# increasing my climbing cadence...Advice? (long post)



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

Once again I am trying to improve my climbing. It has always been my weakness and I've been working on it for years...I do ok on long uphills but I get dropped in races with real sustained climbs. I like climbing..like racing uphill..enter races that are 'all climbing' but I don't do very well and never have. Still, I try hard and enjoy it.

I do fine in crits and ok in TTs. I have a good sprint but in uphill TTs...Mid-order is where I always finish, at best. I am not your 'climber type' at 6'1" and 165-170lbs, but I am in good shape and do fine in flatter races. 

So once again, I am trying to up my cadence on climbs. I gave this a half-hearted try before last racing season but I didn't find it felt right to spin, so I revered to being a masher...I feel good pushing a slow cadence, but it just doesn't seem to keep me in touch with the leaders in races, no matter how good my form is. I usually 'blow up' about half way up when my legs cry 'uncle'...

I switched to a compact early this summer...but I did my one RR this late sesaon with my standard gearing...because I know I am not familiar yet with going at race pace uphill with compact gearing. 

I live and train in a climber's area...The Columbia River Gorge through the Cascades mts in the Pacific NW of the US. Every ride has some sort of substantial climb...A 'normal' climb around here would be about 7% average over maybe 2000' vertical. You might have a couple of lesser climbs on each ride also or do a steeper and longer ride with a couple of those 6-8mile 1500-2000 footers tossed in. There aren't any flat rides here. So I have been training on a 34-23 or a 34-25 if it is real steep (today was at 14% for 1/4 mile or so)

So what kind of cadence should I target in my intervals? What do most people try to maintain for RPM at race pace up say 8% gradient? I can usually go about 85 cadence up 5-6% sustained, but when it tilts up much more...I fall to 70--even 60...and today (at about 2hrs into a ride) I couldn't stay above 50rpm on that 14% pitch, (which did come in the middle of a 10 mile climb of about 7% gradient)

I read anywhere between 70-110 for climbing cadence..I would need a 27 cog to stay above 70rpm on most of our mountains...and sometimes I probably couldn't do that every climb..

It has been about 5 weeks since I switched over to this "new program" of upping my cadence....and my uphill times seem about the same...but my legs feel better at the top of climbs. Am I on the right track here? 

I've beat myself to death in past seasons trying to build leg strength, lose more weight, ride more hills, ride less hills, get lighter bikes, rest more, train more, everything I can think of...and now I am finally coming to realize that all the guys who beat me up the climbs are spinning ....much higher cadence than I do....so, Join em, right? Or try that high cadence climbing style again, but a bit more seriously than my previous attempt. 

Sorry for the lengeth of this post.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

Do you do any lactate threshhold training? 

It is fairly well accepted that your performance on sustained climbs will be determined primarily by your power to weight ratio at lactate threshhold. Getting your gearing dialed in is of course important, but in the end if its a long climb you are going to need to ride close to lactate threshhold and either not go over it very often or if you do (such as for that 14% grade) then to be able to recover and still put out a high effort. 

By the way 14% is tough as hell and it is probably a small percentage of riders who can actually ride that stuff without red lining.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Higher cadence is nice, but sometimes you gotta do what you can. As noted, with a 14% grade, even the light weights are grinding away. I don't quite have the capability to measure gradient with my bike, but I think around 10%, I start to drop my cadence at 120lbs with a 34/23. I can still spin, but I drop below my 100-110, for obvious reasons. 

If simply increasing your cadence is your goal, you could try to find some smaller hills and try to stay at higher cadence, but then completely recover before attempting this on the next hill. If you can, then try to do this with slightly longer hills. 

Plenty of non-climbers can utilize the pack slide to avoid losing too much ground and blowing up, although this obviously doesn't work for a hilltop finish.


----------



## Terex (Jan 3, 2005)

I'm about the same size. I'm pretty good up to about 8%, but when it gets higher, especially in the teens, my form falls apart and the climby guys roll past me. How is your core strength and upper body strength?

In general, I'd say higher cadence is probably the best direction.

PS: I love climbing in my big chain ring - until I can't...


----------



## alexp247365 (Dec 29, 2009)

Spinning seems to be the easiest, but I don't have the lungs to hold 100-110 rpm for more than 5 minutes. We have this 2 mile climb in my area that we ride every week, and every week, I make it just a little farther before having to drop my cadence. Repeats would probably help us both out I think.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

Do you have a power meter? Reason I ask is, just riding with one for a while in race conditions, you'll notice that your power band is in a certain cadence range. 

Me, for example, 105-110 when the chips are down and it's do or die time. So I know that on a climb that's where I should be to get max power out of my heavy body. 

Now, another and related subject is how long you can hold power at various wattages (intensities). Some riders are just able to drill it for 3 minutes, but can't hold a 20 minute pace that another rider can put out. This kinda stuff can be handy to understand when you are looking at a particular hill - is it a 3 minute hill or a 20 minute hill - and how does that play into your power band at that intensity.

HTH.


----------



## specializedrider (Aug 24, 2005)

have you though about going to a triple crank?


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

1) Keep working at it, don't give up, and *train as hard as possible*. It's not the number of miles, it's the quality of those miles. 

2) I'm assuming you have a cadence meter of some sorts, if you don't get one *IMMEDIATELY*. Work on increasing your cadence by workable increments. Instead of trying to go from climbing something at 70rpm to 90, try 75. Force yourself to pedal at that cadence, if it becomes too hard shift down and stay on top of your gear to the point where you may even slow down - but just keep your cadence at your goal. Once the cadence feels pretty comfortable, increase it by another 5 and repeat. However, keep in mind though that getting your cadence to 100+ may not be in your best interest. Cadence is sort of a balance between your cardio and strength and everyone's will be a bit different.

3) If your cadence is dropping because you've ran out of gears and the climb is difficult, get a 11-28 back cassette. I have one and will never go back.


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

Thanks

No power meter. Garmin 305 with cadence is all. For years I climbed everything in my 39-25. Usually at around 60 rpm +/-. When I got cranking faster than that, I would go up a gear, climb faster over the road, but keep near that cadence. Then I began climbing at around 70, and it felt like a pretty fast cadence...

Since I began my quest to 'rotate more' I've been using 70rpms as my minimum cadence...grind down to that, due to gradient or headwind and I go to a lower gear. I seem to be most effective at around 80rpms on steeper sustained long climbs. Any faster spin and I tend to feel like I am wasting energy....on climbs. On the flat, I am pretty comfortable with a sustained cadence of 90-100...feels pretty right...Though in the past I liked to slog along in a big gear at 75-80.

I've been doing intervals on climbs...One minute at max effort/3 min recovery..Or 30second/1.5min recovery. I do maybe 10 one min intervals on some of my regular climbs, which all seem to be ~7-10 miles and a couple of thousand vertical feet...7% seems average for gradient. I do the shorter intervals on steeper climbs...as many as I can fit onto a climb...or 10, whichever comes first. This interval work, spinning like a demon uphill seems to be helping.

I may have to try a 27 rear cog for the steep long stuff. I have a cassette that I've only used in the Everest Challenge Race and on one really hot solo century, where I never actually went below my 25...

If we're talking an optimum cadence much above 75 (minimum) I should probably try that granpa gear and see.

Thanks for the advice everyone.

One of my problems is I like just riding, so I sometimes do that more often than is probably 'good training' I try to keep up my intensity and work some hard efforts into every ride...except pure recovery rides...But I would rather go ride 3-4 hrs of climbing than do 1hr of intense intervals and go home....so I do the intervals, then keep on riding..and that is probably counter-productive...


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

I do spinning bursts/intervals. I don't change gear however, to simplify everything and perhaps get stronger along the way.

Other than those, it's just "one, two, one , two, onetwoonetwoonetwo...." in my head, counting every knee coming up faster and faster. Seems to work out well for me.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

wear this bracelet, follow its instructions, that will help


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Cableguy said:


> Cadence is sort of a balance between your cardio and strength and everyone's will be a bit different.


That's a fallacy.

Cadence is an outcome of the power we are (or are capable of) producing, the resistance forces acting against us and the gear we happen to choose.

When the resistance forces haven't changed (i.e. same gradient and body mass) then the cadence _outcome _will only increase if you produce more power or change to a smaller gear.

Cadence is a red herring. It's power that matters. 
Focus on improving sustainable power to weight ratio. (and get suitable gearing for the terrain)


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> That's a fallacy.
> 
> Cadence is an outcome of the power we are (or are capable of) producing, the resistance forces acting against us and the gear we happen to choose.
> 
> When the resistance forces haven't changed (i.e. same gradient and body mass) then the cadence _outcome _will only increase if you produce more power or change to a smaller gear.


I'm talking about someone's ideal or optimum cadence, you seem to be defining what cadence is. Are we talking about the same thing?


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Cableguy said:


> I'm talking about someone's ideal or optimum cadence, you seem to be defining what cadence is. Are we talking about the same thing?


If by cadence you mean the number of revolutions per minute of the cranks, then yes.

There is no such thing as an ideal or optimum cadence. That's also a fallacy.

There is no doubt that people tend to have a self selected cadence _outcome_, but that's because they tend to choose a particular gear when riding at certain power outputs and when faced with given set of resistance forces. The only time that doesn't happen is when they either choose not to ride their preferred gear, or do not have their preferred gear available.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

> There is no such thing as an ideal or optimum cadence. That's also a fallacy.


Hmm I really can't see that as being true. If you're pedaling with a fixed power output of X, pedaling with a cadence of 70 is still different from pedaling with a cadence of 90. Just think about what is physically different here, if you're pedaling faster but with the same power, you're having to consume some additional oxygen to simply move your legs up, down, and around more times per minute for roughly the same amount of work. So it would seem pedaling with a lower cadence is more efficient, but with the side effect of requiring more power per pedal stroke which can consequently burn out your legs faster.

From what I understand, if your cardio ability exceeds your leg strength, you want to put a little more load on your cardio by using a higher cadence and take some pressure off your legs. This would mean someone's ideal cadence is an optimum balance of the two.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Cableguy said:


> Hmm I really can't see that as being true. If you're pedaling with a fixed power output of X, pedaling with a cadence of 70 is still different from pedaling with a cadence of 90. Just think about what is physically different here, if you're pedaling faster but with the same power, you're having to consume some additional oxygen to simply move your legs up, down, and around more times per minute for roughly the same amount of work. So it would seem pedaling with a lower cadence is more efficient, but with the side effect of requiring more power per pedal stroke which can consequently burn out your legs faster.
> 
> From what I understand, if your cardio ability exceeds your leg strength, you want to put a little more load on your cardio by using a higher cadence and take some pressure off your legs. This would mean someone's ideal cadence is an optimum balance of the two.


You are making the following mistakes:
- thinking efficiency is important in performance (what matters is power, not how efficient we are in producing it)
- confusing force and power
- thinking the forces in cycling (even uphill) are all that large (they're not) 
- that strength is a limiter (it isn't, it's not even close to being a limiter in endurance cycling - and it's often not a limiter in sprint cycling either)


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

This SRM diagram of a world-class 500-meter track time trial might help to clarify the point that there's no "ideal" cadence. Cadence is 117 at maximum watt (power), then moves into the 130 -137 band, in which it stays for quite a while. Because there's no shifting, the cadence curve parallels the speed curve, _but power steadily declines_. It's safe to say that on another 500-meter run with a different cog, the power and speed curves would look virtually the same with the cadence curve obviously different.

Because I'm old, the 500-meter track time trial (young males have to ride 1,000 meter) is near and dear to my heart. I can tell you from personal experience that within the limits of reason, cadence doesn't matter. I've tried to ride the event in a 48 x 16, a 15 and a 14. While the differences in cadences seemed huge to me, my times were very close to one another. The limiter is simply sustainable power, not "gear" and the associated cadences. "Wrong gear" does get blamed a lot for bad performances, though!


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

very interesting analysis wim.

This corroborates what I have experienced, the only way to increase your performance is to increase your power output and this comes with training ( in my case repeats the same circuits pushing my own limits so I could grown progressively )

that's why I have criticized the phallacies disseminated here that advices people about getting lower gearing and going higher cadence.

My cadence got higher not because I lowered my gearing, but just the opposite, I kept my standard gearing and pushed my own limits to get stronger.

in conclussion HTFU


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Salsa_Lover said:


> in conclussion HTFU


Well, you could put it this way. Or as someone devastatingly put it to me a long time ago: "Youve got a good spin, and you can push a big gear pretty well. Now if you could only learn how to do both at the same time, you could do a lot better than you are."


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Increasing cadence should come with increased power, decreased overall weight, or both. Bragging rights for climbing in a bigger gear is novel, but putting out the same wattage and overgearing it really has nothing more than bragging rights, in case we forgot that this year's Giro mountain time trial was won buy a guy using a 34x28. Furthermore, not being bogged down by too much gear makes attacks easier to attempt or respond to.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

this year's TT Giro is not the right example to pull out every time spade2you, Zoncolan, Plan de Corones, Angliru, those are extreme kinds of climb. 

"Normal" climbs are riden in standard gearing.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Salsa_Lover said:


> "Normal" climbs are riden in standard gearing.


What's a normal climb? The same hill isn't the same hill after 50 miles of racing with constant attacks.


----------



## ericm979 (Jun 26, 2005)

The point of higher cadence on climbs is to not tire your legs out too soon.

For races like Everest Challenge I like to have enough gears so that much of the time I can have a choice of two ratios that are in my prefered cadence range. I use the lower of the two. My legs stay fresh longer so I am faster later in the race.

There's nothing wrong with a 12-27. That's what I run with my 50/34. I don't need a 34x27 often but the last 1/3 mile to my house averages 16%. You might want an 11t cog if you are fast on the flat or have gradual downhills that you can pedal on.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

spade2you said:


> What's a normal climb? The same hill isn't the same hill after 50 miles of racing with constant attacks.


the circular "argument" should be obvious.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*doesn't matter*

I was rarely good at climbing. The few times in my life when I could hang on climbs, it had nothing to do with cadence or even thinking about cadence. It was the result of doing a lot of very, very intense training. Doing group rides with people much faster than me, and trying to keep up, combined with intense hill repeats and Computrainer work got it done. Doing many races primarily for the training effect helped a lot. It took several years of constant work to get there, too. The cadence will come naturally, assuming you're in good shape and your gears are low enough.

Also, I'm not aware of any reason your climbing cadence would be different than your timetrial cadence, except for standing.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

> You are making the following mistakes:
> - thinking efficiency is important in performance (what matters is power, not how efficient we are in producing it)


Woah, can't agree there. First of all, you can produce any power you want at basically any cadence/gear you want, right? That should be pretty straightforward, but now the question is what cadence/gear is most ideal to produce that power at. There has to be some difference, whether insignificant or not, physiologically. Don't think so? Ok, would you rather produce 300 watts with a gear so high you're pedaling with a cadence of 20, or instead using a different gear with a cadence of 90? Before you answer, remember that you claim what matters is power not how efficiently we are producing it. This is word for word from what you said - 300 watts at one cadence is the same as another, or am I not understanding you correctly?



Wim said:


> This SRM diagram of a world-class 500-meter track time trial might help to clarify the point that there's no "ideal" cadence.


I'm by no means an expert, just speculating and reiterating what I've read about the concept of someone's ideal cadence. But I don't see how that 500-meter sprint chart of cyclists grinding out a high gear as hard as possible for, what, 20 or 30 seconds relates very well to road racing cadence, where efficiency is an enormous factor with 80+ mile distances. Even still, you admitted that using a different gear produced slightly different results - that's doesn't seem to be conclusive. That difference in using one cadence over another is not going to be huge at all to begin with.


----------



## specializedrider (Aug 24, 2005)

wim said:


> This SRM diagram of a world-class 500-meter track time trial might help to clarify the point that there's no "ideal" cadence. Cadence is 117 at maximum watt (power), then moves into the 130 -137 band, in which it stays for quite a while. Because there's no shifting, the cadence curve parallels the speed curve, _but power steadily declines_. It's safe to say that on another 500-meter run with a different cog, the power and speed curves would look virtually the same with the cadence curve obviously different.
> 
> Because I'm old, the 500-meter track time trial (young males have to ride 1,000 meter) is near and dear to my heart. I can tell you from personal experience that within the limits of reason, cadence doesn't matter. I've tried to ride the event in a 48 x 16, a 15 and a 14. While the differences in cadences seemed huge to me, my times were very close to one another. The limiter is simply sustainable power, not "gear" and the associated cadences. "Wrong gear" does get blamed a lot for bad performances, though!


I think this chart better depicts the power needed to accelerate vs the power needed to sustain a certain speed, and is not really indicative of a cadence/power comparison.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

*Hardly grinding.*



Cableguy said:


> But I don't see how that 500-meter sprint chart of cyclists grinding out a high gear as hard as possible for, what, 20 or 30 seconds relates very well to road racing cadence, where efficiency is an enormous factor with 80+ mile distances.


You may have misread the chart. For 21 seconds (event second 13-34) out of a 36-second ride, cadence was in the 130-135 range. The gear was about 90" (51 x 15, for example).


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

Yeah "grinding" was not a good way to put it, just meant they're pushing with everything they can muster


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

So it doesn't matter what kind of cadence I climb with? "Just get stronger? HTFU...grind, spin"...same-o same-o. "Put out the watts and get up the hill with everyone else, right in the lead bunch?"

Is that the general concensus? Forget trying a higher cadence...just keep grinding away and develop some ba++s, and muscles? Gee...guess I shouldn't even work on it anymore...

Seriously, I can stick on for a lot of the major parts of the climbs but my legs fill up with pain while my lungs and brain are still willing. So I am trying to take a little more of the load...into my lungs and prehap help my legs build lactic slower, or rid themselves of it faster.. I have heard and read that this theory is how a lot of coaches and riders believe it goes. You certainly no longer see effective climbers grinding up steep long passes using a 40 or 50 rpm cadence, like we saw fairly recently.

I invite the guys who say "just grow a pair and tough it out" to try keeping a reasonable cadence up with standard gearing on the final climb(s) of the Everest Challenge race...coming up here in a month or so.. Check it out..
http://www.everestchallenge.com/

This is the type of climbing I am trying to improve for. Last time I tried it on a compact with a 27 rear cog. 1st climb of the second day, I saw about 40rpms...


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Gnarly 928 said:


> So it doesn't matter what kind of cadence I climb with? "Just get stronger? HTFU...grind, spin"...same-o same-o. "Put out the watts and get up the hill with everyone else, right in the lead bunch?"


That's pretty much it. Your aerobic fitness will determine how fast you climb (in the context of power-to-weight); so work on what matters and train to increase your threshold power and do what you can to lower your weight. Then climb at whatever cadence, in whatever position allows you to go the fastest. The rest is just a distraction.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> If by cadence you mean the number of revolutions per minute of the cranks, then yes.
> 
> There is no such thing as an ideal or optimum cadence. That's also a fallacy.
> 
> There is no doubt that people tend to have a self selected cadence _outcome_, but that's because they tend to choose a particular gear when riding at certain power outputs and when faced with given set of resistance forces. The only time that doesn't happen is when they either choose not to ride their preferred gear, or do not have their preferred gear available.


What do you say to different riders with vastly different muscle types? 

I'm almost certainly a rider with a very, very high percentage of slow twitch fibers v. fast twitch. It kind of makes sense to me that I naturally select a higher cadence (about 95 on the road bike). I'm very lean and have always excelled at endurance sports, but never gained weight back when I worked out. I also don't have a high raw power output. I had a strong kick during my running days, but was by no means a sprinter. 

Would a powerful, sprinter type with lots of fast twitch muscle fibers be better off with a lower cadence and pushing a bigger gear than someone like me? Or do all these variables not matter so that neither of the extremes (of rider types) have an optimum cadence to help them perform at their peak?


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

The best advice is probably just to ride with what feels most natural to you, but don't become comfortable riding in a gear you're not feeling just because you don't want to shift gears. Stay on top of your gear as much as possible during climbs, if it doesn't feel right then shift. If you start to get completely out of breath, but your legs still have juice in them, consider a lower cadence. If your legs are giving out first, consider a higher cadence. 

Experiment a little, I used to try to ride at 100, but after a while found staying around 92-94 to be faster for me in general. On the hills I'll always shift as necessary to stay above 80.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Gnarly 928 said:


> So it doesn't matter what kind of cadence I climb with? "Just get stronger? HTFU...grind, spin"...same-o same-o. "Put out the watts and get up the hill with everyone else, right in the lead bunch?"
> 
> Is that the general concensus? Forget trying a higher cadence...just keep grinding away and develop some ba++s, and muscles? Gee...guess I shouldn't even work on it anymore...
> 
> ...



Gnarly, here is my honest and balanced answer.

I was on the same boat as you, I will not post here my full experience, but you can read it on this post.

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=2943841&postcount=137

I went from climbing my ~500mt elevation climbs on a triple 52/39/30 12-25 and actually falling over near the top of it, because I could barely turn the pedals and was so slow and tired that I couldn't control the bike, to now, when I am able to climb the same hills on a standard 53/39 12-27 at ~20Kmh and 85rpm cadence within my heart rate confort zone ( less than 170bmp ) on a 3 year period.

I did that because I refused to "lower the bar" and I trained hard, pushing myselft allways a bit more that I could do last time and now I am plenty happy with the results, my quads and hamstrings got stronger and as a result I became faster due the higher power output and consequently my cadence got higher.

Keep in mind I was 43 years old and was 86Kgs, ( so 8 kgs overweight ) when this process started, now I am 46 and 78Kgs.

Now, I reckon that when I do pre-alpine passes with more than 750mts elevation and high gradiens, my heart bpm raises to 178 and there I stop, but my legs are not cooked my legs can keep going, I just stop to be careful with my heart as I am not young anymore. sure on the steepest parts of the climbs the cadence drop to ~65-70 rpm.

In conclusion and to give back some sense to this, I have been trolling and joking about telling RBR to HTFU. 

But this is actually true, if you expect good results, you should not go the easy way and trick yourself into thinking that now you can do it at high cadence because you are on lower gearing. You should first push yourself, train and develop your own strength and power and then you will reap better results.

The limit of that is of course, your age, physical limitations or medical conditions and extreme climbs.

But if you are young and healthy and you strive to become a racer you should HTFU, and train properly to progresively develop your strenght.

keep in mind that the racers who popularized the "high cadence climbing" didn't had that high cadence due to lower gearing, but to higher power output, that comes only from training hard.


----------



## aslanspaws (Aug 29, 2006)

Anyone sad that Frank Day isn't here to comment on this thread?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Salsa_Lover said:


> Gnarly, here is my honest and balanced answer.
> 
> I was on the same boat as you, I will not post here my full experience, but you can read it on this post.
> 
> ...


While HTFU is marginally useful, I think you grossly underestimate high cadence climbing when factoring in hill sprints and attacks. 

I've known guys who constantly brag about big ringing up hills, but they're not leading the pack up the hills and extremely easy to shake.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

are you leading the pack then ?

how many races and moutaint top finishes have you won ?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Salsa_Lover said:


> are you leading the pack then ?
> 
> how many races and moutaint top finishes have you won ?


If you're going to call out my race results, are YOU even racing?


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

i'm not calling out your race results.

I am posting my own experience, disclosing stats and posting graphs so other people on my same age/weight range can judge for themselves.

you seem to dismiss what I post, because you usually drop easily guys on standards on your races.

So I have to conclude that you are indeed doing very well.

I want to see your stats and results and also your age/weight so I can extrapolate that to be compared to mine.

also, one thing is to drop the weaker guys on standards, and another is to drop the stronger ones.

I routinely drop younger guys on compacts and triples too. but I don't tell myself that this proves my point, those guys could be the weaker ones too and also an strong older guy can surely beat my ass.

It is the progressive build up in power, speed and cadence that proves my point. and I have graphs to prove it. it is comparing me to myself here.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

At the moment, I lack any form of software to measure things like this. I plan on getting a power meter for next season, but probably won't use it in RRs, mostly to keep the bike light. 

My point is that it's the accelerations that git ya in road racing. It's much easier to attack or respond if you're not already bogged down. 

As noted elsewhere, strength isn't everything. I don't have @#^@ for power, but power to weight comes into play at ~120lbs. One may assume that I don't need a compact given my weight, but I keep at my high cadence somewhere ~110. It usually takes more than a 10% grade to take me out of this cadence zone.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Gnarly 928 said:


> It has been about 5 weeks since I switched over to this "new program" of upping my cadence....and my uphill times seem about the same...but my legs feel better at the top of climbs. Am I on the right track here?



This right here is the key IMO. The freshest at the top (and still in the mix) has a huge advantage. I'm a huge fan of high cadence and a steady rhythm. I think too many guys try to get all macho with gearing and never really gear themselves appropriately.


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

aslanspaws said:



> Anyone sad that Frank Day isn't here to comment on this thread?



95+ rpm with left leg/~70 rpm with right leg, then switch.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

88 rex said:


> This right here is the key IMO. The freshest at the top (and still in the mix) has a huge advantage. I'm a huge fan of high cadence and a steady rhythm. I think too many guys try to get all macho with gearing and never really gear themselves appropriately.


Shifting down before it's necessary is also very advantageous. 

Very good to be fresh at the top. A lot of riders will burn out a shade early at the top of the hill as if that's the finish line and they can take it easy. At the crest is where you can shed lots of riders who timed their efforts incorrectly.


----------



## DM.Aelis (Jun 19, 2007)

In six words:

Don't worry about cadence, just power.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> keep in mind that the racers who popularized the "high cadence climbing" didn't had that high cadence due to lower gearing, but to higher power output, that comes only from training hard.


Bingo.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

aslanspaws said:


> Anyone sad that Frank Day isn't here to comment on this thread?


Not really.


----------



## PissedOffCil (Jan 3, 2008)

My take on climbing cadence :
I personally prefer climbing at higher cadence than most. Although I mostly ride MTBs this also applies to road riding. In MTB endurance races I very often drop on the 22-28 or 22-32 gear for the climbs and spin a 100rpm cadence. I pass so many people who are struggling to stay on the 32 front ring. There is, in cycling, the general belief that riding a bigger gear is better (the common HTFU...) Most folks don't realize that riding a 32-32 is the same as riding the 22-22 so who cares if you're in the granny after all? I prefer riding higher cadences so I recently moved to a compact crank and I've been hitting the same climbs I used to do on my standard. While I still haven't compared the speeds I can assure you I feel a lot fresher at the top of the hill that I climb in 34-25 at 75-85 rpm than I did with a 39-25 at 60 rpm. It's a very personal thing and no method is better than the other.

Yet if one is to speed up his climbing cadence, I believe the way to go is to get some smaller gears. Whether this means getting a compact crank or a "wider" cassette is irrelevant but I suggest you get smaller gears. That way, you will be able to higher your cadence gradually before moving to a bigger gear. It is much easier done this way rather than just pedaling faster on the same "too big" gear you already have and then falling down 25-30 rpm out of exhaustion. I would also add that by getting smaller gears, nothing prevents you from shifting up to get the same ratio you had prior to work on pure force. Just don't expect any magic, you'll spin faster but produce the same power and it'll feel just as hard.

As others have mentionned, the goal is not a higher cadence but a higher power output. I believe it's easier to build that power gradually by having smaller gears and moving progressively rather than using the brute force approach that Salsa puts forth.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

spade2you said:


> At the crest is where you can shed lots of riders who timed their efforts incorrectly.


Coming from a MTB background, this is the ultimate goal when I'm on a climbing course. I don't necessarily try to be the first to the top, but always the freshest (while keeping any potential threats in sight). This has worked pretty well for me so far. 

A person grinding away on a climb has a snowballs chance in hell in meeting the demands of an attack or just a simple surge. Do that a few times on a climb or smaller repeated climbs, and they're toast.

Racing a hill vs completing a hill are two different animals and I feel like people are mixing the two in this thread.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

88 rex said:


> Coming from a MTB background, this is the ultimate goal when I'm on a climbing course. I don't necessarily try to be the first to the top, but always the freshest (while keeping any potential threats in sight). This has worked pretty well for me so far.
> 
> A person grinding away on a climb has a snowballs chance in hell in meeting the demands of an attack or just a simple surge. Do that a few times on a climb or smaller repeated climbs, and they're toast.
> 
> Racing a hill vs completing a hill are two different animals and I feel like people are mixing the two in this thread.


Agreed. I remember in Cat 5 for a very hilly circuit RR, I'd try to glance and see if anyone was still in their big ring at the start of the steep climb. These people were not threats, although I did not want to get boxed in. 

Hills are rarely a uniform gradient, too. The strategy will indeed vary with entirely too many variables. My main disadvantage is that all but one local race will flatten out with enough time/road for the sprinters to take over. In my first RR, I decided to stamp my authority on the only real climb. Unfortunately for me, that's when the main attack took place and I was ever so slightly lacking enough to stick with that pack. Live n' learn.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

PissedOffCil said:


> My take on climbing cadence :
> I personally prefer climbing at higher cadence than most. Although I mostly ride MTBs this also applies to road riding. In MTB endurance races I very often drop on the 22-28 or 22-32 gear for the climbs and spin a 100rpm cadence. I pass so many people who are struggling to stay on the 32 front ring. There is, in cycling, the general belief that riding a bigger gear is better (the common HTFU...) Most folks don't realize that riding a 32-32 is the same as riding the 22-22 so who cares if you're in the granny after all? I prefer riding higher cadences so I recently moved to a compact crank and I've been hitting the same climbs I used to do on my standard. While I still haven't compared the speeds I can assure you I feel a lot fresher at the top of the hill that I climb in 34-25 at 75-85 rpm than I did with a 39-25 at 60 rpm. It's a very personal thing and no method is better than the other.
> 
> Yet if one is to speed up his climbing cadence, I believe the way to go is to get some smaller gears. Whether this means getting a compact crank or a "wider" cassette is irrelevant but I suggest you get smaller gears. That way, you will be able to higher your cadence gradually before moving to a bigger gear. It is much easier done this way rather than just pedaling faster on the same "too big" gear you already have and then falling down 25-30 rpm out of exhaustion. I would also add that by getting smaller gears, nothing prevents you from shifting up to get the same ratio you had prior to work on pure force. Just don't expect any magic, you'll spin faster but produce the same power and it'll feel just as hard.
> ...


actually our point is the same.

my position is not just about brute force nor a religous "against the compact".

my position is exactly what you said and I had put in bold. 

If you do that on a compact, but are still with a HTFU attitude pushing yourself up progresively on a compact then good for you.

My point is against those guys that come to do climbing or racing or simply road cycling as a competitive sport, but then find out it is hard, and then lower their gearing to have it easier and then believe they are reaching the goal, 

I say no, if you are pedaling high cadence on a compact or triple but still crawling up the hill slowly, and you are satisfied by that, then you have missed the whole point of this sport.


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

Salsa_Lover said:


> actually our point is the same.
> 
> my position is not just about brute force nor a religous "against the compact".
> 
> ...


 I thought I stated, fairly obviously in my first post that I am no new racer. I have been racing since...well, a long long time. I have had success and I still do, in age-category racing. But mainly on flatter longer courses or crits, and lately in some Ultra events.

I know racing is hard. And I have had some seasons where I hit it just right and did well. I have had years where I over did it, too..Rode too many hard miles without structure, was not very smart about training. 

Doesn't every younger strong macho racer 'know for sure', at one time in their racing life...."Damn, I am gonna train so hard this season that I'll be made of steel, I will stomp everyone just out of sheer will and time on the bike"...It sometimes may work, or you may just burn out and actually lose form. 

And, of course, there is "burn out" to contend with.

After about 8 yrs of racing, I had to do something else for a while..The bike consumed all my time when I wasn't working. Even then, I was still not very good on climbs...and I lived in Jackson Hole, Wyoming...But I kept trying, and I really liked climbing. Still do.

So when I returned to racing about 12yrs ago as a seasoned Master, I decided to become more of a 'student'. Train with purpose, train as smart as I could stand, not go on a 50-60mile fun ride the day before an event...stuff like that. And now I can train all I want, most of the time. 

But they say something like "Stupid is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?" So not being really stupid, though I do race bicycles for fun, I thought it time I tried a different style of climbing. I've tried training every which way and while I have really gotten better overall in my results...little by little, my weakness is still the big steep climbs.

I stuck my 34-25 gearing on. I have a 27 cassette,, too and a 33 sprocket for the front. As someone mentioned, I don't have to be riding in my lowest gear, I can always leave one unused. I have one, maybe two more races this season before my winter fun-riding time. Hopefully, I might find some difference by trying a different cadence uphill...I KNOW how I climb on a 39-23...usually about 30 seconds off the leaders at every summit...so...

thanks for all the entertaining advice, everyone.... "HTFU"....I learned that about 25yrs ago on Beartooth Pass in Montana with some of my racing mentors...


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> My point is against those guys that come to do climbing or racing or simply road cycling as a competitive sport, but then find out it is hard, and then lower their gearing to have it easier and then believe they are reaching the goal,
> 
> I say no, if you are pedaling high cadence on a compact or triple but still crawling up the hill slowly, and you are satisfied by that, then you have missed the whole point of this sport.



1) I think if lowering your gearing is what it takes, then by all means, lower the gearing. If the goal is climbing better, then gear appropriately. Nothing wrong with having bail out gears.

2) I don't know if you race, but there are lots of points to this sport. Sometimes, just crawling along in a high cadence while the guy next to you is powering up is the absolute best way to go. I can power my way up a climb in a race, but I know when I hit the top I have nothing left to react to any type of surge.


----------



## PissedOffCil (Jan 3, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> actually our point is the same.
> 
> my position is not just about brute force nor a religous "against the compact".
> 
> ...


Sure we agree and my sentence was in no way an accusation, I'm just "promoting" another method of getting there.



Salsa_Lover said:


> I say no, if you are pedaling high cadence on a compact or triple but still crawling up the hill slowly, and you are satisfied by that, then you have missed the whole point of this sport.


If your only interest is to mash up hills, then you missed the whole point of this sport more than most people here...


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

88 rex said:


> 2) I don't know if you race


He doesn't....and as a non-racer, told the racers to HTFU.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

spade2you said:


> He doesn't....and as a non-racer, [Salsa] told the racers to HTFU.


Which is hilarious.
.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> Which is hilarious.
> .


I found it extremely odd. It's one thing to be e-tough, but it caught me off guard that this is the case. There's a lot more to HTFU than where you put keys, type of saddle, climbing in the big ring, etc.


----------



## Sonomasnap (Feb 10, 2010)

This is what I have heard and it seems to make sense.

Spinning at a high cadence and producing the same power output vs. spinning a lower cadence with the same power output relies more on aerobic fitness vs. muscular endurance. If this is true it would seem that for most it is easier to increase aerobic fitness to a long sustainable level than it would be to ride at a lower cadence, same power output and hold off muscular fatigue. 

Is this a correct assumption?


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Sonomasnap said:


> This is what I have heard and it seems to make sense.
> 
> Spinning at a high cadence and producing the same power output vs. spinning a lower cadence with the same power output relies more on aerobic fitness vs. muscular endurance. If this is true it would seem that for most it is easier to increase aerobic fitness to a long sustainable level than it would be to ride at a lower cadence, same power output and hold off muscular fatigue.
> 
> Is this a correct assumption?


No.
.
.


----------



## Sonomasnap (Feb 10, 2010)

Care to elaborate?


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Sonomasnap said:


> Care to elaborate?


It's all aerobic fitness.


----------



## PissedOffCil (Jan 3, 2008)

All aerobic fitness, yes, but one requires more muscular endurance than the other and I find it harder to increase muscular endurance, but YVMV.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

PissedOffCil said:


> All aerobic fitness, yes, but one requires more muscular endurance than the other and I find it harder to increase muscular endurance, but YVMV.


It's muscular endurance as well. I find the better my aerobic fitness, the better my muscular endurance. YMMV.


----------



## PissedOffCil (Jan 3, 2008)

Indeed it goes hand in hand


----------



## Hitchhiker (Dec 11, 2009)

I am very new to this sport having only started riding a year ago. Climbing is of great interest to me as it is the hardest! This thread seemed like a good place to learn some climbing technique and strategy, but I still feel a bit lost. It seems that one has to find a technique to suit one's own body type,

I have been using a local (Mandeville Canyon Road, Los Angeles) small climb of about 5 miles with a gain of maybe 1500 feet +/-. Actually it is about 10 miles total from my house with a gain of maybe 1700'. The grade starts at maybe 3%, building to 6 to 7% and ending with 9 to 11% for the last 1/8 mile. 

I have tried staying on the big ring as long as possible, with a slower cadence, staying on the small ring and keeping a higher cadence and then intervals of small ring high cadence, to big ring out of saddle and lower cadence, then back again.

The intervals seem to work for excercising different muscle sectors. The big ring and mash technique just does not work for me except early on. The high cadence yields the the best times for me so far.

BTW, I am riding standard gearing. 44 years old, 6'0" and 184 lbs.

Any thoughts or critique will be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Terex (Jan 3, 2005)

Hitchhiker said:


> BTW, I am riding standard gearing. 44 years old, 6'0" and 184 lbs.
> 
> Any thoughts or critique will be greatly appreciated.


Lose 20 lbs. :wink5: 

Seriously, depending on your body type, work on losing weight, in addition to the good work you've been doing. I'm a little over 6' tall, and currently at 174. I've been as low as 159, and I think my minimum, healthy weight is probably about 155. And I'm 15 years older than you. And yes, I'm trying to lose 20 lbs. - ish.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Hitchhiker said:


> I am very new to this sport having only started riding a year ago. Climbing is of great interest to me as it is the hardest! This thread seemed like a god place to learn some climing technique and strategy, but I still feel a bit lost. It seems that one has to find a technique to suit one's own body type,
> 
> I have been using a local (Mandeville Canyon Road, Los Angeles) small climb of about 5 miles with a gain of maybe 1500 feet +/-. Actually it is about 10 miles total from my house with a gain of maybe 1700'. The grade starts at maybe 3%, building to 6 to 7% and ending with 9 to 11% for the last 1/8 mile.
> 
> ...


That sounds very good, build muscle is one of the key factors and this is well addressed by your training, it is the same I did, go to your limit and then push a little more. it is the same as what guys do at the gym to build muscle mass. progessively you get stronger and then you can climb faster.... just be careful with the burnout, you should also have recovery days and a good diet.

the other key factor is the aerobic fitness, lung and heart capacity and this comes from training long but more relaxed aerobic riders ( less climbing, more aero position riding ) IMHO.

I am not an expert on this and could be wrong, but it seems to have worked fine for me so far.



Hitchhiker said:


> *BTW, I am riding standard gearing. 44 years old, 6'0" and 184 lbs.*
> 
> Any thoughts or critique will be greatly appreciated.


That's great :thumbsup: I am 46, 5'11" and went down from 190lbs to 171lbs in one season of training like you mention but also eating lots of fiber and less fat.

I've been 150lb when I was in top form and riding everyday some 6 years ago .....


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Salsa_Lover said:


> I am not an expert on this and could be wrong, but it seems to have worked fine for me so far.


I'm no expert either, so rather than try to generalize anything off my single experience (which can be confounded by so many factors), I prefer to look at what the true experts are saying. What I see is people like Ric Stern, Andy Coggan, Alex, and others are all of a single mind. All the science points to one thing - aerobic fitness controls climbing rate and factors such as muscle size, strength, pedaling style don't make any difference.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

true, you are right on that.. aerobic fitness is what controls climbing rate and endurance.

But muscle size, strength, pedaling style controls the speed IMHO. 

You could be very fit and climb for a long time at high cadence while going slowly. On the other hand the muscle power will not last long without enough aerobic fitness.

Actually now what limits me, is the heart capacity not the muscle strenght. when my BPM reaches 180 i just can't keep on. I know it is an age thing as we get older we have to keep our hearts under some limits. Or there is a way to increase your heart capacity safely ?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Muscle size does not matter on a climb, or climbers would all look like track guys who race the kilo.


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

spade2you said:


> Muscle size does not matter on a climb, or climbers would all look like track guys who race the kilo.


Oh, it matters, adversely.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

the right muscle on the right size does matter. extra heavy muscle don't


----------

