# How many of you use cadence for training ?



## Doyleyburger (2 Aug 2015)

Iv never been a numbers geek when it comes to cycling and never cycled with a cadence sensor or anything as I have always been the type to just get on my bike and ride, simply for the enjoyment of riding for my own pleasure....... never been one for worrying about average speed or getting that KOM on strava. ....Although I must admit iv always been delighted when I manage to get one if I'm feeling particularly strong that day.
I am now however thinking about taking cycling/training a bit more seriously and will be partaking in lots of sportives next year. 
So I'm interested to see how many of you use cadence monitoring for your training and does it work for you ? Have you seen improvements etc ?
I currently use a garmin edge 200 which doesn't a support cadence sensor. 
Thanks


----------



## MickeyBlueEyes (2 Aug 2015)

I don't specifically focus on it but I do know I perform most consistently over a good distance riding between 92-100.


----------



## Big Dave laaa (2 Aug 2015)

I find it helps to monitor it, as the previous poster said if you can keep a reasonably high cadence on long distances you suffer less from muscle fatigue. I used to try and do it by feel but find a cadence sensor does prompt me to change down a gear if I'm flagging.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (2 Aug 2015)

Interesting anecdote. I had cadence on-screen for years then rode for a year or so without it. I've been using cad again most of this year and hardly surprisingly, my averages have barely changed across any ride type.

Extrapolate whatever you desire from that, but the main point should be that any given rider will naturally select their own cadence for a given scenario and will ride to it regardless of numbers on a screen.


----------



## Citius (2 Aug 2015)

^^ As above. Train the effort, not the cadence. Cadence is not a training goal - sustainable power is.


----------



## Cuchilo (2 Aug 2015)

I have cadence on show but never use it . Ive just started using heart rate mainly to see what efforts I give for TT's and to see if I can give more when training .


----------



## ayceejay (2 Aug 2015)

That a _rider will naturally select their own cadence for a given scenario_ is the reason to train with cadence as pedaling faster than your own natural cadence has to be learned. If you think that a higher cadence will improve your performance in any way you will have to train yourself to do it.


----------



## Citius (2 Aug 2015)

ayceejay said:


> That a _rider will naturally select their own cadence for a given scenario_ is the reason to train with cadence as pedaling faster than your own natural cadence has to be learned.



Why will it be beneficial to learn to pedal faster than your naturally-selected cadence?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (2 Aug 2015)

ayceejay said:


> That a _rider will naturally select their own cadence for a given scenario_ is the reason to train with cadence as pedaling faster than your own natural cadence has to be learned. If you think that a higher cadence will improve your performance in any way you will have to train yourself to do it.


As per Citius post above.


----------



## midlife (2 Aug 2015)

People at work use heart rate and power, not heard much talk of cadence....

Shaun


----------



## fossyant (2 Aug 2015)

It's a useful tool to use especially for the average. If you are fiding your average low then you may need to think about increasing it. Average should be roughly between 80 and 100 rpm


----------



## Citius (2 Aug 2015)

fossyant said:


> It's a useful tool to use especially for the average. If you are fiding your average low then you may need to think about increasing it. Average should be roughly between 80 and 100 rpm



Er, why should it?


----------



## ayceejay (2 Aug 2015)

The other part of my post went something like this:
_If you think that a higher cadence will improve your performance in any way_
meaning : If you think that a higher cadence will improve your performance in any way you will have to train yourself to do it. 
I think that puts the onus on the OP rather than me but there has been lot of research and information on the value of a higher cadence 
and if the OP thinks that a higher cadence will improve his performance in any way he will have to train himself to do it and using a gadget to measure 
cadence would be essential.


----------



## windyrider (2 Aug 2015)

Cadence or the speed at which the work is being done ie spinning the pedals x the force ie how hard you press on the pedals = power or watts generated.
Thus spin faster and keep the same force = go faster
press harder on pedals spin same speed = go faster
spin faster and press harder = go fasterer , 

Pedalling in a high gear, with low cadence is a poor way to produce power and is inefficient. Cadences in the 85 to 95 RPM seems to generate the best effective/efficient gains, easier said than done though in my experience. Especially when you try to maintain high cadence whilst going up a steep climb, hard on the cardiovascular system


----------



## Citius (2 Aug 2015)

windyrider said:


> Pedalling in a high gear, with low cadence is a poor way to produce power and is inefficient



Extremes at both ends of the scale are inefficient. There is evidence to suggest that for a given power output, lower cadences are actually more efficient than higher cadences though.


----------



## midlife (2 Aug 2015)

Cadence is simply a measure of revolutions and surely nothing to do with work done, you could be pedalling downhill and doing no work?

Shaun


----------



## Doyleyburger (2 Aug 2015)

Thanks everyone for your input . Think I might invest in a new garmin soon then


----------



## Cuchilo (2 Aug 2015)

Doyleyburger said:


> Thanks everyone for your input . Think I might invest in a new garmin soon then


I may be getting rid of my 500 now I have the 1000


----------



## Citius (2 Aug 2015)

Worth a read. For those that can't be arsed, the general conclusion is that focusing on cadence is irrelevant. http://myworldfromabicycle.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/ideal-cadence-for-competitive-bicycling.html

If you're serious about improving performance, then focus on riding harder for longer.


----------



## ayceejay (2 Aug 2015)

An interesting article with the wrong conclusion being drawn. 
The myth is that there is an ideal cadence that everyone who wants to improve performance should
strive for, in reality it is more likely that an optimal cadence is an individual thing and not a universal
silver bullet. Discovering ones own optimum requires some effort and it is not rocket science to
know that hills and wind will effect this, or to blindly stick to any given cadence during a race.
None of this suggests that putting a training effort on cadence is irrelevant. 

Working on cadence and gym work could improve performance no end


----------



## Citius (2 Aug 2015)

ayceejay said:


> An interesting article with the wrong conclusion being drawn.



Not sure what you mean. You say that, and then you go onto agree with the premise of the article?



ayceejay said:


> None of this suggests that putting a training effort on cadence is irrelevant.



Training should focus on improving performance, as I said earlier. Cadence is a by-product of cycling and is not going to help you produce more power. If going faster was simply a matter of increasing your cadence, we'd all do it.


----------



## Hacienda71 (2 Aug 2015)

I don't monitor my cadence and it doesn't seem to hold me back compared to my peers. Each to their own.


----------



## screenman (2 Aug 2015)

Has anyone with a low cadence won anything lately?


----------



## Hacienda71 (2 Aug 2015)

Tony Martin isn't exactly spinning to win.


----------



## Citius (2 Aug 2015)

screenman said:


> Has anyone with a low cadence won anything lately?



Lots. How many do you want? 
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=472KioY35pM


I can do links to high cadence too...


----------



## screenman (2 Aug 2015)

Hacienda71 said:


> Tony Martin isn't exactly spinning to win.



I thought he was in the region of 80, not that slow.

Try Nik Bowdler with his 77 front ring.


----------



## screenman (2 Aug 2015)

Cities I was not saying there were not any, I just did not have the information at hand.


----------



## ayceejay (2 Aug 2015)

_If you're serious about improving performance, then focus on riding harder for longer._

This statement is flawed, especially in the context of cadence, and in this case as an answer to how training cadence could help someone who is thinking of "taking cycling/training a bit more seriously and (will be) partaking in lots of sportives"

I would say that the focus for riding, say a 100 event would be on maintaining an even pace and training to remain comfortable after many hours in the saddle. Assuming that this is doylyburgers aim do you not see how cadence training would help? Obviously there are other considerations but if working to discover an optimum cadence that enables an even effort for a long period wouldn't that make more sense than focusing on riding *harder* for longer?


----------



## Citius (2 Aug 2015)

ayceejay said:


> _If you're serious about improving performance, then focus on riding harder for longer._
> 
> This statement is flawed, especially in the context of cadence, and in this case as an answer to how training cadence could help someone who is thinking of "taking cycling/training a bit more seriously and (will be) partaking in lots of sportives"



I don't see how that statement is in any way flawed. It is perfectly practical advice and works on any level. There is no 'context' for cadence - because cadence is incidental to the objective - ie improvement. If we accept that cadence is largely self-selecting and will vary according to where you are riding and how hard you are working, then how will 'training' it improve things?



ayceejay said:


> I would say that the focus for riding, say a 100 event would be on maintaining an even pace and training to remain comfortable after many hours in the saddle.



The objective for riding a 100 mile event is being able to ride 100 miles. Everything else is debatable.



ayceejay said:


> Assuming that this is doylyburgers aim do you not see how cadence training would help?



No I don't. Perhaps you could explain?



ayceejay said:


> Obviously there are other considerations but if working to discover an optimum cadence that enables an even effort for a long period wouldn't that make more sense than focusing on riding *harder* for longer?



You don't get it. Maintaining an even effort requires you to maintain an even effort - nothing more, nothing less. The cadence you ride at while doing that is incidental, and will vary according to the terrain you are on. Expecting someone to maintain the same cadence for 100 miles is utterly stupid.


----------



## Venod (2 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> If going faster was simply a matter of increasing your cadence, we'd all do it.



But if I pedal the same gear at a higher cadence I will go faster.


----------



## Citius (2 Aug 2015)

Afnug said:


> But if I pedal the same gear at a higher cadence I will go faster.



Trivially, yes you will. But for how long?


----------



## ayceejay (2 Aug 2015)

I'm sorry citius unless you read what I write and try to grasp what I am saying as I do with what you write it is not possible to discuss this topic sensibly.
For instance I say _working to discover an optimum cadence that enables an even effort for a long period_ you read "maintain the same cadence for 100 miles".
You say "Maintaining an even effort requires you to maintain an even effort" but offer no training technique to achieve this I say _I would say that the focus for riding, say a 100 event would be on maintaining an even pace_ and suggest that training to recognize an optimum cadence would help here.


----------



## Venod (2 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> Trivially, yes you will. But for how long?



Well if you learn to pedal with an higher cadence I would suggest a long time, of course its not easy ,you have to build up your fitness and it doesn't suit everybody.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (2 Aug 2015)

ayceejay said:


> I say _I would say that the focus for riding, say a 100 event would be on maintaining an even pace_ and suggest that training to recognize an optimum cadence would help here.


So it wouldn't be possible to ride a 100mi event without cadence* or without having trained cadence then?

*cadence on a screen


----------



## ayceejay (2 Aug 2015)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> So it wouldn't be possible to ride a 100mi event without cadence or without having trained cadence then?


Jeez another one wit no reading comprehension


----------



## ayceejay (2 Aug 2015)

Ah, you came back to edit.


----------



## Citius (2 Aug 2015)

ayceejay said:


> I'm sorry citius unless you read what I write and try to grasp what I am saying as I do with what you write it is not possible to discuss this topic sensibly.
> For instance I say _working to discover an optimum cadence that enables an even effort for a long period_ you read "maintain the same cadence for 100 miles".



There is no such thing as an 'optimum' cadence over a long period - unless you are riding on a pan flat, dead straight, smooth road for the aforementioned 'long period'. So training such a thing is pointless. There could be an 'optimum effort level' though - and training that would be so much more useful.



ayceejay said:


> You say "Maintaining an even effort requires you to maintain an even effort" but offer no training technique



If you want to train yourself to ride long distances at steady efforts, then riding long distances at steady efforts would be a good place to start. Unless you have a better idea?

Still hoping to see your ideas on how 'cadence training' will help, when you get a minute.


----------



## Citius (2 Aug 2015)

Afnug said:


> Well if you learn to pedal with an higher cadence I would suggest a long time, of course its not easy ,you have to build up your fitness and it doesn't suit everybody.



Two ways of going faster, as follows:

1. pedal the same gear at a higher cadence
2. pedal a higher gear at the same cadence

Both involve making more effort. It's the effort that counts, not the cadence.


----------



## Venod (2 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> Two ways of going faster, as follows:
> 
> 1. pedal the same gear at a higher cadence
> 2. pedal a higher gear at the same cadence
> ...


Pedal the higher gear at a higher cadence and go faster


----------



## ayceejay (2 Aug 2015)

Check my criteria for riding a 100 miles sportive event again and you will see that going faster does not feature. You will also note that the discussion is about training for said event, this training would be an effort to minimize the effort required on the day so that it can be done in relative comfort. Surely I don't need to explain what 'training' means do I?


----------



## Citius (2 Aug 2015)

Afnug said:


> Pedal the higher gear at a higher cadence and go faster



are you trolling?


----------



## Citius (2 Aug 2015)

ayceejay said:


> Check my criteria for riding a 100 miles sportive event again and you will see that going faster does not feature. You will also note that the discussion is about training for said event, this training would be an effort to minimize the effort required on the day so that it can be done in relative comfort. Surely I don't need to explain what 'training' means do I?



Maybe you should check the meaning yourself? Training will generally have two effects - either

a) the ability to maintain a higher speed for the same effort, or
b) the ability to maintain the same speed, for less effort

I'm still waiting for you to explain how training cadence will help anyone do that.


----------



## ayceejay (2 Aug 2015)




----------



## Citius (2 Aug 2015)

Seriously - tell us how cadence training will help. My bet is you will be unable to do that in any satisfactory way...


----------



## Venod (2 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> are you trolling?[



No not trolling just stating the obvious, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I,m trolling.


----------



## Citius (2 Aug 2015)

Afnug said:


> No not trolling just stating the obvious, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I,m trolling.



You don't agree that maintaining a higher cadence requires greater fitness?


----------



## midlife (2 Aug 2015)

A higher cadence does not always mean you are doing more work. 

Shaun


----------



## Venod (2 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> You don't agree that maintaining a higher cadence requires greater fitness?[/QUOT
> Of course it requires a greater fitness, I never





Citius said:


> You don't agree that maintaining a higher cadence requires greater fitness?


EH


----------



## Citius (2 Aug 2015)

Afnug said:


> EH



So precisely which aspects of what I have been saying all along do you disagree with then? I only ask because earlier you said you didn't agree with me.


----------



## midlife (2 Aug 2015)

I think it's because cadence does not equal work (force x distance). It's work that makes the bike go..

Shaun


----------



## Citius (2 Aug 2015)

midlife said:


> A higher cadence does not always mean you are doing more work.
> 
> Shaun



Cadence doesn't really have any influence on work done, which is kind of the point, really. Although, for a given power output, a lower cadence will have less metabolic demand than a higher one.


----------



## Citius (2 Aug 2015)

Afnug said:


> You said if going faster was simply a matter of increasing cadence we would all do it
> 
> I disagree with this because increasing cadence in a given gear will make you go faster.



I didn't mean going faster 'momentarily' - I meant going sustainably faster. I assumed that was understood


----------



## Venod (2 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> Not sure you're getting this, tbh. Like I said before (maybe you missed it) - trivially, it does. But that higher cadence comes at a cost. You know the rest. Or maybe you don't - which is why I'm having to repeat myself.


Of course I,m getting it, you just have to increase your fitness, have you noticed Chris Froom's cadence?


----------



## Citius (2 Aug 2015)

Afnug said:


> Of course I,m getting it, you just have to increase your fitness, have you noticed Chris Froom's cadence?



I've noticed that it varies depending on what he is doing. Explain to me why Froome is relevant?


----------



## Milkfloat (2 Aug 2015)

I think a good way to look at it is to think about cars. In a car for the greatest efficiently you need to be in the right RPM (cadence). To low RPM or too high and you are not burning fuel efficiently. To control the RPM you use the gears and accelerator. Obviously this is not exactly the same as cycling, but is a good analogy. I think the general consensus is that a lot of amateur riders ride in too slow a cadence, so increasing that cadence (RPM) will allow them to be more efficient. However, it seems that different people have a different sweetspot, just like an engine (think petrol v diesel or VTECH versus turbo).


----------



## Venod (2 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> I've noticed that it varies depending on what he is doing. Explain to me why Froome is relevant?


because he is an example of a cyclist that predominately uses a high cadence who uses that high cadence to get results.


----------



## Citius (2 Aug 2015)

Afnug said:


> because he is an example of a cyclist that predominately uses a high who used that high cadence to get results.



Someone needs to get back on youtube and watch a bit more of Froome, rather than just the highlights of Stage 10.


----------



## midlife (2 Aug 2015)

Cadence does have an effect on work as that's the distance part of the equation.

What a high cadence allows is for a lower level of force to be used. This has a number of advantages for certain individuals.

Shaun


----------



## Venod (2 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> Someone needs to get back on youtube and watch a bit more of Froome, rather than just the highlights of Stage 10.



Not sure what your suggesting I watch but wouldn't you agree that Chris is a high cadence rider.


----------



## Doyleyburger (2 Aug 2015)

Afnug said:


> because he is an example of a cyclist that predominately uses a high cadence who uses that high cadence to get results.


Froome is obsessed with cadence and always has been. One of the reasons that made me post this posing question


----------



## Citius (2 Aug 2015)

midlife said:


> Cadence does have an effect on work as that's the distance part of the equation.



No sorry, it's not. Cadence has no effect on work done. Two riders both riding at the same power output, but at different cadences, will both do the same amount of work to get to the top of the same hill at the same time. 



midlife said:


> What a high cadence allows is for a lower level of force to be used. This has a number of advantages for certain individuals.



A lower level of force perhaps, but ultimately, the same amount of power - unless you want to go slower.


----------



## Citius (2 Aug 2015)

Afnug said:


> Not sure what your suggesting I watch but wouldn't you agree that Chris is a cadence rider.



We are all cadence riders. We all ride at a cadence - obviously - if we didn't, we wouldn't go anywhere. Froome rides at many difference cadences, depending on what he is doing, as do most of us.


----------



## Venod (2 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> We are all cadence riders. We all ride at a cadence (obviously). Froome rides at many difference cadences, depending on what he is doing, as do most of us.


So you dont think Chris favours a high cadence?


----------



## midlife (2 Aug 2015)

Two riders with equal gearing, one with a low cadence and one with a higher cadence. Which one is doing more work.? It depends on how you want to put the question. 

Which situation favours higher oxygen carrying capacity in the bloodstream, high or low cadence?

Shaun


----------



## marzjennings (2 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> We are all cadence riders. We all ride at a cadence - obviously - if we didn't, we wouldn't go anywhere. Froome rides at many difference cadences, depending on what he is doing, as do most of us.



Yes, but the general consensus is that Chris prefers a higher cadence range than other riders. He's a spinner, not a masher. And he probably discovered his optimal cadence's for climbing, flats and downhills through some sort of cadence based training. 

From what I've read, nobody starts out riding at their most optimal cadence, but through training, riders generally gravitate to an rpm that works best for them. If a rider never trains at a given cadence they may not discover the difference between mashing at 50 and spinning at 90 and therefore get stuck in a rut.


----------



## Citius (2 Aug 2015)

Doyleyburger said:


> Froome is obsessed with cadence and always has been. One of the reasons that made me post this posing question



He is more likely to be obsessed with power, as most pros are. Froome averaged 414w on the climb up to La Pierre SM. More than the others. His attack saw him holding 556w for around 30 seconds - again, more than the others could sustain. Which is why he got the gap. And why he won.


----------



## Citius (2 Aug 2015)

midlife said:


> Two riders with equal gearing, one with a low cadence and one with a higher cadence. Which one is doing more work.? It depends on how you want to put the question.
> 
> Which situation favours higher oxygen carrying capacity in the bloodstream, high or low cadence?
> 
> Shaun



It depends on your definition of 'work' I guess. I am simply using the accepted definition in physics.

The answer to your question is higher cadence, I believe. I am not arguing against high cadence, incidentally.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (2 Aug 2015)

Afnug said:


> So you dont think Chris favours a high cadence?


From what I've noticed he does tend to keep in a lower gear than the rest of the climbers, stay seated and spin when there's pressure. Doubtless, Sky have run loads of tests on him and advised that it's _his_ most efficient style. Personally though, I reckon he can't focus on his stem when he's out of the saddle.


----------



## Doyleyburger (2 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> He is more likely to be obsessed with power, as most pros are. Froome averaged 414w on the climb up to La Pierre SM. More than the others. His attack saw him holding 556w for around 30 seconds - again, more than the others could sustain. Which is why he got the gap. And why he won.


Was talking about his riding in general, not just that stage


----------



## marzjennings (2 Aug 2015)

midlife said:


> Two riders with equal gearing, one with a low cadence and one with a higher cadence. Which one is doing more work.? It depends on how you want to put the question.
> 
> Which situation favours higher oxygen carrying capacity in the bloodstream, high or low cadence?
> 
> Shaun


So two riders on single speeds with the same gear ratios? The higher cadence rider is doing more work. And spinning favours higher O2 capacity.


----------



## Citius (2 Aug 2015)

marzjennings said:


> And he *probably* discovered his optimal cadence's for climbing, flats and downhills through some sort of cadence based training.



We moved beyond 'random guesswork' on page 1, I think.



marzjennings said:


> From what I've read, nobody starts out riding at their most optimal cadence, but through training, riders generally gravitate to an rpm that works best for them. If a rider never trains at a given cadence they may not discover the difference between mashing at 50 and spinning at 90 and therefore get stuck in a rut.



Train - and your cadence will find you - as Yoda might have said, if he was a cycle coach. As I keep saying, training cadence is a complete diversion to what a performance oriented rider ought to be doing - ie training performance.


----------



## Citius (2 Aug 2015)

Doyleyburger said:


> Was talking about his riding in general, not just that stage



I was using that as an example to underline the point that power is what he (and everyone else) trains for - not cadence. If you look at some vids of him riding on the flat, or during TTs, his cadence is no higher than anyone else's.

All those internet memes of 'Chris Froome looking at stems' - he's looking at his power output, not his cadence.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (2 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> All those internet memes of 'Chris Froome looking at stems' - he's looking at his power output, not his cadence.


He's quoted as saying he finds it easier to breath with his head lowered. The reference to looking at stems was a joke.


----------



## Citius (2 Aug 2015)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> He's quoted as saying he finds it easier to breath with his head lowered. The reference to looking at stems was a joke.



Maybe so, but when he looks at his head unit, I doubt he's checking his cadence...


----------



## marzjennings (3 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> Train - and your cadence will find you - as Yoda might have said, if he was a cycle coach. As I keep saying, training cadence is a complete diversion to what a performance oriented rider ou



Not true. Some level of cadence training is common and beneficial to any rider looking to up their performance. Whether that's intervals or sprints, these are training elements that help develop a cadence range and take riders outside of their current comfort zone. For example spinning downhill, if a rider wants to keep up with his friends as they spin off down hill, but find's themselves bouncing in the saddle every time they go above 90rpm. Then some cadence training, focusing on riding at +90rpm is what they will need to do. 

Possibly my experience is more around mtb and track, where higher cadence's are required, but I've seen many riders hit ruts as they've never taken the time to develop smooth high cadence techniques.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (3 Aug 2015)

I feel for all those who don't have computers and/or cadence sensors who can't train something so important - It must be terrible for them.


----------



## tyred (3 Aug 2015)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> I feel for all those who don't have computers and/or cadence sensors who can't train something so important - It must be terrible for them.




It's wonderful, so much freedom - wheel bike out of garage, sit on saddle, turn pedals, arrive at destination - no fuss, no hassle, no stress.


----------



## Citius (3 Aug 2015)

marzjennings said:


> Not true. Some level of cadence training is common and beneficial to any rider looking to up their performance



Cadence is incidental to the objective of improvement. Even when coaches prescribe low cadence intervals, or high cadence intervals (as many do), the objective is still to hit and maintain a power number, or an effort level - not a cadence number. Cadence is not the goal.


----------



## midlife (3 Aug 2015)

If you want to increase the rate you are doing work then one way of doing this is to increase the cadence for any given force applied to the pedals. This means you need to increase aerobic capacity but not necessarily muscle "strength". great if you can carry more oxygen with more red blood cells, or is that the cynic in me?

Shaun


----------



## Citius (3 Aug 2015)

midlife said:


> If you want to increase the rate you are doing work then one way of doing this is to increase the cadence for any given force applied to the pedals. This means you need to increase aerobic capacity but not necessarily muscle "strength". great if you can carry more oxygen with more red blood cells, or is that the cynic in me?
> 
> Shaun



Not sure what your point is? I don't think that anyone would disagree that cadence is a functional component of cycling. The only point for debate is whether it is appropriate to focus on it as a training goal.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (3 Aug 2015)

From another angle, isn't there an overall gain from a higher cadence by helping keep weight down?


----------



## midlife (3 Aug 2015)

My point was that blood doping / EPO will improve the rate of doing work by allowing for an increase in cadence.... Hence the "cynic" coda  .

Shaun

Edited to say my original post about number 10 down the list alludes to using power or HR as a better training and than cadence


----------



## Citius (3 Aug 2015)

midlife said:


> My point was that blood doping / EPO will improve the rate of doing work by allowing for an increase in cadence.... Hence the "cynic" coda  .
> 
> Shaun



Any increase in work rate will be down to an increase in power - the cadence is incidental. I'm not sure if you're trying to help or not, but we are over-complicating something here which really should be very, very simple.


----------



## Citius (3 Aug 2015)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> From another angle, isn't there an overall gain from a higher cadence by helping keep weight down?



Higher cadence creates a higher metabolic demand, so that's possible.


----------



## midlife (3 Aug 2015)

Work rate = power iirc. It's simple and we agree but just coming from slightly different angles.

Shaun


----------



## vickster (3 Aug 2015)

I just ride my bike


----------



## Milkfloat (3 Aug 2015)

vickster said:


> I just ride my bike



But how fast do you turn those pedals?


----------



## vickster (3 Aug 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> But how fast do you turn those pedals?


As fast as I need to to make the progress I want to make


----------



## tyred (3 Aug 2015)

vickster said:


> I just ride my bike




Not allowed. You need degrees in Maths and Physics theses days before you're allowed to ride a bike.


----------



## Cuchilo (3 Aug 2015)

vickster said:


> As fast as I need to to make the progress I want to make


Yeah right . That's like saying if you want to go faster you pedal faster


----------



## vickster (3 Aug 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> Yeah right . That's like saying if you want to go faster you pedal faster


Works for me, with the right gear  I have quite a slow cadence, but big thigh muscles


----------



## Citius (3 Aug 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> Yeah right . That's like saying if you want to go faster you pedal faster



As simple training advice goes, there's not a lot wrong with that...


----------



## potsy (3 Aug 2015)

vickster said:


> Works for me, with the right gear  I have quite a slow cadence, but big thigh muscles


Do some squats, even bigger muscles, more speeeeeeeeeeeeed


----------



## vickster (3 Aug 2015)

potsy said:


> Do some squats, even bigger muscles, more speeeeeeeeeeeeed


Can't do squats with my tight calves and knackered knees...and I don't want bigger leg muscles, one day the rest of me might be slim enough to fit into skinny jeans. No chance with Chris Hoy-esque quads


----------



## Cuchilo (3 Aug 2015)

The best way to get bigger legs for cycling is to go to the gym not ride a bike .


----------



## Citius (3 Aug 2015)

So we've moved from one cycling myth (ie cadence) to another (ie big legs). What's next?


----------



## vickster (3 Aug 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> The best way to get bigger legs for cycling is to go to the gym not ride a bike .


I don't...unless I ride the bike in the gym  And apart from my post accident/surgeon skinny left calf, I certainly don't have small leg muscles! Ask the surgeon


----------



## Dogtrousers (3 Aug 2015)

I've been thinking about getting a cadence thingy for my Garmin, largely because I'm curious and I like gadgets.

I come at things from a slightly different perspective: My objective is always economy, not performance. That is I want to go as far as I can, and is speed largely irrelevant apart from how it contributes to my overall economy. I don't want to be dead on my feet after 100 miles. So I need some modicum of speed or sheer time in the saddle will take its toll before I get to my destination.

Now, my homespun wisdom is that I'm better off in a higher rather than lower cadence to maximise economy (within reason - not spinning my bottom gear on the flat). I don't know if that's right, but it's a kind of gut-feel thing. If I grind hard for the first 50 miles I feel I'm more likely to fatigue my muscles and probably run out of steam after 80 (say).

I also feel that the use of a generally higher cadence may be easier on my knees, which are a bit dodgy.

Whether the above is correct I have no idea - it's just gut feel. "Change down not up" is one of my private rules, along with "no pedalling on downhills above 25 km/h", "no hard accelerations - work up through the gears slowly", and "sit, don't stand" with which I hope to ride efficiently. All probably flawed ideas, but I manage my long rides OK with them.


----------



## Citius (3 Aug 2015)

Dogtrousers said:


> Now, my homespun wisdom is that I'm better off in a higher rather than lower cadence to maximise economy (within reason - not spinning my bottom gear on the flat). I don't know if that's right, but it's a kind of gut-feel thing. If I grind hard for the first 50 miles I feel I'm more likely to fatigue my muscles and probably run out of steam after 80 (say).



There's good evidence to suggest that lower cadences are more efficient for a given power level. So I would suggest that your homespun wisdom is not borne out by the facts, unfortunately. It's logical, if you think about it.


----------



## Dogtrousers (3 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> There's good evidence to suggest that lower cadences are more efficient for a given power level. So I would suggest that your homespun wisdom is not borne out by the facts, unfortunately. It's logical, if you think about it.


You could be right. However, I'm going to keep doing it as it just feels right. I doubt it's doing me any harm.


----------



## vickster (3 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> So we've moved from one cycling myth (ie cadence) to another (ie big legs). What's next?


Lighter wheels?


----------



## Citius (3 Aug 2015)

Dogtrousers said:


> You could be right. However, I'm going to keep doing it as it just feels right. I doubt it's doing me any harm.



Yeh, that's fine. High cadence won't do you any physical harm, obviously - but if your objective is cycling economy, then you are going to be doing something which promotes the exact opposite. So good luck with that...


----------



## Milkfloat (3 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> There's good evidence to suggest that lower cadences are more efficient for a given power level. So I would suggest that your homespun wisdom is not borne out by the facts, unfortunately. It's logical, if you think about it.



There is also a lot of good evidence that shows that a faster cadence 80-100ish is more efficient over a longer period. Afterall - look at any rider in the TdF, not one of them will average below 60

In my eyes to simplify it, mashing - is great for short effort, spinning great for longer distances. However, if you don't have the fitness/body type you may not be able to spin. On the other hand, mashing could knacker your knees.


----------



## Citius (3 Aug 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> There is also a lot of good evidence that shows that a faster cadence 80-100ish is more efficient over a longer period.



Can you show me this evidence?


----------



## Dogtrousers (3 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> Yeh, that's fine. High cadence won't do you any physical harm, obviously - but if your objective is cycling economy, then you are going to be doing something which promotes the exact opposite. So good luck with that...


Are you saying that a low cadence is definitely more economical? On re reading this, you definitely seem to be.

How low is low? How high is high?

There's a huge jump from saying that there is no evidence that a higher cadence is more economical (which I can fully believe) to saying that a higher cadence definitely promotes the opposite of economy.


----------



## Milkfloat (3 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> Can you show me this evidence?



Lots of pages to dig through, help yourself. https://scholar.google.co.uk/schola...g&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=2011&as_vis=1


----------



## Citius (3 Aug 2015)

Dogtrousers said:


> Are you saying that a low cadence is definitely more economical? On re reading this, you definitely seem to be.
> 
> How low is low? How high is high?
> 
> There's a huge jump from saying that there is no evidence that a higher cadence is more economical (which I can fully believe) to saying that a higher cadence definitely promotes the opposite of economy.



If you are asking me to tell you how fast you should pedal, I can't do that. Nobody can, or should - it's up to you. The metabolic cost of a high cadence is going to be higher than the metabolic cost of a low cadence. That doesn't mean you should pedal everywhere at a low cadence - it just means it is something to consider if economy is one of your considerations.


----------



## Citius (3 Aug 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> Lots of pages to dig through, help yourself. https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=fast+slow+cadence+cycling&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=2011&as_vis=1



I see a lot of stuff there on oxygen uptake etc, but nothing which reinforces your claim that higher cadence is more efficient over a longer period. The link I posted earlier (http://myworldfromabicycle.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/ideal-cadence-for-competitive-bicycling.html) provided a good summary of a lot of the studies which are slightly more relevant than some of the links you just googled.


----------



## Milkfloat (3 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> I see a lot of stuff there on oxygen uptake etc, but nothing which reinforces your claim that higher cadence is more efficient over a longer period. The link I posted earlier (http://myworldfromabicycle.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/ideal-cadence-for-competitive-bicycling.html) provided a good summary of a lot of the studies which are slightly more relevant than some of the links you just googled.



I think we are partly talking about roughly the same thing. This article describes low cadence as being at 80 RPM - for the average novice that is high cadence.

However - it also states a few other things

"Ideal cadence is more important for time trialing, where every second counts, because it's a race against the clock. In the case of the elite cyclists above, clearly an 80 cadence is the most efficient to ride at (coincidentally 350 watts happens to be their average lactate threshold). Time trialing at a lesser efficient cadence of 60 or 100 would cost approximately 9 watts of power (my estimate) and would result in about a 30 second time difference over a 40 kilometer time trial. (my calculations come from the American College of Sports Medicine formula and the bike calculator)."

"In Professional Road Cyclist, Low Pedaling Cadence Are Less Efficient
Found that professional road cyclist riding at power outputs greater than 360 and 420 watts are more efficient at 100 rpm than 60 and 80 rpm"

Obviously I am cherry picking the quotes out there, but these are from your article.

Pick *any *pro race team (road) in the world and show me any cyclist averaging 60 RPM or less?


----------



## Citius (3 Aug 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> Pick *any *pro race team (road) in the world and show me any cyclist averaging 60 RPM or less?



I'm sure there isn't such an example. As I've said before, I am not advocating high cadence, or low cadence. I'm simply saying that 'training cadence' is a fallacy and a massive diversion for someone who is intent on improving performance.


----------



## windyrider (3 Aug 2015)

Try this http://www.torqfitness.co.uk/news/optimal-pedal-cadence, interesting stuff and this guy recommends "If you really don’t have a clue how fast you should be spinning your legs, get a cycle computer that measures cadence and try to stick at about 90 rpm, you won’t be far away from your optimum." Now it is worth noting that this chap is a mountain biker, whereas I am a roadie, and recently taken to increasing the RPM on my rides. In the old days (2 week ago) a longish ride average RPM of 62 these days I'm averaging 70 RPM, results well several new PB's on Strava so obviously happy with that but it is tiring and requires concentration to keep it going.

Bike radar had this to say
"Interestingly, a Japanese group [3] studying ‘college-aged cyclists’ found that the cadence with the lowest oxygen cost (VO2) was not the same as that producing the lowest muscular fatigue. Measuring the electrical activity of cycling specific muscles, called an electromyogram (EMG), they found 80-90 rpm had significantly lower EMG activity than any other cadence (70rpm, 100rpm) [3].

However, the lowest amount of oxygen was used when pedalling at 60-70rpm, significantly less than 80-100rpm [3]. So, muscles have better neural efficiency when spinning, but this increases oxygen cost. To what extent these can be further trained is not clear, but the fact that professionals can ride at high cadences for hours and that club-level riders tend to ride in ever lower cadences as they tire, suggests cadence is a vital parameter for training."

Improve cadence, and it seems you will get faster, alas you have to get fitter at the same time.


----------



## ayceejay (3 Aug 2015)

Remember that "improving performance" in the context of riding sportives would be an improvement in endurance rather than focusing on speed and consequently different criteria apply. It is obvious that a cadence at either end of the spectrum is a waste of energy. Aerobic activity is more sustainable than anaerobic activity and this would be the focus of endurance training, that it is to do light load work over increasingly longer periods, so the crux of this argument seems to be, is there a benefit in training with a focus on cadence so as to arrive at an optimum (not fixed) ?


----------



## Citius (3 Aug 2015)

windyrider said:


> Improve cadence, and it seems you will get faster



Other way round, I would suggest. Improve fitness and it seems you will spin faster (by default).


----------



## Brava210 (3 Aug 2015)

I use cadence solely for Zwift as I find it a real incentive, especially as the weather is so rubbish

Gary


----------



## outlash (3 Aug 2015)

I was under the impression that sportives weren't races anyway... If you want to train and get competitive, slap a race number on your back .


----------



## Citius (3 Aug 2015)

outlash said:


> I was under the impression that sportives weren't races anyway... If you want to train and get competitive, slap a race number on your back .



To be fair, the OP didn't say they were races. Lotss of people see them as performance targets though.


----------



## outlash (3 Aug 2015)

True, and as you say, there's a whole host of people who see sportives as you describe. And if you want to buy into that pseudo-competitive side of things, then off you go. I'd rather train for competition and do it properly.


----------



## The Hat (3 Aug 2015)

Dont bother with cadence, its such a personal thing really. I sticl to power and heart rate.


----------



## Cuchilo (3 Aug 2015)

I was told the other day that high cadence would be good for me as I am a slight chap so couldn't go for power of lower cadence . Someone at my club just grinds at a lower cadence and totally smokes me on any TT . Actually they all smoke me on any TT but that's not the point .
My normal cadence is around 78 I think . That's what I am happy with and I let my legs do my riding . My quads do my riding if I think about it . When they start to hurt I drop a gear and spin faster .


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (3 Aug 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> My quads do my riding if I think about it . When they start to hurt I drop a gear and spin faster .


And you don't need a number on a screen to tell you when this is right?


----------



## Cuchilo (3 Aug 2015)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> And you don't need a number on a screen to tell you when this is right?


I don't really look when riding to be honest . I just look at the stats after and notice some numbers keep popping up . Maybe I should try looking at it but I only bought the thing because all the other boys had one


----------



## midlife (3 Aug 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> I was told the other day that high cadence would be good for me as I am a slight chap so couldn't go for power of lower cadence . Someone at my club just grinds at a lower cadence and totally smokes me on any TT . Actually they all smoke me on any TT but that's not the point .
> My normal cadence is around 78 I think . That's what I am happy with and I let my legs do my riding . My quads do my riding if I think about it . When they start to hurt I drop a gear and spin faster .



Strictly this is right from an A level physics point of view, one way of increasing the power you produce (rate of doing work) is to increase cadence. Problem is you may not have the fitness / aerobic capacity to do it. 

Shaun


----------



## Hacienda71 (3 Aug 2015)

I suspect cadence is intuitive and if you ride your bike you will automatically end up at the right cadence for you. Best to stick to improving your fitness to ride faster and further.


----------



## Cuchilo (3 Aug 2015)

midlife said:


> Strictly this is right from an A level physics point of view, one way of increasing the power you produce (rate of doing work) is to increase cadence. Problem is you may not have the fitness / aerobic capacity to do it.
> 
> Shaun


That rings true as the faster I pedal the more I get out of breath . I did a test about a year ago , spinning faster around Richmond park ( my local loop ) I was farked by the end of the test and did a slower time than normal .


----------



## huwsparky (5 Aug 2015)

http://myworldfromabicycle.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/ideal-cadence-for-competitive-bicycling.html?m=1

Have a read of this @Doyleyburger 

BTW it's been constituted by research by a clever man and not by some dude on some forum who likes to disagree with everyone.

As always, up to you who's advice you'd rather go by though!


----------



## Citius (5 Aug 2015)

huwsparky said:


> http://myworldfromabicycle.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/ideal-cadence-for-competitive-bicycling.html?m=1
> 
> Have a read of this @Doyleyburger
> 
> ...



I already posted that - glad you agree


----------



## huwsparky (5 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> I already posted that - glad you agree



I only read a page as I have a pretty good guess how the other 8 pages would have panned out!


----------



## Citius (5 Aug 2015)

huwsparky said:


> I only read a page as I have a pretty good guess how the other 8 pages would have panned out!



You should read it. It could be useful to you...


----------



## huwsparky (5 Aug 2015)

Citius said:


> You should read it. It could be useful to you...


I've read the article, I was referring to this thread.


----------



## Citius (5 Aug 2015)

huwsparky said:


> I've read the article, I was referring to this thread.



So was I...


----------



## Cuchilo (5 Aug 2015)

Another one on ignore


----------

