A new theory concerning the significance of pedalling style.

[Retro Trev]

That is a good way to not think about it

Someone ought to tell Chris Froome that, spends a lot of time looking at his SRM while racing.

So are you saying that you should never ride at a higher power than your previous power analysis dictates? Only a fool would hold say 300 watts instead of pushing on when he feels that 300 watts is easier than he has ever found it before.

If you ride to a pre set power you will either under perform and finish realising you could have gone harder or you will over push trying to hit the numbers and end up having to slow and lose more time.

Feel must override the numbers. What would you do if the power meter is not properly calibrated or stops giving a signal. The power data is an aid to pacing. There might be the odd perpetual idiot who is unable to ride by feel and has to be a slave to the power meter but most people can tell that they are able to go harder or not.

Even Kerrison points out that the power numbers are a tool and only part of the whole picture.

I also thought you thought there was nothing in pedalling technique and power cranks.

Too much mind really refers to too much conscious logical mind and not enough intuitive mind. No mind does not refer to the instinctive intuitive parts of the brain but the logical analytical parts of the brain.

It is hard to explain without delving into Zen and Japanese culture. The brain or mind is capable of far more than we sometimes allow. It is possible to make massive improvements by allowing the instinctive intuitive mind to come to the fore. Often it is oblittorated by the logical analytical mind.

The logical analytical mind is good at designing and making things eg a sword, but the instinctive intuitive mind is best at using it. The logical mind only knows what has happened after the instinctive intuitive mind has completed the task. You don't catch and throw a ball using a computer and sights, the instinctive intuitive mind works everything out in an instant.

Same applies to pedalling.

 

[FrankDay]

The logical analytical mind is good at designing and making things eg a sword, but the instinctive intuitive mind is best at using it. The logical mind only knows what has happened after the instinctive intuitive mind has completed the task. You don't catch and throw a ball using a computer and sights, the instinctive intuitive mind works everything out in an instant.

Same applies to pedalling.

This is such hogwash. The instinctive mind is only useful to use once the logical mind has put in enough training such that proper technique is instinctive. Have you heard of the 10,000 hour rule? If I wanted to put in 10,000 hours becoming a fencer my guess is I would never get very good if I didn't have someone teaching me good fencing technique su that what I was training was worth training. I might get pretty good on my own but I would never make it to the Olympics. Same with throwing a ball (watch Tim Tebow). The same issue applies to pedaling. You don't develop instinctive excellent technique practicing bad technique.

 

[Retro Trev]

This is such hogwash. The instinctive mind is only useful to use once the logical mind has put in enough training such that proper technique is instinctive. Have you heard of the 10,000 hour rule? If I wanted to put in 10,000 hours becoming a fencer my guess is I would never get very good if I didn't have someone teaching me good fencing technique su that what I was training was worth training. I might get pretty good on my own but I would never make it to the Olympics. Same with throwing a ball (watch Tim Tebow). The same issue applies to pedaling. You don't develop instinctive excellent technique practicing bad technique.

The problem here for you Frank is you can't compare something like pedalling a bicycle to something which requires skill like fencing.

When fencing was electrified so there was irrefutable evidence who scored the hit, many techniques were exposed as useless. Style was proven to be hogwash all that matters is who scores the hit. The most effective fencer wins. No points for style or technique or smoothness or speed or class or perfectly small round parries or beautiful ballestras and lunges or perfect counter time attacks. It all counted for nothing, the most effective fencer wins no matter how ugly.

The whole sport changed, classic fencing technique had to be adapted, realism had to be applied. Yes fencers need lessons in the most effective techniques and yes the most effective techniques must be practiced assiduously but fencing is a skill as well as requiring physical speed and power and strength and fast reaction time. Fencing requires thousands of hours of training.

Learning how to pedal takes about 5 minutes. There is nothing to learn because unlike in fencing where you and your opponent are moving backwards and forwards up and down left to right with swords being manipulated by fingers wrist arms doing 20 things in the space of a step forwards or backwards a lunge or a fleche, pedalling is utterly simple and requires virtually no skill.

 

[CoachFergie]

So are you saying that you should never ride at a higher power than your previous power analysis dictates? Only a fool would hold say 300 watts instead of pushing on when he feels that 300 watts is easier than he has ever found it before.

I was agreeing with you.

That is the "art of coaching" deciding just how much of a progression one can make with each ride or race and just how much one should push prior thresholds. Assuming for a goal event with proper tapering that the rider will be in better condition than when any prior testing was done.

 

[CoachFergie]

This is such hogwash. The instinctive mind is only useful to use once the logical mind has put in enough training such that proper technique is instinctive. Have you heard of the 10,000 hour rule? If I wanted to put in 10,000 hours becoming a fencer my guess is I would never get very good if I didn't have someone teaching me good fencing technique su that what I was training was worth training. I might get pretty good on my own but I would never make it to the Olympics. Same with throwing a ball (watch Tim Tebow). The same issue applies to pedaling. You don't develop instinctive excellent technique practicing bad technique.

The 10,000 hour rule is highly questionable. If you were not practising good technique as a fencer then anything outside of that would not contribute to those 10,000 hours.

David Espteins book puts the whole 10,000 hour concept under the spotlight.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Sports-Gene-Extraordinary-Performance/dp/1591845114

 

[CoachFergie]

Learning how to pedal takes about 5 minutes. There is nothing to learn because unlike in fencing where you and your opponent are moving backwards and forwards up and down left to right with swords being manipulated by fingers wrist arms doing 20 things in the space of a step forwards or backwards a lunge or a fleche, pedalling is utterly simple and requires virtually no skill.

Agree as well, have taught 2 year olds to ride a bike. Pedalling as skill is very easy to learn.

My Froome reference is in regards to his constant use of the SRM to pace himself and of course the numbers of sites about "Froome looking at his stem"

 

[FrankDay]

The problem here for you Frank is you can't compare something like pedalling a bicycle to something which requires skill like fencing.

Sure I can because I believe pedaling does involve skill. Just as playing a piano does. I can sit in front of a piano and hit the keys and noise will come out of the piano but few would call it music. But, if you turned the sound off I might actually know what I am doing as looking good seems to be the most important aspect to winning piano competitions. The problem with pedaling is we haven't had a good way of analyzing or comparing pedaling technique amongst athletes other than looking at the resultant power or race results. The problem is lots of things beyond technique affect that power number or result so it is hardly a good metric of pedaling technique. However, with the soon wide availability of 2nd generation power meters that will have the potential to measure technique this should change.

When fencing was electrified so there was irrefutable evidence who scored the hit, many techniques were exposed as useless. Style was proven to be hogwash all that matters is who scores the hit. The most effective fencer wins. No points for style or technique or smoothness or speed or class or perfectly small round parries or beautiful ballestras and lunges or perfect counter time attacks. It all counted for nothing, the most effective fencer wins no matter how ugly.

The whole sport changed, classic fencing technique had to be adapted, realism had to be applied. Yes fencers need lessons in the most effective techniques and yes the most effective techniques must be practiced assiduously but fencing is a skill as well as requiring physical speed and power and strength and fast reaction time. Fencing requires thousands of hours of training.

Learning how to pedal takes about 5 minutes. There is nothing to learn because unlike in fencing where you and your opponent are moving backwards and forwards up and down left to right with swords being manipulated by fingers wrist arms doing 20 things in the space of a step forwards or backwards a lunge or a fleche, pedalling is utterly simple and requires virtually no skill.

You actually make my point. Technology expose classical fencing thinking as flawed and new knowledge (and new best practices/techniques) stemmed from this. The technology of the 2nd generation power meters will do the same for cycling. It will soon become obvious that the best riders generally use a different, and more efficient, pedaling technique than lesser riders. 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.

 

[FrankDay]

Agree as well, have taught 2 year olds to ride a bike. Pedalling as skill is very easy to learn.

My Froome reference is in regards to his constant use of the SRM to pace himself and of course the numbers of sites about "Froome looking at his stem"

Do you think it possible that all those pictures with Froome with his head down "looking at his stem" are being misinterpreted as him looking at his power meter when, in fact, he might really just be getting his head down, out of the wind, to improve his aerodynamics? People tend to interpret "data" (that, of course, isn't data) in a way that supports their bias, wouldn't you say?

 

[CoachFergie]

But at the end of the day you can believe all you want but have yet to provide any data that shows that elite cyclists pedal different, would benefit from using independent cranks, adjusting crank length. Pedalling styles have been well studied for the last 40 years and nothing earth shattering has come forth.

No evidence that a World Class cyclist has better pedalling skill than a cat 5 rider. Just a better physiology and even if a cat 5 rider could clock up 10,000 hours they are still limited by their genetics.

 

[CoachFergie]

Do you think it possible that all those pictures with Froome with his head down "looking at his stem" are being misinterpreted as him looking at his power meter when, in fact, he might really just be getting his head down, out of the wind, to improve his aerodynamics? People tend to interpret "data" (that, of course, isn't data) in a way that supports their bias, wouldn't you say?

Speculation on everyone's behalf. An early criticism of Team Sky was their team riding to a set power output during the race. Armstrong was well known for being advised an optimal power output when climbing.

 

[FrankDay]

But at the end of the day you can believe all you want but have yet to provide any data that shows that elite cyclists pedal different, would benefit from using independent cranks, adjusting crank length. Pedalling styles have been well studied for the last 40 years and nothing earth shattering has come forth.

No evidence that a World Class cyclist has better pedalling skill than a cat 5 rider. Just a better physiology and even if a cat 5 rider could clock up 10,000 hours they are still limited by their genetics.

One "little bit of evidence" is the number of pros who want to change their pedaling technique. But, you are right, I have no proof of what I believe. But, by the same token, there is no credible evidence that what I say is wrong.

 

[CoachFergie]

One "little bit of evidence" is the number of pros who want to change their pedaling technique. But, you are right, I have no proof of what I believe. But, by the same token, there is no credible evidence that what I say is wrong.

What the Pro's do and what is right is not the same thing. Many Pro's use nasal strips and that has never been proven as beneficial.

Well apart from all the studies that have tried to change the way people pedal that have had no effect on performance.

 

[FrankDay]

Well apart from all the studies that have tried to change the way people pedal that have had no effect on performance.

Did any of those negative studies involve 10,000 hours of training? No, more like 12-15 hours of training. While it shouldn't take 10,000 hours to demonstrate benefit it is clear to me that it takes more than what those studies did to change how someone naturally pedals a bicycle. But, you guys who seem to think pedaling is "easy" or "doesn't matter" just can't get it. Like I said, there is simply no credible evidence that what I say is wrong.

 

[CoachFergie]

Did any of those negative studies involve 10,000 hours of training? No, more like 12-15 hours of training. While it shouldn't take 10,000 hours to demonstrate benefit it is clear to me that it takes more than what those studies did to change how someone naturally pedals a bicycle. But, you guys who seem to think pedaling is "easy" or "doesn't matter" just can't get it. Like I said, there is simply no credible evidence that what I say is wrong.

Nice dodge Frank, set up an impractical hypothesis to test.

But what about the studies that do find a change in performance in 12-15 hours or in Gibala's study of short interval training that saw an 100% improvement in performance from 12-18mins training over a 2 week period.

What about those who do achieve World class performance in less than 10,000 hours. I guess they are just gifted!

 

[FrankDay]

Nice dodge Frank, set up an impractical hypothesis to test.

But what about the studies that do find a change in performance in 12-15 hours or in Gibala's study of short interval training that saw an 100% improvement in performance from 12-18mins training over a 2 week period.

What about those who do achieve World class performance in less than 10,000 hours. I guess they are just gifted!

Huh? Can you point out a single cyclist (who isn't a junior) who has achieved a world class performance with less than 10,000 hours of training under their belt.

Anyhow, I haven't set up an impractical hypothesis to test. It doesn't take 10,000 hours to change a basic pedaling technique. But, it may take 10,000 hours to perfect a new technique, especially for extended efforts.

 

[CoachFergie]

More impractical hypotheses, classic Frank.

 

[ustabe]

But at the end of the day you can believe all you want but have yet to provide any data that shows that elite cyclists pedal different, would benefit from using independent cranks, adjusting crank length. Pedalling styles have been well studied for the last 40 years and nothing earth shattering has come forth.

To compare pedaling to a small-motor activity like fencing or throwing a football (or golf, or bowling, for that matter) is overstating the case. The most important element to good pedaling might be to stop pushing down at the bottom of the stroke. 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.

At some point everyone who learns to ride a bike learns that the pedals travel in a circle and learns enough articulation to at least stop wasting energy pushing down when the pedal is traveling in a mostly horizontal direction. From there it isn't a stretch to use this articulation to apply some force along the pedal's direction of travel. At the very least, not applying force against the pedal's direction of travel should result in more effective recovery and less strain and injury.

Greg LeMond's rebuttal to Daniel Coyle's assertion that Lance Armstrong's phenomenal increase in climbing speed was due to pedaling technique (after weight loss was debunked) cited studies that showed pedaling technique could raise power output by about 1 percent. That was Greg's story and I'm sticking to it.

 

[CoachFergie]

Sorry you have lost me there.

Totally agree that comparing pedalling to fencing is hogwash.

Sorry was it Greg or Daniel who cited a pedalling technique that could improve power by 1%? Would like to see that paper.

Coyle and Gladwell are under pretty strong attack for their 10,000 hour claims based on a very limited body of research. Most notable is Epstein in his book "The Sports Gene".

I have taken powerlifters and Olympic lifters from the gym and within weeks they have been able to pedal at over 2000 watts. Would any suggest that after 10,000hr of pedalling they would make a significant improvement on that. In fact one sprinter after a year of practising pedalling is actually producing less power than he did when starting (teach him to change coach from someone who knows his s**t to one who used to be a handy sprinter).

If Armstrong did improve his efficiency it was on the back of a huge volume of training, assisted by consistent drug use. That was Ed Coyle's original assessment even with a recent edit after Lance spilled the beans.

My own little conspiracy theory is that claims of pedalling technique and even the change in cadence were an attempt to legitimise his performance improvements post cancer. Also funny how so many independent Crank users are also drug cheats.

 

[Retro Trev]

There was general agreement among fencing coaches that it takes 7 years to train a top class competitive fencer. Some no matter how much training never get anywhere near top class because they do not have the reaction time, muscular ability, strength, speed, etc. Some get very competitive in a few years.

Now if we take 7 years, 5 nights a week, 3 hours a night, that is only 5460 hours. Add another 1092 hours for weekly competitions etc add another 2555 hours for practice alone and you have 9107.

In reality it is difficult to do that much fencing. Fencing is an extremely technical sport and you have to perfect many techniques.

10,000 is a lot of hours to perfect just one very simple technique.

 

[CoachFergie]

Yup, learning to pedal is a very easy skill to learn and very easy to teach.

It's learning how to sustain submaximal power over a race that takes time to develop. Doing more hours does not explain why on today's ride after practising pedalling yesterday for an hour I wasn't able to generate as much power. I had been practising, right, but got worse. So perhaps just racking up 10,000 hours is not enough.

 

[FrankDay]

To compare pedaling to a small-motor activity like fencing or throwing a football (or golf, or bowling, for that matter) is overstating the case. The most important element to good pedaling might be to stop pushing down at the bottom of the stroke. 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.

No one knows what the most important element to good pedaling is. However, one study that looked at energy cost and pedaling technique found that what occurred at the top and bottom of the stroke was the most important thing. Link And, I submit, it is silly to look at the leg as only being able to push down as we wouldn't be able to walk if that were the case. The anti-gravity muscles are the strongest muscles, in general, in the body but they are not the only muscles. I think though that we can all agree that "pushing" when it doesn't do any good is not very useful.

At some point everyone who learns to ride a bike learns that the pedals travel in a circle and learns enough articulation to at least stop wasting energy pushing down when the pedal is traveling in a mostly horizontal direction. From there it isn't a stretch to use this articulation to apply some force along the pedal's direction of travel. At the very least, not applying force against the pedal's direction of travel should result in more effective recovery and less strain and injury.

It is questionable that "everybody" learns this since measured pedaling efficiencies vary from about 16% to 26% (with most experienced cyclists being around 20%). Such a wide range can really only be explained by invoking pedaling technique a major contributor to pedaling energy expenditure.

Greg LeMond's rebuttal to Daniel Coyle's assertion that Lance Armstrong's phenomenal increase in climbing speed was due to pedaling technique (after weight loss was debunked) cited studies that showed pedaling technique could raise power output by about 1 percent. That was Greg's story and I'm sticking to it.

This is the same Greg LeMond who told me, after he had spent some time with my PowerCranks, "I spent years and years trying to learn how to pedal this way and now everyone can learn it in months"? The same Greg Lemond who has told several top pros that followed him to get on the PowerCranks to fine tune their pedaling technique? LeMond knew that pedaling technique was important to him and his success. He was also convinced that Lance (and pretty much everyone else) had to be doping so his bias was to argue against Coyle's study even though no one can explain how doping could possibly result in the improved pedaling efficiency found by Coyle. It appears that Armstrong did both, doped and improved his pedaling efficiency. Certainly that could explain his domination over a peloton where everyone else was doping also.

Further, Lemond knows that changes in pedaling technique don't come quickly or easily such that all of the available studies that looked at pedaling technique and power/efficiency haven't looked at the effects of training someone to pedal differently, documented a change occurred, and seeing what happens after the change. Hence, even though he should know better, he would be able to conveniently forget this when making his argument that Lance was doping.

Lance did both. He doped and he improved his pedaling technique over the years to improve his efficiency.

 

[CoachFergie]

No one knows what the most important element to good pedaling is. However, one study that looked at energy cost and pedaling technique found that what occurred at the top and bottom of the stroke was the most important thing. Link And, I submit, it is silly to look at the leg as only being able to push down as we wouldn't be able to walk if that were the case.

Then a subsequent study by same authors found the opposite.

The anti-gravity muscles are the strongest muscles, in general, in the body but they are not the only muscles. I think though that we can all agree that "pushing" when it doesn't do any good is not very useful.

Speculation.

It is questionable that "everybody" learns this since measured pedaling efficiencies vary from about 16% to 26% (with most experienced cyclists being around 20%). Such a wide range can really only be explained by invoking pedaling technique a major contributor to pedaling energy expenditure.

More speculation. Two main factors in efficiency are muscle fibre distribution (higher volume of type 1 = greater efficiency) and training history.

This is the same Greg LeMond who told me, after he had spent some time with my PowerCranks, "I spent years and years trying to learn how to pedal this way and now everyone can learn it in months"?

The same LeMond who isn't a sport scientist and therefore his opinion is not relevant to the discussion till he can present data.

It appears that Armstrong did both, doped and improved his pedaling efficiency. Certainly that could explain his domination over a peloton where everyone else was doping also.

Speculation, unless one can show he actually did change the way he pedalled.

Further, Lemond knows that changes in pedaling technique don't come quickly or easily such that all of the available studies that looked at pedaling technique and power/efficiency haven't looked at the effects of training someone to pedal differently, documented a change occurred, and seeing what happens after the change.

Fernandez-Pena (2009) and Bohm (2008) showed it took a whopping two weeks to see a change in pedalling technique.

Lance did both. He doped and he improved his pedaling technique over the years to improve his efficiency.

My conspiracy theory that he used a change in pedalling technique like he changed his cadence was just another smoke screen to cover up his doping practice. With all due respect to Ed Coyle, 2-3 VO2max tests over a very wide period and at different times of the year tell us very little.

Seeing Armstrong raced and trained with a power meter that might shed some more light on what progress he did actually make. In Bobke II Bob Roll said him and Lance did some testing and then after 9 days on riding 6-9 hours a day in the Mountains they went back to the lab and their numbers increased across the board. After only 9 days of riding.

Or participants in one of Gibala's studies on short interval training who improved their performance on a test to exhaustion by 100% after 12-18 mins of training over a two week period.

Adaptations to a stimulus happen fast, the rate of adaptation slows as we perfect or reach genetic limits and if we stop the stimulus or have a competing stimulus then performance declines, Fernandez-Pena showed that as well.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

It is questionable that "everybody" learns this since measured pedaling efficiencies vary from about 16% to 26% (with most experienced cyclists being around 20%). Such a wide range can really only be explained by invoking pedaling technique a major contributor to pedaling energy expenditure.

There are physiological factors far more likely to influence GME than one's natually preferred pedalling style.

 

[FrankDay]

There are physiological factors far more likely to influence GME than one's natually preferred pedalling style.

Really? Perhaps you could tell us exactly how "physiological factors" (I assume you are talking about FT vs ST fiber makeup) can account for such a wide variability. And, of course, I am sure you can point me to the study that supports your claim.

 

[CoachFergie]

And, of course, I am sure you can point me to the study that supports your claim.

Coyle 1991.