|
How much mashing?
So from an efficiency standpoint, I think (?) it's generally agreed that there is a range of cadence that is generally considered to be optimal (eg. somewhere between 80-95 for argument's sake.
That said, to what degree do riders either unwillingly or intentionally end up in lower cadence ranges, thereby increasing the muscle load. If intentionally, do riders make intentional training choices to eg. do their hills in a gear in which they can only get to 60rpm? How much of a ride should be in this "zone" vs. optimal efficiency RPMs? |
Higher cadence is another marketing term like 'marginal gains' or 'swimming in off-season' when not put into context.
There's new research out suggesting the most efficient cadence is likely whatever cadence your body naturally selects (rather than looking at your computer and trying to hit a certain RPM zone). That said, forcefully altering your cadence could have useful training effects, depending on outcome goal; but note, this is different than riding in the midst of a race and telling your legs to ride at what the computer says to ride at, not what they want to ride at. |
Originally Posted by Sy Reene
(Post 17750758)
So from an efficiency standpoint, I think (?) it's generally agreed that there is a range of cadence that is generally considered to be optimal (eg. somewhere between 80-95 for argument's sake.
That said, to what degree do riders either unwillingly or intentionally end up in lower cadence ranges, thereby increasing the muscle load. If intentionally, do riders make intentional training choices to eg. do their hills in a gear in which they can only get to 60rpm? How much of a ride should be in this "zone" vs. optimal efficiency RPMs? I am one who naturally spins around 100rpm. I had a coach who would schedule intervals with me keeping an average of 70rpm in an attempt to increase this usable range and build muscular strength. If I remember correctly I probably spent 20-25% of my hard intervals in the 70rpm range during the weeks we worked on this issue. My FTP increased after these weeks but I don't know whether the low cadence or the high intensity aspect of the intervals helped more - probably a combination of both. |
Just get a Pioneer Power Meter and have it tell YOU what your most efficient cadence is.
|
Former masher here, now an ardent spinner.
"Naturally selected" cadence is bullocks. The theory goes that since bigger rides are "naturally" mashers it means that this is what is optimal for them. Bigger rides are naturally mashers due to the fact that they have poor cardiovascular fitness and cannot maintain a high RPM. Just because its natural doesn't mean its efficient. You can get away with mashing on the flats but once you want start climbing spinning is really your only hope of reaching to the top. I learned to spin by getting a cadence sensor and focusing on holding a certain RPM until it became "natural" for me to spin, even without looking at my garmin. Of course its normal for your cadence to drop a bit when climbing but if you're in the 60's range you're losing power. In a rather simplified context, wattage = force x cadence. If you sacrifice a newton meter or two to gain an extra 20 RPMs (dropping down a gear or two) you're putting out a lot more wattage than grinding a bigger gear would generate. Mashing a harder gear does have its benefits. A trick I often use is to switch to a harder gear on a climb when I am out of breath -- it shifts part of the work load from my cardiovascular system to my neuromuscular system without too much loss in forward momentum. Of course this is only a brief reprieve and not a sustainable way to ride. |
Originally Posted by yankeefan
(Post 17750818)
"Naturally selected" cadence is bullocks. The theory goes that since bigger rides are "naturally" mashers it means that this is what is optimal for them.
Originally Posted by yankeefan
(Post 17750818)
Bigger rides are naturally mashers due to the fact that they have poor cardiovascular fitness and cannot maintain a high RPM.
There are plenty of other underlying conditions that cause people to ride a lower cadence than they otherwise normally select. For instance, poor fit. If someone cannot get comfortable on the saddle, they're going to select a lower cadence to try and take pressure off their crotch. |
Originally Posted by Jamminatrix
(Post 17750854)
I was unaware it was universally accepted every 'bigger' (not sure if you mean by height/weight or body fat?) rider was a masher, or is that just a blanket statement? Plenty of bigger riders have naturally high cadences.
Also, what is a naturally high cadence? I spin 90-100 on flats and cadence isn't even a data field on my main screen anymore. Is this natural for me? I certainly don't make a conscious effort to do it. How do you know the cadence that someone is pedaling at their "natural" cadence? Did you asked them if it is natural for them to spin? Fitness goes up, cadence naturally goes up. There are plenty of other underlying conditions that cause people to ride a lower cadence than they otherwise normally select. For instance, poor fit. If someone cannot get comfortable on the saddle, they're going to select a lower cadence to try and take pressure off their crotch. |
Mashing hurts my knees.
Therefore, my cadence sits comfortably in the high 80s ... with the possible exception of particularly steep bits of climbs. |
Originally Posted by Sy Reene
(Post 17750758)
So from an efficiency standpoint, I think (?) it's generally agreed that there is a range of cadence that is generally considered to be optimal (eg. somewhere between 80-95 for argument's sake.
|
Originally Posted by Sy Reene
(Post 17750758)
That said, to what degree do riders either unwillingly or intentionally end up in lower cadence ranges, thereby increasing the muscle load. If intentionally, do riders make intentional training choices to eg. do their hills in a gear in which they can only get to 60rpm? How much of a ride should be in this "zone" vs. optimal efficiency RPMs?
|
It depends on the individual and the terrain; and it can vary, depending on how you feel- so that you may enjoy using different cadences and different amounts of mashing during the same ride.
Ignore the "research"- most of it is a JOKE- and conducted under very unrealistic conditions. Often, the only thing scientific about it, is that those conducting it are wearing white coats. Just like they're now finding out that all the dietary "research" done over the last 40 years is BS.; so too is much of sports/cycling research. Go with what works for you. Try different things, and find what works best for your own particular situation and body/health. Personally, I have no idea what my average cadance is, because I don't track it. I just ride my bike. If it's getting too hard to pedal and my legs are getting tired, I switch to a lower gear. If I'm spinning kind of fast and not getting anywhere, I shift to a higher gear- just like i did when I was a kid. Cycling isn't about heart rates and wattage and cadence....it's about movement; exercise and enjoyment. We all knew "how to ride" when we were kids....but it seems that many adult cyclists forget, and instead become obsessed with equipment and numbers. How many bought-into the notion of "pulling up on the pedals" over the last 20 years? (My, I'll bet the timing of that coincides perfectly with the marketing of clipless pedals! :) ) |
Originally Posted by yankeefan
(Post 17750905)
How do you know the cadence that someone is pedaling at their "natural" cadence?
Riding on a flat road in a tailwind versus riding a gradual uphill into a headwind, cadence will likely change between these two environments. Even someone who's done baseline testing to establish an 'optimum' cadence number for different conditions, will find their natural selection is probably slightly different for any number of reasons...how tired they are, is the gradient different, wind different, temperature, hydration levels, etc.
Originally Posted by yankeefan
(Post 17750905)
but riding a lower cadence due to bad bike fit doesn't make mashing anymore efficient.
|
Pulling up on the pedals predates clip less pedal.
|
Originally Posted by yankeefan
(Post 17750905)
I should have been clearer. In the circles that typically justify mashers Bigger = cyclist who is overweight, and probably new to the sport and doesn't understand cadence.
Disagree. I'm a masher, just like Jan Ullrich was. I'm no newbie, I understand cadence and weigh 160lbs. I've tried spinning at a higher cadence but my body doesn't like it. I've read you can accelerate quicker if you're a spinner but that's not my experience. I'm usually one of the fastest sprinters on my little group rides, probably because I'm already in a higher gear and I can spin fast when I want to. And I can coast more in the pack when everyone else is pumping their legs away. I'm the same way with running. http://www.cyclesportcoaching.com/Fi...Training10.pdf Are You a Masher or a Spinner? As mentioned in the last article, power is defined as the rate at which work is done, or Work/Time.There are two ways to increase power on the bike. One is to increase the amount of work done in a given time period – e.g to push a bigger gear at a constant cadence. The other is to do the same work faster – e.g. spin the same gear faster. Of course, you could try to combine the two and spin a larger gear faster to increase power. Successful cyclists use different combinations of gears and cadence to create their power. There is no difference more dramatic than between Jan Ullrich and Lance Armstrong. Jan pushed a big gear slowly and Lance spun a lower gear faster. Both were very successful and almost evenly matched. People who churn large gears more slowly are sometimes called ‘gear mashers’ while those who spin more quickly are called ‘spinners’. After Lance’s great success with his ultra high cadence, which is much faster than those of most of his pro competitors,many people began mimicking Lance’s high cadence and many coaches advocated spinning drills to increase everyone’s cadence to be more like Lance. But is that the right thing to do? I don’t believe so. Trying to mimic someone else probably won’t work for you unless you are built just like them.Lance has an extremely high aerobic capacity which allows him to spin fast but doesn’t have the leg strength to be a masher. I believe that cadence is a very individual thing. Long before Lance came along we were alreadyriding at our self-selected cadences. Our self-selected cadence is likely the most efficient for eachof us. Our optimal cadence is likely a function of our muscle makeup and our aerobic system.Those of us who tend to pedal at lower cadences have to put out more force per pedal stroke thanthose who spin faster in a lower gear. Spinners need a well developed aerobic system to supportthe aerobic demand of high cadence spinning. Mashers need more leg strength to develop theforce needed to turn a big gear. The cadence you use is dependent on your muscle makeup. I havea theory, and only observational evidence, hence it’s only a theory but here it is. Cyclists withlarger leg muscles tend to pedal at lower cadences. The exceptions to this are track cyclists – theyhave huge leg muscles but also spin very quickly but they only do so for short periods of time. I’mreferring to road cyclists here. There may be a couple of explanations for my theory. First, cyclistswith larger muscles are likely capable of generating more force and therefore are able to turn largergears and are comfortable doing so. Cyclists with thin leg muscles may not be able to generate theforce to turn large gears so they resort to spinning faster with less force per pedal stroke. The other explanation may be that those who have trained for years at lower cadences may tend to develop larger muscles from all the strength they’ve needed to generate from all those years of pushing big gears, although I doubt this is the case. Most likely it has to do with the muscle makeup and the amount of fast twitch and slow twitch fibers which is genetically determined. So back to my point – I believe cyclists have an optimal pedal cadence which is dependent on their own physiology, most likely their muscle physiology. I don’t believe you should try to force yourselfto become a spinner if you tend to be a masher or vice versa. If you are reading this article,chances are you are already a pretty successful cyclist so you have the combination of strength andspinning to ride a bike quickly. My self-selected cadence is 84 and if the pace picks up in a paceline or race when I am at my limit, the only way I can keep up is to shift to a larger gear and crank out alarger gear. My cadence may actually decrease as I speed up to keep up. If I try spinning faster inthe same gear I will get dropped. So try as I may, I will never be a true spinner. Now that doesn’tmean I shouldn’t work at improving my spinning ability. As a masher, one of the best ways toincrease my power is to learn to spin large gears faster. Likewise, if you are a spinner, developingmore leg strength will enable you to push a larger gear while still spinning at your high RPMs. Butdon’t turn away from your natural tendency completely, rather complement it by training the othercapability (strength or leg speed) to enhance your power-producing ability. As the saying goes, trainyour weaknesses and race your strengths. If you are a masher, work on spinning in training butwhen push comes to shove in a race, push whatever gear you need to. |
Originally Posted by Machka
(Post 17750913)
Mashing hurts my knees.
Therefore, my cadence sits comfortably in the high 80s ... with the possible exception of particularly steep bits of climbs. |
Originally Posted by Lazyass
(Post 17751438)
Disagree. I'm a masher, just like Jan Ullrich was. I'm no newbie, I understand cadence and weigh 160lbs. I've tried spinning at a higher cadence but my body doesn't like it. I've read you can accelerate quicker if you're a spinner but that's not my experience. I'm usually one of the fastest sprinters on my little group rides, probably because I'm already in a higher gear and I can spin fast when I want to. And I can coast more in the pack when everyone else is pumping their legs away. I'm the same way with running.
http://www.cyclesportcoaching.com/Fi...Training10.pdf Conversely Contador is probably the most successful masher among current pros and he prefers to grind the 53T out of the saddle on climbs, and runs standard cranks with a narrow cassette on most alpine mountain stages when the rest of the peleton is on compacts with wide cassettes. Does Contador look like someone who has a lot of fast twitch muscle fibers? I doubt Contador could squat an empty barbell. Armstrong is on the extreme end of the spectrum and when I refer to spinning I'm not talking about anything close to what he is doing. I can never hold 110+ cadence on the flats muchless on a climb simply in part because I don't have anywhere near the fitness to do and also I'm not comfortable spinning on that level. I'm not denying that people don't have a preferred cadence that "naturally" suits them, I'm simply saying your preferred cadence should be in the 80-110 zone which allows a lot of variance for individual preferences. There has been successful mashers among pros but they are few and far between and it takes the right combination of genetics, training and doping to pull it off. Its definitely not a model for most of us recreational riders; we're much better off working on our aerobic fitness and spinning in order to go faster/long. probably because I'm already in a higher gear and I can spin fast when I want to. |
Originally Posted by FLvector
(Post 17751018)
I try to do big gear (53x11) intervals for 60 minutes once a week to work on power. Sometimes while sitting in on a group ride I'll put it in a large gear to do the same. The rest of the time I try to spin at 90-100 rpm since this is my natural cadence. I'll sometimes practice spinning at 110-120 to focus on an efficient pedal stroke. So it really depends on whether you're doing a training ride or doing a normal group or solo ride.
|
i have a 39/11-23 without a lockring tool so i am at the mercy of my machine
|
Ok, just to add some fuel to the fire, I have been told by many experienced racers who have watched me race that I need to slow my cadence down. The argument is that when there are accelerations, and when cornering, etc. when you are at a lower cadence, you can accelerate by simply spinning the pedals faster rather than needing to shift to go faster if you are already spinning your legs at 90+. For the last year or so, I've been actively trying to slow my cadence down. Granted, this is probably critics advice more than other types of racing. When I had a cycling coach, who in all fairness was more of a tri coach than a cycling coach, she was always trying to get me to spin, which may in fact be better for things like Tri and TT. When I'm talking slow and fast cadence, mid to high 90s was "too fast" for just cruising per the experts. The 220-age generic guidelines are 90 for cruising, 75-85 for climbing, but just like 220-age, My opinion is that this is just a guideline and not necessarily applicable to everyone. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that the thought that only beginners mash and pros spin is kinda a beginner way of thinking about cadence.
|
Originally Posted by Sy Reene
(Post 17751605)
This speaks to what I was getting at. I was looking to find out how often riders (either on non-competitive group rides or solo training rides) might actually opt to choose a gear that they need to mash in order to work leg muscle? Conversely how much time intentionally choosing a really low gear to work spinning at 100+ rpms?
|
Originally Posted by Sy Reene
(Post 17751605)
This speaks to what I was getting at. I was looking to find out how often riders (either on non-competitive group rides or solo training rides) might actually opt to choose a gear that they need to mash in order to work leg muscle? Conversely how much time intentionally choosing a really low gear to work spinning at 100+ rpms?
|
Occasionally I train at high load/low cadence for short intervals to build strength for those times when you end up in the wrong gear for whatever reason and need to muscle it out for a bit. An example would be allowing my cadence to fall to around 60 rpm at the top of a hill repeat rather than shifting down one more time, or hammering at 80 rpm into a headwind for a few minutes before shifting. Too much of this, too soon can cause connective tissue and joint damage, but integrating incremental increases of high load/low cadence drills into your routine can strengthen those tissues and fortify your joints against injury.
|
Originally Posted by Sy Reene
(Post 17750758)
to what degree do riders either unwillingly or intentionally end up in lower cadence ranges, thereby increasing the muscle load.
That being said riding FG on the road is not for everyone but seat time/base miles on a FG is the Old School method to develop the widest power band in a simple no nonsense program. -Bandera |
Originally Posted by yankeefan
(Post 17751584)
Complete bullocks.
|
Originally Posted by Sy Reene
(Post 17750758)
So from an efficiency standpoint, I think (?) it's generally agreed that there is a range of cadence that is generally considered to be optimal (eg. somewhere between 80-95 for argument's sake.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:11 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.