correct way to pedal

[FrankDay]

Well walk me through the methodology and point out the gaps and then how the results don't support their conclusions.

Ugh, they simply don't show that they changed the pedaling technique for DG group riders when they were riding on regular cranks. Therefore, one cannot make any determination as to whether these results reflect an adequate stimulus for what they were trying to achieve and test in this group. All they can say is that for what they did 30 sessions was not enough to show any difference between groups. In fact, I could make the argument that if you are trying to train people to pedal in a new way and then test them, allowing them to pedal in the old way during testing, that they might actually test worse, since they haven't been training in the old way. If one wants to test if changing to a new technique is superior or inferior one must ensure that the change to the new technique actually occurs.

 

[FrankDay]

Pedalling was not the purpose of the study.

What would be the purpose of studying independent cranks, whose stated purpose is to change the way one pedals, if not to see the effect of such change.

The purpose was to test if a higher number of training sessions on a Gimmickcrank than previous studies had any effect on performance and physiological variables.

Here is the purpose according to the authors:

"Since previous results for decoupled two-legged cycling,
employing 10–18 training sessions, showed contradictory
results, the question of whether emphasized upward pulling
increases power output in highly trained competitive ath-
letes (>65 mL min¡1 kg¡1 oxygen uptake) when performed
with a higher number of training sessions (30 training ses-
sions) remains."

So, they increase the number of sessions and also increase the expertise of the participants. They don't address a single one of the controversies of the previous studies because they changed two variables.

 

[CoachFergie]

Ugh, they simply don't show that they changed the pedaling technique for DG group riders when they were riding on regular cranks.

Strawman. The purpose of the study wasn't to show a difference in pedalling. The study was testing the 30 x 1 hour training sessions using a GimmickCrank.

Therefore, one cannot make any determination as to whether these results reflect an adequate stimulus for what they were trying to achieve and test in this group.

Strawman. They were not testing for the level of training stimulus they were testing the differences between a group training 30 X 1 hours sessions on a Gimmickcrank and a group training on normal cranks.

All they can say is that for what they did 30 sessions was not enough to show any difference between groups. In fact, I could make the argument that if you are trying to train people to pedal in a new way and then test them, allowing them to pedal in the old way during testing, that they might actually test worse, since they haven't been training in the old way.

Moot seeing you can't use GimmickCranks in competitive cycling.

If one wants to test if changing to a new technique is superior or inferior one must ensure that the change to the new technique actually occurs.

That wasn't the purpose of the study. But Bohm etal (2008) and Fernandez-Pena (2009) have shown that this time frame is more than adequate for a change in pedalling technique to occur with a lower number of training sessions than Sperlich (2011).

Anywhoo, all ears on the errors methodological reporting in Sperlich and how the data from the study doesn't match the conclusions.

 

[CoachFergie]

What would be the purpose of studying independent cranks, whose stated purpose is to change the way one pedals, if not to see the effect of such change.

Perhaps to test a claim that riders using a GimmickCrank see and average 40% gain in performance from their use?

Here is the purpose according to the authors:

"Since previous results for decoupled two-legged cycling,
employing 10–18 training sessions, showed contradictory
results, the question of whether emphasized upward pulling
increases power output in highly trained competitive ath-
letes (>65 mL min¡1 kg¡1 oxygen uptake) when performed
with a higher number of training sessions (30 training ses-
sions) remains."

So, they increase the number of sessions and also increase the expertise of the participants. They don't address a single one of the controversies of the previous studies because they changed two variables.

They do this very well. The training was matched between the two groups and the only difference was the experimental group used a crank that forces the rider to focus on the upstroke (Bohm etal., 2008).

This is a study that assess a training stimulus not whether a change in pedalling occurs. That has been covered.

 

[FrankDay]

Moot seeing you can't use GimmickCranks in competitive cycling.

Huh? Sure you can. People do it all the time. They are only "illegal" from the UCI perspective on the track. USA cycling has determined them to be legal for everything but track.

That wasn't the purpose of the study. But Bohm etal (2008) and Fernandez-Pena (2009) have shown that this time frame is more than adequate for a change in pedalling technique to occur with a lower number of training sessions than Sperlich (2011).

But, those folks didn't show it to occur under the specific circumstances of the Sperlich group. You can do all the wishing it happened all you want. They simply didn't show that they had a sufficient stimulus to make the changes in this group. Our experience is that this is not a sufficient stimulus to make these changes for the testing they were doing in a group such as this:

"The 18 male highly trained competitive cyclists and triath-
letes (means § SD 24 § 3 years of age; height
179 § 11 cm tall; body mass 78 § 8 kg; peak oxygen
uptake: 65 § 9 mL min kg¡1), who participated were all
highly experienced in all applied laboratory exercise proce-
dures. The criteria for participation in this study were: (1)
completed >40 races in the past year, (2) >10 h of training
per week, and (3) a minimum training volume of 300 km
per week."

Here we have the case of athletes riding at least 10 hours per week being asked to modify their training for 5 hours per week to see what changes occurred to their pedaling style and the subsequent effects on their power. Why would anyone think <50% time stimulus for 6 weeks is enough to effect these changes? Dixon's study had the athletes do immersion training for 8 hours per week for 6 weeks and he documented improvements.

Anywhoo, all ears on the errors methodological reporting in Sperlich and how the data from the study doesn't match the conclusions.

Oh, their conclusions are correct. They didn't see any changes. It is just that their methods were insufficient (especially for this group) to document that training with the cranks as we suggest for the period of time we suggest is also ineffective.

 

[FrankDay]

Perhaps to test a claim that riders using a GimmickCrank see and average 40% gain in performance from their use?

If that were the purpose why would you perform a test that
1. lasted 6 weeks when the claim requires 6-9 months to see those benefits.
2. used a less than 50% of the time stimulus when the claim requires near 100% stimulus, and
3. use subjects that are substantially above average when the claim is for the average athlete.

This is a study that assess a training stimulus not whether a change in pedalling occurs. That has been covered.

And, all they showed was the stimulus was inadequate to see change for this group. BFD.

 

[CoachFergie]

Huh? Sure you can. People do it all the time. They are only "illegal" from the UCI perspective on the track. USA cycling has determined them to be legal for everything but track.

They are banned in UK racing. When will we see Nuyens or Pinotti racing on them if they are such an advantage?

But, those folks didn't show it to occur under the specific circumstances of the Sperlich group. You can do all the wishing it happened all you want. They simply didn't show that they had a sufficient stimulus to make the changes in this group.

If they had performed less work than Bohm etal. (2008) or Fernandez-Pena etal. (2009) then you could claim the stimulus wasn't adequate. The experimental group performed more work than both these studies using a GimmickCrank.

Our experience is that this is not a sufficient stimulus to make these changes for the testing they were doing in a group such as this:

Your experience verses the data from published research.

Here we have the case of athletes riding at least 10 hours per week being asked to modify their training for 5 hours per week to see what changes occurred to their pedaling style and the subsequent effects on their power. Why would anyone think <50% time stimulus for 6 weeks is enough to effect these changes? Dixon's study had the athletes do immersion training for 8 hours per week for 6 weeks and he documented improvements.

Where is the full write up for Dixon? Talk about insufficient information to draw any conclusions from.

I think the stimulus is adequate because Bohm etal. has shown a lesser stimulus is adequate to see a change in pedalling technique. This study also reflects the way that most people would use Gimmickcranks if they raced.

Oh, their conclusions are correct. They didn't see any changes. It is just that their methods were insufficient (especially for this group) to document that training with the cranks as we suggest for the period of time we suggest is also ineffective.

Your claims run counter to the evidence supplied.

 

[FrankDay]

They are banned in UK racing. When will we see Nuyens or Pinotti racing on them if they are such an advantage?

Probably never since they have team crank sponsors paying the big bucks.

If they had performed less work than Bohm etal. (2008) or Fernandez-Pena etal. (2009) then you could claim the stimulus wasn't adequate. The experimental group performed more work than both these studies using a GimmickCrank.

Unless they can prove the stimulus was adequate in this group then any implication the stimulus was adequate for this group remains conjecture. That simply is the way science works.

Where is the full write up for Dixon? Talk about insufficient information to draw any conclusions from.

Since it was presented at a meeting it is not available to me or anyone else. Perhaps you could ask him and he could provide more detail to you?

I think the stimulus is adequate because Bohm etal. has shown a lesser stimulus is adequate to see a change in pedalling technique. This study also reflects the way that most people would use Gimmickcranks if they raced.

What you think does not constitute proof. Your conjecture is especially troublesome since you have no personal experience with the product,

Your claims run counter to the evidence supplied.

If you say so…

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Your conjecture is especially troublesome since you have no personal experience with the product,

Another classic logical fallacy amongst the dozens you continually sprout for our amusement.

I have no personal experience with smoking or taking crack cocaine, yet it's pretty clear they're not good for my (or anyone's) health.

 

[FrankDay]

Another classic logical fallacy amongst the dozens you continually sprout for our amusement.

I have no personal experience with smoking or taking crack cocaine, yet it's pretty clear they're not good for my (or anyone's) health.

Here are some more for you:

"I don't have to keep sailing out to sea to know if I do I will fall off the edge of the earth."

"I don't care what your experience is, God tells me the earth is the center of the universe, that is good enough for me."

"Smoking is good for you, so believed the early cyclists, smoking during the tour to clear their lungs and help them perform better." (you've seen the picture)

and, on and on and on…

The real "logical fallacy" comes from blindly believing stuff for which there is no proof (the bible is not proof, what "everyone" does is not proof). In fact, what is truly amazing to me is by my bringing up the Kautz, et. al. paper to which no one here seems the least bit interested. Now, what is especially interesting is pretty much the same authors on the Coyle paper (that everyone thinks is the one that proves pushing harder is the key to going faster) are also authors on the Kautz paper. They are simply listed in different order. (COYLE, FELTNER, KAUTZ, HAMILTON, MONTAIN, BAYLOR, ABRAHAM, and PETREK vs KAUTZ, FELTNER, COYLE, AND BAYLOR). Now the Kautz paper found that elite cyclists have 3 different pedaling patterns from mashing to circles and the harder they pedal the more circular they all become. Why no here one wants to discuss this paper, which actually addresses the issue of individual pedaling style (Coyle averaged the styles of the individuals in the two groups) is beyond me.

 

[CoachFergie]

The only person claiming there is a better way to pedal just happens to be marketing a device that he claims will deliver this improvement. But then despite all the extraordinary claims made no real evidence has been delivered. And he wonders why no one takes him seriously.

To answer the OP, push down on one side then push down on the other, then repeat. That is the easy part of riding a bike. The tricky part is pushing for the distance you are racing or riding over as hard as you want to.

 

[oldborn]

And he wonders why no one takes him seriously.

Please, if you referred Coyle, Alex,and you as no one that s ok with me, no wonder Power meter industry are growing.
Put aside demagog speaking and please could you point us some of yours references as a world class coach

Fergie, Fergie you are speaking for the world again

 

[function]

Another classic logical fallacy amongst the dozens you continually sprout for our amusement.

I have no personal experience with smoking or taking crack cocaine, yet it's pretty clear they're not good for my (or anyone's) health.

Interesting rhetorical tautology. Did you notice yourself committing the same logical fallacy? Entertaining indeed.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Interesting rhetorical tautology. Did you notice yourself committing the same logical fallacy? Entertaining indeed.

"rhetorical tautology" is itself tautological. I suppose that's just plain old irony.

My point is that one need not necessarily require personal experience of something in order to form a sound judgment on it.

 

[FrankDay]

The only person claiming there is a better way to pedal …

LOL. Perhaps you should open both your eyes and your brain. If you haven't noticed, there is actually a debate on this subject here and elsewhere. Further, There is at least one other who has demonstrably made such a claim, Chris Carmichael in regards to Lance Armstrong. (link here)

 

[FrankDay]

"rhetorical tautology" is itself tautological. I suppose that's just plain old irony.

My point is that one need not necessarily require personal experience of something in order to form a sound judgment on it.

Perhaps you could provide some proof of the word sound in that statement. The internet itself provides the proof that people have no trouble making judgments regarding stuff they have no knowledge about. The only question is whether it is a sound judgement. Sound judgment usually requires adequate and accurate information combined with excellent analysis of that information. Do you have evidence you possess all of those requirements in this particular case?

 

[CoachFergie]

LOL. Perhaps you should open both your eyes and your brain. If you haven't noticed, there is actually a debate on this subject here and elsewhere. Further, There is at least one other who has demonstrably made such a claim, Chris Carmichael in regards to Lance Armstrong. (link here)

What did he demonstrate? Guess anyone can make claims but without real evidence they remain just claims. I claim that any time Lance spent training pedal technique detracted from time he could have spent training in a more specific fashion.

 

[FrankDay]

…Further, There is at least one other who has demonstrably made such a claim, Chris Carmichael in regards to Lance Armstrong.

What did he demonstrate? Guess anyone can make claims but without real evidence they remain just claims. I claim that any time Lance spent training pedal technique detracted from time he could have spent training in a more specific fashion.

Apparently you don't quite understand the definition of the term "demonstrably". It means capable of being demonstrated, provable, etc. So, Armstrong didn't demonstrate anything. I was demonstrating that I wasn't the only one claiming that pedaling technique matters, refuting your statement.

And, we are all glad to know that you think that if you had been in charge of Lance's training he would have been even better than he was, not wasting all that time on technique.

 

[CoachFergie]

All you have demonstrated is that Carmichael made a marketing claim. Perhaps he has a DVD to sell that targets pedaling technique or needed to fill an extra chapter in one of his books. Perhaps people like to beat up the topic because they have a product they market that makes unsubstantiated claims.

 

[FrankDay]

All you have demonstrated is that Carmichael made a marketing claim. Perhaps he has a DVD to sell that targets pedaling technique or needed to fill an extra chapter in one of his books. Perhaps people like to beat up the topic because they have a product they market that makes unsubstantiated claims.

Your statement was that I am the only person making such a claim. That statement is demonstrably wrong in about as high a profile way as is possible. What is even more interesting is that Armstrong is about the only elite athlete to have demonstrably improved cycling efficiency over time while an elite and that this efficiency improvement occurred, apparently, as he was working on this pedaling technique improvement.

But, according to you, Carmichael is making it all up because he has something to sell. So be it.

 

[CoachFergie]

What is even more interesting is that Armstrong is about the only elite athlete to have demonstrably improved cycling efficiency over time while an elite and that this efficiency improvement occurred, apparently, as he was working on this pedaling technique improvement.

Claimed he was working on pedalling technique. Didn't you make the claim that one can not "think" their pedalling technique better and this was the rationale for Gimmickcrank use to force the change in technique?

 

[FrankDay]

Claimed he was working on pedalling technique. Didn't you make the claim that one can not "think" their pedalling technique better and this was the rationale for Gimmickcrank use to force the change in technique?

No, I have not claimed it impossible but only extremely difficult and impossible for most. In our experience about 1 in 1,000 is able to do it. Greg LeMond, when he saw the product, told me "I spent years trying to learn to pedal this way and now people can learn to do it in months".

Further, we don't know how well Armstrong actually accomplished this transition because we don't have before and after pedal force data. All we know is his efficiency changed over time during the period Carmichael states he was working on this.

 

[CoachFergie]

No, I have not claimed it impossible but only extremely difficult and impossible for most.

In our experience about 1 in 1,000 is able to do it. Greg LeMond, when he saw the product, told me "I spent years trying to learn to pedal this way and now people can learn to do it in months".

I sure LeMond could see a dollar to be made and was very excited. None of that constitutes evidence that any attempt to try and change the way they pedalled was successful, or not, or that the attempt added or detracted from their performance.

Further, we don't know how well Armstrong actually accomplished this transition because we don't have before and after pedal force data. All we know is his efficiency changed over time during the period Carmichael states he was working on this.

And of course changes in type I muscle fibres and the volume and type of training that Armstrong performed (being the only rider in his era who could pick and choose how he raced and trained) had nothing to do with this change in efficiency. And that efficiency is only one part of the performance equation. As we know performance can improve while efficiency stays static.

 

[FrankDay]

I sure LeMond could see a dollar to be made and was very excited. None of that constitutes evidence that any attempt to try and change the way they pedalled was successful, or not, or that the attempt added or detracted from their performance.

So, it seems to me that it is your opinion that if anyone, doesn't matter who they are or what their background is, says or asserts anything that you don't agree with then the only possible reason for that disagreement is there is "a dollar to be made"?

And of course changes in type I muscle fibres and the volume and type of training that Armstrong performed (being the only rider in his era who could pick and choose how he raced and trained) had nothing to do with this change in efficiency. And that efficiency is only one part of the performance equation. As we know performance can improve while efficiency stays static.

Of course, such explanations are purely hypothetical and have never been shown to occur in any other rider at Armstrong's level. But, I guess, it is possible. However, until proven even possible (at Armstrong's level) it remains unproven speculation.

 

[CoachFergie]

So, it seems to me that it is your opinion that if anyone, doesn't matter who they are or what their background is, says or asserts anything that you don't agree with then the only possible reason for that disagreement is there is "a dollar to be made"?

I am happy to debate the presentation of data. You raised LeMond and Armstrong, I presume to support your argument, but this is evidence of nothing.

Of course, such explanations are purely hypothetical and have never been shown to occur in any other rider at Armstrong's level. But, I guess, it is possible. However, until proven even possible (at Armstrong's level) it remains unproven speculation.

And speculation is where pedalling technique sits till someone provides more than claims or celebrity endorsement.