customsound79

This is a recent subject I decided to tackle. I got this answer in the General section but I'm seeing different answers like "The ideal is 80-95 although pro cyclist _____ does it at 60-70" in articles I've read. I did 2 15 mile rides this weekend. The first one I just tried to nail 80 rpm and hang. It helped up hills when I had to down shift but it feels very unnatural. The second time I did more of a 60-70 and added .5mph to my overall speed plus the fact that I had enough juice left to sprint the last mile in the high gear. I know the some folks can spin away but I feel more like a diesel truck than a Ferrari. Granted I learned I was at 45 and the increase in pace helped a lot. Anyone else here feel like the extra mass and muscle we carry makes that the case?

TrojanHorse

New cyclists usually pedal more slowly than experienced cyclists. Reasons abound.

chaadster

Yes, I think the physiology "costs" of throwing around bigger, heavier legs at high speeds are greater than those for smaller people at the same speeds.

That said, pedals speed is a tool, and as a cyclist, you want to have a range of usuable cadences for addressing different situations. For example, turning a slow 75rpm but at Tempo power shifts the burden from our cardio system to our muscular system, and because we have bigger muscles, we may be able sustain that pretty easily while allowing our heart rate to recover, whereas the same power level at 90rpm, while lighter on the pedals, may keep our HR elevated, and be more fatiguing.

The goal is not to ride at some steady, "magic" cadence, but rather to get the most speed and stamina out of your body, and varying your pedal speed is important to that end.

chasm54

This isn't rocket science. Pedalling at high cadences is actually less efficient, in terms of the oxygen burned for a given power output, than pedalling at low cadence. The most efficient cadence, in that sense, is said to be around 60 rpm. That is because, as @chaadster says, there is an energy cost to just moving your legs faster. And, presumably, big legs take more energy to spin than smaller ones. So it is perfectly natural for new riders to default to low cadences, because it is easier on their relatively unfit cardiovascular systems and they get more bang for their limited buck.

However, going 20mph at 60rpm means, obviously, that the force you have to exert with each pedal stroke is roughly 33% greater than if you were going 20mph at 90 rpm. So the wear and tear on leg muscles is greater, and on a long ride that fatigue is going to add up. Fit cyclists ride at high cadences because it spares their legs, and their cardiovascular systems are fit enough to have no problem at all with carrying and burning the extra oxygen. As a result they can be faster over long distances because their legs don't get as tired.

That's it, really. Experienced cyclists tend to use higher cadences because they can, it's comfortable for them, and it improves their endurance. But the "right" cadence is different for different riders. Some great time-triallists like Tony Martin often operate at cadences in the 70s. Bradley Wiggins, on the other end, broke the hour record at a cadence around 100. So find your own answer, but as you get fitter and faster you'll almost certainly find that higher cadences help.

PatrickR400

No science, pseudo or real, in my answer. I started pedaling at low cadence and afterward it felt like weigh lifting; sore legs for a day. I now pedal at around 90 RPM on average and recover within the day. My overall average speed has also increased.

NYSteve

I was worried about cadence as well. I mean, I heard the 90s RPM is a good range to start at. I couldn't do it.

Now that I am not riding the bike, but I am using the bikes at the gym, I focus on riding in zone two.

10 Wheels

I never was a Spinner, just a Masher for 60,000 miles.

I like to feel the resistance on my legs.

Bill Kapaun

I have a limited range of motion in my R knee, so high cadence isn't going to happen.
However, going to 165mm cranks from 175 raised my cadence from 60 to 80.
I now run a lower gear at 80 RPM, gained about .5MPH and a LOT more stamina.

dr_lha

Recent studies have found that the most efficient cadence for cyclists differ. For most it's the cadence that they are "comfortable" at. So if you're happy spinning at 80RPM, spinning at 90RPM isn't something you need to worry about. However, I'd suggest people spinning at below 60-70RPM need to try a faster cadence, to see how it feels, because I see a lot of cyclists out there who mash by default, because they never learned how to spin effectively.

10 Wheels

We are all different..My legs and my butt are not yours.

Wanderer

Start at what is comfortable to you. Then, when that seems easy, add 5 more rpm. Then just keep building on that until you get where you can go. No bouncing!

dr_lha

Exactly my point.

However, it doesn't hurt to try higher cadences and see if you can do those comfortably. There's a difference between your comfortable highest cadence, and the cadence you are in the habit of riding at.

DrIsotope

I'm 6'2", have 175mm cranks, and have an overall average cadence of 80rpm. Some rides around 90, some in the low 70s. All depends on how many hills I'm going up, really. Because once I'm up out of the saddle, my cadence is 55-65rpm on most grades. It would be impossible for me to average say 90rpm on a ride when I'm ascending at 60rpm... because I'd have to turn at +100rpm for an extended period to bring the average back up. So what I do is absolutely not worry about it. I pedal at whatever cadence is comfortable to the conditions.

All bets are off on the trainer, though. I will average +100rpm for over an hour. But that is as they say neither here nor there.

dim

watch this video (it's the best I've seen as regards cadence and power):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1uJ0oL98ps

DMC707

In the cycling world, the largest guys (track sprinters) spin the shortest cranks at the highest speed ---

I recall seeing a highly decorated trackie at USOC in Colorado Springs spinning merrily along on a trainer at 160rpm with a very still upper body

A bit apples to oranges, - but i was just speculating that the size and weight of one's legs is not a limiting factor in how fast you can spin -- although a track sprint event is not a very long lasting affair

GravelMN

I'm a big guy, 5' 11" 235# (OK 240 this time of year) and I find my natural cadence to be in the low 80s. I can spin up to about 120 efficiently, but when I'm not pushing or watching my cadence I tend to drift back to my comfortable pace. The one area where I really made a change was in climbing. I used to hammer away as low as 50-60 and my legs paid the price. Now I downshift earlier and try to stay at 70+ for as long as possible (until I run out of gears). I still do drills to try to increase my average cadence but I don't worry about it much as long as my knees are happy.

chaadster

Yeah, the brevity of most track events makes that a poor comparison, but even though you may see sprinters breaking the 200 lbs mark-- barely-- and having top success, they fall off the podium for the longer events like pursuit, and as great as clydes like Hoy and Bauge are, they never won an omnium, probably in part due to the lengths of the events.

DMC707

Yes - sprinters have been getting smaller over the last decade and the advent of the long sprint -- the days of the big 225 lb guys of the 80's and 90's is over on the world scene, except for Forstner, -- and he may not be that heavy as he is pretty short .
The long sprint also has dictated larger gears and it seems that the gears are getting bigger and bigger , whereas 15 years ago, you could be competitive on a 90-95" gear, now 105-110" gears are common and bigger

chasm54

Entirely due to the lengths of the events. Hoy trained exclusively for fast twitch - huge, HUGE low-rep squats and massive leg speed on the bike. I've met him at a Sky event. He's not that big, a normal-sized man with a rhinocerous's quads.

brawlo

I actually wouldn't say sprinters have been getting smaller. Most of them seem to be still up in the 90-100kg mark. The game now, with times being very tight and VERY fast for qualifying means that they need to be strong, and moving to larger gears has been part of the transition to finding ways to get faster for the purpose of qualifying. From there, there can be a wide array of gears used depending on what kind of race tactics they intend to play. But I digress

Higher cadences are more efficient. That is proven. The problem for most of us here is that while it is more efficient, it is more taxing on the aerobic system which we struggle with until we begin to gain some fitness. The aerobic system recovers far more quickly than the anaerobic system (strength) that you are using if you choose to grind away at lower cadences. Also consider that the cadence you are comfortable with can be different to other people's cadence due to factors like crank length and basic physiology.

Flatbroke

I'm on the bigger side and try for 90-95. But it drops in to the 50s and 60s when the grade goes above 7-9%

UnfilteredDregs

You should have a range. Recovery z2 for me is 70-80. Group riding around 100 is nice for all the subtle changes requiring acceleration... and sprinting even higher rpms. I find I just fall into what I need dependent upon what I'm doing. You should be able to spin up smoothly from low to high and back down...good stuff.

rawly old

I don't think it's so much about cadence as effort versus resistance. I can pedal an 15 tooth at a
slightly higher cadence than say an 11 tooth, and still achieve the same speed with less effort.
By doing this, I can carry my speed further into a hill before down shifting. The stored impetus
of my weight has actually helped me to pass lighter riders going uphill.

customsound79

On the trainer yesterday I maintained 80-85 for 15 min on Zwift before my Macbook died. I'll keep pushing for that and see where it goes. I definitely can't hurt.

Cosmic Hawk

I averaged 89RPM today on my ride home from work with zeros included. It didn't feel ridiculous to me but it was also quite a bit of uphill battle.

https://www.strava.com/activities/478604260