Originally Posted by
noglider
I'm going to go against conventional wisdom. Sorry. Higher cadences do not reduce the amount of work you do. They increase it. The reason for higher cadence is to reduce risk of injury to your knees. So the trick is to find a cadence that is not too fast that it wastes energy but not so slow that you hurt your knees. My feeling is that for tough climbing, it's way, way below 90 rpm.
I also feel that high cadence climbing does little to build ability to climb. I think it hinders it, because climbing is an opportunity to push harder on the pedals than any other time. I couldn't climb well until I got a fixed gear (66 inches) and didn't have the opportunity to shift down. You don't need a fixed gear to build this skill. You need to choose your gear well.
Plus standing up helps you put more force on the pedals.
I'm willing to talk more about this if you like. I've been cycling seriously for 34 years, and this is what I've learned.
High cadences are fine for flats and downhills but I think they are bad for vigorous climbs.
I don't think one can compare just from 'comments' here. Everyone has their own experience of climbing and what might be their own special effort.
I personally find when I'm ridin near my max efforts, dropping rpm to 60 to mid 60's and using a higher gear gets me up faster. Anything above 70 rpm for a mile or more will put me into O2 debt. So I climb better in a bigger gear than trying to twiddle up in a smaller one - at the same pace. I do vary standing to seated quite a bit and find that gets me to the top in better shape. So I'll agree that one can climb well at cadences nearer 60 than 90.
My comments apply to climbs which are multiple miles and not some combo of up and down.
That said there's nothing like hill intervals, both at high cadence and also in larger gears, to push endurance and help build strength. Unlike riding the flat, each pedal revolution means something on the upslope and making each count is really the test of truth.