Spinner or masher

t5nel

What sort of cadence do you lot ride at?

Also what is (is there) a generally considered cut over point between mashing and spinning.

Unless I concentrate hard, I always seem to end up with average cadence of about 90. I change gear quite a lot as this seems to feel comfortable - in fact I would say I probably ride on cadence emore than anything else.

There do seem to be some benefits to higher cadence (smoothness, efficiency, less force through knees) so was wondering if there are any rules of thumb for what we should aim for and how to get there.

Tim

Gizmodo

My average is 69 but I have just changed from a standard front to a compact and my cadence has gone up to 72.

t5nel

Good point re the crank.

I ride 170mm compact.

Ironically I oftent *have* to spin faster on my MTB (with 175mm crank) due to the gearing and the fact that standing up on hills is not really an option with front sus.

Tim

Matt the Tester

i can do both, im generally a spinner though! massive gear but still able to spin

just need to produce more power and ill be shifting!

LeicesterLad

Gizmodo wrote:

My average is 69 but I have just changed from a standard front to a compact and my cadence has gone up to 72.

:shock: you must be a masher!

Just as a sidenote to the thread, the most efficient cadence is recommended around 90rpm.

Tom Dean

LeicesterLad wrote:

Just as a sidenote to the thread, the most efficient cadence is recommended around 90rpm.

Care to explain this?

nickel

I try when cruising along on the flat to pedal at around 100rpm, however when accelerating I find my power tales off past 90rpm and most of my power comes in around 80-90. Obviously this drops off on hills. When I first started cycling I naturally cycled at around 60rpm and since the start of the year I've been trying to raise my cadence. It does work as now 60rpm feels horribly slow and unatural.

indjke

170 mm compact.

in "relaxed" aerobic mode - something near 85-90 rpm, but when I'm trying to do the maximal effort cadence near 100 becomes very comfortable.

phy2sll2

Looking at this mornings numbers: 88 Av., 122 Max.

When I'm up to speed, I tend to hover around 105. That's on a 172.5 compact.

Am I a spinner then?

Gizmodo

LeicesterLad wrote:

Gizmodo wrote:

My average is 69 but I have just changed from a standard front to a compact and my cadence has gone up to 72.

:shock: you must be a masher!

More like an old, fat newbie that hates the hills where I live! I want to move to Norfolk!

I am trying to increase my cadence, the 1 flat route I have, which is 22 miles, I managed an average cadence of 80.

Extralight

Neither - grinder more like! On rides that aren't hilly, my average cadence is around 80. On the hilly rides, this drops to 70 or less as I grind my way up the inclines and then freewheel the descents to recover!

bompington

Going up Wrynose last year I'm fairly sure I was doing about 1.5 for the final ramp :oops:

LeicesterLad

Tom Dean wrote:

LeicesterLad wrote:

Just as a sidenote to the thread, the most efficient cadence is recommended around 90rpm.

Care to explain this?

In cycling, cadence is the number of revolutions of the crank per minute; roughly speaking, this is the rate at which a cyclist is pedalling/turning the pedals. Cadence is similar in some ways to wheel speed, but is a distinct measurement.

Cyclists typically have a preferred cadence at which they feel most comfortable, and on bicycles with many gears it is possible to stick to a favourite cadence at a wide range of speeds. Recreational and utility cyclists typically cycle around 60–80 rpm. According to cadence measurement of 7 professional cyclists during 3 week races they cycle about 90 rpm during flat and long (~190 km) group stages and individual time trials of ∼50 km. During ∼15 km uphill cycling on high mountain passes they cycle about 70 rpm.[1] Sprinters can cycle up to 170 rpm for short periods of time.[citation needed]. The professional racing cyclist and Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong is known for his technique of keeping up high cadences of around 110 rpm for hours on end to improve efficiency.[2]

An important point is that any particular cyclist has only a narrow range of preferred cadences, often smaller than the general ranges listed above. This in turn influences the number and range of gears which are appropriate for any particular cycling conditions.[3]

Certain cyclocomputers are able to measure cadence, and relay the reading to the cyclist via a display, typically mounted on the bicycle's handlebars.



and many many more typical studies suggest around 80-95 if you google cadence efficiency, obviously all cyclists are different, but i would say 60-70rpm is leisure cycling with the family, or simply cycling in the wrong gear. For performance cycling, 60-70rpm is not efficient.

Im probably going to get blown out of the water by somebody who knows a lot more than me, but i have always been told that 90rpm is deffinately a good starting point.

Tom Dean

The only mention of efficiency in that article is Armstrong riding at 110rpm. I'm not sure how that backs up your statement.

LeicesterLad

Tom Dean wrote:

The only mention of efficiency in that article is Armstrong riding at 110rpm. I'm not sure how that backs up your statement.

No need to get shirty about it chap, ive already stated i could be wrong. Its what i was tought, and ive heard it repeated, and seen it quoted in text...i deffinately do know that 60-70rpm is NOT efficient, if that is what you are implying, other than that, i'd suggest doing some research to contradict me, or wait for somebody to come on here with alot more knowledge on the subject than me. So take your high-horse, and ride it back to cyberwarrior land...

LeicesterLad

LeicesterLad wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

The only mention of efficiency in that article is Armstrong riding at 110rpm. I'm not sure how that backs up your statement.

No need to get shirty about it chap, ive already stated i could be wrong. Its what i was tought, and ive heard it repeated, and seen it quoted in text...i deffinately do know that 60-70rpm is NOT efficient, if that is what you are implying, other than that, i'd suggest doing some research to contradict me, or wait for somebody to come on here with alot more knowledge on the subject than me. So take your high-horse, and ride it back to cyberwarrior land...

Added to that i don't think the pro's in the study would be cycling at 90rpm if it wasnt efficient?!

StefanP

Apparently the efficiency lies in the way lactic acid builds up.

If I am pedalling a high gear at 70rpm then the lactic acid (product of anaerobic respiration) buildup with each pedal stroke is larger because muscles are contracted for a long period of time, before relaxing, when lactic acid is then digested (or whatever).

At a higher cadence, but lower gear, lactic acid build up is smaller because your legs are contracted for a much shorter period of time before relaxing. Or something like that. :roll:

Last ride I did I average 81rpm with 500m of climbing, but I do freewheel a lot. On the rollers I like to do more than 110 average. But I like to aim around 90 because it feels "natural"

t5nel

When you think about it...

Power is the product of Force x Speed

For the purposes of this I think we can consider Force to be how hard you are pushing on the pedals and speed to be cadence.

Sustained power is what is required to keep the bike moving at constant speed against constant resistance (air, friction etc)

So you can keep your speed up by spinning fast or pushing slow in either case to maintain the same speed you need to generate the same power. Just as a car has a torque/rpm characteristics I am sure our muscles do to. and if you try an operate well outisde this band it is likely to be inefficient. I find it feels wrong to go below 70 or above 110.

Perhaps was was said above for the average human machine 90rpm is a good place to be for efficient prolonged use of our musclet

In my case if i try to push to high a gear it *feels* like i am working anaerobically (even at the same power) and I find it a greater effort to maintain speed and my muscles tire quickly and need recovery - this can not be efficient. Of course the cadence where people find this point varies from person to person and presumably with training.

t5nel

StefanP wrote:

Apparently the efficiency lies in the way lactic acid builds up.

If I am pedalling a high gear at 70rpm then the lactic acid (product of anaerobic respiration) buildup with each pedal stroke is larger because muscles are contracted for a long period of time, before relaxing, when lactic acid is then digested (or whatever).

At a higher cadence, but lower gear, lactic acid build up is smaller because your legs are contracted for a much shorter period of time before relaxing. Or something like that. :roll:

+1 That is exactly what I tried to describe above - you beat me to it!

Tom Dean

LeicesterLad wrote:

i deffinately do know that 60-70rpm is NOT efficient.

But you said the pros ride at 70rpm in the mountains. Your own 'research' seems to contradict you.

Maybe 90rpm is best but I don't think you can draw that conclusion from this drivel you have read on wikipedia.

As for being shirty and on my high horse I can only apologise.

t5nel

Tom Dean wrote:

LeicesterLad wrote:

i deffinately do know that 60-70rpm is NOT efficient.

But you said the pros ride at 70rpm in the mountains. Your own 'research' seems to contradict you.

Maybe 90rpm is best but I don't think you can draw that conclusion from this drivel you have read on wikipedia.

As for being shirty and on my high horse I can only apologise.

70rpm may well be less efficient than 90 even up a mountain but it may also be faster. The consequence of this would be for example that a rider could climb the same hill in the same time at 70 and 90 rpm and use less energy at 90 (more efficient) but in a race he can actually climb it faster at 70rpm. For example getting out of the saddle can help increase power output for short term sprinting or climbing but it is not what you see the TT boys doing.

Gizmodo

Tom Dean wrote:

The only mention of efficiency in that article is Armstrong riding at 110rpm. I'm not sure how that backs up your statement.

LeicesterLad was quoting from the Wikipedia article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadence_(cycling)

If you read the article, it references a study of professional cyclists published in 2001 which concludes:

During both F (flat, long (∼190 km) group stages) and TT (individual time trials of ∼50 km on level ground), professional riders spontaneously adopt higher cadences (around 90 rpm) than those previously reported in the majority of laboratory studies as being the most economical. In contrast, during HM (uphill high mountain passes of ∼15 km) they seem to adopt a more economical pedalling rate (∼70 rpm), possibly as a result of the specific demands of this competition phase.

You can read an abstract from the article and order the full one at http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abstract/2001/08000/Preferred_pedalling_cadence_in_professional.18.aspx

LeicesterLad

Tom Dean wrote:

LeicesterLad wrote:

i deffinately do know that 60-70rpm is NOT efficient.

But you said the pros ride at 70rpm in the mountains. Your own 'research' seems to contradict you.

Maybe 90rpm is best but I don't think you can draw that conclusion from this drivel you have read on wikipedia.

As for being shirty and on my high horse I can only apologise.

Its ok, ill learn not to try and be helpful in future or discuss the actual topic stated, instead ill Just sit around waiting for others to talk and make idle/cocky comments about their inaccuracies only to be informed by several posters who did take the time to explain more thoroughly than me that the original comment was pretty much correct anyway. That would be much more useful.

Tom Dean

Gizmodo wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

The only mention of efficiency in that article is Armstrong riding at 110rpm. I'm not sure how that backs up your statement.

LeicesterLad was quoting from the Wikipedia article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadence_(cycling)

If you read the article, it references a study of professional cyclists published in 2001 which concludes:

During both F (flat, long (∼190 km) group stages) and TT (individual time trials of ∼50 km on level ground), professional riders spontaneously adopt higher cadences (around 90 rpm) than those previously reported in the majority of laboratory studies as being the most economical. In contrast, during HM (uphill high mountain passes of ∼15 km) they seem to adopt a more economical pedalling rate (∼70 rpm), possibly as a result of the specific demands of this competition phase.

You can read an abstract from the article and order the full one at http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abstract/2001/08000/Preferred_pedalling_cadence_in_professional.18.aspx

Yes I read the article, the second sentence is a beauty

Cadence is similar in some ways to wheel speed, but is a distinct measurement.

Please note the referenced study is into preferred cadence, not efficient cadence. They looked at seven riders and conclude that some of the time they spontaneously used a cadence (around 90 rpm) that is higher than some lab studies have found to be most efficient. Sometimes they ride at 70rpm - 'a more economical pedalling rate'.

LeicesterLad

Tom Dean wrote:

Gizmodo wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

The only mention of efficiency in that article is Armstrong riding at 110rpm. I'm not sure how that backs up your statement.

LeicesterLad was quoting from the Wikipedia article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadence_(cycling)

If you read the article, it references a study of professional cyclists published in 2001 which concludes:

During both F (flat, long (∼190 km) group stages) and TT (individual time trials of ∼50 km on level ground), professional riders spontaneously adopt higher cadences (around 90 rpm) than those previously reported in the majority of laboratory studies as being the most economical. In contrast, during HM (uphill high mountain passes of ∼15 km) they seem to adopt a more economical pedalling rate (∼70 rpm), possibly as a result of the specific demands of this competition phase.

You can read an abstract from the article and order the full one at http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abstract/2001/08000/Preferred_pedalling_cadence_in_professional.18.aspx

Yes I read the article, the second sentence is a beauty

Cadence is similar in some ways to wheel speed, but is a distinct measurement.

Please note the referenced study is into preferred cadence, not efficient cadence. They looked at seven riders and conclude that some of the time they spontaneously used a cadence (around 90 rpm) that is higher than some lab studies have found to be most efficient. Sometimes they ride at 70rpm - 'a more economical pedalling rate'.

Are you quoting the study you referred to as Drivel a couple of minutes ago...

Tom Dean

LeicesterLad wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

LeicesterLad wrote:

i deffinately do know that 60-70rpm is NOT efficient.

But you said the pros ride at 70rpm in the mountains. Your own 'research' seems to contradict you.

Maybe 90rpm is best but I don't think you can draw that conclusion from this drivel you have read on wikipedia.

As for being shirty and on my high horse I can only apologise.

Its ok, ill learn not to try and be helpful in future or discuss the actual topic stated, instead ill Just sit around waiting for others to talk and make idle/cocky comments about their inaccuracies only to be informed by several posters who did take the time to explain more thoroughly than me that the original comment was pretty much correct anyway. That would be much more useful.

I didn't say you were wrong. I said your reasoning was wrong.

The study in question states that 70rpm is a more economical cadence than 90rpm. You have taken the study as evidence that 90rpm is more efficient than 70rpm. Hence my confusion.

Again re idle/cocky comments, sorry.

Tom Dean

LeicesterLad wrote:

Are you quoting the study you referred to as Drivel a couple of minutes ago...

I said the wiki article was drivel.

The study involved 7 cyclists and did not measure effiency.

LeicesterLad

Tom Dean wrote:

LeicesterLad wrote:

Are you quoting the study you referred to as Drivel a couple of minutes ago...

I said the wiki article was drivel.

The study involved 7 cyclists and did not measure effiency.

I did say i would probably stand corrected, so we will have to call it quits. Would just prefer to be corrected decently, with a counter arguement.

gareth273

I'll have to say I'm a spinner. I try keep legs spinning at around 80-90 rpm with 170mm cranks (standard ring).

sloppyschleckonds

So is it more efficient to keep your cadence constant, be it 70's, 80's or 90's?

RoadyForever

I think I have it all wrong. I mash most of the time and spin up hills (mash on the little ones).