Here is
a brief article on why fast cadence pedaling is better (http://www.active.com/story.cfm?story_id=11228&sidebar=21&category=cycling) than slow cadence pedaling. According to this, fast cadence saves glycogen, burns fat, and allows for longer duration/endurance.

Here is
a brief article on why fast cadence pedaling is better (http://www.active.com/story.cfm?story_id=11228&sidebar=21&category=cycling) than slow cadence pedaling. According to this, fast cadence saves glycogen, burns fat, and allows for longer duration/endurance.
The article says to pedal at 80-85 rpm. Whatever happened to Developing the Perfect Pedaling Stroke and spinning the 39x27 at 130 rpm and winning the TdF because you're like Lance?

Having used a powermeter for many years, I've found that I produce the most power around 85 rpm on long climbs. Any higher cadence and I have to watch carefully to make sure I'm applying enough force on the pedals otherwise power output drops 20-40W which costs a few minutes a long climb.

The article says to pedal at 80-85 rpm. Whatever happened to Developing the Perfect Pedaling Stroke and spinning the 39x27 at 130 rpm and winning the TdF because you're like Lance?

Having used a powermeter for many years, I've found that I produce the most power around 85 rpm on long climbs. Any higher cadence and I have to watch carefully to make sure I'm applying enough force on the pedals otherwise power output drops 20-40W which costs a few minutes a long climb.


Hilarious- quoting Active.com ?!?!

"Recently we reported that cyclists are usually more efficient on both hills and flat terrain when they pedal quickly (at about 80-85 rpm) rather than at slower cadences."

Frankly, I thought a cadence of 80 qualified as "mashing."

On most rides, my avg. cadence is in the high 90's. Maybe I really am Lance?!?

The last time I got anywhere near 50 rpm, I was cruising the boardwalk on a SS with balloon tires.

That's a pretty useless article and it's written by a coach. Scary!

I'm a muscle physiologist not an exercise physiologist, so I'm not sure my understanding of this issue is 100% but...
When people first looked at the issue of cycling cadence they found that self-selected cycling cadence was somewhere in the 80-100 rpm range, but if they measured energy consumption vs cadence, they found that 50 rpm or so was most "efficient". They based this on oxygen consumption, so if power was same at low and high cadence but you consumed less oxygen at low cadence why did people chose the inefficient high cadence?

However, you have two pathways to produce energy in prolonged activities; glycolysis and oxidation, and some energy production from glycolysis doesn't consume oxygen. There isn't a way to directly measure the non-oxidative glycolytic contribution to energy production, so some energy production is unaccounted for if you just use oxygen as your measure.

Anyway, it is probably the case that a 80-100 rpm cadence is preferable because that is what is best for oxidative production of energy from the primary cycling muscles. As to the issue of Armstrong's high cadence I don't think anyone has ever looked at it in a controlled manner. Carmichael etc. claim he produces less lactate at the high cadence which means he is relying more on oxidative energy production and less on non-oxidative glycolysis and therefore avoids fatigue in the manner outlined in the article. But who knows if this is an idiosyncratic response or a general phenomenon? I saw where Ullrich claims that he tested high cadence climbing and found that he was producing more lactate at a given power output.

I dont consider 80-85 high cadence. At the very least,above 90

I dont consider 80-85 high cadence. At the very least,above 90
in the exercise physiology literature low cadence is like 50 rpm whereas high cadence is 80-90 rpm (maybe 95 or so) for the reasons I outline above. But since everyone more or less pedals in the 80-100 rpm, most cyclist consider "high" cadence to be at the high end of that range or even slightly above it thanks to the much publicized high cadence of Armstrong during TTs and climbing.

In 96, Rijs wiped the floor with everyone using big gears. Rominger was pretty successful on big gears, as was Bugno. Obree took the hour record using a low cadence.

What would be the more convincing demonstrator of the effectiveness of a particular cadence range, physiology or statistics?

In 96, Rijs wiped the floor with everyone using big gears. Rominger was pretty successful on big gears, as was Bugno. Obree took the hour record using a low cadence.

What would be the more convincing demonstrator of the effectiveness of a particular cadence range, physiology or statistics?

What were the low gears? I would guess even mashers, like Gonchar, are probably in the range of 70 rpm or better, not really the "low" rpm of 50 or so the exercise physiologists refer to. Either way, I would say the statistics (you mean race results, right?) indicate that cadence isn't terribly important and that as long as you're in a reasonable range, lets say 70-110 rpm, you'll be OK. We all know from experience power suffers at really low or really high cadences, but as long as you stay in that reasonable range it is primarily differences in whole body oxidative capacity that determine different riders abilities. The very fact that some of the best cyclists in the world are "mashers" and others are "spinners" suggests that it doesn't really matter all that much.

I agree. Although, we might be wrong. Tim Noakes is pretty convinced that VO2max is a consequence of muscle power and biomechanical efficiency.

I agree. Although, we might be wrong. Tim Noakes is pretty convinced that VO2max is a consequence of muscle power and biomechanical efficiency.

I'm not sure what VO2max has to do with optimal cycling cadence other than if you compromise your power output by trying to pedal a ridiculously high cadence or select a big enough gear that your cadence is too low, you will never reach it.

I'm not sure what the various determinants of VO2max are but certainly those two seem relevant. I know Noakes has some rather uncovential ideas in regards to what the limiters of endurance performance are.

I bike about 10 miles, 32-38 minutes..in the morning and evening..
and I've switched to a higher cadence on avg > 90 for the last 2.5 weeks.

I've noticed my legs are still pumped and not dead for activities later on,
such as volleyball. I also feel quicker on my feet. My jumping ability/timing
feels great.

I'm playing my best at volleyball when I start breathing faster
from the rush which is easier to attain.

I'm no longer worried about having to 'save my legs' for volleyball..higher
than 90 rpms is doing that for me..