For the "pedaling technique doesn't matter crowd" - Page 108 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Form & Fitness > General

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1071  
Old 02-08-13, 20:33
coapman coapman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 611
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayKosta View Post
===================================

coapman,

I trust that you believe what you write, but I just don't understand it!

You keep mentioning 'continuous maximal torque' but what is that for you?
Is it

'the max torque that YOU produce in the best 30 degree section of pedaling'?

or is it something like

'the max torque that YOU produce for EACH 30 degree section of pedaling'? So that YOUR 'max torque' number differs depending on what section is considered.

It would help me to understand what torque you think you are producing if you gave a 'torque estimate' for each 30 degree section of a full rotation of either your left or right foot (I assume they are similar).

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Between 11-12 o'c, the same torque as you apply between 2-3 o'c. From 12 -1, 1-2 and 2-3 o'c, in all three of these sectors the same torque as you would apply around 3 o'c. From 3- 5 o'c, normal reducing torque is applied there. From 5 to 11 o'c, unweighting takes place.
  #1072  
Old 02-11-13, 19:42
JayKosta JayKosta is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 394
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coapman View Post
Between 11-12 o'c, the same torque as you apply between 2-3 o'c. From 12 -1, 1-2 and 2-3 o'c, in all three of these sectors the same torque as you would apply around 3 o'c. From 3- 5 o'c, normal reducing torque is applied there. From 5 to 11 o'c, unweighting takes place.
================
coapman,

Thanks for the info.
It will be interesting if/when someone who is adept at that pedaling technique is tested on a power meter that shows power in each sector.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
  #1073  
Old 02-11-13, 21:01
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayKosta View Post
================
coapman,

Thanks for the info.
It will be interesting if/when someone who is adept at that pedaling technique is tested on a power meter that shows power in each sector.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
Yes it will be. It will be especially interesting to me to see the power go from "unweighting" at 10:59 to a maximum torque equivalent to most peoples 2-3 torque at 11:01. Didn't know muscles could do that.
  #1074  
Old 02-11-13, 21:30
coapman coapman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 611
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
Yes it will be. It will be especially interesting to me to see the power go from "unweighting" at 10:59 to a maximum torque equivalent to most peoples 2-3 torque at 11:01. Didn't know muscles could do that.

When cranks are in the 11-5 position, a simultaneous drawing back at 5 and application of force at 11 takes place. During the unweighting upstroke the brain is also preparing muscles for that instant application of force at 11. There is no problem, because power is coming from the hip and not from the knee as in natural pedalling. In P. Holman's reports on PC's, it is obvious that the training being done is "pulling up" and it took him 3 weeks before his muscles were capable of doing this over a distance and that was before any torque was being applied. How much stronger are those pulling up muscles capable of becoming. Why train muscles to apply torque on the upstroke when your other leg is supposed to be applying maximal torque. It makes far more sense to concentrate on applying torque in a sector when both legs are effectively idling.
  #1075  
Old 02-11-13, 22:01
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coapman View Post
In P. Holman's reports on PC's, it is obvious that the training being done is "pulling up" and it took him 3 weeks before his muscles were capable of doing this over a distance and that was before any torque was being applied. How much stronger are those pulling up muscles capable of becoming. Why train muscles to apply torque on the upstroke when your other leg is supposed to be applying maximal torque. It makes far more sense to concentrate on applying torque in a sector when both legs are effectively idling.
I don't think it is possible to make those "pulling up" muscles much stronger. The issue isn't strength as those muscles are already very strong as they are involved in doing a sit-up. The problem is aerobic fitness. The need to use that muscle 90 (or much more in the case of a track cyclist) times a minute for several minutes or hours. It takes time to fully develop that muscle just as it takes time for sedentary people to train to do a marathon.

The reason to train those muscle is to be able to add to the work done by the other muscles to increase overall power beyond what can be done without them.
  #1076  
Old 02-11-13, 22:43
coapman coapman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 611
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
I don't think it is possible to make those "pulling up" muscles much stronger. The issue isn't strength as those muscles are already very strong as they are involved in doing a sit-up. The problem is aerobic fitness. The need to use that muscle 90 (or much more in the case of a track cyclist) times a minute for several minutes or hours. It takes time to fully develop that muscle just as it takes time for sedentary people to train to do a marathon.

The reason to train those muscle is to be able to add to the work done by the other muscles to increase overall power beyond what can be done without them.


If they cannot become any stronger, they cannot apply any extra torque, so how could they add to the work done by the other muscles. P Holman also stated that "pulling up" training weakened his downstroke power and he had to do additional non PC training to restore the power in those muscles. As CoachFergie said, Holman's improvement came from his extra interval training time and not from his use of Powercranks. Did he succeed in his objective the following year.
  #1077  
Old 02-11-13, 23:05
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coapman View Post
If they cannot become any stronger, they cannot apply any extra torque, so how could they add to the work done by the other muscles. P Holman also stated that "pulling up" training weakened his downstroke power and he had to do additional non PC training to restore the power in those muscles. As CoachFergie said, Holman's improvement came from his extra interval training time and not from his use of Powercranks. Did he succeed in his objective the following year.
Sure they can. Let's take the capability to do bicep curls as an example. Let's say your biceps have a maximum strength to do one 100 lb curl before they had to rest. But, you have the ability to do 50 per minute with no weight on the bar. Now, if we suddenly put 2 lbs on the bar and you try to do 50 per minute you would not be able to and you would fail before you got to 50. But, if you kept at it you would eventually be able to do 50 per minute with 2 lbs on the bar because this is well below the maximum capability of the muscle from a strength perspective but you have a better adapted muscle from an aerobic point of view. You have trained that muscle to do more work without training it to become physically stronger. All the PowerCranks do of the hip flexors (and hamstrings) is just a little more than what they are doing now, repeated frequently, but well below the maximum strength capability of the muscle. It is no different than training to push harder to develop more power, it is mostly aerobic conditioning not strength conditioning. Holman seemed to concentrate on the pulling up more than most, it seems, but I would bet that as he got better he didn't do much more than simply unweight except when he was thinking about it.

And, I might suggest that I think Holman is a better judge of what made him better (he was there) than either you or Fergie.
  #1078  
Old 02-11-13, 23:52
CoachFergie's Avatar
CoachFergie CoachFergie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
And, I might suggest that I think Holman is a better judge of what made him better (he was there) than either you or Fergie.
Well not really. If he is an engineer and thinks a Cateye Cyclosimulator is a valid and reliable method of measuring power then I don't think very highly of his opinion. Bit like the MIT grad who doesn't know to calibrate or at least do a zero-offset before conducting an FTP test.

Before I do any testing with a Quarq or SRM I check the calibration. Just is case there is another reason for increased speed beyond an increase in power
__________________
Hamish Ferguson
http://coachfergblog.blogspot.co.nz/

Power Meters like Powercranks don't improve performance one bit. But at least with a Power Meter you can see yourself not improving because of it
  #1079  
Old 02-12-13, 01:05
coapman coapman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 611
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post

but I would bet that as he got better he didn't do much more than simply unweight except when he was thinking about it.
So why spend money on expensive PC's and suffer for 9 months when at the end all you've got in return is the unweighting technique. There is also the fact, at a constant speed if you attempt to apply torque during your upstroke, you will lose more in your downstroke, as Holman discovered whenever he pulled up.
  #1080  
Old 02-12-13, 01:32
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coapman View Post
So why spend money on expensive PC's and suffer for 9 months when at the end all you've got in return is the unweighting technique. There is also the fact, at a constant speed if you attempt to apply torque during your upstroke, you will lose more in your downstroke, as Holman discovered whenever he pulled up.
I guess I missed the part where Phil Holman really hated what the cranks did to him.

You might want to look into something called the extension reflex also. It is the reflex by which the harder you pull the foot up the harder you push the other foot down. Useful for when you step on a tack. Pulling up harder doesn't necessarily prevent pushing down hard or even harder with the other leg.
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 14:02.


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.