correct way to pedal

[FrankDay]

And again YES, improving the overall strength and fitness of the cyclist is likely to give more power gain than making small improvements in pedaling technique.

Science has not answered the question as to what gains might be expected from improvements in pedaling technique. Let's assume they are small, say just 5%. At 300 watts that is an extra 15 watts. Who would claim to be serious and pass up that improvement? I am sure there would be some but most would say they are only "serious" in their words, not in their actions.

 

[CoachFergie]

Science has not answered the question as to what gains might be expected from improvements in pedaling technique. Let's assume they are small, say just 5%. At 300 watts that is an extra 15 watts. Who would claim to be serious and pass up that improvement? I am sure there would be some but most would say they are only "serious" in their words, not in their actions.

In cycling a 15 watt improvement is massive, 60-120sec in a 40km time trial, which is why the claimed 40% average improvement from Gimmickcrank use is such a joke. When no study has shown any improvement in power from Gimmickcrank use. All of your theoretical rationales for their use don't equate to more power.

 

[FrankDay]

In cycling a 15 watt improvement is massive, 60-120sec in a 40km time trial, which is why the claimed 40% average improvement from Gimmickcrank use is such a joke. When no study has shown any improvement in power from Gimmickcrank use. All of your theoretical rationales for their use don't equate to more power.

A 15 watt improvement is only "massive" if one is at the elite levels. It is pretty pedestrian if one is currently at 150 watt FTP, getting them all the way to 165 watts (even though that would represent a 10% improvement at that level). So, maybe my product has a potential of only adding 15 watts to your athletes but you would pass it up because you don't like my 40% claim, even though that claim is not directed to the athletes you deal with.

And, you still haven't addressed the Armstrong efficiency question. How about it. Would Armstrong improving his efficiency 8% while keeping his other metrics constant result in improved performance (power)?

 

[JA.Tri]

Coapman and Frank Day

Hi to you both.

Have you (either of you) conducted a study with a control group, seeking to demonstrate power improvements over that obtained by the control group?

What outcomes were noted?

I acknowledge that power may not be the only positive outcome that arises from your respective methods. Given that is the case, what other positive outcomes have been demonstrated?

Ta

 

[CoachFergie]

A 15 watt improvement is only "massive" if one is at the elite levels. It is pretty pedestrian if one is currently at 150 watt FTP, getting them all the way to 165 watts (even though that would represent a 10% improvement at that level).

Using http://bikecalculator.com/veloMetric.html the jump from 150 watts to 165 watts is just a measly 3min over 40km. Yes what was I thinking

If you punch in 400 and 415 watts and put the riders on aerobars and tubular wheels the time difference is less than 60sec. What were YOU thinking Frank?

So, maybe my product has a potential of only adding 15 watts to your athletes but you would pass it up because you don't like my 40% claim, even though that claim is not directed to the athletes you deal with.

Ummm Frank you have not supplied any evidence of a 1 watt improvement from Gimmickcrank use.

And, you still haven't addressed the Armstrong efficiency question. How about it. Would Armstrong improving his efficiency 8% while keeping his other metrics constant result in improved performance (power)?

If Armstrong had an FTP of 450 watts and he improved his efficiency by 8% and his FTP was still 450watts (holding other metrics constant) then yes there is no improvement in performance. Same if one was to perform a FTP test and get a result of 350watts and an ave 60 min heart rate of 170 bpm and repeat that test after a training block and get the same 350watts FTP but an ave 60min HR of only 160 bpm there would still be no improvement in performance.

 

[FrankDay]

Hi to you both.

Have you (either of you) conducted a study with a control group, seeking to demonstrate power improvements over that obtained by the control group?

What outcomes were noted?

I acknowledge that power may not be the only positive outcome that arises from your respective methods. Given that is the case, what other positive outcomes have been demonstrated?

Ta

I did my own small study using some locally recruited athletes. There was no control group in my study but the athletes were relatively stable in performance. Using a ramped max power test I achieved an average of about 40% in power improvement over 6 to 9 months in those who stayed the course. The only other study I know of that looked and saw a power increase was done by Dixon in Canada where the athletes acted as their own controls, that is they started the study at the end of their season when they expected their power to be at a maximum and then they used the PowerCranks exclusively for 6 weeks to see what changes occurred. They observed a statistically significant 15% improvement in VO2max and an 11% increase in max power in that 6 weeks. This is the only study I know of where the athletes used the cranks exclusively. One other study was done by Luttrell. He showed a 10% increase in cycling efficiency after 6 weeks of part-time training. His athletes were trained but not elite. There have been other studies done that showed changes in coordination patterns with use and that these changes would revert after a period of time after usage stopped.

Fergie likes to point out there are several studies that have not shown improvement. These studies generally were 5-6 weeks long and involved part-time use (2-3x/week) and more elite athletes than Luttrell had. If one reads these studies there were generally differences between the groups but the differences did not reach statistical significance.

None of these studies, either positive or negative looked at the pedal forces to see if positive results correlated with any particular change in pedaling pattern or that failure to see improvement occurred in the face of demonstrated change in pedaling pattern. The earlier study I posted out of the University of Kentucky looked at pedal forces but they did not look at changes over time, they were simply trying to look at how slope affected pedaling technique with both regular and independent cranks.

So, the studies regarding PowerCranks are mixed and, in my mind, generally inadequate to definitively answer the question as to whether pedaling technique makes a difference and, if so, how much and what aspects are most important.

I don't think Neal has any studies looking at his technique as only he seems to know what it is.

 

[FrankDay]

If Armstrong had an FTP of 450 watts and he improved his efficiency by 8% and his FTP was still 450watts (holding other metrics constant) then yes there is no improvement in performance. Same if one was to perform a FTP test and get a result of 350watts and an ave 60 min heart rate of 170 bpm and repeat that test after a training block and get the same 350watts FTP but an ave 60min HR of only 160 bpm there would still be no improvement in performance.

Well, efficiency is energy out divided by energy in. I asked you what would happen to his power holding the other metrics (energy in, or VO2max) the same (power is the dependent variable, not the constant). So, do the calculation again, and give us your answer.

Are you trying to tell us that you believe that the FTP hasn't changed in an athlete that performs an hour at 350 watts and an ave HR of 170 then goes out and does a block of training, retests, and does another hour at 350 watts but this time at an avg HR of 160? From this you would conclude his FTP is still 350 after that block of training? You wouldn't tell him to come back and repeat it at an avg HR of 170 to see where he really is. Are you really so locked in to your PM data you would ignore that HR data?

 

[CoachFergie]

I did my own small study using some locally recruited athletes.

n=?

There was no control group in my study but the athletes were relatively stable in performance.

How was this assessed and how do you quantify stable in their performance?

Using a ramped max power test I achieved an average of about 40% in power improvement over 6 to 9 months in those who stayed the course.

What was it 6 or 9 months???

How many failed to complete the study, was there tests at 3 months seeing this is your guarantee period.

What power meter was used to determine the power output and where is the raw data?

Was the testing performed using normal cranks or Gimmickcrank, seeing GCs can not be used in cycle races.

The only other study I know of that looked and saw a power increase was done by Dixon in Canada where the athletes acted as their own controls, that is they started the study at the end of their season when they expected their power to be at a maximum and then they used the PowerCranks exclusively for 6 weeks to see what changes occurred. They observed a statistically significant 15% improvement in VO2max and an 11% increase in max power in that 6 weeks.

So not a controlled study and was not published.

So if these riders had a FTP of 280 this would be a 30 watt improvement over 6 weeks. Care to explain why no published study has seen a similar improvement over a similar period?

This is the only study I know of where the athletes used the cranks exclusively. One other study was done by Luttrell. He showed a 10% increase in cycling efficiency after 6 weeks of part-time training.

But no improvement in performance. Williams (2009) saw a non significant decrease in efficiency in the uncoupled group while the control group improved in efficiency (NS).

His athletes were trained but not elite. There have been other studies done that showed changes in coordination patterns with use and that these changes would revert after a period of time after usage stopped.

Making Gimmickcrank use redundant because any gains in would not be cycle racing specific.

Fergie likes to point out there are several studies that have not shown improvement. These studies generally were 5-6 weeks long and involved part-time use (2-3x/week) and more elite athletes than Luttrell had. If one reads these studies there were generally differences between the groups but the differences did not reach statistical significance.

Sperlich etal (2011) performed a high volume of training with independent cranks and saw no improvements in power. Numerous studies have provided a substantially smaller training stimulus (Burgomaster, 2006) like 12-18mins over a 2 week period and saw significant performance gains.

None of these studies, either positive or negative looked at the pedal forces to see if positive results correlated with any particular change in pedaling pattern or that failure to see improvement occurred in the face of demonstrated change in pedaling pattern.

Except Bohm (2008) and Sperlich (2011) who showed a change in pedalling technique and showed no performance improvements and Fernandez-Pena (2009) who showed that changes occurred and reverted back to normal rapidly when subjects went back to normal crank use.

So, the studies regarding PowerCranks are mixed and, in my mind, generally inadequate to definitively answer the question as to whether pedaling technique makes a difference and, if so, how much and what aspects are most important.

Funny that the creator would say that.

 

[CoachFergie]

Are you trying to tell us that you believe that the FTP hasn't changed in an athlete that performs an hour at 350 watts and an ave HR of 170 then goes out and does a block of training, retests, and does another hour at 350 watts but this time at an avg HR of 160? From this you would conclude his FTP is still 350 after that block of training? You wouldn't tell him to come back and repeat it at an avg HR of 170 to see where he really is. Are you really so locked in to your PM data you would ignore that HR data?

Yes. I would ignore HR.

August 2005 testing
max HR 200
MAP (max min power) 260
AnT Power 192
AnT HR 180
AeT power 145
AeT HR 150

November 2005 Testing
max HR 203
MAP (max min power) 290
AnT Power 215
AnT HR 161
AeT power 170
AeT HR 142

Results show that despite achieving a Max HR in both tests (in the 2nd test achieving the max HR I see in road races) and an increase in power across the MAP, Anaerobic Threshold and Aerobic Threshold my heart rate at these two thresholds decreased.

I am not a big fan of the whole lactate threshold testing concept but did find that on long climbs over this period the heart rate I could sustain did drop from around 182 to 160bpm.

I also saw a drop in VO2max over this period despite a 30 watts increase in power at VO2max.

I don't think I am the only one who looks to power as the key performance indicator over VO2max, lactate or HR.

 

[FrankDay]

Yes. I would ignore HR.
…
I don't think I am the only one who looks to power as the key performance indicator over VO2max, lactate or HR.

No, I am sure you are not. However, I suspect that there are plenty of others out there who might disagree with your approach.

Just out of curiosity, how do you think the elite marathoners assess their fitness and assess optimum pace for them? No power for them yet they seem to do a pretty good job.

 

[CoachFergie]

No, I am sure you are not. However, I suspect that there are plenty of others out there who might disagree with your approach.

Maybe they will front with evidence to match their claims.

Just out of curiosity, how do you think the elite marathoners assess their fitness and assess optimum pace for them? No power for them yet they seem to do a pretty good job.

The runners I coach go by pace. They do a pretty good job of it but not as good as the cyclists I coach who train with a power meter. Running pace doesn't seem to be affected by conditions as much as cycling pace is so if they are running a faster pace for a set course we agree there is improvement. However on the bike even within a training session we see rather large differences in conditions (the saying "4 seasons in 1 day" fits well with NZ) that have a substantial influence on speeds and times and the power meter helps to quantify this.

I have just assessed the three days of racing from the tour I was at over the weekend and the rider only had a Edge 500 so it was speed, altitude, heart rate and cadence. Nothing we can go back to this event next year and say with any accuracy that he has improved. Maybe times on the climbs but this could be affected by wind, rain or heat. Certainly not HR. "Yes Luke you rode that climb 5 beats higher than last year so you must have improved". Yeah Nah!

 

[FrankDay]

The runners I coach go by pace.

Pace, like Power, says nothing about effort.

 

[CoachFergie]

Pace, like Power, says nothing about effort.

That's funny Frank.

 

[CoachFergie]

So why are there so many claims on the Gimmickcrank site about athletes improving their speed like Phil Homan who improved what was it 2-3 mph? Would that not have been the difference between the outdoor US tracks at the time (no ADT) and the Manchester Track that has seen more than it's share of World Records

With regard to effort how do you propose to measure that while training and competing?

Do you need to measure effort?

With a power meter if a rider is 10 watts better on a specific test than before I know they can perform more work relative weight or frontal area. This can be used to assess a training block, aerodynamic position or piece of equipment. We know that training with a Gimmickcrank doesn't provide a training stimulus that improves power using a normal crank and that just 12-18min of short interval training does improve power in just 2 weeks.

Isn't science cool Frank!

 

[FrankDay]

That's funny Frank.

No, it is sad. One cannot say anything definitive about power (or pace) unless one can also judge the relative effort under which it was performed.

 

[FrankDay]

So why are there so many claims on the Gimmickcrank site about athletes improving their speed like Phil Homan who improved what was it 2-3 mph? Would that not have been the difference between the outdoor US tracks at the time (no ADT) and the Manchester Track that has seen more than it's share of World Records

No, I think those improvements were seen on his home track so they should be relative to similar conditions. He just happened to win his medal on another track

With regard to effort how do you propose to measure that while training and competing?

Most people use HR and perceived effort. They usually correlate reasonably well. Experienced athletes are usually quite good at it.

Do you need to measure effort?

Yes, if you want to measure improvement. Improvement can only be assessed if conditions are similar between efforts.

With a power meter if a rider is 10 watts better on a climb or a pursuit than before I know they can perform more work relative to their goals and their training.

You only know that if they did the performance at the same relative effort compared to their max effort and if they are equivalently rested for the two climbs.

 

[CoachFergie]

No, it is sad. One cannot say anything definitive about power (or pace) unless one can also judge the relative effort under which it was performed.

Well be a good boy and get cracking on an effort meter for cycling.

I am sure that Juerg and the boys at FACT have some gizmos they claim do this but nothing has caught the imagination of the Sport Science community in the same way Power Meters have.

And just how, pray tell, would measuring effort help a rider to improve their performance better than a measure of work capacity? "Yes rider X I want you to climb that hill at an efficiency of no lower than 20%". That would be sad.

 

[FrankDay]

Well be a good boy and get cracking on an effort meter for cycling.

Not necessary. The marathoners have figured it out. Merckx figured it out. As have many others. Your precious power meter is a pretty awful tool without a context in which to put all those numbers. But, I am sure you knew that, right? Oh, wait, without any PM study to tell you that, perhaps you didn't know that.

 

[CoachFergie]

No, I think those improvements were seen on his home track so they should be relative to similar conditions. He just happened to win his medal on another track

You didn't answer why there are so many speed based claims on the Gimmickcrank site when pace is such a poor indicator?

Most people use HR and perceived effort. They usually correlate reasonably well. Experienced athletes are usually quite good at it.

Not as good as power. RPE is just guessing and HR is guessing what is causing HR beyond the effort of exercise (dehydration, heat, cold, CHO levels, stress etc).

Yes, if you want to measure improvement. Improvement can only be assessed if conditions are similar between efforts.

That is why a onboard power meter is so cool. Every ride is a lab test and conditions can be compared between rides.

You only know that if they did the performance at the same relative effort compared to their max effort and if they are equivalently rested for the two climbs.

Such a narrow view of the training process. With a power meter one can assess many efforts within a session and monitor pacing. Some interval session can stretch out to 75 reps (ACF level 2 coaching manual) and as mentioned conditions can vary dramatically over the session.

Even a one off effort can vary greatly between tests and within a test and in cycling competition how often is a performance carried out at a constant pace. Even a 4000m pursuit shows great variance in power as riders go through the bends or a 40km TT as riders go with and against the wind, ride different surfaces and face slight to not so slight changes in gradient. HR is not sensitive to this so your effortometer will need to do a better job.

 

[CoachFergie]

Not necessary. The marathoners have figured it out. Merckx figured it out. As have many others. Your precious power meter is a pretty awful tool without a context in which to put all those numbers. But, I am sure you knew that, right? Oh, wait, without any PM study to tell you that, perhaps you didn't know that.

Would have to see a comparison of Marathon performances to Cycling Performances to say with any degree. Have to say the Marathon has been around for longer than Cycling but we have a better ability to measure performance than runners do.

You only say it's an awful tool because there is no evidence that training with a Gimmickcrank does not improve performance as assessed by a power meter.

Context is simple. 10 watts more is greater capacity to do work.

 

[FrankDay]

You didn't answer why there are so many speed based claims on the Gimmickcrank site when pace is such a poor indicator?

You mentioned Holman specifically which is why I commented on him. Mostly, the reason there are so many speed based claims is because those people don't have PM's, so speed is the metric they report to us. Most people tend to ride the same courses in training. They know if they complete the circuit 5 minutes faster on average than they did 6 months ago, on average, that they are faster than they were 6 months ago by x mph.

Not as good as power. RPE is just guessing and HR is guessing what is causing HR beyond the effort of exercise (dehydration, heat, cold, CHO levels, stress etc).

RPE is not guessing in experienced athletes. It is quite reliable and generally follows HR quite well in tests such as the Conconi test. Of course, it can be affected by factors such as you detail but so can power. Testing should be done under similar conditions for all of the things you mention and more, if possible.

That is why a onboard power meter is so cool. Every ride is a lab test and conditions can be compared between rides.

Every ride gives you a number (or thousands of numbers). Without context that number(s) is pretty useless IMHO

Such a narrow view of the training process. With a power meter one can assess many efforts within a session and monitor pacing. Some interval session can stretch out to 75 reps (ACF level 2 coaching manual) and as mentioned conditions can vary dramatically over the session.

That is all very cool. But many successful athletes, including world champions, seem to be able to do all that without the help of a PM. How on earth could that be possible? What on earth do your athletes do when their PM fails during a race or training ride? What do you do?

Even a one off effort can vary greatly between tests and within a test and in cycling competition how often is a performance carried out at a constant pace. Even a 4000m pursuit shows great variance in power as riders go through the bends or a 40km TT as riders go with and against the wind, ride different surfaces and face slight to not so slight changes in gradient. HR is not sensitive to this so your effortometer will need to do a better job.

That is simply a rationalization of your bias. There is no data to prove the superiority of the PM over other feedback methods for racing or training. As I have posted before, the sportsscientists have told me that there is a study done by one of their doctoral students that showed no benefit to using a PM in training compared to a HRM. They expect it to get published. Bet you can hardly wait for that! Hope it isn't a major journal for your sake so you can discount it and continue to believe your bias.

I can understand why you might think a PM to be superior. It is simply that there is zero evidence to support that view and there is apparently real evidence out there that says it isn't true. We will have to wait and see.

Now, can we get back to the pedaling technique thread?

 

[CoachFergie]

You mentioned Holman specifically which is why I commented on him. Mostly, the reason there are so many speed based claims is because those people don't have PM's, so speed is the metric they report to us. Most people tend to ride the same courses in training. They know if they complete the circuit 5 minutes faster on average than they did 6 months ago, on average, that they are faster than they were 6 months ago by x mph.

Ah so speed or pace isn't a good metric for my runners but is for your marketing claims. I think we have done the dangers of speed as a metric for cycling to death.

RPE is not guessing in experienced athletes. It is quite reliable and generally follows HR quite well in tests such as the Conconi test. Of course, it can be affected by factors such as you detail but so can power. Testing should be done under similar conditions for all of the things you mention and more, if possible.

Ha ha Conconi, your funny Frank. More guesswork.

Every ride gives you a number (or thousands of numbers). Without context that number(s) is pretty useless IMHO

Yes IYHO.

That is all very cool. But many successful athletes, including world champions, seem to be able to do all that without the help of a PM. How on earth could that be possible? What on earth do your athletes do when their PM fails during a race or training ride? What do you do?

Yeah and I can't believe it's not butter either!

That is simply a rationalization of your bias. There is no data to prove the superiority of the PM over other feedback methods for racing or training.

Keep repeating the lie aye Frank

As I have posted before, the sportsscientists have told me that there is a study done by one of their doctoral students that showed no benefit to using a PM in training compared to a HRM.

Ha ha nice, look forward to critiquing it.

I can understand why you might think a PM to be superior. It is simply that there is zero evidence to support that view and there is apparently real evidence out there that says it isn't true. We will have to wait and see.

Well everything you propose that beats it has fallen well short of the mark

 

[Tapeworm]

That is simply a rationalization of your bias. There is no data to prove the superiority of the PM over other feedback methods for racing or training. As I have posted before, the sportsscientists have told me that there is a study done by one of their doctoral students that showed no benefit to using a PM in training compared to a HRM. They expect it to get published. Bet you can hardly wait for that! Hope it isn't a major journal for your sake so you can discount it and continue to believe your bias.

I can understand why you might think a PM to be superior. It is simply that there is zero evidence to support that view and there is apparently real evidence out there that says it isn't true. We will have to wait and see.

Question is, if other sports could use power would they?

Rowing seems another sport like cycling which gains a lot of information from power and structure a great deal of training around it. Sailors are also making good use of powermeters.

But then I have heard that rowers are currently focusing on the return stroke to ensure power is applied throughout the rowing motion.

I still fail to see how any study could prove the superiority of device X over device Y in terms of improving performance when it's the person performing the action which yields the gain. The device just measures it.

 

[coapman]

Originally Posted by coapman

how do the extra muscles used by a PC'er and his pedaling objectives differ from those of a rider who uses the perfected circular style, remembering that circular will always be weaker than mashing.

==============================================

I don't understand what you mean by 'perfected circular style' -

If it means 'equal torque during the full rotation of the crank' then I doubt that it is actually used. And my understanding is that is NOT the objective of PC.

And YES, 'mashing' can be very effective - as long as there is not significant 'negative torque' produced during the non-mashing portion of crank rotation.
But, I'm not convinced that mashing is the best technique.

And again YES, improving the overall strength and fitness of the cyclist is likely to give more power gain than making small improvements in pedaling technique.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Perfected circular pedaling means the application (or attempted application) of continuous torque by each leg around the pedaling circle, except between 1 and 5 o'c this will be minimal torque. This is what PC's force a rider to do and even though extra muscles are used, because of split concentration it will always be weaker than mashing. Therefore PC's cannot increase power output beyond that of a masher.

 

[CoachFergie]

I still fail to see how any study could prove the superiority of device X over device Y in terms of improving performance when it's the person performing the action which yields the gain. The device just measures it.

It's like the brand of scale used having an influence on the weight loss method used. When I started coaching it was all speedo and how many miles you did, then it was HR training and spending time at threshold HR and now with power we can get a little more specific.

But it's typical Frank trying to muddy the waters. The power meter doesn't improve performance it just measure performance. No other metric does this.

One of the major benefits is that a power meter shows you what the demands of an event are so you can match the training to meet those demands. You can use it to test if the training is actually improving performance. Short Intervals do, Gimmickcranks don't. Frank himself has said he would use a power meter to ensure a rider was following the training programme.

A coach could actually see the increased effort required using a Gimmickcrank and the reduced power from using a non specific training method. Would actually be easier to show someone that using a Gimmickcrank was limiting their potential with a power meter than trying to explain why the increased strength from gym work or cross training was having no effect on cycling performance.

It's not the 3 month guarantee it's 3 months of time that could have been devoted to productive training where the power meter clearly shows you the performance gains. This is where Frank tries to mislead people (muddy the waters so to speak) by claiming a power meter should improve performance when all the meter does is measure the success of the training method the rider or coach has chosen to implement.