Cadence question

[Turkle]

Hi, all. I really have never been a data-driven cyclist. But anyway, in an effort to start training for longer rides, I recently purchased a cadence monitor.

I was genuinely shocked to see that my normal cadence on the bike is 98-102, and I tend to creep even higher than that when spinning it up a hill! That seems high, doesn't it?

Everything I read online says that normal riders should be at about 90 for their cadence.

What do you think? Would there be any benefit to me trying to put a little more power out and lowering my cadence to a target level of 90? Or should I just stick with what has been working and not worry too much about it? I have heard of riders trying to increase their normal cadence, but never trying to decrease it, so I'm wondering if that's a thing at all.

Thanks for your thoughts!

[dddd]

My understanding is that you may reduce muscle fatigue by riding at a higher cadence, though at the expense of energy efficiency.
Since both can play a role on any challenging ride of significant length, you might want to optimize the balance by adjusting cadence as indicated by any physical limitations that you are feeling near the end of such rides.

[Mark McM]

Everyone's preferred cadence will be different, and will vary based on power output, power duration, terrain, level of fatigue, etc. While 90 rpm is often considered the "norm", I don't think it should be treated as an absolute target, as different people will have their own natural cadence. 100 rpm isn't outrageously high, so if that is your natural cadence, there's probably no need to fight it.

Me personally, my pedalling rpms often drop into the low 80s when riding at an endurance pace, and into the mid 90s when I'm riding at a brisk pace, around 100-105 when riding in a fast pack, and up to 120 rpm when in an all out sprint.

[Dude]

This will be a long thread with no right answer. Find what is comfortable for you. It will be different for different efforts. Long steep hills vs long gradual hills.

Once you know what is comfortable for you, learn to be uncomfortable for you. If you're racing, the other riders determine the pace. If you're riding solo, you can determine the pace.

Also also, the best analogy I can come up with is if you've ever lifted weights, the higher the weight, the lower the rep count. If you need to squat 1000 pounds, you can either squat 1k pounds once (high load on your muscles, low on your cardiovascular system) or you can squat 10 pounds 100 times (low muscle load, high cardiovascular load).

[RafaRides]

This rings true in my experience. I’ve come to enjoy upping my normal cadence to 90-95 and having less fatigue on my legs.

Originally Posted by Dude

.

Also also, the best analogy I can come up with is if you've ever lifted weights, the higher the weight, the lower the rep count. If you need to squat 1000 pounds, you can either squat 1k pounds once (high load on your muscles, low on your cardiovascular system) or you can squat 10 pounds 100 times (low muscle load, high cardiovascular load).

[JMacII]

I don’t think 100 seems super high. Generally as I increase cadence I see HR go up, lower cadence generally loads up the legs more. I think being comfortable across a range of cadences from 60-120 rpm is useful and allows you to manage how you split your effort in combination with your gearing.

[deluz]

100 RPM is very normal for me.
When I ride our tandem though it is more like 85 because that is the cadence my wife prefers.

[Peter P.]

There's a range of acceptable cadences and it varies by individual and terrain.

Anywhere from say, 80-100 on the flats is fine, lower going up hill.

I'd say you're within the range.

[marciero]

IIRC that 90 rpm number goes back decades as a sort of baseline, in the sense that it was what untrained cyclists tended to do naturally, on average. So I'd also call your 98-102 rpm in that same ballpark- not shocking at all.

Years ago the banter was all about increasing cadence, and training specifically to do this. "Speed skills", including efficient high cadence pedaling, are essential for racing and were part of training programs espoused by Joe Friel and other training gurus. But here we are talking 110 or 120+

For non racers it's also a plus to be able to pedal comfortably at high or at least the high side of normal for the reasons mentioned- less joint stress, ability to manage/split your efforts between heart/lungs and muscles.

[joevers]

I think it's generally accepted that people are pretty good at self selecting the cadence that works best for them.

I wouldn't overthink it being slightly above average.

I certainly wouldn't work to lower it, unless you're finding issues climbing where you might be forced to select a lower cadence, though it doesn't sound like that's the case.

[Likes2ridefar]

Everyone is different. My optimal cadence is around 105rpm at high power output.

[Turkle]

Thanks for all the feedback, everyone. Sounds like I'm worried about nothing. Spin it to win it!

[callmeishmael]

This is actually a bit of a vexed question in the coaching community. There is a reasonable body of evidence that lower cadences (c.80 rpm) are - in the lab - appreciably more efficient than ones around 100. Yet highly trained (cat 1 or better) competitive cyclists consistently self select between 85-95rpm at VT1, and 3-7rpm higher at VT2. Quite why this is has not, to my knowledge, been satisfactorily explained.

Personally, if I were the OP, I might experiment with pushing 1 higher gear harder than what felt ‘natural’ and seeing the effect on power, HR, and fatigue (so yes, data, but HR and fatigue are pretty easy and low cost). There might be an adaptation period, so it might be a multiple week experiment.

That said, if one is comfortable at 100rpm, why change?

[mhespenheide]

Originally Posted by marciero

IIRC that 90 rpm number goes back decades as a sort of baseline, in the sense that it was what untrained cyclists tended to do naturally, on average. So I'd also call your 98-102 rpm in that same ballpark- not shocking at all.

Years ago the banter was all about increasing cadence, and training specifically to do this. "Speed skills", including efficient high cadence pedaling, are essential for racing and were part of training programs espoused by Joe Friel and other training gurus. But here we are talking 110 or 120+

For non racers it's also a plus to be able to pedal comfortably at high or at least the high side of normal for the reasons mentioned- less joint stress, ability to manage/split your efforts between heart/lungs and muscles.

I remember numbers of 60-70rpm found from most untrained cyclists (even down into the 40's for some individuals. CONI found that most Italian pros averaged 95-100 and recommended those numbers. Greg LeMond ran just a bit lower, with longer cranks, at 85-90rpm. Criterium racers tended to go a touch higher, say 100-110rpm while the climbers in the high-altitude mountains tended to go a little lower, towards the LeMond numbers. "Speed skills" were started by USCF coaches as a way to get people to spin more smoothly once they took cadences back down to 95-100rpm.

TLDR: to the OP -- no worries, you're good.

[bigbill]

On the Wahoo trainer, I used to target 90 but find I can do a little better on wattage around 85. All my outside riding this year has been on my MTB with no measurement. I'm hoping that my brain is being programmed to 85ish on the trainer.