Cadence

I've been trying to do the same thing. In the past I've always ground along at, I now know, 70-75rpm. My solution to upping my cadence was to get a computer with a cadence sensor so that I can see exactly what I'm doing.

I still find it awkward; it seems very strange to have my legs twirling round not achieving very much, but I'm going to stick with it for a while and see if it makes as much of a difference as is claimed.

So far, 90 rpm seems to be about optimum for me, even though my training prog. says 100.

SCR Pedro wrote:

... I've found that I'm more comfortable at 110 on the flat and 90 on the hills, but again I'm sure others will tell you that they are comfortable with lower figures.

Cheers
Pedro

There's no way that I could cycle at 110 rpm! 100 feels ludicrous to me. In my imagination 110 would look and feel comical, but each to their own I guess.

I've used the Strada's predecessor, the Astrale, and had similar problems - the cadence wouldn't register even if the magnet and sensor were almost touching. At the time I wasn't sufficiently interested in finding a solution, so it never worked. I'm now using a Polar CS200.

Oh, and a belated welcome to the forum.

murco wrote:

Hi can anyone tell me whats the best way to start training using cadence, as i have tended to ride using low revs in high gears and find spinning feels awkward. just done a 42mile ride in 2hrs 12 on a taxing route between Gloucester and Newport along the A48 and would like to be able to do this again but with something left in my legs.

There is no best way of training with cadence (as a variable on its own).

That's because cadence only tells you the rate you turn the cranks over and nothing about how hard you are going. Cadence is simply an outcome of your power. Not the other way round.

Focus on the effort level in your training. That is the path to improved fitness (IOW - sustainable aerobic power).

I bought a computer with cadence on it last year. I spent the whole year looking at that rather than speed as my main measure.

I was told that 92.6 is the optimum but, on the flat or a drag, I'm happy to be running at 80. On hills it drops down to 70 or even 60.

Aiming for 80 on my training rides (but without obsessing about it) really improved my average speeds, stamina and fitness. My guess is that it had something to do with a better use of the gears, i.e. not wearing myself out by grinding away on the little end of the block all the time.

As you can see, I am no sports scientist, but it seemed to help!

I got a cadence monitor 7 or so weeks ago looking at the Garmin TC the average seems to be around the 79 mark. I'm told the ideal is around 90, perhaps on a short flat I could hit that. :shock:

I've been toying with cadence training and it is hard to get used to (I'm still trying) but I know when I'm in 8th gear (my bike has 16) I can do a cadence of 120@30mph and 40mph in 16th flat out, I generally do this as intervals...do 1 interval in 8th then rest then the next in 16th. My average (comfortable) cadence is around 70 - 90

I am getting used to it.......slowly!!!! persevere Gentlemen.....persevere!

i have the oposite problem, I think my cadence is too fast at times, i often find myself around 100-110 but have been trying to make an effort to push bigger gears but my legs suffer, i think this is due to lack of strength - my legs have been called "ballerina legs"

It is quite useful to train at a faster cadence quite independantly of your training to increase power and fitness.
Cadence training should be done at low power, you are training muscle memory not your heart and lungs.
Pick an easy crusing power level/heartrate.
Use an easy pedalling force.
Pick a gear that allows you to maintain that force and heartrate.
Gradually wind up your cadence (but not your heartrate) to your highest level and keep it there for 1 minute. Wind down and shake out/stretch a bit then repeat a few times.

Once your legs get used to moving quickly you can add in more power.

Note that tall riders or short riders using long cranks have difficulty maintaining high cadence.

The other benefit of high cadence training is you train your "fast twitch" muscles which will also improve your explosive acceleration as it's your fast twitch muscles deliver that explosive power.

Another benefit of high cadence training is your "lactate threshold" increases.

John.T wrote:

Cadence training IS about training the heart and lungs. A higher cadence requires more oxygen than a lower one for the same power output. There is less muscle fatigue though. You need to train at both high and low cadences. Low to improve leg strength (or do gym work for this but I think hills are better) and high cadence hill work to increase the speed you can use the strength at. This is the most difficult part. I can ride for ages at 90 to 100 rpm on the flat but as soon as it points up my cadence drops even when going right down the gears. I know I should take my own advice and train but I think my miscles are now too old to learn new tricks.

Low cadence/hill work does nothing for your "strength". But I suppose some use the term "strength" to describe a feeling of being able to climb well.

Strength is maximal force exerted by a muscle or group of muscles. Going up a hill is about mostly about aerobic power production. They are not related. The forces involved in riding a bike even up a very steep hill are far too low to induce the physiological adaptations related to strength.

Otherwise we'd see power lifters winning hill climbs.

Crapaud wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

There is no best way of training with cadence (as a variable on its own).

That's because cadence only tells you the rate you turn the cranks over and nothing about how hard you are going. Cadence is simply an outcome of your power. Not the other way round.

Focus on the effort level in your training. That is the path to improved fitness (IOW - sustainable aerobic power).

Alex, are you saying to ignore cadence? The reason I ask is because I've been trying to follow a training plan from Polar Personal Trainer (see screenshots) ..

...and trying to keep to both the cadence and HR without success. I don't know if there's some knack to it, but it seems impossible. My gut feeling - because proper training is new and alien to me - is that the HR zones are too low for the cadence. Any thoughts, pointers and / or suggestions appreciated.

What I'm saying is to focus on the effort level.

Cadence is simply a by product of that. Record it, sure. Look at it, sure. Make sure you are not pedalling at silly cadences, sure (e.g. you have gearing appropriate for the hills you do). But other than that, forget about cadence.

When doing a workout, THE most important aspect is intensity. Cadence does not measure intensity. It simply tells you how fast you are turning the cranks over.

Providing a training guideline that says "ride at this cadence" without also stating "at this average effective pedal force" or "at this torque" or "at this power" is simply meaningless.

it like being asked to measure the area of a rectangle but you are only allowed to measure the length of one side.

There is nothing wrong with pedalling at various cadences or learning how to spin faster but it needs to be done at the appropriate level of intensity. And since efficieny varies with cadence, then using HR as a guide to intensity is problematic.


When Eddy Merckx was asked by a junior up n comer one day whether he should first concentrate on learning to spin fast or ride a big gear, Eddy replied "learn to spin a big gear"

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Denny69 wrote:

The other benefit of high cadence training is you train your "fast twitch" muscles which will also improve your explosive acceleration as it's your fast twitch muscles deliver that explosive power.

Actually it's the other way round. More fast twitch fibres are recruited at lower cadences.

Perhaps I should clarify because cadence is really the wrong way to think about it.

Muscle fibres types are recruited based on the forces applied to the pedals (and not cadence).

Lower forces recruit Type I (slowtwitch) fibres whereas Type IIa and Type IIb (fast twitch) fibres are recruited at high forces. It is a continuum so there is no force level where suddenly one muscle type switches off and another switches on.

At the same power (or speed), pedal forces are lower when cadence is higher (power = torque x cadence). So at low cadences, the pedal forces are higher and the likelyhood of recruiting more fast twitch fibres increases.

It does not mean you recruit that many Type IIx fibres as it does require one to ride at fairly high power outputs (since the forces exerted on pedals are not that high to start with - even on those so called "Strength Endurance" low cadence efforts done uphill).

One end of the spectrum - standing starts on a track bike - are a classic example of recruiting fast twitch fibres at low cadence (which really is a high force scenario).

But this is where the cadence bit confuses some people - If you can also produce high forces at high cadence, then this also recruits Type IIx fibres. This is the domain of the track match sprinter.

For JRA at 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110, 120 rpm then there ain't much change in fibre rectuitment likely to happen.

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Denny69 wrote:

The other benefit of high cadence training is you train your "fast twitch" muscles which will also improve your explosive acceleration as it's your fast twitch muscles deliver that explosive power.

Actually it's the other way round. More fast twitch fibres are recruited at lower cadences.

Perhaps I should clarify because cadence is really the wrong way to think about it.

Muscle fibres types are recruited based on the forces applied to the pedals (and not cadence).

Lower forces recruit Type I (slowtwitch) fibres whereas Type IIa and Type IIb (fast twitch) fibres are recruited at high forces. It is a continuum so there is no force level where suddenly one muscle type switches off and another switches on.

At the same power (or speed), pedal forces are lower when cadence is higher (power = torque x cadence). So at low cadences, the pedal forces are higher and the likelyhood of recruiting more fast twitch fibres increases.

It does not mean you recruit that many Type IIx fibres as it does require one to ride at fairly high power outputs (since the forces exerted on pedals are not that high to start with - even on those so called "Strength Endurance" low cadence efforts done uphill).

One end of the spectrum - standing starts on a track bike - are a classic example of recruiting fast twitch fibres at low cadence (which really is a high force scenario).

But this is where the cadence bit confuses some people - If you can also produce high forces at high cadence, then this also recruits Type IIx fibres. This is the domain of the track match sprinter.

For JRA at 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110, 120 rpm then there ain't much change in fibre rectuitment likely to happen.

Oh I see! I was lead to believe that working at a quicker rate employed "fast twitch" muscles and looking at it that's believable.....I have been fed a bit of BS haven't I?

Most of the time I try to keep 90-100RPM and say if I am going along a good fast stretch I see what my cadence is for 25mph then switch to cadence and try keep at about 110RPM then I know I'm keeping my speed, easier than looking at speed too, yesterday I got about 28mph at something like 140rpm but I find that I can get about 36mph on 15th out of 18 gears but I must be doing like 130RPM.

parkaboy wrote:

Strength is maximal force exerted by a muscle or group of muscles. Going up a hill is about mostly about aerobic power production. They are not related. The forces involved in riding a bike even up a very steep hill are far too low to induce the physiological adaptations related to strength.

is this the official definition of strength?

If I'd put the word "Muscular" in front of Strength, then yes, absolutely. It is the defninition that's been used in physiology for over a century and there is no reason to change it now.

Is it how people bandy the word around or use it in conversation? Probably not. But if they are going to use the term in a sense that implies an exercise induced physiological adaptation, then they should use the correct definition.

Indeed maximal force exertion occurs at zero or near velocity (i.e. an isometric contraction). The joint angles and velocities on a bike, even on a hill at a lowly cadence of 50rpm, are still nowhere near what is required to induce adaptations in muscular strength (via hypertrophy - which is the adaptation required for strength). Neither are we likely to see recruitment of Type II fibres during prolonged bouts of exercise.

Sustained hard riding up a hill (whatever cadence we do it at) has the effect of inducing training adaptions related to our sustainable aerobic power (increased capilliary density, mitochondral enzyme density, increased VO2 Max and cardiac output, increased muscle gylogogen storage capacity) but not our muscular strength.