Do i need a cadence monitor?

Dcully · 17-02-2015 6:31pm #1

Guys im considering getting a cadence monitor but not sure where to start or even what my options are.
Not sure if its relevant but my current bike computer is a cateye strada wireless, its not cadence compatible so im guessing ill have to change that for a start.
How does a cadence monitor work? im guessing a sensor on pedal crank and frame and then connected to cpu?

Also while im at it is it really essential for a sportive rider at best?
Up to now ive just rode what ever gear and cadence felt right to me but i could be way off with this or i could be spot on.

dragratchet · 17-02-2015 6:44pm

i make a lot of use of my cadence monitor. had it on my bikes and and took no notice for ages. use is constantly now to keep my spinning in the 85-95 rpm sweet spot and find my legs tiring out less. the new garmin cadence monitor attaches to the crank and uses accelerometers to measure your spin-rate, then it transmits the data via ant+ to the head unit. cant really comment re cat-eye gear but generally id recommend one for anyone of any level looking to improve.

Dcully · 17-02-2015 6:51pm

dragratchet wrote: »

i make a lot of use of my cadence monitor. had it on my bikes and and took no notice for ages. use is constantly now to keep my spinning in the 85-95 rpm sweet spot and find my legs tiring out less. the new garmin cadence monitor attaches to the crank and uses accelerometers to measure your spin-rate, then it transmits the data via ant+ to the head unit. cant really comment re cat-eye gear but generally id recommend one for anyone of any level looking to improve.

Thanks for that, any suggestions of one that will do the job so i can checkout out CRC etc to make a purchase .

Idleater · 17-02-2015 7:12pm

Dcully wrote: »

Guys im considering getting a cadence monitor but not sure where to start or even what my options are.

Depending on your musical ear, you could sing along to the beegees stayin alive. "100" bpm.

Brian? · 17-02-2015 7:21pm

I found my cadence sensor handy for about 3-4 weeks. It actually just confirmed there was nothing really wrong with my cadence, it was 90-95 without thinking about it too much.

It still could be useful to you though. I use a Garmin Edge 500 with a cadence sensor. Can't go wrong with owning a Garmin no matter what.

Unknown Soldier · 17-02-2015 11:30pm

Dcully wrote: »

Guys im considering getting a cadence monitor but not sure where to start or even what my options are.
Not sure if its relevant but my current bike computer is a cateye strada wireless, its not cadence compatible so im guessing ill have to change that for a start.
How does a cadence monitor work? im guessing a sensor on pedal crank and frame and then connected to cpu?

Also while im at it is it really essential for a sportive rider at best?
Up to now ive just rode what ever gear and cadence felt right to me but i could be way off with this or i could be spot on.

Knowing what I know now, I'd get one before the likes of a HRM.

It's a very useful tool. Whatever about guessing your cadence, it's pretty easy to guess your heart rate, in the sense that you're bollixed and out of breath.

Being someone who promotes cycling to anyone who will listen, It's one of the first bits of tech I'd recommend, after a decent cycling computer like a garmin.

mossym · 18-02-2015 10:16am

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

Knowing what I know now, I'd get one before the likes of a HRM.

It's a very useful tool. Whatever about guessing your cadence, it's pretty easy to guess your heart rate, in the sense that you're bollixed and out of breath.

Being someone who promotes cycling to anyone who will listen, It's one of the first bits of tech I'd recommend, after a decent cycling computer like a garmin.

you;re having a laugh right? cadence sensor more important than a HRM? if all you;re able to use a HRM for is to tell you if you're " bollixed and out of breath", then i'd suggest neither a cadence sensor nor a HRM will make any different to your cycling. just go cycle and enjoy it.

Unknown Soldier · 18-02-2015 11:08pm

mossym wrote: »

you;re having a laugh right? cadence sensor more important than a HRM? if all you;re able to use a HRM for is to tell you if you're " bollixed and out of breath", then i'd suggest neither a cadence sensor nor a HRM will make any different to your cycling. just go cycle and enjoy it.

HRM is a useful tool, as are most cycling "tools". I wasn't dismissing HRM.

I just think that Cadence is a more beneficial tool, starting off. You can put the hammer down for 2k as hard as you can, you're covered in sweat and drained, till you can't keep it up anymore, thats your heart maxing out.

You don't need a HRM to tell you that you're giving it loads but it is nice to have one and analyse it afterwards.

Cadence though is more tricky. Yes you can count to 30 and count the revolutions x 2 but the sensor makes it much more easier and a constant to refer too. And it improves your cycling, so I have found.

I was just saying I'd go Cadence before HRM had I a time machine

stecleary · 18-02-2015 11:50pm

the way i've used both cadence and HRM monitors is i used the cadence first to make sure i was maintaining the right cadence then started looking at what it was doing to my HR zones, over time i managed to somewhat control my zones and maintain my cadence, saying that once i hit zone 5 it all goes out the window, i can stay in zone 5 for an age but cant keep the cadence up.

if buying i'd advise buyinboth as a bundle and using them together, dont think i could use one with out the other

Koobcam · 19-02-2015 10:44am

stecleary wrote: »

the way i've used both cadence and HRM monitors is i used the cadence first to make sure i was maintaining the right cadence then started looking at what it was doing to my HR zones, over time i managed to somewhat control my zones and maintain my cadence, saying that once i hit zone 5 it all goes out the window, i can stay in zone 5 for an age but cant keep the cadence up.

if buying i'd advise buyinboth as a bundle and using them together, dont think i could use one with out the other

Agree, best thing to do is get a bundle. OP should be able to get something like a Garmin edge 500 with HR and cadence/speed for around €200 these days. or less second hand.

tunney · 19-02-2015 10:58am

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

HRM is a useful tool, as are most cycling "tools". I wasn't dismissing HRM.

I just think that Cadence is a more beneficial tool, starting off. You can put the hammer down for 2k as hard as you can, you're covered in sweat and drained, till you can't keep it up anymore, thats your heart maxing out.

Its not, its your central governor.

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

You don't need a HRM to tell you that you're giving it loads but it is nice to have one and analyse it afterwards.

Sometimes I think I've clicked into humour and not cycling.

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

Cadence though is more tricky. Yes you can count to 30 and count the revolutions x 2 but the sensor makes it much more easier and a constant to refer too. And it improves your cycling, so I have found.

I was just saying I'd go Cadence before HRM had I a time machine

I would ask are you aware that a self selected cadence is often the optimal cadence but I'm pretty sure you're not aware.

dragratchet · 19-02-2015 11:22am

can we not just agree that the op needs an srm?

tunney · 19-02-2015 11:28am

dragratchet wrote: »

can we not just agree that the op needs an srm?

No need, stages does the job at a fraction of the price.

tunney · 19-02-2015 11:29am

If the output of a tool isn't understood, or if its not clear how the output will shape or improve your training then the tool isn't needed.

quozl · 19-02-2015 11:31am

tunney wrote: »

If the output of a tool isn't understood, or if its not clear how the output will shape or improve your training then the tool isn't needed.

but yet you keep posting...

jinkypolly · 19-02-2015 12:09pm

stecleary wrote: »

the way i've used both cadence and HRM monitors is i used the cadence first to make sure i was maintaining the right cadence then started looking at what it was doing to my HR zones, over time i managed to somewhat control my zones and maintain my cadence, saying that once i hit zone 5 it all goes out the window, i can stay in zone 5 for an age but cant keep the cadence up.

if buying i'd advise buyinboth as a bundle and using them together, dont think i could use one with out the other

There's no such thing as 'the right cadence'.
To the OP, knowing your cadence is pretty much the least useful piece of data you can have, it means nothing in relation to how hard you're going or how hard you can continue to go. If we're comparing to HRM then that is by far more useful as it gives an indication of how hard the engine is running and as you get to know your own zones and limits it will show you how long you can keep any efforts up.

stecleary · 19-02-2015 1:18pm

jinkypolly wrote: »

There's no such thing as 'the right cadence'.

Correct I should have said my target cadence

eeeee · 19-02-2015 2:55pm

jinkypolly wrote: »

There's no such thing as 'the right cadence'.
To the OP, knowing your cadence is pretty much the least useful piece of data you can have, it means nothing in relation to how hard you're going or how hard you can continue to go. If we're comparing to HRM then that is by far more useful as it gives an indication of how hard the engine is running and as you get to know your own zones and limits it will show you how long you can keep any efforts up.

Not really. If you know you can spin at 120 for x mins in y gear that's gonna help you a lot in races and for pacing etc. I have a cadence sensor, no HRM. Learning how to spin has improved my cycling ability 100%, spinning along in a cadence you find comfortable is not going to help you progress, and, having been an out and out masher climbing is a LOT easier now I can spin and has made me a lot faster in general, not just on track. Thinking you're spinning and actually spinning a decent cadence on the road are two very different things in my experience. Spinning leaves my legs 'fuller' for a hard effort at the end if needed, as it doesn't tire out my muscles as much. My lungs yes, legs no!

Unknown Soldier · 19-02-2015 8:53pm

tunney wrote: »

Its not, its your central governor.

Sometimes I think I've clicked into humour and not cycling.

I would ask are you aware that a self selected cadence is often the optimal cadence but I'm pretty sure you're not aware.

It was just a personal opinion, from a person who uses a bike for commuting/leisure. I just like tinkering with tech

I'd still happily recommend a speed/cadence sensor over a HRM for someone, if they asked my opinion. Better to have both tbh.

mossym · 19-02-2015 9:28pm

gadetra wrote: »

Not really. If you know you can spin at 120 for x mins in y gear that's gonna help you a lot in races and for pacing etc. I have a cadence sensor, no HRM. Learning how to spin has improved my cycling ability 100%, spinning along in a cadence you find comfortable is not going to help you progress, and, having been an out and out masher climbing is a LOT easier now I can spin and has made me a lot faster in general, not just on track. Thinking you're spinning and actually spinning a decent cadence on the road are two very different things in my experience. Spinning leaves my legs 'fuller' for a hard effort at the end if needed, as it doesn't tire out my muscles as much. My lungs yes, legs no!

what happens when you hit a hill? or a head wind? your body is now working way harder to hold that 120 for x mins. you may hold it for 25 mins one day, half that another .

if only there was a way to judge how hard your body was working to hold that effort. like a HRM.....

mossym · 19-02-2015 9:33pm

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

HRM is a useful tool, as are most cycling "tools". I wasn't dismissing HRM.

I just think that Cadence is a more beneficial tool, starting off. You can put the hammer down for 2k as hard as you can, you're covered in sweat and drained, till you can't keep it up anymore, thats your heart maxing out.

You don't need a HRM to tell you that you're giving it loads but it is nice to have one and analyse it afterwards.

Cadence though is more tricky. Yes you can count to 30 and count the revolutions x 2 but the sensor makes it much more easier and a constant to refer too. And it improves your cycling, so I have found.

I was just saying I'd go Cadence before HRM had I a time machine

you don't need anything to tell you you;re giving it loads.

and cadence does nothing to measure effort. maybe if you link to a specific gear, but even that's highly flawed.

also, just curious, but how did you pick the cadence you aim for? is it based on some analysis of your optimal cadence(guessing not without a HRM or a PM?) or is it jsut based the often floated idea that faster is better?

Unknown Soldier · 19-02-2015 9:45pm

mossym wrote: »

what happens when you hit a hill? or a head wind? your body is now working way harder to hold that 120 for x mins. you may hold it for 25 mins one day, half that another .

if only there was a way to judge how hard your body was working to hold that effort. like a HRM.....

Or, your ...body?

:pac:

I'm outta here!

mossym · 19-02-2015 10:03pm

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

Or, your ...body?

:pac:

I'm outta here!

after pointing out the extent of the ability to measure your body as being okay or bollixed and out of breath, are you now claiming you could accurately tell a 10% increase in your HR? the sort of target you might be aiming to keep to going up for a hill for example?

cadence on the other hand, if you've been cycling a while, is much easier to guesstimate. still a margin of error, but i'd be very surprised if you found a cyclist with some experience who couldn't tell the difference between 70, 90 and 110 rpm

i've no problem with you advocating a cadence sensor. but claiming it's better than a HRM should at least be based on some knowledge of how a hrm works and the benefits, which really appears not to be case

Unknown Soldier · 19-02-2015 10:34pm

mossym wrote: »

but claiming it's better than a HRM should at least be based on some knowledge of how a hrm works and the benefits, which really appears not to be case

I don't think I said the above.

Did I?

Please correct me, I may have missed it.

mossym · 19-02-2015 10:37pm

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

I don't think I said the above.

Did I?

Please correct me, I may have missed it.

you claimed a cadence sensor was better/more useful than a hrm.

I just think that Cadence is a more beneficial tool, starting off.

surely a judgement like that can only be made if you have knowledge of both? otherwise how can you claim one is better?

outfox · 19-02-2015 11:39pm

This has to be the most argumentative thread I've read in a while.
Why can't we all just get along?

Carawaystick · 19-02-2015 11:51pm

the op doesn't *need* a cadence monitor, like they need a bell and yellow reflectors on the pedals....
but I suppose its nice to have.

mossym · 19-02-2015 11:53pm

Carawaystick wrote: »

the op doesn't *need* a cadence monitor, like they need a bell and yellow reflectors on the pedals....
but I suppose its nice to have.

best advice given yet. apart from the bell/reflectors bit

op, your natural cadence is probably best, if you don't know if you need one, you don't, just go out and enjoy your bike

eeeee · 20-02-2015 12:03am

mossym wrote: »

best advice given yet. apart from the bell/reflectors bit
op, your natural cadence is probably best, if you don't know if you need one, you don't, just go out and enjoy your bike

Totally disagree, sorry. You don't need anything else but a bike to enjoy the bike! But OP did ask…

I have to say developing your cadence is a pretty fundamental thing to do. It gives you way more options. You can spin up a climb without stressing out the lg muscles, leaving them fresh for further climbs or attacks, if you can spin a gear at a decent cadence you will out-sprint those who can't.

No one needs a cadence meter, or a HRM or anything, but a cadence meter is useful. It depends what you want. It can help make you go faster, climb better and quicker and give you way more options with your gearing. Once you have that down, then work on strength, you have the best of your ability covered-you can spin a big gear at a high cadence your sprinting will improve immeasurably. There is a reason the best road sprinters have a good track pedigree. Even just for everyday riding it will make you fitter, (it stresses you heart and lungs more) and faster. It's not essential, but working on cadence gives you way more options you just don't have if you only ever pick a comfy cadence and stick to it.

ETA: And obviously if you can spin a low gear fast your legs get to the top of a climb way, way fresher than those who have to mash their way up it. I can 100% attest to the above as an-on-the-way-to-being-reformed masher. It's made everything a lot easier. I still have a ways to go but learning to spin has had the biggest effect on my cycling.

dragratchet · 20-02-2015 12:09am

practical example in favour of a cadence meter as gadetra was saying.

pre-cadence meter id have a tendency to grind away on the flat between 75-80 rpm, towards the 2/3 point of a long spin my legs would be goosed.

with-cadence i try to correct my natural mashing and bring it up to 85-95 in a handier gear, hey presto legs are feeling great longer. eventually i hope the faster spin-rate becomes the norm

used to use a hrm as well, but as unknown soldier said ive come to know where im at heart-rate wise.. not exactly of course but i know enough not to blow a fuse chasing lighter cyclists up climbs.

mossym · 20-02-2015 8:31am

gadetra wrote: »

Totally disagree, sorry. You don't need anything else but a bike to enjoy the bike! But OP did ask…

I have to say developing your cadence is a pretty fundamental thing to do. It gives you way more options. You can spin up a climb without stressing out the lg muscles, leaving them fresh for further climbs or attacks, if you can spin a gear at a decent cadence you will out-sprint those who can't.

No one needs a cadence meter, or a HRM or anything, but a cadence meter is useful. It depends what you want. It can help make you go faster, climb better and quicker and give you way more options with your gearing. Once you have that down, then work on strength, you have the best of your ability covered-you can spin a big gear at a high cadence your sprinting will improve immeasurably. There is a reason the best road sprinters have a good track pedigree. Even just for everyday riding it will make you fitter, (it stresses you heart and lungs more) and faster. It's not essential, but working on cadence gives you way more options you just don't have if you only ever pick a comfy cadence and stick to it.

ETA: And obviously if you can spin a low gear fast your legs get to the top of a climb way, way fresher than those who have to mash their way up it. I can 100% attest to the above as an-on-the-way-to-being-reformed masher. It's made everything a lot easier. I still have a ways to go but learning to spin has had the biggest effect on my cycling.

I see you avoided my other questions. Your reasoning there is deeply flawed, for reasons I've already outlined.

Cadence is a useful tool. There is no doubt there. It gives no indication of effort though, and it only becomes a useful tool when combined with some measure of how your body is exerting. Other wise people are just chasing higher cadences for what? Because the pros do? Are you all single digit bf% 5w/kg + riders as well?

We're going round in circles here so I'm leaving it at that. Think the op has seen both sides now. Funny how the simplest discussions drive the most debate

Do i need a cadence monitor?

Comments