# Increasing Cadence



## crossy (14 Jun 2010)

At the moment I can cycle comfortably at around 70 - 75 revs. I.ve found a training programme that recommends 95 - 100 revs. I'm finding it difficult to increase to this. The question I have are you stuck with your natural cadence or can you increase it. Is revs the right word?


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Jun 2010)

Hi
It's a good question and has been debated here often (do a search).
Everybody has a natural cadence, there is some recent evidence to suggest that pedaling at your natural cadence is probably best/most effective. It is possible to raise your cadence, some find it a benefit, others do not. 
I guess it depends on your make-up.

I'm a bit of a slowish cadence rider and find around 80-85 rpm most comfortable. I've riden with club riders who spin faster than me and others that grind slower and they all go chuffing fast. I tried for years to spin along at higher rpm but failed to make quick cxhanges of pace in the chain-gang. When I went with a higher gear/lower rpm I found that I could more easily handle the change of speed, I guess my body does power better than rpms. I climb hills at the same pace but a higher gear than my pals.

Try it and see if it works for you, but don't be a slave to it if it doesn't work on the road!


----------



## lukesdad (14 Jun 2010)

Its a very good question, putting aside for one minute the pros and cons of spinning or grinding. Developing a high cadence is hard to do at higher speeds, simply because the natural tendency and lazyness if you like is, to shift up. Nothing wrong with this of course. When you first start out trying to use this technique it feels all wrong at higher speeds.

I learn t to do it mountain biking where at slower speeds it feels more natural. There are of course other benefits to it off road i.e. traction. Translating it to the road you really need to be using hills and lots of them one after the other if you can. I would imagine it would be quite difficult to develop it on the flat or a static trainer. It took me a full year for it to become a natural progression.


----------



## marzjennings (14 Jun 2010)

One of the reasons I train mostly on a single speed is to force myself to pedal at a higher cadence. I initially picked up some tips pedaling at a higher cadence during some V02 max training sessions a couple of years ago. Using a trainer you basically ride intervals of ever increasing levels of cadence over time. We started out riding 4 mins at a comfortable rate with 1 minute sprints of over a 100-110 rpm and after a couple months we had progressed to 3 mins at an easy pace and 2 mins sprinting at +130rpm. You can do the same on the road if you can find somewhere flat and where you won't have to stop for lights or junctions.

On the plus side I've found my pedaling action has smoothed out and I can now sprint from 15mph to 25mph very quickly without having to change gear.


----------



## steve52 (14 Jun 2010)

practice is the key i grind naturally have been trying to spin for ages, can now spin at 100/110 for an hour or more, i can peak at 160 45 mph (not for more than seconds) but am happyest at 85 , so where this is going to end who knows try it all and let me know lol


----------



## GrasB (14 Jun 2010)

steve, it makes you into a flexible rider who can choose what riding style they use for any given situation. I like to spin but I also have the power to grind it out with the best of them, the result is that sometimes I just CBA changing down so power through to higher cadences, also on short rolling +/- 2-5% mounds I can just stay in one gear & get on with it.


----------



## redddraggon (14 Jun 2010)

Concentrate on riding your bike, pedal hard at what you feel is the right cadence - don't bother with looking at any numbers, and your leg speed will naturally increase with training.


----------



## ChristinaJL (15 Jun 2010)

I did some spinning classes last year, that helped enormously to speed up my cadence.


----------



## jimboalee (15 Jun 2010)

I'll share my experiences. May be worth testing yourself.

On the gym bike, I ride at 225 Watts absorption. I ride at 90 rpm for five minutes and my heart rate stabilises at 153 BPM.
Without altering the gym bike's settings, I reduce to 70 rpm and hold steady for another 5 minutes. My HR lowers to 144 BMP.

This throws the whole HRM calories counting 'out of the window' because the absorbed power remains the same ( 225 Watts ) but my HR is lower at lower cadence.

kCals/min is DIRECTLY relative to Watts. Heartrate isn't.


----------



## marzjennings (15 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> I'll share my experiences. May be worth testing yourself.
> 
> On the gym bike, I ride at 225 Watts absorption. I ride at 90 rpm for five minutes and my heart rate stabilises at 153 BPM.
> Without altering the gym bike's settings, I reduce to 70 rpm and hold steady for another 5 minutes. My HR lowers to 144 BMP.
> ...




If you've changed none of the bike's settings how is the power output the same whether you cycling at 90rpm or 70rpm? Sounds like the wattage calculation done by the bike is dodgy. 

But you're right that cadence is directly related to HR. Cycling at 20mph on the flat at 110rpm (low gear) is going to produce a higher HR than 20mph at 80rpm (high gear). And yes, pure heartrate is a poor reference to calculate an accurate kCals/min as there's little or no indication of effort (watts).


----------



## GrasB (15 Jun 2010)

marzjennings said:


> If you've changed none of the bike's settings how is the power output the same whether you cycling at 90rpm or 70rpm? Sounds like the wattage calculation done by the bike is dodgy.


In simplistic terms: power = torque * rpm
So if the the bike is giving resistance for 225w & the rpm drops you're simply applying more torque to the pedals.


----------



## sarahpink (15 Jun 2010)

ive seen spinning classes advertised, does anyone feel their worth a short to improve your cadence?


----------



## jimboalee (15 Jun 2010)

marzjennings said:


> If you've changed none of the bike's settings how is the power output the same whether you cycling at 90rpm or 70rpm? Sounds like the wattage calculation done by the bike is dodgy.
> 
> But you're right that cadence is directly related to HR. Cycling at 20mph on the flat at 110rpm (low gear) is going to produce a higher HR than 20mph at 80rpm (high gear). And yes, pure heartrate is a poor reference to calculate an accurate kCals/min as there's little or no indication of effort (watts).



A gym bike is just the same as a Cyclops Powerbeam Pro trainer.

It has a load cell which senses Torque and a rev counter that counts the revs.

kW = ( Torque [Nm] x rpm ) / 9549.3


Cadence is NOT directly related to HR. HR is a consequence of moving your legs more times per unit time.

When we say 'directly related', it means there is a solid, undisputed correlation factor to convert from one unit to the other.

eg. kCals/min = kW x 14.3197

If my HR is 160 and my cadence is 80, the correlation factor would be HR = cadence x 2.0000

When my cadence is 90, is my HR 180? No. it's not related.

Nor is HR and kCals/min.

As seen by my own eyes, when the absorption of the gym bike was 225, my HR was 153 OR 144, dependent on cadence ( the number of times my legs are moving up and down ).

I have mentioned on this chatboard before about performing a 'Natural cadence' test.
It involves setting the gym bike to a nominal absorption and then pedalling, increasing the cadence very slowly through a wide rev range.
When your HR is lowest, that is your 'Natural cadence' and the revs which make your heart beat less for the power output. Well, to be truthful, it's the rate of effort that your muscle fibre Fast/Slow twitch balance is most comfortable with.

Believe it or not, mine is 45 rpm. That is why I'm able to climb a 20% hill on a 32" gear at 3 mph at 33 rpm.


----------



## marzjennings (15 Jun 2010)

GrasB said:


> In simplistic terms: power = torque * rpm
> So if the the bike is giving resistance for 225w & the rpm drops you're simply applying more torque to the pedals.



Which means the bike must have increased its resistance to match your drop in rpm to maintain the same power output. So while you didn't change any of the settings, the bike must of done. Resistance does not equal power.


----------



## jimboalee (15 Jun 2010)

marzjennings said:


> Which means the bike must have increased its resistance to match your drop in rpm to maintain the same power output. So while you didn't change any of the settings, the bike must of done. Resistance does not equal power.



On something more expensive than a gym bike, an engine test dynamometer for instance, I can set the controller to absorb 25 kW no matter what the engine rpm. If I open the throttle, the engine will rev away and the dyno' will apply load to stay at 25kW.

That is not a normally used mode of operation though. Speed control is the most popular.

On the gym bike however, my mind represented the throttle by controlling the rpm to a desired speed. The bike controlled the resistance to achieve the 'requested' absorption.


----------



## lukesdad (15 Jun 2010)

GrasB said:


> In simplistic terms: power = torque * rpm
> So if the the bike is giving resistance for 225w & the rpm drops you're simply applying more torque to the pedals.


Applying more force to the pedals. You can only increase torque by lengthening the cranks.


----------



## jimboalee (15 Jun 2010)

lukesdad said:


> Applying more force to the pedals. You can only increase torque by lengthening the cranks.



This is indeed correct, but give the man some poetic licence.

When an engine is on the dyno, we don't say "apply more piston force on the crankshaft, old bean", we say "give it more torque , ya bastard".


----------



## GrasB (15 Jun 2010)

marzjennings, please note I used the word for rather than is. Those words aren't interchangeable without changing the meaning of the sentence. 

If the setting is that the bike will 'eat' 225w then it will. Now it's up to you how you output that 225w, you can do it at high rpm & low torque, low rpm & high torque. As the bike knows the rpm it can work out what resistance to load the pedals with so that it will 'eat' 225w of power.


----------



## lukesdad (15 Jun 2010)

Mmm....., I can see where this is going !


----------



## GrasB (15 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> On something more expensive than a gym bike, an engine test dynamometer for instance, I can set the controller to absorb 25 kW no matter what the engine rpm. If I open the throttle, the engine will rev away and the dyno' will apply load to stay at 25kW.


I find it's more useful setting it to 'absorb' say -50kW....


----------



## lukesdad (15 Jun 2010)

sarahpink said:


> ive seen spinning classes advertised, does anyone feel their worth a short to improve your cadence?


They will improve your fitness, but you would have to do specific cadence training over some considerable time for them to be of benefit in cadence technique IMO.


----------



## jimboalee (16 Jun 2010)

The definition of "Fitness" is the ability of the body's systems to transport oxygen and fuel to the working muscles at a rate which will allow sustained activity.

If you are a spinner or a grinder, the oxygen and fuel must get to the muscles to allow you to keep the power output.

Pedalling slowly on a gym bike at 40 rpm with the Watts setting at 360 will cause Hypertrophy, and as a result, improve fitness.

Any cycling coach worth his salt will instruct a rider to train at EVERY condition that might happen.
That is:- Spinning away at 120 rpm producing 450 Watts so the rider can get across the finish line before anyone else AND standing up pedalling at 40 rpm producing 450 Watts for when the short 18% hills appear.

No rider likes to be overtaken in the final 50m, nor does he like having to get off and walk his bike up a short steep hill.

[Don't take these values as true life examples, they are straight off the top of my head. But I hope you understand the principle]


----------



## lukesdad (16 Jun 2010)

Agreed. Training at extremes in all forms will improve your performance. i was only trying to illustrate to Sarah what the benefits of a spinning class maybe to her,using my poetic license  . Of course on its own it may not be of use at all but with other training it may well be, as long as an overall plan is constructed.

As to increasing cadence to an rpm that you can be comfortable with, unfortunately, there is no quick fix that I know of.


----------



## jimboalee (16 Jun 2010)

I may be a lumbering grinder these days, turning the cranks at 50 – 80 rpm in 'normal' riding.

Back when I was a fitter, younger competitive rider, my bike had a 108" top ( 52 x 13 ). If I wanted to rattle along at over 30 mph with the group on shallow downhills, I HAD to pedal fast.
The bike had a 45" lowest, so low rev mashing uphill was another 'HAD to'.

Nowadays, roadrace bikes have gearing from thirtysomething all the way up to 130". It is not very often a rider 'spins' at 100 rpm in 130".

I say, learn how to use ALL the rev range.


----------



## Fiona N (17 Jun 2010)

My goodness, there's some wool-pulling going on here 

All these arguments about power, HR and cadence are missing the essential physiological understanding of how a human body works.

Consider moving a load at slow speed - analogous to low cadence. For a given output (power, if you like), the main force-producing muscles are dominant in both result and energy use over the muscles which control the stability of the working limb(s). For a cyclist, this means that, until you get to 'hauling on the handlebar' levels of leverage, lower cadences require a smaller proportion of input from stabilising muscles. With increasing cadence, for the same output, the effort required from the main propulsion muscles is smaller but the stabilising muscles are increasingly required to off set the tendency of the limbs to lose alignment, hips to sway, shoulders to rock etc. At very high cadences with low resistance - typical for spinning class intervals - the stabilising muscles are the major energy-consuming part of the system since the effort required from the propulsion muscles is vastly reduced.

Since the measured (power) output is the same for the different cadences in your example, you've been making the assumption that the body is making the same exertion to achieve it - clearly this isn't the case, as Jimbo's initial experiment shows. 

Training is used to improve the efficiency of the stabilising muscles (also called postural system as it's basically responsible for keeping us upright) - typically they're weak relative to propulsion muscles. People who are more anatomically 'perfect' (better joint alignment, less stiff hamstrings and other muscles etc.) will usually find high cadences easier than those who have muscular and joint imbalances as the demands on the postural system are smaller.

This explains why HR isn't simply correlated with power output (so a set of valid ramp tests for comparison over a training period requires a test protocol so that power output is achieved using the same gearing/cadence in each test), nor calorie expenditure with power, as you're missing a component which is variable with cadence. 


BTW The importance of the postural system in sports has only been recognised in the last 20 years or so as intense training to develop propulsion muscles can lead to parts of the postural system being rendered 'redundant' - which leads to instabilities developing. Shoulder injuries in swimmers were a good example as the over development of the big muscles like traps/pecs for propulsion lead to the smaller muscles, which control shoulder alignment through the complex 3-D movements, becoming ineffective. The exercises required to correct this are small precise movements (think Pilates) to target the individual postural muscles and strengthen them. Often cyclists' knee problems are of a similar origin with marked but unbalanced development of the quads.


Lecture over


----------



## jimboalee (17 Jun 2010)

Fiona N said:


> My goodness, there's some wool-pulling going on here
> 
> All these arguments about power, HR and cadence are missing the essential physiological understanding of how a human body works.
> 
> ...



Fantastic.

I would have said, correct me if I'm in error, that in addition, the brain is bringing the Antagonistic muscle into operation due to the 'over fast, extraordinary' movement of the Agonist muscle.
I would say that if this is the case, the high speed movement is not suited to that individual.

More energy is required ( which results in higher HR ) and therefore wasted. 

OR, if the individual is on a fat loss regime, beneficial. If the individual is participating in an endurance event, disadvantageous.


----------



## lukesdad (17 Jun 2010)

Very informative Fiona,and explains a lot of the exercises we were made to do as youngsters when I used to swim competively,never did understand them and it was alot more than twenty years ago more like 35 our coach must of either been very enlightened or very lucky but I think he was avery good coach Peter Harding ever heard of him?

To get back to the original topic, a rider with heavier legs I.e large propulsion muscles will find it harder to "spin" due to the effort required to move the larger mass at higher speeds. To a lesser extent crank length as well as length of leg will have a bearing as well this, is where torque does come into play. Angle that force is applied will also have a small effect on torque. 

This is not contradicting anything you have said,more just following on.

Just one word on ramp tests, not everybody can access one easily,hence my development of my own tests,which we have crossed swords on previously.


----------



## marzjennings (17 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> A gym bike is just the same as a Cyclops Powerbeam Pro trainer.
> 
> It has a load cell which senses Torque and a rev counter that counts the revs.
> 
> ...



You can define 'directly' as you like, but as a Cornishman I choose to abuse the word 'directly' as required. But semantics aside we agree then that cadence and HR are related and as Fiona mentioned in part due to increased effort required to keep the maintain a smooth and effective pedaling action. You only have to look at track cyclists, who require greater upper body strength to be able to smoothly pedal at +180rpm, to understand the increased effort to pedal and maintain a high cadence. Also why it's a lot easier to hit a higher cadence on a gym bike or trainer, which is being held and supported, than a bike out on the open road.

But would you say that someone's 'Natural cadence' is more a reflection of their current state of fitness and strength rather than their basic untrained physiology?


edit...just found this link if folks want a read...

http://www.fims.org/default.asp?pageID=213202031


----------



## jimboalee (17 Jun 2010)

Is there an emoticon for 'beats head up wall'?


----------



## jimboalee (17 Jun 2010)

I'm going to try 180 rpm on my slicked up MTB tonight.

36" gear at 19.5 mph. Api Sapis, I expect.

I usually ride that speed on 78" at 83 rpm.

What would happen to my HR if I tried 180 rpm on the 78" gear?

42 mph.....

You're guess is as good as mine, because HR is not related to any other metric.

What you are getting confused with is 'HR and exertion follow a trend'.

HR increases as exertion increases. If you try to put numbers and equations on it, you will have to recalculate the curve fit coefficients after you have improved your fitness just a little. 
Maybe on a weekly basis.

Then YOU will have a frig factor for YOU, for that moment in time. Your frig factor will change after your next training session.


----------



## marzjennings (17 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> I'm going to try 180 rpm on my slicked up MTB tonight.
> 
> 36" gear at 19.5 mph. Api Sapis, I expect.
> 
> ...



I'm not attempting to mathematically connect HR and cadence, but I do think the correlation between increasing cadence and increasing HR is indicative of a cause. 

To your example above I would 'guess' that for a given speed of 19.5mph your HR will be higher pedaling at 180rpm at 36" than at 83rpm at 78". You really don't think this is a logical relationship?

And to your question; it'll be higher, with a 90% probabilty.


----------



## zacklaws (17 Jun 2010)

The best way I have found of finding your best cadence is to ride hard on long rides, too high a gear and you will feel it in the knees and legs and start to tire, keep dropping down a gear and try to keep the speed up by pedalling faster and eventually I find a gear which is almost effortless and just a little slower than a high gear, but once I have found it I can just keep going. Towards the end of long fast rides when your tiring, it becomes easier to find a natural and fast cadence you are comfortable with.

My statistics for my cadence distribution this past 28 days according to WKO is:-

0 - 25rpm 18.7%
25 - 50rpm 6.4%
50 - 75rpm 44.9%
75 - 100rpm 28.8%
100 - 125rpm 1.2%
125 - 150rpm 0.0% (11secs)

For the whole year 18% of my cadence has been between 0 - 5rpm and only 7% between 5 - 50rpm which shows how much freewheeling you do. It is only when I get to 50+ there is a substantial increase in the amount of time above that cadence.


----------



## jimboalee (18 Jun 2010)

zacklaws said:


> The best way I have found of finding your best cadence is to ride hard on long rides, too high a gear and you will feel it in the knees and legs and start to tire, keep dropping down a gear and try to keep the speed up by pedalling faster and eventually I find a gear which is almost effortless and just a little slower than a high gear, but once I have found it I can just keep going. Towards the end of long fast rides when your tiring, it becomes easier to find a natural and fast cadence you are comfortable with.
> 
> My statistics for my cadence distribution this past 28 days according to WKO is:-
> 
> ...



Those are interesting stats.

Can you increase the number of breakpoints in the 50 - 100 rpm range?
That would make a better looking histogram.

What does the 'bell shaped curve' ( Normal distribution curve ) look like.
Where is the Mean? Where is the Median and where is the Mode?

How many rpm is 3 Standard Deviations?

What is the Mean if you ignore all rpms below 50?


I don't have capability to capture cadence data, but if I did.......


----------



## crossy (18 Jun 2010)

I went out for a ride tonight 28 miles on an old Dawes Gallaxy. I've got a computer fitted to that but I've put a strip of tape on it so I can't see the speed just the distance theres no cadence on it. I rode as I felt like and it was a lot easier and enjoyable. So I think I've learnt that I'm only going to use the cadence and HR as a fitness aid to make longer distance riding easier. The other bike with the cadence computer is a Rohloff geared bike.


----------



## zacklaws (18 Jun 2010)

Yes I can break it down into 1rpm segments, as for the rest of what you ask for then, roughly I am lost in WKO, perhaps if I could get the info into MS excel then I could do it.

I have added 3 Pics, one cadence 0 - 150rpm, 30 - 150rpm as percentages and 30 -150 rpm amount of time at that cadence.

After a ride, one figure that I always discount is my average cadence, as can be seen, a large proportion of a ride can be freewheeling, diluting the true average, perhaps if I set the Edge to cutoff at 50rpm, then it may be a more accurate figure.


----------



## jimboalee (18 Jun 2010)

Looks like 74 rpm is your favourite pedaling speed.

What's puzzling tho' is considering 74 is your fave, there are data points at 110 + ??

I usually stop pedaling when it reaches 95.

What's also interesting is that the distribution curve is almost symetrical.
You pedal at a low cadence as much as you pedal fast.
This is the sign of a versatile rider.


----------



## zacklaws (18 Jun 2010)

jimboalee said:


> What's also interesting is that the distribution curve is almost symetrical.
> You pedal at a low cadence as much as you pedal fast.
> This is the sign of a versatile rider.



Perhaps its something to do with riding a lot amongst the hills, pedal slow up one side and pedal fast down the other, maybe it all balances out. Perhaps doing a few rides on the flat may show a different picture.

As for the cadence around 110+, timewise its only for a few seconds, I should be able to locate those positions on the chart and look it up on google earth to see exactly what I was doing (probably trying to outrun a dog ) when I have the time.

One thing I have not done is in sportracks and I mean too is look for the steepest hills etc check my speed and cadence for certain points and I should be able to work it back to see what gear I could have been in inches. Possibly a combination of a couple

Another thing I have noticed is, I have nothing recorded between 0 and 10rpm? Perhaps its unnatural to pedal that slow and makes it difficult to balance?


----------



## GrasB (18 Jun 2010)

I can't break it down as well as zacklaws as I only get 15 bands but here is my rpm distribution by bike. I wouldn't expect mine to be symmetrical as I tend to be riding in excess of 100rpm. Though interestingly I seem to freewheel far less than zacklaws, maybe it's because I do ride fixed a fair amount.







The reason I split by bike is that the Hybrid is mainly used for solo rides where I ride to my own whims, the road bike is used more for group rides & also I do more 'climbing' despite it's higher gearing.


----------

