Cadence

imposter2.0

YiannisM wrote:

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

I stopped reading at ‘lance armstrong’....

surfercyclist

Imposter wrote:

YiannisM wrote:

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

I stopped reading at ‘lance armstrong’....

Yes, when it mentioned the fact he could sustain a high cadence and muscle the gear I did have a wry smile.

I do find his podcasts good though

Matthewfalle

testing sample of a massive 14 people comes up with one number.

final sentence of article says do you what you want.

its not exactly great really. more of a fluffer piece.

#ninawoulddobetter
#labcoat

N0bodyOfTheGoat

If I want to reduce strain on my legs and I'm not already in my easiest gear, I'll pedal at a higher cadence, typically ~90-105rpm.

If I'm trying to chase my segment PB and my legs are willing, often up a hill, I'll pedal at a lower cadence of ~75-85rpm in a gear I can generate ~300W+ (albeit my biggest real hill to date with a power meter took less than 15mins to climb last year).

hdow

It may be Sport Science but isn't very good science and seems to ignore what people in sport know. Namely that we can learn to do things such as spin at a higher, or lower, cadence and we can get stronger and fitter through training. We adapt. There is also the sport science failure to understand efficiency. We become efficient at what we do. So spin at 80rpm all the time and you will become most efficient at that cadence. Change that to 90rpm and you will initially lose efficiency, which is what these researchers observe, but your body will adapt and the higher level will become your most efficient. Measuring that change after adaption is usually too long term for most research papers so we may never know if a change in cadence could be good for us.

I've yet to come across any research that looks at optimum force. Do we have an optimum force we apply to the pedal each revolution for a given state of fitness? As has been said already when racing cadence is usually higher at shorter, faster races. Is that because the force applied is the same in all races but on shorter ones it can by applied more often and sustained for that race duration. Clearly measuring cadence and oxygen consumed in a lab is fairly easy compared with measuring force and oxygen consumed so guess which doesn't get researched.

So back to the original post. If you are riding for the fun of it does it matter what the cadence is as long as you enjoy the ride. If training to race that is a different matter.

imposter2.0

Hdow wrote:

It may be Sport Science but isn't very good science and seems to ignore what people in sport know.

So in other words, you would rather listen to speculation and conjecture, rather than scientific facts? Science doesn't care what you 'know' - it only cares what is correct, or what is established and proven. You're obviously entitled to ignore it, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Hdow wrote:

I've yet to come across any research that looks at optimum force. Do we have an optimum force we apply to the pedal each revolution for a given state of fitness?

I don't see why optimum force would be relevant in any way. Such a force would obviously be different, depending on what force was required in any given situation, whether climbing, sprinting, attacking, or whatever. To suggest there might be an 'optimum' force for a given state of fitness doesn't seem to have any basis in reality.

pinno

Hdow's post seemed rather rational to me.

imposter2.0

Pinno wrote:

Hdow's post seemed rather rational to me.

apart from all the bits that weren't, obviously...

Alejandrosdog

93 no more no less


#whateverworksforyou

Alejandrosdog

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...

Imbalance between legs and power might be though.

pblakeney

Hdow wrote:

So back to the original post. If you are riding for the fun of it does it matter what the cadence is as long as you enjoy the ride. If training to race that is a different matter.

A bit late to this, mostly avoiding the bickering, and just backing up Daniel B, but....
My natural cadence is around 70. This is fine, up to around 50 miles and then my legs are shot.
I've found that going at the same speed in lower gear at 80-90 rpm I can cover 100 miles without suffering.
So, do what you like but cadence does make a difference on long rides.

Matthewfalle

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....

well that shows exactly how little you know or understand about cycling.

of course cadence perfection is vitally important - its part of la souplesse which is the be all and end all.

you can google that term if you want.

#amateur
#playing
#whatisfascim

surfercyclist

Matthewfalle 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....

well that shows exactly how little you know or understand about cycling.

of course cadence perfection is vitally important - its part of la souplesse which is the be all and end all.

you can google that term if you want.

#amateur
#playing
#whatisfascim

What? You're STILL going on about this? FFS grow up you child.

Matthewfalle

SurferCyclist wrote:

Matthewfalle 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....

well that shows exactly how little you know or understand about cycling.

of course cadence perfection is vitally important - its part of la souplesse which is the be all and end all.

you can google that term if you want.

#amateur
#playing
#whatisfascim

What? You're STILL going on about this? FFS grow up you child.

ooooh. sweaty betty on a blue and yellow foamie.

#amateur
#playing

imposter2.0

PBlakeney wrote:

A bit late to this, mostly avoiding the bickering, and just backing up Daniel B, but....
My natural cadence is around 70. This is fine, up to around 50 miles and then my legs are shot.
I've found that going at the same speed in lower gear at 80-90 rpm I can cover 100 miles without suffering.
So, do what you like but cadence does make a difference on long rides.

You’re making the mistake of extrapolating your own experience and assuming everyone else will be the same. Meanwhile, science indicates that lower cadence has a lower metabolic demand than higher cadence, which suggests the opposite is more likely...

pblakeney

...unless muscle fatigue is a factor. My personal experience trumps scientific theory for my experience. And I did say "do as you like"...