no need for high cadence

[trevor brooker]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190212120114.htm

Pedalling at cadence greater than 90 revolutions per minute is advantageous for professional cyclists, but appears inefficient for recreational cyclists.

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.

 

[Woosh]

Pedalling at cadence greater than 90 revolutions per minute is advantageous for professional cyclists, but appears inefficient for recreational cyclists.

high cadence is needed for crank drive bikes, especially with torque sensor.
You get more power with the cadence, put less stress on the motor and transmission.

 

[sjpt]

Different people's idea of high cadence are very different. 90 is decidedly high for me. The Bosch range assistant seems to give very similar range results over a wide variation of cadence; with a peak at 70 to 89 but not very much change significantly outside that peak. When I get lazy (cadence 50???) the gear suggestion indicator often suggests lower gear, higher cadence.

 

[Woosh]

I always recommend a cadence of 70+ for CD bikes.
Maximum power is usually optimised at 90 RPM.

 

[flecc]

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.

The risk at low cadences is more a matter of joint damage, particularly the knees which cyclists often damage.

Slogging up hills at very low cadences like 40 is very damaging and a good way to ensure suffering severe arthritis in older age. In high load circumstances like hills it's always best to change down and keep at 60 or more cadence.
.

 

[mike killay]

I would have thought that high cadence is simply wasting energy in moving your legs rather than propelling the bike.

 

[Woosh]

@ Roberticus

you reacted with an 'offensive language' - may I ask why?

 

[anotherkiwi]

I would have thought that high cadence is simply wasting energy in moving your legs rather than propelling the bike.

Comfort. I am happy at 90 -> 100, especially on the trike. Here is a graph done by boffins in white coats showing the sweet spot is between 82 and 94 for most people:



Not that you can produce more power pedalling backwards then forwards. Now there is a design challenge for bike builders!

 

[Nefarious]

Cadence, for me at least, is much more about comfort than worrying what the motor is doing with it. Too low and you risk joint damage, as others have said, too high and you get that uncomfortable spinning feeling when there is not enough resistance. I've never actually looked at what the actual number is on my display (I am always more interested in knowing my speed) but you know when you're in the zone!

 

[sjpt]

Comfort. I am happy at 90 -> 100, especially on the trike.

That is the sweet spot for generating maximum power. More important for most of us is most efficient for generating required amount of power. And by 'efficient' I don't just mean energy consumed, but also comfort and prevention of joint damage (as others have said).

I think for me the sweet spot is probably around 80 watts, 65 rpm. I haven't measured my cadence for many years, and only every measured my power output on silly stationary machines that require much to low a cadence.

 

[Woosh]

best compromise may be a torque sensor rear geared hub bike.
You can pedal at any RPM you like and still save on wear and tear.

 

[flecc]

I would have thought that high cadence is simply wasting energy in moving your legs rather than propelling the bike.

Why do you think race riders typically use around 90 cadence, often higher? It's because it's more efficient using less energy than slogging, with being less physically damaging as a bonus.
.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I have a CD and found that between 70 to 85 cadence (depending on the climb gradient) gives the best boost from the motor. I find if I am struggling in a higher gear, the bike will be as well, the range is less, the boost not very effective, and it just feels stressed. Change down to a more suitable gear for the climb, cadence goes up, bike and I are much happier.

 

[Roberticus]

Woosh,

Sorry but have no idea what you mean.
I haven't posted in this thread and certainly haven't written anything offensive !
Unless there is another Roberticus ? Possible but unlikely !
Regards,
Rob

Ps sorry can't do the 'quotes' thingy

 

[Nealh]

Woosh,

Sorry but have no idea what you mean.
I haven't posted in this thread and certainly haven't written anything offensive !
Unless there is another Roberticus ? Possible but unlikely !
Regards,
Rob

Ps sorry can't do the 'quotes' thingy

Have a look at post #4 bottom rh corner, click on 'show all' and your name comes up against the 'offensive language' emcion.

 

[Roberticus]

Hi, thanks for that, but I still don't understand why it says that.
All I have done so far is read the thread , I haven't posted anything until my first reply to you.

 

[Nefarious]

Hi, thanks for that, but I still don't understand why it says that.
All I have done so far is read the thread , I haven't posted anything until my first reply to you.

I suppose you must have inadvertently 'reacted' to post #4 without realising it. If you hover your mouse over the smiley on any post in the thread, you will see all the available reactions, the offensive language one being on the far right. You can remove any reactions made by mistake in the same way!

 

[KeithH]

"The risk at low cadences is more a matter of joint damage, particularly the knees which cyclists often damage." etc
Hi Flecc
Just interested to know if there's any published evidence for this especially the later arthritis.
BW
Keith

 

[Woosh]

Just interested to know if there's any published evidence for this especially the later arthritis.

I have arthritis, so I am quite sensitive to the effect of prolonged high pressure on the joints, especially knee joint pain.
Pressure = pain = torque
so less torque = less pain. For the same amount of resulting power, the torque is inversely proportional to the angular speed or RPM.

 

[KeithH]

True, if you've already got arthritic joints. I'm not sure about causation. Stairs exacerbate arthritic pain but walking upstairs didn't necessarily cause them in the first place.
K