High cadence pedalling is inefficient for amateurs, says new study

This study is effectively rubbish:

The wattage figures were sufficently low (125W) as to make it pointless.

The best way to think about this is imagine spining the bike on rollers. There is essentially neglible resistance hence the majority of the effort is spinning your legs, there is therefore a direct correlation between effort and cadence until you start to spin out.

However if you try to spin at 1000W and 20 rpm the force is excessive, you cannot apply the force to turn such a gear. Peak wattage is normally seen for pros sprinters at around 120rpm.

Given that the phrase is "spin to win" this would tend to indicate that whatever the level of the cyclist in question they will be trying to maximise wattage, hence they should be spinning to keep the leg forces down.

IMO those "9 subjects" gonna get tired sooner if they don't have a certain level of fitness, going from 60/70/80 to 100+ is worlds apart for beginners. If however you average 10,000 km per year for a few years your body will get efficient at the type of stress you subject it to. "High" cadence for me is around 100 rpm for an extended amount of time, it just works for my body type. There's another benefit to training your neuromuscular system, when you are comfortable at higher RPM and have enough muscular endurance you can mesh both systems together to go faster, find that compromise between brute force and rpm and you will see the benefits big time.

I have to say I've found TrainerRoad really useful in this respect... there are some excellent sessions from Coach Chad breaking down pedal technique, individual leg training and raising cadence.  You can't have an efficient fast cadence without good pedal technique (which is where this 'study' falls down).  Makes a big difference... almost 'free' speed once you get the hang of it.

Turbo is handy too for listening for a smoother 'note' from the trainer, and not bouncing in the saddle.

"Chances are that if you've been cycling for any length of time you'll have be told by some old hand that you need to spin to win. "

Therein lies the problem with this study. I was also told this when I started racing many moons ago and I tried to make it work since everything I could read on the subject said to do the same. The problem was that I knew from my high school track days I was most definitely not a fast-twitch type athlete. I couldn't get out of my own way in the 100 yard dash. But I was also a fair middle distance runner and one of the top high school cross-country skiers in my state. High cadence was not in my genes and that's where these studies (and that bad coaching advice) fall flat.

Consequently I went on to be a modestly successful Cat. 2 roadie who did best in time trials and road race breakaways, all the while pushing 60 to 70 rpm.

Also not mentioned is the physical coordination needed to move your legs in a fairly unnatural manner; in circles. That fluidity can only come through many, many hours of practice and I suspect the more fluid you are, the more efficient, and able to ride at higher cadence.

I don't feel this study proves anything.

Doing various pedal drills on the turbo I observed that at high cadence I felt it more in my chest (heart/lungs) and at low cadence more on my legs. I don't know if the science backs this up but I always assumed that training the top half was going to give me more endurance than building up the bottom half. Generally, I try to ride at a cadence that balances the effect between the two parts of the body and have trained to raise my cadence.

I'm 53 and just did 500km across N India, with approx 10,000m of climbing, on a pretty unreconstructed hired MTB.  Stuck to the high cadence approach and my legs felt pretty good during and after.

There's more to life than efficiency. How about having usable knee joints when you're 40+? I'd like to keep on cycling to the bitter end.

Spin to Win!!  Works for Froome...

Power = force x distance, so for the same power a lower cadence requires more force, so it feels harder work pedalling slowly because the forces are higher for the same power output.  Surely just experience will be a good judge of what's the right cadence for any one individual?  Body shape must come into it.  Someone short & stocky will be good for power - lean and lanky better at speed.

Personally speaking when I was interested in performance a focus on pedalling technique rather than cadence was what made a difference.  Good pedalling technique at high cadence I never got to grips with.

I'm definitely from the grind camp and prefer the higher resistance. Although I have fitted a chainset with shorter crank arms and a close ratio cassette in an attempt to persuade myself to increase cadence and also to open up a little more space between thigh and chest at top of stroke.

I guess a lot of what works for an individual is down to their muscle type and physiology. Now in my mid 50s I cannot say that years of grinding have had any noticeable detrimental affect on my knees and I'm still pretty competitive up hill, preferring to go up a gear for short out of the saddle efforts, and going down to spin up longer inclines.

With power meters now so readily available, it should be fairly straight forward to find out what works best for you. Personally I can't be arsed with all that data logging. At this stage of the game the only truth it is likely to confirm is my decline into decreptitude.

It's only my own anecdotal experience, but I find around 90-95 my usual comfortable cadence, if I've been riding more regularly then it often increases a little bit so that it sits more comfortably at 100-105 when I'm pushing on a little. Too low a cadence feels like more effort for the same speed.

I guess this is the problem with the 'you should be doing this' type rules, they don't suit everybody's biomechanics and activity history. A bigger study with some more specifically measurable parameters might be good.

I actually found increasing my cadence from 75 to 90 relatively easy. 

Wish they would say the same about running cadence though, that has been (still is) a nightmare to increase from 140 to the recommended 170-180.

The study to me is odd because it ignores the training aspect, thus making the statement irrelevant.

It takes time to learn to pedal efficiently at higher RPM, so of course there will be wasted energy if someone's technique is not yet up to par.

There are some interesting sessions on TrainerRoad where you are encouraged to do the same interval at high and low RPMs, then assess how your legs feel.  I find higher cadence spinning uses more muscle groups (so intuitively spread the load), where low rpms feel more quad-intensive.

Presumably we can do our own non-scientific test easy enough... well-rested and on two separate occasions with similar weather conditions do the same two hour + loop, targeting a low then high cadence.  Do a ramp test after each and see how it goes both on a raw power perspective, and also percieved exertion.

So, the study is a load of bollocks then. 

I'll stick to high and low cadence drills, spinning as best I can up hills and my usual 80-90 average cadence, thank you very muchly. 

It depends how much power you’re making at the high Cadence. High force High cadence pedalling is more efficient than high force low Cadence pedalling, if you’re not making sufficient power for the muscle’s fuelling efficiency to negate the extra  effort involved in moving your legs around that fast, it’s a waste of time. I’m guessing they are talking about a nodder making 70 Watts at 90 rpms not being efficient, which is right.

This study is at least 8 years too early - we haven’t all bought into sub-compact chainsets for more efficient riding yet, so they can’t sell us standards all over again off the back of this hot new take

I definitely find it easier to complete higher wattage intervals on the turbo at a higher cadence. If I go into them at too low a cadence then sometimes I’ll struggle to hold a wattage that I’d happily do at a higher cadence. 

Headline is very misleading.

Lazy use of language or trying to say something the article does not? An amateur cyclist is not the same thing as a recreational cyclist.

Had the cyclists in the (far too small) sample been amateur, i.e. sporting cyclists who will alredy be physiologically adapted to a higher cadence than recreational cyclists then the results would clearly be different.

With a sample size so small I'm surprised any journal that takes itself seriously would even consider publication.

I would suggest their "Leisure cyclist" means your average Mum or Dad going for a ride from the campsite a dozen times a year. I would thinl their "Professionals" should include any trained amateur and that they perhaps are not aware of how trained the amateur can be.

Do people actually worry about this?  Unless you're a pro, why not just.....ride your bike?

Spinning has many benefits, efficiency, fatigue resistance, speed of acceleration and knee/ joint protection.

   I use 90-95 rpm for early part of multi hour rides whuch saves my legs for the back end of the day.  

I knew it. Had this exact thought on my last ride. Another fancy idea. Look at the peloton 20-40 years ago. They used high gears grinding away. Spinning fast also wears your crank, chain, gears and pedals out faster. More sales? Could it be another case of following the money? I feel more efficient using high gears. Maybe your body reacts differently.

What is the point in these studies? How about everybody should just cycle at the cadence that allows them to lay down the most power for the required duration. 

FWIW, when I was racing my threshold efforts were at about 105rpm. This is just what felt right for producing that kind of effort. Torque efficiency on my power meter agreed. 

This does not sound too reliable: study of 9... seriously?