Ignore the "cadence has no importance". I have no idea where that came from.
Cadence is very useful but you need to find where your sweet spot is depending on the conditions at any given time.

what i found out today being pushed to keep up rather than riding solo at my own pace.

If I'm doing say 100 rpm, i would feel comfortable and could carry on like that. If I started to lose touch then I would have to up the gear and to accelerate but at a lower cadence, but after a while it became easier when the momentum gets going and there i was doing 100 rpm at a higher speed. I felt just as comfortable as i did at the lower speed. There was just that few strokes to get up to speed that felt a bit of a strain and the cadence fell.

So whenpeople say keep your cadence, it's a bit misleading.

not a sock, just purely ignorant

you attempt at humor & sarcasm is pathetic. but anyways

may i present exhibit A: http://www.wolfgang-menn.de/hourrec.htm. in case you are too lazy to go to it, here's screenshot. cadence is the right most column

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_ZS79zroFGuE/TA...s800/ds003.jpg

If cadence is not important whatsoever, why do they make cadence Training DVD's. (If its on the Internet it MUST be true)

http://www.performancebike.com/bikes..._400007_400017


Ok, I suggest we stop flaming each other and get back ON topic.

Cadence gives me an idea on what I am doing in a ride. I rode a while without cadence, ofcourse you have an idea on how fast ur peddling, but I cant feel the difference between 90 and 95 rpm. While in practice I can ride faster if I keep my cadence around 95-100, compared to 90-95

no I would like to see more flaming and then threats and finally a lock and ban ... but thats just me

I love that. Thanks oh thanks oh thanks oh thanks.

You said "95-100 rpm". Oh I'm so happy. Could you please look at the rightmost column and tell me exactly how many of the hour records were set at 95-100 rpm? I'll wait.

I love that you would rather hold him to a specific number he said to win an internet pissing contest instead of seeing that the numbers, while slightly higher, are all in the same close range. And that was actually the point of his statement and the earlier argument. IF you think these people were not aware of their cadence, well, what can I say.

Bottom line, cadence only matters as much as you want to use it. For those that want to get stronger and faster on a bike, it can be used as one of the tools to help achieve that.

Then you should equally love that he ignored my second, and most important, point. The first point was simply funny: that he obviously didn't know what the cadences were used in hour record attempts while if you google around a bit you'll see that I'm very familiar with them -- and have been for years.

No, the main point was the one he ignored: that all of the hour record attempts were done not only in a relatively small range of cadence but also in a relatively small range of pedal force or crank torque. The thing is, pedal cadence is obvious to outside onlookers but pedal force and crank torque aren't so cycling mythology has been built up around cadence rather than force or torque. Looking at the cadence of hour record attempts is about as relevant to new riders as looking at the pedal force of hour record attempts is. That's especially true since every one of the hour record attempts is done on a track, on a fixed gear bike, while the OP is riding a bike on a real road with real hills against real winds and probably on a multi-geared bike.

So, unlike you, I understand the point of his statement and his earlier argument. It's just that I've spent the time to actually study the topic. Advising a new road rider to keep his cadence in a narrow band like has been done in this thread is not only baseless, it's actually contraindicated. Focusing on cadence is a red herring. It makes about as much sense as telling new riders to focus on their pedaling technique.

keep waiting because i'm done here. go ahead, take your hands off the keyboard & do a victory salute, for this may be the only cycling-related victory you might ever get.

ps. save your attempts at humor & don't quit your day job just yet for a career in stand up.

donno about you guys, but im done reasoning with him. arguing with him is like arguing with one of these

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ko...pwi0o1_500.jpg

Dude, what you DON'T understand is that your average Joe isn't going to go out and buy the tools necessary to measure pedal force or torque. But, your average Joe CAN get stronger and faster on a bike by using cadence as a tool. How hard is that to understand as far as whether or not cadence has value? There are people on here that know this that won't get into this pissing contest because it is so stupid. You are more interested in being right about some pointless argument than actually answering the OP.

Dude, of course I understand that the average joe isn't going out to buy that stuff. Where did I suggest that anyone buy that stuff? Look hard. No, look again. Make sure. OK, have you finished looking?

Now, let's move on to your second point: "[the] average Joe CAN get stronger and faster on a bike by using cadence as a tool." There's no evidence for that. OTOH, there *is* evidence that beginning riders experience higher perceived exertion and shorter time to exhaustion at cadences other than their freely-chosen cadence, even when output is held constant. What this means is that artificially changing cadence (even with output held constant) is worse for new riders than simply letting them choose their own cadence. Go to PubMed and do a search on "freely-chosen cadence" and either "fatigue" or "perceived exertion" and see. They may be new at riding but they ain't stupid. Their brains and legs and lungs and heart will tell them what cadence they ought to be using, not some little cadence sensor on their bike. Chasing cadence? It's a red herring.

Ok dude, you win.:rolleyes:

I use a Cateye Strada double wireless computer on my bike which shows cadence. I find it very useful when I am riding with my bike hooked up to the trainer. I find that by simply switching through my gears and keeping my cadence at around 95, which in turn raises or lowers my speed for a given time, also resistance, I can get a pretty decent workout in. If I want to go all out for 30 seconds, switch to the big gear and get my cadence up to 110 or so, hold it for a given time (usually 30 seconds) then back off and downshift for an much easier spin for about a minute or two. I do this about 15-25 times and it feels like a good workout. If I didn't have the cadence sensor and only had the fork sensor, I would not be able to measure anything, so in that sense its important to me.

I don't race, and some of the people on here like umd could tell you so much more, even though you don't have to race to use cadence to get stronger. But, cadence can be used to train smarter riding. When you watch your cadence, you can see if you or slacking off. You can do little tricks like pick a cadence, and see how long you can hold it up a hill. Next time, see if you can go a bit farther up that hill at that cadence before you slow down. You will be amazed at how you can push yourself farther up that hill each time. If you learn to ride at a faster cadence than what might feel normal, you have the advantage of using that higher cadence when it fits a situation.

I truly wish some of the people that could explain this much better while ignoring the negative would weigh in.

I actually disagree with this. The average joe starts cycling and pedals like they did on their kid's bike, turning the cranks at a lazy pace, about 50-70 rpm. This might work for a casual 8 mph cruise, but is highly inefficient when trying to maintain a decent pace. When I first started road biking, I was one of those joes. After getting a computer with cadence, I tried to keep it above 80 and then later 90. It was very helpful.

I agree with the relevance of the hour records, though. The more torque you're putting out, the higher a cadence is desired.

Moving forward

it helps you with cadence.

Darn those red herrings...I use cadence to train with...it's on my computer...it's useful to me to gauge my effort. Plus I look at some new riders in their pedaling technique to get them to pedal smoother. Darn I'm just wrong for all these years, I'll quit now and stop beating this dead horse...:deadhorse2: I'll have to find something else to use for my training...thanks for fixing me:crash:

It's a free country and everyone is entitled to their opinion... I'll keep doing what I think that works...:thumb:

Useless.

===============

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_ca-g.html

"Cadence

The speed at which the pedals turn, measured in Revolutions Per Minute. Inexperienced cyclists tend to ride in higher gears than they should, pedaling at a slower cadence.

Most experienced cyclists pedal at cadences in the range of 70-90 RPM. This puts less strain on the joints, particularly the knees. Racing cyclists often use even higher cadences for bursts of acceleration."

From: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19417224

"The present review examines and summarizes the current knowledge of factors affecting the freely chosen cadence during submaximal cycling and of the influence of cadence choice on performance. [...] A number of factors, including age, power output, and road gradient, have been shown to affect the choice of cadence to some extent. During high-intensity cycling, close to the maximal aerobic power output, cyclists choose an energetically economical cadence that is also favorable for performance. In contrast, the choice of a relatively high cadence during cycling at low-to-moderate intensity is uneconomical and could compromise performance during prolonged cycling." (emphasis added)

[Edit:] And, let's remember that the OP is new to road cycling. Here's a study of non-cyclists that would be appropriate for beginners: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19430807

"The purpose of this study was to examine both the freely chosen cadence (FCC) and the physical variables associated with cadence selection in non-cyclists. [...] peripheral ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were used to measure the most comfortable cadence and the cadence whereby muscle strain was minimised. [...] At 60% W (max), RPE peripheral was minimised at [...] the FCC."

Bottom line from both of these studies: even beginners seem to choose the cadences that minimize their effort and artificially changing that cadence away from the freely-chosen rate increased their perceived effort.

So when people pedaled faster, they perceived that they were working harder? No $#^! They should redo the study with a powermeter hooked up that the riders can't see. Then it would have a conclusive argument.

I still think that you have to be conscious of your cadence when you're trying to train up to the next level. Otherwise, you might get complacent with the low cadence even when you start trying to go faster. I've seen plenty of people do it before (how many of you have not seen the newb in a group ride swaying side-to-side trying to keep up with the group because he can't seem to get enough total wattage at 50 rpm?). Still, the above study could prove me wrong if they did it the right way.

i am new to cycling... i started around 60rpm cadence... i have found that i can go faster and longer with a cadence in the 80-s or so... today in my first century after my legs gave out (50 miles), i found that i had to go up to the 90's... I could spin the cranks, but i had absolutely no push...

this may mean that i need to strengthen my legs more (obviously i need more time in the saddle), but i found i could rely a bit on my cardio (had to give up running due to an injury) to get me through (albeit i had slowed down a few MPH)...

my newbie 2 cents

The second study was at a fixed power, i.e., the cadence increased but the torque (or pedal force) decreased to hold the power output exactly the same. So they may have perceived they were working harder but they were working harder to go at the same speed.