Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Form & Fitness > General

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #721  
Old 12-29-12, 17:06
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachFergie View Post
We have been trying to get Noel to explain just what we are missing from video's of Jacques.

People have been asking the question and testing hypothesis's (in well performed studies) for about pedalling for over 30 years and that is why the status quo remains.
There are no "well-performed" pedaling studies. Asking someone to pedal in a different fashion and then measuring the effect would be expected to result in no improvement. The only study that could possibly show a difference would be one that took two matched groups and train one to learn a different technique and, while keeping training intensity the same, later measure to see if the groups remain the same or if one is now better (while confirming that training to learn the new technique had been adequate). No such study has been done.
__________________
Life is short, both reading my posts and training with PowerCranks will make it seem longer
  #722  
Old 12-29-12, 17:20
CoachFergie's Avatar
CoachFergie CoachFergie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,072
Default

Several well performed studies on independent cranks that have done just that although the manufacturer of independent cranks would beg to differ. Wonder why?

They were good enough to be published in EJAP so they considered them well performed.
__________________
Hamish Ferguson
http://coachfergblog.blogspot.co.nz/

"I couldn't have won today without my power meter" Said no rider ever!!!
  #723  
Old 12-29-12, 17:26
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachFergie View Post
Several well performed studies on independent cranks that have done just that although the manufacturer of independent cranks would beg to differ. Wonder why?

They were good enough to be published in EJAP so they considered them well performed.
LOL. Show me one of those "well-performed" studies that meets the criteria I set forth as being necessary to seriously examine the question. Or, make the argument that a lesser standard is adequate to prove the argument. It is laughable to contend that just because a study gets published in an esteemed journal suggests it is a "good" study or is definitive. Just look at the controversy over the Coyle "Armstrong" "study" published in JAP, the "most esteemed" of them all. Lots of crap makes it into the most esteemed of publications.
__________________
Life is short, both reading my posts and training with PowerCranks will make it seem longer
  #724  
Old 12-29-12, 17:51
CoachFergie's Avatar
CoachFergie CoachFergie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,072
Default

Yet you keep using Lutrell et al and worse Dixon as evidence that independent cranks work. And resort to numerous anecdotes rather than perform the research yourself if the results would be so obvious.

That Coyle had a new one torn for him over that paper only proves the system works where others have the right to challenge published work or perform research to disprove current theories.
__________________
Hamish Ferguson
http://coachfergblog.blogspot.co.nz/

"I couldn't have won today without my power meter" Said no rider ever!!!
  #725  
Old 12-29-12, 18:09
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachFergie View Post
Yet you keep using Lutrell et al and worse Dixon as evidence that independent cranks work. And resort to numerous anecdotes rather than perform the research yourself if the results would be so obvious.
LOL. Luttrell and Dixon are simply studies done that had a positive outcome. What sets both of them apart from your "negative" studies is the amount of the stimulus (18 hours in Luttrell, 6 weeks immersion training in Dixon). Neither study however is definitive as they fail to meet my criteria to prove the difference is due to pedaling technique. Anecdotes also do not prove anything yet they are not useless as they certainly suggest there might be a benefit.
Quote:

That Coyle had a new one torn for him over that paper only proves the system works where others have the right to challenge published work or perform research to disprove current theories.
LOL. Coyle did not have a "new one torn for him" as a result of that paper. It is simply that others questioned what his results showed and his methods. Further, it wasn't a study but simply a case report regarding a subject of interest to many.
__________________
Life is short, both reading my posts and training with PowerCranks will make it seem longer

Last edited by FrankDay; 12-29-12 at 18:27.
  #726  
Old 12-29-12, 20:23
coapman coapman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachFergie View Post
We have been trying to get Noel to explain just what we are missing from video's of Jacques.

People have been asking the question and testing hypothesis's (in well performed studies) for about pedalling for over 30 years and that is why the status quo remains.


You are forgetting that I developed this technique a few years before that Anquetil video became available. To a normal cyclist the video would reveal absolutely nothing but to me who had already discovered the secret and knew what to look for, it soon became apparent that it was almost the same technique. I say almost because while the foot action was identical, Anquetil was hampered by his shoulder width bars which forced him to use double handed action for resistance purposes instead of alternate single handed action which you can use with much narrower aero bars and gives even more powerful pedaling. I got the idea for this technique after seeing a 180 deg. hand crank trike rider in action and the only clue I got about Anquetil's technique was from Hinault's book which stated " you have to realize Anquetil developed his technique in training with a concentration that made him resent the presence of other riders around him, as he searched for his own best way of applying greatest possible tangential force to the crank". The remarks of others about his style also agree with the characteristics of the semi circular style I am using. eg. "Anquetil was perfection at continuous motion". His style is not suitable for climbing, two up and team TT's or technical TT courses which prevent the use of constant max high gear power output. He also used a higher than normal handlebar setting. In pedaling footage in that all important TT in which he gained 21 seconds over the last mile and half over a flying psyched up Poulidor who was certain he was on his way to victory, Anquetil can be clearly seen applying max force over the top just before the finish.
  #727  
Old 12-29-12, 22:26
Alex Simmons/RST's Avatar
Alex Simmons/RST Alex Simmons/RST is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 822
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
Or, if not max torque, at least some torque? And, how and why would anyone seriously argue that applying negative torque anywhere around the circle is part of an optimal technique?
If it resulted in an improvement in power output for the durations of interest, then I would.

Given we already know that some high performing cyclists already do display some negative torque in parts of their pedal stroke, and that there is nothing firmly conclusive to suggest that any attempt to change one's pedal torque application results in improved performance, then the null hypothesis remains in tact.

IOW there is just as much validity (i.e. not a lot) to suggest introducing some negative torque into a pedal technique will improve performance as there is that one should remove it, or attempt to introduce positive torque where none currently exists.
  #728  
Old 12-29-12, 23:31
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Simmons/RST View Post
If it resulted in an improvement in power output for the durations of interest, then I would.

Given we already know that some high performing cyclists already do display some negative torque in parts of their pedal stroke, and that there is nothing firmly conclusive to suggest that any attempt to change one's pedal torque application results in improved performance, then the null hypothesis remains in tact.
I know no such thing as it applies to optimal performance. It is clear from viewing the video that this Olympic champion demonstrates plenty of negative torque at less than the higher efforts. But, she demonstrates no negativre torque at the higher efforts measured here. All of the studies I know of only give a single snapshot of each riders technique. It is clear from this video that technique is somewhat dynamic with power, especially what is done on the backstroke. So, even if you can find some elite riders who do apply some negative torque on the backstroke at high power you (nor anyone else) have yet to come up with a physiological or mechanical explanation as to why that would be optimal nor any scientific evidence to support that explanation.

I will give you that there is no conclusive evidence that changing one's pedal stroke to X technique would result in improved performance but there is plenty of scientific evidence to support the conclusion pedaling technique might make a difference as well as plenty of anecdotal evidence. You have the choice of ignoring this possibility or exploring it.
Quote:

IOW there is just as much validity (i.e. not a lot) to suggest introducing some negative torque into a pedal technique will improve performance as there is that one should remove it, or attempt to introduce positive torque where none currently exists.
No, there is no theoretical basis to suggesting introducing negative work into a technique should improve overall work output. It seems to me that the burden is on anyone who does so to demonstrate that it is true and to explain why. The fact that many elites seem to do that (notice that the Olympic champion rider in the video stopped doing that at higher power) is not good evidence that what they are doing is optimal for them or anyone else. The only thing that a particular riders technique means is that what you are seeing is what they have learned and trained. Unless we can compare riders who have learned an alternative technique and trained that technique equivalently we cannot say with certainty which is better, although we might presume a technique that introduces negative work might be less powerful than another that doesn't, don't you think?
__________________
Life is short, both reading my posts and training with PowerCranks will make it seem longer
  #729  
Old 12-30-12, 03:19
CoachFergie's Avatar
CoachFergie CoachFergie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coapman View Post
You are forgetting that I developed this technique a few years before that Anquetil video became available. To a normal cyclist the video would reveal absolutely nothing but to me who had already discovered the secret and knew what to look for, it soon became apparent that it was almost the same technique. I say almost because while the foot action was identical, Anquetil was hampered by his shoulder width bars which forced him to use double handed action for resistance purposes instead of alternate single handed action which you can use with much narrower aero bars and gives even more powerful pedaling. I got the idea for this technique after seeing a 180 deg. hand crank trike rider in action and the only clue I got about Anquetil's technique was from Hinault's book which stated " you have to realize Anquetil developed his technique in training with a concentration that made him resent the presence of other riders around him, as he searched for his own best way of applying greatest possible tangential force to the crank". The remarks of others about his style also agree with the characteristics of the semi circular style I am using. eg. "Anquetil was perfection at continuous motion". His style is not suitable for climbing, two up and team TT's or technical TT courses which prevent the use of constant max high gear power output. He also used a higher than normal handlebar setting. In pedaling footage in that all important TT in which he gained 21 seconds over the last mile and half over a flying psyched up Poulidor who was certain he was on his way to victory, Anquetil can be clearly seen applying max force over the top just before the finish.
Nice infomercial. But like most informercials is not based in science and is just a sad tired joke.
__________________
Hamish Ferguson
http://coachfergblog.blogspot.co.nz/

"I couldn't have won today without my power meter" Said no rider ever!!!
  #730  
Old 12-30-12, 03:27
CoachFergie's Avatar
CoachFergie CoachFergie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
It is clear from viewing the video that this Olympic champion demonstrates plenty of negative torque at less than the higher efforts.
Yawn, n=1 so who cares. Even us lowly coaches know that just because something works for one person it may not work for all or some unknown variable (or several) may be at play.

Do a proper study or stop wasting peoples time peddling your snake oil.
__________________
Hamish Ferguson
http://coachfergblog.blogspot.co.nz/

"I couldn't have won today without my power meter" Said no rider ever!!!
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:31.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.