Poll: Should I push for a higher cadence?

Shadowduck

See this thread for the background to this poll...

I currently ride with a cadence of around 75 - 80rpm. The chainrings on one of my bikes are goosed and I was thinking of raising the gearing as I run out of spin before I run out of power in top, the alternative being to stick with the current gearing and work on increasing my cadence.

For increasing gearing: Anything above 80rpm feels very frantic to me and my lungs have difficulty keeping up with my legs (asthma). Fixed gear fans go up hill with very low cadences and don't seem unduly concerned about it!

For increasing cadence: Generally accepted wisdom seems to be that 80rpm is too slow and could result in knee damage down the line. I could probably get used to higher cadences eventually and increased fitness would probably help with the asthma problem.

So what do you think?

redddraggon

If you happy at 80rpm, stick with it.

I'm probably the same as you, had a 50/36 and 52/42, never had a problem getting up the hills in 42-25 or 36-23, but always spin out going down hill (steep hills around me) and there's a lot of them, meaning I have to coast a lot.

On the flat I prefer to push a higher gear, and uphill 39-25 is sufficient.

Cadence is a personal thing, if you've been cycling at 80rpm as your max for years, why change?

ut_och_cykla

I would stick to 80 if you feel happy with it but you could try do some of riding at a higher cadence sometimes, just to broaden your range so to speak. It's commonly held that higher cadences are kinder to knees etc but harder work for lungs & heart and vice versa.
I'm not sure 80 as an average is that low either really but you probably don't want to be be too much lower habitually.
You might not be reaching your full cycling potential but perhaps this is not the greatest of concerns.
I would work on cadence!

BeaconRuth

As Ut_och_cykla says, around 80rpm as an average isn't terribly low, because every time you freewheel for a few seconds or coast up to a junction, your cadence drops and brings down your average. If 75-80rpm is your average over a ride, then I don't think you've anything much to worry about, Shadowduck.

But if your cadence is usually down below 80rpm whenever you're riding along a completely flat road, riding perfectly normally without straining or trying to go especially fast, then I think you do need to raise your cadence a bit.

In the other thread I think you said your top gear is 48x14? That's 92.6". Whether you need bigger gears depends on what terrain you ride on, how fast you go and how many gears you like having in reserve. I have 53x12 (119") top gear but I never ever use it in on my winter training bike and quite rarely even use the big chainring in winter. Much of my road riding in winter is done on 39x15 and 39x14 (70" and 75") and it would only be on brisk rides down-hill in summer that I'd go looking for a gear >92" (oh, and when racing of course). On the other hand, if I lived somewhere hilly and wanted to train effectively on some descents at great speed, I'm sure some big gears would come in handy.

Ruth

Alex_Simmons/RST

+1

ride what feels good - unless your goal events require you to pedal faster for whatever reason (sprinters, trackies, crit racers for example need to ride at a higher cadence).

It's good to do things occasionally that get you out of your comfort zone though and a few sessions riding one gear down from normal for that same speed won't hurt.

You are unlikely to damage knees at lower cadence, unless your bike set up is poor.

Mike Willcox

Riding and Training are not really the same animal.

The purpose of training is to seek an improvement. If you feel that you would be a better rider by adopting a faster cadence then you should train at a higher cadence than feels comfortable so that you train your muscles accordingly.

Then your "riding" cadence will be higher. That's why many racing cyclists will spin a gear in the winter months much faster than when they race in the summer months.

Shadowduck

Thanks for the responses, peeps!

To clarify a couple of things I should probably have explained in the original post - neither of my bikes has a cadence meter fitted (cheapy decathlon 'puters for me) but the stationary bike I train on at home gives a cadence readout. I try to stay up around 75 - 80rpm on that (that's how I managed to get my cadence up as high as it is!) so I know what 80rpm "feels like" and aim for that on the road. When I remember. :oops:

Most of my riding is over fairly hilly terrain but climbing isn't too much of a problem - on my regular rides there's one short, very steep hill which gets me into the bottom couple of ratios* but that's about it. I do spend a lot of time coasting on the downhills, which is annoying.

I do, from time to time, make myself ride in a gear that feels too low and I have seen some improvements in speed and stamina from doing so, but I tend to slip back to more relaxed riding as soon as I stop focusing on it. I'm not a competitve rider at all so reaching my full cycling potential isn't the goal and the only events I participate in are occasional charity rides. Mainly I'm just trying to get my average speed up; my bikes are my only private transport so a higher average speed would increase my effective range! At the same time I do like my riding to be relaxed-ish and enjoyable, so it's important to strike a balance.

I'm thinking now I may persevere with the current chainrings for a couple more months (they'll last that long) and try to get up to 90rpm. Then I'll probably start asking stupid questions on here again!

*There's also a couple I can't get up at all (Blackstone Edge, anyone?), but that's not really a gearing problem - my lungs turn inside out halfway up!

dennisn

85 to 95 is very common among pro's and people who ride lots. It is thought that
most people who put in lots of time on a bike eventually end up at 85-95 because
it seems easier, at least mentally, than a lower cadence. Even though it may not be
easier from a physical standpoint. The brain rules.

Dennis Noward

Mike Willcox

Those in the know state that cadence is a function of power and that the faster you pedal the more power you put out ( , mind blowing analysis, don't you think?), and that cadence itself is a red herring (Chung)

On the other hand with only a couple of exceptions the holders of the hour records have achieved their distances with cadences of +100 rpm. Now you would expect that the riders to have determined some sort of schedule for the first km and so on.

It seems to me that the gearing on the bike would have been carefully chosen so that the rider could sustain the power required for the hour. Is it a coincidence that almost to a man the gearing chosen resulted in an average cadence of +100 rpm? I don't think so.

Richie G

Funny, i was gonna post about this but for the opposite reason - is my cadence too quick? I recently fitted a new computer with a rear wheel sensor and cadence sensor to use on the turbo. My cadence seems to be between 94-102 - i always assumed it was about 90. Is this too fast- i've been quizzed on club runs as to why i pedal so fast, but i'm just riding the way that feels natural. Any thoughts?

dennisn

Richie G wrote:

Funny, i was gonna post about this but for the opposite reason - is my cadence too quick? I recently fitted a new computer with a rear wheel sensor and cadence sensor to use on the turbo. My cadence seems to be between 94-102 - i always assumed it was about 90. Is this too fast- i've been quizzed on club runs as to why i pedal so fast, but i'm just riding the way that feels natural. Any thoughts?

Great, sounds like you're finding your cadence. You are the one that's pedaling,
not the guy next to you. Try different things but in the end do what puts you down the
road the fastest with the least precieved effort. Not someone else's idea of what you should do.

Dennis Noward

phreak

Mike Willcox wrote:

Those in the know state that cadence is a function of power and that the faster you pedal the more power you put out ( , mind blowing analysis, don't you think?), and that cadence itself is a red herring (Chung)

I can certainly see that. I went out today for the first time with my new cadence ready computer and the ride in general was a bit sluggish as I hadn't done much over Christmas due to flu. Hills averaged between 80-85 and the flat around 75-80. It certainly didn't feel like I had much oomph in my legs on the flat.

Shadowduck

Shadowduck wrote:

I'm thinking now I may persevere with the current chainrings for a couple more months (they'll last that long) and try to get up to 90rpm.

I think I've now managed to get myself into the low 80s! Woot!

I'm certainly using the small chainring a lot more and top gear a lot less, and I'm delighted to report that I've broken my PB on every journey where I keep track! Don't know how much that's because of the increased rpm but I'll definitely be trying for the mid-to-high 80s and taking it from there...

cberry

I just started road cycling 4 months ago for my 15 mile London commute, and after a month or two was told by a friend he thought I was pushing too much. I made an effort to spin more, but still thought my cadence was in the sub-80 range.

To see how fast I actually was spinning I fitted a computer with cadence, and to my surprise I was actually spinning at 90+ the whole time, and that on short london-hills and the odd area where I could open it up (rare in London) it would go up to 100-110. Is this too quick?

Edwin

That's not too quick at all, I've hit 170 rpm, and heard of people getting anywhere up to 200 on rollers. I'm surprised nobody has suggested fixed yet. My cadence went up naturally when I started riding fixed to work every day (you don't have a choice about pedalling quikckly downhill!).
Not for everyone, but maybe an option. A 60-70 inch gear would be fine for uphill, and force you to spin quicker coming down. I now run 44x12, as the standard 44x17 the bike came with was ttoo 'spinny' downhill. I can now hit over 40mph on a steep enough hill, and cruise at 20+ with a nice steady cadence.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Edwin wrote:

That's not too quick at all, I've hit 170 rpm, and heard of people getting anywhere up to 200 on rollers. I'm surprised nobody has suggested fixed yet. My cadence went up naturally when I started riding fixed to work every day (you don't have a choice about pedalling quikckly downhill!).
Not for everyone, but maybe an option. A 60-70 inch gear would be fine for uphill, and force you to spin quicker coming down. I now run 44x12, as the standard 44x17 the bike came with was ttoo 'spinny' downhill. I can now hit over 40mph on a steep enough hill, and cruise at 20+ with a nice steady cadence.

Hmmmm

A 44x12 is a pretty big gear. 99" which is between a 53x14 and 53x15.

At 20mph you'd be pedalling at 70rpm.

ColinJ

Shadowduck wrote:

Most of my riding is over fairly hilly terrain but climbing isn't too much of a problem - on my regular rides there's one short, very steep hill which gets me into the bottom couple of ratios* but that's about it. I do spend a lot of time coasting on the downhills, which is annoying.
...
*There's also a couple I can't get up at all (Blackstone Edge, anyone?), but that's not really a gearing problem - my lungs turn inside out halfway up!

Hi Shadowduck.

I don't have any personal experience of Asthma, but I do know that low gears/high cadences seem to stress the heart/lungs more than high gears/low cadences which tend to go for the leg muscles. Perhaps for you a lower cadence is better? I go the other way - I'm used to very low gears on my mountain bike and am quite happy to climb at 100 rpm if necessary.

I know the Blackstone Edge climb very well and ride up it frequently from all three possible directions. If you struggle on it, I assume that you are talking about climbing up from Littleborough since that is the toughest side?

The top section you referred to averages about 10% for 2.75 km. Are you going up the easier first half of the climb too quickly and then blowing higher up when the gradient increases on those long sweeping bends? The long drag to the start of the steeper half can lull one into a false sense of security. It's one of those climbs where the higher up you go, the steeper it gets, but I'd have thought it was okay if you pace yourself in the right gear. I'm overweight (currently about 14.5 stone) but can get up the climb okay in 39/28. Except of course when a howling gale is blowing down the climb, when I can't :shock: !

Edwin

It's generally accepted that higher cadence and a smaller gear is more efficient for climbing. If you can turn your smallest gear easily enough, you'd probably be better off working on cadence rather than going for bigger gears.
I'm honking a massive gear though, so it's the old gag: "take my advice, I'm not using it" !

Shadowduck

ColinJ wrote:

Hi Shadowduck.!

Hi Colin!

ColinJ wrote:

I don't have any personal experience of Asthma, but I do know that low gears/high cadences seem to stress the heart/lungs more than high gears/low cadences which tend to go for the leg muscles. Perhaps for you a lower cadence is better? I go the other way - I'm used to very low gears on my mountain bike and am quite happy to climb at 100 rpm if necessary.

My asthma isn't exercise induced (most of the time) and is pretty well controlled so the only impact it has (most of the time) is that my peak flow / lung function is lower than would be expected for someone my age and size. I try not to let it hold me back, so I'll be at least trying to raise my cadence to 90rpmish based on the advice I've received in this thread and the results I've seen so far.

ColinJ wrote:

I know the Blackstone Edge climb very well and ride up it frequently from all three possible directions. If you struggle on it, I assume that you are talking about climbing up from Littleborough since that is the toughest side?

Spot on - I live not far from Hollingworth Lake so I go at it from the Littleborough end.

ColinJ wrote:

The top section you referred to averages about 10% for 2.75 km. Are you going up the easier first half of the climb too quickly and then blowing higher up when the gradient increases on those long sweeping bends? The long drag to the start of the steeper half can lull one into a false sense of security. It's one of those climbs where the higher up you go, the steeper it gets, but I'd have thought it was okay if you pace yourself in the right gear. I'm overweight (currently about 14.5 stone) but can get up the climb okay in 39/28. Except of course when a howling gale is blowing down the climb, when I can't :shock: !

I generally start to fade as soon as I hit the steep bit and I must confess I don't generally make it too far past that point... If I've only got an hour or so for a quick blast, I quite often have a go at either Blackstone Edge or Huddersfield Road out of Newhey (know that one?) - haven't made it up either yet but then I've not tried in the last couple of months, I do my training indoors in this weather and only venture out if I'm going somewhere!

ColinJ

Shadowduck wrote:

If I've only got an hour or so for a quick blast, I quite often have a go at either Blackstone Edge or Huddersfield Road out of Newhey (know that one?)

Oh yes, I've done pretty much every climb in the area! For some reason, I always find that a bit of a grind even though the worst bit only averages about 7% for 2.4 km. The next main road to the left, the B6197 up Dog Hill to The Black Ladd is pretty challenging too. Its upper half has similar statistics, but they hide the fact that there are a couple of nasty steep sections.

Shadowduck wrote:

I do my training indoors in this weather and only venture out if I'm going somewhere!

Ditto! I'm hoping to get out on the road again soon, but this spell of wet and windy weather has put me right off. It's a pity because I want to get some decent rides in before my first audax ride of the year on Saturday 16th February. Last year, I did the full North-West Passage (200+ km) but found it a bit long for that early in the year. I ended up doing too much riding in the dark, so this year I'm aiming to do the mini-North-West Passage instead, a more manageable 120 km. It starts just down the road from you at a pub on the fringes of Rochdale. Details here in case you are interested.

oldwelshman

Colin, I do not believe it is generally accepted that low gear high cadence is more efficient, in fact probably the opposite as you have to do more revs for same distance travelled.
It is more of a personal preference, I do both depending on circumstances, but certainly in a race I would never get the chance to spin a low gear as I would get dropped.
Normally have to select larger gear and get out of saddle and go flat out!!
On other rides I spin lower gears, such as on club runs and sportives.

I am also not sure where you got your info about higher cadence stressing lungs more?
It is true that your hr increases with increased cadence but that does not mean it stresses the heart more.
If your flat out on a steep climb and in or out of saddle, high or low cadence, it is the same if you are at hr max.

ColinJ

oldwelshman wrote:

Colin, I do not believe it is generally accepted that low gear high cadence is more efficient, in fact probably the opposite as you have to do more revs for same distance travelled.

I didn't say that it was!

It was Edwin who suggested that It's generally accepted that higher cadence and a smaller gear is more efficient for climbing. He doesn't go in for it himself however...

oldwelshman wrote:

It is more of a personal preference, I do both depending on circumstances, but certainly in a race I would never get the chance to spin a low gear as I would get dropped. Normally have to select larger gear and get out of saddle and go flat out!! On other rides I spin lower gears, such as on club runs and sportives.

Obviously it is a matter of personal preference, but there have been many races (on television!) where I've watched riders labouring over huge gears while someone more supple has just spun a lower gear and climbed away from them. I'm especially thinking of some of the Ullrich/Armstrong clashes. It wasn't usually Jan dropping Lance...

I know that you are a lot fitter than me because I've read a lot of your posts over the past year or so. Some of the things you write remind me of a mate of mine who is also a lot fitter than me....

One year I was on a Graham Baxter training camp on the Costa Blanca with said mate and Graham Jones was our guest rider. I say our - I wasn't quick enough to ride in his group; my mate was. He came back from one tough training ride absolutely buzzing with excitement. He told me how much he'd learned from climbing with Jones and how I should have gone along. I'd learn when to sit, when to stand, what gear to select... What a laugh! They had ridden away from me at the foot of a 20 km climb and there wasn't a thing that I could do about it. I wanted to go along but I just wasn't strong enough. They were still in their big rings and chatting. I was grovelling and going nowhere fast. I already knew what gear to select - 39/29 - and I was already in it. I knew when to stand - whenever my tortured back couldn't take any more sitting down. I also knew when to dismount and stretch, and when to tip water over my frazzled head. I honestly think that very fit people forget how tough it is for those who haven't got there yet. I'm prepared to suffer as much as the next man. I just do it more slowly :oops: !

oldwelshman wrote:

I am also not sure where you got your info about higher cadence stressing lungs more? It is true that your hr increases with increased cadence but that does not mean it stresses the heart more.If your flat out on a steep climb and in or out of saddle, high or low cadence, it is the same if you are at hr max.

I actually get it from my heart, lungs and legs!

I agree that if you are at your limit, you can't exactly try harder. I wore a heart rate monitor on a 25% climb a few years back and was pretty shocked to see that I'd been at 195 bpm going up that. I'm sure that I was at my absolute limit. I weighed more than 15 stone and I was suffering like a dog. I was in a low gear (40/28 IIRC) but I certainly wasn't spinning it round. I wouldn't have made it up the climb at all in a higher gear.

I remember somebody saying once that if you are trying to go up a climb as fast as you can...

If you are gasping for breath but your legs feel okay, change to a higher gear.

If you are breathing okay, but your leg muscles feel like they are going to explode, change to a lower gear.

If you are breathing okay and your legs feel okay too, you aren't trying hard enough.

If you are gasping for breath, your heart feels like it is going to burst out of your chest, and your legs are on fire, you'd better hope that the top of the climb isn't too far away because you are about to blow!


There is a nice long steady climb just down the road from here, the longest continuous climb in England actually (From Mytholmroyd, up through Cragg Vale to the afore-mentioned Blackstone Edge). It is mostly a long drag, with one short steeper section mid-way. For fit riders it is a big-ring climb. For me, in my current state of (un)fitness - it isn't! I can't (currently) go at a decent speed in the big ring, so I use lower gears and spin them. I have a long-standing ambition to do that climb in 20 minutes. The distance between the sign at the bottom and the sign at the top is about 8.8 km. so I'd have to average just over 26 kph. Putting the figures into Sheldon Brown's Gear Calculator - If I used a cadence of 60 rpm, that would equate to my 52/15. 80 rpm would be 52/19 or 52/21 (since I don't have a 52/20). 90 rpm could be 52/23 but the chainline would be bad, so I'd use my 39/17. 100 rpm would probably be a bit too high a cadence but I'd give it a go - 39/19. I'm not dogmatic about gears. I'd try all of those ratios and cadences and see what gave me my best times. I think on that climb, it would be 80-90 rpm, but I'd be interested to see. In fact, I'll do it this summer when I've shed my winter belly and I'll report my findings. If 60 rpm does the trick - fair enough.

Mike Willcox

ColinJ

You aren't very fit by the sound of it. If I'm right then you would do better to build up an aerobic base with regular rides (3 or 4 times a week) at a higher tempo on a hilly route(but not mountains). Allow periods for recovery and improvement.

Do this for a couple on months and build your fitness up so that cadence won't be an issue when it comes to the mountain passes.

ColinJ

Mike Willcox wrote:

ColinJ

You aren't very fit by the sound of it. If I'm right then you would do better to build up an aerobic base with regular rides (3 or 4 times a week) at a higher tempo on a hilly route(but not mountains). Allow periods for recovery and improvement.

Do this for a couple on months and build your fitness up so that cadence won't be an issue when it comes to the mountain passes.

(Shadowduck - please forgive me for inadvertently hijacking your thread, and Mike - please forgive the rather lengthy reply!)

Hi Mike.

Fitness, like many things, is relative! Compared to 80+% of people in the Western world, I'm actually very fit . Compared to athletes or very keen non-competitive cyclists, I'm not.

I did 10+ rides over 200 km in 2007. My longest ride was 230 km with nearly 4,000 m of climbing. I was carrying 12 kg of luggage on the bike. I wasn't quick - it took me just over 12.5 hours, but about 1.5 hours of that was due to getting lost and being stuck in traffic. I was 51 at the time. I could have gone on for hours longer if I'd had to but I'd achieved my ambition of riding from my home over the hills of West Yorkshire, Derbyshire and Staffordshire to visit my family in Warwickshire. So...I don't have a problem with endurance.

I live in the South Pennine area of the UK which is extremely hilly, rather than mountainous. I have a 7 km climb gaining 350 m almost outside my door, and the 9 km Blackstone Edge climb is only about 3 km from here. I also have numerous climbs of 15-25% gradient in a 1 km radius of my home. The valley roads are busy and not appealing to me, so virtually every ride that I do is over the surrounding hills instead.

As for time for recovery... That isn't a problem for me because I'm not fantatical about getting out on my bikes. Most of the year, if I get 3 - 4 decent rides in a week, I'm happy with that. In the summer I'd aim for 4 - 5. I'd probably go for some country walks on the days off the bike just to stretch my legs and get some fresh air.

I don't enjoy riding in bad weather and the weather here recently has been awful so if I've gone out, it has been on foot for 60-90 minute 'power-walks' over one or more of the local hills. I've been doing 2 or 3 60 minute turbo sessions a week as well.

The biggest barrier to my fitness is that my weight has been up and down like a yoyo for 25 years - I'm just over 6' 1" and in my adult life have weighed anywhere from (a very skinny) 10 st 12 lbs to (a very fat) 16 st 5 lbs. The main cause of weight gain has been excessive beer consumption - my diet is very good.

Whenever I finally get fed up of being fat, I pack the beer up and the weight drops off me. I got to 15 st 2 lbs on Christmas Day and stopped drinking. I'm down to 14 st 8 lbs already. Above 14 st, I find hills a real slog. At 13 st, I can feel my climbing ability coming back. In 2001, I got down to 11 st 12 lbs and was flying on the hills but I felt frail, was really skinny and kept being asked by people if I was ill. I also suffered in the cold that winter, something that doesn't normally bother me. So... I've decided that a slightly higher body weight suits me, probably around 12 st 7 lbs. At that, I'm sure my climbing would be pretty good, though not as good as it potentially could be. I'm cycling for overall fitness and pleasure, so unless I decide to start competing, I'll keep the extra 10 lbs or so on. Hopefully I'll get down to that weight by about mid-summer.

There are 2 other problems that I need to address:

(1) I have a chronic back problem which really kicks in after a lot of climbing. There are various reasons for it, but the main problems are inflexibility and lack of core strength, both of which I've neglected to tackle. The back gets so sore that I can't even climb a 5% hill properly in my lowest granny gear of 30/28. It isn't that my legs are tired, it's that the supporting infrastructure packs up. I've seen a lot of people recommending Pilates and/or Yoga. I really must do something. I've got a niggly back just sitting here typing, so it obviously doesn't take a lot to really make it play up.

(2) I injured my left foot years back and it has never been quite right since. I was running down a dark lane one winter and didn't spot a pothole which my foot then struck the lip of. The foot twisted round through almost 90 degrees and that caused a lot of soft tissue damage. From the sole of the foot to mid-shin turned orange and purple. It is now prone to cramping. Again, just sitting here, I can feel it tingling. If I use high gears for climbing, the extra pressure on the foot causes painful cramps. Maybe I should get some professional advice on that one. There might be some sort of orthotic that could help

Anyway... thanks for your advice. I enjoy reading your posts Mike (and yours too Ruth, Alex et al).

Mike Willcox

After your explanation It all makes perfect sense. I have a lot of respect for anyone who is prepared to overcome disabilities with grit and determination. Well done and keep going.

Shavedlegs

I used to push a big gear at low cadence, quite effectively as it happens. I hadn't thought about it , it was just way I rode. But people kept mentioning it to me so I got a fixed bike and trying inceasing my cadence.

I now average 95+ anything around 80 feels slow. I don't think it has made a jot of difference one way or the other. I'm just letting you know that if you feel like it, increasing your natural average cadence isn't a big step.

ColinJ

Mike Willcox wrote:

After your explanation It all makes perfect sense. I have a lot of respect for anyone who is prepared to overcome disabilities with grit and determination. Well done and keep going.

:oops: :oops: :oops:

Hmm... Mike - I honestly don't think that my problems are worthy of the term disabilities but I agree with you that anyone struggling to overcome a genuine disability does deserve maximum respect and encouragement.

Last year I rode over Fleet Moss (a tough 590 m hill in the Yorkshire Dales) during one of my 200 km audax rides. I barely made it up the 25% section at the top and took a short refuelling break on the summit before beginning my descent of the other side. That side is slightly easier, maxing out at about 20% but it is still a very tough climb (I'd done it that way on another 200 km ride a month earlier). I saw some recumbent cycles coming up the hill towards me and thought how hard it must be to tackle a climb like that without being able to stand for the steep bits. I was absolutely gobsmacked when the cyclists got closer and I saw that they were disabled riders on hand-cranked machines - yes, RESPECT!

My foot injury was very unpleasant at the time, and the cramps I now suffer are painful when they occur, but in the grand scale of things they aren't a major problem. Lower gears help a lot by reducing the force I need to put on the pedals. Being slim makes the biggest difference, and that is entirely under my control. I just need to break this -slim-fat-slim-fat- cycle I've got into.

As I mentioned, my back problems are mainly due to neglect. I have very tight hamstrings, but I never bother to stretch (I can just about reach down to mid-shin). My legs are strong from cycling and hill-walking but my upper body is weedy in comparison. I know what to do, I just need to stop talking about it, and do it!

Finally, I do find it very humbling when I hear about people with real problems triumphing over adversity - Helen Keller for example...

I can't say all of this without a word to Alex...

Hi Alex. I was shocked to hear what happened to you. Good luck with your recovery. I hope you get back to a really high level - This guy did!

Shadowduck

ColinJ wrote:

The next main road to the left, the B6197 up Dog Hill to The Black Ladd is pretty challenging too. Its upper half has similar statistics, but they hide the fact that there are a couple of nasty steep sections.

Buckstones Road... I've actually made it up that one from the Shaw / Newhey end but I didn't dare go down the other side 'cos I figured I'd never get back up it again!

ColinJ wrote:

*snip* ... this year I'm aiming to do the mini-North-West Passage instead, a more manageable 120 km. It starts just down the road from you at a pub on the fringes of Rochdale. Details here in case you are interested.

I'd be interested but I doubt I'd get a pass out from my Darling Wifey, I'm still getting her used to the idea of me disappearing on the bike for hours on end... I'm hoping to do Manchester - Blackpool and / or the Manchester 100 later this year, maybe the North West passage is something to schedule in for next year!

ColinJ wrote:

Shadowduck - please forgive me for inadvertently hijacking your thread ... *snip*

Hijack away! It's good to see them leave the nest and start finding their own way in the world...

ColinJ wrote:

Fitness, like many things, is relative! Compared to 80+% of people in the Western world, I'm actually very fit . Compared to athletes or very keen non-competitive cyclists, I'm not.

You sound to be a good way ahead of me in the fitness stakes! I've pedalled on and off since I was a kid but only relatively recently made a commitment to do a lot more of it*, so I'm playing catch-up.

Alex_Simmons/RST

ColinJ wrote:

I can't say all of this without a word to Alex...

Hi Alex. I was shocked to hear what happened to you. Good luck with your recovery. I hope you get back to a really high level - This guy did!

Thanks! That's a cool story - I hadn't seen that one before. I've seen the one about Jan Boyen, the Belgian Pro with a prosthetic left leg:

oldwelshman

Sorry COlin, I got the quotes mixed up, your correct it was Edwin not you for the "general acceptance" quote
Yours was the lungs.
With erespect to your quote about how you feel on a climb with respect to breath and feeling of legs, thats spot on, but I find it becomes natural when to change gear as you get used to the feel with respect to breath and lactic in legs.
The only trouble I have is when riders go passed in a race and my legs are burning and I am out of breath !! Panic time.
Have to admit never had that in sportive as it is easier to go at your own rate and if you get dropped it does not matter as other people will come up to you, or you may even latch back on but in a road race there tends to be one bunch and once your dropped thats it :shock:

Shadowduck

ColinJ wrote:

Shadowduck wrote:

Most of my riding is over fairly hilly terrain but climbing isn't too much of a problem - on my regular rides there's one short, very steep hill which gets me into the bottom couple of ratios* but that's about it. I do spend a lot of time coasting on the downhills, which is annoying.
...
*There's also a couple I can't get up at all (Blackstone Edge, anyone?), but that's not really a gearing problem - my lungs turn inside out halfway up!

Hi Shadowduck.

I don't have any personal experience of Asthma, but I do know that low gears/high cadences seem to stress the heart/lungs more than high gears/low cadences which tend to go for the leg muscles. Perhaps for you a lower cadence is better? I go the other way - I'm used to very low gears on my mountain bike and am quite happy to climb at 100 rpm if necessary.

I know the Blackstone Edge climb very well and ride up it frequently from all three possible directions. If you struggle on it, I assume that you are talking about climbing up from Littleborough since that is the toughest side?

The top section you referred to averages about 10% for 2.75 km. Are you going up the easier first half of the climb too quickly and then blowing higher up when the gradient increases on those long sweeping bends? The long drag to the start of the steeper half can lull one into a false sense of security. It's one of those climbs where the higher up you go, the steeper it gets, but I'd have thought it was okay if you pace yourself in the right gear. I'm overweight (currently about 14.5 stone) but can get up the climb okay in 39/28. Except of course when a howling gale is blowing down the climb, when I can't :shock: !

Worth a thousand words...