Hill cadence

Euan said:

In another thread a poster stated that his hill cadence was in the
eighties and his flat cadence was between 95-100.

My flat cadence is similar but when I hit a hill my cadence hits about
110, certainly stays over 100. I find I cruise up hills with relative
ease at that cadence.

Is there benefit to a lower cadence going up hills?
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

I think it's a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other. Otoh, if you're me the argument is moot, 100+ rpm on a hill isn't feasible anyway with a 39/23.

Ritch

Euan said:

In another thread a poster stated that his hill cadence was in the
eighties and his flat cadence was between 95-100.

My flat cadence is similar but when I hit a hill my cadence hits about
110, certainly stays over 100. I find I cruise up hills with relative
ease at that cadence.

Is there benefit to a lower cadence going up hills?

I seem to have 2 different sweet spots, though without cadence on my
computer it's hard to tell exactly what they are. My comfortable
cadence on the flat is around 100, which I worked out on the trainer
at work. I can do the same up hills but I go faster with a higher gear
and slightly lower cadence. My guess would be that it's around the 80
mark too. On MTB rides some of the climbs suck ass so bad my cadence
is what the hill allows me to do in granny gear 😉

Euan said:

In another thread a poster stated that his hill cadence was in the
eighties and his flat cadence was between 95-100.

My flat cadence is similar but when I hit a hill my cadence hits about
110, certainly stays over 100. I find I cruise up hills with relative
ease at that cadence.

Is there benefit to a lower cadence going up hills?
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Isnt the theory (call to those more tech-nerd-savvy) that you keep more 'juice' in your legs?
And that standing/slower cadence uses ~10% mor energy?

If speed is the object, then bigger_gear/therefore_slower_cadence works better (depending upon how long you can last?), as Tim"The Twiddler"C and Dave"PB"B can attest on BRs

Euan said:

In another thread a poster stated that his hill cadence was in the
eighties and his flat cadence was between 95-100.

My flat cadence is similar but when I hit a hill my cadence hits about
110, certainly stays over 100. I find I cruise up hills with relative
ease at that cadence.

Is there benefit to a lower cadence going up hills?

The short answer is "it depends". In general, lower cadence puts more
stress on your muscles, and higher cadence puts more stress on your
aerobic capacity. If you're strong, but not super aerobically fit,
lower cadence may work better, and visa versa. It's also a factor of
what gearing you have available. Sooner or later you'll bog down on a
wall and have to grind, unless you ride some insane bailout gears!

What works for you, works for you, and what you train, you'll get
better at. Lance spins up hills, UIlrich grinds ... both climb far
better than you or I 🙂

Me & Jan U, going up in the 70's all the way.... 😉
On the roadbike I sit in the mid '80s if I can which is my nice spot, where's on the MTB I spin like a ba$ta&d but that’s when the way up is, umm, less than perfect.

But like Moses, I climb hills because I have to..

flyingdutch said:

Euan said:

In another thread a poster stated that his hill cadence was in the
eighties and his flat cadence was between 95-100.

My flat cadence is similar but when I hit a hill my cadence hits about
110, certainly stays over 100. I find I cruise up hills with relative
ease at that cadence.

Is there benefit to a lower cadence going up hills?
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Isnt the theory (call to those more tech-nerd-savvy) that you keep more
'juice' in your legs?
And that standing/slower cadence uses ~10% mor energy?

Standing will use more energy, and thus, increase your heartrate, but
lower cadence *generally* means lower HR - thus the spin/aerobic,
grind/strength connection.

Quoted message said:

If speed is the object, then bigger_gear/therefore_slower_cadence works
better (depending upon how long you can last?), as Tim"The Twiddler"C
and Dave"PB"B can attest on BRs

"It depends" Maybe it does for them.

"Bleve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The short answer is "it depends". In general, lower cadence puts more
stress on your muscles, and higher cadence puts more stress on your
aerobic capacity. If you're strong, but not super aerobically fit,
lower cadence may work better, and visa versa. It's also a factor of
what gearing you have available. Sooner or later you'll bog down on a
wall and have to grind, unless you ride some insane bailout gears!

What works for you, works for you, and what you train, you'll get
better at. Lance spins up hills, UIlrich grinds ... both climb far
better than you or I 🙂

Too true. The stress of lower cadence can tire your muscles sooner, and also
can bring on cramps if you are susceptible. I'm definately not able to grind
away for too long without blowing up. With practice you might discover you
have a "sweet spot" climbing at a particular cadence and intensity. For me
if say I'm in my bottom gear (25) riding at a low cadence (say 65-70) I
actually find it much easier to at a higher cadence even though it's 2-3kph
faster. It's like your body is tuned for that sort of effort. Also if you
find yourself tiring changing up a gear (or two) and getting out of the
saddle works a different muscle set, and give you a break. You might find
after changing down and sitting back in the saddle you are going faster than
before.

Like Carl says, if you train and target certain areas, like low cadence
strength intervals up hills, or high cadence fast climb intervals you'll
improve a lot.

Adam

Euan said:

Is there benefit to a lower cadence going up hills?

Everyone's different. I ride at 90-100 on the flat, but drop to 80-90
up hills, which works better for me.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

flyingdutch said:

And that standing/slower cadence uses ~10% mor energy?

Most likely, but doing it periodically stretches cramped
leg and back muscles, and adds a bit of variety.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

flyingdutch said:

If speed is the object, then bigger_gear/therefore_slower_cadence works
better (depending upon how long you can last?), as Tim"The Twiddler"C
and Dave"PB"B can attest on BRs

Quickly scanning through this cadence thread (bah been away for the week
and 500 unread messages) and see my name mentioned. Felt sure it was
going to be in reference to my 45 rpm cadence at the Kangaroo Ground
hill. 110rpm up a hill? I'm happy to get half that on a steep one.

DaveB