|re: Soo.. which cadence is better?||Hap|
Jun 21, 2002 6:05 AM
|This seems to me to be an example of non-cycling scientists confirming in a lab what any cyclist could tell you.
Still, whether you ride at 80, 90, 100, or whatever, it is a matter of personal style. The difference between Ullrich and Armstrong is two riders riding at opposite ends of the traditionally accepted range of candence. As a "middle of the roader", I have always trained for 90.
|I try to stay between 20 and 160 ...||Humma Hah|
Jun 21, 2002 11:37 AM
|I keep telling people, you gotta spend some time doing the WRONG thing if you're ever gonna have the experience to identify the RIGHT thing. I'd suggest riders try some time lugging down to 60 and spinning at 120, and everywhere in between, to see what feels best to them.
The "ideal cadence", if there is such a thing, is very individualized. Also, I'm fairly certain that it changes for different muscle groups. I do well standing and climbing at a slow cadence, with a faster cadence for seated cruises.