correct way to pedal

[CoachFergie]

============================================
.. 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

Then you also have to ensure that people (not pointing the finger here) don't cherry pick the data to find what they think suits their argument or tempt us with delicious (again not pointing any fingers) red herrings to try and lead us away from the real findings of any study.

Here it is for those who wish to make up their own minds.

http://www.sykkeltrening.no/forum/dokumenter/coyle91.pdf

 

[FrankDay]

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.

Yes, I am talking about Coyle #40 Here is what the abstract says: "It appears that "elite- national class" cyclists have the ability to generate higher "downstroke power", possibly as a result of muscular adaptations stimulated by more years of endurance training." So, the way most people pedal is that the vast majority of the power occurs on the downstroke. That is the case even for PowerCrankers. Therefore, if someone produces more power and hasn't changed the basic pedaling style we might expect that we would find that they, in general, push harder. What set the two groups apart that the authors also comment upon is that the faster group had, on average, 3 more years of endurance training. So, is the secret to getting faster concentrating on "pushing harder" or simply having more training under your belt so the pushing harder comes naturally? Another interesting finding in the data, if you actually read the study, that the authors didn't comment on, was the faster group was about 10% faster and had 10% more power. What is interesting about this is 10% more speed should require about 30% more power. Therefore, I think one might conclude that the biggest difference between these groups accounting for their TT performance differences is how aero they were. A better conclusion from this data might be, want to get fast, concentrate on improving aerodynamics because the power will come with time.

anyhow, I am not "pulling riders out" to suit my argument. I am simply pointing out that the data in this study simply does not support the conclusion many take from this study. There simply are no good studies that definitively show a superiority of one pedaling technique over another. Just as there are no good studies showing the superiority of almost everything else we argue about (value of PM, strength training, etc.).

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.

When did I change the results of a study to suit anything? When did I change your comment. You stated that Fergie had come here and posted lots of data in support of his position. I simply pointed out his data (at least how he tries to use it) is usually crap. I try to say why it is crap (and Fergie usually replies back by calling me names) and, so, the interested reader can determine what they want to believe.

 

[CoachFergie]

Yes, I am talking about Coyle #40 Here is what the abstract says: "It appears that "elite- national class" cyclists have the ability to generate higher "downstroke power", possibly as a result of muscular adaptations stimulated by more years of endurance training." So, the way most people pedal is that the vast majority of the power occurs on the downstroke. That is the case even for PowerCrankers.

Not according to Bohm 2008 which showed after a 5 week period of Gimmickcrank use that downstroke force was reduced.

Therefore, I think one might conclude that the biggest difference between these groups accounting for their TT performance differences is how aero they were. A better conclusion from this data might be, want to get fast, concentrate on improving aerodynamics because the power will come with time.

I prefer Coyle's conclusion because he isn't pulling evidence out his backside.

anyhow, I am not "pulling riders out" to suit my argument.

I prefer the term cherry picking and yes you are.

I am simply pointing out that the data in this study simply does not support the conclusion many take from this study. There simply are no good studies that definitively show a superiority of one pedaling technique over another. Just as there are no good studies showing the superiority of almost everything else we argue about (value of PM, strength training, etc.).

You are the only one who comes to that conclusion. Muddy waters being the natural environment of the Snake Oil Salesman.

When did I change the results of a study to suit anything? When did I change your comment.

Ummm, just a few sentences ago. Coyle's study is widely cited so I take it professionals in the area concur with his conclusions. If they didn't I would expect it would have produced an avalanche of letters to the editor and counter studies sort of like what happened after the 2005 Armstrong case study Coyle authored.

You stated that Fergie had come here and posted lots of data in support of his position. I simply pointed out his data (at least how he tries to use it) is usually crap.

Nawww Frank, you say the nicest things. Yet you never seem to debate it just go on the defensive or...

I try to say why it is crap (and Fergie usually replies back by calling me names) and, so, the interested reader can determine what they want to believe.

...play the victim. Shall I get my violin out?

An anecdote or handy theory (spinal reflex HILARIOUS!!!) does not constitute evidence. Data please Frank!

 

[blutto]

Not according to Bohm 2008 which showed after a 5 week period of Gimmickcrank use that downstroke force was reduced.



I prefer Coyle's conclusion because he isn't pulling evidence out his backside.



I prefer the term cherry picking and yes you are.



You are the only one who comes to that conclusion. Muddy waters being the natural environment of the Snake Oil Salesman.


Ummm, just a few sentences ago. Coyle's study is widely cited so I take it professionals in the area concur with his conclusions. If they didn't I would expect it would have produced an avalanche of letters to the editor and counter studies sort of like what happened after the 2005 Armstrong case study Coyle authored.



Nawww Frank, you say the nicest things. Yet you never seem to debate it just go on the defensive or...



...play the victim. Shall I get my violin out?

An anecdote or handy theory (spinal reflex HILARIOUS!!!) does not constitute evidence. Data please Frank!

...quite the slugfest we have here...sorry to join the party late but there a bit of advice from a coach who I had the pleasure of working with that you may find interesting...( and by the way a coach who was quite successful on the world stage)..

...one of the phrases he always used was...it isn't how fast you put them down its how fast you pick them...leg speed was a very big thing for him and he saw the limiting factor for that skill to be the pickin up part...

...if this is way off base sorry...but it seems over-emphasizing the power part of the stroke is missing quite a bit...

Cheers

blutto

 

[CoachFergie]

...one of the phrases he always used was...it isn't how fast you put them down its how fast you pick them...leg speed was a very big thing for him and he saw the limiting factor for that skill to be the pickin up part...

Catchy.

Having coached track cycling where very high cadences are a big part of the game I have never had an issue with developing the necessary leg speed. Especially in Junior Riders who race on gear restrictions.

While SE efforts are in vogue people forget that the Aussies who pioneered a lot of the strength endurance training methods would balance the low cadence work out with sessions at a very high cadence and many riders still utilise motorpacing.

My preference is for event specific efforts. With a trusty SRM I was able to gear a rider appropriately for our slow outdoor track to match the power and cadence demands of the indoor board track in Invercargill.

 

[TexPat]

Like the recent winner of Paris-Roubaix--and here's where the similarity ends--I use elliptical rings. It makes sense to me, and frankly, I perceive an advantage. Is it the placebo effect?
Does this make me a sucker?
To be fair, the "Gimmickcranks" which you deride, I view with some skepticism; better technique may be achieved thru fixed gear riding.
Furthermore, Anquetil's pedaling style, I submit had little to do with his success.

 

[CoachFergie]

Like the recent winner of Paris-Roubaix--and here's where the similarity ends--I use elliptical rings. It makes sense to me, and frankly, I perceive an advantage. Is it the placebo effect?
Does this make me a sucker?

Yes. You asked

To be fair, the "Gimmickcranks" which you deride, I view with some skepticism; better technique may be achieved thru fixed gear riding.

Is my derision that obvious?

Furthermore, Anquetil's pedaling style, I submit had little to do with his success.

Without data who can tell. Someone had to be number one, if there was no Anquetil we would all be talking about Poulidor's style in just the same way if Lance had not made it back from Cancer riding uphill at 75rpm Ullrich style would have been the fashion.

 

[TexPat]

Yes. You asked



Is my derision that obvious?



Without data who can tell. Someone had to be number one, if there was no Anquetil we would all be talking about Poulidor's style in just the same way if Lance had not made it back from Cancer riding uphill at 75rpm Ullrich style would have been the fashion.

Well, I'd love to hear your criticisms of elliptical rings RE pedalling.

 

[CoachFergie]

Well, I'd love to hear your criticisms of elliptical rings RE pedalling.

Where is the sport in that. You could just read the volumes of journal articles. Can't you make an outrageous claim that you went 40% better from using them or Thor Hushovd is the best hardman finish sprinter because of the Rotor rings

BTW Where in NZ are you? I'm in the city that's always shaking!

 

[TexPat]

No, I know better than to wade into that one! I've got a degree in anthropology, not physiology.
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?

 

[TexPat]

Certainly you wouldn't purport that Sastre et al have had their performances diminished by using Q rings?

 

[CoachFergie]

Certainly you wouldn't purport that Sastre et al have had their performances diminished by using Q rings?

From the most recent studies there are some theoretical benefits but these have yet to pan out to actual performance. I expect like Anquetil it's a beautiful theory ruined by an ugly fact (or in Noel or Frank's case a lack of one).

 

[TexPat]

From the most recent studies there are some theoretical benefits but these have yet to pan out to actual performance. I expect like Anquetil it's a beautiful theory ruined by an ugly fact (or in Noel or Frank's case a lack of one).

If you want to test the theory, I'm in Wellington. Panning out to actual performance gains would be bloody hard, I reckon, due to inconsistent performances offered by most human beings--mine especially.
Perhaps a machine would be better.
The Q rings work in a manner similar to the tried-and-true cam, right?

 

[Tapeworm]

Certainly you wouldn't purport that Sastre et al have had their performances diminished by using Q rings?

Not diminished but unchanged. At least the studies I've seen have come to that conclusion.

No free lunches, regardless of ring shape.

 

[TexPat]

Not diminished but unchanged. At least the studies I've seen have come to that conclusion.

No free lunches, regardless of ring shape.

Any chance those studies are available online?

 

[CoachFergie]

Just checked on the lastest ones and nup. The last earthquake knocked out the Christchurch School of Medicine Library server so I can't access full text articles. ARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Tapeworm]

Here's one:-
http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/4074/

 

[CoachFergie]

I don't have that one but here is another recent study...

http://www.jelectromyographykinesiology.com/article/S1050-6411(10)00029-5/abstract

 

[FrankDay]

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.

Fergie, You really need to talk to a doctor. Your obscession regarding PowerCranks threads is not healthy. A user shows up (Magellen3000 starting Mar1,2011) and resurrects an old PowerCranks thread and makes some very positive remarks about them. (He even, later, gives some positive testing results that actually include some power numbers - see below) And, it seems, you just can't let the debate go on without your two cents, even though the last post before yours was almost a month ago. I guess I ought to thank you for keeping these things alive. Anyhow, your obscession for this topic is not healthy. You ought to take some time off and reassess what this obscession is doing to you.

Magellen's posted testing results (posted Mar 22 at 9:08PM if you want to find it):

"I've now been training on PowerCranks for 5-6 weeks*. Total cycling milage about ~460 miles.
Cycling: My FTP has gone from 236 watts to 285 watts (305 watt 20-minute test). Both measured with PowerTap. The 236 effort was everything I had, while the 300 was lower than I am sure I can do.
Running: Total running mileage over 5-6 weeks is about ~30 miles. My current long slow distance pace (which I run at ~130 BPM, a little less than my 'Maffetone' HR) is ~8:15/mile. Remarkable since last year -when the only thing I was doing was running- my threshold pace was ~8:00/mile, at a HR of 160 BPM.

I sure hope PowerCranks and my training keep "not working" like this.

EDIT:
The above improvement is:

100%*[(285-236)/236] ~= 21%. <= (edit #2 note: changed the 20-min test figure to its implied FTP of 285 watts)

I never did believe that '40% improvement in power' figure (rumored to be somewhere on the PowerCranks website)... buh... buh... buh... ruh-roh Scooby... a 21% improvement in a few weeks sounds like I'm on the right path. <= (edit #2 note: updated % improvement to reflect FTP, not 20-minute power)"

But, alas, I must admit, his report does not constitute the proof you desire.

 

[JayKosta]

Thanks for the link to the Coyle40 pdf .
I looked at it briefly, but I need to study it in more detail.

One thing that I did notice is that Group 1

produced 11% more 'power output' with 9% more 'work'

That seems to imply that Group 1 used a better pedaling technique,
perhaps because they were more experienced (skillful) cyclists.

Also, it would have been very informative if the forces applied the the handlebars were measured and integrated into the overall force analysis.
That would be useful to determine pedaling technique.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[FrankDay]

One thing that I did notice is that Group 1 produced 11% more 'power output' with 9% more 'work'

That seems to imply that Group 1 used a better pedaling technique,
perhaps because they were more experienced (skillful) cyclists.

Coyle explains the difference by the two different groups having different muscle type mixes. Perhaps both explanations are involved in explaining this difference. We simply do not know but technique cannot be ignored as a possiblity.

 

[blutto]

Catchy.

Having coached track cycling where very high cadences are a big part of the game I have never had an issue with developing the necessary leg speed. Especially in Junior Riders who race on gear restrictions.

While SE efforts are in vogue people forget that the Aussies who pioneered a lot of the strength endurance training methods would balance the low cadence work out with sessions at a very high cadence and many riders still utilise motorpacing.

My preference is for event specific efforts. With a trusty SRM I was able to gear a rider appropriately for our slow outdoor track to match the power and cadence demands of the indoor board track in Invercargill.

...catchy and also quite perceptive...

...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...

...this is looking more and more like the lab rats going after Arther Lydiard back in the 60's...and we know how that worked out...reality routed the lab rats...

Cheers

blutto

 

[FrankDay]

...catchy and also quite perceptive...

...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...

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.

 

[CoachFergie]

But, alas, I must admit, his report does not constitute the proof you desire.

No it doesn't, keep trying.

 

[CoachFergie]

Coyle explains the difference by the two different groups having different muscle type mixes. Perhaps both explanations are involved in explaining this difference. We simply do not know but technique cannot be ignored as a possiblity.

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.