|
You've got x amount of stuff to move in y amount of time. If you move all the stuff in just a couple of trips, each trip takes a lot of effort. If you make more trips, each one takes less effort. Similarly, if you're going a given speed, each pedal stroke takes more effort at a slower cadence than at a faster one.
Your muscles rely on nutrients and oxygen from the bloodstream in order to do work. In order to supply the nutrients and oxygen, your cardiovascular system has to work harder/faster to deliver them to the muscles at a higher cadence. That's what's meant by transferring the effort from your leg muscles to your C-V system. The reason higher cadence works is that your C-V system is naturally adapted to doing this. The balance between them is an individual thing - as pointed out above, some cyclists work better at slower cadences, some at higher. If you've got a heart rate meter, you can demonstrate this to yourself. Get into a gear that has almost no resistance, and pedal at a high cadence (~110-120 rpm) for two minutes and watch what happens to your heart rate. It'll spike, even though your legs aren't putting out much effort. When I do interval workouts, I'll do this for a minute and then for two minutes as part of my warmup. FWIW, my normal cadence is ~90 rpm. |
I want my heart rate up for a good workout so 90+. Me and LA have nothing in common.
|
Originally Posted by on the path
(Post 12942296)
???
Categorically speaking, the heart/lungs are only there to provide fuel for the legs and other necessary muscle groups. I don't disagree that the cardio/pulmonary system has capacity for use and recovery. The legs depend on the cardio/pulmonary system, and having a good functioning capacity of the latter is important, but there isn't the relationship one being able to partially replace the other that you suggest. |
Knees.
|
Originally Posted by Runner 1
(Post 12942338)
The thing most people don't mention is that when you spin at higher cadence in the same gear as your lower cadence, it puts MORE strain on your knees. The point is to be going the same speed in a lower gear.
|
I would think a fixed gear would not be the best way to train for a certain cadence. The whole point of putting gears on a bike is to help the rider find a good cadence in a variety of situations.
|
Originally Posted by Runner 1
(Post 12942338)
The thing most people don't mention is that when you spin at higher cadence in the same gear as your lower cadence, it puts MORE strain on your knees.
|
Originally Posted by muffin man
(Post 12941170)
I was talking with my friend, and the topic of fixed gears came up, and i said the only reason i would get a fixed gear was to improve my cadence.
|
Originally Posted by muffin man
(Post 12941170)
I was talking with my friend, and the topic of fixed gears came up, and i said the only reason i would get a fixed gear was to improve my cadence. He then proceeded to ask me why i would want a higher cadence, and the only thing i could come up with was that ive been hearing it on BF and that means i should try. Do you guys have the real reason?
|
Originally Posted by popeye
(Post 12942076)
(Torque X rpm)/5252 = hp.
|
Originally Posted by clink83
(Post 12946257)
Fixed it for you..
|
|
Originally Posted by mikeb748
(Post 12942125)
Speaking of cadence, does anybody else notice that Thor Huschovd likes lower cadence? I think its style each has their own advantage/disadvantage. I do believe a lower cadence tendency are harder on the joints but it uses/builds quadriceps more. And the above mentioned are its disadvantages, doesnt work on your aerobic as much. I am usually at 83ish personally. When I shoot for 90+, boy does that make a difference.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:16 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.