Is it worth trying to improve my Cadence?

chris_bass

At the start of the summer my cadence was woefully slow.

I have since managed to get it up to, a still slow, 75 average give or take. I'm not interested in racing or anything, more into longer rides but do quite like to challenge myself a bit here and there. Is it worth trying to get my cadence any higher?

if it is worth working on are there any tips? i have basically just not been changing gear into the highest gears as much keeping and eye on my cadence which i never did before.

mpatts

I have found it hugely beneficial.

For me, the only way to crack it was to spin at over 100 RPM until this felt pretty natural.

ugo.santalucia

Don't bother

Bobbinogs

I think this is a "It depends" one. Some folks respond really well at a certain cadence, others don't. Why not give it a go and see how you get on? The old pros used a much lower cadence than the current crop but it didn't seem to slow chaps like Mercx or Pantani down much.

chris_bass

I think my problem was that when i first started cycling a bit more a few years ago i used to just chuck it into the highest gear (or as high as I could) and just struggled along in that so my default position if i dont think about it is to spin quite slowly.

So I have been trying to get out of this habbit. I dont really cycle very quickly but I am trying to get a bit quicker.

markhewitt1978

I have no idea as to the correct answer. But I have read articles that the pros tend to find out what their optimum cadence is and concentrate on that, rather than trying to change to some arbitrary value.

I'm aware however that I do tend to ride with a lowish cadence which I don't think does me any favours, as I've just got a turbo trainer and cadence sensor it's something I might look at.

Jon_1976

I'd say just do whatever feels best for you so long as its not too slow to put undue stress on your knees. I used a cadence sensor for a while (mainly for curiosity). On flats, it was always 95-100 and lower when climbing (85-90). According to Strava and Garmin Connect, pretty much every ride averaged 87-90.

Ended up taking the sensor off as I'd obviously found my ideal cadence and it wasn't adding anything apart from a distraction.

sloppyschleckonds

What!?

Moonbiker

I still find watching others cycle with really high cadence on hills looks slightly comic especially if the are going slow.

Its what you suppose to do though i suppose according to bicycles mags etc & was Froomes style in tdf, but be he isn't slow. :roll:

imposter2.0

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Don't bother

As above. Preferred cadence is a bit like heart rates - everbody's is different..

MartinB2444

Imposter wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Don't bother

As above. Preferred cadence is a bit like heart rates - everbody's is different..

Are you saying that any individuals preferred cadence and optimum cadence are the same? Is it just that the best cyclists have an optimum/preferred cadence higher than the average cyclist? Could it be that a cyclists ultimate optimum cadence is higher than their initial preferred cadence and with a bit of practice they may find their optimum cadence a year or two earlier than they would otherwise have done?

Brakeless

Imposter wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Don't bother

As above. Preferred cadence is a bit like heart rates - everbody's is different..

But if your preferred cadence would be 90 rather than 70 then it is worth trying to improve it!

StillGoing

Do what suits you. A high cadence for me feels more Aerobic so whilst the big muscles are having an easier ride, the heart is pumping faster and requiring more oxygen. Pushing a big gear and low cadence feels more Anaerobic sapping the energy in the muscle groups but needing less oxygen.

imposter2.0

MartinB2444 wrote:

Are you saying that any individuals preferred cadence and optimum cadence are the same? Is it just that the best cyclists have an optimum/preferred cadence higher than the average cyclist? Could it be that a cyclists ultimate optimum cadence is higher than their initial preferred cadence and with a bit of practice they may find their optimum cadence a year or two earlier than they would otherwise have done?

Cadence tends to increase silghtly in line with fitness. I have never really seen cadence as something which required specific training intervention.

imposter2.0

Brakeless wrote:

But if your preferred cadence would be 90 rather than 70 then it is worth trying to improve it!

Not sure what you mean. If your preferred cadence is 90, then presumbly you are already pedalling at 90.

bianchimoon

many years a local cycling legend told me find your ideal cadence and then drop down a gear to spin faster, best thing you can do for fitness, worked a treat for me I can now spin at 60 no trouble

Moonbiker

I thought 60 was alot lower than recommended?

edscoble

Ride a fixed wheel bike with 67" and suck it up.

declan1

Definitely. I can't pedal at anything under 90 for very long as I can feel it straining my knees and I have no power. I see so many people coming to a stop going up hills in the highest gear possible. Perhaps try to get some rollers - I've heard they help smooth pedalling (and therefore cadence) quite considerably.

Mikey23

So yes and no then ...

chris_bass

Mikey23 wrote:

So yes and no then ...

haha, so it seems!

some interesting replies though, i might give it a go over the next few weeks, will give me something to take my mind off the rain/snow/cold

kajjal

Chris Bass wrote:

Mikey23 wrote:

So yes and no then ...

haha, so it seems!

some interesting replies though, i might give it a go over the next few weeks, will give me something to take my mind off the rain/snow/cold

Funnily enough that is exactly what I have been experimenting with the past few weeks. Starting to get a better idea now of how it differs from summer to winter.

JayKosta

If the cadence is causing noticeable cyclical bike speed variation (speed goes up with each pedal stroke and then slows until the next), then a lot of power is wasted by doing all those continual accelerations at each stroke. A faster cadence might make the power application more smooth and provide a more constant bike speed that requires less overall power to maintain.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

roger_merriman

If you've got a SS/FG as I do have having a reasonbly broad Cadence range is handy, for a geared bike it's less useful for general riding about, racing etc I can see.

Like a lot of this stuff, it tends to boil down to person (a) does it or says they do rather than hard science, a healthy dose of skepticism does one well.

And as others have said what is normal for one may not be normal for others.

Mikey23

My cadence has gone up during the few weeks I have had my gadget and I have tried to work on this in my turbo sessions. I feel I am riding more efficiently and faster. I think with me it's because I'm getting a little fitter and pushing myself harder.

Sir Velo

For me there is no magic number although i suspect the optimum cadence for long basic rides is nearer 90 rpm than 50 rpm.

However, if riding in a group and racing or at least keen to take the 'honours' I need to be in a slightly lower gear and cadence higher (not by a large amount) so that if an attack goes from the front it is easier to respond quickly and not be caught out.

So I my view there is both an optimum efficiency cadence and also a racing cadence and they may be different. Only trial and error will tell.

SV

bernithebiker

Nearly all beginner cyclists that I see pedal too slowly, and IMO it is right up there as one of the biggest and best things to train to improve.

Of course everybody is different, but as Power = Force x speed (cadence in this case), high cadence can make up for a lack of brute strength.

Being able to pedal fast (i.e. >100) for sustained periods is a great weapon for your arsenal.

bianchimoon

Moonbiker wrote:

I thought 60 was alot lower than recommended?

Oh dear my lame humour failed to get through

ugo.santalucia

To the OP... it seems to me you are a recreational cyclist, rather than a competitive one... I don't see the point in going into the science of it, with the aim to "improve". It is supposed to be a hobby and a fun thing to do and getting to the "dark side" will only turn it into an unhealthy obsession. Leave the cadence issues to those who need to make a living out of racing, unless you have a specific problem with your knees... in which case you might want to have a look at a lower stress style of pedalling

markhewitt1978

bianchimoon wrote:

Moonbiker wrote:

I thought 60 was alot lower than recommended?

Oh dear my lame humour failed to get through

Don't worry it made me LOL

bernithebiker

ugo.santalucia wrote:

To the OP... it seems to me you are a recreational cyclist, rather than a competitive one... I don't see the point in going into the science of it, with the aim to "improve". It is supposed to be a hobby and a fun thing to do and getting to the "dark side" will only turn it into an unhealthy obsession. Leave the cadence issues to those who need to make a living out of racing, unless you have a specific problem with your knees... in which case you might want to have a look at a lower stress style of pedalling

Surely even a recreational cyclist might want to improve / be able to go a bit faster?

If you can ride a bit further in a day or take a climb a bit quicker, what's not to like?

I'm always keen to pick up tips to improve my cycling, but it doesn't mean I'm going to be winning local Cat 1 races any time soon……..