SHBR

tldr;

In my own experience (others will vary) I've found that a range of cadence is best, between 70-90 with the occasional burst of 140+.

That is on a single speed, on my geared bikes I am between 85-90 most of the time.

Low cadence (<70RPM) + high intensity + long duration = knee pain + reduced efficiency.

63rickert

Garbage In, Garbage Out. Since when is 90rpm high cadence? That is as much as they tested, so basically they tested nothing.

L134 

Voodoo76

It looks like they are only testing pedaling efficiency and blood oxygenation? That is only part of the equation. Muscular fatigue and recruitment is very different at low vs high cadence (especially as wattage goes up). Try a 500 or 600 TSS week at 60 rpm, you may technically be more efficient by some measures but you won't be able to sustain it. The reason for higher rpm is not solely muscular efficiency, it's reduced fatigue and faster recovery.

bobwysiwyg

Well, I wish I could manage 90 rpm's throughout a long ride.

daoswald

Amateurs have no reason to avoid knee damage?

Lower gearing gets amateurs up hills their legs would burn out on at lower cadence pushing the pedals harder. Mashing high gears puts extra stress on knees and hips, potentially leading to injuries that would not have happened at a higher (but not too high) cadence.

I don't know where optimal speed per watt of power to the cranks will occur. I do know that amateur cyclist that I am, my joints prefer 80-90 cadence, and if I can maintain a higher cadence lower gear as I ascend a bad hill I'm more likely to make it up without stopping if I can spin my way up than if I try to mash a harder gear.

canklecat

Yeah, even amateurs and recreational cyclists could benefit from a little higher cadence and lower effort. Could make the difference between finishing a multi-day ride and dropping out.

On group rides of 20-50 miles that are faster than comfortable for me, I know from experience that if I switch to an easier gear, spin closer to 90 rpm, and let the group go I'll catch up soon at the top of a hill or during a scheduled stop. At worst I'll be a minute or so behind. But if I try to keep up by mashing a bigger gear than I can manage, I'll just blow up and drop out. The lungs can recover quicker than the legs. Burning lungs can recover after a short rest. Once my legs start to spasm I'm done for the day.

SHBR

Leg spasms are great, especially when trying to clear an intersection.

No pain no gain eh?

63rickert

The formula for achieving that is the same as it has always been. Start your rides with a warmup. Do that warmup on a low gear. Low gear in this case means a gear that has you pedaling at 110rpm or better. It won't be long before you are spinning faster the entire ride.

That 90rpm is not fast is confirmed by the fact that sprint speeds can never be achieved on gears normally fitted to bikes unless someone spins. Not even going to bother with an exact calculation for this purpose but 90rpm on a gear of 50x11 would be a little better than 31mph. That's fast, but how do you sprint if that's top end? Not to mention that riding that fast at such low rpm tends to make the bike over-control constantly. Impossible to keep a paceline safe if riders want to gear that high and trudge on pedals.

Just one more study by those who know nothing and don't want to know anything.

Garfield Cat

Here he is:

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/lsm/research/d...-formenti.aspx

Send him this thread?

burnthesheep

colnago62

Carbonfiberboy 

If anyone wants to increase their ability to pedal fast and their overall pedaling efficiency, see this thread: Winter fun workout on rollers or trainer

JonnyV

Makes no mention of the color of their shoes. This study and its report are useless.

DrIsotope

Well, mine are purple and my cadence borders on mashing... so red shoes, at the opposite end of the visible spectrum, should be the highest cadence.

Cycle Tourist

I worked on my cadence for one reason only. The final sprint at the finish can leave you spun out just when you need it most. If my rpm is higher than the other guy, I'll beat him to the finish. I'm a big rider and high cadence doesn't come as naturally as some but working on it has given me 10% more speed at the finish. Obviously a big kick in higher gears can make the difference but a higher spin at the line can give you an edge.

winston63 

I tend to ride with a similar cadence primarily because I've found it's easier on my knees. i seriously don't care at all if I'm less efficient than I would be grinding it out in a big gear. My efficiency really takes a hit if I can't ride due to knee damage.

Maelochs

This whole experiment was based on the premise that "amateur" cyclists were spinning too fast because they thought they were supposed to .... that premise is suspect. How many "amateur" cyclists did they observe and then interview? Where did that premise even come from?

If they could only get nine people to actually participate in the test, they couldn't have been A.) well-funded or B.) too serious. And since the basic premise itself is suspect .... Why any of this?

colnago62

BengalCat

For me as an individual its 95-105 on the flats and for climbs the low eighties. Seated sprints or max effort for 30 to 60 seconds 110-135 depending upon conditions and gear selection.

john.b

Maelochs

This still doesn't address the question of how they came up with the basic premise that "recreational" cyclists spin "too fast" because they ...see pros spinning on TV? Who counts pedal strokes anyway?

I am not here to argue with anybody, nor do I expect anyone to answer my questions. I just feel like there is a lot of flawed science being published. Sure the experiment was well designed to test oxygenation of thigh muscles at different fitness levels and cadences ... it was a pretty narrowly conceived experiment. What, if any, connection it has to or value it offers to actual people who ride bicycles is tenuous at best.

Whatever. This has run its course, i think.

canklecat

The study in the original link muddies the waters a bit by conflating "amateur" and "recreational" cyclists.

If a recreational cyclist is defined as someone who rides a couple hundred miles a year, I doubt that demographic would be interested in or knowledgeable about differences in pedaling technique.

I figured by their hazy term recreational/amateur cyclist they meant... me. Someone who rides at least a couple hundred miles a month for fitness and fun, has a mild competitive streak even if it's just against the clock and our own personal best times, or a friend on Strava, but not an "amateur."

To me, an amateur cyclist is serious, someone who participates in organized competitive events like crits, time trials, mini-triathlons, or any event with some hierarchy in posted results, but without any significant form of monetary compensation or reward.

Those are the folks who'll concern themselves with cadence and anything related to training, even if it doesn't really apply to weekend warriors and anyone over age 40. I'm well past 40 and most cycling technique and fitness studies and articles aren't aimed at an older demographic. If they do write for the older cyclists it's usually in a vaguely condescending way that's meant to be congratulatory for being able to ride faster than 10 mph without suffering an aneurysm.

Anyway, my natural comfortable cadence after warming up is around 80-90 rpm, usually starting out fairly slow, then faster as I warm up (same as most older riders I know locally, at least the skinny legged guys like me). I don't think about it or use any devices to check my cadence. I do run video on most rides, mostly for safety/documentation, and delete 'em as soon as I get home if nothing happened. But occasionally I'll check my cadence using my shadow as a reference. Almost invariably I'll start out around 70-80 rpm, then after 30 minutes I'm up to 90 rpm on flats and undulating terrain without significant climbs or downhills.

The few times I've consciously tried to spin faster than 90 rpm, I can tell it's not working for me. I'm burning more energy just lifting my legs for the next stroke. It's pretty much the same as deliberately trying to mash big gears that don't come naturally for my skinny legs.

The only time I'm conscious of cadence is on significant grades:

• When I'm trying to beat my personal bests on downhills and need to focus on my spinning technique, which gets pretty sloppy above 110 rpm. Since switching from a 52T to 50T big ring a month or so ago I've pretty much given on trying to beat my downhill PRs since I'm spinning out and wobbly around 130 rpm and still barely able to hit 40 mph -- usually topped out around 38 mph. No point worrying about cadence on downhills until/unless I stick a 52 or 53 big ring back on the bike.
• When I'm climbing while seated I'll focus on smooth spinning as much as possible, but tend to stand to climb as soon as I feel myself bogging down. I'd like to blame the 39 front/25 rear combo as my limit, but nah... I've always been a weak climber, especially seated. If I'm gonna keep up any speed I'll have to use a bigger gear and stand to stomp the pedals. Cadence falls apart at that point so it's moot.

BengalCat

Here is a little more info than that contained in OP link. My apologies if somewhere between OP and this post the info has already been posted.

Abstract

The selection of cadence during cycling may be determined by a number of factors, including the degree of oxygenation in the exercising skeletal muscle. The purpose of this study was to determine the degree of muscle oxygenation associated with different cycling cadences and exercise intensities, and its putative role in the choice of self‐selected cadence during cycling. We recorded cardiopulmonary and metabolic responses to cycling at exercise intensities of 70% and 90% of the ventilatory threshold (Tvent), and used near‐infrared spectroscopy to determine tissue saturation index as a measure of skeletal muscle (vastus lateralis) oxygenation. Twelve participants cycled at cadences of 30, 50, 70, 90, and 110 revolutions per minute (rpm), each for 4 min, in a randomized sequence, interspersed with active recovery periods. Despite cardiopulmonary and metabolic responses being greater at 90% than at 70% Tvent, and at 110 rpm compared with lower cadences, vastus lateralis oxygenation was not different between the two exercise intensities and five cadences tested. Our results indicate that skeletal muscle tissue saturation index is not substantially affected during cycling for short periods of time at constant, moderate exercise intensity at cadences between 30 and 110 rpm, suggesting that skeletal muscle oxygenation may not be an important negative feedback signal in the choice of self‐selected cadence during cycling at moderate exercise intensity.


https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/...a2abec38).html

dbrehmer

Hey Folks, I came across this research recently also when I was wondering why Zwift was recommending such an uncomfortably low cadence. I found other people complaining that the Zwift recommended cadence was too high!

In my view, the science they have done is not bad, but they have started with a poor question so they get uninteresting results (at least to me...) The title of the Science Daily article also makes a conclusion that is unsupported by the research - 'High cadence cycling offers no benefit to amateurs', since it lacks a definition of the 'benefit'.

Here is potentially a more interesting question they might try to answer:
If you are starting out cycling and want to become a strong competitive cyclist, what cadence should you practice to become most efficient as your body adapts?

When I started out cycling this is exactly what more experienced cyclists said, that it would not necessarily feel the best to spin when you are starting out, but if you train yourself to spin it will be the most efficient once you are strong. More recently I have seen this in practice for myself. In 2006 or so I got a new bike that had lower gearing so I could now spin up my favorite benchmark climb. Within a couple months I had improved my PR by 5-10% (I don't remember exactly), spinning at 95-100rpm rather than 60-65rpm. Certainly not scientific, but I expect many of us have observed similar effects. For a trained cyclist this is really a huge effect, going from consistently around 20 minutes for a climb to my PR of 18:17.

As others have said there may be some interesting questions around what is best for particular terrain as well. It seems to be easier for me to push high power, high cadence when I am going fast with a tail wind rather than climbing. Is it psychological, or a result of the type of resistance? I'm not sure whether that question is relevant here though...

The other thing they lacking in their question is a definition of the word 'benefit'. They admit that pros ride at high cadence which allows them to sustain high output for long periods of time. So, if the benefit you are looking for is the ability to ride like a pro, a high cadence is probably exactly what you do want to practice. If you aim to burn calories without ever becoming strong, then a low cadence may be just the right approach.