Cadence - Is higher really better?

[FarHorizon]

I'm curious over the question of cadence. I read repeatedly that higher is better, although many professional racers go as low as 75RPM according to what I read. Keeping in mind that racers are usually fairly small and light, is it normal for taller folks to have a "naturally lower cadence?" What determines the best cadence for an individual?

[DnvrFox]

Recently, I fixed the formerly broken cadence function on the computer on one of my bikes.

To my chagrin, I found my cadence had dropped way down, and may have been a portion of my recent and not-yet-healed back strain.

I pushed the cadence back up to 80+ and, yes, things work a lot better for me at that cadencs. It just seems easier and much less stressful on the body.

[Digital Gee]

There's no option for "Don't Know"

[bobkat]

I drive a bent and also have a weak left knee so my cadance is always higher than everyone else, even the other bents, Works for me, but probably too fast for most folks.

[FarHorizon]

There's no option for "Don't Know"

I don't know mine either, but I'd sure estimate it as less than 60 RPM.

[Mojo Slim]

Going to a higher cadence (once I got a monitor) really helped my bad knee. Now I can mash when I need to. But for me, a century at 80+ works great. Seven days of SF to LA make a high cadence mandatory.

[nmichell]

I've been working to get my cadence up. It's just around 80 now. Last year it was closer to 70, and I had some pretty painful knee problems. I can't prove that the higher cadence solved the knee problem, but ...

[NOS88]

I've heard that everyone has a naturally low cadence. It's only through training and effort that one makes a high cadence "natural". I'm not sure there is a "best" cadence for someone. I do believe a high cadence is more efficient. If you think about it in terms of having 1000 lbs to move up a flight of stairs. Most of us would do better to make 20 trips with 50 lbs., instead of five trips with 200 lbs. per trip. There are those who can easily do the 200 lbs per trip, but most of us would risk injury. An important element in reaching a high cadence is proper positioning on the bike. If your seat is too high, your hips rock making a high cadence more difficult. If the seat is too low, you can't extend you legs far enough to get the most effective use of the muscles. If your seat is too far back, you get more of your lower back and quads working which can slow cadence down. If you're new to working on cadence, a good place to start is by measuring what your cadence is during a typical ride. Take that number as your starting point. Next time out, go to a slightly easier gear and try to increase the cadence by as little as 5 or 10 rpms. Do this until you can maintain it without much effort, and gradually increase over time. From everything I've read, the 75 RPM level is the minimum level you want to shoot for. And while pros do ride at 75 rpms most are capable of doing upwards of 100 rpms without much difficulty.

[Az B]

Here's how it works; When you press on the pedals, you are creating torque or power. Obviously, the amount varies from person to person. But for any given amount of torque, the amount of work done over time is increased with rpms. There is a practical ceiling limited by mechanics of you and the bike, but as fast as you can pedal efficiently is the maximum amount of work/time.

So everyone is a little different based on mechanics and leg power. But generally speaking, the higher the cadence that can be comfortably achieved, the faster you will ride while outputting the same amount of energy. (Or less energy + more rpms = the same speed you're riding now. You get the picture)

Az

[FarHorizon]

...And while pros do ride at 75 rpms most are capable of doing upwards of 100 rpms without much difficulty.

Hi NOS88!

I just finished reading a book about the TDF where the comment was made that the cadence best for a racer depended on the type of muscle fiber that predominated in the individual. "Slow-twitch" and "fast-twitch" fibers demanded different cadences for the best performance, said the author. Since we have no idea how to tell what type of muscle fiber we have in our legs, must subjective experience substitute?

Also, might longer-legged people have a naturally lower cadence than those with shorter bone structures? It seems that since I take a single step to my wife's one-and-a-half to two paces, a similar difference might apply on bicycle cadence at the same speed.

[NOS88]

Hi NOS88!

I just finished reading a book about the TDF where the comment was made that the cadence best for a racer depended on the type of muscle fiber that predominated in the individual. "Slow-twitch" and "fast-twitch" fibers demanded different cadences for the best performance, said the author. Since we have no idea how to tell what type of muscle fiber we have in our legs, must subjective experience substitute?

Also, might longer-legged people have a naturally lower cadence than those with shorter bone structures? It seems that since I take a single step to my wife's one-and-a-half to two paces, a similar difference might apply on bicycle cadence at the same speed.


I don't really know if longer limbs would make a difference. I do suspect that the percentage of fast-twitch and slow-twitch fibers would make more of a difference, but this is just speculation on my part. My older brother has an inseam that is two inches longer than mine, but my candence has always been higher than his. I've also been able to sprint faster than he could, however, he was much better as a cross country runner than I was (which may be an indication that I have more fast-twitch muscles than he does... but, once again, just speculation.)

[cyclezen]

I'm curious over the question of cadence. I read repeatedly that higher is better, although many professional racers go as low as 75RPM according to what I read. Keeping in mind that racers are usually fairly small and light, is it normal for taller folks to have a "naturally lower cadence?" What determines the best cadence for an individual?

so I had this really gargantuan post envisioned... but I just couldn;t torque it...

I think little people just have to, are required to, can't really function in this world without, move at high cadence. These tall, lanky people, they can just lope along like giraffes. But little people gotta move like little dogs.
Ever really notice little yappy dogs? They're always moving. In fact itz really hard to focus on their legs, they're usually a blur. And to move a few yards I swear their cadence is somewhere in the High 180s...
Their perisistence in always being under your feet, no matter how fast you move away, is annoying, to say the least.
I've always thought of myself as this 'junkyard dog'; you know, spiky collar, bad breath, lotza scars, take a bite and never let go...
Facts point to, however, that in spite of my size, I'm prolly a little yappy dog.

[stapfam]

Cadence is a personal thing. I have found it easier since my cadence went up but No real problems when it was lower. I know that in my case- I try to ride at about 90. Steep hills will drop me down to around 70, and If I have to drop down to 60- then I am beginning to feel it. Below 60 and my legs are straining too much. Yet there is a rider in our group that has a cadence so low (Around55) and he is not the slow one.

[stonecrd]

Seems to be a lot of discussion on cadence recently. I am normally between 85-95 and I will generally shift if I hit 80rpm to keep my cadence up. I do get to 100 but 100 and over just feels unconfortable to me so the only time I really get this high is when I am in a group ride and trying to keep up the speed.

[Red Baron]

I think what really helps me in developing & maintaining a 'good' (for me) cadence is my fixed gear. I ride it often in the early season.

[HopedaleHills]

80-85 seems to be the most efficient for me. Anything around 95-105 seems like I'm bouncing around too much.

[Richard Cranium]

What determines the best cadence for an individual?Well, that's a very good question! Essentially, a TWO factors determine the optimum cadence for a cyclist at any given time.

One factor is the combination of variables that create the current status of the cyclist's leg/body muscle strength and health. Contributing aspects of the "current muscle status" factor, are the overall size of the muscles being used, the relative quantities of energy-substrates available to the muscle for work and specific attributes of the cyclist's central nervous system's "learned" pedal stroke".

The other factor is infinitely variable -yet very simple. The other factor is the current "load" or resistance being produced by the currrent status of the bicycle's speed, the wind, hills and road surface etc etc.....

Okay, let me rephrase, the current strength and talent of a cyclist and current speed and road or route conditions are what determines the "best cadence" for any cyclist.

There's no such rule that "higher is always better" regarding cadence. It's just that, too many cyclists often become fatigued and fail to engage or recruit there leg/body muscles in a manner that affords using all the apects of their muscles evenly. In other words, muscle fibers will fatigue at different rates when under heavy loads. OK - get it? There's no such thing as perfect cadence, it varies by route, and rider-rest status.

RC's big quote of the day:High cadences are not always more efficient. But low cadences are almost always inefficient.

[NOS88]

Well, that's a very good question! Essentially, a TWO factors determine the optimum cadence for a cyclist at any given time.

One factor is the combination of variables that create the current status of the cyclist's leg/body muscle strength and health. Contributing aspects of the "current muscle status" factor, are the overall size of the muscles being used, the relative quantities of energy-substrates available to the muscle for work and specific attributes of the cyclist's central nervous system's "learned" pedal stroke".

The other factor is infinitely variable -yet very simple. The other factor is the current "load" or resistance being produced by the currrent status of the bicycle's speed, the wind, hills and road surface etc etc.....

Okay, let me rephrase, the current strength and talent of a cyclist and current speed and road or route conditions are what determines the "best cadence" for any cyclist.

There's no such rule that "higher is always better" regarding cadence. It's just that, too many cyclists often become fatigued and fail to engage or recruit there leg/body muscles in a manner that affords using all the apects of their muscles evenly. In other words, muscle fibers will fatigue at different rates when under heavy loads. OK - get it? There's no such thing as perfect cadence, it varies by route, and rider-rest status.

RC's big quote of the day:


OK, I like it. Makes sense to me. I also know the next time someone asks, I won't remember all of this. So, I'm likely to say, "Just shut up and spin."

[stonecrd]

Okay, let me rephrase, the current strength and talent of a cyclist and current speed and road or route conditions are what determines the "best cadence" for any cyclist.

There's no such rule that "higher is always better" regarding cadence. It's just that, too many cyclists often become fatigued and fail to engage or recruit there leg/body muscles in a manner that affords using all the apects of their muscles evenly. In other words, muscle fibers will fatigue at different rates when under heavy loads. OK - get it? There's no such thing as perfect cadence, it varies by route, and rider-rest status.

RC's big quote of the day:


Exactly, this why I try to spin more when I am pulling (fighting wind resistance) and mash more when I am drafting (more torque). It allows me to vary the effort between HR fatigue (spinning) and leg muscle fatigue (mashing). I get a more balanced ride this way.

[will dehne]

Some of us have Arthritis in our knees. Not good for low cadence mashing. Relatively high cadence spinning seems to build muscles around the joint. (I think?)

[CyberDaug]

Exactly, this why I try to spin more when I am pulling (fighting wind resistance) and mash more when I am drafting (more torque). It allows me to vary the effort between HR fatigue (spinning) and leg muscle fatigue (mashing). I get a more balanced ride this way.



I think Stone said it all.
I have only been riding since May after 50 years of driving any time I had to go farther then the end of my driveway and smoking 2+ packs of cigarettes a day.
So my legs and lung power are almost nothing.
I tried following these posts and I got worn out fast. Now I ride till my legs start hurting drop a gear pick up the cadence to what ever feels good till I start breathing heavy then slow down until I am breathing better then keep adjusting my cadence to my level, not to what everyone else’s.
By my standards I have made good progress so far, I just try to improve a little at a time.
If all else fails I just fall over. :D

[Artkansas]

I don't know either but I know I tend to pedal light and rapid. It's helped my knees a lot over 45 years of bicycling.

[ticwanos]

So what part does the gear being used play in all this? Are you talking about cadences with only one gear used or varied gears depending upon conditions met?

[lhbernhardt]

Keeping in mind that racers are usually fairly small and light, is it normal for taller folks to have a "naturally lower cadence?"

Although most good climbers tend to gravitate around 5'7" and 145#, you often see "anomalies" like Eddy Merckx and Miguel Indurain (both just over six feet and at least 160#) who haven't done too badly in the high mountains as well as in the time trials. Indeed, most trackies gravitate more around 6'+ and close to 200#, and they have no trouble spinning gears of 90 to 106 inches at over 140 rpms for about 11 seconds (sprinting) or at 120 rpms for four to five minutes (team pursuit and individual pursuit). There seems to be a mistaken notion that short people "move faster" because they have shorter limbs to move. The fact is, in strength sports like cycling, size is generally an advantage. Longer limbs confer a definite biomechanical advantage (longer levers), and there is no reason why a system of longer levers with correspondingly more muscle should go any slower than a system of shorter ones with proportionately less muscle. (And don't get me started on the whole area of linear velocity vs. angular velocity; we could be here for hours!)

Now, I do have one "kind of new" theory that I'm working out before it goes into my book, which possibly explains why 90 rpms is more efficient than 60 rpms. Pick up a baseball and throw it. If you throw properly, "like a guy," the movement would have originated with a twisting motion in your core as you took a step with your lead foot. Finally, your arm gets into the picture as the upper arm initiates (as the elbow comes forward), then the forearm, then finally you do the wrist flick to add the final five mph to your 90 mph fastball. The movement spreads outward. Now, if you think about your leg as "throwing the pedal," the movement would spread downward from core to thigh to calf to a slight ankle flick to drive the pedal. Now, I would maintain that the most efficient throw would occur with your arms moving at a certain velocity, and the most efficient throwing of the pedal would occur with the legs moving at a speed that would correspond to around 90 rpm.

Anyway, I figure this should give some budding exercise physiologist enough material for a master's thesis...

- L.

[BlazingPedals]

My natural cadence is about 85. But if I'm pushing especially hard, I'll stay in each gear a little longer, pushing my cadence up near 100. BUT... if I'm loafing, I often drop down to 70 rpm or less.

[dagna]

So what part does the gear being used play in all this? Are you talking about cadences with only one gear used or varied gears depending upon conditions met?
Varied gears. Super simplified, you'd keep your HR even and your cadence even, and change the gear as required to maintain that HR and cadence.

[Pockets]

I read all about this cadence thing but nobody says what gears they are in if I am in the 42/17 I can spin at 80 to 90 but if i am in 52/19 I can only spin at about 70's. If i was in the 42/23 I would be spinning over 100 and going no where fast. Sorry for the rant

[stapfam]

I read all about this cadence thing but nobody says what gears they are in if I am in the 42/17 I can spin at 80 to 90 but if i am in 52/19 I can only spin at about 70's. If i was in the 42/23 I would be spinning over 100 and going no where fast. Sorry for the rant

I can only answer this from the Tandem. 48/11 on a perfectly flat road--cadence of 90 and 25mph. Cadence of 100 and 30mph- but that cadence was just a bit too high so dropped back to 90 again. Slight rise in the road cadence kept at 90 speed of 22mph and gear of 48/28.

Then again we once got up to a speed of 45mph and were still pushing hard on the pedals when the lungs gave out. Cadence of 150 and I never want to spin that fast again.

Depends on you but an easy way to check if the cadence is too high for you----Providing the bike is perfectly set up for you- Is if you start bouncing up and down on the saddle.

[stonecrd]

For me I'm usually in 52/15,17,19 depending on conditions. In any event I always shift to bigger cog if I drop to 80rpm and a smaller cog if I get to 100.

[BlazingPedals]

I read all about this cadence thing but nobody says what gears they are in if I am in the 42/17 I can spin at 80 to 90 but if i am in 52/19 I can only spin at about 70's. If i was in the 42/23 I would be spinning over 100 and going no where fast. Sorry for the rant

If you cannot maintain your desired cadence, then that's an indication that you're in too high a gear. Say your desired rpm is 80-90 rpm. At your cruising speed, pick a gear that allows you to remain in this range of cadence. If you hit a hill climb and can no longer maintain the cadence in that gear, then downshift until you can. Upshift if your cadence goes too high (or coast.) And so on. After a while you'll get an a general feel for the speed range of each gear and will be able to anticipate shifts better.

[Garfield Cat]

My Cateye has a cadence reading that gives me the average cadence as well. So I am surprised that even though I think my cadence is high, it isn't. My average is around 85 but I swear that most of the ride is in the 90's and sometimes 100's.

I do feel better without the load and going on higher cadence. And with a higher cadence I feel that the pedal stroke is more efficient, more rounded and even.

[edp773]

I think Stone said it all.
I have only been riding since May after 50 years of driving any time I had to go farther then the end of my driveway and smoking 2+ packs of cigarettes a day.
So my legs and lung power are almost nothing.
I tried following these posts and I got worn out fast. Now I ride till my legs start hurting drop a gear pick up the cadence to what ever feels good till I start breathing heavy then slow down until I am breathing better then keep adjusting my cadence to my level, not to what everyone else’s.
By my standards I have made good progress so far, I just try to improve a little at a time.
If all else fails I just fall over. :D

This is a good strategy and similar to the way I progressed. You should adjust training to fit yourself. IMHO, you presented a great explanation of a sound training plan for an everyday rider.

I started with little lung and leg power for different reasons.The difference in my training was that I wanted a higher cadence to improve cardio, so I extended my fast cadence intervals and used the slower ones to recover. I also used two to three fast pedal intervals where my cadence was as fast as possible for one minute.

[centexwoody]

+ 1 I have absolutely no clue what my cadence is or may be or why I should care or how I'd measure it without a computer: count my revolutions in a 'typical minute' ? (whatever a 'typical minute' might be)...:(

[wagathon]

The published abilities and riding/training style of Lance Armstrong makes make 75 seem like a small number, but that aside, 75 and over is generally considered spinning in articles about it. For me, based on eerything that I've read, I like the idea of spinning along at 90 for an hour but, no can do . . . :)

[CrossChain]

I understand the idea of a magical "most efficient" cadence for each of us...although subject to change through training. Honestly, my cadence varies and I believe I prefer that. I "normally" spin around 90, but don't try to maintain that on a climb or with a strong tailwind/headwind. Sometimes its refreshing to shift up and pedal more slowly on the flats. I think variety of pedaling speeds is, for me, more stimulating to the legs and more in keeping with "real", everyday cycling on the road. Admittedly, the ease of brifter shifting and the range of gears now available makes maintaining an "ideal" constant cadence more attainable....I'm just not sure that's an ideal for my training goals.

[Big Paulie]

+ 1 I have absolutely no clue what my cadence is or may be or why I should care or how I'd measure it without a computer: count my revolutions in a 'typical minute' ? (whatever a 'typical minute' might be)...:(
OK, the last time I posted this I was soundly flamed/roasted/ridiculed. :(

But here goes.... :p

Bring up the elapsed time function on your computer, if you have one. Watch the seconds tick by. Pedal one and a half revolutions every second. That puts you at 90 rpm. At least you get an idea if that feels slow or fast to you. :eek:

Let the flaming begin...:)

[Digital Gee]

OK, the last time I posted this I was soundly flamed/roasted/ridiculed. :(

But here goes.... :p

Bring up the elapsed time function on your computer, if you have one. Watch the seconds tick by. Pedal one and a half revolutions every second. That puts you at 90 rpm. At least you get an idea if that feels slow or fast to you. :eek:

Let the flaming begin...:)

You are a sick man! Why do you feel the need to post this junk time after time??? We are cyclists, not mathematicians, dammit! :D

How's that? (Haven't even had coffee yet...)

[centexwoody]

Big P: thnx berry berry much for your corrective instruction. Now all I have to do is print these instructions out, try to remember them while riding, watching my computer clock and counting pedal revolutions...and hope the county dog pack doesn't try to eat me this week...:eek:

I have no intention of flaming you for this but will put this one down ONCE AGAIN to my 'newbieness' ham-fisted, lizard-brained state of consistent inattention to what is (EVIDENTLY?) an important part of cycling or the cycling culture or something...:(

[Digital Gee]

Big P: thnx berry berry much for your corrective instruction. Now all I have to do is print these instructions out, try to remember them while riding, watching my computer clock and counting pedal revolutions...and hope the county dog pack doesn't try to eat me this week...:eek:

I have no intention of flaming you for this but will put this one down ONCE AGAIN to my 'newbieness' ham-fisted, lizard-brained state of consistent inattention to what is (EVIDENTLY?) an important part of cycling or the cycling culture or something...:(

Don't feel bad. I'm in the same club as you. Club Clueless I think they call it. :D

[centexwoody]

If there are two of us then we CAN call it a club. Proud to be a fellow member with you, Gary.

Tom

[Clueless Diego]

Club Clueless I think they call it. :D
That URL is already taken...
:p

[Richard Cranium]

I don't see what's hard to understand about "why" an optimum cadence does exist - and about "why" it is never precisely the same for any two situations.

Any cadence "in use" is a combination of two biological feedback loops. One loop, is focused on the central nervous system, and is experienced as your desire to move the pedals. The other loop, gathers it input from your leg muscles and expresses itself and a sense of fatigue or resistance.You constantly monitor the two signals and adjust your cadence to match. What's the problem?

We are NOT machines and often estimate that the feedback information from the legs is more important, and this misjudgement of "input info" results in a less than optimum cadence.

An even more problematic aspect of choosing a perfect cadence results from an understanding of the difference between training and performing. [racing]

I would guess most cyclists would agree that "practicing" uncomfortable cadences in training will result in the ability to increase performance by maintaining a higher, more biologically effective cadence during racing. (as previously noted)

The most bio-effective cadence is experienced when muscle fiber fatigue and local energy substrates are depleted, or "matched" to the abilitiy of the cardiovascular system's ability to deliver and remove metabolites. Too low of cadence and performance is limited by the local metabolic capacity, too much spin, and the highest quantity of muscle fiber is not being used for performing.

Pretty much blah de freakin' blah , not much more to add. All this crap has to be written down somewhere -- who's got the link? Any other angles?

Learn to "spin" if you want to win, peace out.........

[Carusoswi]

Welllllll . . . here are my personal observations on this topic along with a question or two:

I run a long-gear setup on my bike – probably longer than most anyone else on this forum (63/52 up front, 34/11 in the back). I turn those combos through 185 mm cranks (to my knowledge, the longest cranks available – not that I would wish for longer, these are just fine).

I find slow cadence to my liking, although, I’ve done some testing and have no problem turning 90 rpm for sustained periods. Nothing hurts at 90 rpm, but, then again, nothing hurts at 45-60 rpm, either, and I can turn those low speeds seemingly forever.

I can ride slow or fast as suits me at either slow or fast rpms, but, frankly, feel more comfy riding on the slower side. It seems I can climb fine on my bike, and can really fly coming down hill.

I sweat like crazy when I ride, no matter whether I ride fast rpm or slow. On climbs, my respiration increases until I feel (and probably sound) like a steam locomotive, but, within 30 seconds of having completed that climb, respiration is back to what is normal for me.

I love taking really long road rides to nowhere – and enjoy going out on unfamiliar routes just to get lost, see the city/countryside, find my way back, and put on the miles.

If I can’t get lost, I just ride long routes that are familiar and vary them to keep from becoming bored.

I typically ride 20 – 40 miles each day during the week and 60 – 80 miles each day on Saturday and Sunday. Although I’d think I’d like to ride faster, my speed generally averages 14 – 17 mph, no matter what my cadence (that includes stop lights/signs, yielding to cars (hate when that happens), etc).

I feel great – been doing this a while, now, and nothing hurts – not my knees, my rear, wrists, or my arms.

I’ve never smoked and my weight is coming down (I’m 5’8” – now 185 down from 195 this spring).

So, my questions:

From an exercise standpoint, am I wasting opportunity because I like riding at slower cadences?
Is riding at a ferocious cadence the only way to keep ones heart healthy?
Am I really doing damage to my knees riding at lower cadences?

I am not qualified to offer empirical answers to these questions – and certainly don’t mean to put down anyone who expresses an opinion one way or the other. But conventional wisdom can shift from time to time. It seems that fast cadence is the wisdom of the day, but, that doesn’t necessarily make it so.

Working my 63/11 through 185 mm cranks allows me to cover more ground in a given revolution – and thus, I can ride further with fewer strokes. As long as I am not asking my body to exceed the capabilities designed into it, I assume I should be able to continue turning that gear for as long as I want without doing any damage. In practice, depending upon my mood, I can ride for hours using the longer side of my gear combos and still feel comfortable – and, conversely, I have tried the same using relatively shorter combos/faster cadence – still felt comfortable. As to which is more efficient, for slight uphill, level, and downhill – I feel longer gears are. When climbing, I am still trying to determine which is best for me. Obviously, my shortest gear isn’t short by some standards, so, maybe I’m unable to experience true uphill spinning – but, for now, my mind is unconvinced that either spinning or standing out of the saddle and turning a longer gear is more efficient.

I am also not convinced that the cycling world is all together accurate in classifying anything thing below ‘x’ rpm as mashing. I don’t consider myself to be mashing when I’m in my longer gears. I still try to maintain an even stroke throughout each revolution and vary my stroke so that sometimes, both legs are working their max – then, just for variety, I’ll let one leg do more – or toss out even pedaling for a bit and let one or both legs exert more effort on the upstroke just to consciously give that set of muscles an extra workout.

When I stand out of the saddle, I make a conscious attempt to include upstroke effort as well as down stroke.

At this point, I will never be more than an old guy who likes to ride a bike, but I do know that my bike and I almost always get there (except when impeded by cars crossing my path (really hate when that happens), and, as I’ve said previously, I feel good and enjoy my cycling.

If you’ve bothered to wade through this lengthy post, thanks. If you are annoyed by its length, I apologize – but, thanks for letting me post, anyway.

I wish happy, safe, and healthy riding to all. I have certainly enjoyed reading this thread.

Caruso

[Digital Gee]

Okay, I tried to apply Big Paulie's methodology today. I switched the computer to TIME, and counted every revolution of my right foot for a minute.

Against a 14 mph wind, on flat ground, my cadence was 74. With a tailwind on the same flat ground (Harbor Island, for locals), my cadence was 83.

In both instances, I was just tooling around, not mashing, at a comfortable speed I could maintain for miles.

But I'm still clueless as to what this information is telling me. (Or if i even measured it right!)

[DnvrFox]

Carusowi - do whatever cadence suits you. It is not going to make a "Hill of Beans" difference in your fitness or cardio.

You've been discussing this ever since your first posts on this 50+ forum. So, something must be bothering you about your cadence?

I sometimes ride with a guy near 80yo who has a cadence of about 45, and it suits him to a "T". (He also mounts the bike by putting his left foot on the pedal, pushing with his right foot until he builds up speed and swinging his leg over the seat, like I did as a kid. Works for him!)

Do your own thing. No one here is watching!

[Big Paulie]

He also mounts the bike by putting his left foot on the pedal, pushing with his right foot until he builds up speed and swinging his leg over the seat, like I did as a kid.
Dear God, no! :eek:

Not another thread-stealing reference to, "Mounting a bike by putting one's left foot on the pedal, pushing with one's right foot until one builds speed and swings one's leg over the seat!!!"

The last time this got dredged up in here, the authorities had to be notified! :(

[DnvrFox]

Dear God, no! :eek:

Not another thread-stealing reference to, "Mounting a bike by putting one's left foot on the pedal, pushing with one's right foot until one builds speed and swings one's leg over the seat!!!"

The last time this got dredged up in here, the authorities had to be notified! :(

:roflmao:

[Kragg]

I was mashing all the time when I started riding, killing my legs early during rides. Through the suggestions from my more experienced riding buds, I too upped my cadence to above 80. Wow !!! What a difference !!! Not only do my legs not tire nearly as much, but I can now maintain higher speeds on the flats, and can afford to mash on the hills. This was the best advice I ever received on riding.

[BluesDawg]

Hey, it's not a one size fits all world. We are talking about what generally works for most riders. If a person finds that something radically different from the typical method works for them (63/11?,sheez! I could maybe turn that at 20 rpm going downhill) so be it. For most people, picking gears that allow you to spin faster will make it easier to ride faster and longer.
I especially see newer riders struggling to push a big gear up a hill, barely able to keep going, when they have plenty of gears available to use. By using lower gears and bringing up their cadence, they would be able to climb more easily, faster and with less damage to their knees. I tell them they paid for all those gears, why not use them?
I don't know my exact cadence because I have not used a cadence-measuring cyclocomputer for many years. I used one for a couple of years in the early 90s after reading articles about the benefits of spinning faster. I was surprised to see how low a cadence I was using, typically 60 to 70. I concentrated on spinning faster to the point I could do 100 rpm without bouncing off the seat and found that I was climbing much better and that my knees were much happier.
I do not try to keep a constant cadence. I concentrate more on spinning faster while climbing or accelerating. If I feel my cadence going too low on a climb, I'll stand and accelerate, sometimes shifting up a gear, then sit down, shift down and spin. On the flats or downhills, I'll go to the highest gear I can stay on top of. If I notice I'm struggling to maintain speed in that gear, I'll shift down and get the legs going faster.
Without really measuring, I would guess that my cadence ranges from 70 to 90 most of the time. Keeping accurate statistics on your cadence is not the point of all this. Recognizing that there is a technique that may help make your riding more effective or more enjoyable and experimenting with that technique to see if it has benefits for you is the point.

[FarHorizon]

... (63/11?,sheez! I could maybe turn that at 20 rpm going downhill)...

Floyd Landis has actually been known to do similar ratios, and he's no slouch at cadence or speed. Floyd's huge chainrings have been referred to as "pie plates."

I agree with you fully, BD, that everyone has their own preferences. One's preferred cadence may not be the most efficient (even for that individual), but if it works, it works!

I plan to experiment with higher cadence based on the feedback from this poll to see if it makes a change for me. I'll repost my results in a month or two. Thanks for the comments.