Newbie tips from a Newbie

This is good advice and I would only add one thing. I think that newbies work way too hard at pedaling. I ride on the weekends with a club that includes riders of various abilities. The one thing I notice repeatedly is that the new riders are working so hard at pretty modest speeds (e.g., 15-16mph). Usually they are turning a slow cadence and I can tell by watching their motion that they are pushing way too hard. I have shown a few of them what I call a "gravity-drop" pedaling stroke, which is essentially just allowing the weight of your leg to push the pedal down on the downstroke. This isn't much different from how you use your leg when you're walking. When you walk, you don't "push" your leg down, you just let it drop. You have to do a little experimentation to find the right gear such that your leg drops through at the right pace. You want some resistance but not much because you want your leg to feel as though it is "falling" at the rate of gravity (which is pretty fast). Those that I have shown this to have been astounded at how little effort it actually takes to pedal a bike at modest speeds.

Excellent post. I've been riding on and off for a several years but only this year got a road bike and began training in earnest. I don't have a HRM and don't pay attention to heart rate, but often feel that I should be, so it's on my list of things to get before next spring. I keep a little notebook and track distance/overall distance, time/overall time, average speed and max speed. ...because that's what my cycling computer tracks. Before each new month, I set goals for each statistic; the most important for me is distance. I have two toddlers at home, so time to ride is very scarce. I track time to ensure good cycling/work/family balance. (I'm so addicted that I can imagine quiting my job to ride, but then where would that HRM come from next Spring?!:eek🙂 Keeping those stats is what keeps me going whenever I get down on my progress or the struggle to find time to ride. It's helped me tremendously. ...now if only I could get my wife to be as enthusiastic as I calculate the standard deviation of my average speed at the end of each month, I'd have a better use for all those numbers once they're written down...

jpwkeeper said:

Second, although I've heard this disputed many times, for me Higher Cadence = Higher Heart Rate. Lots of guys will expouse on the benefits of a high cadence pushing an easier gear, but these people have descent aerobic systems.

I wouldn't dispute that at all. What I would offer is that while a person's heart can go on beating for a long time at high heart rate, their legs will quickly stop working if knee or tendon pain starts to develop. Also, while the heart will return to a normal pace fairly quickly after exercise stops, the knees and tendons will require weeks of recovery if they are strained or injured. That's one of the reasons why the "Old-bies" recommend using a somewhat higher cadence and easier gear when first starting out.

While I can appreciate that these are 'Tips from a Newbie,' it is important to remember that cycling is an aerobic sport. It not only requires a decent aerobic system, but it will help develop one as well, if done properly. In fact, a person's aerobic system will develop much faster than their joints and tendons will, and if you insist on pushing bigger gears then your aerobic capability will quickly overstep the bounds of what your knees can handle.

frenchyge said:

While I can appreciate that these are 'Tips from a Newbie,' it is important to remember that cycling is an aerobic sport. It not only requires a decent aerobic system, but it will help develop one as well, if done properly.

It almost sounds like you're discouraging me from cycling until I'm in better shape. You're saying that before I can develop a descent aerobic system by using cycling, I have to already have one? That doesn't make much sense, so much so that I doubt that's what you really meant.

Also try to keep it in perspective. I'm not talking about using a huge gear to pedal up a HC climb. However, on a flat moving at around 14MPH (or less even), if I pedal at 80RPMs my HRM starts beeping fairly quickly. A person can't sustain that level of effort, and that was why I could only go around 5 miles before I was hurting bad enough I wanted to drop-kick the bike to the curb and never touch it again. However, if I pedal the same speed at 50-60RPMs, I'm OK. On even modest hills (you guys would call them rolls, not hills) that speed can drop as far as 7MPH. 15-20 minutes going in and out of the red zone becuase I'm trying to maintain a high cadence is not going to cause my aerobic system to improve, it's going to improve my anaerobic system. My anaerobic system is just fine. But 45-50 minutes in the upper part of the green zone is exactly what the doctor ordered.

Or look at it this way: You guys zorching along at 21MPH pedaling at a cadence of 90RPMs are using the same gear ratio I'm using pedaling at 14MPH at 60RPMs. If your knees can take it, why can't mine?

My point, in the end, was that the recommendation of using high cadences comes from people who already have descent aerobic systems, and they often forget what its like not to have one. My plan is to increase my cadence as my aerobic system improves, which should come roughly automatically since I generally adjust my cadence based on what my HRM tells me. But for now I'm doing what I've got to do to get better.

jpwkeeper said:

It almost sounds like you're discouraging me from cycling until I'm in better shape. You're saying that before I can develop a descent aerobic system by using cycling, I have to already have one? That doesn't make much sense, so much so that I doubt that's what you really meant.

You're right that that's not what I really meant. To put it another way: cycling will develop your aerobic system if yours is not good when you start. Don't poo-poo tips from experience cyclists because your aerobic system isn't as good as theirs. Yours will become good if you stay with it.

jpwkeeper said:

Also try to keep it in perspective. I'm not talking about using a huge gear to pedal up a HC climb. However, on a flat moving at around 14MPH (or less even), if I pedal at 80RPMs my HRM starts beeping fairly quickly. A person can't sustain that level of effort, and that was why I could only go around 5 miles before I was hurting bad enough I wanted to drop-kick the bike to the curb and never touch it again. However, if I pedal the same speed at 50-60RPMs, I'm OK. On even modest hills (you guys would call them rolls, not hills) that speed can drop as far as 7MPH. 15-20 minutes going in and out of the red zone becuase I'm trying to maintain a high cadence is not going to cause my aerobic system to improve, it's going to improve my anaerobic system. My anaerobic system is just fine. But 45-50 minutes in the upper part of the green zone is exactly what the doctor ordered.

I think you may have a misunderstanding about what is really causing you HR to rise. I'm suggesting riding in an *easier gear* so that your cadence can be higher while your overall power is the same, or lower. Power is what really drives your HR, so you should be able to stay in the green zone if you ride in an *easier gear* and somewhat higher cadence. If you're riding a single-speed bike, or you're already in your lowest gear, then ignore my advice and pedal as slow as you need to for HR.

See RapDaddyo's post above about the tendency for newbies to pedal too hard and slow. If a newbie hurts themselves because of poor habits, they will quit cycling. That's what us "Old-bies" are here to try to help with.

jpwkeeper said:

Or look at it this way: You guys zorching along at 21MPH pedaling at a cadence of 90RPMs are using the same gear ratio I'm using pedaling at 14MPH at 60RPMs. If your knees can take it, why can't mine?

In short, because I built up to 21mph over the course of 6 years. When I started I was doing 14mph, same as you, but it was in an *easier gear* at ~90rpm.

jpwkeeper said:

My point, in the end, was that the recommendation of using high cadences comes from people who already have descent aerobic systems, and they often forget what its like not to have one. My plan is to increase my cadence as my aerobic system improves, which should come roughly automatically since I generally adjust my cadence based on what my HRM tells me. But for now I'm doing what I've got to do to get better.

90rpm is not really considered a 'high cadence' among experienced cyclists. 85-95 rpm is typically considered a good endurance cadence, but that may feel 'too high' to a newbie and is a skill which needs to be developed. Don't take my word for it, though, feel free to check it with some other sources. The bottom line is: if it works for you, then great. The only reason I stepped in on your thread is that I don't think dropping cadence as a means of lowering HR is a good approach for newbies across the board because of the likelihood of muscle fatigue, strain, and injury. See: RapDaddyo's post above.

frenchyge said:

You're right that that's not what I really meant. To put it another way: cycling will develop your aerobic system if yours is not good when you start. Don't poo-poo tips from experience cyclists because your aerobic system isn't as good as theirs. Yours will become good if you stay with it.

I think you may have a misunderstanding about what is really causing you HR to rise. I'm suggesting riding in an *easier gear* so that your cadence can be higher while your overall power is the same, or lower. If you're riding a single-speed bike, or you're already in your lowest gear, then ignore my advice and pedal as slow as you need to.

See RapDaddyo's post above about the tendency for newbies to pedal too hard and slow. If a newbie hurts themselves because of poor habits, they will quit cycling. That's what us "Old-bies" are here to try to help with.

In short, because I built up to 21mph over the course of 6 years. When I started I was doing 14mph, same as you, but it was in an *easier gear* at ~90rpm.

90rpm is not really considered a 'high cadence' among experienced cyclists. 85-95 rpm is typically considered a good endurance cadence, but that may feel 'too high' to a newbie and is a skill which needs to be developed. Don't take my word for it, though, feel free to check it with some other sources. The bottom line is: if it works for you, then great. The only reason I stepped in on your thread is that I don't think dropping cadence as a means of lowering HR is a good approach for newbies across the board because of the likelihood of muscle fatigue, strain, and injury. See: RapDaddyo's post above.

You're still missing my point, although you're really driving home my point about losing perspective. Without an already descent aerobic system, riding at ANY SPEED at 90RPMs will spike my heart rate in no time, and I suspect I'm not alone. Trust me, I tried it. I tried really hard. Then I tried 80, then 70. And then I got so frustrated that I started finding exuses not to ride, which lasted 10 months.

Don't assume that I'm poo-pooing anyone's tips arbitrarily. I took all of the tips from you guys, and tried my hardest to do it the "right" way, and failed and was miserable and shamed and nearly gave the bike back to its original owner. Then once I had the HRM on, I tried some experiments on how to get back into green from the red, and I found out that what works for the goose may suck for the gosling.

And I am NOT mis-understanding what is making my heart rate rise. I've tested it, being the engineering type that I am. What is true for a fit individual is not always true for an un-fit one. And for me, there is a definite link between heart rate and cadence; it's not just about the watts. If I had the money for a system that recorded samples I'd show you the correlation. Maybe when I'm more fit it will be different, maybe it's more pronounced since I'm 6'2". Maybe you were already somewhat fit when you started. Who knows. But this is what its like to start from zero, which many of you never had to do.

You guys try to give the impression that if you can't pedal at that rate then you're knees are going to explode, and that's just not true. Sure, not good for people to try to pedal in such a high gear they can only manage 20-30RPMs either, but there is a middle ground. For someone just starting out, pedaling at 50-60 is not going to cause permanent injury, or even a temporary one.

As far as developing the aerobic system, I have done plenty of looking around. You have to train below the anaerobic threshold in order to develop aerobic capacity, and you have to do it for half-way descent durations. 20 minutes or less is largely considered to be next to worthless, but at 90RPMS I can guarantee you I wouldn't last that long even if I stayed in the granny gear the entire time.

Quoted post said:

You're still missing my point, although you're really driving home my point about losing perspective.

Theer is a lot of good information in this thread, and some lost perspective on both sides. I, too, had spent most of my youth in anerobic activities (offensive lineman). I could beat anyone off the line and could do three sets of ten leg presses at 600 pounds, but could not run more than 100 yards to save my life. The first time I had an aerobic assessment was on a bicycle ergonometer and not until I was about 27. I was pedaling at a cadence between 110 and 120 with almost no resistance, and I could only last five minutes. I was stopped according to the protocol because my heart rate and blood pressure were too high. I had not even broken a sweat, and my legs felt fine. After six weeks of spinning for 30 minutes per day at a light resistance and an ever increasing cadence, I had a repeat aerobic capacity test. This time, I was stopped only because they had reached the end of the test. I was sweating profusely, and my legs were like rubber, but my heart rate and blood pressure never went up. I know first hand that when you have no aerobic capacity, the heart rate goes up too far with a high cadence, even if there is no resistance.

There is truth to both points being made. If you push against too much resistance at any cadence, you will develop tendonitis, and tendonitis will keep you off the bike. On the other hand, not everyone can spin at 100 rpm, even in the granny gear. I agree with jpwkeeper that it is better to spin at a low cadence for a longer period of time than it is to spin at 100 rpm and bonk in 10 minutes. I also agree with RapDaddyo and Frenchygye that pushing against too much resistance will cause problems down the road. There is a middle ground, though, and I think that is what jpwkeeper is trying to say. It is important to stay within the target heart rate range, and if it is not possible to do so at 100 rpm in a lower gear, then going at 40 or 50 rpm (but still in a low gear) is better than stopping when you can no longer maintain 100 rpm. Eventually, you will be able to increase the cadence. Only after you can maintain the higher cadence should you increase the resistance.

There was an interesting study from Duke University that was presented at the American College of Cardiology last spring on the effects of exercise on fitness and weight loss. The bottom line is that any exercise is better than no exercise, and that light exercise six days a week was significantly better than doing twice the effort per day, but only three days per week (i.e., the same number of watt hours per week, but in three days rather than in six days). In a way, this proves jpwkeeper's original point. To improve fastest, do less work over a longer period of time and more frequently.

First, I'm glad you found a way to ride your bike and stay with it. Congrats. As to your advice to newbies, you have explicitly made four main points: (1) get a HRM; (2) do whatever you have to do to find a way to ride for an hour or so; (3) higher cadence = higher HR; and (4) keep a log of your ride data. I actually agree with all four of these, including the point that higher cadence results in a higher heart rate within normal ranges of cadence (e.g., 50-100). But, you have implicitly made a fifth point: that intensity of effort and thus endurance is measured and managed by HR. You have implied that because you have a lower HR with a lower cadence that therefore you will have greater endurance at this lower HR and cadence. That conclusion is not necessarily true. It is true that HR is loosely correlated with intensity of effort. But, take note of the qualifier, "loosely." Intensity of effort is directly measured by power (watts). Depending on the gearing of your bike, you could maintain the same intensity of effort (watts) and the same speed at a range of cadences from, say, 50 to 100. In all likelihood, your HR would in fact be directly correlated with cadence. So, let's say you find an absolutely flat road with no wind and you ride along at exactly the same speed and go through your gears such that your cadence varies from 50 to 100 and you record your HR at each different cadence. I would not be surprised at all if your lowest HR was at a cadence of 50 and your highest HR was at a cadence of 100. Based on your logic, you would conclude that 50 was your optimal cadence for endurance and you would ride at a cadence of 50. That transition is where I (and others) disagree. If you also recorded your perception of effort (aka Rating of Perceived Exertion, or RPE), you might well find that your perceived effort was lowest at a different cadence (e.g., 80). So, now you have a dilemma -- HR says that a cadence of 50 is optimal for maximum endurance but you feel more comfortable and have a lower RPE at a cadence of 80. My advice would be to go with your RPE and ride at a cadence of 80. This is not academic. I have done this exercise, most recently with hill climb intervals. I tested gearing over a cadence range of 65-110. My lowest HR was at 65, but I climb at ~100. Why? Because I am more comfortable and my lowest RPE is at a cadence of ~100. So, I say to a newbie, "If there is a conflict between HR and RPE, go with RPE." Good luck with your riding.

1) I never said 100rpm. That's pretty tough to do with platform pedals, and that's a strawman argument at best.
2) I wasn't even the one who initially said 90rpm, but I was willing to accept that as a point of discussion because that's a good target to work toward. I'd say 80rpm is an appropriate target for newbies, until they start working with toe clips or clipless pedals to refine their pedal stroke.
3) JPW is riding at 14mph. If his HR is too high, he should *slow down.* If it feels easier at 50-60rpm then it's probably because (in his words) he's using his high anaerobic capability rather than developing his aerobic system. How is that helping anything?
4) My comments are more for the benefit of all the other newbies who might be reading this thread. If JPW's approach works for him, then great, but I would suggest a more typically recommended approach *first* for other people who are just getting started. If your HR and breathing are too high, *slow down* - cycling is an endurance sport. If you find that the *only* way you can ride is at 50-60 rpm, like JPW, then more power to you.

I think I am agreeing with you. If you can last for an hour, it will increase the aerobic capacity. Slow down to whatever it takes to last for an hour. If you can last an hour (for that matter, if you can last for more than 30 minutes at a constant output) the activity must be mostly aerobic. Once you have reached that point, work to increase cadence first, then increase resistance. Speed should not be a consideration. Speed will increase as fitness improves.
The only thing I disagree with is this:

Quoted post said:

If it feels easier at 50-60rpm then it's probably because (in his words) he's using his high anaerobic capability rather than developing his aerobic system. How is that helping anything?

If he can last for more than 30 minutes at whatever work load, it is more than just the anaerobic capability. Aerobic fitness will improve as long as you are working above resting heart rate for more than 30 minutes at a time. Aerobic fitness will improve faster if you are working at 60% of maximum heart rate for an hour at a time, but any sustained activity on a regular basis will benefit aerobic fitness.

RickF said:

The only thing I disagree with is this:If he can last for more than 30 minutes at whatever work load, it is more than just the anaerobic capability. Aerobic fitness will improve as long as you are working above resting heart rate for more than 30 minutes at a time. Aerobic fitness will improve faster if you are working at 60% of maximum heart rate for an hour at a time, but any sustained activity on a regular basis will benefit aerobic fitness.

I agree with you on that, and I was trying to use his words (or what I interpreted of them) to make the analogy. In my mind, what he's probably explaining is that his muscle composition is heavily weighted toward fast twitch fibers, but that topic gets over my head pretty quick. My point remains that if he wants to be able to keep riding then he'll need to recruit those slow twitch fibers and develop his capillary network to support a greater muscular involvement. At some point it'll become necessary to refine his style in order to do that.

Hope I'm not saying a lot of incorrect things in all of that... :o

This is awesome stuff, guys! I've finally got people talking about being a newbie in depth, including some perspective from true newbies and/or newbies who started when out of shape.

I'd like to clarify a few points, just so they're clear:

1. Slowing down, as one poster suggested, did not help. I tried very hard to ride slower but keeping the higher cadence, and I got tired nearly as fast. The coarse I'm riding has not changed since I started.

2. When I say I'm keeping a lower cadence, that means I'm pedaling between 55 and 65 RPMs at 14MPH. The only reason the speed is important to this discussion is to point out that I'm using the exact same gear ratio as more advanced riders moving at 21MPH pedaling at 90-100RPMs. I'm pretty sure my math is correct there. These guys can pedal this gear ratio for 6 hours without blowing out their knees. Pedaling the same gear ratio faster does not, I would think, make it easier on the knees. The end point is that I'm not using a gear ratio that should damage my joints based on what I've read about the more advanced riders.

3. My first clue that the cadence might have been a factor was when I was riding with a buddy with the same fitness level as myself (or maybe even a little worse). His goal was to stay in the same gear pedaling slowly no matter what the terrain. At the end of the ride he wasn't even breathing hard, and I was huffing.

4. Doing what I'm doing now, I feel better, both in the legs and in the lungs, at the end of 10.64 miles than I did pedaling at 80RPMs for 5.33 miles.

Obviously nothing's free. You're doing the same amount of work at 90 as you are at 60 except for the work it takes to pedal one revolution. For someone with large, long legs like myself maybe this is more of a factor, but I suspect its probably more in the noise.

Equally obviously, the muscle power per stroke output is going to increase the heart rate as well, but the slope of this Muscle->HR correlation appears to be a much more shallow slope than the Cadence->HR slope. It also causes the cardio to creep faster since as the legs get tired later in the ride the heart rate starts to increase.

What I hypothesize I'm going to see is that, as time goes by and my aerobic capacity gets stronger, the higher cadence is going to have less effect on my heart rate, lowering the Cadence->Heart rate curve to the point where at 90-100 it is below the anaerobic threshold. Once that break-even point occurs, then I'll be able to maintain that cadence. Right now that point hovers around 60, plus or minus 10 or so for hills and such. As that curve flattens out, I'll be able to produce longer, stronger rides by reducing the gear ratio and allowing the cardio to pick up the slack, letting the legs stay stronger for longer in the ride. Since my rides are limited to 45-50 minutes in duration, this must eventually equate to faster speeds, not longer distances at the same speed.

It's enough to make me wish I had a couple hundred bucks to spend on a cycling computer that records everything so I can graph it to show the correlations. Oh well, we'll have to do this the low-tech way.

Gotta go now: It's lunch time and I'm going riding! Freaking gorgeous day too: 71 degrees, 77 Heat index, light breeze, sunny. w00t!
JPWKeeper

Yeah, I agree that some of the veterans here take a few things for granted.

1)Most newbies ride on platforms, dont clip in next time you're out riding and see how well you do at 90+ cadences.

2)At this point in my getting back into riding, i've been riding 4-6 weeks again. I can keep my heart rate at 82-86% of MHR based on a max of 200 (i'm 26 as of yesterday) for my entire ride. Whether I ride for 10 miles, or 40 miles, I ride at the exact same speed and the only thing at this point that slows me down is if I run out of energy. If i bring a snack and gatorade, then I ride at 17mph solo, regardless of distance. My 40 mile ride this weekend (first time i've ever ridden this far and it was at least 15 miles farther than the farthest I have ridden) took exactly twice as long as my 20 mile regular route.

3)If I pedal faster, regardless of speed, my HR will go up. I pedal in a gear that isnt so high that it hurts my knees but keeps me in my aerobic window.

Even if I took the chain off my bike and pedaled at 90+rpm at a standstill, my hr would skyrocket.

LOW2000 said:

Yeah, I agree that some of the veterans here take a few things for granted.

1)Most newbies ride on platforms, dont clip in next time you're out riding and see how well you do at 90+ cadences.

2)At this point in my getting back into riding, i've been riding 4-6 weeks again. I can keep my heart rate at 82-86% of MHR based on a max of 200 (i'm 26 as of yesterday) for my entire ride. Whether I ride for 10 miles, or 40 miles, I ride at the exact same speed and the only thing at this point that slows me down is if I run out of energy. If i bring a snack and gatorade, then I ride at 17mph solo, regardless of distance. My 40 mile ride this weekend (first time i've ever ridden this far and it was at least 15 miles farther than the farthest I have ridden) took exactly twice as long as my 20 mile regular route.

3)If I pedal faster, regardless of speed, my HR will go up. I pedal in a gear that isnt so high that it hurts my knees but keeps me in my aerobic window.

Even if I took the chain off my bike and pedaled at 90+rpm at a standstill, my hr would skyrocket.

IMO, you're attaching way too much importance to HR. I think this is absolutely a newbie mistake.

Are you claiming that riding at 90-95rpm for only 15 minutes completely anaerobic before i'm spent is a better workout and healthier than a 2 hour workout in my aerobic window at 70rpm?

I'm not in this to be the fastest rider on the planet, and I ride platforms, which at a high cadence just end up getting stomped on. I'm trying to get in better shape and drop my bodyfat %. 😄

LOW2000 said:

Are you claiming that riding at 90-95rpm for only 15 minutes completely anaerobic before i'm spent is a better workout and healthier than a 2 hour workout in my aerobic window at 70rpm?

I have no idea what you mean by "better workout" and "healthier." Most workouts serve a purpose in terms of targeted physiological adaptation (e.g., increase functional threshold or VO2MAX) and are done at different intensities for that reason.

LOW2000 said:

I'm not in this to be the fastest rider on the planet, and I ride platforms, which at a high cadence just end up getting stomped on. I'm trying to get in better shape and drop my bodyfat %. 😄

Nonetheless, you are attaching supreme importance to HR and you are ignoring RPE. I can tell you right now that my HR is directly correlated with cadence (highest cadence = highest HR), so by your logic (ride at the cadence that results in the lowest HR) I would ride at a slow cadence (probably around 60). But, I don't. Why? Because I use RPE to guide my cadence at a given speed, not HR. My point here has nothing to do with how long your workouts are or at what intensity you ride. That's a function of the purpose of the ride. I'm simply saying that using your HR alone to guide you in selecting a cadence is attaching way too much importance to HR.

Low2000, perhaps you should read the rest of the thread, as you seem to have a couple misconceptions:1) There's nothing about cadence (or even HR, specifically) which determines whether you are anaerobic in your metabolism.
2) Nobody suggested riding at 90-95 rpms on platforms until you mentioned it in your previous post (in fact, that strawman has already been refuted once in this post).

Then what determines aerobic vs. anaerobic?

I'm not saying to ride at low heartrate, i'm saying that I ride at 85% MHR for as long as my schedule allows.

As my aerobic capacity improves, I will have to pedal harder/faster to maintain 85% MHR, if I'm pedaling harder and faster at the same HR, then that is improvement, no?

BTW, i'm 6'4" 200lbs w/ a 36" inseam if that matters at all in any of the calculations you're using to determine a suitable cadence.

LOW2000 said:

Then what determines aerobic vs. anaerobic?

Intensity of effort. You're probably in the aerobic range if you stay below 90%MHR. It's not as though you go aerobic at a specific HR number.

LOW2000 said:

I'm not saying to ride at low heartrate, i'm saying that I ride at 85% MHR for as long as my schedule allows.

Most training regimens involve a variety of rides (for different purposes), from 60% to 95% of MHR.

LOW2000 said:

As my aerobic capacity improves, I will have to pedal harder/faster to maintain 85% MHR, if I'm pedaling harder and faster at the same HR, then that is improvement, no?

As your fitness improves, you will be able to ride at a higher intensity of effort at the same HR, yes.

LOW2000 said:

BTW, i'm 6'4" 200lbs w/ a 36" inseam if that matters at all in any of the calculations you're using to determine a suitable cadence.

Doesn't have anything to do with it. Your long legs give you more leverage on the cranks -- that's a good thing.