# Is cadence data useful?



## jeltz (2 Dec 2009)

I cycle for fitness and fun, not competition. Would knowing my cadence help my general cycling and fitness levels or is it just used to achieve the best possible efficiency, thus a competitive advantage.


----------



## dodgy (2 Dec 2009)

I can only tell you my experience of having access to cadence data.

Riding along, I glance down and see my cadence and I think "interesting" and carry on.

The battery went on my wireless cadence and I didn't bother replacing it.

If you're training scientifically it obviously has uses, but I bet most cyclists haven't changed the way they pedal by seeing their cadence.


----------



## PK99 (2 Dec 2009)

jeltz said:


> I cycle for fitness and fun, not competition. Would knowing my cadence help my general cycling and fitness levels or is it just used to achieve the best possible efficiency, thus a competitive advantage.



I'm in the same position, my reading tells me:

Cycling for fun & fitness: count your own cadence using your 'puter readout. count for 15 sec and x 4 = good enough estimate. Check the mags and web for advice

Competitive = want to maximize biodynamic efficiency = measure accurately and train in different cadence zones vs effort

Anal but not comptetitive = see competitive

More money than you know what to do with = Buy the Garmin 705 with all the optional bells and whistles and use 5% of it capability!!


----------



## Crackle (2 Dec 2009)

I found it useful: I have tendency to grind when I should really change gear. Since I bought a cadence computer I've adjusted my style, especially on hills. The result is I seem to be able to spread my effort more evenly over the ride, however many people don't find the same and you do soon know from feel what you are doing cadence wise.


----------



## Bill Gates (2 Dec 2009)

Old skool riders (of which I'm one) believe that a high cadence of +100 rpm tends to deliver a greater efficiency for higher outputs of power and therefore speed. Interval training @ 100/110 @ high speeds is what is required to develop this efficiency. If you train on a turbo then sprinting 30 seconds @140 rpm, then rest 30 seconds in sets of 5 is excellent training for VO2max. Full effort can only be sustained for approx 20 seconds so 30 seconds will stretch your limits.

On the other hand it is very difficult to maintain the concentration required over lengths of time. I found that once the distance became more than 10 miles say 25 miles then my cadence would drop to 95 rpm and for 50 miles to around 90 rpm.

Mentally it is easier to keep a higher gear turning slowly @ 90 rpm, than a lower gear turning @ +100 rpm at the same speed. Going up a drag or a climb then a cadence of 70/80 rpm will be more appropriate depending on the steepness of the incline.

Learning the skills to ride at a high cadence of say 110 rpm is not an overnight thing, It will take 2/3 seasons of spinning but IMO is well worth the time spent. Looking at the average cadence recorded on your computer at the end of a ride does not give the full picture. If you are interested in cadence then a computer with a cadence sensor will be worth getting.


----------



## gavintc (2 Dec 2009)

It has helped to change my riding style. I was a grinder and am my now a less often grinder.


----------



## Fab Foodie (2 Dec 2009)

IIRC, the recent evidence suggests that people naturally ride at the cadence that is most suitable for them, and generally that's a good thing.
Buy a cadence meter, it'll tell you how fast you're pedalling.

@Bill Gates, Old Skool is relative, but spinning is a relatively recent thing, Old-Skool turned big gears and 'got the miles in' not your namby-pamby intervals malarky!


----------



## Garz (2 Dec 2009)

dodgy said:


> Riding along, I glance down and see my cadence and I think "interesting" and carry on.
> 
> The battery went on my wireless cadence and I didn't bother replacing it.
> 
> If you're training scientifically it obviously has uses, but I bet most cyclists haven't changed the way they pedal by seeing their cadence.



This is quite true, I admit even though I look at my cadence its not essential. I have found it useful for when Im spinning too fast 100+ it reminds me I should change gear.

Other use I found was over a long gradual hill by going up it with higher cadence I felt fresher at the top and seemed to get up it faster. This however doesn't apply to proper steep hills where I think blasting up as best you can is the fastest way.

On long rides I find dropping cadence for grinding is not a good idea so all in all it has helped its just not groundbreaking as some would have you believe.


----------



## AlanW (2 Dec 2009)

Personally I find that it is of little use while riding on the road, more a case of being interesting maybe?

Its just another cable to wrap around your frame and something else to break. 

However, for turbo training and the more specific programmes it is really useful


----------



## Bill Gates (2 Dec 2009)

Fab Foodie said:


> IIRC, the recent evidence suggests that people naturally ride at the cadence that is most suitable for them, and generally that's a good thing.
> Buy a cadence meter, it'll tell you how fast you're pedalling.
> 
> @Bill Gates, Old Skool is relative, *but spinning is a relatively recent thing, *Old-Skool turned big gears and 'got the miles in' not your namby-pamby intervals malarky!



How recent is recent?

Early season TT's 30 years ago included restricted gear events. I remember the acclaim that Tony Doyle received for doing a 25 mile TT on a 72 " gear in 56 minutes something with an average cadence in the region of 124 rpm. Later he stated that more people congratulated him on that than winning the world professional pursuit championship. Must have been something like 1978 or so.

OK there were some big gear grinders in those days but there also existed a hardcore of purists ( a la Jacque Anquetil), who believed in the art of pedalling, and this is going back many years before I started. Interval training is as old as cycling itself. Nothing new or namby pamby about them. And getting the miles in was and is an essential part of early season preparation. So rather than one or the other it's both that apply.

Oh and by the way, this spinning thing, I know because I was there. Were you?


----------



## I am Spartacus (3 Dec 2009)

dangerous to state anything in this world is 'new'....
if I may go back 72 years...? far enough back for 'old skool silliness? ... dont rope me into remembering the occasion either.. 

Frans Slaats gains the world hour record with a cadence of ave. 103

and subsequent holders very very very similar....

if the OP decides that his cadence is something he can work on, then all power to him


----------



## GrasB (3 Dec 2009)

Is cadence data useful? yes. Is it necessary? no, but it can be used to help you cycle more efficiently. I use the real time cadence a lot, if I'm coming upto a long incline I'll look at my cadence, if it's say 95 I'll change down a gear nice n' early if it's up around 110 I'll leave it. Getting into the gear early stops you changing down under high loads, which is good for you & the bike.


----------



## MacB (3 Dec 2009)

Seriously competitive - yes
Trying to change your riding style - possibly
Anything else - nope

GrasB, you made me chuckle there, I'd never considered using a cadence meter to tell me when to change gear


----------



## Bill Gates (3 Dec 2009)

Re my earlier post Tony Doyle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Doyle_(cyclist)

25 miles 56 min 30 secs 72" gear - Average cadence 123.9


----------



## Fab Foodie (3 Dec 2009)

Bill Gates said:


> How recent is recent?
> 
> Early season TT's 30 years ago included restricted gear events. I remember the acclaim that Tony Doyle received for doing a 25 mile TT on a 72 " gear in 56 minutes something with an average cadence in the region of 124 rpm. Later he stated that more people congratulated him on that than winning the world pursuit championship. Must have been something like 1978 or so.
> 
> ...



I probably stand corrected!
There has certainly been (IMO) a resurgance in higher cadence riding since Lance started winning and the mantra seemed to be that you needed to spin to win. I didn't recall this in the early 80's when I started cycling in anger (though not competatively), seemed to recall all the talk was of pushing big gears and being 'economical) Certainly road-bike gearing is on average lower than it used to be which allows for a spinning technique to be used more widely than times gone by.


----------



## Bill Gates (3 Dec 2009)

Fab Foodie said:


> I probably stand corrected!
> There has certainly been (IMO) a resurgance in higher cadence riding since Lance started winning and the mantra seemed to be that you needed to spin to win. I didn't recall this in the early 80's when I started cycling in anger (though not competatively), seemed to recall all the talk was of pushing big gears and being 'economical) Certainly road-bike gearing is on average lower than it used to be which allows for a spinning technique to be used more widely than times gone by.



No problem. I believe that today there are top (English) riders who use massive gears in TT's very successfully. However IMO in the cut and thrust of road racing and track racing they would have difficulty dealing with the changes of pace. 

In a TT they would naturally argue that their method works best and over long distances they may well have a point. IME though for high power high speeds over short distances then high cadence is more efficient. I only started to win open 10 mile TT's once I used the discipline I had gained from pedalling a high cadence in my training into practice.


----------



## GrasB (3 Dec 2009)

MacB said:


> GrasB, you made me chuckle there, I'd never considered using a cadence meter to tell me when to change gear


Think about it though, how many times do you see someone come charging up to an incline, watch the cadence drop then only when they've lost power drop gears only to speed up once they get their cadence in their powerband again?

EDIT: Or to put it another way, cadence is your rev counter, would you sit there in a car with the engine plugging away & the car juddering cause the rpm is to low or would you drop a gear or 2 to keep the engine running smoothly? It's the same thing.


----------



## Crackle (3 Dec 2009)

MacB said:


> S
> GrasB, you made me chuckle there, I'd never considered using a cadence meter to tell me when to change gear



Oh it's not so funny, that's exactly where I found it useful. The temptation is to dig in but in fact if I change down and spin, the perceived effort is less, I'm fresher at the top and the cadence is there dropping slowly to remind me to do exactly that. Fascinating to watch your speed remain constant but your cadence go up and the feeling of heavy legs recede.


----------



## MacB (3 Dec 2009)

come on guys, rev counter, how many of us use a cars rev counter to change gear, we sense the right time. Just the same with a bike, or at least for a lot of us. I can choose to spin or grind, I've tried both at varying times, I don't need a cadence counter for my amateurish efforts. I'm not knocking if it works for you, I just found the thought really funny.

I like toys just as much as the next guy, but we don't all like the same ones.


----------



## jeltz (3 Dec 2009)

The question was because I'm trying to decide which "edge" to buy, thanks everyone your replies have helped a lot


----------



## GrasB (3 Dec 2009)

MacB said:


> come on guys, rev counter, how many of us use a cars rev counter to change gear, *we sense the right time*. Just the same with a bike, or at least for a lot of us. I can choose to spin or grind, I've tried both at varying times, I don't need a cadence counter for my amateurish efforts. I'm not knocking if it works for you, I just found the thought really funny.


Yes if you react to the immediate conditions you can just feel however both in a car & on a bike I'm aiming to be in the correct gear before the conditions require me to change. That means looking at the engine rpm/cadence & speed to make that judgment call.


----------



## MacB (3 Dec 2009)

GrasB said:


> Yes if you react to the immediate conditions you can just feel however both in a car & on a bike I'm aiming to be in the correct gear before the conditions require me to change. That means looking at the engine rpm/cadence & speed to make that judgment call.



I've got it wrong then I just look at the road ahead, oh and I drive an automatic these days


----------



## Garz (3 Dec 2009)

Having these 'tools' at your disposal is just to help maybe correct any bad habits or stubbornness. I hav'nt had to correct my riding much yet say just through cadence, however my work colleague who I ride with would see amazing performance increase if they could refer to it in helping gear selection.

You are part right mac, however some people benefit from the 'toys' others may adapt without!


----------



## Crackle (3 Dec 2009)

MacB is the tractor to our Ferrari's.


----------



## MacB (4 Dec 2009)

Crackle said:


> MacB is the tractor to our Ferrari's.



wow, steady there boy, I'm nowhere near up to tractor speed yet, I gots to takes me time you see


----------



## Bill Gates (4 Dec 2009)

I can see the logic of consulting the cadence read out before changing gear on a climb if you are training to discipline yourself to keeping the cadence up to a predetermined level say 100 rpm. But in terms of what works best for optimum speed and improving the CV system you need to work the leg muscles.

Unless the terrain is pan flat you will have parts of the ride that will be uphill, downhill and level ground. 

Going downhill you can be pedalling a big gear @ +100 rpm and it will appear as though your legs are hardly moving. This is because your body weight is acting positively in your favour and therefore the HR will be lower. It's all about legs, low profile and efficient pedalling technique.

Going on the level then your body weight is neutral and a cadence of 100 rpm in a middle gear @ moderate effort is taxing and your HR reflects this at a higher figure. Core strength and pedalling effciency transmitting power through to propelling the bike forward.

Going uphill then your body weight impacts negatively and a cadence of 100 rpm is not going to make use of your upper body strength and leverage from arms and legs. To make the best use of what you've got then the cadence needs to drop to 60/70/80/85/90 depending on the steepness of the incline. On a ride sometimes I will try and maintain the same gear on a climb as I did on the approach on the flat and give everything to keep it going. Other times I change gear and just climb. It's all good training.

Just an opinion.


----------



## jimboalee (4 Dec 2009)

The simple test is to get your bike on a track, or a CycleOps Powerbeam turbo ( I'm still thinking of purchasing one of these ).

Start off by riding round for a while to get warmed up.

Then ride at close to LT in a lowish, midrange gear. Note the speed.
Then ride at the *same intensity* in one gear higher. Note the speed.
Continue until you are in top ratio.

Chances are you will not be able to ride as fast in top as in penultimate top, or even two down from top.

This result shows that the higher crank rpm in lower than top is more suited to YOUR muscle structure.

If say, you can ride at 28 mph in penultimate top, but 27.5 mph in top, the cadence in penultimate top is better for you.
Two gears down from top might get you along even faster, 28.2 mph !!


PS, my climbing cadence drops to 50/55/60 rpm... But that's *ME*


----------



## Bill Gates (4 Dec 2009)

jimboalee said:


> PS, my climbing cadence drops to 50/55/60 rpm... But that's *ME*




I tend to agree

Just come back from a short ride and made a point of reading my cadence on a climb (which I don't normallydo), and saw that it was 67 rpm. TBH it felt perfectly comfortable and controlled so I would like to amend my earlier post to read 60/70/80/90 rpm depending on the steepness of the incline.


----------



## Crackle (4 Dec 2009)

I'd agree about it falling on hills and over 15% and I tend not to care anyway but on longer lower inclines I do pay attention to it. So for instance, once upon a time I may not have changed gear on say, a long steady 6% incline and would have been doing say 45/50rpm in the same gear, whereas now i would change down and aim for 65/70. The same is true for changing road conditions, wind etc.. Of course as you get stronger you don't need to change as much and occasionally you need to dig in but less so as a leisure cyclist, which I am. I might take a different view if I was training to race or TT.


----------



## jimboalee (4 Dec 2009)

I've had another think about my low climbing cadence.

It is probably the result of afternoon after afternoon carrying a bag of newspapers up the stairs in a block of flats. Approx 120 steps per minute.

When I went out on my bike ( about 35 years ago and the same years as being a newspaper boy ) my hill climbing cadence naturally mimicked the steps per minute of my stair climbing.

I haven't shaken this tendency in 35 years.


----------



## lukesdad (4 Dec 2009)

Lot of interesting stuff here,and Im not going to cotradict my usual adversaries here,but cadence is personal preference. It obviously affects aspects in your riding tech nique and performance, something else that may influence your pedalling speed could be stature, Im 5,7" and a shade under 10 stone bet you can t guess at what end I ride at. And Bill your forte isn t exactly climbing by your own admission. If you want to climb consistently well the first thing you ve got to do is lose those Kilos.


----------



## Bill Gates (4 Dec 2009)

lukesdad said:


> Lot of interesting stuff here,and Im not going to cotradict my usual adversaries here,but cadence is personal preference. It obviously affects aspects in your riding tech nique and performance, something else that may influence your pedalling speed could be stature, Im 5,7" and a shade under 10 stone bet you can t guess at what end I ride at. And Bill your forte isn t exactly climbing by your own admission. I*f you want to climb consistently well the first thing you ve got to do is lose those Kilos.*



What's the second thing?


----------



## lukesdad (4 Dec 2009)

Climb lots of hills!


----------



## Bill Gates (5 Dec 2009)

lukesdad said:


> Lot of interesting stuff here,and Im not going to cotradict my usual adversaries here,but cadence is personal preference. It obviously affects aspects in your riding tech nique and performance, something else that may influence your pedalling speed could be stature, Im 5,7" and a shade under 10 stone bet you can t guess at what end I ride at. *And Bill your forte isn t exactly climbing by your own admission. If you want to climb consistently well the first thing you ve got to do is lose those Kilos.*



Where on earth did you get the idea that climbing isn't my forte and what is more by my own admission? I am an excellent climber by any standards and phenomenal considering my medical hsitory.


----------



## montage (5 Dec 2009)

jimboalee said:


> I've had another think about my low climbing cadence.
> 
> It is probably the result of afternoon after afternoon carrying a bag of newspapers up the stairs in a block of flats. Approx 120 steps per minute.
> 
> ...



I find it easier to jog quickly up the stairs, so maybe there is something in that.

I believe in cadence training, especially if looking to do races. Always nice to mix up the cadences on a long ride. Naturally, when "going for it" I sit at 100-110rpm, but occassionally drop down to 70-80 just to wake the legs up a little.


----------



## lukesdad (5 Dec 2009)

Bill Gates said:


> Where on earth did you get the idea that climbing isn't my forte and what is more by my own admission? I am an excellent climber by any standards and phenomenal considering my medical hsitory.



Re; your post "Really steep hills - Whats the point." If you want to be a good climber thats what you have to do. No amount of simulated interval training or what ever else you want to call it will do it for you. End of story.

Obviously your definition of good climber and mine are somewhat different. 

for example; A recent club hillclimb (bit of a national sport down here) !.9 miles 487ft climbing on a bad surface "8 s" would be reasonable "7 s" would be good Try 6.07 thats climbing!


----------



## jimboalee (5 Dec 2009)

montage said:


> I find it *easier* to jog *quickly up *the stairs, so maybe there is something in that.
> 
> I believe in cadence training, especially if looking to do races. Always nice to mix up the cadences on a long ride. Naturally, when "going for it" I sit at 100-110rpm, but occassionally drop down to 70-80 just to wake the legs up a little.



That is a condradiction of terms.

Maybe it was a sudden exertion of a large effort seeming 'easier' than a long exertion of a lower effort. 

One thing is for sure, the shorter time involved in raising the same mass means MORE effort ( W = J/s ).


----------



## lukesdad (5 Dec 2009)

jimboalee said:


> That is a condradiction of terms.
> 
> Maybe it was a sudden exertion of a large effort seeming 'easier' than a long exertion of a lower effort.
> 
> One thing is for sure, the shorter time involved in raising the same mass means MORE effort ( W = J/s ).



To simple there are to many variables.


----------



## Bill Gates (5 Dec 2009)

lukesdad said:


> Re; your post "Really steep hills - Whats the point." If you want to be a good climber thats what you have to do.* No amount of simulated interval training or what ever else you want to call it will do it for you. End of story.*
> 
> Obviously your definition of good climber and mine are somewhat different.
> 
> for example; A recent club hillclimb (bit of a national sport down here) !.9 miles 487ft climbing on a bad surface "8 s" would be reasonable "7 s" would be good Try 6.07 thats climbing!




So where's this admission that I'm not much of a climber? ........and I don't recall entering into a debate with you about what consitutes a good climber. What the hell are you arguing with me about?

Calm down.


----------



## MacB (5 Dec 2009)

Bill Gates said:


> So where's this admission that I'm not much of a climber? ........and I don't recall entering into a debate with you about what consitutes a good climber. What the hell are you arguing with me about?
> 
> Calm down.



I think Lukesdad climbs like a little girl and Bill Gates climbs like her little sister


----------



## lukesdad (5 Dec 2009)

MacB said:


> I think Lukesdad climbs like a little girl and Bill Gates climbs like her little sister



Get back on that Farnborough road .....Now ... do you hear me!


----------



## Bill Gates (6 Dec 2009)

lukesdad said:


> Re; your post "Really steep hills - Whats the point." If you want to be a good climber thats what you have to do. *No amount of simulated interval training or what ever else you want to call it will do it for you. End of story.*
> 
> Obviously your definition of good climber and mine are somewhat different.
> 
> for example; A recent club hillclimb (bit of a national sport down here) !.9 miles 487ft climbing on a bad surface "8 s" would be reasonable "7 s" would be good Try 6.07 thats climbing!



I don't know what "simulated" interval training is? It's either interval training or it isn't.

............and interval training will do it for it me and and I suspect many others. You must be different.


----------



## Garz (6 Dec 2009)

Now now guys, lets stay civil and stay OT.


----------



## Bill Gates (6 Dec 2009)

lukesdad said:


> Re; your post "Really steep hills - Whats the point." *If you want to be a good climber thats what you have to do. No amount of simulated interval training or what ever else you want to call it will do it for you. End of story.
> *
> Obviously your definition of good climber and mine are somewhat different.
> 
> for example; A recent club hillclimb (bit of a national sport down here) !.9 miles 487ft climbing on a bad surface "8 s" would be reasonable "7 s" would be good Try 6.07 thats climbing!



http://hubpages.com/hub/Hill-Training-Learning-to-Climb-without-Tiring

http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/cycling/interval-training-tips/

http://www.inlandempirecycling.com/Cycling/interval_training.htm

http://www.active.com/cycling/Articles/7-Tips-for-Climbing-to-the-Top.htm


End of story eh?


----------



## jimboalee (6 Dec 2009)

Garz said:


> Now now guys, lets stay civil and stay OT.



McB can second Bill. I'll second Lukesdad. You can be referee.

"Handbags at dawn".


----------



## MacB (6 Dec 2009)

jimboalee said:


> McB can second Bill. I'll second Lukesdad. You can be referee.
> 
> "Handbags at dawn".



as long a 'seconding' only means spectating rather than joining in, you could time my hill climbing with a sundial


----------



## montage (6 Dec 2009)

jimboalee said:


> McB can second Bill. I'll second Lukesdad. You can be referee.
> 
> "Handbags at dawn".




Hills before Breakfast


----------



## Bill Gates (9 Feb 2010)

Bill Gates said:


> Old skool riders (of which I'm one) believe that a high cadence of +100 rpm tends to deliver a greater efficiency for higher outputs of power and therefore speed.



Just come across a couple of reports of scientific studies done on the effect of different levels of cadence at different power outputs for non-experienced and experienced cyclists. 

http://www2.bsn.de/Cycling/articles/cadence.html

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0965.htm

Seems to bear out my own experiences.


----------



## jimboalee (9 Feb 2010)

Bill Gates said:


> Just come across a couple of reports of scientific studies done on the effect of different levels of cadence at different power outputs for non-experienced and experienced cyclists.
> 
> http://www2.bsn.de/Cycling/articles/cadence.html
> 
> ...



Excellent post Bill.

In a nutshell.
Smaller pedal forces but more of them per time = less tiring than large forces less often.

But, and it's a BIG but.
For the same power demand, the sweat in your shorts is the same, so a faster leg movement increases frictional heat = saddle sore sooner


----------

