I totally agree TT's are a different animal. I was responding to this comment: "I don't think you will find a top time trialer or triathlete pedalling below 80 rpm, or above 110".

While i propone a high cadence rate, surely the weight of the legs is a factor to consider. Reductio ad absurdam: a man with half a pig tied to each thigh would probably find a slow cadence easier to sustain (no it doesn't need to be two halves of the same pig). Thick muscular legs, especially with heavy calves, must reduce the optimum cadence somewhat. Also seat position must affect the kind of force one may efficiently apply on the downstroke, and therefore likewise have an optimum cadence per rider. There was a thread here recently that compared the ideal legs of a runner with a cyclist - with no evidence but thought, I suggest that an effective high cadence cyclist is more likely to be built like a runner, at least in the lower body.

---

"I'm going to stick to my sardines" - Cassidy
"Others took their lemons and stood up and walked." - Kestrelkerri
"I will never know quite why I set out on the run. I guess because it was next." - Nachocheese
"No, just to people on the Forum. My athletes are the control group." - Paulo Sousa
" Actually, I am naturally an Asshole....not unlike the way you are naturally an idiot." IRONLOBO

I doubt leg size (assuming we are talking lean mass) has anything to do with it. I have a couple of tree trunks hanging from my torso. To me, it just means more muscle mass to generate the needed cadence. If you don't believe big legs can go round fast, watch trackies....

Ok.... but....half a pig!!

---

"I'm going to stick to my sardines" - Cassidy
"Others took their lemons and stood up and walked." - Kestrelkerri
"I will never know quite why I set out on the run. I guess because it was next." - Nachocheese
"No, just to people on the Forum. My athletes are the control group." - Paulo Sousa
" Actually, I am naturally an Asshole....not unlike the way you are naturally an idiot." IRONLOBO

Science isn't gospel but Coast et al. did some interesting work.....

Coast, J. R. and Welch, H. G. (1985) Linear increase in optimal pedal rate increased power output in cycle ergometry. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology 53, 339-342

This paper talks of the optimal cadence based upon the knowledge that there is an optimal applied force on the pedals for a given range of watts proportional to cadence.

The figures they came out with were roughly:

Coast et al.
Watts / Cadence
83 / 50
106 / 53
129 / 56
152 / 59
175 / 62
198 / 65
222 / 68
245 / 71
268 / 74
291 / 77
314 / 80
337 / 83
360 / 86
383 / 89
406 / 92
429 / 95
452 / 98
475 / 101
498 / 104
522 / 107
545 / 110

Makes some sense why Lance rode high cadence up those climbs!

You could also throw pedalling technique into the equation...why?

Am sure the more scientific amongst us might correct my simplification but think about the following....

A rider outputs 100W at 100 rpm so 1W per pedal revolution or 1/360W (0.0028W) per degree of pedal action, if the rider only applies force from 1 o'clock to 4 o'clock then actually he's coping with 1/90W (0.011W) per degree of pedal action.

Now if the same rider is smoothly (using say upto 220 degrees of pedal stroke to apply force) riding along at 60rpm then it's 1.66W per pedal revolution or 0.0076W per degree of pedal action.

A 31% reduction in peak force per degree of pedalling action, simplistically or if you flip it on it's head you could bump up your power output at the lower rev's in the above scenario and still be less than 0.011W per degree of pedal action.

Now I know why I got them pesky Powercranks!!!

---

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

I've raced professionally for about ten years, and cycling was one of my strengths. I've had the chance to train with, race with, and observe some of the best cyclists and triathletes in the world.(male and female) I've been tested many times, and for different reasons. Some testing was for equipment, some for bike fit, and some for physiology. As professional athletes, we tend to be guinea pigs. It usually works to our advantage, as we get to learn a lot.

The argument about what cadence is best is obviously a touchy one. For the most part, the triathletes and cyclists that consistently race well tend to ride in the 80-100 rpm range. There are some very successful riders that ride above 100 rpms, and there may be a few who ride at a lower cadence. When you look at the most talented cyclists and triathletes in the world, there is a reason why they tend to ride within a certain range as far as cadence is concerned. I'm talking about the successful athletes who turn in good results on a regular basis. They ride within the 80-100 rpm range because it works.

In any sport, you can always find successful athletes who are different than the norm. I would suggest that before you copy those athletes, or decide that what they do is suitable for you, you should make sure that it really fits with your body type. You have to be careful not to make the mistake in thinking that what you 'like' to do is what is best for you. It's easy to stick with what we're comfortable with, even if it isn't necessarily good for us.

[reply]Even high-spinning Lance spends most of his day in the peloton moving up to the base of the mountains at <80 rpms. He turns on the cadence when he hits the power-on switch. These are facts.

There must be a reason cyclists reflexively do this. If lab studies haven't found results pointing to exactly why, then we can only conclude that they need to keep looking. [/reply]

"Changes in power output had little effect on the most economical cadence, which was between 53.3 and 59.9 rpm, in all groups."
There are a couple of studies showing this, including the one that said running speed substantially increased when spinning a 20% lower RPM as a cooldown before the run. This is definitely useful info and corresponds with my experience. Softpedaling at 100rpm in the last 2 miles before the run doesn't seem to help nearly as much as going 70rpm for the last 2 miles at similar low output wattage. If the "energetic optimum cadence" really is in the 60ish range then this would make sense to lower the HR just before the run. This is of course exactly opposite from the other study that showed FCC+20% meant faster run times post-cycle. :( I think the conclusion so far is no one really knows.

---

---

Thats an interesting study. I have found something similar in my own progression...as my threshold power has risen so has my cadence. It doesn't fit that chart perfectly but the trend seems to hold true.

And I'm certainly pedaling at a higher cadence in an oly than I am in a long course race. But that could be either a function of being closer to threshold and/or it aligns with the above study...hmmmm.

One other thing...cadence is not like power where you should average the "0"s. Hopefully people realize this before posting their numbers.

ot

I am a fairly fast Sprint/Olympic distance guy. I win on the run, my run cadence is 92-95. If I were to spin at even 80RPM on the bike how do you think my run would start out. There are some people that can spin a 54-56 big ring, I only wish I could. I use a 50, and quite successfully. Of the other 80% of the big ring users who cannot spin them, as Shrek and Donkey would say, "I think he is compensating for something." Learning to spin fast and effeciently takes a great deal of time though, at least it did for me.