As I mentioned in an earlier post (or two), I've now got a bike computer which measures cadence. This is the first time I've been able to tell my cadence and it leads to me staring at the computer screen when I should be looking at the road. That's not the point though and here is...
As it was, I thought I had a fairly high cadence. Oh, just to explain to anyone not familiar with the term 'cadence', it refers to the speed at which one pedals ie. a cadence of sixty would mean you are rotating your cranks a full circle every second (or sixty times in a minute, if you prefer). Sorry if that sounded a little patronising. If nobody had explained to me what cadence was, I wouldn't have a clue. Now where was I? Oh yes, my cadence. Yes, I had thought I cycled with quite a high cadence and it turns out I do. Most of the time my cadence seemed to be about one-hundred and five to one-hundred and ten and it went up to more like one-hundred and fifteen/one-hundred and twenty when I dropped a lot of gears to spin uphill. Given the recommended cadence (although obviously different people cycle at different cadences as it suits them personally) being about ninety, I'm spinning pretty quickly. This high repetition and low resistance exercise means I'll end up with legs more like a third rate budget version of Lance Armstrong's (top-left, with Jan Ullrich) than Jan Ullrich's (right). Then again, my legs don't resemble anything any discerning cyclist would have hanging out of his/her bib-shorts.
No comments:
Post a Comment