Do i need a cadence monitor?

Dcully

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tunney

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

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

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

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

jinkypolly wrote: »

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

Correct I should have said my target cadence

eeeee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carawaystick

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

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

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

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

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

tunney

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Dcully

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

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.)

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?

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:

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.

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?

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.

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.