And that leads to the question of crank length - the longer the crank, the more leverage you get to maximise your torque; but your transmission has to be strong enough withstand the pressures (i.e. your hips, knees, ankles, down to your sesamoid bones).

Riders with strong and stable lower body structure can utilise the long cranks to maximise power output at lower revs, while lighter built riders or riders with biomechanical imperfections are more likely to be better off putting less force into each stroke but revving faster to produce the same power output.

For me the optimal cadence varies depending on speed - at low gear ratios I feel more efficient pushing the biggest gear I can at 80-90; by the time I get into the top quarter of my gear range I feel more efficient spinning closer to 100. Without precise measuring equipment the whole thing becomes very subjective; I generally base my assessment of pedalling efficiency on how well I can sustain a particular level of effort.

fatwombat wrote:And that leads to the question of crank length - the longer the crank, the more leverage you get to maximise your torque;

another word for leverage is gearing. most of us have ~13 gears and don't need to obsess over 2.5mm of crank length. longer cranks only provide benefit if they make you more comfortable.

i have large slow moving muscles and i find that high load, low rpm is much less fatiguing than spin.

Spinning is easily learnt. at 90rpm its not fast twitch as has been mentioned. I would consider 100-120 spinning, 85-100 in the range of most riders and below that you need to do some work on just firing the muscles in the right patterns. IF TTs are you thing then just making power (max sustainable speed) it doesnt matter what cadence gives you that. If you are road racing or MTB racing then you will need to learn all candences for accelerations, down hills and sprints.

to learn spinning just force youself to do spinning reps for as long as you feel confortable then back off and repeat. I have got riders to incease cadence from in 80s to over 100 without transplanting muscle types or gaining less race results(not saying thats causual).

fatwombat wrote:And that leads to the question of crank length - the longer the crank, the more leverage you get to maximise your torque; but your transmission has to be strong enough withstand the pressures (i.e. your hips, knees, ankles, down to your sesamoid bones).

And yet over time trials, people are finding that shorter cranks are faster....

crank-length-t94194.html

Having thought about cadence I went out for a ride last night and focussed on it, along with better pedaling technique (something else I'm working on) and so maintained 90+ RPM for about 12-13 minutes over an 8km stretch of mostly flattish road - from Waikanae to Paraparaumu, a bit rolling but nothing much.
Set a new PB for the distance, and knowing I could have held it easily for another couple of k's found that doing so increased my avg speed over the distance by about 2kph, although there was a tail wind too, so this is not really a valid test. Noticed the heart rate was nice and high with the higher cadence, but don't have a problem with that. I've given up using my HRM anyway so that was just from perceived effort......I was breathing harder than normal.

Have a look at this:
http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fulls ... est%20News

even they dont say what is high or low cadence! was Ulrich really a masher with sub 80 rpm? or just the lower range of "normal" racing cadences?

Well heres a curve ball..im my opinion each cyclist has a optimum cadence range..one at which your HR will stabilise, and one at which you are comfortable. This is based on the fact that we are all genetically made different..thats why some people can run faster than others..purely genetic muscle make up.

I dont agree with that nonsense about some are grinders etc. If you watch all of the pros in races like Roubaix and the likes..they all pedal well over 90rpm..probably closer to 100rpm..so dont be fooled that because they are super strong..the grind..they dont..they just pedal a big gear fast...just watch Cancellara...or look at our own Michael Vink when he smashed the NZ TT record...his cadence is around 100-110rpm in a 53x14-11

As for high cadence producing less lactate..I would suggest the opposite...the higher the cadence..the higher the HR the higher the lactate

nzmatto wrote:....Set a new PB for the distance.....I was breathing harder than normal.

no shit

Hendy was doing 6 hours at 110rpm..at altitude...

gydey wrote:As for high cadence producing less lactate..I would suggest the opposite...the higher the cadence..the higher the HR the higher the lactate

possibly not quite taken right - probably cause of my wording....my understanding is a higher cadence will be more efficient than grinding, so should produce less lactic acid, HOWEVER, only to a point. once you start moving into using the fast twitch fibres the lactic acid will indeed build up faster.
I guess for someone like me it would be sort of 70-85 rpm too slow pushing too hard, will create sore muscles (lactic acid??? - I dunno) 85-105rpm seems to be more efficient for me, I am not working too hard (unless pushing bigger gears like last night) I feel comfortable and can hold this pretty much for as long as I need to. 110+ RPM I can only hold this for a limited amount of time (about 5 minutes) before the legs (and heart rate) start feeling it. 130+ RPM sprint only, legs get buggered really quickly.

I agree with those saying we are all different, it is in the genetics, but is a matter of us working out what our personal best zones are, and it is not just a matter of lactic acid build up, but at what heart rate, and is our work sustainable.

gydey wrote:Hendy was doing 6 hours at 110rpm..at altitude...

Your an evil man

nzmatto wrote:possibly not quite taken right - probably cause of my wording....my understanding is a higher cadence will be more efficient than grinding

Other way, low cadences are more efficient in terms of O2 use, HR or Metabolism than high cadences. What one should not assume is that this efficiency will = better performances.

, so should produce less lactic acid, HOWEVER, only to a point. once you start moving into using the fast twitch fibres the lactic acid will indeed build up faster.

That is where people misunderstand the role of muscle fibres. If one did a lot of training behind the motorbike they would become very effective at riding 160-200 rpm and not use their fast twitch muscle fibres.

I guess for someone like me it would be sort of 70-85 rpm too slow pushing too hard, will create sore muscles (lactic acid??? - I dunno)

Just muscular soreness. Lactate only really kicks in when the Type 2a muscle fibres kick in and that means riding well above your aerobic threshold. And this would only be if doing something new as the muscle will adapt to any demands imposed on it. Hence why I keep my strength or speed blocks pretty short as the improvements taper off very quickly.

85-105rpm seems to be more efficient for me, I am not working too hard (unless pushing bigger gears like last night) I feel comfortable and can hold this pretty much for as long as I need to. 110+ RPM I can only hold this for a limited amount of time (about 5 minutes) before the legs (and heart rate) start feeling it. 130+ RPM sprint only, legs get buggered really quickly.

Horses for courses. To break NZ U17 records on restricted gears (53x17 is the max) they have to pedal 140rpm to hit the 2000m record, 157 to break the 500m and 167 to break the flying 200m so time spent training and racing on small gears helps them to race at these cadences. It was funny watching the NZ team with Dylan Kennett in the stands as the TP riders were doing big gear 500m efforts all around or below his new National record and then the sprinters were going 2 sec faster than he did in big gears for multiple reps. He rode 34.3 on a 47x15 gear and 19mm tyres while Anna Meares set her WR of sub 34 on a 45x13.

I agree with those saying we are all different, it is in the genetics, but is a matter of us working out what our personal best zones are, and it is not just a matter of lactic acid build up, but at what heart rate, and is our work sustainable.

My curve ball is ignore HR and lactate as they are a response to exercise and focus on power as this is the stimulus to performance (taken into account with all forms of resistance like air, friction, rolling, injury, flexibility, mental) and work on increasing power and finding a cadence that works for you.

So to answer the question (with the best answer for everything)...

It Depends