correct way to pedal

Page 24 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
CoachFergie said:
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.
I didn't say Coyle is evidence for improved pedaling technique. I simply said improved pedaling technique could possibly explain the change. Luttrell has shown attempting to change pedaling technique can change gross efficiency in cyclists but we have no data to show that Armstrong actually did change his technique even though we do know he was working on changing his technique during this time. Others have shown exercise can change muscle fiber mix and gross efficiency but it has never been shown to occur in an athlete of Armstrong's ability and we have no data to show he actually changed his muscle fiber mix that could explain the documented gross efficiency change.

Regarding the seasonal change in efficiency I might point out that this was ignored by both Coyle and the editors who accepted the article for publication and ignored by pretty much everyone who has ever commented on this paper. My guess is this is an unlikely explanation, especially since the changes weren't random but followed a steady increase over time pattern.
 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
13,480
FrankDay said:
I didn't say Coyle is evidence for improved pedaling technique. I simply said improved pedaling technique could possibly explain the change. Luttrell has shown attempting to change pedaling technique can change gross efficiency in cyclists

A change well within the technical error of measurement and every subsequent study has found no change in efficiency.

but we have no data to show that Armstrong actually did change his technique even though we do know he was working on changing his technique during this time.

We do?
Others have shown exercise can change muscle fiber mix and gross efficiency but it has never been shown to occur in an athlete of Armstrong's ability and we have no data to show he actually changed his muscle fiber mix that could explain the documented gross efficiency change.

Just as there is no evidence that he tried to change his pedalling technique. There is considerable evidence that he rode his bike for 3-6 hours a day over a period of several years.

Regarding the seasonal change in efficiency I might point out that this was ignored by both Coyle and the editors who accepted the article for publication and ignored by pretty much everyone who has ever commented on this paper. My guess is this is an unlikely explanation, especially since the changes weren't random but followed a steady increase over time pattern.

Guess you didn't read the letters to the editor of Journal of Applied Physiology from Schumacher etal. and Martin etal.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
CoachFergie said:
A change well within the technical error of measurement and every subsequent study has found no change in efficiency.
Huh? A difference that reaches statistical significance is something substantially different than a change "within the technical error of measurement". Afterall, Luttrell's change was 10%. Armstrong saw 8%. I didn't see you making that argument about Coyle's data. Further, we now have LEIRDAL which showed cycling efficiency corresponds to dead center forces that we know, again, Armstrong was working on.
 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
13,480
FrankDay said:
Huh? A difference that reaches statistical significance is something substantially different than a change "within the technical error of measurement". Afterall, Luttrell's change was 10%. Armstrong saw 8%. I didn't see you making that argument about Coyle's data. Further, we now have LEIRDAL which showed cycling efficiency corresponds to dead center forces that we know, again, Armstrong was working on.

Then Leirdal's follow up study found no association between dead centre and efficiency.
Leirdal and Ettema (2011) said:
Contrary to Leirdal and Ettema (2010), we do not find a signifcant relationship between DC and GE. Thus, the present study provides no indication for the notion that technique affects energy consumption.

Nice brushing over the controversy of the Coyle paper on Armstrong.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-and-armstrong-research-errors.html
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-armstrong-research-installment-2.html
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-continued.html

We know Armstrong focused on pedalling because of what Carmichael wrote on a blog. That is a evidence of nothing.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
CoachFergie said:
Then Leirdal's follow up study found no association between dead centre and efficiency.
Well then, there are conflicting papers with conflicting data. Must be a first for science.
Perhaps you missed my active participation in the discussion of those papers.
We know Armstrong focused on pedalling because of what Carmichael wrote on a blog. That is a evidence of nothing.
If you say so. My guess is though, if one needed to admit that blog article into evidence in a trial to support an argument that the judge would allow it. So, in that case it would be evidence of something that a jury would have to decide as to what it might mean or not mean as to whatever case was before them.
 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
13,480
FrankDay said:
Well then, there are conflicting papers with conflicting data. Must be a first for science.

Two authors admit that their current study contradicts their previous study.
Perhaps you missed my active participation in the discussion of those papers.

No, I saw it, very amusing.

If you say so. My guess is though, if one needed to admit that blog article into evidence in a trial to support an argument that the judge would allow it. So, in that case it would be evidence of something that a jury would have to decide as to what it might mean or not mean as to whatever case was before them.

:D
 
Mar 10, 2009
2,973
5
11,485
blutto said:
...so it would seem that concentrating on the power metric above all else may not be the best way to define cycling success...
I don't think any has ever said it was. But power sure is the best physiological determinant of success.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Alex Simmons/RST said:
I don't think any has ever said it was. But power sure is the best physiological determinant of success.

..glad you caught that because that was sort of what I had in mind to say but then botched the translation from brain to keyboard...though what I find interesting in our cases is that while power is indeed critical it varies in certain key parts of our game...for you sprints, for me time trials ( and I am assuming that for both of us these variations are post injury...it certainly was for me... )...our post injury technique may be the mechanism behind these variations...as in, our motors are still good but the power application is compromised in certain situations...

Cheers

blutto
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Alex Simmons/RST said:
… But power sure is the best physiological determinant of success.

I would say that routinely collecting or occasionally testing for power is the easiest way to to measure one of the physiological attributes important to cycling. But, since many, many sports (track and field, running, XC skiing, etc.) have demands similar to cycling and these coaches/athletes seem able to successfully measure these same physiological attributes using alternative methods it certainly is not clear power is the best way.
 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
13,480
FrankDay said:
I would say that routinely collecting or occasionally testing for power is the easiest way to to measure one of the physiological attributes important to cycling. But, since many, many sports (track and field, running, XC skiing, etc.) have demands similar to cycling and these coaches/athletes seem able to successfully measure these same physiological attributes using alternative methods it certainly is not clear power is the best way.

What alternative methods are these? We know that HR, lactate or respiration are poor metrics compared to power. I would say HR is easiest way to measure a physiological attribute but knowing what is causing HR is where power sprints ahead in usefulness. Most coaches from other sports would kill for the validity and reliability of data that a cyclists can gather with a power meter.
 

oldborn

BANNED
May 14, 2010
1,115
0
0
Alex Simmons/RST said:
But power sure is the best physiological determinant of success.

Hmmm, PM is only told us how much force in period of time we can produce, nothing more, nothing else.
I do not see anything related with physiological determinant.

If you think of physiological determination like before VO2Max, LT, and now W/kg to win TDF or Giro, when is best time to measure it??
As 14, 18, or 24 years old rider?

When we gonna see determination for success?? Are we going to wait that magical number to apear? I think IMHO not for sure.

Do you really think that someone with 7w/kg must win TDF, or it is related with something else?

Furthemore it is useful for TT, i can not see anything related with road or criterium races, too many variables (draft per example), just too many.

For 2000 euro it is for sure "most" sofisticated cycling/welness industrie ripoff;)
 

oldborn

BANNED
May 14, 2010
1,115
0
0
triatlonvt106.jpg
[/url][/IMG]

This picture was taken before two weeks on Cross Triathlon Nationals, i missed 3rd place in my age group (which told us how strong competition was:D) cos MTB section (chain Schleck) I am hardly waiting to become veteran 1.

As you can see i am most strongest rider on that nasty hill (250m, 15%, mud, gravel, not horse but donkey cat) what mine pedal or force aplication can told us?

On that hill i just focus on mine force application through out whole circle, especially on 11 from 1 and 5 to 7, it was hard and i was successful.

Maybe just pushing down harder can be improved?? IMHO who knows?

No i do not have data, but those folks behind are really suffering:D
 
Mar 10, 2009
2,973
5
11,485
FrankDay said:
I would say that routinely collecting or occasionally testing for power is the easiest way to to measure one of the physiological attributes important to cycling. But, since many, many sports (track and field, running, XC skiing, etc.) have demands similar to cycling and these coaches/athletes seem able to successfully measure these same physiological attributes using alternative methods it certainly is not clear power is the best way.
Who said anything about measuring it? You are producing power whether or not you have a power meter on your bike. W/kg is the best physiological determinant of success in endurance cycling.

There are of course other success factors in endurance cycling (skills, strategy, pacing, tactics, teamwork, etc etc). I am only referring to what matters most, physiologically.
 
Mar 10, 2009
2,973
5
11,485
Here's a pic of some bloke with a prosthetic leg winning the sprint from a break he rode across to from an 80 strong A-grade field on the weekend. Must be pedaling OK.

817_368A5x92AlexSimmons.jpg
 

oldborn

BANNED
May 14, 2010
1,115
0
0
Yeah, elbow, shoulder, head and you are history mate:D
Does you are learning those things in Oz?
Anyway nice picture.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Alex Simmons/RST said:
Who said anything about measuring it? You are producing power whether or not you have a power meter on your bike. W/kg is the best physiological determinant of success in endurance cycling.

There are of course other success factors in endurance cycling (skills, strategy, pacing, tactics, teamwork, etc etc). I am only referring to what matters most, physiologically.
Huh? If one is trying to "predict" success, how does one know what W/kg is without measuring both watts and kgs?

What were you really trying to say?
 
Jul 20, 2010
744
2
9,980
oldborn said:
triatlonvt106.jpg
[/url][/IMG]

This picture was taken before two weeks on Cross Triathlon Nationals, i missed 3rd place in my age group (which told us how strong competition was:D) cos MTB section (chain Schleck) I am hardly waiting to become veteran 1.

As you can see i am most strongest rider on that nasty hill (250m, 15%, mud, gravel, not horse but donkey cat) what mine pedal or force aplication can told us?

On that hill i just focus on mine force application through out whole circle, especially on 11 from 1 and 5 to 7, it was hard and i was successful.

Maybe just pushing down harder can be improved?? IMHO who knows?

No i do not have data, but those folks behind are really suffering:D

If you had a power meter you would know. You could test and monitor various pedalling techniques over time.

By the way I can see now why you like those weights programs, but if you lost 10kgs of upper body muscle you might have been 1st in your age group. ;)
 

oldborn

BANNED
May 14, 2010
1,115
0
0
Polyarmour said:
If you had a power meter you would know. You could test and monitor various pedalling techniques over time.

By the way I can see now why you like those weights programs, but if you lost 10kgs of upper body muscle you might have been 1st in your age group. ;)

Que Sera, Sera mate;)
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
blutto said:
...interesting look at pedalling technique...interesting at the very least because it actually addresses the subject....

http://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/blog/2011/05/pedalling-technique-what-is-best/

Cheers

blutto
Well, that is an interesting take on technique as far as this thread is concerned as he seems to think the main differences in technique stem from what the ankle does where we have been focusing on pedal forces. This increases the number of potential different techniques out there substantially.

I do take great exception to one point he makes. He writes:

"A problem that is almost endemic in our chair bound society is tight hip flexors, particularly the psoas. Hip flexors as a group lift the femur (upper leg bone) if the torso is fixed in position or help bend the torso forward if the legs are fixed in position. One of the hip flexors, the psoas, are the muscles in humans that are least adapted to an upright position. In quadruped mammals, the angle between femur and pelvis never exceeds 100 degrees, whereas in humans it approaches 180 degrees when standing upright. So our psoas needs to be able to stretch out enough to allow that. Unless you stretch properly and regularly it is unlikely that you will have flexible psoas because like most others, you spent 10+ years sitting at school; you sit on a bus, train or in a car to travel to work; you sit down to work and to eat; you sit down at home to relax and so on ad infinitum – , you get the picture; all of which cramp the psoas. This predilection for sitting means that most people attain adult hood with tight psoas (and other hip flexors and it only gets worse from there on unless a quality stretching regime improves the situation. The psoas is working in any position a human can maintain except lying down. As a species we sit too much causing us to develop short, tight psoas. Okay, nice little anatomy digression so far but where is it going?

Because the psoas originates from the 5 lumbar vertebrae (and discs) and the lowest thoracic vertebra and crosses the hip on its way to attaching high on the inner femur, it is absolutely not the muscle group that the great majority need to stress or tighten more. Tight psoas not only potentially load the lower back but also neurologicaly inhibit the gluteals, the largest most powerful muscle group we have and the one most responsible for extending the hip (pushing the upper leg down). Translation = don't pull up forcefully for extended periods if you want a pain free back. and glutes that work properly. It is natural to pull up forcefully when off the seat and occasionally for brief periods of acceleration in a big gear while seated. I repeat natural. It is not natural to pull up forcefully for long periods when seated. There are people who 'naturally' pedal like this and in almost all cases I have seen, this is a compensatory response to a woeful seat position, cleat position or both. I check psoas tonicity of every fit client under load. In my view, the psoas should be moving because the hip is moving but should not necessarily be active in steady state pedaling. The huge majority of fit clients exhibit a lot of psoas activity even on the down stroke! Now the psoas does play a part in supporting and bracing the lumbar spine but over a long time I've only seen this happen this down stroke tonicity in riders who had poor functional stability and poor motor patterns,which in turn are a result of poor posture and poor range of motion in hips and lower back. In other words, the majority. And no, I'm not kidding. "

This is so much BS and makes no functional biomechanical sense.

I would agree that "tight" HF's is a problem but not for the reasons he states. What does it mean that a muscle is "tight"? What it means is it doesn't relax well. What could cause this? It takes energy for a muscle to relax. The reason muscles become tight is not because they are used too much but because they are used too little and are deconditioned and do not have the neural pathways and muscle energy systems in place for efficient relaxation. So, during training not only are we training our muscles to contract better we are also training them to relax better because for efficient functioning, when the agonist muscle contracts the antagonist muscle must relax, and both must do this with good efficiency.

And, just because the psoas is attached to the spine is not a reason to think that using it would cause back pain. There is simply zero evidence to support such a conclusion. However, there is plenty of evidence that strengthening and balancing the core muscles (which the psoas is because it is attached to the spine) reduces back pain. And, this is supported by a ton of evidence from my customers who report that as they become better balanced their back pain that they have had for years when riding GOES AWAY. Telling people who have back pain that they should avoid using the psoas muscle is giving them advice that, IMHO, has a high likelihood of making them worse.

It also makes no sense to me that he says "I check psoas tonicity of every fit client under load." I can't imagine how he does this. The psoas is so deep it is pretty much impossible to palpate from the skin and I doubt he is doing rectal exams while his clients are riding the bike. Even university studies that look at muscles during cycling "ignore" the psoas because it is almost impossible to evaluate. How he does it during a bicycle fit makes no sense to me.

He is right that a tight psoas will inhibit the gluteals but the solution to this is not avoiding training them but, rather, training the muscle more.

Anyhow, other than the above, I agree with pretty much everything else he says except he really doesn't address any of the issues being discussed in this thread regarding pedal force application technique and timing.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
FrankDay said:
It takes energy for a muscle to relax. The reason muscles become tight is not because they are used too much but because they are used too little and are deconditioned and do not have the neural pathways and muscle energy systems in place for efficient relaxation. So, during training not only are we training our muscles to contract better we are also training them to relax better because for efficient functioning
I have been thinking about this a bit since I posted it and thought I would provide an extra "teaching moment" and give an example that I think most can understand to illustrate why I say that when we are training muscles to contract better we are also training them to relax better.

The example is the most important muscle in the body, the heart. When we improve our abilities the heart must adapt to pump more blood to the exercising muscles. How does it do this? Well, the amount of blood the body pumps is determined by two things, HR and what is called "stroke volume", the amount of blood pumped with each beat. HR can't and doesn't change much when we exercise so the only way to increase cardiac output is to increase the stroke volume. Stroke volume depends upon "contractility" (how hard it contracts) and the starting volume when it begins contraction. Contractility usually doesn't change unless there is an outside influence, like being chased by a saber tooth tiger so, under normal circumstances starting volume is increased. There are only two ways we can do this, increase the filling pressure, to stretch the heart more, or relax the heart better. The latter way is the preferred way and is what the body does. So, while the heart is also learning to contract better as it adapts to exercise, part of that adaption that enhances the adaption is the ability to relax better.

This improved relaxation is why the resting HR of the athlete is lower than the resting HR of the sedentary. The basal metabolic rate is the same but the athlete can pump more blood with each beat, because of better relaxation as a result of their training, so fewer beats per minute are needed to pump the same amount of blood.

The lower resting pulse of the endurance athlete happens primarily because the heart muscle relaxes better, not because it contracts better.
 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
13,480
FrankDay said:
I have been thinking about this a bit since I posted it and thought I would provide an extra "teaching moment" and give an example that I think most can understand to illustrate why I say that when we are training muscles to contract better we are also training them to relax better.

The lower resting pulse of the endurance athlete happens primarily because the heart muscle relaxes better, not because it contracts better.

Will keep that in mind next time I am running from a sabre tooth tiger:)

Considering your track record that stretches from misunderstanding simple physiology to cherry picking supporting arguments to blatant lies you will forgive me for asking for some references for all this.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
CoachFergie said:
Will keep that in mind next time I am running from a sabre tooth tiger:)

Considering your track record that stretches from misunderstanding simple physiology to cherry picking supporting arguments to blatant lies you will forgive me for asking for some references for all this.
4 years of medical school followed by several years of anesthesiology training and practice. Pick up pretty much any cardiac anesthesia textbook and the principles will be there with pretty much all the references one might ever desire. Oh, and then there is pretty much any explanation for the phenomenon known as rigor mortis. Yes, Virginia, it does take energy to relax those muscles.
 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
13,480
FrankDay said:
4 years of medical school followed by several years of anesthesiology training and practice. Pick up pretty much any cardiac anesthesia textbook and the principles will be there with pretty much all the references one might ever desire. Oh, and then there is pretty much any explanation for the phenomenon known as rigor mortis. Yes, Virginia, it does take energy to relax those muscles.

You do have a bad habit of cherry picking your arguments so can we have the actual references rather than your CV?
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
CoachFergie said:
You do have a bad habit of cherry picking your arguments so can we have the actual references rather than your CV?
Why don't you find a reference to prove me wrong. Shouldn't be too hard for you.

Here is a simple one for the Rigor Mortis statement.