Originally Posted by ScottCommutes

The problem is that overrunning clutch (it goes by different names) hidden somewhere in the back of almost everyone's bike.

If you pedal at a nice slow cadence and with decent pedal pressure, that clutch never overruns and 100% of your pedal effort is translated into increased speed. Not a bad way to ride. It works. This is how I ride.

Now, attempting to increase your cadence by gearing down brings you away from that 100% efficient comfort zone. It brings you closer to the point where your clutch disengages and you are simply pedaling for effect with zero pedal pressure and zero power transmitted to the wheels. Wasted energy.

Other common vehicles you may be familiar with don't feature an overrunning clutch. A manual transmission car, for example, locks the power to the wheels and functions essentially like a fixed gear bike. An automatic transmission car has a fluid coupling, so if the power is faster than the wheels, that fluid starts to drive vanes in a torque converter, and the car accelerates.

If you really want to develop a faster cadence, you have three options. You could simply accept that you will spin out the overrunning clutch from time to time and lose power. Second, you could increase your momentum (typically by going faster). This makes it easier to keep from spinning out because physics will encourage your bike to keep moving at the speed it is at. Finally, you could learn to sense the pressure on that overrunning clutch and pedal just slowly enough to keep it engaged.

Originally Posted by PeteHski

Of course decreasing cadence will decrease power in the same gear if the slope is a constant. But if you are maintaining power as the slope increases then pedal force will increase at a constant cadence or often increase even with a falling cadence. The whole point of gearing is to balance cadence against pedal force for a given power output. Running out of gears means you lose that flexibility and pedal force inevitably ends up higher than you would prefer when you have no more lower gears. Slowing down is often a limited option by that point.

Originally Posted by PeteHski

Of course decreasing cadence will decrease power in the same gear if the slope is a constant. But if you are maintaining power as the slope increases then pedal force will increase at a constant cadence or often increase even with a falling cadence. The whole point of gearing is to balance cadence against pedal force for a given power output. Running out of gears means you lose that flexibility and pedal force inevitably ends up higher than you would prefer when you have no more lower gears. Slowing down is often a limited option by that point.

Whether or not a high pedal force and low cadence actually hurts your knees is really a different argument. It certainly hurts my leg muscles and increases joint loading.

Originally Posted by RChung

In *any* gear, not just the lowest, reducing cadence while climbing decreases crank torque -- it never increases it.

Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy

This is the reason I have really low gears. It's a PITA that it's so far between them, but better that than the alternative if you're over, say 50. OTOH, I do low cadence intervals, but that's not the same as a pass climb. Seems to me they build up rather than tear down, more like a gym workout. rchung is of course correct.

Responding to the OP, my best climbing cadence is 80-83, my best flats cadence is 88. If I'm riding competitively or just having fun, coming into a hill, I like to downshift early, to ~100 cadence and then shift again at ~90 until I get low on gears, then I just drop down to steady state and suffer. I have my best luck at going over the top of short steep hills doing that and not suffering, just blowing my HR up for a little bit.

Originally Posted by PeteHski

But if you are maintaining power as the slope increases then pedal force will increase at a constant cadence

Originally Posted by PeteHski

Unless I’m just soft pedalling on a descent or sitting in a draft, low cadence usually implies a relatively high torque for me. It certainly does when I have run out of gears on a steep climb.

Originally Posted by RChung

Um, your first statement is wrong: if you are maintaining power at constant cadence, pedal force is independent of increasing slope.

And your second statement addresses a different issue: if you run out of gears on a steep climb, I'm not disputing that crank torque may be high in absolute terms--I'm saying that if you lower your cadence, crank torque decreases. That means, of course, that in any gear, lower cadence reduces crank torque: it never increases it (take a look at either the power or force equations and differentiate wrt cadence to see).

Originally Posted by MoAlpha

Swole is a good look for the elderly, or so the longevity people say. Might erode those great P/W numbers, though.

Originally Posted by terrymorse

So it comes down to this: Live longer and look better, or snag another KOM.

Tricky.

Originally Posted by bblair

What about cadence while standing?

Originally Posted by ScottCommutes

The problem is that overrunning clutch (it goes by different names) hidden somewhere in the back of almost everyone's bike.

If you pedal at a nice slow cadence and with decent pedal pressure, that clutch never overruns and 100% of your pedal effort is translated into increased speed. Not a bad way to ride. It works. This is how I ride.

Now, attempting to increase your cadence by gearing down brings you away from that 100% efficient comfort zone. It brings you closer to the point where your clutch disengages and you are simply pedaling for effect with zero pedal pressure and zero power transmitted to the wheels. Wasted energy.

Other common vehicles you may be familiar with don't feature an overrunning clutch. A manual transmission car, for example, locks the power to the wheels and functions essentially like a fixed gear bike. An automatic transmission car has a fluid coupling, so if the power is faster than the wheels, that fluid starts to drive vanes in a torque converter, and the car accelerates.

If you really want to develop a faster cadence, you have three options. You could simply accept that you will spin out the overrunning clutch from time to time and lose power. Second, you could increase your momentum (typically by going faster). This makes it easier to keep from spinning out because physics will encourage your bike to keep moving at the speed it is at. Finally, you could learn to sense the pressure on that overrunning clutch and pedal just slowly enough to keep it engaged.

Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy

Un no. The problem to which you are referring is simply that many riders haven't developed the skill to push on the pedals as the go around. Which is much, much harder that it seems and takes lots of practice. Lance TTd at 110 or more. HE had to train for months to develop the skills to push on the pedals effectively at that cadence. So practice more, opinionate less.

Originally Posted by ScottCommutes

I agree with you for the case of a track bike, a fixie, or even a unicycle. Everybody else needs to train to pedal faster, but not too fast, for a given gear.

Originally Posted by ScottCommutes

The problem is that overrunning clutch (it goes by different names) hidden somewhere in the back of almost everyone's bike.

Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy;23212371[b

]Lance TTd at 110 or more[/b]. HE had to train for months to develop the skills to push on the pedals effectively at that cadence. So practice more, opinionate less.

Originally Posted by ScottCommutes

There is another advantage of a high cadence in racing. To increase speed, you can either increase force or cadence. Increasing force puts additional strain on the gears, chain, and bike that must be accounted for with a beefier design. Increasing cadence, by contrast, put essentially no extra stress on the bike.

Originally Posted by terrymorse

Yes, the Texan pedaled at an unusually high cadence, and he practiced to be able to put out high power at that cadence.

But there's scant evidence that this high cadence was any better or more effective than lower cadences.

His coach, Chris Carmichael, noted that the Texan tended to bulk up his muscles, increasing his body weight, so Carmichael hoped that using a high cadence would keep the Texan from putting on weight.

Originally Posted by PeteHski

I don’t see any beefier bike designs for low cadence riders or vice versa.

Originally Posted by ScottCommutes

You are probably right regarding individual riders. However, platform pedals (intended for low cadence) are seen on beefier bikes, while clip pedals (intended for higher cadence) are typically seen on lighter bikes.

Originally Posted by rowerek

I am getting ready for sprint triathlon: 600y open water swim, 10miles flat ride, and 5k run. I have spent most of my time on improving my running, and finally I feel confident about running 5k or even 10k. These days I am back to cycling and swimming. I have checked info on the Internet and it is suggested that for triathlon one should keep cadence high (90-110), and that should save your legs for the run. I have measured my cadence and it looks like I can do 90 tops for now, but not more than that.

I am curious about cadence/RPM that cyclist in 50+ group maintain, prefer or target, I am 60+.
Do you know what your cadence is? Are you using cadence in your training? Has your cadence changed with age?

For now, I measure my cadence by synchronizing my RPM with Metronome app beats/clicks sound.