How is that not suggesting an ideal cadence?

It's all about torque

It took you 5 pages, and that's all you got?

I can't believe this thread is still going.

It is suggesting that there is an ideal cadence for their particular circumstances - strength, terrain, experience, fitness etc - but that it is useless to try to specify an "ideal" cadence in the abstract without knowing these things. So yes, make them aware that new cyclists tend to pedal slower than experienced ones, and that they should expect to operate at higher cadences as they get stronger, but don't tell them "you should be pedaling at c. 90rpm" because if they aren't comfortable doing it, trying to will probably do them more harm than good.

That's the answer

torque is cheap

Pros climb at 5000 ft per hour. I can't do that, either, and trying would mean I never got to the top of the hill. Which is another way of saying, what is appropriate for pros with power to burn may not be the best advice for newbies.

No, but you can bet they know where they want to be cadence wise in that situation. Just as you would for your situation.

Anyone can find an example to show gross differences. The concept is the same.

Umd, I see that you said RChung is right, but going about it wrong in 33. I have read your stuff on here enough to know that you know your ****. Why not explain here.

I just want to point out that, in a lot of ways, this is the crux of the argument going on here. RChung may be correct in saying that a new rider doesn't have the experience to put cadence numbers into context. By the same token, a new rider may not have the experience to know what a proper saddle height is, or a comfortable saddle-to-bar drop or reach is. We all know that what may feel comfortable (or tolerable) for 30 minutes doesn't necessarily feel comfortable three hours later. As another illustration - I recently got a bike fit done by a pro fitter, and he raised my saddle about 2cm, which felt crazy high to me when I first sat on it. Now, a couple hundred miles later, it feels great, much better than my old position - and I'm an experienced rider.

In other words, a new rider doesn't necessarily have the experience to judge what a comfortable cadence is - or more accurately, doesn't have the experience to realize that what seems comfortable initially isn't going to remain comfortable an hour later. Offering a (fairly wide) cadence range of 80-100 rpms is a way of saying "in the accumulated experience of a lot of experienced cyclists, this is a range that works well for a lot of people, give it a try."

After all, when we talk about "comfort," let's be realistic - compared to sitting in a Barcalounger with your feet up, cycling isn't comfortable. As soon a s you choose to get on a bike and go for a ride, you are accepting a certain amount of discomfort inherent in the activity. In part, becoming a more experience cyclist means learning how much discomfort is acceptable or appropriate - x amount of knee pain is okay, x+10 means something is wrong - so for a new rider, some guidelines in terms of "best practices" might be helpful.

- sounddevisor

Let's break this down:

Two riders climbing @ 6w/kg: rider A at 60rpm, rider B at 100rpm who reaches the top first?

...or the more experienced you are, the faster you get for the same discomfort regardless of cadence.

Welcome to BF, where drama is our middle name.

Me either.

Dude, what part of to each their own don't you get?

nice tricky question you posted. i'll play. what's the blood lactate level of each at that effort and what are their lactate level at VO2 max?

No, really, it isn't. Pros - even experienced cyclists without the talent to be pros - can experiment with cadence in this way because they know what they're doing and they have the power to back up their experience. And I'm not saying that training with cadence doesn't have its uses, in fact in another thread I said I thought it was a good idea for varying, and increasing the intensity of, one's workouts. I'm just agreeing with RChung's basic point (which I don't think many in this thread have taken on board) which is that asking a new cyclist to aim for some abstract number, as opposed to experimenting to find what feels comfortable and working on that in the appropriate context, isn't good advice.

It's a tie. Physics is physics, and it doesn't give a s*** how fast your legs are going round, it's interested in how much force you're exerting to lift a given amount of weight.

And where do you think most riders will end up in the end? Say what you want, but most anyone that puts some miles on a bike will end up in the 80-100 range. Certainly those that are stronger riders will be more likely to be there. To me it doesn't matter if you shouldn't use it as an end all. I'm simply saying that most people will get there, why not work toward that from the beginning. Yes, I get that ability plays into it. Yes I get that different situations play into it. A general range is just that, general.

I use cadence and power together. I know my FTP so I choose the gear and cadence to put me in the power zone I should be in for the terrain. Seperately they're only marginally useful. Power trumps cadence, HR and speed. GL

i always ride the same way on a particular route i know well. i keep to the same sort of cadence and when i speeded up, my legs hurt after the ride. so how did cadence help?

Without cadence, you would tip over.

smart ass

The basic idea is that cadence is a result of the important factors of power, torque, and the rotational intertia (I am not a physicist, that may not be the exact proper term).

People often say low cadence is bad for your knees, but it's really that high pedal force (torque) without building up the supporting/stabilizing muscles, liagments, tendons, etc. is the problem.

A low cadence, by itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. If I am just cruising at a nice easy conversational pace, for example, I will be riding at a low power and low cadence. If I am riding tempo, I will be riding at a higher cadence and moderate power. And if I am riding hard, I will be riding a high cadence and high power. In those situations, my pedal force will all be fairly similar.

The bottom line is that I have a comfortable torque range and the cadence falls where it needs to to get me in that range for whatever my power output is at the moment.