Cycling cadence: how fast should you pedal?

The logic that was taught to me was (when racing) if you have 2 riders on a climb, 1 is spinning at 90-100 rpm and another at 70-80 rpm (obviously extreme but to make the point)  The one spinning slower has a better chance to attack as  they have the ability to increase their cadance to accelarate away. The one already spinning fast can only really go up a gear which is more than likely going to effect their speed just at the wrong time by slowing their cadance down momentarily while they go up a gear. That may be possible to do but so can the slower cadance rider too negating any advantage. if you're not racing then just get up in the gear that feels most comfortable and sustainable

Perhaps the most important question is what can you do about it (or even should you)?

I don't ride with cadence or heart meter now - I've got enough miles and experience.

When I took up road cycling seriously in my early 50s, I was a grinder and my cadence was probably down in the 60s. I picked up on the idea of higher cadence and found that I spun out at around 80 - anything higher and there was no power. I decided to work on that and mainly I did this by deliberately sitting down while climbing hills as well as deliberately trying to keep to 80rpm by using the gears. As I was increasing fitness at the same time I wouldn't ascribe all the improvements simply to altering cadence, but I do remember the first time I hit over 100rpm to get over a bump to keep up and it worked.

These days I can use a low cadence when coasting, a medium cadence while cruising and a high cadence for bursts - horses for courses.

The main benefit seems to be less cramps though my default cadence is more like 80, which seems to match what most of my group use, aside from some of the real old timers who chug along forever at what looks like about 20rpm!

Without some practice, you don't get the option -options are good!

A shame Bradley Wiggins and Victor Campenaerts didn't read this article before their world hour record breaking rides, they could have reduced their cadence by about 45 rpm and gone even further

Recycling:  how fast should articles on cycling websites be reposted?  (without any indication that this is being done, until you scroll down to the comments and see it is over a year old)

I think the key thing really is the point about the lower glycogen useage at the higher cadence ( at sufficient power, engaging the fast twitch fibres ) it might not be the 'best' way for non sporting type riders, but if you're doing the sort of ride where you risk real glycogen depletion  causing issues with the bonk, high cadence suitable force pedalling will eek the carbs out for as long as possible. There is an added bonus in cycling like that as well,  because the  reduction in the number of muscle cells being used at high cadence sufficient force when the fast twitch muscles primarily engaged, compared with a technique favouring the slow twitch muscles, means the oxygen demand is also reduced. 

Ok...the most important question here....

If you increase your pedalling efficiency by 4% by dropping your cadence...what real world effects would this have?

Power increase by 10%?

Ability to ride longer, harder? How much?

Faster? If you were travelling at 20mph over 10 miles and your pedalling efficiency increased by 4%...will you go faster?

I looked at mapped ride. A 1 metre climb/drop per 1km on local road when fresh with build. Very smooth road, return loop. 20km ride I enjoyed 240rpm if I read mathematics correct. 50-15 driving a 700c at 32.5kmph.
Hence 3.9 spins per second.

Like Fixation80 wrote, it's an individual thing. I normally prefer tall yet it felt easier to push the wind using power rather than shear force. I ain't the strongest cyclist but if your coordination can adapt to using less force at a higher repetitive rate then recovery from such would likely be faster due to more smaller amounts of body use rather than a large amount of abb use and our abilities to heal being dispersed /dilute rather than a large idle body and a small section doing a larger repair.

Seen a lovely old steel racer today. 2*6 speed on a horizontal drop out. Anyway, my old mate kept telling me to pay attention and stop looking at his bike. Lol.
Too much rust, needs wheels, it'd be a perfect fixie on 32mm roadies.
Aim a gear that'll climb 3%, short 5% and that'll help your cadence IMO.
It helped me. I talled out my 32mm roadbike and stuffed it up a bit. Tall 52-12, short 39-23 but flat pedals soon and walking up.
The used fixie rolls 90 gear inch and riding that feels great. Is a slow climb but on flats feels inspiring around 35-40 kmph.

I'm confused.
27*50/15=90
1million575 inches per 40 km.
Hence 290 revs per minute on 90 gear inch at 40kmph. Must have been while bucking like a racing stallion down the long 2-3% declines.
In my opinion, fixies help improve Cadence as do short cogs and long climbs.

My knees are screwed. Both are close to replacement status. Consequently I find that pushing a higher gear is easier on them. Twiddling hurts, pushing doesn't. I am not talking pushing a 52/11 up a 20 %hill but around 60 to 70 rpm is best. Its also less tiring on the legs in the long term.  I don't do huge miles , maybe 120 to 200 a week so can't comment on the effects over long distances. I am most definitely faster in TTs when pushing . I think that the feeding issue is a red herring. I doubt few of us have to worry about saving energy really. You just pop in another biccy or gel on day rides and you are not going to go empty on an hour or so are you?

Some results in time trials throw the high cadence  theory into the air. The BAR (best all rounder) competition has been won by a guy, twice, with a sixty eight chainring. The BAR is a competition over 50 mile, 100 miles and a most distance in12 hours. The winner declared he is much more in control of breathing and effort at sixty revs a minute. Speed (average) over the three disciplines was, on both occasions just over 27 mph. Near or at 30 mph over the 50 mile and 100 mile events.

Chris Boardman once said cadence was an individual thing without hard and fast rules, I believe that also.

Slower might be more efficient in terms of converting the least oxygen into the most power at the cranks, but it's a balance between that and the damage caused to muscle fibres in the process. 

That perception of force at the pedals is related to how much damage you're causing to the fibres, and there's a finite amount of damage your body can tolerate before it says that you have to stop.  If you can reduce the perceived force in each pedal stroke, you cause less damage and can complete more pedal strokes, there's clearly an equilibrium point somewhere and in experienced cyclists I'd guess that probably accounts for the apparent mismatch between people's 'chosen' cadence and the most mechanically efficient cadence.

You should pedal at a cadence and power, which results in  the fast twitch muscles firing at a force and frequency which results in them being dominant in procedings. The Fast twitch muscles ( and only the fast twitch muscles ) feed differently, according to their ‘usage mode’  relatively high force, high frequency firing, will result in the feeding equilibrium being pushed towards fat feeding, in preference to carb / Glycogen / triglyceride fuelling. The same high force, but lower frequency ‘firing’ will keep the fast twitch muscles dominant, but will push the feeding equilibrium, to carb / triglyceride / Glycogen . This mode is a less oxygen efficient process, because more muscle cells are engaged so you’ll use more  of your available blood oxygen relative to when the switching mode is pushed towards fat feeding. The upshot is, that you’ll stay out of anaerobic respiration, and lactate production, for longer, at a given intensity. You have to be pedalling at a power and cadence that causes the fast twitch muscles to be dominant, because the slow burn muscles don’t exhibit the same differentiation in feeding equilibrium, dependent on how they are engaged, ( the ‘feeding equilibrium’ doesn’t shift, if you vary the  force and frequency of the contractions, as is the case with the fast twitch muscles) TL;DR most people  should pedal at 90 rpm and 150 Watts to be in the ‘peak efficiency’ zone. It depends on exact dimensions and density of the muscles, and you need the requisite VO2 max, and max heart rate, to enable it to work, but a reasonably fit, average sized, regular cyclist, with decent pedal dynamics / technique, will find most benefit ( efficiency wise ) at about 90 rpms, and about 150 Watts. It may not be the ‘fastest’ way, but it will be the most efficient way.

"We all saw that article last week..." and the link goes to an article from February 14 2019.

Yet another hastily recycled article as column filler.

Don’t be daft, Olympic sprinters like Hoy only run 94”

124" - 127" - 134"!!! FFS - I take it you guys are world class sprinters discussing the ratios you're using for 200m qualyfying?!?

isnt high cadency also about avoiding small and inefficient cassette cogs? in my personal experience 11t is pretty much unusable; speed will not likely increase if you go from 12t to 11t.

i avoid smaller cogs than 12t. on my road bike i even have 13 as the smallest. and a 61t chainwheel. so nice to have a top gear where speed actually increases if you pedal harder:)

isnt high cadency also about avoiding small and inefficient cassette cogs? in my personal experience 11t is pretty much unusable; speed will not likely increase if you go from 12t to 11t.

i avoid smaller cogs than 12t. on my road bike i even have 13 as the smallest. and a 61t chainwheel. so nice to have a top gear where speed actually increases if you pedal harder:)