Mash or Spin

lost_in_thought

There's a very interesting article in this week's Cycling Weekly about whether high cadence is for everyone.

Basically, what they're saying is that mashing builds and uses fast-twitch muscle fibre, whereas spinning does the same for slow-twitch.

However, just as a spinner would not do so well if they tried switching to mashing, a habitual masher trying to spin will only be using their slow-twitch muscle, and is therefore less effective.

So, in summary, high cadence is not for everyone. If you want the detail, buy the magazine!

Food for thought, eh?

downfader

I came to this thread expecting a badger.

page23

this is always an interesting debate for lots of reasons. the first is that for many, as alot of things seem to, it all comes down to genetics. there is an idea in physiology that as humans the differing muscles in the body have different jobs which require (generally speaking) a certain ratio of fast and slow twitch muscle fibres. for example, the muscles of the eyes are made up of a vastly different ratio of muscle fibres compared to say the glutes. however, genetics being the way they are, some people will have, for a given muslce, a slightly different ratio of fast and slow twitch muscle fibres compared to someone else. the general consensus is that the muscle fibre ratios cannot be altered but can be enhanced by training.

so, if one spins all day long then in theory their explosive 'mashiness' will be poor and vice versa. however, this is governed generally by genetic potential and some people may never be good at sprinting or on the other hand long climbing.

the other thing is that mashing is good for people whom are not particularly supple. spinning well requires excellent technique together with muscular flexibility to avoid injury. from what i've read over the years, i believe spinning is supposed to be more economic without a reduction ins speed. i try to spin as i feel more fluid and faster when i do. however, i often ride intervals and do hill repeats to balance my training/commuting.

wgwarburton

Hi,
You just knew I'd pitch in, didn't you?

I think you have your fast twitch & slow twitch the wrong way round...

I havn't read the article, so this may be covered therein, but it sounds like they are talking about muscles and performance, which may be the only factors if you are racing but for commuting etc I'd assert that joint strain is a factor- maybe even a bigger one.
I reckon spinning is easier on the joints.. I'd rather ride a bit slower and be able to continue into later life than blow my knees up early (so far, so good).

Cheers,
W.

DonDaddyD

I agree with what LiT said in the OP.

Different muscles, which is why a long distance runner won't make a good sprinter - fast twitch muscles.

I'm neither at the moment. I just like to ride my bike at a cadence I feel comfortable with.

lost_in_thought

Welcome, Buns! I knew you'd join us.

And just rechecked the magazine, definitely got my twitches the right way round.

DonDaddyD

Yeah fast-twitch muscles are for sprinting

cjcp

lost_in_thought wrote:

There's a very interesting article in this week's Cycling Weekly about whether high cadence is for everyone.

/quote]

Is it an article about some research by Dr Larsen? If so, the same appears in this month's C+.

Horses for courses. Look at Ullrich and Armstrong/Contador. I remember reading somewhere that the decision by Armstrong/his coaches to adopt a high cadence had something to do with studying the higher cadence of East African distance/marathon runners.

lost_in_thought

cjcp wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

There's a very interesting article in this week's Cycling Weekly about whether high cadence is for everyone.

Is it an article about some research by Dr Larsen? If so, the same appears in this month's C+.

Horses for courses. Look at Ullrich and Armstrong/Contador. I remember reading somewhere that the decision by Armstrong/his coaches to adopt a high cadence had something to do with studying the higher cadence of East African distance/marathon runners.

It's part of their fitness section... coupled with an article on Lance's change to a spinny technique from Bruyneel's ideas. They don't mention Larsen...

don_don

I go along with Buns, but I think you have to distinguish between mashing too high a gear on a fixed, and cranking hard at about 60rpm.

I think of mashing as doing about 30rpm, accompanied by the subtle click of knee cartilage breaking down Thus I always try and keep to 60+ on the fixed, unless its a steep climb, when its either crank like mad until dead, or get off

Having said that, on the road bike I try and keep to about 90 rpm most of the time, unless I'm working really hard, when I seem to drop back to about 60. Does that count as mashing, or spinning? I'm not sure.

cjcp

I'm a subscriber to the view that you have a natural rhythm because we're all different shapes and sizes and that you find that rhythm when you attain that "smooth" feeling during your ride. When the scenery is blur because you're travelling so quickly. Obviously. :P

Littigator

Surely 60 is mashing if you're pushing a fairly hard gear. 90 I wouldn't say i spinning, spinning it 100 or more, but as CJCP said I guess it's about how it feels for each individual.

I saw that article in C+ but haven't read it yet. If I was sticking around with a fixed this year my plan would be to alternate 1 week with 60ish GI, one week with 70ish then a week with 80ish giving some variation.

For those bright sparks that can count over 3 I'd go geared for the 4th week then back to thhe start again. Variation is the key to good training surely

always_tyred

Littigator wrote:

Surely 60 is mashing if you're pushing a fairly hard gear. 90 I wouldn't say i spinning, spinning it 100 or more, but as CJCP said I guess it's about how it feels for each individual.

I saw that article in C+ but haven't read it yet. If I was sticking around with a fixed this year my plan would be to alternate 1 week with 60ish GI, one week with 70ish then a week with 80ish giving some variation.

For those bright sparks that can count over 3 I'd go geared for the 4th week then back to thhe start again. Variation is the key to good training surely

If you are fortunate enough to have variable terrain, this does the trick for you. I defy anyone not on a mountain bike not to mash up a 15+% hill and spin on the way down.

60rpm is deep into mashing territory.

90rpm used to be regarded as spinning. I understand that there is inherrent friction in the muscles and that this can be detrimental when spinning. I also understand that optimum viable rpm is dependent on the total amount of power you are putting down. So, given that I'm generally putting out, I don't know, 200W, whereas a pro might generate a sustained 350W, I think I'm excused from "spinning" at 95-100 rather than 105-110.

I think its also been demonstrated for pros that the power output and efficiency is pretty flat across fairly wide ranges of cadence, so it all depends where you are comfortable on the whole.

I thought Lance developed his technique from watching mountain biking.

Everyone says Jan mashed, but if you watched him TT, he held about 95rpm. That's not mashing. If he mashed up hill, then so does Cadel Evans and Damiano Cunego. Jan just stayed in the saddle rather than getting out of the saddle and looking like he was trying to twist the stem off.

And that's it.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Always Tyred wrote:

Everyone says Jan mashed, but if you watched him TT, he held about 95rpm. That's not mashing. If he mashed up hill, then so does Cadel Evans and Damiano Cunego. Jan just stayed in the saddle rather than getting out of the saddle and looking like he was trying to twist the stem off.

And that's it.

Ah, but Ulrich and Evans do mash on the hills. It's why they were/are consistently put into trouble by sudden attacks.

Evans has to have one of the ugliest riding styles of any pro. It's like watching a hunchback.

greg66_tri_v2.0

WGWarburton wrote:

I think you have your fast twitch & slow twitch the wrong way round...

I thought exactly that. LiT says otherwise. Maybe the author's a bit confused...

always_tyred

Greg66 wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

I think you have your fast twitch & slow twitch the wrong way round...

I thought exactly that. LiT says otherwise. Maybe the author's a bit confused...

No. Lance = slow twitch. He could only ever jump, from a crouch, 1.14 times his height or something like that.
Michael Jordan = fast twitch. He could jump 1.4 times his height.

I think its to do with peak power output, not how often this is called upon.

cjcp

Greg66 wrote:

Ah, but Ulrich and Evans do mash on the hills. It's why they were/are consistently put into trouble by sudden attacks.

Evans has to have one of the ugliest riding styles of any pro. It's like watching a hunchback.

What do you mean "like"? Agreed. It's awful. His head's to one side and it's just, well, yuk.

Yep, Evans has no kick, but, what he does have - to his credit - is the ability to keep going. It was, arguably, poor judgment which led to him having his backside whooped on D'Huez last year. Another argument is that he couldn't fend off attacks from everyone, but he would have been very aware that Sastre was the better TTer out of him and Schleck.

DonDaddyD

You are all confused. I'll ask my Dad if I have to...

Fast-twitch muscles are used for sprinting. If you are spinning at a high rate i.e. legs moving really quickly (less resistance due to lower gear inch but high speed due to the rpm) then you are using fast-twitch muscles.

Slow muscles utilise oxygen better and therefore are the muscle of choice for long distance runners. Given the extreme distances achieved by cyclists, all cyclists have to have a reasonable amount of highly developed slow-twitch muscles.

The term mash has more to do with physical strength not truly dependant on either fast or slow muscles. Cyclists that mash don't have to have exceptional fast twitch muscles because they aren't moving their legs fast enough. However due to the distance ridden by cyclists a masher is likely to have more developed slow-twitch muscles than the fast ones. Whereas a spinner is likely to have slow twitch muscles but more developed fast twitch muscles than the person who mashes. That's the comparison.

---

To be honest most cyclists have a combination of both, given the distance cyclists ride slow muscles are a must, while spinning the pedals really fast requires fast muscles. This also means short cyclists make for faster cyclists because of the distance information travels from the brain to the muscles and back - so everyone watch out for the vertically challenged Bassjunkie.

Someone like Sir Chris Hoy has good fast-twitch muscles combined with incredible physical strength. Chris Hoy is the 100m sprinter of the cycling world.

A Tour rider (who isn't the sprinter of the team) is likely to rely more on slow twitch muscles to handle the distance. He still needs good physical strength to handle those big gears. These are the long distance runners.

Mark Cavendish probably has a good combination of both fast and slow twitch muscles. Fast muscles because he is a sprinter/spinner of his team and slow muscles because he is still able to ride the extreme distances. He is like the 400m (which is basically a sprint around the track) 800m (same as the 400m but twice around the track) and longer distance runner of the cycling world.

Its a combination of muscles not one muscle for one person and the other type for another.

nasahapley

To confuse things a bit further for everybody...

I'm pretty sure that 'fast twitch' and 'slow twitch' are slight misnomers, because rather than the speed at which the muscle moves they refer to the force being generated by them. Fast twitch = higher force, slow twitch = lower force. Thus if you're doing 20mph at 60 rpm the force you put through the pedals is high, therefore you're using fast twitch fibres. If you're doing 20mph at 120 rpm the forces are lower, so you're using slow(er) twitch fibres (but using them more often). Fast twitch fibres help sprinters not because they allow them to hold a particularly high rpm, but because they allow them to put a greater force through the pedals at a given rpm. In short, LiT was right to start with, and Always Tyred's Michael Jordan/Lance Armstrong example is on the money too.

itboffin

After last years lengthy discussion of MASSHOOF RINGS and some sage advice from Buns not to mention knee and back problems I switched to a lower GI and increased my RPM, what I've discovered is for me at least I need both styles, neither on its own is just right.

As of last week I started a new programme of min 150 miles a week over 6 days however I get to choose the distance each day and the type of ride, for instance Mon 30 miles on my tourer mashing the double chainset, Tue 15 mile SS spinning like a nutter at 64GI, Wed 48 miles steady hilly ride using full range of gears etc etc etc.

The key being to mix styles and intensities and cover the min base miles, all good so far, I missed yesterday due to job hunting stuff but made up for it this morning by doing 2 x 13 mile laps one mashing one spinning.

I'm keeping a detailed record of speeds, avgs. MPH, distance, time, weight.

whyamihere

Over my 16.5 mile commute, if I push a high gear TT style, I'm 10 minutes quicker than if I just spin. When I take out the time I'm waiting at traffic lights/in queues, my average speed is around 20mph, with fully loaded panniers, my maximum is over 40 (I have no steep hills, the 40 is on a virtually flat section) pushing a big gear. There are also contributory factors like the fact that when TTing in, I use the drops pretty much exclusively, when spinning I mostly use the hoods, etc.

However, on the days when I really go for it in this style on the way in, I can barely move afterwards, and have to take the train for all but the last 5 miles. On the spinning days I can easily ride there, ride home then go out again.

Horses for courses. If you're riding a TT, push the biggest gear you can manage. If you're wanting to ride a long way, spin.

iain_j

If we're talking about spinning, can I just chip in with this...

http://www.cyclingrevolution.com/conten ... 6A0D99249C

254rpm :shock: :shock:

rb1956

I don't know about muscles, but I consciously opted for spinning, because:

1) I have suspect knees, and want to keep the pressure down. 2) I live in a hilly district and run low gears, so I pretty much

have to spin.I track cadence on my comp, and according to my log, my average is 79.68rpm with a peak of about 110rpm. Thing is, because of my low gears, I spin out at about 42kph but since I'm too weak to push my highest gear on the flat anyway, it doesn't matter.

roger_merriman

Always Tyred wrote:

Littigator wrote:

Surely 60 is mashing if you're pushing a fairly hard gear. 90 I wouldn't say i spinning, spinning it 100 or more, but as CJCP said I guess it's about how it feels for each individual.

I saw that article in C+ but haven't read it yet. If I was sticking around with a fixed this year my plan would be to alternate 1 week with 60ish GI, one week with 70ish then a week with 80ish giving some variation.

For those bright sparks that can count over 3 I'd go geared for the 4th week then back to thhe start again. Variation is the key to good training surely

If you are fortunate enough to have variable terrain, this does the trick for you. I defy anyone not on a mountain bike not to mash up a 15+% hill and spin on the way down.

well quite, even on reasonbly mild hills people will tend to try to hold that gear or not have to change gear etc...

Christophe3967

The nub of the article in Cycling Plus seemed to be that we all work out the best cadence naturally without any help from science. Spinning works for Lance but a lower cadence might be as effective for others. So something else not to worry about.

whyamihere

Always Tyred wrote:

If you are fortunate enough to have variable terrain, this does the trick for you. I defy anyone not on a mountain bike not to mash up a 15+% hill and spin on the way down.

Want me to video myself going about 90rpm up a 15% hill on a standard double?

always_tyred

whyamihere wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

If you are fortunate enough to have variable terrain, this does the trick for you. I defy anyone not on a mountain bike not to mash up a 15+% hill and spin on the way down.

Want me to video myself going about 90rpm up a 15% hill on a standard double?

So you can hold 18kph in the saddle (39x25 at 90rpm) up a sustained 15% pitch?
Yeah, post the video, quit your job and sign up for the new Sky British cycling team.
Or buy a pitch meter.

whyamihere

Yeah... 18kph isn't fast, and 15% isn't particularly steep to be honest. Though it is actually slightly slower as I tend to use a 39x26 bottom gear. Certainly nowhere near what a pro could do (I have seen pros attack this hill, it was amazing). The hill is also only around a mile long.

Disclaimer: I'm using the gradient given by http://www.mapmyride.com. It could well be wrong.

always_tyred

whyamihere wrote:

Yeah... 18kph isn't fast, and 15% isn't particularly steep to be honest. Though it is actually slightly slower as I tend to use a 39x26 bottom gear. Certainly nowhere near what a pro could do (I have seen pros attack this hill, it was amazing). The hill is also only around a mile long.

Disclaimer: I'm using the gradient given by http://www.mapmyride.com. It could well be wrong.

How big is the climb? If its a mile long, and 15%, shouldn't it climb the fat end of 250m? (about 800ft)

Okay, put this in context - the Mortirolo has an average gradient of about 10%. Its regarded as relentlessly and brutally steep.

The Koppenberg (less than a km?) has a gradient of about 20% and is regarded as almost unrideably steep when wet.

Are you after man points by claiming that 15% isn't steep? Honestly, I once carefully mapped several hills on Dartmoor using an OS Map. I didn't find one (long one) that averaged more than 12-14% (a typical climb there being 200-350m) although several were marked "25%". If there are 25% pitches on a hill like that, it means that there are a lot of stretches at less than 12%. The steepest pitches up Lowther Hill are "only" about 15%, but they are linked by 10%+ pitches. Really, the pro's would need to get out of the saddle there I think.

Take a look at an OS map and get back to me.

biondino

Always Tyred, every time you posit an argument on here I'd like you also to back it up with video evidence if that's okay.

roger_merriman

that's probably it. Most/all hills aren't consitant and all google maps based are fairly imperfect models of the world.