Optimal cadence is the crossroads between power, efficiency, and comfort. Everyone has their own and it may change over time or over distance. Most people's cadence falls somewhere between 70 and 95.

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

I am not sure that there is a theoretical ideal for everyone. I typically average between 90 - 95 at race pace. Sprint is higher, HIM is low 90s. Casual century is around 90. My lowest was 85 in a mountainous century with almost 12K feet of climbing.

Also, check to see if your computer is including zeroes (ie: coasting). That can bring the average way down. Most people just want to see the non-coasting average.

That's a good question.

My average is 93 outdoors and 88 on the indoor trainer.

I'm typically in the 90-95 range. I fall below about 87 and I feel like I'm mashing

Im not from a cycling background. My cadence naturally seemed to be around 80. I tried spinning 90 and above for years after high cadence became popular and talked about. High cadence results in high HR for me. I found that high cadence was OK for bike events like Gran fondos (I dont bike race). But for triathlon the high HR from high cadence impacted my runs especially at 70.3 and IM distance. I brought my cadence back down to 80 and actually ended up racing now in high 70s and my run is better with the lower HR on the bike.

Maybe theirs other factors at play and Im incorrectly relating things but the above has been my experience over a number of years.

This. Over the past 4 years in the studio, I have witnessed "mashers" discover that they really are "spinners", and vice versa. One athlete, when queried why he was struggling at such a low cadence during a high-FTP workout, replied "because I'm a big guy and big guys are mashers." When he allowed himself to spin at a cadence he found comfortable, his cadence increased from about 70 to 90.

Only one person can tell you the optimal cadence for you. And that's you.

There's a speed accuracy trade off to find that ideal point for you. I've been a masher for a long time (big gear, lower cadence), but find that for long individual efforts, I tend to ride more evenly if I focus on high cadence for the first half of the effort, and I find that if I can keep the cadence up, I tend to run better off the bike... For me this has meant doing a lot of cadence focused workouts in the off season to improve my comfort level with riding extended periods of time at higher cadences... I would say if I hopped on the bike and just locked in without looking I tend to ride in the 76rpm range... the cadence work I have been doing often focuses on intervals at various cadences in the 85-105 rpm range (with some lower cadence strength work as well).

There's not necessarily a number to aim for, just being aware of your performance as you try different cadence ranges and see how you feel. 76 could be that sweet spot, or it could be 90 or 95... or somewhere in between...

My typical average for a long ride with some steep hills thrown in would be about the same as that (~76rpm). However, on a shorter flat ride it could be anywhere in the 80-90 range and when I'm pushing hard I can sit at 100-110rpm for extended periods. It varies significantly depending on terrain, effort and even how I'm feeling. My cadence tends to drop when I'm struggling or uncomfortable but just because it's low doesn't mean I'm struggling or uncomfortable!

I ain't biting.

That's okay, it seems that the question has already been answer (at least if you mistakenly believe that minimizing heart rate is the goal):

http://www.tandfonline.com/...7461391.2016.1146336

 
I've never seen an abstract refute the need for the study in the first place:


IOW, self-selection of cadence actually works. But now we've established that, we're going to give you a lengthy, time-consuming (and probably incorrect) method to figure out what it should be.

---

My latest book: "Out of the Melting Pot, Into the Fire" is on sale on Amazon and at other online and local booksellers

That doesnt address running off the bike.

Starykowicz might like that research because he doesnt seem to care about the run, but doesnt it make sense to find a cadence that optimizes the bike and run result? That cadence might be the same but how can you assume that?

I'm surprised no one mentioned crank length. There are many variables but crank length is certainly one of them.

Interested to hear about any studies which relate to out vs in saddle and cadence vs metabolic demand.

Ie the activities to a certain extent are different and I see a bunch of different "self selected" strategies on how people approach... Say a 10-20 minute Hill climb.

Cheers,
Maurice

When you find out, can you tell me what my optimal torque should be?

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au

88.3

---

Team Zoot So Cal

I thought all the data geeks would have a chart that shows gears/speed/cadence all lined up. maybe there is an app for that.

There's a reason all of the recent hour records have been done at crank torque in excess of 36 Nm. Cycling and running are aerobic sports, so it makes sense not to tax the aerobic system as you would do with high cadence. Also, we know (from sprint studies) that fatigue looks like it's related to the number of leg flexions and extensions, so you should minimize them. That's why I try to do what the champions do: keep your torque above 36 Nm.

That's trivial to do but it doesn't answer your question.
Pick any two of speed, gear ratio and cadence and you can easily calculate the other. But you need to know what to pick for the first two and that's essentially your question, is it not?

Here you go.