↓ Skip to main content

Cadence and performance in elite cyclists

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Applied Physiology, October 2004
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
156 Mendeley
Title
Cadence and performance in elite cyclists
Published in
European Journal of Applied Physiology, October 2004
DOI 10.1007/s00421-004-1226-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Øivind Foss, Jostein Hallén

Abstract

Many studies have attempted to describe the optimal cadence in cycling. However, the effect on performance has received little attention. The aim of the present study was therefore to examine the effect of cadence on performance during prolonged cycling (approximately 30 min). Fourteen male elite cyclists performed two or five time trials at different cadences [60, 80, 100, 120 rpm or freely chosen cadence (FCC)]. The total work was the same between the time trials, and the subjects were instructed to complete each time trial as fast as possible by adjusting the workload with buttons mounted on the handlebar. Accumulated work and cadence was visualised on a monitor. Oxygen uptake was measured continuously and blood lactate concentration every fifth minute. Compared to 80 rpm, finishing times at 60, 100 and 120 rpm were 3.5, 1.7 and 10.2% slower (P<0.05). Finishing time at FCC (mean 90 rpm) was indistinguishable from 80 and 100 rpm. Gross efficiency at 80 rpm was 2.9, 2.3, 3.4 and 12.3% larger than at 60, FCC, 100 and 120 rpm, respectively (P<0.05). The maximal energy turnover rate was 1.7% higher at 100 than at 80 rpm (P<0.05). This could not, however, compensate for the 3.4% lower efficiency at 100 rpm. This study demonstrated that elite cyclists perform best at their most efficient cadence despite the maximal energy turnover rate being larger at a higher cadence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Turkey 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 145 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 19%
Student > Bachelor 26 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 15%
Researcher 16 10%
Professor 10 6%
Other 35 22%
Unknown 15 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 81 52%
Engineering 17 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 24 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 December 2022.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#3,226
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,529
of 75,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#12
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 75,668 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.