I am interested in this debate about cycling cadences because I'm always looking for ways to improve my speed, hill climbing and range on the bike. The first three article links seem to reference the same test as I get into the middle paragraphs and I don't see much on sustained output in that test. I used to follow pro coach Chris Carmichael's book on cycling fitness that was written 15 or 20 years ago. Carmichael promoted high cadence in order to clear lactic acid from the legs. On the other side of the debate, my own personal experience is my heart rate is lower at lower cadences for the same speed or power output (I sometimes train indoors on a Wahoo Kickr, so I'm going by the watt measurements on that unit). I definitely can climb at a lower heart rate with lower cadences like 55 rpm, but I've never tried doing an entire ride of 20 miles or more at that cadence. As I approach 65 years old, I do notice some pain in my knee caps as I dig in deeper without power assist. I'm new to ebikes though (200 miles so far), so I may try more low cadences and see if the motor picks up more of the load and what affect that has on battery consumption and range.