correct way to pedal

[Martin318is]

Of course we get it to move, 2 year olds can get a tricycle to move (and Fergie can see no room for improvement in their technique). The question is whether what people are doing is optimal or not?

This thread would be a lot more interesting, not to mention useful if certain people stopped trotting out garbage like that little quote in bold above. Any person who has read this thread can see that it is an utter lie designed to attack someone in an effort to avoid the actual topic.

Lets all try to keep this at the intelligent discussion level rather than be childish.

 

[oldborn]

This thread would be a lot more interesting, not to mention useful if certain people stopped trotting out garbage like that little quote in bold above. Any person who has read this thread can see that it is an utter lie designed to attack someone in an effort to avoid the actual topic.

Lets all try to keep this at the intelligent discussion level rather than be childish.

100% agree with you mate, that Fergie is way off topic and childish. Finally someone with common sense point that out.

 

[FrankDay]

And hence at the same moment such a simple premises may exist you've seemed to exclude once again that the pedaling action is a system and have to quantify the amount of negative work being done. There is no free lunch, for a leg to be raised work needs to be done. Now whether this work is done by the opposing leg or by the raising leg itself still results in the same amount of work. IIRC the amount of negative torque seemed to be inline (usually) with the same amount that would be expected from gravity acting on the mass of the leg?

You are absolutely right. The work of making the pedals go around is the same regardless of the muscles doing that work. That is why I said that this simple change alone involved little thermodynamic improvement if the power were kept the same. Where the improvement comes from this change is now we have new muscles doing some of that work, which allows the old muscles, which had some of their pushing capability diverted from propelling the bicycle to getting the other leg up under the old system, to now put all of their capability towards moving the bicycle. It is this adding more muscle mass into the equation that allows for the increase in output, once the CV system adapts to the new demands placed upon it, which takes time.

Ah! I am not qualified, hence commentary is not welcome eh?
T'would seem hypocritical of you Frank, given your outstanding qualifications here, so you're a physicist, engineer and physiologist are you? And if you are you certainly seem lacking in detailed explaination of such things that, should you be such an expert would be simple to explain, yes?

No, comment is welcome. Or, questions, or whatever. But, if you believe something simply because someone told you so, rather than having an independent ability to judge for yourself, you ought to be open to alternative explanations of these issues by others equally qualified.

Given the gross inefficiencies mentioned above it would seem that measurable differences would be far easier to detect. How do you define "lesser" studies?

Well, we assert it takes quite a bit of intervention to see these changes, they simply don't occur overnight. Both the muscles must change and the unconscious coordination patterns must change. It is easier to make these changes if athletes are less well trained and have don't have as many years ingraining their current coordination pattern. So, if one really wanted to do a study seeing if there were really anything to this training tool I would think they would start with the easiest case, untrained cyclists using the tool exclusively for 6, 8, or 10 weeks or so compare to others riding conventional cranks (it need be long enough to ensure you have enough time to detect small differences). Then, you could say, I am pretty sure, that there really is something to the device or there is not. The two studies that have shown positive statistically significant effect has lesser trained athletes (Luttrell) or exclusive intervention (Dixon). Lesser studies involve using more highly trained subjects for part-time use for short periods of time. Most of these studies actually show differences between the groups but because they don't reach the P<.05 level of the "scientific certainty" standard they are forced to say they could detect no difference and everyone locks on that. That, IMHO, is not a defect in the product but a defect in the study design as the study wasn't robust enough. The most amazing defect in this thinking was that Sperlich study where their subjects all had to have completed more than 40 races in the last year, more than 10 hr of training a week, and a minimum training volume of 300km per week, hardly "average" in anyone's book. Anyone with half a brain would understand that improvement in this group would be more difficult to obtain and be more difficult to measure yet somehow they thought that 30 sessions (that constituted less than half their training time) for 6 weeks would be enough to demonstrate a difference in this group. Such a design shows a complete miscomprehension of what is necessary to effect the changes in athletes, especially athletes of this ilk, to a statistically significant certainty.

 

[oldborn]

You are absolutely right. The work of making the pedals go around is the same regardless of the muscles doing that work. That is why I said that this simple change alone involved little thermodynamic improvement if the power were kept the same. Where the improvement comes from this change is now we have new muscles doing some of that work, which allows the old muscles, which had some of their pushing capability diverted from propelling the bicycle to getting the other leg up under the old system, to now put all of their capability towards moving the bicycle. It is this adding more muscle mass into the equation that allows for the increase in output, once the CV system adapts to the new demands placed upon it, which takes time.

So main advantage of PC are not increasing power output, but increase capability of more muscles used and therefore less fatigue cos we recruit "new" muscles? And "old" muscles are doing less or equal work.
What is metabolism cost of such additional muscle work?
I mean if "old" muscles doing equal work and we simply recruit more "new" muscle in same range of motion is not we spent more energy?

Well, we assert it takes quite a bit of intervention to see these changes, they simply don't occur overnight. Both the muscles must change and the unconscious coordination patterns must change. It is easier to make these changes if athletes are less well trained and have don't have as many years ingraining their current coordination pattern. So, if one really wanted to do a study seeing if there were really anything to this training tool I would think they would start with the easiest case, untrained cyclists using the tool exclusively for 6, 8, or 10 weeks or so compare to others riding conventional cranks (it need be long enough to ensure you have enough time to detect small differences). Then, you could say, I am pretty sure, that there really is something to the device or there is not. The two studies that have shown positive statistically significant effect has lesser trained athletes (Luttrell) or exclusive intervention (Dixon). Lesser studies involve using more highly trained subjects for part-time use for short periods of time. Most of these studies actually show differences between the groups but because they don't reach the P<.05 level of the "scientific certainty" standard they are forced to say they could detect no difference and everyone locks on that

That, IMHO, is not a defect in the product but a defect in the study design as the study wasn't robust enough.

Did you paid them? Did this study really understand how and when improvements came?
If i am going to run a study of sexual life of Giant frog (Conraua goliath) and want to determine how many chicks male frog had, i would not count female frog egs allone or baby frog at the end.

The most amazing defect in this thinking was that Sperlich study where their subjects all had to have completed more than 40 races in the last year, more than 10 hr of training a week, and a minimum training volume of 300km per week, hardly "average" in anyone's book. Anyone with half a brain would understand that improvement in this group would be more difficult to obtain and be more difficult to measure yet somehow they thought that 30 sessions (that constituted less than half their training time) for 6 weeks would be enough to demonstrate a difference in this group. Such a design shows a complete miscomprehension of what is necessary to effect the changes in athletes, especially athletes of this ilk, to a statistically significant certainty.

Did you have any feedback from total novice or youngsters?

 

[CoachFergie]

You are absolutely right. The work of making the pedals go around is the same regardless of the muscles doing that work. That is why I said that this simple change alone involved little thermodynamic improvement if the power were kept the same. Where the improvement comes from this change is now we have new muscles doing some of that work, which allows the old muscles, which had some of their pushing capability diverted from propelling the bicycle to getting the other leg up under the old system, to now put all of their capability towards moving the bicycle. It is this adding more muscle mass into the equation that allows for the increase in output, once the CV system adapts to the new demands placed upon it, which takes time.

Yet no evidence has been provided that this is a better way of pedaling.

Well, we assert it takes quite a bit of intervention to see these changes, they simply don't occur overnight

.

Which ignores that motor learning and physiological adaptations occur rather rapidly.

Both the muscles must change and the unconscious coordination patterns must change. It is easier to make these changes if athletes are less well trained and have don't have as many years ingraining their current coordination pattern.

Unsupported by evidence.

So, if one really wanted to do a study seeing if there were really anything to this training tool I would think they would start with the easiest case, untrained cyclists using the tool exclusively for 6, 8, or 10 weeks or so compare to others riding conventional cranks (it need be long enough to ensure you have enough time to detect small differences). Then, you could say, I am pretty sure, that there really is something to the device or there is not. The two studies that have shown positive statistically significant effect has lesser trained athletes (Luttrell) or exclusive intervention (Dixon).

Statistical significance is just a test of potential error and the just using p <0.05 with looking at confidence intervals and effect sizes gives an incomplete picture.

Dixon wasn't a good study and Luttrell found such a small difference that could be explained by technical error of measurement alone and several studies since then have found improvements. Luttrell only improvement was in efficiency and that is not a performance measure.

Lesser studies involve using more highly trained subjects for part-time use for short periods of time. Most of these studies actually show differences between the groups but because they don't reach the P<.05 level of the "scientific certainty" standard they are forced to say they could detect no difference and everyone locks on that

scientific certainty

Some nice revisionist statistics there Frank.

That, IMHO, is not a defect in the product but a defect in the study design as the study wasn't robust enough. The most amazing defect in this thinking was that Sperlich study where their subjects all had to have completed more than 40 races in the last year, more than 10 hr of training a week, and a minimum training volume of 300km per week, hardly "average" in anyone's book.

That is every junior cyclist I coach and most U23 and Elite riders do a far higher volume of training. That is a very representative group to test trained athletes. Biggest issue in exercise physiology is testing untrained athletes. Ronnestad testing more highly trained riders and achieved big improvements compared to a well trained control. Sperlich was a well performed study, well reported and has pretty clear implications for those who think there is any better training stimulus from training with GimmickCranks.

Anyone with half a brain would understand that improvement in this group would be more difficult to obtain and be more difficult to measure yet somehow they thought that 30 sessions (that constituted less than half their training time) for 6 weeks would be enough to demonstrate a difference in this group.

Yet other studies have done this with considerable ease. Big improvements from 12-18 mins training in a 2 week period in trained athletes.

Such a design shows a complete miscomprehension of what is necessary to effect the changes in athletes, especially athletes of this ilk, to a statistically significant certainty.

Nice misdirection Frank. Love the contempt you show to us dummies here

 

[FrankDay]

This thread would be a lot more interesting, not to mention useful if certain people stopped trotting out garbage like that little quote in bold above. Any person who has read this thread can see that it is an utter lie designed to attack someone in an effort to avoid the actual topic.

From post #18 in this thread:
"In 19 years of coaching I have never seen a rider and thought "Man, should sort the way they pedal".

That includes teaching kids as young as 2 to pedal a tricycle or 2 wheeler with training wheels."

 

[CoachFergie]

And I stand by that comment. Plenty of bad positions, bad bodies, wrong cadence, bad training, bad pacing but never seen a rider who needed to improve how they apply force to the pedals. It's like strength never seen a rider limited by strength.

 

[FrankDay]

So main advantage of PC are not increasing power output, but increase capability of more muscles used and therefore less fatigue cos we recruit "new" muscles? And "old" muscles are doing less or equal work.
What is metabolism cost of such additional muscle work?
I mean if "old" muscles doing equal work and we simply recruit more "new" muscle in same range of motion is not we spent more energy?

Well, the ultimate result of all the changes that seem to occur is more power (or more efficiency, depending upon the needs of the rider). Once the new muscles have been trained the metabolic cost is pretty much the same, it would depend upon the mix of fast and ST fibers (this would change as the new muscle became better trained) and what percentage of these fibers each is using. I guess it might actually be that the total metabolic cost might go up in the beginning if the new muscle has a lot of FT fibers and one may not see the improvements in this area until adequate aerobic training has changed that fiber mix in the new muscles. As I have said, the changes necessary to see these improvements takes a lot of time and hard work.
Now, the interesting thing about this is even though it seems like all we are doing is substituting one muscle for another what it does is means the hardest working muscle (those pushing muscles) are further from their LT threshold. So, the rider can go back to pushing just as hard as before increasing the total metabolic load without exceeding the LT threshold. This ability comes slowly as the circulatory system adapts to the increased demand and eventually one sees an increase in VO2 max. It is why cross country skiers or rowers test higher on VO2 max than runners or cyclists. It has to do with how much muscle mass is being used and the adaptions to that use.

Did you paid them? Did this study really understand how and when improvements came?

Did I pay whom? Dixon and Luttrell? No. Some of these studies used a knock off product, SmartCranks. So, I can't comment on those studies. Of those we are associated with all we really do is supply them with product to facilitate the test.

Did you have any feedback from total novice or youngsters?

I did one interview with a customer at an IM several years ago. She told me that before PC's her power on the bike was on the order of 50-60 watts. Sounds pretty novice to me. After PowerCranks her power was about 150 watts. A 200% increase. (so much for our 40% claim). She had a coach so it is clear she would have improved some without them but it was her coach that put her on them so he clearly felt there was an additional advantage to her using this tool in addition to all the other stuff she was doing.

 

[FrankDay]

And I stand by that comment.

You have never seen a rider at any level that needed to work on pedaling technique. And, for once I do truly believe you. Of course to "see" something usually requires "looking" for it.

 

[CoachFergie]

Yep, Working with other coaches, exercise physiologists, biomechanists, psychologists, Doctors (good ones), reading journal articles, getting out to races observing riders in action, testing riders in the lab and in the field, I guess I must have a pretty closed mind

 

[coapman]

No he can't go back to pushing just as hard as before. Once again I ask the question, what are these new muscles being trained to do during the nine months of hard work. No training of muscles is required for the unweighting technique. If they are being trained for pulling up, it's a waste of training time. When these weaker muscles are used to pull up for minimal crank torque they need resistance and they get this resistance from the downstroke of the other leg and this results in a weaker downstroke. Because stronger muscles are used in the downstroke, torque lost in the downstroke will always be greater than the minimal torque applied by the weaker muscles in the upstroke. Unweighting will increase the torque of a masher, pulling up will decrease it.

 

[FrankDay]

No he can't go back to pushing just as hard as before.

Why not?

Once again I ask the question, what are these new muscles being trained to do during the nine months of hard work. No training of muscles is required for the unweighting technique.

Of course training is required if you are asking them to do more than they are used to, especially if you are asking them to do this "more work" 5-6,000 times an hour for several hours

If they are being trained for pulling up, it's a waste of training time.

Really? Your evidence?

When these weaker muscles are used to pull up for minimal crank torque they need resistance and they get this resistance from the downstroke of the other leg and this results in a weaker downstroke.

I would submit that the resistance of gravity is sufficient. Beyond that, it is not the resistance of the other leg (when riding PowerCranks it is impossible for the other leg to offer resistance) but the resistance of the mass of the bicycle and rider through the chain that offers the resistance.

Because stronger muscles are used in the downstroke, torque lost in the downstroke will always be greater than the minimal torque applied by the weaker muscles in the upstroke. Unweighting will increase the torque of a masher, pulling up will decrease it.

That is a nonsensical statement. Pulling up a little more to unweight increases torque but pulling up a little more still, to apply positive pressure, decreases it?

 

[coapman]

Why not?


Of course training is required if you are asking them to do more than they are used to, especially if you are asking them to do this "more work" 5-6,000 times an hour for several hours
Really? Your evidence?

I would submit that the resistance of gravity is sufficient. Beyond that, it is not the resistance of the other leg (when riding PowerCranks it is impossible for the other leg to offer resistance) but the resistance of the mass of the bicycle and rider through the chain that offers the resistance.
That is a nonsensical statement. Pulling up a little more to unweight increases torque but pulling up a little more still, to apply positive pressure, decreases it?

Obviously you don't know how to unweight the rising pedal, no pulling up (not even the slightest) is involved. Resistance for pulling up comes from the downward moving pedal in the same way as when doing one legged pedaling, pulling up resistance comes from whatever is being used to support the idling leg.

 

[FrankDay]

Obviously you don't know how to unweight the rising pedal, no pulling up (not even the slightest) is involved. Resistance for pulling up comes from the downward moving pedal in the same way as when doing one legged pedaling, pulling up resistance comes from whatever is being used to support the idling leg.

Obviously you don't have a clue how PowerCranks work. Getting the crank up involves just overcoming the weight of the crank. Resistance cannot come from the opposite crank. Whatever happens on PC's can happen on regular cranks if the rider keeps the cranks at 180º. If one is pulling up then counter resistance needs to come from somewhere (saddle, handlebar, opposite crank), but that is not the question.

 

[coapman]

Obviously you don't have a clue how PowerCranks work. Getting the crank up involves just overcoming the weight of the crank. Resistance cannot come from the opposite crank. Whatever happens on PC's can happen on regular cranks if the rider keeps the cranks at 180º. If one is pulling up then counter resistance needs to come from somewhere (saddle, handlebar, opposite crank), but that is not the question.

It is the question, this counter resistance is the resistance to which I have been referring and it does come from the opposite crank, reducing downward torque in the process. The fact that it takes nine months of hard training to overcome the weight of the rising crank proves how weak and almost useless these pulling up muscles are.

 

[FrankDay]

It is the question, this counter resistance is the resistance to which I have been referring and it does come from the opposite crank, reducing downward torque in the process. The fact that it takes nine months of hard training to overcome the weight of the rising crank proves how weak and almost useless these pulling up muscles are.

Huh? I just got a call today from a customer who was a 4 month customer. He is seeing big speed improvements but was concerned about his endurance. Last week he completed a 50 mile mountainous ride (on the PowerCranks) but was concerned about how toasted he was after this effort and he had a 100 mile mountainous effort schedule this weekend which he wanted to do on the PowerCranks. I suggested a couple of small changes (reducing the cadence some and coasting on the downhills when possible) and I predicted he would have no trouble on this very hilly 100 miler. I guess we will see but it doesn't take most users 9 months of hard training to just "overcome the weight of the rising crank" unless they aren't particularly smart about the transition.

 

[CoachFergie]

Obviously you don't have a clue how PowerCranks work. Getting the crank up involves just overcoming the weight of the crank.

Ha ha yeah of course, which is why people report hip flexor soreness using them and you market them to runners as a means of training the psoas. Bohm etal (2008) showed that increased power on the upstroke led to reduced power on the downstroke.

 

[FrankDay]

Ha ha yeah of course, which is why people report hip flexor soreness using them and you market them to runners as a means of training the psoas. Bohm etal (2008) showed that increased power on the upstroke led to reduced power on the downstroke.

LOL. Of course, before one can overcome the weight of the crank they must first overcome the weight of the leg. I would have thought that was pretty much obvious to everyone by now but I forgot you are still here.

 

[CoachFergie]

And anyone who has walked up a flight of stairs will know that lifting the weight of the legs with the hip flexors is hardly likely to cause muscle soreness.

 

[FrankDay]

And anyone who has walked up a flight of stairs will know that lifting the weight of the legs with the hip flexors is hardly likely to cause muscle soreness.

Few walk up stairs that are 14 inches high at the rate of 10,000 steps per hour (5,000 each leg) or so. Try that for an hour or two and tell me how your hip flexors feel.

 

[coapman]

Few walk up stairs that are 14 inches high at the rate of 10,000 steps per hour (5,000 each leg) or so. Try that for an hour or two and tell me how your hip flexors feel.

While the pedal rises 14 inches, some of that 14 is accounted for by the effortless swinging back of foot as pedal rises.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Meanwhile, with my "crappy" pedaling technique and prosthetic leg I just banged out an all time PB 30-min average power during the UCI World Cup TT yesterday.

 

[blutto]

And anyone who has walked up a flight of stairs will know that lifting the weight of the legs with the hip flexors is hardly likely to cause muscle soreness.

...that being said you can't get up the stairs without the hip flexors can you?...and by the way if you do enough stairs they do hurt, just ask runners who do those crazy stair-well runs up to the top of impossibly tall buildings such as the CN Tower...that little info of info came from someone who actually did one of those runs...anecdotal to be sure but there it is...

Cheers

blutto

 

[blutto]

Meanwhile, with my "crappy" pedaling technique and prosthetic leg I just banged out an all time PB 30-min average power during the UCI World Cup TT yesterday.

...I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you...you are an inspirational story if ever there was one in cycling...

...I would also like to take a moment to play devil's advocate with your story and the way it has been used in this thread...in doing so I am also going to put on the hat of a doctrinaire lover of the scientific method...

...what I find interesting about your case is that you have, despite your injuries, not only not lost any performance but have actually increased your performance...and this fact is then used, at least in this thread, to prove that pedaling technique doesn't matter....but the study you present ( and yes it has an n of 1 but if you are using it to prove something I will assume that by your standards it is valid and will proceed to draw my own conclusions from it ) also shows that ( and please be patient as I'm invoking the devil's advocate clause ) if you follow the path of science, as in single cause analysis, that losing a lower leg could actually make you faster....

....so my question is how could that be?...are the lower extremities so unimportant to cycling that they are actually really really not needed?...and if so, would replacing both with super light-weight prosthetics yield a performance gain thru weight reduction....or does introducing a prosthetic somehow change power production so that power production actually goes up?...and if so, would it then make sense to go full monty if you really really wanted to go faster....

...now, devil's advocate aside, I believe that faced with a terrible situation, you worked as never before to overcome your disabilty....and gawd that is simply amazing...but to draw the conclusions you draw from your case in terms of pedalling technique...well ...I'm not so comfortable about that...sorry...

...the best of luck with your future cycling...you are an beacon ( truth be know I also suffered a significant lower limb injury and it scuppered my better days...and for whatever reason I have never recovered to the extent you have...but you know your example has kinda whupped me upside the head and I think I'm going to give it another shot...thanks!... )

...and by the way most of my post injury regression I will attribute to a resultant bad pedalling technique...but I am willing to be proved wrong...afterall my study also only has an n of 1...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Polyarmour]

Meanwhile, with my "crappy" pedaling technique and prosthetic leg I just banged out an all time PB 30-min average power during the UCI World Cup TT yesterday.

Like Blutto I find your story inspirational too Alex. Congratulations.