"I love me some herring"

No one picked a fight but you. You came in here and started your fish stories. People like you always do the same thing. Pick a specific point and hammer on it. You can be as right as you want in your mind. The fact is, I don't have to prove you wrong. I, as well as many others on here, understand the basic concept of cadence and how monitoring it can improve one's ability. Telling anyone, new or old, to use a cadence in a 80-100 range will more likely than not be a safe generalization that will put a person at an ideal cadence. The fact that you have an issue with that, that you would go to so much effort to somehow show that that COULD be wrong for a specific person speaks volumes about you.

it's the interwebz, where we can waste time playing anonymous tough guys arguing over trivial points. some really do relish the feeling of vanquishing others, possibly because they can't vanquish opponents anywhere else. pretty much like the guy who dials it up to 400W to drop people who don't even know there's a race going on

Yeah, I know.... but some times....

Wait a second. I (obviously) don't mind if you think I'm wrong but I don't want you to think that I don't do due diligence or that I didn't read your post.

First, I know you didn't mention power or perceived effort. That's part of the problem: y'all think that cadence is an isolated independent variable but, as long as we ride on real roads on real terrain in real weather conditions and we're trying to get a ride in and get home before dark, cadence should be viewed in the context of power and/or perceived effort. Y'all seem to think you can sit in front of your computers and tell a newbie that his cadence is wrong, without actually riding with him on those real roads on real terrain. I don't. Nor am I saying that newbies can't benefit from wise advice. I'm just saying telling a newbie he should be riding at X rpm doesn't fall into that category.

Second, I swear that I absolutely read your post and saw the links you gave. I distinctly recall snorting when I read it.

Hope this clears things up.

Coke?

It's taking you a pretty long time finding the number of hour records that were set at 95-100 rpm. Must be having problems counting up to zero.

Still working on hammering your point to win on the web.... By the way, how many average Joes are trying to set the hour record? Dude, the point you keep hammering totally missed the the question of the OP.

The further you ride, the bigger difference this makes.

Even relative beginners are perfectly capable of riding 100 miles, though most are unaware they can do this. Newbies pushing too hard at 50 RPMs are guaranteed to burn out early.

I'll give it to you, you answered the OP's question. That's all he needed to know, this is what the cadence function on the computer does. It gives a readout so he can judge according to his ability, terrain, etc. what cadence is comfortable. It's just a measurement tool. That's what I use it for, so I guess it's a training tool, too. Everything else is just fun stuff to argue about in the internet.

when climbing lance on the pedals. push down pull up.really fast

Dude should get a Powertap, obviously. No one here is saying it's an "isolated independent variable".

Hmm, I did't say his cadence is wrong. No one knows what his cadence is!

You provided no indication that you read it.

Why are your references from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed valid but mine from the same source not?

Many, many sources link a higher cadence to less incidence of knee strain. Why are they all wrong? You don't say!

I am with R Chung on this.

However I think most of you who are "piling on" haven't read his words carefully.

A beginner should not focus on the numbers. JRA

damn right. i never read long well thought out and argued posts. i just look for the fights and dive in. i think in this thread i have said cadence is meaningless and i have said it is important.

Way to be decisive.

And why should a beginner not focus on numbers? It's well established that a good cadence is in the 80-100 range. How is it not a good thing to make that a goal starting out? It's where they will end up, why not know that up front and work at it from day one? It's not like anyone on here is saying that a person HAS to be at 92, as R Chung seems to suggest, though I am very guilty of not reading fully what he wrote, as it is so boring.

The OP asked about using cadence.
The majority of people said it is a tool that can be used with generalizations.
R Chung came in and said cadence is a red herring.
I'll choose to go with the idea that cadence is a tool that can be used to get stronger, and not just dismiss it.

This thread is destined for greatness.

Boring, yes. But he's right.

It's a tool to teach you to pedal faster, but you won't necessarily go any faster.

No Grumpy, I went back a read his first post. I can't agree at all.

In the first part I highlighted, he is saying cadence has no value to anyone.

In the second part, he is saying ride at where it feels best for you. That isn't strong advice. If Joe likes mashing at a cadence of 50, he is most likely going to have issues with his legs later in life. What IS going to be most comfortable will most likely to be in a range of 80 to 100. Joe isn't ever going to know that if he thinks 50 feels right.

Again, the OP asked what cadence helps with. He asked this as he now has the ability to monitor it. Regardless of what his cadence will end up being, he now has the ability to monitor it to work at finding his ideal cadence.

I think there's a difference. If your goal is to ride slowly for a few hours, then cadence isn't important as long as it's over 60. But if you want speed, your cadence better be over 85 or you'll get dropped/passed a lot.

We are just ONE really good metaphor away from explaining why this is flawed logic.

Someone please step up.

I didn't say it was logic. I'm just describing what I see on my rides.

I'm just tickled pink that I'm unique. I decided to up my cadence to be consistently around 90, and I am much stronger this year. Anyone can say what they want about why I am stronger, it only matters what I believe. Too bad this won't work for others though.

Not sure I can manage a metaphor, but it seems pretty obvious that RChung is right about the fundamentals, and that it makes no sense to tell a new rider to aim for a particular cadence. Cadence is a function of power and resistance; paddling along like a hamster in too low a gear isn't going to make you fast, it isn't even going to build much strength; it's just going to exhaust and discourage. By all means encourage new riders to avoid using too high a gear (hard work, bad for the knees etc) and encourage them to use the gears to maximise their speed for a given amount of effort, but their achieving an efficient (and probably faster) cadence will be a consequence, not a cause, of their doing these things and becoming stronger riders.

That's not what the pros say. They say that, while a faster cadence will make people feel slower, it will increase their speed as they get comfortable with the higher cadence.

What you are saying is that, because one results from the other, you can't use the other to create a result. The pros disagree.