Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Do i need a cadence monitor?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    tunney
    Registered Users Posts: 12,583 ✭✭✭✭tunney


    Mods may I suggest just banning me now and saving us all a few hours today?


  • Options
    #33
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,922 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    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

    Where does this idea that "your natural cadence is best" come from? I can't see how that's true.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #34
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,017 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Brian? wrote: »
    Where does this idea that "your natural cadence is best" come from? I can't see how that's true.
    As I understand it there is a lack of evidence that attempting to change cadence (all other things being equal) has any real impact on performance, except perhaps right at the outer envelope of human performance and assisted by PEDs (c.f. Lance).

    Like most areas of study, trying to separate causation from correlation is difficult and there is a lot of duff research (and even duffer commentary) to wade through to reach the truth.

    IMO "poor form" (e.g. grinding and nodding) is more a symptom of limited aerobic development, strength and conditioning than something to be treated directly, and although I guess telling someone to spin at 100rpm for four hours is as good a way as any to force aerobic development it also risks masking strength and conditioning problems that will likely re-emerge later.


  • Options
    #35
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,922 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Lumen wrote: »
    As I understand it there is a lack of evidence that attempting to change cadence (all other things being equal) has any real impact on performance, except perhaps right at the outer envelope of human performance and assisted by PEDs (c.f. Lance).

    Like most areas of study, trying to separate causation from correlation is difficult and there is a lot of duff research (and even duffer commentary) to wade through to reach the truth.

    IMO "poor form" (e.g. grinding and nodding) is more a symptom of limited aerobic development, strength and conditioning than something to be treated directly, and although I guess telling someone to spin at 100rpm for four hours is as good a way as any to force aerobic development it also risks masking strength and conditioning problems that will likely re-emerge later.

    Increased cadence does 2 things:

    1. Lowers joint stress, lowers injury risk.

    2. Increases aerobic load, gets you fitter.

    The drawbacks of increasing your cadence: being too epic.

    I'm not talking anything crazy here, 90 +/- 5 is grand.

    I'm not sure how it could mask strength issues. The role of strength training in cycling is over stated IMO, it's a marginal gain that will benefit the elite. Unless it's to correct imbalances brought on by cycling such as quad dominance.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #36
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,017 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Brian? wrote: »
    The role of strength training in cycling is over stated IMO, it's a marginal gain that will benefit the elite.
    I think of "strength and conditioning" as any training done off the bike, e.g. stretching and core work. I do not agree that this is only beneficial to elite cyclists.

    I think it's fairly obvious that if you adopt a less stressful (higher cadence) cycling style then you're not doing to find about your strength and conditioning shortcomings until you get fitter and the applied forces increase.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,922 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Lumen wrote: »
    I think of "strength and conditioning" as any training done off the bike, e.g. stretching and core work. I do not agree that this is only beneficial to elite cyclists.

    I think it's fairly obvious that if you adopt a less stressful (higher cadence) cycling style then you're not doing to find about your strength and conditioning shortcomings until you get fitter and the applied forces increase.

    I only questioned the strength component. Conditioning is essential.

    I think what's severely neglected among most amateur cyclists is mobility work. Stretching is only one component of mobility work, I don't know one cyclist who spends enough time on their hip mobility. That includes me by the way.

    IMO hip mobility and core strength are the 2 most important factors in injury prevention. Not just In cycling either.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #38
    Dcully
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 14,689 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dcully


    Thanks for all input folks, more food for thought than i expected :)


  • Options
    #39
    eeeee
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 6,831 Mod ✭✭✭✭eeeee


    mossym wrote: »
    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

    Eh? The hill and the headwind? Change down and spin into them! Fresher legs for a big pull after!

    Being able to spin a gear is a huge advantage, I can confidently assert that having been someone who couldn't. I don't see how being fitter, having fresher legs is no advantage?!

    Strength and conditioning is a big part too. Being able to push a big gear, having the strength to do that is hugely important. Having the fitness to spin and the strength to push is the ideal.

    Re flexibility, I totally agree. For a few months I could only cycle, and it affected my flexibility massively. I got much tighter in the hamstrings and weaker of core. I know stretching is pretty controversial but it definitely has a place for me now until I can get back to off the bike work.

    Ultimately it depends on what you want. I race track, where leg speed combined with strength is the most important thing. Upping my cadence has improved my speed and climbing on the road as a consequence immeasurably. How fast you turn your legs is one of the fundamentals of cycling, it has a massive effect on how fast and far you can go. It makes sense to me anyway to work on it. What good is only being able to spin at 80-90 into a headwind/up a hill/Sprint/break when you run out of gears to change down to? Or in my case leg speed to make it. Minus the hill. Track is mountain free! ( although it has made me enjoy climbing, something I NEVER did before I could spin up them.)


  • Options
    #40
    tunney
    Registered Users Posts: 12,583 ✭✭✭✭tunney


    gadetra wrote: »
    Ultimately it depends on what you want. I race track, where leg speed combined with strength is the most important thing.

    Track.... fixed gear..... direct relationship between speed and cadence........

    You cycled around the outside of Harolds Cross Greyhound track once didn't you? Thats it?


  • Options
    #41
    eeeee
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 6,831 Mod ✭✭✭✭eeeee


    tunney wrote: »
    Track.... fixed gear..... direct relationship between speed and cadence........

    You cycled around the outside of Harolds Cross Greyhound track once didn't you? Thats it?

    Ha ha ha Well you're lovely! I raced all summer and autumn last year, did 4days a week on track between training and racing. I did two rounds of nationals, crashed at the third.
    There is a direct and very clear correlation between cadence, leg speed and track success. I train with several national champions (albeit some distance behind them!) And 2 masters world champions. They know what they're talking about, and I know what they told me. The cadence is king mantra comes from the coach of one of the world champions and most of the national champions. It seems to be working out pretty well so far :rolleyes:

    I can't claim to know everything about it to be fair, but I have practiced what I preach and you can see how important leg speed and cadence are EVERY TIME I'm on track. But I mean yes I'm sure you know all there is to know and several national and world champions and their coaches are wrong :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    sconhome
    Registered Users Posts: 5,468 ✭✭✭sconhome


    @gadetra - I agree with you re cadence and strength as being the function to success in fixed gear racing but the ability to sustain that cadence and power comes from the ability of the heart to do that work.

    Fitness comes from measuring the heart and working to be able to sustain cadence at a particular effort. No point being able to spin a gear if you have no power to drive yourself uphill or launch an attack. Without getting into a PM discussion surely training with a HRM (and knowing what to do with it) is fundamentally more beneficial to any athlete looking to improve?

    Working on cadence alone won't bring any measure of fitness, it is all measured in arbitrary RPE which defaults to how strong on that particular ride the athlete is mentally.


  • Options
    #43
    eeeee
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 6,831 Mod ✭✭✭✭eeeee


    Of course. But the OP's original question was whether a cadence sensor would be useful. I set out why I thought a cadence sensor would be useful, from the view of my own experience. I never said HRM's or the like weren't useful! I said cadence seniors are useful, in my opinion, and why. Some people agreed, some disagreed. I never said there isn't a case for other measurements! I can only speak from the benefit of my experience, and what those more experienced around me tell me. I did't say cadence was the only thing, but the question was about cadence so that's what I responded to.

    ETA working on cadence has made a massive difference to my fitness, so I think it's actually incorrect to say it won't have any effect imo. Also working on cadence doesn't mean just spinning along in an easy gear, I assumed people understood that?


  • Options
    #44
    Ole Rodrigo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,013 ✭✭✭Ole Rodrigo


    Good cadence gives your form more suplesse. That may have marginal performance benefits. More likely, it'll keep the cameras on you longer to expose your sponsors.

    In answer to the OPs question - no. It'll make your bike look awful.


  • Options
    #45
    el tel
    Registered Users Posts: 2,991 ✭✭✭el tel


    I'm looking forward to the day when technology has moved on so far that eyebrows will be raised at noobies for asking if a SRM/HRM/GPS/Garmin etc. would be of use in their rather modest cycling regimen. How we will scoff at how **** and useless these once heralded gizmos are compared to the new, latest and greatest devices. I think it will be sometime in 2017.


Advertisement