Cadence too high?
 

I recently put on a cadence bike computer on my bike and the results are higher than I expected. I know the optimum cadence rage is 90-100 rpm, but I saw that I consistently spin between 110-120 rpm. When I do this, I don't feel uncomfortable and I don't feel as if I'm bouncing around in the saddle. I was wondering if there was any advantage to shifting to a larger gear and dropping my cadence down to the 90-100 range, or is cadence just like anything else in cycling..a personal preference?

Form what I've read, averaging (or at least spending considerable amounts of time) between 110-120 is completely reasonable. A lot of people will say that what you're doing is more efficient and easier on your knees than a lower cadence. If your respiratory system was topping out and your muscles weren't being stressed at all, you might want to shift up to balance those things out, but I'll guess that is not the case.

Besides looking ridiculous and not going very fast, no there's nothing wrong with pedaling at an unnecessarily high cadence.

Perhaps for some riders. For me, it's 85-95. Others are lower and others are higher. Have you tried other ranges to see if there is a difference?

"I'm not losing. I'm just enjoying the race course longer."

This thread combined with my experience on a gym bike yesterday made me understand the importance of cadence: when you're cycling at lower cadence, you can still build a lot of muscle strength, but your cardiovascular system is going to be lagging. It is only when you're maintaining high cadence (beyond 90 RPM) that you are getting aerobic workout. Starting on my next ride, I am going to use a lot more lower gears and start working out my cardio. This also makes perfect sense why lower cadence can be very tough on knees (insight from another recent thread), hence it must be a requirement for healthy knees to ride with a lot of high cadence and lower resistance. Hills will provide the needed workout for strength building even if you try to maintain high cadence since often even the highest gear isn't enough to achieve that.

As an aside, I don't understand why valuable information like this is not readily available on a sticky in this forum. While I like this forum, I am beginning to see its terrible lacks. We have some of the lamest threads around here started by guys like pcad. We also have a bunch of stickies that are absolutely useless at best. Even the sticky created for newbies contains barely any useful information (yes, I am talking to you, Tom). By the time beginners like me discover important information like this, assuming they have the perseverance to read a lot of different threads instead of posting too much about nothing, they might make mistakes like stressing out their knees too much (what I believe I have done), crashing, quitting, etc, etc. Disappointing.

well, cadence and knee pain is a topic that is covered regularly and not just in road forum.
pretty soon you'll read that you need to mix low impact (cycling) and high impact (jogging) exercises, otherwise you will get frail leg bones that will snap like twigs. etc. etc.

basically, there is a whole ton of information that can be read up on, and it's not for the faint of heart. no pun intended.
also, also, any medical advice, given by the forum and not members, can open up the can of liability. There are a lot of idiots out there and there are also smart people who will bend things around to build up a case where they can get money from advice that was there for the best of intentions.

Well, I picked up cycling because my marathon prep had started a dull pain in one of my knees. After starting cycling, it went away. But now, after some heavy training, it's back again. I am eventually going to run again, but I am using my cycling time to heal. This is especially why I needed to stick to higher cadence.

Sure, there is a lot of information, but I'm talking about the very basics here. It's not really medical advice either. Just some factual information that every beginner should read.

Excelsius, once you put a select few on your ignore list, the forum gets a bit more bearable. Also, the roadbikereview website forums seem to be a bit more serious if you're looking for info with less fluff. I end up going back and forth between both depending on if I want to kill time, or learn something new.

Combined with being unable to stop, it is called riding a fixie.

Check out the commentary in this vid regarding high vs. low cadence. Apparently the higher cadence isn't so bad. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOQflZqzn_U

There was an article with the link posted here a few months back that posted an experiment with competitive cyclists regarding cadence.
The results of this study demonstrated an optimum cadence of 80 for both power and endurance. Lance and others might disagree and I can't recall how sound the study was but it seemed to state too high a cadence lacked efficiency. I would try to find it for you but am in a rush here to get to work.
Like many things, a very personal topic, each has their own comfort area (for me 85-90).

This is a pretty good introdution to cadence.

I ride fixed (50x15) for my (flat) commute. Sometimes it's too high a cadence, sometimes too low. It's always one of those, so I use that to add some variety to my rides and hopefully gain some benefits from each different style for when I jump on the road bike. Seems to work for me so far.

I think the key problems are (1) genetic variation and (2) a discrepancy between mechanical and bio-mechanical efficiency. It is my understanding that the cadence which is most mechanically efficient is too low in bio-mechanical terms. First, the torque involved if one pedaled at the highest possible mechanical efficiency would be killer on the knees (as has been noted). The other is that higher cadences place a greater burden on the cardiovascular system, whereas lower cadences place a greater burden on the muscles - one keeps breathing, but there is a limited amount of glycogen in one's muscles, and it cannot be replenished as fast as it can be burned.

If you can ride his cadence and push his gears, you too can become a multimillionaire.

Same here.

Sorry but that's just flat out wrong. There's a few pro's who have cadences down in the 50-60 range and do well enough to be a pro. There's plenty of people here who will grind out a mountain pass at 50-60 rpm for an hour as well. Don't think that 90RPM is some magical number, it's not. It's just the 'typical' range where the average person is most efficient. It's not the aerobic threshold, nor is it a set number for everyone.

To the OP: If you're comfortable spinning at 110rpm then spin at 110rpm. You might want to experiment with some of your 1-2 hour rides and see how you feel and if you're any faster spinning at 90-100rpm if you're worried about it. In general the faster you spin the more emphasis you put on your cardio vs leg strength. Which is probably why you can see a few of these pro bike riders with twiggy legs (and arms/chest for that matter) as they're just cardio/endurance monsters.

I rode professionally. I ride, generally, at about 85% of my maximum sustainable heart rate. That's aerobic. I ride at about 85rpms. I've been doing that since I began racing at age 9. I still ride that cadence today, for fun and fitness. That cadence also applied to the days when I had five rear gears.

As far as the rest, you could start your own forum. But, honestly, I see no difference between here and what I see in the bike shop regarding "research" and misinformation. A few of us stick around every now and then to try to correct some of the things that get posted that are flat out incorrect.

more power to ya if you can do that. ricer.

I usually spin at 100 rpm. Sometimes I experiment with spinning at 120 rpm just to work on pedal stroke efficiency, keeping myself from bouncing around in my seat. Other times, I shift up and turn a high gear at 80 rpm to build strength.

But 100 rpm is my optimum. Helps me last on longer rides.

I should have said "about 90 RPM." Obviously, physiological and training level differences can vary this number. If you have 89RPM, that doesn't suddenly become outside of the range. The point about high cadence still remains. Even if there are pros who are in a much lower cadence bracket, it doesn't mean that they don't train at least sometimes with higher cadence than the one on their race day.

not to give the typical response as seen on these forums but there is a search feature... so calm down and if you dont like the community, no one is forcing you to be here

Well said.

I hate to say it, but figuring out the optimum cadence thing while riding a gym bike is much different than figuring it out after years of riding. My optimum cadence is the 80 - 90 range. If I would go by Excelsius's advice I would not enjoy cycling nearly as much as I do now. Like so many other things in this sport cadence is a personal thing. Making a sticky about it would be pointless.

:thumb:

I think its all very personal, nobody's really wrong and nobody's really right and people will always have a different opinion.
I think its about being smart and realistic about your own ability's and limitations and taking in other peoples advice and experience and learning what works best for you.