How important is fast cadence to long distance riding?
#26
Family, Health, Cycling
... I'm a big guy and don't climb as fast as the small skinny climbers so I don't really hammer the climbs. It just takes too much out of me for little gain. I get into a good rhythm and try to limit my time deficit. Then I hammer the flats and descents. It takes some mileage but I can make up pretty good time.
Oh, and I am a 90-100 cadence guy on the flats. But then I have a compact crank so I am in a 50 tooth "big" ring.
#27
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
DMD is a great ride, you're going to love it! Sierra Rd is my nemesis on that ride. It just kicks my butt.
#28
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,516
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3878 Post(s)
Liked 1,930 Times
in
1,377 Posts
Sounds like a chick that passed me a couple weeks ago.
I normally spin 90-110, but whatever she was doing was *well* over my rpm range.
Her legs were moving like hummingbird wings.
She passed me on a mild climb, but I figured if I could just hold the spacing, I could overtake her on the descent.
I topped the hill to see her so far out that I never did catch her.
And she was hot, darn it.
I normally spin 90-110, but whatever she was doing was *well* over my rpm range.
Her legs were moving like hummingbird wings.
She passed me on a mild climb, but I figured if I could just hold the spacing, I could overtake her on the descent.
I topped the hill to see her so far out that I never did catch her.
And she was hot, darn it.
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Ville des Lumières
Posts: 1,045
Bikes: Surly SteamRoller
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 53 Times
in
30 Posts
When I started cycling I was a spinner, 90-100RPM, but riding a brevet series on my fixed gear a couple of years ago cured me. Now I am happily pedaling at 70-80RPM.
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Rural Missouri - mostly central and southeastern
Posts: 3,013
Bikes: 2003 LeMond -various other junk bikes
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 44 Times
in
35 Posts
Have you found that faster is better for long rides?
However, discussing cadence without specif exercise-session context, and proposing given RPMs is equally ignorant of the natural differences that contribute to an athlete's cycling style(s).
Keeping in mind the natural individual characteristics of a cyclist, and the specific nature of the events that a cyclist might set as his/her goal can make any unnatural attention to cadence detrimental to the cyclist's overall goal.
Before passing advice about cadence to other cyclists in an Internet forum, one might consider, rereading the italicized phrase above, and rethink the limits of cycling advice without knowing a good deal more about how the recipient can or should adjust any given cycling style or event strategy.
(another high quality and accurate internet post by Dr. RC Cranium -all at no charge!)
#31
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,516
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3878 Post(s)
Liked 1,930 Times
in
1,377 Posts
In general, higher cadence is "better" for "any ride" - no matter the distance.
However, discussing cadence without specif exercise-session context, and proposing given RPMs is equally ignorant of the natural differences that contribute to an athlete's cycling style(s).
Keeping in mind the natural individual characteristics of a cyclist, and the specific nature of the events that a cyclist might set as his/her goal can make any unnatural attention to cadence detrimental to the cyclist's overall goal.
Before passing advice about cadence to other cyclists in an Internet forum, one might consider, rereading the italicized phrase above, and rethink the limits of cycling advice without knowing a good deal more about how the recipient can or should adjust any given cycling style or event strategy.
(another high quality and accurate internet post by Dr. RC Cranium -all at no charge!)
However, discussing cadence without specif exercise-session context, and proposing given RPMs is equally ignorant of the natural differences that contribute to an athlete's cycling style(s).
Keeping in mind the natural individual characteristics of a cyclist, and the specific nature of the events that a cyclist might set as his/her goal can make any unnatural attention to cadence detrimental to the cyclist's overall goal.
Before passing advice about cadence to other cyclists in an Internet forum, one might consider, rereading the italicized phrase above, and rethink the limits of cycling advice without knowing a good deal more about how the recipient can or should adjust any given cycling style or event strategy.
(another high quality and accurate internet post by Dr. RC Cranium -all at no charge!)
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Rural Missouri - mostly central and southeastern
Posts: 3,013
Bikes: 2003 LeMond -various other junk bikes
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 44 Times
in
35 Posts
What would a natural attention to cadence be like?
The meaning of my post means exactly what it says. Purposely upping your cadence, or making "conscious attempts" to alter cadence might do more harm than good to a cyclist's overall effort.
The statement leaves plenty of room for disagreeing, but only that in doing so you are taking chances with the current status of any given cyclist's ability.
I don't know what anybody is talking about - so I made up the best answer I could.
#34
17yrold in 64yrold body
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Northern CA
Posts: 922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Most of the posts on this thread have some valid points, but most also miss one thing--higher cadence does not just happen. I started out turning 60-70rpm, and after reading that higher was more efficient, I tried to turn 80-90, and could only keep it up for a few miles. It took me two years of training my legs and lungs to be able to turn 85 comfortably for most any distance on flats. Aerobic is definitely better than anaerobic for long distances, BUT you have to train up for the higher cadence you want to maintain. JMHO
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,863
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1853 Post(s)
Liked 659 Times
in
502 Posts
In general, higher cadence is "better" for "any ride" - no matter the distance.
However, discussing cadence without specif exercise-session context, and proposing given RPMs is equally ignorant of the natural differences that contribute to an athlete's cycling style(s).
Keeping in mind the natural individual characteristics of a cyclist, and the specific nature of the events that a cyclist might set as his/her goal can make any unnatural attention to cadence detrimental to the cyclist's overall goal.
Before passing advice about cadence to other cyclists in an Internet forum, one might consider, rereading the italicized phrase above, and rethink the limits of cycling advice without knowing a good deal more about how the recipient can or should adjust any given cycling style or event strategy.
(another high quality and accurate internet post by Dr. RC Cranium -all at no charge!)
However, discussing cadence without specif exercise-session context, and proposing given RPMs is equally ignorant of the natural differences that contribute to an athlete's cycling style(s).
Keeping in mind the natural individual characteristics of a cyclist, and the specific nature of the events that a cyclist might set as his/her goal can make any unnatural attention to cadence detrimental to the cyclist's overall goal.
Before passing advice about cadence to other cyclists in an Internet forum, one might consider, rereading the italicized phrase above, and rethink the limits of cycling advice without knowing a good deal more about how the recipient can or should adjust any given cycling style or event strategy.
(another high quality and accurate internet post by Dr. RC Cranium -all at no charge!)
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,863
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1853 Post(s)
Liked 659 Times
in
502 Posts
#37
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I always read that riders with bigger thigh muscles tend to turn lower cadence. But does one turn out the other? What I mean is, does constantly riding at 70 bulk your thighs and 85-90 streamline them? As a woman who tends to build muscle too easily for my liking, I'd be interested if anyone knows this.
#38
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: On the bridge with Picard
Posts: 5,932
Bikes: Specialized Allez, Specialized Sirrus
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I always read that riders with bigger thigh muscles tend to turn lower cadence. But does one turn out the other? What I mean is, does constantly riding at 70 bulk your thighs and 85-90 streamline them? As a woman who tends to build muscle too easily for my liking, I'd be interested if anyone knows this.
#39
Stoker's View
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 107
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I always read that riders with bigger thigh muscles tend to turn lower cadence. But does one turn out the other? What I mean is, does constantly riding at 70 bulk your thighs and 85-90 streamline them? As a woman who tends to build muscle too easily for my liking, I'd be interested if anyone knows this.
#40
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,516
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3878 Post(s)
Liked 1,930 Times
in
1,377 Posts
I don't know specifically, but generally we gain muscle mass by tearing the muscle; if you're feeling pain in your legs, your legs are going to get bigger. In theory, I think you should be able to manage this by lowering your steady cruising gear (while maintaining speed) when, after a ride, your legs hurt. Keep lowering it until you can finish your ride without your legs feeling any muscle strain. At that point your legs should stop bulking up. What I don't know is how the pain of lactic acid in your muscles relates to bulking. I don't think it effects it at all, except that you might mistake lactic acid pain for muscle tearing pain.
IMO higher cadence should increase leg size less. But it's really about calorie output vs. calorie input. The pros have skinny legs because they watch their calories very closely. They can get skinnier or heavier by varying the calories. Even the Lion King didn't have what one would call big legs. Bad news, I know.
#41
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I'm talking about muscle mass not thin vs heavy. Certain exercises build muscle others don't. Not a calorie thing in this sense right? Not everyone who lifts weights builds mass...that sort of thing.
#42
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,516
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3878 Post(s)
Liked 1,930 Times
in
1,377 Posts
I'm not sure I understand you. Did you know that Lance had to lose 7 kilos of protein to get down to TdF weight again? He puts on muscle very quickly. So in that sense, it is a calorie thing. Of course he was very cut. If you don't want cut, then you have to keep your bodyfat up, not a bad thing at all. Some people are just built heavier than others. I have sort of a sprinter's build. At 5'7 and 155 optimum weight, I'm no great climber. My wife likes it, though.
#43
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
You needn't worry too much about this. We aren't talking about anything that is remotely the equivalent of weight-training here. I'd be very surprised if pedaling at 70 rpm caused any noticeable difference in musculature than pedaling at 90 rpm. Cadence is more likely a response to, rather than a cause of, physiological differences.
On the general subject of cadence, I'm strongly against the idea that there is a "proper" cadence to which we should all aspire. We are all different. Most importantly, to be able to maintain high power outputs at high cadences demands that the cyclist is in top shape. Asking a beginner to pedal like Armstrong is ridiculous, because Armstrong's cadence is a consequence of, not a cause of, his strength.
Here is an interesting article on the subject. And here is an interesting paragraph from that article:
The question becomes, "So what pedal cadence is most efficient? 60? 70? 80?" This is an important point. First of all, people will select their most efficient cadence, and they usually do it all by themselves. For many people, it is in the ballpark of 60 rpm. That is, at around 60 rpm, they are using the least amount of oxygen to do a particular task. Now, this does not mean that the most efficient cadence is the best cadence to use. Your goal is not to do your race using the least amount of oxygen that you can. Your goal is to get to the finish line as fast as you can. Rather than asking what is most efficient, we should be asking "what is the best cadence to maximize my performance?" As it turns out, this cadence is usually higher than the most efficient cadence, maybe closer to 80 or 90, and again this will vary depending upon the person.
Note that the most efficient cadence is not necessarily the fastest. I think this is the source of a lot of confusion, as people assume that the more efficient they are, the faster they'll go. Not necessarily so - we have oxygen to burn, so to speak, so we can afford to be profligate with it. However, despite the complications about burning glycogen rather than fat I'd speculate that this may answer the question as to why some successful long distance riders adopt lower cadences. Being more efficient, that strategy may be less physically demanding - and if they have the big leg muscles mentioned earlier, their ability to maintain quite high power at lower and therefore less demanding cadences may give them an advantage over some of their faster-spinning rivals.
Which all boils down to, use the cadence that suits you. The fitter you are, the more likely it is that you'll be able to maintain higher cadences, and at those cadences you'll likely be faster. But that isn't much different from saying that the stronger you get, the faster you'll be. Duh.
Last edited by chasm54; 12-04-10 at 04:07 AM. Reason: clarification
#44
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I'm not sure I understand you. Did you know that Lance had to lose 7 kilos of protein to get down to TdF weight again? He puts on muscle very quickly. So in that sense, it is a calorie thing. Of course he was very cut. If you don't want cut, then you have to keep your bodyfat up, not a bad thing at all. Some people are just built heavier than others. I have sort of a sprinter's build. At 5'7 and 155 optimum weight, I'm no great climber. My wife likes it, though.
#45
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
You needn't worry too much about this. We aren't talking about anything that is remotely the equivalent of weight-training here. I'd be very surprised if pedaling at 70 rpm caused any noticeable difference in musculature than pedaling at 90 rpm. Cadence is more likely a response to, rather than a cause of, physiological differences.
On the general subject of cadence, I'm strongly against the idea that there is a "proper" cadence to which we should all aspire. We are all different. Most importantly, to be able to maintain high power outputs at high cadences demands that the cyclist is in top shape. Asking a beginner to pedal like Armstrong is ridiculous, because Armstrong's cadence is a consequence of, not a cause of, his strength.
Here is an interesting article on the subject. And here is an interesting paragraph from that article:
The question becomes, "So what pedal cadence is most efficient? 60? 70? 80?" This is an important point. First of all, people will select their most efficient cadence, and they usually do it all by themselves. For many people, it is in the ballpark of 60 rpm. That is, at around 60 rpm, they are using the least amount of oxygen to do a particular task. Now, this does not mean that the most efficient cadence is the best cadence to use. Your goal is not to do your race using the least amount of oxygen that you can. Your goal is to get to the finish line as fast as you can. Rather than asking what is most efficient, we should be asking "what is the best cadence to maximize my performance?" As it turns out, this cadence is usually higher than the most efficient cadence, maybe closer to 80 or 90, and again this will vary depending upon the person.
Note that the most efficient cadence is not necessarily the fastest. I think this is the source of a lot of confusion, as people assume that the more efficient they are, the faster they'll go. Not necessarily so - we have oxygen to burn, so to speak, so we can afford to be profligate with it. However, despite the complications about burning glycogen rather than fat I'd speculate that this may answer the question as to why some successful long distance riders adopt lower cadences. Being more efficient, that strategy may be less physically demanding - and if they have the big leg muscles mentioned earlier, their ability to maintain quite high power at lower and therefore less demanding cadences may give them an advantage over some of their faster-spinning rivals.
Which all boils down to, use the cadence that suits you. The fitter you are, the more likely it is that you'll be able to maintain higher cadences, and at those cadences you'll likely be faster. But that isn't much different from saying that the stronger you get, the faster you'll be. Duh.
On the general subject of cadence, I'm strongly against the idea that there is a "proper" cadence to which we should all aspire. We are all different. Most importantly, to be able to maintain high power outputs at high cadences demands that the cyclist is in top shape. Asking a beginner to pedal like Armstrong is ridiculous, because Armstrong's cadence is a consequence of, not a cause of, his strength.
Here is an interesting article on the subject. And here is an interesting paragraph from that article:
The question becomes, "So what pedal cadence is most efficient? 60? 70? 80?" This is an important point. First of all, people will select their most efficient cadence, and they usually do it all by themselves. For many people, it is in the ballpark of 60 rpm. That is, at around 60 rpm, they are using the least amount of oxygen to do a particular task. Now, this does not mean that the most efficient cadence is the best cadence to use. Your goal is not to do your race using the least amount of oxygen that you can. Your goal is to get to the finish line as fast as you can. Rather than asking what is most efficient, we should be asking "what is the best cadence to maximize my performance?" As it turns out, this cadence is usually higher than the most efficient cadence, maybe closer to 80 or 90, and again this will vary depending upon the person.
Note that the most efficient cadence is not necessarily the fastest. I think this is the source of a lot of confusion, as people assume that the more efficient they are, the faster they'll go. Not necessarily so - we have oxygen to burn, so to speak, so we can afford to be profligate with it. However, despite the complications about burning glycogen rather than fat I'd speculate that this may answer the question as to why some successful long distance riders adopt lower cadences. Being more efficient, that strategy may be less physically demanding - and if they have the big leg muscles mentioned earlier, their ability to maintain quite high power at lower and therefore less demanding cadences may give them an advantage over some of their faster-spinning rivals.
Which all boils down to, use the cadence that suits you. The fitter you are, the more likely it is that you'll be able to maintain higher cadences, and at those cadences you'll likely be faster. But that isn't much different from saying that the stronger you get, the faster you'll be. Duh.
#46
Stoker's View
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 107
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Oh no, it's still a theory, just not necessarily the right theory. As I said, it's hard to distinguish between lactic acid pain and muscle-tearing pain. The latter will result in muscle mass, the former will not. So, it's not just a matter of whether you feel pain or not, but which kind of pain you're feeling. I'm not sure I can even tell the difference myself.
#47
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,516
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3878 Post(s)
Liked 1,930 Times
in
1,377 Posts
Oh no, it's still a theory, just not necessarily the right theory. As I said, it's hard to distinguish between lactic acid pain and muscle-tearing pain. The latter will result in muscle mass, the former will not. So, it's not just a matter of whether you feel pain or not, but which kind of pain you're feeling. I'm not sure I can even tell the difference myself.
#48
Stoker's View
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 107
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Right, right, right. O.k., that makes sense. So, yeah, whether it hurts or not the next day doesn't help you the day of, but, if you're trying to avoid gaining muscle mass, you could experiment with varying the frequency and/or intensity of riding based on how frequently in resent history you've felt the pain the next day.
Definitely too much work for me; but, I don't care how big my legs are anyway.
Definitely too much work for me; but, I don't care how big my legs are anyway.