cadence - slow / med / fast

Ken Marcet said:

I find that if I maintain a normal, for me, constant cadence I am

able to

Quoted message said:

ride longer with less effort.
Is this just me?

I've never been much of a road rider, but maintaining a steady pace,
whether I'm running or bicycling, has always helped me to go for longer
periods than when I'm changing speeds.

I think the faster I can comfortably spin, the less effort it takes for
my leg to keep doing it, and therefore, the easier it is to maintain
for a longer period of time.

-Bill H.

Ken Marcet said:

Now I have just read that most experienced cyclist have a cadence of 70 - 90
rpm's, and I know that this is probably different for every rider, does
maintaining a constant cadence have an effect on endurance? I have not
found an easy to understand answer to this question.

Cadence
The speed at which the pedals turn, measured in Revolutions Per Minute.
Inexperienced cyclists tend to ride in higher gears than they should,
pedaling at a slower cadence.

That is just casual riding and lazy riding around the neighborhood style
and anyone who is the least bit serious about riding should know that. I
only goof off at about 40 to 60 RPM when I am doing about 6 to 8 MPH and
there is no stress involved.

Quoted message said:

Most experienced cyclists pedal at cadences in the range of 70-90 RPM. This
puts less strain on the joints, particularly the knees.

Very true. About 80 to 85 seems natural to me for long reasonably fast
rides, and I am definitely too old to be a pro.

Racing cyclists

Quoted message said:

often use even higher cadences for bursts of acceleration.

Again, that works, even for us old guys. About 120 to 130 is where I am
at for the short bursts and I think that is probably normal since I
don't have a big red 'S' on my chest. 150 is possible but only for a
very short time for me, although someone like Lance, who maintains a
high cadence almost all the time might be able to do 150 for a fairly
long time.

Quoted message said:

taken from Sheldons site here; http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_ca-g.html

I find that if I maintain a normal, for me, constant cadence I am able to
ride longer with less effort.
Is this just me?

Nope, me too.

Quoted message said:

Ken

Anyone else care to join in since this is at least bike related, unless
somebody goes out in left field again.
Bill Baka

Quoted message said:

"Again, that works, even for us old guys."

How old are you, "old guy?"

Curious as to who falls into that classification in your mind.

I am 65 yo and I use a cadence generally 85-95, sometimes over 100, if
I just don't happen to feel like shofting :o)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Racing cyclists
often use even higher cadences for bursts of acceleration.

Again, that works, even for us old guys. About 120 to 130 is where I am
at for the short bursts and I think that is probably normal since I
don't have a big red 'S' on my chest. 150 is possible but only for a
very short time for me, although someone like Lance, who maintains a
high cadence almost all the time might be able to do 150 for a fairly
long time.

Lance runs about 120 RPM when climbing, IIRC.

Muscle fiber falls into two categories: Fast and Slow twitch.

As you might expect, 150 RPM requires fast twitch and is typically anaerobic
in nature, as opposed to aerobic. Sprinters can hit 150 RPM (or higher, I
believe 180 RPM is not unheard of), but only for short times. I used to ride
with a track sprinter, he was a thing of beauty to watch when it came time
to throw down for a city limit sign (and he was 55 years old). I always got
my revenge on the hills, though.

With the racers, it is not so much the steady state RPM they can maintain,
but their ability to readily change from one RPM to another that makes them
different animals.
Chris Neary
[email hidden]

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

Quoted message said:

Now I have just read that most experienced cyclist have a cadence of 70 - 90
rpm's, and I know that this is probably different for every rider, does
maintaining a constant cadence have an effect on endurance? I have not
found an easy to understand answer to this question.

Check out this site, it may help you with your question:

http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/coachcorn/cadence.html

Good luck!

Chris Neary
[email hidden]

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

Colorado Bicycler said:

Quoted message said:

"Again, that works, even for us old guys."

How old are you, "old guy?"

Curious as to who falls into that classification in your mind.

I am 65 yo and I use a cadence generally 85-95, sometimes over 100, if
I just don't happen to feel like shofting :o)

I am 56 years young but "old guy" by definition of the teenagers I was
showing up a few days back. Old is only when you give up your bicycle
wheels for a chair with wheels. It is a state of mind induced by the
perceptions of the young and unseasoned.

My cadence averages out to be 84 over the last year when I count the
times I have measured it. Mileage may vary according to mood. I can do
150 when seated for a short burst in a lower gear and about 130 max when
standing, although it is rather awkward. When I tried drafting some
trucks and accelerating I had to lean over the handlebars to hit around
130 while standing.

I like to get out and do things because I am able to but people keep
telling me to act my age so there is the limitation of what I can do in
sight of other adults without them calling me a nut case. I will still
climb a tree if I feel like it (legal) or a huge metal power
transmission tower (illegal but a great view from the top). One Million
volts really crackles when you are up close to it. Cave exploring
(spelunking) is one of my hobbies and statistically more dangerous than
cycling, especially when done alone as I do. Being 500 feet underground
and turning off the light gets you absolute silence and darkness, a
somewhat unique experience. Much better than being crushed by people in
a subway.

I am me and you are you.
Respect me and I will respect you.
That is my way.
May you have many more good adventures.
Bill Baka

Ken Marcet said:

Now I have just read that most experienced cyclist have a cadence of

70 - 90

Quoted message said:

rpm's, and I know that this is probably different for every rider,

does

Quoted message said:

maintaining a constant cadence have an effect on endurance? I have

not

Quoted message said:

found an easy to understand answer to this question.

In a nutshell: high cadence is less efficient and low cadence is more
fatiguing. Optimum cadence depends on what you want to optimize. For
relatively short rides like time trials, fatigue is not so important,
so cadence drops. For long rides, like steep stage races, or
ultra-events, a higher cadence may stave off fatigue longer.

If you're not racing it makes little sense to worry about cadence.
Cycling is highly self-optimizing, which is just another way of saying
your body will figure out the best way to do things. If you do any
riding on a fixed gear, where cadence is set by terrain, not choice,
you'll find that even extremes of cadence don't have a large effect.
You'll also see the "overhead" of simply spinning the crank without
power -- coasting becomes a tiring activity -- evidence of the
efficiency penalty high cadences exact.

Chris Neary said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Racing cyclists
often use even higher cadences for bursts of acceleration.

Again, that works, even for us old guys. About 120 to 130 is where I am
at for the short bursts and I think that is probably normal since I
don't have a big red 'S' on my chest. 150 is possible but only for a
very short time for me, although someone like Lance, who maintains a
high cadence almost all the time might be able to do 150 for a fairly
long time.

Lance runs about 120 RPM when climbing, IIRC.

Muscle fiber falls into two categories: Fast and Slow twitch.

Without fast twitch we would all be dead. You need it to avoid accidents
in real life, like dodging a fast moving object or catching a ball
thrown at your head, just for 2 examples.

Quoted message said:

As you might expect, 150 RPM requires fast twitch and is typically anaerobic
in nature, as opposed to aerobic. Sprinters can hit 150 RPM (or higher, I
believe 180 RPM is not unheard of), but only for short times.

180 RPM is possible but requires more coordination than fast twitch. If
you could pedal at the speed of your fast reflexes it would be more like
300 to 400 RPM. I like to play baseball, either pitcher or third base,
and when someone hit a really hard line drive to my head on third base I
had to get the glove up there in under 0.4 second, total time. That is
fast twitch but only one very fast twitch.

I used to ride

Quoted message said:

with a track sprinter, he was a thing of beauty to watch when it came time
to throw down for a city limit sign (and he was 55 years old). I always got
my revenge on the hills, though.

I know the feeling since I am 56 and love a good sprint race but big
hills wear down my energy reserves after about 1,000 feet of climbing.
Long hills are just a continuous grind and rolling hills are speed down
and attack up all in the same gear, more fun on the rollers.

Quoted message said:

With the racers, it is not so much the steady state RPM they can maintain,
but their ability to readily change from one RPM to another that makes them
different animals.

Maybe I am looking at it wrong but doesn't Lance win by steady high RPM
on the 100 mile flat stretches? Last year he won the TdF by such a wide
margin that I don't think he would have needed to change RPM much.
Perhaps he is an anomaly or I wasn't watching hard enough.
I watched the tape version so I freely admit that I missed a lot and I
am not qualified to make that call, just my point of view, maybe wrong.

Quoted message said:

Chris Neary
[email hidden]

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

Lindbergh had it right. Of course I used to love the freedom of flying a
J-3 cub on the weekends, in control of my own path in all 3 directions.
Enjoy.
Life is a once in a lifetime opportunity. Copyright 2005, Bill Baka

I was just curious as to your use of the word "old guy" and in what
context you placed it.

"Old" is one of those words like "young," "elderly," "middle aged,"
etc., which only have meaning in some sort of context or in relation to
the author's own age.

I generally try to avoid those vague words and write things like, "A
man, who is 56, . . . ." which has a more specific meaning.

Since you are 56 and I am 65, you are YOUNG to me.

Have a great day, youngster! 😄

Peter Cole said:

Ken Marcet said:

Now I have just read that most experienced cyclist have a cadence of

70 - 90

Quoted message said:

rpm's, and I know that this is probably different for every rider,

does

Quoted message said:

maintaining a constant cadence have an effect on endurance? I have

not

Quoted message said:

found an easy to understand answer to this question.

In a nutshell: high cadence is less efficient and low cadence is more
fatiguing. Optimum cadence depends on what you want to optimize.

Just like a car engine. High RPM will achieve the most power but also
the most wasted energy. In the case of a car it is moving the pistons up
and down, where human muscle can only reverse direction so fast without
having a crossover waste of energy. It is a mix of Physics and Biology
but it is real.

For

Quoted message said:

relatively short rides like time trials, fatigue is not so important,
so cadence drops. For long rides, like steep stage races, or
ultra-events, a higher cadence may stave off fatigue longer.

If you're not racing it makes little sense to worry about cadence.

True when just out riding for fun.

Quoted message said:

Cycling is highly self-optimizing, which is just another way of saying
your body will figure out the best way to do things. If you do any
riding on a fixed gear, where cadence is set by terrain, not choice,
you'll find that even extremes of cadence don't have a large effect.
You'll also see the "overhead" of simply spinning the crank without
power -- coasting becomes a tiring activity -- evidence of the
efficiency penalty high cadences exact.

Very true. I spin when going downhill with the intent of keeping blood
flowing but it does burn up energy that could be used on the next uphill
leg.

Bill Baka

Colorado Bicycler said:

I was just curious as to your use of the word "old guy" and in what
context you placed it.

"Old" is one of those words like "young," "elderly," "middle aged,"
etc., which only have meaning in some sort of context or in relation to
the author's own age.

I generally try to avoid those vague words and write things like, "A
man, who is 56, . . . ." which has a more specific meaning.

Since you are 56 and I am 65, you are YOUNG to me.

Have a great day, youngster! 😄

You just got me at my own game. I keep calling 50 year olds, "Kids".
Touche.
Bill Baka

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

With the racers, it is not so much the steady state RPM they can maintain,
but their ability to readily change from one RPM to another that makes them
different animals.

Maybe I am looking at it wrong but doesn't Lance win by steady high RPM
on the 100 mile flat stretches? Last year he won the TdF by such a wide
margin that I don't think he would have needed to change RPM much.
Perhaps he is an anomaly or I wasn't watching hard enough.
I watched the tape version so I freely admit that I missed a lot and I
am not qualified to make that call, just my point of view, maybe wrong.

Ability to change cadence is not so much how Lance wins, as it a
prerequisite to surviving in the pack.

Although the video doesn't show it well, the pack makes quick changes in
speed many times over the day, in response to attacks, terrain, and other
factors. The racers are able to accommodate these changes much more
efficiently than a recreational rider, thereby conserving their strength for
the decisive moment (if everything works according to plan).

As one who has been blown off the back of pack in more than my share of
local crits, it is usually not the consistent high pace which does me in,
but the repeated need to accelerate out of a corner to maintain my position
or when the pack responds to the latest escapee.

Chris Neary
[email hidden]

"We will teach our twisted speech to the young believers"
-- The Clash

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:53:40 -0500 in rec.bicycles.misc, "Ken

Marcet said:

ow I have just read that most experienced cyclist have a cadence of 70 - 90
rpm's, and I know that this is probably different for every rider, does
maintaining a constant cadence have an effect on endurance? I have not
found an easy to understand answer to this question.

yes. if you spin at 90 rpm, you're using fast twitch muscles,
and once you're in shape, you can ride all day at that cadence.
you can't do that at a slow cadence, which uses slow twitch
muscles.

Dennis P. Harris said:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:53:40 -0500 in rec.bicycles.misc, "Ken

Marcet said:

ow I have just read that most experienced cyclist have a cadence of

70 - 90

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

rpm's, and I know that this is probably different for every rider,

does

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

maintaining a constant cadence have an effect on endurance? I have

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

found an easy to understand answer to this question.

yes. if you spin at 90 rpm, you're using fast twitch muscles,
and once you're in shape, you can ride all day at that cadence.
you can't do that at a slow cadence, which uses slow twitch
muscles.

I think you have the fast/slow twitch thing backwards, it's
counter-intuitive, but high cadence uses lower force, which favors
recruitment of slow-twitch. Fast-twitch muscles are better for
short-term high-output, they burn more glycogen and fatigue more
quickly.

Chris Neary said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

With the racers, it is not so much the steady state RPM they can maintain,
but their ability to readily change from one RPM to another that makes them
different animals.

Maybe I am looking at it wrong but doesn't Lance win by steady high RPM
on the 100 mile flat stretches? Last year he won the TdF by such a wide
margin that I don't think he would have needed to change RPM much.
Perhaps he is an anomaly or I wasn't watching hard enough.
I watched the tape version so I freely admit that I missed a lot and I
am not qualified to make that call, just my point of view, maybe wrong.

Ability to change cadence is not so much how Lance wins, as it a
prerequisite to surviving in the pack.

Although the video doesn't show it well, the pack makes quick changes in
speed many times over the day, in response to attacks, terrain, and other
factors.

The video shows it so badly I never noticed it, and I watched the
summary every day.

The racers are able to accommodate these changes much more

Quoted message said:

efficiently than a recreational rider, thereby conserving their strength for
the decisive moment (if everything works according to plan).

As one who has been blown off the back of pack in more than my share of
local crits, it is usually not the consistent high pace which does me in,
but the repeated need to accelerate out of a corner to maintain my position
or when the pack responds to the latest escapee.

I didn't know they really accelerated that much out of the corners but I
have seen breakaway groups that drew out a few dozen riders for at least
s short time. Lance was rarely in these, saving his strength for the
ultimate goal and proving that strategy is at least as important as the
Testosterone driven 'drag races'.
Good points. I will watch for that more intently this year.
Bill Baka

Quoted message said:

Chris Neary
[email hidden]

"We will teach our twisted speech to the young believers"
-- The Clash

bbaka said:

Just like a car engine. High RPM will achieve the most power but also
the most wasted energy. In the case of a car it is moving the pistons up
and down, where human muscle can only reverse direction so fast without
having a crossover waste of energy. It is a mix of Physics and Biology
but it is real.

Except that the evidence shows that as power output rises
you are more energy-efficient if you increase your cadence.

It's a fact that Lance Armstrong took advantage of by
doing higher cadences that anyone else on climbs.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cycling is highly self-optimizing, which is just another way of saying
your body will figure out the best way to do things. If you do any
riding on a fixed gear, where cadence is set by terrain, not choice,
you'll find that even extremes of cadence don't have a large effect.
You'll also see the "overhead" of simply spinning the crank without
power -- coasting becomes a tiring activity -- evidence of the
efficiency penalty high cadences exact.

Very true. I spin when going downhill with the intent of keeping blood
flowing but it does burn up energy that could be used on the next uphill
leg.

Unless you're sprinting in the descent, you won't be taxing
your muscles beyond their ability to recover for the next
hill. And the energy you're using will therefore come off
your ability to endure to the end of the ride. And since
very few rides are long enough to use up all the energy
in any but the most fat-free bodies, that's not likely.

--Blair
"Doesn't mean it won't hurt like
a mo-fo..."

Chris Neary said:

bbaka said:

although someone like Lance, who maintains a
high cadence almost all the time might be able to do 150 for a fairly
long time.

Lance runs about 120 RPM when climbing, IIRC.

For sustained climbing his cadence is closer to 105-110. In any event,
focusing on cadence is a red herring: cadence is a dependent, not
independent, variable.