So I've been thinkin... and the recent threads about cadence has reinforced my attention...

so, if you feel you have a cadence upper limit, a 'Cap' on the upper range of cadence that you can ride at, for an extended period, with a positive effect on your riding rate...
I'm looking for thoughts and ideas on effective ways to Raise your 'Cap' and generate more work...
... the under lying 'Why'... I'm finding that I'm currently 'stuck' at cadences in the 80's. I can ride at higher cadences, and have some measurable greater power. but the 'efficient feeling, comfort feeling range is currently in the 80's. Prior history has me, for a very long time, riding mostly in the high 90's, low 100's...
what caused the drop? three & half years of very intensive Chemotherapy from Mid 2019 thru first few months of 2023... I was cycling thru it, not often and moving barely enough to not fall over...
That aside, and Lots of reasons (which I won;t go thru) for me wanting to regain my capability to ride at higher cadences than I can, at this time..

So, IF you wanted to 'UP' your Cadence High End and at the same time Raise that 'Default Cadence ' that you seem to easily drift into
What would you do, work at ??? and why you might do it that way...
Parameters - for me - I don;t have a Velodrome near by, I don;t have a power meter, mtb for this is 'out'. and I like to get out for minimum of 90 minutes... otherwise open to most anything.

What would you do to keep your cadence efficient and enhance the effective cadence range for your riding?

Ride On
Yuri


I have some thoughts of my own, but everything is worth analyzing, considering and possibly using.

if you want to increase your cadence, ride a fixed gear. With low enough gearing, you’ll find yourself spinning faster to get anywhere.
However, if you’re comfortable at your current cadence, does it matter how you got there? I imagine age and miles teach you to ride more efficiently. My cadence has drifted down over the years, but my everage speed has remained pretty constant. I think it just happens

If I wanted to UP my 'default' cadence I would probably get (out of mothballs) a basic bike computer with a cadence function. Cateye, Sigma, nothing fancy. Then monitor cadence with an eye towards progressively increasing it. <shrug> I don't imagine this is the hard part ...

Rollers work well. They allow you to instantly spot flat spots in your pedal stroke. Keirin racers here in Japan train on rollers, and can spin at 200 rpm.

Our legs evolved for walking and running. Until recently, the recommended running pace for greatest efficiency in endurance runs was plus or minus 90 strides per minute, which is, unsurprisingly, roughly the average cadence used by experienced racers. (Recommended running paces now span approximately 80 to 90 strides per minute.)

Gearing allows bike riders who are so inclined to use lower cadences. Which is fine, unless their intention is to get an optimal cardiovascular workout. (The consensus in the sport science community seems to be that you can't load your muscles enough while cycling to see more than a fraction of the strength improvements achievable through the use of weights and other forms of resistance training.)

A reliable sign that your cadence is sub-optimal for such a workout is pushing hard on the pedals, giving the feeling of doing a hard workout, but not breathing particularly hard. Breathing hard is a sure sign that calories are being burned at a significant rate.

From a quick search:

The recommended running cadence, or number of steps per minute (SPM), depends on your easy pace:

• Slower than 10 minutes per mile: A cadence of 160+ SPM is recommended
• Faster than 10 minutes per mile: A cadence of 170+ SPM is recommended

While 180 SPM was once considered the ideal cadence for all runners, it's now known that everyone has their own optimal cadence. Factors that can affect cadence include height, hip mobility, and level of overall fitness.

Stay off the big ring. Don't use the smallest _ sprockets. Etc, etc, etc. It's not rocket science. You have control of your gearing.

Shorter cranks. I have bikes with 175s, 172.5s, and 170s, and the 170s are just easier to spin faster.

I like the cadence display. I'm not good at estimating my cadence number.

I found that Zwift with the Wahoo Kickr did help my pedal stroke. The trainer is a different experience than an outdoor bike. I have to pedal more in circles instead of stabbing down. The resistance is all the way around the pedal stroke. I felt very slow on Zwift when I first started. It took 4 or 5 sessions to get used to it.

I have more power on the grades if I've been riding indoors enough. I also like that I can get a good session in just 45 minutes or so.

Or get a cadence sensor to pair with a modern GPS.

I have a lot on the subject, but it's a lot of typing.

If you feel a need to increase your natural cadence, then I would suggest intervals at +5 to +10 rpm over your normal cadence at the same power. So basically a gear lower than you would normally ride at that power. This is easiest to achieve on an indoor Smart trainer. If you do enough of these intervals then the slightly higher cadence starts to feel more and more natural. Ramped cadence drills also tend to make your normal cadence feel "slow" afterwards.

I find that my self-selected cadence goes up as my power increases, and that finding is a fairly common one in cycling. It could just be that if you can rebuild cycling fitness, after illness, the cadence will follow?

I have a 40+ year old set of Kreitler rollers I still ride. I can hit 45-46mph with a 50x11 at which point I start bouncing so bad I will end up riding off the rollers....I know from a gear chart that is ~125rpm. I have seen the good guys hit like 200 and it is amazing how smooth they are.

You can buy an ant plus dongle for your cranks to measure cadence. They’re pretty cheap but work. That’ll connect to most handlebar speedometers, gps watches, maybe even including your phone if you get the right one.

That’ll allow you to keep an eye on your cadence. You can downshift if you need.

I definitely would not recommend the single speed or fixie route. I’ve ridden those extensively and find myself grinding slow at least as often as spinning fast. They’re fun though.

It’s been probably 20 years, maybe more since I took a spinning class. There was a lot of focus on finding your cadence off the beat of pre-selected music. This literally has stuck with me for decades, and even with no music, I have a remarkably accurate sense of my cadence. It’s my only “musical” talent. Try it, maybe it’ll work.

I (occasionally) use Rouvy for my indoor workouts. On their training side, many of their workouts specifically focus on cadence. I imagine that other brands of workouts do too. It could be worthwhile. Not sure how it knows my cadence without a sensor but it does.

This shouldn’t be too hard for you. You’re already pretty close. It’s not like you came here with 60rpms. And when you get tired, 80 isn’t bad.

How coincidental and timely this thread is. I too have noticed a drop in my maximum comfortable RPM. Over the last several years. And even for the last year that I was in good cycling shape.

I've been thinking intervals of just going into the 120's and 130's for as long as I can might help. And gearing down to super ridiculously low ratios so that I keep my power (watts) reasonably low too. Or just riding the entire ride in that same super easy gear combo that keeps my cadence high and power lower than normal.

I haven't worked toward that though as I'm not riding enough this year. But essentially that is what I did to get my cadence up over the 75 RPM average that I had plateaued at 3 or 4 years after starting to ride for fitness in my early 50's. Doing such got me to where I'd sometimes look down and find I'd been cruising comfortably at 100 RPM for a time thinking I was back at my comfortable 80 RPM. It also seemed to work especially well when I began my cycling season late February and March doing those type rides. November through January and into February, I'm a real slacker on cycling. Even next week they are showing way too cold for me, temperatures in the 70's here. I'm likely to freeze! <grin>

Premium cycling shoes help me use my feet better to permit a higher cadence. Having a silent gear train and smooth shifting over terrain changes keeps my headspace confident in my effort level. Eliminating any bouncing but being slid back some on a slightly lowered saddle seems to be less hard core so I can unweight my butt but still keep close to 100rpm cadence without any dreaded hot spots in my feet or pinchies from migrating to where my taint is riding the rivet (so to speak).

Yeah, I think the hypothesis is that your brain is trying to avoid muscle fatigue by pedaling faster. The "lower resistance/higher reps" idea. I think we all know that leg sensation that says to us "hey, this is getting hard, downshift now please".

Other than sprinting, I find my power starts to drop off as I approach 100 rpm on a flat grade. But on uphills, maintaining power above 90 rpm is difficult for me, with the "sweet spot" 80-85.

I vaguely remember a study of elite cyclists that found their efficiency and power was unchanged between 80 and 100 rpm, but they both dropped off above 100.

My preferred range is 90-100rpm. I can even spin it up to 105rpm, although my HR does start to creep up at that speed. At higher intensities, I begin to struggle around 85 rpm. It basically feels like I'm struggling to "stay on top of the pedal stroke," for a lack of better terms. Even my standing cadence is a bit on the fast side, 75-85 rpm standing, feels totally normal to me. If I had to venture a guess for my preference for a high-cadence, I'd guess it's because I can more effectively use my fast-twitch muscle fibers. Sprinting is what I'm naturally good at, I've had to deliberately develop myself into a climber, and I suppose the fast cadence is likely some sub-conscious compensation to support that.

Watching coverage of a recent race, and one of the commentators mentioned that Pogacar has an unusually rapid yet fluid pedaling style and mused that the fact that he uses 165-mm cranks might have something to do with it. (He's 5'9" tall.)

Wonder whether 165-mm cranks will become more commonly used once his preferring that length becomes common knowledge.

I think people who use shorter cranks are happier.

Less cranky maybe.

Yeah, folks often want to do like the pros, hardly ever works out though. I don't think Pog has a particularly high cadence or fluid style.

did a Higher cadence ride today... more on that in a bit, first some comments on suggestions...
Fixie - I have way too many bikes already, another is just not gonna happen - whether I can make it work or not.
Rollers - had some and rode roller competitions BITD... they are great for helping a rider 'smooth out'... But I live in an area where you can ride outside 365. I don;t like gyms, nor trainers/rollers or sweating indoors...
Intervals, a good idea. But in my cuurent state, high rpm intervals would just do me in. In my current state I don't think I could do enough of them to get a strong training effect. But down the road, when I'm more into riding higher cadence, they will aid in adding power - Like Eddy says "Spin a Big Gear".

so I did 18 miles today, kept the mostly flat-ish terrain at 95-100 and a few 4-5% grades at 85-90. My Legs are done...
riding a 50x17 at 95-100 rpm had my legs really aching, whereas a 50x15 at 80-rpm feels fine - both are almost same gear inches,
All tellin me my pedal/leg efficiency is in the dumpster...
Think I'm gonna focus, completely, on higher rpm rides in gears which allow fluidity and also require some solid level of power...
When I can spin that 50x17 consistently at 100 rpm, without screaming muscles, I start doing the same in the 50x16, and so on...
Not impressive gearing... but then at 75 and my current riding form, there's nothing much to impress.
But I know there's more under the hood...
Ride On
Yuri

ISTR a study of pro cyclists that showed that work efficiency was maximized at lower cadences -- but I always thought this was an argument that while racing, pros don't tend to maximize efficiency, they're more interested in racing results no matter how inefficient it may be. Race cars get much lower mileage than economy cars, but they're usually not trying to maximize mileage (race cars have their own efficiency and fuel consumption goals, but those goals aren't to maximize overall economy, they're to get acceptable economy compared to the other cars they're competing against).

I've looked at the cadence and power (and crank torque) of several pro races. Although their *average* cadence is relatively high, they tend *not* to stay within a narrow cadence band: they're not automatons, their cadence band spans the range from slow to very fast, depending on the race situation. That said, the range in power is "wider" than the range in cadence, so they *tend* to vary their crank torque to modulate power (that is, they vary both cadence and crank torque to produce the power they want, but they vary crank torque more than they vary cadence).

When I've looked at data from me and some of my friends (and we're definitely not pros) the overall pattern of wide cadence range, not being automatons, and modulation of power more by crank torque than cadence, seem to describe us, too.

My impressions and observations, on myself, would agree with this.
There are/were always times in a race (mass start) when the pace steadies out. at that point I always quickly searched for the most 'efficient' gear/cadence. That was when my HR would settle down to a lower steady rate. Before on-bike 'Power' meters, you had HRMs, and those still are the best reading of 'efficiency'. The best effciency of work done results in the lowest HR at whatever work load. Often it meant, while sitting in or moving around in a line or echelon, that a greater gear with lower rpm showed a lower HR, often very substantial... It's actually a reason I still highly desire single tooth step cog ranges in my most used gear range.

I'm not looking for the besr/max efficiency. I'm still looking to being able to ride Quickly' for the times/distance that I'm riding.
My considered opinion is that efficiency affects the entire combined cadence and torque (power) range one have available and might use. Having a high cadence range doesn't mean you need to use it, but it does mean you should be more efficient in the gear and cadence ranges that you might need or want.
If I can hold 110 rpm with the needed torque, then riding at 90 rpm is likely more 'efficient'. Doesn't mean I need to use 110 constantly, the impact of efficiency affects all levels of effort.
Ride On
Yuri