Do I train for Cadence or Speed?

[Grant Orchard]

I've just started riding (and reading this forum) and a lot of people talk about "spinning". When I ride, I find that I'm faster with a lower cadence in a higher gear. I'm guessing this means I'm putting more effort into my downstroke than an even circular pedalling motion. What I'm wondering is should I be trying to up my cadence by using a lower gear or focusing on speed (ie staying in the current gear)?

Thanks

Grant

 

[velomanct]

just ride at whatever cadence feels most comfortable. cadence is not all that important, as some people think. thanks to lance and his high cadence racing, everyone thinks that in order to get faster they need to spin faster. that's not always true. everyone is different. all you need to know is that mashing big gears all the time will put more stress on your muscles and knees. spinning will put more stress on your cardiovascular system.

just focus on spending more time in the higher heart rate zones. and remember that rest and recovery is most important.

 

[Smartt/RST]

I've just started riding (and reading this forum) and a lot of people talk about "spinning". When I ride, I find that I'm faster with a lower cadence in a higher gear. I'm guessing this means I'm putting more effort into my downstroke than an even circular pedalling motion. What I'm wondering is should I be trying to up my cadence by using a lower gear or focusing on speed (ie staying in the current gear)?

Thanks

Grant

I'm afraid I must disagree a little on the relevance of cadence (and perhaps this is just a symantics arguemnt, but I feel it is important enough to clarify).
While cadence is not at the top of the list of things that will improve your performance, it should be the goal of every cyclist to learn to pedal at a reasonably high cadence. Research has shown that new cyclists tend to pedal at a much slower cadence (60-70rpm) than those who are considered 'trained' cyclists (typically 2-3+years experience and ~90rpm).
What cadence is optimal depends on how hard you are working. However, it's the times when you are working hard, and thus that matter the most in terms on inducing fatigue, that you need to have your cadence higher (90-100+rpm, assuming you are in the saddle). I advise my clients to become accostomeed to pedalling at these rates at most levels of intensity so that it becomes instinctive.
Also, be weary of following the habits of those so physiologically inclined to endurance performance as Mr. Armstrong. Although 'higher' cadence pedaling dates back to the likes of Fausto Coppi (renowened for his suplese), such elite athletes often posses qualities unlike our own (us mortals, that is).
In the end, make 90rpm the cornerstone of your pedaling style and you can do no wrong.
Speed itself is of little consequence (i.e.: too variable). What matters is the intensity/power output of your effort.

 

[RedDobey]

I myself train with cadence, I try to keep it up about 90-100rpm on flat ground. With this theory I can judge my speed by what gear I'm in.
If I start to tired towards the end of my ride I drop down a gear or two but I keep the same cadence. I have caught myself going over 110-115 and my legs felt like jello and I realized that was too fast.

Bryan Cirimele

 

[Gilders]

Have recently been working on increasing my cadence and seems to be paying off.

However, bear in mind that I've always tended to cycle in the 70-75 range on the flats, so that's really been the starting point.

Find that 85-95 on the flats is usually good enough to get the desired results unless I'm really going for it over a shortish distance.

However, really most pleased with the 75-80 up fairly long and steep inclines - has really helped to improve my climbing.

Which is nice.

 

[Doctor Morbius]

I'm afraid I must disagree a little on the relevance of cadence (and perhaps this is just a symantics arguemnt, but I feel it is important enough to clarify).
While cadence is not at the top of the list of things that will improve your performance, it should be the goal of every cyclist to learn to pedal at a reasonably high cadence. Research has shown that new cyclists tend to pedal at a much slower cadence (60-70rpm) than those who are considered 'trained' cyclists (typically 2-3+years experience and ~90rpm).
What cadence is optimal depends on how hard you are working. However, it's the times when you are working hard, and thus that matter the most in terms on inducing fatigue, that you need to have your cadence higher (90-100+rpm, assuming you are in the saddle). I advise my clients to become accostomeed to pedalling at these rates at most levels of intensity so that it becomes instinctive.
Also, be weary of following the habits of those so physiologically inclined to endurance performance as Mr. Armstrong. Although 'higher' cadence pedaling dates back to the likes of Fausto Coppi (renowened for his suplese), such elite athletes often posses qualities unlike our own (us mortals, that is).
In the end, make 90rpm the cornerstone of your pedaling style and you can do no wrong.
Speed itself is of little consequence (i.e.: too variable). What matters is the intensity/power output of your effort.

Michael, what if someone doesn't have access to or cannot afford power equipement? Doesn't the power one applies to the pedals roughly translate into how fast they are riding for a sustained effort? I'm just wondering if MPH can be used as a valid metric if no power equipment is available.

 

[Grant Orchard]

Michael, what if someone doesn't have access to or cannot afford power equipement? Doesn't the power one applies to the pedals roughly translate into how fast they are riding for a sustained effort? I'm just wondering if MPH can be used as a valid metric if no power equipment is available.

Interesting question. I'm sure I read someone else saying that if you had the power and gear ratio then you could figure out cadence. Surely then the reverse is true and you can figure out your power knowing these two things?

Grant

 

[Mansmind]

Interesting question. I'm sure I read someone else saying that if you had the power and gear ratio then you could figure out cadence. Surely then the reverse is true and you can figure out your power knowing these two things?

Grant

There are more variables with respect to power:

You can calculate speed with the cadence and gear ratio, there are charts doing exactly that. You can also figure cadence if you have the speed and gear ratio..etc.

With power, you need to figure in rider weight, bike weight, various resistances to the bike's forward motion (slope, rolling resistance, etc.). As a general rule, a flat slope will reduce the affect of many of these factors, but you still need to understand the wind speed/wind resistance. You can get an idea of what's needed at www.analyticcycling.com.

In regards to cadence, I've found myself to be quite lucky. I've only been riding ~2 months, and have always assumed my cadence was lower than I needed it (70-80). Therefore I've been working on speeding it up.

I just recently purchased a Polar 720, and have discovered that in actual riding, I'm averaging almost exactly 90 rpm. My maximum seems to be in the 115 rpm area. I can tell you from personal experience that slowing this cadence down WILL reduce my average heart rate (139 over the last ride), but I will also completely tire before getting to the end. Everywhere I ride around here involves a lot of climbing, whether it be rolling hills or more serious stuff. From what I can tell... cadence is the way to deal with it.


John

 

[Mansmind]

Michael, what if someone doesn't have access to or cannot afford power equipement? Doesn't the power one applies to the pedals roughly translate into how fast they are riding for a sustained effort? I'm just wondering if MPH can be used as a valid metric if no power equipment is available.

I"m not sure what the experts will say, but my "opinion" is that it can be very valid. I can't measure power yet (although that will soon change). What I won't do however is spend $800-$1000 on a hub I don't particular like the looks of to begin with. I realize I MAY give up some accuracy as a result, but for the purposes of training, accuracy is relative. I may always read 20 watts over/under what the value really should be, but improving by an average of 50 watts over a ride is still an improvement.

I'm ALWAYS looking at my average speed, and I'm always roughly guestimating at what power I'm generating to achieve a certain speed on a certain slope.

I think power is EXTREMELY useful, but if you don't have it...or can't afford it, then you have to use what tools you DO have.

My trainer calculates power, which gives me some rough idea of what I'm generating, or what I'm CAPABLE of generating for an extended time. I've done enough research at analyticcycling.com to have a rough idea in my head of what it's going to take to climb a certain hill....and a given speed.

For instance, I KNOW that if I try to generate 400-450 watts for 15 minutes or so.. I'll fail, I'm just not that powerful yet. So for a hill/speed requiring that, I need to slow down the pace.

I also know that I can climb the same hill at 300-350 watts and live to cross the top.

I WISH I knew exactly what power I'm generating when, but that's my next upgrade.

Point is though.. you can sort of do the same thing with speed, although the speed will change drastically with conditions. If you kept speed constant all the time.. power would change drastically as a result of those same conditions. I think it's easier to understand however, how much power you can consistently generate aerobically....rather then how fast you can go. Your achieved "speed" is a function of the power you generate.

John

 

[Smartt/RST]

Michael, what if someone doesn't have access to or cannot afford power equipement? Doesn't the power one applies to the pedals roughly translate into how fast they are riding for a sustained effort? I'm just wondering if MPH can be used as a valid metric if no power equipment is available.

How fast you actually end up going does mainly depend on the amount of power going into the pedals; aerodynamics, humidity, elevation, and rolling resistance also significantly effect the resulting speed. Unfortunately, speed is highly variable in the real world, so in that case it's not the best way to measure fitness, changes in fitness or power output. However, if you are willing to except a little bit of error and make attempts to limit these variables, then you can use resources such as www.analyticcycling.com to get a good idea of the kind of power your putting in to the pedals based on all of these variables. This approach works much better for flat roads than for climbing; on hills, small changes in % grade will have marked effects on power output and thus the range of power used to climb a hill at a certain speed or overall time. You can still calculate and average of course, it's just that your measurement of error (range) is likely increase as the % grade of a road varies.
Incidently, moving inside to an indoor trainer doesn't necessarily improve things. Check this site: http://www.geocities.com/almost_fast/trainerpower/ and notice the wide range of power outputs for a given speed on different trainers.