correct way to pedal

[FrankDay]

...basically riding a bike outside of a lab involves initiating the action, stopping it, changing effort, changing direction, avoiding an obstacle, etc doesn't it?...and then there is racing a bike...

...that being said brain power may have been the wrong term to use...Hogg uses the term Central Nervous System ( CNS-brain and stem )....and yes he is selling something but then so are you....but in both cases that doesn't necessarily diminish everything that you folks might say...

Cheers

blutto

Everyone of us is trying to sell something, if not a product, a point of view. That, in and of itself, should not diminish what is said but might influence the how much skepticism one might have regarding what is said. Many here are plenty skeptical of what I say simply because I have a product related to these topics. But, I also enjoy seeing what others say about these topics because I might actually learn something. Has actually happened although can't think of a single thing I have learned of any use from Fergies rants.

Anyhow, while the ordinary pedaling coordination involves the CNS (which includes the brain and spinal cord) Hogg refers to ignoring the background chatter, as I remember. But, there is little or no background chatter to ignore because the coordinate actions involved in pedaling, walking, etc, never reach the conscious centers. His idea of trying to make the rider aware of something to change it is useful but his description of what is happening is very simplistic and, IMHO, technically wrong. The CNS has an amazing organization that allows us to do ordinary things without "thinking" to free up the "higher" centers to do other, presumably, more important things associated with survival (or racing). Many other things in the higher centers happen without thinking also (vision, hearing, emotion, for instance) but most repetitive motor activities involve the lower "spinal reflexes" only. When we actually try to think about doing these activities the ability to do them usually deteriorates.

 

[CoachFergie]

I think we have all learned that muddy waters are the natural environment of the snake oil salesman and it's clear the contempt you have for people here thinking if you repeat the lie enough times people will buy it.

A review of the performance literature shows clear gains from specific training and time in the saddle. Speculation about equipment and technique remains unproven.

Spend your time and money wisely folks!

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Hogg is trying to sell an arch support system.

Hogg fits bicycles to people and does a very good job of it. Very few end up using mid-foot/arch cleat style of pedal positioning. It's not something he specifically seeks to sell to all and sundry, but rather offers the alternative for those that would like to experiment with it.

Steve is a great experimenter and likes to think outside the box. But his bike fitting is very sound and this is fundamental to good performance, reduced risk of injury and being able to sustain longer/harder time in the saddle.

For those that know of my client that broke the masters hour record, he has used both the mid-foot and regular cleat placements as fitted by Steve.

We experienced no change in sustainable power output or performance between them and so I really don't care which he uses - the one he's most comfy with at the time and if there is any potential for aerodynamic advantage for either, we'll take it.

 

[FrankDay]

Hogg fits bicycles to people and does a very good job of it. Very few end up using mid-foot/arch cleat style of pedal positioning. It's not something he specifically seeks to sell to all and sundry, but rather offers the alternative for those that would like to experiment with it.

Steve is a great experimenter and likes to think outside the box. But his bike fitting is very sound and this is fundamental to good performance, reduced risk of injury and being able to sustain longer/harder time in the saddle.

For those that know of my client that broke the masters hour record, he has used both the mid-foot and regular cleat placements as fitted by Steve.

We experienced no change in sustainable power output or performance between them and so I really don't care which he uses - the one he's most comfy with at the time and if there is any potential for aerodynamic advantage for either, we'll take it.

I was simply commenting on a link someone gave. The link was talking about a system of his and gave some justification for its use. I commented on his justification since that was the main reason for the link.

It is pretty unusual that you will ever find anything for sale that doesn't include a justification as to why a buyer might want it. Let's try this on for size: "I have this thing for sale but I can't think of a single reason why you might want to purchase it. Regardless, I still offer it for sale."

Actually, I can think of one product that did that, HeadOn. "HeadOn's notoriety came in part due to its advertisements on cable and daytime programming on broadcast television which consisted of using only the tagline "HeadOn. Apply directly to the forehead", stated three times in succession, accompanied by a video of a model using the product without ever directly stating the product's purpose." Even though the product did have a purported purpose they probably wanted to avoid stating in advertising it to keep out of legal trouble for making unproven health related claims. Haven't seen those ads recently.

3…2…1…waiting for Fergie

 

[CoachFergie]

I am sure that the majority of products have some sort of justification but when the product clearly doesn't meet those claims and the creator keeps repeating those lies it all becomes a joke.

 

[coapman]

Well, my point exactly when it comes to changing pedaling style. It simply is not possible to expect the rider to be able to change unless there is adequate awareness of what he/she is doing. That is the point of the PowerCranks, to give the rider the awareness of when they are doing it correctly (according to us, anyhow) and when they are not. Then there is a real chance of changing. Without adequate awareness of what one is actually doing it is not possible to change.

To learn an extra pedaling technique you need a clear objective with knowledge of what's involved and where the possible benefits might arise. In my case the objective was to pedal in such a way that made possible the combination of arm and leg muscles for increased power output. A week was all that was required to make this change and the apparent instant benefits from both the medical and performance aspects made the learning and perfecting well worthwhile. This new pedaling technique does not interfere with the already perfected mashing and circular styles. Contrary to what you believe, TT pedaling requires continuous total mental concentration if maximal sustainable torque application is to be maintained. How do you describe the perfected PC technique of a rider when he returns to standard cranks, what is a rider changing to. Powercranks problem is there is no clear objective of what's involved or where the benefits if any are supposed to accrue. Without any set objectives, all the PC'er believes he is doing is blindly and painfully rectifying the fault in his new crank system, something he will not have to worry about when he returns to standard cranks. How could this make a permanent change to his technique. If I can change to a completely different style in a week, why do PC'ers need many months. If there is a power increase by pedaling PC style, it should be obvious after a week of exclusive use, if not , why continue::: You have two types of pedaling smoothness, the negative circular or PC pedaling type which involves the reduction of peak torque, this reduction is caused by the application of minimal torque in the upstroke. The positive type which concentrates on increasing torque in the weaker torque areas of only the 180deg. power stoke to as close as possible to peak torque, this ensures total concentration at all times to greatest cumulative torque application during each revolution of the chainwheel.. The TT linear style gives this positive smooth pedaling.

 

[acoggan]

Because it was published it became 'good science.' The guy spread not just bad science, but awful science.

His awful science is being used as a legitimate argument in this thread. Why am I the only person that seems to understand this?

Probably because you seem unable to properly and objectively evaluate the overall quality of someone's work, choosing instead to let one paper completely color your perspective.

The consequences were some very UN-systematic data collection tied together with musings were passed off as the practice of good scientific method. The next guy can stop pretending and abandon all logic and scientific method in the pursuit of securing grants at a University, the supposed paragon of logic and scientific method. We know this is happening in Big Pharma already.

You really don't see how the scientific method in this field has been corrupted by his work? Really?

<sarcasm mode on>

Yeah, you're right, Coyle's single paper was a complete game-changer for science...we might as well all just give up and go home now.

<sarcasm mode off>

 

[FrankDay]

To learn an extra pedaling technique you need a clear objective with knowledge of what's involved and where the possible benefits might arise. In my case the objective was to pedal in such a way that made possible the combination of arm and leg muscles for increased power output. A week was all that was required to make this change and the apparent instant benefits from both the medical and performance aspects made the learning and perfecting well worthwhile.

Only problem with your statement (well, not the only problem but the biggest problem) is you have yet to show us what your technique really is let alone that you were able to make this transformation in only a week.

This new pedaling technique does not interfere with the already perfected mashing and circular styles.

Perfected mashing or circular style? I certainly don't know what these styles look like when "perfected". Isn't that the point of this thread, to try to hash this out.

Contrary to what you believe, TT pedaling requires continuous total mental concentration if maximal sustainable torque application is to be maintained.

If such really required such total concentration I think we would see riders riding off course regularly. I would submit that the amount of time most riders are thinking about their pedaling during a race is less than 1% of the time.

How do you describe the perfected PC technique of a rider when he returns to standard cranks, what is a rider changing to.

Well, when the rider has perfected the PC technique when he returns to regular cranks I would expect his form to remain the same. That is the entire idea.

Powercranks problem is there is no clear objective of what's involved or where the benefits if any are supposed to accrue. Without any set objectives, all the PC'er believes he is doing is blindly and painfully rectifying the fault in his new crank system, something he will not have to worry about when he returns to standard cranks. How could this make a permanent change to his technique.

Sure, there is a clear objective. The minimum obvious objective is to learn to ride without applying any negative force around the entire circle all the time without thinking about it. There are other objectives that we think enhance outcome (like improving the top and bottom forces) but these can't really be worked on until that minimum objective is met.

If I can change to a completely different style in a week, why do PC'ers need many months.

First, you have not demonstrated that you were able to change to a completely different style in a week. You haven't even demonstrated that you ride with a completely different style now. Second, in a week most PC'ers have no trouble riding PC's. What they do have trouble with is endurance. Doing it for 5 hours. Doing it for 5 hours at power. Doing it in a race position. And, maintaning the coordination when the body senses that the cranks will allow them to revert to something more familiar. If one were to be able to apply total concentration to pedaling while riding a bike it should not take that long. I believe most people do not do that when riding nor do most people want to do that so, in that case, it takes much longer.

If there is a power increase by pedaling PC style, it should be obvious after a week of exclusive use, if not , why continue::: You have two types of pedaling smoothness, the negative circular or PC pedaling type which involves the reduction of peak torque, this reduction is caused by the application of minimal torque in the upstroke.

Actually, the PC style does not necessarily "involve the reduction of peak torque". The reduction in torque is seen in that graph only because it compared the torques at the same power. Nothing about the PC's prevent the rider from pushing just as hard as before once the other muscles have been brought up to speed. And, that improvement in smoothness does not occur because of the reduction of the negative forces on the backstroke. If that was all that occurred there would be no improvement in smoothness because the right and left cranks are connected so these two change would cancel each other. The improvement in smoothness occurs because there are also changes across the top and bottom, probably because the rider has to anticipate the pedal direction changes rather than letting the pedal drag the foot around. Smoothness could be described as the ratio of the average torque or minimal torque (two different ways of looking at it) with the peak torque when the two cranks are added together. The best way to do that is to improve the lowest forces which are, of course, usually referred to as the "dead" spot.

The positive type which concentrates on increasing torque in the weaker torque areas of only the 180deg. power stoke to as close as possible to peak torque, this ensures total concentration at all times to greatest cumulative torque application during each revolution of the chainwheel.. The TT linear style gives this positive smooth pedaling.

As noted above, the PC's also increase the forces naturally across the top and bottom. Now, I believe the top and the bottom are the areas of greatest potential improvement and more can be done here (beyond what is naturally done by the PC"s) and have actually developed some drills to enhance this further.

 

[FrankDay]

Probably because you seem unable to properly and objectively evaluate the overall quality of someone's work, choosing instead to let one paper completely color your perspective.

Not only is he unable to objectively evaluate the quality of someone's work on his own, he is letting the analysis of a single paper by a journalist with an axe to grind to determine his perspective.

<sarcasm mode on>

Yeah, you're right, Coyle's single paper was a complete game-changer for science...we might as well all just give up and go home now.

<sarcasm mode off>

<sarcasm mode on>
No, it was the decision of those editors in that second rate journal to publish that paper that has changed science forever.
<sarcasm mode off>

Geeze, Coggan and I cannot even agree about this. Will we ever agree about anything.

 

[coapman]

Only problem with your statement (well, not the only problem but the biggest problem) is you have yet to show us what your technique really is let alone that you were able to make this transformation in only a week.
Perfected mashing or circular style? I certainly don't know what these styles look like when "perfected". Isn't that the point of this thread, to try to hash this out.

If such really required such total concentration I think we would see riders riding off course regularly. I would submit that the amount of time most riders are thinking about their pedaling during a race is less than 1% of the time.
Well, when the rider has perfected the PC technique when he returns to regular cranks I would expect his form to remain the same. That is the entire idea.
Sure, there is a clear objective. The minimum obvious objective is to learn to ride without applying any negative force around the entire circle all the time without thinking about it. There are other objectives that we think enhance outcome (like improving the top and bottom forces) but these can't really be worked on until that minimum objective is met.
First, you have not demonstrated that you were able to change to a completely different style in a week. You haven't even demonstrated that you ride with a completely different style now. Second, in a week most PC'ers have no trouble riding PC's. What they do have trouble with is endurance. Doing it for 5 hours. Doing it for 5 hours at power. Doing it in a race position. And, maintaning the coordination when the body senses that the cranks will allow them to revert to something more familiar. If one were to be able to apply total concentration to pedaling while riding a bike it should not take that long. I believe most people do not do that when riding nor do most people want to do that so, in that case, it takes much longer.

Actually, the PC style does not necessarily "involve the reduction of peak torque". The reduction in torque is seen in that graph only because it compared the torques at the same power. Nothing about the PC's prevent the rider from pushing just as hard as before once the other muscles have been brought up to speed. And, that improvement in smoothness does not occur because of the reduction of the negative forces on the backstroke. If that was all that occurred there would be no improvement in smoothness because the right and left cranks are connected so these two change would cancel each other. The improvement in smoothness occurs because there are also changes across the top and bottom, probably because the rider has to anticipate the pedal direction changes rather than letting the pedal drag the foot around. Smoothness could be described as the ratio of the average torque or minimal torque (two different ways of looking at it) with the peak torque when the two cranks are added together. The best way to do that is to improve the lowest forces which are, of course, usually referred to as the "dead" spot.


As noted above, the PC's also increase the forces naturally across the top and bottom. Now, I believe the top and the bottom are the areas of greatest potential improvement and more can be done here (beyond what is naturally done by the PC"s) and have actually developed some drills to enhance this further.

Pedaling time spent attempting to apply minimal torque across the top and bottom is valuable time wasted and contributes to that reduction in peak crank torque around 3 o'c. If within a week, riders have no problem using their PC's, the obvious solution then to verification of this 40% power increase claim would be to test power output before and after this week of PC'ing for any percentage increase. The removal of negative forces around the pedaling circle is far removed from a 40 % power increase. The application of minimal torque during the upstroke results in a reduction in 3 o'c peak torque and any additional torque gained around 12, 6, and 9 o'c cannot compensate for that loss at 3 o'c. Coyle's research confirmed this. So where in the pedalling circle does this overall possible 40 % power increase occur. Perfecting the mashing technique involves nothing more than pressing down and correctly timed unweighting. You are correct, the top and bottom are areas of greatest potential improvement, that is why my technique applies close to maximal torque around 12 and having done that, the bottom is no longer a dead spot area.

 

[FrankDay]

If within a week, riders have no problem using their PC's, the obvious solution then to verification of this 40% power increase claim would be to test power output before and after this week of PC'ing for any percentage increase.

spoken like Fergie and the rest of the critics who have no experience with the product. If we could see the 40% increase in a week we would tell people that. We do not. Such improvements take time, typically 6 to 9 months.

… So where in the pedalling circle does this overall possible 40 % power increase occur.

As I stated earlier, I believe there have to be several changes occur in order to see that 40% increase. The changes that I believe occur that can account for the increases seen by many include:

1. Training more muscle mass (by training currently underutilized muscles), allowing more muscle mass to be used when pedaling even if it is spread out more.
2. Training more muscle mass eventually leads to an increase in VO2max
3. Better aerobic balancing of the trained muscles such that the weakest link is closer in aerobic capability to the strongest link. This should allow the rider to bring their LT closer to their VO2max.
4. Eliminating power losses due to negative forces on the upstroke.
5. Increasing forces across the top and bottom.
(4 and 5 together mean that pedal forces are increased over about 2/3 of the pedal circle)
6. Anticipating directional changes results in more tangential application of the applied forces, getting more bang for the same energy expenditure.

edit: there is one more thing. I think that many tend to ride at too high a cadence for maximum efficiency. The PC's help many riders reduce their cadence to one that is closer to optimal for them.

I believe all of these occur from training with the PC's. Each can offer a small to medium improvement (depending upon what you do now) but when they are all put together the potential is quite large.

 

[CoachFergie]

spoken like Fergie and the rest of the critics who have no experience with the product. If we could see the 40% increase in a week we would tell people that. We do not. Such improvements take time, typically 6 to 9 months.

Firstly do we need to experience smoking to know that it is bad for us?

You have not provided any evidence of these 40% gains you see in 6-9 months.

As I stated earlier, I believe there have to be several changes occur in order to see that 40% increase. The changes that I believe occur that can account for the increases seen by many include:

1. Training more muscle mass (by training currently underutilized muscles), allowing more muscle mass to be used when pedaling even if it is spread out more.

And the point of training muscle mass unrelated to how you pedal in racing is?

Bearing in mind that you can not use Gimmickcranks in competition and Fernandez-Pena 2009 showed that muscle recruitment changed back to normal patterns rapidly as soon as riders went from GCs to normal cranks.

2. Training more muscle mass eventually leads to an increase in VO2max

A non specific response. Any cyclist going for a run or performing biceps curls while on the windtrainer will increase VO2max.

3. Better aerobic balancing of the trained muscles such that the weakest link is closer in aerobic capability to the strongest link. This should allow the rider to bring their LT closer to their VO2max.

Nonsense.

4. Eliminating power losses due to negative forces on the upstroke.

Bohm 2008 showed that any gains on the upstroke come at a cost on the downstroke.

5. Increasing forces across the top and bottom.
(4 and 5 together mean that pedal forces are increased over about 2/3 of the pedal circle)

And any study on Gimmicranks ever published has shown this "stimulus" has no impact on performance.

6. Anticipating directional changes results in more tangential application of the applied forces, getting more bang for the same energy expenditure.

Anticipation? I thought pedaling was a spinal reflex. Or is that the spinal reflex loop that includes the cerebellum

edit: there is one more thing. I think that many tend to ride at too high a cadence for maximum efficiency. The PC's help many riders reduce their cadence to one that is closer to optimal for them.

More nonsense.

I believe all of these occur from training with the PC's. Each can offer a small to medium improvement (depending upon what you do now) but when they are all put together the potential is quite large.

So evidence in 3,2,1.....

 

[coapman]

spoken like Fergie and the rest of the critics who have no experience with the product. If we could see the 40% increase in a week we would tell people that. We do not. Such improvements take time, typically 6 to 9 months.
As I stated earlier, I believe there have to be several changes occur in order to see that 40% increase. The changes that I believe occur that can account for the increases seen by many include:

1. Training more muscle mass (by training currently underutilized muscles), allowing more muscle mass to be used when pedaling even if it is spread out more.
2. Training more muscle mass eventually leads to an increase in VO2max
3. Better aerobic balancing of the trained muscles such that the weakest link is closer in aerobic capability to the strongest link. This should allow the rider to bring their LT closer to their VO2max.
4. Eliminating power losses due to negative forces on the upstroke.
5. Increasing forces across the top and bottom.
(4 and 5 together mean that pedal forces are increased over about 2/3 of the pedal circle)
6. Anticipating directional changes results in more tangential application of the applied forces, getting more bang for the same energy expenditure.

edit: there is one more thing. I think that many tend to ride at too high a cadence for maximum efficiency. The PC's help many riders reduce their cadence to one that is closer to optimal for them.

I believe all of these occur from training with the PC's. Each can offer a small to medium improvement (depending upon what you do now) but when they are all put together the potential is quite large.

how do the extra muscles used by a PC'er and his pedaling objectives differ from those of a rider who uses the perfected circular style, remembering that circular will always be weaker than mashing.

 

[FrankDay]

how do the extra muscles used by a PC'er and his pedaling objectives differ from those of a rider who uses the perfected circular style, remembering that circular will always be weaker than mashing.

I guess it depends upon what you mean by circular. By my definition of circular pedaling (simply applying some forward force around the entire circle, no requirement that it be equal around the entire circle) there is nothing to prevent the rider from pushing just as hard as before. So, the extra muscles are putting their energy into increasing the potential energy of the upward moving leg, allowing the pushing muscles to put all their effort into driving the bicycle instead of having some of it diverted to push the other leg up.

Edit: I did find this study that shows that riding independent cranks does not require one to push less. In fact, the highest pushing force in this study came using independent cranks.

EFFECTS OF INDEPENDENT CRANK ARMS AND SLOPE ON PEDALING MECHANICS
Saori Hanaki-Martin, David R. Mullinaeux and Stacy M. Underwood
Department of Kinesiology and Health Promotion, University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
Abstract
The aim of this study was to identify the effects of independent crank arms and slope on pedaling kinetics during an anaerobic maximal-effort cycling bout. After undergoing 6 weeks of training with independent crank arms, each of 6 male cyclists completed four 30 s Wingate tests under different cycling conditions of: fixed crank arms on level surface; fixed crank arms on a slope; independent crank arms on level, and; independent crank arms on a slope. Two-dimensional pedal forces recorded using instrumented pedals were used to derive pedaling effectiveness, work distribution and power output. The effects of the crank arms and the slope were minimal, but highly effective and consistent pedaling force (90% effectiveness, 70% work and effective force of 155±6 N) was observed between 45-135° of the crank cycle in all experimental conditions.

One might rightfully ask why I claim that it takes a long time to train people to pedal the PC way on regular cranks when this study showed no reversion after only 6 weeks of training 3X/week. I think that is because the testing only lasted 30s during a Wingate test and people can actually think about what they are doing for this period of time and aerobic fatigue is not really an issue since this is an anerobic test. Anyhow, it is unfortunate that they did not test them before the study to see how they pedaled before and how the PC's changed what they did. I doubt this group actually pedaled with zero negative forces before starting on the PC's.

 

[CoachFergie]

I guess it depends upon what you mean by circular. By my definition of circular pedaling (simply applying some forward force around the entire circle, no requirement that it be equal around the entire circle) there is nothing to prevent the rider from pushing just as hard as before.

Leirdal and Ettema (2011 in EJAP) and Leirdal and Ettema (2011 in MSSE) both found that force effectiveness (FE) was not associated with efficiency. We knew this from Coyle (1991) where he found cat 1 TT riders had a lower FE than cat 2 TT riders despite a higher power output.

So, the extra muscles are putting their energy into increasing the potential energy of the upward moving leg, allowing the pushing muscles to put all their effort into driving the bicycle instead of having some of it diverted to push the other leg up.

This is irrelevant as the same amount of work is being performed. The notion that sharing the workload among extra muscles being more efficient has yet to be proved (every study performed using Gimmickcranks) and the results from Fernandez-Pena 2009 showing that when Gimmickcrank users go back to normal cranks they rapidly return to mashing making the the training adaptations to a Gimmickcrank non specific and a waste of time.

It's not the money back guarantee you should be impressed with it's the three months of specific training you will have missed expecting a gimmick to make up for a sound training programme aimed at meeting the specific demands of competition.

 

[FrankDay]

Leirdal and Ettema (2011 in EJAP) and Leirdal and Ettema (2011 in MSSE) both found that force effectiveness (FE) was not associated with efficiency. We knew this from Coyle (1991) where he found cat 1 TT riders had a lower FE than cat 2 TT riders despite a higher power output.

Some changes may, of course, increase power without affecting efficiency. We simply do not know because there is hardly any good work in this area. It is unlikely one can discern the importance of these different effects by analyzing the differences found in a bunch of random riders. There are simply too many variables that have not been controlled.

This is irrelevant as the same amount of work is being performed. The notion that sharing the workload among extra muscles being more efficient has yet to be proved (every study performed using Gimmickcranks) and the results from Fernandez-Pena 2009 showing that when Gimmickcrank users go back to normal cranks they rapidly return to mashing making the the training adaptations to a Gimmickcrank non specific and a waste of time.

Actually, the same amount of work is not being performed. If additional muscles do the work on the backstroke that used to come from diverting energy put in on the opposite crank then all of the energy put in on the opposite crank is now put into driving the bicycle because none must be diverted to raise the opposite leg and the potential energy increase put in on the upstroke is returned on the downstroke. The bicycle sees more work being done.

As I pointed out above, another study showed that for 30s efforts there is no reversion between independent and regular cranks. One study simply doesn't prove anything and to even try to draw any conclusions you must look at the context.

 

[CoachFergie]

Some changes may, of course, increase power without affecting efficiency. We simply do not know because there is hardly any good work in this area. It is unlikely one can discern the importance of these different effects by analyzing the differences found in a bunch of random riders. There are simply too many variables that have not been controlled.

We know that power can increase without an increase in efficiency or VO2max. There is plenty of good work in this area.

Uncontrollable variables are what makes me laugh every time you claim a rider as a Gimmickcranker like Nuyens after Flanders. How many variables went into that result? More than the 40% average improvement all Gimmickcrank users see

Actually, the same amount of work is not being performed. If additional muscles do the work on the backstroke that used to come from diverting energy put in on the opposite crank then all of the energy put in on the opposite crank is now put into driving the bicycle because none must be diverted to raise the opposite leg. The bicycle sees more work being done.

300 watts is 300 watts whether you put in 80% on the downstroke and 20% on the upstroke or you put all 100% in on the downstroke.

As I pointed out above, another study showed that for 30s efforts there is no reversion between independent and regular cranks. One study simply doesn't prove anything and to even try to draw any conclusions you must look at the context.

Reading through that now. I assume this study was never published.

 

[FrankDay]

We know that power can increase with an increase in efficiency or VO2max. There is plenty of good work in this area.

Wasn't it you awhile back who was trying to tell me that efficiency played no role in performance? I believe that was when you were trying to discredit the Luttrell study.

Uncontrollable variables are what makes me laugh every time you claim a rider as a Gimmickcranker like Nuyens after Flanders. How many variables went into that result? More than the 40% average improvement all Gimmickcrank users see

Do you have a problem with when an athlete who uses our product has a good result we tell people about it?

300 watts is 300 watts whether you put in 80% on the downstroke and 20% on the upstroke or you put all 100% in on the downstroke.

Ugh, you miss the point. If one adds more muscle mass into the equation without changing anything else then the wattage should go up.

Reading through that now. I assume this study was never published.

It was presented at International Society of Biomechanics in Sports Annual Meeting in 2009.

 

[coapman]

how do the extra muscles used by a PC'er and his pedaling objectives differ from those of a rider who uses the perfected circular style, remembering that circular will always be weaker than mashing.

My question remains unanswered ?

 

[FrankDay]

My question remains unanswered ?

I guess so. I tried and I did the best job I could. What didn't you understand?

 

[CoachFergie]

Wasn't it you awhile back who was trying to tell me that efficiency played no role in performance? I believe that was when you were trying to discredit the Luttrell study.

Doh, that was meant to say without. Hmmm, four days of typing on a smart phone and I do that back on my normal keyboard.

Ugh, you miss the point. If one adds more muscle mass into the equation without changing anything else then the wattage should go up.

This is clearly not a training stimulus for cycling performance as no studies have shown an improvement from Gimmickcrank use in any performance indicators like wattage.

It was presented at International Society of Biomechanics in Sports Annual Meeting in 2009.

http://w4.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/viewFile/3226/3028

Will await it's publication in peer review press.

PowerCranks, (2006). Science: Some science behind PowerCranks and cycling improvements.

Does little to establish the articles credibility.

 

[FrankDay]

Doh, that was meant to say without. Hmmm, four days of typing on a smart phone and I do that back on my normal keyboard.

Your point? Do you believe efficiency important to cycling performance or not? If a rider were able to improve his efficiency while maintaining his other metrics (e.g., Armstrong) would you expect his performance to improve or not.

Will await it's publication in peer review press.

Why? For what purpose? Now that you have the entire article in hand and posted a link for everyone else aren't you able to read it for yourself and draw your own conclusions? Not every study manages to get published in Nature. In fact, most don't get published at all, especially those showing no difference (unless, perhaps, one is showing no difference between radical mastectomy and lumpectomy with radiation) Non-publication doesn't necessarily diminish the work if you have access to what was done. In fact, many times unpublished results or work are referenced in published papers as "personal communication".

 

[CoachFergie]

Your point? Do you believe efficiency important to cycling performance or not? If a rider were able to improve his efficiency while maintaining his other metrics (e.g., Armstrong) would you expect his performance to improve or not.

Doesn't have to, Evans performances improved between 2000 to 2005 with no change in efficiency.

 

[FrankDay]

Doesn't have to, Evans performances improved between 2000 to 2005 with no change in efficiency.

You are avoiding the question. We all know people can improve without improving efficiency, that is the norm. The question was about what if one improved efficiency. Take the instance of Armstrong. Coyle demonstrated improved efficiency over several years. If all other metrics were the same would you expect him to be able to perform better as a result of that change or not? That should be a simple yes or no answer.

 

[JayKosta]

Originally Posted by coapman

how do the extra muscles used by a PC'er and his pedaling objectives differ from those of a rider who uses the perfected circular style, remembering that circular will always be weaker than mashing.

==============================================

I don't understand what you mean by 'perfected circular style' -

If it means 'equal torque during the full rotation of the crank' then I doubt that it is actually used. And my understanding is that is NOT the objective of PC.

And YES, 'mashing' can be very effective - as long as there is not significant 'negative torque' produced during the non-mashing portion of crank rotation.
But, I'm not convinced that mashing is the best technique.

And again YES, improving the overall strength and fitness of the cyclist is likely to give more power gain than making small improvements in pedaling technique.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA