Mashing vs Circles -- same efficiency?

jeff potter said:

I vaguely recall a study mentioned here years ago that said that
pedaling in circles wasn't better than mashing or pedaling in squares.
They tested trained and untrained cyclists and found they were all
mashing----or something like that. Help?

--JP

I heard that pedaling in triangles was the latest thing.

Laters,

Marz

Jeff
I've been mashing on the pedal for years and even though it has made me
stronger it didn't help me to be faster with less effort.
I took a vo2 study and with that study I was shown my heart rate compared to
mph and cadance.
I changed the front chain ring to allow me to spin a little more with my
cadance at the pedal being about 65- 70 with a mph of 15 or 16 mph. The wind
changes all that also.
I'm noticing my heart rate at around 148 to 152 depending on the wind also.
My max heart rate is about 180 but I try to keep the heart rate around 142
to 158 to prevent me from blowing up. I noticed that my speed is increasing
3 or 4 mph even though my cadence is remaining around the same. That being
with a tailwind. Without the slightest headwind I still notice about a 1 to
2 mph gain. These changes have been over a 6 to 8 month period of moderate
pedaling.

Jean Andre Vallery
Sarasota Florida
www.bicyclejournals.net
941-232-21383
Free online bicycle touring journals with email

"jeff potter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I vaguely recall a study mentioned here years ago that said that
pedaling in circles wasn't better than mashing or pedaling in squares.
They tested trained and untrained cyclists and found they were all
mashing----or something like that. Help?

--JP

jeff potter said:

I vaguely recall a study mentioned here years ago that said that
pedaling in circles wasn't better than mashing or pedaling in squares.
They tested trained and untrained cyclists and found they were all
mashing----or something like that. Help?

Firstly, no-one really pedals in circles at any reasonable rpm. The
best that is achieved at high rpm when sitting is to unweight the rising
pedal. Honking out of the saddle at low rpm can certainly include an
upstroke, but it's then not possible to push forwards or pull backwards.

Most studies found that 100rpm (or whatever the pros use) is not the
most efficient speed for simple efficiency. It does, however, allow
them to accommodate speed changes in the peloton without downshifting.
There is also some relationship between a rider's maximum power output
and the most efficient rpm, and Armstrong wouldn't have been as
effective at 60rpm.

I tested myself years ago and, for a given heart rate, 80rpm and a big
gear gave a lot more speed than my normal 105rpm. 80rpm feels like
harder work once you're half-trained, though, and I worry about my knees.

"Marz" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:1152541772.608066.264420
@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I vaguely recall a study mentioned here years ago that said that
pedaling in circles wasn't better than mashing or pedaling in squares.
They tested trained and untrained cyclists and found they were all
mashing----or something like that. Help?

Quoted message said:

I heard that pedaling in triangles was the latest thing.

Greg LeMond recommended the triangle thing in his book (published in the mid-
1980s).

I have read that mashing is more efficient than spinning for more muscular
cyclists, but it can lead to premature injury if you aren't real strong.
What's best for you will also depend a lot on your speed. Mashing may be OK
at slow speeds, but it can quickly burn you out at higher speeds.

Is mashing the same as punching at the top of the arc for efficiency. Like
mashing only forward instead of down. Just adds another skill under my
belt.
How does triangle work BTW.

"sally" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Marz" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:1152541772.608066.264420
@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I vaguely recall a study mentioned here years ago that said that
pedaling in circles wasn't better than mashing or pedaling in squares.
They tested trained and untrained cyclists and found they were all
mashing----or something like that. Help?

Quoted message said:

I heard that pedaling in triangles was the latest thing.

Greg LeMond recommended the triangle thing in his book (published in the
mid-
1980s).

I have read that mashing is more efficient than spinning for more muscular
cyclists, but it can lead to premature injury if you aren't real strong.
What's best for you will also depend a lot on your speed. Mashing may be
OK
at slow speeds, but it can quickly burn you out at higher speeds.

trino said:

Is mashing the same as punching at the top of the arc for efficiency. Like
mashing only forward instead of down. Just adds another skill under my
belt.
How does triangle work BTW.

You need triangle cranks, fairly rare.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

In article <44b2a1df.0@entanet>,

Zog The Undeniable said:

jeff potter said:

I vaguely recall a study mentioned here years ago that said that
pedaling in circles wasn't better than mashing or pedaling in squares.
They tested trained and untrained cyclists and found they were all
mashing----or something like that. Help?

Firstly, no-one really pedals in circles at any reasonable rpm. The
best that is achieved at high rpm when sitting is to unweight the rising
pedal. Honking out of the saddle at low rpm can certainly include an
upstroke, but it's then not possible to push forwards or pull backwards.

Most studies found that 100rpm (or whatever the pros use) is not the
most efficient speed for simple efficiency. It does, however, allow
them to accommodate speed changes in the peloton without downshifting.
There is also some relationship between a rider's maximum power output
and the most efficient rpm, and Armstrong wouldn't have been as
effective at 60rpm.

I tested myself years ago and, for a given heart rate, 80rpm and a big
gear gave a lot more speed than my normal 105rpm. 80rpm feels like
harder work once you're half-trained, though, and I worry about my knees.

The most `efficient' pedaling style is low power at 50-60
rpm. But we seldom really want efficiency. Most
experienced riders and most professional riders like to
pedal around 90-100 rpm because for moderate to verging on
high power that is a good cadence.

The higher the cadence the more demand we put on the
cardio-pulmonary system. Hence one cannot advise another
cyclist to pedal faster because he may not be conditioned
for it. Likewise we cannot advise another to mash the
pedals, lest he strain or damage the knee joints.

For an experienced cyclist who wants very high output a
cadence of 110-120 rpm is good if he has a superlative
cardio-pulmonary-vascular system. Yet, many world class
cyclists hammer out the 90-100 cadence day after day.

There are various strategies for getting faster, depending
on the starting state of one's physiology. Different
exercises for improving heart, lung, vasularization,
muscle mass, mitochondria, joints, posture and so on. The
best strategy is choosing the correct parents.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press said:

In article <44b2a1df.0@entanet>,

Zog The Undeniable said:

jeff potter said:

I vaguely recall a study mentioned here years ago that said that
pedaling in circles wasn't better than mashing or pedaling in squares.
They tested trained and untrained cyclists and found they were all
mashing----or something like that. Help?

Firstly, no-one really pedals in circles at any reasonable rpm. The
best that is achieved at high rpm when sitting is to unweight the rising
pedal. Honking out of the saddle at low rpm can certainly include an
upstroke, but it's then not possible to push forwards or pull backwards.

Most studies found that 100rpm (or whatever the pros use) is not the
most efficient speed for simple efficiency. It does, however, allow
them to accommodate speed changes in the peloton without downshifting.
There is also some relationship between a rider's maximum power output
and the most efficient rpm, and Armstrong wouldn't have been as
effective at 60rpm.

I tested myself years ago and, for a given heart rate, 80rpm and a big
gear gave a lot more speed than my normal 105rpm. 80rpm feels like
harder work once you're half-trained, though, and I worry about my knees.

The most `efficient' pedaling style is low power at 50-60
rpm. But we seldom really want efficiency. Most
experienced riders and most professional riders like to
pedal around 90-100 rpm because for moderate to verging on
high power that is a good cadence.

Really depends on what we mean by "efficiency," doesn't it. If you're wondering
how to get to work with the least sweat, then your first sentence has got it.

If the question is efficiency at high power levels....

Quoted message said:

The higher the cadence the more demand we put on the
cardio-pulmonary system. Hence one cannot advise another
cyclist to pedal faster because he may not be conditioned
for it. Likewise we cannot advise another to mash the
pedals, lest he strain or damage the knee joints.

For an experienced cyclist who wants very high output a
cadence of 110-120 rpm is good if he has a superlative
cardio-pulmonary-vascular system. Yet, many world class
cyclists hammer out the 90-100 cadence day after day.

There are various strategies for getting faster, depending
on the starting state of one's physiology. Different
exercises for improving heart, lung, vasularization,
muscle mass, mitochondria, joints, posture and so on. The
best strategy is choosing the correct parents.

jeff potter said:

I vaguely recall a study mentioned here years ago that said that
pedaling in circles wasn't better than mashing or pedaling in squares.
They tested trained and untrained cyclists and found they were all
mashing----or something like that.

Do you know what efficiency means?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Per jeff potter:

Quoted message said:

I vaguely recall a study mentioned here years ago that said that
pedaling in circles wasn't better than mashing or pedaling in squares.

Just as vaguely, I remember reading somewhere that the thing about circles
(which, in my mind, equates to higher rpm/less force) was that style allowed
blood to flow through the muscles better. Something about when more fibers are
contracted at once, less blood can flow at that particular moment.

Maybe somebody who knows can comment...
--
PeteCresswell

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

jeff potter said:

I vaguely recall a study mentioned here years ago that said that
pedaling in circles wasn't better than mashing or pedaling in squares.
They tested trained and untrained cyclists and found they were all
mashing----or something like that.

Do you know what efficiency means?

Does it mean getting to work with the least sweat?

Does it mean maintaining the highest average speed for 25 miles?

Ron

"(PeteCresswell)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Per jeff potter:

Quoted message said:

I vaguely recall a study mentioned here years ago that said that
pedaling in circles wasn't better than mashing or pedaling in squares.

Just as vaguely, I remember reading somewhere that the thing about circles
(which, in my mind, equates to higher rpm/less force) was that style
allowed
blood to flow through the muscles better. Something about when more
fibers are
contracted at once, less blood can flow at that particular moment.

Maybe somebody who knows can comment...
--
PeteCresswell

That's my understanding too. Little (force) and often is easier, if in raw
terms less efficient.

Skippy
E&OE

RonSonic said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

jeff potter said:

I vaguely recall a study mentioned here years ago that said that
pedaling in circles wasn't better than mashing or pedaling in squares.
They tested trained and untrained cyclists and found they were all
mashing----or something like that.

Do you know what efficiency means?

Does it mean getting to work with the least sweat?

Does it mean maintaining the highest average speed for 25 miles?

Ron

The pedaling style that allows you to finish with the leaders of a race
with the most sprinting ability intact could be said to be most
efficient. IMO, higher cadences do preserve sprinting ability by not
over taxing the muscles.

Bret

Quoted message said:

RonSonic said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

"jeff potter"<[email hidden]> wrote:

>I vaguely recall a study mentioned here years ago that said that
>pedaling in circles wasn't better than mashing or pedaling in squares.
>They tested trained and untrained cyclists and found they were all
>mashing----or something like that.

Do you know what efficiency means?

Does it mean getting to work with the least sweat?
Does it mean maintaining the highest average speed for 25 miles?

The pedaling style that allows you to finish with the leaders of a race
with the most sprinting ability intact could be said to be most
efficient. IMO, higher cadences do preserve sprinting ability by not
over taxing the muscles.

But that's not what studies, like the one Jeffy probably read, mean
by efficiency. They define efficiency as power divided by volume
of oxygen respired, for the (usually short) duration of the test.
In other words, work done divided by fuel consumed, like energy
efficiency of an engine.

These studies find that low cadences (50-60?) and high pedal force
are most efficient by the strict definition. However, for an even
moderately long race, higher cadence and lower pedal force allow
the rider to postpone muscle fatigue, as you said. And that helps
over a long ride, which is why racers, and even non-racers who just
want to do a long ride without cramping due to fatigue, self-select a
higher, "less efficient" cadence than 50-60 rpm. They use a bit
more oxygen and suffer less fatigue. The individual cadence probably
depends on the rider which is why Bicycling-mag prescriptions
like "you should pedal 100 rpm" are meaningless.

None of this is original to me - Andy Coggan among others has
explained it in rbr over the years. Anyway, the issue is basically
that you don't win races by being the most efficient, you win them
by being the fastest.

Ben

jeff potter said:

I vaguely recall a study mentioned here years ago that said that
pedaling in circles wasn't better than mashing or pedaling in squares.
They tested trained and untrained cyclists and found they were all
mashing----or something like that. Help?

Sort of, but if I were to sum it up in layman's terms, I'd put it this
way: the more powerful the rider, the harder they 'stomp,' i.e., the
more downstroke force they exert, rather than applying force more
evenly throughout the pedal stroke, as compared with less-powerful
riders.

Amit has posted the study supporting this claim here:

http://www.midweekclub.com/articles/coyle91.pdf

G.T. said:

trino said:

Is mashing the same as punching at the top of the arc for
efficiency. Like mashing only forward instead of down. Just adds
another skill under my belt.
How does triangle work BTW.

You need triangle cranks, fairly rare.

Plus triangular feet.

--
Phil Lee, Squid

Squid said:

G.T. said:

trino said:

Is mashing the same as punching at the top of the arc for
efficiency. Like mashing only forward instead of down. Just adds
another skill under my belt.
How does triangle work BTW.

You need triangle cranks, fairly rare.

Plus triangular feet.

Your mom didn't select the "Delta Pod" option when you were being engineered?

Oh, I'm sorry. Wrong century.

Voctar the Bleen

Quoted post said:

These studies find that low cadences (50-60?) and high pedal force
are most efficient by the strict definition. However, for an even
moderately long race, higher cadence and lower pedal force allow
the rider to postpone muscle fatigue, as you said. And that helps
over a long ride, which is why racers, and even non-racers who just
want to do a long ride without cramping due to fatigue, self-select a
higher, "less efficient" cadence than 50-60 rpm. They use a bit
more oxygen and suffer less fatigue. The individual cadence probably
depends on the rider which is why Bicycling-mag prescriptions
like "you should pedal 100 rpm" are meaningless.

Exactly. In my own case, I'll tend to spin faster if my legs are
getting toasty (to reduce the muscle strain) or spin slower if I'm
running out of gas, but my legs are still good. In a paceline I tend
to do the pull in a lower gear (faster cadence) to produce the
appropriate power, then upshift (slower cadence) as I'm drifting down
to take my place behind - this allows me to recover.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame