Maelochs

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. (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.

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.