oldbobcat

RPM is like IQ points. You have a baseline that is determined by your genes and environment, but it can be increased with exercise and practice. And just as more IQ isn't going to get you the girl of your dreams, the college of your choice, the big promotion, or your first million dollars, more RPM isn't necessarily going to make you ride faster.

But, RPM, like IQ, is something we could all use a little more of. Whether you're going for that big lifetime opportunity or a little more speed and endurance on the bicycle, you want one more tool in your kit to get you there.

colnago62

So, choose your gears well, grassmoker

asgelle

I won't be doing that if I worry about efficiency.

chaadster

Excellent post.

colnago62

Crack??

Symtex

Not only am I slow but now I am dumb ? j/k

bronco71

I come at the problem from the other side. It is very easy for me to spin at 100 RPM for extended periods, I will sometimes climb seated at 110 RPM. Such are my natural abilities and I have a lot more lung than leg right now. I made the choice to lower my cadence substantially for at least four hours a week to build power. (Of course for me 80 RPM feels like mashing.) Power like RPM is something we can all use more of.

Bob Ross

Really? Which studies? (srs)

Carbonfiberboy 

Seriously? Well, if you're serious, here we have a selection of serious reading on the subject:
https://fitnessforlife.org/AcuCustom/...Item/16860.pdf
Factors associated with the selection of the freely chosen cadence in non-cyclists. - PubMed - NCBI
View topic - low or high cadence I'm a bit confused - Cyclingnews Forum
Energetically optimal cadence vs. freely-chosen cadence during cycling: effect of exercise... - Abstract - Europe PubMed Central
https://www.humankinetics.com/acucust.../#.VWZBuM9VhBc

Asgelle is referring to the most energetically efficient cadence possible, meaning the least oxygen consumption compared to watts, which occurs at a relatively low power output and cadence. Hoping he will excuse me, but he's being a bit pedantic. Teaching is a good thing, though we should each do our own work rather than cribbing from others. Anyway, as power goes up, the most energetically efficient cadence goes up too. Interestingly, most of us pedal faster than that, which may mean that we are trading more oxygen use for lower glycogen use.

asgelle

Because efficiency is rarely the goal. So while you might think it's pedantic, when people use efficiency for what they're trying to improve, I'm left guessing what they really mean. Communication is a lot easier when people express what they mean directly rather than leaving it to the reader to guess. For example, when riding alone I might want a cadence that minimizes fatigue letting me cover a set distance faster or ride longer. In a race, however, I might be more concerned with a cadence that lets me respond quickly to a sudden acceleration even at the cost of greater fatigue. Since there's no single right or wrong objective, it's impossible to know what someone really wants when they use a catch-all incorrect word like efficiency.

Carbonfiberboy 

Excellent points. Many times BF is like freshman dorm: first let's define our terms. The problem in this case is that words like efficiency may have different meanings in different contexts. In spite of apparently 100s of cadence studies, there still seems to be disagreement among even researchers as to what they are trying to research. It's more than a little confusing if one doesn't state exactly what one means. I believe you are using efficiency in the sense of energetic efficiency. And that would need to be defined before it could be used. However one could also make a case for other uses of that term, for instance efficient glycogen usage. A very common usage is "efficient pedal stroke," but what does that mean? One gets tired later under what conditions? I think efficiency is frequently sought after in pursuit of a goal, but what goal?

RollCNY

Along this line, a single speed/fixed gear is more mechanically efficient than a geared bike, but if you type that in the 41 people come screaming out of the woodwork.

scott967

Studies I've seen typically are designed around cyclist putting out constant average power (Watts-min). Gorss efficiency (using O2 consumption as the measure of energy input) has found cadence of 65 +/- as "most effficient" for low power output. As power output increases, the most efficient cadence also increases.

I've seen other data that instead of looking at gross efficiency look instead at minimizing muscle stress. Note that stress is force per unit area, so a bigger muscle can produce more total force while experiencing the same stress. The minimum stress was at about 100 +/- cadence. Again, this is at a constant average power.



scott s.
.

Looigi

I did not read all the posts, but the first question that comes to mind is are you averaging zeros, that is time you are coasting and not pedaling? Some cycling computers allow you to not average in the times you are coasting. That's the important number, the average cadence while you're actually pedaling.

Drew Eckhardt 

You'll have problems when your brain hasn't practiced enough keeping your legs coordinated at higher cadences.

Otherwise there isn't an interesting difference in heart rate over a broad range of cadences at the same power - 60 RPM up-hill in your smallest gear, 120 RPM down-hill in your biggest gear.

There are cadences that feel better with the number increasing with power output - 140 RPM feels silly with no pressure on the pedals at low efforts, and 40 RPM onerous at high power. Choice impacts fatigue, perceived effort, and stress on your joints.

The minimum cadence also goes up with increased power which requires more muscle fiber recruitment, with peak anaerobic power not possible until you reach about 120 RPM.

gsa103

I suspect the optimum cadence is closely related to spin-down rate of the rear wheel. On flats I prefer pedaling at ~90 rpm, in the hills its more like 60-70 rpm. My power output doesn't really change as a function of cadence (at least not enough to matter).

The big advantage of working on cadence is that you can dramatically expand your gearing. If you can pedal from 60-120 rpm, that's a 2:1 ratio without ever shifting. Makes a compact crank with wide spacing perfectly usable. And if you get caught in the wrong gear its not a big deal.

Stucky

Very true. I think too, what is often over-looked, is that stronger riders are naturally able to pedal at higherr cadences at a given power level, just do to the fact that they are stronger. (Seems like the vast majority of these studies are done on actual athletes/elite athletes- and thus have little to no relevance to the average schmoe).

I think grade matters, too. By choosing the right gears, I can spin 120 on flat ground with no problem, if I choose to. Come to a steep hill, and I have no choice but to spin 40 in my lowest gear [34x27]. Naturally, if i were stronger, I'd be able to pedal faster up the hill. Also, at a slow cadence, one can take advantage of body weight and gravity; at 120RPM, it's just your leg.

Instead of being a slave to some number, I simply vary my cadence [without really even to have to give thought to it] to suit conditions and my strength/way I feel at the time. This is what we all did when we were kids. It still works. Our own brains and bodies set optimal cadence for a given situation, tailored to ur own level of fitness.....so, I think it's ridiculous when people look at some number on a screen, and then try and keep that number constant based on what some study suggests (or what they think it suggests).

This is a good example of why I am coming to believe that all the current gadgetry, and some roadies propensity to obsess over data, can actually be a bad thing/detrimental. It can cause one to ignore their own circumstances; level of fitness; the input and response of their own body and brain, in favor of some mythical "average".

asgelle

Studies on the strength of professional cyclists show that as a group professionals were indistinguishable from an age-matched population of UNTRAINED individuals. In terms of strength, top cyclists are worse than the average schmoe.

scott967

I suppose that's where other considerations such as flexibility, bio-mechanics, and VO2Max come into play -- getting that strength into the cranks.

scott s.
.

Dan333SP

Wait, what? Like outright leg strength measured by leg pressed/squats, that kind of thing? I know cycling doesn't build up bodybuilder quads, but even with no strength training on my legs I've always felt that they are much stronger than before I started riding...

Smokehouse

Interesting thread (parts of it, anyway)...

When I first started cycling, I paid no attention to RPM (I had no way to measure it...LOL). When I finally got a CAD meter, I intentionally tried the higher CADs...say 90s or low 100s. To me, this just wasn't efficient, unless I was trying to sprint. As an endurance pace...hell no...that "spin to win" must not work with me. On top of that, low power, high CAD spinning was hard on my legs.

Either way...I am happiest in the 80's. I did a 40mi ride last week...average CAD: 86. Average speed: 15.3mph. Good enough for me. I also did a sprint 10 mile ride last week as well...average speed: 22.1mph, average CAD: yup, 89. When I'm riding at a "comfortable" pace be it endurance pace or higher speed pace...I always seem to land in the 80's somewhere. The only time I'll crack into the 90/100s "naturally" is on a sprint.

I seem to settle in the 80's. What exactly does this mean? Nothing...it's where I'm comfortable. If you're comfortable in the 100s, more power to you. If you're comfortable in the 70s, same thing applies.

I really feel too many people read into things too much.

asgelle

Great, a new undefined term "outright leg strength." How about we stick to the standard definition that strength is the maximum force or tension a muscle or muscle group can generate.

As to how you feel, what can I say? Maybe you are stronger (though unless you had a serious deficit, it wouldn't be from cycling), or maybe you feel what you feel without any change in performance. It doesn't change the fact that road cycling is an aerobic sport and doesn't stress the body to increase strength.

bronco71

Would you elaborate on this? The reason I ask is that many people, myself included, will note a rather pronounced increase in leg muscle mass and tone. This implies an increase in strength. As does the fact that on the little hill around the corner from me, instead of using a 34-25 two years ago, now I use my 50-17. The empirical evidence certainly suggests that I possess more leg strength than I did two years ago, and since cycling is nearly my exclusive form of exercise that it is responsible. Or am I missing the point entirely?

asgelle

The fact that you climb a hill faster than before means you are able to generate more power than previously. That you do it in a bigger gear means you generate that power using a higher force. Neither of those facts imply that the maximum force your muscles can produce has increased. This might help Why we don't use strength-endurance anymore ? aboc Cycle Coaching

RR3

Metabolic efficiency means you can go further without bonking. It means you do not need to eat as much as a less efficient rider. Coming out of a corner of a Crit and the power meter pegging 4 digits, efficiency goes out the window and I think this is where you are coming from and I get that. Do you have the power for the crunch? Yes or no.


I don't race too much anymore. I do long distance events, so, efficiency is my primary goal as a cyclist. I want an output of 170-190 watts for around 24 hours straight. This level of power output and energy expenditure is much more achievable at a lower cadence than at a higher one. If I need to eat less, more blood flow (and oxygen) goes to my legs and I also minimize GI distress because it allows me to eat less. My cadence is in the 70's. I'll diesel away on a 53x14 at 21-23 mph. These are plain words from experience and not research reports. I have taken data from a variety of changes and I make the same power at lower heart rates and lower lacate levels; however, I did not see an improvement of MLSS power. A change in training did bring my threshold up 30 watts but it was not cadence or other setup related.