High torque low cadence or low torque high cadence

[big booty]

Its generally acknowledged that a high cadence and lower torque is the better way to go for prolonged output. What I want to understand is whats happening at the physiological level in the body? If Im producing X horsepower to go at a particular speed why is it better to spin faster and reduce the torque? Wouldn't the total lactate levels in the muscle be the same? Of are they different? Having said that I find that I naturally gravitate to a cadence of 90-95. So Im more of a rotary rather than a big V8.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Its generally acknowledged that a high cadence and lower torque is the better way to go for prolonged output.

It is? By whom?

[g-boaf]

Says who?

Some people just punch out big power numbers for a long time with relatively low cadence (less than 80rpm). This is the total opposite of all those who try to encourage riders to spin quickly.

Go with what works for you I think. I generally stay around 105-110rpm as I'm used to that.

[softy]

I am a spinner, i find it helps keep your momentum when climbing and hitting the crest.

If you read the trends, a higher cadence can maintain power and your legs recover quicker.

I ride between 90 to 100, and about ten percent more on climbs.

[vosadrian]

I find that at the same power at higher cadence my HR is higher but my legs feel better (lower lactate??). On climbs if I am near my limit I tend to mix it up but spend more time at higher cadence. If I go too higher cadence at near max output, I can hit scary HR levels for me.

I do "believe" that higher cadence is better for injury prevention to knees/ankles/ITB etc. The muscles are not pulling as hard on tendons etc. Less chance of straining tendons/muscles etc. I started spinning quicker when I started getting some knee pain, and it "seemed" to help.

[g-boaf]

What you are feeling is right, higher cadence I think puts more on the cardio, lower cadence is more on the legs. So you try and balance between the two extremes I guess. I do know that if I go flat out with high cadence (150rpm) then my HR will go over 190bpm. I know that is low cadence compared to those people who do 180rpm or better.

That's just my thoughts on it, I'm sure someone will come along and tell us both we don't know what we are talking about.

[grimbo]

Among my cycling group, I have the highest cadence (I'm also the lightest, if that means anything) and I tend to spin up hills. The heaviest in our group powers up hills in mid gears. There's very little between us if we are having a "friendly" competition to get to the top.

So I'd say go with what works/feels best for you.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Focus on effort level and choose an appropriate gear for you and the situation. Cadence is a red herring.

Cadence is not independently controllable in any case, but rather it's an outcome of those two choices (effort level and gear) and the nature of the resistance forces acting against you (gradient, air resistance, rolling resistance etc).

As to injury, there's little evidence to suggest there is any issue specifically pertaining to cadence per se - the forces in cycling are very low (e.g. it's much less than walking up stairs with a bag of shopping or standing up from sitting down). What causes non-crash injury is poor bike fit and attempting to do more riding/training or do it too quickly than you are ready for.

[3DKiwi]

The training that I do has me training at both low cadence / high tension and high cadence e.g. 100-120 at low tension. The low cadence is to develop strength and muscular endurance and the high cadence is develop / improve the neuro muscular connection between the brain and the muscles. The overall objective is to then pedal at a normal cadence 90 - 95 with plenty of power being output plus have the flexibility to spin anywhere between 80 and 110 without having to change gear.