correct way to pedal

[FrankDay]

1. Coyle made a mockery of the scientific method and peer review. The phrase 'bad science' does not sufficiently encompass what he accomplished to much acclaim.
2. Musings taken as proven fact is happening with Coyle references in this thread.

1. Coyle didn't make a mockery of the scientific method or peer review. His report did not purport to follow the scientific method, it was simply a report of his testing over several years of this one athlete. It was selected for publication by the publication, not because of the scientific rigor followed by Colye in collecting the data or in his analysis but because of the athlete involved meant many would be interested in seeing it.
2. The fact that his musing are continued to be put out as fact here and elsewhere suggests that Ashendon's criticism has done little to discredit Coyle in the eyes of scientists and the masses, as you suggested.

 

[DirtyWorks]

It was selected for publication by the publication, not because of the scientific rigor followed by Colye in collecting the data or in his analysis.

Because it was published it became 'good science.' The guy spread not just bad science, but awful science.

His awful science is being used as a legitimate argument in this thread. Why am I the only person that seems to understand this?

but because of the athlete involved meant many would be interested in seeing it.

The consequences were some very UN-systematic data collection tied together with musings were passed off as the practice of good scientific method. The next guy can stop pretending and abandon all logic and scientific method in the pursuit of securing grants at a University, the supposed paragon of logic and scientific method. We know this is happening in Big Pharma already.

You really don't see how the scientific method in this field has been corrupted by his work? Really?

 

[FrankDay]

...for what my opinion is worth I also agree that Coyle's hypothesis is right...but the problem with his proof is that it may not have been as comprehensive as it could have been...

...so here is my two cents worth...spent some time reading and re-reading Coyle's 1991 paper and I ended up spending a lot of time looking at the three graphs that mapped pedal angle, vertical force and horizontal force....and what I came away with was that pedal angle was a critical parameter in determining effective power output...now if you take pedal angle and cross-reference that across the idea that calf size is a good indicator of performance you could say something along these lines...the calf, being a critical part of the bio-mechanical system that stabilizes the foot( and hence pedal angle), may be one of those muscle groups that should, as the discussion part of the paper talked about, be part of any further examination of pedal efficiency...

...and hang on to your hats because we are entering a wild-a$$ thinking zone here...we have evolved to walk efficiently over rough terrain...the key to this is feed-back from the foot...this feedback tells the body which of a myriad of muscle groups to engage the problem of walking on rough terrain and solve it efficiently...now we assume pedaling is a straight forward process but translating force, which is what we mainly produce to facilitate walking, into torque within a system that severely circumscribes our natural gait might actually be much more complex than the parameters of the relevant studies work within...and the key to doing it ( pedalling efficiently ) properly may be to involve as much of the neuromuscular system as we possibly can( and the key to that may be proper pedal angle and how that sets the foot and how that impacts everything up-stream)...so the Coyle article's concentration on the vastus lateralis may be a critical oversimplification ( and to Coyle's credit the discussion part of the paper addresses that issue )that may have led to a under-estimation of the role of efficiency...my feeling is that the pedal angle may be critical as it could be the mechanism that sends the most accurate information upstream to recruit the the proper grouping of muscles to most efficiently do the job of turning force into torque...

...or put another very pedal stroke on the road is a work of art, that, in the hands of the best rider, translates output into the most efficient way to push the bike forward in a situation where conditions are always changing ( riding cobbles may be the most extreme example of this ).... or put yet another way, its not a leg press its a bicycle we're pushing...

...so the efficiency may still be there...it just hasn't been teased out...maybe using fractal analysis ( which has recently thrown a new light on examining the human heart beat that up to now has been looked at as a fairly simple repetitive phenomenon )

...if this is way off base sorry to have wasted your collective times...

Cheers

blutto

Who knows, maybe you are right. At least, what you pulled out of that paper might be part of the equation. The problem is in proving your hypothesis.

The real value of a paper such as the Coyle paper is not in what it proved (because it really didn't prove much everyone didn't already know) but where it might lead the next researcher. The value of your musing is it also might interest a researcher to investigate your hypothesis.

So, what is included in the efficiency equation? Muscle fiber type seems to be part of the equation. Leirdal in his paper analyzed pedaling forces in a completely new way and came up with the finding that forces across the top are important to efficiency (P<.001). That seems to be part of the equation. Maybe Coyle's 1991 data could be reanalyzed using Leirdal's technique to see if that data confirms his finding. Confirmation of Leirdal would be important to know. If Leirdal were confirmed then we would want to know is if we were able to increase that in cyclists would efficiency improve? If that could be shown then cyclists would have something to actually work on to improve that aspect of cycling.

We know efficiency can be changed. Luttrell showed that, although we don't know what specific changes accounted for the efficiency changes he saw. Coyle showed efficiency can change even in an elite cyclist although, again, we do not know what changes actually occurred that can account for these changes. We know it can change but we are guessing as to how. It is up to science to get the data so we are no longer guessing.

Without knowing the specifics as to what is important to pedaling efficiency it is not possible for the athlete to "use science" know how to train to improve this aspect of the game. Until that is done everyone is guessing as to what is going on.

 

[FrankDay]

Because it was published it became 'good science.' The guy spread not just bad science, but awful science.

His awful science is being used as a legitimate argument in this thread. Why am I the only person that seems to understand this?

Coyle's paper is not awful science. It was a case report. Case reports are a legitimate part of science as case reports simply report observations that may be of interest to others.

The consequences were some very UN-systematic data collection tied together with musings were passed off as the practice of good scientific method. The next guy can stop pretending and abandon all logic and scientific method in the pursuit of securing grants at a University, the supposed paragon of logic and scientific method. We know this is happening in Big Pharma already.

You really don't see how the scientific method in this field has been corrupted by his work? Really?

It is a case report. This paper does not corrupt the scientific method.

 

[oldborn]

I am not sure why good technique is being seen as inconsistent with top power. Slipping occurs because instantaneous torque overcomes frictional forces of the tire, not because the power is too high per se. Two anecdotes that might help understand how changing technique to what my product encourages helps in this area.

Geoff Kabush, current best mountain biker in NA, has been a long time PowerCranker. One of the biggest changes he saw after he got on them was he "could ride through things he couldn't before" suggesting smoothness really does make a big difference to mountain bikers.

Magnus Backstead, who won P-R, told us he used to take his PC's out on the cobbles in specific preparation for that race. I doubt he, as a road cyclist, was willing to give up power to gain some technique. I think he was after both, technique and power. They are not mutually exclusive, IMHO.

Does "instantaneous torque" means to much force and to high cadence? It seems to me there is loss of power here we talking.

Smoothness means what exactly? Really nice optimum production of power with nice all round circle of pedalling (technique).

 

[FrankDay]

Does "instantaneous torque" means to much force and to high cadence? It seems to me there is loss of power here we talking.

Smoothness means what exactly? Really nice optimum production of power with nice all round circle of pedalling (technique).

Instantaneous torque simply means the torque (force) on the ground or pedal at that particular instant. The torque on the ground and pedal are directly related but depend upon several factors (wheel size, gearing, crank length) to exactly define the relationship and the instantaneous torque varies around the pedaling circle. Smoothness to me is the ratio of the average torque around the circle to the maximum torque (the CompuTrainer spinscan number). Slipping is not going to occur until the force overcomes friction. So, the smoother the pedal stroke, the higher the power in any given circumstance when slipping will occur.

 

[oldborn]

...really glad you brought up the MTB reference...I remember reading an article which speculated about the superior efficiency of MTB riders but couldn't for the world of me find it...if you could post the references I would really appreciate it...

...the point I was going to make ( if my recollection of the MTB related articles is correct ) was that, yes, technique can, in some cases, trump power( which is genaerally accepted as a/the prime factor in cycling success) ...and the case I would bring up for comment is the problem of riding cobbles...it doesn't seem the solution to riding cobbles is pure power but pedaling technique...and the cobbles analogy, if its correct, could also be applied to road racing in general by just imagining the pavement as actually being micro-cobbles ( thus still slipping and sliding but on a much smaller scale )...just a thought...

...and yes the atmosphere has improved and who knows we may actually be getting somewhere...

Cheers

blutto

Well at least i can point out Lynda Wallenfels book (excellent athlete but not very distinguish writer) she write; " My favorite efficiency workout is MTB.
A mashing style breaks the rear wheel loose in most off road terrain and gets you nowhere fast.
Research at the Olympic Traning Centar has found that out of all of the cycling disciplines MTB produces the most economical pedallers.
USA Tri requieres its junior team members to bring their MTB to spring training camps for this reason!

In hers book there is a lot, lot words of that ecpecially this article of pedalling technique of Ken Mierke (firts time heard of him when bought book)
http://triathlonresource.com/index_files/Page2937.htm

Basically all what Frank is going after, i think?

 

[FrankDay]

Well at least i can point out Lynda Wallenfels book (excellent athlete but not very distinguish writer) she write; " My favorite efficiency workout is MTB.
A mashing style breaks the rear wheel loose in most off road terrain and gets you nowhere fast.
Research at the Olympic Traning Centar has found that out of all of the cycling disciplines MTB produces the most economical pedallers.
USA Tri requieres its junior team members to bring their MTB to spring training camps for this reason!

In hers book there is a lot, lot words of that ecpecially this article of pedalling technique of Ken Mierke (firts time heard of him when bought book)
http://triathlonresource.com/index_files/Page2937.htm

Basically all what Frank is going after, i think?

Yes. And if you ask him you will find Ken Mierke is a long time PowerCranks advocate.

While none of what I say has been "proven" (as is constantly pointed out here), there are theoretical advantages to these techniques and the anecdotal evidence supporting them are substantial. It seems to me that if it is possible to make these changes then one should try. My product simply makes it easier for the athlete willing to take the plunge to try to make the change and achieve success. Those who are waiting for the science to prove this stuff before they are willing to give it a try are going to have a long wait I suspect.

 

[oldborn]

Instantaneous torque simply means the torque (force) on the ground or pedal at that particular instant. The torque on the ground and pedal are directly related but depend upon several factors (wheel size, gearing, crank length) to exactly define the relationship and the instantaneous torque varies around the pedaling circle. Smoothness to me is the ratio of the average torque around the circle to the maximum torque (the CompuTrainer spinscan number). Slipping is not going to occur until the force overcomes friction. So, the smoother the pedal stroke, the higher the power in any given circumstance when slipping will occur.

Let me think, (which is hard) if we lower peak torques force on any given moment we will lower power output in general, but we will use that power more clever or smooth.
How it is possible to reduce peak torques forces (in order to avoid slipping) and still maintain same power output as nothing hapens?

Another look, slipping is going to hapened when we riding higher RPM than we should, so rear wheel going nowhere.
If we reduce RPM and possibly change to higher gear we are going to move and possibly produce higher power.
If we reduce RPM and not changing gears, we are also going to move, but with lower power evenly distributed.

 

[oldborn]

Coyle paper beeing read this days more than New Testament "The death of Jesus"!

 

[oldborn]

Yes. And if you ask him you will find Ken Mierke is a long time PowerCranks advocate.

While none of what I say has been "proven" (as is constantly pointed out here), there are theoretical advantages to these techniques and the anecdotal evidence supporting them are substantial. It seems to me that if it is possible to make these changes then one should try. My product simply makes it easier for the athlete willing to take the plunge to try to make the change and achieve success. Those who are waiting for the science to prove this stuff before they are willing to give it a try are going to have a long wait I suspect.

I told you before, what is 100% proven in cycling? Let me answer, nothing at all Dude.
Those who are claiming "their" way is to be followed no matter what hapends, are just that, fanatics

 

[oldborn]

Actually I agree, I found that in mud, sand, gravel on the mtb etc I modify the pedal stroke. Though the watts normally drop it's better than slipping wheels.

Dude i found that in mud I just suck
I am having a real training for you; it is called "Aussies on ice", that should be funny.

 

[JayKosta]

Let me think, (which is hard) if we lower peak torques force on any given moment we will lower power output in general, but we will use that power more clever or smooth.
How it is possible to reduce peak torques forces (in order to avoid slipping) and still maintain same power output as nothing hapens?
...

========================================
If there is significant tire slipping, then the output power that produced the slippage is wasted and does not contribute to forward propulsion.
By reducing power so as to reduce or eliminate slippage, the physical exertion used to produce slippage can be saved for more productive use.

IF a pedal technique is used that produces more even power output without slippage peaks then more forward propulsion might be possible, even though the total power output ls less than when producing slippage with power peaks.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[FrankDay]

How it is possible to reduce peak torques forces (in order to avoid slipping) and still maintain same power output as nothing hapens?

Here is how, you spread the work done over more of the pedal circumference.

Edit: another way is to simply increase the cadence. Higher cadences have lower forces on the pedal for the same power so peak torque to the wheel will be lowered.


Or, you could combine the two techniques.

 

[CoachFergie]

By using an imaginary chart. Do you have any real data to support that rather than what you would people to think happens.

 

[oldborn]

Thanks Frank.
Thanks Kosta, are you Greek btw?

 

[Tapeworm]

Dude i found that in mud I just suck
I am having a real training for you; it is called "Aussies on ice", that should be funny.

Hah! Whilst blitering heat is the Australian standard some of us live where it gets well below freezing. Snow riding this year!

 

[blutto]

I am afraid you will find the pedal speed varies so little around the circle that your definition of pedaling efficiency and pedaling effectiveness are essentially the same.

I think you will find that most scientists use your definition of cyclist efficiency for their definition of pedaling or cycling efficiency and they use your definition of pedaling efficiency for their definition of pedaling effectiveness.

I a all for people using the same definition of word in discussing things but we should be using definitions in fairly common use whenever possible.

... yes there is merit in sticking to a common frame of reference...but the question is whether that frame of reference adequately defines the thing to be studied...( while not being skilled in the arts I would hazard the following guess...the commonly used definitions should be sent into the shop for a tune-up because in their present state they may not be up to the job )...as an example, the results that seem to be the targets of research are to this admittedly untrained eye on the macro level whereas the the relevant answers may be in the micro realm, that is, those little differences that you dismiss...

...in that regard I think Mr Kosta's descriptions/definitions provide a better framework within which to ask questions ( and hopefully get useful results )...in fact, what Mr Kosta suggests, when applied to the Coyle article does in fact show technique is important, and when viewed from a best to worse case scenario could easily explain an efficiency increase far exceeding the efficiency claimed for Armstrong in that now infamous report ( that being said I realize that the last statement is a very simple view of a very compex situation and is not meant to validate in the absolute sense that report )....

Cheers

blutto

 

[JayKosta]

...
Thanks Kosta, are you Greek btw?

===========================
Nope - original name was Kostka - Polish.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[FrankDay]

... yes there is merit in sticking to a common frame of reference...but the question is whether that frame of reference adequately defines the thing to be studied...( while not being skilled in the arts I would hazard the following guess...the commonly used definitions should be sent into the shop for a tune-up because in their present state they may not be up to the job )...as an example, the results that seem to be the targets of research are to this admittedly untrained eye on the macro level whereas the the relevant answers may be in the micro realm, that is, those little differences that you dismiss...

...in that regard I think Mr Kosta's descriptions/definitions provide a better framework within which to ask questions ( and hopefully get useful results )...in fact, what Mr Kosta suggests, when applied to the Coyle article does in fact show technique is important, and when viewed from a best to worse case scenario could easily explain an efficiency increase far exceeding the efficiency claimed for Armstrong in that now infamous report ( that being said I realize that the last statement is a very simple view of a very compex situation and is not meant to validate in the absolute sense that report )....

Cheers

blutto

It is hard for me to imagine that technique is not important to cycling efficiency. Cycling efficiency has been shown to vary from as low as 16% to as high as 26%. It is hard for me to imagine that such a range can be seen without technique comprising a huge component in explaining that range. The only problem is science has yet to uncover what all of the elements are that can explain such variation. My sense is that compared to the information we have now, gathered in university studies of small groups for limited periods, when the crank and/or pedal systems become available that give individuals information about 360º pedal forces and these become widely available that we might start to get enough information to help lead to some of these answers.

The fact that science has not uncovered all the secrets yet should not deter people from exploring real world practical solutions based upon what is predicted (predictions may vary, take your pick) will be shown.

 

[blutto]

It is hard for me to imagine that technique is not important to cycling efficiency. Cycling efficiency has been shown to vary from as low as 16% to as high as 26%. It is hard for me to imagine that such a range can be seen without technique comprising a huge component in explaining that range. The only problem is science has yet to uncover what all of the elements are that can explain such variation. My sense is that compared to the information we have now, gathered in university studies of small groups for limited periods, when the crank and/or pedal systems become available that give individuals information about 360º pedal forces and these become widely available that we might start to get enough information to help lead to some of these answers.

The fact that science has not uncovered all the secrets yet should not deter people from exploring real world practical solutions based upon what is predicted (predictions may vary, take your pick) will be shown.

...searching for that huge component may not be the way to achieve the result you want...it may be the sum total of small steps that may yield an answer...as an example, designing camshaft profiles involves small tweaks to achieve significant changes in engine output ( and this involves looking at the gross movement of the camshaft in a micro way...something that many of the cycling studies have not done in as rigorous manner as I think a more appropriate analysis would ultimately require )...

....Steve Hogg, in his blog, has an interesting article that paints a neat picture of the relationship between the proprioceptive feedback in the foot and what that means to muscle systems up-stream...the short story is that we use a lot of brain power to balance ourselves, to move forward and keep our head on straight...so it would seem logical that the understanding of these and related functions involved would require a complex analysis that takes into account all aspects of the system both large and small ( for instance feedback loops do not have to be huge to have a huge effect on a system )...nature designs for simplicity and if we have piles of information devoted to dealing with these functions there must be a reason for it...

...to look for the one huge thing may produce a situation where the complexity with its myriad functions will be ignored...it will be kinda like looking at the pedal stroke with brains literally left out...like reducing the pedal function to one primary outcome and ignoring or devaluating everything else...

...the Hogg piece is here....http://stevehoggbikefitting.blogspot.com/2011/02/foot-correction-part-1-arch-support_18.html


Cheers

blutto

 

[FrankDay]

...searching for that huge component may not be the way to achieve the result you want...it may be the sum total of small steps that may yield an answer...as an example, designing camshaft profiles involves small tweaks to achieve significant changes in engine output ( and this involves looking at the gross movement of the camshaft in a micro way...something that many of the cycling studies have not done in as rigorous manner as I think a more appropriate analysis would ultimately require )...

Of course, these differences are almost certainly made up of many different components. Having a positive effect on many different components is the only way to account for the 40% power improvements we tend to see, on average. There is no one component that can account for that amount of improvement.

....Steve Hogg, in his blog, has an interesting article that paints a neat picture of the relationship between the proprioceptive feedback in the foot and what that means to muscle systems up-stream...the short story is that we use a lot of brain power to balance ourselves, to move forward and keep our head on straight...so it would seem logical that the understanding of these and related functions involved would require a complex analysis that takes into account all aspects of the system both large and small ( for instance feedback loops do not have to be huge to have a huge effect on a system )...nature designs for simplicity and if we have piles of information devoted to dealing with these functions there must be a reason for it...

He is wrong or you have interpreted what he says wrongly. Even though lots is going on, balancing and walking and running and cycling involve essentially no "brain" power since this is entirely accomplished at the level of the cerebellum and below. The higher brain is only involved if something need be changed such as initiating the action, stopping it, changing effort, changing direction, avoiding an obstacle, etc. My point is that once these patterns are ingrained they are exceedingly difficult to change but change is not impossible.

...to look for the one huge thing may produce a situation where the complexity with its myriad functions will be ignored...it will be kinda like looking at the pedal stroke with brains literally left out...like reducing the pedal function to one primary outcome and ignoring or devaluating everything else...

There is no one huge thing. It is why those who state that how hard one pushes is the only important thing are way off base.

...the Hogg piece is here....http://stevehoggbikefitting.blogspot.com/2011/02/foot-correction-part-1-arch-support_18.html


Cheers

blutto

Hogg is trying to sell an arch support system. He does say this: "The answer is to change the quality of the stimuli from the feet so it can be 'heard'.In other words to metaphorically raise the voice of a speaker at the party or to metaphorically tug the jersey as per the examples above."

Well, my point exactly when it comes to changing pedaling style. It simply is not possible to expect the rider to be able to change unless there is adequate awareness of what he/she is doing. That is the point of the PowerCranks, to give the rider the awareness of when they are doing it correctly (according to us, anyhow) and when they are not. Then there is a real chance of changing. Without adequate awareness of what one is actually doing it is not possible to change.

The question remains, however, Is the PowerCranks way superior to what most do "normally"? Or, is there another way (linear technique?) that is superior (how would one train it)? That question remains unanswered scientifically.

 

[CoachFergie]

40% improvements you claim to see but can provide no evidence of.

That's it Frank just keep repeating the lie.

 

[CoachFergie]

It's funny that the one person who claims that pedaling technique is so important has a $1000 pair of cranks that he claims improves it.
Also amusing that the evidence points to the far greater importance of quality specific training and racing in real petformance improvements.

 

[blutto]

Of course, these differences are almost certainly made up of many different components. Having a positive effect on many different components is the only way to account for the 40% power improvements we tend to see, on average. There is no one component that can account for that amount of improvement.

He is wrong or you have interpreted what he says wrongly. Even though lots is going on, balancing and walking and running and cycling involve essentially no "brain" power since this is entirely accomplished at the level of the cerebellum and below. The higher brain is only involved if something need be changed such as initiating the action, stopping it, changing effort, changing direction, avoiding an obstacle, etc. My point is that once these patterns are ingrained they are exceedingly difficult to change but change is not impossible.

There is no one huge thing. It is why those who state that how hard one pushes is the only important thing are way off base.

Hogg is trying to sell an arch support system. He does say this: "The answer is to change the quality of the stimuli from the feet so it can be 'heard'.In other words to metaphorically raise the voice of a speaker at the party or to metaphorically tug the jersey as per the examples above."

Well, my point exactly when it comes to changing pedaling style. It simply is not possible to expect the rider to be able to change unless there is adequate awareness of what he/she is doing. That is the point of the PowerCranks, to give the rider the awareness of when they are doing it correctly (according to us, anyhow) and when they are not. Then there is a real chance of changing. Without adequate awareness of what one is actually doing it is not possible to change.

The question remains, however, Is the PowerCranks way superior to what most do "normally"? Or, is there another way (linear technique?) that is superior (how would one train it)? That question remains unanswered scientifically.

...basically riding a bike outside of a lab involves initiating the action, stopping it, changing effort, changing direction, avoiding an obstacle, etc doesn't it?...and then there is racing a bike...

...that being said brain power may have been the wrong term to use...Hogg uses the term Central Nervous System ( CNS-brain and stem )....and yes he is selling something but then so are you....but in both cases that doesn't necessarily diminish everything that you folks might say...

Cheers

blutto