WhyFi

There was a similar study with a similar conclusion a year or two ago. Yeah, at that kind of power and that kind of cadence, there's prolly more energy going in to bouncing the rider than going in to the pedals.

Cyclist0108

The unexamined assumption being that the journal doesn't use a peer-review process? What is your evidence that it doesn't?

Cyclist0108

Did they do this?

Reynolds 

Professional vs. recreational, ok, but what about serious cyclists?

njkayaker

Many triathletes have a habit of using low cadence.

Does lumping these two groups together make any sense?

MoAlpha

I have been an action editor (guy who chooses the ad-hoc reviewers and makes the executive decision on publication for papers in my specialized area) for a few decent biomedical journals and the answer is no. Sleazeball, predatory journals have largely fake review processes, but this isn't one of those.

redlude97

Depends on if the differences were significant. I'm guessing they ran the statistical analysis and didn't find any between subjects. Remember the study isn't comparing groups, the variable being tested is cadence. Significant differences between cadences were observed even with the heterogenous subject group, that actually makes their findings stronger

njkayaker

You put too much faith in the peer-review process.

Being peer-reviewed doesn't mean there aren't problems with the study. It's not like peer-reviewed studies are never proven incorrect.

It would be irresponsible to think that this one small study decides things once-and-for all (whether or not it was peer reviewed).

njkayaker

The study appears to show that people not used to riding with a high cadence are less efficient riding at a high cadence.

Is that a surprise?

That isn't exactly true. The implication is being made that recreational cyclists shouldn't do it because they aren't professional cyclists.

nomadmax 

IN OTHER NEWS

Narrower handlebars reduce aerodynamic profile and drag..............aaaannd ARGUE

I GOT to stop drinking wine in the middle of the day

redlude97

Even elite cyclists are more efficient at lower cadences, we've known that for awhile, so being used to riding at higher cadences might make you more efficient at those cadences compared to before, but doesn't necessarily make you more efficient than at lower cadences. And again, efficiency is not the same thing as performance, even though efficiency is higher at lower cadences, performance is higher at freely chosen cadence https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15503124

njkayaker

I know that too.

Why is the OP "disheartened" by this article?

Is this recent article telling us anything new?

What should people be doing differently after reading this recent article?


No, efficiency is not the same thing as performance. Considering only efficiency doesn't appear to be the whole story with respect the "advantage" of high cadence (for professional cyclists).

Dan333SP

This is quality content. Like everyone else said, find your own sweet spot for sustainable power. I never used a cadence sensor or a PM, but in the last couple years I've augmented my dumb trainer with some sensors and now ride in Zwift which tracks my "virtual" power, HR, and cadence. Turns out I tend to spin at 92-95 rpm when riding at my threshold. Dropping a gear to sustain the same power at a higher RPM drives my HR up through the roof, going up a gear to sustain the same power at a lower RPM does the same and fatigues my muscles more quickly. All the "study" I need.

colnago62

Cyclist0108

Do you have a better idea for vetting scientific communications?

Nobody ever suggested this. (I certainly didn't). What I find amusing is that any time someone posts some report of some study that says something at variance with the received wisdom on Bike Forums, it is immediately dismissed out of hand, often before anyone has even bothered to read the published article.

Exactly the same thing as this: 'Can Low-Impact Sports Like Cycling Be Putting Your Bones at Risk?' and countless other examples.

By contrast, no vetting process, or indeed any standards, are required, as long as one is on the side of the received wisdom.

It would be irresponsible for me to make HIV an airborne virus, too. However, neither that, nor what you are claiming, has any basis in reality.

scott967

That is what I've seen from studies. Note that they aren't measuring total metabolic efficiency. In general for steady watt output, efficiency for higher watts increases with higher cadence. If you can't maintain 200 watts high cadence is not more efficient. Of course there may be other considerations than just efficiency.

scott s.
.

DrIsotope

They're still testing this? Even in the pseudo-science put forth by the fellas over at GCN, the best cadence was that of the self-selected variety. Mine appears to be 86, which I consider neither fast nor slow. I know folks that very rarely spin below 90, and others who almost never exceed 80.

I also can't be the only one that doesn't think anything under 100 to be "high cadence." At least to me, proper spinning is well up above 100, a place I almost never go-- unless I'm confined to a trainer.

njkayaker

Whether or not it's the best we have, it still allows quite a lot of invalid studies through.

Cyclist0108

This raises the question of how the invalidity of these studies is determined.

HTupolev

A study is invalid if you disagree with the media narrative that the study inspired.

Cyclist0108

You just can never be too careful these days ...

Maelochs

A minor quibble---the study might be totally valid. The media interpretation, and the media-consumable article and headline written specifically to garner attention, might be an invalid or less than accurate interpretation of the actual data collected.

Carbonfiberboy 

People make the theory complicated. The following applies to all cyclists no matter their experience:

Rule 1: HR (cardiovascular effort) increases with cadence if power/speed is held steady
Rule 2: Muscular effort declines with cadence, if power/speed is held steady.

Corollary to Rule 1: Cardiovascular effort = oxygen cost. Oxygen is an unlimited consumable.
Corollary to Rule 2: Muscular effort = nutrient cost, of which fat supply is unlimited for our purposes, carb supply being limited by glycogen and food sources.

That's really all one needs to know. Cadence vs. pedal force is always a balance, given unlimited gearing.

Hence most long distance cyclists pedal fast at a relatively low pedal force, thus reducing consumption of an irreplaceable consumable - glycogen.
And thus riders with higher VO2max pedal faster for the same power than those with lower VO2max - because they can, and thus also reduce glycogen consumption..
And thus people on bicycles with poor aerobic conditioning pedal slowly. For them, glycogen consumption is not an issue because they can't produce the pedal force to get power up to the levels where they'd consume it.

And thus everyone needs to arrive at their own best cadence for various gradients and conditions. There's not one number that works for everyone, especially climbing, where I pedal 78 and a Cat 1 pedals 95. My self-selected cadence varies between 78 while climbing and 100 when bridging up to a group. Doped Lance TTed at 115. One arrives at their best cadence for various gradients and conditions through training while paying attention and consciously adapting to one's best combination of cadence and pedal effort, considering the length of ride being attempted. The practice is the complicated part.

And yeah, there's a lot more to it when one considers fuel sources and talent, but the above is a good outline which explains the findings of the many studies of power vs. cadence.

base2 

Very well said.

Cyclist0108