Cadence question

rqy99g

Hi

I've recently bought a road bike (Genesis Equilibrium 853, 2x10 speed, 105) and Mio Cyclo GPS. What average rpm should I be aiming to spin at? I have been aiming for around 75-80 rpm for a given gear/incline (if that makes sense?).

I don't know if this is relevant but I'm 55, 5' 11", 12st 12lb

Just on weight, I'm average build, what would be a good cycling weight?

Cheers

Simon

ForumNewbie

Hi Simon, they say you should aim for 90rpm. I'm around your age and I find it hard to average anything over 75rpm on a good day. Recently I have been trying to maintain a good cadence by going into lower gears rather than struggling with big gears which make you tired quicker.

bad_ash

rqy99g wrote:

I don't know if this is relevant but I'm 55, 5' 11", 12st 12lb

Just on weight, I'm average build, what would be a good cycling weight?

That's quite difficult to answer as it's all very personal. I guess you'd want to lose weight until the weigh loss starts to impact your performance (speed and/or endurance).

I'd say I'm slightly above average build (fair amount of upper body muscle due to swimming), 5'11" and currently 12st 6lbs, with plenty of fatty areas. I think I should probably get myself to under 12st for ideal 'racing' weight, so I'd say you should be aiming for that or less.

WILL 1 AM

Started off just riding and wanting to just go as fast as possible.
Got a bike computer and aim for 85+ cadence. Once I started doing that, the average speed eventually increased and my knees weren't hurting as much. I find I'm in the small cog up front a lot but still able to maintain a good average.

NeXXus

rqy99g wrote:

Hi

I've recently bought a road bike (Genesis Equilibrium 853, 2x10 speed, 105) and Mio Cyclo GPS. What average rpm should I be aiming to spin at? I have been aiming for around 75-80 rpm for a given gear/incline (if that makes sense?).

I don't know if this is relevant but I'm 55, 5' 11", 12st 12lb

Just on weight, I'm average build, what would be a good cycling weight?

Cheers

Simon

You should be aiming to spin at whatever RPM gets you through the ride least fatigued. People above have already thrown in the "should be x" magazine "lance armstrong did it" nonsense, ignore this!

Bobbinogs

Yepp, just concentrate on riding your bike, try different cadences and see what works. On a club ride there doesn't seem to be a direct correlation between the fastest strongest rider and some magic cadence number.

kajjal

Two posts above are right, for cadence just what ever suits you best. I ride at a high cadence while others lower just because that is what works best.

For the weight, get fit first and eat healthily. After you are fit you can think more about it. Trying to change too many things at once can be confusing.

MichaelW

You can train to pedal at faster cadence. Don't conflate cadence training with speed training.

rqy99g

Thanks for the replies. I've had the bike since the beginning of October and am managing to get out 3 times a week consistently. I used to be very into mountain biking but haven't ridden for about 8-10 years. Like I say I'm 55 but mentally I think I can ride like I did 25 years ago.... wrong!

Fitness is coming back very slowly. I've been more concerned about making sure I'm getting out at the moment as in terms of weather and amount of light available it's probably not the best time to start again. I think well if I can get regular rides in through autumn winter then it should be a piece of cake spring summer : )

Since summer I have lost 25lb through dieting and now need to get the balance right in eating enough of the right food. Kajjal I think you are right about not worrying about weight too much at the moment.

My rides have been typically between 11 - 17 miles with some hills. So in the past when I've had youth on my side I just used to ride without thinking to much about stuff like heart rate, cadence, nutrition, etc but now I'm thinking well if I can get in to a reasonable routine and try an use technology that is available to me then I might give myself a better chance of improving quicker than I would have done.

With the spinning and cadence I can see the logic behind using energy more efficiently and I do think it helps me identify when I should change gear.

I'm not into racing but think I may join something like Lancashire Road Club and aim to be able to ride with the 'old lags' on there 40 mile trips. Well that's my goal for spring/summer 2015.

Cheers

Simon

Dippydog3

For a given power output, a low cadence will put strain on your leg muscles, which is good. A high cadence puts strsin on your CV system, which is also good.

To develop you need both power and aerobic fitness, so the bottom line is you need to do both. If you are aerobically strong, but have week legs then do low cadence work. If you have strong legs but run out of breath then work on cadence increase.

Most of us need both.

imposter2.0

Dippydog3 wrote:

For a given power output, a low cadence will put strain on your leg muscles, which is good. A high cadence puts strsin on your CV system, which is also good.

To develop you need both power and aerobic fitness, so the bottom line is you need to do both. If you are aerobically strong, but have week legs then do low cadence work. If you have strong legs but run out of breath then work on cadence increase.

Most of us need both.

Just ignore this and ride your bike. As long as you can get up out of a chair and walk unaided, your legs are already strong enough...

surrey_commuter

Best tip that I had to increase cadence is to always look to go down a gear (if you can maintain speed). Most of us are taught to drive cars the opposite way so do the same when riding.

bianchimoon

Find a cadence you're comfortable with then go down a gear so you're spinning slightly faster it'll work/train the most important muscle!

rqy99g

Thanks for the input guys! There is a lot on here that makes sense to me. I do value other peoples opinions and it gives me other ways to think about things. Thanks again Simon

Bar Shaker

My riding really improved when I upped my cadence. I now aim to be mid 90s.

Different cadence sweet spots suit different physiologists but training to pedal faster normal helps.

styxd

Bar Shaker wrote:

Different cadence sweet spots suit different physiologists

What cadence is best for someone in a different line of work?

rqy99g

styxd wrote:

Bar Shaker wrote:

Different cadence sweet spots suit different physiologists

What cadence is best for someone in a different line of work?

Very good

ben@31

Imposter wrote:

Just ignore this and ride your bike. As long as you can get up out of a chair and walk unaided, your legs are already strong enough...

After fracturing my leg , spending 7 weeks in a plaster cast without putting any weight on the injured leg. I disagree with the statement "if you can walk your legs are good". Being injured caused a huge imbalance in muscle, not just in the fractured leg but also in the small supporting muscles like hip flexors and glutes. 5 months later if I go out for a run I develop pain in my lower back/hip on the opposite side to the injury, this is caused by the weak side of the hip dropping down and the good side having to over compensate.

I can walk fine but all the supporting muscles are not strong enough or have the motor skills to run with a good symmetrical technique.

Cycling and swimming is the only sport that I can now do without discomfort while I recover through physiotherapy. I think it is because cycling is not weight bearing on the injured leg and you can get away with having one leg stronger than the other.

I'm having to spin away in a very low gear at a high cadence as I did not have the strength in the injured leg to mash down hard on the pedal but recently I've started to do intervals where I drop down a gear or two and stand out of the saddle to a lamp post in the distance, or for 30 seconds or just to get over the brow of a bump. To start with the injured side would literally collapse when I get out the saddle, but the leg strength is now starting to come back. I'd love to know how guys like Pantani or Contador could stand up out the saddle for most of the Alpe d'Huez without their quads and glutes burning too much (isn't EPO just cardio vascular) ?

To summarise, just because you can walk doesn't mean theres still a physio problem lurking and an injury may make high gear powerful low cadence work undesirable.

Biomech

For what it's worth, I've been riding for 3 months and aim to stick around 75, I change up at 80/82.
I just cant imagine cycling at 90, I think my legs would actually fly off!

wongataa

Biomech wrote:

For what it's worth, I've been riding for 3 months and aim to stick around 75, I change up at 80/82.
I just cant imagine cycling at 90, I think my legs would actually fly off!

I can't imagine cycling at 75. It would feel far to slow for me!

ai_1

Biomech wrote:

For what it's worth, I've been riding for 3 months and aim to stick around 75, I change up at 80/82.
I just cant imagine cycling at 90, I think my legs would actually fly off!

You may well change your mind over time, or maybe not.
Most new cyclists use a much lower cadence than experienced cyclists. It's easy to train yourself into a higher cadence which most then prefer or you may find yourself using higher cadence naturally. I can and sometimes do cycle around 75-85 but that's usually when I've been off the bike a while. As I get back into form my cadence rises, I feel more comfortable on the bike and I get faster. Typically I cruise at around 90-95rpm. When I'm really pushing on the flat for relatively short periods, liek a few minutes, I can be 100-110rpm. Above that I start bouncing in the saddle unless I'm really putting out lots of power in a seated sprint which seems to keep the bouncing under control. I've had my cadence up to about 170rpm a few times on descents. I couldn't keep that up for long but you may be surprised how fast you can spin your legs when you get the hang of it.

bobmcstuff

I thought I pedalled quite fast until I got a cadence meter.

Trying to stick to the Sufferfest recommended cadences is a pretty good way of increasing your cadence. Just doing a few of them has made it a lot easier and I've found the "distance" I cover during the session has gone up a lot so it must be making some difference (same resistance/tyre pressure etc). I find it hard to stay still in the saddle for the 110+ low resistance bits though.

Biomech

You may well change your mind over time, or maybe not.

You're probably right. The first time I went out on my new bike - about 3 months ago - I found 60-65 fast and comfortable. Now I try to aim for around 75, although yesterday I went out and found it kept creeping up to 80 :P

I thought I pedalled quite fast until I got a cadence meter.

You're not the only one :P

southdownswolf

I have not been on the bike much over the last few months, as I've mainly been doing running training instead. However I've just started using the turbo for a few nights a week when the kids go to bed. My cadence when I get on the turbo is about 70 and I wonder how I used to cycle at 90-100, but the last couple of times my cadence has risen to about 95 by the end of a session. It takes time, but you soon get used to it and sooner or later you realise that 90-100 is quite easily achievable. Just go into an easier gear rather than grinding, it will not take long to get the legs used to spinning away at a higher cadence.

ai_1

southdownswolf wrote:

I have not been on the bike much over the last few months, as I've mainly been doing running training instead. However I've just started using the turbo for a few nights a week when the kids go to bed. My cadence when I get on the turbo is about 70 and I wonder how I used to cycle at 90-100, but the last couple of times my cadence has risen to about 95 by the end of a session. It takes time, but you soon get used to it and sooner or later you realise that 90-100 is quite easily achievable. Just go into an easier gear rather than grinding, it will not take long to get the legs used to spinning away at a higher cadence.

I find the turbo feels different anyway and my cadence and effort level tend to be lower on the turbo unless I really pay attention to what I'm doing. It's so much easier and nicer on the road!

smoggysteve

Imposter wrote:

Dippydog3 wrote:

For a given power output, a low cadence will put strain on your leg muscles, which is good. A high cadence puts strsin on your CV system, which is also good.

To develop you need both power and aerobic fitness, so the bottom line is you need to do both. If you are aerobically strong, but have week legs then do low cadence work. If you have strong legs but run out of breath then work on cadence increase.

Most of us need both.

Just ignore this and ride your bike. As long as you can get up out of a chair and walk unaided, your legs are already strong enough...

Disagree with this. Don't ignore it. Some of it is perfect sense. My comfort pace when I am out is around 90rpm and doing 32-33kph. What I will do out on a flat piece of road or if on the turbo I will sit at the same speed but move up the gears so I am using a lower cadence for the same speed. Spinning in my comfort zone is pretty much all CV whereas moving to a higher gear is more physical effort in my quads. I am not accelerating so the effort does not particularly raise my heart rate more but my legs burn which is what you need to build muscle mass and get stronger. The stronger your muscles are the longer it takes to become fatigued from either using your muscles or spinning in a cv intensive gear.

okgo

Err no. Garbage.

NeXXus

SmoggySteve wrote:

Disagree with this. Don't ignore it. Some of it is perfect sense. My comfort pace when I am out is around 90rpm and doing 32-33kph. What I will do out on a flat piece of road or if on the turbo I will sit at the same speed but move up the gears so I am using a lower cadence for the same speed. Spinning in my comfort zone is pretty much all CV whereas moving to a higher gear is more physical effort in my quads. I am not accelerating so the effort does not particularly raise my heart rate more but my legs burn which is what you need to build muscle mass and get stronger. The stronger your muscles are the longer it takes to become fatigued from either using your muscles or spinning in a cv intensive gear.

Apart from all the MY stuff and cycling is not a strength based sport FYI, what you do and find comfortable is totally irrelevant to anyone else.

And thus, is not an argument for the use of cadence.

imposter2.0

SmoggySteve wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Dippydog3 wrote:

For a given power output, a low cadence will put strain on your leg muscles, which is good. A high cadence puts strsin on your CV system, which is also good.

To develop you need both power and aerobic fitness, so the bottom line is you need to do both. If you are aerobically strong, but have week legs then do low cadence work. If you have strong legs but run out of breath then work on cadence increase.

Most of us need both.

Just ignore this and ride your bike. As long as you can get up out of a chair and walk unaided, your legs are already strong enough...

Disagree with this. Don't ignore it. Some of it is perfect sense. My comfort pace when I am out is around 90rpm and doing 32-33kph. What I will do out on a flat piece of road or if on the turbo I will sit at the same speed but move up the gears so I am using a lower cadence for the same speed. Spinning in my comfort zone is pretty much all CV whereas moving to a higher gear is more physical effort in my quads. I am not accelerating so the effort does not particularly raise my heart rate more but my legs burn which is what you need to build muscle mass and get stronger. The stronger your muscles are the longer it takes to become fatigued from either using your muscles or spinning in a cv intensive gear.

oh dear...another one who believes all the 'muscle mass' and 'stronger legs' BS....

smoggysteve

So why do sprinters have massive thighs? Why does Chris Hoy look like a body builder which muscles everywhere? 1 type of cyclist may be thin and light for climbing a la Froome or Contador. Others like Hoy or Marcel Kittel are big powerful guys. You do need muscles. If you are a weakling who relies on cv you will not improve. Energy is stored in the muscle fibres. The more efficient and better trained they are the less you fatigue. You can spin all day at a comfortable cadence but when you have to push harder you have nowhere to go. If you can alternate cv to muscle power and then back to cv then you will go for longer. By muscle mass I dont mean bigger but more efficient muscles. But if you dont think muscles are important for cycling then you are an idiot.

imposter2.0

SmoggySteve wrote:

So why do sprinters have massive thighs? Why does Chris Hoy look like a body builder which muscles everywhere? 1 type of cyclist may be thin and light for climbing a la Froome or Contador. Others like Hoy or Marcel Kittel are big powerful guys. You do need muscles. If you are a weakling who relies on cv you will not improve. Energy is stored in the muscle fibres. The more efficient and better trained they are the less you fatigue. You can spin all day at a comfortable cadence but when you have to push harder you have nowhere to go. If you can alternate cv to muscle power and then back to cv then you will go for longer. By muscle mass I dont mean bigger but more efficient muscles. But if you dont think muscles are important for cycling then you are an idiot.

Nope - you still don't get it. Obviously sprint and endurance disciplines require different types of training, with track sprinters focused on delivering high power outputs for a very short time - nobody is arguing that. But this is the road beginners forum, not the track forum. Nobody mentioned track sprinters apart from you. You really do need a better understanding of strength v power v endurance before you post again. It is often said (correctly) that the strength demands of endurance cycling are very low, and can be met by almost anyone - even untrained pedestrians - so stronger legs really aren't a consideration if you are serious about performance improvement. Finally, you really shouldn't accuse other people of being idiots - it's ironic. Sounds like you have a lot of reading to do...