REF-881 · Marsh et al., 1997 · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, Vol. · Paper · PubMed

Effect of cycling experience, aerobic power, and power output on preferred and most economical cycling cadences

Blimited evidenceMeasured on a mixed groupWritten before October 2026, being re-checked

Preferred cadence (PC) was measured in three male groups — 12 cyclists, 10 runners and 10 less-trained non-cyclists — over a range of power outputs, along with steady-state aerobic demand at six cadences (50-110 rpm and PC) at three power outputs.

Cyclists and runners, both groups with high VO2max, kept PC at 90-100 rpm at every power output and picked similar cadences, so cycling experience did not drive the choice. The less-trained men chose lower cadences at every shared power output and dropped cadence as power went up, from about 80 rpm at 75 W down to 65 rpm at 175 W.

Every group preferred a cadence above its most economical one; the economical cadence lay between 53.3 and 59.9 rpm and hardly shifted with power output.

Participants

n=12 male cyclists (VO2max 70.7 ± 4.1 mL.kg-1.min-1), 10 male runners (VO2max 72.5 ± 2.2) and 10 less-trained male non-cyclists (VO2max = 44.2 ± 2.8).

Protocol

Preferred cadence at 75, 100, 150, 200 and 250 W (cyclists and runners) and at 75, 100, 125, 150 and 175 W (less-trained group).
Steady-state aerobic demand was measured with cadence set to 50, 65, 80, 95 or 110 rpm or to PC (six cadences): cyclists and runners at 100, 150 and 200 W, the less-trained at 75, 100 and 150 W.

Key Results

Cyclists and runners kept PC between 90 and 100 rpm at all power outputs, and chose similar cadences at each power.
At every power output shared with the other groups, less-trained non-cyclists picked lower cadences, and their cadence fell as power rose — from approximately 80 rpm at 75 W down to 65 rpm at 175 W.
In all groups, preferred cadence was significantly higher than the most economical cadence at every power output.
Most economical cadence: 53.3-59.9 rpm in all groups, little affected by power output.

Practical Application

In men tested at fixed powers, trained cyclists and equally fit runners both chose 90-100 rpm at every power, whereas less-trained non-cyclists (VO2max 44.2) chose lower cadences that fell further as power rose (about 80 rpm at 75 W to 65 rpm at 175 W); everyone's chosen cadence was above the oxygen-cheapest one (53.3-59.9 rpm). To "my natural cadence is low — is that wrong?": for a less-fit or new rider, a lower self-chosen cadence that drops on harder efforts is what this group did, not a fault to be drilled out.
Cycling experience did not decide the choice: fit runners with little cycling pedalled like the cyclists, so aerobic fitness (and the relative intensity of a given wattage) looks like the better explanation.
Nobody picks the cadence that costs least oxygen; the preferred cadence is higher for reasons other than economy.
Inference, not tested here (the authors' own speculation): less-trained riders, who were at a higher percentage of VO2max for the same watts, may lower cadence to reduce aerobic demand.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: SYNTH-55 lets the rider choose cadence on easy rides and does not treat a cadence well under 90 rpm as a fault.

Limitations

Men only; groups of 10-12.
Short steady-state bouts at fixed powers in the lab; no time trial or fatigue.
"Most economical" means lowest steady-state aerobic demand at a given power, which is not the same as best performance.
Written from the abstract and record metadata only (full text not read).
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

cross-sectional comparison, three groups of 10-12