Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) - Why worry about such things...?

I am curious so please don't take this as anything other than that, I was reading the post by Allen55 on the topic of cadence, not wanting to derail his thread I thought I would start one and ask because as I was reading I found myself thinking "whats the difference really?"

It seems like its important just because we can... and what I mean by that is that I have been riding for the last 3 years and cannot think of a single instance where knowing what my exact cadence is/was would have helped me a single bit so is it kind of like just a cool gadget to have a cadence sensor on our bikes? sort of like all of the Honda's riding around with a 3 inch Monster tach hanging off of their A pillar? I mean the tach on the Honda works sure, its relevant because it is after all a car but is it really something that is needed?

I suppose I could equate it to driving a car with a stick, sure I can look down at the tach and shift at the exact moment that the manufacturers hand book says to but why do I need to do that? I know how the car sounds when it needs to be shifted, I know how the car feels when it needs to be shifted so I shift as needed. When I ride my bike I can feel when I need to drop into a lower gear or shift up into a higher one, I know when I am working too hard or can work harder by how I feel so what would the advantage be to having a cadence sensor on my bike? I have a Garmin that I use when I ride and my wife asked me if I would like to have the cadence sensor to go with it a while back and because I couldn't think of a reason that made more sense than "would be cool to know" I thought of it as a toy that I didn't really need.

I ride for fun, I ride for my health and I ride because I love being out there on the trails on the back of my bikes, worrying about my cadence I think would take away from the riding itself.

Am I missing something? :twitchy:

You can have a cadence sensor on your bike and ignore it ... that solves the "worrying about my cadence I think would take away from the riding itself" problem. That might not be the best use of your $35, but it's entirely possible. A lot of people who ride 'seriously' (meaning their goal is to get a serious workout, maybe training for a race) will do this, only caring about the average cadence at the end of a ride, or wanting to have the data to examine later, like in a cadence vs speed vs grade chart.

Nope probably not really going to make a bit of difference unless you are a racer... I mean I see it as more of a conditioning tool. That is my personel opinion though and I am sure others will point out why I am wrong =D

Like most things, it probably depends on your purpose. If you're only out to enjoy the ride, it's irrelevant. But if you're riding partly because you want to increase your cardio fitness, endurance, etc., then progression is important, and smaller increments of progression are more relevant.

Think of weightlifting. If you want to lift heavy objects just for the sheer physical thrill of lifting heavy things, then lifting natural stones and logs is hard to beat. They look cool, you look and feel like some kind of reborn avatar of Beowulf when you bring one up, and they're challenging because they're so irregular. But if you want to start lifting today and be a great deal stronger a year or two down the road, most people will get better results by lifting consistently and increasing the load by small increments so that progression can be smooth and consistent as well. That's why almost every gym has barbell plates as small as 2.5 pounds, and the better ones have even smaller plates that weigh one pound, half a pound or a quarter of a pound. Not because it's of key importance to know at all times that you're lifting half a pound more than the guy next to you, but because it's important to be able to increase your load from the same workout last week even if you can only increase it by half a pound. That's how you create progression.

Similarly, I imagine people use cadence meters (after all that long-winded bloviating, I reveal that I don't have one) to try to beat earlier performances even if they can only "beat themselves" by such small increments of cadence that they couldn't detect the difference by feel. Certainly I use the cadence and the resistance settings on elliptical trainers at the gym to do the same thing. And speaking of that . . . it's actually time to go hit the gym.

I'm coming to learn that just about everyone who rides a bike has his own reason for doing it, and that some things make sense for everybody, other things make sense for some, and some things are stupid no matter who does it. Keeping track of exact cadence is probably in the second category.

I think my approach is more like the OP's.

Am I missing something? :twitchy:

No. Just like in a car you want to be in the right gear because that's most efficient. But just like a car, you can do it by feel, and good sense, rather than looking at a rev counter. Congratulations on having some common sense, it can be rare around here.

Hey Push,

I agree many worry far too much about cadence, but it can be very useful. On a long not too steep climb it is very easy to realize yuor cadence is slowing but not realize just how much it is slowing. Having it show can alert you to shift while it is still easy to do so.

And many beginners really have a rather low cadence, realizing this can he helpful.

Both these are far different than deciding you have to always be between 85 and 95 rpm or whatever.

It should be your tool, not your master.

- I am a beginner with no idea what my cadence was or what different cadences do.
- I want to learn how to bicycle effectively, not just putz around.
- I wanted to avoid injury to my knees.
- My motivation comes from quantifying solid data like miles, mph, and cadence and improving my numbers over time.
- I already had the GPS watch for my running, and the cadence addition was pretty cheap.

At least those are my reasons for upgrading my forerunner 301.

I am curious so please don't take this as anything other than that, I was reading the post by Allen55 on the topic of cadence, not wanting to derail his thread I thought I would start one and ask because as I was reading I found myself thinking "whats the difference really?"


Knowing what effects riding above and below your natural cadence has on your fatigue can make your life a lot more pleasant when you go on a 420 mile supported tour with 30,000 feet of climbing or ride with the office park masters racers three days a week.

Being able to spend an extra hour on non-rest weeks at your lactate threshold can't hurt the rate you get faster and will shrink you an extra three pounds per year.

Being able to break 30 MPH on level ground because you can sprint that fast shifting at 120 RPM can save time waiting at traffic lights, especially where you have three or four in a row timed for car speeds.



I ride for fun, I ride for my health and I ride because I love being out there on the trails on the back of my bikes, worrying about my cadence I think would take away from the riding itself.
You don't worry about it all the time. It's more like you try something and see what effects it has (you sprint faster, can ride more intervals without fatigue, etc.) or a post-game review (Training and Racing with a Power Meter has an anecdote about a rider who got dropped every time he spent five minutes at power he could otherwise sustain for an hour but less than 70 RPM. Bigger cassettes did wonders for him).

I made that post because I kept reading about cadence. I was hoping i wasn't being stupid with the question. Really, I am like a sponge when it comes to doing something and doing it right so I ask questions on things that I am curious about. I want to do this thing right and have it be something that is a life changer for me. Im tired of my sedentary lifestyle and want to ride. I just want to make sure I am doing it right at the same time.

I made that post because I kept reading about cadence. I was hoping i wasn't being stupid with the question. Really, I am like a sponge when it comes to doing something and doing it right so I ask questions on things that I am curious about. I want to do this thing right and have it be something that is a life changer for me. Im tired of my sedentary lifestyle and want to ride. I just want to make sure I am doing it right at the same time.

I feel ya on that! I wasn't making the point about you in specific, as I read through some of the responses I just kept saying to myself "whats the difference really?" and didn't want to jack your thread so made this one ;)

all of the other replies in this thread, just soakin em up guys ;)

I had many riders ask hat my cadence was years back. I didn't know. I received a nice cateye computer with a cadence sensor blah blah blah. I used it, the batteries died and I thought it was more of a hassle having to replace 2 batteries for something that didn't matter with my style.

I replaced it with the original $14 computer I had previously (still on original battery) and never looked back.:D

I know how the car sounds when it needs to be shifted, I know how the car feels when it needs to be shifted so I shift as needed.

Even for a car, at some point you have to learn at least some notion of what RPM is revving "too high", and when the engine is struggling. There is an RPM range where the engine delivers optimal torque, and you will do "better" (with acceleration AND fuel efficiency) if you try to use that RPM range as much as possible. I know I had to learn at one point to rev higher before shifting up, and I found that my car performed a lot better for me when I changed my behavior.

Similarly, people "naturally" tend to have a bad intuition about their body's peak efficiency RPM for cycling. Most people instinctively pedal at about 60 rpm, which is about the rate we step when we walk. But for almost everybody, that is not the peak efficiency RPM for operating a bicycle, which has different biomechanics than walking.

Fortunately, we all have an indicator in our bodies of when we are at a peak-efficiency cadence. The oft-repeated rule of thumb is true: if your legs are tired, but you're not out of breath, gear down and increase your cadence. If you're out of breath, but your legs are spinning like crazy with no effort (and you're bouncing in the saddle), gear up and decrease your cadence. Find the equilibrium between your legs and your lungs.

(If you're out of breath AND your legs are tired, then you're going up a big hill. Gear down and do what you can to increase your cadence. If you're already in your lowest gear, sorry! Buy a bike with an easier granny gear, or HTFU, do what you have to to get over that hill, keep biking and get more fit!)

(Hoping this doesn't come across as antagonistic...)

Some BFers maintain that cadence doesn't really matter, that it doesn't effect the pleasant-ness of the ride. They will sometimes pooh-pooh others who try to watch or develop an efficient cadence. This can come across as a sort of reverse-discrimination, if you will.

Riders who watch their cadence watch it because they know a couple things:

A faster cadence relieves strain on knees and ankles and hips. This allows you to ride longer, faster, before becoming tired and having to stop.
Riding longer before becoming tired, or riding longer without pain allows you to enjoy riding more. And for longer duration.


Some riders have a naturally higher cadence and don't need to watch it or train it. Awesome. Wish that was me. Some riders are not them. This does not mean that naturally lower cadence riders will not receive benefits if they train a higher cadence. Some riders with a propensity to lower cadences don't want to try a higher cadence. They're happy where they are. Awesome.

But I will whole-heartedly disagree with these riders if they insist that a higher cadence is of no value and try to teach the same. Every rider (assuming non-medical issues or handicap issues) will see some benefit from a high(er) cadence. Some will try and will reap the rewards. Others won't care to. Awesome.

Some riders have a naturally higher cadence and don't need to watch it or train it. Awesome. Wish that was me. Some riders are not them. This does not mean that naturally lower cadence riders will not receive benefits if they train a higher cadence.

My body naturally wanted to turn the pedals at 60 to 70 rpm. And it felt pretty comfortable and normal. When I learned more about cycling, and started using a cadence sensor, I got my normal spin to around 80, and, eventually, to 90 rpm. At the same time, I noticed that I could go further (more time on the bike? awesome!), started to enjoy higher speeds, and felt less strain on my body. Fortunately I'm young enough and light enough not to worry much about my knees ... and now that I'm not stressing them, I hope not to have to for a long time. Plus, in other activities unrelated to cycling, I've got more stamina and fitness.

mkadam68 speaks the truth.

I found my cadence monitor to be a good tool. When I first started cycling my cadence was around 60 and I had a large amount of trouble going any distances longer than 15 miles. When I got a cadence monitor I was able to have it notify me whenever my cadence dropped below 70, so I used that to "kick" me into pedaling faster. Eventually I was able to reach around 80rpm, but that's where I reached a plateau. I suppose my legs are just too big to go any faster than that for any length of time. But I noticed that as my cadence increased so did my ability to go further and further.

I don't really look at it much anymore. I suppose I'll re-enable the alarms next year after I lose more weight, and attempt to train myself to reach 85 or so. It's still useful because sometimes my mind wanders and I lose track of how fast I'm pedaling, so occasionally I'll see I've dropped significantly below 80, drop a gear, and push on. It's easy to burn out my muscles if I stay too low for too long.

So I like it. It's not for everyone. Part of the fun in cycling, for me, is pushing myself further and further each time I go for a ride. But like I said, it's not for everyone; if you like to pedal casually and just take in the scenery, that's cool, but you're probably not going to get much use out of a cadence monitor.

My body naturally wanted to turn the pedals at 60 to 70 rpm. And it felt pretty comfortable and normal. When I learned more about cycling, and started using a cadence sensor, I got my normal spin to around 80, and, eventually, to 90 rpm. At the same time, I noticed that I could go further (more time on the bike? awesome!), started to enjoy higher speeds, and felt less strain on my body. Fortunately I'm young enough and light enough not to worry much about my knees ... and now that I'm not stressing them, I hope not to have to for a long time. Plus, in other activities unrelated to cycling, I've got more stamina and fitness.

mkadam68 speaks the truth.

Yes, but we need to be careful about the advice we give to new cyclists. People keep on making the statement that a higher cadence is more efficient. Actually, in one way it is less efficient. Laboratory studies have shown that in terms of energy consumption, that is, oxygen burned for delivering a given amount of power, a cadence of about 60rpm is the most efficient. That is why most new cyclists pedal at that cadence, it is because that is the rhythm that puts the least strain on their cardiovascular system.

When you think about it, that makes perfect sense. There is an energy cost to simply moving your legs round faster. So adopting a higher cadence for a given speed will tend to develop a higher heart rate, and burn more energy, than sticking at the lower level.

Does this mean that higher cadence isn't a good thing? No, because in another sense the higher cadence is more efficient, it puts less strain on muscles and joints. And the fitter one is, the easier and more beneficial this trade-off becomes, because one's heart and lungs can easily accommodate the extra burden that they have to carry in order to spare one's legs.

It follows that there is little point in suggesting to the unfit newcomer that they should immediately adopt a cadence of 85-90. They won't be able to sustain it, it will tire them out. What they need to do is be aware that as they get fitter, rather than changing to a higher gear to go faster at the same cadence, they should try pedalling a little faster with less pressure on each individual pedal stroke. It really is not necessary to buy a cadence sensor to do this, nor should any new cyclist feel that they aren't doing it right because they can't immediately adopt a high cadence. Of course they can't, that is perfectly normal.

It follows that there is little point in suggesting to the unfit newcomer that they should immediately adopt a cadence of 85-90. They won't be able to sustain it, it will tire them out. What they need to do is be aware that as they get fitter, rather than changing to a higher gear to go faster at the same cadence, they should try pedalling a little faster with less pressure on each individual pedal stroke. It really is not necessary to buy a cadence sensor to do this, nor should any new cyclist feel that they aren't doing it right because they can't immediately adopt a high cadence. Of course they can't, that is perfectly normal.

+1.

That is why most new cyclists pedal at that cadence [around 60 rpm], it is because that is the rhythm that puts the least strain on their cardiovascular system.

Correct. And a lot of people don't have better-than-average CV fitness. Which most 'serious' cyclists do, including those who prefer to spin at a high rate. It takes a while to get into shape to be able to do this. And, when you do, my experience has been that there are other pay-offs that have little to do with cycling. I live in a mountainous region; last weekend I took the bike into the hills for a climb, and the following day I hiked 7 miles round trip with 2,700 feet of elevation gain. I've always enjoyed hiking, but hilly ones have become much easier as my CV fitness has improved. I've always had the legs for it - most Clydes have strong legs - but I don't have to stop and catch my breath any more. I can run now, for more than a minute at a time, although god knows why anyone would want to. A lot of enjoyable things in life make use of cardiovascular fitness, and I enjoy that they don't strain me anymore.

Nobody is suggesting that unfit newcomers should immediately start pedaling at 85 - 90 rpm. We're saying that there are enough benefits to a high cadence that it's worth knowing about, knowing what yours is, and improving your fitness with a goal in mind, if need be. There's really a giant chasm between what people are actually suggesting, and how you summarized it.

It follows that there is little point in suggesting to the unfit newcomer that they should immediately adopt a cadence of 85-90. They won't be able to sustain it, it will tire them out. What they need to do is be aware that as they get fitter, rather than changing to a higher gear to go faster at the same cadence, they should try pedalling a little faster with less pressure on each individual pedal stroke. It really is not necessary to buy a cadence sensor to do this, nor should any new cyclist feel that they aren't doing it right because they can't immediately adopt a high cadence. Of course they can't, that is perfectly normal.

The counter-point to this argument is that the longer you spend conditioning yourself to ride at a lower (or unknown) cadence, the more difficult it will be when you later decide you want to change your cadence. I, for one, wish that I had started focusing on cadence much earlier in my riding career. I would have had a lot more fun that first year on the bike if I'd been able to ride without the constant knee pain and burning quads that I got while mashing along at 60rpm...

I'm sure some people have the mental discipline to adjust their pedaling without knowing their cadence, but for myself I found that having a computer with cadence was an essential reminder as I was trying to adjust my cadence. That doesn't mean that everyone has to buy one, nor does buying one mean that you suddenly need to adopt a 120rpm Tour de France cadence, but they are a very useful tool to have in your arsenal... if increased fitness is your ultimate goal.

On a single bike, I'd ride with a cadence of 75 at the beginning of the season, and closer to 90 by the end of the season. Knowing my cadence really improved my ability to survive and thrive on longer distances. I would tell other riders to spin their target cadence, and shift to make the workload what they can sustain at that cadence.

Now on a tandem, I have to keep the stoker happy, so I'm more in the 72-81 range nowadays. She can handle brief visits to 90 courtesy of the shorter crankarms we installed, but if I'm not formulating a plan/reason to recover that cadence soon, I'm usually left without one motor.

Taking it to the next level, we installed twin powermeters on our tandem. They're an excellent predictor of upcoming HR changes, and just really useful to manage my exertion. Now I ride at my target cadence, and shift to get the power in the range I want. HR and speed all follow from that.

This discussion and the other thread about cadence reminds me of one of the first pieces of advice on cycling I received. I was told I needed to spend hours riding a trainer to get used to the demands of riding outside. Can you tell it was a roadie who told me that? I suppose he wanted me to develop a proper cadence before I could ride.....

The counter-point to this argument is that the longer you spend conditioning yourself to ride at a lower (or unknown) cadence, the more difficult it will be when you later decide you want to change your cadence. I, for one, wish that I had started focusing on cadence much earlier in my riding career. I would have had a lot more fun that first year on the bike if I'd been able to ride without the constant knee pain and burning quads that I got while mashing along at 60rpm...

I'm sure some people have the mental discipline to adjust their pedaling without knowing their cadence, but for myself I found that having a computer with cadence was an essential reminder as I was trying to adjust my cadence. That doesn't mean that everyone has to buy one, nor does buying one mean that you suddenly need to adopt a 120rpm Tour de France cadence, but they are a very useful tool to have in your arsenal... if increased fitness is your ultimate goal.Exactly my point. If one does not aim for a high cadence immediately, their slower cadence will then become habit. Ingrained habit. Very difficult to change. (For example, it took cancer to change Armstrong's cadence.)

Now, if someone is unfit, yeah, riding a faster cadence will be difficult at first, at least cardiovascularly. But, that is no different than someone struggling with the muscular demands of a slower cadence. Going uphill, for instance. How many Clydes walked up their first "real big" hill because they didn't have the strength for it? In the end, riders will get fitter and adapt to a fast cadence and they will then have a habit of such and not have to overcome it.

As a personal example, I look to my son. Started when he was 12yo. But I emphasized a nice, fast cadence for him. He couldn't keep up because when it came to crunch time, he couldn't drop it into a large gear and just push. But his muscles adapted over time. Now, as a 15yo, he's dropping me (no easy task), and only has trouble on the hills keeping up with the really skinny mountain goats. He has an incredibly smooth, fast pedaling style. Beautiful to watch. And I can tell, his musculature is still developing. Scary. In talking with his coach (a former track world champion), we did it the correct way. Cardiovascularly speaking, we're born with what we have, with only room for little improvement. Muscularly, however, we have lots of room for improvement. His advice? Strengthen the muscles slowly over time so as not to do damage to the structure.

As for Neil's friend & the trainer.... that makes no sense to me. And I consider myself a roadie.

In the end...
Riding w/good cadence > Riding w/poor cadence > not riding.

But why not aim for good form right at the start? Cause they can't ride for hours on end right away? Posh.

I was told I needed to spend hours riding a trainer to get used to the demands of riding outside.

That's obviously false. And nobody in here is saying anybody has to ride at 90 rpm; we're saying there are benefits to doing so. I'm surprised that's creating so much controversy.

Exactly my point. If one does not aim for a high cadence immediately, their slower cadence will then become habit. Ingrained habit. Very difficult to change. (For example, it took cancer to change Armstrong's cadence.)

Now, if someone is unfit, yeah, riding a faster cadence will be difficult at first, at least cardiovascularly. But, that is no different than someone struggling with the muscular demands of a slower cadence. Going uphill, for instance. How many Clydes walked up their first "real big" hill because they didn't have the strength for it? In the end, riders will get fitter and adapt to a fast cadence and they will then have a habit of such and not have to overcome it.

As a personal example, I look to my son. Started when he was 12yo. But I emphasized a nice, fast cadence for him. He couldn't keep up because when it came to crunch time, he couldn't drop it into a large gear and just push. But his muscles adapted over time. Now, as a 15yo, he's dropping me (no easy task), and only has trouble on the hills keeping up with the really skinny mountain goats. He has an incredibly smooth, fast pedaling style. Beautiful to watch. And I can tell, his musculature is still developing. Scary. In talking with his coach (a former track world champion), we did it the correct way. Cardiovascularly speaking, we're born with what we have, with only room for little improvement. Muscularly, however, we have lots of room for improvement. His advice? Strengthen the muscles slowly over time so as not to do damage to the structure.

As for Neil's friend & the trainer.... that makes no sense to me. And I consider myself a roadie.

In the end...
Riding w/good cadence > Riding w/poor cadence > not riding.

But why not aim for good form right at the start? Cause they can't ride for hours on end right away? Posh.


+1.....As my trainer post suggested, it takes time and practice and doesn't happen over night. I agree that the roadie's comment is not correct but riders do benefit from doing drills, indoor and outdoor. The trainer is a good method because it allows you to concentrate on things that need attention. More advanced riders may prefer to do them outside but then you run the risk of hitting a curb, other riders, maybe even a tree if you happen to be concentrating on the wrong thing at the wrong time.:D...Meaning advanced experienced riders may have more skill when it comes to doing such things. ;)

I myself have no problem doing them on the trainer. I can look at stopwatches, count revs in my head etc.

Again I disagree with the roadie's advice but do encourage trainer drills. Anyone that thinks the drills don't improve your ride, think again. There are plenty, One legged spin to smooth out your stroke. All out hard intervals. High rev intervals, TT efforts and I am sure there are more that benefit any rider.



That's obviously false. And nobody in here is saying anybody has to ride at 90 rpm; we're saying there are benefits to doing so. I'm surprised that's creating so much controversy.

+1 :thumb:

When I go out on my nightly fitness ride I use cadence for "workout" I know that keeping my cadence above 90rpm I get a real good workout. That is probably because I am increasing my cardio significantly. The plus side to faster spinning for me is an increase in average speed. Working on my cadence gave me about a 3mph average gain on a route that I have taken about 1000 times since starting to ride again. Do I need a cadence sesor now? NO I now know about what rpm I am at on any given gear just by feel but I would have not known that unless I had a sensor for a while. It came with the cateye I first purchased and I would buy another one if it broke.

Now on a tandem, I have to keep the stoker happy, so I'm more in the 72-81 range nowadays. She can handle brief visits to 90 courtesy of the shorter crankarms we installed, but if I'm not formulating a plan/reason to recover that cadence soon, I'm usually left without one motor.

Taking it to the next level, we installed twin powermeters on our tandem. They're an excellent predictor of upcoming HR changes, and just really useful to manage my exertion. Now I ride at my target cadence, and shift to get the power in the range I want. HR and speed all follow from that.

I always wondered how pedaling on a tandem works. It seems the cadence issues would cause many problems. If I were designing a tandem, I would add a power-adding differential (like a car differential, but instead of splitting the power between two wheels, run the inputs in reverse and add them) and allow each rider to pedal at whatever cadence they want. When only one person is pedaling, the speed of the output shaft would be roughly half of the pedaling riders' cadence, but that could easily be dealt with by using shifting and communicating with the person in control of the shifters when you are about to stop pedaling.

But perhaps I'm overcomplicating things :D

This discussion and the other thread about cadence reminds me of one of the first pieces of advice on cycling I received. I was told I needed to spend hours riding a trainer to get used to the demands of riding outside. Can you tell it was a roadie who told me that? I suppose he wanted me to develop a proper cadence before I could ride.....

That advice seems ridiculous. I've only used a trainer sporadically, but every time I have, I've noted to myself how alien and different it feels compared to cycling outside.

I always wondered how pedaling on a tandem works. It seems the cadence issues would cause many problems. If I were designing a tandem, I would add a power-adding differential (like a car differential, but instead of splitting the power between two wheels, run the inputs in reverse and add them) and allow each rider to pedal at whatever cadence they want. When only one person is pedaling, the speed of the output shaft would be roughly half of the pedaling riders' cadence, but that could easily be dealt with by using shifting and communicating with the person in control of the shifters when you are about to stop pedaling.

But perhaps I'm overcomplicating things :D



There are tandems that have independent type drive trains. I've seen them in more expensive tandems (Divinci?).

When we ride our tandem, I have to un-spin (:p). I use a slightly lower cadence while Gina uses a slightly higher cadence than she normally uses ( on singles, I use the small ring and she's a big ringer). Believe it or not, when Gina really struggles with her fitness, we ride the tandem. Doing a slightly higher cadence for a few rides actually helps kick start her fitness back up.

This discussion and the other thread about cadence reminds me of one of the first pieces of advice on cycling I received. I was told I needed to spend hours riding a trainer to get used to the demands of riding outside. Can you tell it was a roadie who told me that? I suppose he wanted me to develop a proper cadence before I could ride.....

So some idiot gave you bad advice... What does that have to do with this discussion, exactly?

I am curious so please don't take this as anything other than that, I was reading the post by Allen55 on the topic of cadence, not wanting to derail his thread I thought I would start one and ask because as I was reading I found myself thinking "whats the difference really?"

It seems like its important just because we can... and what I mean by that is that I have been riding for the last 3 years and cannot think of a single instance where knowing what my exact cadence is/was would have helped me a single bit so is it kind of like just a cool gadget to have a cadence sensor on our bikes? sort of like all of the Honda's riding around with a 3 inch Monster tach hanging off of their A pillar? I mean the tach on the Honda works sure, its relevant because it is after all a car but is it really something that is needed?

I suppose I could equate it to driving a car with a stick, sure I can look down at the tach and shift at the exact moment that the manufacturers hand book says to but why do I need to do that? I know how the car sounds when it needs to be shifted, I know how the car feels when it needs to be shifted so I shift as needed. When I ride my bike I can feel when I need to drop into a lower gear or shift up into a higher one, I know when I am working too hard or can work harder by how I feel so what would the advantage be to having a cadence sensor on my bike? I have a Garmin that I use when I ride and my wife asked me if I would like to have the cadence sensor to go with it a while back and because I couldn't think of a reason that made more sense than "would be cool to know" I thought of it as a toy that I didn't really need.

I ride for fun, I ride for my health and I ride because I love being out there on the trails on the back of my bikes, worrying about my cadence I think would take away from the riding itself.

Am I missing something? :twitchy:


You do know there are people who consider a Garmin just as unnecessary as you find a cadence sensor? And the same for gears, for helmets, for clipless pedals, lycra, cyclocomputers, yada yada yada.

"I ride for fun". Yep, most of us do. And we have different ideas of fun, different ways to get there, different things we feel are important

If you don't see a need for cadence, then quit worrying about why other people do and keep on enjoying your ride.

You do know there are people who consider a Garmin just as unnecessary as you find a cadence sensor? And the same for gears, for helmets, for clipless pedals, lycra, cyclocomputers, yada yada yada.

"I ride for fun". Yep, most of us do. And we have different ideas of fun, different ways to get there, different things we feel are important

If you don't see a need for cadence, then quit worrying about why other people do and keep on enjoying your ride.

Well then contrary to popular belief gears are in fact a necessity on a bicycle, one at least :rolleyes: otherwise well... you ain't goin anywhere, I would say that a helmet is too but since you only need it if you fall I suppose that the odds are with the helmet-less rider, I don't like those odds myself though so I wear one, clipless pedals? C'mon! you ain't cool without those!... oh wait I have platforms :mad: Lycra? I'm too sexy for my :eek: .... cyclocomputers aren't necessary, I'll give ya that one...but I own 2 either way :p

I have my Garmin from when I was running.... which started out as walking, it has a heart rate monitor and when ya start out at 500 plus pounds knowing your heart rate during exercise is a good idea :thumb: . That paired with having an idea of how far I've gone in a ride and how fast hey I use it! But the fact that "You do know there are people who consider a Garmin just as unnecessary as you find a cadence sensor?" doesn't have much to do with anything that I was curious about or talked about in the original post, It really is just a curiosity and no offense was meant for anyone that uses one :cheers:

As far as the second bolded section in the quoted text "If you don't see a need for cadence, then quit worrying about why other people do" This is a forum about cycling and since it is a cycling related question/curiosity I figured it fit.....if not I could go ask on the Honda forums? :D

I apologize if my harmless bicycle related question posted in a bicycle forum rubbed ya the wrong way.... I promise it wasn't directed at you (or anyone in particular for that matter)

How's that go?

"anyone who rides a bike is a friend of mine" :ride:

there is little point in suggesting to the unfit newcomer that they should immediately adopt a cadence of 85-90. ... What they need to do is be aware that as they get fitter, rather than changing to a higher gear to go faster at the same cadence, they should try pedalling a little faster with less pressure on each individual pedal stroke. It really is not necessary to buy a cadence sensor to do this, nor should any new cyclist feel that they aren't doing it right because they can't immediately adopt a high cadence. Of course they can't, that is perfectly normal.
Exactly. And that's why I think it is beneficial for a new cyclist to learn to think, not in terms of RPM, but in terms of balancing legs and lungs. It may well be that a newbie (especially among us clydes) is so unfit that that balance is achieved at 60rpm. But as fitness improves, the cadence at which leg/lung balance occurs, will rise.

That's obviously false. And nobody in here is saying anybody has to ride at 90 rpm; we're saying there are benefits to doing so. I'm surprised that's creating so much controversy.

I think "benefits" is a word that carries different amount of weight depending on who hears it. There may indeed be benefits to riding at a higher cadence. "How important are they" is the question. To borrow a phrase from my friend John, the 'benefits' of the microwave dinner differ for the glutton and the gourmet.

On the subject of 'cadence' and other things experienced cyclists/roadies/racers worry about, the point "Push" and I are making is that for the sort of riding most people and most beginners do, it's not worth paying attention to. Do you really think all those people on the Flying Pigeons in China are worrying about their RPMs? Or using clipless? I doubt it.

On the subject of 'cadence' and other things experienced cyclists/roadies/racers worry about, the point "Push" and I are making is that for the sort of riding most people and most beginners do, it's not worth paying attention to.

I think you've managed to convince yourself that this is The Truth because you have physical limitations that make it difficult for you to pedal at a higher cadence. As many people on this thread have pointed out, however, there are a number of valid reasons that a beginner might want to worry about cadence...


Do you really think all those people on the Flying Pigeons in China are worrying about their RPMs?

:lol: How many cadence options do you imagine there are on a single-speed or fixed-gear bike that is traveling at a constant speed?

Well then contrary to popular belief gears are in fact a necessity on a bicycle, one at least :rolleyes: otherwise well... you ain't goin anywhere

http://www.crank.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/pf.jpg

These gentlemen would like to have a word with you...

These gentlemen would like to have a word with you...

In other news, I think my 4th bike is going to be a Penny Farthing. I wanted to get a fixie eventually, why not the original fixie, eh? :D

http://www.crank.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/pf.jpg

These gentlemen would like to have a word with you...

What would be the best spoke count for a clyde?

I think you've managed to convince yourself that this is The Truth because you have physical limitations that make it difficult for you to pedal at a higher cadence. As many people on this thread have pointed out, however, there are a number of valid reasons that a beginner might want to worry about cadence...


What "physical limitations" does Push have? Or chasm54? I seem to recall them arguing the same point.

I always wondered how pedaling on a tandem works. It seems the cadence issues would cause many problems. If I were designing a tandem, I would add a power-adding differential (like a car differential, but instead of splitting the power between two wheels, run the inputs in reverse and add them) and allow each rider to pedal at whatever cadence they want. When only one person is pedaling, the speed of the output shaft would be roughly half of the pedaling riders' cadence, but that could easily be dealt with by using shifting and communicating with the person in control of the shifters when you are about to stop pedaling.

As someone else mentioned, something along these lines exists: daVinci, and it's what we ride. Six inches forward of the stoker cranks is the "intermediate driveshaft". On the left side are two freewheels, inner driven by the captain and outer driven by the stoker. Either one can coast. They're 17-tooth, exactly half of the 34T rings that our cranks have, so the IDS runs at 2x cadence. Therefore, on the right side of the IDS are the chainrings, HALF as big as "normal". Because of this (and with careful selection of shifter and DR), there are four rings, 12/18/24/30, equating to 24T/36T/48T/60T rings. It's not independent cadence/gears: when either one of us is pedaling under at least minimum load, we're pedaling at the cadence dictated by (my) gear selection.

We have been absolutely thrilled with this setup. I weighed 220 when we got it in March, and still weigh 217 but there's been an obvious transformation for me. She's about 250, but has been losing at least two sizes per year, is looking much slimmer, and I think the weight is starting to come off for her too.

If you're curious, you can see it in our pictures below or by visiting http://www.davincitandems.com/dv2.html.

http://photos.templin.org/Tandem/TandemShoot-10.jpg

http://photos.templin.org/Tandem/TandemShoot-1.jpg

http://photos.templin.org/Tandem/TandemShoot-2.jpg

Here's "professional" photos of us on a charity ride a week ago:
http://www2.brightroom.com/88016/1093

Like most things, it probably depends on your purpose. If you're only out to enjoy the ride, it's irrelevant. But if you're riding partly because you want to increase your cardio fitness, endurance, etc., then progression is important, and smaller increments of progression are more relevant.

Think of weightlifting. If you want to lift heavy objects just for the sheer physical thrill of lifting heavy things, then lifting natural stones and logs is hard to beat. They look cool, you look and feel like some kind of reborn avatar of Beowulf when you bring one up, and they're challenging because they're so irregular. But if you want to start lifting today and be a great deal stronger a year or two down the road, most people will get better results by lifting consistently and increasing the load by small increments so that progression can be smooth and consistent as well. That's why almost every gym has barbell plates as small as 2.5 pounds, and the better ones have even smaller plates that weigh one pound, half a pound or a quarter of a pound. Not because it's of key importance to know at all times that you're lifting half a pound more than the guy next to you, but because it's important to be able to increase your load from the same workout last week even if you can only increase it by half a pound. That's how you create progression.

Similarly, I imagine people use cadence meters (after all that long-winded bloviating, I reveal that I don't have one) to try to beat earlier performances even if they can only "beat themselves" by such small increments of cadence that they couldn't detect the difference by feel. Certainly I use the cadence and the resistance settings on elliptical trainers at the gym to do the same thing. And speaking of that . . . it's actually time to go hit the gym.

The first bolded text, I ride for my health first "to increase your cardio fitness, endurance, etc" is exactly why I started riding a bicycle again, I was once upon a time 534 pounds and it just so happens that bicycling is an excellent way to drop weight, build endurance AND enjoy yourself while doing it which I am sure every person on this board knows and probably agrees with :D . Progression is extremely important, my first ride was just about a mile and now I can ride 25 no problem but I didn't need a cadence sensor to show the progression.... with that said I can see raising cadence and holding it a possible way to gauge progression among other ways so cool on that.

The second bold part in the quote, an elliptical or I will add stationary/spin bike in a gym is not the same as riding real world (you probably know this :) ) You are stationary on those machines and knowing the rpm is a great indicator of if you are getting better because the workout is always the same (which makes me see that on a bike it could be useful) but on a bike you are not on the same terrain, hills are different, distances are different, too many variables to use it as a gauge (at least for me it would be) to use it as a fine tuning tool ( I DO use it at the gym on the bike there as you can see in the image below I was averaging 92ish rpm's on level 11-12 and wanted to break 100 rpm's so I did in fact use the rpm's as a tool for advancement in that instance) . WITH ALL OF THAT SAID :p I can see some of the points in a lot of the replies in this thread and I wasn't saying its wrong to use one I just don't know how necessary knowing ones exact cadence is unless a person races and is trying to shave a couple seconds off or the like.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Z-Gdy0u7XD4/TTcljm_RNkI/AAAAAAAACmk/dJLqXUc5lSk/s1600/101%2BRPM%2B5%2B%25282%2529.jpg



http://www.crank.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/pf.jpg

These gentlemen would like to have a word with you...

Touche! :lol:



What "physical limitations" does Push have? Or chasm54? I seem to recall them arguing the same point.

I can answer that, I am my only physical limitation :D

I wouldn't say that I am "arguing" that a cadence sensor is a pointless thing as much as I am more curious as to why others consider it so important and I do see the benefits from riding with a higher cadence. When I ride I get up to speed and then drop down a gear and spin rather than mashing that higher gear to cruise but I don't need a sensor to keep me in check and I guess I was just curious as to why it was so important to know the exact number of rpm's for some people that are not racing etc.

Great responses so far guys!

I wouldn't say that I am "arguing" that a cadence sensor is a pointless thing as much as I am more curious as to why others consider it so important and I do see the benefits from riding with a higher cadence. When I ride I get up to speed and then drop down a gear and spin rather than mashing that higher gear to cruise but I don't need a sensor to keep me in check and I guess I was just curious as to why it was so important to know the exact number of rpm's for some people that are not racing etc.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that you need to know the exact number. Most of the posts I've seen on BF seem to suggest a range (ex: 80-90rpm) that the poster believes is ideal. It just happens that the cadence function in most bike computers displays the exact number because that's the easiest thing to implement...

I wouldn't say that I am "arguing" that a cadence sensor is a pointless thing as much as I am more curious as to why others consider it so important and I do see the benefits from riding with a higher cadence. When I ride I get up to speed and then drop down a gear and spin rather than mashing that higher gear to cruise but I don't need a sensor to keep me in check and I guess I was just curious as to why it was so important to know the exact number of rpm's for some people that are not racing etc.


In '06, I was a new rider, unfortunately surrounded by lots of very-not-new riders. I ended up training a lot of other new riders, because I was in a good position to do so. Many of them were so unaware of how/when to shift that having the sensor was essential to breaking old/bad habits. Another rider told many of them "get into the gear that's easy, and then go into the next easier gear", but couldn't get wrapped around that until they had a cadence sensor.

I still characterize it as "low cadence is a workout for your legs, high cadence is a workout for your heart; since your heart has to pump 24/7, it's got better endurance than your legs so why not use the right muscle for the job."

I've been a Garmin addict since day one. Although I use and rely on the real-time cadence number to choose my shifts, I tend to do more analysis by looking at my per-"lap" average cadence as each ride progressed (lap being leg: any time we stop for a break, I hit the lap button) rather than any particular moment's cadence.

I was just curious as to why it was so important to know the exact number of rpm's for some people that are not racing etc.

I don't think it's important to know the exact number. The main thing is that people naturally tend towards a walking cadence near 60, which is too low to give you a good cardio workout. Just knowing that you "should" be spinning faster than you think you should, is a step in the right direction. Personally, I don't even have a cadence sensor, but I know what 90 is, it's 3 strokes per second (and I have a watch to give me a 1s pulse). But usually I don't even check. I just know not to mash.

I don't think it's important to know the exact number. The main thing is that people naturally tend towards a walking cadence near 60, which is too low to give you a good cardio workout. Just knowing that you "should" be spinning faster than you think you should, is a step in the right direction. Personally, I don't even have a cadence sensor, but I know what 90 is, it's 3 strokes per second (and I have a watch to give me a 1s pulse). But usually I don't even check. I just know not to mash.

I have read this bolded part a couple times in this and the other thread, where is everyone getting this "60" figure from? links to the research that shows this? How does someone even research this to get that figure? and how does anyone know what the average person does as far as the cadence goes?

Rube, I quoted your reply only because it was the most recent with that "60" in it, I am not asking you directly (though if you know the answer please share! :) )

I have read this bolded part a couple times in this and the other thread, where is everyone getting this "60" figure from? links to the research that shows this? How does someone even research this to get that figure? and how does anyone know what the average person does as far as the cadence goes?

Rube, I quoted your reply only because it was the most recent with that "60" in it, I am not asking you directly (though if you know the answer please share! :) )

I've seen the 60 figure in almost all articles by the "experts". If one looks at the specs for a single speed cruiser you find a 26" tired bike with 38-18 gears. 60 rpm = 9.8 mph. Pretty reasonable for a beginner.

I've seen the 60 figure in almost all articles by the "experts". If one looks at the specs for a single speed cruiser you find a 26" tired bike with 38-18 gears. 60 rpm = 9.8 mph. Pretty reasonable for a beginner.

How is that a "walking" cadence?

How is that a "walking" cadence?

I take "walking cadence" of 60 to mean you take 120 steps per minute when walking. I tended to be around 60 cadence on the bicycle when I first started.

How is that a "walking" cadence?

It's pretty clear that jethro56 is commenting on pedaling cadence while RubeRed and Push are now talking about walking cadence...

It's pretty clear that jethro56 is commenting on pedaling cadence while RubeRed and Push are now talking about walking cadence...

Yes, I was trying to bring Jethro56 back to the rest of us. It's pretty clear.