As a mitochondrial researcher I want to try to explain this a bit.

My understanding is at a given power if your cadence drips then the power contribution from the muscles goes up and the cardiovascular contribution goes down. If the cadence goes up the muscular contribution goes down and the cardiovascular contribution goes up. So your vo2 scores make total sense

In short: practice makes perfect. Nutrition, cadence, transition, etc. It is all determined by PRACTICE

Great effort guys! Same here, 85 cadence on both bike and run, comes most natural to me.

I always aim for 85-90 cause otherwise my run has always suffered. Never knew why or even that it was a thing. Just knew what worked for me! Thanks for that though, very neat and informative

Probably worth reading some papers on trials done for this sort of experiment. It certainly makes sense that applying more pressure (low cadence cycle) drains strength/power, Whereas high cadence (cycle) uses vascular system more and saves the leg muscles..

One thing about using trainers for this kind of test is they give a skewed reading versus real world. In the real world you spend 20-30% of your time freewheeling, this can mean soft pedaling or just not pedaling at all. This is born out in pro's Strava data sheets, where best case pedaling time is 88% during short time trials and worst case of 68% for roadies in a peloton. Going back to the lab, the issue with trainers is the inability to soft pedal. Typically a low cadence rider exerts high watts for a duration, then reduces power enough to maintain their speed. In contrast a high revolution rider exerts a more linear, but lower power output for a ride. The high cadence rider will be more accurately represented on a trainer, but the lower cadence rider's style will not.

Do you think it would work if you ride at your preferred cadence for most of the cycle, and then for the last 10 minutes or so switch it to your running cadence to get your system primed and then off you go?

Good video guys

Great video, confirms my 85rpm => 170spm. Cleared quit a bit.

imagine Froomey running with his bike cadence (that Ventoux praying mantiss run was just a casual jogging)

Very cool. You're also more likely to ride a lower cadence on a hilly or mountain course which goes to show what you're going to feel on the run. Maybe more teeth on the cassette to help push a higher cadence than you necessarily feel you need would be good. Or, it may be that the higher efficiency on low cadence on the bike may start to hit the bike itself given a longer test period. 😀

Hi Heather and Mark, given your findings, could a case be made for low cadence (65) on the bike initially, followed by a run pace cadence (85) on the bike as you approach the tail end of the bike segment? Thanks

I always have tight heavy legs at the run start, and I've tried high and low cadence, but spinning in an easy gear near the end of the bike helps a little.

No power meter? Power needs to be consistent, with cadence changing.

My cadence has been higher and higher on the run, these days I’m running at over 180 steps per minute (183 this morning easy run, 184 last friday threshold run), matched cadence would be around 95rpm. I think I would blow up quicker if I cycled at that cadence, because my heart rate is usually higher at a higher cadence on the bike. So it’s a tradeoff, sometimes I find varying cadence on the bike is probably more efficient. It’s quite hard to output a huge amount of power on descents, so that’s an opportunity to push a higher gear and lower cadence, then on the flat using a higher cadence. Climbing for me often results in lower cadence than on the flat because it’s hard to have a high cadence when getting out of the saddle. I agree with Jon Shook, if you want to have a nice run start you need to back it off towards the end of the bike leg.

Your VO2 was lower at lower rpm because of anaerobic metabolism, you weren’t using as much 02. If you had VCO2 data that would show a higher level at the lower more anaerobic rpm.

wow, i'm surprised she can say that 65 rpm on the bike felt the easiest! I sometimes do a workout with 4 equal intervals, the first at 60 rpm, second at 80 rpm, third at 100 rpm, and 4th at whichever cadence was the most challenging. I have a hard time even holding 60 rpm due to the stresses on my knees, where making the same power at 90+ rpm is way easier on the joints.

very „useful“ recommendation to „test it yourself“ :)

When you altered your cycling cadence, was the speed constant? I.E. When cadence was 65, were you in a harder gear than when you were at 85 or 105 so you were going at the same speed for all three tests?