Training for higher cadence

Get rollers.

Thank you all for your informative responses!

My goal is to get a stiff aerobic workout. I will attempt to gradually
up the cadence and work on pedalling form.

A fixed gear adventure sounds like a lot of fun, I will try it
someday, but right now it seems a bit scary.

(H) said:

installing it, I had thought my cadence was at a proper "aerobic"
level-- I thought it was around 90.

I was shocked to find that my cadence is actually in the 70's.

So, my question is.... what is the best way to train oneself to use a
higher cadence? How do you solve the "bouncing" problem? Is it
something that I just have to suffer through until my motor skills get
it? Or is there something I can do to help this along?

One size does not fit all. Your 70s rpm cadence works for you, why
fool with it? Your body, your bike, your terrain, your motivation,
your requirements, and your conditions are NOT the same as everybody
else. Ride at a comfortable cadence and don't worry about it.
--
Rick Onanian

Tom Stewart <[email hidden]> wrote:

: Someone did (not me) -- first response according to my newsreader

Ah. That hadn't got to me when I replied...

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
"Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook

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

Quoted message said:

If you are feeling brave you could get\put together a fixie with a gear in
the sixties and do some of your training runs on that. With this sort of
gear ratio you get plenty of practice with cadences in the 90 to 110 range
on the flat and the skies the limit down hill!!! If you live in a hilly area
then you might want to go a little lower on the gearing for the up hill that
is. I find a fixie both forces and helps you to improve your pedalling
action at the same time as increasing your cadence

The OP sounds like a bit of a newb, and that's not a good candidate for a
fixer. Besides, what a fixer is really good for is convincing you how little
cadence matters. That doesn't seem to be his goal.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (H) wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I recently installed a computer that tells me my cadence. Before
installing it, I had thought my cadence was at a proper "aerobic"
level-- I thought it was around 90.

I was shocked to find that my cadence is actually in the 70's.

So I've started trying to bring my cadence up. I find that in many
situations where I need to rest in a lower gear that I "bounce" in my
seat. For example, if I am on a road with traffic and I don't want to
go 18+mph and I have to switch to a lower gear, I end up bouncing hard
if I maintain the high cadence. In a higher gear, I find that I don't
have this problem.

I'm not sure if bouncing is the right word, but it feels like whatever
muscles are connected to my pelvis aren't working in sync with the
rest of my legs.

So, my question is.... what is the best way to train oneself to use a
higher cadence? How do you solve the "bouncing" problem? Is it
something that I just have to suffer through until my motor skills get
it? Or is there something I can do to help this along?

-Pedalogy 101-
♥ Cyclist start to develop efficiencies at certain pedal
cadences the more time they spend at them.
♥ Generally, at lower pedal cadences, say 60 to 80 rpm, people
have the greatest efficiency (on flat terrain). Once you get above
this level, you start to lose efficiency and begin to consume more
oxygen -- and your heart rate increases.
♥ For most pedalers, this poses a great training opportunity for
improving ones aerobic development.
♥ For improvement, you need to keep moving your cadence upward
(faster) in order to keep gaining efficiency at higher cadences.
♥ Some riders may be uncomfortable at rates of 90 to 100+ rpm,
especially if most of your training is done at 70 to 75 rpm. But the
bonus is, that over time, and with consistent practice, you're going
to start improving your aerobic capacity and your efficiency at that
elevated rpm level.
♥ Not only will you become more comfortable at this pedaling
rate, you will become highly-aware of your own effort output, and be
able to manage your ride (or precision cycling class) with confidence
regardless of terrain, duration or instructor demands.

Great points, and all true.
Additionally, your increased leg speed will enable improvements in
accelerations and sprinting.

Thanks...The first half of my post to pedalogy didn't make it
however... I reccomend taking a few spinning classes. From the get-go,
I advise my student to spin between 80-100 rpms. Practicing good
habits truly pays off too. A buddy of mine (50years-old)is still
thanking me. Last year before he did the Kona Ironman he took some
classes. Now, the biggest masher in the world (not literally, but
close)knows the advantage of spining high r's. With the wind and hills
of the big island,he said my classes helped him focus and helped him
motor when he would have otherwise been bogging 🙂

A Muzi said:

Kent Dorfman said:

Is there an effective method for determining if your cranks are the
proper length?

No.

How about trial and error?

Quoted message said:

Humans are both adaptable ( at every height and stature you'll find
an adherent of every imaginable crank length) and argumentative.
After many words the consensus here is that the crank length you
prefer is the right one for you.

Hee hee hee. A wonderful summation.

Quoted message said:

There are no wrong answers.

Well, there are *some* wrong answers. Perhaps not on the topic of
crank length, though. ;-)

"scottt" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

-Pedalogy 101-
♥ Cyclist start to develop efficiencies at certain pedal
cadences the more time they spend at them.

You got a reference for that?

John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

There is harm if you bounce. Iv'e seen it. I lived with one guy and
trained a lot with another who rode fixes every winter and both still
bounce at high cadence (fixed and free). It is a fundamental aspect
of sport -- don't practive doing something badly. A fixed on flat
terrain is OK, but if a rider finds himself boncing going downhill
that is very bad.

You said it is bad, you said that it didn't help someone who was
bouncing, but you didn't say what about it was bad unless you are
suggesting that the mere fact that it didn't help was inherently bad.

Quoted message said:

Note also that there is some question about the benefit of riding a
fixed gear -- it's probably not the fixed nature of the gear that
provided the training/learning benefit but rather the fact that riders
using them have to learn to pedal well at high rpm that offers the
benefit.

The reason it is a fixed gear that helps them *is* because of the fact
that riders using them have to learn to pedal well at high rpm.

A fixed gear provides a feedback loop with immediate uncomfortable
consequences for habits like choppy pedaling and periodic coasting.
That's why it works.

Quoted message said:

Here is a great piece on this by a guy who has, I believe, won world
championship medals racing on the track:

There certainly is some sense in what the guy says. However, he did
become smooth at high rpm BY RIDING A FIXED GEAR! Track sprinters are
not the same as road riders, though; they are looking to develop a
smooth stroke at 130rpm, not 90-100. I think the answer is to make
sure that if you use rollers or a fixed gear you need enough
resistance that you are developing significant power.

I recommend rollers and fixed gears at some point in the life of every
serious cyclist. If you pay attention to your riding and try to modify
your style to decrease the negative stimulus, there is no way that
your body will not learn from the behavior modifying feedback that
they provide. (I suppose it might be possible to say the heck with it,
I'm just gonna bounce, and get nothing out of it. But, then, why
bother?) OTOH, I don't think that they offer the One Path to bicycle
enlightenment, either. You get what you need from them, and then maybe
ride them every now and then as a refresher. Ultimately it will be
difficult to increase power from riding the same gear, fixed or not,
all the time over the same terrain.

So:
1. Use rollers with some kind of significant resistance.
2. Use a fixed gear low enough to raise your rpm but high enough,
taking terrain into consideration, to make sure that you are
developing power for a significant part of the ride.

If you want to improve as a cyclist, using a lower gear and higher rpm
does not mean you get to take it easy.

JP

Rick Onanian <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

One size does not fit all. Your
70s rpm cadence works for you, why
fool with it? Your body, your bike,
your terrain, your motivation,
your requirements, and your conditions
are NOT the same as everybody
else. Ride at a comfortable cadence
and don't worry about it.

All true. And it's possible that at the effort the original poster
typically rides at, 70rpm is most effective.

That said, cycling involves technique, and what feels comfortable
isn't necessarily the most effective. If the original poster wants to
*improve* -- that is to ride faster or more easily, or farther, it's
worth not accepting what one does naturally and instead trying to
figure out what might work better and at least trying it. For
"agressive" riding -- with speeds in the low 20s mph up into racing,
for most people rpms around 85-90 is probably better on flat terrain.

JT

Like a lot of the guys have said cycling is an art as well as a science.
There is no one solution to your goal other than miles in the saddle with
your brain engaged. A fixie with a moderate gear used progressively from
flat to multi-terrain is fun but it is also a valuable tool and approached
sensibly it is not in the least scary provided you don't go removing all the
brakes. If you are serious a improving you cadence/pedalling action do not
put it off for too long!

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

Quoted message said:

Thank you all for your informative responses!

My goal is to get a stiff aerobic workout. I will attempt to gradually
up the cadence and work on pedalling form.

A fixed gear adventure sounds like a lot of fun, I will try it
someday, but right now it seems a bit scary.

On 16 Jul 2004 12:10:46 -0700, [email hidden] (JP)

Quoted message said:

There certainly is some sense in what the guy says. However, he did
become smooth at high rpm BY RIDING A FIXED GEAR!

He rode a fixed gear probably becasue the rules require it, and wanted
to train on what he'd be racing on.

Quoted message said:

Track sprinters are
not the same as road riders, though;

he's not a sprinter but a pursuiter, a disclipline that correlates
very well to road racing And also very good at mass start track
events. Won a lot of criteriums too.

JT

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

Quoted message said:

Like a lot of the guys have said cycling is an art as well as a science.
There is no one solution to your goal other than miles in the saddle with
your brain engaged. A fixie with a moderate gear used progressively from
flat to multi-terrain is fun but it is also a valuable tool and approached
sensibly it is not in the least scary provided you don't go removing all the
brakes. If you are serious a improving you cadence/pedalling action do not
put it off for too long!

I have ridden a fixer for years, it's fun, but I don't see how it's improved
my pedaling. My feet pretty much just go around like they always have.

Quoted message said:

From: Rick Onanian

Quoted message said:

Ride at a comfortable cadence and don't >worry about it.

Well yeah. Got OLN? Watch a stage or two of the Tour and see the large variance
in riding styles.

You only get smooth on a fixed if you work at it, and you can do a lot for
"smooth" with a road bike. Same with Spin classes, you get what you put into
it.

I used a metronome and rollers (indoors) to play with my cadence "back when",
there are portable small metronomes that might be better than staring at a
'puter screen to monitor your rpm's while out in the c-c world (crunch).

This jumped up on my mighty AOL Google-enhanced search-- Korg MetroGnome:

http://tinyurl.com/3r5dg

Goes to 208 bpm, and1/4 through 7/4 time signatures! That should keep you
busy...
--TP

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
It is a fundamental aspect

Quoted message said:

of sport -- don't practive doing something badly. A fixed on flat
terrain is OK, but if a rider finds himself boncing going downhill
that is very bad.

And that is a very good point

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 16 Jul 2004 13:57:00 -0700, [email hidden] (John

Forrest Tomlinson) said:

All true. And it's possible that at the effort the original poster
typically rides at, 70rpm is most effective.

That said, cycling involves technique, and what feels comfortable
isn't necessarily the most effective. If the original poster wants to

Only for narrow-minded definitions of 'effective'. To me, increasing
the effectiveness of my cycling means increasing my enjoyment.

Quoted message said:

*improve* -- that is to ride faster or more easily, or farther, it's
worth not accepting what one does naturally and instead trying to

I find there's nothing more effective than comfort for increasing my
distance or riding "more easily". 'Naturally' is not always the same
as 'comfort', though.

Quoted message said:

figure out what might work better and at least trying it. For
"agressive" riding -- with speeds in the low 20s mph up into racing,
for most people rpms around 85-90 is probably better on flat terrain.

If the rider is attempting to train for racing, then an increased
cadence may be in order. I did not see anything by the OP in this
thread about racing.
--
Rick Onanian

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 14:33:27 -0400, Rick Onanian <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On 16 Jul 2004 13:57:00 -0700, [email hidden] (John

Forrest Tomlinson) said:

All true. And it's possible that at the effort the original poster
typically rides at, 70rpm is most effective.

That said, cycling involves technique, and what feels comfortable
isn't necessarily the most effective. If the original poster wants to

Only for narrow-minded definitions of 'effective'. To me, increasing
the effectiveness of my cycling means increasing my enjoyment.

Onlly a person with lack of personal curiousity and respect for
learning urges people not to learn, change or experiment, especially
someone who wants to learn how to do something different.

Quoted message said:

If the rider is attempting to train for racing, then an increased
cadence may be in order. I did not see anything by the OP in this
thread about racing.

He asked to improve his physical/technical capacity.

It's a sad element of cycling that any talk of learning how to do it
"better" (and I'm defining that very broadly to include _any_ element
of being able to go farther, faster, safer, more comfortably, etc with
the same effort) is associated with racing and you somehow think that
is wrong. If I watch someone running or skiing or cooking or whatever
having fun, then good for them. But if they ask about doing it
better, why question that? Do you revel in mediocrity?

JT

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

It's a sad element of cycling that any talk of learning how to do it
"better" (and I'm defining that very broadly to include _any_
element of being able to go farther, faster, safer, more
comfortably, etc with the same effort) is associated with racing and
you somehow think that is wrong. If I watch someone running or
skiing or cooking or whatever having fun, then good for them. But
if they ask about doing it better, why question that? Do you revel
in mediocrity?

Perhaps it's a reaction to the simpleminded faith that so many put in
ideas like spinning as being *necessarily* better than a slower
cadence. There's a lot of that sort of slavish devotion to the latest
and greatest ideas; those of us who've been around for a while tend to
roll our eyes- because most of this stuff is rehashed over and over
and over by every new generation of self-appointed experts.

You want to know what's optimal for most riders? Go study the
randonneurs, who ride 600 km in 40 hours, 1200 km in 90 hours, etc.
Those guys have efficiency nailed down tight. Bicycle racing is not
about efficiency- any more than car racing is about mileage. Bike
racing is about power output and maximum performance; efficiency is
very often sacrificed, comfort is compromised and the mileages are
typically kind of short. Trying to apply bike racing ideas to
non-racers is frequently an exercise in silliness. Fortunately most
non-racers quickly figure this out for themselves.

I dunno about Rick O or you, but I've been riding bikes for 38 years
and have covered over 125,000 miles by now. Heck, I even raced for 10
years. There's people in this newsgroup that have been riding longer
and/or have ridden lots more miles than me. I've read just about
every technical book published in English about cycling, probably so
have you. I've ridden with enough different people to know that the
"best" practice is the one that suits the rider and makes riding more
fun (except for bike racers, where the best practice is the one that
makes them abslutely as fast as they can be).

Tim McNamara said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

It's a sad element of cycling that any talk of learning how to do it
"better" (and I'm defining that very broadly to include _any_
element of being able to go farther, faster, safer, more
comfortably, etc with the same effort) is associated with racing and
you somehow think that is wrong. If I watch someone running or
skiing or cooking or whatever having fun, then good for them. But
if they ask about doing it better, why question that? Do you revel
in mediocrity?

Perhaps it's a reaction to the simpleminded faith that so many put in
ideas like spinning as being *necessarily* better than a slower
cadence. There's a lot of that sort of slavish devotion to the latest
and greatest ideas; those of us who've been around for a while tend to
roll our eyes- because most of this stuff is rehashed over and over
and over by every new generation of self-appointed experts.

You want to know what's optimal for most riders? Go study the
randonneurs, who ride 600 km in 40 hours, 1200 km in 90 hours, etc.
Those guys have efficiency nailed down tight. Bicycle racing is not
about efficiency- any more than car racing is about mileage.

My first comments on cadence were:

" it's possible that at the effort the original poster
typically rides at, 70rpm is most effective.
AND
it's worth not accepting what one does naturally and instead trying to
figure out what might work better and at least trying it. For
"agressive" riding -- with speeds in the low 20s mph up into racing,
for most people rpms around 85-90 is probably better on flat terrain."

" Trying to apply bike racing ideas to

Quoted message said:

non-racers is frequently an exercise in silliness. Fortunately most
non-racers quickly figure this out for themselves.

So what bike racing ideas did I bring into this? That there are a
range of cadences appropriate for different levels of effort? That's
a fact demondatrated in a lot of ways, from my comment about 70rpm
perhaps being good for the OP to my comment about 85-90 being best for
riding at 18mph into the low 20s to (I believe) your comments about
randaneurs.

Quoted message said:

I've ridden with enough different people to know that the
"best" practice is the one that suits the rider and makes riding more
fun (except for bike racers, where the best practice is the one that
makes them abslutely as fast as they can be).

So if someone wanted to do a long ride like a randaneur, would you say
"Just have fun, don't think about technique, don't experiment with
cadence"? That's [censored] and you know it is. In fact, Onanian's
statements about "just having fun" are really the antithesis of a
skilled cyclist, whether a regular commuter, racer, tourist or
randeneur. Fun is primary. But learning and improving are great ways
to have fun.. And denouncing learning, experimenting and improving are
is really bad.

And just because someone races bike (like me) doesn't mean that what
they suggest (trying to learn, trying different cadecnes, recognizing
that the appropriate cadence depends on the amount of power being put
out) doesn't necessarily mean that advice is suited only to racing.

JT

Rick Onanian said:

If the rider is attempting to train for racing, then an increased
cadence may be in order. I did not see anything by the OP in this
thread about racing.

Racing is not the only reason to work towards increased cadence. It
has been shown that increased cadence delays the onset of muscle
fatigue, and there are many reasons why a cyclist would want to
spare his leg muscles.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/