Spinning vs Mashing

MCOS

Fair enough Lumen and you are right that the starting point is race specific.

Take it back about Chainreaction, they emailed literally as I posted that!

Gavin

That's almost half the price of my bike. haha

xz

5'10" 107kg, can spin at @95rpm when on fairly even ground, usually mash.
Have legs like tree trunks, Can't climb for S**T,shave for Summer,and Mudguards Dirk Voodoo sold me fit like a glove.Tape and Saddle colours match;)(the pies are ALL mine)

scottreynolds

Powercranks mentioed earlier --- any one used them. I read some great stuff around the web about them .... Looks like a great way to the ultimate circular style.

TinyExplosions

el tonto wrote: »

6ft3 and 100kg. I'm the anti-Raam. I'll eat your young if you're not careful.

6ft dead and 96kilos... I'm fatter than you Tonto

TinyExplosions

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

It seems to be some subconscious rule among cyclists (2 in particular here) that any thread about cycling, in this case pedaling technique, can be lowered to the level of whether or not to shave legs, have matching bar tape/saddle colour, etc.

*sigh*

Once again, Eurocyclist rules!

I think it should be our version of Godwin's Law -first to bring up Eurocyclist rules looses the debate

Chips Lovell

TinyExplosions wrote: »

6ft dead and 96kilos... I'm fatter than you Tonto

Possibly not after the two weeks of minimal training I've had.

TinyExplosions

el tonto wrote: »

Possibly not after the two weeks of minimal training I've had.

Curse you!!!! Always one step ahead of me....

ROK ON

I reckon that I am fatter than all of ye. 5'8" and 95kg (was at 115kg in March). Huge calves and thighs (for my height) from years of rugby. Masher, but trying to spin. I find it is easier to spin if I dont push down on the peddal - instead I have taken to simultaneously imagining that I am jogging on the spot and pulling my knees up high. I find that this has lead to increased cadence and speed. However I find that I cant keep up for too long. Need more practice.

Chips Lovell

20kg since March. That's great going. Well done.

ROK ON

el tonto wrote: »

20kg since March. That's great going. Well done.

Thanks. Actually pretty easy when you are that weight. Moving from commuting to doing a reasonable weekend every w/e cycle and the weight fell off. More I exercised, the less crap i ate. Plus young family meant that opportunity for pints were few and far between.
The next 15 K by the time I do Wicklow 200 will be the really difficult bit.

xz

ROK ON wrote: »

Thanks. Actually pretty easy when you are that weight. Moving from commuting to doing a reasonable weekend every w/e cycle and the weight fell off. More I exercised, the less crap i ate. Plus young family meant that opportunity for pints were few and far between.
The next 15 K by the time I do Wicklow 200 will be the really difficult bit.

Damn you, | was 122kg at my heaviest at start of year, had got down to 105kg, gone up 2kg, but then so have my calves and quads.
First big weight loss comes off easy, then it balances out as your body gets used to the exercise, varying the intensity of said exercise and getting more weight off is the hard part.Still have a big belly though and havent touched alcohol in 3 months. Oh and I smoked 40 a day until May (That and the weight would explain me crap on climbs)

DirkVoodoo

Jaysus, I didn't think you looked like a tubber at all! Stocky yes, pie-grabber no. More like a former hooker (Not my eurocyclist one, the rugby kind).

Glad the mudguards worked out anyway

xz

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Jaysus, I didn't think you looked like a tubber at all! Stocky yes, pie-grabber no. More like a former hooker (Not my eurocyclist one, the rugby kind).

Glad the mudguards worked out anyway

Close, Tight head, but a long time ago.

rubadub

Originally Posted by rubadub
That is a point though, mashing is more suited to strong guys

Lumen wrote: »

It depends what you mean by "strong". As I understand it, fast twitch (or more specifically Type IIb) muscle fibres are no good on a bike, except for sprinting or short hills, because they can't operate aerobically. So someone with a heavy build will probably be carrying lots of useless muscle, which won't work at low or high cadence.

Type IIa fibres (also "fast") are still fatter than the Type 1 (slow twitch) muscles, but can operate both aerobically and anaerobically. This may apply to someone with "big legs" who can cycle fast over long distance.

An alternative definition of "strong" is just someone who can produce lots of power, but can't sustain it due to relatively inadequate cardiovascular capacity. Such a person will benefit from lower cadence, because they can produce the torque, and because it's more efficient.

By strong I mean more like weightlifting terms, not endurance. You can think of an bike like an weighted exercise machine, most will work just 5-20repetitions usually. So a mountain biker going up a steep hill with just 12 "repetitions"/rotations and totally wearing himself out in doing so would be similar to a guy doing 12 heavy squats till failure.

I do some weight training, and often go to failure like that on short steep hills, just go absolutely all out for 10 seconds, also working my upperbody well by actively pulling up on the bars, which in turn allows more force on the pedal.

MCOS

So mostly Mashers then! Well... apart from Raam et al

Are the spinners all faster than the mashers?

Civilian_Target

Raam wrote: »

I'm 6'3", 68kg and I hang around the mid 90s

Ah, ya string of piss. I'm 6'5" and 90kg... and I really have no idea what my cadence is... how do I count?

Chips Lovell

Civilian_Target wrote: »

... how do I count?

Just get a computer with a cadence sensor.

zzzzzzzz

I've got a naturally high cadence - around 90-100rpm and can get up to 120 without that much effort. I've been trying to work on pushing higher gears up hills and that for the last while to try and gain some speed.

The max cadence I've ever spun is 186rpm. I went out training one day and decided I wasn't going to change gear for the duration of the spin (I was contemplating getting a fixer or single speed and wanted to see what it was like).

Civilian_Target

el tonto wrote: »

Just get a computer with a cadence sensor.

Hmm... guess I'll never know so :rolleyes:

72hundred

Hey! This is the thread of the day!

EDIT: I'm a masher. But trying to get cadence higher.

SetOverSet

MCOS wrote: »

So mostly Mashers then! Well... apart from Raam et al

Another spinner here Don't use a cadence sensor, bit I'd guess 80-90rpm

MCOS

Tried both approaches on a windy 6 mile climb today. Combination work although I mashed more than spun. Maybe with more cycling mileage I may spin quickly up a hill but today it was leg strength and it beat most of the spinners. My computer doesn't give me cadence so I'm not sure what I was at. Definitely lower than the group though.

Isn't 80=90 a bit low to call yourself a spinner? BTW I'd have no clue I'm brand new to this cycling lark:D

DirkVoodoo

I would have thought 80-90 was bang in the middle, neither spinning or mashing.

Good way to be!

xz

according to scientists(pfff) 94 is supposed to be the optimum cadence

Lumen

MCOS wrote: »

today it was leg strength and it beat most of the spinners.

As an aside (and I could be completely wrong on this) I believe strength in the technical sense is fairly irrelevant to non-sprint cycling.

If you're faster up a hill of any length, that means you're producing more sustained aerobic power. Since power is force x speed at the cranks, at a lower cadence you're producing more torque. But that doesn't mean you are using the "strength" of your muscles in a way which matters to your cycling.

I suspect that people with big legs just use a lower cadence because the inefficiency of high cadence is exacerbated when you have heavier limbs, in a way that makes high cadence feel less natural.

In other words, you're probably fast up those hills in spite of your strength, not because of it.

MCOS

Lumen wrote: »

As an aside (and I could be completely wrong on this) I believe strength in the technical sense is fairly irrelevant to non-sprint cycling.

If you're faster up a hill of any length, that means you're producing more sustained aerobic power. Since power is force x speed at the cranks, at a lower cadence you're producing more torque. But that doesn't mean you are using the "strength" of your muscles in a way which matters to your cycling.

I suspect that people with big legs just use a lower cadence because the inefficiency of high cadence is exacerbated when you have heavier limbs, in a way that makes high cadence feel less natural.

In other words, you're probably fast up those hills in spite of your strength, not because of it.

Interesting post. Maybe you are right here. I wouldn't have considered my aerobic capacity much better than the other guys climbing the hill and indeed there was a guy powering away in front of me too (or was he just fitter and more technical ).

It bags a question for me though. I looked at results of league type TTs and triathletes seem to mix with cyclists quite well. That was until I saw the results of the Dublin City Tri where Gibney, McInernan and Power won with their relay team. I think it was Ciaran power but he absolutely hammered everyone on the bike course!

I guess its a bit like Karalina Cluft dominating the heptathlon and the going for her best event individually and not having the successful joy as she did as a multi sport athlete.

Ok, I'm beating around the bush here so my question is, how much has leg strength to play in cycling in particular hill climbing? Does Raam beat ye all up the hill because of his power to weight ratio or is he a better technical climber?

Swimmers do drills and resistance training to become better swimmers and of course swim millions of kilimeters... do cyclists just cycle?


Please excuse the dumb long winded questions!

jollylee

xz wrote: »

according to scientists(pfff) 94 is supposed to be the optimum cadence

For everyone regardless of type of cycling, weight etc

jollylee

xz wrote: »

according to scientists(pfff) 94 is supposed to be the optimum cadence

For everyone regardless of type of cycling, weight etc???

Chips Lovell

I don't know, it's all about power to weight ratio in my book.