DX-MAN

I used to have a cadence function on the bike computer...back when I was interested in the numbers side of the ride. I would average in the 80's. I believe I'm a little lower than that now, but it's just not important to me any more. My legs tell me what RPM feels good, so I go with that.

If you'd ask me how fast I ride, I'd tell you "I ride at the speed of joy."

zandoval 

Boy - This really puts me on the spot cause I only pedal up hill... 45?

But thinking about it on flat ground this 60 year old holds about 60-70 - Far cry from my younger days...

Zinger

Gee I hope you aren't saying that you're climbing on a 53/11 when I'm doing it on a 39/26, lol.

akwoodworker

I do 85 to 90 on flats or tailwind and very slight inclines but once the hills arrive it can go as low as 60. I don't watch cadence much anymore, it is only a tool to define what my body is doing. 90 is my favorite cadence speed.

osco53

60 to 80 with occasional spins to 90, In all situations.

MetalPedaler

[Guestimating- as I have never had a cadence meter]

70-90 on the flats.
40-60 on the hills. (Lowest gear on my bike is 39x23....can't exactly spin that up steep hills even if I wanted to!).

I've never been into high-cadence. Low cadence just seems right for me; always has. Typical ride for me: 25 miles. I'm 51.

High cadence seems like I'm working too hard....I don't enjoy it...tire quicker.

I used to think it was because my leg muscles were better than my cardio capacity...but over the last few months, I've increased my cardio capacity ridiculously....to the point where my cardio can well-out-do my muscles...but i still prefer the low cadence.

I'm not concerned with cadence. I do what I can...and what feels the best.

IBOHUNT

According to my data it depends on what I'm doing.

Last weeks 152'/mile gain ride my avg Cadence was 74
2 races last week where it was FLAT FLAT at ~30' gain/mile I was 87 and 91
Over the course of the last 2,600 miles at an avg of 52' gain per mile it's 78 rpm

Barrettscv 

Both, I'll average 85rpm but hold 95rpm for more than half of the ride. I also can sit-n-grind at 40 rpm for a duration while climbing.

oldster

as others have said, I try to keep the cadence up around 90 or more ,because it seems to keep the knees the orthopod wanted to work on years ago feeling really good,with no pain....Bud

con

I really like spinning and my bad knees much prefer I be spinning. My bike computer is always set to show cadence, I really don’t concern myself with any other stat while riding.
To that end I run the following RPM;
Flats, 100-115
Gentle hills, 95-100
Steep hills, I only have a compact double with a 28 big sprocket on the cassette so the cadence can get pretty low when standing when the grade gets up in the neighborhood of 15-20% like it can in spots in the SC Mountains.

MikeWMass

I usually ride about 80-85. If I am pushing and it is not too steep, 95-100. On really steep, long hills it can get down in the 50's, although more commonly 60's. (I must say that reading this thread makes me feel better, after having been told in other threads to "HTFU and learn to spin up the climbs." I'm sorry, I can't spin up 15% in my 34/27!)

Pirkaus

I go as high as 120 and low as 50 but average around 80. I find 80 most comfortable
Pirk

Lars Halstrom

I started cycling again at 64 in the Seattle hills. I bought a Sirrus Elite Disc 11-30T cassette 9-speed and after 1,050 miles, I realized I should have bought the Sirrus Comp 10-speed with the 11-36T rear cassette. I bought a wired cyclocomputer to measure cadence after reading up on it's importance. I try to keep it as close to 80 rpm on flats and hill climbs, but with that 30T low gear, I can only muster 65 rpm on these hills and I can feel the thighs burning and knee pain the next day. It's going to cost a few bucks to change the whole groupset now. I wish the salesman would have put me on the Sirrus comp to compare the differences in hill climbing. I was more focused on the disc brake advantages than the gearing advantages and I didn't test ride it up any hills either.

northbend 

Hey Lars, save yourself some money. You shouldn't have to change your whole group. Look into just swapping out the rear cassette. you can get a 9sp with a 34t granny for less than 70 dollars. Good luck!

John_V 

I've always been a masher, keeping my cadence in the high 70's and sometimes in the low 80's. I have never had any issues with that cadence, even with speeds above 20 mph, on any of my rides. A little over a month ago, I started having some problems with my right knee that eventually was attributed to my cleat being worn out. During that period, I began spinning at a higher RPM (high 80's to mid 90's) and riding in a higher gear to ease the pain in the knee. While I could still go as fast when spinning, I had a very difficult time keeping the RPM's going for a substantial distance without having to coast every once in a while in order to keep my legs from becoming toast. I'm now trying to get back to riding in the gear combination (50/13 to 50/15) that was right for me, before the knee issue, but I'm finding that riding with a high cadence and different gear ratio (50/19 to 15/23) for over a month is making it very difficult to do.

OldsCOOL

How about medium cadence? I'm at 80 or so. Much higher and I'm shifting up.

MetalPedaler

I do believe that the myth of high cadence being optimal is yet another thing carried over from the racing culture and foisted upon all cycledom. If you're not training to race, don't worry about cadence- do what feels best for you.

volosong

Now, here's a wise man. We can probably add into the myth book the belief that mashers will blow out their knees. In the almost 50 years that I've been riding "10-speeds", I've always ridden at a low cadence and have never had knee issues.

It has been interesting reading everybody's thoughts. I don't feel so "weird" any more because, I thought I must have be the slowest crank turner on the planet. It's nice to know that I'm not alone.

350htrr

Don't really know my cadence but it must be slow, because practically everyone I see around here seems to be pedaling like crazy, and I find myself thinking that they need to change to a higher gear...

MetalPedaler

Thanks!

I thought I was the only slow-pedaler!

I'd say you are right about the knee thing, too. I mean, when you think about it, pedaling at 50RPM up a hill....or pedaling at 100RPM to go the same speed....you're still putting out the same amount of power- and thus transfering the same energy through your knees. Someone might say "Well pedal 100RPM and do half the speed that you would do at 50RPM, to use less power"....but unless one is riding a mountain bike, they likely wouldn't have the gearing to do that (I know I sure don't!).

brickster

Display Settings:AbstractSend to:
J Strength Cond Res. 2013 Mar;27(3):637-42. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31825dd224.
The effect of cadence on cycling efficiency and local tissue oxygenation.
D Jacobs R, E Berg K, Slivka DR, Noble JM.
Source
School of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare 3 cycling cadences in efficiency/economy, local tissue oxygen saturation, heart rate, blood lactate, and global and local rating of perceived exertion (RPE). Subjects were 14 trained cyclists/triathletes (mean age 30.1 ± 5.3 years; VO(2) peak 60.2 ± 5.0 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1)) who performed three 8-minute cadence trials (60, 80, and 100 rpm) at 75% of previously measured peak power. Oxygen consumption and respiratory exchange ratio were used to calculate efficiency and economy. Results indicated that both efficiency and economy were higher at the lower cadences. Tissue oxygen saturation was greater at 80 rpm than at 60 or 100 rpm at minute 4, but at minute 8, tissue oxygen saturation at 80 rpm (57 ± 9%) was higher than 100 rpm (54 ± 9%, p = 0.017) but not at 60 rpm (55 ± 11%, p = 0.255). Heart rate and lactate significantly increased from minute 4 and minute 8 (p < 0.05) of submaximal cycling. Local RPE at 80 rpm was lower than at 60 or 100 rpm (p < 0.05). It was concluded that (a) Trained cyclists and triathletes are more efficient and economical when cycling at 60 rpm than 80 or 100 rpm. (b); Local tissue oxygen saturation levels are higher at 80 rpm than 60 and 100 rpm; (c). Heart rate and blood lactate levels are higher with cadences of 80 and 100 than 60 rpm; and (d). Local and global RPE is lower when cycling at 80 rpm than at 60 rpm and 100 rpm. A practical application of these findings is that a cadence of 60 rpm may be advantageous for performance in moderately trained athletes in contrast to higher cadences currently popular among elite cyclists.
PMID: 22648142 [PubMed - in process]
Publication Types


LinkOut - more resources


JUST REPORTING WHAT THE GUY IS SAYING!

hobkirk

FWIW, when I tested my Garmin 705 I found that the computer does not include zero-cadence pedaling in the equation. I don't think any computer is going to include the time you were stopped, but maybe some do include coasting.

(I pedal 100 RPM for 100 yards and then coast for 500 yards and then hit "LAP" - the Cadence Average - 100)

MetalPedaler

I count "One Mississippi...."

jyl

I was leafing through Bradley Wiggins' book. He talks about in the year before his TdF win, he needed to improve his time trailing by a minute or something like that, over what distance I'm not sure, but anyway he had been using a high track type cadence, and instead he and the coaches slowed his cadence down, he spent a year learning to push that lower cadence and higher gear, and with his TT duly improved, won the Tour.

Wish I'd paid more attention to the passage. Maybe I should buy the book.

Zinger

I don't doubt it but that doesn't mean that about 90 RPM isn't a better cardiovascular workout. If you are pushing at only 60 with a fast group and can maintain it over the distance, more power to you. Personally I can't but some guys can.