High Cadence in training

fred22

Curious as to why various 'workouts' I see have spells of high cadence within them, what exactly is being trained?

I have found, having come to the road from MTBs that high cadence is often not possible, fore example any sort of steep hill has my cadence on my road bike right down. Some hills I just cant get up on the road bike because I cant get the cadence.

It doesnt seem to be just me -theres plenty of posts on this forum from beginner road riders who are concerned about not being able to keep their cadence high, but given the gearing on a road bike perhaps the best training a new road rider can do would actually be in the lower range, thus allowing them to keep going when climbing.

The only people I can think of who would benefit from being able to spin faster and faster would be track cyclists who only have the one gear and can only accelerate by pedalling faster.

springtide9

Haven't got my road bike yet... but have been reading some of the posts about gearing... (same subject)

Maybe the issue is that us beginners have got our gearing wrong (and don't want to shame ourselves by putting a big cog on the back)

Find spinning on a MTB OK (although not the best) - but it really can depend on the terrain (as you sometimes end up hitting the pedals on tree stumps etc)

Another question... Been playing with Cadence in the gym (as this is the only way I have to actually measure it)...
What cadence figure do most people consider to be spinning? Around 80-90?

jibberjim

springtide9 wrote:

What cadence figure do most people consider to be spinning? Around 80-90?

100+ for me anything else I'm grinding.

But it's pretty irrelevant. Cadence is a little bit of a red-herring. The reason most experienced cyclists have a higher cadence than inexperienced, and why people encourage a fast cadence is that it is more efficient in some ways and less efficient in others. The ways they are reflect the difference you gain from becoming a fitter cyclist.

Pedalling slowly requires higher forces from the muscles, to produce these forces you need to engage fast twitch muscles these fatigue more quickly than slow twitch fibres. The problem is the slow twitch fibres need more oxygen, so when your oxygen delivery system is more developed spinning faster is better as your slow twitch fibres won't fatigue so you'll be able to go longer.

If there's any point training different cadences is a different question though - it may be, there's probably some co-ordination and neural firing required to pedal faster but that probably doesn't matter that much. What's really needed is you get fitter, which you'll do riding whatever. Cadences will still be somewhat individual.

One reason for saying cadences in training plans is because if you are doing your non-preferred cadence, you're almost certainly working harder! And that's the real aim of the training plan.

fred22

I do understand the theory behind high cadence being recommended. The trouble is, surely any where that's remotely hilly you can't achieve it any more than say half the time. So i wonder of the usefulness in being at home on the rollers training that way. When you then get out on the road, as soon as the going gets tough it then feels twice as bad because you've practiced spinning and you're not actually doing that -you're grinding up some hill.
I'd love to be able to spin at 100+ when out riding in the peak district!

jibberjim

fred22 wrote:

I do understand the theory behind high cadence being recommended. The trouble is, surely any where that's remotely hilly you can't achieve it any more than say half the time. So i wonder of the usefulness in being at home on the rollers training that way. When you then get out on the road, as soon as the going gets tough it then feels twice as bad because you've practiced spinning and you're not actually doing that -you're grinding up some hill.
I'd love to be able to spin at 100+ when out riding in the peak district!

If you have the wrong gears, you won't be able to spin, and certainly you can expect a slightly slower cadence when pedalling up hill. But yes it's still more efficient to be pedalling up hill unless you are much stronger than aerobically fit. You should get the right gears, there's nothing macho about having a smallest gear that requires 300 watts to pedal at 80 by a particular hill if you can only produce 250 - sure you'll still get up it by producing the 250 at 40rpm, but you'll likely fatigue a lot quicker because you'll be using different muscle fibres and you'll actually only be able to produce 200 not the 250 you could've at a faster cadence and you'll go a lot slower.

So yes, get fitter by riding, and equip your bike with appropriate gears for your power, location and speeds.

chrisw12

fred22. It's very simple cadence is a red herring, DO NOT WORRY about it. Worry instead about how much power you are putting out. Simply train as hard as you can given the duration and let the gear and cadence come naturally.

If you're really bothered by all this then go out and by a power meter, you'll soon realise that heart rate and cadence are so unimportant.


That said, you have got to train specific to your event your targeting. You're right with your example and it's strange that people talk about training at specific cadences but never talk about training at specific torques,

ireland57

I use a cadence meter to help me look after my knees. I often push too tall a gear without realising it (adrenalin, excitement, etc) then pay for it with knee pain before the rides over.

Cycling under 80rpm up some hills or into wind is ok for a bit then painful and has shortened some rides for me. Cycling above 90rpm means I suffer a lot less. The actual rpm figure doesn’t matter. The important part is being able to spin a gear when you need it. And if you race or compete (even socially with mates) you’ll be better off with that ability.

Having the right gearing FOR YOU is paramount for a beginner. There is an unbelievable level of arrogance from some riders saying that you should be able to push "such and such a gear" because they can do it.

Being able to spin a gear at a given time means the difference between hanging on to a ride group or a given speed or dropping off.

I don't use a power meter nor do I need it to train for races. The people that use them swear by them.

I’d be in strife pretty quick without cadence measuring but as I said the actual numbers are meaningless to anyone else.

Thanks to having good gearing now (that suits me) I beat a much more experienced and stronger mate up a climb last week. For once I could sit and spin a bit (70-80 rpm) and stand if I chose.

Sitting I could rest my body and still climb ok and standing I could rest my knees. It felt brilliant.

BeaconRuth

chrisw12 wrote:

fred22. It's very simple cadence is a red herring, DO NOT WORRY about it.

Is it a red herring? The first thing I notice when I see a novice cyclist in the distance, which marks them out as a novice instantly, is their poor gear selection. Are you saying that any gear will do at any time? Or are you just quoting what you've been told by someone whose word seems to be gospel round here?

Ruth

jibberjim

BeaconRuth wrote:

chrisw12 wrote:

fred22. It's very simple cadence is a red herring, DO NOT WORRY about it.

Is it a red herring? The first thing I notice when I see a novice cyclist in the distance, which marks them out as a novice instantly, is their poor gear selection.

How do you know it's poor gear selection unless you know their fitness?

In terms of energy and oxygen required lower cadences are more efficient - so if you're unfit, as novices likely are then they may well have picked the most appropriate cadence for them. You cannot know their physiology, so you cannot know what an efficient cadence for them is.

BeaconRuth

jibberjim wrote:

How do you know it's poor gear selection unless you know their fitness?

In terms of energy and oxygen required lower cadences are more efficient - so if you're unfit, as novices likely are then they may well have picked the most appropriate cadence for them. You cannot know their physiology, so you cannot know what an efficient cadence for them is.

Ah, I get it - you're so 'new school' that you don't believe in encouraging a fluid, relaxed pedalling style in an appropriate gear.

Come off it, Jim. It's plain for all experienced cyclists to see that novices often get stuck either grinding gears far too big, or spinning so fast that they go nowhere. You're not seriously suggesting that experienced riders aren't better at choosing a sensible gear? Has your novice who has only been riding a few weeks actually acquired the art of determining their most efficient cadence over the course of riding a few hundred miles, a skill which it's taken experienced riders years to learn?

If your theory was true, an ageing former pro who had lost a lot of fitness would start riding like a novice - which they don't, they always pedal well, even as they slow down. You're talking mumbo jumbo.

(Geez, it must be Friday - I usually let such rubbish pass me by............)

Ruth

jibberjim

BeaconRuth wrote:

Ah, I get it - you're so 'new school' that you don't believe in encouraging a fluid, relaxed pedalling style in an appropriate gear.

No, I think it will happen naturally as fitness improves. Riding at different cadences is certainly something worth trying, but going against your physiology is rarely a sensible thing to do, and it's the sort of thing which often leads to not being able to train as much as you otherwise could.

BeaconRuth wrote:

a skill which it's taken experienced riders years to learn?

Picking a gear is not a skill, it's a trivial feedback loop in the body.

BeaconRuth wrote:

If your theory was true, an ageing former pro who had lost a lot of fitness would start riding like a novice.

No they would not. Due to the physiology of a pro-cyclist, and the way fitness degrades it's very unlikely that they would be in a situation where they have lots of strength compared to their aerobic engines - particularly because any cyclist who was a pro would have to have an excellent aerobic engine.

BeaconRuth wrote:

(Geez, it must be Friday - I usually let such rubbish pass me by............)

So please explain why people choose a particular cadence? Are you calling them stupid?

keef66

I've cycled thousands of miles over the last 40 years, and without really thinking about it I find I can go faster and for longer with a fairly brisk pedalling action. I've never measured cadence, but using the one elephant, two elephants, three elephants technique for counting seconds I guess it's about 90 rpm.

I specced a triple on my road bike so I could have a closely spaced cassette without any big jumps anywhere so I can maintain my cadence whatever the terrain / wind.

I suspect I'm using perceived exertion when selecting gears, rather than trying to achieve a particular cadence, but it seems to have the same effect.

I think I'd be completely buggered if I ever tried riding a singlespeed!

ride_whenever

The cadence to match your physiology is probably the most sensible thing I've ever read on the internet...

If you look at rowers who are coming to cycling (so from a more strength orientated sport) they tend to be more efficient at lower cadences, happily putting out large watts at lower cadences. As their physiology changes they tend to move towards higher cadences but where your sweet spot is can only really determined by logging lots of test miles.

SBezza

jibberjim wrote:

Picking a gear is not a skill, it's a trivial feedback loop in the body.

This is a skill that needs to be learned, most evident in youngsters, but still a skill that is learned by adults. Correct gear selection for a particular terrain is a common skill taught to children on Go Ride Sessions.

springtide9

Can only talk from riding MTB's (and mainly from a weekend 'fun' rider), but....

I've always trained with low cadence... probably mainly because I don't know any better. But I do find that sometimes a lower cadence works better for off-road - save smashing your knees on the handlebars or smashing the pedals onto roots etc.
I've also used the rower a lot over the years and have a larger than normal frame. Not sure if any of this makes much difference, apart from I would guess you find the stuff you do regularly easier than the stuff you don't.

What is funny about cadence, is that on the rower I'm very happy doing hour sessions at a cadence of around 30, but if you mention that to a lower they tell you that for the longer distances you should have a much slower cadence - so the opposite to what is said for cycling.

You guys would probably laugh at my previous training sessions (that I still do)... where on the indoor bike I select the Alpine Pass program, 45mins @ level 20, up my weight to 100kg - just to make it a little more of a hard grind. Usually have to stand up for the middle peak, but the outer peaks are just about manageable in the saddle as long as I haven't done my 45min row beforehand.

But I've done this because I haven't really known any better. The training was getting me fitter, faster and more endurance - so why change something that isn't broke? (well I am, that's why I'm reading this thread)

I did an 8hr MTB marathon in Oct (which would all have been at a pretty low cadence) - and although the 8hr event wasn't that competitive (Bristol Oct Bikefest), I did pretty well (11/41) considering I'd not really been following any proper training program. Think you get a bit of 'let up' (read, rest) with pedalling on an MTB, which probably makes a difference to endurance at a slower cadence,

I would say that 90% of my training was done in the gym because of family commitments, with just a combination of the rower and the upright bike. I try to get out once a month (or more), but around 6 weeks before an event I'll put the family second and get out for a long ride once a week.
Personally I think all training helps, regardless of whether it's high cadence, low cadence, high intensity, low intensity, turbo, gym bike, rower, etc - but I think crunch time comes if you want to be competitive - and are looking for that edge or to push you forward if you've reached the limit with an unguided 'random training' program.

But I think road riding is going to be completely different to the MTB in terms of riding/training techniques, and I'm sure grinding is really going to be hard work on the road. In a month I should have bike. And we all know, roadies make very fast MTBers - and I'm convinced that it's 'power output' technique that's the key.

Need to sit down and work out a proper training session for myself, which is now even more complicated as I've just taken up running for various reasons (but still have the same limited time), but will be definitely looking at upping my cadence as part of the program.

chrisw12

BeaconRuth wrote:

chrisw12 wrote:

fred22. It's very simple cadence is a red herring, DO NOT WORRY about it.

Is it a red herring? The first thing I notice when I see a novice cyclist in the distance, which marks them out as a novice instantly, is their poor gear selection. Are you saying that any gear will do at any time? Or are you just quoting what you've been told by someone whose word seems to be gospel round here?

Ruth

Yeah, that's a fair swipe, I read the forums but I've also had the pleasure of talking to a few of the best timetrialists. You can decide where I've made my judgements.

As I've answered your question, where do you stand on the great cadence question in that do you think it's a red herring?

chrisw12

and

you can spot a novice cyclist by their gear selection? How does that work then? You got some divine power? :shock:

ireland57

Picking a gear is not a skill, it's a trivial feedback loop in the body.

Picking a gear is a skill.

Yes it may be our body telling us to it's too hard or too easy.

The bottom line is a rider in the correct gear will beat an equal rider in the wrong gear.

If it didn't matter there'd be no close ratio cassettes anywhere.

ak-77

Picking a gear is a skill.

In my completely unfounded and highly personal opinion: yes it is and no it isn't.
The skill is not to know the ideal cadence that will always work for you. The skill is to listen to your body and know the signals that tell you need a different cadence. That may not be the same every time for a certain speed depending on the history of your ride and the days before. Knowing when you'll do better spinning or grinding takes experience.

jgsi

ireland57 wrote:

Picking a gear is not a skill, it's a trivial feedback loop in the body.

Picking a gear is a skill.

Yes it may be our body telling us to it's too hard or too easy.

The bottom line is a rider in the correct gear will beat an equal rider in the wrong gear.

If it didn't matter there'd be no close ratio cassettes anywhere.

Exactly!
Some on here need to have a close look at the back of pro riders bikes if we accept that they tend to be rather good at road cycling... especially the 11 speeds where 10 of them hardly seem different with a bail out large cog.
imo it is all about momentum... lose it and you are screwed

Alex_Simmons/RST

chrisw12 wrote:

BeaconRuth wrote:

chrisw12 wrote:

fred22. It's very simple cadence is a red herring, DO NOT WORRY about it.

Is it a red herring? The first thing I notice when I see a novice cyclist in the distance, which marks them out as a novice instantly, is their poor gear selection. Are you saying that any gear will do at any time? Or are you just quoting what you've been told by someone whose word seems to be gospel round here?

Ruth

Yeah, that's a fair swipe, I read the forums but I've also had the pleasure of talking to a few of the best timetrialists. You can decide where I've made my judgements.

As I've answered your question, where do you stand on the great cadence question in that do you think it's a red herring?

I don't know whose word is gospel around here but the quote "Cadence is a red herring" can be attributed to Professor Robert Chung.

Like all Pithy Power Proverbs, it needs to be considered in context.

Cadence per se is a red herring. It's the "per se" bit that's important. No point talking about cadence unless you are also considering the effort level being applied (i.e. power or torque), amongst other things (like the specific circumstance).

Secondly, cadence is an outcome, not an input.

Or as I have always said, ride to an effort level, and choose an appropriate gear for the situation or one that feels good for you.

oldwelshman

ride_whenever wrote:

The cadence to match your physiology is probably the most sensible thing I've ever read on the internet...

If you look at rowers who are coming to cycling (so from a more strength orientated sport) they tend to be more efficient at lower cadences, happily putting out large watts at lower cadences. As their physiology changes they tend to move towards higher cadences but where your sweet spot is can only really determined by logging lots of test miles.

Depends what you want to do.
If you intend to race then grinding is not such a good idea,it would be very easy to drop a guy grinding big gears as you would never be able to react to an attack.
Same on the track, I recently saw a guy with a ridiculous gear, pictured below, and all the other guy did was to ride next to him andpin him high and the guy never got his gear turning so with a lap to go the other guy basically just rode away very easily to the line with a smile on his face while the big gear guy was still trying to wind his speed up.
I guess I am old school and think cadence is more like natural resonant frequency and you will find your own. I do not think it make any difference for climbing either unless your overgeared and have togrind too slow. I am not sure whether you use different muscle fibres either depending on cadence, I always thought basically slow twicth was for anaerobic sprint efforts and slow twicth for aerobic endurance. I dont remember trying to sprint up hills

stevewj

I've worked on my cadence over the last few months and now ride mostly in long rides at 95 to 103 whereas earlier this season in TTs, I was probably about 85rpm. Whether this transmits to a higher cadence in races next year remains to be seen but it FEELS much more efficient and my knees have been less prone to problems ((apart from when I rode fixed which I resolved by riding single gear (70") freewheel)). I know what Ruth means about coming up behind someone - it's usually someone on an MTB or someone very old or very young riding far too high a gear. They look laboured and are usually pedalling in squares.

freehub

I used to ride a fairly low cadence all the time, now since a couple days ago when I switched to a double (39/53) I am in the little ring and I can happily do up to 25mph on the flats easier than on the big ring, or 50 ring on my compact in a way.

If I try to spin fast up a hill, I end up blowing up proper quick, I went out for a hillyish training ride tonight, 22 miles 1300ft of climbing, mostly 5-7% drags, and spinning I was doing and holding say 17-19mph, but then suddenly I lost my power and was doing 12-13mph and cursing myself. But if I went into the big ring on that climb and pushed a lower cadence up it, I was lasting longer, but I was still blowing up ALOT quicker than I usually do unless that's related to the cold weather.

blackpoolkev

I think that cadence/correct gear selection is similar to driving a car.Keep the engine spinning in the sweet rev range and choose the correct gear to keep it there.

schweiz

blackpoolkev wrote:

I think that cadence/correct gear selection is similar to driving a car.Keep the engine spinning in the sweet rev range and choose the correct gear to keep it there.

Agreed...and some of us have a diesel engine, others have a turbo diesel, some have a 1 litre petrol engine, some a 2.5!!

The Garmin tells me my cadence has averaged 77 this year although I stopped displaying cadence ages ago. Last night on the rollers 'normal pedalling' saw me average 85. I do live in the mountains though. For me to spin like LA, with my 80 kg and 280 W FTP I would need a mountain bike cassette and a compact crank!

holker

Hello, I'm relatively new to this cycling lark. Bought myself a computer for interest.My average cadence seems to be around 97 on an undulating route. I ride like this coz I find it comfortable to do so and am able to sustain the pace. However, reading through the posts this would seem to be on the high side of the normal range. Should I be in a higher gear with lower cadence? Does it make any difference?

FCatC

I think it is very much dependent on the individual. Armstrong won seven tours using a high cadence technique, Ullrich churned the big gear but thought, "hang on, maybe I need to try this high cadence stuff to level things up". Turns out it just wasn't as energy efficient for him so stuck with what he was good at. Using that big diesel engine to turn the huge gear.

I used to use a bigger gear up hills but have tried using smaller gears this autumn/winter (mainly because I lost a bit of fitness) but I'm finding I'm going up hills as quick as in the summer despite not being in as good a shape. So I'm thinking high cadence could be the way to go. My mate has decided the opposite. He read an article saying he should be turning a certain rpm, but it just doesn't work for him and he is blowing where as in a bigger gear he is more comfortable and quicker. I think it is a case of just not getting too obsessed with the science. Go with what feels right.

ireland57

Hello, I'm relatively new to this cycling lark. Bought myself a computer for interest.My average cadence seems to be around 97 on an undulating route. I ride like this coz I find it comfortable to do so and am able to sustain the pace. However, reading through the posts this would seem to be on the high side of the normal range. Should I be in a higher gear with lower cadence? Does it make any difference?

I'm pretty new to it as well but I've learned to climb ok.......for an old bloke.

It doesn't matter whether you pedal at 10 rpm or 600 rpm.

If it feels good, is technically decent, moves you at a good pace, is sustainable, allows you to have some fuel left (for the ride/race home) after the climbs, allows you to rest sometimes on a long climb/s then it's a good cadence.

The following comes with the proviso:- Look after your knees and back, etc.

Learn to sit and spin quick, learn to stand and grind. Mix them up; you'll get good at it.

poacherjake

ireland57 wrote:

learn to stand and grind. Mix them up; you'll get good at it.

as a newbie too, I've been told - or have read - to try *never* to stand and grind?

Butterd2

Poacherjake wrote:

ireland57 wrote:

learn to stand and grind. Mix them up; you'll get good at it.

as a newbie too, I've been told - or have read - to try *never* to stand and grind?

On long climbs (>30mins) I will always mix up standing with low cadence (20%) and sitting higher cadence (80%). It works for me as it gives the seated muscle group a rest and just as importantly relieves the discomfort!