Cadence

bridgfordkid

Hi,

I'm relatively new to road biking and just started training for triathlons later in the year. Anyone know any good sites for explaining correct cadence?

meanredspider

bridgfordkid wrote:

Hi,

I'm relatively new to road biking and just started training for triathlons later in the year. Anyone know any good sites for explaining correct cadence?

What sort of thing are you looking for? Just about everything I've read suggests sticking above 80rpm but just much higher depends on the rider. I believe Lance Armstrong is reknowned for his high cadence.

bridgfordkid

Just a bit of theory as to how it all works. Cheers.

dennisn

Cadences of 85-95 ARE typical of elite riders during sub-maximal performances
in road racing and time trialing over level terrain. This is considered the optimal range for
cadences simply because most elite riders use it and because there is no compelling evidence to support doing anything different.
Those first sentences are quotes, of sorts, by Anthony P. Marsh, Ph.D. - California State
University. From his article "What Determines The Optimal Cadence?".

http://www2.bsn.de/Cycling/articles/cadence.html

The article doesn't ask what the optimal cadence is. It's working hypothesis is that cadences between 85-95 ARE optimal. It asks the question WHY is it optimal?
It's a fairly tough read but seems well researched.

bridgfordkid

Thanks Dennis.

oldwelshman

No such thing as a correct cadence, it is a personal thing and the vast majority of riders have a natural cadence they will be comfortable with.
There is no eveidence to proove what cadence is more effiecient but it is better if you can adapt to different cadances when required eg in a race!

floosy

I have to agree with the Natural cadence theory....

When I started cycling a few years back.... all I heard about was cadence of between 80 and 90..... now its 85-95.....

I struggle to maintain anything less than 100 usually just about 110.... seems to my natural cadence... (i can reach 200 rpm...maybe more but V3 only records to 200)

therefore my natural cadence is 100-110...

Hope this helps


Dave

meanredspider

As per what I originally wrote, I agree that it depends upon what the rider is comfortable with. That said, I think there's logic to not "mashing" the pedals at low cadence and high loads. Without getting into all of the fast twitch/slow twitch stuff, it seems that muscles are far more capable of sustaining the power at higher cadences and that fatigue will set in much quicker at higher loads/low cadence.

Following that logic, it then makes some sense (to me at least) to develop leg speed and cadence - if only to be able to climb hills faster in lower gears (lower loads) and high cadence.

In working to increase my average cadence, my "natural" cadence has increased from around 85rpm to about 92rpm so it's possible to train it. Spinning classes certainly helped develop my leg speed - I've read of others who have found the same thing.

Finally, power has a direct relation to cadence in the same way that an F1 engine delivers high power as a result of running at 18,000rpm.

John.T

The down side of a high cadance is a greater load on the cardio vascular system. You can of course work to improve this.
While I can happily ride on the flat at 100rpm, and up to 150 downhill on fixed, I can not get my system round a high cadance on hills. Once it gets above 10% and longer than 100mtr I just end up grinding.

oldwelshman

There is absolutely no need to "train" for aparticularcadence.
Once a beginner rides more his cadence will usually naturally increase and most end up between 80 and 100 anyway.
You do not fatigue more or less with high or low cadence, but it is true that your hr will increase at higher cadences.
I don't pay any particular attention to my cadence, but generally during first few miles of ride use lower gears, also end of ride.
When I race I notice most people have very similar cadence.
On the track mine is obviously haigher than on road as theres no gears

cougie

A lot of beginners and leisure riders do prefer really low cadences - just watch them on a charity ride - looks painful. Now compare to the pros - they happily pedal all dayat 80.

I'd say that 60 is the bare minimum you should be doing - bigger gears put more strain on the knees - so avoid that. After that though - I wouldnt worry too much about the perfect cadence.

blackhands

You must also remember that you are training for triathylons - so cadence has another side to it as not only do you need to find athe rightcadence for you, you have to pedal at a rate which has the minium effect on your running as well as giving you good cycling speed.

markos1963

People get too hung up on cadence, you will find a natural rythym that suits you. I like to train on a single speed bike as it varies the cadence according to the terrain, it doesn't help that much on the flat but it sure helps on the hills.

dennisn

I think the thing that convinced me about the 85-95 being optimal, and, the cadence that is USUALLY settled on by most elite riders is the way I took the authors article(my previous post). I got the impression that he was saying that whatever we do for a living in life, we all tend to find easier ways to do the job without even trying or thinking about it. Then we can do the job better and easier than a novice. If you pedal a bike for a living then the same must apply. Your body and brain work out whatever little "tricks" that they can to make the job either easier, or at the very least, seem easier. This makes sense to me. The author also noted that there are no coaches or trainers telling these elite riders to use or not use any particular cadence. So, they are not being TOLD to use 85-95. It just sort of happens(for lack of better words). And since a great many DO use a cadence in this range the author makes the assumption that it is the optimal cadence. His whole article simply(well, maybe not simply) ask the question, why does this happen? What body and brain functions combine to bring the majority of us to 85-95. Give or take a bit. So most of us will eventually settle on 85-95. Why? Because it's optimal? Why is it optimal? Now that is a can of worms.