Cadence or HRM first?

pinkteapot

I've been cycling since March (950 miles down - closing in on the 1,000!). I built up distance quickly as I did a 60 mile charity ride in May. I'm now working on consistently getting 15mph averages on my rides (I'm on a hybrid so I'm sure 15mph on that must be equivalent to your roadie target of 20mph... 8)), which I can now do on rides of up to 30 miles. I'm cruising happily at about 17mph on the flat, so I need to work on my hills to improve my average further. I'm awful at hills. :shock:

I'm thinking about getting a cadence monitor or HRM (getting both would be a bit of an outlay, though I may end up with both in the future). I'm a maths geek - I want more stats and graphs beyond my GPS tracking.

I'm leaning towards a cadence monitor as I know that sometimes my rpm drops off. I feel it and push myself to get spinning again!

What would you work on first - steady cadence or heart rate zones?

WarlKicken

I bought a Garman 510 a couple of months back with the cadence and HRM pack. I've never really been one to know/ 'work within' HR zones etc etc. I just aim to get the pins spinning. avg cadence over 127km ride I did the weekend was about 91, avg speed 30kph (or .2 under...I'll round that one up thank you very much!).

I was told by a pal that's super good at TT to just get spinning, constantly, I've always seen HR as more for training over just going out and trying to maintain a decent pace etc etc.

That is very unhelpful I am sure but I'd recommend the Garmin 510 for stats, jesus' ghost....

declan1

I would say heart rate first if you want to do some serious training to get yourself faster, or cadence if you just want to make your current rides a bit easier. You have a cadence sensor already (yourself), so it being on a screen is only confirmation that it's not high enough :P

pinkteapot

I'm not sure how worried I am about getting my speed up more. I want to be a bit fitter, hence pushing myself towards slightly higher average speeds. I've got no plans to get a road bike anytime soon - I like moseying around the countryside in my upright position, taking in the scenery.

I need targets though. My first few months I was adding 5 miles a week to reach the 60 mile distance in time for the charity ride. Now I'm a bit more aimless in what I'm doing. I've been going out for a 30 mile ride each weekend and working on improving my speed, but I feel like I'm not progressing as fast as I was at the start (which is inevitable to some extent I suppose).

I need a training plan to follow so thought some cadence/heart rate targets might help. Suppose I could just write out a plan with target distances and speeds over time... Would working on cadence or heart rate help build the fitness to meet these though?

drlodge

I would focus on HR as cadence is more natural/intuitive to monitor. As far as monitoring progress, I would suggest (a) increasing overall distance and (b) using Strava to see how your times improve over certain segments.

Doing a "hard" 50 miles and pushing over some segments to get some PRs in as well should give you a good sense of achievement.

chrisaonabike

I'd say HR first, too. I bought a Garmin 800 with both, and I use the HRM all the time - haven't even fitted the cadence monitor yet.

I find the HRM very useful - after a little self-calibration, I now know that I can go at about 125-135 bpm more or less indefinitely, not even breathing heavily; at 145 or thereabouts I'm still aerobic, though starting to breathe harder; above 150 I know I'm definitely going to have to slow down and take it a bit easy soonish. And from 160 to 169, the top of the hill had better be *very* close.

drlodge

ChrisAOnABike wrote:

I find the HRM very useful - after a little self-calibration, I now know that I can go at about 125-135 bpm more or less indefinitely, not even breathing heavily; at 145 or thereabouts I'm still aerobic, though starting to breathe harder; above 150 I know I'm definitely going to have to slow down and take it a bit easy soonish. And from 160 to 169, the top of the hill had better be *very* close.

Yes, this kind of real time feedback is useful esepcially when you are exerting yourself for sustained periods. For me
< 140 = taking it easy
140-150 = normal cycling
150-160 = putting in some effort
160-170 = not sustainable for long periods e.g. going up hils
170-180 = the top of the hill had better be pretty soon ;-)
180-187 = about to pass out.

I will find that early on I can be 155 or so and finding it quite relaxed. At the end of a long ride my HR can be the same 155 but I feel like I'm almost maxed out.

supermurph09

I'd say Cadence first, made a huge difference to me but both together are excellent. I use the Garmin 500 and have 5 components on the display. Cadence, HRM, Speed, Distance, Time. Cadence is the biggest because I look at that the most.

drlodge

I used to look at Cadence a lot, now I hardly notice it. In fact on one ride I had the wrong bike set on my Garmin without Cadence registering, and I didn't notice at all!

bernithebiker

Cadence is pretty easy to count/estimate while you're riding. (Count over 15 seconds and x by 4)

HR is not.

Therefore go HR first.

chrisaonabike

Supermurph09 wrote:

I'd say Cadence first, made a huge difference to me but both together are excellent. I use the Garmin 500 and have 5 components on the display. Cadence, HRM, Speed, Distance, Time. Cadence is the biggest because I look at that the most.

Interesting - can you elaborate a bit on the actual benefit you get from the cadence readout? Might get around to fitting mine

supermurph09

OK, if you've got time to count your cadence I'd suggest you arent pushing too hard, hence why I have a screen telling me! Or more likely you are a much better rider than me!

Cadence monitor allows me to try and keep at a certain rate and to ensure I'm not pushing too hard/easy a gear. Yes I can normally feel it but I find having the number in front of me a real benefit, especially on climbs. I see it as similar to having a red light flash in your car to change gear. So if I'm going up a long hill and I'm spinning at more than 100 I know I can change to a bigger gear, similarly if I'm pushing 70 I know I need an easier gear.

Everyone rides diffently but I have found this really works. I feel its enabled me to confirm what I now feel on the bike. If you cant quite get that feel or gear selection right, then cadence will help you.

GiantMike

HR over cadence. I have both, and I only really care about HR.

If yo're bothered about cadence, sing 'Nelly the Elephant' and try to pedal on each beat.

hstiles

Cadence for technique, HRM for training.

Bar Shaker

Can someone explain to me how heart rate is anything other than a consequence of the work I am doing?

Work hard/out of the saddle - heart rate high. Ride slowly/cruise down a big hill - heart rate low.

I can feel the pounding on my chest, why do I need to know what my heart rate is?

Everyone I know who has used a cadence meter to raise their cadence and narrow their band has improved their speed and endurance considerably.

danowat

You don't need either

overlord2

WarlKicken wrote:

I was told by a pal that's super good at TT to just get spinning, constantly, I've always seen HR as more for training over just going out and trying to maintain a decent pace etc etc.

Its the first I've heard of a TT being gauged on cadence. It's all about effort and speed not the rate you are turning the pedals.

HR over cadence like people have said you can measure cadence without the monitor really.

Bobbinogs

pinkteapot wrote:

... I need to work on my hills to improve my average further. I'm awful at hills.

...

What would you work on first - steady cadence or heart rate zones?

Neither, I would simply work at climbing hills. Forget about average speed for now and spend at least one session a week doing hill reps and pick at least one decent longer route each week with hills in it.

AchillesLeftKnee

As per ChrisOnABike and DrLodge, I vote for heart rate for it's usefulness as a gauge of effort when near the limit. It also comes in rather handy as a means of managing intervals as long as you ride in suitable terrain.

I've only recently got picked up a cadence sensor as a byproduct of wanting a wheel based speed / distance measurement and all it's really done is put some numbers behind what I already knew - in an effort to baby the knees I sit n' spin at a consistent rate (~100 unless things are sloping up significantly, it turns out), and make copious use of the gears to facilitate this. It's produced a few "well I never..." moments, but beyond that I don't get much benefit from it. That said, the speed output from the wheel magnet (it's a GSC10) is much nicer than from the GPS, and has eliminated the occasional data oddities resulting from using GPS speed under heavy tree cover.

markos1963

danowat wrote:

You don't need either

Easy to say for someone who has a power meter.

danowat

markos1963 wrote:

danowat wrote:

You don't need either

Easy to say for someone who has a power meter.

unixnerd

Getting a computer with cadence made a massive difference to my cycling and I'm still improving on it as time goes by. I'd go for that first.

Mindermast

Monitoring the heart rate has two purposes: You want to improve your long-term endurance and therefore don't go beyond a certain heart rate (for example stay aerobic). You want to check your fitness and therefore monitor the heart rate recovery. This will keep changing, and it is difficult to feel the correct training intensity.

I wonder, if the best cadence is the one where you have the lowest heart rate, during the same power output, but I never checked that.

Anyway, a candence around 90 rpm seems to be quite efficient for longer rides, 70 uphill, as high as possible (with reasonable load on the pedals) for sprints. It is fairly easy to get into these ranges, and once you are used to them, your personal cadence will feel best and you don't really need to monitor it anymore.

Since finding your right cadence can be done in a few weeks, I would start with that. Monitoring your pulse rate is interesting forever, so you have more time to start that. If you stop cycling during the colder times of the year, you should start monitoring your cadence again next year - or whenever you have paused for a while. Once your body is "set" for a certain range, it will automatically try to get there, and then, strict monitoring can be annoying and even counter-productive, if you force yourself to use a wrong cadence while the body knows better.

If you are training alone, you can stop whenever you like to check your heart rate. Measuring the cadence by counting is a bit more difficult. If you have to make a choice, go for cadence.

pinkteapot

Thanks all - interesting reading.

Leaning towards cadence because I know my technique isn't brilliant (for starters, I'm on flat pedals and use the middle of my foot instead of the ball, like a six year old, but that's another story). I'm a lot better at being in the correct gear than I was to start with, but there's still times when I realise I should have changed up/down already. Also, as I mentioned, there's times where my mind wanders and I realise my legs have slowed down. I think a cadence read-out to focus on might be useful at this stage.

I need to work on my mental game. I go quite a bit faster when there's other cyclists around. I did the 60 mile charity ride with a moving time of 4 hours 6 minutes, but I've been struggling a bit to average 15mph on my own on much shorter rides. When I'm out alone I find myself thinking I'm going as hard as I can, then I speed up and think "oh, I can do more!". I don't have the PMA of a proper athlete! Setting cadence targets and watching a read-out should force me to keep up a bit better I think.

drlodge

pinkteapot wrote:

Thanks all - interesting reading.

Leaning towards cadence because I know my technique isn't brilliant (for starters, I'm on flat pedals and use the middle of my foot instead of the ball, like a six year old, but that's another story). I'm a lot better at being in the correct gear than I was to start with, but there's still times when I realise I should have changed up/down already. Also, as I mentioned, there's times where my mind wanders and I realise my legs have slowed down. I think a cadence read-out to focus on might be useful at this stage.

I need to work on my mental game. I go quite a bit faster when there's other cyclists around. I did the 60 mile charity ride with a moving time of 4 hours 6 minutes, but I've been struggling a bit to average 15mph on my own on much shorter rides. When I'm out alone I find myself thinking I'm going as hard as I can, then I speed up and think "oh, I can do more!". I don't have the PMA of a proper athlete! Setting cadence targets and watching a read-out should force me to keep up a bit better I think.

OK I take what I said back, at your early stage I think you will find a cadence monitor useful. I did for some while, but now that I'm a super fit "cyclist", I rarely consider it. With so much cycling under my belt, I know what my cadence is doing.

I think a good "upgrade" for you would be to get some pedals with toe clips, with or without straps. If nothing else, these will help keep your feet closer to where they should be on the pedals, with the ball of your foot nearer to the pedal spindle. I got a pair of Raleigh pedals with clips and straps for my Son, for £15.

pinkteapot

My bike came with clips but I took them off.

I keep trying to move my foot back while cycling but it feels really uncomfortable. I know that's just because I've got a bad habit and it'll take some serious work to correct it, so I keep putting it off. I also use the excuse that I'll have to mess about with my riding position again, as when I shift my foot my saddle height feels all wrong. Because I'm not trying to be a high-speed cyclist I've kind of got it into my head that my mid-foot pedalling isn't really the end of the world, but on the other hand the longer I leave it the harder it'll be to change...

bernithebiker

drlodge wrote:

but now that I'm a super fit "cyclist", I rarely consider it. With so much cycling under my belt, I know what my cadence is doing.

I hear Sky are recruiting......

drlodge

bernithebiker wrote:

drlodge wrote:

but now that I'm a super fit "cyclist", I rarely consider it. With so much cycling under my belt, I know what my cadence is doing.

I hear Sky are recruiting......

Sadly I'm still only human, and for professional cycling you have to be super human. I might be fit, but I'm not that fast