Wondering about pedal cadence

[bulliedawg]

I don't really know what my cadence is, and I don't really know if I should care. Some people have posted that their cadence is 100 revolutions per minute, which seems hummingbird fast, and makes me jealous and intimidated. I've often heard that a faster cadence is better, but I don't know why it's better, if it means that you're turning a smaller gear.

I guess the cadence issue is a mystery to me. I am wondering if there is a cadence that is too slow, and what that cadence is. If there are cadences that are too slow, then should I work to increase my cadence? Or should I just live with whatever cadence is natural to me? It seems to me that cadence is probably largely dictated by physiology.

I welcome your cadence thoughts.

sic'em

[Smiley]

Some people like to push a bigger gear and some like to spin, I don't think you can look at somebodys physique and tell right off the bat where they fall. I like to push one gear size larger always even while climbing, Sandy as another example likes to spin sometimes even to the point of over spinning, for this I tried to get him to go with a longer crank to get more power out of his spin. I think these are things you just find out about yourself, you can practice spinning especially climbing while seated and turning over the pedals faster. My tandem taught me that lesson the hard way, I now spin up all hills even favoring this on my single, I find its easier on the legs. My next bike ( Ottrott hopefully ) will be built with 175 mm cranks versus the 172.5 I have been using on the single bike.
An interesting question would also relate to crank length and prefered gearing for spinners versus mashers.

[Bradford]

I'm a spinner, usually around 95 RPMs, I try never to fall below 85. I'll go up over 100 at times, but find anything over 105 feels uncomfortable.

I started when I was told that spinning was easier on the knees. My experience confirmed that spinning is much easier on the knees.

The extra benefit that surprised me was that recovery time is much faster at the end of a hill. At least for me, the spinning makes a huge difference.

To my knowledge, there is no downside to a faster cadence, unless you think it isn't manly.

My advice is to get a cadence computer (Astrale works for short money), and give it a shot. At first, it feels goofy, but like many things, after a while it feels right.

[dnovo]

80s to mid 90s, at 100 I shift up. Cateye Astrale 8 is a good, reliable cadence computer. Wiring it up isn't that tough. For wireless, I am waiting for the new Mavic (just toss in the skewer, mount the magnent and the 'brain' on the bar, and the cadence unit on the stay) but want to wait for some field reports first. ("Version 1.0" = "Beta Test version 3") Dave N.

[sellsworth]

The downside of a higher cadence is that it takes more of an aerobic effort to maintain than a lower cadence. In part the answer of whether you want to do a higher cadence is whether you are a "slow-twitch" (aerobic) or "fast-twitch" (anaerobic) type. Compared to my riding buddies I'm much more of a slow-twitch type - my cadence tends to be much higher than theirs at the same speed. They have a much greater capacity to accerelate than me but I'm generally able to maintain effort over longer periods of time.

[bcm119]

Generally people with larger, more powerful legs mash taller gears and vice versa, but this isn't always so. I think theres a general rule of thumb that your cadence should never drop below 60 to reduce injury risk, but there is no ideal cadence- your ideal cadence is dictated by what you are used to. However, higher cadences shift the work from your muscle fibers to your aerobic system, and your aerobic system is the most efficient energy producer. It allows you to produce power without the biproduct of lactic acid, which slows you down. You can change your cadence if you want through cadence training. It is sometimes fun to work on spinning during a ride, and your body will respond by learning to be efficient at higher cadences.

[Kevin]

bulliedawg,

Everyone has their own style. I used to push big gears. However, as I got older I became a spinner. I have a Campy Ergobrain to track my cadence. I keep my cadence above 90 rpms once the season gets going. You have to work on your aerobic abilities to become a spinner. You can't just decide one day that you are going to become a spinner.

For me it was necessary to become a spinner to ease the stress on my knees. There are several books and doctors who opine that in order to minimize the stress on your knees you should keep a cadence of at least 75 rpms. For me, becoming a spinner allowed me and my knees to continue cycling. Good luck.

Kevin

[pbbob]

I don't pay cadence no never mind. when I have counted it out of curiosity it's usually around 90.

certified chiquita free

[M_A_Martin]

I tend to spin, my legs do better that way. You can train yourself to do it, it's just a matter or running a cadence computer for a year or so then you pick up that you're only pedaling "60" or "90" or over 100. I've been away from it long enough that I need to put a cadence computer back on my bike to retrain myself.

The only explanation of spinning I've heard that I can make sense of why it is easier on your knees is:

Look at mashing as lifting 60 lbs once, or you can lift 10 6lb weights (spinning). The 6 lbs puts less stress on your body even though you have to lift 10 of them to get to the same place you did when you lifted the 60 lbs once.

(and the weights have nothing to do with actual measurements, I just picked them out of the air)

[OldDog]

My handle says it all...'nuff said.

SSSS (Sunday Spinning on my Spectrum & Sachs)

PS - Hope to add a Serotta to that Stable.

PSS - Couldn't pass up this S Stuff - No I am not attempting to Steal Sheik Serotta Sandy's Security of S. I'm a fairly new guy here, I respect you old time posters. :)

[dnovo]

Spinning, not mashing, saves knees. I CAN mash, and have, but given my age, I would prefer to keep spinning and keep riding, and walking too. Dave N.

[bulliedawg]

So, I guess I should start learning to spin. It will not come naturally, as I am a thick-legged and broad-shouldered sumbitch. In short, I don't have a spinner's physique.

Of course I don't have a cadence counter, and I don't want one. In fact I've taken the computer off my bike, because that I'm just tired of knowing, knowing, knowing every little thing, rather than just enjoying the experience.

I guess I'll just try to always pedal as fast as hell.

sic'em

[Dick Little]

Early in the season when it's just base work, I train at cadences of 105+, then move to lower, more power oriented cadences as my training moves along.
I view cadence counters as a waste of money. Just ride for a while, and every now and then count your cadence over 10 seconds and figure out what you're turning. After a while, less than a month, you'll know what your cadence is by feel.

[Ozz]

Bullie,

Spinning at 90 to 100 rpm is not nearly as fast as you might think. If you get a cadence computer, you might find you are already there.

Practice on a trainer or flat roads and you'll be there in no time.

Ozz

(Formerly "Oz", but new forum requires 3 letters :mad: )

Post #1 - still junior member

[dnovo]

Bulliedawg, you and I are built the same way, "I am a thick-legged and broad-shouldered sumbitch. In short, I don't have a spinner's physique" -- ditto for me, and doubled and re-doubled (does anyone play bridge anymore?) on the 'sumbitch' part.

Spinning didn't come naturally to me either, but I find that both my knees and my overall average speed benefit from spinning rather than mashing, which comes more naturally to my long-ex water polo, wrestling, rugby-playing physique. Do you need a computer? Keeping track of cadence is nice and the Astrale is the cheapest way to do it. Now, I can usually tell from my internal computer where I am and when it is time to shift up without concentrating on the computer read out. It is nice to have as I just like to keep track of the day's distance, etc. Dave N.

[Kevin]

bulliedawg,

I agree with Dave. I do not spend my ride staring at the computer. My internal computer is usually pretty accurate. However, the bicycle computer does give you the ability to check on time, distance, speed, cadence, etc. I use the Campy Ergobrain because I can run through its functions from the hoods. I find this very convenient. You should look for a computer that does not do more than you want, otherwise it could become overwhelming. You should also find one that is convenient to use.

Kevin

[bulliedawg]

Dave:

I will try to develop my internal computer, as you suggest.

I have a computer --- a Vetta -- without cadence. It has the little arrow that tells me when I'm above or below my average speed. Well, I found that the little arrow was urging me on, but that the little arrow was also taking over my riding experience. So, lately I've been riding without the computer, in part because I've been going easy because of the hip trouble I've been having lately (see other thread), and in part because I sometimes want to ride just to ride and without putting pressure on myself.


sic'em

[CaptHawk]

There is no rule that says you cannot do both!!! I change from mashing to high rev spinning just to break up a long ride and to give muscles a change in the workout.:rolleyes:

[Dr. Doofus]

Much of what needs to be written has already been ridden, but in the great tradition of using internet forums to simply waste bandwidth, here goes....


Muscle type, cardio-vascular conditioning, build, and conditions all play a role in cadence, but power also plays a critical role. You will find, as you develop your internal computer, that a higher cadence is more efficient with a higher power output. Now, for most on the forum, this point is completely moot. As the jerk will tell you, you don't put out enough watts to need that super-stiff frame, or those DA cranks, and the odds are that you're not putting out enough watts to bother with varying cadence to match power output (it only really begins to matter around 325-350). All that said, here goes....

When I was training and racing with a SRM, I noticed a "340/90" line -- at or below 340 watts, I'd usually be at 92 rpm on the flats, and 88 on the climbs. Above 340, and especially when I hit my LT around 370, I'd spin 95-100 on the flat, and 90+ on the climbs. I would see a similar relationship in training -- on a good day, when my watts were high, I'd have a higher cadence. Just going out for an easy bread-and-butter endurance ride, I might be in the 250 watt range and my cadence would be low, accordingly -- a steady 90-95, unless I was using a small gear to work on my leg speed. At the other end of the spectrum, in a race or in a lacate-tolerance session, I'd be over 100 rpm any time I was over 370, which was the only way my six one,145 pound (then) white zombie killer toothpick butt was going to put out that many watts....

These days, like the jerk, I never get out of the little ring, sort of always cross-chaining (at this point, the jerk snorts at my numbers and tells me "not only can you not figure out who I am, but your sorry ex-sub-elite-butt cannot be compared to that belonging to, and representing only the, jerk"), and steady around 95-100 in a 42x14. The power is low but the knees are happy. I had one bike set up as a single speed in a 42x15, perfect for around here (lots of flat, bouncy roads with plenty of wind, soybeans, cotton, and pig poop), and I'd range from 90 up a long drag to 100+ on the flat to 130 on some spots....

"PT boat on the way to Havana/Used to make a living off of pickin the banana" -- The Ramones:banana:


Tropical Fruit Hypocrite Who Will Still Kill Shino Robert

[ssvacyclist]

Good question with great responses - I have done a lot of reading on this site for the past 2 to 3 years and have learned more here than any magazine or book.

Thanks to all of the knowledgable people for sharing their expertise. I think I will enjoy the new forum as the old one at times seemed to be a waste of time with all of the "off subject" matter.

Happy Holidays to All!!!

[gt6267a]

dnova wrote : long-ex water polo, wrestling, rugby-playing physique

my ex-water polo and similarly physiqued friends politely describe our body types as "meatball" it definely works for us playing hole-d, and the occaisional arm-wrestling challenge, but meatballs win very few hill climbing competitions.

[Dr. Doofus]

if you go down to Columbia SC, you'll see a meatball-cat named Ben Jones...I think his Olympic Trials weight was 170...on five ten or so...and that was at 38...one short, muscular dude who could get up a climb...what's frightening is that he didn't get serious about riding his bike until he was 37.

[Too Tall]

I'll p*ss off some people sayin this BUT. As a general observation, you see club riders / sport riders in the big ring way too much. Their aerobic condition won't allow a higher cadence and they will compensate with more gear. It is a losing battle. An extreme example of that is me on the back of a screaming fast crit. early in the season a few years back...I'm not in great aerobic shape but strong as a moose...so I grind a big gear early to keep with the pack and resort to short bouts of small gears to manage the accelerations. It worked sort of. Miserable as it was. Served me right for being out of place, some idiot put a pedal in my wheel on the last corner.

This yr. is the first I've measured cadence. For most training my SRM has me at 90+ about 1/2 the time and 110+ about 10%. In general I ride around 90....feels normal.

[JohnS]

I used to ride at about 85 but have since stepped it up to 95. I almost never am in my 53 unless I'm going downhill or have a helluva tailwind.

[keno]

I worked out on my Computrainer with a few Chris Carmichael tapes. He had a lot of work at high cadence, 105-110, moving down to 80-85 while maintaining heart rate. Boy, was the power output different, lots lower at the higher cadence. It takes a lot of effort to move those gams around let alone the pedals. So, as some have pointed out might be the case, my aerobic fitness was significantly lower than I had previously thought.

After working with the spinning for a short while, a week or two, I took it on the road yesterday, staying in the 95-105 range. Having been used to the 80-85 range and the muscular exertion that went with it, which I enjoyed until I melted down, I found the spinning quite enjoyable, so much so that when I lost cadence on a hill I felt offended by the muscular effort required. I can see what I'll be concentrating on.

My personal view on the cadence computer is that it's very easy to fool ourselves as to what we are producing by way of cadence or any other statistic that is important to us without an external computer or monitor. I certainly respect any one's desire not to use a computer, but I question the accuracy of internal computer readings. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle becomes a real bear with the internal version.

keno

___________________________
To err is human, to err frequently is all too human