Terry Morse writes:

Have the experts pretty much decided that higher cadence is the way
to go?

Well, most of the experts seem to be leaning that way. Here's a
brief summary of why spinning is beneficial:

"Why is it better to spin (80 - 100 rpm), rather than grind ( 80
rpm)? Spinning requires less force per revolution, builds up less
lactate, requires less oxygen consumption, and reduces neuromuscular
fatigue. This is why it is beneficial in racing, however grinding
does have its place in training when you want to specifically target
improving muscle force production."

http://www.cyclingnz.com/science.phtml?n=44

I see no scientific data or proof of this hypothesis and have watches
many great bicycle professionals from the 1960's to present win races
using a wide range of cadences for their successes. I spent many
years riding the low cadences that more recent riders denigrate as
"painful grinding" and sure to ruin my knees. How soon should I
expect that and why do they care? Unfortunately with advancing years
I can no longer outrun these comments on climbs as I formerly did,
leaving those giving me advice behind in their favorite cadence in the
flats as well as on long climbs.

I watched Roger Millar and Andy Hampsten ride low cadences (60's) in
the TdS on hill climbs and watched Charley Gaul, Massignan, Pambianco,
and Rik van Looy on the Stelvio. None were turnng more than 60rpm.

http://www.cyclinghalloffame.com/rid...sp?rider_id=45

If you believe this is to your advantage, I don't want to dissuade
you, but advising new riders to do so is folly. They should ride hill
climbs and optimize their ET. In that process the ideal cadence will
arrive naturally.

Jobst Brandt