Home› General Training Discussions

The effect of cadence on cycling effici - PubMed Mobile

Juan VergaraJuan Vergara
in General Training Discussions
The effect of cadence on cycling effici - PubMed Mobile

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22648142/

ANY THOUGHTS???

Comments

  • Peter WickPeter Wick
    Last sentence in the abstract is key. How long have you been training? The authors say the moderately trained cyclist is the better fit for these data knowing that the elite pro riders succeed with the higher cadence style. I wonder what they would have found if they could have done the study outside on a real hill and on a flat road. I found it interesting to see that the 100 rpm data was always showing poorer tolerance than the other cadences. The flip flops of 80 vs 60 rpm was also interesting.

    I'm still probably going to stick with my 85-90 rpm habits unless the gradient gets over 12%.
  • Robert SaboRobert Sabo
    What about there efficiency at running after biking at 60 rpm vs 80 vs 100?
  • benvanmarckebenvanmarcke
    And the time trial in the study is only 8 minutes, I would wonder how the results change if the test was, say, an hour. (Obviously that would be difficult to study).
  • cgres123cgres123
    I find it eaiser to stick with a higher cadence on a trainer too but getting outside where things happen... it is lower on an average.
  • mgraffeomgraffeo
    Old news. That conclusion is correct, and has been since it was first published 50 years ago. You are most efficient at 60 rpm.

    We don't race there because

    a) your legs would be trashed for the run

    b) it requires a lot more strength to go a long time

    c) recovery would be a SOB

    80-90 rpm seems to be the general consensus 'compromise' between efficiency and the other factors above. Same reason cyclists don't ride at 60 rpm (couldn't recover and go again, in training or racing).
  • benvanmarckebenvanmarcke
    The other problem with low cadence is its long term effect on joints e.g. knees. There is a much higher chance of issues such as tendinitis from big gear riding.
  • Jeff SullivanJeff Sullivan

    Rapp likes lower cadence....77 ish and still runs 2:52...see ST report @ ...but these guys are pros and spend a lot of time tweeking every detail

    http://www.slowtwitch.com/Features/..._3484.html

  • Coach PatrickCoach Patrick
    Juan, thanks for digging this one out. Always interesting. Any thoughts on cadence and aero position? I find that the more agro I get, the lower my cadence gets....
  • benvanmarckebenvanmarcke

    Posted By Patrick McCrann on 11 Apr 2013 08:07 PM


    Juan, thanks for digging this one out. Always interesting. Any thoughts on cadence and aero position? I find that the more agro I get, the lower my cadence gets....

    Could that be a flexibility thing rather than something related to oxygen? I'm finding opposite things i.e. my cadence is slightly higher on my TT bike vs my road bike despite the crank also being slightly longer. I'm not very aero on my TT bike though. Road bike typically gives me numbers around 95, TT bike gives me 99-100. On a really good day, higher power also comes from higher cadence (>100) rather than a bigger gear.

  • gambgamb
    I've been dropping my cadence and using my legs more. I don't run out of lungs as bad. not in the 60s' mind you but on flat terrain I've dropped mine to 80 or so and then pick it up a touch when climbing to spin more and not torch the legs. I'm fresher coming off the bike although the legs are a little more tired. I still run out of lungs before legs though. Historically I've been a 95-100 cadence person.
Sign In or Register to comment.