Peter_C

Yup - call me brain-dead please

Mr. Beanz

I's spinning at 92 yesterday. I have weak legs I guess.

RandoneeRider

My dad made mention of "cadence" when I told him of my outings on the new bike. I was still in the first two weeks of riding my REI purchase, now counting my rpm's. Because I've not ridden in 30 years, pressing 60 years old (in three), and new to this road-bike stuff..... I could feel that my weak link was two-fold, knees and leg strength. I found myself naturally spinning at about 80 rpm, where I found the least amount of effort (for me) to keep the bike propelling forward.

When I asked the guys at REI about "ideal cadance", the answer I got was not what I expected. I was told to watch my heart rate, and cycle/spin/work at such a rate that my HR would hover in my desired target zone. Though this may have been good information, I'm learning now how my heart rate average on a ride can be lower or higher based on ambiant temps, when I ate prior to the ride, if I slept well the night before, and how far into the ride I am....... I'm discovering too that on my longer rides, my HR get's progressively slower even though I may actually be spinning/riding at a faster speed (with less effort)!?!

This cadence thing is fascinating; I can spin comfortably at a steady rate..... but if all that I do is up-shift to a smaller sprocket (at the back), my speed increases by as much as 2 mph!?! I soon find myself awakening leg muscles that don't yet want to be bothered at this juncture of my new hobby....... With time, I hope to challenge these legs to work at a given cadence, rather than simply (and comfortably) "spin" effortlessly. My lungs and cardio have it in them, but my leg muscles are still new to this discipline.

IAmCosmo

If you've only ridden 20 miles at a time, don't worry about your cadence. You need seat time. Not worrying about technique.

Also, cadence is personal. Ideally we'd all climb in a low gear at 90rpm. But, we live in the real world. I tend to average 55-60 rpm on longer climbs, lower if it's really steep. But, that works for me, so I stick with it. Would I be a better climber if I trained myself to ride at a higher cadence? Probably. Would I also be a better climber if I lost 50 pounds? Absolutely. So there are many ways to accomplish your goals.

The important thing is to get out there and ride. Don't worry about your cadence. I'm not saying go ride ever ride in your 53x11. Find a gear that is comfortable, put your head down, and keep pushing.

jethro56 

I'm kinda on the masher side or so I thought. I don't use clipless and I have to concentrate to keep a smooth stroke. I did an experiment this morning. After a 5 mile warmup there's a smooth straight flat road running 3 miles into town. I started out in an easy gear spinning at 110 rpm. Instead of immediately gearing up I held the spin for about 2 minutes before shifting up. I shifted 3 times. I thought I was spinning at the same speed after I shifted. I thought I was going faster.

Looking at the graph after the ride I was surprized that each and every time I shifted that my cadence slowed down and my speed did as well. My heartrate did come up but not excessively so (10 beats/minute). Maybe I'm ready for clipless as I wonder what 130 rpm would do for me.

kenoshi

Ahh this is really good advice, thank you!

I adjusted my ride accordingly, and it was MUCH easier ride home (my home commute is ~24 miles of 20-25mph headwind). I had put in a new seatpost, finally got the ride position adjusted correctly, then adjusted my ride...For example, when I hit those 25-30mph gusts or parts of the route where there are no building shielding me, I drop gears and start spinning instead of pushing like I always would. Raised my average cadence from 70ish to 85, and average speed even with that headwind went up by 15%, the dumbarton bridge was much easier, and I made my ride home without leg cramps and just generally beat up.

Lol what a difference, thank you

CraigB

I hadn't checked my cadence in probably 30 years, so I did it on Sunday's ride. I spun at what felt most natural to me and counted it for a full minute and it came to 96, without any bouncing or extraneous motion. I think most folks can achieve that pretty easily with only a little practice. Getting into territory in excess of a hundred is a whole different animal, though.

Mr. Beanz

Yup, I caught mine on video for ten seconds then multiplied by 6. Came out with 96 rpm cruising at 20 mph in the 39/14 but the online rpm/gear charts say 92 rpm. 4 rpm difference, no biggie.

RollCNY

I never took that info to mean one was weak or the other strong, just whether leg or lung was working closer to max capacity. Meant no offense to anyone's leg or cardio strength.

I am a masher, and think I have strong legs and weaker cardio. When I first started group rides, I would mash the whole ride, and start out super strong on hills, but fade more and more later in the ride. Everyone told me to spin. I did, and couldn't climb hills with the same mashing speed. What I eventually figured out was how to blend the two to conserve my leg strength for when I want it (hills and sprints), but to use the lungs in the pack to conserve the legs. Has worked. Don't know if it is scientific.

And if spinning doesn't work out, I will consider stopping smoking. But the benefits of that are currently unproven.

kevin_stevens

I'm extremely disappointed that the cycling community settled on the term "mashing" instead of "toiling" vs "spinning...

KeS

socalrider

Just spin it like Eddy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7K4O7YTLQQ

Drew Eckhardt 

And follow his advice on gear selection - when asked if it was better technique to mash a big gear or spin a small gear, Eddy Merckx thought for a moment and said 'Its better to spin a big gear.'

monkeydentity

all this talk finally pushed me over the edge, i bought a cadence computer. it was really hard for me to count, while on a hill, while keeping track of time. so now i know, i seem to favor a cadence around 55-60, regardless of the terrain. that's quite a bit lower than the 90s, but hell, i've had a bike for all of two weeks! I tried 70 for a bit, that's going to take some focus to get there for my norm, but i'll work on it. going up the big hill in prospect park (brooklyn) i was just trying to keep it over 50.

is the idea of keeping a faster cadence strictly for aerobic benefit? I know that not mashing is better for the knees, but at 60 i certainly felt like my knees were safe. what's the reason for wanting a higher cadence than that? there has to be something special about it if the pros are all doing it(?)...

RollCNY

You will typically go faster with less perceived effort. Work is work and a certain speed requires a certain wattage. Low cadence means higher torque and lower rpm, high cadence means lower torque but high rpm.

I had 60 rpm cadence when I started. It took a year of gradual increase to move mine. I comfortably spin at 90 to 100 at times but my trip average always seems between 79 and 82. My average speed climbed over that time as well, as did the distance I cover feeling less fatigued.

jethro56 

monkeydenity:When I first started I thought the same thing. It comes down to endurance. The more aerobic (with oxygen) you are ,the more fat is burned which we have in abundance, even skinny people. The Anoerobic system burns glycogen which takes much more time to replenish. I also believe that spinning at higher cadence forces one to develop a more efficent pedal stroke.

chasm54

The pros are doing it because they can. You aren't doing it because you can't - yet.

To a very great extent, the pro and elite cyclist operates at a higher cadence because they are aerobically very fit and have lots of power. Their high cadence is a consequence of their prowess, not a cause of it.

As has been said earlier in the thread, high cadence imposes greater stress on the cardiovascular system. What isn't usually understood is that this is because pedalling at lower cadence is actually more efficient in terms of oxygen consumption. There's an energy cost to just moving your legs fast, irrespective of anything else. So of course new cyclists, or those who are unfit, find low cadences easier because that is the way to get the biggest bang for their very limited buck - that is, their limited capacity to transport oxygen and burn it in their muscles. The downside is that those muscles have to operate under a greater load for each pedal stroke. That isn't just tougher on the joints, it means that the muscle gets fatigued.

As one gets fitter one's cardiovascular system gets more efficient, one's muscles get more heavily vascularised and so one can transport and consume more oxygen. The loss of efficiency in oxygen consumed for a given power output ceases to matter so much - one has oxygen to burn, so to speak - and one is able to trade that off in return for less stress on the muscles. So, ultimately, one consumes more energy to go faster but with less fatigue and better recovery.

So, to tell a beginner to spin at 95rpm is foolish. They can't do it, they're like a demented hamster and simply exhaust themselves. But one should encourage them to use a slightly lower gear than they think they can comfortably sustain. If you're doing 60 rpm in a 50/18 gear, change down to a 50/20 and spin at 65 rpm. This relatively small change will be slightly tiring at first, but it is do-able and will both increase the intensity of your cardiovascular workout and get you used to pedalling a bit faster, with slightly less pressure on the pedals. As you get fitter you'll be able to raise your cadence by degrees - indeed you might find yourself doing so naturally - and you'll be going faster, for longer. But there are no rules about this. Don't worry if you never get to 90 or 95. If you watch videos of Bernard Hinault, who won the Tour 5 times, you'll see that he often pushed a huge gear at low cadences. He did have knee trouble, though. LOL

monkeydentity

blasted knees v. demented hamster

brilliant!

THANK YOU, that helped a lot.

RandoneeRider

Been about 500 miles now..... thought I would count my cadence several times under different conditions/terrain. Without fail, I was right there at 78 almost without fail, time and time again. Seeing as how others are cruising right up there toward 90, I now feel like I have license to spin more.... seemingly 'work' less.

On the other hand, how much of one's cadence is effected by the rolling resistance of fatter tires, thicker/heavier wheels & tubes? I won't ask about the drag of a wide bodied fat boy unable to reach for the drop downs, as I fear there simpy isn't THAT much drag at 12.3 mph.......

monkeydentity

12? i'm zipping up my hill at 6! really brings down my average after the downhill at 28.

chasm54

There's more drag than you think. Getting more aero is, on the flat, more important than reducing weight.

As for the other things you mention, they shouldn't matter much as far as cadence is concerned, because what we are talking about is the number of rpm for a given speed. That is an issue of gearing. If you're pushing a heavy load, or going uphill, or have high rolling resistance, all those things will reduce your speed but in theory you should be able to maintain a given cadence by selecting the appropriate gear.

In practice, the harder you are having to work to maintain your speed, the lower the cadence you will tend to employ. This is a natural consequence of the phenomenon described above, namely that higher cadences are harder on the heart and lungs. There comes a point at which a hill is so steep that you can't spin at 90rpm without running out of gas.

Drew Eckhardt 

Nope. I pedal faster as I ride harder because that minimizes perceived effort at the same power and the resulting fatigue. Lots of cyclists, coaches, and scientists have come to the same answer.

If I'm sprinting past 30 MPH at 700 Watts I'll be shifting at 110-120 RPM (and wouldn't be surprised to pickup a couple MPH if I worked on a 130 RPM sprint) because otherwise I can't push on the pedals hard enough to sustain that sort of power.

Spending 3-5 minutes past 250W I'll be riding 100-110 RPM since it feels easier and there's less fatigue than at lower RPMs.

Spending 10-40 minutes around my 235W critical power I'll ride 90-100 RPM since the cadence increase from my preferred ~85 RPM let me ride threshold intervals on consecutive days and feel a lot better afterwards.

Macintosh, Neptune, and Horton analyze what's going on in _Cadence, power, and muscle activation in bicycle ergometry_ summarizing their test subjects' performance with:

Optimal cadence (cadence with lowest amplitude of EMG for a given power output) increased with increases in power output: 57 6 3.1, 70 6 3.7, 86 6 7.6, and 99 6 4.0 rpm for 100, 200, 300, and 400 W, respectively. Conclusion: The results confirm that the level of muscle activation varies with cadence at a given power output. The minimum EMG amplitude occurs at a progressively higher cadence as power output increases. These results have implications for the sense of effort and preferential use of higher cadences as power output is increased.

Sustainable power for a single effort is mostly a separate issue. You might get 10 minutes at 105% of your one-hour power, 3 minutes at 110%, 1 minute at 150%, and 15 seconds at 300%.

When you've run out of gears you're not going to be able to sustain the power output you're producing at 90 RPM unless you're spinning over a highway overpass.

You can either put lower gears on for next time or just do what you can to grind up because that's a better compromise (I'd rather sometimes grind up a steep grade in 34x23 than give up the 18 cog I use nearly every day).

RandoneeRider

chasm54,
I just reread what I wrote before reading your post.... felt kinda stupid as I read mine, AND thought to myself the same thing that you wrote.....I mean, cadence is cadence, regardless of drag, gear selection, etc.

Drew Eckhardt,
Of course, why didn't I think of tha...............**********
What?

chasm54

Drew, I don't think we're disagreeing. I have no doubt that optimal cadence increases as one needs to increase the power. But that does not mean that everyone can increase the cadence and sustain it as required. Everyone comes to a point - a different point, obviously - at which they cannot sustain that power and their cadence, and speed, has to fall. As they approach that point if they attempt to sustain their cadence they will simply fail, and stop.

Put it another way. What happens to your cadence when you hit a really steep hill? Why do you think that is?

jethro56 

Bringing this back to what the OP was asking about, I feel that some higher cadence training is a good tool to add to your skillset. For me it takes a lot of concentration but it really works the hamstrings.

RandoneeRider

Just got through doing 16 miles into a headwind from off the Delta waterway/islands.....
So I snicked it into a higher spin/cadence and kept it there for the whole ride. First thing I noticed was an elevated heart rate.... cool. When I found myself going up a slight incline or into an alley-way of high wind, the increased cadence made it easier to make headway. On the way home with the wind behind me, I got myself going at a pretty good clip with seemingly less effort, albeit at an elevated heart rate.... WAIT A MINUTE! It's not!?! I'm spinning like crazy, making good time, not having to work, and my heart rate is mellow and on cruise control (???).

Hmm, musta been the pasta.