Originally Posted by
livedarklions
Sorry, I just don't get this--maybe you just have a different understanding of what spinning is than other people? I'm not trying to start an argument, btw, but there's a bunch of people on this thread who say they're spinning, and now you're saying almost nobody really does? What's the disconnect? Is "real" spinning dependent on 110+ synchronized cadence? That seems something of an eccentric definition to me.
I know we bumped heads on this topic before, so I don't want you to think I'm asking you to relitigate that. While my legs are not long, they have always been too heavy (muscular) for prolonged fast cadence to make any sense for me.
Your question was understood as “what has changed”. So I told you a few things about history. Yes, things change as time passes.
Now we are back to physiology. Or maybe we are back to point where you just don’t believe there ever was a past, that things ever were different. I am historic and remember different.
Most who have big muscular legs like it that way and do not wish to change. Speaking as a cyclist, if you have big heavy legs you have to pick them up 60 or 80 or 100 times a minute. Mashing big gears leads to hypertrophied muscles. If you think you get so much out of your legs on the downstroke that it doesn’t matter how heavy they are on the upstroke my chances of persuading you otherwise are nil. Not a fight I want.
90 rpm is not spinning. It’s fine to ride that way, no problem. No problem at all. It is not spinning. Every now and then I see someone young and thin who is a natural talent who moves the pedals light and quick. A group spinning? Not in thirty years. Group is the easy and likely way to learn. If the group ain’t doing it few will ever learn.