canklecat

I've found seated spinning to be good for moderate acceleration, especially on climbs. But it works the hip adductors and core more than slow cadence stomping and mashing. I suspect it takes the high cadence spinners a lot of work in training to develop those muscles that are seldom used in any other activity, other than high stepping running in place.

Carbonfiberboy 

I can't think of one. I have a 40T big cog on our 9-speed road tandem and use a Shimano XTR M952 RD with a Wolf Tooth which came with the cassette. Works great. That RD also works with 10-speed road brifters, maybe 11 too, IDK. When Shimano went 10sp MTB, they changed the cable pull so that MTB RDs didn't work with road brifters anymore.

berner

Ten years ago I was an active backpacker, summer and winter. Winter hikes require heavy insulated boots and heavy snowshoes as well as a heavy backpack. Cramping up 10 miles into the woods in below freezing temperatures would be very bad. I took to strengthening the muscles that lifted those boots and snowshoes. Every morning, even before coffee, I strapped on 10 pounds of leg weights and did those high stepping exercises. In addition to completing my hikes, I ended up with awesome looking legs like sprinters and middle distance runners.

colnago62

Nature or Nurture?; the age old question

redlude97

My rx800 and r8000 clears a 40t. I run a 50/34 11-40 on my CAADX

SCTinkering

I currently have an Ultegra 6800 medium cage maxed at 34. I was going to go taller (SF Bay CA hills are a pain when you're lugging 225+ up them) but the wolf creek road link just would not fit on my old ti frame.
I run a 50/34 up front and a custom franken cassette 14-34 out back. When climbing I drop into the low 60's too often for my taste, hence the idea that I might go GRX on the cranks rings up front (48-31) or just say sod it and get a full on new road bike but with GRX group on it so I can climb at the cadence of my choosing. The days of rolling a big ring and small cog are long gone for me.

I switched to high cadence while mountain bike racing in the early 90's. Tinker Juarez being the inspiration. He would just spin and spin and spin. I try to stay around 80 most of the time. Climbs being the exception....

All that said, my Cardiologist and Max HR are have the last word.

Doge

70-80 fine, 65 is getting a bit low. It is always nice to have a cog or two left on your gears. Crank length matters too.

https://www.bicycling.com/news/a26305270/high-cadence-cycling-not-increase-speed]https://1 https://www.bicycling.com/news/a26305270/high-cadence-cycling-not-increase-speed[/url]

This guy was all doped up and all, but like others, they climbed below 90RPM.

swag72

The more I read about cycling the more I think I'm doing something fundamentally wrong......... I was climbing yesterday and made a note of my cadence at the time... it was only a low grade incline, perhaps 6-7% and I was at a cadence of 48.........

DaveSSS 

Your cadence should never be that low. If you're using the largest sprocket with that cadence, you need lower gearing. If not, then use a lower gear and try to maintain 70-85.

The average slope to the top of Mt. Evans at 14,000 feet is only 4%. I've done it 6 times. I ride a lot steeper slopes of up to16% now, so i use a 32/34 lowest gear to maintain 70 rpm.

canklecat

It's not unusual for cadence to drop to 40-50 rpm with standing climbs. My seated cadence is usually 90 rpm like clockwork but when standing I shift to the biggest gear I can mash at 40-50 rpm. It's more comfortable to me and reduces aerobic strain, shifting the burden to the legs for awhile.

swag72

I was standing .......when sitting down today for example on a 6% climb I was at about 60-65...... that is OK?

Doge

There are reasons in racing to have higher cadence, but not so much if you are not. I think most folks would do more speed, for the same effort going higher than 48. But if you ride for fun - so what.

That said, for the same speed/power a low cadence means you are pushing on the pedals harder. That can lead to sore feet - sooner, and muscle burn - sooner. If you were really new to cycling, that might be harder on the tendons/knees, although a real high cadence can also be fatiguing. Lots and lots of pros are not doing 90 rpm climbing. Lots of fit rec riders are doing 70s. Some MTB riders are spinning 100+. It is personal, but I think aiming for high 70s/low 80s on a road bike is "normal" for a fresh rider climbing a 7% or so 15min + hill.

Doge

You might try to be geared to do the same speed at 70-75 and see how you feel at the end. I think if you kicked it up 10 RPM (same speed) you might be more refreshed. No one has been discussing HR/effort. A higher cadence at the same power will bring up the HR. So this assumes you have plenty of HR left. Higher cadence is burning more calories. The benefit is your legs are not loading up as much. If you are doing long rides in the saddle, lower effort, lower cadence, lower HR, lower calorie burn would be preferred.

swag72

Today I did a frequent ride that includes a 15km climb..... on the climb and back to my house which is 40km altogether, I averaged 67..... I can't help thinking that the more I read, the worse I realise that I probably am..... I do want to enjoy my cycling, and I do, but I also want to be the fastest and most efficient that I can be.

canklecat

Whatever cadence feels right to you and doesn't cause injury can't be wrong.

Most of the shift toward high cadence came from 1990s research indicating that in 3-week grand tour races, riders could recover more quickly from aerobic strain than from the muscular strain needed to crank big gears slowly. Few of us are doing back to back to back full gas rides, so the recovery advantages to higher cadence may not benefit us.

If you have a heart rate monitor you can compare results over time on the same segments and routes, between faster and slower cadences. Since switching to lower cadence efforts the past few months, with practice and leg strengthening work I'm equaling or bettering my high cadence efforts. I'm not at threshold as much, feel less exhausted afterward and recover more quickly. But that's me. My respiratory system is compromised so what works for me may not work for other folks. And I'm not doing full gas back to back rides. I usually ride 4-5 times a week and take full rest days between my hardest workouts.

So far the only drawback I've found to trying a slower cadence and bigger gears on climbs is the risk of stalling out and needing to unclip pronto, and then restart while clipping in.

Doge

Simple solution is stop reading and just ride. But since you are here...

How old are you (not relevant if you know the rest).

What is your max attainable HR?
What HR at AT - can you maintain for about an hour?
What was your HR 14K on that hill?

You are looking at a 40K ride with a big hill, but that is well below a long fatiguing ride - unless you are in your 80s or 90s.
If you have the gears to go the same speed - just at 75rpm - try it. Compare your HR, compare how you feel at the end.
Maybe raise your seat (there was no discussion about fit - just pros ride lower as they are in the saddle 5+ hours).
Something a bit more controversial is try more of a stomp method of pedaling. Focus less on circles, hit the 3-5 o' clock harder.

swag72

I'm 47 and have been riding for about 18 months. My maximum heart rate? I really don't know, but I do feel that my heart rate is low for the amount of exertion that I sometimes do! The maximum I have ever got my HR is 161 and I felt sick! On the ride overall my average HR was 130, going up to a max of 152 (https://www.strava.com/activities/2964641599 ) regarding my saddle height, I have had a bike fit, so that should be OK?

HTupolev

"Look at Lance Armstrong" and related details probably helped make lower gears less unfashionable, but the core reason that people are pedaling at higher cadences on climbs is that they have lower gears on their bikes. Relatively few people actually do sustained climbing at super-high cadences, people just spend a lot less time with their gearing bottomed out than they did in the past.

colnago62

I agree. Back in the days of 5 and 6 speed cassettes, you just didn’t have a choice. 7 speed really just added a 12 tooth. It isn’t until the last 20 plus years that cassettes allowed for a usable wide range. In the pro field, guys whose jobs are done once the climbing starts have some pretty low gears on their bikes compared to the leaders. They are looking to finish within the time limit using the least amount of effort possible.

canklecat

Might be a bit of chicken/egg, I don't know enough about the industry reasons for moving toward gearing that used to be considered "touring" to race style bikes. Whatever the reason, it was darned market savvy. And it probably doesn't hurt that the cycling media occasionally reported stuff like Contador having a 32T or larger big cog on his mountain stage cassette. Makes us regular folk feel almost like part of the gang, even if we can't dance on the pedals for miles like Contador.

The one thing the younger GCN presenters often get wrong (hey, even Dan Lloyd and Simon are young to me) is when they talk about cadence they emphasize the importance of smooth pedaling without rocking, unlike the old school guys. But they never mention the reason for the Eddy Merckx rock 'n' roll pedaling style, dipping forward and back (he didn't rock side to side as much as some, mostly because of his massively powerful lower back and hips): those 5 speed freewheels tended to top out at 24T, max, and that was only for mountain stages. Try climbing a double digit grade in a 42/24 or 42/21 combo without doing the Eddy rock 'n' roll. It's darned near impossible.

Bigger cogs made it possible to sit and spin smoothly. Better for us mere mortals who lack tree trunk sized thighs, hips and lower backs like Merckx, Indurain and other legendary big guys.

But, yeah, despite the unrelated PED controversy, Ferrari and Armstrong helped revolutionize the sport by providing lab data to back up their claims for the advantage of higher cadence -- primarily for quicker recovery in long stage races.

Heck, I bought into it too. 90 rpm or so just felt comfortable. But it wasn't making me stronger. I had to consciously and methodically change my approach to lower cadence and bigger gears to get stronger.

I probably could have done that in the gym with weights and resistance, but that's boring.

big john

If it works for you it's ok. Some people mash huge gears for years without issue. It's recommended to spin low gears to protect your knees and if you spin a lot you will develop good muscle memory which will carry you through when it's late in a ride.
If you ride a lot you will figure out your preferred cadence for a given situation. Two people can climb together at very different cadences. It's personal to a certain extent.

DaveSSS 

I can't imagine standing that slow,. I might slow down to 60, at the most.

big john

In the late 80s I added a 28 cog to my 7 speed because I was 220 pounds and did a lot of climbing. This was with a 42 in front, didn't switch to a 39 until 1993 when I moved to the mountains. I was usually the lowest geared of all my friends.

big john

You're a spinner.

HTupolev

Lower gearing was available in the vintage steel days. For example, late-70s SunTour New Winner freewheels could be fitted with up to a 32T cog in the large-sprocket position, even in 5-speed. Similarly, cranksets have pretty much always been available that can fit chainrings far smaller than 42T, like the 50.4BCD TA spider that can be built into just about any chainring combo imaginable, or the 3-bolt 70BCD spider that Stronglight introduced in the 1930s (which is hilariously still being made today due to its licensing by Rene Herse).

Take my '79 Fuji:



The crankset is a Sugino Mighty Tour 110BCD triple fitted with 52-42-34 rings, and the current freewheel is a 14-28, which is actually smaller than the 14-30 that the bike came with. The front derailleur is the same as doubles used at the time, and the rear derailleur is a lovely 190g part that can clear up to a ~34-tooth cog and wrap about 36 teeth of chain. The q-factor is wider than some singles and doubles of the era, but at 142mm, it's narrower than most modern road racing cranks. Shifting both front and rear is excellent. Aside from the weight of the large cogs and extra chainring, this drivetrain isn't giving up much of anything to its contemporary high-end racing setups.

Similar setups have been buildable well into the distant past, albeit with fewer ratios. For instance, the Cyclo rear derailleur of the 1920s can wrap at least 30 teeth of chain, and its geometry prevents shifting from being significantly affecting by chainring selection.


I think the GCN presenters get a lot of things wrong, but I'd disagree that that's one of them. If your pedaling is frequently going lumpy due to insufficiently low gears, that's a significant bike setup problem. Even if there was sort of a reason for it in Merckx's case, it was still a bad thing. Merckx got away with it because his competitors struggled with the same thing.