I always enjoy studies which help with further info on the biomechanics and physio of cycling. But reasonable studies are best when they are somewhat narrow focused; which is the case in this study.
To further emphasize what @
RChung has noted. The study is fairly narrow, with a very small sampling:
"
Participants for this study were recruited from the staff and students of The University of Queensland. ... Participants included 14 healthy adults (11 male, 3 female) that were capable but not competitive cyclists. The mean (± SD) age, height, and mass of all participants was 28 ± 5 yr, 178 ± 6 cm, and 76 ± 9 kg, respectively."
so a range of younger riders, weight range of 67kg (147 lbs) to (85kg (187 lbs), level of fitness would also be a consideration. "capable" being a very broad paint brush ...
And so the question is how critical the level of 'efficiency' needed in the study testing...
so power level becomes a Q, - from the study quote:
"The mass-relative power output of the protocol required an average power output of 183 ± 17 W. There was a significant main effect of cadence on net metabolic power (P < 0.01, n = 12) with the minimal metabolic costs occurring at 60 rpm (Fig. 1). The preferred cadence was 81 ± 12 rpm. The post hoc analysis showed significantly lower metabolic cost at 60 rpm and significantly greater metabolic cost at 100 rpm compared with the preferred cadence."
power requirements noted between 166 and 200 watts - very average levels for some very, very average riding... with a "Preferred Cadence" having a mean of 81, but VARYING from 69 rpm to 93 rpm - a very BROAD range.
if you're shooting to get to a very average level and have a 'preferred cadence' somewhere between 69 and 93 - you're golden and hitting the mark here...
But really THIS, in NO WAY DEFINES any biometric data which helps clarify 'Efficiency' in any regards, at levels which might be considered 'performance' level riding. Given this, how "efficient" are these riders, relative to what might be possible? That isn't researched here (good thing...) nor would it give any reasonable result.
A Study, of 3 or 4x larger sample, of truly defined performance level riders, which also takes into account VO2 and power/weight, might be something to define and use for performance improvement targeting.
This study quantifies and substantiates what we already are fairly clear on, with scores of anecdotal info, here on BF. That's all.
It's not a 'value' judgement on anyone's riding, but telling us where many of us already perform, is not a guideline for improvement.
Ride On
Yuri
I was gonna go deeper into this study - because good info is useful and not easily come by - given the base of this, it's just not interesting enough...
EDIT: and only 12 of the 14 datasets were deemed 'useable' - so even smaller than the initial outline...