timtak

I am sorry "mash" was the wrong word since it implies a low cadence. What I meant was that Osymetric chain rings make the most of the human tendency to put out more Watts in the parts of the cycle where the feet are pushing, not when pulling nor at the the top and bottom of the pedalling cycle.

Philosophy 1 (Match cyclist to bicycle): It was more common to advocate that cyclists learn to be cyclic, with even power output, learning to pull as well as push and scrape the mud off their feet at the bottom, and put power through the top. This "learn to match the bicycle" philosophy retains advocates. Biopace chainrings taught cyclists to do this.

Philosophy 2 (Match bicycle to cyclist): Osymetric and Rotor QRings are in line with the philosophy that cyclists, being walking/running bipeds, have a tendency push, so make the bicycle fit this human tendency by accepting and requiring more power in the push part (or "drive phase") of the cycle.

This difference in design philosophy is irrespective of cadence.

A compromise between the two philosophies may sound like a good idea: accept that one is going to put out more watts in a certain part of the cycle -- the pushing (or mashing?) part -- but try also to make your pedalling style more circular and fit yourself to the bike. I am surprised to find that this Daily Telegraph article
How to cycle with the technique of a pro - Telegraph
claims that experienced cyclists do or should learn to just push, by using flat pedals for instance, the reverse of what I had assumed to be cycling lore.