Discussion
Since my recent purchase of a Elemnt Bolt and all the information it allows you to analyse my attention has been drawn to cadence levels. Now I have seen a marked improvement in my overall speed and endurance over the last few months but I've only just had the facility to record the cadence level which is averaging 65-70 rpm. I've read in various places a level of 90rpm is recommended so over the last couple of runs I've used this as benchmark and upped my rpm accordingly, now I find its great for the first hour but after that I'm really feeling its like hard work. So my question is your cadence affected by anything other than fitness, should I make an allowance for my build ie short and stumpy, or is there something I can do to my bike to help my levels. Or should I just keep pushing on at my original levels and build up.
Cheers
Steve
Cheers
Steve
A higher cadence takes a bit of stress off the muscles but transfers it to the cardiovascular system. That's likely to be more efficient, eventually, but it'll take some time for your body to adapt to it. It's worth persevering with.
It's conceivable that a slow cadence could mask a dodgy saddle height, which would make a higher cadence quite uncomfortable, but it's unlikely. I remember high cadences feeling quite unnatural when I first started riding too.
It's conceivable that a slow cadence could mask a dodgy saddle height, which would make a higher cadence quite uncomfortable, but it's unlikely. I remember high cadences feeling quite unnatural when I first started riding too.
Edited by Gruffy on Tuesday 2nd October 14:02
It does take some getting used to, more so for extended periods
But, as Gruffy says, it is worth it
That said, like all generalisations, the one that says a faster cadence is better will have exceptions to prove the rule
And your out of the saddle cadence is going to be much lower - somewhere between 60 and 85 I would say - than your primary in the saddle position
I ride at 90 - 93 on my turbo
I have no sensors or computer on any bike that I ride 'in real life' but I guess that my cadence varies from about 80 - 100 on the road in all but the rarest of circumstances.
But, as Gruffy says, it is worth it
That said, like all generalisations, the one that says a faster cadence is better will have exceptions to prove the rule
And your out of the saddle cadence is going to be much lower - somewhere between 60 and 85 I would say - than your primary in the saddle position
I ride at 90 - 93 on my turbo
I have no sensors or computer on any bike that I ride 'in real life' but I guess that my cadence varies from about 80 - 100 on the road in all but the rarest of circumstances.
Keeping your cadence high ( 80 to 90 rpms) is the most efficient cadence at which to make whatever power you’re making.The higher the gear and / or steeper the climb you can do it on, the more power you’ll be making, and the quicker you’ll be going. The biggest limiting factor to how you can do this, and for how long, are your fitness parameters. VO2 max and lactate threshold in particular. However, the advice of “high cadence is king” doesn’t hold, if you’re not making much power ( you’re spinning too low a gear ) then you’ll just be wanging your legs around, for no overall advantage, and a seated 90 rpms is more efficient, but not necessarily the fastest way to ride. A less efficient standing, but pedalling at a lower cadence is often quicker, for short periods, as you tend to get better leverage / comfort, ( increase in torque more than compensates for decrease in rpm, giving more power, but less efficiently) in certain scenarios.
Edited by GOATever on Tuesday 2nd October 15:50
Edited by GOATever on Tuesday 2nd October 15:52
sone said:
I've only just had the facility to record the cadence level which is averaging 65-70 rpm. I've read in various places a level of 90rpm is recommended
Steve
I was in a similar situation the other year when I bought the elemnt. Personally, I'd say that's too much of a jump of rpm in one go, it needs to be done over a few months, and will take time to get used to it. Being a big heavy old knacker, I was more of a grinder.Steve
I don't consciously look at it anymore, and it sits comfortably between 80-85 most rides, whether that be 10 or 100 miles.
For me, my fitness and avg speed has improved, and as it strains the legs less, I've also put in more miles this year. Averaging around 90 pw.
Your average speeds tend to increase, for no other reason than that it’s easier to reduce the degree of modulation in your speeds, at higher rpms. If you’re struggling to reach / maintain the higher cadences, you may find it beneficial to go for shorter cranks. I certainly find it easier to hit and maintain higher cadences, with a smaller pedal circle, I find it more comfortable, so therefore I find it easier.
I read recently that cadence and efficiency is more for the pros, it helps them recover overnight to go out again and ride another 5 hours at an average of 40+ kmh. For most of us riding 2 or 3 times a week, and maybe only pushing ourselves on one of those rides, it doesn't make that much of a difference.
I recall that there were problems with average cadence on the Elemnt. Something to do with including zeros? Which I'm pretty sure I have turned off.
Looking at a ride from yesterday the Elemnt app says 70 avg, in Strava it's 79. Heart rate matches exactly and I'm pretty sure I didn't die during the ride yesterday....
Looking at a ride from yesterday the Elemnt app says 70 avg, in Strava it's 79. Heart rate matches exactly and I'm pretty sure I didn't die during the ride yesterday....
Daveyraveygravey said:
I read recently that cadence and efficiency is more for the pros, it helps them recover overnight to go out again and ride another 5 hours at an average of 40+ kmh. For most of us riding 2 or 3 times a week, and maybe only pushing ourselves on one of those rides, it doesn't make that much of a difference.
True, it won’t make a bean of difference to average joe, riding a few miles, a couple of times a week, they will be riding more efficiently, if at higher cadences, as long as they’re making sufficient power to justify the high cadence approach, it just won’t be particularly critical for them to do so.While the higher cadence definitely seems to be the conventional wisdom, it's not the be all and end all. I ride a very low cadence and only have ridden with one person who was quicker up hills than me. And he's done iron men and is a triathlete. So there is an element of what works for you too. These days I stick to mountain biking but I used to do long (100 mile plus) road bike rides the whole time at low rpm. And on the mountain bike I'm often half the cadence of those I ride with up hills.... and faster.
I am guessing you're not a Cat 1 racer so don't get obsessed by figures! Whatever is comfortable for you is best, there are many factors but you have a mixture of fast and slow twitch muscle fibres, by exercising you can change the balance of these fibres but unless you keep it up your body will return to your natural balance.
Mr Ted said:
I am guessing you're not a Cat 1 racer so don't get obsessed by figures! Whatever is comfortable for you is best, there are many factors but you have a mixture of fast and slow twitch muscle fibres, by exercising you can change the balance of these fibres but unless you keep it up your body will return to your natural balance.
Generally people new to cycling pedal at a low cadence, those who aren't and do more of it, don't. There is certainly mileage in trying to keep the legs moving a bit more than the numbers he has said, but it will come to you if you ride more, simply because churning at 60rpm on sore legs isn't possible. Otherwise when you've got fresh legs all the time I can agree its tempting to grind it, I find myself doing it now as I barely am riding these days,The advice not to get obsessed by figures is good. I try to use them as a guideline and measure against myself only.
Cadence-wise, I was riding at 65-70RPM when I started cycling three years ago. Through lots of time on the bike and regular use of a Wattbike, I'm now at around 85RPM, but still find 90RPM a touch too high if I'm riding at my sweet spot power. I think I've got the balance right between muscular / CV endurance so I've stopped worrying about it. Even on the Wattbike I find high cadence efforts above 100 RPM virtually impossible to hold for more than a few seconds.
Having your bike fit spot on and knowing how to 'use' your riding muscles will also be important factors. For example, when sprinting and wanting to put more power in, I always find dipping my toes over the pedals really helps. When I'm on a high incline and forced out of the saddle, focusing on the effort in my quads & glutes and building a smooth rhythm really pushes me on.
Cadence-wise, I was riding at 65-70RPM when I started cycling three years ago. Through lots of time on the bike and regular use of a Wattbike, I'm now at around 85RPM, but still find 90RPM a touch too high if I'm riding at my sweet spot power. I think I've got the balance right between muscular / CV endurance so I've stopped worrying about it. Even on the Wattbike I find high cadence efforts above 100 RPM virtually impossible to hold for more than a few seconds.
Having your bike fit spot on and knowing how to 'use' your riding muscles will also be important factors. For example, when sprinting and wanting to put more power in, I always find dipping my toes over the pedals really helps. When I'm on a high incline and forced out of the saddle, focusing on the effort in my quads & glutes and building a smooth rhythm really pushes me on.
Thanks for replies so far it makes interesting reading. I'm in no way competitive but what I do enjoy about road cycling is the self improvement in performance and ability and to actually both feel it and prove it by way of the bike computer. No doubt the answer for me is try and comfortably increase my cadence but it will naturally come with time and increased fitness.
Cheers
Steve
Cheers
Steve
Agree numbers aren't everything and to really understand them isn't necessarily the easiest as there's a balance between all of them!
But about 18 months I had someone who does understand numbers look at mine and start to help me with my riding.
I always describe myself as a 50 year old, slightly overweight bloke who pedals a bit! (so no racing snake)
Then I was averaging a cadence of mid 70s, FTP of 170, right/left leg balance 70/30, 50 miles solo pace 15mph. (3hr 20m)
The 1st things we then worked on were balance and cadence.
18 months later it's difficult to pin point which had the most benefit but in the early stages I feel that increasing my cadence gave a quick win and then balance and power increases took it further.
The higher cadence meant that I could absorb little humps in the road much more easily.
Current numbers; cadence mid 90s, FTP 203, r/l balance 52/48, 50miles pace 18mph (2hr 45m)
But about 18 months I had someone who does understand numbers look at mine and start to help me with my riding.
I always describe myself as a 50 year old, slightly overweight bloke who pedals a bit! (so no racing snake)
Then I was averaging a cadence of mid 70s, FTP of 170, right/left leg balance 70/30, 50 miles solo pace 15mph. (3hr 20m)
The 1st things we then worked on were balance and cadence.
18 months later it's difficult to pin point which had the most benefit but in the early stages I feel that increasing my cadence gave a quick win and then balance and power increases took it further.
The higher cadence meant that I could absorb little humps in the road much more easily.
Current numbers; cadence mid 90s, FTP 203, r/l balance 52/48, 50miles pace 18mph (2hr 45m)
PaulD86 said:
While the higher cadence definitely seems to be the conventional wisdom, it's not the be all and end all. I ride a very low cadence and only have ridden with one person who was quicker up hills than me. And he's done iron men and is a triathlete. So there is an element of what works for you too. These days I stick to mountain biking but I used to do long (100 mile plus) road bike rides the whole time at low rpm. And on the mountain bike I'm often half the cadence of those I ride with up hills.... and faster.
You may be “faster” but you won’t be as efficient, as you would be with a higher Cadence. A lot of ( relatively ) ‘new to the game’ riders think that the ‘higher Cadence is king’ thing, isn’t right. They are trying to argue against simple physics and mechanics. If you learn to ride with the higher cadence approach, you will find you’ll finish your rides, having had to eat less, with a better average speed, and you will recover more quickly. The caveat is, that you must have a certain degree of ‘souplesse’ and actually be making sufficient power at the higher cadence, as to not be just flinging your legs around for no overall gain. Faster, and most efficient, aren’t always the same thing, but more efficient, will equal fastest average, over time, and be better for your joints, and body in general. A good way to pick out the less experienced riders in a group ride ( decent level club ride for example ) is to look at the Cadence of the riders. The more experienced ( and usually fastest on average ) ones, have the higher cadences. There are some specific types of rides, where efficiency isn’t as critical as outright speed, and a big gear at lower cadence is better, but it won’t be doing the riders knees any fovours long term.One thing I have noticed on group rides is that riders that favour churning a big gear at low cadence are huffing and puffing up out of the saddle as soon as the road heads upwards, riders that favour a higher cadence just keep spinning in the saddle with much less of a "song and dance" about it.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff