Riding alone: cadence or mph?
 

I'm fairly new to cycling (2 years), and I usually ride alone. My LBS suggested a good cadence would be between 90-100. I normally maintain 90rpm during my rides, but recently began questioning whether it's better to train by mph instead. ? Obviously 90rpm in one gear may be significantly faster then 90 rpm in another gear. So I'm curious as to what others go by when pacing themselves. Is training by mph better then cadence?

All info is greatly appreciated.:thumb:


Current ride: Trek 2.3

heart rate or power are better indicators to gauge performance. i would say try keeping a cadence that feels natural for you anywhere between 70-100rpm and keep your heart rate steady lets say ~120 for easy rides. you are going to need to drop cadence and speeds at times according to exhaustion and terrain to keep your heart rate in somewhat constant.

Roca is correct. And it is better to run your heart rate a bit higher and not burn out your legs and build up lactic acid. Your heart as a muscle does not build up lactic acid. Getting your aerobic fitness strong is what you want to go for. Once there and with some strength, then you can push bigger gears.

Hammering all the time will burn you out. If you're training several days each week, try spending one or two of those days working on your technique instead of your intensity. Cadence meters are one way to work on your pedaling smoothness.

Depends on what you are training for.

They're equally poor metrics for guiding your training. Speed is affected by wind and cadence doesn't mean much unless it's coupled with power. It would be better to use power, relative perceived exertion (RPE) or HR to guide your efforts.

None of the above, as roca indicated...if you want to maximize your training it's best to go by power. Heart Rate is almost as good, IF you use it correctly. If you don't want to use either, you can go by RPE (rate of perceived exertion) which can also be as good as the first two.

I say just ride and have fun. Agree to keep your cadence where it is optimal, which is somewhere between 80 and 100.

p.s. I just saw greg's answer above which is essentially what I wrote...great minds think alike. :innocent:

^^^This--cause I wonna have a great mind too...:thumb:

Time and effort (however you can measure effort).

Nope.

MPH are worthless.

Riding 18 MPH up a 0.3% false flat could take a hypothetical 200 pound bike/rider combination with .004Crr, .4 m^2 Sd, and .760 Cd 145W which is 41% more effort than heading down it at the same speed which requires just 103W.

Other minor differences like light wind can have similar effects.

On top of that you have how MPH are measured. With traffic induced starts and stops that you don't measure you're fresher when riding than you otherwise be. With those stops your average is necessarily lower and not comparable to situations which weren't otherwise identical.

Cadence alone is pretty useless too. You may be able to put forth the same effort at 80, 90, or 100 RPM although it may feel harder (so you back off, and get less of a work out) or easier and that difference in perception doesn't mean that you're getting a better or worse workout.

Cadence is something interesting to observe but generally isn't enough by itself to define a work-out (working on spinning faster would be a fine idea if you can't spin fast enough to develop maximum power (at least 120 RPM may be a good number for sprinting) or are forced to trade a useful cog in the middle of your cassette for a tiny small cog)

You might note useful things like being able to ride hard intervals on consecutive days at a higher or lower cadence than you'd otherwise choose although otherwise things like freshness are the same.

Power which measures how hard you're exerting yourself works well.

Heart rate compared to a quantified hard aerobic effort (usually lactate threshold where the most practical approximation is the average heart rate over the last 20 minutes of an all-out 30 minute effort; although Carmichael has a training system which sets zones about a logistically and psychologically easier pair of 8 minute time trials) is the usable proxy people relied on before power meters became affordable for hobbyists.

Before heart rate monitors became inexpensive people relied on perceived effort although that fails when it feels too hard because you're tired but could dig deeper and when it feels hard because it is hard and you can't.

If you've spent $1000, $2000, or more on your bike a few dollars on a training book and $100+ on electronics are relatively small purchases.

Depends on how committed you are to the training to get the results you want. I simply train for general health, training for speed or endurance means two different things.

Math and heart rate aside - as I don't bother with them - I mix it up. I try for a comfortable cadence for a while and then drop it a gear or two and spin for a while to increase my heart rate. This of course ignores terrain and stops, I use whatever gear and cadence I need to get past these.

Neither-Heart rate is what I follow.

I never knew it was so complicated....

Another vote for effort and time.

I recently got a computer with cadence and seem to be in the high 60's. By the posts on here I should be spinning in a lower gear? Most of my rides average 14.5-16 mph. I feel as if I'm going to ride harder I should increase the cadence, not lower the gears. I have a hard time riding (or swimming, or anything) hard/fast to total exhaustion. I am much better at maintaining over distance.

Maybe it's time for a heart monitor?

I ride in the highest gear that allows me to maintain my desired cadence at a effort sustainable for the desired distance. MPH is a byproduct.

Really, it is only as complicated as you make it.

".. cadence or mph .."

Neither. As mentioned, effort & time is what's important. Most people find 90-100 to be the most efficient, and it tends to come naturally with time. You can simply track by perceived effort until/if you decide to get more accurate, but it's not neccessary.

"Rode hard for 1.5 hours" ...... "2 hours moderate, with a few sprints"

'1 hour easy ride after the hammerfest yesterday" ..... "4 hour tempo ride" ...

You can decide how much extra detail you want to log about terrain, effort, how you felt etc .......
If you are training for racing, and specific types of events, then you might want to get more focused. If you're riding for fun & general fitness, then do what you want.

Not if you need to fit riding in with other things like working an family time.

Consider my hypothetical 200 pound bike + rider combination.

With a 250W threshold power a 95% effort for him is 237W and 23 MPH on dead-flat ground.

At a 15 MPH all-day endurance pace he's barely turning the pedals over at 80W which is a 32% effort.

To rack up the same training stress and endurance capacity he'd net from a 3x20 threshold workout totaling 1.5 hours with a warm-up, rest between intervals, and a little time to let the sweat evaporate riding at that pace he'd need to spend 9:15 riding 138 miles.

Staying fresh enough for that sort of work-out might mean you do it two days a week for a 3 hour total.

3 hours + 4-6 hours of other riding gets you to 7-9 hours which is _MUCH_ easier to fit into your weekly schedule than 18.5 hours of long endurance rides or the 22.5-24.5 hours you'd need to reach the same fitness level as the higher intensity plan.

While there's no substitute for hours on the bike when it comes to discovering fit issues that don't show up immediately, there's a _lot_ of latitude in using more effort to replace more time.

This is excellent advice for getting to the next stage in cycling. Try alternating hard (fast or long) days with easy days. Slowly increase your weekly mileage. A good rule is no more than 10 percent more than the previous week. Over time you'll be faster and stronger. If you still want to improve, try some training programs with a heart rate monitor and/or a power meter.

Get out and ride. Play with your data the way you want to. Use the advice of people on here, but don't limit yourself to their advice as some people come up with more clever ways to more effectively gauge their workout patterns than others.

Completely agree with this