60 is probably too low... unless you're on a single-speed - but even then! There is actually an optimal spin rate for a cyclist, at which point there are no more gains in "horse power." I could find it if anybody cared about the exact number(higher than 100rpm)

Don't forget how to work out of the saddle either, too many roadies get fixated on "sit and spin." That is my opinion anyways, I always hear sit and spin as panacea for increased performance.

for each individual, yes, there is an optimal rate. This rate changes with training and time. There is no optimal rate that's the same for everyone.

In other words: incorrect.

Yeah, well I didn't really say everybody is EXACTLY the same did I? Thanks for adding that in and then making the statement wrong - good job!

So how is there an exact number if it's different for everyone? That doesn't make any sense.

What's my number? I'm curious to know.

This. There's no doubt that higher cadences have advantages, and that they're only achievable if one has a decent pedalling action, and the suggestions about rollers and fixed gears are good. But the OP referred to the "magical" 90 rpm, and there's nothing magical about any particular cadence. Different strokes for different folks. Ex runners with huge aerobic capacity but not much muscle mass will likely do well at high cadences because the CV system can take it and it eases the strain on the muscles. Those built like footballers might do better at lower cadences because lower cadences consume less oxygen for the same amount of power, and their limitation is likely to be their aerobic capacity rather than their muscular strength. So the OP shouldn't be misled into thinking there's a right number that can be prescribed. IMO the best training advice is to ride in a gear that is one lower than you feel you could comforatbaly manage. That will be different for everyone but will encourage a higher cadence and smooth action.

Chill out brah! You stated that you could find an "exact" cadence through which all cyclists will be optimally efficient. That number doesn't exist. Flatballer is right, you are wrong. We all make mistakes!

here we go

I hope we don't.. there's some good info in here

My question is, what happens when you GET comfortable at 90-100rpm? is there benefit to being able to hold 120? 140?

Yes. In a group ride or race there will be surges, say from 24mph to 27, or 27 to 30. You need to match the surge or lose the wheel you're following. Rather than having to drop a cog or two and perhaps standing to accelerate, when you're comfortable at higher cadences you can just spin up to hold the wheel and then drop a cog. It's smoother, quicker, and more efficient.

in my experience, i "can" spin 110-125 but on a long ride i find myself most comfortable (with more energy) when i ride about 100rpm with sprints and fast climbs at 105-115rpm.

makes sense.

a little too much sense.

not really. after a certain point your power production drops off or the economy of your motion decrease

If somebody thinks efficiency improves forever and that at 200rpm a cyclist is twice as efficient as somebody at 100rpm please come forward.

Nowhere did I write "cyclists" I wrote "cyclist" - check it out if you care - flatlander is the guy who added in the extra false generalization.

I will say this also, my educated guess is that the optimal cadence for many riders falls in a narrow band.

There's no sudden light-switch that goes off. It's all a linear effect based upon physics:

power = (force * distance) / time
power = PedalForce * (distance/time)
power = PedalForce * RPM

What happens is that there is limited force that you can apply to the pedals based upon your leg muscle's contractile strength (roughly related to number of recruited fibres and their cross-sectional size). At some point, you are pushing on the pedals at 100% and can not push harder. Yet, the power-generated also involves RPM as well. If we compare two scenarios of identical power-outputs, but at different RPMs (60 vs 120rpm), we get:

Power1 = PedalForce1 * RPM1
Power2 = PedalForce2 * RPM2
Power1 = Power2

RPM1 = 60
RPM2 = 120
RPM1 = RPM2/2

PedalForce1 * RPM1 = PedalForce2 * RPM2
PedalForce1 * RPM2/2 = PedalForce2 * RPM2
PedalForce1 = 2* PedalForce2
PedalForce2 = 1/2*PedalForce1

What this gives us is that spinning at 120rpms yields the SAME power (and same speed) as pushing twice as hard at 60rpms. When you are pushing twice as hard, your muscles are not as efficient (ATP generated per O2 & glucose consumed), and they will fatigue much, much faster. When you're doing a 100-mile ride at 20mph, the person who's pushing 60rpms will go just as fast as the person spinning 120rpms. However, the 60rpm person will wear out their muscles, fatigue and cramp up faster and most likely blow up and drop out sooner. In general, spinning faster allows you to generate the same or MORE power while pushing on the pedals less.

Another way to look at this is when you're already pushing 100% on your pedals and can't possibly push any harder. Two sprinters are of equal strength and can push on their pedals with 250-lbs of force. However, one pushes with all his might at 60rpms while the other pushes just as hard, but at 120rpms. The 2nd sprinter will generate DOUBLE the power and go 26% faster with exactly the same strength!

As for "optimum RPM" , there isn't one. There may be a different one for each person. That is based upon technique and form. Different people will lag their upstroke/dead leg more than others, thus requiring different amounts of wasted down-force from the other leg. This imbalance will cause rocking and bounding and limit how fast you can spin. Some people are better at applying force 90-degrees to the crank all the way around the pedal-stroke than others who may be pedaling squares. Riding one-legged on a CompuTrainer can generate a polar plot and show you exactly how smooth or not you are.

Once you get the spinning down, it becomes a delicate balancing act between your muscular and cardiovascular system:

Spin Faster = tax the muscles less, tax the heart/lungs more
Spin Slower = tax the muscles more, tax the heart/lungs less

This is why bulky sprinter types would ride at lower-RPMs than thin climber types who would be most efficient spinning. You can figure out the balancing act with a HRM.

Also the speed at which you ride will dictate the most effective RPM as well. Low-speeds of 15-20mph would favour lower-RPMs (70-90) because it doesn't require extreme amounts of pedaling-force and lower-RPMs will keep your HR low as well. Higher-speeds like 25-30mph would need higher-RPMs 90-110 so you can tax the legs at the same intensity as the heart & lungs (and blow them up at the same time). All-out sprints require the highest RPMs of 130-150rpms in order to generate the highest power-outputs and obtain the highest top-speeds possible. Of course, it takes some training to effectively spin the pedals and apply force at those RPMs. If you can spin 200rpms+, then you'll most likely be efficient at 150rpms. It can take a decade of training to reach this point.

was he?

lets check...

shal we start a poll?

lol... you are a day late and a dollar short. Go back under the bridge and set your alarm clock next time!

would i have been correct two days ago?

good one. You're so awesome.

No.



Next time you step in to correct somebody make sure you're sure you understand what they're trying to say. Hmm.

explain

You know, we could settle this if you were actually able to find that "exact number" for "a cyclist" (both pulled from your quote) to optimize performance. What is it?

I'm also interested in what the number is. He promised it a while ago, I asked him for it, he hasn't produced it.

Sure would be useful. Hell, people would pay a lot of money to know that number.

thats why i ask.

i did a quick 20mi today. most of the ride was sprint and cadence drills. i am sure it would have been much more effective if i was running the golden number.

Why should I waste time explaining it to somebody who is just rude and has an axe to grind. If i felt you really wanted an answer relevant to the thread, maybe things would be different.

when was i rude? please read the post above, or posts above. i am not the only one wanting this information. you said you know the optimum cadence. how is this not relevant to a thread about spinning?