Uh, oh Tulex.. you're slipping ground - quick! Over there! Its a red herring!

Are you saying to kept your cadence the same but went faster? If so, I would assume it is helping you to train your legs at a known rhythm.

IF you are saying you went faster in your same gear, your cadence would have told you to shift.

i think that explains why my legs hurt even though i rode at the same cadence. bigger gear same cadence, faster, pain.

But do you know where you want to be for each situation? Isn't watching your cadence for any situation a way to verify that you are where you want to be? If your power tap died on a ride, would you be able to be about where you wanted based on using a known cadence for that situation? I get it's an end result. But when, in general, most people end up in the same range in a given situation, doesn't an end result basically equal a desired result?

I do like fish, I'll give you that.

Silly me, I would work on keeping that cadence and getting stronger. But that's just me.

note to self "Never ask questions in BF"

Didn't you just say "to each his own?" To monitor your cadence for the purposes of changing it if its not in some sort of "idealized" zone is not "to each his own".

I do monitor my cadence for some intervals, it's a quick way to know what the forces are. But the cadence is not the important thing, it's just a side-effect. It's like measuring that a star exists by the gravitational distortion of the light.

The point that is trying to be made is that saying "ride at x cadence" doesn't mean anything unless you have some experience to put that in context.

At least someone learned something from this thread.

How do you get that from what you quoted? I was talking about how he would know his numbers for him and his situation.

I get that. Really I do. But in the same breath, you could have added "which will most likely put you in the 80-100 range, depending on your situation" without changing what you are saying. That's all I'm saying.

Your effort level dictates the cadence. You are always where you want to be, grasshopper.

80 rpms is "high cadence?"

Not at all. He could be amped up and pedaling too fast. A quick glance would tell him that. And if not him, certainly me, with much less experience. I don't have a PT, so I can't measure power. I have a ride I do regularly that I know where I want to be speed and cadence wise starting out. Any variation changes my ride for the negative. I know this watching my heart rate. I don't race, but I now how cadence plays in to how my ride goes.

Back in the late seventies, I rode my Motobecane Grand Record (a real Motobecane) to work, home for lunch, back to work, and home again at the end of the day (2.5 miles each way with mild hills and flats and one moderate hill just before my work place). I did this for 4 years, 5 times a week, along the same road except for the dead of winter. Bicycle computers did not exist and yet I clearly developed an ideal cadence and improved it over this time period. Of course back then, I didn't think of it as cadence; I used the term, "pace" to refer to my peddling. I remember becoming intimately aware of what I had to be doing along the road to be prepared for what was coming next. It was a great feeling.

I used to have this great book called, "Two Wheel Travel". It had a nice discussion of peddling and if I remember right, the ideal RPM back then was one RPM for each heartbeat as a rule of thumb. There is a point where you reach a sort of equilibrium between peddling and cardio. Lots has changed since then with all the gears available now. The book was written with 10 and 12-speed road bikes in mind.

Who said that was high? I said that was the range most people that ride will be in. Where do you get this stuff?

Actually, once you learn to ignore the name calling and such...I've actually learned quite a bit in this thread.

But that's not true. I often do intervals at 100-110 or more

:crickets:

So, one should be aware of cadence because (on 'flat' terrain in 'reasonable' weather):

--------------------------------------------------------------------
'High' gear, 'High' effort, & arguably Low cadence(Less than 80rpm)= 'Bad'

-'Poor' improvement rate for the 'inexperienced' cycling enthusiast.
- Not 'ideal' for relatively longer distance rides.
- Eventual joint damage .
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Lower gear, 'Medium' effort, & 'High' cadence (>80rpm, <110rpm)= 'Awesome'

-'Optimal' improvement rate for the 'inexperienced' enthusiast.
-'Ideal' for 'long' distance riding.
- Bread and Butter for a considerable number of 'professional' cyclist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Am I right so far?

*Braces*

I think Tulex wants validation that high cadence is a sign of, if not power, but high efficiency. Which they are to believe is what the pros do and what beginners should strive for, but is not getting that high efficiency with poor cardio conditioning is not only useless, but downright self defeating... to end in conclusion, that you don't train cardio purely by dumping into a low gear and attempting to haul ass.

/thread

I don't want anything. I just find this whole thing funny. If there was a pole, you would find the majority of people most likely ride in the 80-100 range. Sure they might ride outside of that for certain reasons. But in general, that's where they are. But heaven forbid that you tell people that. You all can twist it to what you want, but there it is.

there is a pole

If most people do already then why are you suggesting they train for it? If you aren't suggesting they train for that cadence range... then what the hell are doing in this thread?