Fun fact: the Lance Armstrong high cadence technique was developed by Michele Ferrari specifically in conjunction with the use op EPO. Because EPO allowed the rider to absorb more oxygen than otherwise, grinding gears stressing your muscles did not fully utilise the effects of the drug. By increasing the workload of the respiratory system at high cadence the muscles would get more oxygen thus have a higher sustained power threshold. Note: i am not accusing Froome of taking drugs, it probably means that his body has a higher VO2 Max and lung capacity compared to most others and it's using it as his main weapon.

Spin to winnn

Global Cycling Network spinnnnn to winnnnnnnnnnn

Global Cycling Network high cadence definitely. Last week I wish I had a smaller gear than 30-27 on a 14%max gradient. All of my friends had a bigger gear, though that didn't mean they climbed faster (some did, some didn't it all comes down to fitness level). However I'd say 80rpm is not grinding territory, you should have done it at 60rpm. My preferred cadence is 90rpm, if you multiply this by 34-32, which is often the smallest gear you find on a compact chainset and with a 700C wheel it gives you more than 12km/h. I'd argue that it's already a great speed to climb such a grueling climb as Monte Zoncolan, you'd have to output a good amount of watts to maintain that speed/cadence. My conclusion to this is that on climbs a lot of riders don't choose their cadence simply because they run out of gears.

I find higher cadence is harder to keep steady when climbing, but it feels easier. I can grind with seemingly constant even pressure on the pedals so I prefer the harder gear. Also, the harder gear requires fewer pedal strokes to summit.

🤣🤣🤣that's honesty for you👍👍

oh man. I know that feeling bruh

Worst feeling ever

In one-first

The worse is coming up behind them and they constantly look back at you because your never catch up.

Reporter: What's your secret? Merckx: Ride a lot.

Yes. We'll meaning but totally useless. Prof was a waste of space.

@@pparker768 ……..APE = Absolutely Pointless Exercise!

This was all wrong!

lol , thanks . I watched it twice & still didn't really know the answer

Seid wann interessierst du dich denn für rennräder? 😂Krass dich hier zu sehen

@@luis-gk9ri Ja, war schöner ohne ihn.

lol

@Sébastien Fournier serious cyclist =/= average cyclist.

Im Average and my output is 150W for about 4 hours, thats is average

💪

J'aime l'eglise de Sacre Coeur

Greetings from Canada

Just use motorcycle, problem solve.

Your a real cyclist! The more weight makes it exponentially harder and coming down frightning. I found coming down zoncolan frightning as im over 110kg.

I guess that would depend on the steepness and length of the climb. I cannot grind for 20 minutes out of the saddle on a steep hill as i get tired earlier. I can do it sitting down on a spinner cadence. For short hillclimbs, standing up is quicker. For longer hillclimbs, i need to pace myself and spin to win.

ian povey lmfao now add in my 14kg road bike and you might as well walk the bike uphill. Right now on my 7 cogs x 3 rings training bike I have settled on the second ring and 5 cog for overall flats and climbing small 2 km hills. On my Sava Carbon I spend 40% less energy doing the same work so that tells you weight of the bike and a bigger cassette does help.

haha, same here... on our big hills I struggle to maintain 65

+1 #DownHillSpecialists

I'm another downhill superstar and uphill tailender. Much as I enjoy the adrenaline rush of stomping the same gear from flat to up a short hill, I've found I can get through longer rides with less aches and fatigue next day by staying in the saddle and spinning. When it comes to gears, granny knows best.

martin bird I love gears. I dunno why fixie riders do it to themselves.

British understatment is understated...

Well said 👍

TsukubaF1 配信チャンネル right there with ya! After suffering a training accident my knees are messed up. Best excuse to spin ever!

Yeap, very suprised they didn't mention the injury prevention benefits of seated faster cadence up hill. Certainly helps me finish a harder day without back and knee pain.

TsukubaF1 配信チャンネル I

Same here. I used to grind, now I cant.. isquiotibial pain!

Yes, knees. The best excuse for a cadence magnet. :)

Grinding is when you're forced to pull harder on the back and upstroke at a rate that can't be sustained if you experience any significant fatigue or dip in aerobic performance. It can happen at around 80 but that doesn't mean you can't drop even lower. If you have a power meter with torque analysis you can see where this starts to occur. And you can also train to improve efficiency at both ends of your effective cadence window.

36 is a noob gear. Try 39 or 42....

Microage I rode 42/53 13-23 all over the Santa Cruz mountains in the ‘70s & 80s. Even off road. That was a roadies gears back in the day. The trails were there to explore and feed our adrenaline addictions. We were the only people on bikes. Wed get the strangest reactions from hikers and equestrians like we were aliens. That was the best part! There were very few people in the mountains then. We felt like we were getting away with something. Maybe we were! Just a very few of the cool cats had ‘cross bikes back then. Modified Schwinn Varsity and a Raleigh Grand Prix were my 1st MTBs! Now I ride a fixed gear ‘cross bike on mtb trails. 58 years young and its like Im a kid again!You wanna grind some? Its like a super slow workout on longer climbs. A real mind trip. Wicked fast and too much fun to be legal on rolling creekside singletrack. Just flow like the water! This is the bike I ride most for local rocky trails and commuting. 40x17 is a good ‘spinny gear on the road and just barely doable on long climbs. I have several nice custom bikes, theyre saved for epic rides. My ‘Crossafix’ is a blast and a wicked workout. Sometimes long descents are harder than the climbs. Every climb is a forced interval. Or you get off and hike. Single-speeding is more fun than most riders can ever imagine. But you have to try it before you knock it. Yes, you need to push the pedals harder. Its a wicked tortuous sort of fun. You gotta love the pain. Get mad at it. Show the pain whos boss!

@@MicroageHD I ride a 48/36

steveo314 Try fixed gear offroad. Then you’ll learn all about grinding and spinning. Its a great way to learn how to pedal!

You'd love riding a fixed gear :D

Ha ha...fixed gear riders are very hardcore in my book

how about fixed gear rider trying to catch a pokemon while weaving thru the bike lanes.... one guy almost killed me like that, it was damn close i didnt showe that fixie handlebar up hes arse

I'm doing zero cadence RIGHT NOW! and loving it! ;-)

when u get addicted to climbing the downhill part becomes boring as your muscle and bones are accustomed to constant pedaling. Pedaling itself is a hook and you no longer feel comfy sitting on a bike without working it out.

Joshua McDonnell yes absolutely. Any quick test is pointless. Do 200km race pace then do the test.

Joshua McDonnell exactly

Sure, but the strain on the heart is higher with high cadence. Which also adds up over the course of a race. It's probably best to stick to your natural cadence.

@Joshua, here's a thought though. Some people have low hemoglobin levels (it's a blood disorder called thalassemia) and they are trying to do the opposite -- shifting the load from the lungs to the legs. Their lungs don't get the oxygen that normal people do. So they have to rely on their muscles and hence they end up grinding. Even if I try hard, I can't get my cadence up to 70 or 80, let alone 100.

Mishal Ahmed I agree With you in that scenario but 99% of people don’t have that blood disorder and highly doubt you could become a pro rider with such a disorder.

That's me and I'm 30

Exactly! The key is to unclip before going so slow that you topple over

True. Never be ashamed to unclip (particularly as you get older). Ultimately you're doing your body a lot more good getting on the bike in the first place.

Cheers Stuart, really glad you enjoyed it. You can check out our geek edition over on GCN Tech!

Thanks Randy!

I've found this phenomenon at this "electricity generating" thing with several lightbulbs on a bike, to see what you could do in a minute. I told the guy to wire up all the lights but the load only came to about 105 watts. Spinning the pedals made the load easier but it was impossible to put down more than 105 watts as the pedaling just became really easy at high speed (there was probably a voltage regulator to not blow the bulbs). Probably for a minute I'd need 400-500 watts worth of bulbs and 110 rpm for optimal loading. I'm not sure whether energy wasted moving legs is recovered at higher loads. Because the body doesn't have to control the legs, the power can be dissipated in the bike and not in the muscles. Pedal stroke timing could suffer though. Because muscles can be used as a brake, contracting opposite muscles at once - either on opposite pedals (independently ratcheting power cranks are to train this out), or in the same leg, wastes energy. I was trying lower cadences to really think about the firing order of different muscle groups. Was I contracting the quadriceps and hamstrings at once? I'm wondering whether with two joint muscles such as the hamstring, hip flexor and gastrocnemius, some energy wasted is inevitable. I mean the hamstring can also aid the gluteus maximus slightly, but yet it saps power from the quadriceps. At the bottom "scraping" of the pedal stroke, the gastrocnemius and hamstring work together to bend the leg and point the foot. It's almost like ignition and exhaust timing in an internal combustion engine. You don't want part of the explosion to be trying to push the piston backwards. Trying to minimise eccentric "contractions" in the pedal stroke is much the same. You want power to turn the wheels on the bike, not turn it into heat stretching muscles against their will. It would be like riding on a tandem with someone trying to pedal backwards. Eccentric contractions are the main energy wasted on a unicycle. At very high loads, I have anecdotal evidence that muscles do lose efficiency. I sweat more trying to pull 120 kg barbell off the ground than a 60 kg barbell twice - yet the latter is actually more work, as I dip my body twice. Not only that, but it also wastes the potential of fast twitch fibres. You're using up their capacity, but not making much power. They are just acting like an electric motor in too hard a gear ratio for it to function properly.

No doubt the most important point you've made is #3, and is what has already informed cadence in practice.

For #3 it's more about sustainability than efficiency. Faster cadence uses aerobic energy which puts the work on your heart and lungs. This can be sustained indefinitely if your heart and lungs are trained for this amount of load. Slower cadence starts to dip into anerobic reserves which always has a limit due to lactic acid buildup.

@@TimpBizkit Great reply, and good barbell example.

Hey Charles, glad you enjoyed the video. Thanks for letting us know 👍

Cheers!

Unli Ahon haha sameeeee I consider grinding ..like 40 rpm ahah

PAPSS!!!

the faster you get the faster you will spinn. that doesnt mean you should aim to apin faster nore that faster spinners ng people will bypass you

wat

I'm 146 pounds and don't develop the torque of the bigger guys, so my power comes from my cadence. Less than 93 feels like I'm grinding, 95-103 is the sweet spot.

jlowhighlow indeed they 'get you places' AND keep you in the race while others are pouring themselves out. I hope people keep grinding i can keep winning races

I read VO2max studies concerning out of the saddle and past a certain power output, it is nearly as efficient as sat down. With the optimal technique, bike fit, and body position, any effort you spend on on your arms should carry over to your power output or sustain pedaling torque. You can even offset some of the load from the legs to the arms. It's a relatively complex subject to discuss on short reply as it involves muscular dynamics like how muscular power involves not just force but also speed and and length of contraction. If you can reduce contraction on one muscle and increase it on another is how you can offset the load. Pros would definitely know about this stuff with analysis upon analysis, especially Alberto Contador!

Marcos De Souza did you have issues with bouncing? How did you solve that?

bollocks !

Think the whole issue is very subjective. Having tried both, I find a good balance between the two at around 85rpm works for me. I could only find any decent power (which isn't much) from weight lifting. Subequently, this gave me a lower rpm, but made me faster.

Saurabh Kulkarni you'll bounce at the beginning but over time it stops as all muscles involved in the movement adapt. But make sure your seat is not too high otherwise the bouncing will never stop.

JM AF it takes huge motivation. I was doing it for races. But like I said the first 2 weeks are the hardest or maybe 1st month. Anyone who doubts this system should put it to the test. It doesn't need to be 3 hours spinning if you're not training for races, just change your style to high cadence and you'll benefit.

D.Eldon Thanks for the great response as always. In this case it feels like actually having a gear that forces you to put out more power could be an important point. Would hear twiddlers go faster if they had to try a bit harder?

_@Simon Richardson_ - Thanks for taking the time to reply. Much appreciated. Perhaps I'm missing something because I don't understand the explanation. Maybe the muddle is occurring when we talk about power. In my original response above, I was taking about power to the rear wheel -- the same power you'd read on your cycling computer. In your reply, are you talking about power at the pedals? If so, we're talking about two different things. If you select a gear ratio for each cadence you test such that the power to the wheels is the same, you will exert _more power_ at the pedals *per revolution of the crank* _at the lower cadence._ This will be true even if your power meter indicates the same watts as I'm advocating. For example, at 500 watts, you'll have to exert more force per revolution at 80 rpm as you would at 95 rpm. So the cyclist will perceive a harder effort even though the power to the wheels is the same (500 watts). The way the test was conducted for the video (with gear ratios that were not chosen to equalize the power to the wheels), you were forced to also drive more force to the wheels at the lower cadence which introduced a second variable. In other words, you increased the power to the pedals twice -- once because of the lower cadence, again because of the too-high gear ratio.

D.Eldon Hi, The "power per crank revolution" is in fact an energy (that's when you count the power produced over time). In the video, Simon is producing energy at the same rate (that's the power read on the bike computer). Since at let's say 60rpm the time to make a crank revolution is longer than at 90rpm, there will be more energy produced per crank revolution at 60rpm: you count the power produced over the longer period. What you may be referring to is the torque produced to attain a certain power. As power is "torque times rpm", a lower rpm needs higher torque for the same required power. Which I agree can feel more exhausting. As for power at the wheel/at the pedals, it is perfectly equivalent. There will be a constant factor between them due to the drive train losses. Don't hesitate if something is unclear, or if you want more explanation! I'm happy to help :)

_@Charles Phi_ - Let's please not over-complicate this subject. Of course there is power at the pedal -- the energy to move the pedal a specific number of revolutions per minute is energy transferred over time (power). I'd like to keep this discussion as simple as possible so as many readers can easily follow. So let's assume that Si exerts the exact same force at each point along the 360-degree circle of the pedal around the crank spindle. And let's assume that Si maintains a perfect 500 watts/minute power output to the rear wheel during both ascents. And let's assume there are no losses between the pedals and rear wheel. During the first ascent, Si climbed with a cadence of 95 rpm. Dividing his 500 watts by 95 revolutions, each revolution required 5.26 watts. During the second ascent, he climbed with a cadence of 80 rpm. Dividing his 500 watts by 80 revolutions, each revolution required 6.25 watts. This simple method of comparing the difference in power required for each crank revolution at these two cadences helps folks understand why the 80 rpm cadence appears to require more effort at the pedals. It truly does as you've acknowledged. And this is why I believe Si's suggestion that being "forced to put out more power could be an important point" would still be satisfied if the power at the wheel is held constant.

Thanks for your polite answer :) I think you have the correct instinct, I just want to clear a couple technical details for interested readers. Power cannot be divided by a number of rotations in the physical sense, because it is an "instantaneous" value. You can divide energy though (more on that later). I'll try to express your reasoning either in terms of torque or energy. I'll go with torque first, which is what I talked about in my first message. Torque is Power/RPM (fellow physicians, sorry about the units). For 500W, the torque produced at 60rpm is 500Nm (Newton meters, the unit for torque) and at 90rpm it is 333Nm. So indeed the legs hurt more at 60rpm because more torque=more force. Notice I did a division just like you but with correct units in the physical sense. The conclusion is the same indeed. As for reasoning with energy, we can this time divide by a number of revolutions as you did and it is correct in the physical sense. Over 1 minute, Simon produced 30kJ (kilojoules) of energy (that's power multiplied by the number of seconds). These 30kJ of energy are spread over either 60 rotations or 90 rotations. Which means he produced for each pedal rotation either 0.5kJ (60rpm) or 0.33kJ (90rpm). Again, same conclusion: more energy put per pedal rotation means you push "harder" on the pedals. For readers interested in those power/torque/energy disgressions, have a look at the wikipedia pages, I hope it's clear enough! As for the power at the wheel, what makes you think it is fundamentally different from the power at the pedals?

exactly

Precisely! It also depends what gears set up is used. I start "pushing" pedals when dropping below 70, 68 is minimum but 74 -76 is like best fitting for me. I feel then, like I'm riding "for free". 78 RPM and I shift to next gear to not "overtorque" at 80 RPM or any higher. I feel like dumblesly waving my legs just to move them around and not do any useful, effective pedalling. My gears are 52T at the front and 11-23T / 11-25T cassettes. Note that 52x11 shifting at 70 RPM gives nearly 42 km/h, and 52x12 at 80 RPM is even faster... If you're amteur (like I am), try holding it for 40 kilometers or more? Can you? 85-100 RPM average? Heart attack! I never believe any of that, when amateur riders push me this kind of news... Pure rubbish or one is spinning 39T and 25T at the rear...

disgruntledtoons yes, interesting, he was a bad boy but regardless of drugs he was the best and fastest for longest.

Yes, let’s just disregard drugs. He also was a monster to friends.

Christopher Fairfowl - there is no way to separate his natural ability from his chemical advantage. He used PED’s during all of his TDF wins and before that. However we do know that he never finished closer than 8 minutes from the winner prior to winning his first TDF.

@@christopherfairfowl5521 But because of the drugs, he wasn't the best though, was he?

Cheers Cole

This is exactly my experience as well.

I hate it when a loud pipes motorbike goes by. The noise makes me wilt!

Listening to music and going off into a world of your own is a way to get killed through inattention. *Do not put plugs in your ears and listen to music - it's dangerous!*

Yes. 100% agree

I had found the sweet Spot, London too Bath, And back, Coming down the Great West Road, Passed Northolt Air Port, Coming in to London I was in great shape, And mixed in with the road clubs, Out on their training runs, Any one who took my wheel, I would just ride away from them,

Alay alay Grimpure.

You mean dope to win - pretty bad example

you get doped and try to win..lets see it !!

Or is it grind like Jan

Zwiesel66 and your point is? I guarantee the top 10 or 15 Riders during Lance's tenure were all doping too...

Chad, my point is, we are talking too much about these riders like they did a harmless crime. They betrayed their fans and their competitors and earned a lot of money that way. If someone robs a bank, do you do it too? What others did or do will never be an excuse for your own actions - you are responsible for your actions. Beside Jan, Lance is a very disgusting example for doping.

SwedishHouseFifa So grand tours have always been won by "spinners"? Like Indurain? Horner? Try facts.

Anonymous DueToFascists No they didn't. You just made that up. I know this is the age of Trump but reality bites eventually.

Anonymous DueToFascists I'm an expert at watching TV and believing my eyes rather than my fantasies.

Anonymous DueToFascists At 5:15 they start to discuss the results including the fact that lactic readings are higher at a fast cadence. Judging from your own comments you think that is a big problem but actually the science is pretty inconclusive there too.

Loooooooooool

Yes, we had some sun here in the UK!

@@gcn and the Hawthorn was in full flower, a stunning spring day

Pantani was also an alien from another universe

It was a different time, with different gearing, and different training approaches. When I was a kid I read a book (credited to Hinault, IIRC) that recommended spinning as the best technique, but also had spinning starting at 60rpm. These days 90rpm is spinning.

It will be nearly a decade before we find out what he "does" if Lance Armstrong is anything to go off of.

I can't help feel disappointed that he won the Giro. He has a big ugly cloud over his head and it's just really hard to believe in his Herculean performance right at the end after suffering for 3 weeks to then smash the entire field. Sucks because I love cycling and want to believe in it.

Lol do you think froome spinning make difference

Glad you enjoyed it Richard!

A dead meme who has never made it as a pro

All his thumbail are his girl with little tities

he's cool

I still like him. He is interesting and seems to have fashioned a pretty cool life that focuses on his passions: veganism, cycling and hot chicks. But maybe not in that order.

I think people who hate him need to smash their internet devices, they can’t handle it.

Maybe always riding 53*11is the reason for why you are slowest?!

PlanesTrainsAutos lying in bed is comfy too! Look, high cadence is a trained skill. Learn it and your performance will improve

fabi - yes, you may get the podium....but I get the podium girls

@fabi spinning is for cyclists with weak legs.

@@razmanhanafiah4839 real cyclist have weak legs ;)

Yes mantis assert dominance

I’ll spin my dust on u

Ivar Brouwer I think that’s actually part of it. I can’t spin 95rpm out of the saddle up a climb and i suspect most people would be the same.

Simon Richardson, thnx for your reply! maybe but there are those who grind seated an can’t climb standing(ullrich) while some almost dance standing and look fluid (Contador) in their words standing does not equate grinding. (There are more then 2 methods for getting to Rome...)