Symtex

I am reading how I should train at 80 rpm+ cadence for effiency but this is way too much for me. On my last ride, I was averaging ~ 55 rpm (12km ride). I am either too old and more out of shape than I thought I was.

FBinNY 

Cadence tends to increase with saddle time. If you want to force the issue a bit, try riding in the gear lower rather than higher of what may feel best.
Otherwise, be patient and your cadence will climb.

marimorimo

Are you trying to force a big gear? Drop the gear (much lower and lighter than you're used to) and you'll see your cadence climb. I also find it more efficient.

hueyhoolihan

it takes some level of fitness to do 80 RPM even with no resistance . if fitness is an issue one might just have to start with a lower gear or possibly lower RPM and work up from there.

yankeefan

Spinning (80+ RPM) puts more stress on your cardiovascular system, so if you are a new rider or someone who has no prior cardiovascular conditioning then spinning for an extended period of time will prove too strenuous. Practice riding in a lower gear and gradually as your aerobic fitness improves you will be able to hold a higher cadence. Having a bad bike fit can also make spinning more difficult (e.g. saddle too low).

asgelle

Then you're reading the wrong people. Studies repeatedly show the most efficient cadence is in the range 60-65 rpm, but then again, why is your goal to be more efficient? Most people train to be faster or maintain the same speed with less fatigue.

Symtex

It's about conservation of energy.

asgelle

If that's your goal, who am I to argue, but if you want to conserve energy, 60-65 rpm is where you should be. As for me, I concentrate on increasing speed and minimizing fatigue (though they're really the same thing), between the energy stored in the body, and what I can consume during a ride, I have more than enough energy available to reach my limits.

StanSeven

You may have misinterpreted conservation of energy and efficiency. A cadence of 60-65 is most efficient if you just want to putt along at a leisurely pace. It's fine for cruising the neighborhood or sight seeing. But it'd not what you want to do to get on better shape or increase distance and/or speed. That's where the 80 comes in.

There's nothing wrong with starting out at a slow cadence or even maintaining it for as long as you ride. But if you want go do more, it's easy to gradually increase it over time.

chaadster

Yes, or put another way, Asgelle is conflating gross metabolic efficency with efficient high-power production.

The former condition does suggest that lower cadences and corresponding low power production is metabolically efficient, however, in the latter condition, it's more efficient (in terms of sustainable duration) to produce high watts at higher RPMs.

asgelle

Actually I'm drawing a distinction between the two. Efficiency refers to the former. I have no idea what "efficient high power production" means nor how it might differ from regular old power production. If I were to guess, I think you mean power production that results in less fatigue, but to apply "efficiency" to this is confusing and ignores the accepted terminology.

Cyclist75354986865

My advise is just ride. After enough time riding your body will naturally adapt to comfortable pedal cadence. No one can tell you what the magic cadence is. As you start getting faster you will increase your cadence speed. Most important thing is just keep riding and have fun.

Atakuweh

I'm surprised that no one has yet mentioned how much greater a strain that slow-cadence cycling imparts on the knee joints. It's much easier on your knees to pedal at a higher cadence, regardless of what speed you're trying to maintain. And it also goes a long way toward conserving energy, allowing you to go further and faster. I see far too many casual cyclists pedaling at far too low a cadence, as though they don't know what all those gears on their bikes are for. Slow-cadence cycling tends to utilize more of the fast-twitch muscle fibers, which fatigue quickly. Fast-cadence cycling uses more of the slow-twitch muscle fibers, which can go and go all day long. Why do you think virtually all professional cyclists are pedaling at around 100 rpm or more most of the time? It's more efficient and it conserves energy. My target cadence has been 100 rpm for the past year, and I feel awkward when it dips below about 95. That how I know when I know it's time to shift. Above that, when I reach about 105 I know it's time to shift again.

chaadster

Hmm, I can accept that. Does "it's easier to produce more power at higher rpms than lower RPMs" work for you?

i was assuming that since we are talking about bike riding and training at higher RPMs, that generating more power, riding faster and riding further were the goals, and not maximizing biomechanical/metabolic efficiency which is really irrelevant to rideing, especially if you don't work to improve it through stressing the systems with increased work output, which brings us back to generating more watts, which is most easily achieved by turning higher RPMs (above the OP's stated range).

wallrat

Your cadence is pretty slow. Are you in a hilly or flat area? What's your gearing?

asgelle

The OP specifically stated the goal was to increase efficiency. Since that is rarely a goal worth pursuing, I just wanted to clarify that was really what was meant before I took him or her at their word.

Kimmo 

One thing that hasn't yet been mentioned (although knee strain hints at it), is that when you're spinning rather than mashing, you can pedal in circles rather than stomping on the pedals, and smoother power delivery is much more efficient.

It takes a while to train the muscle memory (there are techniques you can google), but once you're there it's like your feet are just floating on the pedals, and you're only concerned about being in the right gear and breathing.

chaadster

I think the core of this is oversimplified, inaccurate and extreme.

Pros are not turning 100rpm+ most of the time. When they are, they're not doing it save energy, but to produce watts. Turning higher cadence requires more energy, but it's the only way to produce the watts required for extended periods of time. Pros have the fitness and strength to grind out 70rpm climbs, to 90rpm cruising, and 120rpm sprints.

If you're spinning 100rpm most of the time, you're wasting energy and not developing leg strength.

Training high load/low rpm cycling is as important as training high cadence for well-rounded, capable cyclist. The best performances come when you combine the two: high load/high rpm for maximum watts.

Yes, of course low load/high RPM work is easiest on knees, but moderate load/moderate RPM work (80-90rpm) is just fine on knees too, in addition to being the sweet spot for most riders in terms of power/sustainability.

Atakuweh

Works for me - yours and other's results may vary. The only time I drop below 95 rpm is when I'm climbing, in which case I may drop down to the mid-80s. Otherwise I find 95-105 to be my best range, and 100 to be my sweet spot.

StanSeven

This is well said! It covers multiple areas where a lot of misperceptions exists, especially here.

Symtex

On the last quick run I did this friday.

Ascent time 0:09'32



Descent time 0:06'46



Flat time 0:23'18.7

gregf83 

Please stop using that word.

Kimmo 

I have NFI which word you're referring to. Perhaps some justification for your attempted chastisement is in order

gregf83 

Sorry I italicized 'efficiency' but it appears the whole quote gets italicized. There's no particular benefit to pedalling in circles and it's not more efficient.

Kimmo 

I'm not talking about pulling up on the back, I'm just talking about smooth power delivery that is self-evidently more efficient by minimising the amplitude of acceleration/deceleration oscillation.