Is cadence data useful?

[jeltz]

I cycle for fitness and fun, not competition. Would knowing my cadence help my general cycling and fitness levels or is it just used to achieve the best possible efficiency, thus a competitive advantage.

 

[dodgy]

I can only tell you my experience of having access to cadence data.

Riding along, I glance down and see my cadence and I think "interesting" and carry on.

The battery went on my wireless cadence and I didn't bother replacing it.

If you're training scientifically it obviously has uses, but I bet most cyclists haven't changed the way they pedal by seeing their cadence.

 

[PK99]

I cycle for fitness and fun, not competition. Would knowing my cadence help my general cycling and fitness levels or is it just used to achieve the best possible efficiency, thus a competitive advantage.

I'm in the same position, my reading tells me:

Cycling for fun & fitness: count your own cadence using your 'puter readout. count for 15 sec and x 4 = good enough estimate. Check the mags and web for advice

Competitive = want to maximize biodynamic efficiency = measure accurately and train in different cadence zones vs effort

Anal but not comptetitive = see competitive

More money than you know what to do with = Buy the Garmin 705 with all the optional bells and whistles and use 5% of it capability!!

 

[Crackle]

I found it useful: I have tendency to grind when I should really change gear. Since I bought a cadence computer I've adjusted my style, especially on hills. The result is I seem to be able to spread my effort more evenly over the ride, however many people don't find the same and you do soon know from feel what you are doing cadence wise.

 

[Bill Gates]

Old skool riders (of which I'm one) believe that a high cadence of +100 rpm tends to deliver a greater efficiency for higher outputs of power and therefore speed. Interval training @ 100/110 @ high speeds is what is required to develop this efficiency. If you train on a turbo then sprinting 30 seconds @140 rpm, then rest 30 seconds in sets of 5 is excellent training for VO2max. Full effort can only be sustained for approx 20 seconds so 30 seconds will stretch your limits.

On the other hand it is very difficult to maintain the concentration required over lengths of time. I found that once the distance became more than 10 miles say 25 miles then my cadence would drop to 95 rpm and for 50 miles to around 90 rpm.

Mentally it is easier to keep a higher gear turning slowly @ 90 rpm, than a lower gear turning @ +100 rpm at the same speed. Going up a drag or a climb then a cadence of 70/80 rpm will be more appropriate depending on the steepness of the incline.

Learning the skills to ride at a high cadence of say 110 rpm is not an overnight thing, It will take 2/3 seasons of spinning but IMO is well worth the time spent. Looking at the average cadence recorded on your computer at the end of a ride does not give the full picture. If you are interested in cadence then a computer with a cadence sensor will be worth getting.

 

[gavintc]

It has helped to change my riding style. I was a grinder and am my now a less often grinder.

 

[Fab Foodie]

IIRC, the recent evidence suggests that people naturally ride at the cadence that is most suitable for them, and generally that's a good thing.
Buy a cadence meter, it'll tell you how fast you're pedalling.

@Bill Gates, Old Skool is relative, but spinning is a relatively recent thing, Old-Skool turned big gears and 'got the miles in' not your namby-pamby intervals malarky!

 

[Garz]

Riding along, I glance down and see my cadence and I think "interesting" and carry on.

The battery went on my wireless cadence and I didn't bother replacing it.

If you're training scientifically it obviously has uses, but I bet most cyclists haven't changed the way they pedal by seeing their cadence.

This is quite true, I admit even though I look at my cadence its not essential. I have found it useful for when Im spinning too fast 100+ it reminds me I should change gear.

Other use I found was over a long gradual hill by going up it with higher cadence I felt fresher at the top and seemed to get up it faster. This however doesn't apply to proper steep hills where I think blasting up as best you can is the fastest way.

On long rides I find dropping cadence for grinding is not a good idea so all in all it has helped its just not groundbreaking as some would have you believe.

 

[AlanW]

Personally I find that it is of little use while riding on the road, more a case of being interesting maybe?

Its just another cable to wrap around your frame and something else to break.

However, for turbo training and the more specific programmes it is really useful

 

[Bill Gates]

IIRC, the recent evidence suggests that people naturally ride at the cadence that is most suitable for them, and generally that's a good thing.
Buy a cadence meter, it'll tell you how fast you're pedalling.

@Bill Gates, Old Skool is relative, but spinning is a relatively recent thing, Old-Skool turned big gears and 'got the miles in' not your namby-pamby intervals malarky!

How recent is recent?

Early season TT's 30 years ago included restricted gear events. I remember the acclaim that Tony Doyle received for doing a 25 mile TT on a 72 " gear in 56 minutes something with an average cadence in the region of 124 rpm. Later he stated that more people congratulated him on that than winning the world professional pursuit championship. Must have been something like 1978 or so.

OK there were some big gear grinders in those days but there also existed a hardcore of purists ( a la Jacque Anquetil), who believed in the art of pedalling, and this is going back many years before I started. Interval training is as old as cycling itself. Nothing new or namby pamby about them. And getting the miles in was and is an essential part of early season preparation. So rather than one or the other it's both that apply.

Oh and by the way, this spinning thing, I know because I was there. Were you?

 

[I am Spartacus]

dangerous to state anything in this world is 'new'....
if I may go back 72 years...? far enough back for 'old skool silliness? ... dont rope me into remembering the occasion either..

Frans Slaats gains the world hour record with a cadence of ave. 103

and subsequent holders very very very similar....

if the OP decides that his cadence is something he can work on, then all power to him

 

[GrasB]

Is cadence data useful? yes. Is it necessary? no, but it can be used to help you cycle more efficiently. I use the real time cadence a lot, if I'm coming upto a long incline I'll look at my cadence, if it's say 95 I'll change down a gear nice n' early if it's up around 110 I'll leave it. Getting into the gear early stops you changing down under high loads, which is good for you & the bike.

 

[MacB]

Seriously competitive - yes
Trying to change your riding style - possibly
Anything else - nope

GrasB, you made me chuckle there, I'd never considered using a cadence meter to tell me when to change gear

 

[Bill Gates]

Re my earlier post Tony Doyle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Doyle_(cyclist)

25 miles 56 min 30 secs 72" gear - Average cadence 123.9

 

[Fab Foodie]

How recent is recent?

Early season TT's 30 years ago included restricted gear events. I remember the acclaim that Tony Doyle received for doing a 25 mile TT on a 72 " gear in 56 minutes something with an average cadence in the region of 124 rpm. Later he stated that more people congratulated him on that than winning the world pursuit championship. Must have been something like 1978 or so.

OK there were some big gear grinders in those days but there also existed a hardcore of purists ( a la Jacque Anquetil), who believed in the art of pedalling, and this is going back many years before I started. Interval training is as old as cycling itself. Nothing new or namby pamby about them. And getting the miles in was and is an essential part of early season preparation. So rather than one or the other it's both that apply.

Oh and by the way, this spinning thing, I know because I was there. Were you?

I probably stand corrected!
There has certainly been (IMO) a resurgance in higher cadence riding since Lance started winning and the mantra seemed to be that you needed to spin to win. I didn't recall this in the early 80's when I started cycling in anger (though not competatively), seemed to recall all the talk was of pushing big gears and being 'economical) Certainly road-bike gearing is on average lower than it used to be which allows for a spinning technique to be used more widely than times gone by.