Lanceoldstrong

Homey, your quote is the basis of my game plan for my first Devil Mountain Double next year.

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.

Homeyba

DMD is a great ride, you're going to love it! Sierra Rd is my nemesis on that ride. It just kicks my butt.

Carbonfiberboy 

There's a local charity century route that used to have "Pedal faster, you fool!" painted on the road near the top of the worst climb. Always gave me a laugh.

TomM

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.

Richard Cranium

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!)

Carbonfiberboy 

Hee hee. What would a natural attention to cadence be like? Are we getting into what's natural and what's unnatural now? And who's to say what each would be?

Richard Cranium

Certainly, focusing on riding style during a ride is favorable to simply "pedaling the bike."

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.

skiffrun

That explains why you keep hitting all the pot-holes.

badamsjr

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

Road Fan

This is along the lines of what I'm finding. I tend to start rides slower, maybe 60 rpm and let my cadence rise as I warm up. Once warmed up I tend to stay in teh 80-95 range, depending on the terrain, if I need to catch anyone, et cetera. Later in rides I tend to slow it down if I get tired. I don't really try to control it, just to keep my legs comfortable and to get a little recovery if I need it.

Road Fan

'K, so as a tubular rider I better not be a cadence-hawk.

indyjanie

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.

CbadRider

I haven't noticed my legs getting bulky from riding a slower cadence, but then I'm also not mashing heavily on the pedals; I ride in a pretty moderate gear.

seenloitering

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.

Carbonfiberboy 

If that were the theory, I'd have to give up riding. I can't remember finishing a weekend ride when my legs didn't hurt. My theory is that if you can still walk when you reach the parking lot, you could have gone harder.

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.

indyjanie

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.

Carbonfiberboy 

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.

chasm54

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.

indyjanie

I actually did know that, but I thought he rid himself of upper body muscle by not training those as much or in the same sense. I did not realize that a lower calorie diet would prevent muscle gain...I honestly thought it controlled only fat until you had none left. I didn't know...wow. Need to up the research I guess thanks!

indyjanie

This makes sense to me. I find 85 is my choice, and 95 is more forced. It makes sense this changes naturally as you train.

seenloitering

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.

Carbonfiberboy 

I think if you get DOMS, it's microtears. Which knowledge doesn't help at the time. Went really hard on Sunday - over an hour in or over LT - cramped trying to get off the bike, legs definitely painful. But no DOMS today (Tuesday). So I think that's what you're talking about. We climbed at a low cadence for us, 70-79, but spun pretty easy on the flats.

seenloitering

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.