Assuming a flat course, does it take more energy to ride in a high gear with a slower cadence or in a low gear with a faster cadence?
Well, I think it bears mentioning that we need a better definition for “energy”.
I think your question may be more directly related toward the (mis)conception that a higher cadence is somehow “better” or more efficient.
It may be, but it also may not be.
In the past five years a lot has ben made of cadence becasue of the rise of Lance Armstrong and his conspicuous, unusually high cadence while climbing and time trialing.
My opinion, based on personal experience, is that every rider has physiologically predisposed “best cadence”. That is to say, a point at which heart rate, respiration, gas turnover, pedal frequency and rate and power output become optimally efficient for a given individual.
Just as we all do not ride the same saddle height, or even two identical inseams may not ride exactly the same saddle height, it seems unlikely there is one “best” cadence for everyone, or that the blanket assumption that faster cadences are somehoe “better” is correct.
Preaching high cadence has become a moniker for a somewhat informed cyclist to regujitate after too much exposure to Chris Carmichael. -It may not be right for you- or it may.
I don;t know if that answers your question… 
Assuming you go the exact same speed the energy or work needed to go from point A to point B is the same. The effect on your muscles is different. The high cadence theory is that there is less ‘local’ fatigue in your muscles if you spin a high(er) cadence. Kind of like running a steady 7 minutes mile instead of sprinting 100 yards then walking a little bit, then sprinting again. The running example also illustrates (exaggerates) the effect of accelerating/decelerating during each pedal stroke.
Energy is the same. The source of energy is different.
These are my opinions which are arguable by many.
Riding with a higher cadence uses your cardiovascular sysem more to fuel your body. Riding with a slower cadence uses the strength and fuel stored in your muscles more. So after a while when the muscles run out of fuel you will fatigue. Riding with higher cadence keeps steady amounts of fuel comming to your muscles as well as taking away wastes.
There is a point of diminishing returns with cadence. Some people work well with a high cadence (100 rpm and above) and some work well with a lower cadence (85 rpm or lower). You need to find out what works best for you. I feel a good starting point for riding flat courses is about 90 rpm which is about the same turnover as 180 steps per min on the run. Fine tune youself from there.
I tipically ride between 90 and 95. Allways on the higher side when I’m concentrating on the whole pedal stroke. 85 seems too slow while 105 is to fast for me
jaretj
(I’m desperatly trying to be the man my kitty-kat thinks I am.)
I think it comes down to what you are most limited by - cardiovascular fitness or muscular fitness. My cardiovasular system is much stronger than my muscular system, therefore I tend to spin a pretty high cadence. My buddy is the exact opposite - he’s limited by his cardiovasular system more than his muscular system, so it’s easier for him to ride a lower cadence. I think you simply need to find where on the spectrum your abilities are and race accordingly (and perhaps train your weakness a bit, too).
I definitely would define myself as higher in cardiovascular fitness than muscular, but I find that as I fatigue in rides on the order of 2 hours or more I tend towards a lower cadence to keep my speed the same, rather than a higher cadence. Doesn’t that somewhat contradict this idea?
AmyMI.
Time to weigh in on this one.
jaretj and efernand both have it right when they say it takes the same amount of energy.
Perhaps climbing a hill will illustrate the point a little more clearly, yet the concept is the same even if the terrain/course is flat.
To elevate or move yourself and your cycle from point A to Point B higher up on the hill takes the same amount of energy regardless of how it is expended. If you use a high cadence, then that energy expenditure is divided into many small parcels. If you use a low cadence, then each parcel is a bigger fraction of the whole because each parcel lifts you a greater distance up the hill.
Now this persupposes that you can pedal either style equally as well. Generally, this is never the case. If you have great strength in you legs, you may be more suited to mash or use a lower cadence but with more pedal force applied with each pedal stroke. This style of pedalling/cycling places the exercise load more on one’s muscular strength than on one’s cardiovascular fitness. Your cardiovascular system is usually not as well suited for high aerobic efforts that extended high cadence cycling efforts require if you are a low cadence masher.
If you employ a high cadence to pedal, then you begin to place more of the exercise load on your cardiovascular fitness and not so much on the muscular strength of you legs.
As almost everyone concedes, it is not the easiest thing to try to change from the style of pedalling that your body/physique/genetics finds most comfortable. That is not to say that it cannot be done. Or that in either case, one cannot train to obtain some benefit from one style to assist in the opposite style of pedalling.
I hope this helps to clarify your question.
Are you a triathlete or pure cyclist?
Riding in a big gear with low cadence will tend to recruit more fasttwitch muscle fibers which fatigue relatively quickly. This would likely affect your run after the bike. Although there’s not a consensus on this matter, most people would advise a triathlete to steer towards lower gears and higher cadences.
Not necessarily. There are a couple possible explanations:
- You over estimate your cardiovascular fitness;
- You understimate your muscular fitness;
- Your technique becomes sloppy as you fatigue (common) and good form at a slower cadence is easier than good form at a higher cadence (thus, more economy at a lower cadence).
Also, when you say that “as you fatige in rides on the order of 2 or more hours…” are you speaking of cardiovascular fatigue or muscular? If you’re pedalling a high cadence (thus relying more on your cardiovasular system) I’d suggest that your cardiovasular system is fatiguing first and as such you begin to rely on your muscular system later in the ride. I think any of these possibilities are reasonable (and I’m sure there are more, too).
Anecdotally, I also consider myself much more of a cardiovascular cyclist than a muscular cyclist. However, as the day wears on, I find my cadence increasing to maintain the same speed. My heart and lungs can keep up, but my muscles can’t - therefore I reduce muscular load per pedal stroke by increasing my cadence. This assumes a constant HR for the duration of the ride.
I found that by keeping a careful traiing log from my Computrainer workouts on same course, same bike fit over a period of several months that I was getting the highest speed/power output/lowest sutained average heart rate at 88 RPM’s. That is where my best performances where coming from consistently according to the Computrainer.
I presumed, based on that, 88 RPM was my “best” cadence, although I purposely use different cadences at different times during an event to break up the rythum and try to keep my legs fresh.
Empty post contents.
Thank you all. I had a feeling my question was more complicated that it seemed as phrased. The question really arose because I’m more of a higher cadence, low gear kind of a gal, and I wanted to make sure I shouldn’t be shifting my focus too much to gaining high gear muscle strength. Also, because I’m not a cyclist (I’m to cycling what it sounds like some of you are to swimming), I wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing something basic like “higher gear doofus.”
Some workout plans call for specific high gear/very low cadence workouts as strength building exercises (plus or minus weight room work) early in the season. You could try them out, but I think you should be just fine doing most of your training/racing at high candences if that’s comfortable to you.