A new theory concerning the significance of pedalling style.

[FrankDay]

Coyle 1991.

LOL. Coyle's feeble explanation trying "possibly" explain his data is not proof. If he had biopsy data to support his contention then you would be on to something. However, it is extremely unlikely that a world champion managed to change his muscle fiber mix over the next several years to account for a 10% improvement in gross efficiency. Never happened before. Hasn't happened since.

 

[CoachFergie]

You better write a letter to the editor of MSSE. Ed is used to that. Also found an association between type 1 fibre and training history. At least Ed has data, some only have an untested theory and meaningless anecdotes.

 

[coapman]

In fact, if you're looking at the leg as merely capable of pushing down, then it probably makes sense to not start pushing until around 2 o'clock, and stop pushing around 4.

This is somewhat analogous to an effective swimming stroke, where the objective is to apply the most force when the arm and hand are in position to push water back, not down or to the side. The next stroke refinement is to articulate the arm and shoulder to increase time spent in this optimal position.

Because a swimmer can only propel himself forward by pushing water backward, there is not much he can do to increase time spent in that optimal position. The same could be said about pedaling or for those who believe that downward force is the only way to power the bike. But in cycling the situation is very different, a cyclist is applying his force to a rotating pedal/crank and this makes it possible to apply an equally powerful forward and downward force and extend that optimal 60 deg. (2-4 o'c) sector to almost 150 deg.. This means he can almost double his power output from each pedal stroke without increasing peak torque, and there you have the ideal technique for sustainable max power output in time trials.

 

[CoachFergie]

This means he can almost double his power output from each pedal stroke without increasing peak torque, and there you have the ideal technique for sustainable max power output in time trials.

Double power output you say! Wow, just wow!!!

 

[Retro Trev]

I used to do a lot of indoor rowing. I devised a technique which worked best for me. Different rowing techniques got very different 2,000m times and even bigger greater differences in 5,000m time. The Concept 2 also has a power meter which I used.

I don't think Frank's ideas should be ignored.

Peddaling is not as complicated as rowing but it must be possible to pedal in a way which is stupid and has a higher metabolic cost than pedalling in a sensible way more efficiently. Therefore it must be possible to refine a technique. The question is how much power are we talking about?

What that technique is must be the question. Where I differ to Frank, I think, is i have found I can produce my best sustainable power using lightweight trainers and flat pedals. I am unable to pull up and there can't be much pushing over the top or scraping back.

I really would like Frank to be proven to be right all along - there would be a lot of red faces and savaged reputations.

I'm going to keep an open mind. But for me, having spent years working on peddaling technique I was a bit surprised to discover I did even better when I discarded the clipless pedals and switched to flat pedals.

PS, I'm talking about sustained power, not an all out sprint or a track start.

 

[CoachFergie]

I used to do a lot of indoor rowing. I devised a technique which worked best for me. Different rowing techniques got very different 2,000m times and even bigger greater differences in 5,000m time. The Concept 2 also has a power meter which I used.

I don't think Frank's ideas should be ignored.

Peddaling is not as complicated as rowing but it must be possible to pedal in a way which is stupid and has a higher metabolic cost than pedalling in a sensible way more efficiently. Therefore it must be possible to refine a technique. The question is how much power are we talking about?

What that technique is must be the question. Where I differ to Frank, I think, is i have found I can produce my best sustainable power using lightweight trainers and flat pedals. I am unable to pull up and there can't be much pushing over the top or scraping back.

I really would like Frank to be proven to be right all along - there would be a lot of red faces and savaged reputations.

I'm going to keep an open mind. But for me, having spent years working on peddaling technique I was a bit surprised to discover I did even better when I discarded the clipless pedals and switched to flat pedals.

PS, I'm talking about sustained power, not an all out sprint or a track start.

It's very easy for Frank to be right all along. Just ignore a very very very long list of available evidence.

In fact by your discovery about flats, which has been done in a research paper btw, you have shown that the downstroke is where the power is delivered to the pedals. I did a series of MAP tests swapping between cleated cycling shoes and flats each day and there was no difference in power the two.

 

[Retro Trev]

It's very easy for Frank to be right all along. Just ignore a very very very long list of available evidence.

In fact by your discovery about flats, which has been done in a research paper btw, you have shown that the downstroke is where the power is delivered to the pedals. I did a series of MAP tests swapping between cleated cycling shoes and flats each day and there was no difference in power the two.

When I pointed out on other cycling forums that I had found no difference between flat pedals and cleated shoes I was called a troll.

 

[coapman]

I used to do a lot of indoor rowing. I devised a technique which worked best for me. Different rowing techniques got very different 2,000m times and even bigger greater differences in 5,000m time. The Concept 2 also has a power meter which I used.

I don't think Frank's ideas should be ignored.

Peddaling is not as complicated as rowing but it must be possible to pedal in a way which is stupid and has a higher metabolic cost than pedalling in a sensible way more efficiently. Therefore it must be possible to refine a technique. The question is how much power are we talking about?

What that technique is must be the question. Where I differ to Frank, I think, is i have found I can produce my best sustainable power using lightweight trainers and flat pedals. I am unable to pull up and there can't be much pushing over the top or scraping back.

I really would like Frank to be proven to be right all along - there would be a lot of red faces and savaged reputations.

I'm going to keep an open mind. But for me, having spent years working on peddaling technique I was a bit surprised to discover I did even better when I discarded the clipless pedals and switched to flat pedals.

PS, I'm talking about sustained power, not an all out sprint or a track start.

Different techniques are also useful in cycling and each has more to offer, depending on the situation. As for power output from flat pedals etc. , your problem is like that of CoachFergie and all other cyclists, you don't know how to use the cleat/toe-clip effect, you are using your lower legs and ankles in the same way as Alex uses his prosthesis.

 

[King Boonen]

When I pointed out on other cycling forums that I had found no difference between flat pedals and cleated shoes I was called a troll.

I find the same, although I'm on a mountain bike. I must be a troll too.

 

[Retro Trev]

Different techniques are also useful in cycling and each has more to offer, depending on the situation. As for power output from flat pedals etc. , your problem is like that of CoachFergie and all other cyclists, you don't know how to use the cleat/toe-clip effect, you are using your lower legs and ankles in the same way as Alex uses his prosthesis.

Sorry, you do not know how much time I spent doing all that stuff. My technique according to Wattbike is / was exceptionally good when using cleats. But performance was unchanged when i went back to flat pedals after about 13 years using cleats.

I certainly do not use my lower legs and ankles as you describe.

That said, I can't speak for other cyclists.

 

[coapman]

Sorry, you do not know how much time I spent doing all that stuff. My technique according to Wattbike is / was exceptionally good when using cleats. But performance was unchanged when i went back to flat pedals after about 13 years using cleats.

That may be so but the fact still remains, you don't know how to use your cleats, lower legs and ankles for best effect, which is the application of maximal torque (3 o'c equivalent) as crank passes through 12 o'c.

 

[FrankDay]

That may be so but the fact still remains, you don't know how to use your cleats, lower legs and ankles for best effect, which is the application of maximal torque (3 o'c equivalent) as crank passes through 12 o'c.

If someones technique doesn't change between using their cleats and when on platform pedals then they are not using their cleats. Just because they are on their shoes and they are clipped in is not evidence they are being used. But, this data is evidence they are not being used.

 

[FrankDay]

When I pointed out on other cycling forums that I had found no difference between flat pedals and cleated shoes I was called a troll.

Why would they call you a troll? Most of them would find the same thing but they have never measured it. The reason you find no difference is there is no difference. You are not using your cleats to any significant degree is there is no measurable difference in pedaling technique between the two on something like the Wattbike or Spinscan.

Just putting cleats on your shoes (or using toe clips) is a necessary condition for changing your pedaling style but is not a sufficient condition.

 

[sciguy]

And, while it is possible to make the pedals go around with 5 minutes of training, it will not be possible to learn the better pedaling technique with 5 minutes of training but will take more like 10,000 hours of training, learning and perfecting a better technique, to be really good at it.

Frank,

I really think you're reaching here in terms of the motor skill required to pedal a bike effectively as well as the time needed to develop it.

During an earlier part of my life I trained and then worked as a commercial pilot. It only takes 40 hours of flight time to attain a private license and a mere 250 hours to obtain my commercial license. I was instructing others to fly with only just over 250 hours of flight time under my belt. After flying fixed wing aircraft for ~ 1000 hours it only took 40 hours of helicopter time to add a commercial helicopter rating. You may not know this but flying helicopters is incredibly different than fixed wing aircraft. Many of the skills developed flying fixed wing must be completely unlearned and in fact if used will result in a crash of your expensive and complicated helicopter. Despite this it only takes 40 hours of flight time in a helicopter to teach your body to do the correct pattern. In a Bell 47 you're using left wrist for throttle, left arm for collective pitch, right hand for cyclic control of bank angle as well as pitch angle and both feet on the pedals that control the tail rotor......and all of these in concert with the others. Flying a helicopter has been described as like patting your head, while rubbing your tummy, whilst balancing on a beach ball on one foot and holding a conversation. Me thinks pedaling is a bit less taxing

Since I only flew as a lowly bush pilot in Maine and Louisiana oil fields and then as an agricultural pilot let's talk about really skilled pilots like the Blue Angles. The minimum flight time requirement in order to fly with this elite group is 1200 hours. Some have a bit more time than this when entering but not usually very much. In the same vein, in order to instruct in jet aircraft in the military one only need have 500 hours of flight time. Based on the above, your 10,000 hours to highly develop a particular skill concept really doesn't wash with me.

YMMV,

Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

Frank,

I really think you're reaching here in terms of the motor skill required to pedal a bike effectively as well as the time needed to develop it.

During an earlier part of my life I trained and then worked as a commercial pilot. It only takes 40 hours of flight time to attain a private license and a mere 250 hours to obtain my commercial license. I was instructing others to fly with only just over 250 hours of flight time under my belt. After flying fixed wing aircraft for ~ 1000 hours it only took 40 hours of helicopter time to add a commercial helicopter rating. You may not know this but flying helicopters is incredibly different than fixed wing aircraft. Many of the skills developed flying fixed wing must be completely unlearned and in fact if used will result in a crash of your expensive and complicated helicopter. Despite this it only takes 40 hours of flight time in a helicopter to teach your body to do the correct pattern. In a Bell 47 you're using left wrist for throttle, left arm for collective pitch, right hand for cyclic control of bank angle as well as pitch angle and both feet on the pedals that control the tail rotor......and all of these in concert with the others. Flying a helicopter has been described as like patting your head, while rubbing your tummy, whilst balancing on a beach ball on one foot and holding a conversation. Me thinks pedaling is a bit less taxing

Since I only flew as a lowly bush pilot in Maine and Louisiana oil fields and then as an agricultural pilot let's talk about really skilled pilots like the Blue Angles. The minimum flight time requirement in order to fly with this elite group is 1200 hours. Some have a bit more time than this when entering but not usually very much. In the same vein, in order to instruct in jet aircraft in the military one only need have 500 hours of flight time. Based on the above, your 10,000 hours to highly develop a particular skill concept really doesn't wash with me.

YMMV,

Hugh

There is a big difference between being good at something and being an expert. I can assure you the Blue Angel pilots have a lot more than a few hundred hours under their belts.

So, as regards pedaling, I accept that most people are pretty good doing the technique they are doing, the technique they have been using since they were 3. However, there is zero evidence that the technique they are using is the optimum pedaling technique if one wants to optimize power or efficiency. I submit there is a better technique than what most people are doing and changing isn't easy. Actually, it is easy in the sense that 99% of the people can do what is necessary withing 10 minutes of receiving the proper instruction (getting on a pair of PowerCranks) but that doesn't make them an expert in this new technique in the sense that they can't do it without the feedback and they can't do it for hours and/or when they are tired. It takes a hundred hours or so to get "good" and thousands to become expert, IMHO.

BTW, I was thinking on the ride today that this slow VO2 component related to muscle fatigue must be very irritating to the "fatigue is central" proponents - what started this thread. Like a burr under the saddle. Dratted facts keep getting in the way of people believing it. LOL.

 

[sciguy]

There is a big difference between being good at something and being an expert. I can assure you the Blue Angel pilots have a lot more than a few hundred hours under their belts.
.

The "Boss pilot" of the group typically has ~ 3000 hours of flight time..........so I guess you probably wouldn't consider him and expert.

Hmmmmmmmm


Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

The "Boss pilot" of the group typically has ~ 3000 hours of flight time..........so I guess you probably wouldn't consider him and expert.

Hmmmmmmmm


Hugh

Well, 3000 is a lot more than 250, nearer the same order of magnitude of 10000 than 250 wouldn't you say. 10,000 is one persons estimate of what it take for an average person to become an expert at something. Some who have a predisposition for something might be able to do it faster. Others may never reach that goal. It is simply a number that suggests to be really good at anything you have to do it a lot.

A new piano player might take a couple of hundred hours of practice to be good enough to play in a local lounge but that amount of practice is unlikely to get him to Carnegie Hall. The rule applies to pretty much everything. Why should pedaling be any different?

 

[hiero2]

Frank,

I really think you're reaching here in terms of the motor skill required to pedal a bike effectively as well as the time needed to develop it.
. . .

In the opinion of many who post here, Frank IS reaching. Certainly in my opinion. I don't believe that his demands for quantity of experience before expertise are scientifically sustainable. But hey, he is still entitled to his opinion. Frankly (oops, pun not intended), I don't think his claims of difference between platform pedaling and cleated pedaling are sustainable, but whatever. I add this to caution future readers - have caution about what you read.

 

[hiero2]

When I pointed out on other cycling forums that I had found no difference between flat pedals and cleated shoes I was called a troll.

Sometimes whole forum consensus can be wrong. The community chooses to be "one way" - and disrupting that status quo can be seen as trolling. Even when it is not.

This is unfortunate, and I, myself, have been victim of such, on another topic (helmets), and another forum (I don't remember).

However, that noted, there typically IS a difference between cleated and flat. For most people. Once one has trained on cleated systems, especially on fixed gear systems, that difference is reduced - markedly.

I'll bet that Coach's study was done with trained cyclists.

 

[CoachFergie]

Capmal (1997) used non-cyclists.

I submit there is a better technique than what most people are doing and changing isn't easy. Actually, it is easy in the sense that 99&#37]

You can submit whatever you want. But some real evidence would be nice. Hug (2013), Fernandez-Pena (2009) and Bohm (2009) studies showed all showed that riders adapted to an independent crank pretty quickly but lets remember that no one races with them so all you are doing is training non-specifically.

Fernandez-Pena (2009) showed that remove the mechanical constraint of independent cranks and pedalling returns to normal.

Comparing pedalling to flying a plane or playing the piano. Pure comedy!

 

[CoachFergie]

When I pointed out on other cycling forums that I had found no difference between flat pedals and cleated shoes I was called a troll.

Sometimes it not what you say but how you say it.

 

[FrankDay]

In the opinion of many who post here, Frank IS reaching. Certainly in my opinion. I don't believe that his demands for quantity of experience before expertise are scientifically sustainable. But hey, he is still entitled to his opinion. Frankly (oops, pun not intended), I don't think his claims of difference between platform pedaling and cleated pedaling are sustainable, but whatever. I add this to caution future readers - have caution about what you read.

I just want to emphasize that these are all opinions. In fact, almost everything that we believe about cycling training and racing is opinion with very little science to back any of it up. There are whole forums devoted to the power meter and there isn't a scintilla of scientific evidence that using one makes even the smallest of difference. That doesn't keep people from getting their panties in a bunch anytime anyone comes and posts something that is a bit off of the accepted norm. Especially if they don't cave to the usual ad hominem attacks that are guaranteed to follow from the usual suspects. Takes a thick skin to be an internet contrarian.

Anyhow, pretty much every study that has looked at pedaling technique has shown, on average, that even the pros apply back pressure on the upstroke even when attached to the pedals. This pattern can hardly be significantly different than when they are using platform pedals. Of course there are exceptions but in the big picture the exceptions are rare. Less rare than they used to be now that there are reasonably large numbers of pros who have trained on those dratted independent cranks but still rare, I am afraid, since our penetration into the cycling market remains tiny.

 

[CoachFergie]

I just want to emphasize that these are all opinions.

The lack of any evidence gave that one away

In fact, almost everything that we believe about cycling training and racing is opinion with very little science to back any of it up.

Yes, that is what happens when you cherry pick the research to suit your bias.

There are whole forums devoted to the power meter and there isn't a scintilla of scientific evidence that using one makes even the smallest of difference.

Yes as a huge advocate of riding and racing with a power meter I can say without a doubt that they MAKE ZERO PERCENT DIFFERENCE AT ALL (yes, I went there, I unleashed the fury of Caps Lock).

That doesn't keep people from getting their panties in a bunch anytime anyone comes and posts something that is a bit off of the accepted norm. Especially if they don't cave to the usual ad hominem attacks that are guaranteed to follow from the usual suspects. Takes a thick skin to be an internet contrarian.

How noble! But yeah, snake oil salesman comes to mind. "Buy my product because in my opinion it's the best"

Less rare than they used to be now that there are reasonably large numbers of pros who have trained on those dratted independent cranks but still rare, I am afraid, since our penetration into the cycling market remains tiny.

Tiny and ineffective. Pros have a genetic advantage and many succeed in-spite of the training, diet, bike set up, equipment or gimmicks they use.

 

[FrankDay]

Tiny and ineffective. Pros have a genetic advantage and many succeed in-spite of the training, diet, bike set up, equipment or gimmicks they use.

All the pros may have a genetic advantage but they are looking for advantages amongst themselves. Some choose drugs. For those that believe that pedaling technique makes a difference (many seem to) PowerCranks can offer a legal advantage. Some choose both.

 

[CoachFergie]

All the pros may have a genetic advantage but they are looking for advantages amongst themselves. Some choose drugs. For those that believe that pedaling technique makes a difference (many seem to) PowerCranks can offer a legal advantage. Some choose both.

Can offer? You mean you actually have some evidence