Road Cycling - Cadence?

Okay... so I got a flightdeck which tells me my 'virtual' cadence... Is there a 'preferable' cadence to have? During a 25 mile ride today I was anywhere from 100 down to 70 or so when climbing steep hills.. I know higher at a lower gear is better for your knees and such, but whats considered low?

It really depends on the person, but I think nost people shoot for 90-100. I, personally ride at 95 - 105. Anything less feels like mashing to me.

someone once gave me good advice (I think it was on this board):
- if your legs hurt, lower you gear and spin faster
- if your lungs hurt, up the gear, and spin slower..

I end up spinning between 95 and 105.. however, if the grade is very steep I sometime go as slow as 50RPM..

Okay... so I got a flightdeck which tells me my 'virtual' cadence... Is there a 'preferable' cadence to have? During a 25 mile ride today I was anywhere from 100 down to 70 or so when climbing steep hills.. I know higher at a lower gear is better for your knees and such, but whats considered low?

Sounds like a pretty fair cadance to me. 100's good on the flats and 70 to climb with, more than fair.

Bike gears are like golf clubs >> same swing different club >> different distance and accuracy.
>> same cadance, different gear >> different speed for different slope/grade/hill.

I think it all depends on how I feel. Sometimes I climb in the saddle and other times out. I like to train both ways and don't think too much about cadence when climbing, more about finding a comfortable working groove. On the flats, I like to get low and try to keep to at least 90 rpm. Anything above 100 and I be shifting...it's what feels right to me.

55/Rad

I agree with 55/rad

I feel best with what most would consider a LOW cadance. I feel best between 85&100 on the flats and also try to up cadance as I hit the base of hills, but the long ones still get me and I end up with my main concern being turning the pedals one more time to get to the top (and hopefully enjoy a relaxing (to my legs) fast decent.

We all have a cadance that FEELS best to us. Don't let anyone tell you "If you are going to race you have to spin between 95&120" The other thing is that your natural cadance is likely to increase as you gain fitness and comfort on the bike. Also, I find that I tend to spin faster in the drops than on the hoods. I try to train part of my time doing cadance work in both the drops and on the hoods. For this I work on relatively flat roads so I can concentrate on the cadance and less on shifting etc.

Good luck...Bill

90 into the wind and 100 with it to my back. No woind 90-95

I don't doubt that everyone above rides the cadence they say they do. But I've found that in the real world, many people will say that they ride 90 rpm all the time, but when you acturally count their cadence, it is actually much lower.

That is, they may ride 100 rpm when they are thinking about their cadence, but when they are just tooling along, it's much lower.

Sorry. I ride by cadence,not mph and two of my goals are to keep my cadence 90 or more and not to drop below 10 mph which i do every ride no matter the weather. I'm not fast but i can keep it up.

Is there a 'preferable' cadence to have?

No. To paraphrase what someone else said, for a given speed spinning faster will use your aerobic system more and spinning slower will use your muscles more (so to speak).

Generally if you can get your aerobic system into good enough shape it's better to rely on it more than your legs for longer periods of work since it is more easily renewed. But your cadence will vary on your aerobic shape, your strength, your speed, your distance, your coordination, etc.

Otoh, it's not good to be heaving for breaths while spinning at 110 RPM if your legs are still fresh and you are at the end of the ride. Also, spinning all the time won't develop strength as well. You need to mash sometimes to build your leg muscles.

I don't doubt that everyone above rides the cadence they say they do. But I've found that in the real world, many people will say that they ride 90 rpm all the time, but when you acturally count their cadence, it is actually much lower.

That is, they may ride 100 rpm when they are thinking about their cadence, but when they are just tooling along, it's much lower.

I would agree with this statement to a degree. I don't ride 90 RPM all the time, only when I'm training on the flats, doing rollers or consciously thinking about it. I'm not at 90 when I'm warming up or cooling down, climbing or descending, riding in groups or packs or just tooling along. So, realistically, this leaves relatively little time in the zone.

But, at any time, I can tell what my approximate cadence is (without checking the computer) and I use this "knowledge" to manage my aerobic and muscular output.

55/Rad

Here's a little bit of a summary statement from a resdearch arcticle on cycling cadence. The entire paper can be viewed at:
http://www.bsn.com/Cycling/articles/cadence.html

"In summary, laboratory studies indicate that experienced cyclists do not use their most economical or efficient cadences. However, cadences of 90 to 100 rpm are probably beneficial in spite of decreases in economy and efficiency. The explanation proposed here suggests the use of high rpms results in a decrease in average pedal force per revolution and leads to the recruitment of fewer fast-twitch fibers, placing the reliance for muscle power development primarily on the slow-twitch and intermediate fibers. The advantage to the cyclist is there is less likelihood of a rapid accumulation of lactic acid, with the resulting decrease in muscle force production. More interdisciplinary studies in cycling, particularly those that combine biomechanical and physiological data, are needed to confirm or refute this theory.

It seems likely that physiological, psychological, and biomechanical factors all play a role in preferred cadence selection, albeit to a varying degree, depending on the goals of the task. For example, maximal sprinting tasks have not been considered in this article, and it is likely that the criteria for sprint cadence selection are different than for submaximal cycling tasks. As we have seen, one of the difficulties in attempting to provide a definitive answer to the question of what are the determinants of the preferred cadence is the inconsistent nature of some of the scientific literature. Also, this article works from the supposition that for a submaximal task, the human body will attempt to minimize those variables important to preferred cadence selection. The author is certainly not alone in this view, but acknowledges this logic may be flawed, and, in fact, the body may be trying to maximize some as yet undetermined variable, such as muscle power output (see Sargeant, 1994)."

Ater years of teaching Spinning classes, I tend towards their standards for cadence- 60-80 rpm on hillss and 90-110 on flats.

Okay... so I got a flightdeck which tells me my 'virtual' cadence... Is there a 'preferable' cadence to have? During a 25 mile ride today I was anywhere from 100 down to 70 or so when climbing steep hills.. I know higher at a lower gear is better for your knees and such, but whats considered low?


I recall reading that Gregg Lemond had a cadence in the low 80s. When he was at the top of his form, I used to see articles all the time about how important it was to "push big gears". Lance Armstrong rides at cadences over 100 (about 105, I think) so now higher cadences are in the vogue. But Lemond won 3 tours, so I am not going to say he didn't know what he was doing. The point being that different riders seem to prefer different cadences and perhaps perform better at different cadences.

Now rookie riders tend to ride at low cadences. I did when I started until I discovered that 100 or so felt a lot better to me.

Why would i try to do what those guys do. To many riders try to copy what these animals are living for. What fits you is best like you said 100 felt better so thats right for you,not what LA or LeMond does.

I recall reading that Gregg Lemond had a cadence in the low 80s.

I'm not calling you a liar but I am skeptical of that statement. Maybe 80's when he is climbing but as an average? Low 80's? That barely qualifies as spinning the pedals.

I avg. 120+ rpms and that is perfectly comfortable. Most riders I know are 100+ rpms.

120+? For the whole ride?

I've done 120+ for long training rides. It's not a big deal.
On the track, you need to be able to do 200-240rpms. Short bursts of course, but you still need to be able to efficently spin 200 rpms.

Spinning develops carido and muscular efficiency, in my experience. Slow rpms just kills your legs and tires you out quick, imo.

I think this is fantastic, wow!

So, on a real bike, on a real road how long can you spin at 200 rpm. And in what gear and what is your speed?

That is, they may ride 100 rpm when they are thinking about their cadence, but when they are just tooling along, it's much lower.


Tha't what the cadence function is for on a cyclocomputer. Just look down a nd there it is. I agree, if you are doing a timed run, you would probably spin faster. That is why having the cadence function is good.

I think this is fantastic, wow!

So, on a real bike, on a real road how long can you spin at 200 rpm. And in what gear and what is your speed?

I think he said "on a track"

On the track you have a fixed gear bike. The only way you will overtake another rider is to jump first or spin faster than they do. Trackies can go WAY above 200 rpms efficiently and smoothly.
Do some track work and 120 rpms feels pretty relaxing. It's not an ego thing because spinning on the road, anyone can learn to do that. What seperates the men from the boys is the ability to spin big gears. But you gotta be able to spin, first of all. You have to be able to endure the rpms without discomfort. If you have the power too, well then you are a UCI contender.