What about CADENCE..?
07-27-14 | 07:24 AM
#26
Banned
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 9,923
Likes: 1,066
From: Lincoln Ne
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II
Or you can do what I do. I say to the hell with someone else telling me what cadence I should be riding at. I ride with a cadence that feels right at the the time. On some up hills I might go as high as 90 or more, and down hill with the wind I often shift into my highest gear and cruise along at 50 or so rpm just to relax. Who really cares what some "expert" says?
07-27-14 | 07:47 AM
#27
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,114
Likes: 3
From: Garner, NC 27529
Bikes: Built up DT, 2007 Fuji tourer (donor bike, RIP), 1995 1220 Trek
I've concluded that I'll just ride the way I want. My whole life, (and I've been riding my whole life), I've always ridden with lower cadences. I'm quite comfortable riding at a cadence of 65, and can do it all day long. I've tried spinning faster. Just doesn't work for me. Just yesterday, (Strava link), I rode a pretty flat metric century. My cadence average for the ride was only 70, and I thought I was pushing it a lot on that ride.
When I get to 85 or so, I start looking for a higher gear. On some of the steeper grades around my area, I've noticed that I'm only "spinning" at 45 or 50. I won't get to the top first, but I'll get there eventually. Until I figured out how to turn it off, my old Garmin would often complain while climbing that my cadence was too low.
p.s. Knees are fine. Has never been an issue.
When I get to 85 or so, I start looking for a higher gear. On some of the steeper grades around my area, I've noticed that I'm only "spinning" at 45 or 50. I won't get to the top first, but I'll get there eventually. Until I figured out how to turn it off, my old Garmin would often complain while climbing that my cadence was too low.
p.s. Knees are fine. Has never been an issue.
85 would be considered rather high for that purpose. Nothing wrong with holding that all day.
There's features on my garmin I should adopt but just haven't yet.
07-27-14 | 08:32 AM
#28
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,806
Likes: 420
From: Tucson Az
Bikes: 2015 Ridley Fenix, 1983 Team Fuji, 2019 Marin Nail Trail 6
One of these days I should buy a computer to see what my cadence is. When I jump on the Life Fitness exercise bike at the gym, I usually run around 85.
07-27-14 | 08:38 AM
#29
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 17,196
Likes: 761
From: Ann Arbor, MI
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
No, it doesn't, really. Conditions and terrain vary.
In general, fitter and more experienced cyclists will employ a higher cadence (and therefore a lower gear) for a given speed. That is not, however, as many will tell you, because it is "more efficient".
Actually, the most efficient cadence in terms of power generated for oxygen burned is around 60. That is why most beginners default to something close to that - it's similar to a typical walking rhythm of about two paces per second. Higher cadences burn more fuel, because irrespective of the force applied there is an energy cost to simply moving one's legs faster. So the faster you pedal, the higher the stress on the cardiovascular system. That, simply in terms of energy consumed, is "inefficient".
However, it does have one very considerable benefit, in that pedalling faster in a lower gear means one is applying less force through each pedal stroke, and therefore stressing the muscles less. And that means one can cruise for longer without one's legs getting tired.
So, the more aerobically fit (that is, those whose systems can deliver more oxygen to their muscles) can afford to be "inefficient" - they have oxygen to burn, and they can be profligate with it in order to spare their legs and go further, faster, at higher cadences.
Which is a long-winded way of saying that higher cadences transfer stress from the joints and muscles to the CV system. If you're in good shape, that's a pretty good idea a lot of the time. And if your cadence is in the 90s, I'd say that it would be reasonable to conclude that you're fairly fit and riding in a way that exploits that.
In general, fitter and more experienced cyclists will employ a higher cadence (and therefore a lower gear) for a given speed. That is not, however, as many will tell you, because it is "more efficient".
Actually, the most efficient cadence in terms of power generated for oxygen burned is around 60. That is why most beginners default to something close to that - it's similar to a typical walking rhythm of about two paces per second. Higher cadences burn more fuel, because irrespective of the force applied there is an energy cost to simply moving one's legs faster. So the faster you pedal, the higher the stress on the cardiovascular system. That, simply in terms of energy consumed, is "inefficient".
However, it does have one very considerable benefit, in that pedalling faster in a lower gear means one is applying less force through each pedal stroke, and therefore stressing the muscles less. And that means one can cruise for longer without one's legs getting tired.
So, the more aerobically fit (that is, those whose systems can deliver more oxygen to their muscles) can afford to be "inefficient" - they have oxygen to burn, and they can be profligate with it in order to spare their legs and go further, faster, at higher cadences.
Which is a long-winded way of saying that higher cadences transfer stress from the joints and muscles to the CV system. If you're in good shape, that's a pretty good idea a lot of the time. And if your cadence is in the 90s, I'd say that it would be reasonable to conclude that you're fairly fit and riding in a way that exploits that.
And: I'm not sure that higher is better beyond a certain point. And for me, an average of 93 would be great. If your body wants to go higher, do it, but I would think there isn't much more benefit.
07-27-14 | 08:39 AM
#30
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 17,196
Likes: 761
From: Ann Arbor, MI
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
07-27-14 | 11:35 AM
#31
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,551
Likes: 1,814
From: Southwestern Ontario
At one time this forum had about 65 fictitious characters all writing to each other and others (all written by maybe 2-3 anonymous folks, as I recall), each with his/her own character. Mods finally stopped some of the best fictional writing around, and not a word was true.
Just sayin . . . .
Just sayin . . . .
07-27-14 | 04:37 PM
#32
Avid Cyclist
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
From: Columbus, Ohio
Bikes: Diamondback Century Disc
I maintain a cadence of 90 RPMs. Trying to get my wife to spin has always been a challenge and, now, she has been having some knee problems when she tries muscling the bike. If you can maintain your spinning rate, it means that you are letting the gears do the work for you. That's how races are won.
07-27-14 | 09:59 PM
#33
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,809
Likes: 28
From: North Idaho
Bikes: n + 1
Yeah, I think I'm a tourist. Just got back from a short ride. Wanted to get in a few miles. Strava says I did the 15.5 miles in just under an hour for a 16.0 mph average. The average cadence for the ride was 75, and I felt that I was really pushing it the whole time. That might have been because of the wind and the gradients. To me anyway, pedaling fast isn't very much fun. I think I'm most comfortable in the 65-70 range on the flats. Less on hills, and usually freewheel on the downhills. I'm old enough that I'm not much into seeing how fast I can go bombing down a steep mountain anymore.
07-28-14 | 04:11 AM
#34
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 13,358
Likes: 665
From: northern michigan
Bikes: '77 Colnago Super, '76 Fuji The Finest, '88 Cannondale Criterium, '86 Trek 760, '87 Miyata 712
Yeah, I think I'm a tourist. Just got back from a short ride. Wanted to get in a few miles. Strava says I did the 15.5 miles in just under an hour for a 16.0 mph average. The average cadence for the ride was 75, and I felt that I was really pushing it the whole time. That might have been because of the wind and the gradients. To me anyway, pedaling fast isn't very much fun. I think I'm most comfortable in the 65-70 range on the flats. Less on hills, and usually freewheel on the downhills. I'm old enough that I'm not much into seeing how fast I can go bombing down a steep mountain anymore.
07-28-14 | 06:47 AM
#35
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 5,963
Likes: 1,385
From: SW Fl.
Bikes: 1999 DAHON Mariner, Day6 Semi Recumbent "FIREBALL", 1981 Custom Touring Paramount, 1983 Road Paramount, 2013 Giant Propel Advanced SL3, 2018 Specialized Red Roubaix Expert mech., 2002 Magna 7sp hybrid, 1976 Bassett Racing 45sp Cruiser
Some years ago I met a man on the highway pedaling slowly and moving "slowly". I clocked him at 14mph and had a cadence noticeably below 60rpm. Doing the Fredly thing of the moment I pulled up and asked him why. He says it is his 200+ mile ride pace. Pfffft. Ok, sorry I asked.
07-28-14 | 09:39 AM
#36
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,457
Likes: 87
From: NW Ohio
Bikes: Salsa Beargrease XX1, Trek Eqnuinox 9.9 SSL, Trek Madone 6.9 ,Trek District Carbon, Trek Boone7, Trek Fuel EX9.0,Trek Fuel 9.5, Trek Rumblefish Pro, Trek Remedy 9.9, Trek Equinox7, Trek District Belt
All this stuff about speed, heart rate and cadence was never on my radar for the last 4 years and 10 months, I just knew that when i came home i was tired and my legs were exausted. This all cahnged about a month ago when i purchased my 1st Bike Computer (Garmin Edge 1000). I always thought that i was doing ok however the garmin sure showed me alot i had no idea about. I like to ride by myself as most guys are still not up and moving at 430am every day..
__________________
Trek Fuel EX9.0 Trek Fuel EX9.5 Trek Equinox 9.9SSL TTX Trek Madone 6.9 Pro Red Project One, Trek Boone 7, Trek Rumblefish Pro, Trek Remedy 9.9, Trek Carbon District
Trek Fuel EX9.0 Trek Fuel EX9.5 Trek Equinox 9.9SSL TTX Trek Madone 6.9 Pro Red Project One, Trek Boone 7, Trek Rumblefish Pro, Trek Remedy 9.9, Trek Carbon District
07-28-14 | 05:47 PM
#37
Trek 500 Kid
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 399
From: Spokane WA
Bikes: '83 Trek 970 road --- '86 Trek 500 road
Some years ago I met a man on the highway pedaling slowly and moving "slowly". I clocked him at 14mph and had a cadence noticeably below 60rpm. Doing the Fredly thing of the moment I pulled up and asked him why. He says it is his 200+ mile ride pace. Pfffft. Ok, sorry I asked.
07-29-14 | 03:06 AM
#38
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 5,963
Likes: 1,385
From: SW Fl.
Bikes: 1999 DAHON Mariner, Day6 Semi Recumbent "FIREBALL", 1981 Custom Touring Paramount, 1983 Road Paramount, 2013 Giant Propel Advanced SL3, 2018 Specialized Red Roubaix Expert mech., 2002 Magna 7sp hybrid, 1976 Bassett Racing 45sp Cruiser
All this stuff about speed, heart rate and cadence was never on my radar for the last 4 years and 10 months, I just knew that when i came home i was tired and my legs were exausted. This all cahnged about a month ago when i purchased my 1st Bike Computer (Garmin Edge 1000). I always thought that i was doing ok however the garmin sure showed me alot i had no idea about. I like to ride by myself as most guys are still not up and moving at 430am every day..
A 0430 start, just a little late for me.
0205 last Saturday was start time for my 133 miles. Thinking about 150 this Saturday so a 0100 start would be in order.
07-29-14 | 05:17 AM
#39
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,457
Likes: 87
From: NW Ohio
Bikes: Salsa Beargrease XX1, Trek Eqnuinox 9.9 SSL, Trek Madone 6.9 ,Trek District Carbon, Trek Boone7, Trek Fuel EX9.0,Trek Fuel 9.5, Trek Rumblefish Pro, Trek Remedy 9.9, Trek Equinox7, Trek District Belt
Is that your normal start time 7 days a week 365 days a year or just for those long rides? Thats my start time 7 days a week..
__________________
Trek Fuel EX9.0 Trek Fuel EX9.5 Trek Equinox 9.9SSL TTX Trek Madone 6.9 Pro Red Project One, Trek Boone 7, Trek Rumblefish Pro, Trek Remedy 9.9, Trek Carbon District
Trek Fuel EX9.0 Trek Fuel EX9.5 Trek Equinox 9.9SSL TTX Trek Madone 6.9 Pro Red Project One, Trek Boone 7, Trek Rumblefish Pro, Trek Remedy 9.9, Trek Carbon District
07-29-14 | 05:29 AM
#40
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 5,963
Likes: 1,385
From: SW Fl.
Bikes: 1999 DAHON Mariner, Day6 Semi Recumbent "FIREBALL", 1981 Custom Touring Paramount, 1983 Road Paramount, 2013 Giant Propel Advanced SL3, 2018 Specialized Red Roubaix Expert mech., 2002 Magna 7sp hybrid, 1976 Bassett Racing 45sp Cruiser
07-29-14 | 07:47 AM
#41
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,457
Likes: 87
From: NW Ohio
Bikes: Salsa Beargrease XX1, Trek Eqnuinox 9.9 SSL, Trek Madone 6.9 ,Trek District Carbon, Trek Boone7, Trek Fuel EX9.0,Trek Fuel 9.5, Trek Rumblefish Pro, Trek Remedy 9.9, Trek Equinox7, Trek District Belt
I DO NOT like you ride 150 and 100 mile rides ever. I am only good for about 35 to 50 miles a day and actually i am starting to get burned out like this.. I have not missed a days since back in may and i need to give my weary legs a rest i suppose..
__________________
Trek Fuel EX9.0 Trek Fuel EX9.5 Trek Equinox 9.9SSL TTX Trek Madone 6.9 Pro Red Project One, Trek Boone 7, Trek Rumblefish Pro, Trek Remedy 9.9, Trek Carbon District
Trek Fuel EX9.0 Trek Fuel EX9.5 Trek Equinox 9.9SSL TTX Trek Madone 6.9 Pro Red Project One, Trek Boone 7, Trek Rumblefish Pro, Trek Remedy 9.9, Trek Carbon District
07-29-14 | 08:27 AM
#42
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
From: San Antonio, TX
Bikes: Trek 7.3 FX
Went for a fairly flat 8 mile ride this morning. I haven't gotten a cadence meter yet, but I focused on riding a gear or two lower than normal and keeping the cadence up. Found if anything I was a MPH faster than usual and got a bit more of a cardio workout. Interesting.
