Cadence

GT_TDI_150

Guys/Gals,

Is there an optimum rate of cadence?

I've gotten back on the bike very recently after some medical issues and purchased a Garmin with HR an cadence monitor ...

So now Im wondering what should I aim for in the cadence reading, I've been averaging 74rpm on my last 2 spins ... should I be pushing for more, build it up slowly OR is 74 acceptable?

Im currently averaging 24kph, before I had to get off the bike last year I was averaging just above 25kph.

Thanks

Ryder

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Guys/Gals,

Is there an optimum rate of cadence?

I've gotten back on the bike very recently after some medical issues and purchased a Garmin with HR an cadence monitor ...

So now Im wondering what should I aim for in the cadence reading, I've been averaging 74rpm on my last 2 spins ... should I be pushing for more, build it up slowly OR is 74 acceptable?

Im currently averaging 24kph, before I had to get off the bike last year I was averaging just above 25kph.

Thanks

you should be aiming at 90 plus. Less strain on ligaments/ tendons and you work the cardiovascular system more. Ignore speed for a couple of spins and work on increasing the cadence

GT_TDI_150

Ryder wrote: »

you should be aiming at 90 plus. Less strain on ligaments/ tendons and you work the cardiovascular system more. Ignore speed for a couple of spins and work on increasing the cadence

Thanks

so do I drive the current gearing a little harder or down change earlier to run higher RPM?

Pablo Rubio

For starting off ,If you are struggling to push 80 RPM cadence move into a lower gear. If you are over 100 RPM and getting no where and very little resistance move up a gear.It takes a bit of time and practice to get used to the higher pedalling revs but once you get into you will feel a more fluid pedalling movement. As Ryder says ignore speed. I use my Garmin and watch heart rate and cadence moreso than speed. Very useful when you want to have hard training days or easy/rest training days.

Idleater

I spent winter training 2011/2012 working on cadence as I had never been good at it (was always pushing big gears) and managed to get comfortable at 95-100. This was at the complete expense of power which was way down.
I then cycled the Pyrenees during last summer and instantly reverted to 70.

I put this down completely to bad training on my part, but I reckon your muscles have a happy state. My current "training" is 80-90 which seems to be working out a bit better than my last attempt, but at the hill climb last week I dropped to 72 again.

Moral (for me anyway) is that you have to listen to your body rather than the Internet.

ROK ON

I have been aware of low cadence for years and have spent a huge amount of time trying to rectify that.
Spinning easy gears, spending winter in small ring, doing cadence drills on the turbo.

Whether it is poor training/lack of discipline/ or my legs nothing has worked for me.

High cadence leaves my knees very sore. Low cadence doesnt. My natural cadence is around 80 and I have decided this year to accept that. No idea whether this is 'wrong' but I couldnt care less any longer. I dont like high cadence and I do like low cadence.

Pablo Rubio

Everyone is different . Fast twitch muscles , slow twitch muscles etc,etc.....I'm no expert either but I think when you feel the pedals flowing instead of "pedalling squares" your cadence should be fairly good.

Lumen

Pablo Rubio wrote: »

Everyone is different . Fast twitch muscles , slow twitch muscles etc,etc.....I'm no expert either but I think when you feel the pedals flowing instead of "pedalling squares" your cadence should be fairly good.

I reckon that nature knows best, to some extent.

People who prefer low cadence tend to have greater leg mass. Greater leg mass means high cadence is less efficient.

That's my theory anyway.

The slow/fast twitch thing, not so sure. You can't fast twitch for 4 hours at any cadence.

ROK ON

^

This makes me happy.

You have justified my low cadence.

I will sleep happy tonight.

ballyharpat

An optimal cadence is 85-95 for amateur/sportif cyclists. 75 seems very low, is that for total time on the bike, or is it just the average for the time spent pedaling?





Is there an optimum rate of cadence?

I've gotten back on the bike very recently after some medical issues and purchased a Garmin with HR an cadence monitor ...

So now Im wondering what should I aim for in the cadence reading, I've been averaging 74rpm on my last 2 spins ... should I be pushing for more, build it up slowly OR is 74 acceptable?

Im currently averaging 24kph, before I had to get off the bike last year I was averaging just above 25kph.

Thanks[/QUOTE]

jinkypolly

There is no such thing as an optimal cadence for amateur/sportif cyclists. Every body's physiology is different, nobody can tell you a specific cadence is right, just trust your body and ride at whatever is most comfortable. What you can do through specific training is to change the cadence you feel comfortable with but my advice would be to not fret over it, just listen to your body.

ballyharpat

jinkypolly wrote: »

There is no such thing as an optimal cadence for amateur/sportif cyclists. Every body's physiology is different, nobody can tell you a specific cadence is right, just trust your body and ride at whatever is most comfortable. What you can do through specific training is to change the cadence you feel comfortable with but my advice would be to not fret over it, just listen to your body.

??? If I listened to my body, 6/7 yrs ago, I'd be spinning at 70/80 cadence and would have spent knees by now since I ride upwards of 5000 miles per year, but thanks for stepping in with your pointless knowledge, that would be backed up by no-one, ever

Ryder

ballyharpat wrote: »

??? If I listened to my body, 6/7 yrs ago, I'd be spinning at 70/80 cadence and would have spent knees by now since I ride upwards of 5000 miles per year, but thanks for stepping in with your pointless knowledge, that would be backed up by no-one, ever

I'm not sure how fair that is. Yeah, the perceived wisdom is that higher is better, but where is the evidence that 85 - 95 is optimal. Its just accepted and we all go along with it. I suppose if you have a cadence of 70 and youre comfortable, and arent specifically trying to improve, then where's the harm. If you get pain, then obviously increase.....but if it's fine then I really can't see the problem. You have similar debates in running (am I allowed mention that here) re heel strike and cadence, again without hard data.

12 sprocket

jinkypolly wrote: »

There is no such
thing as an optimal cadence for amateur/sportif cyclists. Every body's physiology is different, nobody can tell you a specific cadence is right, just trust your body and ride at whatever is most comfortable. What you can do through specific training is to change the cadence you feel comfortable with but my advice would be to not fret over it, just listen to your body.

Good advice. Research in labs of usually says that a cadence of 60rpm or so is actually the most efficient, and for slow cycling like commuting it possibly is.

However when some fitness is achieved it is possible to pedal at higher cadences and such slow cadence is not realistic for competition anyway.
For example a rider in an post Ras will usually have a range of 70 to 130 RPM or so over the week and must train to accommodate that.

Lumen

12 sprocket wrote: »

Research in labs of usually says that a cadence of 60rpm or so is actually the most efficient, and for slow cycling like commuting it possibly is.

However when some fitness is achieved it is possible to pedal at higher cadences and such slow cadence is not realistic for competition anyway.
For example a rider in an post Ras will usually have a range of 70 to 130 RPM or so over the week and must train to accommodate that.

The great Michelle Ferrari wrote:

Michelle Ferrari wrote:

Note how the most ‘profitable’ (ideal) rate gets gradually higher with the increase of power output from the rider (see graph, below), referred to climbing.



This probably a physiological adjustment that occurs in order to avoid excessive force peaks with each pedal rotation (see graph, below).



A pedal rate at 90 RPM will in fact have markedly lower force peaks (expressed in kilos)in comparison with a rate of 60 RPM.

High Pedaling Cadence
http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=15

High RPM: further observations
http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=27

Pedaling Cadences and Force Peaks
http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=36

Beasty

When I started cycling seriously a few years ago I was very much a grinder - averaging 70rpm or so, rarely going onto the small ring. Interestingly I managed to maintain higher cadence in TTs - often averaging 90rpm or so. The low cadence never caused me any major problems but following some advice I received last year (the aim was to try and lower the gear I needed on the track bike, particularly in the pursuit where I lost 3s or so to my competitors in the World Track Masters last year due to a particularly poor start) I decided to try and up it. Basically I spent the winter cycling at 90+RPM on the road bike and 100+ on the Wattbike/turbo.

The result is that this year I am averaging in the mid 80s on the road bike and have been hovering around 100 in TTs

I've not fully tested this in anger as my racing opportunities have been limited so far this year. I have done some track racing though and have seen some improvement from being able to race on a lower gear (which allows for faster acceleration - not been able to test the starts yet)

The other thing I have noticed this year is recovery is a bit quicker, which I suspect is at least in part down to the higher cadence work.

High Nellie

ROK ON wrote: »

^

This makes me happy.

You have justified my low cadence.

I will sleep happy tonight.

Cadence is definitely trainable. Back in the day it was common for racers do ride fixed wheel all winter to improve leg speed and fluidity. Guys use rollers nowadays and track cyclists also train for high cadence. If the time and distance is ramped up tha likelihood of injury to knees increases at 70 rpm.

Arthurdaly

There is no exact number, but it is good to have a number in the region of 80-95. A lower number means you are relying on leg strength more than speed. Strength and speed are both important aspects so best not be on extremes of either! My natural cadence in a race or tt is 90+ which is most likleydriven by my body type, I have more leg speed available than strength.

I've been told by a coach an Olympic cyclist that 85 is a nice number for a novice and that should be higher as the cats increase.

ROK ON

High Nellie wrote: »

Cadence is definitely trainable. Back in the day it was common for racers do ride fixed wheel all winter to improve leg speed and fluidity. Guys use rollers nowadays and track cyclists also train for high cadence. If the time and distance is ramped up tha likelihood of injury to knees increases at 70 rpm.

I slept well last night, You are endevouring to spoil my day.

Seriously, I do not disagree with the received wisdom re cadence. Those how can spin gears faster win races than those who dont on the same gears. This is easy to understand.

My issue is that I have actively tried.
For example spending weeks in a certain gear at circa 95, then moving to higher gears and treying ti build up to and maintain same cadence. It has caused me nothing other than very very sore legs with slow recovery.

I dont know why this is, but for me it just is. Four winters have been spent on cadence to no avail. This year I simply ignored it. I still do cadence intervals on the turbo, but I am not as obsesses as increasing my cadence as I was previously.
Foor some reason I seem to be getting faster.

I have very large quads and short legs. 18" quads, 25" calfs and an inseam length of 29". Maybe this contributes, I dont know.

What I do know is that repeated high cadence despite the widely accepted benefits actually wrecks my knees.

Hmmzis

ROK ON wrote: »

I slept well last night, You are endevouring to spoil my day.

Seriously, I do not disagree with the received wisdom re cadence. Those how can spin gears faster win races than those who dont on the same gears. This is easy to understand.

My issue is that I have actively tried.
For example spending weeks in a certain gear at circa 95, then moving to higher gears and treying ti build up to and maintain same cadence. It has caused me nothing other than very very sore legs with slow recovery.

I dont know why this is, but for me it just is. Four winters have been spent on cadence to no avail. This year I simply ignored it. I still do cadence intervals on the turbo, but I am not as obsesses as increasing my cadence as I was previously.
Foor some reason I seem to be getting faster.

I have very large quads and short legs. 18" quads, 25" calfs and an inseam length of 29". Maybe this contributes, I dont know.

What I do know is that repeated high cadence despite the widely accepted benefits actually wrecks my knees.

Do you by any chance have a big mirror in the house that you could put in front of you when you are doing turbo sessions? If higher cadence wrecks your knees there could be something fishy going on regarding your pedalling technique. I kind a seem to remember from one of the Corkagh park crits seeing that your knees were pointing outwards a bit, but that was only for a short period that I saw it, so might not be something you have all the time.

Arthurdaly

ROK ON wrote: »

What I do know is that repeated high cadence despite the widely accepted benefits actually wrecks my knees.

There is something wrong here if that's the case, how about your saddle height? If my legs and knees in general need a rest then I pop it down to the small chain ring and spin.

fat bloke

I think for better or worse that folks have their own natural cadence. I'm lucky in that mine is naturally high: 90+. I often have lads in races shouting "Big ring!" & "schoolboy gears" at me but fcuk it you have to do what you're comfortable with. I just don't have that big chain ring slow cadence torque that some lads have

Brian?

My 2c is that anything over 80 is acceptable. Anything under is too low. Watch anyone spin under 80 and it just looks wrong.

Training cadence on a stationary bike or turbo sounds ideal to me.

High Nellie

Rollers with a low gear is the business for cadence. It's more difficult with little resistance and it will also improve your efficiency - your neuro-muscular system will learn to apply force more evenly around thae stroke.