REF-260 · Kamba et al., 2022 · Sports · Paper · PubMed

Effect of Gear Ratio and Cadence on Gross Efficiency and Pedal Force Effectiveness during Multistage Graded Cycling Test Using a Road Racing Bicycle

Blimited evidenceMeasured on trained to highly trained athletesWritten before October 2026, being re-checked

Participants

n=9 male cyclists (collegiate; age 20.4 ± 1.7 yr, VO2max 64.9 ± 5.9 mL/kg/min — full text, checked 2026-09-27).

Protocol

Two graded submaximal tests on a road racing bicycle, each five 4-min stages with 1-min passive rest. Work rate rose from stage to stage in both, by two different principles:

GEAR trial: gear ratio increased at a fixed cadence (90 rpm, ratio 1.6 → 3.5 — full text, checked 2026-09-27)

CADENCE trial: cadence increased at a fixed gear ratio (3.1, 50 → 110 rpm — full text, checked 2026-09-27)

Gross efficiency (GE) from respiratory variables; index of pedal force effectiveness (IFE) from pedal reaction forces.

Key Results

Trial	GE	IFE	GE↔IFE association
GEAR (↑gear ratio, fixed cadence)	improved	rose with GE	associated
CADENCE (↑rpm, fixed gear)	slight early improvement, then mostly maintained	almost stable	no significant correlation

Values by stage (full text, checked 2026-09-27): GEAR GE 16.9% → 20.8%, IFE 30.8% → 55.8%; CADENCE GE 19.0% → 20.5%, IFE 50.3% → 52.8%.

Authors' conclusion: an increasing gear ratio, but not cadence, may affect GE and IFE while riding a road racing bicycle.

Mechanism

Inference, not tested: raising the gear ratio raises pedal force per stroke, and more of that force is directed usefully (higher IFE), which travels with higher GE. Raising cadence at a fixed gear raises work rate without changing force effectiveness, and GE barely moves.

Note that work rate rose across stages in BOTH trials, so this is not a comparison of cadences at the same power — the abstract does not separate the effect of gear ratio from the effect of the higher work rate it produced.

Practical Application

n=9 male cyclists, two graded tests (5 × 4 min) on a road racing bicycle: stepping up the gear ratio at a fixed cadence improved gross efficiency and pedal-force effectiveness together, while stepping up cadence at a fixed gear improved efficiency only slightly at first and left force effectiveness almost unchanged, with no GE-IFE correlation — on a real bike, a harder gear (more force per stroke) moved efficiency; more rpm did not.

Inference, not tested: the study did not hold power constant while changing cadence, so it cannot say that "the same power at a lower cadence is more efficient" — it says that increasing force via the gear improved efficiency and cadence increases did not.

Inference, not tested: this fits the base's reading that low-cadence, high-force work has a mechanical rationale (REF-259, REF-084) — as an efficiency argument for climbing in a heavier gear it is suggestive, not proven, and neuromuscular fatigue limits how far to take it.

Inference, not tested: the balance between efficiency (favouring higher force) and fatigue (favouring moderate cadence) is what REF-258's intensity-dependent optimum describes.

Limitations

9 subjects, young male cyclists

Road racing bicycle set-up (not a standard ergometer) — different inertia

Only submaximal intensities — no data above threshold

Work rate increased in both trials — gear-ratio and work-rate effects are confounded; no fixed-power cadence comparison

No chronic training study — acute measurements only

How this entry was checked and changed

Content correction 2026-09-27

Per-stage GE/IFE values, participant age/VO2max and the exact gear ratios/cadences are not in the abstract -> labelled "full text; not checked against the abstract"; the abstract's qualitative results (gear ratio improved GE and IFE; cadence slightly improved GE then plateaued; IFE stable; no correlation) are now the Key Results.

Lead Practical bullet claimed "same power at lower cadence = higher GE" and "at fixed power, lowering cadence increases efficiency" -> the study never held power constant (work rate rose in both trials); lead now the study's finding, the fixed-power reading labelled as inference with the confound stated.

Lines labelled "full text; not checked against the abstract" were checked against the open-access full text (PMC9861615): every number in them appears there; relabelled "full text, checked 2026-09-27".