Tired legs - cycle or drive?

Tetragrammaton1

https://www.velon.cc/en/news/2017/01/ve ... -explainer

Here, specifically this bit.

"Some people just do turn a big gear and it works for them. Bert Grabsch was world champion at about 60 RPM. But the majority are more efficient at a higher cadence, around 90 RPM”

and here.

https://www.active.com/cycling/articles ... -efficient

So basically putting out ( let’s say 200 W ) at 80-90 rpm, is more efficient than putting out ( the same 200 W) at 60-70 rpms. But putting ( let’s say 90 W ) out at 90 rpms, is not efficient, because the effort will largely be wasted having to move your legs that fast whilst only producing such a low power.

imposter2.0

So you link to a couple of 'opinion' magazine fillers to use as your evidence? The actual science is clear Nick - you know, actual science from actual experts (which you love to quote) - there is no single cadence which is universally more efficient than another.

What I would like to know is this: Why - as Milemuncher - were you advocating 40rpm cadence and what in your 'understanding' has changed to the point where you now advocate higher cadence in your more recent usernames? Or is it simply that you get some kind of perverse kick out of being regularly hammered online? Like a 'virtual masochist' if you will..?

N0bodyOfTheGoat

Generally speaking, I've found I can get better power output up cat4 climbs by using bigger gears at a lower cadence of ~75rpm, rather than spinning at 90+rpm in an easier gear.

However, I just had a quick look at some of my cat4 climbs this year to find my best power efforts and found something a little curious...
344W @ 92rpm https://www.strava.com/activities/17589 ... /4583/4865 (4min42secs)
345W @ 72rpm https://www.strava.com/activities/17168 ... /4190/4476 (4mins46secs)

My cadence has reduced quite a bit since getting the power meter back in spring, beforehand I used to typically average ~100rpm over the whole ride even when chasing PBs up the hills, while now is much more likely to be ~85rpm average.

However, if I'm doing a recovery ride, I will typically use gears that allow me to stay 90+rpm. This encourages me to use easier gearing, putting much less stress on my MAMIL knees and quads.

pinno

NitrousOxide wrote:

...a little curious...
344W @ 92rpm https://www.strava.com/activities/17589 ... /4583/4865 (4min42secs)
345W @ 72rpm https://www.strava.com/activities/17168 ... /4190/4476 (4mins46secs)

1 watt higher, 20rpm more and 4 seconds less. There's so little in that and some considerable amount of external variables that could have had an influence.
Interesting though as my average cadence is 84 across all terrain. I don't have a power meter.
My recovery rides are on rollers - average rpm in the 90's.

photonic69

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

How the F@ck is any of this juvenile spatting of any use at all to the OP??? That's the problem with this forum - sensible threads get hi-jacked by bickering between some members and Milemuncherwhathisface.. Is it REALLY necessary? It makes it painful for anyone searching for useful info to come across this drivel..

[rant mode off\]

pinno

PhotoNic69 wrote:

How the F@ck is any of this juvenile spatting of any use at all to the OP??? That's the problem with this forum...

I didn't disagree with NitrousOxide. I even concurred that the readings were 'curious'.

Besides, every aspect of the original post has been covered to death and the thread has gone way off topic.

As to the other 'spat', that goes on and on and on and on ad nauseum.

photonic69

Wasn't directed at you Pinno and sorry if you thought so. It was more all the other posts that were completely irrelevant and perpetuates the ongoing "spat"

pinno

PhotoNic69 wrote:

Wasn't directed at you Pinno and sorry if you thought so. It was more all the other posts that were completely irrelevant and perpetuates the ongoing "spat"

No worries.
You are right though, it is getting silly.