|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Hill cadence
In another thread a poster stated that his hill cadence was in the
eighties and his flat cadence was between 95-100. My flat cadence is similar but when I hit a hill my cadence hits about 110, certainly stays over 100. I find I cruise up hills with relative ease at that cadence. Is there benefit to a lower cadence going up hills? -- Cheers | ~~ __@ Euan | ~~ _-\, Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*) |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Hill cadence
Euan Wrote: In another thread a poster stated that his hill cadence was in the eighties and his flat cadence was between 95-100. My flat cadence is similar but when I hit a hill my cadence hits about 110, certainly stays over 100. I find I cruise up hills with relative ease at that cadence. Is there benefit to a lower cadence going up hills? -- Cheers | ~~ __@ Euan | ~~ _-\, Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*) I think it's a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other. Otoh, if you're me the argument is moot, 100+ rpm on a hill isn't feasible anyway with a 39/23. Ritch -- ritcho |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Hill cadence
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:06:41 GMT, Euan wrote:
In another thread a poster stated that his hill cadence was in the eighties and his flat cadence was between 95-100. My flat cadence is similar but when I hit a hill my cadence hits about 110, certainly stays over 100. I find I cruise up hills with relative ease at that cadence. Is there benefit to a lower cadence going up hills? I seem to have 2 different sweet spots, though without cadence on my computer it's hard to tell exactly what they are. My comfortable cadence on the flat is around 100, which I worked out on the trainer at work. I can do the same up hills but I go faster with a higher gear and slightly lower cadence. My guess would be that it's around the 80 mark too. On MTB rides some of the climbs suck ass so bad my cadence is what the hill allows me to do in granny gear |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Hill cadence
Euan Wrote: In another thread a poster stated that his hill cadence was in the eighties and his flat cadence was between 95-100. My flat cadence is similar but when I hit a hill my cadence hits about 110, certainly stays over 100. I find I cruise up hills with relative ease at that cadence. Is there benefit to a lower cadence going up hills? -- Cheers | ~~ __@ Euan | ~~ _-\, Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*) Isnt the theory (call to those more tech-nerd-savvy) that you keep more 'juice' in your legs? And that standing/slower cadence uses ~10% mor energy? If speed is the object, then bigger_gear/therefore_slower_cadence works better (depending upon how long you can last?), as Tim"The Twiddler"C and Dave"PB"B can attest on BRs -- flyingdutch |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Hill cadence
Euan wrote: In another thread a poster stated that his hill cadence was in the eighties and his flat cadence was between 95-100. My flat cadence is similar but when I hit a hill my cadence hits about 110, certainly stays over 100. I find I cruise up hills with relative ease at that cadence. Is there benefit to a lower cadence going up hills? The short answer is "it depends". In general, lower cadence puts more stress on your muscles, and higher cadence puts more stress on your aerobic capacity. If you're strong, but not super aerobically fit, lower cadence may work better, and visa versa. It's also a factor of what gearing you have available. Sooner or later you'll bog down on a wall and have to grind, unless you ride some insane bailout gears! What works for you, works for you, and what you train, you'll get better at. Lance spins up hills, UIlrich grinds ... both climb far better than you or I |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Hill cadence
Me & Jan U, going up in the 70's all the way.... On the roadbike I sit in the mid '80s if I can which is -my - nice spot, where's on the MTB I spin like a ba$ta&d but that’s when the way up is, umm, less than perfect. But like Moses, I climb hills because I have to.. -- Marx SS |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Hill cadence
Me & Jan U, going up in the 70's all the way.... On the roadbike on the flats I sit in the mid '80s if I can which is my nice spot, where's on the MTB I spin like a ba$ta&d but that’s when the way up is, umm, less than perfect. But like Moses, I climb hills because I am compelled to.. -- Marx SS |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Hill cadence
flyingdutch wrote: Euan Wrote: In another thread a poster stated that his hill cadence was in the eighties and his flat cadence was between 95-100. My flat cadence is similar but when I hit a hill my cadence hits about 110, certainly stays over 100. I find I cruise up hills with relative ease at that cadence. Is there benefit to a lower cadence going up hills? -- Cheers | ~~ __@ Euan | ~~ _-\, Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*) Isnt the theory (call to those more tech-nerd-savvy) that you keep more 'juice' in your legs? And that standing/slower cadence uses ~10% mor energy? Standing will use more energy, and thus, increase your heartrate, but lower cadence *generally* means lower HR - thus the spin/aerobic, grind/strength connection. If speed is the object, then bigger_gear/therefore_slower_cadence works better (depending upon how long you can last?), as Tim"The Twiddler"C and Dave"PB"B can attest on BRs "It depends" Maybe it does for them. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Hill cadence
"Bleve" wrote in message ps.com... The short answer is "it depends". In general, lower cadence puts more stress on your muscles, and higher cadence puts more stress on your aerobic capacity. If you're strong, but not super aerobically fit, lower cadence may work better, and visa versa. It's also a factor of what gearing you have available. Sooner or later you'll bog down on a wall and have to grind, unless you ride some insane bailout gears! What works for you, works for you, and what you train, you'll get better at. Lance spins up hills, UIlrich grinds ... both climb far better than you or I Too true. The stress of lower cadence can tire your muscles sooner, and also can bring on cramps if you are susceptible. I'm definately not able to grind away for too long without blowing up. With practice you might discover you have a "sweet spot" climbing at a particular cadence and intensity. For me if say I'm in my bottom gear (25) riding at a low cadence (say 65-70) I actually find it much easier to at a higher cadence even though it's 2-3kph faster. It's like your body is tuned for that sort of effort. Also if you find yourself tiring changing up a gear (or two) and getting out of the saddle works a different muscle set, and give you a break. You might find after changing down and sitting back in the saddle you are going faster than before. Like Carl says, if you train and target certain areas, like low cadence strength intervals up hills, or high cadence fast climb intervals you'll improve a lot. Adam |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Hill cadence
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:06:41 GMT, Euan wrote:
Is there benefit to a lower cadence going up hills? Everyone's different. I ride at 90-100 on the flat, but drop to 80-90 up hills, which works better for me. -- Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Specialized Morgan Hill Gran Prix...A++ | ODH_Bikes | Racing | 0 | April 13th 05 12:41 AM |
Herne Hill situation | ScumOfTheRoad | UK | 2 | February 7th 05 11:02 AM |
Cycling Cadence and Running Stride Rate | Tony | Racing | 48 | July 13th 04 07:00 AM |
cadence on cycle-computer reading wrong.... | Yuri Budilov | Techniques | 3 | February 25th 04 04:02 AM |
Stupid gearing (or an encounter with Succombs Hill) | Sky Fly | UK | 17 | November 8th 03 10:35 AM |