Originally Posted by gcasillo
I'll offer a dissenting opinion re: cadence. Is it important? Yes. Should you have an idea about what your cadence is? Yes.
Should you fix yourself to a pre-determined cadence? Should you shoot for a cadence that Lance Armstrong and Chris Carmichael champion? If you don't maintain a 90-100 RPM cadence, does this mean you suck? No.
I'm early in my training for a first crack at racing this season, so let me qualify my expertise (read: none really). But what I've discovered is that I'm built to mash over modest rollers and flats. I'm broad-shouldered and fairly muscular from the hips down. I suck in and expend wind like nobody's bidness. I just feel like I get more speed with less RPMs than what most folks buzz over.
Power is where it is really at, and power is the product of not just cadence but cadence and torque. Power is measured in watts. Don't have the formula, but my computer estimates it. You could go to a lab for an accurate number.
Moral of the story: learn cadence and understand what works for you. But don't set yourself on an RPM that everybody else likes to talk about.
Power is where it is at no question....but power depletes over time. The rate of depletion is determined by effefiency and economy. The most economical cyclist will deplete at a slower rate...all else being equal. So the rider with the best technique will slow his rate of decline and will have an advantage over the less effecient gear masher. It's not all about power...but how long can you sustain that power...and how well can you conserve it?..and how well you allocate the usage of it...and how much you have left near the end versus your competition. Of course power must always be joined at the hip with body weight. So we could never consider power without also considering it in the context of power to weight ratio