UKC

I've taken to turbo training to help try and get prep'd for the Tour of Flanders which I have been foolishly signed up for in April.

I have never really considered grinding the gears or spinning (cadence I think is the term) but now I have a cadence sensor (thank you father christmas) it seems to have become more important to me. It appears I'm a happy grinder somewhere around the 75-80 area seems to work for me. However from what I read this is pretty low and I should be more up in the 90's.

On my ride into work today (20miles, across peak district) I was trying to up my Cadence to the 90's and this was bloody hard work and added about 5 mins to my time.

So what do you lot find works for you? Should I worry about working on increasing my Cadence, I guess for a long ride like the Tour of Flanders it may make sense to take the pressure off the leg muscles.?!?

Cheers

In reply to wallacerocks:

I think doing what suits you is the best. I'm a grinder. Spinning was popular when Lance Armstrong was doing it.

In reply to wallacerocks:

I tend to ride around 90-100rpm... Although I think it's quite a personal thing and not something to stress about (it might be if your normal cadence was 50-60), there are some benefits particularly in terms of reducing strain on the knees.

In reply to wallacerocks:

It is personal, anything above 80 I would say is a good place. I tend to have a lower cadence than some of my team mates but then I have years of skiing and rugby in my quads so it just feels natural to use muscle rather than cardio. If you can slowly build it to a comfortable 90 then I would suggest it could be good. Few of my friends will ride at 110 happily. Same thing with being at the front or drafting, alters my cadence significantly.
Building up will make it feel more natural rather than than just trying to hit 95-100 and be gasping for air.
IRC the spinning thing became really popular with Lance.

Same with hills, I stand up a lot more than those guys but my legs don't feel it as punishment (eg Horseshoe/Cat and fiddle) not saying I will stand the entire way up but I really like to mix it.

In reply to wallacerocks:

Grinding usually refers to a cadence of under 60rpm or thereabouts, basically low revs and high load. 75-80 isn't grinding unless you are in such a high gear that each revolution is an effort. The cadence you use out on the road will vary according to terrain and weather conditions, I find it's good to vary things so one time up a hill I'll spin at 10-20rpm more than I feel comfortable with and the next time I'll grind at 10-20rpm slower than my comfort zone.

You'll have an optimum cadence which depends on things like body proportions and age.

In reply to wallacerocks:

I tend to spin when going up hill or really trying to go fast. If I'm sitting at a comfortable pace then it's usually slower.

Some would say that it's more important to focus on 'circles not pistons' and that the former will increase your cadence and probably your pace too.

In reply to wallacerocks:

When this topic comes up I always mention a study which I read about a while ago. I have no idea how good the study was, but I like it because it's a good case study in interpreting relationships in data:

A bunch of amateur cyclists were made to complete a trial which involved riding a stationary bike and having their efficiency measured (I imagine there are other relevant things which could be measured, which may show different things). They were allowed to choose their own cadence in one trial and in others they had to ride at a specified cadence. The cyclists with higher self-selected cadence were found to be slightly more efficient than those with lower self-selected cadence but in individuals the self-selected cadence was generally the most efficient compared to the forced higher or indeed lower) cadences.

The message here is that forcing yourself to ride a different cadence may well reduce your efficiency - at least in the short term. I don't know if there is evidence for long-term 'retraining' of your cadence.

In reply to wallacerocks:

75-80 isn't grinding.

If you really want to increase you can train yourself but I wouldn't be too worried

In reply to Bob_the_Builder:

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I will try to train myself up a bit and increase my spinning, but sounds like I'm not to far off. Where I am feels pretty natural to me, it's just when you read people spinning in 90's as the normal I thought maybe I was missing something!

I'll see how it goes but won't beat myself up over it

In reply to Oujmik:

I re-trained myself from about the 70-80 range to about 90-100 I think. It involved a lot of cycling slower than I was used to in low gears. I now cycle naturally in a higher cadence but I'm not sure if I'm any more efficient. I think the extra time I spent on the bike made me fitter though. =]

In reply to wallacerocks:

As mentioned Lance made 90 the cadence to have, I am a Comfortable 80 but like to increase that if I am on the turbo/Watt bike, but taking yourself out of your comfort zone is part of training :-/

In reply to wallacerocks:

70-80 up the alps
90 generally
90-100 going fastish
110 with the 20-30mph average speed chain gang round Bristol but it feels like I'm pushing 60 and need to change down or I'm going to die.

Cheers

Toby

In reply to wallacerocks:

Generally a grinder, trying to spin more.

In reply to wallacerocks:
More spinny than grindy.
Definitely a grinder on my fixie... http://www.bikecalc.com/cadence_at_speed says 24RPM for 5mph

In reply to wallacerocks:

I found that when I started training on rollers, instead of a turbo, my cadence went up. If my rpm was too low on rollers, I was more likely to wobble

If you're interested in training a higher cadence, then I would recommend a set of rollers to help

Daz

In reply to wallacerocks:

My comfort range is generally 80 - 105rpm - until I start going uphill, when I become an old grinder even on a 34 x 29!

It was not always so -- I used to be able to ride up almost anything on a 46 x 26 - but that was 50 years ago and 12kg lighter!

In reply to wallacerocks:

I was a grinder, 60ish until I read I'd been doing it wrong, Pah!!

But I thought I'd try spinning, it was weird at first and I didn't like it, but I got used to it.

The ideas behind spinning is that muscles recover faster and don't tired so quickly and less forces on the knees.

I used to get ligament pain sometimes at the back of the knee and now I don't.

So it might have helped. Try it for a while and see how it feels.

In reply to wallacerocks:

I used to ride in the low 80's but over a few months retrained myself to ride at an average of ca. 90rpm which took some practice but now feels very comfortable. I found riding at higher cadence put more emphasis on my cardiovascular system rather than muscles and as such I could ride faster over varied terrain for longer. Once you get used to it everything will start to feel easier, flats, climbs, and even riding into head winds.

In reply to wallacerocks:

In addition to my earlier comment, from personal experience I think optimal/comfortable cadence varies with effort. Most experienced cyclists (in my experience) tend to pedal faster when they are putting out more power. For example if you're just pootling along on a club run, maybe you'll be doing 70-80 and feel comfortable but if someone puts the hammer down you'll change up a few gears *and* up your cadence to 90ish. If you're looking at your cadence on a long solo ride, or on a commute it likely that you're not really at the upper end of your ability and to compare you cadence with say Wiggin riding a TT is not really meaningful.

Often, the mark of an inexperienced rider is that they'll try to increase their speed solely by changing gear thus ending up bogged down pushing a big gear at 60-70 rpm and looking very amateur.

That said, the whole spinners vs grinders debate often centres around hills and truth be told the defining factor is often what your bottom gear is. Someone with a 42x23 bottom gear is a grinder by default unless they are very fit. Some people are strangely attached to their gearing, even when it is clearly causing them difficulty. My dad is one of these people, I think a sense of tradition prevents him from trying a compact or a bigger cassette.

In reply to wallacerocks:

slightly OT, but when do people generally tend to stand up in the saddle on longer climbs? For me its around the 16-17% mark

In reply to Kimono:


I worship at the feet of Alberto so it's 3% for me.

In reply to Kimono:

Always, it looks better

In reply to Kimono:

I tend to mix it, UK climbs tend to vary considerably in gradient, as my cadence drops I'll get to the point where I feel more comfortable standing. Also I'll stand just before the gradient eases as it's easier to put power down. Some of the climbs round here (South Dales) are steep enough that I'm standing most of the time.

In reply to IMA:

Serious note, for me I stand a lot, unless it is an alpine climb on a regular % or my rear wheel is skipping/front lifting

In reply to IMA:


maybe, but i use way more energy standing so tend to leave it till i have to, which, as i said is at about 17%

In reply to wallacerocks:

All about energy conservation.

Guess I'm somewhere in the middle.

But I don't like spinning when I'm climbing.find it wastes more energy

I like climbing .

In reply to wallacerocks:

As I am currently using a fixed gear bike, I am happy with any cadence I can keep up. It might be very high when downhill (a reminder to check the cadence on downhill!) and probably about 90 on flat terrain. I normally don't cycle more than 10 miles a day, usually.

In reply to wallacerocks:

I'm definitely a spinner, 90+, sit down when climbing and rarely if ever stand up. Didn't come naturally though and the cadence counter helped but I have found it has improved my long term average speed.

In reply to xyz:


I agree with this. In my experience I had to train myself over several months and the intention is to stress your cardio system rather than your muscular system as it's easier to recover from those efforts on the bike. It also helps you respond to changes in pace

In reply to wallacerocks:

If your computer shows it look at your Heart rate as well. Combined with your cadence it should give you a better idea of how hard you are working. There's no point upping the cadence if your heart rate drops when you spin up.

Personally I aim for low 140bpm (135bpm-145bpm range) coupled with a cadence of 90rpm on a longer ride, for shorter rides (less than 1 hour) I tend to aim for between 145/155bpm. If the heart rate starts to go up, I change gear to keep the cadence but lower the effort, likewise if it drops change to a smaller cog to up the effort. Obviously when you are fatigued this can all go out the window so make sure you keep your liquids/electrolytes/energy levels up.

As for seated/standing, GCN did a video (hhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVxGFOb1KTY) on which is best and the conclusion was neither has any advantage. If you like to stand, then go ahead, its all down to personal preference. Personally I'm a sitter and only tend to get out of the seat for sprinting.

In reply to wallacerocks:

Skinny weak and cardiovascularly fit so a spinner, but I stand up a la Bertie at anything over 9%. (running 34-25 lowest).

In reply to dazwan:

>There's no point upping the cadence if your heart rate drops when you spin up.

Not quite sure what you mean here; if your heart rate drops, assuming the speed (or power output) has stayed constant, then this is definitely a benefit.

To the OP: if you are intending to ride the Tour of Flanders in a group then training your ability to ride at a higher cadence can be useful - if the pace of the group goes up sharply then being able to spin your legs up rather than having to change gear can make the difference between being dropped or staying in.

Personally, I would find 75-80 for normal riding very hard work, but then I spin high cadences, and I would say that 75-80 is at the low end of what most people ride at, but it can work for some people.

In reply to Byronius Maximus:


If this was all in the same gear (or single speed) then upping the cadence would result in greater speed and power output, I wouldn't expect to see my HR drop in this instance. If I did experience a lower HR I would question my HRM or my heart itself. This is like going from a jog to a sprint and not expecting your HR to rise.

The point above was more thinking about dropping to an easier gear and then pedalling faster:

Supposing you were pedalling along at 80rpm then dropped a gear and upped the cadence to (let's assume 90rpm will give you the same speed in the next gear). To maintain the same speed you would wind up with the higher rpm, but pretty much similar HR (and I would assume similar power output). However, if you dropped 2 gears instead of one and upped the cadence from 80rpm to 90rpm (so same cadence as the other example), you would find pedalling far far easier but your speed will have dropped and I would expect to also see so would your HR and power output. For me, the only time this would be a good thing is if I was tired and I wanted to recover for a minute or two. So it's this last example I was trying to avoid. Yes, if everything else remained the same and my HR dropped I would be surprised, but would then up the tempo to keep the HR and assume the wind had dropped or the slope of the road had changed.

I hope this is clearer.

In reply to dazwan:

Yeah, makes sense