correct way to pedal

[CoachFergie]

...that being said you can't get up the stairs without the hip flexors can you?

You may want to ask your wife if there is ANY way of getting up stairs without the hip flexors.

...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...

By the way you may want to consider that running upstairs or mountains is more than just simple unweighting of the leg as it rises up although most tramps I have done the sore muscles are the hip and knee extensors.

Most Gimmickcrank users report extreme hip flexor soreness using them so there is clearly some propulsive work being done on the upstroke and Bohm et al. (2008) has shown that this reduces the work done on the downstroke and every study performed on Gimmickcranks has shown this is not an adequate training stimulus for improved performance when many other forms of specific training stimulus have led to improvements in as little time as 2 weeks with as little as 12-18 mins of actual work time with trained athletes.

 

[blutto]

...question for coachfergie...in a comment about Peter Snell you mentioned that he had gotten a PhD and was working to prove that Lydiard's theories actually had a scientific validity...

...do you know how far he has gotten in that task?....curious as our group used Lydiard methods way back when and we would routinely attract scorn from the lab rats...so I sort of have a long standing 'dog in this fight'...

Cheers

blutto

 

[CoachFergie]

...question for coachfergie...in a comment about Peter Snell you mentioned that he had gotten a PhD and was working to prove that Lydiard's theories actually had a scientific validity...

...do you know how far he has gotten in that task?....curious as our group used Lydiard methods way back when and we would routinely attract scorn from the lab rats...so I sort of have a long standing 'dog in this fight'...

I think most of Snell's research is health based rather than performance. I am not aware if he has done any major studies comparing different types of training but probably more on the physiological responses and adaptations to various forms of exercise.

By the way you could jump up stairs without requiring hip flexors.

GREAT STUFF ALEX!!!

 

[FrankDay]

By the way you could jump up stairs without requiring hip flexors

You can? Could you tell us how? (Remember, stairs is plural, need to do more than one.)

 

[FrankDay]

You may want to ask your wife if there is ANY way of getting up stairs without the hip flexors.

Well, I would agree that it is possible to get up stairs using the arms to drag the body up, but it is not possible to climb "normally" without using the hip flexors, IMHO. If you disagree, please let us know how it is done.

By the way you may want to consider that running upstairs or mountains is more than just simple unweighting of the leg as it rises up although most tramps I have done the sore muscles are the hip and knee extensors.

Perhaps that is because you have gone way beyond the capability of those muscles because running upstairs requires a full body weight plus some of force compared to the 25% or less of body weight forces when riding a bike. Go beyond the normal capacity of any muscle and it tells you it doesn't like it. That is why we do training, to train muscles to accept new demands.
[/QUOTE]

 

[FrankDay]

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

I also am impressed. But like Blutto, I am afraid that your story has little to add to the topic of this thread. People can improve because of or in spite of their technique or some combination. You simply don't have enough data to help anyone decide which is which in your case.

 

[CoachFergie]

Not that a lack of data has held you back from making some pretty far fetched claims for peddaling technique or Gimmickcranks.

 

[CoachFergie]

You can? Could you tell us how? (Remember, stairs is plural, need to do more than one.)

Easy. When I did gymnastics we used plyometric training to go up 2-4 steps at a time.

 

[blutto]

I think most of Snell's research is health based rather than performance. I am not aware if he has done any major studies comparing different types of training but probably more on the physiological responses and adaptations to various forms of exercise.

By the way you could jump up stairs without requiring hip flexors.

GREAT STUFF ALEX!!!

...I asked the question because earlier in this thread you stated the following...

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.

...seems a bit of a disconnect between the first statement where you emphatically state things about the direction of Snell's work whereas in the attached post you state you merely think you know the direction of Snell's studies and by not mentioning Lydiard there seems to be a strong implication that in fact there is no research that is Lydiard specific...

Cheers

blutto

 

[FrankDay]

Easy. When I did gymnastics we used plyometric training to go up 2-4 steps at a time.

I was unaware that plyometrics "jumping" didn't use the HF's in any way. Perhaps you could point us all to a link that supports this point.

Even if for some reason you can a way to "climb" stairs without using the HF's I suspect that method would bear little resemblance to regular stair climbing or cycling.

 

[CoachFergie]

It reflects Snell's comments in his recent book "Peter Snell from Champion to Scientist" about his own research. His published work is more health and wellness focused.

I think Dr Coggan is in the same position with his personal passion for power meters and his change in professional focus from sport and cycling physiology to health and wellness physiology.

 

[blutto]

It reflects Snell's comments in his recent book "Peter Snell from Champion to Scientist" about his own research. His published work is more health and wellness focused.

I think Dr Coggan is in the same position with his personal passion for power meters and his change in professional focus from sport and cycling physiology to health and wellness physiology.

....so what happened to that lot of research to give Lydiard credibility you mentioned so emphatically in the earlier post?...is it ongoing?...has anything been published?...talked about?...inquiring minds need to know!

Cheers

blutto

 

[CoachFergie]

Guess you will need to read the last chapter of the book where Snell discuss's the physiological basis of the Lydiard method.

 

[blutto]

Guess you will need to read the last chapter of the book where Snell discuss's the physiological basis of the Lydiard method.

...so it seems you are saying there is no peer reviewed justification for the Lydiard system...

...surprising given how successful his methods have been...

Cheers

blutto

 

[CoachFergie]

No peer reviewed justification for perisation either.

 

[blutto]

No peer reviewed justification for perisation either.

...I find this mind boggling...is this system too hard to test ( as in a project too large for standard project funding to cover....or are the existing testing protocols not applicable...or???... )....or did the earlier controversies leave an echo effect that still makes Lydiard an untouchable...

Cheers

blutto

 

[CoachFergie]

Expect there would be a crap load of variables to account for.

 

[coapman]

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.

Congratulations, what was the distance and your time. How much time do you give per day to training?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I didn't mean for my n=1 experience to be taken as any kind of scientific information to add significantly to the debate, just a little tired of much of the crap going back and forth so thought I'd throw in a bit of a reality check.

My main point is people should focus on what really matters - doing the work, training hard and smart and if you know how - to use and focus on improving power output as it relates to your goals/targets (specificity). Pedaling technique is just such a tiny thing once you are positionally set up right and do enough of the right sort of work.

"would I be better still with both legs there?" I cannot answer the question but quite possibly.

As to whether amputation/cycling prosthetic gives an actual advantage, well I'm pretty sure it doesn't. The world 4km pursuit record for a C4 rider is ~4:40, a good 30-secs slower than the absolute world record.

I have been able to improve on my pre-amputation sustainable aerobic power, however I have lost ~200-250W off my sprint power. That's a weapon one does not like to lose.

"Would have I had the same level of determination and desire to improve as I have been able to demonstrate since my amputation?" Who knows? I'd like to think so but maybe this experience has hardened me up.

I love racing my bike. Even more now I think.

And just for kicks, today I backed up for my 4th race in a week - an 80-min circuit race in a top level A grade masters field here in Sydney (one of the bigger masters races on our calendar).

I won.

for the record:
Race NP of 315W (1:20)
60-min NP: 323W
30-min NP: 331W

How much do I train?
Well today my CTL is 97 TSS/day (although my FTP needs to be revised upwards now which means actual CTL is probably a little lower than that).

Over past 6 weeks I've averaged ~ 11 hours / week.

 

[blutto]

I didn't mean for my n=1 experience to be taken as any kind of scientific information to add significantly to the debate, just a little tired of much of the crap going back and forth so thought I'd throw in a bit of a reality check.

My main point is people should focus on what really matters - doing the work, training hard and smart and if you know how - to use and focus on improving power output as it relates to your goals/targets (specificity). Pedaling technique is just such a tiny thing once you are positionally set up right and do enough of the right sort of work.

"would I be better still with both legs there?" I cannot answer the question but quite possibly.

As to whether amputation/cycling prosthetic gives an actual advantage, well I'm pretty sure it doesn't. The world 4km pursuit record for a C4 rider is ~4:40, a good 30-secs slower than the absolute world record.

I have been able to improve on my pre-amputation sustainable aerobic power, however I have lost ~200-250W off my sprint power. That's a weapon one does not like to lose.

"Would have I had the same level of determination and desire to improve as I have been able to demonstrate since my amputation?" Who knows? I'd like to think so but maybe this experience has hardened me up.

I love racing my bike. Even more now I think.

And just for kicks, today I backed up for my 4th race in a week - an 80-min circuit race in a top level A grade masters field here in Sydney (one of the bigger masters races on our calendar).

I won.

for the record:
Race NP of 315W (1:20)
60-min NP: 323W
30-min NP: 331W

How much do I train?
Well today my CTL is 97 TSS/day (although my FTP needs to be revised upwards now which means actual CTL is probably a little lower than that).

Over past 6 weeks I've averaged ~ 11 hours / week.

...you monster you!...

...interesting that you state that you have lost the sprinting part of your game whereas the other parts are still very functional...so that the major predictor that science gloms onto to predict cycling success does not necessarily define the full extent of what one needs to be a complete cycling success... my injuries ( and yes I am also an n of 1 so the grain of salt rule applies ) resulted in a situation where the sprint is as good as ever but everything else suffered...and unfortunately for me you have to get to the finish line in good order to win in a sprint...

...and oddly enough one the major observable issues I have is with my hip flexors ( again, I am a fairly unique case, but from my perspective the wholesale dismissal of the role of hip flexors in effective application of power on a bike is an absolute load of rubbish... )...

...so it would seem that concentrating on the power metric above all else may not be the best way to define cycling success....

Cheers

blutto

 

[FrankDay]

I didn't mean for my n=1 experience to be taken as any kind of scientific information to add significantly to the debate, just a little tired of much of the crap going back and forth so thought I'd throw in a bit of a reality check.

My main point is people should focus on what really matters - doing the work, training hard and smart and if you know how - to use and focus on improving power output as it relates to your goals/targets (specificity). Pedaling technique is just such a tiny thing once you are positionally set up right and do enough of the right sort of work.

"would I be better still with both legs there?" I cannot answer the question but quite possibly.

As to whether amputation/cycling prosthetic gives an actual advantage, well I'm pretty sure it doesn't. The world 4km pursuit record for a C4 rider is ~4:40, a good 30-secs slower than the absolute world record.

I have been able to improve on my pre-amputation sustainable aerobic power, however I have lost ~200-250W off my sprint power. That's a weapon one does not like to lose.

"Would have I had the same level of determination and desire to improve as I have been able to demonstrate since my amputation?" Who knows? I'd like to think so but maybe this experience has hardened me up.

I love racing my bike. Even more now I think.

And just for kicks, today I backed up for my 4th race in a week - an 80-min circuit race in a top level A grade masters field here in Sydney (one of the bigger masters races on our calendar).

I won.

for the record:
Race NP of 315W (1:20)
60-min NP: 323W
30-min NP: 331W

How much do I train?
Well today my CTL is 97 TSS/day (although my FTP needs to be revised upwards now which means actual CTL is probably a little lower than that).

Over past 6 weeks I've averaged ~ 11 hours / week.

I agree with pretty much all you say except for the highlighted part and then I only disagree in part. Clearly the most important issue regarding how good someone is going to be is how much work they do. But to say that "technique" is such a "tiny thing" is to imply it is inconsequential. No one can point with any certainty exactly how important it is. And, there are different opinions as to what the potential is, which is why these threads exist. It is possible that the 8% efficiency improvement attained by Armstrong in the Coyle study all came about because of technique change. While 8% is a small increase compared to the big picture of what hard work got him but it is a huge change for a rider at his level, equivalent to what most attribute that PED's give a rider, and no rider at Armstrong's level would describe such a change as "tiny".

 

[JayKosta]

And of course it is possible (likely?) that one's technique DOES improve (or at least change) with refinements to position, and with more concentration and dedication to overall training - and with whatever is used to monitor 'results'.
I would be very skeptical if someone said their technique had not changed along with improvements to their skill and strength.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[CoachFergie]

I agree with pretty much all you say except for the highlighted part and then I only disagree in part. Clearly the most important issue regarding how good someone is going to be is how much work they do. But to say that "technique" is such a "tiny thing" is to imply it is inconsequential. No one can point with any certainty exactly how important it is. And, there are different opinions as to what the potential is, which is why these threads exist. It is possible that the 8% efficiency improvement attained by Armstrong in the Coyle study all came about because of technique change. While 8% is a small increase compared to the big picture of what hard work got him but it is a huge change for a rider at his level, equivalent to what most attribute that PED's give a rider, and no rider at Armstrong's level would describe such a change as "tiny".

The findings of Coyle's case study while interesting are hardly evidence of anything beyond a change in efficiency when performing tests at different times of the season. Sassi etal. (2008) showed that efficiency in professional cyclists does vary through the season. Any suggestion that pedalling technique was involved, if they actually happened or just coincided with a CTS marketing push, is pure speculation.

Coyle's conclusion that efficiency changing reflecting muscle myosin type changes after training 3-6 hours a day for years is far more plausible and evidence based.

 

[FrankDay]

The findings of Coyle's case study while interesting are hardly evidence of anything beyond a change in efficiency when performing tests at different times of the season. Sassi etal. (2008) showed that efficiency in professional cyclists does vary through the season. Any suggestion that pedalling technique was involved, if they actually happened or just coincided with a CTS marketing push, is pure speculation.

Coyle's conclusion that efficiency changing reflecting muscle myosin type changes after training 3-6 hours a day for years is far more plausible and evidence based.

Coyle's data showing the efficiency improvement is what it is. Any hypothesis to explain it is pure speculation since there was no data collected (pedal forces, muscle biopsy) to support or refute any hypothesis. Yet, the improvement occurred. Your opinion as to which mechanism can explain the improvement makes more sense is simply that, your opinion. Thanks for expressing it though.

 

[CoachFergie]

Coyle's data sowing the efficiency improvement is what it is. Any hypothesis to explain it is pure speculation since there was no data collected (pedal forces, muscle biopsy) to support or refute either hypothesis. Yet, the improvement occurred. Your opinion as to which mechanism can explain the improvement makes more sense is simply that, your opinion. Thanks for expressing it though.

Interesting that you claim it is evidence for improved pedalling technique when no evidence supports this where there is considerable evidence of changes in muscle mysoin type reflecting large periods of training. Also interesting that you ignore seasonal changes in efficiency evidence over Coyle's 4 tests of efficiency at different times in the year over a 7 year period.