How many of you use cadence for training ?

[vickster]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Citius]

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

 

[vickster]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Lighter wheels?

 

[Citius]

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]

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]

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]

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.