Maybe.
The usual physiological definition of efficiency has to do with how much power you get to the pedals for each unit of oxygen you process. Heart rate doesn't come into it. Heart rate might be a rough proxy for that sometimes, but don't count on it.

The ultimate test though, is neither of these things, but which cadence lets you sustain the highest power output over a given duration or distance.

Only way to find out is try, and I know a few people who have tried some wildly different cadences and they sustained about exactly the same power either way.

So, many of us just don't worry about cadence, but you could always test yourself and see.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

No, lower cadence= slower pace.

Whenever I do hard intervals I have to force myself to slow my cadence to 90, usually my legs want to go 110-ish. I have no idea which is "better" though.

---

----------------------------------------------------------------
my strava

Efficiency with different turnover is also something that is adaptable. You're firing your muscles a different way with different types of turnover.

Not saying either is better than the other, whichever gets you to the finish line faster is the best!

Anecdotally, with nothing to back this up but my own experience and my training buddies, the uber-bikers mash more and the runner/triathlete-wannabe (myself included) have higher turnover.

Heart rate isn't cardiac output.

Cadence isn't power.

Trainer resistance isn't real world resistance.

Heart rate and cadence on a trainer isn't a measure of efficiency.

On a fixie.

Are you training for cycling or triathlon/duathlon?
Remember, too big of a gear will likely cook your legs for the run if doing multisport--it'll kill your run cadence.
Of course if you have *crazy legs* it could do the same. Find that happy medium with the best power output
that allows you to come off the bike strong, rather than looking at HR as your primary gauge.
Lots of experimentation there...but it's early pre-season yet.

read

link

link

My FTP is 300 as measured in 20 minute test. One day I'm able to hold that at HR just below my AT but another day I cannot. Does this mean I'm going anaerobic on the days where my HR is higher or is the variability in HR meaningless? I think it means for whatever reason I'm having a bad day so I should back off power so I stay aerobic. Then if I'm going to let HR dictate then why should I focus on power? If power truly is the best measure then everything I learned about HR AT is out the window.

Which power meter? Which trainer?

Not at the same power.

x2 :-)

---

David T-D
http://www.tilburydavis.com