Larry Weisenthal <
[email protected]> a écrit dans le message :
[email protected]...
>
> I do think that the high cadence/low cadence cycling analogy is valid
Please find below some interesting article I found on the web. You have to go to
http://www.bsn.com/Cycling/articles/cadence.html if you want to see the figures.
If you measure the optimal cadence (minimizing oxygen consumption for a given power output) for
cycling, you will find something like 60 RPM. [BTW, this gives me an idea to determine your best
Stroke Length / Stroke Ratio. Try different SL / SR ratio _at a given speed_ with a Heart Rate
Monitor, and then see which SL/SR ratio minimizes your average HR.]
Now, the problem is that elite racers spin at 90 RPM.
Assuming they are not stupid, why do they do that?
Let's just cite the conclusion of the article:
"In summary, laboratory studies indicate that experienced cyclists do not use their most economical
or efficient cadences. However, cadences of 90 to 100 rpm are probably beneficial in spite of
decreases in economy and efficiency. The explanation proposed here suggests the use of high rpms
results in a decrease in average pedal force per revolution and leads to the recruitment of fewer
fast-twitch fibers, placing the reliance for muscle power development primarily on the slow-twitch
and intermediate fibers. The advantage to the cyclist is there is less likelihood of a rapid
accumulation of lactic acid, with the resulting decrease in muscle force production."
So, a higher cadence leads (paradoxically) to the use of slow-twitch fibers, instead of fast-twitch,
which are better suited for an enduring effort.
This would be consistent with the fact that long SL / low SR swimmers are sprinter, relying on their
fast-twitch muscles, while long distance swimmers / open water swimmers / triathlete (which are more
like cycling racers, whose effort is many hours long) are better off swimming with a higher SR,
which is less economical but don't build lactic acid.
-- Olivier
Taken from : Cycling Science - Summer 1996 - What Determines The Optimal Cadence?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
What Determines The Optimal Cadence? As the sport of cycling has evolved, training methods have
changed, equipment has been refined, and performances have been enhanced. However, one aspect of
cycling performance has remained relatively unchanged, that is, the freely chosen cadences of
cyclists during training and racing. Few coaches or exercise scientists would argue that cadences of
90 + 5 rpm are typical of those used during world-class performances in road racing or time-
trialing, particularly over level terrain. Furthermore, there are no compelling reasons, either
scientific or popular, that would lead a coach to recommend a significantly lower or higher cadence
to an elite performer. Therefore, the working hypothesis of this article is that cadences in the
range 85 to 95 rpm are optimal for performance. From a scientific point of view the obvious question
of significance is then, "Why are cadences of 85 to 95 rpm, so typical of elite performers during
competition, optimal?" The purpose of this article is to review and examine the multidisciplinary
exercise science literature concerning optimal cadence, present one possible interdisciplinary
explanation for the optimal cadence phenomenon, and address some common generalizations about
cyclists and noncyclists that appear to be incorrect.
A popular explanation for the use of higher cadences is that they are more efficient, with
efficiency being used in the general sense of accomplishing the task with a minimum of effort,
expense, or waste. However, exercise efficiency has several precise definitions that are summarized
in Gaesser and Brooks (1975). They defined and compared four types of efficiency measures with the
goal of identifying the one that best represented human muscular efficiency.
These efficiency measures were 1 ) gross efficiency, the ratio of the work accomplished to energy
expended, that is, the effectiveness of converting chemical energy into mechanical work; 2) net
efficiency, the ratio of the work accomplished to the energy expended above that during rest, that
is, the cost of resting metabolism is subtracted from the denominator in the computation; 3) work
efficiency, the ratio of the work accomplished to the energy expended above that during cycling with
no load, calculated by subtracting from the denominator the cost of moving the legs plus the resting
metabolism, and 4) delta efficiency - the ratio of the change in the power output to the change in
the energy expended at each power output. Gaesser and Brooks observed that at a constant power
output, efficiency decreased as cadence increased, regardless of which definition of efficiency they
used. Both earlier and subsequent studies have also shown that efficiency decreases as cadence
increases at a constant power output (Benedict and Cathcart, 1913; Dickinson, 1929; Garry and
Wishart, 1931; Seabury et al, 1977; Suzuki, 1979). The conclusion from these studies is, from an
efficiency standpoint, higher cadences do not appear to be beneficial to the cyclist. Surprisingly,
the cadences that produce the highest efficiencies are approximately 50 to 60 rpm.
Not all studies report a decline in cycling efficiency as cadence is increased. For example, Faria
et al (1982) found that at a low power output
( 140 W), gross efficiency decreased from 18% to 14% as cadence increased from 68 to 132 rpm; but at
approximately 290 W, gross efficiency remained constant at approximately 22%. Therefore, at
higher power outputs, increases in cadence may not always decrease cycling efficiency. To
explain the difference between their results and previous research, Faria et al. speculated
that the skill level of the subjects may have played a role. Previous studies tended to test
less-skilled riders who may have engaged noncycle-specific muscle groups, especially during
the higher cadences and power outputs, resulting in increased oxygen consumption without any
increase in useful work. Faria et al used experienced cyclists who were familiar with high
cadences and power outputs and, therefore, perhaps their data more appropriately represented
the cycling task. Clearly their data do provide evidence that cyclists are not disadvantaged
via a reduction in efficiency during cycling at a high power output and high cadence.
The issue of cycling efficiency has recently been revisited by Sidossis et al (1992). They found
that gross efficiency was similar at cadences of 60, 80, and 100 rpm during cycling at power outputs
corresponding to 80% (280 W) and 90% (300 W) of an individual's maximal aerobic power (Figure 1).
However, at 50% and 60% of 9&emdash;2 max' the efficiency of 100 rpm was significantly lower than
either 60 or 80 rpm. These data are consistent with Faria et al (1982) and suggest that at high
power outputs, higher cadences are not significantly less efficient compared to lower cadences. In
contrast to Gaesser and Brooks (1975), Sidossis et al also found that delta efficiency increased
from 21% to 24.5% as cadence increased from 60 to 100 rpm (Figure 2). Like Faria et al, they also
suggested that differences between their data and previous work may have been due to the use of
unskilled riders in previous studies who may have recruited muscles that were not cycling specific,
raising oxygen consumption without increasing the amount of useful work done. According to these
authors this possibility makes delta efficiency a more appropriate measure of muscular efficiency
than gross efficiency. To explain the increase in delta efficiency as cadence increased, they
suggested that the lower extremity muscles responsible for meeting the power output demands of the
task may have been closer to the speed of shortening that maximized muscular efficiency (i.e., a
speed of approximately 1/3 of the maximal speed of shortening in individual muscle fibers). It
should also be noted that both Faria et al and Sidossis et al used power outputs that were
considerably higher than used in previous studies, and that their efficiency data may therefore be
more representative of a competition cycling environment.
Figure 1: The gross efficiency of cycling at 60, 80, and 100 rpm at various power outputs are
expressed as a percentage of VO2max Note that gross efficiency at 100 rpm increases as power output
increases so that at 70%, 80% and 90% VO2max the gross efficiencies at the three cadences are not
significantly different. There is no disadvantage to pedaling at high cadences provided that power
outputs are greater than 70% of an individual's maximal aerobic power.(Adapted from Sidossis et al
Int I Sports Med,. 13(5), 407-41], 1992 .)
Figure 2: Delta efficiency during cycling at 60, 80, and 100 rpm. Delta efficiency, (i.e., the ratio
o f the change in the work accomplished to the change in the energy expended), increases
significantly for each increase in cadence so that it is highest at 100 rpm. These data suggest that
muscular efficiency, as reflected by delta efficiency, may be enhanced at higher cadences. (Adapted
from Sidossis et aL rnt J Sports Med, 13(5), 407-411,1992.)
An alternative to efficiency measures is to assess the economy of cycling at different cadences, and
determine if it costs less in terms of oxygen consumption to ride at a given power output while
spinning faster. The most economical cadence is the one that results in the lowest oxygen
consumption. Indeed, one could argue that the externally measured efficiency values provide
interesting theoretical data, but measures of economy have more relevance to performance. Studies
using inexperienced or recreational cyclists, however, show that the most economical cadence falls
between 50 to 60 rpm, and consistently demonstrate that pedaling at 90 to 100 rpm causes an increase
in oxygen consumption in these subjects.
As alluded to by Faria et al (1982), a potential problem in understanding the influence of cadence
on efficiency (and we might extend this to include economy) is that earlier laboratory studies did
not focus on elite level cyclists pedaling at high power outputs. It has been suggested that
experienced cyclists respond differently when compared to untrained or recreational cyclists, such
that they are more economical or efficient at higher rpms. A key study addressing this lack of
applicability of previous research was published by Hagberg et al (1981), who used experienced
cyclists riding their own bicycles on a motordriven treadmill at 20 mph, up a slight grade. The
subjects rode at their preferred cadence and at two cadences above and two below the preferred
frequency. For the group the average preferred cadence was 91 rpm. The authors stated that oxygen
consumption, blood lactate, and ventilation data were minimized at or near the preferred cadence
and, therefore, minimizing these physiological variables was linked to preferred cadence selection.
However, closer examination of their data (i.e., examining the quadratic equation that described the
relationship between oxygen consumption and cadence), reveals that the lowest oxygen consumption
occurred at approximately 70 rpm. Although this is slightly higher than the 50 to 60 rpm values
commonly reported for inexperienced or recreational cyclists, it is still well below the preferred
cadence for this group, and therefore does not support the position that minimizing oxygen
consumption is critical in cadence selection. Therefore, even elite level cyclists, with many years
of training and experience, do not appear to have adapted their physiology so that pedaling at their
preferred cadences leads to a minimization in oxygen consumption.
A recent study conducted at Arizona State University provides additional support for this idea. This
study measured the preferred cadences and most economical cadences of eight experienced cyclists
cycling on their own bicycles on a cycling simulator (Velodyne trainer) at a power output of 200 W
(Marsh and Martin, 1993). The preferred cadence for this group was 85 rpm, close to that reported by
Hagberg et al (1981). The most economical cadence of 56 rpm fell in the middle of the range
previously reported for inexperienced or recreational cyclists. This study clearly demonstrated that
the preferred cadences of experienced cyclists were considerably higher than those at which oxygen
consumption was minimized.
The issue of cycling experience is often raised as a potential explanation of observed differences
in preferred cadence between cyclists and noncyclists (Coast and Welch, 1985; Faria et al, 1982;
Hagberg et al, 1981). Data collected at Arizona State University suggest this may not be the case
(Marsh and Martin, 1993). In the ASU study, experienced runners with no cycling experience, but of
equal aerobic capacity to the cyclists, were asked to pedal at their freely selected cadence at a
constant power output of 200 W. Surprisingly, their average preferred cadence was 92 rpm and their
most economical cadence was approximately 63 rpm, essentially the same as the cadences recorded for
the experienced cyclists (Figure 3). These data challenge the commonly held notion that many years
of cycling experience are required to feel comfortable at high cadences. The data also suggest, some
underlying similarities exist between the cyclists and runners perhaps due to their high fitness
levels, or the aerobic training leading to the high fitness levels.
Figure 3: Steady-state oxygen consumption in cyclists and trained noncyclists during cycling at 50,
65 , 80, 95, and 110 rpm at a power output of 200 VV Note that the cadence at which VO2 is minimized
is significantly lower than the preferred cadence in each group. Despite many years of cycling
experience, the cyclists had not adapted so that they minimized oxygen consumption at their
preferred cadence. Also the preferred cadences of the trained noncyclists were the same as the
cyclists. Therefore many year s of cycling training are not necessarily required to feel comfortable
at high cadences. (Adapted from Marsh and Martin, Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.,
25(11), 1269-127A 1993.)
It could be argued that though running is a weight-bearing activity (as opposed to cycling, which is
weight supported), it shares some commonalities with cycling; that is, it is cyclical, repetitive,
and involves essentially the same muscles producing relatively small forces over extended periods of
time. This could be another explanation for the similarities of these two groups. However, a study
in our laboratory that extends the 1993 work by including untrained noncyclists to assess the
influence of fitness indicates that fitness or training leading to aerobic fitness does play a role
in cadence selection (Marsh and Martin, submitted for publication). We found that the untrained
noncyclists preferred significantly lower cadences compared to cyclists and trained noncyclists.
Also, untrained noncyclists decreased their preferred cadence as power output increased, while the
preferred cadences of cyclists and trained noncyclists remained essentially unchanged as power
output increased. This result, in part, corroborates the notion that noncyclists prefer lower
cadences to cyclists, but it also suggests the influence of fitness or aerobic training in cadence
selection. In summary, cycling experience, per se, is not a prerequisite to selecting a high
preferred cadence, and there is reason to suspect that cadence selection is controlled by
fundamental underlying mechanisms common to all people.
One factor that transcends the cycling experience issue is how we perceive the difficulty of a task.
It has been suggested that an individual's perception of effort is an important factor when
selecting a pedaling rate, and peripheral cues from the active muscles may therefore be given more
consideration than economy or efficiency when selecting a preferred cadence. Ekblom and Goldbarg
(1971) stated that "muscle strain" may provide feedback to the central nervous system, which
strongly influences perceived exertion. In simple terms the hypothesis would be that the feelings we
perceive in the legs during cycling lead us to select a pedaling rate so that we minimize the
perceived effort of the task, even if we are using more oxygen. Typically a rating scale with values
that range from very light effort up to maximal exertion is used to quantify an individual's
perceived exertion (Borg, 1975). Using this technique, several studies have recorded perceived
exertion at different cadences and constant power output, although it should be noted they were not
interested specifically in how perceived exertion might influence cadence selection. Lollgen et al
(1975) manipulated cadence from 40 to 100 rpm at power outputs of 50, 100, 150, and 200 W and found
perceived exertion in trained and untrained subjects decreased with increases in cadence such that
it was minimized at approximately 80 to 100 rpm.
While it is appealing to conclude perceived exertion is therefore an important factor in preferred
cadence selection, other studies have shown that perceived exertion is not always minimized at these
cadences. Stamford and Noble (1974) had high-fit subjects pedal at 40, 60, and 80 rpm at a power
output of 160 W. They reported a parabolic relationship between perceived exertion and cadence,
which was minimized at 60 rpm. Lollgen et al
(26) also reported a quadratic relationship between perceived exertion and cadence, which was
minimized at 65 and 73 rpm during cycling at 70% and 100% of &emdash;2max (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Rating of perceived exernon (RPE) at 40, 60, 80, and 100 rpm during unloaded cycling, and
at intensities corresponding to 70% and 100% of maximal aerobic power. Note that the absolute
changes in the RPE scores are quite small at all three power outputs. However, there is a trend for
perceived exertion to be minimized at higher cadences as power output increases, i.e., RPE minimized
at 60 rpm at 70% VO2max and 80 rpm at 100% VO2max (Adapted from Loligen et aI Med Sci. Sports
Exerc., 12(5), 345-351,1980.)
Recent unpublished data from a study conducted at Arizona State University suggest perceived
exertion is minimized at cadences significantly lower than the preferred cadence at any given power
output, but at cadences slightly higher than those that minimize oxygen consumption. These data are
consistent with Coast et al (1986) who also found cadences that minimize perceived exertion tend to
be slightly higher than those minimizing oxygen consumption. Cadences minimizing perceived exertion,
however, are still significantly lower than the preferred cadences of cyclists. The data from the
ASU study also showed that perceived exertion remained relatively unchanged between 65 and 95 rpm,
but tended to increase at the extremes of the cadence range (50 and 110 rpm). Therefore, cadences in
the middle of the range tested appeared to result in acceptable levels of effort for well-trained,
experienced cyclists and well-trained noncyclists, whereas cadences at the extremes of the range
would likely be avoided.
Now let us take a brief look at the biomechanics of pedaling and examine the forces applied to the
pedals during cycling. Several studies have used force sensing devices mounted in the pedal to
examine the pedal forces as cadence or power output is changed (Cavanagh and Sanderson, 1986; Davis
and Hull, 1981; Hull and Jorge, 1985; LaFortune and Cavanagh, 1980; McLean and LaFortune, 1991;
Patterson and Moreno, 1990). Several of these studies have shown that as cadence increases at
constant power output, the peak force on the pedals decline. In a study of 11 recreational cyclists,
Patterson and Moreno (1990) reported the resultant pedal force averaged across a complete crank
cycle was minimized at 90 and 100 rpm at 100 and 200 W, respectively. Interestingly the preferred
cadences of their subjects at 100 and 200 W were 94 and 98 rpm, respectively. It has been suggested
that if the muscles produce smaller forces more often (as occurs when cadence is increased at
constant speed), they are less likely to fatigue. The rationale for this will become apparent in the
following paragraphs.
Optimal cadence has also been addressed from a biomechanical perspective. Hull and several co-
workers have determined optimal cadences based on biomechanical variables (net joint moments and
muscle stresses) rather than the more commonly used physiological variables such as efficiency or
economy. These two biomechanical variables were selected with good reason. Under conditions where
cocontraction of agonist and antagonist muscle groups is minimal (e.g., quadriceps and hamstrings),
the net joint moment gives an indication of the muscle effort required for the task, and previous
research suggests that minimizing muscle stress is important during submaximal locomotion
(Crowninshield and Brand, 1981). Using experimental data and computer models of the lower extremity,
Redfield and Hull (1986) found a cadence within the range of 95 to 105 rpm minimized the sum of the
average absolute hip and knee moments during 200 W cycling. In follow-up work, Hull et al (1988)
used a more sophisticated computer model to assess the influence of cadence on the muscle stresses
of 12 lower extremity muscles. The optimal cadence, defined as that which minimized the sum of the
12 muscle stresses, was found to be 95 to 100 rpm (Figure 5). The importance of these studies was
the observation that these two biomechanical variables showed close agreement with the cadences
preferred by experienced cyclists. The conclusion from these studies is that minimizing net joint
moments or muscle stresses, both of which are said to give insight into the level of muscle effort
required for the task, may be important in preferred cadence selection. There are, however, some
questions about the validity of the models used in these studies, and more generally, there are
always concerns about the applicability of the model data to real-world conditions. Nevertheless,
these studies show the best agreement between the preferred cadences of experienced cyclists and two
variables that are minimized (i.e., optimized) during cycling.
Figure 5: Data from a computer modeling study that used a muscle stress-based objective function to
determine the optimal cadence at 200 W. The sum of the muscle stresses of 12 lower extremity muscles
was calculated as cadence was varied from 60 to 140 rpm. The model results clearly show that the
optimal cadence (i.e., the cadence that minimized the objective function) was 95-100 rpm. This
agrees very well with the preferred cadences of experienced cyclists and suggests the possibility
that a mechanical variable may be important in preferred cadence selection. (Adapted from Hull et al
Int I Sports Biomech., 4 , 7020, 1988. )
Another approach we can use to attempt to determine why experienced cyclists select high rpms is to
combine the results of these biomechanical and physiological studies and include some information
about the muscle fiber types used during cycling at different cadences. Briefly, our muscles consist
of many thousands of muscle fibers, some of which are characterized as slowtwitch fibers, others
characterized as fast-twitch fibers, and some that have characteristics that fall between these two
extremes. The slow-twitch fibers possess an aerobic endurance quality, while the fast-twitch fibers
are more powerful but fatigue faster. The intermediate fibers possess an ability to develop more
power than the slowtwitch fibers, but do not fatigue as quickly as the fast-twitch fibers. A single
nerve fiber running to one of the large muscles in the leg may control 500 to 1000 of these fibers,
all of which will be either slow, fast, or intermediate. All of these fibers and the single nerve
fiber controlling them are called a motor unit; the muscle fibers of the unit are activated by the
same motor unit action potential and therefore contract in unison.
Fortunately, our bodies automatically select motor units to produce force based on the demands of
the task. For tasks requiring low forces (e.g., standing, walking, recreational cycling at 5 to 10
mph on level ground), slow-twitch motor units are predominantly selected.
As the force requirements of the task increase (e.g., running, a 40-mph sprint finish at the end of
a road race, powering up at steep hill on a mountain bike), fast-twitch units are selected in
addition to the slow units already selected. Remember that laboratory studies have shown a decline
in peak pedal forces as cadence increases at constant power output. According to the widely accepted
motor unit recruitment principles outlined above, fewer fast-twitch fibers should be recruited at a
high cadence compared to a low cadence. Is this what happens in cycling?
Previous studies have alluded to the influence of cadence on motor unit recruitment. Some authors
have speculated that fast-twitch fibers are selectively recruited at higher cadences (e.g., Gaesser
and Brooks, 1975). Often isolated muscle studies, which suggest that slow-twitch muscle fibers may
not be able to contract and relax fast enough at high cadences to be responsible for any useful
power output, are used to argue that selective recruitment of fast twitch fibers occurs at high
cadences, despite the reduction in force per pedal cycle. The nearest direct measurement of fiber
recruitment available to us are studies that assess glycogen depletion in muscle fibers by
extracting a small sample of muscle tissue and assessing the glycogen content pre- and postexercise.
With some limitations, this technique gives an indirect indication of whether slow or fast muscle
fibers are selected during cycling at different cadences; those fibers that are not selected retain
their glycogen stores. Early work by Gollnick et al (1974) concluded that variations in cadence had
no effect on fiber recruitment patterns during cycling. However, these authors were primarily
interested in the influence of power output and exercise duration, rather than cadence. Further,
their methods of evaluating glycogen content were qualitative and later shown to be inadequate for
quantifying small changes in glycogen content (Vollestad et al, 1984).
A recent study by Ahlquist et al (1992), which measured glycogen depletion using a quantitative
technique, produced results consistent with the notion that muscle fibers are recruited based on the
force demands of the task. They assessed glycogen depletion in slow- and fast-twitch muscle fibers
of subjects cycling at 50 and 100 rpm at 85% of their maximal aerobic capacity. The results showed
that at 50 and 100 rpm, a similar number of slow-twitch fibers were recruited. However, fewer
fasttwitch fibers were recruited when the cadence was increased to 100 rpm. This was attributed to
the increased muscle force required per pedal revolution at the lower cadence. This study provides
evidence that the force demands of a task, rather than the velocity of contraction, determines the
type of muscle fibers recruited, and the selection of a preferred cadence during cycling is perhaps
linked to muscle fiber recruitment strategies. It does not appear to support the notion that
cadences of 100 rpm are too high for slow-twitch muscle fibers to operate effectively and contribute
to power output during cycling.
How then does the selection of fewer fast-twitch fibers effect the cyclist, and might this be the
elusive answer as to why cyclists select high rpms during submaximal cycling? Slow-twitch fibers
derive most of the energy necessary for muscular action via oxidative metabolism, in which glucose
and fat are broken down and, in the presence of oxygen, large amounts of ATP are formed. ATP, or
adenosine triphosphate, is the immediate source of energy for muscle action. In contrast, fast-
twitch fibers break down more glucose than can be oxidized to carbon dioxide, which results in the
production of lactic acid. While lactic acid can actually be reutilized as an energy source, in
large quantities it has been linked to a decrease in muscle force production (see Metzger, 1992, for
a thorough review of factors affecting muscle force production).
At any submaximal cycling speed, if we select a high cadence, the glycogen depletion study of
Ahlquist et al (1992) suggests that we will minimize the recruitment of fast-twitch fibers. However,
we can still supply ATP to the working muscles of the leg using predominantly slow-twitch or
intermediate fibers. Since there is less reliance on fasttwitch fibers, there is less likelihood of
a large increase in lactic acid in the working muscle. This theory fits nicely with the observation
that fatigue seems to be delayed when using a high cadence, compared to a low cadence. In addition,
individual differences in percentage of slow- and fast-twitch fibers may help to explain why some
individuals prefer different cadences and why some of us excel at short sprints, while others
perform better during long, sustained efforts. Recreational cyclists, who cycle slowly so that force
demands are low, have no need to pedal at high cadences since they are already utilizing their slow-
twitch fibers. They may even be pedaling at their most economical cadence, since they are in no
hurry to get from A to
B.
In summary, laboratory studies indicate that experienced cyclists do not use their most economical
or efficient cadences. However, cadences of 90 to 100 rpm are probably beneficial in spite of
decreases in economy and efficiency. The explanation proposed here suggests the use of high rpms
results in a decrease in average pedal force per revolution and leads to the recruitment of fewer
fast-twitch fibers, placing the reliance for muscle power development primarily on the slow-twitch
and intermediate fibers. The advantage to the cyclist is there is less likelihood of a rapid
accumulation of lactic acid, with the resulting decrease in muscle force production. More
interdisciplinary studies in cycling, particularly those that combine biomechanical and
physiological data, are needed to confirm or refute this theory.
It seems likely that physiological, psychological, and biomechanical factors all play a role in
preferred cadence selection, albeit to a varying degree, depending on the goals of the task. For
example, maximal sprinting tasks have not been considered in this article, and it is likely that the
criteria for sprint cadence selection are different than for submaximal cycling tasks. As we have
seen, one of the difficulties in attempting to provide a definitive answer to the question of what
are the determinants of the preferred cadence is the inconsistent nature of some of the scientific
literature. Also, this article works from the supposition that for a submaximal task, the human body
will attempt to minimize those variables important to preferred cadence selection. The author is
certainly not alone in this view, but acknowledges this logic may be flawed, and, in fact, the body
may be trying to maximize some as yet undetermined variable, such as muscle power output (see
Sargeant, 1994).
REFERENCES
1) Ahlquist, L. E., Bassett, D. R, Sufit, R., Nagle, F. J., and Thomas, D.
P. (1992). The effect of pedaling frequency on glycogen depletion rates in type I and type II
quadriceps muscle fibers during submaximal cycling exercise. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.
65: 360-364.
2) Benedict, F. G. and Cathcart, E. P. (1913). Muscular Work. Publication No. 187, Washington, DC:
Carnegie Institute.
3) Borg, G. (1970). Perceived exertion as an indicator of somatic stress. Scand. J. Rehab.
Med. 2: 92-98.
4) Cavanagh, P. R. and Sanderson, D. J. (1986). The biomechanics of cycling: studies of the
pedaling mechanics of elite pursuit riders. Science of Cycling. Human Kinetics Publishers,
Champaign IL.
5) Coast, J. R., Cox, R. H., and Welch, H. G. (1986). Optimal pedalling rate in prolonged bouts of
cycle ergometry. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 18: 225-230.
6) Coast, J. R. and Welch, H. G. ( 1985). Linear increase in optimal pedal rate with increased
power output in cycle ergometry. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.
7: 339342.
8) Crowninshield, R. D. and Brand, R. A. (1981). A physiologically based criterion of muscle force
prediction in locomotion. J. Biomech. 14: 793-801.
9) Davis, R. R. and Hull, M. L. (1981). Measurement of pedal loading in bicyding-II. Analysis and
results. J. Biomech. 14: 857-872.
10) Dickinson, S. (1929). The effciency of bicycle pedalling as affected by speed and load. J.
Physiol. 67: 242-255.
11)Ekblom, B. and Goldbarg, A. N. (1971). The influence of physical training and other factors on
the subjective rating of perceived exertion. Acta Physiol. Scand. 83: 399-406.
12) Faria, I., Sjojaard, G., and BondePetersen, F. (1982). Oxygen cost during different pedalling
speeds for constant power output J. Sports Med.22: 295-299.
13) Gaesser, G. A. and Brooks, G. A. (1975). Muscular efficiency during steady-rate exercise:
effects of speed and work. J. Appl. Physiol. 38: 1132- 1139.
14) Garry, R. C. and Wishart, G. M. (1931). On the existence of a most effficient speed in bicycle
pedalling and the problem of determining human muscular effficiency. J. Physiol. 72: 425-437.
15) Gollnick, P. D., Piehl, K., and Saltin, B. (1974). Selective glycogen depletion pattern in human
muscle fibers after exercise of varying intensity and at varying pedalling rates. J.
Physiol.241: 45-57.
16) Hagberg, J. M., Mullin, J. P., Giese, M. D., and Spitznagel, E. (1981). Effect of pedaling rate
on submaximal exercise responses of competitive cyclists. J. Appl. Physiol. 51: 447-451.
17) Hull, M. L. and Jorge, M. (1985). A method for biomechanical analysis of bicycle pedalling. J.
Biomech.18: 307-316.
18) Hull, M. L., Gonzalez, H., and Redfield, R. (1988). Optimization of pedaling rate in cycling
using a muscle stress-based objective function. Int. J. Sport Biomech. 4, 1-21.
19) LaFortune, M. A. and Cavanagh, P. R. (1980). Force effectiveness during cycling. Med. Sci.
Sports Exerc. 12: 95.
20) Lollgen, H., Graham, T., and Sj0gaard, G. (1980). Musde metabolites, force and perceived
exertion bicycling at varying rates. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 12: 345-351.
21) Lollgen, H., Ulmer, H. V., Gross, R., Wilbert, G., and Nieding, G. V.
(22). Methodological aspects of perceived exertion rating and its relation to pedaling rate and
rotating mass. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 34: 205-215.
23) McLean, B. D. and LaFortune, M. A. (1991). Influence of cadence on mechanical parameters of
pedalling. In Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Biomechanics. University of
Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
24) Marsh, A. P. and Martin, P. E. (1993). The association between cycling experience and preferred
and most economical cycling cadences. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 25: 1269-1274.
25) Metzger, J. M. (1992). Mechanism of chemomechanical coupling in skeletal muscle during work.
Perspectives in exercise science and sports medicine. Volume 5: Energy metabolism in exercise
and sport (D. R. Lamb, Ed.) pp. 1-51, Wm. C. Brown.
26) Patterson, R. P. and Moreno, M. I. (1990). Bicyde pedalling forces as a function of pedalling
rate and power output. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 22: 512516.
27) Redfield, R. and Hull, M. L. (1986). On the relation between joint moments and pedalling rates
at constant power in bicycling. J. Biomech. 19: 317-329.
28) Sargeant, A. J. (1994). Human power output and muscle fatigue. Int. J. Sports Med. 15: 116-121.
29) Seabury, J. J., Adams, W. C., and Ramey, M. R. (1977). Influence of pedaling rate and power
output on energy expenditure during bicycle ergometry. Ergonomics. 20:491-498.
30) Sidossis, L. S., Horowitz, J. F., and Coyle, E. F. (1992). Load and velocity of contraction
influence gross and delta mechanical efficiency. Int. J. Sports Med. 13: 407-411.
31) Stamford, B. A. and Noble, B. J. (1974). Metabolic cost and perception of effort during bicycle
ergometer work performance. Med. Sci. Sports.6: 226-231.
32) Suzuki, Y. (1979). Mechanical efficiency of fast- and slow-twitch muscle fibers in man during
cycling. J. Appl. Physiol. 47: 263-267.
33)Vollestad, N. K., Vaage, O., and Hermansen, L. (1984). Musde glycogen depletion patterns in type
I and type II fibers during prolonged severe exercise in man. Acta Physiol. Scand.122: 433-441.
Anthony P. Marsh, Ph.D. Department of Health and Physical Education California State University,
Sacramento, CA 95819-6073
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Taken from : Cycling Science - Summer 1996 - What Determines The Optimal Cadence?
See also Cycling Science - Spring 1996 - Editors Mailbox.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----