# Cadence



## Smoke2 (Jul 24, 2011)

Can you explain cadence in a nutshell?

I know that it's keeping pace basicly...revolutions per minute.

Can I assume that the easiest way to get this is by counting your revolutions?
or is there another way.

I've also seen what seems to be the magic number of 80. I just had my Mt. Bike out on the road..flats seemed to be between 50-60

What am I striving for here?

Thx in advance for the basic info.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

80 seems to be an average number. Racers usually run 90-100. 

I'd say 80 is a good starting place. My shop encouraged me to try 100-110, which made me a lot faster than when I was pushing too heavy of a gear.


----------



## mopartodd (Dec 1, 2010)

pedals where you feel comfortable. You'll get better with time on the bike. You really need something that counts cadence rather than rely on other means. My Avg. cadence over 2200 miles this year is 83 RPM's according to my Garmin.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

You don't need a computer, but you can get one if you want. You can simply count for 15 seconds, multiply by 4. And then (this is the key) keep pedaling at that cadence for a bit and learn the tempo, like learning how fast a song is played Learn what 6o feels like, and 80, and 100. That's accurate enough for learning.

What you're striving for is to learn to pedal at a cadence that is efficient and comfortable for you. That varies with different people, but it is generally higher than many new riders spin. You've already found out you're cranking more slowly than that. If you're going to maintain that speed, shift down a few gears (bigger cogs in the back) so you're turning faster. 

I think a new rider can improve cadence simply by pedaling at a little faster cadence than you're comfortable with. Stay at that pace until you're comfortable, then up it some more. When you can put out some power smoothly at 100 rpm's for a few minutes at a time, you've basically trained your legs for a range of cadences, and you experiment with what works for you on longer rides.

You really don't need the electronics, IMHO.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

In addition to what's been offered, I'll add that additional advantages of developing and maintaining 'adaquate' cadence are higher endurance and less stress on the knees. Since knee injuries rank among the most common in cycling, something to pay heed to.

While I agree that (literally) no one _needs_ a computer with cadence, for ~$30 IMO it's a worthwhile investment, and there may be times that you'd prefer to glance at a display rather than calculate. But you will become familiar with the 'feel' of a range in fairly short order.

One example:
CatEye Astrale 8 Bike Computer - Cyclocomputers


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Smoke2 said:


> Can you explain cadence in a nutshell?.


If you don't mind a gross simplification, here's my try at the nutshell:

Exerting high forces on the pedal at low cadences draws on a relatively small amount of fuel stored in the body. Exerting less forces on the pedal at high cadences draws on an unlimited supply of fuel stored in the air. Both approaches work well for making speed. But the only way to survive a _long ride at high speed _is to draw on the unlimited supply of fuel as much as possible = less forces on the pedal, higher cadence.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

One quibble, Wim: Not "fuel," but rather "oxidizer." You're using on-board fuel with either form of muscular metabolism; you don't get any fuel out of the atmosphere. But when you work "anaerobically" you're burning that fuel with oxidizers you obtain from limited supplies in your tissues. Working at "aerobic" rates allows you to use mostly oxygen that's drawn from the air you're inhaling.

I guess I'll add one further qualification: you can work at an aerobic or anaerobic pace at high or low cadences. When Mark Cavendish kicks it across the line at 45 mph, he's spinning 115 rpm. He's way into anaerobic territory, I'm quite sure. Of course, he's putting some staggering forces on the pedals, even at that cadence

But the basic point that lower pedal force at higher rotation speed is usually more sustainable is absolutely valid, and important. Comparing two otherwise identical rides at the same speed (and therefore the same power output), lower force at higher cadence will generally result in less anaerobic effort, and therefore less fatigue.


----------



## Offline (Jun 20, 2011)

JCavilia said:


> One quibble, Wim: Not "fuel," but rather "oxidizer." You're using on-board fuel with either form of muscular metabolism; you don't get any fuel out of the atmosphere. But when you work "anaerobically" you're burning that fuel with oxidizers you obtain from limited supplies in your tissues. Working at "aerobic" rates allows you to use mostly oxygen that's drawn from the air you're inhaling.
> 
> I guess I'll add one further qualification: you can work at an aerobic or anaerobic pace at high or low cadences. When Mark Cavendish kicks it across the line at 45 mph, he's spinning 115 rpm. He's way into anaerobic territory, I'm quite sure. Of course, he's putting some staggering forces on the pedals, even at that cadence
> 
> But the basic point that lower pedal force at higher rotation speed is usually more sustainable is absolutely valid, and important. Comparing two otherwise identical rides at the same speed (and therefore the same power output), lower force at higher cadence will generally result in less anaerobic effort, and therefore less fatigue.


Assuming you have the cardio to spin. That took me about a month to see some benefit from.

like the others posted.. higher (80+) cadence 'feels' easier as my legs don't get as tired and i need to slow down, it took several dozen rides where I forced myself to spin 90-95-100 to get comfortable holding 85-90 for more than a mile or so.

i feel less knee and thigh burn when spinning 85+ and im just now getting my cardio caught up where im posting some nice speed increases for the same or less perceived effort

"higher rpm works the lungs more, lower rpm works the legs more"


----------



## psycleridr (Jul 21, 2005)

Offline said:


> "higher rpm works the lungs more, lower rpm works the legs more"


^^^This is it in a nutshell^^^

For me I naturally like to mash my gears (low cadence) this led to cramps for anything over 50miles. As I start to spin more (high cadence) my legs feel fresher over longer distances. You need to realize that if you are going to attempt to increase your cadence you will feel totally winded at first as you are not used to it. It will take some time to adjust to. I have the cadencemometer and will not allow myself to move up a gear until I see at least 100


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

Offline said:


> Assuming you have the cardio to spin.


Absolutely. The aerobic advantage only appears if your lungs, heart and circulatory system can deliver the oxygen to the muscles fast enough.

Of course, training them to do that has huge benefits for general health. In fact, after the fun, it's the most important thing we amateurs get from this activity.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

JCavilia said:


> One quibble, Wim: Not "fuel," but rather "oxidizer.".


Agree. I was trying to remove everything fom the explanation not needed for a basic understanding of why fast long-distance cyclists prefer to spin. Hence my "gross oversimplification."


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

We could get in depth as much as we want, but I'm not sure if the OP is even reading any more. 

Like everyone else, I'd grind along at 60rpm when I was getting into cycling. High RPMs felt very odd and took me a while to get used to that sort of effort. As ya get into cycling, you start to notice that long distance riders and racers often exhibit a lot of similar traits, good cadence being part of that foundation. 

In my limited experience, a good chunk of guys who resist and hate high cadence simply don't have the cardio. Admitting that is another story. :idea:


----------



## Smoke2 (Jul 24, 2011)

Thx for all the info..simplified as well as in depth.

Yes I'm still reading, great stuff for someone just getting into it and wanting to learn.

Q...should the same cadence try to be maintained on either a hybrid or a road bike?..Would I guess pedal rotation is pedal rotation?

Just trying to get it right from the start.


----------



## JKOST (Jun 19, 2011)

When I hit steep / long hills, my cadence will drop from high 80s/low 90s to mid 70s, even though I'm shifting to the big rings. While I know part of this is related to getting in shape, is it reasonable to think that I should be able to keep my cadence up on any type of terrain?


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Smoke2 said:


> Q...should the same cadence try to be maintained on either a hybrid or a road bike?..Would I guess pedal rotation is pedal rotation?


If the hybrid rider is trying to go as fast the road bike rider, the same cadences should be maintained. But higher (90+) cadences wouldn't serve a _slower_ hybrid rider very well. At slower speeds, higher cadences are not very efficient. And if you combine an untrained rider with slower speeds, higher cadences are very inefficient. It's a complex subject, with all sorts of seemingly contradictory information coming at you. Keep reading!


----------



## BostonG (Apr 13, 2010)

Good information on the subject from knowledgeable people. Glad I read this thread. I think I’ll pay a bit of attention to my cadence next ride, haven’t done that in awhile but it’s always good to step back sometimes and work on some basics.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

JKOST said:


> When I hit steep / long hills, my cadence will drop from high 80s/low 90s to mid 70s, even though I'm shifting to the big rings. While I know part of this is related to getting in shape, *is it reasonable to think that I should be able to keep my cadence up on any type of terrain?*


Most of us would say "no." rpm will drop on your steepest climbs. You learn to stand and grind sometimes, unless you want to carry around a bounch of very low gears you rarely need.

My own experience. I ride a standard double, 39/52, with 13-26 cassette. For flats and moderate hills my cadence is usually in the 90's, sometimes faster. Some of my routes have some very steep pitches that slow me down to under 6 mph briefly. That means about 50 rpm in my lowest gear (standing, obviously). To do that at 90 rpm I'd need something like a 24x30 gear (triple, obviously). Because I'd only need it rarely, and because I can safely grind the low cadence for a short stretch, it doesn't make sense to me to gear that way.

BTW, standing to climb isn't just a compromise necessitated by not having low enough gears. It's a useful thing to recruit different muscles and keep fresher. The backside appreciates the saddle break, too.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

Cycling x number of miles, propelling x pounds isn't much different than moving 10 cu/yd of gravel with a big shovel and a big wheelbarrow or a small shovel and a small wheelbarrow and you want to take the least amount of time doing it. Which one is going to be the best for *you*? Of course it will be faster with the big shovel and the big 'barrow won't it? That is if you have the strength to complete the job. What if you use the smaller shovel and 'barrow and do faster scooping and 'barrowing? Can you keep up the faster pace?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

You _can_ try to run high cadence on a hybrid, but I'm going to assume it's got a tractor seat, it's not fitted, and probably no clipless pedals/toe straps, in which case it would be pretty difficult to have a good pedal stroke and quick cadence.


----------



## joko (Jul 27, 2011)

PJ352 said:


> In addition to what's been offered, I'll add that additional advantages of developing and maintaining 'adaquate' cadence are higher endurance and less stress on the knees. Since knee injuries rank among the most common in cycling, something to pay heed to.
> 
> While I agree that (literally) no one _needs_ a computer with cadence, for ~$30 IMO it's a worthwhile investment, and there may be times that you'd prefer to glance at a display rather than calculate. But you will become familiar with the 'feel' of a range in fairly short order.
> 
> One example:



Is wireless important at all or, no big deal? (won't let me post the link in the quote, 1st post  )


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

joko said:


> Is wireless important at all or, no big deal? (won't let me post the link in the quote, 1st post  )


If you can afford it, the Cateye Strada Double Wireless adds a couple of features like on the fly average speed, 2 trip distances, one speed/ cadence sensor and is (obviously) wireless, but IMO the Astrale 8 is perfectly adaquate for most recreational cyclists.

Amazon.com: Cateye CC-RD400DW Strada Double Wireless Cycling Computer: Sports & Outdoors


----------



## Smoke2 (Jul 24, 2011)

Taking the road bike out this afternoon..full gear shoes and clips. Practice what I've learned.
Thx everyone.


----------



## QuiQuaeQuod (Jan 24, 2003)

Smoke2 said:


> Taking the road bike out this afternoon..full gear shoes and clips. Practice what I've learned.
> Thx everyone.



Hope it helps!

A good and easy thing to try in order to feel what higher cadence does for you is this: when your legs START to feel tired, shift one cog in the back to an easier gear and speed up your cadence, but maintain the same road speed. Try that on a flat section.

There doesn't seem to be much about actually pedaling while spinning high cadence so far (quick scan), so I will add a bit. People who have low cadences often have a fairly "up and down" pedaling motion. The higher the cadence, the more unevenness in your pedal stroke, the more you will feel like you are "bouncing" on the bike. 

So try to think about "back and forward" once in a while, not just "up and down". The old school advice is to think about "scraping mud off your shoe at the bottom of the stroke".

No one actually pedals circles. But a smoother and more circular stroke will let you spin higher cadences comfortably. Smooth spin and quiet upper body is the goal, no matter what the cadence you are using at moment.


----------



## Smoke2 (Jul 24, 2011)

Back..Qhoo, great info!..that is sort of what I was trying to do. I was riding with a friend so it was a little tough to really concentrate on what I was doing and we had to cut the rid short, she wasn't feeling well.

I'm understand the theory behind easier gear faster legs but coming from a recreational/Mt Bike type riding I'm having trouble wrapping my head around it. I'm sure that by practicing it and doing it more I will get it. I'm also still doing short rides so getting fatigued isn't exactly an issue. slower/methodical/easy riding.....this will change.

I've only had the road bike out about 4 times since I got it..I really am enjoying it but it has it's place...on the road. Hills are still an issue with it..I keep looking for that easier gear ratio I have with the mt bike..it's just not there.

I'll keep pedaling!


----------



## eschummer (Jul 29, 2011)

I did my usual 30 yesterday, but paid close attention to my cadence, trying to keep it up at all times (not sure what I was turning, probably 85-90, as opposed to my usual 60 to 70). After a while I got the hang of it and worked into this nice "glow", my whole body radiating heat. My lungs worked well, and my legs felt much less tired. My total time ended up being actually a little less than before, and I felt really good at the end. This is clearly the direction to work into. Thanks for all the great info!


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

eschummer said:


> I did my usual 30 yesterday, but paid close attention to my cadence, trying to keep it up at all times (not sure what I was turning, probably 85-90, as opposed to my usual 60 to 70). After a while I got the hang of it and worked into this nice "glow", my whole body radiating heat. My lungs worked well, and my legs felt much less tired. My total time ended up being actually a little less than before, and I felt really good at the end. This is clearly the direction to work into. Thanks for all the great info!


Try doing "Intervals" of higher pedals revs. Don't bother counting the revs; just pedal faster than your norm, for something like the distance of 3 telephone poles. Try to pedal smoothly but concentrating on the pedal stroke and keep the upper body rock solid. Pull back across the bottom. Then pedal normally and repeat a few times. Do a few of these every ride or once a week and after a few weeks your "normal" cadence will feel somewhat slow. 85-90 is excellent but the above drill will make it feel easier and more normal.


----------



## eschummer (Jul 29, 2011)

Thanks MikeT, I'll try that. 

Another question I have is about the wind. Where I live (SF Bay Area) it gets quite windy in the afternoon, and I used to try to power through it at probably too low an RPM count. Any sudden wind gust almost stopped me in my tracks. It would seem that if I were to pedal faster I could deal with the odd gust more easily and not get so tired at the end.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

eschummer said:


> Thanks MikeT, I'll try that.
> 
> Another question I have is about the wind. Where I live (SF Bay Area) it gets quite windy in the afternoon, and I used to try to power through it at probably too low an RPM count. Any sudden wind gust almost stopped me in my tracks. It would seem that if I were to pedal faster I could deal with the odd gust more easily and not get so tired at the end.


IMO facing a 'healthy' headwind is no different than facing a climb. Resistance is resistance, no matter the form. What makes dealing with gusts a little trickier is that we're essentially _*re*_acting to changable conditions, with varying degrees of success. 

FWIW, as much as possible, I simply maintain my cadence (low 90's to ~100) keeping what I call a rhythm, based on conditions and terrain. Wind (obviously) falls under the 'conditions'.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

eschummer said:


> Thanks MikeT, I'll try that.
> Another question I have is about the wind. Where I live (SF Bay Area) it gets quite windy in the afternoon, and I used to try to power through it at probably too low an RPM count. Any sudden wind gust almost stopped me in my tracks. It would seem that if I were to pedal faster I could deal with the odd gust more easily and not get so tired at the end.


PJ's got it. A lower gear/faster pedaling makes pace changes easier - on both hills and into headwinds. If you're bogged down in a high gear, a sudden gust, or a gap you have to close to a buddie's wheel on a hill, is tougher to respond to.


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

If I want a real grinder of a workout, Ill click down some gears and plow up hills at a lower cadence. Heart rate shoots up, legs burn, lungs approach their limit. I can get a hell of a ride in 20 miles doing this! Using a higher cadence, I can finish my typical route and want to go take a jog. 

I think it depends on what you're trying to do. Cadence is pretty important to keep yourself from burning out early. If you're crawling hills at 100rpm just for the sake of going 100rpm, it might not be the most beneficial thing possible. Dont discount the good old stand and mash!


----------



## flyingfleet2000 (Aug 15, 2011)

I've read a few articles on cadence, but this discussion has been the most helpful for a new/average rider. Thanks!


----------

