Of course it's not one-size fits all. Can you imagine how bonkers it would be if all of humanity, regardless of the huge variations in physiology and the shapes of bicycles, always operated optimally at a fixed pedaling interval that just happened to align in an exact 3:2 relationship with the arbitrary unit of time that we call "1 second"?

90rpm gets brought up a lot because it's not too far from the average cruising cadence chosen by experienced fit cyclists. But it's not a big deal if your body prefers a bit higher or lower.
And even for a particular cyclist, chosen cadence can drift all over the map depending on factors like riding intensity and fatigue. If I'm drafting in a paceline, not needing to do much power, and trying to catch my breath, I'll sometimes soft-pedal a massive gear; if I'm fresh and sprinting, I'll sometimes choose cadences above 130rpm.

Cadence recommendations are often given to new cyclists because new cyclists can take time to develop a good sense for gearing and shifting, and of what energy delivery feels like (not force, but the pedals giving way to force). But I think sometimes, people who are trying to help new folks don't appreciate that it takes time for the legs to get good at pedaling fast.
At any rate, it doesn't make sense for someone to be staring at a cadence monitor and trying to hold it constant. Just as bad as seeing new cyclists try to grind out a 52-13 at 8mph up a hill, is seeing new cyclists struggling to be smooth while holding 90rpm at 21mph and 20W in the draft on a shallow downhill.

Zombies are dead; they just don't know it yet. A lot like optimal cadence.

It not just that one size doesn't fit all, for any individual the right cadence is situational (as mentioned in the previous post).

Ex: If you are in a pack, a slightly higher cadence lets you handle accelerations more easily.

Personally, I notice that cadences below 70rpm cause me knee problems, so I use the cadence reading to avoid "grinding" over the tops of rollers.

---

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

I think (hope) it's been debunked for both cycling and running.

I used to adhere to that as much as I could but now I go off of feel. Sometimes during a ride it feels good to grind and sometimes it feels good to spin.

I find it hard to average 90rpm indoors whereas outdoors it's not difficult.

---

-------------------
Madison photographer Timothy Hughes | Instagram

I'm the opposite. Can hit 90 every time indoors. More like 82 outdoors training. Sometimes a little higher when racing. Over many years, I have observed that I'm faster as my cadence average moves closer to 90. Have never been able to get above 88 for 35k or longer races.

At least someone is trying to debunk that myth :-)

https://team.homeoftriathlon.ch/...-bike-cadence-debate

and

http://blog.trisutto.com/...reat-cadence-debate/

Sort of.

Paul and Phil brainwashed a generation of North American cycling fans by bullshitting about Lance Armstrong's cadence. *Narrator: it was drugs*

Cadence is a function of power.
The harder you are going, the higher your cadence... sort of. Obviously, if you run out of gears on a 25% grade this breaks down.
So, for an sprint tri your probably doing 90-95 rpm, but for an Ironman your cadence avg could be 75.

Lower cadence is good for longer distance because generally your HR is lower and you can save those beats for the run.
However, whatever cadence you do, you have to train at that cadence or your muscles won't be able to handle it.

This is a very rudimentary explanation and I'm sure someone much smarter than me will correct.

Yes,

basic rec, to be adapted depending on.... many things, is, for ESIEE power zones :

zone 1 : 70 RPM
zone 2 : 80 RPM
zone 3 : 90 RPM
zone 4 : 100 RPM (near FTP)
zone 5 : 110 RPM (near VO2 max)

That is why for long TT (such as this afternoon TT worlds on 54 km), average RPM is around 100 (they work at FTP).

And the size of the big ring is chosen to hit this target with chain aligned, on the flat... not on small cog.

I was a product of that brainwashing.

I was also told in the 80's when i started cycling that we all needed to be spinning 100+ all of the time so I got really good at that. On a side note, to be able to pedal that fast smoothly has helped me at the velodrome.

Now, on the road, I'm somewhere between 70 and 90. I find that almost all my peak powers between 1 and 30 minutes to be right around 85rpm.

This is not the way I am wired at all, and I suspect that few are wired this way. My cadence is generally independent of power for most riding. IME, each individual rider has an optimal cadence range, and that is tied to our philology. For example, a guy who is a masher (rides <70) is unlikely to be fast above 80. And conversely, a guy who spins in the 90s is unlikely to ride efficiently below 80.

I have about a 7 RPM range where I race. I ride Sprints in the high 90s, Olympics around 95, and HIMs in the low 90s. I have never ridden an IM, but I would probably still be in the low 90s. If I dropped below 85 in a race, I would blow up. The only time I ever ride below 80 is when I am on a hill and I do not have the gearing to spin. My last HIM had a 10 km 6% climb, and my cadence on that section was 86. To the contrary of the above posit, my power increases as my cadence decreases.

On the flip side, I rode with a former pro triathlete earlier this year who is built like a power lifter. He rides in the sub-70 RPM range, no matter what the hill profile. He tried to spin higher a few times, at the advice of some other former pro cyclists, and he totally blew up. He is incredibly fast at his chosen masher cadence range.

I feel like outdoors my sweetspot is generally around 85rpm + or - a few rpms. I basically go by feel but for some reason when I get tired I start mashing and my rpm drops.

Indoors I’m definitely 90+ rpm

Just my $.02, but...

Certainly myths:
That there is one cadence that is appropriate for all riders.
That there is one cadence that is appropriate for all types of riding and terrain.

I don't think it's a myth that understanding the tradeoffs and technique involved in gearing choice and cadence has significant performance implications and is an important part of acquiring a good rider skillset. But it's trying to translate this into general rules where it all falls apart.

As some have pointed out, the more important factor is actual foot speed rather than cadence; for instance, one can have similar power output at different crank lengths using similar foot speed but different cadences. But cadence is much easier to quantify and understand than foot speed so that's what we end up talking about.

Some general observations that may have a reasonable amount of broad truth but may not be relevant on an individual level:
Easier pace/lower power output generally indicates a lower cadence.
But, many of us find that climbing steep hills indicates a slightly lower cadence despite often indicating a higher power output.
Folks with good aerobic capacity but lower muscular strength tend to favor high cadence.
Folks with high muscular strength/lower leg muscle mass, but lower aerobic capacity, tend to favor low cadence.
Situations where acceleration is important (such as fast pack riding and mass start racing) dictate a faster cadence than might be indicated solely from efficiency.
Longer steady efforts (such as long course triathlon) tend to indicate a somewhat lower cadence.

On a personal level, my power meter tells me that I achieve the highest power levels on shorter intervals not by pushing very hard on the pedals (which intuitively feels like it should result in the highest power) but at a more moderate level of force at a higher cadence. YMMV.

On the other hand, my wife has high muscular strength (despite being 9" shorter, she has always leg-pressed more weight than me) and has always been a masher, and always will be. Sometimes folks tell her she'd do better by riding at a higher cadence and frankly, it just ain't going to happen.

Does anyone know of a free online tool that could do analysis and charting of FIT data? I would love to chart my power vs. cadence over a few of my rides that had some terrain diversity. I did it against my 5 mile Garmin splits of my last HIM ride that included a mountain climb plus some really tough shorter climbs. But, the data were not discrete enough. I suspect that most of us have a power & cadence curve that looks something like this. For mashers, the range may be compressed and flattened. But, for spinners, I bet there is a very high peak at low cadence where we are climbing and then a sweet spot that may only be 5 to 10 RPM wide where we are cruising at IM/HIM/Oly/Sprint race speeds.

My amateur observation seems to conclude that a rider that is higher in body weight, and thus also has heavier and stronger legs is able to pedal at lower cadences. However, the opposite seems to be true too. A 140lb rider with not as heavy and strong legs, is able to spin his/her legs around much quicker without consequence, and therefore is able to try to hit higher W/kg numbers with not as strong legs. I weigh 155, and my sweet spot seems to be around 90rpm. But just by chance, not because I am targeting that really. I do agree with the above that if I am climbing a hill, I may let it ride up to 100rpm, and if I am in the draft zone on a long flat, it could easily fall to 80, maybe even 75.

---

- Jordan

My Strava

Zombies are hard to kill, even though they're already dead.

TP can do quadrant analysis for any single ride; I don't think they have an agregate version to span multiple rides. But, I don't know if that's limited to the paid version or available in the free version as well (I'm a paid member).

I don't recall any of my graphs looking like that, though. But, I'm also a product of the brainwashing since I started cycling in the pre-Cancer LA Era. I can't check from work, though...stupid browser incompatibilities.

My cadence has shifted a little lower since I started riding 1x, or rather I've become more comfortable with a wider range.

How much of that low-cadence climbing is dictated by gearing restriction than optimal/comfortable cadence? I personally like to ride around 90 rpm. I don't aim for it, as I don't monitor rpm while riding, but when I review my ride data afterwards, my average cadence is always around 90 and my variability is minimal. Uphill, downhill, riding hard, cruising; +/-90 is generally what feels good to me. It's pretty flat around here, so I can get away with close ratio cassettes (12-25 on the tri bike, 12-27 on the road bike). When I do hit the occasional steeper climb, then, I'm often forced to go below my preferred cadence. I frequently end up over-powering to keep the cadence from going even farther below the comfortable range, and to get the damn hill over with. Or simply to keep the wheels turning fast enough to maintain balance. Does't mean I'm more efficient at lower RPM, but rather than a low RPM was forced on me by my lack of low range gearing. That's the give-back for having the tight-range cassettes that allow me to stay close to 90 rpm the rest of the time.

---

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"

For me, it is 100% dictated by a hill when I run out of gearing. The only time I go below 80 is on double-digit grade climbs when I am bound by my easiest gear. I drop into the 60s in the high-teens grade, and that is when the smoke starts coming out of my ears. I could ride those hills significantly faster if I could magically drop a 36 tooth gear in back just for the one-time beast mode climb.

I never aim for cadence when training or racing; I just look at it after-the-fact for curiosity. What I have observed in my riding data runs contrary to a number of comments above. That is, when I drop below my naturally selected cadence, it is most often because I am increasing power on a >6% climb and I am bound by gearing.

Caveat: this only applies to TT-like riding. When I am on my road bike in groups, I still average in the 90s, but cadence numbers are all over the place depending on the dynamic of the ride.

It's not bunk. A 90 RPM cadence is a good place to start or keep in mind while cycling or running. There would be reasons to move off of 90RPM while training or as you evolve as an athlete and know yourself better or get older.

A cadence of 90RPM on relatively flat terrain could be less likely to hurt someone than a significantly lower or higher cadence from that 90.

90 is not sacrosanct. Yet, in cycling they do limit the gears of young riders/juniors so they don't ruin themselves by pushing big gears.

---

Indoor Triathlete - I thought I was right, until I realized I was wrong.