Biking question - Cadence

Options
Ohhim
Ohhim Posts: 1,142 Member
edited March 2015 in Fitness and Exercise
I've been curious what sort of cadence fellow cyclists have been aiming for on their normal rides. Been trying to get my average up to 80, but mostly around the 70 mark.

Replies

  • Ohhim
    Ohhim Posts: 1,142 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    (Just to clarify, most of what I've seen online seems to recommend ranges above 80, but I remember reading about Ullrich who won the Tour de France closer to 65)
  • dougpconnell219
    dougpconnell219 Posts: 566 Member
    Options
    How do you determine cadence?
  • Ohhim
    Ohhim Posts: 1,142 Member
    Options
    It shows up on my bike computer (revolutions of my crank per minute)
  • SuggaD
    SuggaD Posts: 1,369 Member
    Options
    I don't track my cadence on a computer. I ride fastest and most efficiently with a high cadence. I recently started working on riding consistently in tougher gear and it is taking me some time to get back to that cadence though.
  • glevinso
    glevinso Posts: 1,895 Member
    Options
    Cadence is a very personal thing. Everyone will have a different optimal cadence where your power output is most efficient. For the most part, however, that number will be above 80 and below 110 or so. Below ~80 and you really are mashing the pedals. Think lifting weights really fast - you eventually fatigue anaerobically. Above ~110 and you cross the line the other way where your cardiovascular efficiency is not high enough to sustain the power output. Your heart rate will climb too high for the amount of power you are trying to put down.

    Personally, I find that when I am rolling around 88 or so where I find I can put more power down for longer.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Options
    dougpconnell219 wrote: »
    How do you determine cadence?

    I don't have a fancy accessories for my Garmin yet so I time 15 seconds and count, then muliply by 4 to get the RPMs/cadence.

    I tend to be pretty low 70-80 would be my natural. I really struggle to get to 90 or 100. 110 is extremely difficult for me (in spin class they have a monitor).
  • tbilly20
    tbilly20 Posts: 154 Member
    Options
    glevinso wrote: »
    Cadence is a very personal thing. Everyone will have a different optimal cadence where your power output is most efficient. For the most part, however, that number will be above 80 and below 110 or so. Below ~80 and you really are mashing the pedals. Think lifting weights really fast - you eventually fatigue anaerobically. Above ~110 and you cross the line the other way where your cardiovascular efficiency is not high enough to sustain the power output. Your heart rate will climb too high for the amount of power you are trying to put down.

    Personally, I find that when I am rolling around 88 or so where I find I can put more power down for longer.

    This is well said. The true key to candence is power and vice versa. Wattage is derived from a measurement of strain gauges and reed switches. Strain gauges measure deflection at a microscopic level, and reed switches measure cadence (this can be measured by an accelerometer as well). So, as raw power is important, the ability to put power down to the pedal repeatedly is even more important. Thus wattage is expressed as a function of energy, in kilo joules, over time.

    Optimizing cadence however is dependent on the rider's physiology and goals. Let's say you are a triathlete or TT specialist. A cadence of 65-85 would not be out of norm. However, a crit racer would need to train at cadences between 80-125 to prepare for attacks. If a move occurs, they have to be ready for it!

    Finding the cadence where you perform best should be done with the aide of a power meter. To properly analyze the data, you might want to seek the advice of a coach.

  • thejensjourney
    thejensjourney Posts: 1 Member
    Options
    glevinso wrote: »
    Cadence is a very personal thing. Everyone will have a different optimal cadence where your power output is most efficient. For the most part, however, that number will be above 80 and below 110 or so. Below ~80 and you really are mashing the pedals. Think lifting weights really fast - you eventually fatigue anaerobically. Above ~110 and you cross the line the other way where your cardiovascular efficiency is not high enough to sustain the power output. Your heart rate will climb too high for the amount of power you are trying to put down.

    Personally, I find that when I am rolling around 88 or so where I find I can put more power down for longer.


    Same here. Well said.
  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 25,207 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    Cadence is revolutions per minute. If you've got a time-keeping device and an ability to count, you can figure out your cadence. Just count how many times your right foot goes around in 1 minute.

    Ideally, as mentioned above, your cadence should be somewhere between 80 and 110 rpm. Below 80 and you risk damaging your knees.

    Personally, my cadence sits somewhere between about 85 and 90 rpm ... that's where I feel most comfortable.

    But for a long time, my cadence was between 80-85 rpm. It wasn't until I started taking spinning classes in addition to cycling outside that I got it up and over 85.
  • glevinso
    glevinso Posts: 1,895 Member
    Options
    I can illustrate this point with some actual data.

    This was a workout I did last week. 3x15 minutes at sub-LT.

    Each of the 15 minute intervals was at a mostly-steady 250 watts, with the first being at ~80rpm, the second at 90 and the third at 100.

    Red line is heart rate, yellow is cadence and purple is power (measured from a Quarq).

    Ignoring the heart-rate anomaly during the first recovery, you can pretty clearly see my avg heart rate during the 15 minutes increased just a bit with each change in cadence. Sure some of that can be attributed to fatigue over the course of the 1.5 hours on the trainer, but in general the correlation of heart rate and cadence when power is held steady is fairly apparent:

    hr_anomaly_zpsukadaezb.png
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    Ohhim wrote: »
    (Just to clarify, most of what I've seen online seems to recommend ranges above 80, but I remember reading about Ullrich who won the Tour de France closer to 65)

    ulrich was not your typical rider.
  • Ohhim
    Ohhim Posts: 1,142 Member
    Options
    glevinso wrote: »
    I can illustrate this point with some actual data.

    This was a workout I did last week. 3x15 minutes at sub-LT.

    Each of the 15 minute intervals was at a mostly-steady 250 watts, with the first being at ~80rpm, the second at 90 and the third at 100.

    Red line is heart rate, yellow is cadence and purple is power (measured from a Quarq).

    Ignoring the heart-rate anomaly during the first recovery, you can pretty clearly see my avg heart rate during the 15 minutes increased just a bit with each change in cadence. Sure some of that can be attributed to fatigue over the course of the 1.5 hours on the trainer, but in general the correlation of heart rate and cadence when power is held steady is fairly apparent:

    hr_anomaly_zpsukadaezb.png

    @glevinso definitely noticed something similar on prior rides.

    I haven't yet made the investment in a power meter (holding off until I put in 15,000 miles on my bike), but the few times I've looked at HR for same wattage at the gym (my fitness keeps me closer to 220 watts when staying sub LT), it kept my heart rate lowest for the same power when dropping my RPM into the mid 60s. When riding same direction on flatlands, I also noticed that I'm getting more speed in the 70s than 80s at the same HR. Still, it sounds like lower RPMs produce more muscle fatigue/lactic acid, so I can understand how a higher cadence may be sustainable and have been told to spin up to 100rpm at the end of longer triathlon rides/bricks to help clear out lactic acid before starting a run.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    I've spent the winter working on cadence. On the trainer, I can average right at 90-93 for a workout. On the few times I've managed to get on the road, the average is about 75 rpm including stops and butt kicking hills.

    I need to get out and get my climbing legs back.

    Power is this summer's or fall's addition.
  • Johntechwriter
    Johntechwriter Posts: 4 Member
    Options
    Left to our own devices, we cyclists tend to slog at the lowest cadence we can get away with. Cycling at a given speed at higher cadence takes more energy. But if a rider trains up to that level, they will outperform those who settle for lower cadence. The first high-cadence climber I'm aware of was Charly Gaul, the "angel of the mountains" in the 1950s. A more recent example was Lance Armstrong. For these guys normal cadence was 100. And that was in a big gear. Try it sometime!
  • glevinso
    glevinso Posts: 1,895 Member
    Options
    Ohhim wrote: »

    @glevinso definitely noticed something similar on prior rides.

    I haven't yet made the investment in a power meter (holding off until I put in 15,000 miles on my bike), but the few times I've looked at HR for same wattage at the gym (my fitness keeps me closer to 220 watts when staying sub LT), it kept my heart rate lowest for the same power when dropping my RPM into the mid 60s. When riding same direction on flatlands, I also noticed that I'm getting more speed in the 70s than 80s at the same HR. Still, it sounds like lower RPMs produce more muscle fatigue/lactic acid, so I can understand how a higher cadence may be sustainable and have been told to spin up to 100rpm at the end of longer triathlon rides/bricks to help clear out lactic acid before starting a run.


    The power meter was absolutely the best investment I ever made in fitness equipment.

    I put a Quarq on my tri bike, and then realized I missed having power on my road bike, so I decided to spend money again and get a Powertap for the roadie...

Categories