Wolf616
Über Member
I'm aware this has probably been discussed at least 9,000,000,000,006 times before on this forum, but hey - it's nigh on impossible to always talk about new things right?
Anyway. I normally cycle alone (don't cry for me, I prefer it that way) but very occasionally go on group rides with friends. I went on one this weekend and it was observed by others that I have a ridiculously high cadence. I never thought about it before but now I've been made aware of it, it is clear that I tend to spin really fast at the top end of a gear and will drop down gears when too much resistance meets my feet.
Another friend, however, pedals incredibly slowly yet still manages to destroy me on big hills every time. This doesn't bother me, he's been cycling for pretty much his whole life and I have been doing so for just a year and a bit, but it does interest me in terms of what the relative merits of fast/slow cadences are. I'm talking both in terms of getting places/conquering challenges but also in terms of how it affects your muscles and aerobic fitness. I assume high cadence (in a lower gear) draws much more on the lungs and low cadence (in a higher gear) on muscles.
Does this mean by cycling almost perpetually in a high cadence (minus the occasional ridiculously steep hill where it's nigh on impossible) will scupper my leg muscle development? I'm not talking in terms of 'competitive cycling', just in terms of generally becoming a better cyclist. I certainly find that standing pedalling up hills knackers me really, really quickly so wherever possible I tend to sit back and pedal like mad.
I've not got a cadence-o-meter, and don't plan to get one (unless someone can recommend a cheap one), so can't tell you what my actual cadence is, so don't bother asking. I also appreciate there are probably hundreds of articles out there on this topic, but who does't love a good debate? Off you go.
Anyway. I normally cycle alone (don't cry for me, I prefer it that way) but very occasionally go on group rides with friends. I went on one this weekend and it was observed by others that I have a ridiculously high cadence. I never thought about it before but now I've been made aware of it, it is clear that I tend to spin really fast at the top end of a gear and will drop down gears when too much resistance meets my feet.
Another friend, however, pedals incredibly slowly yet still manages to destroy me on big hills every time. This doesn't bother me, he's been cycling for pretty much his whole life and I have been doing so for just a year and a bit, but it does interest me in terms of what the relative merits of fast/slow cadences are. I'm talking both in terms of getting places/conquering challenges but also in terms of how it affects your muscles and aerobic fitness. I assume high cadence (in a lower gear) draws much more on the lungs and low cadence (in a higher gear) on muscles.
Does this mean by cycling almost perpetually in a high cadence (minus the occasional ridiculously steep hill where it's nigh on impossible) will scupper my leg muscle development? I'm not talking in terms of 'competitive cycling', just in terms of generally becoming a better cyclist. I certainly find that standing pedalling up hills knackers me really, really quickly so wherever possible I tend to sit back and pedal like mad.
I've not got a cadence-o-meter, and don't plan to get one (unless someone can recommend a cheap one), so can't tell you what my actual cadence is, so don't bother asking. I also appreciate there are probably hundreds of articles out there on this topic, but who does't love a good debate? Off you go.
