with each training schedule featuring different frequencies and durations of sessions. Athletes may be exerting great physical effort in training, but may not have developed a high enough level of fitness to sustain very high cadences; by the time they enter a major competition after the training schedule, their fitness may have improved to a high enough level to sustain such high cadences. However whether skill or fitness is the reason, they effectively have the same effect on cadence as they both appear to increase the cadence at which an athlete can ride.

Whilst optimum cadence does not vary with power output or heart rate in our study, athletes’ typically preferred cadences do to some extent. We calculated the range, mean and mode cadence for athletes 1 and 2 for periods where power output was between 100 and 149W, 150 – 299W and so on, with the final group up to above 500W. We present these preferred cdences in table 60. Broadly, from 200W up to above 500W, as power output increases, preferred cadence (mean and mode) increase a little. Athletes therefore appear to favour slightly higher cadences at higher power output. Also, at the power output corresponding to the optimum cadence in the model (188W for athlete 1 and 190W for athlete 2), preferred cadences are similar for both athletes. Indeed for particlularly low power output (under 100-149W), preferred cadences are slightly higher than for power outputs of 200- 250W. For athlete 2, mean chosen cadence at 100-149W is higher than mean cadence for any other range of power outputs.

Athlete 1 tends to ride just above his optimum cadence, with mean cadences for different ranges of power output between 82 and 92. Athlete 2 tends to ride slightly closer to his optimum cadence, with mean preferred cadences within 5 revolutions per minute either side of his optimum cadence of 70.

Nevertheless the margin of difference between optimum cadence and between preferred cadence are similar between athletes. Optimum cadence is higher for athlete 1 than for athlete 2 in our analysis (83 rpm comprared to 70 rpm), whilst athlete 1 also typically chooses to ride at a higher cadence (approximately 82-92 rpm) than does athlete 2 (approximately 65-75 rpm). (The ranges of 82-92 and 65-70 come from the mean chosen cadence calculated at different power outputs, between 150-199W, and 200-249W and so on). There may be physiological differences that result in different optimum cadences between athletes, such as muscle fibre type. Such physiological mechansisms may also result in different choices of optimum cadence.

We do not consider in this study whether athletes are standing or sitting on the seat (which we term riding mode), as no such information is available. An optimum cadence may vary depending on whether an athlete is standing or sitting, as different muscle groups may be being used for standing and sitting. For such information to be available in training sessions at 5 second intervals (to be consistent with power output, heart rate and cadence measurements), a pressure pad monitor would need to be developed for the saddle.

Table 60: Preferred cadences of athletes 1 and 2, for different power outputs

Athlete 1 Athlete 2

Power Cadence Cadence

Range Range

(Lowest to highest) Mean Mode (Lowest to highest) Mean Mode 100- 149 43 120 91 91 30 129 75 87 150- 199 30 127 88 92 29 125 73 75 200- 249 34 117 84 90 29 122 69 70 250- 299 42 178 82 96 29 118 65 56 300- 349 49 115 87 96 35 121 66 55 350- 399 50 124 88 96 39 124 68 57 400- 449 53 139 91 94 37 101 66 59 450- 499 65 128 92 86 43 92 66 58 500 + 69 134 89 94 54 139 73 57