Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling - Cadence-Century...Out the window?

I just recently got cadence on a couple of my bikes. No I have found myself focusing on it even subconsciously trying to keep it around 90. I haven't ridden a century since doing this and am wondering if anyone pays attention to cadence on a century.

And if they do, how does this effect the ride? More tired? Faster times? Etc.?

I watch my cadence all the time. I generally ride whatever cadence my body feels like, but I like numbers. It helps keep me amused.

That said, I have found that for my body (chicken legs, decent cardio by comparison) a high cruising cadence helps me keep my legs fresh on a long ride. Say, 100 RPM. I can go a bit harder without getting any more fatigued since on my body, what fatigues first is my legs, especially if I have to pedal hard. By increasing the cadence, I can put out more power (power = cadence * pedaling force * constants) while maintaining an endurance pedaling force.

Cadence and HR are the only things I watch. Who cares about speed or distance - unless one is following a cue sheet of course. Especially on a long ride I watch cadence. It's too easy for me to get lazy and let my cadence drop, with tired legs later a result. One thinks that slower cadence will keep one's legs fresher, and one would be wrong. I average 88 on almost every ride with climbing of at least 50' per mile. That's just what's comfortable for me, of course.

I have never watched my cadence. However, I will count it once in a while when I'm feeling a bit bored, and the number invariably (except maybe on a hill) comes up somewhere between 85 and 90.

I generally have my polar set on speed and cadence. I normally only look at cadence when I'm climbing to make sure I don't get too low (say, below 85 for me), or if I'm doing muscle tension work, to make sure I'm low enough (70 RPM is a good workout for me, but it can be hard on the knees).

As ischen said, very generally, working at a higher cadence puts more load on your cardio system, and riding at a lower cadence puts more load on your muscles. Since the cardio system gets fatigued less, riding at a higher cadence lets you ride for longer.

*However*, you will likely be slower riding at a higher cadence, and feel more out of breath.

I definitely try to keep my cadence a bit higher (or, make sure it doesn't get too low) on centuries.

I used to spin too much, perhaps. Now I let the situation dictate the cadence more. For example, if I'm trying to close a gap when my insanely-strong riding buddy odemirmen is pulling ahead, I might dig deep at a lower cadence for the acceleration. I won't be looking at the number on the computer, though. The only time I do that is when I'm in "steady state" riding and want to keep myself honest. 90 is a fairly arbitrary number but if I find I'm slipping beneath it, I change gears. Also, at the other end, after 105-110 it's generally time for me to switch gears.

i'll chime in, too, that HR and cadence are the only things i look at, and of the two i think HR may be more important. i find i am most comfortable at 95-100 RPM on my (19 lb) racing bike and 85-90 on my (29 lb) touring bike. i also try to stay at 90-95% of my LT (that is, riding hard enough to be unable to talk but slow enough to keep that pace for a prolonged period). if i find my cadence is dropping to the low 90s then i know it's time to shift down. and incidentally, lower gears are offset by higher rpms. not only is it easier to spin at higher cadence, which confers less fatigue as ericqu said, but i find i maintain the same speed (or even slightly higher) as if i were mashing higher gears at a lower cadence. i hardly ever use my big chain ring unless i'm headed downhill.

Maybe a better way to put it would be... If you focus on cadence and try and maintain it around 90 for 100 miles, will you be more or less tired at the end than if you didn't look at it at all?

Maybe a better way to put it would be... If you focus on cadence and try and maintain it around 90 for 100 miles, will you be more or less tired at the end than if you didn't look at it at all?

Well, if you keep a higher (not really high for you, but in your upper comfortable range), you will likely be less tired at the end. Assuming you stay aerobic for most of the time - if you are out of breath and pushiing hard, you will likely be miserable.

Ah, the minutiae of cycling!

IMO, cadence is not critical, as long as it falls somewhere in the range of perhaps 80 to 120 RPM. I personally grew up using fairly high cadence as a young track racer, and have evolved into slower cadences as an old fat tourist. I personally think it is a mistake to tell someone exactly what their cadence should be, as it is an individual thing. I spend most of my time around 85 RPM, which works for me, but might be unbearably slow for someone else.

So two bits of advice: one, as long as you are in the "correct" range, you needn't obsess about it. Staring at your computer all day to ensure that you do not vary from a self-imposed RPM is very unlikely to improve anything. I personally would rather enjoy the scenery, but we all have our own goals for riding, don't we?

Two, a sudden change from your usual habbits will almost always backfire, in my experience. That is to say, if you habitually ride around at a cadence that is comfortable to you, enforcing an "unnatural" cadence during a special event will almost certainly be more fatiguing than simply riding around at whatever RPM you are used to. This assumes, of course, that your comfortable RPM is within the "normal" 80-120 range. If you are new to the sport and tend to ride around at a comfy 60 RPM, you might consider gradually working your way into the "normal" range, which will indeed improve your scores.

HTH!

i have to respectfully disagree that cadence is not important. i find cadence extremely important, very much like keeping an eye on the tachometer of a car and for exactly the same reason. if i'm spinning too fast that suggests that i should shift up and likewise when i'm too slow i should shift to a lower gear. either way i don't feel i'm pedaling with optimal efficiency unless i'm at my preferred cadence. the trick is finding a cadence that is comfortable for you.

on long rides especially i know i can get lazy and let my cadence drop. that's why i like to keep an eye on my RPMs on a computer. i don't obsess over it but it is the primary display on my computer (a cateye astrale, btw).

** mp **

Oh, I don't mean to say that cadence is completely unimportant, rather, that constantly monitoring it is unimportant. Certainly if you are spinning faster or slower than is comfortable for you, you should switch gears. But the idea that cadence must be electronically monitored and kept within a strict limit is unreasonable, to me. Each to his own, of course. :)

I think the point is that cadence is important if your goal is performance, a.k.a speed. That is probably the biggest thing that I struggle with in cycling is having a competitive urge that manages to creep into my riding and ultimately screw up a good thing in the end.

I generally contend that I just ride for relaxation and for pleasure but inside just about every rider there lurks a competive rider somewhere. It is buried deeper for some and for some it is the primary reason for riding. After all who doesn't want to be perceived as fast and/or better than somebody else?

I just got cadence on a couple of my bikes a couple of months ago. Actually I got it by accident initially because the computer i bought came with it and i didn't even know it. So i got it, liked it and then added it to another bike. What i learned is that the guy at my LBS, who races, was right. Cadence DOES make a difference and CAN make you faster.

It has made me faster on my mountain bike and on my road bike. This morning I averaged 19.8 mph on a 30 mile ride. Not particularly fast, but it was a little breezy, and there were some hills on that route. Last year before cadence, i probably would have ridden that route and averaged around 18. (just a guess) Also I haven't averaged below 18 mph this year on my road bike. It was common to be in the 17's before cadence monitoring.

So all of this leads back to the original question. If I am going faster over 100 miles by monitoring cadence, will I be LESS tired because i got there faster and was on the bike for less time, or will I be MORE tired because for 5 hours I was pushing a pretty hard gear the whole way???

It seems to me that I will be more tired by pushing a hard gear the whole way instead of spending some time spinning.

I think the point is that cadence is important if your goal is performance, a.k.a speed.
Perhaps. But the effects filter down the performance ladder. If you can put in a lower perceived effort for the same speed if you ride at whatever cadence your body prefers, then you can stay fresh for longer and better enjoy your long ride.

So all of this leads back to the original question. If I am going faster over 100 miles by monitoring cadence, will I be LESS tired because i got there faster and was on the bike for less time, or will I be MORE tired because for 5 hours I was pushing a pretty hard gear the whole way???
Hard to say. Depends on how much faster you push yourself. But I think you're missing something here. You don't have to be pushing a harder gear to go faster. Just spinning it around more often.

I think it's safe to say that at a fixed speed, riding at the cadence your body prefers for endurance riding will get you through the 100 miles less tired than riding well outside your preferred cadence. Of course, this statement in of itself doesn't help you much unless you happen to know from experience what cadence your body likes on long rides.

IMO, until we find out what the thread parent was doing prior to monitoring, we are all just guessing. If he used to ride around at 50 RPM, then switching to 90 will cerainly be an improvement. Same if he used to ride around at 140 or something.

But if he's gone from 80 to 90 and thinks that's resulted in a 2 MPH increase, or if he used to ride at sometimes 80, sometimes 90, sometimes 100 and thinks that fanatically sticking to exactly 90 RPM is responsible for drastic improvement, then he's deluding himself and we're all wasting our time. :)

For whatever it's worth, the "big gear" comment makes me think that he is perhaps trying to push certain gears at a certain RPM, which can indeed make one faster. Bigger gear X higher RPM = duh. Of course, bigger gear X higher RPM also = increased heart rate, which is going to leave the rider more fatigued at the end of x miles.

What were we talking about again?

I think it's safe to say that at a fixed speed, riding at the cadence your body prefers for endurance riding will get you through the 100 miles less tired than riding well outside your preferred cadence. Of course, this statement in of itself doesn't help you much unless you happen to know from experience what cadence your body likes on long rides.

That is what i am trying to get at. Before monitoring cadence I was spinning considerably faster than i am now. This was from the Sheldon Brown School of "let the bike do the work for you. " I think that this method will result in less calories spent at the end of a 100 mile ride.

Trying to keep a cadence closer to 90 or in this case, slower than what i prefer, causes me to be pushing a harder gear, and working harder, which subsequently makes my speed faster. So I am starting to think that the answer is obvious. I will get there faster, and be more tired. This is what i originally assumed.

The reason i ask is that i haven't ridden a century since i got cadence and am contemplating one in the near future.