correct way to pedal

[CoachFergie]

So be it. Is there anything you don't have severe doubts about with the exception of the power meter to … measure power.

Specific adaptations to imposed demands.

Rather than look for a better way to pedal try to understand how you need to perform on race day and prepare to meet those demands. Once one has attained good condition (lean, healthy and fit to go the distance) then the trick is to train specifically for the event.

 

[FrankDay]

Rather than look for a better way to pedal try to understand how you need to perform on race day and prepare to meet those demands. Once one has attained good condition (lean, healthy and fit to go the distance) then the trick is to train specifically for the event.

Well, again you have confirmed you don't care a whit about looking for a better way to… (pedal or anything else). You are content with doing what everyone else knows and does, hoping you (or your athletes) can do a better job of preparing than the competition. That is one way of approaching sport. I simply think it is possible to do both, do the best job you can preparing using current knowledge while exploring whether there might be something better. And, for those of us who have no specific competitive goals for ourselves, I think it is ok for us to devote ourselves to exploring for better ways to do things, be it pedal or anything else.

 

[CoachFergie]

Well, again you have confirmed you don't care a whit about looking for a better way to… (pedal or anything else).

When some good evidence presents itself that there is a benefit to changing the way someone pedals as opposed to how much work one needs to do to achieve their race day goals then I will be all ears. At present with regards to pedalling technique you and Noel have not been very convincing.

You are content with doing what everyone else knows and does, hoping you (or your athletes) can do a better job of preparing than the competition.

Yep, for those are the terms of engagement. My riders don't need Gimmicks to win races.

That is one way of approaching sport. I simply think it is possible to do both, do the best job you can preparing using current knowledge while exploring whether there might be something better. And, for those of us who have no specific competitive goals for ourselves, I think it is ok for us to devote ourselves to exploring for better ways to do things, be it pedal or anything else.

And it is my role to point out what a **** poor job you have done of it so far.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

As said Alex has posted his data. I expect having gone through a dramatic life event Alex has now focused on cycling and his coaching. He is also just be selected for the Aussie team creating the ideal conditions for improved performance.

Just a point of correction - I have been selected as one of three Aussies in my para-category to race the UCI World Cup, but not to the Aussie team.

It wasn't submitted to say mashing is best. It was submitted to illustrate performance can be improved from getting better at mashing because with a prosthesis there is no alternative available.

Yes - I never said this would be best technique - just that with a substantially more limited technique now available at my disposal (removing a lower leg does that), I have been able recreate the same or produce slightly more sustainable aerobic power than I did before amputation.

I have posted my data many times. I've never claimed it to be anything more that my own N=1 data. I am unusual in being a competitive cyclist with power meter data both pre and post amputation. Comparisons of my performance are therefore highly valid (both as it turns out in terms of my power data and actual race results).

It is of course reasonable to say that perhaps my performance would be even better now if I still had my leg. Who is to say? Maybe the experience re-ignited my passion and helped me work even harder than I otherwise might have.

Every time I race my bike, I'm a winner.

 

[CoachFergie]

I stand corrected and commend you for being someone who supports your claims with valid and reliable data not anecdote.

Smash the World Cup!!!

 

[coapman]

That should have read neither 1oclock or 3oclock forced me to rise out of the saddle.

I was referring to extreme forces, forces that would never be used in cycling, in an attempt to demonstrate the extra power that is made available. Before you strain anything, here is an explanation where normal cycling forces are used. When riding in the saddle your leg muscles would have great difficulty applying a force equal to your own bodyweight to the pedal around 3 o'c, yet when you get out of the saddle there is no problem in applying that force or even greater if bar leverage is used. Anquetil's technique reproduces that 'out of the saddle' force application with direct resistance idea for use in the 11-2 o'c sector while in a relaxed seated position.

 

[FrankDay]

When some good evidence presents itself that there is a benefit to changing the way someone pedals as opposed to how much work one needs to do to achieve their race day goals then I will be all ears. At present with regards to pedalling technique you and Noel have not been very convincing.

Ugh, is changing the way one pedals mutually exclusive from the amount of work one must do to achieve race day goals? In fact, trying to change the way one pedals while trying to also continue the normal work load should increase the amount of work necessary. The reason one might consider changing pedaling technique is not to be able to reduce the amount of work necessary for success but, rather, to increase the benefit that comes from the hard work being done anyhow. While the improved benefit from such an approach remains unproven it is still a theoretical possibility (see the thread regarding the Leirdal study) and so some (not you, of course, as you do nothing that hasn't been proven - LOL) might want to explore the possibility. In fact, many at the elite level have.

The problem with your approach is we can assume that most elite athletes are equally motivated and are willing to work equally hard to achieve their goals. Therefore, (ignoring PED's) there are only a few things that can set them apart. Genetics is one, of course, but you or they have no control over that. You can also try working "harder" but that seems to also increase risk of injury. But, another might be to explore a better way to train. Of course, such exploration might result in a "worse" way to train (one never knows until one tries does one?). The difference in approach though is one of being conservative and, IMHO, training not to lose or taking a risk to see if one can get an advantage, training to win. Each person must make their own choice. You have made yours.

 

[JayKosta]

...
Anquetil's technique reproduces that 'out of the saddle' force application with direct resistance idea for use in the 11-2 o'c sector while in a relaxed seated position.

====================================
Can you give any links to photos of Anquetil's riding position?
I'd like to see how his position is different from other riders.
What was his 'knee-over-pedal-spindle' position, seat height, seat setback, etc.?

Any other details that you can provide are appreciated.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[CoachFergie]

Ugh, is changing the way one pedals mutually exclusive from the amount of work one must do to achieve race day goals?

Show me evidence that a change in pedaling allows one to perform more work.

In fact, trying to change the way one pedals while trying to also continue the normal work load should increase the amount of work necessary. The reason one might consider changing pedaling technique is not to be able to reduce the amount of work necessary for success but, rather, to increase the benefit that comes from the hard work being done anyhow.

Show me evidence that a change in pedaling allows one to perform more work.

While the improved benefit from such an approach remains unproven it is still a theoretical possibility (see the thread regarding the Leirdal study) and so some (not you, of course, as you do nothing that hasn't been proven - LOL) might want to explore the possibility. In fact, many at the elite level have.

Then you will have no problems supplying evidence.

You can also try working "harder" but that seems to also increase risk of injury.

Guess one would need to measure the amount of work being performed per session over a season to ensure the level of overload being applied was appropriate to each rider.

But, another might be to explore a better way to train. Of course, such exploration might result in a "worse" way to train (one never knows until one tries does one?).

There is the catch 22 of coaching. People don't employ me to experiment with them. Hence evidence based practice guides my coaching. When suitable evidence is provided that changing the way one applies power through the pedal stroke that improves performance is provided I will be all ears. Real evidence not someone's personal observations or a products marketing claims.

The difference in approach though is one of being conservative and, IMHO, training not to lose or taking a risk to see if one can get an advantage, training to win. Each person must make their own choice. You have made yours.

Yes I have. As mentioned I wade through a large number of claims for performance improvements each day and have to process them all. Also have to deal with many misconceptions like what a power meter will do for you or how much strength is involved in the sport, cycling is spinal reflex, you can't makes gains improving the muscles you currently use in cycling, Gimmickcranks lead to an average 40% improvement, you have to perform weight training, you need elliptical chainrings. The list is endless.

So when my riders come at me with questions I go through a process of explaining the research done in the area and if there is none then we look at the physiological, biomechanical or psychological process at play and make a decision based on those. Seeing there are several studies showing no difference from Gimmickcrank use and the only person who thinks these are bad studies is the manufacturer I feel pretty confident in my decision in that area.

Sure Pro's will use them but then despite overwhelming evidence of no benefit they still use nasal strips and elliptical chainrings. The real gains in cycling come from the specific preparation for the physiological, psychological and technical demands of the events not some expensive gimmick.

 

[CoachFergie]

I was referring to extreme forces, forces that would never be used in cycling, in an attempt to demonstrate the extra power that is made available. Before you strain anything, here is an explanation where normal cycling forces are used. When riding in the saddle your leg muscles would have great difficulty applying a force equal to your own bodyweight to the pedal around 3 o'c, yet when you get out of the saddle there is no problem in applying that force or even greater if bar leverage is used. Anquetil's technique reproduces that 'out of the saddle' force application with direct resistance idea for use in the 11-2 o'c sector while in a relaxed seated position.

Riiiggghhht clear as mud. Good luck with that, wait to see that evidence.

 

[FrankDay]

Show me evidence that a change in pedaling allows one to perform more work.…Show me evidence that a change in pedaling allows one to perform more work.…Then you will have no problems supplying evidence.

Fergie, you are about the most obtuse person I have ever met. We are talking about theoretical advantages. For instance, if one can change the direction of the applied forces on the pedal to be more tangential then the person is doing more work (work being defined in the physics sense) for the same force. Now, we know you are incapable of thinking of what might be possible or the potential of doing something that hasn't been proven. That is cool. But, no one would describe your philosophy as "forward thinking". Your philosophy is better described as "tried and true". But, what you are doing will always be a bit behind those "forward thinking" coaches who happened to figure it out correctly.

Every decision anyone makes involves risk. You have chosen to be steady, but it means you will never advance the sport. Those who try to advance the sport sometimes do so, and their risk pays off for them. But, they may also fail and in that case, the risk may backfire.

There is the catch 22 of coaching.

People don't employ me to experiment with them. Hence evidence based practice guides my coaching. When suitable evidence is provided that changing the way one applies power through the pedal stroke that improves performance is provided I will be all ears. Real evidence not someone's personal observations or a products marketing claims.

As long as those who employ you understand what they are getting (see above).

 

[oldborn]

The real gains in cycling come from the specific preparation for the physiological, psychological and technical demands of the events not some expensive gimmick.

Show me a evidence that Bompa, Ackland, Reid, Freil, Hodge, Sleivert, McKenzie "periodization specific peak mumbling" has real advantages and benefits in cycling, comparable with non "specific preparation for the physiological, psychological and technical demands of the events"

Guess what, there is no. That Russian school approach is so old, get a new one Dude, your clients are paying for that.
And grab yourself couple of new books. I am sure that you have "Training and racing with Power Meter" special edition with some autograph as well.

 

[CoachFergie]

Fergie, you are about the most obtuse person I have ever met.

What part of show me the evidence am I being obtuse about Frank?

We are talking about theoretical advantages.

As mentioned people don't employ me to conduct experiments on them.

For instance, if one can change the direction of the applied forces on the pedal to be more tangential then the person is doing more work (work being defined in the physics sense) for the same force.

And this can be assessed using a power meter.

Now, we know you are incapable of thinking of what might be possible or the potential of doing something that hasn't been proven. That is cool. But, no one would describe your philosophy as "forward thinking".

Do I make any claims that suggest any of that?

Your philosophy is better described as "tried and true". But, what you are doing will always be a bit behind those "forward thinking" coaches who happened to figure it out correctly.

You don't know the half of it, my training programmes haven't changed since 1993 and the basic template I run of is from the late 1950s (Lydiard). Even with the glorious introduction of Power Meter's. Don't think I haven't been highly critical of a lot of the nonsense associated with those bad boys!

But none of this address's the lack of evidence for Gimmickcranks.

Every decision anyone makes involves risk. You have chosen to be steady, but it means you will never advance the sport.

I am happy with my contribution to the sport.

Those who try to advance the sport sometimes do so, and their risk pays off for them. But, they may also fail and in that case, the risk may backfire.

Well good for them. My riders don't need Gimmicks to perform.

As long as those who employ you understand what they are getting (see above).

Based on testing so far a quantifiable improvement in performance. The results have been gratifying as well but I can't quantify my input into those. The lack of forthcoming evidence for Gimmickcranks leads me to conclude that you can't quantify anything either

 

[JayKosta]

I found this photo of Anquetil which shows a 'toes down' style at 12 & 6 o'clock which is claimed to be from a TT -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyclecrank/5432802727/
I don't know whether he maintained the 'toes down' position for the entire rotation, or whether a changing 'ankling' motion was used.

Also several other photos here -
http://www.junglekey.com/search.php...l&strictlang=1&lang=en&adv=1&img=1&type=image
which show different variations of pedal style - probably at other event types.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[coapman]

I found this photo of Anquetil which shows a 'toes down' style at 12 & 6 o'clock which is claimed to be from a TT -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyclecrank/5432802727/
I don't know whether he maintained the 'toes down' position for the entire rotation, or whether a changing 'ankling' motion was used.

Also several other photos here -
http://www.junglekey.com/search.php...l&strictlang=1&lang=en&adv=1&img=1&type=image
which show different variations of pedal style - probably at other event types.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

In that second link, the second photo from the left where he is seated well back on saddle is the most powerful position because it gives an earlier start to his power stroke. The further forward he sits on the saddle, the greater the pointing down of the toes will be and less powerful the stroke. It must have been very confusing for those trying to copy his style.

 

[CoachFergie]

In that second link, the second photo from the left where he is seated well back on saddle is the most powerful position because it gives an earlier start to his power stroke. The further forward he sits on the saddle, the greater the pointing down of the toes will be and less powerful the stroke. It must have been very confusing for those trying to copy his style.

Remarkable how you can assume all that from a photo

 

[coapman]

Remarkable how you can assume all that from a photo

It's all about tangential effect through the dead spot, I can even give the explanation for his moving forward.

 

[CoachFergie]

It's all about tangential effect through the dead spot, I can even give the explanation for his moving forward.

Without data to back it up it is just an assumption.

 

[TexPat]

With all due respect, Coach, you sound like a broken record. At first this discussion was entertaining. Now it's like a couple of kids in the schoolyard playing tit for tat.
I will now make it my life's work to test all new theories, instead of your approach, which seems to be something along the lines of, "It's worked fine since 1957, therefore it must be perfect".
Right or wrong, you sound like cycling's best curmudgeon, Jobst Brandt, who by the way has been proven wrong on a number of issues.

 

[CoachFergie]

With all due respect, Coach, you sound like a broken record. At first this discussion was entertaining. Now it's like a couple of kids in the schoolyard playing tit for tat.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, is that too much to ask?

I will now make it my life's work to test all new theories, instead of your approach, which seems to be something along the lines of, "It's worked fine since 1957, therefore it must be perfect".

That would show a complete lack of understanding of how I coach but I welcome anyone is willing to put anything to the test and not take things on face value. Where do you stand on Frank's claim that Gimmickcranks lead to a 40% average improvement or Noel's claim that pedalling style was the reason Anquetil was the best Time Trial rider of the time. How would you assess these rather extraordinary claims?

I do however insist that all my riders race in woollen jerseys and carry their spare tub (no HP tyres WHATSOEVER!!!) wrapped around their shoulders

They didn't have power meters back in 1957 and I have happily incorporated their use into my coaching as well as GPS, video analysis, EMG and other new fangled inventions.

Right or wrong, you sound like cycling's best curmudgeon, Jobst Brandt, who by the way has been proven wrong on a number of issues.

Funny you should raise that name. Found his book on wheelbuilding online and sent it to my Father who spent most of the early nineties being one of the people happily proving Jobst wrong.

 

[M Sport]

With all due respect, Coach, you sound like a broken record. At first this discussion was entertaining. Now it's like a couple of kids in the schoolyard playing tit for tat.
I will now make it my life's work to test all new theories, instead of your approach, which seems to be something along the lines of, "It's worked fine since 1957, therefore it must be perfect".
Right or wrong, you sound like cycling's best curmudgeon, Jobst Brandt, who by the way has been proven wrong on a number of issues.

I don't think you have read the two threads well enough, he (coach fergie and others) have actually contributed data confirming applying force in the downstroke is the most efficient and powerful way to propel a bike. That's probably the reason bike racers have been doing it that way for a 100 years. Not just 'because that's the way we do'.

And re the tit for tat. Dude, this thread is only 4-5 pages old. They have been going at it for 179 pages on CF. I had nothing to do one night and skimmed it quickly. I can break it down into three parts, 1. snake oil salesman trying sell muppetcranks, 2. crackpot trying to relive a pie in the sky pedaling theory that was probably never perfected, several pro's have debunked, has no real application anymore and refer paragraph one ... 3. lots of people (and coaching experts) throwing data and sound criticism at them asking both to supply data to back up their theories and product. None exists.

If any of you have a spare half an hour the threads with these guys in on CF are absolute gold, comedy at its best .... but the sad part is they are actually serious.

 

[FrankDay]

I don't think you have read the two threads well enough, he (coach fergie and others) have actually contributed data confirming applying force in the downstroke is the most efficient and powerful way to propel a bike. That's probably the reason bike racers have been doing it that way for a 100 years. Not just 'because that's the way we do'.

LOL. While it appears you have actually read these threads it also appears you haven't actually read the evidence they present to "prove" their case, or if you have, you haven't read it critically. If pushing harder were actually the key to going faster the fastest people would push the hardest. In the study they always put forth as proving this point in the group of 15 the fastest rider by far only pushed the 4th hardest and the person pushing the second hardest in the group was the 11th fastest overall. So, it would seem there is more to going fast than simply pushing harder despite the simplistic interpretations of some of these studies.

IMHO, the reason racers have been doing it this way for a 100 years is changing what you learned as a kid just isn't that easy (especially if there is not any feedback as to what you are actually doing), not that there is any inherent advantage to the technique.

I really don't care what you or anyone else believes or whether you want to work on this aspect of your game or not. I simply object when someone tries to tell others these ideas of theirs regarding pedaling technique have been proven or even have strong evidence to support them.

 

[M Sport]

I don't think you have read the two threads well enough, he (coach fergie and others) have actually contributed data confirming applying force in the downstroke is the most efficient and powerful way to propel a bike. That's probably the reason bike racers have been doing it that way for a 100 years. Not just 'because that's the way we do'.

LOL. While it appears you have actually read these threads it also appears you haven't actually read the evidence they present to "prove" their case, or if you have, you haven't read it critically. If pushing harder were actually the key to going faster the fastest people would push the hardest. In the study they always put forth as proving this point in the group of 15 the fastest rider by far only pushed the 4th hardest and the person pushing the second hardest in the group was the 11th fastest overall. So, it would seem there is more to going fast than simply pushing harder despite the simplistic interpretations of some of these studies.

Did I say the rider who pushes the hardest wins? No. “I said applying force in the downstroke is the most efficient way to propel a bike” i.e focusing your technique into the downstroke rather than pulling on the upstroke. Anyone can tell you that the person exerting the most force in a laboratory test isn’t neccasarily going to score the fastest time in an ITT. To suggest this and actually try to twist the interpretation of the study to suit your gimmick cranks is the work of a con artist.

I’m sure the study you’re talking about is Coyle # 40. If it is then I suggest you go back and read it and concentrate on the abstract summary rather than pull out one riders results out of the two test groups to suit your argument.

I really don't care what you or anyone else believes or whether you want to work on this aspect of your game or not. I simply object when someone tries to tell others these ideas of theirs regarding pedaling technique have been proven or even have strong evidence to support them.

Yes, and I and others object when you change the results of a study to suit sales of your product. And object when you take a comment of ours and change it to suit your argument.

 

[JayKosta]

...
I’m sure the study you’re talking about is Coyle # 40. If it is then I suggest you go back and read it and concentrate on the abstract summary rather than pull out one riders results out of the two test groups to suit your argument.
...

============================================
.. for all journal articles...
Be careful about trusting abstract summaries - read the entire article and decide for yourself what conclusions (if any) can be drawn.

In some cases the abstract reflects what the authors 'wished' that the results had shown.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[CoachFergie]

LOL. While it appears you have actually read these threads it also appears you haven't actually read the evidence they present to "prove" their case, or if you have, you haven't read it critically.

You also forget the slowtwitch (banned) discussions, haven't seen you chip in on CyclingForums (have you been banned there as well) or the old rec.bicycles.racing vintage Frank Dodge debates. There is a Gimmickcrank discussion going on on weight weenie's as well. All fun stuff watching you try and twist exercise physiology and physics to suit the Gimmickcrank Marketing Strategy.

If pushing harder were actually the key to going faster the fastest people would push the hardest. In the study they always put forth as proving this point in the group of 15 the fastest rider by far only pushed the 4th hardest and the person pushing the second hardest in the group was the 11th fastest overall. So, it would seem there is more to going fast than simply pushing harder despite the simplistic interpretations of some of these studies.

And lets not get started on the red herrings

IMHO, the reason racers have been doing it this way for a 100 years is changing what you learned as a kid just isn't that easy (especially if there is not any feedback as to what you are actually doing), not that there is any inherent advantage to the technique.

Yup it's so hard that it took Fernandez-Pena 2009 two weeks to show a change from independent crank use.

I really don't care what you or anyone else believes or whether you want to work on this aspect of your game or not. I simply object when someone tries to tell others these ideas of theirs regarding pedaling technique have been proven or even have strong evidence to support them.

Yet you expect people to accept Gimmickcranks on faith. Outstanding Frank