started cycling after years of running. Question about difference between me and experienced riders.

You are riding with Freds.

Because you are high cadence cyclist and they are not. Since they know you are a noob and they are having trouble keeping up when you do things your way they are giving you bad advice to slow you down.

Maybe that there is way less weight and impact involved in biking so your legs are better able to handle a gear that requires putting more force into the pedals.

A runner is supporting their entire body weight for every step. A biker is probably putting force into the pedals equivalent to their weight only when standing on the pedals or are just shy of having their butt lift off the seat.

For much of the time they are coasting and sitting or putting a lesser force, than needed to support their body weight, into the pedals.

Cadence is a tough one, and is specifically dependent on the type of cyclist you are. I came from a running background, and on most rides- my average cadence is around 89. 90-94 is great number in my opinion. If I am doing a hard fast powerful effort. I will usually be mid-high 90s on my cadence. If it's a fast climb, I'm usually mid 80's-low 90s. If it's super steep I'm low 80's,

Essentially the difference, is that you have a lot more aerobic strength at the moment. Imagine cycling in a sense of lifting- or walking up stairs. With that said, it's a completely different stress on your muscles than running. The higher the cadence, the less you are stressing your anaerobic system- and moreso the aerobic system. As you are a runner- you are probably already aerobically fit, but anaerobically poor- when it comes to that "lifting" repeat. As you strengthen your anaerobic system, your cadence may change- or you will just become stronger over longer periods of time, and able to really put the power down when necessary.

It's definitely possible that you are over cadencing your bike, and stressing your aerobic system too much. You need to stress the anaerobic system and get used to that uncomfortable pain, because eventually you will reach a point where the climb is too steep, and you no longer can rely on cadence alone.

OP, I had the same experience as you when I dabbled in cycling my last year of college, after 9 years of running. I could maintain high rpm in low gears, but could not push high gears. My riding buddies were enthusiastic but not-so-great cyclists, whose cardiovascular output was not that high, so they made me look good. I could beat them in time trials and climbing using my low gears and high cadence. But real cyclists would put me in my place (way back). To get an idea of high end cycling, watch TDF video of climbing stages, where the grade is over 10%. Look at the cadence and look at the gears they use.

This^^^. You already have a strong base from running and you should start putting in workouts to get speed and strength.

This!

Chewbacca wrote:

You are riding with Freds.

The flagpole of cycling strikes again. This guy has been giving some good cycling advice on these boards. While it is letsrun, seems like a lot of people have been talking about it during the tour. I dabbled in cycling a few times, it's great to watch on tv. But nothing could beat the freedom of throwing on shoes and heading out the door. OP- stick to running.

All of this is nonsense wrote:

.......... I dabbled in cycling a few times, it's great to watch on tv. But nothing could beat the freedom of throwing on shoes and heading out the door. OP- stick to running.

Agree. Stick to running if you can. Within the last year I have been dealing with the fact that, in my late 20s, I may have been on my last run ever due to injury. Since then I've been trying to transition to cycling. I'm really trying to like it, I want to like it, and it's ok I guess. But really the time, money, mechanical feel, and just being on that seat forever makes it suck sometimes.

To answer the question though, what the guys above said about your aerobic development is the same as my experience. Even having not run for a year my aerobic system was much more developed than my strength. I can't put out much power to the pedals, but I can spin nonstop without my HR getting up too much. Hills and wind kill me.

All of this is nonsense wrote:

Blitzplay wrote:

This^^^. You already have a strong base from running and you should start putting in workouts to get speed and strength.

The flagpole of cycling strikes again. This guy has been giving some good cycling advice on these boards. While it is letsrun, seems like a lot of people have been talking about it during the tour. I dabbled in cycling a few times, it's great to watch on tv. But nothing could beat the freedom of throwing on shoes and heading out the door. OP- stick to running.

What is the flagpole of cycling?

I am riding a bit to help with some muscle imbalances which had developed over years of running only. I was helped tremendously by cycling, even just a few days a week. Initially, I was advised to ride around 90RPM and everything would fall into place. I am getting stronger and now able to push some of those bigger gears. I still tend to prefer riding at a higher cadence. There are mashers and spinners. Guess, I'm a spinner for the time being.

All of this is nonsense wrote:

The higher the cadence, the less you are stressing your anaerobic system- and moreso the aerobic system.

So why do track cycling sprinters use very very high cadence?

It takes a bit of training to learn how to use high gears effectively, either on the flat, or using the big ring on a moderate grade.

You are also generally fitter than those cyclists. Real racing men would rip your legs off at the first opportunity.

Cyclone wrote:

I started cycling about three weeks ago and I have been logging about 110mpw on the bike. Running is my first sport and it always will be. I went out for a ride with a few guys who have been cycling for years and they made some about my cadence.

They said my cadence looked incredibly high as I was pushing a low gear and should change up to make it easier. When I did, my perceived effort was alot higher even though we were traveling at the same speed. I have alot difficulty pushing big gears but no problem pushing a smaller gear at a very high cadence. They thought this was very strange as they could not keep up with me when we were using a low gear.

Could anyone explain why this is happening?

I'm curious as to what you mean by high cadence?

I remember when I first started cycling I started with a pretty low cadence of around 70 and thought my wife looked silly at 90. It wasn't long before I was up around 100 on a regular basis. I think ideally you should be in the 90-95 range so if your buddies are giving you a hard time while having a cadence around 80 then ignore them.

actually..... wrote:

All of this is nonsense wrote:

The higher the cadence, the less you are stressing your anaerobic system- and moreso the aerobic system.

So why do track cycling sprinters use very very high cadence?

Because they only have a single gear ratio accessible, and so they cannot choose one too high or else it will impair their ability to start and accelerate.

And because they are using lots of FAST twitch fibers. They generate more power with higher cadence

You are like Lance, and they are like Jan Ulrich.

OP, your quads aren't used to concentric contractions. The higher cadence allows for a lower percentage of your maximal contraction force, which means they don't get blown out as quickly and you are able to use your aerobic development from running a little better.

But yeah, I'm sure you are riding with Freds.

Cyclone wrote:

I started cycling about three weeks ago and I have been logging about 110mpw on the bike. Running is my first sport and it always will be. I went out for a ride with a few guys who have been cycling for years and they made some about my cadence.

They said my cadence looked incredibly high as I was pushing a low gear and should change up to make it easier. When I did, my perceived effort was alot higher even though we were traveling at the same speed. I have alot difficulty pushing big gears but no problem pushing a smaller gear at a very high cadence. They thought this was very strange as they could not keep up with me when we were using a low gear.

Could anyone explain why this is happening?

You're only 3 weeks into cycling, I suspect that if you continue to ride regularly that you'll build up more cycling specific muscles which will lead to one of two things... 1) If you are able to maintain a high cadence you are going to be blowing away those guys you are riding with now. More specific strength + same high cadence = the ability to use a bigger gear = the ability to go faster at the same effort level... 2) If you really are spinning too high rpm's now, as your riding partners seem to think, as you do more miles your cadence will fall some to get to a place where it is more comfortable for you.

To determine if what they're saying has merit, figure out what your cadence currently is. When you know that research what that number means according to cycling coaches and good riders. Of course there will be a range of "acceptable values", but if you find out you're spinning at say 115-120 rpm's now then I'd say you might be more efficient trying to ride with bigger gears and try to make a conscious move in that direction. If you're below that then just let the miles accumulate and see how your riding style changes naturally as you log more miles.

FWIW, although bike racing was never my main sport I rode regularly starting my late teens and did a fair amount of racing for about 5 years after college. I come from a running/XC skiing background, not sure if that has any bearing on my riding style, but I was most comfortable around 100-105 rpm's and mid-range gears when I was racing well on the roads. I don't ride on the roads very much these days, when I do I'm still higher cadence than most of the people I ride with, but I'm not pushing very big gears. I don't think I'll ever wear out an 11 or 12 tooth cog.