Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

High cadence pedalling is inefficient for amateurs, says new study

You could be wasting effort by spinning the pedals fast, according to research

A new study published in the International Journal of Sports Medicine says that cycling at a high cadence isn't beneficial to amateurs.

Are you a spinner or a grinder? Chances are that if you've been cycling for any length of time you'll have be told by some old hand that you need to spin to win. On the other hand, there's the school of thought that says tough riders grind away in a big gear.

This Is Cambridge Oversocks - Orange Pedalling.png

Many professional riders pedal at a high average cadence – over 90 rpm is common with some pedalling at 100 rpm or higher for hours at a time (let's leave Lance Armstrong's super-high cadence out of it – that would only muddy the waters!). Lots of amateur cyclists adopt a similarly high cadence, figuring that if it works for the pros it'll work for them too. 

However, a team of scientists led by Dr Federico Formenti of King's College London has found that the oxygenation of thigh muscles is negatively affected when recreational cyclists pedal at a high cadence. In other words, exercise efficiency decreases when these riders pedal at a high rpm. In other other words, they're wasting energy by spinning their legs fast.

The sample was small, made up of nine volunteers described as "healthy, active individuals". The researchers carried out a number of experiments while each subject rode a stationary bike, recording the force exerted on the pedals, cardiopulmonary (relating to the heart and lungs) and metabolic responses, plus oxygenation of the thigh muscles (studied continuously using near-infrared spectroscopy). These experiments were carried out at moderate exercise intensity and at different pedalling cadences.

cannondale_systemsix_2019_action_mat_-_3.jpg

The results showed that forces exerted on the pedals decreased at higher cadences, heart rate increased by 15% and cycling exercise efficiency decreased. A component of this reduced efficiency, skeletal muscle oxygenation decreased when participants pedalled at 90 rpm, the highest cadence tested.

"Pedalling at cadence greater than 90 rpm is advantageous for professional cyclists, but appears inefficient for recreational cyclists," said Dr Federico Formenti. "When cycling at low exercise intensity, skeletal muscle oxygenation is mostly unaffected by cadence, indicating that the cardiopulmonary and circulatory systems can effectively meet the exercising muscles' demand.

"However, at a greater exercise intensity, high cadence reduces recreational cyclists' efficiency and skeletal muscle oxygenation, suggesting a reduced ratio between oxygen being delivered to and taken up by the exercising muscles."

The volunteers were tested at cadences all the way down to 40rpm, which is below anything you're likely to pedal at out on the road – well, unless you're doing super-high resistance interval training.

One other thing to bear in mind is that this study focused on skeletal muscle oxygenation and not joint health. Whether a lower cadence with a higher force on the pedals takes a toll on your knees wasn't covered.

Read The Effect of Pedaling Cadence on Skeletal Muscle Oxygenation During Cycling at Moderate Exercise Intensity 

Mat has been in cycling media since 1996, on titles including BikeRadar, Total Bike, Total Mountain Bike, What Mountain Bike and Mountain Biking UK, and he has been editor of 220 Triathlon and Cycling Plus. Mat has been road.cc technical editor for over a decade, testing bikes, fettling the latest kit, and trying out the most up-to-the-minute clothing. He has won his category in Ironman UK 70.3 and finished on the podium in both marathons he has run. Mat is a Cambridge graduate who did a post-grad in magazine journalism, and he is a winner of the Cycling Media Award for Specialist Online Writer. Now over 50, he's riding road and gravel bikes most days for fun and fitness rather than training for competitions.

Add new comment

44 comments

Avatar
massive4x4 | 5 years ago
0 likes

 

This study is effectively rubbish:

The wattage figures were sufficently low (125W) as to make it pointless.

The best way to think about this is imagine spining the bike on rollers. There is essentially neglible resistance hence the majority of the effort is spinning your legs, there is therefore a direct correlation between effort and cadence until you start to spin out.

However if you try to spin at 1000W and 20 rpm the force is excessive, you cannot apply the force to turn such a gear. Peak wattage is normally seen for pros sprinters at around 120rpm.

Given that the phrase is "spin to win" this would tend to indicate that whatever the level of the cyclist in question they will be trying to maximise wattage, hence they should be spinning to keep the leg forces down.

Avatar
Stealth78 | 5 years ago
1 like

IMO those "9 subjects" gonna get tired sooner if they don't have a certain level of fitness, going from 60/70/80 to 100+ is worlds apart for beginners. If however you average 10,000 km per year for a few years your body will get efficient at the type of stress you subject it to. "High" cadence for me is around 100 rpm for an extended amount of time, it just works for my body type. There's another benefit to training your neuromuscular system, when you are comfortable at higher RPM and have enough muscular endurance you can mesh both systems together to go faster, find that compromise between brute force and rpm and you will see the benefits big time.

Avatar
PRSboy | 5 years ago
3 likes

I have to say I've found TrainerRoad really useful in this respect... there are some excellent sessions from Coach Chad breaking down pedal technique, individual leg training and raising cadence.  You can't have an efficient fast cadence without good pedal technique (which is where this 'study' falls down).  Makes a big difference... almost 'free' speed once you get the hang of it.

Turbo is handy too for listening for a smoother 'note' from the trainer, and not bouncing in the saddle.

Avatar
chuckd | 5 years ago
2 likes

"Chances are that if you've been cycling for any length of time you'll have be told by some old hand that you need to spin to win. "

Therein lies the problem with this study. I was also told this when I started racing many moons ago and I tried to make it work since everything I could read on the subject said to do the same. The problem was that I knew from my high school track days I was most definitely not a fast-twitch type athlete. I couldn't get out of my own way in the 100 yard dash. But I was also a fair middle distance runner and one of the top high school cross-country skiers in my state. High cadence was not in my genes and that's where these studies (and that bad coaching advice) fall flat.

Consequently I went on to be a modestly successful Cat. 2 roadie who did best in time trials and road race breakaways, all the while pushing 60 to 70 rpm.

Also not mentioned is the physical coordination needed to move your legs in a fairly unnatural manner; in circles. That fluidity can only come through many, many hours of practice and I suspect the more fluid you are, the more efficient, and able to ride at higher cadence.

I don't feel this study proves anything.

 

Avatar
JohnnyRemo replied to chuckd | 5 years ago
1 like

ChuckD wrote:

"Chances are that if you've been cycling for any length of time you'll have be told by some old hand that you need to spin to win. "

 High cadence was not in my genes and that's where these studies (and that bad coaching advice) fall flat.

Consequently I went on to be a modestly successful Cat. 2 roadie who did best in time trials and road race breakaways, all the while pushing 60 to 70 rpm.

 

What size of chainring were you using? 53x12 at 70rpm is under 40kph...

Avatar
mickmcnich replied to JohnnyRemo | 4 years ago
0 likes

Many time trialists of the 70's would use 54x12 or even 11. which would give a gear of 129.9 inches. At 70 rpm that would be 25 mph thus (assuming that you could keep it rolling) gives a 1 hour "25". Those are the huge gears that the great Alf Engers would use to produce the first under 50 minute "25" in 1976 (or was it 78?). I remember that the low cadence verses high cadence debate was in full flow in 1970 when I was riding TT's. 

Avatar
Andrew Burrows | 5 years ago
0 likes

Doing various pedal drills on the turbo I observed that at high cadence I felt it more in my chest (heart/lungs) and at low cadence more on my legs. I don't know if the science backs this up but I always assumed that training the top half was going to give me more endurance than building up the bottom half. Generally, I try to ride at a cadence that balances the effect between the two parts of the body and have trained to raise my cadence.

Avatar
Simon E replied to Andrew Burrows | 5 years ago
0 likes

Andrew Burrows wrote:

Doing various pedal drills on the turbo I observed that at high cadence I felt it more in my chest (heart/lungs) and at low cadence more on my legs.

That's about right.

In general, it appears that higher cadence taxes the cardiovascular system more while using low cadence puts greater stress on the leg muscles themselves (each stroke is applying greater force, causing muscle damage). It's rather like the differing levels of muscle soreness after a high reps-low weight session compared to low reps-heavy weights in the gym.

Avatar
Shades | 5 years ago
3 likes

I'm 53 and just did 500km across N India, with approx 10,000m of climbing, on a pretty unreconstructed hired MTB.  Stuck to the high cadence approach and my legs felt pretty good during and after.

Avatar
janusz0 | 5 years ago
1 like

There's more to life than efficiency. How about having usable knee joints when you're 40+? I'd like to keep on cycling to the bitter end.

Avatar
Rapha Nadal | 5 years ago
0 likes

Spin to Win!!  Works for Froome...

Avatar
danhopgood | 5 years ago
0 likes

Power = force x distance, so for the same power a lower cadence requires more force, so it feels harder work pedalling slowly because the forces are higher for the same power output.  Surely just experience will be a good judge of what's the right cadence for any one individual?  Body shape must come into it.  Someone short & stocky will be good for power - lean and lanky better at speed.

Personally speaking when I was interested in performance a focus on pedalling technique rather than cadence was what made a difference.  Good pedalling technique at high cadence I never got to grips with.

Avatar
kevvjj replied to danhopgood | 5 years ago
0 likes

danhopgood wrote:

Power = force x distance, so for the same power a lower cadence requires more force, so it feels harder work pedalling slowly because the forces are higher for the same power output.  Surely just experience will be a good judge of what's the right cadence for any one individual?  Body shape must come into it.  Someone short & stocky will be good for power - lean and lanky better at speed.

Personally speaking when I was interested in performance a focus on pedalling technique rather than cadence was what made a difference.  Good pedalling technique at high cadence I never got to grips with.

 

Wrong. WORK = force x distance. Power is the RATE at which work is done, that is: work/time. The unit of power is the Watt. 1 Watt is 1 Joule per second.

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 5 years ago
2 likes

I'm definitely from the grind camp and prefer the higher resistance. Although I have fitted a chainset with shorter crank arms and a close ratio cassette in an attempt to persuade myself to increase cadence and also to open up a little more space between thigh and chest at top of stroke.

I guess a lot of what works for an individual is down to their muscle type and physiology. Now in my mid 50s I cannot say that years of grinding have had any noticeable detrimental affect on my knees and I'm still pretty competitive up hill, preferring to go up a gear for short out of the saddle efforts, and going down to spin up longer inclines.

With power meters now so readily available, it should be fairly straight forward to find out what works best for you. Personally I can't be arsed with all that data logging. At this stage of the game the only truth it is likely to confirm is my decline into decreptitude.

Avatar
RobD | 5 years ago
1 like

It's only my own anecdotal experience, but I find around 90-95 my usual comfortable cadence, if I've been riding more regularly then it often increases a little bit so that it sits more comfortably at 100-105 when I'm pushing on a little. Too low a cadence feels like more effort for the same speed.

I guess this is the problem with the 'you should be doing this' type rules, they don't suit everybody's biomechanics and activity history. A bigger study with some more specifically measurable parameters might be good.

Avatar
NorthEastJimmy | 5 years ago
0 likes

I actually found increasing my cadence from 75 to 90 relatively easy. 

 

Wish they would say the same about running cadence though, that has been (still is) a nightmare to increase from 140 to the recommended 170-180.

Avatar
PRSboy | 5 years ago
0 likes

The study to me is odd because it ignores the training aspect, thus making the statement irrelevant.

It takes time to learn to pedal efficiently at higher RPM, so of course there will be wasted energy if someone's technique is not yet up to par.

There are some interesting sessions on TrainerRoad where you are encouraged to do the same interval at high and low RPMs, then assess how your legs feel.  I find higher cadence spinning uses more muscle groups (so intuitively spread the load), where low rpms feel more quad-intensive.

Presumably we can do our own non-scientific test easy enough... well-rested and on two separate occasions with similar weather conditions do the same two hour + loop, targeting a low then high cadence.  Do a ramp test after each and see how it goes both on a raw power perspective, and also percieved exertion.

 

Avatar
peted76 | 5 years ago
1 like

So, the study is a load of bollocks then. 

I'll stick to high and low cadence drills, spinning as best I can up hills and my usual 80-90 average cadence, thank you very muchly. 

 

Avatar
Judge dreadful | 5 years ago
0 likes

It depends how much power you’re making at the high Cadence. High force High cadence pedalling is more efficient than high force low Cadence pedalling, if you’re not making sufficient power for the muscle’s fuelling efficiency to negate the extra  effort involved in moving your legs around that fast, it’s a waste of time. I’m guessing they are talking about a nodder making 70 Watts at 90 rpms not being efficient, which is right.

Avatar
madcarew replied to Judge dreadful | 5 years ago
0 likes

Judge dreadful wrote:

It depends how much power you’re making at the high Cadence. High force High cadence pedalling is more efficient than high force low Cadence pedalling, if you’re not making sufficient power for the muscle’s fuelling efficiency to negate the extra  effort involved in moving your legs around that fast, it’s a waste of time. I’m guessing they are talking about a nodder making 70 Watts at 90 rpms not being efficient, which is right.

Have you got anything to back up the idea "High force High cadence pedalling is more efficient than high force low Cadence pedalling" as it's contrary to most studies I've seen. The main idea of high cadence is generally that it requires a lower pedal force (for the same power output) than a lower cadence, which helps delay fatigue. Efficiency seems generally to be unaffected, though everyone has their own sweetspot (typically between 80 and 100 rpm).

Avatar
Nick T | 5 years ago
1 like

This study is at least 8 years too early - we haven’t all bought into sub-compact chainsets for more efficient riding yet, so they can’t sell us standards all over again off the back of this hot new take

Avatar
cdean | 5 years ago
2 likes

I definitely find it easier to complete higher wattage intervals on the turbo at a higher cadence. If I go into them at too low a cadence then sometimes I’ll struggle to hold a wattage that I’d happily do at a higher cadence. 

Avatar
shay cycles | 5 years ago
2 likes

Headline is very misleading.

Lazy use of language or trying to say something the article does not? An amateur cyclist is not the same thing as a recreational cyclist.

Had the cyclists in the (far too small) sample been amateur, i.e. sporting cyclists who will alredy be physiologically adapted to a higher cadence than recreational cyclists then the results would clearly be different.

With a sample size so small I'm surprised any journal that takes itself seriously would even consider publication.

Avatar
OnTheRopes | 5 years ago
2 likes

I would suggest their "Leisure cyclist" means your average Mum or Dad going for a ride from the campsite a dozen times a year. I would thinl their "Professionals" should include any trained amateur and that they perhaps are not aware of how trained the amateur can be.

Avatar
Accessibility f... | 5 years ago
9 likes

Do people actually worry about this?  Unless you're a pro, why not just.....ride your bike?

Avatar
CXR94Di2 | 5 years ago
2 likes

Spinning has many benefits, efficiency, fatigue resistance, speed of acceleration and knee/ joint protection.

 

   I use 90-95 rpm for early part of multi hour rides whuch saves my legs for the back end of the day.  

Avatar
risoto | 5 years ago
0 likes

I knew it. Had this exact thought on my last ride. Another fancy idea. Look at the peloton 20-40 years ago. They used high gears grinding away. Spinning fast also wears your crank, chain, gears and pedals out faster. More sales? Could it be another case of following the money? I feel more efficient using high gears. Maybe your body reacts differently.

Avatar
chapod | 5 years ago
4 likes

What is the point in these studies? How about everybody should just cycle at the cadence that allows them to lay down the most power for the required duration. 

FWIW, when I was racing my threshold efforts were at about 105rpm. This is just what felt right for producing that kind of effort. Torque efficiency on my power meter agreed. 

 

Avatar
tom_tom | 5 years ago
2 likes

This does not sound too reliable: study of 9... seriously?

Avatar
spen replied to tom_tom | 5 years ago
1 like

tom_tom wrote:

This does not sound too reliable: study of 9... seriously?

 

That's a normal sample size for this type of study.  Easily applied to general population!

Pages

Latest Comments