Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Back to news
news
Fitness
Health
High cadence pedalling is inefficient for amateurs, says new studycervelor5disc-riding4

High cadence pedalling is inefficient for amateurs, says new study

You could be wasting effort by spinning the pedals fast, according to research
by Mat Brett
Thu, Feb 14, 2019 09:19
44

A new study published in the International Journal of Sports Medicine says that cycling at a high cadence isn't beneficial to amateurs.

Are you a spinner or a grinder? 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. On the other hand, there's the school of thought that says tough riders grind away in a big gear.

This Is Cambridge Oversocks - Orange Pedalling.png

Many professional riders pedal at a high average cadence – over 90 rpm is common with some pedalling at 100 rpm or higher for hours at a time (let's leave Lance Armstrong's super-high cadence out of it – that would only muddy the waters!). Lots of amateur cyclists adopt a similarly high cadence, figuring that if it works for the pros it'll work for them too. 

However, a team of scientists led by Dr Federico Formenti of King's College London has found that the oxygenation of thigh muscles is negatively affected when recreational cyclists pedal at a high cadence. In other words, exercise efficiency decreases when these riders pedal at a high rpm. In other other words, they're wasting energy by spinning their legs fast.

The sample was small, made up of nine volunteers described as "healthy, active individuals". The researchers carried out a number of experiments while each subject rode a stationary bike, recording the force exerted on the pedals, cardiopulmonary (relating to the heart and lungs) and metabolic responses, plus oxygenation of the thigh muscles (studied continuously using near-infrared spectroscopy). These experiments were carried out at moderate exercise intensity and at different pedalling cadences.

cannondale_systemsix_2019_action_mat_-_3.jpg

The results showed that forces exerted on the pedals decreased at higher cadences, heart rate increased by 15% and cycling exercise efficiency decreased. A component of this reduced efficiency, skeletal muscle oxygenation decreased when participants pedalled at 90 rpm, the highest cadence tested.

"Pedalling at cadence greater than 90 rpm is advantageous for professional cyclists, but appears inefficient for recreational cyclists," said Dr Federico Formenti. "When cycling at low exercise intensity, skeletal muscle oxygenation is mostly unaffected by cadence, indicating that the cardiopulmonary and circulatory systems can effectively meet the exercising muscles' demand.

"However, at a greater exercise intensity, high cadence reduces recreational cyclists' efficiency and skeletal muscle oxygenation, suggesting a reduced ratio between oxygen being delivered to and taken up by the exercising muscles."

The volunteers were tested at cadences all the way down to 40rpm, which is below anything you're likely to pedal at out on the road – well, unless you're doing super-high resistance interval training.

One other thing to bear in mind is that this study focused on skeletal muscle oxygenation and not joint health. Whether a lower cadence with a higher force on the pedals takes a toll on your knees wasn't covered.

Read The Effect of Pedaling Cadence on Skeletal Muscle Oxygenation During Cycling at Moderate Exercise Intensity 

pedalling
spinning
International Journal of Sports Medicine
King's College London
Mat Brett

Mat has been in cycling media since 1996, on titles including BikeRadar, Total Bike, Total Mountain Bike, What Mountain Bike and Mountain Biking UK, and he has been editor of 220 Triathlon and Cycling Plus. Mat has been road.cc technical editor for over a decade, testing bikes, fettling the latest kit, and trying out the most up-to-the-minute clothing. He has won his category in Ironman UK 70.3 and finished on the podium in both marathons he has run. Mat is a Cambridge graduate who did a post-grad in magazine journalism, and he is a winner of the Cycling Media Award for Specialist Online Writer. Now over 50, he's riding road and gravel bikes most days for fun and fitness rather than training for competitions.

Add new comment

44 comments

Avatar
spen replied to tom_tom | 5 years ago
0 likes

tom_tom wrote:

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

 

That's a normal sample size for this type of study.  Easily applied to general population!

Avatar
spen replied to tom_tom | 5 years ago
0 likes

tom_tom wrote:

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

 

That's a normal sample size for this type of study.  Easily applied to general population!

Avatar
Russell Orgazoid | 5 years ago
1 like

Spin all the way for me.

Avatar
oceandweller | 5 years ago
3 likes

As a reasonably fit vet I guess I'd qualify as an amateur, & the report's conclusions certainly correspond with my experience. Under easy conditions (flat, no wind, smooth road) I find a relatively high cadence works well, in a max outcome for min effort sort of way. However, as soon as it get's tougher - slight incline, &/or headwind, &/or poor surface or offroad - keeping cadence up is very tiring & I get the best performance from a lower cadence & higher gear.

Which probably explains why Dave Brailsford never returns my calls.

Avatar
risoto replied to oceandweller | 5 years ago
0 likes

oceandweller wrote:

As a reasonably fit vet I guess I'd qualify as an amateur, & the report's conclusions certainly correspond with my experience. Under easy conditions (flat, no wind, smooth road) I find a relatively high cadence works well, in a max outcome for min effort sort of way. However, as soon as it get's tougher - slight incline, &/or headwind, &/or poor surface or offroad - keeping cadence up is very tiring & I get the best performance from a lower cadence & higher gear.

Which probably explains why Dave Brailsford never returns my calls.

Wouldn't the exact opposite make sense? Low gears in headwinds?

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to oceandweller | 5 years ago
0 likes

oceandweller wrote:

As a reasonably fit vet I guess I'd qualify as an amateur, & the report's conclusions certainly correspond with my experience. Under easy conditions (flat, no wind, smooth road) I find a relatively high cadence works well, in a max outcome for min effort sort of way. However, as soon as it get's tougher - slight incline, &/or headwind, &/or poor surface or offroad - keeping cadence up is very tiring & I get the best performance from a lower cadence & higher gear.

Which probably explains why Dave Brailsford never returns my calls.

I find almost the complete opposite, as soon as I hit the hills I need to keep the cadence high if not higher than when I'm on easy/easier terrain where I can mix it up and knocking out even as low as 50rpm at times. Whether that has anything to do with my mass/style I don't know but getting up hills for me has mostly always been difficult, especially since my crohn's kicked in. 

I'll happily tackle the local 14% short sharp shock on a 24/28, well not happily but be able to keep a nice rythm/cadence without the old skool slog. I remember touring with a 42/26 small BITD, oh how things have changed!

Avatar
Bikermel76 replied to oceandweller | 5 years ago
0 likes

oceandweller wrote:

As a reasonably fit vet I guess I'd qualify as an amateur, & the report's conclusions certainly correspond with my experience. Under easy conditions (flat, no wind, smooth road) I find a relatively high cadence works well, in a max outcome for min effort sort of way. However, as soon as it get's tougher - slight incline, &/or headwind, &/or poor surface or offroad - keeping cadence up is very tiring & I get the best performance from a lower cadence & higher gear.

Which probably explains why Dave Brailsford never returns my calls.

 

Me too. I've only been cycling 3 years so definitely amateur, and as an asthmatic kid I had to avoid cardio exercise. My heart rate is in zone 2 (my THR 157) as soon as I get on a bike and also seems to be directly related to my cadence. At 90rpm I'm in zone 3, on the flat in any gear, it's ridiculous! I've got big leg muscles and rubbish CV system so 'increasing cadence taxes CV instead of muscles' doesn't work for me - it might take a normal person minutes for their CV to recover, compared to hours for their muscles,  but not me! I guess it's really a very individual thing and this is a massive generalisation. 

 

I did do an interval session last year, probably at or near my fittest, with 100rpm intervals. We live in a river basin so have a nice flattish route for interval rides,  but there are two 'lumps'. I hit one in an interval thinking 'no way will I manage 100rpm up here' and I have to admit I flew up it, concentrating on cadence & obviously dropping  gears even more than usual. And because I hadn't ground up it getting slower and slower I felt less fatigued. Doesn't mean I could do it multiple times on a sportive and get round mind...but it did make me think

Avatar
check12 | 5 years ago
3 likes

The sample was small, made up of nine volunteers....

Avatar
IanMunro | 5 years ago
8 likes

"High cadence pedalling is inefficient for amateurs, says new study"

Uhuh 1 

https://sci-hub.tw/10.1055/a-0835-6286
It does say -

"The group of participants studied was limited to 9 individuals and rather heterogeneous in terms of age, exercise capacity and cycling expertise. Given the limited sample size considered in this study, we acknowledge that this finding needs confirmation on a larger scale."

Also Power output at Tvent (W) 125 ± 44  !!!

Or in other words "We chose 9 unsuitable subjects. We know this is garbage, but it gets the publication count up, so we don't get sacked."

Avatar
Simon E replied to IanMunro | 5 years ago
4 likes

IanMunro wrote:

"High cadence pedalling is inefficient for amateurs, says new study"

Uhuh 1 

https://sci-hub.tw/10.1055/a-0835-6286
It does say -

"The group of participants studied was limited to 9 individuals and rather heterogeneous in terms of age, exercise capacity and cycling expertise. Given the limited sample size considered in this study, we acknowledge that this finding needs confirmation on a larger scale."

Also Power output at Tvent (W) 125 ± 44  !!!

Or in other words "We chose 9 unsuitable subjects. We know this is garbage, but it gets the publication count up, so we don't get sacked."

Thanks for that, I've downloaded the paper.

90 rpm isn't especially high IMHO, though it may feel so you habitually ride at 60rpm. Like many other adaptations in endurance sport, changing your habitual/self-selected cadence from being a 'grinder' into more of a 'spinner' takes time, it won't happen overnight. I'd argue it is like comparing the breathing/blowing of a novice woodwind or brass musician with someone who has practised the instrument for a few years (and not necessarily to the level of a professional).

In each case they tested 90rpm last "to reduce the potential effect of fatigue", which they acknowledged along with the cohort as a limitation in the closing discussion. I'm certainly not saying the research is wrong but there are too many question marks for it to be worth citing as a reason not to spin a higher cadence on your commute / training ride.

Avatar
madcarew replied to Simon E | 5 years ago
0 likes

Simon E wrote:

IanMunro wrote:

"High cadence pedalling is inefficient for amateurs, says new study"

Uhuh 1 

https://sci-hub.tw/10.1055/a-0835-6286
It does say -

"The group of participants studied was limited to 9 individuals and rather heterogeneous in terms of age, exercise capacity and cycling expertise. Given the limited sample size considered in this study, we acknowledge that this finding needs confirmation on a larger scale."

Also Power output at Tvent (W) 125 ± 44  !!!

Or in other words "We chose 9 unsuitable subjects. We know this is garbage, but it gets the publication count up, so we don't get sacked."

Thanks for that, I've downloaded the paper.

90 rpm isn't especially high IMHO, though it may feel so you habitually ride at 60rpm. Like many other adaptations in endurance sport, changing your habitual/self-selected cadence from being a 'grinder' into more of a 'spinner' takes time, it won't happen overnight. I'd argue it is like comparing the breathing/blowing of a novice woodwind or brass musician with someone who has practised the instrument for a few years (and not necessarily to the level of a professional).

In each case they tested 90rpm last "to reduce the potential effect of fatigue", which they acknowledged along with the cohort as a limitation in the closing discussion. I'm certainly not saying the research is wrong but there are too many question marks for it to be worth citing as a reason not to spin a higher cadence on your commute / training ride.

I think you're right. The structure of the study is very poor. For most racing cyclists (amateur) 90 - 100 rpm is a very normal cadence, 120 rpm is a high cadence. As you pointed out, occasional cyclists are going to be less efficient over a smaller range than a well trained individual. Other studies have shown that efficiency and power output are largely unaffected at any cadence up to about 110 rpm, but tends to show dramatic drop off in efficiency above 120 rpm.

Avatar
DrJDog replied to IanMunro | 5 years ago
0 likes

IanMunro wrote:

 

Also Power output at Tvent (W) 125 ± 44  !!!

Or in other words "We chose 9 unsuitable subjects. We know this is garbage, but it gets the publication count up, so we don't get sacked."

 

Unsuitable number of subjects, unsuitable subjects, unsuitable power outputs, it's not fit for much this study.

Avatar
Jimthebikeguy.com | 5 years ago
0 likes

This just as I have started to try and ride to a higher cadence and shift gears more often to stay in that zone.... Humph. I feel like it is more efficient overall, even so. Grinding away at 60 rpm feels like you arent using the available gears efficiently, unless its something like a sprint race or cyclocross.

Avatar
Jimthebikeguy.com | 5 years ago
1 like

This just as I have started to try and ride to a higher cadence and shift gears more often to stay in that zone.... Humph. I feel like it is more efficient overall, even so. Grinding away at 60 rpm feels like you arent using the available gears efficiently, unless its something like a sprint race or cyclocross.

Pages

Latest Comments