No, that cadence is not necessarily too high. However, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't slow it down. Even Lance doesn't ride quite that high. I believe he is closer to 105-110.

The main thing to remember is that you will output more power at the cadence because that is how you train.

Some big gear work in training would likely help you to develop more strength, which will pay dividends regardless of what cadence you end up racing at.

Another possibility is to try slightly longer cranks. That might help you to keep up the power output while also slowing down your cadence.

Cadence is really one of those great mysteries. In general (and this is very general) if you are a very powerful rider, a lower cadence will be better because usually powerful riders have massive legs, and then the metabolic cost of just moving your leg becomes very high. A leaner rider will pay less of a metabolic cost, because their legs usually weigh less and therefore there is less cost associated with a high cadence.

For an Olympic distance race, your cadence will likely be higher than for a longer race, both because of higher power and because it is easier to sustain a cadence like that for a shorter distance. Very few (if any) ironman racers would base as high as you do, but there may be a handful of short-course racers who are up over 100 rpm.

So the long answer is that there is no right answer when it comes to cadence. But some big-gear, low-cadence work in training will help you to improve your splits. Other key workouts are high-power intervals (like 1' / 1' off x 15 or so, building up to as many as 30) and max-effort TT's (like 20-30 minutes each) will also help. Both of those are Craig Walton specials...

There are some good articles in High-Tech Cycling and High-Performance Cycling on the subject of cadence... Likely most coaches would probably try to slow you down to 95-105 for your Olympic races.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I typically ride 95-100 in the aero position, and 90-95 on the bullhorns. As rappstar said, there are some definite advantages to being flexible on your cadence, I find that I climb low slope hills (5% or less) way faster in the 85-90 range. For high speed efforts and TTs I stay above 100 the whole time, usually 100-105. Any higher and I can feel a lack of coordination.

One advantage of higher rpm is a lower max force requirement for a given power output. The disadvantage is higher metabolic cost from having to lift your legs up and over so fast. One thing you could try is log your HR and power output and do a few rides on the same course at the same avg speed. Of course HR isn't an absolute indicator of actual effort, but you may find over an average of a bunch of rides that your HR is significantly higher or lower for a given power output at different rpms. I'd guess 3-5 20 milers would be needed to find a consistent enough average speed vs HR vs rpm. Just a thought.

---

---

One advantage I found with higher cadence is less IT band problems. I used to ride around 90, but am working on increasing that to 100-105. Right now, I can't imagine how someone could go 110-115.

Let me ask you this:"Are your legs heavy and muscular or light and skinny". If it is the latter, then what you are doing seems to work. If it is the former, you are turning all that extra mass in circles for no real output. I suspect you are in latter camp in which case I say, keep doing what you are doing. I would be surprised if you can keep these cadences up for a full Ironman (or even a half ironman) and still have a good run. There seems to be a bit of a tradeoff between super high bike cadences and having no hamstrings and hipflexors left for a long run, vs slowing the cadence down a bit and having those "lift muscles" still functional for the run.

Sounds like you are doing quite well though!

Rappstar and Dev both covered it. I had to be told by someone to slow down, as I used to ride at 108 =/- a few. Just felt really good. Found out I am faster at just under 90, when I'm in my best shape. When I'm not as in good a shape, I'm best in the lower 80's. You just have to try different strategies to see what's best for you...and if you are thin-legged, the higher rpms will probably be where you end up.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

Nice website. ;)

I am 197 and have big muscular legs. I feel comfortable around 100 and am working to push my comfort zone around 105-110 so come racing season (collegiate champs Oly in April) I will be fast at that cadence.

If I'm not racing till April (besides any C category races) can't I train my legs to be best around 105-110 even though they are monsterous? Won't my legs adapt to the higher cadence over the course of the season and maybe even slim down a bit?

The big question is why do you think you need to train your legs to be optimal at the cadence? Who told you that was the "optimum cadence." If you are looking to keep cycling cadence close to running cadence, 90-100 is the zone. If you are 197lbs., 100+ cadence is likely too high. You seem a little bit obsessed with this high cadence. Racing at 95 or 105 is not going to be the difference maker in the race. More time training on the bike will. You need to ease up a bit on this very narrow focus on "optimum" cadence.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Sounds good. I was just simply figuring if I have all winter to train, that I might as well get used to a high cadence so, come race day, I can get off the bike having raced at a high cadence thus having fresh legs. I figured a little higher was better.

Thanks for all the help.

95-100 is plenty high. Do the C. Walton workouts I listed above as training. Those will make you fast.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

A powermeter will help resolve your cadence search once and for all. I moved from a habitual 95 down to 80-82 after I got a powermeter. Other people move up when they get a powermeter.

A reading of power output, combined with good judgment over what feels best, will lead to the right answer. There's no one right answer -- but you have to search for your own answer in a methodical and informed manner.

He has a powermeter...

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I'll throw a slightly different slant on this:

I propose that there is an optimal (and somewhat different, individual) cadence for eveyone. Furthermore, I suggest the optimal cadence is contingent upon a host of factors or a conspiracy of tings that are difficult to quantify.

The reason I say this comes from an examination of three years of pretty (very) detailed Computrainer ride log entries.

In reviewing my performances over the previous three years on the Computrainer I noticed that I usually had "breakthrough" performances at an average cadence of 88 rpm. Taken over the span of three years there seems to be some correlation.

Perhaps at 88 rpm I am at some "peak efficiency" where heart rate can be maintained for an extended period and power output is sustainable as well as pedalling rate/frequency.

The notion that everyone should ride the same cadence, or some vague notion that everybody should maintain a "high" cadence is likely erroneous. On the flip side of that, I think it is accurate to say more people err to the side of too slow a cadence as opposed to those who err to the side of too high. That may account for the on-going mantra of "raise your cadence!"

Also, same goes for the heels down, foot flat, toes down pedalling controversy.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com