# Too high of a cadence?



## SenorBlanco (Feb 16, 2005)

Last winter I spent a large amount of time on the trainers. Using PCCoach software to give me a base guide of planning, every Tuesday would be speed work. For instance due 60 minutes Zone 1 work with 15 minutes of 115-130 cadence in Zone 2.

Well I did that, but now I find myself with an unusually high cadence that feels "normal" to me. I did a 2 hour ride last weekend and my average cadence was 103, which sounds really high. I also tried pushing a bigger gear with less cadence, but my HR would increase upon doing so.

Is my cadence too high?
Should I just force myself to push a harder gear?
Is it a curse or a blessing?

I know that getting a power meter and seeing if I'm making better power at higher cadence is probably the best answer, but I've promised my wife I'll wait till yearly bonus in February before I shell out the coin.

Any thoughts?


----------



## bauerb (Jan 18, 2006)

in my opinion, 95-105 is normal. unless you ride a fixed gear on a track, I don't think you need much higher cadence then that.


----------



## fleck (Mar 25, 2005)

it's a bad thing if:
-it causes pain (in the knees for example)
-it causes you to do more work then you need to.

any chance you have access to a power meter?

if so...
figure out where your sweet spot is.

if you're on a trainer. 
do a good long warmup or try this in the middle of a workout.

output a constant 'X' wattage.
do it in a middle range gear. Hold it for a couple min and see what your heart rate is.
increase the spin while manitining 'X' watts. record your HR at this setup
now try it while mashing a power gearing.

now just because you put out more power at a certain cadence doesn't mean you shouldn't train at other cadences. Actual ridding conditions it's often good to be able to mix it up to keep the legs fresh. But doing these 'tests' on a somewhat regular basis might be a good way to chart progress.


----------



## SenorBlanco (Feb 16, 2005)

dfleck said:


> any chance you have access to a power meter?


Not yet. I plan on buying one shortly after the holidays when the yearly bonus pays out.

I don't have any knee pain or discomfort, just surprised at what a huge cadence I'm putting out. Maybe its the time on the SS 29er MTB that is causing it, since I'm spun out on the gearing on the flats. 

I guess if it gets me down the road its good, just trying to determine if its something I should work on changing now while I have the time vs next spring when I plan to start racing a bit.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*H vs. L*



SenorBlanco said:


> I guess if it gets me down the road its good, just trying to determine if its something I should work on changing now while I have the time vs next spring when I plan to start racing a bit.


If you have a choice between a higher cadence and a lower cadence, the higher cadence will cause less stress on your joints, less wear on your drive train, less stress on your muscles, and better ability to respond to speed changes. Lower cadence will do the opposite of these things. You choose


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

not only that, but, if it's not a problem, it's not a problem.

people have issues when they decide one day to go one way or the other without building up to it, whichever which way. I think if you're comfortable at a higher cadence, no one will tell you to lower it. Ever.


----------



## Blue Sugar (Jun 14, 2005)

Too high a cadence is inefficient, because pumping your legs takes energy. You might not want to go much above 105, especially if it results in a sloppy style (legs flailing, ass bouncing off the seat), because this will increase your chance of injury, as well as being inefficient and making you look dorky. 

That being said, it's good to be able to pedal smoothly at a high cadence, put you also need the power to push higher gears at a lower cadence when necessary, and always pedaling at a high cadence will result in a deficiency in this area, I've found. S do both.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

> you also need the power to push higher gears at a lower cadence when necessary, and always pedaling at a high cadence will result in a deficiency in this area, I've found. S do both.


why? isn't power, power? isn't the ability to choose a cadence why we have gears?
if a guy can spin smoothly at 120, why shouldn't he?
I suppose there may be times when you get caught in your big ring at a low speed, and you need to get up to speed, but you can do that by shifting, too.
I don't disagree with you entirely, but I also think that the OP is positing that his spin IS smooth. if it's smooth, it's smooth, and it's easier to do almost anything on a bike with a smooth higher cadence than with a lower cadence. The limiter is when it's not smooth; what otherwise would limit the efficiency of a higher cadence?


----------



## Blue Sugar (Jun 14, 2005)

I find that at the end of long rides, I tend to push a higher gear at a lower cadence. This is true of most riders, from what I've observed. Also, peadlling at 120 when out of the saddle would be next to impossible for most people, and when climbing long hills you want to alternate between seated/high cadence and out of saddle/lower cadence. It works different parts of the leg. I think its also a necessary part of being a well-rounded cyclist.


----------



## funktekk (Jul 29, 2006)

There comes a point of diminishing returns for cadence. High cadence is prefered because it loads the cardio system. The cardio system recovers better than the anerobic system. Also anerobic muscle development will lead to weight gain, cardio development shouldn't effect weight too much. 

Higher cadence does come at a penalty. The more revolutions the crank takes the more time it passes through the dead zones of the pedal stroke. This results in more wasted energy.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

> Higher cadence does come at a penalty. The more revolutions the crank takes the more time it passes through the dead zones of the pedal stroke. This results in more wasted energy.


wait wait wait.
aren't I spending exactly the same percentage of time in "the dead zones of the pedal stroke" or the power zones or any zones whatsoever, no matter how fast or slow I'm pedaling?


----------



## funktekk (Jul 29, 2006)

bill said:


> wait wait wait.
> aren't I spending exactly the same percentage of time in "the dead zones of the pedal stroke" or the power zones or any zones whatsoever, no matter how fast or slow I'm pedaling?


In order to achieve the same wattage with at a higher cadence one must then apply less force per revolution, but to move your foot through the dead zones still require the same force. This means that the percentage of time in each zone is equal but the percentage of positive force versus wasted efforts changes in favor of wasted effort.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

funktekk said:


> In order to achieve the same wattage with at a higher cadence one must then apply less force per revolution, but to move your foot through the dead zones still require the same force. This means that the percentage of time in each zone is equal but the percentage of positive force versus wasted efforts changes in favor of wasted effort.


there's something wrong with this, but I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what. What about the positive force versus wasted force? I'm not sure I know what that means. The dead zone is, by definition, when you're not able to apply force through that segment of the revolution. Either way, you're only in that area of the stroke for a period that varies exactly with the amount of time of the stroke where you are applying force. I don't see how the ratio can change, or what has changed. At a slower cadence, you've increased your amount of time applying "wasted force" in the dead zone. Your theory that the average is somehow lower is belied by the power's remaining constant with less force, more revolutions.
I mean, I agree that you're going to hit an upward limit. Trackies can spin at upwards of 160 rpms, and I've heard of people going to 200. But, at a point, you just can't contract your muscles that quickly. But 120 is nowhere near. In races, according to my computer I routinely hit 135 or thereabouts (even though my average might be much, much lower).


----------



## homebrew (Oct 28, 2004)

Been riding for 30 plus years and my cadence has changed consistently, some years were fast and others slow. IMO don't overthink it. It will work itself out. Great riders have had high and low cadence. If it works..............


----------



## exracer (Jun 6, 2005)

Ah hell, I thought you were going to say that you were spinning 18-19,000 rpm's like a gp engine but at 103 rpm's; your fine


----------



## keppler (May 25, 2007)

During the summer I had a partner I rode with weeknights. We're close to the same height and our bike sizes are almost identical. I noticed over the weeks his cadence got to ridiculous speeds and he'd maintain it for long periods.

I tried to duplicate it with the same gear, but my preference on long flats is the big chainring and lower cadence (90-95), although I did at times spin up to 140 rpm for short periods. He found he couldn't do what I was doing, yet both of us rode well together. 

I guess he found his ideal rpm, and I found mine.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

keppler said:


> During the summer I had a partner I rode with weeknights. We're close to the same height and our bike sizes are almost identical. I noticed over the weeks his cadence got to ridiculous speeds and he'd maintain it for long periods.
> 
> I tried to duplicate it with the same gear, but my preference on long flats is the big chainring and lower cadence (90-95), although I did at times spin up to 140 rpm for short periods. He found he couldn't do what I was doing, yet both of us rode well together.
> 
> I guess he found his ideal rpm, and I found mine.


some difference probably derives from physiology, but most people likely can train to go faster comfortably, and I see little reason not to spend some time doing so.


----------



## steelbikerider (Feb 7, 2005)

If i remember correctly, most hour records were set with a cadence between 105-110


----------



## hooj (Apr 8, 2006)

Just a couple of weeks ago I read that higher cadence needs more oxygen. I just can't remember where this was.


----------



## bill (Feb 5, 2004)

hooj said:


> Just a couple of weeks ago I read that higher cadence needs more oxygen. I just can't remember where this was.


but that's the good news. I'm getting a little in trying to remember the chemistry, but because a higher cadence uses relatively more oxygen for metabolism, burning more plentiful fuel sources in the body (including fat), it's almost limitlessly sustainable. Lower cadence employs more fast twitch muscles that use other oxidative sources to burn short-term fuels to produce more force in the short term but is less sustainable.


----------



## root (Sep 13, 2007)

My cadence on a trainer is between 113 to 125. If I slow down and keep the power output the same, my heart rate goes up. I like spinning fast. 

My wife tells me I "pedal too fast" when she follows me with the car behind me on my long summer rides. I don't really pay attention to cadence, I just do what feels right.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Clear understanding*



hooj said:


> Just a couple of weeks ago I read that higher cadence needs more oxygen. I just can't remember where this was.


High cadence stresses the cardio vascular system (heart and lungs) while lower cadence stresses the muscles. The difference in oxygen consumption is rather small (for the same power output) but your heart can recover in minutes, while your other muscles take hours/days to recover.


----------



## Blue Sugar (Jun 14, 2005)

keppler said:


> During the summer I had a partner I rode with weeknights.


What did you do after the ride?


----------



## tarwheel2 (Jul 7, 2005)

A cadence between 95 and 105 sounds just about right to me. At least that's what works for me.


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

SenorBlanco said:


> Last winter I spent a large amount of time on the trainers. Using PCCoach software to give me a base guide of planning, every Tuesday would be speed work. For instance due 60 minutes Zone 1 work with 15 minutes of 115-130 cadence in Zone 2.
> 
> Well I did that, but now I find myself with an unusually high cadence that feels "normal" to me. I did a 2 hour ride last weekend and my average cadence was 103, which sounds really high. I also tried pushing a bigger gear with less cadence, but my HR would increase upon doing so.
> 
> ...


I would think that using that high a cadence consistently for months will not help much except for endurance type rides.

Does your training program include some sort of periodization with lower cadence drills?


----------



## SenorBlanco (Feb 16, 2005)

bas said:


> Does your training program include some sort of periodization with lower cadence drills?


Nothing specific for lower cadence, but there are easy days with high spin work. 

However, I do ride a SS 29er mountain bike which gets me quite a bit of low cadence, grunt work getting up the climbs here in CO.


----------

