The more you train, the easier it is to maintain a decent cadence. I've never been one for a high rate of rotation. It certainly improves when my fitness is up but, I'm still nowhere near what "some" would call ideal. Best case, I think you find what works best for your build & body type. I definitely have strengths, as a rider. Cadence has not stopped me from using those to my advantage. Nor has it with some pros. I think knowing your range of skills is much more important than following a ticking meter. Unless that's what your body is built to do.

None taken. Its a free country, listen to whoever you want to listen to. Everyone's entitled to bad advice that makes them feel good about themselves.

Mashing and bicycling don't mix!

If one were to read the studies done on cadence, they will find that these studies have all shown lower cadence to be more efficient. That low cadence gives lower oxygen consumption for a given output. GCN did one of their YouTube video tests on flat pedals and came to the same conclusion. Clearly though, experienced cyclist pedal much faster than the conclusions from the tests. All this to say that there is no simple answer to the question of optimal cadence. I have known guys with low cadences who have been very successful bike racers. Greg Lemond was known to ride some large gears. He advocated for high saddle position with the seat pushed all the way back. It seems like you have to figure out what works for you and go from there.

While we are on the subject of spinning, has anyone checked out Francoi Pervious video on YouTube? I think he hits like 240rpm. He is an amazing Keirin rider.

I am another one of the "mashers". I suppose I always have been. And, I am very comfortable standing.

Over the last year or so my cycling has increased somewhat, and I think I've noticed that the cadences are naturally creeping up, and gear choices are creeping downward slightly, although my average speed is still in the mid-teens for shorter rides, and low teens for longer rides. Perhaps fitness = longer rides and quicker recovery... and not speed :(

Anyway, here is my interpretation of mashing... and perhaps why the inexperienced riders do it more than the experienced riders.

It is easy enough to put in about 80% of one's body weight as downward force on the pedals while sitting, and 100% of one's body weight while standing. That creates a natural speed of about 10-15 MPH. For standing, one can add in the acceleration due to gravity for the natural cadence.

To increase the speed, one needs to increase power by one of two methods.Once one hits a downward force of 100% of the body weight, the only way to continue to increase the force to the pedals is to pull up, with the more pulling up, the more power to the pedals (on both sides when standing).

The problem is that the body is naturally able to pull up with 0 to 10 pounds of force or so (compared to say 150 to 200 pounds of downward force).

Many people try to ignore the pulling up, but I don't think it can be completely ignored. However, going beyond that 10 pounds or so of upward force comes at an extremely high cost physically.

So, to gain more power, the choice is to increase cadence. For some people, this certainly doesn't seem "natural". Both upward and downward force may decrease when spinning, but overall, one can get more power to the wheels.

My guess there is no difference in power between Mashing and Spinning for sub-12 MPH on the flat, perhaps even slightly favoring Mashing. Then, somewhere between 15 to 20 MPH on the flat, the spinners start winning out.... at least to some extent.

Mashing, however, may also help somewhat with muscle bulk.

Oh...

It is a beautiful day out.
Time to take the Masher Bike out :)
41x19 on the low end.
54x9 on the top end :thumb:
:speedy:

Today I rode in the same gear the whole ride; 53-19. Great for most of the ride but I was mashing on the climbs and when others got frisky up front, I was spinning like a top. Only way to get faster is to push yourself and that could mean spinning at a higher cadence than normal or using a higher gear than normal. I wasn't on a training ride but knowing the route I figured I could get away with doing it. (I posted the ride map and pace on Machka's ride report thread)

A lot of cyclists will ride a singlespeed or fixed gear bike as part of their training. You want to go faster, spin faster. There's a hill coming up, push harder on the pedals.

Oh, another thought.

If weight is a significant factor in mashing as I believe. Then it may favor the heavier riders.

A 140 pound rider can jump up and down on the pedals and not generate the same static force that a 280 pound rider can generate.

Tire and wind resistance does not increase linearly with weight.

Really? I always thought rolling resistance was linear with weight; but what do these guys know? http://www.recumbents.com/WISIL/Mart...%20cycling.pdf (Eq. 6)

Incorrect. Big gear work can be done on the trainer or on flat areas over an extended period of time. Few people can spin 53x11 up a 15% grade and keep the pedals moving. You can spin this low cadence on a trainer or on the flats for as long as your training dictates. From your response, it doesn't sound like you've incorporated big gear work into your training. I believe this was the goal of the OP - to try to build strength by spinning the big gear for extended periods.

Although much of FL is relatively flat we do have some minor elevation in San Antonio and Clermont, FL. A 40-50 mile ride in these ares will yield around 3,000 ft elevation, certainly minor compared to CA and CO, but probably not much different than OH. Unfortunately, these areas don't have long gentle climbs which are ideal for settling into a low cadence for miles and miles. But we do have wind that can produce the same resistance. Or just put in the big gear and go for miles.

If all you did was low rpm work then I think it would be detrimental to any training plan and possibly cause injury. But I personally believe that incorporating some low rpm strength building workouts along with higher cadence work in the same interval, then the benefits outweigh the negatives. Only my opinion, but you need to find what you think is going to work best for you.

You're entitled to your opinion, just recognize the science and the data contradict it.

And you really should stop calling them strength workouts because a) they do nothing to improve strength (the maximum force or tension a muscle or muscle group can produce) and b) strength is irrelevant to road cycling.

Depends what qualifies as mashing. On days like today, one might say A LOT, if mashing is defined as applying force to the pedals at a low cadence. But that's because rather than coasting, I'll switch to a higher gear. Generally I won't mash hard, but I will apply force to the pedals, so it's not exactly soft pedaling; the freewheel stays quiet. :) I spent way more time in the 70s and below than I would on a solo ride. Normally, on a good ride, I'd say I'm spinning 95% of the time. But I'd be surprised if I got above 85 rpm more than half the time today.

Here's a plot that shows typical leg strength (leg press roughly twice body weight) for a 160 lb rider, and the range of cadence and pedal force that rider would need to produce 180 watts (a common "cruising" power of 2.5 watts/kg) and 400 watts. As asgelle has been saying, the forces we commonly experience during road cycling are way, way, below leg strength.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/watt...e-strength.png

Very informative! But I think the top dot needs to be moved to the right just a smidgen. After all, if a guy were to somehow exert twice his body weight on a crank (with a really big chain wheel up a really steep hill), it might not make a whole revolution, but it would rotate at some rpm. :)

For training purposes, intentionally higher gears where you're putting in more effort at a slower cadence will make you stronger. Easier gears at a faster cadence will increase your endurance. None is inherently "better." Bigger riders tend to have more strength and smaller riders can move a little bit faster, but with less force. But at the end of the day, use whatevee gearing works for the conditions you're in and the roads you're riding.

You can repeat this as many times as you like, it will never be true.

That's basic resistance training though. If you lift heavier weights, you'll gain muscular strength. Doing a lighter load many more times in an aerobic zone will improve muscular and cardiovascular endurance, but strength improves marginally. You can't say that if you train with more resistance (higher gearing) you won't get stronger.

I can't, but Andy Coggan can and both he and Robert show you the data to explain why.

Just because resistance is higher, doesn't mean it's high enough to increase strength.

Studies show if you have powerful legs and are more of the manly type you tend to push a higher gear. If you're a soft modern day type of guy and weaker in the legs you're more of a spinner.

In what basic resistance training guide will you do 1000+ reps though? Maybe then you can see the point asgelle is trying to make. Resistance training principles have very little to no carryover to cycling training.

I get the point that the loads and forces experienced in cycling doesn't get you "real" strength and no "Resistance Training 101" book will tell you to do 1000 reps of anything, but if you do 1000 reps of 5 pounds vs 1000 reps of 10 pounds, you will gain more strength in the second case. You won't get rippling, massive quads and squat 600 pounds, but if you intentionally train by doing hill repeats on your highest gear, you will be stronger than if you did them at a lower gear. That's the point I was trying to make with resistance training. I think we disagree on the magnitude of the strength developed, but fundamentally, I think we agree. More beneficial than "strength" training for cycling is threshold training and anaerobic training. THAT impacts your ability to output more power for longer periods of time significantly. Runners have known that forever.

Well if we're not talking about real strength, would you care to define what this new fictitious strength of yours means? It's hard to have a meaningful discussion if you create new definitions for words and no one else knows what you're talking about.