Dude, could you state in one sentence of 30 words or less what your main argument is? Really, I don't get what your point is.

"Cadence is a red herring: there's no reason why newbies should ride at X rpm simply because experienced riders do, and there are reasons why they shouldn't."

Well, there you have it.

Hey krazyflip. One thing to know is that most n00bs ride with too low cadence. That is both inefficient and will wreck your knees. Most of the advice in this thread is good, but ignore idiots and trolls who suggest it doesn't matter.

As others have said: you'll be more susceptible to joint damage with low RPM's as you get stronger.

We know.

Interesting. I guess that can get into the definition of work. I would argue that in that study, they were working the same (since this implies same wattage), but thought they were working harder simply because they were pedaling faster. I can understand the tendency to think that, but it hardly makes an argument for them to stick with whatever cadence comes natural to them.

I'm just blown away with the idea oh just how good Lance could have been if he hadn't bought into the idea of a higher cadence.

Although a higher cadence for a newbie may not be the most efficient at first, because they don't yet have the cardio to support that cadence, I think it will benefit them in the long run. It felt weird going at a higher cadence at first, but now my cardio is getting better.

Have you learned nothing?
http://rzhblog.files.wordpress.com/2...ring_color.jpg

You certainly get points for going to search for a red herring image.

Perceived effort was minimized at freely chosen cadence. It was higher for cadences both above and below the FCC, while holding power fixed. In addition, other studies show that as power increases, riders increase both their freely chosen cadence and their freely chosen pedal force -- they don't keep their cadence constant and simply increase the force. This explains why more experienced riders tend to have higher cadence: their power output increased so they responded with increased cadence. Their pedal force also increases but to onlookers pedal force is invisible There's no evidence that artificially raising cadence results in improved performance.

Dude, Lance had high cadence because his power was high.

Fair enough. I still like to think learning to "spin" kept me from being the fred in a group ride swaying from side to side at 50 rpm while chasing a pack at 30 mph on the flats. But yeah, I'm sure even the dumbest of riders would naturally raise cadence as effort goes up.

i went out and rode today, 30 miles with a few hills, and as if now my cadence is high 60's to mid 70's.

so for those guys who think cadence it important. after awhile my cadence will naturally go up.

and on the other note. i never knew there is this much drama about cadence.

I have been wondering about cadence vs speed and which one I should be concentrating on more for a couple of weeks now. I have pretty good cardio as I typically run 4-5 days a week and bike 90-100 miles over the weekends. I find that when I ride at a higher speed, but a lower cadence I tend to wear out quicker and my rides typically end closer to the 40 mile mark. When I ride at a slightly lower speed, but higher cadence I find I can go for a longer period of time and can get in 50 miles.

I want to work on increasing my distance (but I also want to work on increasing my speed as well) so from what I am gathering here it seems that my concentration should be on keeping my cadence higher as I will draw upon my cardio reserves vice my muscular reserves. Am I on the right track with my thinking?

I've had a cadence sensor in use almost since the 2nd month of cycling.

I was always in the 55-70 range and for the most part I was doing that in 50x14 gearing on a single speed setup. every other month my rpms would go up and my knees would hurt, but then I would rest for half a week. Still riding, but a slow pace. When I'd get back to upping the output I'd go faster and the knees wouldn't hurt. The process repeated several times.

My muscles grew and I was happy. I don't cycle in that low a range anymore, but my legs have also stopped getting bigger... but I am faster now with the higher cadence.

I think its all based on personal fitness level. The heart and lungs need to be conditioned before it really matters. In fact, If someone had told me this I really wouldn't have cared for the cadence monitor since I never really used it anyways except to say, "hey, look at that."

If I had tried to shoot for a cadence in the 85+ range early on... I'd be more fatigued than to make my workout of any efficient benefit. I remembering trying to spin faster (cuz thats what the pros do) and all I did on the single speed was excessively hurt my knees and when I converted back to gears... I just artificially raised it by dropping my gears to really low.

I like the poser factor of blowing passed people all decked out in pro kits with their high cadence and I'm just cruising along in the big gear. Feels good for the ego.

Higher cadence can also mean greater stability on the bike (a straighter line).

This can also assist others, such as on a bunch ride.

He made up for it with the better doping program.

As you improve your cadence will naturally go up, whether anyone thinks cadence is important or not.

Seems to me you've already figured out what you should be doing: you should be choosing the cadence and effort level that best lets you achieve your goals. If that means raising your cadence there's no reason to do otherwise. However, it's best for the moment not to get into the "why" of it: your "cardio vs. muscular reserves" contrast isn't quite it.

This is what the research appears to show. This is why telling newbies who can only put out low levels of power to spin faster is premature. Their bodies ain't ready for it yet. A lot of newbies are averaging 2 watts/kg. There's no reason they should be mimicking the cadences of pro riders who put out 6 watts/kg, let alone the cadence of the hour record holders. That was pretty amusing, though.

I'm going to just simply say you are wrong.

Take your fish and go have dinner.

Fact is that many people won't push themselves. Getting someone to up their cadence will get them to do just that. As they work to get more comfortable with the higher cadence, they are getting stronger. You are so hell bent on saying that cadence is the result of work that you can't see that cadence can get people to do the work. Seriously, you are so determined to win the chicken or egg argument that you can't understand that people just want something to eat. And it ain't fish.

as seen on the last few pages of posts, having cadence on your computer allows you to brag or argue about your number on forums like this.

Power and knee issues aside, it can also help you improve your stroke.

Even if you aren't strong enough to ruin your joints, you still have a crap stroke if you're slowly mashing on the flats.

I was riding round the park today. Every useless slow poke had a low cadence. proof. the end.

You don't even read the posts you are arguing against. I didn't mention efficiency or power or "perceived effort".

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."

http://www.cptips.com/knee.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2011683

http://www.wellnessletter.com/html/f...06Cycling.html

http://100milebike.com/2010/01/cycli...tion-and-cure/

I should qualify this slander. The slow cadence idiots were the ones who charge past making a big effort and try to look really intense. Within a few hundred yards, they are all blown out and reeled in by the real cyclists who keep a consistent and relentless pace going.

Dude, do you also tell babies to stop crawling on all fours and that their stride length should be the same as Morceli and El Guerrouj? You know, to get them to push themselves cuz you think babies won't do that without your help?

As for the chicken or egg argument, you haven't presented any evidence for an egg. The best you can do is point at Lance or the hour record, wave your arms, and argue that those things apply to newbies. Dude, all of the evidence points at the chicken. Your egg? It's herring roe.

But I'm completely comfortable with you thinking I'm wrong. I'm also comfortable with laughing at you guys for picking a fight and then showing up not with guns, not with knives, but with spoons.