Pedaling rates

I've always understood that it's more efficient to pedal faster for a
given speed and have religiously tried to get my RPM up as much as possible.

Just recently there was a study going on at the uni at which I work and
they were asking for volunteers who did varying amounts and speeds on
cycles. I took part and was amazed to find, after a battery of tests
that I had been pedaling *way* too fast and wasting large amounts of
energy. It turns out that my optimum rate if trying to go as fast as
possible on the flat is 78 RPM. (I had been habitually doing 95RPM).
I was told that a lot of keen cyclists pedal much too fast in the
mistaken belief that it's more efficient. Apparantly it is believed that
this is caused by people trying to ape TDF entrants who are operating at
a quite different level to 'normal' cyclists.

Since I've cut down on the RPM I've found that I'm getting from a-b
faster or with less effort and cycling has become a slightly more
pleasant experience.

If you have a pulse monitor and a cycle computer you can easily do an
experiment yourself. Find a quiet road or track and do a mile or so,
back and forth at a fixed speed using different RPM's. Measure your
heart rate in each case. The lower the heart rate, the more efficiently
you are performing.

I don't think this will ever indicate that you should be 'munching' the
gears (going very slowly with great strain on the joints), but you may
be surprised at how much energy you are wasting spinning the pedals too
fast.

Ron

Ron Graham said the following on 01/02/2007 13:11:

energy. It turns out that my optimum rate if trying to go as fast as
possible on the flat is 78 RPM. (I had been habitually doing 95RPM).

By my best guesstimate by counting revs over 15 seconds I pedal at
around 75-80rpm... This speed was arrived at by just riding my bike at
a cadence that took least effort to maintain a given speed.

Scientists. Pah!!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Ron Graham wrote:
I've always understood that it's more efficient to pedal faster for a
given speed and have religiously tried to get my RPM up as much as
possible.

Up to a point... the point of a high cadence is it should be aerobic,
while mashing is at least partly anaerobic. As long as you're up to
your aerobic threshold then more cadence isn't necessarily better.

energy. It turns out that my optimum rate if trying to go as fast as
possible on the flat is 78 RPM. (I had been habitually doing 95RPM).
I was told that a lot of keen cyclists pedal much too fast in the
mistaken belief that it's more efficient.

Also the case that different people have different physiologies and work
better in different ways. I was told that around 80 is a good aiming
point for an aerobic threshold, and 78 isn't far from that.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Ron Graham wrote:
I've always understood that it's more efficient to pedal faster for a
given speed and have religiously tried to get my RPM up as much as
possible.

No; there is an optimum (clearly...).

The general advice is based on the observation that most
people pedal far too slowly.

BugBear

bugbear wrote:
Ron Graham wrote:
I've always understood that it's more efficient to pedal faster for a
given speed and have religiously tried to get my RPM up as much as
possible.

No; there is an optimum (clearly...).

The general advice is based on the observation that most
people pedal far too slowly.

The general problem is that general advice is based on the average of
what people do and is sometimes the wrong advice if you're not
average. Many people aren't.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:40:56 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm
wrote:

bugbear wrote:
Ron Graham wrote:
I've always understood that it's more efficient to pedal faster for a
given speed and have religiously tried to get my RPM up as much as
possible.

No; there is an optimum (clearly...).

The general advice is based on the observation that most
people pedal far too slowly.

The general problem is that general advice is based on the average of
what people do and is sometimes the wrong advice if you're not
average. Many people aren't.

Yes, but on average they are, (generally) :-)

On Feb 1, 1:11 pm, Ron Graham wrote:
I've always understood that it's more efficient to pedal faster for a
given speed and have religiously tried to get my RPM up as much as possible.

Just recently there was a study going on at the uni at which I work and
they were asking for volunteers who did varying amounts and speeds on
cycles. I took part and was amazed to find, after a battery of tests
that I had been pedaling *way* too fast and wasting large amounts of
energy. It turns out that my optimum rate if trying to go as fast as
possible on the flat is 78 RPM. (I had been habitually doing 95RPM).
I was told that a lot of keen cyclists pedal much too fast in the
mistaken belief that it's more efficient. Apparantly it is believed that
this is caused by people trying to ape TDF entrants who are operating at
a quite different level to 'normal' cyclists.

Since I've cut down on the RPM I've found that I'm getting from a-b
faster or with less effort and cycling has become a slightly more
pleasant experience.

If you have a pulse monitor and a cycle computer you can easily do an
experiment yourself. Find a quiet road or track and do a mile or so,
back and forth at a fixed speed using different RPM's. Measure your
heart rate in each case. The lower the heart rate, the more efficiently
you are performing.

I don't think this will ever indicate that you should be 'munching' the
gears (going very slowly with great strain on the joints), but you may
be surprised at how much energy you are wasting spinning the pedals too
fast.

I'm pretty sure it's never been argued that a high cadence is more
efficient - in fact ISTR a study from decades ago that found that 60
was the optimum cadence for efficiency in terms of energy used to
energy supplied to the pedals.
This is why people tend to pick a cadence of about 60.

However, that's not the only efficiency that matters. While a cadence
of 60 is most efficient from the viewpoint of how much you need to
eat, it causes your muscles to tire more quickly (presumably, although
I don't remember for certain, due to lactic acid buildup) and a faster
cadence can be sustained for longer.

I recall another study, also from decades ago, that found that the
cooling airstream from a moving cyclist is absolutely critical for
measuring a cyclists performance. Top cyclists who could maintain
their effort all day when on the road were failing after about 15
minutes on the exercise bike due to overheating.

I would guess that any tests done without a 15+mph wind blowing over
you would tend to find that the optimum cadence is the most energy
efficient due to there being the least heat to sweat out.

Tim.

wrote:
However, that's not the only efficiency that matters. While a cadence
of 60 is most efficient from the viewpoint of how much you need to
eat, it causes your muscles to tire more quickly (presumably, although
I don't remember for certain, due to lactic acid buildup) and a faster
cadence can be sustained for longer.

The explanation given by Forester involves muscle fibre recruitment:
pedalling with less force requires less muscle, so you can do it all
with slow-twitch fibres (which go on for ever). Recruit more of the
muscle to push harder and you need the fast-twitch fibres too - these
are more easily fatigued.

I wonder if there are secondary effects that cyclists who are adept at
spinning faster typically have a smoother pedalling action so are more
comfortable and waste less energy bouncing up and down on the saddle.
In other words, spinning faster is not the cause of their better
performance but actually an effect of it.


-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

Following on from Ron Graham's message. . .

Since I've cut down on the RPM I've found that I'm getting from a-b
faster or with less effort and cycling has become a slightly more
pleasant experience.
Typical aim-for figures are 80 for steady cycling and 95 for bursts. As
you know your body 'learns' and adapts as a result of exercise. A burst
can be very 'efficient' as a way to get up a short hill. Try plodding
up such a (short) hill and try sprinting at the bottom and maintaining
the cadence to the top and you'll find the latter makes you pant but is
over in half the time and each such attack in the early part of the
season[1] helps later.

I don't think this will ever indicate that you should be 'munching' the
gears (going very slowly with great strain on the joints), but you may
Also beware, or perhaps beware more, of strain on muscles and tendons.


[1] For those like me who mainly cycle in the summer we need to start
from jelly-muscles and foggy-lungs again each spring.
--
PETER FOX Not the same since the bridge building business collapsed

2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex.
Gravity beer in Essex http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk

Quoting Ron Graham :
I've always understood that it's more efficient to pedal faster for a
given speed and have religiously tried to get my RPM up as much as possible.

That's a bit of a misconception. It's generally more efficient to pedal at
the cadence that feels comfortable - but if that comfortable speed is
higher, it will be again more efficient. Hence you might pedal at an
uncomfortable cadence to eventually raise overall efficiency.
--
David Damerell Distortion Field!
Today is Teleute, February.