What's your cadence when you climb?
08-13-10, 08:02 AM
#26
Senior Member
120 on a 20 mile climb.... you are awesome!!!! 
08-13-10, 09:46 AM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central Coast, California
Posts: 3,370
Bikes: Colnago C-50, Calfee Dragonfly Tandem, Specialized Allez Pro, Peugeot Competition Light
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
08-13-10, 09:47 AM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 25 miles northwest of Boston
Posts: 29,549
Bikes: Bottecchia Sprint, GT Timberline 29r, Marin Muirwoods 29er, Trek FX Alpha 7.0
Mentioned: 112 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5224 Post(s)
Liked 3,581 Times
in
2,342 Posts
I've been as slow as 4 I think
08-13-10, 03:22 PM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 1,380
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I prefer to keep my cadence in the 60-75 rpm range on hills. Any faster, and I tend to not have as good control of the bike to dodge things in the road. On steeper hills (11% or greater), I just mash as fast as I can in the lowest gear that I have.
I rode a steep hill this morning, where my cadence dropped into the 30s. My legs could push no faster or harder. It was either gut-it-out, or get off and walk. If you have bad knees, don't do this. Seriously.
I rode a steep hill this morning, where my cadence dropped into the 30s. My legs could push no faster or harder. It was either gut-it-out, or get off and walk. If you have bad knees, don't do this. Seriously.
08-14-10, 01:39 AM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 463
Bikes: Trek Portland/Gary Fisher Hoo Koo E Koo/LeMond Versailles
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
My cadence is a pretty constant 80 to 85 all the time. I took the Sheldon Brown article to heart when I started riding again a few years ago. He talks about the perfect bicycle that has infinite gears so you can always find the right gear for your comfortable cadence in any environment. I just find the real gear that is closest to that and go from there.
08-14-10, 02:02 PM
#32
Banned.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
^^THIS. Some people on here seem to think that a "climb" is 4% or 5% incline that lasts a few hundred yards. Of course it is perfectly possible to maintain a high cadence on such climbs if you want to. Most people's experience of doing so is that it seems easier on the joints and muscles but harder on the cardiovascular system. But if you lived where I live, you'd frequently be encountering inclines of >15%. It's ridiculous to think of taking those at cadences of 90; I'm pretty fit, but if I tried to do this my heart would jump out of my mouth and flop about on the road.
This week I've been touring in Scotland. I was camping, so my gear weighed in at about 50lbs. Touring bike plus gear about 80 lbs plus about 200lbs of little old me. I went up one hill that was signposted at 20% and lasted between half a mile and a mile - say a kilometer at a conservative estimate. In my lowest touring gear - 28 on the front, 32 on the back, roughly a 24 inch gear - I'd estimate my cadence going up that hill at about 50. I could certainly have turned the pedals faster, but had I done so there's a strong chance I would have been walking before the top.
Ignore the cadence nazis. Faster is not always better. The correct cadence is the one that allows you to maintain your momentum without either destroying your knees or exhausting you prematurely. And surprisingly enough, this means that the correct cadence varies according to circumstances.
This week I've been touring in Scotland. I was camping, so my gear weighed in at about 50lbs. Touring bike plus gear about 80 lbs plus about 200lbs of little old me. I went up one hill that was signposted at 20% and lasted between half a mile and a mile - say a kilometer at a conservative estimate. In my lowest touring gear - 28 on the front, 32 on the back, roughly a 24 inch gear - I'd estimate my cadence going up that hill at about 50. I could certainly have turned the pedals faster, but had I done so there's a strong chance I would have been walking before the top.
Ignore the cadence nazis. Faster is not always better. The correct cadence is the one that allows you to maintain your momentum without either destroying your knees or exhausting you prematurely. And surprisingly enough, this means that the correct cadence varies according to circumstances.
08-14-10, 06:46 PM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central Coast, California
Posts: 3,370
Bikes: Colnago C-50, Calfee Dragonfly Tandem, Specialized Allez Pro, Peugeot Competition Light
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
08-14-10, 08:18 PM
#34
NYC
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,714
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1169 Post(s)
Liked 107 Times
in
62 Posts
^^THIS. Some people on here seem to think that a "climb" is 4% or 5% incline that lasts a few hundred yards. Of course it is perfectly possible to maintain a high cadence on such climbs if you want to. Most people's experience of doing so is that it seems easier on the joints and muscles but harder on the cardiovascular system. But if you lived where I live, you'd frequently be encountering inclines of >15%. It's ridiculous to think of taking those at cadences of 90; I'm pretty fit, but if I tried to do this my heart would jump out of my mouth and flop about on the road.
...
Ignore the cadence nazis. Faster is not always better. The correct cadence is the one that allows you to maintain your momentum without either destroying your knees or exhausting you prematurely. And surprisingly enough, this means that the correct cadence varies according to circumstances.
...
Ignore the cadence nazis. Faster is not always better. The correct cadence is the one that allows you to maintain your momentum without either destroying your knees or exhausting you prematurely. And surprisingly enough, this means that the correct cadence varies according to circumstances.
If instead, you maintain the same wattage, and go to a lower gear (imagine MTB gears, a 22 front and 32 rear), then you could maintain the higher cadence without being at a higher power output, and without blowing up.
The problem we all have is when we run out of gears, at which point more cadence = more power, often over our threshold.
08-14-10, 08:24 PM
#35
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Lynchburg, VA
Posts: 98
Bikes: 2008 Gary Fisher Marlin Disc with slicks until I get a road bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Actually, you are not comparing apples and apples... you are saying if you went at a higher cadence you'd blow up... thats because for your constant lowest gear, higher cadence = higher wattage.
If instead, you maintain the same wattage, and go to a lower gear (imagine MTB gears, a 22 front and 32 rear), then you could maintain the higher cadence without being at a higher power output, and without blowing up.
If instead, you maintain the same wattage, and go to a lower gear (imagine MTB gears, a 22 front and 32 rear), then you could maintain the higher cadence without being at a higher power output, and without blowing up.
08-15-10, 06:53 AM
#36
Banned.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Actually, you are not comparing apples and apples... you are saying if you went at a higher cadence you'd blow up... thats because for your constant lowest gear, higher cadence = higher wattage.
If instead, you maintain the same wattage, and go to a lower gear (imagine MTB gears, a 22 front and 32 rear), then you could maintain the higher cadence without being at a higher power output, and without blowing up.
The problem we all have is when we run out of gears, at which point more cadence = more power, often over our threshold.
If instead, you maintain the same wattage, and go to a lower gear (imagine MTB gears, a 22 front and 32 rear), then you could maintain the higher cadence without being at a higher power output, and without blowing up.
The problem we all have is when we run out of gears, at which point more cadence = more power, often over our threshold.
08-15-10, 06:56 AM
#37
Banned.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
This time I've been mainly in the Borders and central Scotland, the furthest north I went last week was Pitlochry. I've been pretty much all over Scotland on the bike at different times, though. If you don't mind the unpredictability of the weather it's sensational.
08-15-10, 09:24 AM
#38
NYC
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,714
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1169 Post(s)
Liked 107 Times
in
62 Posts
The last statement is certainly true, but the rest only partially so. Different cadences make different demands on the system even if one is putting out the same amount of power. If you pedal at a high cadence you are easing the burden on the joints and muscles but increasing the burden on your heart and lungs. Your heart rate will typically be higher putting out 300 watts at a cadence of 95 than it would be at 300 watts and a cadence of 75. So only the supremely fit can maintain cadences of >90 going up long steep hills, even if that is theoretically more efficient.
Ideally, you will train the aerobic base with endurance rides, the aerobic fitness with 100rpm sessions at tempo (zone 3) and low cadence strength with big gear repeats or long climbs at a lower cadence (providing your knees don't complain).
Then you will have a full bag of tricks to bring to bear. Most people feel unfortable climbing at 90rpm because most people never developed (through practice) good technique with spinning full circles rather than mash mash mash mash.
That said, for most recreational riders most of the time, they can get resistance training lots of places... but there are few opportunities in life to push your heart rate over 180 for an hour.
Long climbs (or long trainer sessions) at high cadence offer a unique opportunity to work the heart and lungs.
And if you train the heart and lungs by riding high cadence sessions (say 110rpm focusing on full circles rather than max power), then when you DO spin up a mountain like a gerbil at 90 rpm it won't feel awkward, it will feel great.
08-15-10, 09:52 AM
#39
Senior Member
The last statement is certainly true, but the rest only partially so. Different cadences make different demands on the system even if one is putting out the same amount of power. If you pedal at a high cadence you are easing the burden on the joints and muscles but increasing the burden on your heart and lungs. Your heart rate will typically be higher putting out 300 watts at a cadence of 95 than it would be at 300 watts and a cadence of 75. So only the supremely fit can maintain cadences of >90 going up long steep hills, even if that is theoretically more efficient.
08-15-10, 11:23 AM
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central Coast, California
Posts: 3,370
Bikes: Colnago C-50, Calfee Dragonfly Tandem, Specialized Allez Pro, Peugeot Competition Light
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I pulled this from an article, it's by Ken Mierke who is Head Coach of Fitness Concepts, Director of Training for Joe Friel's Ultrafit, and author of The Triathlete's Guide to Run Training and Training for Time Trials. He is a talking about spinning cadence, specifically mashing vs spinning.
"...When you pedal a bicycle, your muscular system produces power to propel the bicycle and your cardiovascular system delivers oxygen, fuels the muscles, and removes waste products such as lactic acid. Selecting your optimal cadence is a matter of keeping these two systems in balance. The optimal balance is different for each person.
Spinning at higher cadences reduces the watts-per-pedal-stroke, a measure of the force required to produce a given wattage. This makes the workload more tolerable for the muscles. Most experts believe that this is because fewer fast-twitch muscle fibers must be recruited to create the high torque levels required at low cadence. Pedaling with a too-low cadence increases reliance on fast twitch fibers, causing premature lactic acid accumulation, which makes your legs burn.
Pedaling with high cadence, however, does waste some energy. Imagine setting your bike up on an indoor trainer and cutting off the chain. If you spun 100 rpm, the workload would be zero watts, yet your heart rate would elevate significantly above resting. Just moving your legs fast does use energy. Research has consistently demonstrated that cycling at 40 to 60 rpm generates the lowest oxygen consumption for a given wattage. Pedaling at too high a cadence overloads the cardiovascular system's ability to deliver oxygen to the muscles. The most obvious symptom of this is ventilatory distress.
High-cadence pedaling works your cardiovascular system more, but reduces the relative intensity of the leg muscles. The key, then, is pedaling with enough cadence to keep your watts-per-pedal-stroke at a level that your muscles can handle, but at a cadence that will not overload your cardiovascular system. The optimal balance is different for every rider.
Lance Armstrong has an extraordinary cardiovascular capacity. His heart and lungs can deliver enormous quantities of oxygen to his muscles. Yet Lance does not posses huge, muscular thighs. His muscles are much more likely to be overloaded by high watts-per-pedal-stroke than his cardiovascular system is to be overloaded by the oxygen demand of the workload. Therefore, high-cadence pedaling, even at a slightly higher energy cost, is most effective for him. Jan Ulrich, on the other hand, is not gifted with the cardiovascular capacity of Lance, but has much greater muscle mass in the hips and thighs. His legs are able to withstand high watts-per-pedal-stroke, so he correctly minimizes the 'wasted' energy to prevent cardiovascular limitation. Both Lance and Jan pedal using the cadence that is most effective for their unique physiology.
Each cyclist brings a unique set of genetics and training to the sport. The basic rules are, if your legs hurt more than your lungs, increase cadence. If your lungs hurt more than your legs, use a lower cadence....
...Those most likely to benefit from increasing cadence are those whose cardiovascular capacity exceeds their muscle power: women, small or thin riders, former runners, and masters riders "
"...When you pedal a bicycle, your muscular system produces power to propel the bicycle and your cardiovascular system delivers oxygen, fuels the muscles, and removes waste products such as lactic acid. Selecting your optimal cadence is a matter of keeping these two systems in balance. The optimal balance is different for each person.
Spinning at higher cadences reduces the watts-per-pedal-stroke, a measure of the force required to produce a given wattage. This makes the workload more tolerable for the muscles. Most experts believe that this is because fewer fast-twitch muscle fibers must be recruited to create the high torque levels required at low cadence. Pedaling with a too-low cadence increases reliance on fast twitch fibers, causing premature lactic acid accumulation, which makes your legs burn.
Pedaling with high cadence, however, does waste some energy. Imagine setting your bike up on an indoor trainer and cutting off the chain. If you spun 100 rpm, the workload would be zero watts, yet your heart rate would elevate significantly above resting. Just moving your legs fast does use energy. Research has consistently demonstrated that cycling at 40 to 60 rpm generates the lowest oxygen consumption for a given wattage. Pedaling at too high a cadence overloads the cardiovascular system's ability to deliver oxygen to the muscles. The most obvious symptom of this is ventilatory distress.
High-cadence pedaling works your cardiovascular system more, but reduces the relative intensity of the leg muscles. The key, then, is pedaling with enough cadence to keep your watts-per-pedal-stroke at a level that your muscles can handle, but at a cadence that will not overload your cardiovascular system. The optimal balance is different for every rider.
Lance Armstrong has an extraordinary cardiovascular capacity. His heart and lungs can deliver enormous quantities of oxygen to his muscles. Yet Lance does not posses huge, muscular thighs. His muscles are much more likely to be overloaded by high watts-per-pedal-stroke than his cardiovascular system is to be overloaded by the oxygen demand of the workload. Therefore, high-cadence pedaling, even at a slightly higher energy cost, is most effective for him. Jan Ulrich, on the other hand, is not gifted with the cardiovascular capacity of Lance, but has much greater muscle mass in the hips and thighs. His legs are able to withstand high watts-per-pedal-stroke, so he correctly minimizes the 'wasted' energy to prevent cardiovascular limitation. Both Lance and Jan pedal using the cadence that is most effective for their unique physiology.
Each cyclist brings a unique set of genetics and training to the sport. The basic rules are, if your legs hurt more than your lungs, increase cadence. If your lungs hurt more than your legs, use a lower cadence....
...Those most likely to benefit from increasing cadence are those whose cardiovascular capacity exceeds their muscle power: women, small or thin riders, former runners, and masters riders "
08-15-10, 08:24 PM
#43
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I pulled this from an article, it's by Ken Mierke who is Head Coach of Fitness Concepts, Director of Training for Joe Friel's Ultrafit, and author of The Triathlete's Guide to Run Training and Training for Time Trials. He is a talking about spinning cadence, specifically mashing vs spinning.
"...When you pedal a bicycle, your muscular system produces power to propel the bicycle and your cardiovascular system delivers oxygen, fuels the muscles, and removes waste products such as lactic acid. Selecting your optimal cadence is a matter of keeping these two systems in balance. The optimal balance is different for each person.
Spinning at higher cadences reduces the watts-per-pedal-stroke, a measure of the force required to produce a given wattage. This makes the workload more tolerable for the muscles. Most experts believe that this is because fewer fast-twitch muscle fibers must be recruited to create the high torque levels required at low cadence. Pedaling with a too-low cadence increases reliance on fast twitch fibers, causing premature lactic acid accumulation, which makes your legs burn.
Pedaling with high cadence, however, does waste some energy. Imagine setting your bike up on an indoor trainer and cutting off the chain. If you spun 100 rpm, the workload would be zero watts, yet your heart rate would elevate significantly above resting. Just moving your legs fast does use energy. Research has consistently demonstrated that cycling at 40 to 60 rpm generates the lowest oxygen consumption for a given wattage. Pedaling at too high a cadence overloads the cardiovascular system's ability to deliver oxygen to the muscles. The most obvious symptom of this is ventilatory distress.
High-cadence pedaling works your cardiovascular system more, but reduces the relative intensity of the leg muscles. The key, then, is pedaling with enough cadence to keep your watts-per-pedal-stroke at a level that your muscles can handle, but at a cadence that will not overload your cardiovascular system. The optimal balance is different for every rider.
Lance Armstrong has an extraordinary cardiovascular capacity. His heart and lungs can deliver enormous quantities of oxygen to his muscles. Yet Lance does not posses huge, muscular thighs. His muscles are much more likely to be overloaded by high watts-per-pedal-stroke than his cardiovascular system is to be overloaded by the oxygen demand of the workload. Therefore, high-cadence pedaling, even at a slightly higher energy cost, is most effective for him. Jan Ulrich, on the other hand, is not gifted with the cardiovascular capacity of Lance, but has much greater muscle mass in the hips and thighs. His legs are able to withstand high watts-per-pedal-stroke, so he correctly minimizes the 'wasted' energy to prevent cardiovascular limitation. Both Lance and Jan pedal using the cadence that is most effective for their unique physiology.
Each cyclist brings a unique set of genetics and training to the sport. The basic rules are, if your legs hurt more than your lungs, increase cadence. If your lungs hurt more than your legs, use a lower cadence....
...Those most likely to benefit from increasing cadence are those whose cardiovascular capacity exceeds their muscle power: women, small or thin riders, former runners, and masters riders "
"...When you pedal a bicycle, your muscular system produces power to propel the bicycle and your cardiovascular system delivers oxygen, fuels the muscles, and removes waste products such as lactic acid. Selecting your optimal cadence is a matter of keeping these two systems in balance. The optimal balance is different for each person.
Spinning at higher cadences reduces the watts-per-pedal-stroke, a measure of the force required to produce a given wattage. This makes the workload more tolerable for the muscles. Most experts believe that this is because fewer fast-twitch muscle fibers must be recruited to create the high torque levels required at low cadence. Pedaling with a too-low cadence increases reliance on fast twitch fibers, causing premature lactic acid accumulation, which makes your legs burn.
Pedaling with high cadence, however, does waste some energy. Imagine setting your bike up on an indoor trainer and cutting off the chain. If you spun 100 rpm, the workload would be zero watts, yet your heart rate would elevate significantly above resting. Just moving your legs fast does use energy. Research has consistently demonstrated that cycling at 40 to 60 rpm generates the lowest oxygen consumption for a given wattage. Pedaling at too high a cadence overloads the cardiovascular system's ability to deliver oxygen to the muscles. The most obvious symptom of this is ventilatory distress.
High-cadence pedaling works your cardiovascular system more, but reduces the relative intensity of the leg muscles. The key, then, is pedaling with enough cadence to keep your watts-per-pedal-stroke at a level that your muscles can handle, but at a cadence that will not overload your cardiovascular system. The optimal balance is different for every rider.
Lance Armstrong has an extraordinary cardiovascular capacity. His heart and lungs can deliver enormous quantities of oxygen to his muscles. Yet Lance does not posses huge, muscular thighs. His muscles are much more likely to be overloaded by high watts-per-pedal-stroke than his cardiovascular system is to be overloaded by the oxygen demand of the workload. Therefore, high-cadence pedaling, even at a slightly higher energy cost, is most effective for him. Jan Ulrich, on the other hand, is not gifted with the cardiovascular capacity of Lance, but has much greater muscle mass in the hips and thighs. His legs are able to withstand high watts-per-pedal-stroke, so he correctly minimizes the 'wasted' energy to prevent cardiovascular limitation. Both Lance and Jan pedal using the cadence that is most effective for their unique physiology.
Each cyclist brings a unique set of genetics and training to the sport. The basic rules are, if your legs hurt more than your lungs, increase cadence. If your lungs hurt more than your legs, use a lower cadence....
...Those most likely to benefit from increasing cadence are those whose cardiovascular capacity exceeds their muscle power: women, small or thin riders, former runners, and masters riders "
08-16-10, 12:34 AM
#44
headtube.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Your legs feel force, not watts, and many people are used to putting a constant force on the pedals so when they increase the cadence, naturally they're increasing the power too and the breathing and heartrate go through the roof. The advice for cadence is not just to downshift but to downshift and go easier!
and in either case, slow down!
I feel something similar when I'm on the tandem: because it's more of an upper body workout keeping it balanced, if I pedal with the same "feeling" of effort in my legs as I'm used to on a single, I wear myself out prematurely. Pedaling lightly might take some practice and fitting if you go by the feel in your legs as a gauge of effort.
The ability to pedal lightly up a slope also seems to depend critically on saddle position (tilt and setback): if when you go uphill you feel like you're going to fall off the saddle, naturally you might react by pulling on the bars and shifting weight to the legs which prevents you from pedaling lightly.
The basic rules are, if your legs hurt more than your lungs, increase cadence. If your lungs hurt more than your legs, use a lower cadence....
I feel something similar when I'm on the tandem: because it's more of an upper body workout keeping it balanced, if I pedal with the same "feeling" of effort in my legs as I'm used to on a single, I wear myself out prematurely. Pedaling lightly might take some practice and fitting if you go by the feel in your legs as a gauge of effort.
The ability to pedal lightly up a slope also seems to depend critically on saddle position (tilt and setback): if when you go uphill you feel like you're going to fall off the saddle, naturally you might react by pulling on the bars and shifting weight to the legs which prevents you from pedaling lightly.
Last edited by zzyzx_xyzzy; 08-16-10 at 12:40 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
nickthaquick1
Road Cycling
33
09-20-11 04:07 PM
