Cadence

Champ340

Hello, I Just got my first cadence sensor for my road bike. I have done 5000 km on my old bike and just upgraded to the Supersix Evo Hi Mod. What cadence should I be aiming for on my rides?

Many thanks!

surfercyclist

Champ340 wrote:

Hello, I Just got my first cadence sensor for my road bike. I have done 5000 km on my old bike and just upgraded to the Supersix Evo Hi Mod. What cadence should I be aiming for on my rides?

Many thanks!

Everyone is different (some more than others) but the general acceptance is a highish cadence is better and more efficient. So, personally I tend to average around 85-90 depending upon route. I use cadence as the most important metric I monitor during a ride, that and HR.

imposter2.0

Champ340 wrote:

What cadence should I be aiming for on my rides?

One that you are comfortable at. Nothing more, nothing less. Cadence is incidental - not a goal in itself.

Matthewfalle

40 with a 75kg rucksack on, according to some people.

but the rest of the world says exactly the same as Imposter

#pedalling

Matthewfalle

SurferCyclist wrote:

Champ340 wrote:

Hello, I Just got my first cadence sensor for my road bike. I have done 5000 km on my old bike and just upgraded to the Supersix Evo Hi Mod. What cadence should I be aiming for on my rides?

Many thanks!

Everyone is different (some more than others) but the general acceptance is a highish cadence is better and more efficient. So, personally I tend to average around 85-90 depending upon route. I use cadence as the most important metric I monitor during a ride, that and HR.

which one is more important - cadence or hf? you have said both are the most important but there to be importance between them.

#query
#pedalling
#bompbompbomp

surfercyclist

Well seeing as I wrote that cadence to me is the most important then it's well, duh, cadence. HR is also important(to me) but crucially the most important is cadence. The clue is in the wording "most important".

Hope that clears it up.

Matthewfalle

"i use cadence as the most important metric i monitor ......... that and hr"

"that and hr" - an equal and substantive statement between two massively different things.

so before you go all argy bargy sweaty betty, which one is more important because your post says that they are both most important which they cannot be

#confused

surfercyclist

Sorry I forgot you were a little hard of understanding. Cadence, followed by HR. I obviously needed to put cadence is the most important followed in second place by HR but I didn't initially as I foolishly thought what I had written was clear enough.

BTW what is hf? Not come across that so far. Heart Fart? Heavy Feet?

#alsoconfused

david7m

I aim for 90 when I remember to look at bolt.

imposter2.0

SurferCyclist wrote:

Well seeing as I wrote that cadence to me is the most important then it's well, duh, cadence. HR is also important(to me) but crucially the most important is cadence. The clue is in the wording "most important".

Hope that clears it up.

Why do you feel that cadence is the most important metric worth monitoring?

Matthewfalle

SurferCyclist wrote:

Sorry I forgot you were a little hard of understanding. Cadence, followed by HR. I obviously needed to put cadence is the most important followed in second place by HR but I didn't initially as I foolishly thought what I had written was clear enough.

BTW what is hf? Not come across that so far. Heart Fart? Heavy Feet?

#alsoconfused

your initial sentence was poorly constructed and poorly written so unfortunately it did not make sense, much like your metrics. its not our fault you had difficulty in writing two words.

so, cadence over hr? as imposter says, why have you chosen this? essentially though you have stated that both are the most important that you monitor but there is no line of equality to those variables.

#strange

and no, i wouldn't suggest hf as heart fart - the nearest i could say to a heart fart would be a status of VF of VT, but not hf. VB would not apply.

#moreconfused

jgsi

Ive just done 2 hour 30 min hilly (N Wales) road race.
I can soundly attest that I even suffered with an ave cadence of 91 for it.
There were VERY few with cadences lower that 70 and if they were , they packed.
But who gives a stuff?
Just sayin.

imposter2.0

JGSI wrote:

There were VERY few with cadences lower that 70 and if they were , they packed.

They packed because their cadence was 'too low'..? Or did they pack because their fitness couldn't cope with the effort/intensity/duration..?

jgsi

I was with a couple grinding away, still on the big ring.
It didnt happen for them .
As I said , just sayin'

As for the OP, stuff the advice, get your own style.. but be aware of its plus and minus points.

surfercyclist

Imposter wrote:

SurferCyclist wrote:

Well seeing as I wrote that cadence to me is the most important then it's well, duh, cadence. HR is also important(to me) but crucially the most important is cadence. The clue is in the wording "most important".

Hope that clears it up.

Why do you feel that cadence is the most important metric worth monitoring?

It's just a personal thing, I find I cycle quicker and more efficiently at a certain cadence. As I said just a personal thing. Others may find power, average speed, max speed etc better for them.

surfercyclist

Matthewfalle wrote:

SurferCyclist wrote:

Sorry I forgot you were a little hard of understanding. Cadence, followed by HR. I obviously needed to put cadence is the most important followed in second place by HR but I didn't initially as I foolishly thought what I had written was clear enough.

BTW what is hf? Not come across that so far. Heart Fart? Heavy Feet?

#alsoconfused

your initial sentence was poorly constructed and poorly written so unfortunately it did not make sense, much like your metrics. its not our fault you had difficulty in writing two words.

so, cadence over hr? as imposter says, why have you chosen this? essentially though you have stated that both are the most important that you monitor but there is no line of equality to those variables.

#strange

and no, i wouldn't suggest hf as heart fart - the nearest i could say to a heart fart would be a status of VF of VT, but not hf. VB would not apply.

#moreconfused

Poorly written? You were the one who put hf instead of hr but never mind eh?

hopkinb

I average 95-100 and I'm on the big side of bikeists.

Sprints are 120+.

My 11 and 12 tooth cogs are lovely and shiny.

Fat spinner. Works for me.

pinno

Find a hill with a gradient that isn't too steep.

Try doing a section of the hill in a certain gear doing a certain cadence. Try different gears/cadences over that section.
Find the gear/cadence/speed that is most sustainable.

But... if I were on a super long ride, I might lower my cadence a little and if I were on a short blast, I might go hell for leather and adopt a much higher cadence, if you see what I mean.

Do a 10 TT. You'll soon discover what's sustainable.

imposter2.0

SurferCyclist wrote:

It's just a personal thing, I find I cycle quicker and more efficiently at a certain cadence. As I said just a personal thing. Others may find power, average speed, max speed etc better for them.

I guess that's fine if your objective is cadence perfection. As for 'cycling quicker at a certain cadence' I guess that's relative. There's a bit of difference in speed terms cycling at 90rpm in 34/28, compared to cycling at 90rpm in 52/15...

Matthewfalle

JGSI wrote:

I was with a couple grinding away, still on the big ring.
It didnt happen for them .

so nothing to do with cadence, all about ego writing cheques their bodies couldn't cash

#feeltheneed,theneedforspeed

daniel_b

I used to ride at circa 70 rpm (only discovered that when I bothered to check) but have since fairly gradually upped it to around 90.

Having said that, I had a 40 miler yesterday where I averaged early 80's.

Personally, for longevity, and for me not to feel spent at the conclusion of a ride, 85-90 works best for ME.

Oh and from experience, and likely because my knees are not in tip top shape, if I have to grind at 50-60rpm for a solid few minutes, with high (for me) power output, then my knees will feel it for around 24hrs.

Matthewfalle

SurferCyclist wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

SurferCyclist wrote:

Sorry I forgot you were a little hard of understanding. Cadence, followed by HR. I obviously needed to put cadence is the most important followed in second place by HR but I didn't initially as I foolishly thought what I had written was clear enough.

BTW what is hf? Not come across that so far. Heart Fart? Heavy Feet?

#alsoconfused

your initial sentence was poorly constructed and poorly written so unfortunately it did not make sense, much like your metrics. its not our fault you had difficulty in writing two words.

so, cadence over hr? as imposter says, why have you chosen this? essentially though you have stated that both are the most important that you monitor but there is no line of equality to those variables.

#strange

and no, i wouldn't suggest hf as heart fart - the nearest i could say to a heart fart would be a status of VF of VT, but not hf. VB would not apply.

#moreconfused

Poorly written? You were the one who put hf instead of hr but never mind eh?

one fat finger typo on one letter does not make a whole sentence of poorly formatted gramatically incorrect bilge that reads neither here or there and needs 4 posts to try and make some clarity out of

#ohdearohdearohdearohdear

surfercyclist

Imposter wrote:

SurferCyclist wrote:

It's just a personal thing, I find I cycle quicker and more efficiently at a certain cadence. As I said just a personal thing. Others may find power, average speed, max speed etc better for them.

I guess that's fine if your objective is cadence perfection. As for 'cycling quicker at a certain cadence' I guess that's relative. There's a bit of difference in speed terms cycling at 90rpm in 34/28, compared to cycling at 90rpm in 52/15...

Well cadence perfection is definitely not my objective and I'd find it odd if it was anyones but with the wierdos in cycling who knows. The OP asked a question about cadence so I gave my opinion and it seems to have caused a bit of a stir for some reason which is odd as you'd think the lefties be out celebrating the Sainted Jeremys 70th rather than trying to be thick on purpose...

surfercyclist

Matthewfalle wrote:

SurferCyclist wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

SurferCyclist wrote:

Sorry I forgot you were a little hard of understanding. Cadence, followed by HR. I obviously needed to put cadence is the most important followed in second place by HR but I didn't initially as I foolishly thought what I had written was clear enough.

BTW what is hf? Not come across that so far. Heart Fart? Heavy Feet?

#alsoconfused

your initial sentence was poorly constructed and poorly written so unfortunately it did not make sense, much like your metrics. its not our fault you had difficulty in writing two words.

so, cadence over hr? as imposter says, why have you chosen this? essentially though you have stated that both are the most important that you monitor but there is no line of equality to those variables.

#strange

and no, i wouldn't suggest hf as heart fart - the nearest i could say to a heart fart would be a status of VF of VT, but not hf. VB would not apply.

#moreconfused

Poorly written? You were the one who put hf instead of hr but never mind eh?

one fat finger typo on one letter does not make a whole sentence of poorly formatted gramatically incorrect bilge that reads neither here or there and needs 4 posts to try and make some clarity out of

#ohdearohdearohdearohdear

Ahahaha, you mad bro? And as you're so keen on everything being correct, gramatically is spelt grammatically.

#mustryharder

imposter2.0

SurferCyclist wrote:

Well cadence perfection is definitely not my objective and I'd find it odd if it was anyones but with the wierdos in cycling who knows. The OP asked a question about cadence so I gave my opinion and it seems to have caused a bit of a stir for some reason which is odd as you'd think the lefties be out celebrating the Sainted Jeremys 70th rather than trying to be thick on purpose...

So because I'm questioning you on your fascination with cadence, I am therefore a marxist..?

Did I miss several pages of this discussion, or is that just one hell of a leap..??

surfercyclist

Imposter wrote:

SurferCyclist wrote:

Well cadence perfection is definitely not my objective and I'd find it odd if it was anyones but with the wierdos in cycling who knows. The OP asked a question about cadence so I gave my opinion and it seems to have caused a bit of a stir for some reason which is odd as you'd think the lefties be out celebrating the Sainted Jeremys 70th rather than trying to be thick on purpose...

So because I'm questioning you on your fascination with cadence, I am therefore a marxist..?

Did I miss several pages of this discussion, or is that just one hell of a leap..??

Wasn't really referring to you. Again, I'll probably get picked up on not being specific enough. Sigh.

And I'm honestly not fascinated by cadence, I find it a useful tool to make my cycling better. That's why I have a cadence sensor. Err, that's it really.

StillGoing

Do what is comfortable and most productive/sustainable for you. The average range is between 70 and 90 rpm. Above 90 is considered high and below 70 considered low, but what does it matter. If you can spin away at 100rpm then bravo. If you can grind away at 50rpm then bravo. What matters is that you're enjoying yourself.

imposter2.0

SurferCyclist wrote:

Imposter wrote:

SurferCyclist wrote:

Well cadence perfection is definitely not my objective and I'd find it odd if it was anyones but with the wierdos in cycling who knows. The OP asked a question about cadence so I gave my opinion and it seems to have caused a bit of a stir for some reason which is odd as you'd think the lefties be out celebrating the Sainted Jeremys 70th rather than trying to be thick on purpose...

So because I'm questioning you on your fascination with cadence, I am therefore a marxist..?

Did I miss several pages of this discussion, or is that just one hell of a leap..??

Wasn't really referring to you. Again, I'll probably get picked up on not being specific enough. Sigh.

Indeed you will. You quoted my post in your reply - so you can't really blame me for assuming that you were responding directly to me. Happy to hear that cadence is not an indicator of political persuasion though...

surfercyclist

Imposter wrote:

SurferCyclist wrote:

Imposter wrote:

SurferCyclist wrote:

Well cadence perfection is definitely not my objective and I'd find it odd if it was anyones but with the wierdos in cycling who knows. The OP asked a question about cadence so I gave my opinion and it seems to have caused a bit of a stir for some reason which is odd as you'd think the lefties be out celebrating the Sainted Jeremys 70th rather than trying to be thick on purpose...

So because I'm questioning you on your fascination with cadence, I am therefore a marxist..?

Did I miss several pages of this discussion, or is that just one hell of a leap..??

Wasn't really referring to you. Again, I'll probably get picked up on not being specific enough. Sigh.

Indeed you will. You quoted my post in your reply - so you can't really blame me for assuming that you were responding directly to me. Happy to hear that cadence is not an indicator of political persuasion though...

Actually I think you're onto something there. Hmmm, yes. Anyone who answers a question on cadence with an actual, you know answer is probably a fascist.


****IMPORTANT NOTICE*** THE ABOVE LINE ABOUT CADENCE LINKED TO FASCIM IS A JOKE, REPEAT A JOKE.


#justtomakeitclearforthesimpletons

ben@31

Champ340 wrote:

Hello, I Just got my first cadence sensor for my road bike. I have done 5000 km on my old bike and just upgraded to the Supersix Evo Hi Mod. What cadence should I be aiming for on my rides?

Many thanks!

Its personal. Just find your own sweetspot that you're comfortable with.

Some say 90rpm, I prefer spinning away in an easy gear and sustaining closer to 100rpm.

Unlike someone who posted earlier, I find cadence a useful figure to look at for when to change up or down a gear. If it drops below 90 rpm I go for an easier gear, I try not to go much above 100rpm.

yiannism

A great article about the correct cadence. https://www.bicycling.com/health-nutrition/a27454779/cycling-cadence-ideal/?fbclid=IwAR3YHcwdBAPhQGyqBbX9d1JPzHAR1fnOcasv94aYq6V9xjXqMOBTQLyDXKg