correct way to pedal

[FrankDay]

You would think that 20 years later they would have discovered this magic technique which the research on improved efficiency in type I fibres is pretty clear cut.

Well, unless it can be demonstrated (which it cannot) that cycling efficiency differences can be entirely accounted for by muscle fiber differences then there must be something else in play also. If you can fully account for all of the efficiency differences found in riders without invoking technique please let us know how to do it and where this work was done. If you cannot, then there is a scientific gap. One can choose to ignore this "scientific problem" or not. We know which side you are on. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[CoachFergie]

...point of reference...we followed a program similar to the Aussie method you mentioned...we used to do our high cadence work down a shallow incline with the wind at our backs and in those conditions we would really pick it out...the limiting factor became the bouncing off the saddle when you hit your cadence max...our coach saw that as a response to the inability to pick them up...that is, you hit the bottom of the pedal stroke so hard you lifted yourself off the saddle...the problem here wasn't the push but the pull...

...the other interesting thing here is we would often do these workouts as a group ( and using the same gears )...and some riders had a physiological advantage that allowed higher cadences and in a sprint on the flat these guys would smoke me but on any slight uphill I would usually win...now I may be be totally misreading this but I always thought that was because the uphill finish rewarded down-stroke power whereas flat sprints rewarded spin...so down-stroke power is important but there be more to the pedaling picture and maybe that more is something the lab rats haven't been able to yet quantify...

Well we have have to work within physiological constraints. Some people just can't pedal that fast but put them on a hill and they excel. Based on comparisons of my known power these days and an estimate of what my power must have been 20 years ago when I raced I was definitely born to be C grade but I won several A grade races because I made sure I was good at what I could be good at and capitalised when others dropped the ball.

I also use rollers to train someone to improve their cadence if needed (to break the U17 500m record requires a final lap at 157rpm if they start on a 19.5 sec first lap). As the weather packs in down here in NZ I have been doing some roller based sessions and on the first found I was bouncing at 120rpm but by the end of the session was comfy at 140rpm.

In regards to the pull up I have reported that I did MAP tests in cycling shoes and without and found no difference in MAP (Max Aerobic Power) between when obviously in sandshoes there is no pull up. Obviously these days this could be biased but when younger after a gym session we would jump on the ergs and do spin outs and with only flat pedals I never had a problem hitting 250 rpm.

So I didn't come from a sport science background, more an old school coaching background. Through my studies I have learned to apply sound analysis of what works and what doesn't. Pedalling is easy, I have taught two year olds to pedal rather well. Pedalling at high cadence is easy having taught 100s of people to comfortably pedal at over 180rpm. My contention is that there are bigger fish to fry in performance enhancement.

 

[CoachFergie]

Let me relate another anecdote that suggests high cadences require "good" technique. One of our customers, a track racer, told us that after 6 years of PC training he was able to increase his unloaded max cadence from 180 to 240. Now, we don't know how much he might have improved without the PC help but he felt they made a big difference in this improvement. I interpret this that high cadences as as much limited by technique as anything else. If you can't get that recovery leg out of the way you can't bring the cadence up any further and you start bouncing on the saddle.

That's a wonderfully meaningless story Frank. Thanks for sharing.

 

[CoachFergie]

Well, unless it can be demonstrated (which it cannot) that cycling efficiency differences can be entirely accounted for by muscle fiber differences then there must be something else in play also. If you can fully account for all of the efficiency differences found in riders without invoking technique please let us know how to do it and where this work was done. If you cannot, then there is a scientific gap. One can choose to ignore this "scientific problem" or not. We know which side you are on. Ignorance is bliss.

Well we can be pretty sure that after several good studies that use of a Gimmickcrank is not one of them. That gap has been well plugged!

 

[oldborn]

Well we have have to work within physiological constraints. Some people just can't pedal that fast but put them on a hill and they excel. Based on comparisons of my known power these days and an estimate of what my power must have been 20 years ago when I raced I was definitely born to be C grade but I won several A grade races because I made sure I was good at what I could be good at and capitalised when others dropped the ball.

I also use rollers to train someone to improve their cadence if needed (to break the U17 500m record requires a final lap at 157rpm if they start on a 19.5 sec first lap). As the weather packs in down here in NZ I have been doing some roller based sessions and on the first found I was bouncing at 120rpm but by the end of the session was comfy at 140rpm.

In regards to the pull up I have reported that I did MAP tests in cycling shoes and without and found no difference in MAP (Max Aerobic Power) between when obviously in sandshoes there is no pull up. Obviously these days this could be biased but when younger after a gym session we would jump on the ergs and do spin outs and with only flat pedals I never had a problem hitting 250 rpm.

So I didn't come from a sport science background, more an old school coaching background. Through my studies I have learned to apply sound analysis of what works and what doesn't. Pedalling is easy, I have taught two year olds to pedal rather well. Pedalling at high cadence is easy having taught 100s of people to comfortably pedal at over 180rpm. My contention is that there are bigger fish to fry in performance enhancement.

Interesting personnal anecdote *** edited by mod ***
Give us some memoars of geisha as well!

 

[blutto]

Well we have have to work within physiological constraints. Some people just can't pedal that fast but put them on a hill and they excel. Based on comparisons of my known power these days and an estimate of what my power must have been 20 years ago when I raced I was definitely born to be C grade but I won several A grade races because I made sure I was good at what I could be good at and capitalised when others dropped the ball.

I also use rollers to train someone to improve their cadence if needed (to break the U17 500m record requires a final lap at 157rpm if they start on a 19.5 sec first lap). As the weather packs in down here in NZ I have been doing some roller based sessions and on the first found I was bouncing at 120rpm but by the end of the session was comfy at 140rpm.

In regards to the pull up I have reported that I did MAP tests in cycling shoes and without and found no difference in MAP (Max Aerobic Power) between when obviously in sandshoes there is no pull up. Obviously these days this could be biased but when younger after a gym session we would jump on the ergs and do spin outs and with only flat pedals I never had a problem hitting 250 rpm.

So I didn't come from a sport science background, more an old school coaching background. Through my studies I have learned to apply sound analysis of what works and what doesn't. Pedalling is easy, I have taught two year olds to pedal rather well. Pedalling at high cadence is easy having taught 100s of people to comfortably pedal at over 180rpm. My contention is that there are bigger fish to fry in performance enhancement.

...maybe we are having a bit of a semantic misunderstanding here because when I pull up, I mean at the very least, that the pedal is unloaded on the backside of the stroke...so whether cycling shoes or sandals are used is not really an issue...the timing of the unloading is critical to prevent the saddle bounce and it may also help maximize the down-stroke on one side by eliminating the dead weight of the leg on the back-stroke on the other side...

...or as my wife the runner and exercise physiologist just suggested, if you think the backstroke is not an important part of the equation explain how walking and running works...sure it may not contribute much to a lab based definition of power output but you sure can't go forward without it...and yes it is trainable and yes it leads to improved times...at least that was what she says and she knows everything...so there...teehee...

Cheers

blutto

 

[acoggan]

In regards to the pull up I have reported that I did MAP tests in cycling shoes and without and found no difference in MAP (Max Aerobic Power) between when obviously in sandshoes there is no pull up.

We observed essentially the same thing:

http://wustl.academia.edu/AndrewCog...ed_cyclists._J_Appl_Physiol_1988_64_2622-2630

 

[acoggan]

unless it can be demonstrated (which it cannot) that cycling efficiency differences can be entirely accounted for by muscle fiber differences then there must be something else in play also.

Ever heard of experimental error, Frank? There is a large amount of "slop" when attempting to quantify someone's muscle fiber contractile properties based on sampling only ~0.1% of just one of the multiple muscles recruited while pedaling.

That said, there are undoubtly other factors at play...with NO seemingly being one of them (cf. Jones recent studies).

 

[FrankDay]

...or as my wife the runner and exercise physiologist just suggested, if you think the backstroke is not an important part of the equation explain how walking and running works...sure it may not contribute much to a lab based definition of power output but you sure can't go forward without it...and yes it is trainable and yes it leads to improved times...at least that was what she says and she knows everything...so there...teehee...

But, you forget, your wife has not come here and established herself as an expert at this forum so it doesn't matter what she thinks or why she thinks it, it is of no consequence to those who are the loudest here. And, as these loud "experts" have determined and proclaimed, walking and running is not cycling. There is no relationship. On behalf of those people tell her to go away and stop thinking. It is the internet afterall, bullying counts.

 

[FrankDay]

Ever heard of experimental error, Frank? There is a large amount of "slop" when attempting to quantify someone's muscle fiber contractile properties based on sampling only ~0.1% of just one of the multiple muscles recruited while pedaling.

That said, there are undoubtly other factors at play...with NO seemingly being one of them (cf. Jones recent studies).

I believe I have heard of experimental error just as I have heard of random error. Isn't that why the profession of statistics developed, to help us account for such things? Speaking of slop, how about the sloppy way some (you, and probably, even, me, included) interpret (or, misinterpret) the studies that have been done?

Anyhow, if you now agree there are undoubtably other factors at play, why on earth were you so loud in objecting to my objection to the Coyle/Lance case report where he attributed all of Lances efficiency improvements to muscle fiber changes without giving even lip service to the fact other factors might also be present or, even, predominent.

 

[Polyarmour]

I continue to be amazed by this thread. It's like Frazier vs Ali in Zaire. But I do want to thank everyone for their contributions.

I did an indoor session this morning, 3 * 15min SE efforts in a row on Computrainers. The "coach" at the sessions is an ex pro with an impressive palmares and well respected within the local cycling community. He often refers to the pedalling technique as being one of push/drag/pull. I try to do this but I can only sustain it for a short time during a SE session before I feel myself drifting back into a push technique. It certainly seems like a more balanced cycle stroke however, while I am spinning like this, the power output seems to drop a few percent.

So then I'm left thinking. Is this just a less efficient way of pedalling or if I train my muscles better will I eventually get better at it? And I guess this is the essence of the arguments on this thread.

My feeling, with my own very limited experience, is that at those times (in a race) when you have to put the power down, you do whatever it takes. Mostly (>90% of the time) this involves pushing. But when the "push" muscles are turning to jelly or need a break I do find myself doing a bit of pulling as well. Now I admit that I know nothing about this and what I do might not be the best thing.

I'd be interested too in what the pros have to say about it. Pedalling in circles looks good going past the coffee shop but I don't see them doing a lot of it when they are hurtling towards the finish line at 70km/h.

 

[CoachFergie]

...or as my wife the runner and exercise physiologist just suggested, if you think the backstroke is not an important part of the equation explain how walking and running works...

Where in running or walking is there a fixed crank that pulls the opposing leg into position to deliver the next downstroke?

sure it may not contribute much to a lab based definition of power output but you sure can't go forward without it...and yes it is trainable and yes it leads to improved times...at least that was what she says and she knows everything...so there...teehee...

Ummmm, if you set the cranks at 3pm and push the pedal down does the bike not go forward? I suggest the Mrs reads Coyle etal 1991 (link is a few pages back) and also Broker's chapter in High-Tech cycling.

 

[CoachFergie]

But, you forget, your wife has not come here and established herself as an expert at this forum so it doesn't matter what she thinks or why she thinks it, it is of no consequence to those who are the loudest here. And, as these loud "experts" have determined and proclaimed, walking and running is not cycling. There is no relationship. On behalf of those people tell her to go away and stop thinking. It is the internet afterall, bullying counts.

Love how you play the victim card when you have no evidence to support your rather exaggerated claims

 

[FrankDay]

Ummmm, if you set the cranks at 3pm and push the pedal down does the bike not go forward?

It doesn't if one is pushing down equally hard on the other crank pointing in the 9 o'clock position at the same time. Isn't that what people do when they are coasting out of the saddle, or when doing a track stand? Full body weight on the cranks, one in the 3 o'clock position, yet the cranks don't turn at all.

It is the net force on the two cranks that is actually the driving force of the bike, at least when they are connected. Did you forget that? Or, did you never know that?

 

[CoachFergie]

I'd be interested too in what the pros have to say about it. Pedalling in circles looks good going past the coffee shop but I don't see them doing a lot of it when they are hurtling towards the finish line at 70km/h.

If I was to employ a "ex Pro" as a coach or manager it wouldn't be for their understanding of physiology, psychology or biomechanics it would their understanding of bike racing. Former greats like Eric Zabel being brought in as Sprint coach for HTC or Jan van Eiden as a Sprint coach for the BCF cycling team. If I wanted a detailed assessment of pedalling I would talk to someone like Jim Martin.

 

[CoachFergie]

It doesn't if one is pushing down equally hard on the other crank pointing in the 9 o'clock position at the same time. Isn't that what people do when they are coasting out of the saddle, or when doing a track stand? Full body weight on the cranks, one in the 3 o'clock position, yet the cranks don't turn at all.

It is the net force on the two cranks that is actually the driving force of the bike, at least when they are connected. Did you forget that? Or, did you never know that?

When out of the saddle coasting neither leg is pushing down. They are equally weighted.

 

[FrankDay]

When out of the saddle coasting neither leg is pushing down. They are equally weighted.

REALLY!!! Tell that to the pedal that has to resist the force placed upon it. What is pushing in cycling if it is not a force on the pedals?

What you don't understand about the ladies argument (since she is not here I will argue for her) is that what one leg can do to move the person in either walking, running, or cycling is affected by what the other leg is doing. It is a fairly simple principle although, apparently, a little too advanced for you.

 

[CoachFergie]

REALLY!!! Tell that to the pedal that has to resist the force placed upon it. What is pushing in cycling if it is not a force on the pedals?

What you don't understand about the ladies argument (since she is not here I will argue for her) is that what one leg can do to move the person in either walking, running, or cycling is affected by what the other leg is doing. It is a fairly simple principle although, apparently, a little too advanced for you.

When coasting out of the saddle where is the pushing? Both legs will be in an isometric contraction and there will be an equal weighting on each pedal.

 

[M Sport]

REALLY!!! Tell that to the pedal that has to resist the force placed upon it. What is pushing in cycling if it is not a force on the pedals?

What you don't understand about the ladies argument (since she is not here I will argue for her) is that what one leg can do to move the person in either walking, running, or cycling is affected by what the other leg is doing. It is a fairly simple principle although, apparently, a little too advanced for you.

Some advice , Frank. Engage brain before hitting the keyboard. If that fails re-read your post and the one you think you have understood to make sure you get the interpretation correct.

It's not too hard. Envisage yourself coasting down a hill, one crank at 3pm, one at 9pm ... no pedaling going on .... force pretty equal? yes/no?

Maybe go back and have another read through those studies again too.

 

[blutto]

REALLY!!! Tell that to the pedal that has to resist the force placed upon it. What is pushing in cycling if it is not a force on the pedals?

What you don't understand about the ladies argument (since she is not here I will argue for her) is that what one leg can do to move the person in either walking, running, or cycling is affected by what the other leg is doing. It is a fairly simple principle although, apparently, a little too advanced for you.

....oy yoy yoy...what a fine mess this potentially useful thread has become...

...unfortunately it has been reduced to a damn debate and a sloppy one at that....as opposed to a discussion...debates for those who have not been in a real one is just about winning...there is no right or wrong side just the side you have been given at the start of the debate...the object is only to win despite how you actually feel about the position you have been given...this thread has deteriorated into something akin to a debate whereas it should be a discussion...I would for instance love to see more input from Dr. Coggan...because I believe there is, for want of a better word, a disconnect between the theory that directs lab rats ( and please don't take offence here because this is what my wife used to call herself when she worked in a lab...its really a term meant to be a joke...and if it helps I was the gym monkey...we make a smashing pair... ) and the way good cyclists pedal....

...maybe I really don't really understand the pedal stroke or maybe theory hasn't yet produced an answer...but lets take a deep breath and have a reasonable discussion...maybe something positive will come of it...

...and its not like this kinda disconnect hasn't happened before...way back when, an Aussie track coach came up with a novel way to train...unfortunately the theory at the time wasn't up to understanding this training method...the coach, Arthur Lydiard, tried to engage the theory to prove his ideas as valid...but in the eyes of the theorists he failed miserably and was consequently derided as a quack, charlatan, snake-oil salesman...his runners were however very successful...in fact Peter Snell became one of the most famous Aussie athletes of all time...

... eventually Lydiard was vindicated but it took a while for theory to catch up to him...

...maybe, just maybe, we have a similar situation here...

...so....calling Dr Coggan...please come out to play...I for one would like to take this opportunity to discuss something that I think is darn important...and learn or unlearn something as the case will be....

Cheers

blutto

 

[Tapeworm]

Just a note, you don't need "..." to start a sentence. It is usually representative of a pause or trailing off at the end of a sentence. Or an unstated alternative. Not at the start of the sentence.

 

[blutto]

Just a note, you don't need "..." to start a sentence. It is usually representative of a pause or trailing off at the end of a sentence. Or an unstated alternative. Not at the start of the sentence.

...its actually not a need but a want...sorry about being a bit flippant but my normal speech is usually filled with pauses and for me, this style, if you could call it that, seems sort of natural...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Still, there is a dead spot at the top and bottom of the pedal stroke; does the elliptical ring not alleviate this by effectively lowering the torque required in those spots?

Since almost no torque is applied there anyway, what's the point of lowering it?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

....oy yoy yoy...what a fine mess this potentially useful thread has become...

...unfortunately it has been reduced to a damn debate and a sloppy one at that....as opposed to a discussion...

Welcome to the never ending circus provided by Frank Day threads.

It's been going on for many, many years.

 

[TexPat]

Since almost no torque is applied there anyway, what's the point of lowering it?

What if the torque/power requirement there is lowered, thus conserving energy for where it does matter? Increased velocity at the top and the bottom leading into the power stroke?

Do the studies cited by Fergie and Tapeworm specify which elliptical rings were used, and in which orientation? The duration of the tests also appears to be short, rather than a series of tests held on the same subjects over a few weeks or months using elliptical rings.