cadence any ideas?

tpmlogan

just got one of those bike computers with heart monitor and cadence. I understand the heart rate bit. But what should I do with the cadence figures. What is a good average?Or should I just not look at that number and have one less figure to worry about.

Halotope

I think your cadence should be 80-90 or thats what i have been told. And yes you should look at the cadence figure!!

woody-som

use the cadence reading, but don't get worked up by it. How long have you been cycling, and the strength of your leg muscles make a difference. Some ride at 70rpm, while others are 90 or even 100+ rpm. my natural cadence seem to be around 80 +/- 5 rpm, on the flat, but drops to 50 on some hills, I like to push big gears, but thats not what's being advised anymore, but it's purely down to your personal style of riding. I find the cadence reading only usefull when doing a tubo workout, and following a tacx workout that specifies cadence figures.

redddraggon

No one can tell you what your "optimum cadence" is.

Hills 60-70rpm and 70-100rpm on the flat

milton50

Yeh, I've read a lot of stuff which says you should be aimiing for a cadence of 90-100 because your muscles should become less fatigued. But personally I'm just far more comfortable using a slightly lower cadence. So don't get hung up on it.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Halotope wrote:

And yes you should look at the cadence figure!!

Why?

Halotope

Sorry I will take that back then!! Im only 14 and still learning and i thought it was good to have a rough idea!! sorry guyss :oops:

Tom

nolf

Well looking at the cadence figure to see what you usually do might be useful.

I find incorporating high cadence, low gear spinning is useful as part of my warmup.
I'm trying higher cadences atm to see if they have any effect and I have found that by doing about 115rpm I can maintain 24 mph for ages and ages, whereas usually I'm really grinding away in a huge gear at 60rpm at higher speeds and can only hold it for a shorter time.

Although I'm not very strong at all, but have a proportionally better cardiovascular system.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Halotope wrote:

Sorry I will take that back then!! Im only 14 and still learning and i thought it was good to have a rough idea!! sorry guyss :oops:

Tom

No need to apologise.

Just wanted to understand your reason for thinking it's important to watch cadence.

Cadence is an outcome of how hard we are going, not a determinant of how hard we are going. We produce a given amount of power to oppose the resistance forces against us (gravity, wind resistance, rolling resistance etc). That ends up with us travelling at a certain speed and so our cadence simply depends on what gear you are in at that speed.

Rider's would be better off being concerned with how hard they are going rather than how quickly they turn the pedals round. Thing is, since cadence is easy to measure, we measure it and then fall into the trap of thinking it's important. It's not completely unimportant but it's use as a training aid is pretty minimal.

Granted if you are really new and wanted to make sure you are at least choosing appropriate gearing and really had no idea if you are pedalling fast/slow or somewhere in between, then it might help you select a more appropriate gear.

Other than that, then there are some specific sceanrios where gear choice might be an issue so that cadence doesn't get too low for comfortable pedalling, but that should be sorted beforehand.

richa

Alex,
Doesn't cadence have an effect on efficiency?

i.e. can one be going really hard at a cadence of 120, but would be going quicker at 90?

GeorgeShaw

I find cadence readings useful when doing hill repeats. On some outings I mix up the repeats. Some in lower gears, some in higher gears. Some at a higher cadence, some at a lower cadence. Some in the saddle, some standing. If nothing else, then you get an idea of which is faster for you, which more comfortable, etc.

Alex_Simmons/RST

RichA wrote:

Alex,
Doesn't cadence have an effect on efficiency?

i.e. can one be going really hard at a cadence of 120, but would be going quicker at 90?

It depends on the power output, but at sub-maximal levels, then yes if riding at same RPE. Of course if power is the same then speed is the same.

It is no surprise that most people don't freely choose to ride with a cadence of 120rpm as efficiency typically declines somewhat >110rpm.

Alex_Simmons/RST

I should add that the most efficient cadence (in a thermodynamic sense of power output/total rate of energy expended) is always lower than the cadence we end up riding at when attempting to generate the optimal power for a given duration.

Also the muscle fibre types activated have a significant impact on efficiency.

woody-som

the september edition of 220triathlon has a section on best bike performance and recomends a cadence on 88-95rpm. I think it's more down to personal style and which combination of muscle fibre types you have.

tpmlogan

thanks for the help .Seem to be in the right zone of 80-90. .So i will just keep pedaling.

oldwelshman

RichA wrote:

Alex,
Doesn't cadence have an effect on efficiency?

i.e. can one be going really hard at a cadence of 120, but would be going quicker at 90?

There has been much research into cadence and efficiency and can be found on the net, but none at all have ever found any data to proove if low or high cadence is more efficient.

BigG67

I'd say it's all a bit simpler than that. Keep a note of your average time and cadence for a regular route (to and from work did it for me) and play around a bit.

I found my ave time dropped dramatically I aimed for 85 rpm up from 70. Struggled to sit above 95 so use my gears to keep in the 85-90 bracket.

On hills I'm still trying things out, at times it feels too "spinny" and not enough traction but again using a hill I'll get to what works for me.

The usual comparison is Armstrong (climbed at 100+) and Ulrich (60 or so) and both were OK

Alex_Simmons/RST

BigG67 wrote:

I found my ave time dropped dramatically I aimed for 85 rpm up from 70.

Which would be expected. The fitter you get, the more power you produce and faster you can go, and as a result cadence goes up overall. It's an outcome of going faster, since we don't have infinite ratio gearboxes on our bikes.

The issue is to aim for how hard we can go, not how fast we turn the pedals. How fast we turn the pedals is an outcome of how hard we are going (our power) and the gear, not the other way round.

A focus on cadence is like a focus on torque. But nobody focusses on that. That's because it's hard to measure without special equipment. So most don't.

Toks

BigG67 wrote:

The usual comparison is Armstrong (climbed at 100+) and Ulrich (60 or so) and both were OK

If you check out some old TDF video/DVD's Phil Liggette and Paul Sherwen's would have you believe the difference between Ulrich and Armstrongs cadence was massive. On closer expection that was definitley not the case

BigG67

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

BigG67 wrote:

I found my ave time dropped dramatically I aimed for 85 rpm up from 70.

Which would be expected. The fitter you get, the more power you produce and faster you can go, and as a result cadence goes up overall. It's an outcome of going faster, since we don't have infinite ratio gearboxes on our bikes.

The issue is to aim for how hard we can go, not how fast we turn the pedals. How fast we turn the pedals is an outcome of how hard we are going (our power) and the gear, not the other way round.

A focus on cadence is like a focus on torque. But nobody focusses on that. That's because it's hard to measure without special equipment. So most don't.

Fair comment.

You're right it is like torque/power without SRM or PT. I suppose to complete my own experience it includes percieved effort.

But what I would say is that I made an effort to raise my cadence over a 2 week period and concentrated on using my gears and sitting in the middle of the cassette when before I just turned the biggest gear I could all the time.

So my application of brain has improved but the change in times was immediate.

My advice stands to play around a bit and find out what results in better performance - which would best be measured in torque but failing the necessary instuments speed, time and PE.

Cougar

In order to be profficient at a high cadence then you have to train for it. I used to spend the winter months pedalling @ 100/110 rpm in 42 x 15/16/17 and then in the summer do sprint intervals @120 rpm.

I noticed a considerable difference in my performance in10 mile TT's when I began to pedal a gear of 56x15 @ +100 rpm and won many open 10 mile TT's and broke a few course records in the process. It makes me laugh when I read that cadence and technique are irrelevant. You need months and years of training at a high cadence to get the right technique. It's unsuprising to me that any short term study shows no evidence.

Smooth fast pedalling is an art form and takes time to develop.

P.S. My fastest 10 mile time indicates a power output of over 525 watts.

milton50

It's pretty obvious that you'll go faster if you pedal the same gear at a higher cadence. What I want to know is if you maintain the same approximate speed but use a higher cadence then could you sustain that speed for longer because it's more efficient with regard to muscle use?

NJK

Cougar wrote:

In order to be profficient at a high cadence then you have to train for it. I used to spend the winter months pedalling @ 100/110 rpm in 42 x 15/16/17 and then in the summer do sprint intervals @120 rpm.

I noticed a considerable difference in my performance in10 mile TT's when I began to pedal a gear of 56x15 @ +100 rpm and won many open 10 mile TT's and broke a few course records in the process. It makes me laugh when I read that cadence and technique are irrelevant. You need months and years of training at a high cadence to get the right technique. It's unsuprising to me that any short term study shows no evidence.

Smooth fast pedalling is an art form and takes time to develop.

P.S. My fastest 10 mile time indicates a power output of over 525 watts.

True but the reason yon won open 10's is because of the power you were putting out at 110prm not just because you were riding at 110rpm. I could ride at 110rpm and average 100 watts. You could train and race at 90-95rpm and put out 525 watts and win, doesn't make any difference.

Cougar

True but the reason yon won open 10's is because of the power you were putting out at 110prm not just because you were riding at 110rpm. I could ride at 110rpm and average 100 watts. You could train and race at 90-95rpm and put out 525 watts and win, doesn't make any difference.[/quote]

Maybe for you but not for me.

I think I know me better than you do and I found that I could sustain a higher power output @ 100 rpm over 10 miles than in a bigger gear @ 90 rpm. and that is a fact. Like I said you have to be prepared to train for it.

NJK

You are successful because you can sustain 500 plus watts over 10 miles. I'm not suggesting which cadence is better for you just saying why you are successful. It could be 75rpm or 120rpm.

Cougar

NJK wrote:

You are successful because you can sustain 500 plus watts over 10 miles. I'm not suggesting which cadence is better for you just saying why you are successful. It could be 75rpm or 120rpm.

No.

I'm saying that I could sustain a higher power output "because" of the higher cadence. I can't help it if this does not concur with your or others' coaching doctrine. To be honest I get fed up with all the experts telling me that I can't analyse my own riding performances and make a judgement about what works for me and what doesn't.

For me riding big gears at a lower cadence involves a different riding technique than smaller gears at a higher cadence. For longer distances 25 miles and 50 miles then my cadence reduced to 90/95 rpm but foir 10 miles I found that the higher cadence was best.

NJK

Cougar wrote:

NJK wrote:

You are successful because you can sustain 500 plus watts over 10 miles. I'm not suggesting which cadence is better for you just saying why you are successful. It could be 75rpm or 120rpm.

No.

I'm saying that I could sustain a higher power output "because" of the higher cadence. I can't help it if this does not concur with your or others' coaching doctrine. To be honest I get fed up with all the experts telling me that I can't analyse my own riding performances and make a judgement about what works for me and what doesn't.

For me riding big gears at a lower cadence involves a different riding technique than smaller gears at a higher cadence. For longer distances 25 miles and 50 miles then my cadence reduced to 90/95 rpm but foir 10 miles I found that the higher cadence was best.

I don't remember saying that you can't analyse your own performance or what works for you. Also your cadence of 110 for a 10 seems to be about the norm and at the top of what is reccommended. Riders who do well in tt's are those can sustain a high average power irrespective of a high/low cadence . In your case it is a high cadence, in someone elses case they will find that a lower cadence suits there muscle make-up better.