It's always nice to have sources quoted that others can read them. Thanks!

I think that the cadence circa 90 rpms is probably a good starting point for people to use to experiment upon their own results. As you said, 90 may not be most efficient, but it may be the best of both worlds, it may be somewhat glycogen-consumption-sparing without costing excessively on the inefficiency side of the equation. Then, there are individual differences to consider, which may put the average slightly higher or lower than 90.

Without any scientific study to cite, my guess is that the elite cyclists will be on the faster side of the rpm bell curve, and we mortals may be found on the slightly slower than 90 rpm bell curve. This would be because the elites may be more efficient in their pedal strokes, so the aerobic costs may not be as high as in the mortal group.

I sometimes will vascillate between higher and lower rpms depending upon which system seems to need a break. When my HR would get too high, but my legs feel fresh, I drop my rpms (by selecting a higher gear) until my HR recovers...if this makes my legs feel heavy or tiring or tighter (I'm assuming I'm burning more fuel than I'm delivering at this point, or, probably more accurate is that I'm burning more oxygen than I'm delivering), I then raise my rpms (by selecting a lower gear). By doing this, I find I usually settle in the mid 80's on flat terrain at my best average speed.

There is a big difference between how much you should try and spare muscle glycogen depending on the length of the race, of course.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

http://www.bsn.com/Cycling/articles/cadence.html is an interesting article about cadence. The author looks at optimal cadence from several different perspectives such as perceived exertion and biomechanical efficiency, VO2 & lactic acid mgmt. Very interesting read, and the 90-100rpm figure that s/he concluded with is fairly close to what trained athletes prefer.

---

-----------------------
Proud member of Team Tooth Pick (TTP): like a leaf in the wind.

Yaqui- are the cadences you're citing on PC's or regular cranks? I've only been on PC's for a couple of months, but I'm finding my cadence ranges are similar to what you cite. On regular cranks, though, I would average ~100rpm +/- 5rpm.

The problem with almost every "analysis" of pedaling efficiency is no one accounts for the energy required to pump the thighs up and down, which is necessary to just make the pedals go round. The same muscles that apply force to the pedals are used in this effort also so, just because the forces on the pedals go down with higher cadences, does not mean that the muscle contractual forces are substantually less, and, at higher cadences, there is less filling time to get blood into the muscles and the bad stuff out (yes, blood flow only occurs during relaxation at highwork loads).

This stuff about washing lactate out is a bunch of hooey meant to justify biases, without any real scientific basis. Even if there was a basis for this, most of us should be racing longer events at a level where we are not producing any substantial lactate, so "washing it out" becomes unnecessary.

For long endurance events, the most efficient pedaaling cadence should be your optimal cadence.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Jkat, the cadences have become similar, although the PC cadences were initially much slower. Partly because of this slower initial cadence did I find that I was a better rider in the lower/mid 80's compared to my 100-108 that I usually did previously. Now, I still go up in the mid-upper 90's, but unless I'm intending to do some faster spinning work, I shift down to drop my rpms closer to 90 or just under. I am really faster this way, and I'm not burning up my energy source doing this. I'm also running just fine using this technique (that's sort of an understatement, my running is several minutes faster in a 5K split for my triathlon races...I don't actually think this is because I'm pedalling slower, but, pedalling slower doesn't seem to slow my run down).

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)