Cadence sensor

super_davo

Man Of Lard wrote:

To all those that want a cadence/speed/heart/moxy/power sensor - if you want one, buy one - just because Joe Random on the internet says you shouldn't or don't need to is of no consequence.

Some people are data driven, some people aren't - if you are then you probably want the sensor that records the data.

Totally agree, it's only £25 if you already have the Garmin; and if you don't find it really need or use the data, then you can always sell it on eBay and you probably won't lose much.

I find the data useful myself, it's not the be all and end all but it's another metric to observe. You can read it along with the rest of your post ride stats and see what works for you e.g what did your heart rate do up that hill in the 17 at 80 rpm or 18 at 95 (obviously lots of other variables!). I've also been playing around with the alerts when I'm on training runs; set to alert if under 70rpm. More to tell me to get a shifty on than to shift down.

ForumNewbie

courtmed wrote:

I've also been looking at buying one, mainly for using to improve fitness. Probably get more use out of it on my turbo than out on the road - no gradients to take in to account and a lot of turbo plans I've seen seem to use cadence (1 minute at 90rpm).

It all depends what gear you are in - 1 min at 90 rpm is pretty easy even for me in some gears . I've got cadence sensors on two of my bikes because I think it can help improve fitness, and I kind of like analysing my data even although I'm getting on a bit and not very fast.

beak58

Having finally invested in a garmin with cadence sensor rather than plugging away with the strava phone app, I can give my personal experience which you can take or leave of course.
I discovered that in my quest to not grind away in too high a gear I was spinning at up to 110rpm-ish for long periods, particularly long drags, in too low a gear.
I went out on Saturday for 50+ miles and not only upped my average speed by 2.5 mph from when i did the route recently. I also knocked a full 5 minutes off my time up Cragg Vale. I have definitely seen the benefits but I had a problem that needed correcting. 20 quid well spent though considering how much this sport can cost for other kit.
I say get one, it won't make you any worse.

ForumNewbie

beak58 wrote:

Having finally invested in a garmin with cadence sensor rather than plugging away with the strava phone app, I can give my personal experience which you can take or leave of course.
I discovered that in my quest to not grind away in too high a gear I was spinning at up to 110rpm-ish for long periods, particularly long drags, in too low a gear.
I went out on Saturday for 50+ miles and not only upped my average speed by 2.5 mph from when i did the route recently. I also knocked a full 5 minutes off my time up Cragg Vale. I have definitely seen the benefits but I had a problem that needed correcting. 20 quid well spent though considering how much this sport can cost for other kit.
I say get one, it won't make you any worse.

I would have thought most people when they start looking at cadence find they have been grinding in too high a gear, and benefit from dropping a gear or two to up their cadence. If you were spinning at 110+ rpm for long periods I would think you must be pretty fit, but maybe it is too high. If lowering your cadence in a higher gear works better and ups your speed that's good and glad to see you have benefited from having a cadence sensor.

Pituophis

I guess that this thread shows that in most hobbies (sorry if cycling is your sport, it's only one of my hobbies :oops: ) everything goes in cycles. Pun intended. :roll:
I've probably only been riding on the road for about 6 years and when I started out, cadence was definitely touted as an "important" factor in improving your fitness! The magical 90 rpm average over a ride was the figure to aim for then. So I rushed out and got a sensor. After a dozen rides or so, I found that my average was easily around the 90 mark over the majority of rides anyway.
As I'm far from super fit, I disregarded cadence average as anything to do with fitness, and forgot all about it.

But if you like data, you might as well get one.

ForumNewbie

Pituophis wrote:

I guess that this thread shows that in most hobbies (sorry if cycling is your sport, it's only one of my hobbies :oops: ) everything goes in cycles. Pun intended. :roll:
I've probably only been riding on the road for about 6 years and when I started out, cadence was definitely touted as an "important" factor in improving your fitness! The magical 90 rpm average over a ride was the figure to aim for then. So I rushed out and got a sensor. After a dozen rides or so, I found that my average was easily around the 90 mark over the majority of rides anyway.
As I'm far from super fit, I disregarded cadence average as anything to do with fitness, and forgot all about it.

But if you like data, you might as well get one.

You are probably reasonably cycling fit as 90rpm is a decent average. I am usually doing well if I can get my average up into the high 70s. I think the important point is that if you are grinding round in high gears with a relatively low cadence, say 60rpm, you will get tired quicker.

pblakeney

People are different, with different natural cadences. Those with a tendency to grind too big a gear can do with a reminder to change down. Others don't need that reminder.

dennisn

KingstonGraham wrote:

Why do you want to know your average cadence?

Best reply thus far.

mac9091

I've got one but only use it for training purposes i.e ride @ a set cadence for "X" Mins. Other than that it doesn't provide me with any valuable info.

Cycling is done on feel and everyone is different. For me i am happy to spin at 90-100 RPM, whereas someone else might be less aerobic and only do 70-80. So i don't have the muscular capacity to (for me) grind the gears at a low RPM for long. That said my highest RPM 135-7 but can only sustain that for about 30 seconds at a time.

ForumNewbie

dennisn wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Why do you want to know your average cadence?

Best reply thus far.

Clearly a lot of people do want to look at their cadence, or else cadence sensors wouldn't sell.

imposter2.0

ForumNewbie wrote:

dennisn wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Why do you want to know your average cadence?

Best reply thus far.

Clearly a lot of people do want to look at their cadence, or else cadence sensors wouldn't sell.

Indeed, but the question of 'why' they do it - and what they gain from it - still remains. Lots of people read The Daily Mail, but that still doesn't make it a proper newspaper.

ben@31

Indeed, but the question of 'why' they do it - and what they gain from it - still remains.

Cadence is the one metric that I look at the most. I think it keeps me cycling in a sweet spot... not exhausting the legs with a too low cadence and not spinning away like crazy with a too high cadence. I change gears accordingly to keep it it between the high 90s to 100 rpm, a cadence that I know works for me. Ive done this for years quite happily.

Its my own personal opinion that 1 mistake beginners make is cycling with a very low cadence / too hard a gear, some look like they're making hard work for themselves.

pblakeney

Imposter wrote:

Indeed, but the question of 'why' they do it - and what they gain from it - still remains. Lots of people read The Daily Mail, but that still doesn't make it a proper newspaper.

At the risk of repeating myself, it is because people are different. Some have a natural low cadence and are happy to grind out a big gear. However, after @ 50 miles the legs are shot. Keeping an eye on cadence keeps the gears down and longer rides are possible. YMMV. My natural cadence is below 70rpm purely as an example. Cadence is important for me.

imposter2.0

Your physical endurance is limited by your aerobic fitness, not by your cadence though. Your body generally adapts to the demands placed on it (ie via training). Low cadence is no more a cause of fatigue than high cadence. Ironically, high cadences create a higher metabolic demand. As you say though, everyone has their own preference and everyone will revert to their own n=1 experience when discussing it.

pblakeney

Imposter wrote:

Your physical endurance is limited by your aerobic fitness, not by your cadence though. Your body generally adapts to the demands placed on it (ie via training). Low cadence is no more a cause of fatigue than high cadence. Ironically, high cadences create a higher metabolic demand. As you say though, everyone has their own preference and everyone will revert to their own n=1 experience when discussing it.

n=1 experience. Like it. :P I would suggest that low cadence/high gear cycling contributes to muscle fatigue though. Not general fatigue.

imposter2.0

PBlakeney wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Your physical endurance is limited by your aerobic fitness, not by your cadence though. Your body generally adapts to the demands placed on it (ie via training). Low cadence is no more a cause of fatigue than high cadence. Ironically, high cadences create a higher metabolic demand. As you say though, everyone has their own preference and everyone will revert to their own n=1 experience when discussing it.

n=1 experience. Like it. :P I would suggest that low cadence/high gear cycling contributes to muscle fatigue though. Not general fatigue.

Cycling in general contributes to muscle fatigue, unless you don't plan on using any muscles to cycle. The rate at which muscles fatigue (regardless of your cadence) is defined by your aerobic endurance/fitness. If you train to ride 100 miles at 50rpm then that is what you will be able to do. The massive part of the equation you are missing is effort level though. That will have far more impact on your fatigue point than cadence ever will. Unless you don't plan on making any effort either.

Clearly the most efficient way of cycling is to not make any effort and not use any muscles. We could all then ride for an unlimited distance.

pblakeney

Imposter wrote:

Cycling in general contributes to muscle fatigue, unless you don't plan on using any muscles to cycle. The rate at which muscles fatigue (regardless of your cadence) is defined by your aerobic endurance/fitness.

May I suggest that anyone believing this tries a ride of over 60 miles at a cadence of less than 70rpm while maintaining their usual speed? Get back to me about how your legs feel. Then add to that n=1.

Man Of Lard

110km, shade under 4 hours, averaging 57rpm cadence....

Got off the bike, had a "natural break", pint of gold top and joined the family on an all day hillwalk - was ok until we got back from the hillwalk and stopped

keef66

I suspect my cadence as a teenager was lower than it is now. Mainly due to the 52/42 chainset and 13-21 5 speed block giving me only limited gearing choices. Plus I had testosterone and stupidity in abundance, so I could still ride all day in hilly terrain and sometimes top 100 miles..

Now I'm older but not necessarily wiser, my knees are knackered and my quads disappearing, but technology has given me smaller chanrings and a wider ranging cassette so I can spin away all day at a cadence I find comfortable.

I've never had the means to measure cadence, nor am I inclined to acquire it so late in the day. I'm guessing I now favour something about 80-90 rpm based on counting one elephant, two elephants etc
Much faster and I feel I'm spinning out and starting to bounce about on the saddle - that can't be efficient. Much slower and I start to feel it in the muscles, and feel that is probably not all-day sustainable. So I ride just on feel.

imposter2.0

PBlakeney wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Cycling in general contributes to muscle fatigue, unless you don't plan on using any muscles to cycle. The rate at which muscles fatigue (regardless of your cadence) is defined by your aerobic endurance/fitness.

May I suggest that anyone believing this tries a ride of over 60 miles at a cadence of less than 70rpm while maintaining their usual speed? Get back to me about how your legs feel. Then add to that n=1.

May I suggest that you try a bit harder to understand what I have written. If you train yourself to ride 60 miles at 70rpm at your given effort level, then after some periodisation, riding like that will become routine. Not sure why you haven't grasped that.

pblakeney

Imposter wrote:

May I suggest that you try a bit harder to understand what I have written. If you train yourself to ride 60 miles at 70rpm at your given effort level, then after some periodisation, riding like that will become routine. Not sure why you haven't grasped that.

Quite simple really. Without a cadence meter I will fall back to my natural low cadence and tired legs. This is why I need a cadence meter. Even after 5 years of watching cadence I still drop down if I stop looking. It's natural. For me.
Not sure why you haven't grasped that.

imposter2.0

PBlakeney wrote:

Imposter wrote:

May I suggest that you try a bit harder to understand what I have written. If you train yourself to ride 60 miles at 70rpm at your given effort level, then after some periodisation, riding like that will become routine. Not sure why you haven't grasped that.

Quite simple really. Without a cadence meter I will fall back to my natural low cadence.
This is why I need a cadence meter. Not sure why you haven't grasped that.

I can grasp that you and others may 'need' a device to tell you how fast you are pedalling. But that wasn't the point I was making earlier, and I think you are intelligent enough to realise that.

pblakeney

Imposter wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Imposter wrote:

May I suggest that you try a bit harder to understand what I have written. If you train yourself to ride 60 miles at 70rpm at your given effort level, then after some periodisation, riding like that will become routine. Not sure why you haven't grasped that.

Quite simple really. Without a cadence meter I will fall back to my natural low cadence.
This is why I need a cadence meter. Not sure why you haven't grasped that.

I can grasp that you and others may 'need' a device to tell you how fast you are pedalling. But that wasn't the point I was making earlier, and I think you are intelligent enough to realise that.

Sorry. But the earlier question was asking why anyone would need a cadence meter.
I think we have established that some do?

imposter2.0

And after that, you argued that someone would get tired riding 60 miles at 50rpm or something. Sounds like I over-estimated your intelligence. Never mind.

pblakeney

Imposter wrote:

And after that, you argued that someone would get tired riding 60 miles at 50rpm or something. Sounds like I over-estimated your intelligence. Never mind.

Someone who wasn't used to riding 60 miles at below 70 rpm but never mind.

ForumNewbie

PBlakeney wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Cycling in general contributes to muscle fatigue, unless you don't plan on using any muscles to cycle. The rate at which muscles fatigue (regardless of your cadence) is defined by your aerobic endurance/fitness.

May I suggest that anyone believing this tries a ride of over 60 miles at a cadence of less than 70rpm while maintaining their usual speed? Get back to me about how your legs feel. Then add to that n=1.

I also agree that lower cadence in higher gears makes you more tired. If for example I was to cycle a long flattish ride at say 15 mph staying in gear 50/17, I would be riding at a cadence of 65 rpm. If another day I did the same ride also at 15 mph staying in gear 34/15, I would be riding at a cadence of 85 rpm. I'm sure that my legs would feel more tired after the first ride.

Having a cadence sensor has made me realise that I was tiring easily because my cadence was too low, as I suspect it is with a lot of beginners.