Technique: A new spin on pedalling slow

Control the urge to spin fast – for longer distances a slower pedalling cadence is more efficient (www.robertsmithphotography.co.uk)
The trend for pedalling rates has, for the past 10 years or so, been all in one direction: faster, faster, faster. Seeing a dominant Lance Armstrong dancing up mountains with pedals spinning at incredible speeds has been one factor, but science has also played a role, with studies suggesting faster cadences lead to better results.
But one man who remains unconvinced is Dr Ernst Albin Hansen from the Norwegian School of Sport Science in Oslo. A former Danish national team cyclist, Dr Hansen has spent much of the past decade analysing pedalling rates. In particular he has compared the cadence people naturally choose with the optimal cadence in terms of energy expenditure.
His work suggests the ‘pedal faster’ mantra is too simplistic. In certain situations a higher cadence may be better, but in others it could make you slower. To get the best out of yourself, you need to understand your own natural rhythm.
Spin doctor
In his latest study Dr Hansen followed a group of subjects for three months and tested their pedalling rates under different conditions.
Previous research had shown that when cycling on the road, riders would naturally choose a higher pedalling rate to go faster – increase their power output – rather than push a harder gear at the same cadence.
In his new study Dr Hansen kept power output levels constant and made the cycling harder by increasing altitude levels; this puts greater stress on the lungs and heart because there’s less oxygen available for the muscles to burn for energy.
He found that the cyclists maintained their pedalling rates even when the going got tough. He also compared these rates with the speed at which they tapped their fingers on a special recording pad and found that, although there was considerable variation between the subjects, the speed at which a given individual tapped their finger was linked to their pedalling speed, and these rates stayed incredibly stable over the three-month period.
“These results suggest pedalling rates are essentially innate, like other rhythmic movements,” Dr Hansen says. “We, and others, believe networks of neurons in the spinal cord generate natural motor rhythms, personal to individuals, which control a whole series of repetitive responses from pedalling to finger tapping. This doesn’t mean pedalling rates aren’t influenced by other factors, but it seems we have a series of default rhythms for tasks like pedalling and finger tapping that we revert to, other things being equal.”
Breaking out of your own innate rhythm is difficult. If you have a naturally slow pedalling rate, simply jumping up to 100rpm – because it’s what Lance manages – is going to feel very strange. Of course, it might be worth attempting if you could be certain that a higher cadence would bring improvement, and there are a number of studies which, at first glance, suggest this may be the case.
In 2004 a team from the University of Madrid got a group of elite cyclists to produce the same power output at different cadences and took various physiological measures to determine the different efficiencies. The highest cadence (100rpm) proved far superior.
The general economy level was significantly worse at the lowest cadence (60rpm), while mean values of oxygen uptake, heart rate, levels of perceived exertion and lactate decreased as pedalling speed increased. The message, it seemed, was simple: a faster pedalling rate equals greater efficiency.
But this is a huge simplification according to Dr Hansen. He notes that the cyclists in the Spanish study were asked to cycle at a high intensity for just six minutes.
“For shorter time-trials it is true that a faster cadence is optimal, but the situation changes when exercise becomes less intense," he says. "A much lower pedalling rate is most efficient when cycling for longer periods at a slower pace. This, of course, is still relevant to the majority of road cyclists, who are used to competing in events where they will be riding for many hours rather than just a few minutes.”
Dr Hansen’s experiments have concentrated on the difference between people’s innate pedalling rate and the optimal rate, calculated by the amount of energy expended. He found that at higher intensities – between 80-100 percent of VO2 max – people’s naturally chosen pedalling rate, which tends to be quite high, 80rpm and above, is often extremely close to the optimal rate.
In other words, for short bursts of cycling riders seem to choose an extremely efficient high pedalling rate naturally. Crucially, though, when cycling for long distances at lower intensities, riders largely maintain a relatively high pedalling rate even though a far slower rate is optimal.
“On the longer rides the cyclists’ freely chosen pedalling rates resulted in a five percent higher rate of oxygen uptake on average and a five percent increase in energy expenditure, which is quite substantial when accumulated over the course of several hours of cycling," says Dr Hansen. "I believe there is the possibility for quite large improvements if people adopt a slower rate during low to moderate intensity cycling.”
Go slow
Convincing cyclists hasn’t been easy. In a 2006 study Dr Hansen asked nine experienced cyclists to ride for 150 minutes on two separate occasions. For one ride they chose their own pedalling rate, but for the other they were asked to ride at the optimal rate, which was generally much slower. Power output was kept constant so for most this meant pushing a much larger gear in the second test.
“They were all complaining, saying they couldn’t ride for so long at the low cadence because it felt so unnatural,” says Dr Hansen.
After half an hour, though, the riders reported the same level of perceived exertion as when cycling at their own freely chosen rate. By the end of the two-and-a-half hours, to their surprise, the cyclists found that their perceived exertion levels were much lower when riding at the optimal rate.
Dr Hansen says the results must be viewed cautiously because it was purely subjective – based on people’s feelings of tiredness rather than actual performance measures.
“We did introduce an objective measure by having the riders complete a five-minute time trial following the long ride, but although the trend was also for improvement after the optimal pedalling rate trial rather than the freely chosen rate trial, the results were not statistically significant,” he says.
What the study does prove, though, is that once you overcome the initial feelings – or perhaps only the idea – of discomfort, it is possible to override your own innate motor rhythm, and it could be beneficial.
“Your innate rhythm is very strong and at high intensities it is difficult to change, which is okay because it appears favourable for cycling economy and performance at these intensities,” says Dr Hansen. “But at lower intensities reductions of about 10-20rpm are possible with practice. Go for small changes at first, though, maybe just one gear different.”
User Comments
There are 17 comments on this post
Showing 1 - 17 of 17 comments
-
sirmy
Posted Mon 20 Apr, 6:22 pm UTC Flag as inappropriate
"We did introduce an objective measure by having the riders complete a five-minute time trial following the long ride, but although the trend was also for improvement after the optimal pedalling rate trial rather than the freely chosen rate trial, the results were not statistically significant,” he says"
If the results weren't statistically significant then there wasn't a trend and the improvements were due to chance
-
wiffachip
Posted Mon 20 Apr, 9:12 pm UTC Flag as inappropriate
he's spent 10 years studying pedalling rates ? Bet he's a right bag of laughs
-
Bhima
Posted Mon 20 Apr, 9:24 pm UTC Flag as inappropriate
Higher Cadence = Less Stress on Muscles, More Stress on Breathing
Lower Cadence = Less Stress on Breathing, More Stress on Muscles
So I tend to do a bit of both - when the muscles get fatigued, spinning at a massive cadence clears the lactic acid very quickly and gives the muscles a rest for a bit. When I run out of breath, I recover by going back down to 90 RPM or so for a bit.
I reckon there isn't an optimum cadence for all riding conditions, but there is probably an optimum way to alternate between the different cadences to prolong your energy reserves for the longest period of time. Not managed to master it yet though.
-
jerry3571
Posted Mon 20 Apr, 10:35 pm UTC Flag as inappropriate
Mr Bhima, I am indeed a rubbish cyclist in all forms but have found in my 20 years of trying to be faster that you Mr Bhima have hit the nail on the head. When I'm doing a road race, a cadence of 90 rpm is good on the flat but if I'm under pressure then a sure relief to my muscles is to increase my pedaling rate. It works for me.
I think Lance has a high Cadence which prevents too much muscle fatigue over the 3 week period of a Tour. Grinding big gears would have it's effect over several days in the mountains for sure. I'm sure Ullrich had a faster Cadence when he won in '97. Hmmm...
Lance, pre cancer, had a slower Cadence but was still a great bike rider; but couldn't go up Mountains for Toffee but still a great one day rider. Not bad for an "ex- Triathlete" (
-
angusrivers
Posted Tue 21 Apr, 9:44 am UTC Flag as inappropriate
It's not quite as simple as that Sirmy. Statistical significance is usually taken as meaning that there is a 95% certainty that the results did not occur by chance. Below that, they may still represent a genuine trend but are not deemed statistically significant.
Increasing the number of participants in the study is often the best way to improve its power - ie to show a statistically significant result where a genuine trend exists.
Of course, it is possible that no trend does exist, in which case increasing the numbers might prove this instead. At the moment he has neither proved that it does make a difference, nor (contrary to your suggestion) that it doesn't.
-
likewoah
Posted Tue 21 Apr, 10:55 am UTC Flag as inappropriate
I lke to ride my mountain bike fast donhill, itz fun
-
angusrivers
Posted Tue 21 Apr, 11:54 am UTC Flag as inappropriate
That's also true!
-
sirmy
Posted Wed 22 Apr, 8:07 am UTC Flag as inappropriate
angusrivers - if it's not statistically significant how can you know it's not due to chance? Increasing the number of subjects will increase the power of the result up to a point at which it flattens out but don't you think the research would have been performed using a sample size large enough to determine if the results would have been sufficiently powerful, the calculations are relatively simple.
If there is a greater than 5% chance that a result is due to chance then it's good science to regard it as not representing a replicable trend
-
mateotu
Posted Wed 22 Apr, 8:20 pm UTC Flag as inappropriate
All of this ignores one very important thing: injury.
To produce the same power output at a lower cadence requires larger forces. (GCSE physics revision: power equals force times velocity.) Exerting very large forces on the pedals (in other words, mashing) is associated with all kinds of painful overuse injuries, from aching feet to horrendous knee problems caused by over-developed quads.
Don't listen to a word they say - keep spinning!
-
jerry3571
Posted Thu 23 Apr, 9:52 pm UTC Flag as inappropriate
Blimey! I have caused offense to someone. Sorry about that but it was suppose to be a form of very bad humour. In poor taste. Sorry again.
I'll leave the bad jokes to my Partner, poor woman!
-Jerry
-
SSer
Posted Mon 27 Apr, 8:45 pm UTC Flag as inappropriate
The mini time trial they performed after the actual test is what was not statistically significant. The main test however was subjective.
As a singlespeed rider living in hilly terrain, I prefer mashing.
-
psiturbo
Posted Wed 29 Apr, 11:51 am UTC Flag as inappropriate
Also, knees is one of those areas that WILL NOT show they have been punished until it is too late. Going heavy on the cadence pushing thru the gears loads the knee joints, this is not for everybody, but have known many riders who after a few years of heavy cranking the damage is been felt.
I prefer to combine, stressing different areas and at the same time giving plenty of time to recuperate.
The muscles can afford all the beating they can, but joints do not assimilate in the same way, they need some time off...
-
desdeadly
Posted Thu 30 Apr, 12:30 pm UTC Flag as inappropriate
Can your cadence be too fast?
-
northumbrian1
Posted Tue 19 May, 7:59 pm UTC Flag as inappropriate
When I hit a hill, I go for an easier ride up hill rather than fight the climb with a hiigher torque. I've founnd my knees suffer - and yes- I am 67 so its felt pretty quick if I'm doing it wrong. I also take a Glucosamine and Cod-Liver oil capsules as a supplement to help out with my joints, it seems to work - at least my knee cranks don't give up when I'm going up a 1 in 3 hill with the sweat pouring off my neck and back(reminds me of Phil Lynott's song in Thin Lizzie, but I feel great coming down the hill on the other side of the carbuncle ;)!
-
daveydave43
Posted Fri 24 Jul, 12:24 pm UTC Flag as inappropriate
i tend to ride at a fast cadence anyway....sometimes topping out ion the 130's, but with an average of 100 or so.
but, if you need to sprint, then i instinctively go to a higher gear, to offer more resistance. however, i up my cadence on hills and the like, just because its easier on the legs...
basically, what im suggesting is that cadence will differ depending on the situation, and so trying to find the 'right' cadence is a waste of time....
-
feedbackdestroyer
Posted Thu 6 Aug, 2:03 pm UTC Flag as inappropriate
Did I miss something here? What does the author of this article actually consider to be a low cadence? Figures are given for high cadences but nothin for "low". Is it mean't to be 50? 60? 70?
-
Twids1664
Posted Sun 9 Aug, 12:39 pm UTC Flag as inappropriate
I was begining to suffer knee pains after cycling in big gears on the road, so upped my cadence bya bout 10-15 rpm (now about 100) and knee pain's gone. No massive difference in average speed though over the course of the ride. I think I'll keep up the high cadence. Incidentally I fnd that when going for a sprint, I move into an easier gear and up the cadence to about 120-130 so as to keep the knees from getting hammered. Having said that I am 40 and probably falling to bits anyway.
- 1






Post this story to: