Training to increase my cadence in a compact

RedRyd3R

hey all,

ive just got my first road bike trek 1.5 compact.
ive been riding a mtb to work , it has a triple and to be honest i dispise triple setups.
gears were problematic always clunking and grinding id take the bike in for a service and in a matter for hours clunk, clunk, clunk. i ended up just using the large ring for my commute of 13 miles round trip. so i decided to take the plunge and got a road bike, i ride an average of 200 miles month on the commute and roughly 50-100 miles leasure.
i love my new bike, it feels really great, i love the gears smooth as silk, but i have noticed that in the very lowest gear my cadence has dropped massively. does anyone know if my body will get used to this change? will my cadence pick up once my muscle adjust? ive also found that standing while riding uphills feels like i have another gear.
has anyone else been in this situation and can anyone recommed a type of training will help? i would like to hear your thoughts.

cyco2

It's likely you are able to pedal along with a lower cadence because the bike is lighter. When you get out of the saddle to climb you use a higher cadence because there is more pressure on the pedal, its not magic. When you get back in the saddle it goes down again if it doesn't you're on a flatter part of the climb. If you want to get back your old cadence then try harder or get an extra tooth or two on your block.

JAGGY

Have u a compact or a 53-39?

I bought into the cadence = faster crack last year after years on 53-39. Only to lose strength and speed. Now back on 53-39 and times have dropped and strength returned!

Stick with the big lads gears and you'll reap the rewards.

Also I'm now amazed at the high end race bikes that are now specced with 50-34. It's a race bike for a reason.

walsht1105

cyco2 wrote:

When you get out of the saddle to climb you use a higher cadence because there is more pressure on the pedal, its not magic. When you get back in the saddle it goes down again if it doesn't you're on a flatter part of the climb.

completely the wrong way around.. your cadence should be high sat down then when you get out the saddle you should go up a gear to compensate the drop in cadence that occurs..

OP - When i started I could barely ride in the big ring on flats, I rode in gears that I could push at 80-90rpm and then went in to pushing big ring now and then to get stronger. Now my preferred cadence is 110-120rpm on flat/in bunch, that to me feels like I'm pedaling easy, going up hill I maintain 85-95 sat down and about 75-85 out of the saddle. Avg cadence for my rides is normally 90-95

cyco2

walsht1105 wrote:

completely the wrong way round.. your cadence should be higher sat down than when you get out the saddle. You should go up a gear to compensate the drop in cadence that occurs..

Not necessarily.
When ever I get out of the saddle on a hill I accelerate, I cannot help it , it just happens like that. I look down at my feet and they are flying round. So, I guess my cadence has gone up, I then settle in to the new faster cadence and rock the bars a bit so I get maximum drive. If by standing on the pedals I slowed down I would then go in to a lower gear. If I didn't have one I would get off and walk. So, I wasn't wrong. I just do it differently to you. The OP was I think describing the effect of increasing of cadence by getting out of the saddle as similar to changing to a lower gear.

I hope you don't mind me editing your reply.

RedRyd3R

cyco2 wrote:

walsht1105 wrote:

completely the wrong way round.. your cadence should be higher sat down than when you get out the saddle. You should go up a gear to compensate the drop in cadence that occurs..

Not necessarily.
When ever I get out of the saddle on a hill I accelerate, I cannot help it , it just happens like that. I look down at my feet and they are flying round. So, I guess my cadence has gone up, I then settle in to the new faster cadence and rock the bars a bit so I get maximum drive. If by standing on the pedals I slowed down I would then go in to a lower gear. If I didn't have one I would get off and walk. So, I wasn't wrong. I just do it differently to you. The OP was I think describing the effect of increasing of cadence by getting out of the saddle as similar to changing to a lower gear.

I hope you don't mind me editing your reply.

Yes the only way I can get faster cadence uphill is to get out of saddle. I am just not used to compact gears . On your advice I going to commute on the big ring to incease my general strenght . Then when I train ill hit the big hills in easy gear, a few weeks of that I will hopefully improve.
.

walsht1105

RedRyd3R wrote:

cyco2 wrote:

walsht1105 wrote:

completely the wrong way round.. your cadence should be higher sat down than when you get out the saddle. You should go up a gear to compensate the drop in cadence that occurs..

Not necessarily.
When ever I get out of the saddle on a hill I accelerate, I cannot help it , it just happens like that. I look down at my feet and they are flying round. So, I guess my cadence has gone up, I then settle in to the new faster cadence and rock the bars a bit so I get maximum drive. If by standing on the pedals I slowed down I would then go in to a lower gear. If I didn't have one I would get off and walk. So, I wasn't wrong. I just do it differently to you. The OP was I think describing the effect of increasing of cadence by getting out of the saddle as similar to changing to a lower gear.

I hope you don't mind me editing your reply.

Yes the only way I can get faster cadence uphill is to get out of saddle. I am just not used to compact gears . On your advice I going to commute on the big ring to incease my general strenght . Then when I train ill hit the big hills in easy gear, a few weeks of that I will hopefully improve.
.

if you can only get a fast cadence riding out of the saddle you just havent developed the muscles that are required to stay in the saddle with a high cadence.. this has come with time for me, I ride a lot in the hills and do specific seated repeats and standing repeats to improve both aspects. I too found that I could only get uphills by riding out of the saddle, simply because I didn't have the strength/endurance to stay seated and out of the saddle felt easier. But it it is widely accepted that your cadence should drop when getting out of the saddle and whilst it wasnt like that for me when I started cycling, it definitely is like that for me now

RedRyd3R

that does seem to be the case for me to, i am glad you had the same situation.

rolf_f

cyco2 wrote:

Not necessarily.
When ever I get out of the saddle on a hill I accelerate, I cannot help it , it just happens like that. I look down at my feet and they are flying round. So, I guess my cadence has gone up, I then settle in to the new faster cadence and rock the bars a bit so I get maximum drive. If by standing on the pedals I slowed down I would then go in to a lower gear. If I didn't have one I would get off and walk. So, I wasn't wrong. I just do it differently to you. The OP was I think describing the effect of increasing of cadence by getting out of the saddle as similar to changing to a lower gear.

I hope you don't mind me editing your reply.

Are you sure about this?! On my commute in in the morning, there is a hill right outside my house. I always time myself up it. On a good day, seated, I can get to the houses where the gradient slackens in under 2 minutes, 20 seconds. When I do it out of the saddle I find, as you do, that I immediately need to change up as the cadence is too fast. However, standing up I will be doing well to do the climb in 2 and a half minutes.

Whilst I percieve that I am accelerating as I stand out of the pedals, what I think actually is happening is that I am slowing down (as borne out by the timings). However, it is more comfortable for me to maintain a higher cadence sat down than standing - so standing gives the illusion of acceleration because the comfortable seated gear seems to spinny when stood up. If you see what I mean!

Tom Butcher

It's certainly unusual to have a higher cadence standing than sitting - possibly you might stand to accelerate a bit and then when you sit your higher speed means you then have a higher cadence. Still I can't argue with your own experiences about cadence standing up - just it is unusual.

RedRyd3R

Tom Butcher wrote:

It's certainly unusual to have a higher cadence standing than sitting - possibly you might stand to accelerate a bit and then when you sit your higher speed means you then have a higher cadence. Still I can't argue with your own experiences about cadence standing up - just it is unusual.

i am sure its connected from when i changed from a triple mtb to a compact, like what the other guys said, my muscles are not devoloped enough push a compact gearing so i am standing up on climbs to get a faster cadence than when i am sitting down. basicly using my weight to help turn the krank while going uphill sort of compensating for not having a lower gear. i dont really understand why and the more i try to think about it it just doesnt make sense.

hopefully after a few months, i will develop the correct muscle strength and it wont be and issue. i know when i first rode a mtb i always used the granny ring to start with, overtime i ended leaving it on the big ring never needing to change down.
maybe it will be the same this time, either that or with the standing up hills my aerobic fitness will go through the roof!

RedRyd3R

Rolf F wrote:

cyco2 wrote:

Not necessarily.
When ever I get out of the saddle on a hill I accelerate, I cannot help it , it just happens like that. I look down at my feet and they are flying round. So, I guess my cadence has gone up, I then settle in to the new faster cadence and rock the bars a bit so I get maximum drive. If by standing on the pedals I slowed down I would then go in to a lower gear. If I didn't have one I would get off and walk. So, I wasn't wrong. I just do it differently to you. The OP was I think describing the effect of increasing of cadence by getting out of the saddle as similar to changing to a lower gear.

I hope you don't mind me editing your reply.

Are you sure about this?! On my commute in in the morning, there is a hill right outside my house. I always time myself up it. On a good day, seated, I can get to the houses where the gradient slackens in under 2 minutes, 20 seconds. When I do it out of the saddle I find, as you do, that I immediately need to change up as the cadence is too fast. However, standing up I will be doing well to do the climb in 2 and a half minutes.

Whilst I percieve that I am accelerating as I stand out of the pedals, what I think actually is happening is that I am slowing down (as borne out by the timings). However, it is more comfortable for me to maintain a higher cadence sat down than standing - so standing gives the illusion of acceleration because the comfortable seated gear seems to spinny when stood up. If you see what I mean!

you r very right, but if you change your gear range, say lose a couple of the spinning gears your used to, what would happen? you would go up the hill even slower your cadence would drop and also your speed so then you must then compensate by standing because your legs dont have enough power to turn the krank seated.
it seems to me to make sense WEIRDLY.

rolf_f

RedRyd3R wrote:

you r very right, but if you change your gear range, say lose a couple of the spinning gears your used to, what would happen? you would go up the hill even slower your cadence would drop and also your speed so then you must then compensate by standing because your legs dont have enough power to turn the krank seated.
it seems to me to make sense WEIRDLY.

I had this this weekend - took my old, high geared Raleigh up Steyning Bostal which isn't that hard a climb - certainly felt hard on the Raleigh though.

Effectively, once you get to either a really steep climb or have gears that are really too high for the gradient, you have to stand because, as you say, you don't have the power otherwise. Standing is less efficient as you are continually lifting your body but, my understanding is that because your legs are straighter, you do generate more absolute power. However, you haven't access to that power indefinitely. This is really my weak link - I can outclimb most people seated but it starts going wrong when the real power is needed.

RedRyd3R

Rolf F wrote:

RedRyd3R wrote:

you r very right, but if you change your gear range, say lose a couple of the spinning gears your used to, what would happen? you would go up the hill even slower your cadence would drop and also your speed so then you must then compensate by standing because your legs dont have enough power to turn the krank seated.
it seems to me to make sense WEIRDLY.

I had this this weekend - took my old, high geared Raleigh up Steyning Bostal which isn't that hard a climb - certainly felt hard on the Raleigh though.

Effectively, once you get to either a really steep climb or have gears that are really too high for the gradient, you have to stand because, as you say, you don't have the power otherwise. Standing is less efficient as you are continually lifting your body but, my understanding is that because your legs are straighter, you do generate more absolute power. However, you haven't access to that power indefinitely. This is really my weak link - I can outclimb most people seated but it starts going wrong when the real power is needed.

that sentance is exactly what i am worrying about, say i do twenty mile ride, each hill i climb out of the seat and pound, great i made it to the top of the hill/s, and complete the ride.
what happends when i am doing 80 miles or even 40 miles with much more hillier terrain, am i gonna burn all my reserves, and have nothing left? normally with a triple it wouldnt even concern me.

I can outclimb most people seated but it starts going wrong when the real power is needed.

can you explain this alittle better?[/quote]

rolf_f

Someone better qualitied than me will come along hopefully and answer the first question - but my understanding is that it is down to fast twitch vs slow twitch muscle fibres. Here is the first link I found in google to explain it -

http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/anat ... erType.htm

Simplistically, fast twitch is out of the saddle, slow twitch in the saddle! Basically, I tend to stay seated on long rides as long as possible to optimise my strength for hard climbs later on.

As for the second point - basically, I weigh less than 10 stone. I can easily ride for over 100 hilly miles and, if I'm on a sportive, I'll rarely get overtaken on a climb (but I do a lot of overtaking on the climbs myself!). On the Fred Whitton, despite still being in good shape, I couldn't keep pedalling on Hardknott. I saw people still riding on all sorts of gearing - some standards even. And I couldn't ride up on 34-29.

Having then got to the top of Wrynose, I was still able to make good time back to Coniston and still overtake a fair few people on the way (and not get passed myself). So I still had some miles in my legs at the end and I could still climb. But I couldn't get up a 1 in 4 despite a fairly soft gear set. On 34-29, most people, however strong, still won't manage anything other than a very low cadence (I reckon I lost about 5 minutes walking up Hardknott rather than riding so we were all very slow, irrespective of whether we rode or walked!) - and you need a lot of power to shift a bike at a very low cadence. And that power I didn't have. Hopefully someone can tell me what I need to do to improve cos I'm too tight to buy a "Fred rear mech"