Is low 80's too low for cadence?

Triathlon Forum
1

I’m riding exclusively on the road bike this summer and find myself becoming more and more of a grinder. Today I did 5 x 5 at 112% and thought I was going to crap my pants and puke, but still just grinding away. When I try to spin up to and past 90rpm I find myself cramping up more. My average today was 86 rpm on the first interval and slowly falling to 82 on the last at 333 watts AP and NP. I think my FTP tests are generally 84-86rpm’s.

I do not have an actual cadence sensor, but rely on the powertap, which seems to be quite accurate.

I’m just wondering if I’m training myself a bit poorly by becoming limited to low cadence. I have made great improvement this year so am far from a slouch, but wonder if by forcing higher cadence at least some of the time if I can improve even more? I do try to spin up the cadence more when warming up and cooling down.

2

You’re fine.

3

I do not have an actual cadence sensor, but rely on the powertap, which seems to be quite accurate.

not really that accurate. Sometimes it is sometimes it isn’t…but how do you know when it is? you can’t!

But anyway low 80s is on the low side of normal, wouldn’t worry about it as long as your knees feel fine.

4

LOL…believe it or not I’ve actually counted to check for accuracy. Not saying it’s always accurate :slight_smile:

Yes my knees are a hair sore after today, but I did 2 x 20 Tuesday and 144 miles (not easy) Saturday. That was my longest ride ever by 41 miles :slight_smile:

Thanks for reassurance guys.

5

What happens when you’re riding at 75-80% FTP? Do you still grind away at low 80s, or are you comfortably spinning higher than the 84-86 range you see in your FTP tests. From what I’ve read and tried, I’d suggest doing some high RPM intervals at a lower power level, but I’d do that during the off-season. Also, your self-selected cadence may just in fact be lower than the “magical” 90 rpm number. Cadence is almost like heel strike v. forefoot/midfoot strike… I think it’s all self-selected and personal preference. But I will say it is easier to match accelerations on the bike when you’re pedaling along at a higher cadence. More important in crit/RR than tris/TTs.

6

Interesting. I’m the opposite. When I am going at lower intensities, my cadence is WAY down - like high 60’s. Higher intensity puts me in the 90’s.

20 minute FTP test last week was around 84. I find my “natural” cadence varies quite a bit from day-to-day as well. Sometimes 90 feels great; sometimes 80 feels great.

7

Ride with what is comfortable to you. I just looked back at a bunch of rides on Garmin connect and my rides fall between 78-88. I averaged 85 RPM at Muncie a few weeks ago and that seems most comfortable to me. I just ride with what I feel good with that day. I listened to a podcast with Rapp and he liked low cadence because it allowed him to be more consistent with his power but if he were road racing his cadence would probably be higher because you have to be ready to more spinning to keep up with surges.

8

Generally yes. But I definitely can pick it up a bit…but generally not as comfortable. I think a part of my issue is I’m riding compact with 11-28. So some pretty big holes in my gearing and I always feel more comfortable grinding (80 RPM’s) vs. spinning.

I also have a somewhat lower than “normal” running cadence so it may make sense. And I have a big run background.

9

Interesting. I’m the opposite. When I am going at lower intensities, my cadence is WAY down - like high 60’s. Higher intensity puts me in the 90’s.

20 minute FTP test last week was around 84. I find my “natural” cadence varies quite a bit from day-to-day as well. Sometimes 90 feels great; sometimes 80 feels great.

This is correct…RAAM riders have much lower cadence than 4000m pursuit riders…crank torque and RPM tend to rise with wattage and both drop with wattage…kind of the same deal as stride length and stride rate both gradually increasing with overall pace (m/s).

Generally RAAM RPM should be lower than Ironman which should be lower than half IM which should be lower than Olympic tri which should be lower than sprint tri which should be lower than 105-110% FTP intervals.

Makes sense?

My last IM the average RPM (minus coasting) was 81 RPM, riding at 72% FTP

10

Probably not an issue if you’re doing shorter TTs and your knees don’t bother you. Low RPM is not very effective if you need to accelerate quickly in a group ride or race.

11

Yep. Totally in line with what I have noticed. Also great to get some validation about not really being concerned.

I never had cadence until I got a PM about a year ago and was making observations about trends, but not changing my behavior because of them.

But if I’m in an olympic and spinning at 80 RPM I may want to pick it up. Likewise if I see 95 in an IM, could be a sign to dial it back.

12

Yep. Totally in line with what I have noticed. Also great to get some validation about not really being concerned.

I never had cadence until I got a PM about a year ago and was making observations about trends, but not changing my behavior because of them.

But if I’m in an olympic and spinning at 80 RPM I may want to pick it up. Likewise if I see 95 in an IM, could be a sign to dial it back.

95 RPM in an Ironman would be a disaster (probably best way to assure a walk on the run course). Basically what you are doing is expending a ton of extra energy moving the huge mass of your legs around in say 15 extra circles per minute to put exactly the same watts to the pavement as the guy riding at 80 RPM. There is a reason why RAAM riders going at ultra low RPM ride that low…it is because their wattage is also ultra low.

To add another point of reference for direct comparison between two races of equivalent difficulty but one being a full, the other being a half IM

IMLP: 81 RPM 185W, 5:36, elevation gain 1900m, (this was my ride time and did not include a flat change)70.3 Tremblant: 85 RPM, 218W, 2:33, elevation 963m.

In both races I also performed to my current run fitness (3:51 at IMLP, 1:38 at Tremblant 70.3). I am pretty sure if I had data for an Olympic tri, the average cadence would end up being 90 RPM.

Looking at my Garmin connect data, I have one other point of comparison…Epicman Tremblant: 78 RPM, 165W, 6:30, 2250m elevation, 190K

So as you can see, when my watts dropped by another 20W and the duration went up to 6.5 hours, my cadence went down even more. And none of this was planned…it is just what it ended up being.

There are three solid data points I can share all done on the same bike, same fitness (more or less), with similar elevation profile.

Dev

13

95 RPM in an Ironman would be a disaster (probably best way to assure a walk on the run course).

I think its an individualistic thing. It depends on what kind of rider you are. Clearly, Dev, you are a low-cadence guy. Not me. Low 80s would be the disaster for me in an IM. In my 3 IMs I’ve averaged 94, 95, and 93 RPM and felt great on the run each time.

14

95 RPM in an Ironman would be a disaster (probably best way to assure a walk on the run course).

I think its an individualistic thing. It depends on what kind of rider you are. Clearly, Dev, you are a low-cadence guy. Not me. Low 80s would be the disaster for me in an IM. In my 3 IMs I’ve averaged 94, 95, and 93 RPM and felt great on the run each time.

On the other hand, you run a lot faster than me, so maybe my cadence is too low.

Having said that, the answer is relative to “yourself”. I am sure if you raced RAAM your cadence for the cross country ride would be well below 95 and if you raced a 4000m pursuit you’d be a fair bit above 95 RPM.

My hunch is guys whose legs weigh less will opt for higher cadence and guys who have big leg weight relative to their body will opt for lower cadence across the board…or like the Chris Carmichael/Ferrari disciples, they can transfer the workload to the heart rather than the legs by going super high RPM (not saying you are doped out, but that path works well for the EPO crew).

Dev

15

Brett Sutton seems to suggest mid 70’s for his athletes, and some of them seem to do all right.

16

Brett Sutton seems to suggest mid 70’s for his athletes, and some of them seem to do all right.

Yes and when you think that you have to use your hip flexors and hamstrings for around 10+ hours in an Ironman for most people, then 70’s cadence is probably in line with the 10 hour cadence that someone might hold for a 300K ride.

17

Without really touching on what dev has said throughout the thread, again, I’d probably emphasize that your most comfortable cadence is going to be self-selected. But, just to give you some perspective/n=1 food for thought, my run cadence is pretty slow. I’m also a bigger guy at 6’3 with about 20 lbs that I’d like to lose to get to a starting race weight. But on the bike, I find that I’m usually riding around low 90s. On extended hills, it’ll even creep up into the 100s, but when I’m on the flats and moving, I can be as low as mid 80s. But in crits, I try to keep my cadence at or above 90. Just feels a lot easier to respond to attacks and/or counter when you’re spinning that fast.

18

Personal preference. I have fairly large legs and average mid 90s but do did easier rides. I a oly or sprint, I comfortably spin around 100 to 105. I sort of “stall” below 80. I only drop below 90 is I need to grind up a steeper hill or push a larger gear to avoid a bad chain line or dropping to the small ring for a rise.

I do wrist I had a power meter to compare rpm and heart rate at a constant power outputs to see if efficient changes.

19

I am a low cadence guy. I even upgraded my front chainrings to 58-50 as I felt more comfortable cruising flats without “spinning” my legs off.

20

I do not have an actual cadence sensor, but rely on the powertap, which seems to be quite accurate.

not really that accurate. Sometimes it is sometimes it isn’t…but how do you know when it is? you can’t!

Often you can.