Simon should do this test each day for 3 days in a row but each day you swap out what cadence goes first. This can eliminate the variable that fatigue/warm up could create regarding heart rate and lactate. Also no caffeine should be used before the test. Stimulants can spike HR and that can in turn spike lactate levels creating warped data. Love the idea of using the treadmill for testing. Makes it more real world. The Cosmed makes this possible and much more enjoyable. Also good to see the compacts on the Colnago.

Achilles tendon inflammation was causing delays in my training and physical impairment for common tasks like stairs. I thought, and others told me I was just getting old. A Garmin watch, Wahoo cadence and CycleOps power plus extensive research forced me to train above 80rpm. All my problems disappeared as long as I stayed above 80rpm. Amazing! I am 67 and just kicked out another century ride. If caadence>80 then injury=0...a nice formula! Biking, lifting & stretching will keep you young, I am evidence.

This video literally changed my riding style. I've embraced riding a slightly smaller gear, lower cadence, which has dramatically affected my riding in a very very good way. Thanks guys.

Something about grinding & churning the big gears at a low cadence makes me feel like a V8 driving, steak eating, poly womanizing, weight lifting, beastly man. But Lance went high cadence so I go high cadence.

For myself, I had always found that high cadence was less efficient until because of a knee injury, I couldn't push a "big gear" and had to spin higher. I actually trained for a higher cadence (95) and after 3 months begin hitting PR's on a regular basis riding over 50 miles (80K).

Really loving the GCN Does Science series. Regarding the linear relationship you saw between cadence, heart rate, and lactate levels I suspect that may be a result of increased muscle perfusion with the higher cadence "flushing out" lactate into the blood thereby increasing measurable levels vs a lower cadence --> lower heart rate --> lower perfusion so more lactate stays in the muscle with less being measurable in the blood. Would be interesting to do separate tests over days to see if the post-ride day lactate level is increased with the lower cadence (finally flushed out of the muscle) and how much muscle soreness the rider feels on the post-ride day with the different cadences. Great video & thanks guys.

I wonder if doing the high-cadence test before the self-selected test influenced Si's cadence selection. Maybe once he is used to working at a high cadence for a few minutes his self-selected cadence rises?

In periods when I run a lot and ride little, I can only produce power by spinning the pedals fast. Same for climbing, living in Amsterdam there are no climbs, so when I have the climb, I stick in the saddle and spin myself upwards.

I'm just going to share my personal preference in cadence, as a ~120 lb endurance climber. I grew into a cadence of around 60-80 rpm. This is because I found that my heart gives out long before my legs do. So, I put more strain on my legs than my heart at the lower cadence. At least in the groups I've cycled with, this is unique to me, so I've sometimes had to explain this. I don't know the science behind it, however, but it definitely made a difference once I realized my issues.

This was awesome. Thanks for posting!

I seriously love you guys and these videos so much! Well done!

Since getting my Garmin for Christmas, this is something that's been crossing my mind a lot. Thanks guys!

From a purely mechanical point of view, irrespective of the training and conditioning of the athlete, higher cadences are less efficient, owing to the need to overcome the inertia of the reciprocating mass. The more frequently the legs have to change direction, the more energy required to do it.

Great video! Results are surprising! Thanks!

i think higher cadence reduces muscle damage, which would result in faster recovery for stage races. just my layman theory.

Just about to go out on a ride where 'Efficient Cadence' will be on my mind... thanks for added motivation.

I cant do high cadence as I find it very hard on my mucles but I can clime hills at low cadences

GCN gave me so much inspiration. Love your videos, guys! The more one measures the more faulty the conclusions out of the data will probably be and the more I read about it, the more confused I become. There are so many factors and my conclusion is that it's a totally individual thing. Factors, for example: body weight, bike weight, bike geometry and efficiency of power transmission, ratio of muscle power to body weight, variations in bike fitting, general physical condition, oxygen capacity per whatever, willpower, health of the heart, texture of the vein system and so on. One important question is what is one's goal. For example, I love long trips of 50 to 150 kilometers at 24 to 29 km per hour. Since I do not use either a heart rate monitor or a cadence sensor, I simply listen to my body to balance the lowest possible heart rate with max. possible strength with moderate muscle burning with moderate and constant breathing rhythm ... long driving mode;). I have no aching and I could probably ride the whole day long.

@ 3:50 there's a common and notable error in their understanding. He thinks because he's pedaling slowly he's using slow twitch fibers, but that's incorrect. At lower cadences there is more force on the pedals, and more force engages the fast twitch fibers. Slow twitch fibers will do all the work until such time as they can't provide the force required, then fast twitch come into play. Fast twitch fibers fatigue more easily and do not recover from the effort as fully as slow twitch fibers. #spin2win

Really interesting episode. I'm going to try low cadence on my next climb. Thanks!

I enjoyed the video a lot. What would be even more interesting is some videos where they do one of these experiments to show how it's done, then discuss the results from a larger trial with more reliable results.

I kept waiting for the Darth Vader bit. Almost gave up hope, but you never disappoint XD 7:38

I've found that for maximum sustained 20 minute power (which for me I measured at about 300 watts), was better at about 90 rpm than 96-100 rpm. Unfortunately I couldn't test lower because the bike ran out of resistance settings to make 300 watts. Mind you, this was one of those horrible wide saddles that you have to sit right on the tip, unless you are pedaling in a lower seat sitting position (which is useless for making any kind of power over 150-200 watts). The adjuster also had holes spaced just over an inch apart, and I had a setting where the saddle was just a bit too high as the next setting was too low for max power.

Wow, great test, thanks!

Very interesting episode. Thank you.

Mashing may be more efficient of your muscles are made for it. Like you've training slow twitch muscles in you're legs you're whole life. Great video as usual. The important take away is to train in different cadence zones.

For really steep sections or at the end of sprints I like high cadence 90-100 rpm. For long climbs 80-90 rpm and 70-80rpm for flat sections. I discovered lower cadence works better for me on flat sections when I was keeping up with some faster guys at lower cadence, but then they started walking away whenever I went to a faster spinning gear, but I was a bit fatigued that day so I'll check it out again.

cutest little smile at 5:45 ^^ haha!

Great work guys! Your "science" segments are my favorite and remind me of the Mythbusters show. The most important "takeaway" seems to be to keep an open mind and don't assume that accepted practice in the cycling world is always the best. And it shows just how much we still have to learn. Important Question: "Si, do you also have a daughter named Leia?" ;-D

You have to think what muscle was develop by a rider... If a rider is a spinner then his muscles are developed for spinning. If a person is a masher then he will have a hard time spinning with those big thighs... for me, I think spinning is the best. I use to be a masher until I car hit me and I can't put too much weight on my knee. Long story short, I found spinning, and now I found it less tiring than mashing.

I have found, as I am concentrating on 40K TT, but on a road bike, that there is huge difference in 90 to 100 Cadence. It all depends on what cog you are in and what power you are putting out. I control my power output by controling my cadence at 95. I know, roughly, how much more power I put in at 95 to maintain 95 for each different cog. On the flat I use a max of four cogs on 25 to 11. Riding into a strong wind I am on the lowest 19, then 17, 16 and 15. I can hit 40K/hr at 16. I stay in this range and out of corners drop a gear higher and pull out of the saddle and then drop back to get the cadence back up as fast as possible. Sometimes with no head wind I go up to 100 and try and stay there. Unfortunately I am bouncing at about 110. My experience is that I had to learn to spin at 95 and I did that by riding at about 32K/hr at 19. But I was only averaging about 220 to 230 Watts and much less with a tail wind. I do a stepped VO2 Max once a week and basically remain at 95 and push through the gears as above, at 15 I am doing about 360 to 380 Watts and repeat that five times. I have found, for me to be able to maintain the higher watts longer, was the increase in cadence. I suppose it comes down strength v ability to re-process oxygen. One thing I have learnt is I will never be any where near Bradley Wiggins or the pro level etc... not matter how hard I train. I reckon, with all things being equal, you need about 280 watts average on smaooth road to do 40K in 60 minutes.

i personally prefer to spin around 95 feels most comfortable, i tried slowing down to 80rpm a few times it felt a lot harder although my HR stayed about the same, so yeah whatever feels the best for you is probably the best way to ride

I've often wondered about this when doing Zwift workouts on my Atom, 80rpm does seem to feel easier than 90rpm overall, even though I try and train at 90rpm because that's what people have told me.

Good video...I tend to be on the higher cadence side. Last season in a pan flat 40km ITT my cadence was 102rpm average and I tend to climb at about 95rpm on 6-8% climbs. The race will dictate your cadence too, if I'm sitting in I spin a lot more, 110rpm sometimes but if I do a turn on the front I'll drop down closer to 100rpm. Like he said at 60rpm, "don't ask me to accelerate". It may be efficient but if you're following an attack on a climb or launching an attack of your own you need to be able to wind the gear up. Froome is an extreme example but look at his cadence when he attacks.

ive experimented with different cadences over the years and I now always spin fast. I rode for a while mashing bigger gears and I found that my average speed was no faster than when I spin, my legs would get tired quickly, id get knee pain, achilles pain and I found that my cardio was not getting a good workout. I put weight on when I mashed gears. I love the feeling of spinning fast.

Love all the videos! Big fan! It would be nice it you put all the links below as with an iPad you can't tap on the screen for links.

Hey guys, Aaron here. Can you do a game for prizes - where you show videos of the pros printing, climbing etc and the viewers have to guess their cadence via submission?

What about the worm up? I think that Si became more suitable for the test in time (especially for the 3rd, low cadence test)!

I tend to average at about 75-80 rpm and 25kph (most of my rides have a lot of hills in though). For me, as a fairly new, low-level cyclist it feels the most comfortable. If I get to 100 it's like my legs are spinning wildly and I seem to be going nowhere, I doubt I could sustain that for very long so normally much above 80 and I'm changing into a higher gear.

gcn video always make me wanna ride ;-)

I found myself a few years ago while training for a Time Trial (flat course) that instead of pedaling 105-110 rpm that if I dropped it to 75-80 and used a much bigger gear (Ulriching it) I gained 1-2mph avg speed and HR dropped by 5 beats or so. The trade off is your leg muscles being able to maintain the exertion long enough to finish before failure.

it would be good to see 3 cyclists doimg the same 3 tests and then compare the result as that should exclude unique abilities of individual cyclist.

In general, I always drive with a very high cadence, because over the years I have noticed that I am the fastest in this way without getting tired too fast.

Do a longer interval test too, 60 minutes, for example. The big benefit of spinning is it saves the leg muscles over time. Not that much fatigue is going to be generated in only 10 minutes.

That test surprised me because I thought the VO2 would be highest at 100 rpm but less lactate. One thing I have found though personally is that over spinning can actually give me the "jelly legs" as much as trying to churn out a big gear.

2:06 I really wanted to see that or expecting the machine turned on.

In my experience it's important what you have done before the climb. If you cycle 60miles before its mostly not possible to ride with a low cadence and a lot power. If you only ride 10miles before, the possibility can be totally different.

Cadence is one of the metrics I look at to determine optimal crank length. A rider's self selected cadence varies on different crank lengths. When my cranks were too long, my self selected cadence was about 80rpm, but when I shortened them by 7.5mm, my self selected cadence rose to 95rpm. My average heart rate also dropped 17bpm and I'm riding significantly faster. I have chart comparisons on my blog showing this if you're interested in seeing it. Maybe something worthwhile to investigate in the future?

I tend to use higher cadence on the hills and for a moderate effort of 150 to 200 watts that would be around 70 rpm but on a hill about 90 for a high effort of 300 watts. Bombing away from a light powers can go over 700 watts and 120 rpm. I don't have a power meter but am just going by perceived effort when compared to a gym bike that measured power.

To pedal efficiently at high cadence you need to train as turning legs around has costs in itself. Most of my riding is on big, long climbs and my cadence is around the 70 rpm mark, this is due to the slope (say 9-10% for the local roads) and gearing (34x30) I have and my w/kg. If I had a smaller gear I would comfortably pedal a bit faster. So I'm gear/power limited on climbs.

Hey ya GCN! Do a video on when a bike tire should be replaced and if so - the different types of tyres out there :)

I remember selecting 90 for 300 watt 20 minute power runs and 96 rpm for 360 watt 4 minute VO2 runs. I think my power figures are a bit lower than that now as I haven't done much heavy cycling in a while. Because the bike I was using ran out of resistance levels I couldn't test at a lower cadence without reducing power. Also I was riding on the tip of a fat bottom saddle lmao. I have no idea how accurate the meter was and whether it reads higher than the PureGym bikes or whether I am less fit now which is likely as it certainly felt harder to keep it over 300 watts for more than a couple of minutes in there.

You mention the lower cadence was utilising slow twitch muscle, surely the HR determines what energy source and twich muscles being used. I would suggest zone 4/5 is using fast twitch!

I dont think I can really say anything that hasn't been said but one thing I've noticed is that i prefer to pedal faster in the winter as putting a big force sort of clunking slower gears is really uncomfortable when the temperatures lower I feel.

Reaffirms what I always felt about cadence but for running. Whenever I try the 180cadence for any fast running or races I always tire out quicker and start breathing hard faster. While if I stay at the cadence want which is much slower than 180spm I can regulate my breathing with my steps and don't get tired as fast. I think optimal cadence is arbitrary and is different for everyone. Obviously if we're going to use elite runners at around 180spm+ and gauge that as optimal we need to be talking to regular people who race at those speeds as well not normal everyday people who's faster runs edge on 7 to 6 min miles or even slower. I think cadence is proportional to speed so to increase it independently means higher energy expenditure on a speed that doesn't require it. That lactate data speaks for itself.

I wonder how much the comparative results have to do with the rider's conditioning and technique. All my Strava PRs have been achieved seated, turning between 90-100rpm. Once on a very climb I decided to stand up and went all out. Upon plugging in the garmin at home I was amazed to see that my time was a massive 1'10" vs 55" PR! I can do that just cruising along sitting down. When I started cycling 4 years ago I read that high cadence was good for the knees (in line with GCN's advice) and have always been aiming for 90. The results could have been different if I hadn't - although I must say the knees feel good.

Diet and nutrition also plays a very large part in the lactate threshold of a rider. You may want to do an experiment on that as well.

Nice and detailed video, I hope GCN is going to do some more test into it :D I have a question though. If I was to guess, I would also relate the cadence to the physique of the cyclist: intuitively (to me), the longer the legs and the more inertia the cyclist has to overcome during the spinning, hence it would be more difficult (from a fatigue point of view) to get higher cadence. Can this be true??? Just as an example, to me it's more surprising to see Chris Froome going at high cadence then Lance Armstrong, because Froome is higher, so probably Froome's legs are longer then Armstrong...

Funny to watch the guys in 2020 ;)

Self selection seems the way to go, maybe it reflects the individual riders own physiology. Beautiful bike.. Santa was good to some lucky rider!

So let's talk about n engine for just a minute.... When you have higher rotation, torque tends to decrease, even if power tends to increase. But when you have a perfectly tuned and engineered engine, attached to a low weight car, you don't need so much torque, in order to obtain power, as you will have a higher rotation. That is the problem in phisics. When a machine based in alternative movement is created, just like an engine, or the legs of a cyclist, is hard to obtain high torque, at high rotation. In order to achieve that, you will need huge amounts of air and fuel entering the engine and a ignition system so well tuned that can burn it efficiently at high revs. The same thing with a cyclist. Training is the answer, and training at high cadence, and at the same time, producing high torque, in order to obtain high power. That is achieved by taking nutrients (fuel) and oxygen to the muscles, have a good exhaust system (in a cycling that would be taking the waste produces from the muscles) and having a perfect tuned aerobyc and neuro firing system in order to, efficiently (other than effectively), produce power. That is the graal of cycling for me (well, i understand it, but i can not achieve it... lol... this is a rela little engine :P ). And that is not at the reach of everyone. And having a coach that understand this phisics, can be so good, or so bad. That can take you to real work tuning you up, or taking the wrong pad, with your ego on command, lead you bad. Ask Ferrari, and he understand this perfectly, and know exactly what to do with a human body, in order to "tune" it for support that effort... If you know what i mean. That was exactly what he've done with Armstrong, a guy that he choose as a lab for his experiments, weakened by a desease that he tuned to exhaustion based (in my opinion) in this principle. And achieved a nearly perfect machine. Not legal though, but nearly perfect.

See and I'm a time trialist that averages a 95-100 cadence @ 300 watts. I think it's all about personal preference just like what you guys said.

works great in my shop and on road trips in my RV

Would love to see the KJ expenditures, for the 3 tests...

See this is an interesting experiment, I'd like to point out that the torque produced at 60 cadence is a lot greater than 80 and 100, meaning that though it may me more effect in this situation with a rolling platform, in a real life experiment when fighting gravity each pedal stroke is an acceleration and to maintain a speed at 60rpm you'd need to put out a significantly higher wattage than the other two. For a real life experiment how about 3 hill efforts hitting the bottom are are set speed of around 5 minutes at the different cadences with a long rest period to insure recovery. This would vary from rider to rider as the ability to cope at higher/lower cadence would differ but anyone can do it

I find that the older I am becoming the better I am at low cadence at least for tt's. On a trainer I can produce power from 90 rpm but on the road and in races I tend to use as big a gear as poss to get the best time. If I try to use a smaller gear and spin, I go slower. I can do below my age for a 25 and I am 53, but when I have tried to spin I am lucky to get 55!!

Hi Guys, What is the chance of doing a test on different saddle heights and how it influence's performance/Strength.

Cadence come down to physiology, length of bones and types of muscles someone has. Saying there is optimal cadence for everyone is like saying there one optimal heart rate number for everyone

What about the affect on bone and joint health? I understand that low cadences are bad becaues you can put too much force through your knee. On the other hand the much higher forces involved in running are supposed to strengthen your bones over time, but I don't know if anything similar happens with pedaling hard at low cadence.

"90!? What?!?!" 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣 *Recognizes he was SSJ along along*

And the order of the tests could matter as well, or at least should be isolated as a possible variable ;)

having oxygen mask, measuring blood samples --- very technical!

I have very limited cycling experience. If I'm riding at a speed that feels fast to me on a flat road on my hybrid I will normally chose the highest gear, since that feels most comfortable to me. I don't actually know what sort of cadence I'm doing, but clearly I couldn't use a lower cadence without slowing down, so it's not entirely 'self-selected'. I'm curious about if many other cyclists do the same thing.

90, wtf as he comes flying off!!

So I am wondering? You want a lower lactate level right? And also what is the VO2 measuring?

This validates my experience. High Cadence = High Heartrate = More Lactate = Prone to Cramps. When I tried lower cadence at around 40rpm, my heartrate doesn't go higher than zone 2. Although it is painful on the legs/thighs, the general feeling after the ride is not that exhausting, and gets to zone 1 heart rate in less than a minute! Oval chainring do make it possible to go lower cadence, round chainring is just too heavy especially at 6 O'clock position.

Did this completely change gear selection for the testers riding from hence forth? Because that does seem a very significant bit of information.

this test was for a very short period of time. what happens if you run this test over the length of a competitive ride (say 1-5 hours)? I bet the results are quite different then.

I would be very interested to see this done in reverse 60 rpm to 100 LLM (laugh like Matt)

I thought that part of the point of Lance's high cadence was to do with efficient burning of fuel for endurance. Now Lance was a man of numbers and wouldn't have taken this approach if it wasn't scientifically tested, however Ulrich was a masher and did just as well (what's a few minutes between friends, last place in the tour would have been hours behind and still a pro rider). So perhaps it doesn't make that much difference, or perhaps it depends on personal physic. Either way Simon and Lance have done scientific testing and come to, apparently, different results.

How would a trainer affect the results? I'm guessing that at a higher cadence, we tend to coast more if we don't pedal fast enough which removes lactic acid from the muscles. This should reduce the burning sensation. Since the lactate was lower at a lower cadence, does that mean the FTP increased?

Does grinding burn your legs out though? Your aerobic system can recover with rest. When I grind I have fewer matches to burn than if I spin. My SRM suggests I can hold higher wattage for longer when I spin as well. Any comments?

The conclusion of this test is incorrect. Higher lactate production is beneficial for a given VO2 level. There are many scientific papers that support this. More lactate production serves to maintain cytosolic redox i.e. reduce acidosis, make new glucose, and consume more protons from cytosol, as well as allow transport of proton from the cell. All these are advantageous to exercise performance. This test actually indicates that at RPM of 100, there was a better cycling performance as indicated by higher lactate levels.

Interesting. However, the real questions only involve self-selected cadences. Which is better: a rider with a lower self-selected cadence and a similar rider with a higher self-selected cadence? A more fundamental issue is: just how valid is the concept of a self-selected cadence? After all, whether I am on the flats, going up, going down; in a power, spin, or recovery interval; and/or even whether I am feeling fully charged up, fully bonked, or anywhere in-between--I am ALWAYS going EXACTLY at my self-selected cadence, whether or not I should be.

I ride mostly single-speed, using my carbon, geared, bike for "best". If you ride single-speed you get to train with every cadence there is, from egg-whisk downhills, to eye-popping, handlebar snapping, uphills.

This is basically the difference in horse power (hp) and torque (bhp) as applied to a bicycle. Hp is always higher at higher rpm and bhp is always higher at lower rpm, therefore more torque is required at lower cadence (uphill) and more horsepower is required at higher cadence (flat). In combustion engine speak, the torque curve follows from torque to horsepower or low rpm to high rpm. How does this translate to the human body, though? That depends upon the actual combustion and compression relatives - oxygen verse available leverage which would be the fuel supply burn rate and cam shaft dimensions (diameter of piston shaft rotation = pedal to crank ratio Vs rear cog ratio). At lower rpm the body, as with the combustion engine, should burn less fuel but run an increased risk of something snapping due to torque to available/potential resistance. At higher rpm the body, again as with the combustion engine, should burn more fuel (and oxygen) but run a decreased risk of snapping anything even though the heart is pumping faster - yet, though it is faster overall it is actually lower per given output of required torque. Considering that the main thing that kills a gasoline fueled motor is wear of mating surfaces, a caveat should be included for cyclists: higher rpm (no matter the torque requirements, ie uphill or flat) = higher wear on all of your parts unless you are pushing the very far edges (ie insane uphills in higher gears or flatout chugging out of the saddle on flats in low gears). I'm in the camp of try to find your magical cadence - wherever you are comfortable and change gears accordingly, don't try to rocket science it unless you have a super manicured track inside of a bubble because if you are doing these kinds of experiments on yourself outside in the real world you run a severe risk of getting into serious trouble that you alone can not get yourself out of.

Hey any idea what gear he was using ? I ride fixed at 50-15 and am focusing on my cadence right now just seeing what is best to be pushed to pl

What about something for the commuter or touring cyclist, not all of us are riding bikes to try and join the tour. Ideal cadence data appears to be based on a very high power output, not something the average commuter or touring cyclist maintains. Perhaps some data on what is the most efficient cadence to maintain 15,20,25, 30 km/h on level ground would be useful. Its possibly like the engine in a car, sure to most effectively use 80-90 % of the rated power the revs have to be right up there 3000+ rpm, but for light cruising, light throttle loads rpm is

I wonder how a mtb rider stats would compare to him on the same test on same bike, mtb tend to use slightly more effort on gradients? More resistance due to weight and tire drag? Would be interesting to compare the results on the same test same bikes - future video idea?

Very nice colnago

One thing ive found is that my body responds negatively to a low cadance high power type of cycling. That was after three summers doing 2x10km every day ( for 3 months). I started getting more and more tired and pain in my legs. The solution was changing to lower gear, higher cadance at the same speed ( around 25min for 10 km). I assume a lower cadance is going to work the muscles harder. They would then need more oxygen wich you wont get since the lower heart rate means you breathe less. But its just a theory.. Of course im not really a cyclist, just an amature with poor fitness..

ahahahhahah, that ending!

What type of treadmill are they using? Its long and wide. I would like to get one.

Hello there! This test is so wrong in so many ways, it's hard to know where to start the critique, so I'll just mention what appears to be the most significant point. This is when the rider says "don't ask me to accelerate" at 60 rpm. That is significant because climbs are not constant grade as in the test, but constantly changing and the rider must constantly change speed, so easier at higher rpm's, as the rider remarks. From a mathematical point of view, think of the grade as a curve, then a finer mesh better approximates the curve.

Best cadence for sprinting!!!

In each of the three tests, was the person cycling in the same gears in all three tests, and what were the speeds

How many watts was he putting out? I assume it would be the same wattage for all three efforts. I imagine a slightly higher cadence would maybe work better if the wattage output was higher. People doing the hour record a lot if times go about 100 rpm. Like you said Daniel, Wiggins was putting out 400 and some watts. I am curious how many watts Simon was putting out here.

use your cadence meter to see at what cadence you A: feel the most comfortable at and B: where you climb the fastest at yet can still accelerate at the top...... there in lies the answer ...your cadence will vary by terrain slightly but there is a reason bicycles now have 20-22 gears ..... s cadence that feels good to you can be maintained and the gears used for the increase or decrease of speed IF you know your body and your bike...then your cadence meter can show you where you live

Great video, thanks! By the way, it is really hard to listen to a discussion on the average VO2 figures of 50 mkg having 45 mkg VO2MAX myself. :-)

Great video, thanks guys. I do have a question about how to interpret the results. Do any of the metrics you recorded allow you figure out at which cadence you are draining muscle glycogen faster? Conventional 'wisdom' states that you should always try to spin at a faster gear on the first climbs in a race/event in order to be fresher for the last climbs where you can rely on your muscular strength. I'm wondering if your results support or debunk this.