training without cadence meter

[s-s-a]

But I have trained and raced many thousand km on road and never felt the need to know what cadence I'm riding at to improve my efficiency/fitness speed. Steph

I don't want to hijack this thread so maybe this is best answered in a new thread in the training section, but I am interested in how you measured your efficiency and how you assessed your improvements without what I assume was the use of HRM/Cadence measures etc. From what I have seen from the professionals they seem to use all the technology they can.

At my fittest I was nowhere near professional status just an early 30s serious amateur riding B grade women in major events (like the Canberra Tour) and finishing mid field.

Most of the year my training consisted of riding with regular training bunches around Canberra and races on and off road. When I had a particular event to prepare for "properly" I worked off HRM data using the principles in Neil Craig's book "Scientific Heart Rate Training". Given most of my usual training had plenty of volume I would presume it covered phase 1+2 and put in six weeks of phase 3 then 4.

General training with the HRM I set it to monitor time below/in/above E2 but intensity sessions in phase 3+4 and on race day I set it to monitor below/in/above E3.

Monitoring of fitness is done using HRM data and time for a 30km time trial.

Steph

[Aushiker]

Thanks Steph for sharing. Interesting.

I maybe right off the planet here but from what little I understand, HRM is related cardio/fitness/weight loss etc whereas cadence is about riding technique. I wonder if you where only assessing one aspect?

I know that now that I have the Edge 305 I ride to maintain my cadence around 97 rpm (unsuccessfully mind you ) and to maintain my HRM in the top of my range. That is I see them as two different measure with two objectives in mind in my case - HRM for weight loss and cadence to improve my riding efficiency. I can actually have high cadence and low HRM for example or vice versa.

Regards
Andrew

[toolonglegs]

I think HRM is much more essential than Cadence,if you want to improve your cadence for any reason then it is helpful to check overall average on a set repeatable course.I have a good cadence for me,between 78-90 but I see no need for me to take it higher.It works for some people to have a cadence higher but not for me.On climbs you set your own cadence when you are big,I cant spin up a climb as my poor power/weight ratio will always handicap me.I do find a hrm helpful but to tell the truth I dont look at it very often if ever.I think I can usually guess with in 5 beats where i am at.
I have about 5 places I time myself to know how i am going,A 5k climb,5,7,8 different loops.Gives me a pretty good idea.
Now if I had a power meter that would be a different story .

[sogood]

Now if I had a power meter that would be a different story .

+1. One day, one day...

[s-s-a]

from what little I understand, HRM is related cardio/fitness/weight loss etc whereas cadence is about riding technique. I wonder if you where only assessing one aspect?

Yes that's probably true. Does anyone have info/links about what kind of improvement in performance (ie speed) you are likely to get? Not that I'm about to do anything about it mind you ...

Steph

[inaminit]

As I only got on the bike about 6 months ago, I'm far from being knowledgable on the subject but have learnt some interesting things about HRM and cadence.

So far, I have only used the standard manufacturer supplied HRM (I think they are called Respiritory Organs) which although is only a basic model, does have a very good warning and safety function which analyses the data and then begins shutting down non essential functions, such as breathing, when the intensity gets too high. It is also very easy to to track these increases in intensity with a pre-installed audible tone (aka Wheezing) which gets louder the harder you work

But seriously, I would love to get hold of a proper HRM as I think the data would an invaluable tool in setting, monitoring, achieving, and analysing your performance goals, especially if training for a specific event/ purpose. Also, it would certainly help now that I'm racing to give me a better chance to make sure I've got a bit left in the tank at the end!

When I started out I used a computer with cadence, and I found it was brilliant. Especially in getting me into a good rythym on the bike and it also helped me get used to gear selection as well. about a month or 2 ago when my wife got her bike I put the cadence computer on hers and got a computer without cadence for mine....great for her....big mistake for me initially, but have now got used to getting into the desired rythym without the electronic aid, but would be good to be able to refer to it for specific training runs.

[toolonglegs]

I am the opposite in races...i don't want to know my heart rate as sometimes it puts me off,especially if i am averaging between 170-180bpm.I think i prefer not to have confirmation about how much i am suffering!

[inaminit]

I tend to use data as a bit of a motivator, especially if I'm suffering. It also helps me to manage "the pain" a bit better.

For example, in my 48km road race last weekend. on the first lap of the loop, a few people really ramped up the pace and by the time we hit the hills over half of our group was strung out. I stayed with the lead, but dropped off a km or 2 later as I knew the pace was too high and that they wouldnt be able to maintain it either. I then did some quick sums in my head of what speed I would need to average to peg them back and still have a chance.

even though I was really suffering out there on my own, I used the avg speed to keep me pushing and it worked. After I got into a decent rythym I started coming good again and ended pegging back all but one of the breakaway group coming in second from my group of starters. This would have been a great result for me, but it was a handicap event so 2nd from my group didn't mean much, but I was happy with it!