New study finds that high cadence cycling offers no benefit to amateurs
 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0212120114.htm

Kind of a disheartening thing for me to read, as something I have been working on in my trainer sessions this offseason is boosting my natural cadence.

I'm shocked, shocked, I say.

It's useless.

What is a "recreational cyclist"?

If a high cadence is useful for "professional" cyclists, it might be useful for people who ride a lot. The study doesn't get anywhere near providing that information.

It shouldn't be surprising that a high cadence isn't useful for "casual" cyclists.

From the article: " Using a group of NINE volunteers,..." (my emphasis). Can't draw much of any conclusion with a study cohort of nine.

Is it the cadence or the intensity affecting their efficiency? Was there a comparison done with high intensity/low cadence?

Personally, I tend to be around 85-90rpm naturally, seems to work.

From the actual article
As far as I can tell there was no adaption or training period applied prior to the testing, so for them, "recreational" means new except for the 2 triathletes.

Not sure how useful the study is since it was done only at low power(125w+/-44). Here is the conclusion the researcher draw

With little to no power output a high cadence is just energy wasted flailing your legs around.

Nothing new here.

I bet we (bikeforums) could scare up 20-30 "amateur" riders with power meters and cadence sensors and compare power output vs average cadence
I hypothesize higher cadence is correlated with higher wattage, at decent power levels, say 200+ watts

No serious study can be done with only nine test subjects. To call this 'science" is to disparage real science.

Was this study done three time with this group and three times each with three other groups? or did some folks put up an ad on campus, only got nine volunteers, and are now making "Scientific Pronouncements" based on their own laziness and lack of perseverance?

Even worse, because the nine test subjects were form so many different classes of athletic activity, there can be no broad conclusions drawn---but these "scientists" did just that. they only tested two triathletes. Based on this, they extend their judgments to all athletes riding bikes? Would a triathlete have the same outcome as a pro cyclist? Would a sprinter have the same result as a climber or a rolleur? obviously not.

As I see it the parameters of his study were so arbitrary, the conclusions are invalid.

Without doing any measured testing, but having ridden all across the nation on every sort of terrain for several decades, I can deliver this nugget of wisdom: "For each cyclist, in each situation, there is a level of pedal pressure and rotation speed which provides the best utilization of the body's energy for locomotion."

Some days my lungs don't work, some days my legs are tired. On a recovery ride I spin faster and press less. This is Not less efficient for a Recovery ride, because using more pressure would do more muscle damage and waste the point of the ride.

Some days I attack hills like a madman knowing I will not make it up without having to slow way down to breathe and slow my heart. Some days I set a pace and motor up at that steady pace. Some days i spin like a crazy person, some days I mash. At different parts of different rides, I will use different pedaling techniques to suit my condition and the prevailing conditions.

The amount of pseudo-science getting published lately really sickens me.

Welcome to another Bike Forums episode of "Let's second-guess the peer-review process and dismiss any conclusions that are at variance with our own expectation bias."

(Assuming International Journal of Sports Medicine has a peer-review process.)

It's good to pay attention to new studies as they become available. It's also good to read with a critical eye. And even to follow your own common sense and experience. I bet many riders in here have ammassed more data covering more variety of cadence and intensity then the study considered. I've been riding with power for five years, a lot of you have been doing it much longer.

Actually, they seem to be saying that is not a problem,

"When cycling at low exercise intensity, skeletal muscle oxygenation is mostly unaffected by cadence,
indicating that the cardiopulmonary and circulatory systems can effectively meet the exercising muscles' demand."


but that at higher intensity (wattage?), the study subjects' muscles (surprise!) did not work as well as those of elite athletes.

​​​​​​My highest power on any given ride is almost always when I'm spinning big gears.

The danger is when a publication publishes a non-peer reviewed "study." The publisher, filling a role, has no interest in anything other than page-filler. The study author, filling his role, (negligently so,) is relying on the reader to "peer-review." The general public then gets the idea that since it was written, then it must be true. When nothing of the sort occured.

Publishers would do well to explicilty state whether a peer-review process had taken place, and the study authors would do well to provide laymen context.

Just saying: "In unfit/unconditioned riders, flailing legs around there isn't an observed benefit to flailing them around faster. This study excludes Fit/trained athletes at high output. This study has yet to be peer reviewed." Would do a lot to sow trust and credibility in the general public.

The sample size for a study should be based on the expected effect size and determined via a formal power analysis. Big effects require small samples. If this study had a power analysis, which isn't clear from the paper, then the findings are statistically valid by definition. If it didn't, we have no way of knowing.

It has an impact factor of 2.4, which puts it in the humble but respectable range for a clinical journal, so it presumably has a legitimate peer review process.

A rose by any other name. I think we are in general agreement. Cadence & intensity are 2 different things though. The study was done at 120watts intensity. The oxygen use at cadence is what they were studying.

Hypothesis based on my review:
General wasted energy in the athlete (thus an increased oxygen demand in the athlete or more specifically a deficiency in leg muscles) is probably caused by poor form & that's because they are untrained and uncoordinated in their motions. I used the words "flail around," but yeah, they don't do it as good as professionals. Muscle oxygen decreased at 90 rpm. Clearly there is a breaking point where the participants support systems get taxed. To which they concluded there was no benefit in performance in an untrained athlete.

Nothing said about the athletes rate of adaption in subsequent repeats of the activity...interesting & incomplete.

I'd like to see the oxygen use in a well coordinated and fit athlete both under a higher resistance and a low resistance 120 watt load at various cadences.

So ... your whole pompous post is based on an unexamined assumption? You didn't do the research to back up your claim, while ridiculing others for not accepting research blindly?

Pretty bad science there, mate. :D (I hope you know I am just joking. i wouldn't know a pompous post if i wrote one ... not that I would.)

Here is what the study's lead claims:

Lead author Dr Federico Formenti from King's College London said: "Pedalling at cadence greater than 90 revolutions per minute is advantageous for professional cyclists, but appears inefficient for recreational cyclists. When cycling at low exercise intensity, skeletal muscle oxygenation is mostly unaffected by cadence, indicating that the cardiopulmonary and circulatory systems can effectively meet the exercising muscles' demand.

"However, at a greater exercise intensity, high cadence reduces recreational cyclists' efficiency and skeletal muscle oxygenation, suggesting a reduced ratio between oxygen being delivered to and taken up by the exercising muscles."

Basically these scientists figured out that people who don't have very well developed vascularity in their thighs perform less well than those who do? Athletes are more athletic than non-athletes? That is worth a headline?

My point is ... calling out a specific number based on such a limited pool of test subjects is arbitrary. As i mentioned, at various times different cadences best suit different cyclists. Attaching a number based on such a limited pool of test results (really only two non-athletes) is not good science.

And frankly ... any of us could have told them what they would find if they had just asked. Athletes are more athletic.

And, more specifically .... pedaling too fast for the given conditions is inefficient, as is pedaling too slowly. part of learning to ride a bike well is learning your body's abilities. By attaching an arbitrary number, these "scientists" can create an impression as false as the one they purport to be disproving: "Recreational cyclists pedal at relatively lower exercise intensity, but often still adopt a high cadence presuming that the smoother blood flow keeps the exercising muscle well oxygenated."

I would even question that assumption. How many "recreational cyclists" did they question? Why didn't those "recreational cyclists" take part in the study to broaden its base? Where did that initial assumption come from anyway?

As for "peer-reviewed": shared prejudice exists in the scientific community as well is in any other. And in this case ... "peer review" if it was done at all, might be no more than having the editorial staff (or the "peer review board," generally just some volunteers) look at whether the data was recorded correctly and interpreted correctly. Is a peer review board going to question the basic assumption that recreational cyclists pedal too rapidly?

In effect, posts here are "peer-reviewed" to a more exacting standard, because our peer group is more narrowly focused. :D

let me be clear---I do not believe that these people invented their data, nor am I questioning their methodology. I am fairly sure they tested nine people and found a trend of decreasing oxygenation after approximately 90 rpm in some of the subjects under some conditions.

I am questioning whether a sample size of nine, of which two were triathletes and two not athletes at all, can properly represent the general cycling community to such a degree that a specific number---"90 rpm"---can be assigned as the make-or-break point of efficient cycling for "recreational cyclists." Does this study even closely define "recreational cyclist." If not, that itself is a fatal flaw.

This is equivalent, to me, to a scientist observing the moon during a lunar eclipse and then publishing a headline which says that the moon regularly darkens every evening. Not enough data to sustain the claim. But this is science nowadays. To get funding, to get tenure, to get raises, scientists must publish, and no one pays attention to dull conclusions. So we see a lot of overblown headlines which don't really reflect the data.

Did you read the actual study or only the article?

Anyone that has done a reasonable amount of riding will know more about what cadence works for them.
Just go for a fast group ride and your body will tell you what cadence it wants to pedal at to give you the best chance of hanging on.
Amazing what these "scientists" will study/publish. Especially when it has been done so many times and better already.

Keep in mind the reason power meters work so well for calories is that the variation between cyclists in efficiency is really small.

Did you read the entire study? if so, tell me precisely what information you found there which contravenes any point I raised.

Yes, and I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion

Lead author Dr Federico Formenti from King's College London said: "Pedalling at cadence greater than 90 revolutions per minute is advantageous for professional cyclists, but appears inefficient for recreational cyclists. When cycling at low exercise intensity, skeletal muscle oxygenation is mostly unaffected by cadence, indicating that the cardiopulmonary and circulatory systems can effectively meet the exercising muscles' demand.

"However, at a greater exercise intensity, high cadence reduces recreational cyclists' efficiency and skeletal muscle oxygenation, suggesting a reduced ratio between oxygen being delivered to and taken up by the exercising muscles."

Those are two separate statements The study didn't compare to professionals, and didn't look at "performance" as it was scaled to threshold and held constant across cadences. Efficiency and performance are related but not the same thing.

You are right. An untrained cyclist burns more calories in an activity though because of wasted motion that has little to no effect propelling the vehicle. Force x distance = work remains true for calories actually expended moving the vehicle some distance. For that, a powermeter is indispensible. It's the economy of motion that a trained cyclist has refined for higher efficiency. This is why a powermeter & a heart rate moniter in isolation only give estimates, but together yield a much more accurate picture of the demand actually being placed. An athletes efficiency or lack of it in a given task will be shown by the oxygen use &/or distribution within the athletes body. I miss the days Strava said I burned a thousand calories an hour. :lol:

Speaking of peer-review...This thread is doing a pretty good job of tearing this study apart!