# Big or Small ring?



## Slick (8 Sep 2016)

So I'm trying to improve my cycling performance, so trying to use my commutes as workouts but also riding with others on training runs. On one of these runs they kept remarking they thought I should be on the small ring more often as I'm not efficient by expending energy I don't need to. I felt comfortable enough at the time but I do feel my legs are letting me down first as my weakest point, and I did begin to flag a bit on this run as well. Would spinning on the lower ring help this even if I was trying to keep my speed reasonable?


----------



## Ian H (8 Sep 2016)

If your bike is rocking from side-to-side on the flat, you're probably in too high a gear. Very roughly, aim for 90rpm cadence as a pedalling speed. Though some professionals do use seated climbing in the biggest gear possible as a training technique.


----------



## vickster (8 Sep 2016)

Use the gears you need to make the required progress


----------



## simongt (8 Sep 2016)

Back in the day, we'd push big gears regardless, which is why riders of a certain age tend to have dodgy knees - !  Now it's all about cadence in smaller gears. It's really down to whatever feels comfortable for you personally and how the 'wiring' between brain & legs is. I've tried spinning faster than about 70 - 80 rpm in various conditions and gears, but my legs just refuse to cooperate - !


----------



## gavroche (8 Sep 2016)

Listen to your legs, if you are struggling, then drop your gear until it feels comfortable.


----------



## Slick (8 Sep 2016)

To be honest, I thought I was just keeping it simple by pushing as hard as required to make progress. The advice I was given on a group ride was I'm doing it wrong, and I just wondered how prevalent the advice was. Suppose it's all about experimenting.


----------



## avsd (8 Sep 2016)

Small ring during winter to encourage high cadence


----------



## lpretro1 (8 Sep 2016)

You'll just knacker your knees and yourself pushing too big gears - there's a good reason why there is a choice of gears!


----------



## S-Express (8 Sep 2016)

Slick said:


> The advice I was given on a group ride was I'm doing it wrong, and I just wondered how prevalent the advice was.



Depends what they said you were doing wrong. It also depends whether they actually know what they are talking about or not - it's not neccesarily a given that they do. In any case, if you were staying with them, then you weren't doing too much wrong. Use your gears and spin your legs in any way that you feel comfortable. The best arbiter of that decision is going to be you.


----------



## Hacienda71 (8 Sep 2016)

You will find your own natural cadence. You may find it changes over time. Some top pros ride with a relatively low cadence, some ride with a high cadence.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (9 Sep 2016)

I spin usually between 85-95 beyond that it doesn't feel right, I can spin upto 110 but this would be sprinting or down hill, I will choose what gear gives me that range on my bike its usually the middle ring a 38th for virtually all my riding bar down anything other than a shallow decline (24mph or so) I will use the inner ring 26th to spin on longer steeper climbs, though most steeper inclines here are not very long 1/2 mile max so tend to get out of the saddle.


----------



## Slick (9 Sep 2016)

lpretro1 said:


> You'll just knacker your knees and yourself pushing too big gears - there's a good reason why there is a choice of gears!



That's almost word for word what this guy told me. I feel my respiratory system recovers very quickly but my legs are being pushed to fail rate and take days to recover. I'm also guessing by the mixture of advice, it's also a personal thing exactly how best to handle it?


----------



## Nigelnaturist (9 Sep 2016)

Not sure about doing your knees in, but cycling has strengthened mine.


----------



## S-Express (9 Sep 2016)

As above, I'm not sure exactly how pushing a high gear will 'knacker' your knees.


----------



## vickster (9 Sep 2016)

Slick said:


> That's almost word for word what this guy told me. I feel my respiratory system recovers very quickly but my legs are being pushed to fail rate and take days to recover. I'm also guessing by the mixture of advice, it's also a personal thing exactly how best to handle it?


Are you stretching your legs after riding to help them recover and having rest days? Presumably not if you are commuting but your legs take days to recover?

Also if riding big ring and big cogs, you could be shortening the life of your drive chain


----------



## Nigelnaturist (9 Sep 2016)

vickster said:


> Are you stretching your legs after riding to help them recover and having rest days? Presumably not if you are commuting but your legs take days to recover?
> 
> *Also if riding big ring and big cogs, you could be shortening the life of your drive chain*


This would almost be inevitable if I rode a 50/34 setup, or at least towards either end of the cassette.


----------



## vickster (9 Sep 2016)

Indeed, another reason to not grind up hills on the big ring  knees aside


----------



## si_c (9 Sep 2016)

There is no such thing as a right way to pedal your bike just ride which ever way makes you comfortable. On the flat I tend to pedal around 80-90rpm comfortably, and try to maintain that rather than aim for a specific gear, although I will tend to err towards a higher gear and lower cadence as that is what I find more comfortable. When riding up hills I prefer a higher cadence and lower gear.

There are advantages and disadvantages to each pedalling style, so find what works for you and stick with it. You won't use less energy one way or the other, it takes the same amount of energy to pedal at 100rpm at 20mph or 80rpm at 20mph, the work done is the same, but you can tire your muscles easier if you push a higher gear because of how that energy is applied.

Overall the current consensus is that a lower gear will stress your muscles and joints less, so if you suffer from knee pain for example it is better to use a lower gear.


----------



## steveindenmark (9 Sep 2016)

Slick, we are all different.

Im a fast spinner. I can ride all day and night like that and keep my heart rate very low. I ride with other people who can ride in big gears but not all day and all night.

There is a lot of tortoise and hare in this cycling lark. I am happy being a tortoise.


----------



## Dogtrousers (9 Sep 2016)

I outsource cadence to my legs. They know best. Every now and then they send up a request for a gear change. Normally I comply. Sometimes I respond by standing up for a bit. Sometimes, just for a laugh, I come over all Jensie and tell them to shut up, but they don't have much of a sense of humour.


----------



## ColinJ (9 Sep 2016)

Legs hurt, lungs and heart ok ... change to a lower gear.

Out of breath, legs ok ... try a higher gear.

Legs hurt, out of breath ... slow down.

Legs hurt, out of breath, going too slow to balance ... long term: get fitter; short term: get off and walk!


----------



## Slick (9 Sep 2016)

I must admit to being guilty of not warming up much, but I feel we tend to warm up naturally by building up the speed and effort slowly. I was also told not to stretch tired legs as you could damage an already stressed muscle. Probably another urban myth. 

Lots to ponder, so thanks all for your input.


----------



## boydj (9 Sep 2016)

As Colin said above, a higher cadence puts more emphasis on heart/lung fitness, while a lower cadence in a bigger gear will tire the leg muscles more quickly. The consensus seems to be that the higher cadence is more efficient in the long run.


----------



## S-Express (9 Sep 2016)

boydj said:


> As Colin said above, a higher cadence puts more emphasis on heart/lung fitness, while a lower cadence in a bigger gear will tire the leg muscles more quickly. The consensus seems to be that the higher cadence is more efficient in the long run.



Aerobic effort is not dictated by cadence though. It's possible to turn a low cadence and still place a high demand on your heart/lungs. The most 'efficient' cadence will vary depending on objectives, or whatever type of terrain you happen to be riding at the time, so it doesn't follow that a higher cadence will be more efficient in the 'long run' - whatever the 'long run' means.


----------



## gbb (11 Sep 2016)

You need a bit of time to see the difference upping your cadence can make.
As a former masher (low cadence, high effort, high speed), my knees hurt occasionally, occasionally quite badly. I was fit, I could hammer myself, but it did hammer the knees .
Decided to spin more, at first it seemed counter productive, felt horrible, too slow, but within a month I guess, I found I could almost maintain the speeds I used to do...with a lower, more forgiving gear ratio.
On a 50/40 chain set, I could fairly motor along on the 40 and rarely felt the need to get onto the 50t ring

What gears does OP have one his bike I wonder ?


----------



## GuyBoden (11 Sep 2016)

I learned to spin on a gym bike. Keep the cadence around 90 for an hour, then it becomes second nature.

46, 36, 26 front triple chain rings, is the choice at my age, so I can ride against the wind and get up any hills I can't avoid, my knees just can't grind anymore.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (11 Sep 2016)

GuyBoden said:


> I learned to spin on a gym bike. Keep the cadence around 90 for an hour, then it becomes second nature.
> 
> 46, 36, 26 front triple chain rings, is the choice at my age, so I can ride against the wind and get up any hills I can't avoid, my knees just can't grind anymore.


I am currently finding the 38x12 in some situations a bit on the short side, though usually at that gear length I would normally be on the 50th (50/38/26 12-27 25.5-110") I just sometimes find it a little more convenient staying on the 38th front ring, I am considering a 24/36/48 11-23 setup to give 27.7-115.6" but also a better range on the middle ring from currently 37.3-83.9" to 41.5-86.7" I am not using the the 38x27 to do much climbing around here currently, I for one have no issues using which ever gear combination works at any given time.


----------



## Slick (11 Sep 2016)

gbb said:


> You need a bit of time to see the difference upping your cadence can make.
> As a former masher (low cadence, high effort, high speed), my knees hurt occasionally, occasionally quite badly. I was fit, I could hammer myself, but it did hammer the knees .
> Decided to spin more, at first it seemed counter productive, felt horrible, too slow, but within a month I guess, I found I could almost maintain the speeds I used to do...with a lower, more forgiving gear ratio.
> On a 50/40 chain set, I could fairly motor along on the 40 and rarely felt the need to get onto the 50t ring
> ...



The horrible truth is, I haven't got a clue. As soon as I see numbers as posted above, my eyes glaze over. 

I did the exact same route this morning with the same guy that mentioned it to me, only this time I spun a lot more in the small ring. As you say, it felt counter productive but at the end of the run I had enough left over to do an additional climbing route so there must be something in it.

Of course, I've still got the same problem, as after doing the extra climb my legs are still like jelly. Can't win.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (11 Sep 2016)

@Slick it gets easier, what @GuyBoden and i are saying is there are many options to gearing and its not difficult to understand really, however experience will give you an idea what you will want, it took me a couple of years to settle on my current set up its not perfect biggish jumps from 21-24-27 which i don't like but need the lower gearing for weight I carry and a few of the inclines I go up, they are not really difficult just peak at over 10% but at the end of a ride or home from shopping.


----------



## Slick (11 Sep 2016)

Thanks, I do understand it, I just like to keep it simple stupid. My bike is fairly basic with only 2 front rings, it's geared very different from my mates Trek as we were both on the small ring but I had to spin faster to keep up. 

I do get it now, thanks to all for their input. I feel I probably need to experiment a bit more and obviously improve my general fitness.


----------



## si_c (11 Sep 2016)

Slick said:


> Thanks, I do understand it, I just like to keep it simple stupid. My bike is fairly basic with only 2 front rings, it's geared very different from my mates Trek as we were both on the small ring but I had to spin faster to keep up.
> 
> I do get it now, thanks to all for their input. I feel I probably need to experiment a bit more and obviously improve my general fitness.



Experiment and find what works for you. Don't have to get it right first time.


----------



## gbb (11 Sep 2016)

What bike are you riding slick ?
Where are you ?
What gearing is on your bike, particularly on the front chain set. 

Hills are a funny one slick, when I was very fit at say 45 years old, I could sustain 18mph average over say 50 miles...but my terrain isn't particularly hilly. If I'd gone for a ride in say Yorkshire, Derbyshire etc...it'd have killed me for a while even though I considered myself very fit.


----------



## Slick (11 Sep 2016)

Hi gbb, I'm in Dumbarton, which is fairly flat, but I got it into my mind that I was getting too comfortable doing the commutes, so now heading out to the Trossachs to get some good workouts. I honestly don't know what gearing is on the bike, but it's a Carrera Karkinos from Halford. I now know that it's the wrong bike, but at the time of purchase, I couldn't tell you the difference between a good one and a bad one. I've got a whole other story on that front. I know that my fitness has to improve, but on a flat 50 mile run I would consider 15 mph average a success. Put a few hills in and that would go through the floor.


----------



## gbb (12 Sep 2016)

Slick said:


> Hi gbb, I'm in Dumbarton, which is fairly flat, but I got it into my mind that I was getting too comfortable doing the commutes, so now heading out to the Trossachs to get some good workouts. I honestly don't know what gearing is on the bike, but it's a Carrera Karkinos from Halford. I now know that it's the wrong bike, but at the time of purchase, I couldn't tell you the difference between a good one and a bad one. I've got a whole other story on that front. I know that my fitness has to improve, but on a flat 50 mile run I would consider 15 mph average a success. Put a few hills in and that would go through the floor.


You're haven't really got the wrong bike...it should be OK but as always the more you spend, the better the ride should be.
As an example, I started on an 8 (16) speed, steel framed heavyweight budget bike. It was a blooming good bike, I did many thousands of miles on it and got very fit.
Then I brought a light Bianchi, 9 (18) speed, a much better bike, twice the price of my first heavyweight....did I go any faster...no. But the quality of the ride was so much better, shifting smoother, less gaps between gears etc etc...just all round better but you gotta pay for that...and you still won't go much faster.
Your bikes fine as a starter IMO.
Check the basics...tyre pressures correct ? Under inflated tyres drag you down.
Better tyres roll better, you will have budget tyres on it, good tyres would improve it, something like Gators perhaps.
Saddle the right height ?, too low, your thighs are going to scream in protest.

Ultimately, get the miles in, it will come.


----------



## Slick (12 Sep 2016)

gbb said:


> You're haven't really got the wrong bike...it should be OK but as always the more you spend, the better the ride should be.
> As an example, I started on an 8 (16) speed, steel framed heavyweight budget bike. It was a blooming good bike, I did many thousands of miles on it and got very fit.
> Then I brought a light Bianchi, 9 (18) speed, a much better bike, twice the price of my first heavyweight....did I go any faster...no. But the quality of the ride was so much better, shifting smoother, less gaps between gears etc etc...just all round better but you gotta pay for that...and you still won't go much faster.
> Your bikes fine as a starter IMO.
> ...



Yeah, I think that's the answer. I still think that I bought the wrong bike. Not that there is anything wrong with it, but I reckon that the only original parts in the 18 months I've ridden it are the frame and wheels, and they are on the way out. I was advised by the guys so called "in the know" to stay away from road bikes as the ride is too hard and far too uncomfortable for me to get into. I knew I would enjoy it, but not sure enough to invest too much first time. I reckon if I manage to keep my commute going all winter, I'll treat myself early next year.


----------



## S-Express (12 Sep 2016)

Slick said:


> I was advised by the guys so called "in the know" to stay away from road bikes



Lol at anyone 'in the know' who says that.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (12 Sep 2016)

@Slick ^^^^ what he says, the only thing original on my Viking is the frame, forks, brake calipers and the mud guards, its gone through many guises from a 7sp triple to a 10sp triple with the kit it has I think I would be pushed to get a bike under £1,000 (105 triple 10sp) apart from the brakes its all 105 or above, but its took me 4 years to get here with it and to be honest I don't think I want a new frame (unless this one brakes) it has done everything I have asked of it, it originally cost £300 in 2008.


----------



## Slick (12 Sep 2016)

S-Express said:


> Lol at anyone 'in the know' who says that.



The real annoying thing was I was really unsure what to go for and thought I could trust my local ( at the time) dealer. He had his own agenda trying to shift a load of over priced mountain bikes. 



Nigelnaturist said:


> @Slick ^^^^ what he says, the only thing original on my Viking is the frame, forks, brake calipers and the mud guards, its gone through many guises from a 7sp triple to a 10sp triple with the kit it has I think I would be pushed to get a bike under £1,000 (105 triple 10sp) apart from the brakes its all 105 or above, but its took me 4 years to get here with it and to be honest I don't think I want a new frame (unless this one brakes) it has done everything I have asked of it, it originally cost £300 in 2008.



I'm starting to come to the same conclusion. I kind of wish I bought them the other way round though, as I think I would quite like to try discs in the winter as my brakes are a bit like a lottery on a really wet morning.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (12 Sep 2016)

Try getting some Koolstop Salmon blocks for your brakes, depends what sort of brakes you have if calipers without the cartridge system you will need to get some cartridges, if you can upload a pic of your brakes I or others can advise further.


----------



## Racing roadkill (13 Sep 2016)

Slick said:


> So I'm trying to improve my cycling performance, so trying to use my commutes as workouts but also riding with others on training runs. On one of these runs they kept remarking they thought I should be on the small ring more often as I'm not efficient by expending energy I don't need to. I felt comfortable enough at the time but I do feel my legs are letting me down first as my weakest point, and I did begin to flag a bit on this run as well. Would spinning on the lower ring help this even if I was trying to keep my speed reasonable?


Don't fear the granny gear.


----------



## Truth (13 Sep 2016)

I have always used Bell brake blocks, on my old Kona Hybrid , from Asda and found them to be excellent and cheap!


----------



## Slick (13 Sep 2016)

Nigelnaturist said:


> Try getting some Koolstop Salmon blocks for your brakes, depends what sort of brakes you have if calipers without the cartridge system you will need to get some cartridges, if you can upload a pic of your brakes I or others can advise further.



I just fitted a cartridge system a week or so back, but they haven't been tested on a wet winters morning just yet.


----------



## leedsmick (15 Sep 2016)

Interesting post. I went for one of my thrice weekly lunch hour spins around Leeds. I normally do between 800 & 1000ft climbing, about 15-16 miles covered. I always finish tired, without fail, but 10 mins later i feel i could go back out again. Today i tried spinning in a lower gear on some of the harder sections, and whilst it was easier i expected my average speed to be down overall for the ride, and i was pleasantly surprised when i got back that i was actually quicker, so for me providing you find the right gear for you, spinning lower gets you further faster. I was still knackered at the end of the ride however!


----------



## S-Express (15 Sep 2016)

leedsmick said:


> Today i tried spinning in a lower gear on some of the harder sections, and whilst it was easier i expected my average speed to be down overall for the ride, and i was pleasantly surprised when i got back that i was actually quicker, so for me providing you find the right gear for you, spinning lower gets you further faster. I was still knackered at the end of the ride however!



N=1 is not proof, unfortunately. I think there could be a lot of possible explanations for that, only one of which is a different gear choice. You might go out again tomorrow and be significantly slower. So I wouldn't jump to any conclusions just yet.


----------



## leedsmick (15 Sep 2016)

S-Express said:


> N=1 is not proof, unfortunately. I think there could be a lot of possible explanations for that, only one of which is a different gear choice. You might go out again tomorrow and be significantly slower. So I wouldn't jump to any conclusions just yet.


Also depends how hungover i am by lunchtime usually!


----------



## e-rider (15 Sep 2016)

find your own cadence 70-100 rpm - it all comes down to what suits you, although you might prefer a given candence simply becasue that is what you are used to, and that might not be the best for you.
in terms of gearing, that's another discussion altogether - i.e. should you ride large chainring, larger sprocket, or small chainring small sprocket; to make the same gear - large chainrings are more efficient so opting for the big ring and big sprocket will help you slightly but on a geared bike your chainline will not be so good!


----------



## Slick (15 Sep 2016)

I am doing a lot more spinning, but it feels like I just need to find a balance to help my legs recover after a few climbs.


----------



## Truth (16 Sep 2016)

Slick said:


> I am doing a lot more spinning, but it feels like I just need to find a balance to help my legs recover after a few climbs.


I think you have just hit the nail on the head mate  
You will find that out for yourself over time......


----------



## simongt (17 Sep 2016)

lpretro1 said:


> You'll just knacker your knees and yourself pushing too big gears - there's a good reason why there is a choice of gears!


Years of pushing big gears is what probably led to the early death of Beryl Burton; but then she did make & break a LOT of records on the way - !


----------



## S-Express (17 Sep 2016)

simongt said:


> Years of pushing big gears is what probably led to the early death of Beryl Burton



Seriously, what? She died of heart failure. If you have any new information, please tell the coroner.


----------



## adamangler (17 Sep 2016)

big cog or small cog depends mostly on your gearing and your chainline as well as what gears you can push.

theres not right or wrong just find whats comfy.

As for cadence, its worth training a high cadence as much as it is worth drilling low cadence as both will provide adaptions that will help your cycling.

Youre body is quite clever so the most comfortable cadence for you will be the correct one that suits your current state of your muscles and aerobic system but that doesnt mean its the most efficent, depends on whether you wish to train yourself to ride a higher cadence.


----------



## bondirob (18 Sep 2016)

If you can't push 80rpm on your favourite hill you need lower gears.
Unless of course your happy with a lower cadence as some are but it is less efficient.
The gears supplied on most road bikes are woefully inadequate for most beginners and intermediates who want to ride hills.


----------



## RoubaixCube (18 Sep 2016)

I personally do a mix of both, small ring when coming to a stop or pulling away from traffic lights then switching to the big ring to pull away faster so i dont need to shift 3 or 4 gears up/down when stopping or picking up speed again. I average 80-90rpm though i havent checked what my garmin connect says after i have been using the big ring more on my Cube more


----------



## Nigelnaturist (18 Sep 2016)

bondirob said:


> If you can't push 80rpm on your favourite hill you need lower gears.
> Unless of course your happy with a lower cadence as some are but it is less efficient.
> The gears supplied on most road bikes are woefully inadequate for most beginners and intermediates who want to ride hills.


So whats your suggestion wider ratios and lower gearing on the back or a move back to a triple where you can have both especially on 10sp triples, I have various setups on my 10sp triple 50/38/26 and a 12-27 (current setup, but its easy enough to switch the rear to a 12-23 and the inner to a 28 both have a 110" top gear but a difference of 25 to 33" on the low gear, the inner ring is used for climbing especially if carrying a bit of weight but not as a last resort some times I will ride the 38x27 up the hill to home sometimes I will use the 26th inner and drop the rear to the 17-19th both giving a gear of 37-40" or a 34x25 on a 50/34 setup.
The problem I find with a 50/34 is the large gap at the front most of my riding is done on the middle 38th this gives me a current range of 37-84 " or 9.3-21.25 mph at 85rpm, though its not over keen on either end (27 or 12th) at the mo, might just be the new chain bedding in.


----------



## CanucksTraveller (18 Sep 2016)

Sur la plaque, s'il vous plait.


----------



## Slick (18 Sep 2016)

That's what I thought you said.


----------



## S-Express (18 Sep 2016)

bondirob said:


> Unless of course your happy with a lower cadence as some are but it is less efficient.



In what way is a lower cadence 'less efficient' ?


----------



## bondirob (18 Sep 2016)

S-Express said:


> In what way is a lower cadence 'less efficient' ?


You get tired quicker


----------



## bondirob (18 Sep 2016)

I'd say do whichever suits
I don't seem to mind the big jumps too much but I'll just pick whichever gear I can spin at but I suppose a triple gives you more options


----------



## Nigelnaturist (18 Sep 2016)

@bondirob the thing is new riders think they are riding the wrong sort of bike or not wo/man enough till they find out the bike is too high geared, by which time its quite expensive to change, not sure why Campy can offer an 11sp triple yet Shimano can't/won't on their higher groupset i.e. 105, some people would love Ultegra on a triple, and I for one would love the 12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-25 cassette coupled with my 50/38/26 or an 11-23 coupled with a 24/36/48 front, my 12-27 misses the 18th of my 12-23 and I really miss it at times, but what with the closeness of the cassette and range of the front there are not many conditions I find myself in that I can't spin an average of 85-95 with only a 6-8% change which keeps me in that close range (about 5rpm per gear) you take a cassette with a gear jump of 10+% i.e. 24-27 (13%) you are changing rpm by over 10 which can make a big difference to the fluidity of your cadence. I can spin at upto and over 100rpm but not keen on it, but some gear changes would need you to change from say 88rpm to 100rpm to maintain the same speed, though in reality its not why most change gear.


----------



## S-Express (18 Sep 2016)

bondirob said:


> You get tired quicker



So someone pushing 200 watts at 70 rpm is going to tire quicker than someone pushing 200 watts at 90rpm. I don't think so.


----------



## HLaB (18 Sep 2016)

Spin what feels comfortable don't get hung up about it 
That said, I find that with a lower cadence of about 80-85rpm I'm more powerful/faster but too low becomes a grind and I go slower. Currently I think I'm more comfortable with a higher cadence as I can go longer. In a group I'm turning a low cadence in the pack and a high cadence on the front same in traffic, I like having that variability.


----------



## simongt (18 Sep 2016)

S-Express said:


> She died of heart failure


The heart is a muscle; you overwork it and it will eventually fail. A good friend of mine was a keen jogger for years, long distance especially. I say was because a couple of years ago, his heart went into palpitaion and irregular rhythm. He was hospitalised and now has a pacemaker. Years of running was diagnosed as the cause because the human heart isn't designed for that type of long term punishment.


----------



## S-Express (18 Sep 2016)

simongt said:


> The heart is a muscle; you overwork it and it will eventually fail. A good friend of mine was a keen jogger for years, long distance especially. I say was because a couple of years ago, his heart went into palpitaion and irregular rhythm. He was hospitalised and now has a pacemaker. Years of running was diagnosed as the cause because the human heart isn't designed for that type of long term punishment.



Leaving aside whether any of that is utter nonsense or not, what has any of this got to do with pushing big gears? Earlier you were attributing Beryl's early death to her gear choice.


----------



## bondirob (18 Sep 2016)

S-Express said:


> So someone pushing 200 watts at 70 rpm is going to tire quicker than someone pushing 200 watts at 90rpm. I don't think so.


Exactly, when Bradley Wiggins did his hour record he needed to find the most efficient cadence to maintain the wattage required to beat the record which was over 100, 70 rpm just wouldn't have worked.
When was the last time you saw the top pro's pedalling slowly up a climb?
Doesn't happen does it?


----------



## Hacienda71 (18 Sep 2016)

Multiple world ttchamp Tony Martin has quote a slow cadence.....just saying like.


----------



## bondirob (18 Sep 2016)

I've watched Tony Martin and while he's a bit slower than some he's not that slow.


----------



## ColinJ (18 Sep 2016)

S-Express said:


> Leaving aside whether any of that is utter nonsense or not ...


There does actually seem to be increasing evidence that it is true! For example see this paper and the other similar PubMed papers mentioned.

Not likely to be a problem for many of us, but something that could well apply to many pro athletes.


----------



## S-Express (18 Sep 2016)

bondirob said:


> Exactly, when Bradley Wiggins did his hour record he needed to find the most efficient cadence to maintain the wattage required to beat the record which was over 100, 70 rpm just wouldn't have worked.



Track is a bit different to climbing, which is the topic of this thread. 100rpm on the track would be a significantly higher average than most would typically use on the road. In fact, most of the hour records have been broken with an average of around 100rpm. Besides, taking one example (Wiggo) and using it to extrapolate that high cadence is generally more efficient does not take into account the metabolic inefficiency of a high cadence, compared to a lower one. For a given power output, less muscle contraction/extension is going to have a lower metabolic demand than a cadence which demands higher contraction/extension. For an hour, this is not going to cause anyone too many problems, but over the course of several hours, it all adds up. Which is why most sensible riders will vary their cadence when necessary.



bondirob said:


> When was the last time you saw the top pro's pedalling slowly up a climb?
> Doesn't happen does it?



It happens quite a lot actually. One example below. Maybe they need different gears..


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbKdUzXZEuQ


----------



## adamangler (18 Sep 2016)

Problem with cadence is no one really knows what is more efficent. There's arguments and studys for and against.

The only thing I know is mist pros ride with a high cadence. Even a low cadence for a pro would be 80 which would be higher than a lot of casual riders use.

I think your body adapts to your cadence. I know when I try and push a higher cadence in a lower gear my heart rate goes up and I tire quicker. It's just not what I'm used to. Equally I would tire quicker if I used a 60 cadence. I reckon I could train myself to ride at 100 rpm and be efficent there.


I tend to mix it up on long rides just to keep comfy. High cadence and lighter on the pedals puts more pressure on the old posterior so I find myself having to switch it up to get comfy.


----------



## ColinJ (18 Sep 2016)

S-Express said:


> It happens quite a lot actually. One example below. Maybe they need different gears..
> 
> 
> View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbKdUzXZEuQ



They were grovelling and falling off, so maybe lower gears would have helped? 

Stig Broeckx finished 109th, so perhaps the riders he was with were not exactly excelling!

I have seen races won by riders with low cadences, but I have also seen pro riders have to get off and walk because they were overgeared for the steep stuff.

When the Milk Race went up a local climb named Mytholm Steeps, many riders fell, still attached to their pedals by toestraps!

This thing ...


----------



## S-Express (18 Sep 2016)

ColinJ said:


> They were grovelling and falling off, so maybe lower gears would have helped?



Perhaps they might. However, the contention was that 'we do not see the pros pedal slowly up climbs' - when the evidence clearly suggest different.



ColinJ said:


> Stig Broeckx finished 109th, so perhaps the riders he was with were not exactly excelling!



Feel free to enter next year's edition of RVV and show them how it's done, maybe?


----------



## Ian H (18 Sep 2016)

I think Colin made his point quite adequately.


----------



## bondirob (18 Sep 2016)

He did didn't he?


----------



## S-Express (18 Sep 2016)

What point did he make?


----------



## ColinJ (19 Sep 2016)

S-Express said:


> What point did he make?


Apparently - "_You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink_"!


----------



## S-Express (19 Sep 2016)

ColinJ said:


> Apparently - "_You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink_"!


When did you make that point?


----------



## david k (19 Sep 2016)

Slick said:


> So I'm trying to improve my cycling performance, so trying to use my commutes as workouts but also riding with others on training runs. On one of these runs they kept remarking they thought I should be on the small ring more often as I'm not efficient by expending energy I don't need to. I felt comfortable enough at the time but I do feel my legs are letting me down first as my weakest point, and I did begin to flag a bit on this run as well. Would spinning on the lower ring help this even if I was trying to keep my speed reasonable?


I forced myself to spin, didn't feel right at first but became more natural after time. I feel it's much more comfortable than a heavy gear, not that I ride fast but I usually stay in the small ring


----------



## nickyboy (19 Sep 2016)

S-Express said:


> So someone pushing 200 watts at 70 rpm is going to tire quicker than someone pushing 200 watts at 90rpm. I don't think so.



This

The only issue to be considered is whether 200 watts can be more efficiently maintained at 70rpm or at 90rpm. That is down to the physiology of each rider. However, it is clear that most professionals (whom I presume have some fairly serious analysis done on power outputs) seem to cycle this towards the higher end of the spectrum

Having said that, anecdotally, it does seem that the more "powerful" professionals (like Martin, Cancellara etc) tend to ride at lower cadence than the less powerful (like the skinny climbers) so maybe muscle mass has some bearing on whether lower of higher cadence is more efficient


----------



## S-Express (19 Sep 2016)

If anyone is interested in a game of 'pubmed tennis', I'll start with this 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22045414



> The main conclusions of this study were that when cycling uphill, it is reasonable to choose (1) a lower cadence and (2) a more upright body position.



That should send the 'high cadence fan club' into crisis mode. I'm sure there are plenty of other studies out there which suggest the opposite, which kind of makes the point that there is no single answer.


----------



## Slick (20 Sep 2016)

Obviously not just as straight forward as I first anticipated when I posted the question.


----------

