Originally Posted by
tomato coupe
1) The only "Pro TT Racer" example in this thread was data provided by RChung, which indicates MvdP had a median cadence of 91 RPM in a winning effort at the Ronde van Vlaanderen, and spent only 5% of the race above 104 RPM.
2) The scientific studies cited in this thread all conclude that 120 RPM is not a very efficient cadence.
3) Even the non-scientific articles you cited don't support your claim:
https://howtheyplay.com/individual-s...Faster-Cycling
"
It is generally accepted that a cadence of around 100 rpm is the optimum cadence for time trialling."
https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/5...time-trialing/
"Use your race specific cadence and I encourage 90-100 rpm as a good range."
https://www.bikeradar.com/advice/fit...er-time-trial/
Only mentions cadence in the context of training intervals.
4) You're pulling this stuff out of your butt.
Road gears are evolving towards bigger range with easier / smaller gear ratios at the low end. This has encouraged racers to pursue higher cadences together with polarized training with positive improvements in performance.
That led me to try if going higher would get even better results. At least it did for me. My personal endurance have doubled with even less fueling despite keeping the same training hours per week before I started doing the high cadence training. Previously, I had to make a 1 hour rest stop in the middle of a century ride. Now, I can do it non-stop with even less fuel!
Although my old preferred cadence was a lot lower, probably only around 75 rpm when I used to love grinding big gears. My overall fitness between that time and now hasn't really changed (I got infected by Covid between that time, which set me back) so giving me a great opportunity to compare my performance between different training programs.