# Spinning vs Mashing... is it really true?



## DrSmile

In light of Lance's doping, you've got to wonder whether his high rpm spinning technique that has been parroted for a generation now has actual validity, or was just the padded track, the skinsuit, the asymmetric chain ring (the mutton chops?), ie the thin veneer of sophistic legitimacy for of his doping efforts. When you look at scientific cycling efficiency studies, the evidence is clearly lacking for spinning being more efficient than mashing. To wit, this diagram from "The relationship between cadence, pedaling technique and gross efficiency in cycling. Stig Leirdal, Gertjan Ettema Eur J Appl Physiol (2011) 111:2885–2893"










GE is Gross Cycling Efficiency and FE is Force Effectiveness. The article also makes the following statements:

"The fluctuations in internal kinetic energy (rotation of the lower extremities) increase with cadence. Although this energy now can be utilised as external work... it is likely associated with an increased energy cost and thus affects efficiency negatively."

"A higher cadence will also increase the inertial, non-muscular component of the pedal forces..., which are closely related to the kinetic energy fluctuations. An increase in inertial forces increases the radial force component in particular, and thereby affects FE in a negative way"

I have edited out a litany of references which can be found in the original article.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Well a Prius is more efficient than an F1 car but I know which one I'd want to be driving in a race 

Seems to me efficiency is a red herring. It's been known for a long time the most efficient cadences are well below what almost anyone finds beneficial when racing a bike.


----------



## roddjbrown

DrSmile said:


> "The fluctuations in internal kinetic energy (rotation of the lower extremities) increase with cadence. Although this energy now can be utilised as external work... it is likely associated with an increased energy cost and thus affects efficiency negatively."


Whilst theoretically that would be true one of the key factors people point out with regards to those high cadence riders is how rock steady their bodies are. It's one of the points commentators have always made about Wiggins.

As for whether it's a beneficial technique or not I don't think anyone has a clue - same with the osymetric chain rings which as far as i can tell just risk throwing your chain and have also never been proven to improve performance.


----------



## jorgy

Dwayne Barry said:


> Well a Prius is more efficient than an F1 car but I know which one I'd want to be driving in a race
> 
> Seems to me efficiency is a red herring. It's been known for a long time the most efficient cadences are well below what almost anyone finds beneficial when racing a bike.


Totally agree that efficiency is overrated. As long as enough calories can be absorbed to prevent bonking, it's more important to go faster.


----------



## nate

It's not just about whether it works or not. It's also about whether what works for dopers works for non-dopers. It could be that spinning works better for dopers, worse for dopers, or is equally as useful/useless whether or not someone is doping. It's not so simple as "does it work?"

I suggest bodybuilding as an example. The training regimen in bodybuilding magazines is almost certainly based on results from dopers. It seems likely that a training regimen designed for a non-doper would produce better results for a non-doper than trying to follow a regimen designed for and perfected by dopers.


----------



## danl1

You seem to be suggesting that LA's techniques created this line of thinking in training. That's a bit revisionist - the training line that increasing cadence was good existed for at least a decade before he gained his fame. 

On the other hand, it did gain a greater sense of importance and 'legitimacy' with his winning and Carmichael's self-promotion. And went from 90-100 constituting 'spinning' to meaning something a bit higher. 

Plus, it's something other than a veneer. Any endurance effort is a question of balancing the load between the cardiovascular system and the muscles themselves. Mashing is about the muscles, spinning about the lungs, so to speak. If doping is about steroids, the technique that falls out is likely about raw force to the pedals. If doping is about EPO, spinning is going to best utilize that advantage.


----------



## DrSmile

I'm dredging this thread for GCN's video on the matter:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

It is not about efficiency it is about transferring the workload to the system that benefits the most from training.....or doping

Shifting the workload from the muscles to the aerobic system is beneficial when you can boast the delivery of oxygen with EPO or transfusions


----------



## deviousalex

DrSmile said:


> I'm dredging this thread for GCN's video on the matter


The video seems to suggest that you should pedal as high of an RPM as you feel comfortable with. It would be great if this study could be replicated on a mass scale.


----------



## ibericb

DrSmile said:


> I'm dredging this thread for GCN's video on the matter:


Reboot time, eh? 

I saw that a couple of weeks ago. It's an interesting test, but nothing new.

The topic of optimum cadence has been researched by a number of exercise physiologists. As you might expect, you get different answers depending upon what was tested an how. It is well accepted that "optimal" cadence (with the interpretation of optimal varying between researchers) is likely different for different cycling scenarios. There are many physiological factors involved, along with different cycling scenarios with varying power demands. Picking a single best to fit all scenarios appears unreasonable.

Probably the best general overview of research published 6 years ago is provided in a decent review article from an Australian group. Quoting from that article:
"_Based on previous research, it would appear that muscle force and neuromuscular fatigue might be reduced, and cycling power output maximised, with relatively high pedal rates (100-120rpm). However, such high pedal rates increase the metabolic cost of cycling, especially at low power outputs (≤ 200W). As a result, short duration sprint cycling performance might be optimised with the adoption of fast pedal rates (~120rpm). Due to the influence that fast pedal rates have been shown to impart on cycling mechanics, cycling efficiency and fatigue development, performance in longer duration events might be enhanced from use of slightly slower cadences (~90-100rpm). During ultra-endurance cycling, performance might be improved by using relatively low cadences (70-90rpm), since cycling economy is improved and energy demands are lowered. Future research examining a multitude of factors known to influence optimal cycling cadence (i.e. economy, power output and fatigue development) is needed to confirm these hypotheses._"

It could well be that for an experienced, trained athlete who understands his/her capabilities and the signals their body is sending them, that self selection depending upon the task at hand really is the best.


----------



## DrSmile

deviousalex said:


> The video seems to suggest that you should pedal as high of an RPM as you feel comfortable with. It would be great if this study could be replicated on a mass scale.


I'm not understanding how you could possibly conclude that based on the numbers presented. Clearly the video suggests the exact opposite. The values were unmistakably worse for high rpm riding, while marginally better for lower than natural rpm riding. As a retired pro cyclist, Simon is much closer to a pro cyclist than a recreational one, giving strong credence that this effect would also be seen at the pro level.


----------



## ibericb

DrSmile said:


> I'm not understanding how you could possibly conclude that based on the numbers presented. Clearly the video suggests the exact opposite. The values were unmistakably worse for high rpm riding, while marginally better for lower than natural rpm riding. As a retired pro cyclist, Simon is much closer to a pro cyclist than a recreational one, giving strong credence that this effect would also be seen at the pro level.


The test the GCN guys did was too limited and narrow to tell you anything other than what worked in that scenario for that duration.


----------



## DrSmile

ibericb said:


> The test the GCN guys did was too limited and narrow to tell you anything other than what worked in that scenario for that duration.


You're missing the Medline articles I quoted in the beginning. They match the results of the video pretty much exactly. And they tested 10 cyclists, not one.


----------



## Mandeville

The best gear at X cadence is individualistic in terms of optimal performance for the road being ridden. (All though I speculate that we think of this issue more regarding climbs than on the flats.) Our individual physical make up combined with fitness dictates what's best.


----------



## ibericb

DrSmile said:


> You're missing the Medline articles I quoted in the beginning. They match the results of the video pretty much exactly. And they tested 10 cyclists, not one.


No, not missing that at all. That study focused on essentially efficiency at a 80% VO2max effort. By the measures that were used, efficiency decreased as cadence increased when the test subjects were allowed to choose their own base cadence. That is all generally consistent with a broader view.

If the issue was riding for pleasure then riding at the lowest cadence consistent with desired speed may be just fine (I doubt that extreme too). But in competition the emphasis shifts from being as efficient as possible to delivering as much power as possible for a given time without entering into real fatigue. For that, some general efficiency can be sacrificed if it leads to higher power output. Hence, the optimum result will vary between that used for short duration sprints, vs. short climbs vs. long climbs vs. max endurance efforts, with the "optimal" cadence declining over that sequence. In competition it becomes about balancing maximum power output against endurance, and maximum power output is generally not consistent with the most efficient.


----------



## DrSmile

ibericb said:


> No, not missing that at all. That study focused on essentially efficiency at a 75% VO2max effort. By the measures that were used, efficiency decreased as cadence increased when the test subjects were allowed to choose their own cadence. That is all generally consistent with a broader view.
> 
> If the issue was riding for pleasure then riding at the lowest cadence consistent with desired speed may be just fine (I doubt that extreme too). But in competition the emphasis shifts from being as efficient as possible to delivering as much power as possible for a given time without entering into real fatigue. For that, some general efficiency can be sacrificed if it leads to higher power output. Hence, the optimum result will vary between that used for short duration sprints, vs. short climbs vs. long climbs vs. max endurance efforts, with the "optimal" cadence declining over that sequence. In competition it becomes about balancing maximum power output against endurance, and maximum power output is generally not consistent with the most efficient.


Logically it seems to me that in any type of endurance sport, the more efficient method would seem to always be the winning strategy. No one doubts that saving 20 watts with aero rims can win you a race, why would this be any different? I agree that in something like a track sprint, a hill climb, or even a short time trial, power matters most, but in a 4 hour+ race, efficiency would seem to be of paramount importance.


----------



## ibericb

DrSmile said:


> Logically it seems to me that in any type of endurance sport, the more efficient method would seem to always be the winning strategy. No one doubts that saving 20 watts with aero rims can win you a race, why would this be any different? I agree that in something like a track sprint, a hill climb, or even a short time trial, power matters most, but in a 4 hour+ race, efficiency would seem to be of paramount importance.


If it were just endurance,I would completely agree. But short tracks and sprints are not just endurance. At the other extreme are things like Paris-Brest-Paris, which is pretty much all endurance. A lot of racing is somewhere between those two. The aerodynamic advantage of a paceline can probably more than offset the loss of efficiency for more power = more speed. Road race wins are often based on attacks, and those aren't launched from an efficiency viewpoint. 

The point is, the optimal cadence varies by scenario or goal. It's about trading power against endurance. That's not always going to be about optimizing efficiency, and often in competition will not be about efficiency.


----------



## Local Hero

ibericb said:


> If it were just endurance,I would completely agree. But short tracks and sprints are not just endurance. At the other extreme are things like Paris-Brest-Paris, which is pretty much all endurance. A lot of racing is somewhere between those two. The aerodynamic advantage of a paceline can probably more than offset the loss of efficiency for more power = more speed. Road race wins are often based on attacks, and those aren't launched from an efficiency viewpoint.
> 
> The point is, the optimal cadence varies by scenario or goal. It's about trading power against endurance. That's not always going to be about optimizing efficiency, and often in competition will not be about efficiency.


It's not as though a rider can only pick one gear for the race. What about staying fresh for the attacks, or fresh for the sprint?

By analogy, a racer cannot draft to victory. But it is still good to draft as much as possible during the race.


----------



## ibericb

Local Hero said:


> It's not as though a rider can only pick one gear for the race. What about staying fresh for the attacks, or fresh for the sprint?
> 
> By analogy, a racer cannot draft to victory. But it is still good to draft as much as possible during the race.


Yep, and that's basically the point - for racers cadence needs to vary by situation, and the demand for power vs endurance or guarding against fatigue. There is no one-size fits all. In competition it's not about being the most efficient, it's about getting to the finish line first. Spinning hard and fast has its place in competition, as does mashing. The Grand Tour events combine the needs for both in different stages for sure, and often within the same stage. 

For the article the OP initially referenced at the top, the wakeup call, if there was one is that varied fits did not improve either overall general efficiency (GE) or force efficiency (FE) on the pedal. The metabolic cost of high spinning efforts (GE) was already well known ( see the review article I cited, and reference therein), and that led to a hypothesis of different optimal cadence ranges for different cycling demands. FE decline with cadence was also known from prior work, and that has ben attributed primarily to inertial effects. What remains debated is the relationship between the two (i.e., as FE declines does that lad to a corresponding decline in GE).


----------



## wgscott

I can't pedal much faster than about 85 rpm, and even that is pushing it. If I just look at the data to the left of 90 rpm, the extrapolated linear correlation, especially in the second graph, is far less compelling. One also has to wonder why only two measurements were made between 60 and 80 rpm.

View attachment 302926


----------



## ibericb

wgscott said:


> One also has to wonder why only two measurements were made between 60 and 80 rpm.


Not sure what you tried to attach, but it didn't work.

As far as the study cited by the OP, the reason for the limited data is that the cadences studied were the riders self chosen cadence to elicit an 80% VO2max effort, then +/- 10 rpm. It's a narrow set limited by rider preferences for the baseline, and the limited deviation from that chosen by the investigators. The graphs in the initial post are the data set for all 10 riders.


----------



## wgscott

Not sure what is up with the attachements here. I just covered up everything to the right of 90 rpm.


----------



## ibericb

wgscott said:


> Not sure what is up with the attachements here. I just covered up everything to the right of 90 rpm.


Then you would have an even more limited dataset, different slope, lesser correlation, and might conclude that it is not so significant as it appears with a larger set.

What we know from watching pro racers is that there are both spinners and mashers, and both can do quite well. For racers it's about being as efficient as they can afford to be while still winning the race; it's about pushing themselves to the edge of their capacity against a given race situation. That's what they train and test for. Riders are different, and they experience a greater or lesser impact than the pooled study data reflect. What we can't see from the limited data set published is how much variation there is rider-to-rider.


----------



## ibericb

DrSmile said:


> Logically it seems to me that in any type of endurance sport, the more efficient method would seem to always be the winning strategy.
> ...efficiency would seem to be of paramount importance.


Actually, gross efficiency is NOT of paramount importance. That's not to say it isn't important, but it's not the primary determinant of cycling performance. Other factors dominate cycling performance.

I had to dig to find this again, but see this article from 2012. It's a review, includes consideration of the Leirdal & Ettema article you referenced above, and reflects findings as well of prior work that include the authors. From the Summary: "_Variation in gross efficiency explains ~30% of the variation in power output during cycling time-trials. Whilst other variables, notably VO2max and lactate threshold, explain more of the variance in cycling power output, this result confirms that gross efficiency is an important determinant of cycling performance. Furthermore, it is apparent that exercise training can enhance gross efficiency_".

In that article there is a very nice discussion on why naturally self selected cadence is higher than that at which metabolic efficiency (gross efficiency) is optimized . From other studies it has been found that metabolic efficiency is maximized at cadences in the range of 60-70 rpm. In contrast, adult self selection of cadence has been found to favor the range of 90-100 rpm. It's then concluded that metabolic efficiency (basically GE) is not a critical factor in cadence self selection. It is suggested that minimization of muscular forces (i.e heading off exhaustion) is more important to the nervous system in selecting a preferred cadence.


----------



## Jackhammer

Cycling regards 1 rps as very low cadence and implicitly "mashing." It it really that slow and isn't it possible to pedal @ 60 rpm's smoothly?

Just anecdotally, Joe Parkin for one regarded high cadence as a "dopers cadence."


----------



## den bakker

Jackhammer said:


> Just anecdotally, Joe Parkin for one regarded high cadence as a "dopers cadence."


cool. now I only need the dope.


----------



## ibericb

Jackhammer said:


> Cycling regards 1 rps as very low cadence and implicitly "mashing." It it really that slow and isn't it possible to pedal @ 60 rpm's smoothly?
> 
> Just anecdotally, Joe Parkin for one regarded high cadence as a "dopers cadence."


Sure you can pedal smoothly at 60 rpm. But unless your output power is pretty low by road cycling norms (<200 watts), it's not as efficient as higher rates. It turns out the optimal (most efficient) cadence varies with power output, and increases as power increase over the range of about 200 -350 watts. The exact numbers vary quite a bit with training/experience.


----------



## ibericb

den bakker said:


> cool. now I only need the dope.


Plenty of that in Amsterd .. oh, wait ... that's a different kind.


----------



## ucfquattroguy

ibericb said:


> Sure you can pedal smoothly at 60 rpm. But unless your output power is pretty low by road cycling norms (<200 watts), it's not as efficient as higher rates. It turns out the optimal (most efficient) cadence varies with power output, and increases as power increase over the range of about 200 -350 watts. The exact numbers vary quite a bit with training/experience.


Granted, I have no data to prove it, but there's definitely a 'sweet spot' where your pedal stroke feels smoothest (and more efficient??) depending on how much power your putting down. Cruising along at 18-20mph? 90rpm feels about right. Pulling the group at 26+ at the end of our ride leading up to the finish? That 90rpm now feels like a low cadence 'mash', and 95-100rpm starts to feel smooth like butter.


----------



## ibericb

ucfquattroguy said:


> Granted, I have no data to prove it, but there's definitely a 'sweet spot' where your pedal stroke feels smoothest (and more efficient??) depending on how much power your putting down. Cruising along at 18-20mph? 90rpm feels about right. Pulling the group at 26+ at the end of our ride leading up to the finish? That 90rpm now feels like a low cadence 'mash', and 95-100rpm starts to feel smooth like butter.


Your points are consistent with much of the research, depending on how efficiency is defined. It's not a simple question given the intersection of physiology, biomechanics, and neuromuscular dynamics. To illustrate the complexity that ensues, consider the need for even more power to climb that steep grade while maintain a strong race pace (for the grade). What feels most efficient then compared to the 18-20 cruise or group lead at 26+?


----------



## ucfquattroguy

ibericb said:


> Your points are consistent with much of the research, depending on how efficiency is defined. It's not a simple question given the intersection of physiology, biomechanics, and neuromuscular dynamics. To illustrate the complexity that ensues, consider the need for even more power to climb that steep grade while maintain a strong race pace (for the grade). What feels most efficient then compared to the 18-20 cruise or group lead at 26+?


That's indeed, where things start to get complicated. Could we then bring the *type* of power being made into the equation when compared to the gradient? Given that nobody has a "perfect" spin where equal power is generated at all points around the revolution, one could argue that high-cadence/high-power is better suited for flat-land due to the quick/short-spaced power 'pulses'. Whereas when climbing, your power/torque is best delivered at lower cadences where the possibly peakier spots in your stroke are farther apart. 

With that said, I believe I may have confused 'efficient' with 'smooth' in my earlier post. The slower cadence may be more efficient with getting the work completed, but if the 'engine' is not balanced...it feels wrong.


----------



## ibericb

ucfquattroguy said:


> That's indeed, where things start to get complicated. Could we then bring the *type* of power being made into the equation when compared to the gradient? Given that nobody has a "perfect" spin where equal power is generated at all points around the revolution, one could argue that high-cadence/high-power is better suited for flat-land due to the quick/short-spaced power 'pulses'. Whereas when climbing, your power/torque is best delivered at lower cadences where the possibly peakier spots in your stroke are farther apart.


The heart of the matter, and the change that occurs, is the force the rider has to deliver as a function of time, and muscle fiber recruitment. Using higher cadence at suitable power levels appears by the dominant research to favor slow twitch muscle fiber recruitment. At some point with increasing power comes the need to add more fast twitch muscle work into the mix to be able to provide the force needed. At that point, the preferred cadence will head back down to lower rates.



> With that said, I believe I may have confused 'efficient' with 'smooth' in my earlier post. The slower cadence may be more efficient with getting the work completed, but if the 'engine' is not balanced...it feels wrong.


There are multiple meanings for efficiency in the context of pedaling. What you're emphasizing is biomechanical efficiency. According to some research reports it appears that at low power levels optimal biomechanical efficiency is found at higher cadences than gross efficiency, and further it appears that it is that effect that drives self selected cadence for a given power demand. In other words, your brain guides you to minimize forces on pertinent joints, etc. over maximizing metabolic efficiency.


----------



## Horze

Let's see.

Efficiency is the output to input ratio of a system.

By all accounts you get efficiency at different scales. In cycling terms, my own view is that it's not so simple as cadence alone. We've all been taught goldilocks zone of 80-90rpm is the most efficient and that it tapers around this margin. So 120rpm can't be much more or much less significantly efficient than the goldilocks zone.


----------



## ibericb

Horze said:


> Let's see.
> 
> Efficiency is the output to input ratio of a system.
> 
> By all accounts you get efficiency at different scales. In cycling terms, my own view is that it's not so simple as cadence alone. We've all been taught goldilocks zone of 80-90rpm is the most efficient and that it tapers around this margin. So 120rpm can't be much more or much less significantly efficient than the goldilocks zone.


E=O/I. Yep, that's pretty good. But, what is out and what is in?

There are multiple measures of efficiency pertinent to delivering power in cycling. To name a few, there is gross efficiency which is power out of a rider vs. metabolic energy in, biomechanical efficiency which relates power out to muscular effort, force efficiency which relates force applied normal to the crank arm as a fraction of the total force applied by the foot on the pedal, ...

The determination of "optimal" depends both on how you define optimal, and what you measure. It's one of the reasons that results from various studies can be quite varied, and even at odds with each other.


----------



## Horze

Not = but ~ where the symbol ~ isn't strictly equal but a relation.
Optimization can be thought as a type of efficiency.
Also the expression is more like O * E(t) / I, where the E(t) is actually the efficinecy factor evolving over time. O and I preserve dimension for consistent measurements.


----------



## ibericb

Horze said:


> Not = but ~ where the symbol ~ isn't strictly equal but a relation.
> Optimization can be thought as a type of efficiency.
> Also *the expression is more like O * E(t) / I,* where the E(t) is actually the efficinecy factor evolving over time. O and I preserve dimension for consistent measurements.


You might want to check that. Looks like there's a basic algebra violation or two in what you wrote.

I wrote it as I did to reflect your basic definition of efficiency. If you want to introduce tie dependence into the relationship, then it should probably be something like:

O(t) = I(t)*E(t) 

which allows for instantaneous variation of both independent variables, which will most likely not be independent in a biological system for the most commonly cited measures of efficiency.


----------



## Horze

The Output and Input don't necessarily depend on t.
E is the scaling to derive a % say.

The point is that expression you have written is not an equation depending on time, but it's a Process measured over time.

Very simple example.
=================

Say O and I are energies, and E = 100 is a constant scaling. Then the power into a system measured against the power out deteremines an estimation of the efficiency of that system.


----------



## ibericb

Horze said:


> The Output and Input don't necessarily depend on t.
> E is the scaling to derive a % say.
> 
> The point is that expression you have written is not an equation depending on time, but it's a Process measured over time.
> 
> Very simple example.
> =================
> 
> Say O and I are energies, and E = 100 is a constant scaling. Then the power into a system measured against the power out deteremines an estimation of the efficiency of that system.


What I originally wrote, which you seem to be having trouble with, was the simple, time-independent expression of your definition of efficiency, which is a sound one.

For a human powered bicycle using conventional pedals (which is the subject of the thread), input will never be time independent. It varies regularly even in attempts to maintain even power. As a result, output will be instantaneously variable as well. Also, both gross efficiency and biomenchanical efficiency vary with power output by the cyclist. So not only are those time dependent, they are also power dependent. 


If you want average efficiency, then integrate the instantaneous inputs and outputs over time, and divide by the total time interval.

I don't get your simple example because you already defined efficiency =100.


----------



## Horze

These quantities don't depend on time as such. They are measured *over time* which is why the quantities O, I and even E are what are known as Processes.

Summing up I, O over time and dividing by the time will only give the average amount of Input and Ouput respectively. You can then determine the average efficiency. But to do it properly, if you treat I, and O as processes then you can calculate the efficiency of a system in "real time". At that point averages aren't particylarly useful.


----------



## ibericb

Horze said:


> These quantities don't depend on time as such. They are measured *over time* which is why the quantities O, I and even E are what are known as Processes.


This entire thread is about cadence, a rate. It is about the time variable rate at which force is developed and applied by a rider to power a bicycle. I don't know how much more time dependent it can become.


----------



## Stoneman

The bottom line is this....LA's high cadence during his dominance of the TdF was fueled by dope. When he tried to make a comeback and had to cut back on the juice due to more and advanced drug testing his cadence wasn't nearly as high. End of story folks!


----------



## nsfbr

I always thought it was rather obvious that LA's technique worked for him. The question of whether it is some kind of objectively "best" technique is somewhat irrelevent. 

At some point, spinning faster quite obviously is not better. And in the same way at some point spinning slower is quite obviously not better. The key, it would seem, is to find cadences (plural!) that work for the rider and the situation. If I've learned anything after my relatively short time riding it is that learning about what works for you is the most important thing along with thinking about what you are doing and what you are going to do further down the ride and/or training path. 

Me? I like to spin pretty fast most of the time. 90 feels like I'm dogging it when I'm in shape. But at the same time, I know that spending some portion of a long ride in the 80s helps me last. 

Back to the topic of LA and spinning though. It may very well be that his particular balance of aerobics capacity to pure leg strength was such that spinning gave him a distinct advantage over others. Did his doping do this? Did it do this more than other dopers? Who knows. Who cares? I still admire what he did, doping or not and despise the shame he brought himself through his actions off the bike. And that is pretty much it. He failed in life off the bike (and that does include the doping.)


----------



## Mandeville

Other elite cyclists including dopers tried to us easier gear higher cadence in the climbs like Armstrong did. They found they could not do it effectively. Most notably of them was Jan Ullrich--an admitted career doper. When he and Armstrong were racing together in the mountains they would often be together and the difference in their cadence was quite clear and often commented on live during the race. They weren't the only two by the way that used difference cadence and presumably different gears at the same spot or stage in the climbs.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

ibericb said:


> O(t) = I(t)*E(t)
> 
> which allows for instantaneous variation of both independent variables, which will most likely not be independent in a biological system for the most commonly cited measures of efficiency.


Putting aside efficiency, once people realise that cadence (or torque) isn't an independent variable of human cycling power output (since muscle contraction forces and speeds are not independent) then they'll realise that looking for optimal cadence is a pretty futile exercise.

Cadence is simply an outcome of the effort level (power), the gear chosen and the resistance forces. It's not something that we can independently control. 

What we can control is our effort level and gearing, so I suggest people focus on their effort level (power output) and choose a gear appropriate for the situation.

Smooth pedalling is about the coordinated firing of the right muscles at the right times at the right level of effort, not about the rate at which we turn the cranks.


----------



## ibericb

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> ...
> 
> What we can control is our effort level and gearing, so I suggest people focus on their effort level (power output) and choose a gear appropriate for the situation.
> 
> Smooth pedalling is about the coordinated firing of the right muscles at the right times at the right level of effort, not about the rate at which we turn the cranks.


Cool! That's what I've been doing all my road riding life. 

Along those lines there are some (many ?) who have historically advocated using cadence to guide making that gear selection (which leads to effort level), in the interest of "optimizing efficiency". The notion is similar to drag racers using RPM as their guide for the need to shift gears. A lot of that is historic, with guidance for best cadence being either anecdotal, or derived from an attempt to mimic some winning cyclist.

What we can see now from a bunch of research is that the "optimal cadence", by whatever measure of efficiency is used, is variable depending on a lot of factors, including power output, training, and individual characteristics.

I suspect in our contemporary world where cyclists are now armed with power meters, and can now actually monitor and train with direct power output as feedback, then how best to develop the power for a given duration makes specific cadence targets seem a bit archaic.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY

Spinning vs Mashing... is it really true? 

Yes..........and No.

It depends....(as on many things)
Mashing works for many people. (I'm only talking about racing now) If you haven't trained you legs to spin high cadences, they will "burn out" before you can finish a race.
If you spend countless hours spinning at a high cadence (and you have the correct body type), you may be able to increase your overall speed. You never see riders in a criterium slogging away at 80 RPM. 
PS. It is said the Armstrong learned about high cadence riding from Miguel Indurain.
Before this, he was a slogger. If you are going to claim that riding with a high cadence, is a cover for doping, you're going to have to hit Indurain with the brush, also.


----------



## den bakker

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Spinning vs Mashing... is it really true?
> 
> Yes..........and No.
> 
> It depends....(as on many things)
> Mashing works for many people. (I'm only talking about racing now) If you haven't trained you legs to spin high cadences, they will "burn out" before you can finish a race.
> If you spend countless hours spinning at a high cadence (and you have the correct body type), you may be able to increase your overall speed. You never see riders in a criterium slogging away at 80 RPM.
> PS. It is said the Armstrong learned about high cadence riding from Miguel Indurain.
> Before this, he was a slogger. If you are going to claim that riding with a high cadence, is a cover for doping, you're going to have to hit Indurain with the brush, also.


I don't think anyone has had any problems suggesting that for Indurain? 
which reminded me of this classic showing Armstrongs great promises as a champion TT rider. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGPGm38wt5g


----------



## stevesbike

The analogy with a drag racer is a poor one. For one, the rpm involved differ by orders of magnitude. Second, the drag racer is accelerating, so that would be more like a track sprinter - and even there the issue is rate of acceleration (old school) vs. top sustained speed (new school). It also appears you're mixing in studies on cadence at maximal power vs. cadence for steady state power (e.g., sprinting vs. time trial). I believe the former is around 130 rpm while the latter is much lower than typically thought (like 60 rpm for gross efficiency). 



ibericb said:


> Cool! That's what I've been doing all my road riding life.
> 
> Along those lines there are some (many ?) who have historically advocated using cadence to guide making that gear selection (which leads to effort level), in the interest of "optimizing efficiency". The notion is similar to drag racers using RPM as their guide for the need to shift gears. A lot of that is historic, with guidance for best cadence being either anecdotal, or derived from an attempt to mimic some winning cyclist.
> 
> What we can see now from a bunch of research is that the "optimal cadence", by whatever measure of efficiency is used, is variable depending on a lot of factors, including power output, training, and individual characteristics.
> 
> I suspect in our contemporary world where cyclists are now armed with power meters, and can now actually monitor and train with direct power output as feedback, then how best to develop the power for a given duration makes specific cadence targets seem a bit archaic.


----------



## ibericb

stevesbike said:


> The analogy with a drag racer is a poor one. For one, the rpm involved differ by orders of magnitude. Second, the drag racer is accelerating, so that would be more like a track sprinter - and even there the issue is rate of acceleration (old school) vs. top sustained speed (new school). It also appears you're mixing in studies on cadence at maximal power vs. cadence for steady state power (e.g., sprinting vs. time trial). I believe the former is around 130 rpm while the latter is much lower than typically thought (like 60 rpm for gross efficiency).


I don't think the analogy is all that poor. Yes, drag racing is about acceleration. The same holds in cycling when accelerating or dealing with potential energy changes (e.g., hills). Transition to steady state, meaning no acceleration or changes in potential energy, then it's about the most efficient way to deliver the power needed for the speed desired for the duration ahead. The problem with the elusive search for "optimum cadence" it that it varies based on how you define optimum, the specific situation, and the rider.

Up there somewhere, maybe back on the first page is a link to a recent review article that summarizes the often conflicting research literature on cadence vs. efficiency fairly well, and cites the studies. Drawing from that review, and trying to connect a bunch of dots, which is hard to do given the differences in the studies, here are some key points:

- The most [metabolically] economical cadence appears to be extremely low (~50-60rpm) when cycling at low power outputs (≤200W), but increases to approximately 80-100rpm with increasing workloads (~350W). 

-Based on the contractile properties of human muscle it has been shown that maximal cycling power output is achieved at approximately 120-130rpm. However, above 100 rpm power comes with an increasing oxygen cost per unit power produced [so eventually you run out of metabolic room if you follow cadence].

- The cause of the rise in the economically optimal cadence is unclear, but is likely to be due to the power-velocity relationship of muscle contraction and the additional recruitment of fast twitch muscle fibers with increases in exercise intensity.

- At lower cadences, greater force per pedal stroke is required to maintain a given power output, which requires additional muscle fiber recruitment and thus a higher energy expenditure. An increase in cadence at higher exercise intensities may optimize the power-velocity relationship, and as a result reduce the metabolic cost of cycling. 

-In addition to reducing the average pedal force per revolution, a faster pedal rate might reduce the oxygen cost associated with high intensity cycling since the mechanical efficiency of both fast and slow twitch muscle is improved at high and low contraction velocities, respectively.

So, best cadence depends on a number of factors depending on what you are trying to optimize. But it has to include a consideration of power to be developed by the rider, the riders physical makeup, neuromuscular and biomechanical efficiency, and the riders physiological capacity and training.

It's not a simple picture. I like the coach's point - focus on effort and gearing appropriate for the situation, and cadence will take care of itself.


----------



## Jackhammer

Stoneman said:


> The bottom line is this....LA's high cadence during his dominance of the TdF was fueled by dope. When he tried to make a comeback and had to cut back on the juice due to more and advanced drug testing his cadence wasn't nearly as high. End of story folks!





Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Putting aside efficiency, once people realise that cadence (or torque) isn't an independent variable of human cycling power output (since muscle contraction forces and speeds are not independent) then they'll realise that looking for optimal cadence is a pretty futile exercise.
> 
> Cadence is simply an outcome of the effort level (power), the gear chosen and the resistance forces. It's not something that we can independently control.
> 
> What we can control is our effort level and gearing, so I suggest people focus on their effort level (power output) and choose a gear appropriate for the situation.
> 
> Smooth pedalling is about the coordinated firing of the right muscles at the right times at the right level of effort, not about the rate at which we turn the cranks.





stevesbike said:


> The analogy with a drag racer is a poor one. For one, the rpm involved differ by orders of magnitude. Second, the drag racer is accelerating, so that would be more like a track sprinter - and even there the issue is rate of acceleration (old school) vs. top sustained speed (new school). It also appears you're mixing in studies on cadence at maximal power vs. cadence for steady state power (e.g., sprinting vs. time trial). I believe the former is around 130 rpm while the latter is much lower than typically thought *(like 60 rpm for gross efficiency*).


uh, yes, that's correct.

As LeMond noted, cadence is very similar to the turnover of a 10,000 meter runner.

If you want to go faster you have to move your legs faster holding good form.

That takes more oxygen.


----------

