cadence?

godtabh

Just wondering of what use is cadence?

Is it a sign of efficiency in cycling i.e if I do 100km with an average cadence of 80 one day better than doing with an average of 90?

Is their an optimum cadence?

Hmmzis

godtabh wrote: »

Just wondering of what use is cadence?

Is it a sign of efficiency in cycling i.e if I do 100km with an average cadence of 80 one day better than doing with an average of 90?

Is their an optimum cadence?

Yes, there is optimum cadence but it is dependent on the individual. 80-90rpm is a good guideline to start out with but after a while you'll see what works out better for you (80 or 90 or maybe something even higher).

From the reading I've been doing the higher the cadence the more the load is taken by your cardiovascular system. The lower the cadence the more muscular force is getting involved.

godtabh

Right so I was out this morning and an average of 81. Felt grand after but I'll repeat the same thing over the next 4 days so I'll track my cadence and see if I can pick out an optimum.

Is it better for the cardiovascular system or muscular force to be in action?

What are you reading?

c50

godtabh wrote: »

Just wondering of what use is cadence?

Is it a sign of efficiency in cycling i.e if I do 100km with an average cadence of 80 one day better than doing with an average of 90?

Is their an optimum cadence?

from early age racing ive always been told spin spin spin

you see some underage lads spin 105-110 rpm no problem. most juniors reducing to about 100rpm before you find your own rythm which ends up usually 80-95rpm.

like mentioned above, the higher the cadence the higher the use of tyour cardiovascular system.

the way i think of it are theres two things that can physically drain you when going hard- 2 thresholds as such

one is your cardio i.e hard breathing
two is your muscular system, pressing a low cadence uphill, and similarly to doing reps of leg weights, your legs eventually turning to jelly.


Spin at the highest possible cadence thats comfortable to you when training. unless youre doing something specific. this especially goes for winter fitness. because your cardio is upped, your calorie output is up. this eats into your fat storage but has been proven is a trick of the mind (you spin all winter, your body will week by week learn to run and depend more soc on your fat storage more so than your carb storage.

pretty intricate when you think thats it quite literally based only on your legs doing a few turns of pedals.

Near all juniors making the jump for the first year into senior are seen doing crap for the year 95% of the time. they grind gears that they use'nt have available before, probably mixed with the fact most are doing their leaving cert!

i aim personally for about 95-100rpm still but usually dont monitor it. i think the thing that most people need to snap out of is when tired after lets say 90/100km not to start grinding which most people are prone to doing

theres a whole pile of factors: power output, weight, height, crank arm length, age, experience, fitness level

all in a few revolutions...

dont get me started on HR, thats another topic not to mention wattage!

godtabh

As an engineer I like numbers so its interesting for me to understand the numbers behind cadence on a bike. Must do some research on it

DaithiMC

I read somewhere that biomechanical efficiency kicks in above 60-70 rpm, but is obviously heavily dependent on a number of factors. The comments made above are on the button in the main, high cadence also reduces the risk of injury, i.e., pushing a bigger gear puts more stress on joints, esp. the knee.

There are loads of youtube instructional videos on it that also talk about what types of muscle are engaged when at different levels of cadence, higher cadence tends to engage the muscle areas that are more suitable to endurance cycling. Being a scientist I like the numbers too and have been also weighting some of my training to "high cadence" versus "high strength" rides - if nothing else it helps me vary the same spin - good for the commute for example.

c50

DaithiMC wrote: »

I read somewhere that biomechanical efficiency kicks in above 60-70 rpm, but is obviously heavily dependent on a number of factors. The comments made above are on the button in the main, high cadence also reduces the risk of injury, i.e., pushing a bigger gear puts more stress on joints, esp. the knee.

There are loads of youtube instructional videos on it that also talk about what types of muscle are engaged when at different levels of cadence, higher cadence tends to engage the muscle areas that are more suitable to endurance cycling. Being a scientist I like the numbers too and have been also weighting some of my training to "high cadence" versus "high strength" rides - if nothing else it helps me vary the same spin - good for the commute for example.

you got me daithi, had forgotten the injury. a buddy of mine cant use turbo trainers anymore, rollers anymore because his knees are shagged from stress on knees on low cadence efforts

DaithiMC

c50 wrote: »

you got me daithi, had forgotten the injury. a buddy of mine cant use turbo trainers anymore, rollers anymore because his knees are shagged from stress on knees on low cadence efforts

Yeah, am paranoid about the knees, swimming and cycling are all that are open to me these days with "soft knees" as hangovers from the football pitches!

c50

DaithiMC wrote: »

Yeah, am paranoid about the knees, swimming and cycling are all that are open to me these days with "soft knees" as hangovers from the football pitches!

gave up the football just in time in sense that my knees didnt go too brittle, was only gonna be a matter of time, very harsh on knees on hard ground compared to running and the likes because of back forward constant movements

godtabh

DaithiMC wrote: »

Being a scientist I like the numbers too and have been also weighting some of my training to "high cadence" versus "high strength" rides - if nothing else it helps me vary the same spin - good for the commute for example.

How do you approach this? For the next couple of months I am stuck with a single 42km circuit and only about 1hr20mins to do it. 42km because it fits in what time I have to do it.

I would like the vary it as much as possible. So far what I am doing is attacking on certain up hill sections (I only climb 260m over 42km so its not that steep), going flat out on other sections so I get a good workout.

Would be interested in what you are doing for high cadence versus high strength rides.

Mamil biker

I spin at about 90/95 on average day. If drop to say 80 and maintain that cadence I just get tyre'd sorry bout poor spelling).

MAMIL.

Mamil biker

I spin at about 90/95 on average day. If drop to say 80 and maintain that cadence I just get tyre'd sorry bout poor spelling).

MAMIL.

ROK ON

My (unscientific) take on this cadence thing is that some o it is bullsh1t.

Many more pro cyclists are releasing their race and training data - there is usually a cadence stat in there. Interestingly from people that I have seen average cadence seems to be about 80-85. It would seem that lots of time is spend sub 85 but then there are rapid spikes above 120.

I am coming around to the view that it is range of cadence that matters as opposed to average. Where I live is hilly - I try to keep cadence reasonably high and spin up hills. But on descents I start with a high cadence/high resistance to build up speed - once I schuss some sort of traction I stop pedalling and tuck - thus is an average cadence an accurate description of my cycling?

There is no median or mode cadence (or weighted average) on Garmin or Strava or anything else.

I now laugh at the advice proffered by older and supposedly wiser team mates. On a club spin last year some joker complained about my cadence. Now I was happily spinning away on a 50/19 while he looked to be in a 39/14 or 15. These are remarkably similar gears. In terms of cadence most folk (me included) speak thru their hoop handing down tradition myth half-truth and piseog.

I know from years of trying that high cadence cycling leaves me shattered the following day whereas mid range cadence cycling leaves my legs fine.

Experiment a lot and find what works for you then if you find that ignore the sages.

DaithiMC

godtabh wrote: »

How do you approach this? For the next couple of months I am stuck with a single 42km circuit and only about 1hr20mins to do it. 42km because it fits in what time I have to do it.

I would like the vary it as much as possible. So far what I am doing is attacking on certain up hill sections (I only climb 260m over 42km so its not that steep), going flat out on other sections so I get a good workout.

Would be interested in what you are doing for high cadence versus high strength rides.

On the flatter parts of the spin I commit to 90+ rpm, changing gear until I am comfortable, some days it could be a higher gear than other days. On the hills, (not many on my commute) again I adjust to maintain higher than 75 rpm. On days when I focus on strength its more about pushing a higher gear but I try not to go below 60 rpm, on the flat its usually around 75 rpm for me. As I said, watching the numbers gives me something to distract myself, if you feel differently after each type of ride then its probably a good thing, varying the muscle work as it does.

c50

ROK ON wrote: »

My (unscientific) take on this cadence thing is that some o it is bullsh1t.

Many more pro cyclists are releasing their race and training data - there is usually a cadence stat in there. Interestingly from people that I have seen average cadence seems to be about 80-85. It would seem that lots of time is spend sub 85 but then there are rapid spikes above 120.

I am coming around to the view that it is range of cadence that matters as opposed to average. Where I live is hilly - I try to keep cadence reasonably high and spin up hills. But on descents I start with a high cadence/high resistance to build up speed - once I schuss some sort of traction I stop pedalling and tuck - thus is an average cadence an accurate description of my cycling?

There is no median or mode cadence (or weighted average) on Garmin or Strava or anything else.

I now laugh at the advice proffered by older and supposedly wiser team mates. On a club spin last year some joker complained about my cadence. Now I was happily spinning away on a 50/19 while he looked to be in a 39/14 or 15. These are remarkably similar gears. In terms of cadence most folk (me included) speak thru their hoop handing down tradition myth half-truth and piseog.

I know from years of trying that high cadence cycling leaves me shattered the following day whereas mid range cadence cycling leaves my legs fine.

Experiment a lot and find what works for you then if you find that ignore the sages.

a different perpective fair enough but youre looking at their race data. my cadence and everybody elses cadence drops when racing. i probably drop to 85 or so racing, but by the time a race comes around it means your cardio is strengthened but also muscularly toned if training a lot meaning you can hold that lower cadence.

if you looked at the 6 hr spins of all pros i bet 50% or more spin above 100Rpm

ROK ON

From my limited racing experience I have figured the following out.

From a leg strength and card vascular point of view one needs to be able to handle rapid changes in cadence. From following a wheel in a bunch to acclerating for whatever reason (sprint/break/closing a gap).
For TTs I have found that range is less relevant but maintaining a cintamt effort at high cadence is crucial.

After races my body has been tired but my legs fine. After TTs my legs have been shattered and have taken a few days to recover.
Ymmv.

bcmf

ROK ON wrote: »

Experiment a lot and find what works for you then if you find that ignore the sages.

The best advice in the thread.

Over the summer I felt I lost a lot of strenght/power in my legs. Took some time off the bike and when I got back I have spent the last 5 weeks building that strenght up by staying in the 53 ring and a low cadence.
Now that the strenght is back I will vary on the 39 ring till January.
Dont get too hung up on the numbers.
Find your comfort zone as everyone's physiology is different.

c50

ROK ON wrote: »

From my limited racing experience I have figured the following out.

From a leg strength and card vascular point of view one needs to be able to handle rapid changes in cadence. From following a wheel in a bunch to acclerating for whatever reason (sprint/break/closing a gap).
For TTs I have found that range is less relevant but maintaining a cintamt effort at high cadence is crucial.

After races my body has been tired but my legs fine. After TTs my legs have been shattered and have taken a few days to recover.
Ymmv.

youve hit nail with hammer alright about experimenting.

however in road racing, cadence is a bit up down but more so power on throttle then ease off which is why interval training is so appropriate.

youre right in what youre saying about tt again, and thats blossoms for showing cadence preferance, the classic example being armstrong v ullrich and the difference the two had in cadence

Lawr

Everybody's talking like cadence exists in a vacuum. I get very confused by all of the science and caloric intake, aerobic vs. anaerobic, etc. Here's what I know: I have some sections that I regularly visit. I try to maintain particular cadences on these sections, but I do so in the context of the gears that I'm using. I am always trying to lower my gearing for long climbs, for instance, and as I slowly begin to find comfort in a particular lower gear, I try to increase my cadence on successive rides. Once I can spin in that gear, I try lowering the gear further. I am trying to build strength and endurance. I am not sure what the science is behind all of this, but it is a way for me to measure whether I am getting stronger and faster on particular sections. Of course, a faster average speed would indicate that I am getting faster on these sections, but while I'm in the climb or on some other particular stretch, I will be experimenting with my gearing and my cadence.

Would this be others' experience?

Hmmzis

Regarding reading up on this I'd recommend a cycling training book or two (Friel and/or Coggan and Allen). In addition to that research papers about cadence can add some more insight into what exactly and how it was tested (there are piles of those out there).

Last year when I was starting this whole preparing for racing thing I did read tons of stuff about cadence and HR and glycogen and all sorts of other things. When you're diving into this, don't focus just on one thing and don't go into analysis-paralysis, get out and train as much as you can (with appropriate recovery in between) and stick to a plan.

TheBlaaMan

ROK ON wrote: »

My (unscientific) take on this cadence thing is that some o it is bullsh1t.

Many more pro cyclists are releasing their race and training data - there is usually a cadence stat in there. Interestingly from people that I have seen average cadence seems to be about 80-85. It would seem that lots of time is spend sub 85 but then there are rapid spikes above 120.

I am coming around to the view that it is range of cadence that matters as opposed to average. Where I live is hilly - I try to keep cadence reasonably high and spin up hills. But on descents I start with a high cadence/high resistance to build up speed - once I schuss some sort of traction I stop pedalling and tuck - thus is an average cadence an accurate description of my cycling?

There is no median or mode cadence (or weighted average) on Garmin or Strava or anything else.

I now laugh at the advice proffered by older and supposedly wiser team mates. On a club spin last year some joker complained about my cadence. Now I was happily spinning away on a 50/19 while he looked to be in a 39/14 or 15. These are remarkably similar gears. In terms of cadence most folk (me included) speak thru their hoop handing down tradition myth half-truth and piseog.

I know from years of trying that high cadence cycling leaves me shattered the following day whereas mid range cadence cycling leaves my legs fine.

Experiment a lot and find what works for you then if you find that ignore the sages.

All true (IMO) but one thing to bear in mind is that many (most ?) devices that record average cadence will be set up to ignore zero readings. ie spin at 90rpm for 1 minute and freewheel for 1 minute and your average cadence will be shown as 90 - not 45. I find that I cannot comfortable maintain an average above 75 over a 3-4 hr club spin, or 80 on a shorter solo spin, without my HR/ave suffering negatively so its always a compromise of some sort. I've love to be able to maintain an average cadence of 85-90 as I see the benefits, but its not happening (then again, I'm not as fit as I could be..... )

learn

c50 wrote: »

you got me daithi, had forgotten the injury. a buddy of mine cant use turbo trainers anymore, rollers anymore because his knees are shagged from stress on knees on low cadence efforts

High gears are not the root cause of these injuries, it's using the same high cadence pedalling technique with high gears that is the cause. When high gears are used with the correct high gear pedalling technique all stress is reduced on knees and muscles while lower back stress is completely eliminated..

MojoMaker

What's the difference - i.e. what represents good high gear pedalling technique? Clipped into shoes I don't see how you can vary pedalling technique much - assuming you don't mean cadence when you refer to technique.

lennymc

bcmf wrote: »

Over the summer I felt I lost a lot of strenght/power in my legs.

do you not first have to have something before it can be lost?

i find spinning is easier than grinding, but do a mixture of both in races. i can happily sit at 90-95 rpm on a spin, but do have to drop the cadence when i need to get up hills. i find the higher cadence saves my legs, but lower cadence leaves my legs fatigued (depending on what the spin is like)

learn

MojoMaker wrote: »

What's the difference - i.e. what represents good high gear pedalling technique? Clipped into shoes I don't see how you can vary pedalling technique much - assuming you don't mean cadence when you refer to technique.

http://video-hned.com/video/0nn20Ixn0Mc/RECORD-DELL-ORA-JACQUES-ANQUETIL-1967-AL-VIGORELLI.html

petethedrummer

ROK ON wrote: »

My (unscientific) take on this cadence thing is that some o it is bullsh1t.

I think most of it is bullsh!t (but then I would). Everyone has a natural range.

The best thing to know how to gauge your effort is by knowing your route and judging how your legs feels on the day. Sometimes you can grind up a hill sometimes you have to spin. Sometimes you don't know the climb and just have to guess or follow someone you know who is of roughly the same ability.

Of course there are some people who just don't 'get' the concept of gearing and grind along in massive gears till they blow up or spinning like madmen/madwomen while remaining practically stationary. But similar to people who can't group ride, there's probably no teaching them. I don't think most recreational cyclists should be concerned about their cadence. Or it should be waaaaaaaayyyyyy down the list of concerns if you feel you are not making progress. <luddite>A cadence sensor is just another electronic annoyance. You can go out and watch your HRM, Cadence sensor, Speedo and powermeter or you could just go for a cycle and see how you feel.</luddite>

Arthurdaly

ROK ON wrote: »

My (unscientific) take on this cadence thing is that some o it is bullsh1t.

Many more pro cyclists are releasing their race and training data - there is usually a cadence stat in there. Interestingly from people that I have seen average cadence seems to be about 80-85. It would seem that lots of time is spend sub 85 but then there are rapid spikes above 120.

I am coming around to the view that it is range of cadence that matters as opposed to average. Where I live is hilly - I try to keep cadence reasonably high and spin up hills. But on descents I start with a high cadence/high resistance to build up speed - once I schuss some sort of traction I stop pedalling and tuck - thus is an average cadence an accurate description of my cycling?

There is no median or mode cadence (or weighted average) on Garmin or Strava or anything else.

I now laugh at the advice proffered by older and supposedly wiser team mates. On a club spin last year some joker complained about my cadence. Now I was happily spinning away on a 50/19 while he looked to be in a 39/14 or 15. These are remarkably similar gears. In terms of cadence most folk (me included) speak thru their hoop handing down tradition myth half-truth and piseog.

I know from years of trying that high cadence cycling leaves me shattered the following day whereas mid range cadence cycling leaves my legs fine.

Experiment a lot and find what works for you then if you find that ignore the sages.

You laugh at them? Where exactly did you finish in the club champs again or the club tt for the matter?

For the most part it's cyclist dependent, a big strong guy is most likely going to push a big gear at a low cadence but that's not say he can't benefit from higher cadence riding, higher cadence riding will call upon and train your aerobic abilities whilst lower cadence riding will work your muscular endurance and strength! Yes you will have a natural cadence but that doesn't mean it's the optimal, if you are on the extreme end of 60-110 then you over reliant upon strength or aerobic abilities. 80 - 90 is generally regarding as the sweet spot. Of course it all depends on your goals, if you are competitive and want to go faster then cadence is a factor. Speed session training involves high cadence for a reason.

Idleater

High cadence looks silly and untidy when whoever passes me going up the hill disappears into the distance.

Low cadence looks cumbersome and a lot of effort. Probably because it is.

Harrybelafonte

Idleater wrote: »

High cadence looks silly and untidy when whoever passes me going up the hill disappears into the distance.

Low cadence looks cumbersome and a lot of effort. Probably because it is.

High cadence with poor technique looks silly and untidy.

ROK ON

Arthurdaly wrote: »

You laugh at them? Where exactly did you finish in the club champs again or the club tt for the matter?

Yes I laugh at someone who thinks that by being in the 39 ring that is sufficient. As I said in my post the guy b1tching at me was pedalling on a small rear sprocket in the 39. I was in the 50 on a compact using a large rear sprocket. We were pushing a similar gear.

I have spent years experimenting with my cadence.

My avg cadence is around 83. I average around 97 in TTs. I can go from 83 to 125.130 reasonably sharply.

Fact is for me and my bod pushing a slightly easier gear at 90 leaves me more fatigued in terms of recovery than 83 in a high resistance. My body and experimentation has thought me this.

It is laughable to think that there is a one rule for all.

BTW In the club TTs I finished 3rd in my lowly category twice. I never made it to the club champs due to being out of the country with work. IN the TTs that I have done I have set for me a stretch target and beat it each time. Not sure about you but I consider that to be improvement. Hopefully improve a bit more next year, but I wont be listening to all of the gospel on cadence.

My point in earlier posts was: experiment, try lots of styles, see what works. If I could add to that it would be to focus on improving your range of cadence in very short time.

DaithiMC

ROK ON wrote: »

Yes I laugh at someone who thinks that by being in the 39 ring that is sufficient. As I said in my post the guy b1tching at me was pedalling on a small rear sprocket in the 39. I was in the 50 on a compact using a large rear sprocket. We were pushing a similar gear.

I have spent years experimenting with my cadence.

My avg cadence is around 83. I average around 97 in TTs. I can go from 83 to 125.130 reasonably sharply.

Fact is for me and my bod pushing a slightly easier gear at 90 leaves me more fatigued in terms of recovery than 83 in a high resistance. My body and experimentation has thought me this.

It is laughable to think that there is a one rule for all.

BTW In the club TTs I finished 3rd in my lowly category twice. I never made it to the club champs due to being out of the country with work. IN the TTs that I have done I have set for me a stretch target and beat it each time. Not sure about you but I consider that to be improvement. Hopefully improve a bit more next year, but I wont be listening to all of the gospel on cadence.

My point in earlier posts was: experiment, try lots of styles, see what works. If I could add to that it would be to focus on improving your range of cadence in very short time.

So your take is that watching cadence is bs but experimenting to find what cadence works for you is the way to go. I agree with this. How would you experiment to find this out?

nialljf

When I spin a higher cadence (not sure of exact RPM, but i'd imagine 80–85+) it feels like my position is less stable, like i'm jumping all over the saddle. Any experience with this? Could this be a bike fit issue?

eeeee

Oh old thread!

The reason you are bouncing at relatively low cadences is core strangth usually. The stronger your core the steadier you are as the cadence goes up. I find the faster I spin (out of the wind!) the stiller and lower (although the latter may be a me specific anomaly!) I get.

Practice and core strength!

ETA If your saddle is too low you will bounce more also, worth a check.

Harrybelafonte

80-85 isn't a high cadence. Bike fit is more likely an issue than anything else.

Taxuser1

i think only one poster mentioned speed in all 3 pages - surely leg speed work is imperative for a competitive cyclist, starting with your training cadence being as high as possible.