Cadence Question

"hippy" wrote snip
Speaking of cadence, I just fitted my first cadence measuring device
in the form of a Polar sensor.. snip

Good luck - I've got a Polar XTrainer plus and the cadence unit is next to
useless. It rarely picks up the signal and has been back to Polar twice
now. I know a few people who have said the same. I've given up. Might try
a Cyclosports HAC4 like Lance. Free altitude data as well (if you call
anything bundled into $500 package free).

John Green wrote:

So what should I aim for to be beneficial?

As high as you can comfortably manage.
The higher the cadence, the more flywheel effect you get and the less
work (small hills only {:-).

Knees wise, low cadence can cripple you. It gets a lot of tourers.
Usually 60 is minimum.

my cycling literature says anything under 80 rpm cadence is "rubbish
training", assuming you are riding for sport/fitness as opposed to commuting
or getting from A to B. I also read that 85 rpm is about the minimum
acceptable sport/fitness riding cadence (including seated climbing) and at
over 100-105 rpm the efficiency starts to decline i.e. for most people it
is too much to sit on above 105 rpm for long periods..... Almost everyone
has their "comfort zone" in 85-105 rpm range where 90-95 seems to be the
golden middle. This is for sustained road riding not for short sprinting or
standing - all bets seem to be off in those cases.


"Terry Collins" wrote in message
...
John Green wrote:

So what should I aim for to be beneficial?

As high as you can comfortably manage.
The higher the cadence, the more flywheel effect you get and the less
work (small hills only {:-).

Knees wise, low cadence can cripple you. It gets a lot of tourers.
Usually 60 is minimum.

Yuri Budilov wrote:

my cycling literature says anything under 80 rpm cadence is "rubbish
training",

So you are saying that you know the OP isn't a member of Joe Public, but
one of those "racing types".

"John Green" writes:

Can someone explain Cadence to me.

I know it means RPM that you are pedalling, but if you are in a low gear
your Cadence will be high, and if you are in a high gear, it will be lower.

So what should I aim for to be beneficial?

You should aim for high Cadence in lower gears, its alot better for
your knees.

--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.

"Terry Collins" wrote in message
...
Yuri Budilov wrote:

my cycling literature says anything under 80 rpm cadence is "rubbish
training",

So you are saying that you know the OP isn't a member of Joe Public, but
one of those "racing types".

No.. he was quoting his cycling literature, which is
obviously geared towards competitive cyclists..

Strength "training" is done quite a bit lower than
80rpm but, as Yuri pointed out, staying above 80rpm
is the suggestion for sustained road riding..

hippy

hippy wrote:

"Terry Collins" wrote in message
...
Yuri Budilov wrote:

my cycling literature says anything under 80 rpm cadence is "rubbish
training",

So you are saying that you know the OP isn't a member of Joe Public, but
one of those "racing types".

No.. he was quoting his cycling literature, which is
obviously geared towards competitive cyclists..

Strength "training" is done quite a bit lower than
80rpm but, as Yuri pointed out, staying above 80rpm
is the suggestion for sustained road riding..

Okay, the point I am making is that I have nothing to guide me that 80
rpm should be the suggestion to make.

If the OP had said "I want to race", then it would be well to advise him
that getting his cadence up to 80 rpm is best if he is serious.

On the other hand, if the OP is a member of Joe Public who has just
heard about "cadence" and wondered what it meant, then I my advice is
cadence 101 to get them to start spinning a little bit, rather than
pushing. Most Joe Public can manage a cadence of 60 with a little bit of
thought. I have met a few people who would find a cadence of 80 very
hard.