Concerns of an unfit person

[Rob3rt]

Unless you are clearly way off the mark...

 

[Shut Up Legs]

Not quite. Current magazine bollocks is 90-100 RPM because "Lance did it". In the real world, your cadence should be in a range you find comfortable. Not every rider can grind and not every rider can spin.

Here's an example

Yes, it's a very personal thing. My typical cadence on the flat is probably only about 70rpm, and I've been using that cadence for years now, with long distances every year. Although I think it has probably resulted in my quads becoming overdeveloped compared to my calves.

 

[Dusty Bin]

Yes, it's a very personal thing. My typical cadence on the flat is probably only about 70rpm, and I've been using that cadence for years now, with long distances every year. Although I think it has probably resulted in my quads becoming overdeveloped compared to my calves.

Cycling is unlikely to be responsible for significant (ie 'overdeveloped) hypertrophy - unless you are also pushing weights as well...

 

[Shut Up Legs]

Cycling is unlikely to be responsible for significant (ie 'overdeveloped) hypertrophy - unless you are also pushing weights as well...

I didn't say my quads were overdeveloped, only that they were overdeveloped compared to my calves. In other words, I've observed that a lot of cyclists seem to have more muscled calves than I, and I am guessing that's partly/wholly due to my lower cadence when cycling. My quads are in fine shape, though: no unsightly bulges or varicose veins, just good healthy, tightly-packed muscle .

 

[Dusty Bin]

People's leg shapes are as varied as their facial features or hair colour - I really don't think cadence comes into it. Cycling itself is a fairly low-strength activity, so I can't really see an individual's leg muscle development being too affected by it.

 

[Crackle]

 

[Dusty Bin]

unless of course you are a track sprinter and spend a lot of time in the gym...

 

[Shut Up Legs]

People's leg shapes are as varied as their facial features or hair colour - I really don't think cadence comes into it. Cycling itself is a fairly low-strength activity, so I can't really see an individual's leg muscle development being too affected by it.

Then we'll just have to disagree on this, no offence intended.

 

[Crackle]

 

[Dusty Bin]

Then we'll just have to disagree on this, no offence intended.

Disagree on what, sorry?

 

[Shut Up Legs]

Disagree on what, sorry?

On the cadence not affecting leg shape.

 

[Shut Up Legs]

Was that directed at me, @Crackle ? I was just having a fairly civil discussion with @Dusty Bin . If I offended anyone, it was unintentional and I apologise.

 

[Crackle]

Was that directed at me, @Crackle ? I was just having a fairly civil discussion with @Dusty Bin .

Eh, no. Dusty. I was being irreverent.

 

[Dusty Bin]

On the cadence not affecting leg shape.

ok that's fine - but I still don't really understand how cadence would make a difference to that.

 

[Rob3rt]

I think it is too hard to say what is and what is not the case in this way. Eg. What is to say you wouldn't have developed the same musculature had you been pushing smaller gears?

After quite a long time of having the same degree of musculature on my legs (i.e. not much as all, I am skinny), I did notice an increase in both mass and definition when I transitioned from the time trial season to the hill climb season. But who can say what that is due to exactly?