Pedaling rates

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

Quoted message said:

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 said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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 [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Ron Graham said:

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 bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim said:

Ron Graham said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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 [email hidden] 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 <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

bugbear bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim said:

Ron Graham said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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) :-)

Ron Graham said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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. . .

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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
[email hidden]
2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex.
Gravity beer in Essex <http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk>

Quoting Ron Graham <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

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 <[email hidden]> Distortion Field!
Today is Teleute, February.

Eric said:

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:40:56 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

bugbear bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

Not necessarily. Very few, for example, are of the average sex, or
even vaguely near it.

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

Ron Graham said:

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.

Bradley McGee's website until recently (website content has now
changed) listed his *maximum* cadence as 240rpm!

I can't even imagine getting anywhere near that....................the
fastest I can pedal without falling off is about 150rpm on 42/17 fixed
down a gentle slope (29mph).

Peter Fox said:

Following on from Ron Graham's message. . .

Quoted message said:

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.

How can you aim for a single figure? Gearing isn't continuous, so you
are going to have to operate at a range of cadences. I seem to be
comfortable at 80-90, maybe a little less. This is wide enough that
there's a gear I'm happy in at any reasonable speed.

Quoted message said:

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.

Agree with this, as long as you reach the top before the burst
exhausts you - which in my case means starting halfway up. Unless some
idiot overtakes too close near the bottom and gets the adrenalin flowing.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Chris Malcolm said:

Eric said:

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:40:56 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

Not necessarily. Very few, for example, are of the average sex, or
even vaguely near it.

What you mean is that it is not normal for people to be average. :-)
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ron Graham said:

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.

Except for those who seem to be unaware that their cycle is equiped with a
variable gear, and they do not have the intelligence to change gear.

I often see people pedaling like mad and getting no where.

Alan

Alan Holmes said:

"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ron Graham said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Except for those who seem to be unaware that their cycle is equiped with a
variable gear, and they do not have the intelligence to change gear.

Quoted message said:

I often see people pedaling like mad and getting no where.

"Hey mister, your chain's come off!"

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

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

You don't have to be a high performance sports cyclist. It works for
trundlies too. For example, I've long kept a record of my commuting
times and approx cadences on the hill climb to the office just to see
if I was getting more or less fitter as time passed. I discovered
instead that by far the most important parameter controlling both my
commuting speed and hill climbing cadence was temperature, because I
simply slow down if I get uncomfortably hot, and if it's freezing I
pedal harder and faster in order to warm up :-)

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

"Chris Malcolm" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

For example, I've long kept a record of my commuting
times and approx cadences on the hill climb to the office just to see
if I was getting more or less fitter as time passed. I discovered
instead that by far the most important parameter controlling both my
commuting speed and hill climbing cadence was temperature, because I
simply slow down if I get uncomfortably hot, and if it's freezing I
pedal harder and faster in order to warm up :-)

Interesting - I'm t'other way round - I slow down when it gets colder.
However in this country I tend not to get uncomfortably hot.

RE the OP - I've recently been having problems with a sticking rear mech
(hangs around in the lower gears). I've not done anything about it, partly
because I'm slack, and partly because it does a very good job of encouraging
me to pedal faster.

I'd been getting a slower cadence/using higher gears, and the result was I
wasn't going as well as before. With the lower gears being forced on me,
I've speeded up, which is nice. I get home a little more puffed, but this is
what's supposed to happen.

cheers,
clive