Average Cadence

[splattingly]

Hi Guys,

I guess this may be quite a difficult question to answer, dependent on a number of factors (fitness, weight, etc)- but what would be a good average cadence on a relatively flat stretch of road. And how should this cadence correlate to speed. I averaged about 19mph at around 72 cadence yesterday for an hour or so (not too intense) but would a higher cadence be more efficient?

Thanks,

Chris

 

[gruppo]

Hi Guys,

I guess this may be quite a difficult question to answer, dependent on a number of factors (fitness, weight, etc)- but what would be a good average cadence on a relatively flat stretch of road. And how should this cadence correlate to speed. I averaged about 19mph at around 72 cadence yesterday for an hour or so (not too intense) but would a higher cadence be more efficient?

Thanks,

Chris

90 rpm is the most often cited number that riders try to achieve, but efficiency is a very personal thing. Some people are naturally more comfortable at a lower cadence, but most trainers recommend that you strive to raise your cadence as part of your training/practice sessions.

 

[jpwkeeper]

Hi Guys,

I guess this may be quite a difficult question to answer, dependent on a number of factors (fitness, weight, etc)- but what would be a good average cadence on a relatively flat stretch of road. And how should this cadence correlate to speed. I averaged about 19mph at around 72 cadence yesterday for an hour or so (not too intense) but would a higher cadence be more efficient?

Thanks,

Chris

Careful, don't use the word Efficient. That gets the scientific types in an uproar.

Basically, your cadence determines the balance of effort between your cardio and your legs given the same speed. So, higher cadence but lower gear means your legs work less and your cardio works more.

Lance Armstrong, who has a sick cardio system, pedals at a really high cadence. Jan Ullrich, who doesn't look like he particularly likes to do the cardio work, has steel legs and pushes bigger gears at a lower cadence.

Personally, as an extreme newbie, I was trying to keep it above 80, and my lungs were screaming, but three hours after I finished riding my legs felt totally fresh. I had to lower it to get a better balance, which nearly doubled how far I could ride. Over time I believe the cardio will develop faster than the legs, and I'll focus on increasing the cadence rather than increasing the gear ratio.

As one person on this board put it, if your lungs hurt, push bigger gears. If your legs hurt, spin faster. If they both hurt, you're doing it right.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Careful, don't use the word Efficient. That gets the scientific types in an uproar.

efficiency has a specific meaning, and, in the context of cycling and/or thermodynamics, a lower cadence is more efficient as it requires less energy to ride at a specific work rate.

Lance Armstrong, who has a sick cardio system, pedals at a really high cadence. Jan Ullrich, who doesn't look like he particularly likes to do the cardio work, has steel legs and pushes bigger gears at a lower cadence.

this is untrue, or at least it was in 2003, when they were able to climb comparitively similar in climbing velocity. This year there was a difference as Ullrich wasn't keeping up (i.e., his fitness was lower, which is determined by "cardio"). However, if we look at 2003, when they pretty much climbed together then they had to be producing the same power to mass ratio. (as they TTed at vitually the same velocity on the flat as well then they must produce the same power and be approximately the same mass). if they were climbing together and producing the same power then their VO2 was the same (or very similar) thus, their cardiovascular measures would have also been very similar. in other words, they both have similar cardio systems

ric

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Hi Guys,

I guess this may be quite a difficult question to answer, dependent on a number of factors (fitness, weight, etc)- but what would be a good average cadence on a relatively flat stretch of road. And how should this cadence correlate to speed. I averaged about 19mph at around 72 cadence yesterday for an hour or so (not too intense) but would a higher cadence be more efficient?

Thanks,

Chris

A higher cadence would be *less* efficient at a given workload. The most efficient cadences are around 50 - 70 revs/min, with the most efficient cadence increasing as absolute power increases. Paradoxically, you're are more efficient at higher absolute power outputs compared to lower power outputs.

cyclists tend to choose a higher cadence than the most efficient one as it minimises the force required to turn the pedals over at a specific power. most people self optimise in the 80 - 100 revs/min range, however, if you're just cruising around on a very flat road, with low power it's quite easy to self optimise a much lower cadence.

ric

 

[jpwkeeper]

efficiency has a specific meaning, and, in the context of cycling and/or thermodynamics, a lower cadence is more efficient as it requires less energy to ride at a specific work rate.



this is untrue, or at least it was in 2003, when they were able to climb comparitively similar in climbing velocity. This year there was a difference as Ullrich wasn't keeping up (i.e., his fitness was lower, which is determined by "cardio"). However, if we look at 2003, when they pretty much climbed together then they had to be producing the same power to mass ratio. (as they TTed at vitually the same velocity on the flat as well then they must produce the same power and be approximately the same mass). if they were climbing together and producing the same power then their VO2 was the same (or very similar) thus, their cardiovascular measures would have also been very similar. in other words, they both have similar cardio systems

ric

Now I'm really confused.

When I dropped 10RPM from my cadence and pushed bigger gears going the same speed, I had a much, much easier time breathing and was able to go nearly double the distance at the same average speed, but my legs felt it more afterwords. So, presumably I was producing the same amount of power over time, so shouldn't I have been just as winded?. I wish I had a HRM so I could look at it that way.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Now I'm really confused.

When I dropped 10RPM from my cadence and pushed bigger gears going the same speed, I had a much, much easier time breathing and was able to go nearly double the distance at the same average speed, but my legs felt it more afterwords. So, presumably I was producing the same amount of power over time, so shouldn't I have been just as winded?. I wish I had a HRM so I could look at it that way.

Unfortunately, you can't look at it from the point of a HRM - your HR will be lower at the same power with the lower cadence.

if your legs felt it more afterwards, perhaps that was due to the fact you rode twice the normal distance at the same power.

if you climb a hill under the same conditions at a high and low cadence both at the same velocity then your power will be the same.

ric

 

[jpwkeeper]

Unfortunately, you can't look at it from the point of a HRM - your HR will be lower at the same power with the lower cadence.

if your legs felt it more afterwards, perhaps that was due to the fact you rode twice the normal distance at the same power.

if you climb a hill under the same conditions at a high and low cadence both at the same velocity then your power will be the same.

ric

First, don't get me wrong. I'm not disputing what you're saying. You guys are the experts, and I am the student. I'm trying to make the peices fit. The more I understand, the better I can adjust my workout to what I can do.

Riding at distance X at 80-85RPMs was pretty much all I could do. For grins one day, I lowered my cadence by around 10RPMs and pushed bigger gears. I finished the same distance, X, averaging almost a full MPH faster and felt like I could have gone much farther, but my legs felt it more. So the next time around I did go nearly 2X distance at the same average speed as X. Today, 2 weeks after the initial 2X ride (bike was in the shop), I rode 2X again, this time in the large chain ring (told you I was a newbie). Around the same results (can't say exactly because my computer malfunctioned). I finished feeling like I could have gone even farther, perhaps even 3X.

I know the power stays the same; obviously to move the bike at the same speed over the same ride takes the same power. My confusion lies in its relation to cardio.

I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that the Heart was what cardio was all about. If your heart was pounding, your lungs had to work harder; if your lungs weren't deep enough, your heart had to work harder, etc. So the HR should be at least a somewhat accurate accounting of how you're cardio is holding up. Of course, if any of my premises is false, then that goes out the window.

So, this all leads me to the belief that, intially, my high cadence was not taking advantage of my leg strength and putting all the pressure on my under-developed cardio system, which was causing me to work out in too high of a heart rate zone, and I couldn't go the distance, and since this made the time too short, my cardio wasn't advancing. So by switching to harder gears and giving myself that 10RPM difference, I moved the burden away from the cardio to exploit other bodily resources, thus the sudden dramatic improvement. It also seems as though, if I'm winded, I can just ignore the pain in my thighs for a few seconds and push gears at a very low cadence to catch my beath before shifting down and bringing the cadence back up.

Perhaps, though, this is due to an imbalance in my body, where my legs are in much better condition than my cardio. Once they balance out, perhaps my cadence will come up naturally to maintain that balance. This perspective is perhaps a little odd here, where most people have either been cycling for a while or were in shape already and started cycling for something different.

However, if this is all wrong, then by all means chime in. I'm not saying what is, I'm saying what I believe through reading this forum and from my own experiences. I have no ego to bruise here, and I want to understand.

 

[jasong]

I tend to average around 100 rpms for my cadence, usually riding at 20+ mph averages in a moderately hilly area. When I dip to 90, I can feel it. I'll often get up to 120 and not feel too bad when pulling speed out of a flat or slight downhill without needing to change gears. I find my knees are much happier with me if I push a high cadence.