Cadence: The Overlooked Variable in Cycling Performance

Ask ten cyclists what cadence they should ride at and you will get ten different answers. Some will say 90 rpm because they heard a coach recommend it once. Others will say "whatever feels natural." A few will cite Lance Armstrong's famous high-cadence style and assume higher is always better. Almost none of them will be able to explain why.

Cadence is genuinely important and genuinely individual. Understanding the physiology behind it lets you make a better-informed choice for your own riding.

What Cadence Affects

At any given power output, a rider can produce that power through a combination of force and cadence. High force, low cadence (big gear, grinding) or low force, high cadence (small gear, spinning fast) can produce identical power numbers.

The difference lies in where the metabolic and muscular cost falls.

High-force, low-cadence pedalling places greater demand on the muscular system. Each stroke requires significant force output from the legs. Muscle fibres, particularly fast-twitch Type II fibres, are heavily recruited. Muscular fatigue accumulates faster.

Low-force, high-cadence pedalling places greater demand on the cardiovascular system. The heart works harder to supply oxygen for faster turnover. Less muscular force per stroke, but more strokes per minute, means the cardiovascular burden increases while the muscular load decreases.

This trade-off has a practical implication: the "optimal" cadence for any given situation depends on which system you want to protect.

What the Research Shows

Studies on preferred cadence versus metabolically optimal cadence have produced a consistent finding: most trained cyclists prefer a cadence (around 80-95 rpm on flat roads) that is slightly higher than the mechanically most efficient cadence (typically 60-70 rpm for most athletes).

Why do trained cyclists instinctively ride faster than the most mechanically efficient speed? The answer appears to be muscular fatigue management. Riding at 90 rpm rather than 70 rpm reduces the force per stroke, which reduces muscular fatigue over long rides, even though it is slightly less mechanically efficient in energy terms. The trade-off favours cardiovascular load over muscular load, and the cardiovascular system recovers faster from sustained demand than fatigued muscles do.

Research on this topic also shows that trained cyclists are more efficient at higher cadences than untrained cyclists, suggesting that cadence economy is at least partially a trainable quality.

The Armstrong Effect and Why It's Misapplied

Lance Armstrong's high cadence (often 100-110 rpm during climbs) was frequently cited as evidence that high cadence is universally better. The problem is that Armstrong's physiology was exceptional in ways that made his preferred cadence more effective than it would be for most riders.

His VO2 max was extraordinarily high, meaning his cardiovascular system could sustain the higher oxygen demand that high cadence imposes without strain. For an athlete with a more typical aerobic capacity, pedalling at 105 rpm on a long climb shifts more demand to the cardiovascular system than it can efficiently sustain.

Studies on climbing cadence have found that most trained cyclists are most efficient on long climbs at cadences between 70 and 80 rpm, not 90-100. The lower cadence reduces cardiovascular demand on uphills, where increased gradient already elevates heart rate significantly.

Cadence by Situation

Flat roads: 85-100 rpm. The lower muscular load from higher cadence helps preserve leg freshness over long distances. Most trained cyclists naturally settle in this range.

Climbs: 70-85 rpm. Cadence typically drops on climbs, and for most riders this is appropriate. Forcing a high cadence uphill at the expense of a good power output often compromises both.

Time trials: Variable, and highly individual. Research suggests that the cadence producing the lowest RPE at a given power output is usually optimal. This is typically in the 80-95 rpm range but varies significantly between athletes.

Sprinting: Cadence naturally increases dramatically in sprint efforts, often reaching 110-130 rpm or higher. At maximum neuromuscular output, the body self-selects cadence instinctively.

Recovering in a group: Lower cadence in a big gear is sometimes useful for staying with a group at low effort without having to pedal constantly. The trade-off is higher per-stroke muscular demand, but if the group is riding easily, recovery can still occur.

Should You Train Your Cadence?

There is limited evidence that deliberately training specific cadence ranges produces meaningful performance benefits for already-trained cyclists. What the evidence does suggest is that cadence variety in training, including some high-cadence drills and some strength-focused low-cadence efforts, develops a broader range of neuromuscular capability.

High-cadence drills (90 seconds at 100-110 rpm in a light gear, several times during a ride) improve pedalling smoothness and can reduce the mechanical friction of an irregular pedal stroke. They are a useful training tool but should not consume significant session time.

Low-cadence force work (3-5 minutes at 55-65 rpm at threshold power, seated) builds muscular strength and power at low turnover, which transfers to climbing power and accelerations out of corners.

For most cyclists, the most useful cadence advice is: ride at whatever cadence you sustain comfortably at your target power, and do not agonise over deviating from an arbitrary target.

---