What does "Spinning" actually mean?

[night cycler]

I first heard the term referring to the use of an exercise bike at the gym.

I later heard it used on here. How do you define spinning in respect of cycling?

 

[alicat]

It means cycling at a higher cadence than you might be used to, ie about 90 rpm and with little or no force applied. Therefore, you keep the wheels 'spinning'. It is thought to make it easier to go long distances more effortlessly. It is the opposite of mashing or grinding.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

It means (assuming the speed kept is the same) moving your legs faster in a low(er) gear, opposite to "grinding", that is pushing harder in a bigger gear.

 

[Dayvo]

A picture paints a thousand words:

The cyclist in front is 'spinning' whereas the cyclist behind is in a bigger gear and 'grinding.'

 

[sheddy]

Spinning is the process of creating yarn using a wheel.

 

[rugby bloke]

It can seem counter intuitive at first, but with a little practice and perseverance a lot of people find it more comfortable way to ride. Not all mind you and I don't want to upset any "grinders" out there !

 

[Racing roadkill]

I first heard the term referring to the use of an exercise bike at the gym.

I later heard it used on here. How do you define spinning in respect of cycling?

‘Spinning’ in regards to stationary bikes in a gym, is a registered trademarked exercise class / system. When people talk about ‘spinning’ when riding a bike, they mean the rider is making the requisite power ( product of Cadence and Torque ) by biasing towards Cadence ( how many revolutions per minute they are turning the cranks ) when they refer to ‘grinding’ they mean the rider is biasing towards Torque ( pressing harder for longer, but with less RPMs, relatively speaking). There is a lot of old balls spoken out there about high Cadence being ‘the way’ / most efficient / blah blah blah, and that you should be aiming to make your peak power, by pressing hard enough at 90 RPMs in order for your peak power output to be at this Cadence, and that this is universal.This is nonsense, and is often regurgitated willy nilly, by people who actually don’t understand the mechanics of it.

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/bowdler-makes-his-mark-on-the-bbar-91973

This makes the point quite nicely.

 

[Low Gear Guy]

Spinning is the way to go

 

[night cycler]

Thank you for the descriptions/definitions in the posts.

I suspected it was that. The element of doubt arose because I started to think about where the cut off point might be. That is, the number of revolutions being performed for it to be considered spinning, or not as the case may be.

I get the idea.

A thought just popped in to my head. I suppose some hills are so steep (or steep and long) that even in the lowest gear you would end up "grinding" towards the last section of the hill.

 

[Dayvo]

I like to grind on the downhills!

 

[alicat]

A thought just popped in to my head. I suppose some hills are so steep (or steep and long) that even in the lowest gear you would end up "grinding" towards the last section of the hill.

Yep, or the hill isn't that bad but the cyclist runs out of gears and just has to get on with it!

 

[Dave 123]

Look what just showed on my faceache page

View: https://youtu.be/43ci68I23hA

 

[midlife]

For the oldies we used the terms Twiddling and Pushing....

 

[bpsmith]

Saw that GCN video yesterday. It’s interesting what we don’t know.

Personally, I think it comes down to what you train towards. You can train to be good at spinning or train to be good at grinding, but I think you can’t train to be good at both at the same time.

I know someone who grinds continually, is very fast indeed, but can’t spin as fast no matter how hard they try.

I used to be a spinner, but now lean to the grinding style. I have a semi-compact and shorter cranks now and am less tired than when I had the compact and longer cranks. All by just riding differently over time.

I honestly think that each of us has a natural cadence and will be most efficient close to that, unless we concentrate on training otherwise.

 

[swansonj]

Racing: I also was a bit puzzled by the seeming contradiction between your posts. If you had said "different people's preferred cadence ranges over a vast range - everyone should feel free to cycle exactly how they wish - don't believe anyone who tells you you absolutely must aim for 90 - but actually, quite a lot of cyclists have found that increasing their cadence from what they are used to to something faster brings benefits and you could try that", I would applaud. But you didn't. You littered each of your posts with dogmatism ("this is nonsense", "it's been proven") which makes if difficult to reconcile them. Or indeed even to believe that either can be correct.