cnguyen0320

So, it seems to be general consensus that mashing the pedals is bad and spinning is good. As a newbie, I tend to agree that mashing makes me tired faster and spinning lets me go for hours. But I've never seen this addressed: will mashing (during training) create stronger legs and therefore the ability to spin in a higher gear? To me, it seems like it obviously should but whenever someone mentions going 60rpm, even in training, people say "no! that's bad!".

Going fast, especially up hill, is a largely dependent on power. I just don't see how continuously spinning 90rpm increases your power. To me, it would certainly increase your stamina at 90rpm but since your not microtearing your strength muscles (to rebuild and get stronger), how does that increase power?

squatchy

Indirectly, spinning builds capillary beds and Nicholson (sp). That will add to output in a round about way. Where I ride/climb lots of places my cadence is super slow. I rode some 19% grade last week and it was like walking up a ladder. My bike would move forward to the bottom of my stroke and stopped until I was able to mash the other leg to the bottom of my stroke. My front tire was wobbling back and forth to keep me upright. I doubt spinning on the flats equates to training for that type of climbing out side of above comment

arraamis

Took me awhile to re-find this article, but it is very informative and on-topic with what you're looking for.

Here's a teaser ......

Physics:

The work required to move a bike down the road is measured in watts. To define it very simply, Watts = Force x Cadence, or how hard you press on the pedals multiplied by the number of times per minute you apply this force.

Two cyclists, Bob and Bill, weigh the same, have identical bikes, identical aerodynamics and are riding next to each other at the same speed on a flat road. Because they are riding the same speed and we've controlled all the other variables, they are performing the same work (i.e., riding at the same watts).

However, Bob is mashing at 70 rpm while Bill spins at 110 rpm. Bob's pedaling style dictates that he presses hard on the pedals with each stroke. But he does so less frequently than Bill, who is pushing lightly on the pedals but much more frequently.

Physiology:

Low-cadence cycling requires us to push harder on the pedals, but what does this mean at the level of our leg muscles? To generate that higher force contraction, your leg muscles must recruit more fast-twitch muscle fibers v. slow-twitch fibers.

Slow-Twitch Fibers:

Primarily burn fat for fuel, an almost limitless supply of fuel for even the leanest athlete.
Very resistant to fatigue: They are built to go and go, all day.
Recover quickly when allowed to rest.

Fast-Twitch Fibers:

Burn glycogen for fuel. This glycogen is stored within the muscles and is in relative short supply, about 2000 calories for a well-trained, well-fueled athlete.
Fatigue quickly, are NOT built to go all day.
Take a long time to recover before they can be used again.


https://beta.active.com/cycling/artic...ing-and-racing

cnguyen0320

I've actually read this article before. I don't think it really answers my question. In fact, it kinda dodges it. It says if you want to get better at something, just keep doing it. So if you want to get faster at 90rpm, just keep going at 90rpm... To me, this seems like a very slow way to work; you have to slowly progress to higher gearing while maintaining 90rpm. I would assume that jumping to a huge gear and mashing 60rpm and slowly working your cadence up should work faster. To make an analogy, if you wanted to bench press 200lb 10 times, it would make sense to work 200lb with shorter sets and progressively add reps as time goes on instead of starting 100lb 10reps and adding weight while maintaining 10 reps per set... I mean, I'm not sports scientist but that just "feels right" to me. Any reason why that is wrong or the two aren't comparable?

chaadster

I'd simply say that, yes, low cadence training should be part of any well rounded training program. That's not to say you need to mash at 60rpm (probably 70-75 is low enough), but merely that low cadence/high resistance legwork does confer benefits within a structured training regimen. Just riding around at low rpm will not make one faster, however.

cnguyen0320

Right, I'd never ONLY mash but training at a low cadence should allow you to spin in a higher gear (thus making you faster) when you return to normal cadence right? or is that an incorrect inference?

mkadam68

Stronger? Yes. Similar to hill work.

Faster? Depends on what you do with it.

treal512

Hmm, interesting. I'll have to read this later (tagging now bc doing hw).

arraamis

I got a little different more profound perspective from that article ... i.e.

Fast-Twitch vs Slow-Twitch Fibers ... To build up a meaningful and useful racing cadence, you need to train\buildup your fast-twitching muscles to work harder at longer durations.

Revolutions is not the answer, it all boils down to muscle conditioning and strength that can endure continued stress.

Spinning at low resistance for long durations doesn't equate to high resistance mashing, which is necessary for high speed racing (for example). The muscles aren't being stressed in the same manner and the muscle fuel source is different. Which again relates to the article quoted ..... low resistance\low cadence cycling uses a different fuel source than high resistance\high cadence cycling which is why and again simply stated ........ Revolutions is not the answer.

Bacciagalupe

Not really, no.

When you mash, you are making your legs do the work. You put out more power in the short term, but overall it's less efficient, and you can't keep it up for long. In addition, too much mashing can cause knee injuries.

When you spin at a higher cadence, you're shifting the work away from your legs and to your aerobic system. The best way to improve your cycling is, essentially, to improve your aerobic system. You improve your aerobic system with interval training, not with mashing.


You should still be spinning relatively fast when climbing, for the same reasons as above.

Bacciagalupe

I think you missed a critical part of the article, namely that fast-twitch muscles fatigue quickly. You can't rely on them all day, and you want to minimize your usage of fast-twitch as much as possible.


If you're really intent on being a track sprinter, you likely need to do some exercises that optimize your fast-twitch muscles.

Everyone else, including road sprinters, will have to spend a lot of time optimizing your aerobic system. And yes, you do that with "revolutions" (higher-cadence work).

chaadster

Well, I think there's a tendency to want to think that low cadence/high resistance (LCHR) builds strength whereas high cadence/low resistance (HCLR) does not as much, but I think that's an oversimplification, by which I mean, one could put out 300w at either 70 or 95rpm, so the rpm, per se, are not responsible for power. Conditioning is the key.

What mixing up cadence at a given power does is twofold, both training the body to perform at a given level of power, but also allowing the body to actively recover at that same level. Reducing cadence while maintaining power output can help lower heartrate and allow you to move up in power more easily when you want to jump (HCHR) or peel back to an easier pace (HCLR) to shift burden from legs to cardiovascular systems.

Again, it's not that any given cadence mode is, in and of itself, faster, just that it's necessary to be trained to perform efficiently and also at maximal effort.

Drew Eckhardt 

No.

Outside of the shortest efforts (maybe tens of seconds or less) strength isn't your limit.

Your limit is getting oxygen into your muscles via a powerful circulatory system plus plentiful capillaries and making use of it through mighty mitochondria.

Training improves all those things.

Power is the product of torque and RPM. Horsepower = torque in ft-lbs * RPM / 5250.

The arithmetic shows you make more power by push harder, spinning faster, or do both.

When asked "Is it better to spin a small gear or mash a big one?" Eddy Merckx provided the best wisdom on the subject with his answer along the lines of "It's better to spin a big gear" which is both practical and completely consistent with physiology.

Spinning faster (up to a power dependent point) recruits more muscle fibers which allows both higher power output and reduced fatigue; but you also need to push harder on the pedals to make the numbers and go fast.

Grr.

You need both force and speed to have power although when you look at power meter output you find that forces are still low at high power outputs with forces viewed in a weight lifting context or relative to your own body weight.

Pulling up a 10 second 750W effort averaging 98 RPM all of my data points are below 480 Newtons which is 108 pounds average implying 152 pounds peak since the forces are sinusoidal.

At the time I weighed 180-185 pounds and the highest on that ride were 600 N average / 850N peak which is 192 pounds at under 250W and 30-40 RPM accelerating.

Mashing at higher (your hour power and beyond) power outputs improves your low RPM endurance when you run out of larger cogs and smaller rings but is unlikely to increase your power output for durations exceeding tens of seconds.

carpediemracing 

There's a drill that I sometimes do. It's mentally easier than intervals, which I can't tolerate anymore, and it helps build power. It's a training exercise that a euro-pro friend of mine did and he had me do it. Put your bike in some big gear, like a 53x12 or so. Keep it in that gear. Go 60 rpm for 10 minutes, over whatever flattish terrain you can find. Try to avoid any significant grades, up or down. You want to feel resistance around the whole pedal stroke.

When you finish you should put the bike in a small gear, like a 39x19, and spin for 5-10 minutes (120 rpm, give or take), maybe on the same loop that you did your 53x12 work.

This is sort of like weight lifting but in a very specific way. I have really fragile knees - I can't do squats, I can't do leg extensions, but I can do the big gear work. I've also climbed for almost 2 hours averaging something ridiculous like 55 rpm without any problems. There's something about pedaling that allows me to exercise some self preservation that I can't do when I'm lifting.

Remember that slow twitch is good for steady state. By definition though slow twitch is not good for sharp accelerations. If you're riding solo all the time then slow twitch is fine. No need to have any sharp accelerations and in fact holding a steady pace will get you a higher average speed compared to doing sharp efforts in the middle of steady efforts. This is for solo riding, remember that.

However if you're riding in a group then it's totally, totally different. I average maybe 17 or 18 mph on training rides if I push pretty hard, on flattish routes (500 feet elevation per hour). With about the same power I can average 27-28 mph in a group, with higher peak speeds.

So why is fast twitch important for group riding?

Because if you get dropped by the group then your avg power won't be able to hold the group speed (say 27 mph on the flats) because your avg power may only give you 17-18 mph. Or 22 mph. Or whatever. But if you're drafting you're using way less energy.

Therefore you need to stay with the group. Most groups naturally accelerate and decelerate. If you can't handle the accelerations then your average power will go through the roof trying to stay with them after they drop you.

Fast twitch muscles have their place, even in riders that never plan on racing. Any time you're in a group situation you're going to have some point where you can either choose to follow a faster rider (and therefore benefit from the draft, gaining as much as 10 mph avg speed in the process) or you're going to choose to not follow that rider (and possibly lose up to 10 mph avg speed). Having some burst speed at your disposal will allow you to make the choice. Not being able to follow gives you no choice.

arraamis

My previous statement demonstrates the same point - semantics is different.

"To build up a meaningful and useful racing cadence, you need to train\buildup your fast-twitching muscles to work harder at longer durations."

My statement acknowledges the reality that "fast-twitch muscles DO fatigue quickly" therefore, that weakness should be a focal point in training -- To gradually extend the duration with which these muscles can be stressed.

This concept can be observed in track & field, where those running against the clock and others, don't trot around the field in preparation - they run all out.

In essence, they train at the same pace and utilize the same cadence they intend to use during the race.

Brian Ratliff

Power is the intersection between strength and speed. To build power for a road cyclist, usually the prescription is intervals of 5-20 minutes per set, with 2 to 5 sets per workout. These are done at high efforts at around 90rpm. It works because you are still putting a lot of force on the pedals, but you are also spinning, which means you are building power. One of the trends for training these days is "specificity", meaning, if you want to ride a bike fast, you train by riding a bike fast.

I am a track sprinter, and we train a little different. We do lots of workouts based around specificity, but we also build sprint power by breaking out strength and speed. For strength, we might push a big gear, do hill sprints, or use the gym (squats and deadlifts of various sorts). For speed, we will do small gear sprints, downhill sprints in a large gear, or motorpacing.

Again, don't make the mistake of confusing "strength" and "power". You can dawdle along at 15mph at 90rpms and you'll never get faster. Or you can do intervals where you are pushing a big gear at 90rpm and you will get faster. If you want to build strength (which is one component of power), high gear, low rpm riding might have a place (watch the knees though...). Most modern cyclists train power, which is another way of saying they train using principles of specificity, which means they ride their bike fast to train the ability to ride their bike fast.

thump55

pedals = yes

potatoes = no

topflightpro

Ideally, you should be able to ride at a variety of cadences.

During my base season, I tend to alternate my "spin" and "push" days. A spin day is keeping my cadence above 95 rpms at about 60 percent of FTP. A push day is running at 80-85 rpms at about 60 percent of FTP.

My HR will run higher on spin days - which makes sense as I am moving faster. My legs will be more tired on push days. But it all evens out over the season.

Bacciagalupe

The difference is not semantic.

Again: You can't use your fast-twitch fibers for very long before they need to rest -- perhaps a few minutes, tops. You can extend this with specific training, but you aren't going to extend it to, say, an hour. You're really only going to use your fast-twitch in specific situations like a sprint, or if you need an explosive burst of speed during a climb. Even in those situations, road cyclists today will maintain higher cadences, and will need to rely on their aerobic system and slow-twitch muscles for extended periods.

You might want to do some low-cadence work, but you don't want to spend 50-75% of your time mashing in order to improve your overall performance. That's just counter-productive, and not good for your knees either.


I'm not really sure what you're watching. Runners do not train exclusively at their racing pace. Like cyclists, they rely on interval training -- basically, alternating between low- and high-intensity work. They do so for the same basic reasons: It builds aerobic capacity and the appropriate muscles.

Keep in mind that different events favor different mixes of fast- and slow-twitch muscles. A runner who specializes in 100m and 200m sprints might have up to 80% fast-twitch muscles. However, endurance -- i.e. aerobic system and slow-twitch muscles -- become important in events as short as 400m, which these days means about 1 minute of running.

spectastic

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19675486

basically, yes

Carbonfiberboy 

You don't use fast-twitch muscles to ride at high cadence. Nope.

OP: Training is all about riding outside the envelope of your normal riding. So yes, low cadence climbing work helps, and high cadence climbing helps, too. Lance used to do hill repeats first at 50 cadence, then at 100, repeat. I'm not sure that's as good as doing 3 at 50 one day and then 3 at 100 on another day, but that's what he sometimes did.

However! Big caveat. When you do the 50 cadence work, do not just push down. Hold your upper body completely still and rotate the pedals smoothly. Climb like you're an electric motor.

Everyone is going to have a most efficient climbing cadence which gets them up a long climb the quickest. This varies with the individual and their training. But that's not what's being asked about.

arraamis

Lance was on PED's

Carbonfiberboy 

Red herring. He defeated all other PED-users 7 times. Nothing to do with the subject, in any case.

aaronmcd

As others have mentioned, you do want to do some force work.

Nonetheless, spinning 90 can be quite fatiguing. The following tends to be what I do in intervals sometimes:
Shift into a large gear, spin 90 rpm and I can't hold it after a couple minutes. Hold it anyway. Keep holding it. I definitely feel muscle fatigue. Cadence starts to slow. Shift down one cog and spin 90... 95... 100... shift back up.

RollCNY

This comment has been made in other threads, and it seems absolutely incorrect to me. Efficiency is power in divided by power out. It seems to me, since power applied to the crank is sinusoidal, using I think Drew's term, higher cadence means a higher frequency and lower amplitude force, and more interruptions to a continuous feed of supply. You have more points in a minute where your force drops to zero. From a straight power conversion standpoint, I would think a 1:1 drive train, like a penny farthing, would be more efficient than a geared safety bicycle. Not saying that based on direct drive, only on low rpm, low frequency, few points that force drops to zero.

By the same token, isn't a single speed more efficient than a geared bike? You always have a straight chain line, there is a shorter length of chain, and no spring tension and resistance from derailleurs.

This is not asking if higher cadence is more sustainable, only if the word efficiency is accurate.