Is there a specific way to find out what one’s “best” cadence is?

I’ve been doing some high end work of late, and despite the fact that my “trend” as advised by my own reading is for high cadence as I don’t have particularly strong legs, I tried pushing bigger gears / lower cadence than usual yesterday and it seemed to work for me – higher averages/faster climbing.

I’m now thinking that I’ve been changing down too early to ensure I’m whirring he cranks and am losing speed as a result, so I’d like to find out if I need to change my perceived optimum – or do I just go by “feel” via output vs tiredness?

This was on a road bike btw.

Try popping on the turbo and riding at a range of cadences at the same power for, say, 10 mins at a time. Monitor HR and PE, see what’s best for you.

I think optimum for me varies a bit with power. Higher power time trial type scenario usually about 88. Where pace is more variable then it’s higher. Longer rides also tends to be higher, less fatiguing than pushing a big gear for me (avg tends to be around 93). Throw in more frequent gear changes and a higher cadence works better. Climbing is a bit different again as you need to push more through the dead spot so a lower cadence works best.

It depends on the ride/race as well.

On long endurance stuff I will deliberately drop a gear and spin. On a 10m TT I’ll do the opposite and deliberately go up one gear and push harder. If it is a short ride you can probably push a bigger gear and suffer to go faster but on an epic ride you may crack before the end if you work too hard.

I’ve always gone off feel and perceived effort since I don’t have a power meter. I know how hard I can push for how long so judge my effort and gearing accordingly.

Interestingly I climb in a low gear. I sit and spin unless it is really steep. I find this tactic works in hill climb as well – so it is a lot of personal preference.

As above, it depends. My cadence will be higher on longer rides. On steeper short climbs I much prefer standing and pushing a bigger gear than sitting and spinning, despite this not being as efficient it gives my legs a nice stretch as often I’ve been pushing quite hard whilst seated into the flat / gentle part of the climb.

When I really sprint for a short flatish segment (say 1- 2 mins) I find that I am quickest spinning up to 110

Experiment.

I tend to keep to around 90-100 rpm as I find it enables me to cover undulations without much perceived effort. On the steeper stuff this drops to around 70-80 rpm,

One’s ‘best’ or most efficient cadence can be calculated using work done / energy expended or power output / rate of energy expenditure and may not be your fastest or quickest effort.

Work done and power is pretty much speak for themselves, but calculating energy expenditure or the metabolic response accurately is a little more tricky. As long as you are working sub-max, you can determine energy expenditure on the basis of oxygen consumption (VO2) and the respiratory quotient (RQ) at a given cadence.

This is where the fun begins, as you have gross efficiency, net efficiency and work efficiency. So you could have a higher work efficiency but a lower gross efficiency for a given work rate.

The top and tail of it is that research says we are actually pretty good at self-selecting optimum efficiency anyway.

^^ this +1

A few years back I made a conscious effort to up my cadence, having wrung out the mid 70’s as an average upto now upper 80’s I feel much better and actually gives me more power.

All achieved by taking cadence, heart rate, power output and tracking effort over selected course distance and terrain.

You’ve got the opportunity, try it.

You’ll loose nothing by giving it a go, but may gain an extended range in your cadence.

This^^^ plus 2. All that I have read on the subject has said that the cadence you naturally use is mostly the most efficient for you.

It’s personal so experiment is best policy IME

The high candence mantra was best suited to Armstrong for specific reasons and then became gospel. Was it the same for Ullrich? No.

I am more of an Ullrich than and Armstrong in terms of cadence but have nonetheless moved towards higher cadences and lower gears. Found it hard to start, but now much prefer spinning up hills that trying to beat them. It’s like hitting golf shots into the wind – better not trying to overpower nature, you end up losing.

Optimum cadence depends on power and leg strength. If you have small legs, like me, them since power = force x velocity, lower forces must accompany higher (pedal) velocity. My race cadence is 105 rpm. My just riding along cadence is 95 rpm. Bigger riders who apply more force may have a lower optimum, but it is unlikely to be below 80 rpm based on academic studies I’ve read.

I ride fixed a lot to improve my pedal efficiency and cadence.

It’s quite important really not to confuse different terms. One person’s idea of their ‘best’ cadence may be completely different to someone else’s, and so comes the joys of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. It really depends on how you define the term ‘best’.

didn’t GCN do a youtube vid on that topic a while back? slightly scientific in that it was at a uni department, but with the non-scientific sample of one.
don’t recall the actual outcome of the numbers, but I think the effective outcome would have been to ride the way you are comfortable with.

For me it depends on everything, bike/terrain/temp/distance. Just sticking to road bikes, on the heavy bike I notice when the temp goes up so does my cadence, I’ll be poncing about at 85-90 in the winter then it heats up a bit and I’m sitting at 90-95. Stick me on the race bike (3kg lighter/50mm tubs) and I’m spinning away at 100-105 without a thought. Weirdly I feel like I can’t hold the same high cadence on the heavy bike as the light one which is odd! I’m not sure if this is due to the lighter weight or that zip feeling you get off faster wheels?? I don’t worry about it to much to be honest, go by feel, sometimes I’ll have “heavy legs” and prefer a slower spin sometimes they’re light and spin like ****. I think as long as you’re in the range of about 85-110 depending on physique you’re not doing anything wrong, you’ll likely already be spinning at pretty much optimum. There is no magic bullet.

Hmmm..tricky, what’s your average speed?

You can change your preferred cadence by practice, so just checking what gives best results today might not tell you what you want to know, it probably just tells you what you happen to have got used to. I don’t believe that “natural” cadence is necessarily efficient, I have made gains in both cycling and running by pushing up my naturally low cadence to around 90. Felt really weird for running with little pitter patter steps (I’m big and not all that quick) but I’m used to it now and it greatly reduces fatigue over loger runs.

I think it depends on the size of your legs. The heavier they are the more energy needs to go into moving the mass up and down in addition to your forward motion. If you want to feel this wasted energy try putting your bike in bottom gear and pedalling as fast as you can. You won’t be going very fast but you’ll be knackered pretty quickly!

However pedalling technique is crucial. I suppose if you have poor technique you’d be better off at lower cadence.

I tried this out today, as I had 6 x 3 min FTP 125% internals to do,on the turbo. Quite obviously, I found myself breathing hard on about 110, and muscular pain at 88. On all intervals I was trying to be consistent around the pedal stroke rather than mash.

Except for the last one wher I just settled for au natural. Ended up with an average cadence of 95, burning quads and bug eyes staring at the wall trying to get the power out – but it was the most consistent power output of all the intervals.