“Macintosh and his co-workers have shown that optimal cadence for 100, 200, 300 and 400w cycling occurs at 57, 70, 86 and 99rpm respectively(9). This casts some doubt on the age-old advice that cyclists should aim for 95rpm because ‘that’s what the pros do’. Sadly though, we don’t all generate 400 watts in time trial and fast climb efforts! In fact, in a review of studies in this area, scientists concluded that ‘the choice of a relatively high cadence during cycling at low to moderate intensity is uneconomical and could compromise performance during prolonged cycling’(10)”

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/cycling-training-can-your-pedalling-technique-make-you-a-more-efficient-rider-42241

So, if you aren’t bashing out 400W, you don’t necessarily need to spin like lance.

Not the best of timing to be linking to theory based on the Texan’s miraculous fitness improvements.

Unless you can match this up to a 400-450 watt sustained efforts or greater you are just making yourself great at pressing down on air, not forcing the pedals downwards!

no point in just spinning fast, you need some sort of impedance in the pedals. I think of it like an engine – you have a power delivery curve that has an optimal revs point, according to the load on the engine.

Ride rollers: these consist of a simple three-barrel device, which is becoming increasingly overlooked now widescreen training systems can be connected to an indoor trainer. However, efficient track cyclists, time trialists and cyclo-cross riders use rollers as part of their efficient riding programme. Short-term observations suggest the smooth pedal style that balancing on such an unforgiving surface gives can equate to 1-2% improvement in efficiency measures.

sounds sensible.

Vary cadence deliberately, from very low cadence hills (eg 50rpm in a big gear with smooth, controlled pressure) up to fast spinning brief eight-second sprints to ignite lots of muscle fibres. There’s more than one cadence sweet spot or one speed of riding. By keeping it varied, the nervous system, muscles and energy systems have to adapt.

also sounds sensible

Not the best of timing to be linking to theory based on the Texan’s miraculous fitness improvements.

Indeed. I saw a pro rider on another forum recently say something like: “At least now people might stop telling me that the art of climbing is to ride with a higher cadence in a higher gear than my competitors”

Without knowing how the research was done this all means nothing

The athletes in this study produced 400W at 99 rpm. I asume this was their aerobic limit?

So if my peak aerobic power is 300W do i use 86 rpm or 99 rpm?

We are also told on what basis 400W is best at 99 rpm. Most effecient or most power

any know if any of the actual research is online?