Low vs High Cadence — The Hard Truth Nobody Wants to Admit

Summary

The video examines the long-running cycling debate over whether riders should pedal slowly with more force or spin quickly with less force. Its central conclusion is that neither a low nor a high cadence is best for everyone: the right choice varies with effort, terrain, age, fatigue, gearing, and individual preference.

How the research developed

• 1981 — Hagberg’s treadmill study: Seven professional cyclists rode their own bikes at a fixed workload while the gears changed. Their preferred cadence averaged 91 rpm, which was also economical by many of the study’s measures. However, preferences ranged widely—from 72 to 102 rpm—and heart rate rose as cadence increased.
• 1985 — Costill and Welch: Tests at different power outputs suggested that the cadence associated with the lowest oxygen cost shifts upward as power rises. A relaxed rider and a rider working hard may therefore have different “best” cadences.
• 1997 — Marsh and Martin: Trained cyclists and runners generally chose 90–100 rpm, while less-trained participants slowed as the workload rose. Across the groups, the cadence with the lowest oxygen cost was only about 53–60 rpm. The video presents this as the cadence paradox: riders often choose a rhythm that costs more oxygen than the most economical one.

The narrator says skill may help explain this difference. Less-trained riders may slow down under strain, while trained riders tend to maintain a quicker rhythm. One simple way to estimate personal cadence is to count how many times one knee rises in 15 seconds on a steady ride, then multiply by four.

Why fast spinning became the norm

The video traces high-cadence advice partly to indoor cycling culture. In the late 1980s, Johnny G developed the workout that became spinning; the “spin” emphasis helped make fast footwork a visible sign of good form. The same preference took hold in road cycling, including youth training rules intended to encourage riders to pedal quickly.

Bike gearing also changed. Compact cranksets and wider-range cassettes made easier climbing gears available to more riders. Cadence sensors then made revolutions per minute easy to see and track. The narrator argues that this helped turn a useful measurement into a target—often around 90 rpm—even though cadence alone cannot tell whether a rider’s rhythm is appropriate.

What higher cadence may help—and what it costs

• 1996 — Takaishi and colleagues: Muscle-fatigue signals rose most slowly around 80–90 rpm, even though oxygen use was lowest around 60–70 rpm. The video’s interpretation is that faster spinning can spare the working muscles while costing more oxygen.
• 1996 — Gottschall and colleagues: At a fixed 200 watts, heart rate and other cardiovascular measures increased as cadence rose from 70 to 110 rpm. Faster pedalling may increase blood flow through repeated muscle contractions, but it also makes the heart work harder.
• 2004 — A study of professional cyclists: At high power, the riders were more efficient at 100 rpm than at 60 rpm, and several measures of effort fell as cadence increased. The video stresses that this result came from professionals riding at very high power, so it should not automatically be applied to an easy recreational ride.
• 2013 — Bini and Hume: At the same hard effort, 90 rpm produced about 29% less compression force behind the kneecap than 70 rpm. The video presents this as especially relevant to riders with knee discomfort.
• 2019 — Brennan, Lichtwark, Farris, and colleagues: Their muscle measurements suggested that a freely chosen cadence—about 81 rpm on average—helped preserve the hamstrings’ ability to produce power.

The trade-off is that spinning faster moves some of the workload away from the legs and toward the heart, lungs, and the muscles needed to move the legs. One study cited in the video found that oxygen consumption increased as cadence rose, with breathing effort especially high at 120 rpm. At a light effort, a fast cadence may therefore raise heart rate without improving the work done at the pedals.

Why cadence advice may not suit every rider

The narrator highlights research that challenges universal high-cadence advice:

• A 2019 King’s College London study tested nine active people at moderate effort. Heart rate rose by about 15% as cadence increased, while pedalling efficiency declined. The study was small, and the difference in muscle oxygenation was described as insignificant, but the results caution against assuming that cadences above 90 rpm benefit recreational riders.
• A 2010 comparison of young and older cyclists found that the older group was less efficient overall and lost efficiency more quickly as cadence rose. The older riders also chose a lower cadence themselves. The video cautions against treating a slower rhythm in an older cyclist as automatically a bad habit.
• A 2009 review by Hansen and Smith proposed that preferred cadence may partly come from an individual’s built-in rhythmic patterns. Their review also distinguished between light-to-moderate effort, where a high cadence can be uneconomical, and near-maximal effort, where riders tend to choose cadences that are both effective and economical.
• A 2017 review by Hansen and Rennestad found no strong evidence that low-cadence training reliably improves performance.

Terrain, fatigue, and the practical conclusion

Cadence can change during a ride. In one study of trained triathletes, the most economical cadence rose from around 70 rpm early in a hard 30-minute effort to about 86 rpm later, as fatigue set in. Other studies cited in the video found that athletes ran longer after finishing a cycling effort at a lower cadence than after finishing at a higher one. Professional racers also tended to pedal more slowly on long climbs—about 71 rpm, compared with roughly 89–92 rpm on flatter stages and time trials.

The video’s practical guidance is a range rather than a fixed target:

• For many riders at light-to-moderate effort on flatter roads, about 70–90 rpm is a reasonable range; many settle around 80–85 rpm.
• At high effort or during a sprint, a higher cadence may help, while a lower cadence on a climb can be normal.
• Riders with knee pain may benefit from avoiding hard, slow grinding.
• Older riders and beginners need not feel ashamed of a lower natural cadence.
• Cadence targets should be interpreted alongside power, heart rate, terrain, and how the legs feel.

The final message is to choose a suitable gear for the road and let cadence follow. Low cadence may conserve oxygen but can increase force on the muscles and knees. High cadence may reduce muscular strain but can cost more oxygen and cardiovascular effort. The narrator argues that a rider’s natural rhythm is often a better starting point than blindly copying a number from a coach, instructor, or bike computer.

Presenters and sources

Presenter: CycleWorth narrator.

Research and other sources cited in the subtitles: Hagberg; Costill and Welch; Marsh and Martin; Takaishi and colleagues; Gottschall and colleagues; Lucia and colleagues; Fosse and colleagues; Bini and Hume; Brennan, Lichtwark, and Farris; Federico Formenti and colleagues; Sacchetti and De Vito; Abbiss, Pfeiffer, and Larsen; Hansen and Smith; Hansen and Rennestad; Brisswalter and colleagues; the 2005 triathlete cadence study; the 2001 professional stage-race study; the 2012 climbing-position study; and the 2023 University of Queensland study.

Other sources cited include Journal of Applied Physiology, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, International Journal of Sports Medicine, European Journal of Applied Physiology, Sports Biomechanics, Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, King’s College London, Fast Talk, Mad Dog Athletics, Active.com, Bike Hugger, Rolling Stone, and Rohloff.