correct way to pedal

[Tapeworm]

...be real careful what you wish for...from where I'm sitting Oz has a lot to offer..

Cheers

blutto

And therein lies the problem!

 

[CoachFergie]

No one is required to produce evidence to make a scientific claim.

Red Herring.

Evidence is only required to support or refute the claim.

"Gimmickcrank user's sees an average 40% improvement", evidence please!

Einstein did not have any evidence....

Comparing yourself to Einstein, how modest.

There is evidence to support my claim but it is mostly anecdotal.

How convenient.

It is one reason when someone comes forth with anecdotal evidence saying "they didn't work" I questioned as to how they were used.

Several rather good studies (a few average ones) showing no performance benefits.

Asking how they were used reads; "I create an unrealistic standard of 6-9 months of exclusive use" which is unattainable for any serious cyclists. Anyone who races breaks the exclusive use demand and gives you an out if they fail to meet the marketing claims.

Scientists are supposed to be good observers and the purpose of a theory is to explain what is observed. But, the real power of a theory is it can then make predictions. In the case of PowerCranks, when I had the idea I first tested it on myself. In about 3 months I was riding 3 mph faster than I had ever done before.

Speed, uh huh.

How thick do you take people for Frank? How many confounding variables affect speed again?

When I decided I had something worth selling I then recruited some local riders to do some testing so I could have an idea as to what to claim. Of the riders who continued long enough to get good data we saw about a 40% increase in power in the 6-9 month time-frame.

A 40% increase in power. Are those the files you claim you can't find?

Hmmmm if I increased my FTP of 280 watts 40% I would be 392 watts which would make me a Pro Tour contender.

Sorry Frank, I call Bulls**t!

Since then we have had the feedback from users and we find that, on average, those who use them a lot report improvements that support that 40% claim.

Like the chap from Spain whose power files were mysteriously corrupted or the chap from MIT who couldn't explain why a massive jump in his power for a 60min roller test was higher than his 20min power from a uphill time trial. Yes Frank, sure we trust these user reports.

Those who use them part-time or infrequently generally see much lesser improvement. We have also received many reports of substantial running and rehabilitation success. As a result of these continued OBSERVATIONS I have modified my "theories" as to why they work.

A real boon for the Golfer I hear. Can't wait to hear the theory behind that claim.

On the basis of my observations that almost everyone who trains on my product sees substantial improvement (usually more than one would normally expect from training effect alone) I have concluded that pedaling technique really does matter and that the technique the PC's encourage is better than what is generally used. In another thread I offered a paper (Leirdal) that supported that proposition.

Hmmmmm, your observation verses several studies showing no performance improvements. Again Frank, just how dumb do you take people for?

So, why don't I do the studies to prove my 40% claim. Well, the one big reason is because it wouldn't do any good because, since I have a financial interest in the outcome. Any study I did would be tainted. Therefore, it must be left to others to prove or disprove either my marketing claims, based upon my observations, or my "scientific claims" (pedaling technique matters but it is hard to change. But, if you can "improve" your technique both power and efficiency will improve), based upon my observations.

Plenty of published work is funded by the manufacturer.

Me thinks you don't quite understand the difference between science and marketing. As I stated above, it does little good for me to provide "facts" because any work I did in this area would rightfully be discounted as being tainted by observer bias.

Me thinks that you are well aware of human naivety and think that if you repeat the lie often enough people will just accept it.

The best I can do is provide further anecdotal reports that support my claims. The problem is, any user who comes to a site like this and provides a positive report frequently gets shouted down by the usual suspects because they simply cannot bring themselves to believe what I say might be true.

Glad to be of service.

But, there are plenty of examples of unbiased positive reports including Phil Holman and the recent report on the weight weenies forum which I have to thank Fergie for directing me to (I linked to it earlier)

What was Phil's performance improvement again?

I would submit that the risks associated with strapping yourself to a rocket or putting a different set of cranks on your bike to see if they can help you to get faster are substantially different and should require substantially different levels of "proof" before one takes the plunge. There is zero scientific evidence that PM's do anything to enhance athletic performance yet they are a relatively easy sell based upon anecdotal evidence alone.

Strawman. A power meter does not ride the bike for you therefore has no capacity to improve performance.

Why is it a pair of cranks suddenly requires scientific proof before people will even consider listening to the reports of others.

Every day I wade through a list of training methods, nutritional practices or supplements, techniques or pieces of equipment. Many don't have several studies showing no advantage so I have to examine the theory. Gimmickcranks fall short there as well seeing you expect someone to train in a fashion they will not compete in.

I have put forth the case as to why you won't be getting "scientific" factual supportive data from me to support our claims because no one would believe them anyhow.

So why get defensive when people challenge anecdotal evidence?

The one thing I can do though is offer customers a 90 day money-back guarantee.

And this is evidence of nothing.

And, we actually sell these things to elite cycling pros, the latest sale of note being an additional two pair to Ivan Basso. And, i believe we have a request pending from another world champion to modify his SRM cranks to PowerCranks. And, even though I hadn't seen it, in the weight weenie thread someone posted an excerpt from Cadel Evans book "Close to Flying"

Professional endorsement do not constitute evidence of anything. Ivan Basso accepted a 2 year ban for "attempted doping" and Cadel Evans performed SFR training under Aldo Sassi even though there is no physiological basis for riding uphill at 40rpm improving racing performance. But even worse Frank, both of these riders are known Power Meter users so I think we can discount any endorsements they make!

So, there continue to be people who have never actually used the product and call it snake oil because there is no proof of what I say and there are those who have actually tried them and seem to like them. Your dilemna is to figure out whether you want to listen to the group who have never used them but have determined they couldn't possibly work or listen to those who have used them and report a positive experience. In the hostile climate you find here it takes a little guts to say: "I think I would like to decide for myself".

Red Herring. I have never smoked or taken drugs. Does this mean I could never be permitted to comment on the damages of either.

So, in summary, the science to prove or disprove what I say will have to be left to others. What has been done so far is totally inadequate as 6 weeks is simply not enough time, especially if that time involves part-time use.

Well you have been making stuff up for the last 11 years, we don't expect you stop now. But don't expect us to stop calling BS any time soon either.

Therefore, you will have to accept that our 40% claim is simply a marketing claim, albeit based on internal testing and user experience

Having conveniently lost this information

If ever there is any scientific work done to indicate the claim is inflated then I will revise it.

While flip flopping between this being a marketing figure and a genuine claim

But, I would submit that a claim that requires 6-9 months of exclusive use to attain cannot be disproven in a study lasting 6 weeks involving part-time use, regardless of how loud Fergie shouts.

And I will be here to remind people that this unrealistic standard for any racing cyclist giving Frank an easy out

Even if our claim was only for a 5% power improvement, Fergie would still be shouting because there still would not be any proof.

You betcha

 

[FrankDay]

How can a measuring device have evidence of an "improved outcome" when that outcome would be measured by the device in question?

I personally like to time laps using my 5k TAG, yep I ride faster knowing the seconds are all that more expensive

But then TAG never claim a 4-40% performance improvement either.

Who "pushes" powermeters? I think Wiggle had a sale... but they weren't really pushing them.

SRM have on their website slogans like "pedalling power is measured at the point where output really occurs", and mentions "accuracy", "information", "data". No mention of performance bonuses (or your money back!)

Do you choose to single out power meters because certain people use them to train with here on this and other forums? If Fergie only used stopwatches and Coggan had written a book on "Racing and Training with Heart Monitors" would you still be as vitriolic against power meters? My guess is no. Standard defence in legal settings, deny, deny, deny, counter allegation.

"No, powercranks are not just excellent marketing campaign, they really work. No, they do work. No, they do! Yeah...but powermeters are crap!"

[note correct use of "..."]

That is all cool. And, I don't single out PM's. I tend to use PM as an example as they tend to cost more than my device and they are frequently put forth as the most valuable tool someone wanting to improve could buy.

So, the reason the sites for PM's don't make improvement claims for their product is they probably know it really makes little difference in outcome. That doesn't stop them from selling them to those who think the use will make them better. People who purchase PM's don't do that just so they can get another number, even if that number is touted to be accurate, unless they also believe that the knowledge gained will help them improve. My point is there is simply zero scientific evidence that the knowledge gained from PM's leads to improvement beyond what can be done without that knowledge. Just as there is zero evidence that using a HR monitor is superior to using perceived exertion. Just that there is zero evidence that getting a coach leads to improved outcome compared to those who are self coached doing equivalent work. Or zero evidence for spinervals. Or, essentially, anything else. About the only thing we can say in sports with some scientific certainty is that those who train more tend to do better than those who don't.

You do what you do because you think your choices work for you. Cool. Tell others so they might learn from you. But, if someone asks you for scientific proof of what you say you will be stuck. You can give arguments to support your view but you won't be able to give proof. That is pretty much the way it goes in sports.

The issue is that there is essentially zero evidence supporting most of the stuff that athletes use or do to get better. The problem I see that bugs people about PowerCranks is we actually make a claim that "proper use" will improve outcome. We (I) think learning a better pedaling style is really a pretty big thing, leading to big improvements in most. Many top pros seem to have bought into it. Of course, we can't prove it, but we are hopeful that day will come. But, that view goes against the bias of many who hang out on the internet and participate in forums. So be it. That is life.

 

[CoachFergie]

...relax....I was just shaking the tree a bit to see what fell out....

Lydiard is close to the heart of any NZ coach. I attended a speech in the nineties and when asked what was the best thing to drink post running the answer was a definitive "Beer"! Got to love that!

...and there is a funny back-story to my introduction to Lydiard that oldborn may care to comment on...the book was recommended by a national rowing coach whose pitch to use Lydiard was his understanding that the Lydiard training method, though discredited in the West, was one of the cornerstones of the training methodologies used by the Eastern Bloc to subsequently dominate most areas of athletic competition in the 60's and 70's...so those old Russian books so prized by oldborn may actually be applications of Lydiard...it certainly worked for us...

As I said the East German model for cycling was based on Lydiard principles and carried on to the United Germany in 2000 until they lost their way. The Aussies strayed from what Charlie Walsh learnt from the East Germans when he retired in after Sydney and their recent return to form has been spearheaded by a return to those tried and tested methods.

As an aside Frank will have you believe that he has sold Gimmickcranks to the BCF and ACF. A quick call to my contacts in both suggested this was nonsense. When questioned on who he dealt with at the BCF Frank clammed up real fast

I have a few old translated Russian text's and papers inc Matveyev's original work. More a manifesto on being a good Communist athlete than actual training science. There is no physiological basis to periodisation of training so I don't buy into that. Vicious rumour is the three up one down had more to with Eastern Bloc drug taking schedules than any manipulation of supercompensation.

 

[blutto]

Can't even get the history right!

Lydiard was never accepted by the NZ athletics hierarchy even after Snell's 3 Gold Medals in Rome and Tokyo. He went to Finland and used his methods to coach them to more Olympic success. The East German cyclists based their training model off his principles and Charlie Walsh took the model to the Australian Cycling Team and implemented it with great success. It is notable that the current "sweet spot training" zone gaining popularity bears a strong similarity with Lydiard's "best aerobic pace" concept, as opposed to LSD which many mistakenly believe Arthur coined as long slow distance.

Till his death he was never fully appreciated for the approach he took to coaching and training athletes (there is a huge distinction between those two concepts). Peter Snell gained a Doctorate in Exercise Physiology and a lot of his research has been finding a physiological rationale for why Lydiard's theories were so successful. Two truly inspirational people and two great KIWIS!

...thanks for the update...quite the story...

Cheers

blutto

 

[CoachFergie]

Doesn't it make you feel just a little silly here in view of the fact the average PM system (a device that has zero scientific evidence supporting improved outcome) costs substantially more than the typical PC system? Where does that put those (like you) who push power meters?

Not as silly as watching you repeat the lie that a power meter will turn the pedals for you again and again thinking us poor plebs will weaken and accept it.

 

[FrankDay]

Asking how they were used reads; "I create an unrealistic standard of 6-9 months of exclusive use" which is unattainable for any serious cyclists. Anyone who races breaks the exclusive use demand and gives you an out if they fail to meet the marketing claims.

Exclusive use for 6-9 months is not an unrealistic standard. Many have done it. If you are not willing to make the commitment we require to achieve the maximum benefits then don't purchase the product or don't be disappointed if you don't meet the goals we say is typical for those who do make that commitment. The product is not at fault for an athlete being insufficiently committed to the program.

It is similar to hiring a coach. Why on earth would one hire a coach if you don't intend to follow the coaches advice? Would you be upset if someone didn't follow your advice and then blamed you for their failure to improve?

Or, buying a power meter and using it as a speedometer. There is an entire book written about and forums devoted to helping the athlete get the most out of their power meter.

All we essentially tell users is they just have to use the device in lieu of their regular cranks in their normal training and the results should happen automatically.

 

[CoachFergie]

People who purchase PM's don't do that just so they can get another number, even if that number is touted to be accurate, unless they also believe that the knowledge gained will help them improve.

So people buy a set of scales because they think this will help them improve at losing weight?

So people look at the speedo in their car because they want to improve at avoiding speeding tickets?

So people keep score at a Football match rather than award the Cup to the team with the most artistically impressive performance?

My point is there is simply zero scientific evidence that the knowledge gained from PM's leads to improvement beyond what can be done without that knowledge.

That's good Frank, keep repeating the lie. Sure our resistance will crack soon.

Just as there is zero evidence that using a HR monitor is superior to using perceived exertion. Just that there is zero evidence that getting a coach leads to improved outcome compared to those who are self coached doing equivalent work. Or zero evidence for spinervals. Or, essentially, anything else. About the only thing we can say in sports with some scientific certainty is that those who train more tend to do better than those who don't.

Well if we look at the evidence that is actually incorrect. Unless you suggest that overtraining is a myth?

Better. How would you measure better?

You do what you do because you think your choices work for you. Cool. Tell others so they might learn from you. But, if someone asks you for scientific proof of what you say you will be stuck. You can give arguments to support your view but you won't be able to give proof. That is pretty much the way it goes in sports.

Prove or disprove the following....

*You need at FTP of 5.8 W/kg in the mountains to win the Tour.

*You need to sustain a HR of 190 to win that Paris Roubaix.

*You need to average 48.97 kph to win Milan San-Remo.

*You need to maintain a RPE of 7 in the mountains to win the Giro de Italia.

*You need to sustain a lactate of 4.2 mmol to be World Time Trial Champion.

The issue is that there is essentially zero evidence supporting most of the stuff that athletes use or do to get better.

You must not read much.

The problem I see that bugs people about PowerCranks is we actually make a claim that "proper use" will improve outcome.

Proper use being an unrealistic standard.

We (I) think learning a better pedaling style is really a pretty big thing, leading to big improvements in most.

And have yet to find any supporting evidence of this pretty big thing.

Many top pros seem to have bought into it.

Many top Pros use drugs.

Many top Pros use power meters.

Many top Pros use those unscientific training methods you speak of.

Many top Pros use those unscientific training methods I speak of.

I think using Pros as endorsement isn't really much of an argument.

Of course, we can't prove it, but we are hopeful that day will come.

So till then you will just keep repeating whatever sounds good.

 

[FrankDay]

Plenty of published work is funded by the manufacturer.

I have no problem supporting a study someone else might want to do if it has a good design and prospects. We have done so for many, including some of those who reported negative results (although in those cases, the actual study didn't quite live up to what they proposed to do). I am simply not going to do it myself. I am dependent upon others to do this work if one expects the results to have any scientific integrity.

 

[CoachFergie]

Exclusive use for 6-9 months is not an unrealistic standard. Many have done it.

So racing cyclists have given up 3-6 months of the season, because racing would void exclusive use, to fulfil this standard.

Riiiigggghhhhhhtttttt

It is similar to hiring a coach. Why on earth would one hire a coach if you don't intend to follow the coaches advice? Would you be upset if someone didn't follow your advice and then blamed you for their failure to improve?

Well people hire me for my stunning good looks, awesome physique and wonderful personality.

But without those things how could I hold a rider accountable for following their training programmes?

Or, buying a power meter and using it as a speedometer. There is an entire book written about and forums devoted to helping the athlete get the most out of their power meter.

Yup seems like people really want to measure their performance.

All we essentially tell users is they just have to use the device in lieu of their regular cranks in their normal training and the results should happen automatically.

That 40%, be a good boy Frank and let us know when someone really attains this. Unlike the Spanish dude or the MIT student make sure the data is valid and reliable!

 

[CoachFergie]

I have no problem supporting a study someone else might want to do if it has a good design and prospects. We have done so for many, including some of those who reported negative results (although in those cases, the actual study didn't quite live up to what they proposed to do). I am simply not going to do it myself. I am dependent upon others to do this work if one expects the results to have any scientific integrity.

So till then just keep repeating the lie.

 

[FrankDay]

So racing cyclists have given up 3-6 months of the season, because racing would void exclusive use, to fulfil this standard.

No, exclusive use means exclusive use in training And, even then we accept that there may be some use of regular cranks in training to help the rider learn to use both cranks the same way. And, people can use them part-time with good results. It is just the results are much more variable and usually come slower for this part-time use. And, I am pushing people to start racing on the product (at least when it is legal) as I think that probably gives the best results overall. Have a couple of pros who have made the commitment this year. I know you are now holding your breath hoping they don't do well. Don't forget to breathe. We will see how it goes.

…But without those things how could I hold a rider accountable for following their training programmes?

You can't, just as I have no control over how people use my product. I make my recommendations and they do what they want. However, I feel it ok for me to point out that those who say they didn't see the results I claim didn't use the product as I recommend when they haven't. Why do you have a problem with that? I guess it is because you think my recommendations as unrealistic even though you have never tested the recommendations to see if they are unrealistic.

One advantage to you of a PM is you can confirm whether riders are doing what you prescribe, at least when they are on their bike. Anyhow, I would expect you to point out the same if true.

 

[JayKosta]

Some questions that might put us back on the topic of
"is there a correct way to pedal"

Have you ever worked with a cyclist whose pedaling technique you felt was limiting their further improvement?

If so, what was the problem with the technique?
What did you suggest as an improvement?
Did the change in technique work to allow (or give) an improvement?
How long a time period was required for the change in technique to show improvement?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[oldborn]

Why is it a pair of cranks suddenly requires scientific proof before people will even consider listening to the reports of others.

....I told you before; US, NZ, Aussie coaches and Power meter industrie involved scientists.
....Here there is no such a discussion and Heretic hunting, at least i do not know.

....Found this thread interesting cos i did not knew background story on other Forums, and i am still convince that even baby food products requires less evidence

....At least i learned something

P.S.... blutto

 

[CoachFergie]

No, exclusive use means exclusive use in training

Ah hah so it's not exclusive use and you have your out.

And, even then we accept that there may be some use of regular cranks in training to help the rider learn to use both cranks the same way. And, people can use them part-time with good results. It is just the results are much more variable and usually come slower for this part-time use.

So you have results. Prey tell what measures did you use?

And, I am pushing people to start racing on the product (at least when it is legal) as I think that probably gives the best results overall.

They are banned in UK road racing and I would expect many other fields would not want someone on Gimmickcranks in the bunch.

Have a couple of pros who have made the commitment this year. I know you are now holding your breath hoping they don't do well. Don't forget to breathe. We will see how it goes.

Lets not forget that some Pros are there despite what they do in training or other practices they follow.

You can't, (confirm they are following the prescribed training)

Can't I?

One advantage to you of a PM is you can confirm whether riders are doing what you prescribe,

I can???

So the Frank Dodge (see you have skirted over many good points made by myself, Andy, Tapeworm and others over the last 11 years) flip flop applies to more than just the 40% claim being a a marketing number or a real number.

at least when they are on their bike.

Well I am am one of those CRAZY coaches who believes all physical and technical training and a lot of psychological preparation happens on the bike. Can't measure the psyc part to a great degree. But still dying to know how Gimmickcrank use has a measurable benefit for Golfers

 

[CoachFergie]

Have you ever worked with a cyclist whose pedaling technique you felt was limiting their further improvement?

Having done close to a 1000 bike set ups over the years and having coached well over a 1000 riders in various capacities I have yet to see a rider have an issue with pedalling.

If so, what was the problem with the technique?

If we look at the injury literature the majority of injuries relate to poor seat height, improper cadence and too rapid a progression in training.

If we look at studies that aim to alter the pedalling technique none have shown any performance improvements.

What did you suggest as an improvement?

Set the saddle at a correct height.

Used a cadence meter to ensure the cadence is not too high or low.

Monitored the training load to ensure the progression was not too rapid and in my personal experience preferred to aim for too slow a progression based on a personal observation that many riders are overtrained.

Did the change in technique work to allow (or give) an improvement?
How long a time period was required for the change in technique to show improvement?

Riders adapt to a change in seat height within 2-3 days however if the change required is huge I go in 3mm steps so a 9mm change would entail up to 9 days of riding to adapt. My personal observation is this is erring on the side of caution.

Riders adapt to changes in cadence quite rapidly. Having coached track cycling they can pick up riding at a faster cadence within a session. Not submitted as proof but Greg Henderson was released from his contract with T-Mobile 2 days out from track worlds and 2 sessions behind the Derny on the track was sufficient for him to go from Pro Tour road racing to Elite level track racing.

I don't follow the trend of performing SE, High Torque, SFR, low cadence training as the skill of riding uphill at 35rpm plays no part in most events (possibly single speed off road racing).

To ensure correct progression in training I use a power meter and the performance manager in WKO+ and also keep track of a riders power in the L4, L5, L6 and L7 bands watching for drop off's, in power, too steep a rise in chronic training load or a dramatic drop in training stress balance.

Within a training session I look at the balance of power over a ride looking for the progression building towards the end of the ride. If they perform intervals or efforts I ensure they learn to stop when the power drops below a defined level. This can be done by time over a set distance or distance covered in a set time but that can be complicated by the weather (times on Denton Park, outdoor and very exposed, can vary by 10sec for 2000m even if power remains constant).

I also avoid "Hell Weeks" or forcing a rider to go too deep because all this means is they are training to ride slow where I can not comment if this would affect their pedaling because I prefer to avoid the risk of overtraining, infection or injury.

Frank likes to overplay the role of pedalling technique because he has a financial interest in doing so. My financial interest is in preparing riders to meet the demands of cycling events and as mentioned above in coaching over a 1000 people in the last 19 years to varying degrees I haven't seen a rider yet who needs to work on pedalling technique.

 

[coapman]

If I wanted a detailed assessment of pedalling I would talk to someone like Jim Martin.

From the day he first got involved with cycling to the present day, what has he done to improve technique. Like the rest he believes the dead spot can be solved by mechanism yet to be invented. The equipment to solve it was invented many years ago but except for one individual, nobody else was clever enough to avail of the opportunity it presented. It is called a cleat. Do you believe everyone has their own unique pedalling style and attempting to alter it will result in reduced crank torque.

 

[FrankDay]

Thanks for your detailed response. I have a couple of follow-up questions

Having done close to a 1000 bike set ups over the years and having coached well over a 1000 riders in various capacities I have yet to see a rider have an issue with pedalling.

What do you use as your metric in which to tell whether a rider has a pedaling issue? In other words, what do you look for?

If we look at the injury literature the majority of injuries relate to poor seat height, improper cadence and too rapid a progression in training.

Could you give a reference to this injury literature? Exactly what constitutes a "poor seat height" or an "improper cadence"?

Set the saddle at a correct height.

What is the correct height? What is the scientific evidence that your "correct height" is "THE correct height"?

Used a cadence meter to ensure the cadence is not too high or low.

What is your definition of too high or too low? Do you do any testing to determine what the optimum cadence is for any individual? Is there any scientific study that backs up what you do?

Riders adapt to changes in cadence quite rapidly. Having coached track cycling they can pick up riding at a faster cadence within a session.

The only way I know of to rapidly change cadence in a track rider is to change gear size. But, if we bring cadence up by reducing gear size (or down by increasing gear size) we haven't, necessarily, increased power or speed (the two are related on a track bike aren't they?) so who cares if they adapt to the higher cadence easily if they are not also seeing increased speed? What exactly did you mean here?

Thanks in advance for your complete and forthright answers..

 

[Tapeworm]

From the day he first got involved with cycling to the present day, what has he done to improve technique. Like the rest he believes the dead spot can be solved by mechanism yet to be invented. The equipment to solve it was invented many years ago but except for one individual, nobody else was clever enough to avail of the opportunity it presented. It is called a cleat. Do you believe everyone has their own unique pedalling style and attempting to alter it will result in reduced crank torque.

Let's say there is a magical 100% perfect torque applied pedaling technique. How does this improve performance? In the research I've seen people seem to flake out in tests because of lactate levels, thermal stress, and/or energy supply (VO2max etc). I think unless you address those issues then I fail to see how performance can be improved. And that goes for any pedaliIng technique or training. I am yet to see someone say in a MAP test who towards the end are chatting away saying "I'm fine, but I just can't apply any more power to the pedals!". It seems to be ragged breathing with the occasional vomit. Until you take care of that I think pedaling technique can take a running jump.


Oldborn- Aussies may be science focused, but then we do punch well above our weight, especially for a nation that reviles cycling as a whole. Though as Fergie alluded to FORTUNATELY some Aussie talent chose NOT to listen to former pros and went to a very reputable (science based) coach instead and now has a nice jersey with a rainbow on it. Science, it works!

 

[FrankDay]

Let's say there is a magical 100% perfect torque applied pedaling technique. How does this improve performance? In the research I've seen people seem to flake out in tests because of lactate levels, thermal stress, and/or energy supply (VO2max etc). I think unless you address those issues then I fail to see how performance can be improved. And that goes for any pedaliIng technique or training. I am yet to see someone say in a MAP test who towards the end are chatting away saying "I'm fine, but I just can't apply any more power to the pedals!". It seems to be ragged breathing with the occasional vomit. Until you take care of that I think pedaling technique can take a running jump.

Here is the issue as I see it. Studies that try to look at different pedaling techniques have problems because the don't look at the results of TRAINING people to use a different techniques. If someone hasn't been adequately trained to use a different technique then when they are asked to do it they either won't do it very well or they will "flake out". That is how you address those issues if you want to study this issue, IMHO. If you can figure out how to train someone to pedal applying 100% perfect torque I think you will find their performance will improve because their efficiency will improve dramatically.

 

[Martin318is]

snip

Nice reply - not patronising at all!

Couple of things:
Firstly, I hold a BSc. in Aquatic Biology (research) and yes, I DO know how scientific theory works.
I also know the difference between scientific evidence and marketing.
and I agree that you are making a massive marketing claim and attempting to say that it is up to the rest of the world to prove it wrong.

Can I interest you in a powerbalance band? All the top athletes use them and a simple test shows that they immediately improve your balance and proprioreception.

seriously though, what I was talking about earlier is that your claims are marginally better than anecdotal. Your argument that you cannot carry out a true study to prove the claim is flawed. You could easily commission an independant study from any one of a multitude of reliable sources. You could even do it through the hands of a third party to maintain total independence.

Either way, you need to learn to pick your battles a bit. My post was sceptical yet lighthearted - your reply has done nothing to address the scepticism, but it has impacted the lightheartedness.

Personally, I just find it entertaining that you are continually appearing to claim that people should take your claims on your word while you at the same time deride anyone who suggests using a PM is a good idea - because they apparently are accepting unproved claims.....

I can see that you are going to just keep on swinging with the same arguments and that you are not going to see the inherent flaws in your argumentative style - so have fun.

 

[Martin318is]

FWIW Q rings are not used in the same orientation as Shimano BioPace

Yep I know - my point was simply that people said that a chainring like Biopace would be a good idea so everyone jumped on them (including some very high level Pros) and then a bit later all the reports of knee problems started coming in and people dropped the idea.
QRings are by all accounts a lot better thought out and the offset difference apparently reduces the injury risk.

The thing I was getting across is that a company made some claims and was supported by some big name pros and it turned out the idea wasn't a good one. It happens. Maybe it will happen for Q rings, maybe it won't. Maybe it will happen for PC, maybe it won't.

Will it happen for powermeters though? Doubt it - they are not an 'aid' to performance, they are a measurement tool to assist in training. given they actually measure a known quantity, we may one day move onto a better form of power measurement, but we won't drop powermeters in general.

 

[TexPat]

I read somewhere that Shimano has purchased the patent for Q rings...

 

[Martin318is]

I read somewhere that Shimano has purchased the patent for Q rings...

then buy yourself some spares now before Shimano drives the price up!

For the record, I have no problem with the idea that Q rings work for you (and others).

I only have a problem when a company publishes 'magic numbers' and expects everyone to accept them on faith. Similar to the problem with aero component manufacturers saying that handlbar X will "definitely save you 30seconds per hour". Its gibberish.

 

[Tapeworm]

Here is the issue as I see it. Studies that try to look at different pedaling techniques have problems because the don't look at the results of TRAINING people to use a different techniques. If someone hasn't been adequately trained to use a different technique then when they are asked to do it they either won't do it very well or they will "flake out". That is how you address those issues if you want to study this issue, IMHO. If you can figure out how to train someone to pedal applying 100% perfect torque I think you will find their performance will improve because their efficiency will improve dramatically.

How do the results of training people to use different techniques any different to any other testing protocol? Exactly how does changing pedaling mitigate the effects of thermal stress? How exactly can more efficient pedaling occur, would not there have to be inefficiencies? According to the work Jim Martin has done, there are none (beyond the effects of gravity). You "corrected" me in a separate thread in relation to leg weight and pedaling, now's the time to wheel out those formulae and demonstrate how the ineffecienies are caused and how they are corrected by an even application of torque (or by a modulated application of torque in the full circle).