So which technique is best and what is the reasoning?
Sports science now plays a pivotal role in professional (and recreational) cycling, but it has not always been the case. The success of team Sky and the input of people like Tim Kerrison has, in some ways brought the sport out of the "dark age" and shown many that gains are possible with a more ethical and scientific approach.
Team Sky's current star is of course Chris Froome and his recent dominance at the Tour de France has served to cement his place as the premier stage racer of the current era. Froome is quite possibly the most effective exponent EVER of high cadence cycling, often climbing the high mountains of France at well in excess of 110 rpm. Which brings us to the question; "is high cadence cycling more effective / efficient than grinding away"?
Of course the answer is complex and there is very little evidence to suggest that either technique has blanket superiority over the other. So let's take a look at some of the underlying scientific principles (try to stay awake, I will keep it brief):
Our testing and data analysis shows a few things
Stay safe and enjoy the ride.
Brian Bubba Cooke
Exercise Physiologist, coach & cycling tragic for 30 years. Love the freedom, reward and sense of achievement that one can only experience in our amazing sport.