A question of...cadence?!

Pedro77

Hi all, I am a bit new to all this cycling malarkey. I always had a lower cadence, averaging 62rpm most times.

Today I decided to experiment and improve my cadence. It does take a different mental approach has I had to prevent myself from using heavier gears. I aimed to cycle at a 80+RPM whenever possible, here are my results:
1- Felt easier with changes of gradient keeping up the cadence instead of mashing on heavy gears
2- No pain or any discomfort on knees, etc
3- I was actually quicker compared to other times I have done this lap
4- Burnt more calories (regardless off accuracy, values between rides are comparable)
5- Averaged 77 RPM instead of 62
6- Better average speed and top speed
7- for each tooth I changed up in the cassette I noticed a immediate drop of 5RPM
8- when changing between 34 to 50 front sprocket a drop of RPM of about 20 occurred

With this in mind I worked in perfecting the gear changes to keep that cadence steady, it meant sometimes building up RPM on the smaller front sprocket to say 95+ before changing to the 50T at times.

All in all it just felt a much better ride. I had to use the bigger sprockets and the smaller sprocket in the front much more than before but I think it works better for me. My goal is to bring my average cadence on the same lap to 85+ and with time to run heavier gears at that cadence. My cassette is 25-11 10-speed and I run a compact 50-34. I don't feel the need to change any of the gears but I suppose with a 28-12 It would be easier to keep higher cadence climbing. I will keep mine and work on the engine!!

Any info about cadence would help, am it doing the right thing? What is your experience and please comment on the above, I am here to learn.

Thanks
Pedro

StillGoing

As you get used to using higher cadence you'll find your cadence going up hills increases too. Riders vary in their techniques and what works for one may not work for the other.

Tjgoodhew

My riding style when i started was very similar to yours - mashed high gears at about 60rpm and never thought anything of it.

It was only from watching cycling on TV and reading this forum that I made an effort to improve cadence. I now keep my cadence over 90 and usually around 100 on the flat and it only took a few rides before this became normal for me.

I wouldnt say my speed really improved but i made huge improvements in endurance and staying stronger for longer.

Stick with it and you will continue to see the benefits. And in a few months trying to spin at 60rpm will seem absolutely crazy

Pedro77

That's encouraging. I am not looking for a particular goal in terms of cadence but whichever feels right and minimises injury and improves efficiency. I guess my improved time can be due to lots of reasons but perhaps at higher cadence, being more efficient I was stronger for longer on the ride...

A few more rides at a similar pace and then I will try to up it a bit more.

Pedro

Sprool

+1 from me, sounds like you are doing the right thing and doing it well. For me, interval training on the rollers helped a lot to improve my pedalling technique and get the cadence running naturally faster, then the hill climbs became more efficient - again burning more calories but being able to maintain better overall speed by keeping on top of the gears and the cadence above 75-80. All I've read and watched indicates higher cadence gives improved power efficiency - within the proviso that some people's metabolism and build can suit lower cadence than I am now comfortable with, but just about all the good riders I see around here still have faster average cadence than me.

JayKosta

Cadence and pedaling 'style' are very dependent on the individual - so you really have to find what works best and feels comfortable for you.

I choose cadence (and gearing) based on my ability to 'turn the cranks' at an rpm that is comfortable and maintainable, and which requires the amount of pedal 'force' that I want to exert.
My chosen cadence has increased along with training that has increased my power and endurance.

A 'mashing' style of pedaling with extreme emphasis on the downstroke will probably result in a slower cadence than a 'spining' style where the emphasis is keeping the cranks moving at the same speed all the way around the rotation.

An important item is to NOT apply muscle down-pressure on the pedal during the up-stroke.
Some people 'unweight' on the up-stroke (but maybe not actually pulling on the pedal), and others allow the up-stroke to be pushed by the other leg's down-stroke.
Actually pulling up on the pedal during the up-stroke can be done but it takes lots of training because it is an unfamiliar movement, and uses muscles that are not trained for it.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

buzzwold

Enjoyed this no end. Good series of posts which are really useful and helpful. I've gone down the same route on cadence albeit I've noticed increased sweatiness in the pad area due to increased heat build up due to increased friction. The last point re; pushing and pulling I need to take on board.

Great stuff

jspash

I've always been a masher and have gone through the same changes as you. I now average 80-85 except when I'm trying to show off after passing someone. Then I'll slow the cadence to 60 so it looks like it's no effort to be doing 25+ mph. It usually keeps people from trying to overtake me due to a bruised ego. They're thinking, if he's pedalling that slowly, he must have a lot in the tank for reserve. But if you go spinning madly, they know they have a chance once you blow up.

Silly, I know.

w00dster

To be fair jspash, if I'm overtaken by someone with that low a cadence I would know hes a beginner and he is in the wrong gear. Without realising it you would likely start to rock and roll after a short amount of time, shoulders would be moving up and down as you try to mash the wrong gear.

Also most experienced cyclists will know not to play leap frog so will give you the opportunity to pull away, most experienced cyclists are too busy thinking about their own ride/training to think about someone who has overtaken them.

Right, time for my ride....please cycling gods give me a tailwind home!

imposter2.0

JayKosta wrote:

I choose cadence (and gearing) based on my ability to 'turn the cranks' at an rpm that is comfortable and maintainable, and which requires the amount of pedal 'force' that I want to exert.
My chosen cadence has increased along with training that has increased my power and endurance.

^^ this is all you need to know...

bahzob

Imposter wrote:

JayKosta wrote:

I choose cadence (and gearing) based on my ability to 'turn the cranks' at an rpm that is comfortable and maintainable, and which requires the amount of pedal 'force' that I want to exert.
My chosen cadence has increased along with training that has increased my power and endurance.

^^ this is all you need to know...

No it isnt. It's all too easy to fall into a comfort zone, which is why you see so many amateurs turning their pedals over at less than 70rpm while you won't see a single pro be doing less than 80 with many doing 90+. This is especially the case when the going gets tough. Many amateurs struggle, the harder they try the slower they pedal especially when the effort is sustained e.g. climbing mountains for an hour plus. Pros on the other hand maintain the same high cadence and smoothness, despite putting out not only far higher real power but also being much further into their red zone.

I speak as someone who trained for several years, rode 10s of thousands of miles and got quite good at being able to"turn the cranks", including riding sub 4 hour 100s, the LEL and finishing top 20 in UK sportives and top 200 overall in the Etape/ 7:30 Marmotte.

Still I found I got to be a better rider when I did some work on improving my pedalling. One key aspect was simply, as per OP, to have the self discipline to do some workouts at higher rpm.

So rather than the archaic "all you need to do is ride your bike" approach of the post above I'd advise all to be a bit more positive and follow the advice in OP and do some focussed work. Chances are you, like them and me, will become better.

imposter2.0

bahzob wrote:

Imposter wrote:

JayKosta wrote:

I choose cadence (and gearing) based on my ability to 'turn the cranks' at an rpm that is comfortable and maintainable, and which requires the amount of pedal 'force' that I want to exert.
My chosen cadence has increased along with training that has increased my power and endurance.

^^ this is all you need to know...

No it isnt, etc

Yes it is. This is the beginners' forum - not the unproven pseudo-science forum. Stop presenting your own personal anecdotes as facts. If you have an opinion, then fine - but don't trash other opinions simply because you can't understand them or don't agree with them.

You are not the only person in the world who has improved while riding a bike, you know... :roll:

Mikey23

Only recently got a cadence thingy but I'm certain that when I started I was mashing at 60 and now seem to be averaging 70 to 75. My impression is that it's easy to ride a bike but it takes a long time to learn to ride a bike properly

MichaelW

try cadence training, separately from any other concern.
use a lower than normal gear and ramp up your cadence gradually to higher than comfortable. Make it like a cadence interval raining but you don't want to be working your cardio to the max, only your cadence.

StillGoing

Imposter wrote:

bahzob wrote:

Imposter wrote:

JayKosta wrote:

I choose cadence (and gearing) based on my ability to 'turn the cranks' at an rpm that is comfortable and maintainable, and which requires the amount of pedal 'force' that I want to exert.
My chosen cadence has increased along with training that has increased my power and endurance.

^^ this is all you need to know...

No it isnt, etc

Yes it is. This is the beginners' forum - not the unproven pseudo-science forum. Stop presenting your own personal anecdotes as facts. If you have an opinion, then fine - but don't trash other opinions simply because you can't understand them or don't agree with them.

You are not the only person in the world who has improved while riding a bike, you know... :roll:

I don't see what you're getting at there? The poster raises valid points beginners or not. I've never raced and never will due to age, injuries and family commitments, and my average speed is an average 17mph plus, but I have also seen the benefits of trying to increase my cadence from the beginners 60rpm to the point where I'm now in the high 90s. That was only done by trying to ride at a higher rate than was comfortable or felt natural. If I stuck to what was comfortable, i'd be still in the 70rpm range. By pushing a higher cadence, high 90s now feels natural.

Shunning the advice of someone who isn't a beginner would be folly in my book. Why not benefit from someone else's experience instead of learning the hard way?

imposter2.0

philthy3 wrote:

I don't see what you're getting at there? The poster raises valid points beginners or not. I've never raced and never will due to age, injuries and family commitments, and my average speed is an average 17mph plus, but I have also seen the benefits of trying to increase my cadence from the beginners 60rpm to the point where I'm now in the high 90s. That was only done by trying to ride at a higher rate than was comfortable or felt natural. If I stuck to what was comfortable, i'd be still in the 70rpm range. By pushing a higher cadence, high 90s now feels natural.

Shunning the advice of someone who isn't a beginner would be folly in my book. Why not benefit from someone else's experience instead of learning the hard way?

You've obviously missed the 'debate' in the training forum...which is what this alludes to...

Pedro77

Guys, no point getting a bid debate here... I just thought to share my experience which was a positive one and it seems to work for me. I was just curious if someone else had a similar positive experience and we could share notes.

For me I will be actively and in a gradual and timely manner train to improve my cadence, for it feels better higher cadence. Body needs to adjust as with everything new but both during and post workout was all better.

Without getting hung up in a specific RPM I will try to get consistent 80+ as I believe it is more efficient. With time the plan is to have that cadence on heavier gears... This is where getting on on my bike and riding will do, the difference is that my standard pedalling candle de will be higher than what I have been doing so far.

Pedro

Mikey23

75 average for me tonight. Something I'm trying hard to focus on. I do have long legs too.

sparklehedgehog

i've found that 80-84rpm works for me on flats and 90-100 for climbing.

My averages have increased nicely since using this general rule (personal choice)

dennisn

There is a theory(which I believe) that says that the human body will adapt to find the easiest way to do a given task, such as riding. Riding a bike on a regular basis, without regard to cadence, will most likely result in a cadence of somewhere around 90 for the majority of people. Most Pro cyclists generally ride at somewhere near this and as near as I can tell no coaches are telling them to do this or not do this. They are left to find, or let their
bodies find, the ideal cadence for them. Most people who simply ride for pleasure also find that their cadence rises to somewhere near 90 on it's own accord, over the years. So, somewhere in the 80's or 90's would appear to be the human body and / or brains idea of the ideal cadence to perform the task of riding a bike.
I can remember in my early days of cycling how I used to mash on the pedals. I never gave cadence much of a thought and now I'm around 90-95 and this without ever even trying to "spin".
Long story short, I wouldn't obsess about it, it will come on it's own.

StillGoing

Imposter wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

I don't see what you're getting at there? The poster raises valid points beginners or not. I've never raced and never will due to age, injuries and family commitments, and my average speed is an average 17mph plus, but I have also seen the benefits of trying to increase my cadence from the beginners 60rpm to the point where I'm now in the high 90s. That was only done by trying to ride at a higher rate than was comfortable or felt natural. If I stuck to what was comfortable, i'd be still in the 70rpm range. By pushing a higher cadence, high 90s now feels natural.

Shunning the advice of someone who isn't a beginner would be folly in my book. Why not benefit from someone else's experience instead of learning the hard way?

You've obviously missed the 'debate' in the training forum...which is what this alludes to...

Indeed I have. :?

Mikey23

Good advice..

Pedro77

Excellent advice here... Another session today and focussing on cadence training is definitely helping me. Today, same course, I aimed to go slightly faster and threw in a few interval pushes.... Good results, wiped 5min from my normal time.

Although riding and putting the miles on is the way to get stronger, I feel that doing that in a more focused approach will make me stronger/faster with less mileage in my legs compared to someone that puts a few more miles on "easy mode"...

I understand basic physiology and know that proper diet and rest are very important to develop my muscles, also to prevent any injuries. I am really looking forward to becoming stronger. My legs are laughable but hey, we have to start somewhere... Hopefully I am doing things right!! Feel free to point out anything else...

Thanks again for all the posts
Pedro

imposter2.0

Pedro77 wrote:

I am really looking forward to becoming stronger. My legs are laughable but hey, we have to start somewhere... Hopefully I am doing things right!! Feel free to point out anything else...

Specifically, its not your legs getting 'stronger' - its you getting fitter.

StillGoing

Cadence speed has benefited me in a couple of ways. By having a slow cadence, you tend to be grinding out gears. That must mean your using your leg muscles more than the heart and lungs and consequently fatigue of the muscle groups will eventually set in. With a slow cadence my legs would tire into a ride with the pace slowing down. Now with a high cadence, the legs aren't pushing against weight so aren't tiring. The heart and lungs are doing the major share of the work which is improving cardiovascular fitness.

Previously I'd be in the big ring around 65rpm on the flats to hold 18 - 20 mph and as soon as the road went up hill, i'd need to be changing on the front ring and trying to get to the other end of the cassette for a suitable gear. Now I just stay in the small ring around 96rpm plus and if the road starts going up, I just use the cassette so no messing about with the front derailleur.

My average speed has increased as I no longer experience muscle fatigue half way through a ride and have to struggle on to the end. As i'm less fatigued, my climbing ability has improved too although there are other factors which have assisted this such as weight loss. But spinning a lower gear at a higher cadence has for me made a difference over trying to push a bigger gear at a lower cadence for the same speed going uphill.

Pedro77

You pretty much summarised what is happening to me... I appreciate that we cannot focus only on the aspect of cadence, for sure as I ride more my overall fitness is improving and I "feel" stronger. As I ride more, I am loosing some extra weight, feeling better and fitter and all this plays a part. The cadence increase do make my post ride soreness much less than lower cadence. Works for me and in the end that is what matters.

ai_1

philthy3 wrote:

Cadence speed has benefited me in a couple of ways. By having a slow cadence, you tend to be grinding out gears. That must mean your using your leg muscles more than the heart and lungs and consequently fatigue of the muscle groups will eventually set in. With a slow cadence my legs would tire into a ride with the pace slowing down. Now with a high cadence, the legs aren't pushing against weight so aren't tiring. The heart and lungs are doing the major share of the work which is improving cardiovascular fitness......

I don't think that's really accurate.

Power is the product of speed and force.

Cadence x Torque = Power

So as you increase cadence you can reduce the force in proportion and still provide the same power at the pedals. So far this has nothing to do with your heart and lungs. However the next thing to consider is the advantages/disadvantages of lower or higher cadences. Higher force to the pedal at lower cadence results in more leg fatigue - I think this is due to higher lactic build-up than lower force and higher cadence. However the higher cadence option will be less mechanically efficient since you're accelerating more mass (more leg revolutions) and therefore tends to drive the heart rate a little higher. Typically your legs are the weak link on a long ride, not your heart and lungs. Therefore, a relatively high cadence keeps your legs in better shape for longer at the cost of slightly more total work done and is an overall advantage.
I think beginners typically tend to cycle with low cadence since to them just turning over the pedals is a significant part of the work. When you improve and the effort required to turn over the pedals is small compared to the total work you're doing a higher cadence is more beneficial.

For the same power level your legs are doing similar work whether your cadence is 60 or 100. If anything they're doing a little more at higher cadence and either way your heart and lungs will need to operate at roughly similar levels. In the post quoted above it reads like you are saying legs and heart/lungs are dividing the work up between them, but obviously that's not the case and I'm not sure if it's what you were trying to say. Your legs produce all the force but the cardiovascular system is essentially the power supply. Both are crucial.

khisanth

I also found that keeping a consistent cadence (as much as possible) around 80-90 it improved my riding no end. Also helped with hill climbing which I am awful at as I could spin a bit easier each time.

Although it is nice as a kind of leg stretcher to shove it into a harder gear and grind a bit every so often

StillGoing

Ai_1 wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Cadence speed has benefited me in a couple of ways. By having a slow cadence, you tend to be grinding out gears. That must mean your using your leg muscles more than the heart and lungs and consequently fatigue of the muscle groups will eventually set in. With a slow cadence my legs would tire into a ride with the pace slowing down. Now with a high cadence, the legs aren't pushing against weight so aren't tiring. The heart and lungs are doing the major share of the work which is improving cardiovascular fitness......

I don't think that's really accurate.

Power is the product of speed and force.

Cadence x Torque = Power

So as you increase cadence you can reduce the force in proportion and still provide the same power at the pedals. So far this has nothing to do with your heart and lungs. However the next thing to consider is the advantages/disadvantages of lower or higher cadences. Higher force to the pedal at lower cadence results in more leg fatigue - I think this is due to higher lactic build-up than lower force and higher cadence. However the higher cadence option will be less mechanically efficient since you're accelerating more mass (more leg revolutions) and therefore tends to drive the heart rate a little higher. Typically your legs are the weak link on a long ride, not your heart and lungs. Therefore, a relatively high cadence keeps your legs in better shape for longer at the cost of slightly more total work done and is an overall advantage.
I think beginners typically tend to cycle with low cadence since to them just turning over the pedals is a significant part of the work. When you improve and the effort required to turn over the pedals is small compared to the total work you're doing a higher cadence is more beneficial.

For the same power level your legs are doing similar work whether your cadence is 60 or 100. If anything they're doing a little more at higher cadence and either way your heart and lungs will need to operate at roughly similar levels. In the post quoted above it reads like you are saying legs and heart/lungs are dividing the work up between them, but obviously that's not the case and I'm not sure if it's what you were trying to say. Your legs produce all the force but the cardiovascular system is essentially the power supply. Both are crucial.

No I'm saying exactly what you said but emphasising that a higher cadence will work the heart and lungs harder and use the fast twitch muscles in the legs less. A lower cadence will tire the legs more quickly probably from the over reliance on fast twitch muscles resulting in a build up of lactic acid. The link is an interesting article if you can ignore the Armstrong references.

http://www.trifuel.com/training/bike/cy ... 0Uv017ZWDU

imposter2.0

philthy3 wrote:

No I'm saying exactly what you said but emphasising that a higher cadence will work the heart and lungs harder and use the fast twitch muscles in the legs less. A lower cadence will tire the legs more quickly probably from the over reliance on fast twitch muscles resulting in a build up of lactic acid. The link is an interesting article if you can ignore the Armstrong references.

http://www.trifuel.com/training/bike/cy ... 0Uv017ZWDU

Muscles tire because fo the forces you push through the pedals - not necessarily because of how fast or slow you turn them. Within certain limits, cadence really is a very minor issue in cycle performance terms..

ai_1

Imposter wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

No I'm saying exactly what you said but emphasising that a higher cadence will work the heart and lungs harder and use the fast twitch muscles in the legs less. A lower cadence will tire the legs more quickly probably from the over reliance on fast twitch muscles resulting in a build up of lactic acid. The link is an interesting article if you can ignore the Armstrong references.

http://www.trifuel.com/training/bike/cy ... 0Uv017ZWDU

Muscles tire because fo the forces you push through the pedals - not necessarily because of how fast or slow you turn them. Within certain limits, cadence really is a very minor issue in cycle performance terms..

I think that statement contradicts itself - unless I'm misunderstanding you as I did with philthy3's earlier post!
If you're are correct in saying muscles tire due to force not the speed you turn them then cadence is absolutely critical.
As I said in my earlier post: Power = Torque x Cadence
If you contend that force is the only thing critical to leg fatigue (I'm not sure i agree) then maximum torque without impacting the legs is fixed and cadence increase is still available to produce more power providing your cardiovascular system can handle the extra load. So for cyclists who's cardiovascular ability is greater than their ability to preserve their legs at high pedal forces cadence is critical to allowing them perform to their best ability.