correct way to pedal

[CoachFergie]

That many variables you conservatively estimate yet you have never seen a rider at any level who needed to work on pedaling technique. I look forward to seeing your entire list someday.

If I practised belief or faith based coaching I would have a million variables to juggle

 

[function]

An open mind is a wonderful thing but are you suggesting that every piece of information is given the same weighting? The peer review process helps to weed out a lot of garbage in this case when the marketing claims of the Gimmickcrank site is used as a reference then one does have to ask the question

I don't necessarily weight a peer reviewed article higher than an non-peer reviewed paper. If the paper has an interesting hypothesis and puts forth a reasonable argument i take it into consideration and may weight it at the same or higher than a reviewed paper. For sciences such as exercise physiology there are topics that may not be covered adequately by peer reviewed papers perhaps due to the logistics of setting up experiments involving significant numbers of elite level athletes over long durations of time. So sometimes the poorly setup experiments with a small group may provide something that could be expanded on, via analysis or further experimentation.

While the rejected mathematics looks interesting does it really serve a purpose or is this a noble attempt that only results in more muddied waters?

It serves a purpose, that is, providing an outlet for papers that have merit even if lacking the criteria for publication in a peer reviewed journal.

 

[acoggan]

Why not get both an SRM and a PowerTap so you can actually measure chain losses?

You mean like this?

http://www.wattagetraining.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=314

 

[CoachFergie]

The champions pay attention to all aspects of the sport. Of course power is important but power in rowing, just as in cycling, without the other skills being excellent also will get you no where (or, at least, not very far). If all else is equal, only then does power dominate.

And even that is a very narrow definition of what goes into a champion performance. Which makes your suggestion that a 40% gain from just using a gimmickcrank as a training stimulus is ludicrous.

Well, if you would prefer to have more then get it. Why not get both an SRM and a PowerTap so you can actually measure chain losses?

I will be testing a new crank based addition to the power meter family and be comparing the data against my Powertap. I speculated that one of the advantages of riding a fixed gear was reduced chain losses without the chain running through a rear dérailleur and a perfect chain line but those gains were very small.

That is important information to know also, isn't it? But, other highly esteemed coaches and athletes prefer less data and eschew PM's.

Well there is more than one way to skin a cat and more to cycling performance than just power so as long as they don't make extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence to back them up I look forward to our riders doing battle!

There is simply no data to suggest that one approach is better than the other when it comes to improving athletic performance.

Strawman. A power meter doesn't improve athletic performance, neither does looking at heart rate or guessing your RPE. Training, pacing, nutrition and recovery are some of the proven methods of improving performance. Of Wattage, HR and RPE which do you you think is the best method of assessing any improvements from training, pacing, nutrition or recovery Frank?

The same argument can be used against pretty much any training or racing tool since there simply is no good data to support claims of improved outcome for any of these devices.

Strawman. One doesn't slap a power meter on and perform better. It is simply a measurement tool to assess ones training, pacing, nutrition and recovery. When Eddy Merckx performed a 60min test on an erg after breaking the Hour record what was the metric they used which was compared with Chris Boardman 2 decades later?

 

[CoachFergie]

Brett Sutton, coach
Chrissie Wellington, athlete.

Yeah the guy is very against periodisation. I agree.

Yeah the guy is very anti any training tools. I disagree.

Perhaps if he was tracking more of Chrissie's data she wouldn't have become sick the day of Ironman last year.

 

[FrankDay]

Perhaps if he was tracking more of Chrissie's data she wouldn't have become sick the day of Ironman last year.

Why would Sutton be tracking "more" of her data last year? I suspect he wasn't tracking any of her data last year (what little she collects) as she was self-coached last year and this year also, AFAIK.

 

[CoachFergie]

If the paper has an interesting hypothesis and puts forth a reasonable argument i take it into consideration and may weight it at the same or higher than a reviewed paper.

I look at the methods and the data.

 

[CoachFergie]

Why would Sutton be tracking "more" of her data last year? I suspect he wasn't tracking any of her data last year (what little she collects) as she was self-coached last year and this year also, AFAIK.

Then why did you say Sutton: Coach and Athlete: Wellington?

 

[FrankDay]

.cyclist more comfortable (I have inferred this...I don't know whether this is asserted)

Thanks for the unemotional and I think reasonably accurate summary of many of the issues regarding the pedaling technique discussion. Regarding the above point, in general, PowerCranks tend to make the rider less comfortable, at least for awhile until they are really well adapted. The reasons seem to be two. First, unweighting more on the backstroke (or pulling up some) puts more pressure on the saddle. Second, early on there is a tendency to push down less, putting more pressure on the saddle. It is possible to adapt to this initial discomfort as we have a pro racing IM Australia this weekend on the PC's and I also understand there might be a rider doing RAAM this year on the PC's. We will see how they do.

 

[FrankDay]

Then why did you say Sutton: Coach and Athlete: Wellington?

I had mentioned that there were very successful coaches and athletes who didn't use them and the question came back, Who? So, I listed one of each and, since they are in triathlon, many here may not know who they are so I specified their role. Chrissie has been through two different coaches since Sutton and is now self-coached so I think she qualifies as an athlete who, on her own, eschews PM's. According to you guys her repeated exceptional performances should be impossible because of this failure to see the light (or gather the data) on her part.

 

[FrankDay]

I look at the methods and the data.

Really?!!! You don't read the discussion and conclusions of the authors? You try to interpret all the data independently yourself? Do you also check their math and statistics? Very impressive, if not a little time consuming.

 

[CoachFergie]

Heart Rate (HR) is great for measuring the stress placed upon the body (but not perfect)

Too many independent variables to be a valid or reliable measure of stress on the body.

Perceived Effort (PE) is also a useful measure of stress placed upon the body (more so with the person that has used it for some time)

Waaaaay too many independent variables.

Combining HR and PE gives an even better picture of the impact stressors are placing on the body

Hmmmm.

Power gives the actual output from the "stressed" body

True dat.

Speed is a measure of the effective power delivered (all other factors being equal... yes body position is the elephant in the room).

-Aerodynamics
-Wind
-Temperature
-Friction from the bike
-Road surface
-Gravity
-Core temperature
-Hydration
-CHO stores
-Many many other variables

So, the following MAY apply to PCranks and/or the Coapman pedaling technique, given the cyclist is proficient:

.power and therefore speed is increased at any given HR (given Coefficient of wind resistance not increased)

Not always. Over a 3 month period my Threshold Power increase 30 watts but threshold heart rate dropped ~20bpm.

On one ride I noted my 5min avg HR was 180bpm and power 300 watts and my 20min avg HR was 179bpm but power was 260 watts.

As we go from Denton Park to ILT tracks power drops at the same speed due to the change from an outdoor track to an indoor track.

.power/torque delivered more evenly thru' pedal cycle (diminished fatigue and more effective propulsion on limited traction surfaces)

Still no evidence that this improves power. Broker (in High-Tech Cycling) suggested riders do more mountain biking as this would improve the force effectiveness around the pedal stroke. Just the same as riding a lower cadence is more efficient. Studies of elite cyclists show a different trend and the two studies by Leirdal and Ettema (both 2011) indicate that force effectiveness is not associated with efficiency and despite their paper in MSSE showing an association with efficiency and the dead centre method of measuring pedal forces the later paper in EJAP found no association and suggested that neither dead centre or force effectiveness should be used to assess pedaling. But then efficiency is not a direct measure of performance.

.cyclist uses more muscles/muscle fibres therefore less (muscle) fatigue (duration to exhaustion increases?)

No evidence of this and tests to exhaustion do not recreate the demands of any cycling event so external validity issues.

Given the above, the following conclusions drawn (which may not be equally applicable to both):

.FTP is increased and therefore speed increased

Not necessarily so.

.speed also increased via decreased wind resistance

This is unrelated to any pedaling technique.

.Power/speed at any given HR/PE is increased therefore

Not necessarily so.

.duration to exhaustion at any given power/speed is increased

Not relevant to any cycling event.

Coapman asserts that the pedaling technique is effective and that this will be tested on new "Power meter" pedals becoming available. I accept, that until then, I am intrigued but questioning.

This technology has been available for decades.

Frank has pointed to various studies that provide indications of PCranks providing improved outcomes for users. The difficulty I perceive with these studies is:

would the subjects have achieved similar outcomes devoting the same effort/intensity/time to other (possibly, but not necessarily, novel) methods?

This is the true cost of Gimmickcranks.

In saying this I am not seeking to denigrate. The PC may provide either an actual or placebo effect...and even a placebo effect is not to be sneezed at.
Whatever the case I would love to understand what is happening.

Any athlete who requires an Gimmick to gain confidence is a lesser rider. Like those who take drugs. Stefano Garzelli, Danilo DeLuca, Alexander Vinokourov, Franco Pellizotti, Ivan Basso, Ricardo Riccó and Johan Museeuw all drug cheats and all Gimmickcrank users.

However for me, and I suspect others, more evidence of effectiveness is required.

Thanks to Lierdal and Ettema (both 2011 papers) we know effectiveness is not the answer. Lets talk performance! My metric of choice to measure performance: WATTS

 

[CoachFergie]

According to you guys her repeated exceptional performances should be impossible because of this failure to see the light (or gather the data) on her part.

Nonsense. Still clinging to the hope that if you repeat the lie that power meters are meant to improve performance enough times peoples resistance will falter. Love the contempt you have for people Frank.

Like my claim that Nuyens would have won more races than just Flanders if he spent more time training with normal cranks I would suggest that if Chrissie had spent more time collecting data she may have noticed that she was getting sick and avoided her exceptional non-performance at Kona last year.

I take it Sutton must have either done a poor job as a coach for her to have left or done a poor job of teaching her how to read her body so that missing the biggest race of the year could have been avoided.

 

[CoachFergie]

Really?!!! You don't read the discussion and conclusions of the authors? You try to interpret all the data independently yourself? Do you also check their math and statistics? Very impressive, if not a little time consuming.

Yup, I don't believe I am the only one who does this. Didn't you do the very same for Coyle et al. 1991

 

[FrankDay]

Yup, I don't believe I am the only one who does this. Didn't you do the very same for Coyle et al. 1991

Well, I do read articles of specific interest to me in greater detail. If one is going to criticize an article one ought to understand what is really in it. But, for most articles I don't get past the abstract unless there is something there of specific interest to me to draw me in. Then, depending upon the subject, after the abstract I probably look first at the protocol, then glance at the data on the way to the discussion of the authors. When I disagree with (or understand) what they say then I tend to go back and read more carefully. There are simply too many articles to read everyone of them carefully. In fact, there are too many articles to even read all the abstracts carefully, frequently I don't get past the title. Anyhow, I know you will see my way as deficient and I wish I could do better, but I can't. And, what is really sad, I really have no desire to do any better in this regard.

 

[CoachFergie]

But, for most articles I don't get past the abstract

So we have noted.

There are simply too many articles to read everyone of them carefully.

Yet you are critical that I focus on the hard data and gloss over the authors opinions. Good one Frank.

In fact, there are too many articles to even read all the abstracts carefully, frequently I don't get past the title.

Well we have noticed you like to cherry pick your arguments

Anyhow, I know you will see my way as deficient and I wish I could do better, but I can't. And, what is really sad, I really have no desire to do any better in this regard.

We have noticed that as well, based on the quality of your arguments.

Now, what claims can I pull you up on next

 

[JA.Tri]

continuing OT sorry

Coach Fergie, I accept much of that...my fault for simplifying (my bad). I'll try to expound on such points in an appropriate forum.

I don't know of metrics apart from Heart Rate and Perceived Effort for quantifying, for the subject, the current sum of stressors placed on the body. You refer to whole gammut of variables, but that is my point, all those variables impact on/stress the body. Please PM me on this one.

For latecomers, the points below (see my previous post for context) are not necessarily my beliefs.

My Quote:
.power/torque delivered more evenly thru' pedal cycle (diminished fatigue and more effective propulsion on limited traction surfaces)
My Expansion:
If the torque is delivered more evenly through the pedal cycle: then moderating effort to prevent slippage is improved. Therefore power to ground is improved.

My Quote:
.cyclist uses more muscles/muscle fibres therefore less (muscle) fatigue (duration to exhaustion increases?)
Your response:
No evidence of this and tests to exhaustion do not recreate the demands of any cycling event so external validity issues.
My expansion:
I had thought Audax, long distance sportifs were applicable.

My Quote:
.speed also increased via decreased wind resistance
Your response:
This is unrelated to any pedaling technique.
My expansion:
related to asserted benefit of shorter cranks

My Quote:
.duration to exhaustion at any given power/speed is increased
Your Response:
Not relevant to any cycling event. (me as above)

My Quote:
However for me, and I suspect others, more evidence of effectiveness is required.
Your response:
Thanks to Lierdal and Ettema (both 2011 papers) we know effectiveness is not the answer. Lets talk performance!
My expansion
I should replace effectiveness with "improved outcomes".

You conclude: My metric of choice to measure performance: WATTS
My response is (simplistically) I agree. However to qualify that: not at the expense of greatly increased wind resistance. (Increased Speed ALL OTHER FACTORS BEING EQUAL)

 

[CoachFergie]

I don't know of metrics apart from Heart Rate and Perceived Effort for quantifying, for the subject, the current sum of stressors placed on the body. You refer to whole gammut of variables, but that is my point, all those variables impact on/stress the body. Please PM me on this one.

This is where HR and RPE fall short to monitor intensity. You have no idea what is causing the HR you see.

My Quote:
.power/torque delivered more evenly thru' pedal cycle (diminished fatigue and more effective propulsion on limited traction surfaces)

Expansion:
If the torque is delivered more evenly through the pedal cycle: then moderating effort to prevent slippage is improved. Therefore power to ground is improved.

This is force effectiveness. Coyle et al (1991) showed that cat 1 TT riders generate power through less of the pedal stroke than Cat 2 TT riders. Slippage only applies to MTB or insanely steep climbs. Broker (his chapter in High-Intensity Cycling) showed that track cyclists generate the highest power but have the lowest force effectiveness.

My Quote:
.cyclist uses more muscles/muscle fibres therefore less (muscle) fatigue (duration to exhaustion increases?)

Your response:
No evidence of this and tests to exhaustion do not recreate the demands of any cycling event so external validity issues.

My expansion:
I had thought Audax, long distance sportifs were applicable.

I don't see the difference between riding Audax and riding Paris Roubaix apart from about 200 watts. Learn the demands of the event, prepare to meet those demands and then get out on the day and do it.

My Quote:
However for me, and I suspect others, more evidence of effectiveness is required.

Your response:
Thanks to Lierdal and Ettema (both 2011 papers) we know effectiveness is not the answer. Lets talk performance!

My expansion
I should replace effectiveness with "improved outcomes".

Well hopefully not to failure. If I completed an Audax I would want to have the energy to knock back a few beers after!

You conclude: My metric of choice to measure performance: WATTS
My response is (simplistically) I agree. However to qualify that: not at the expense of greatly increased wind resistance. (Speed ALL OTHER FACTORS BEING EQUAL)

That is just Frank being pathetic.

I did learn that one can put out more power in an upright position than in an aero position. It's a trade off. Same with weight.

 

[FrankDay]

That's it?

Not very comprehensive. Wanna see the list of who does?

I don't think that was a comprehensive list but a representative one. When you only include coaches on your list who are as successful as Sutton or athletes as dominant as Wellington then lets compare list length.

If a technique or tool is clearly superior and in wide spread use it seems to me that it would be unusual, if not impossible, for those who don't use it to succeed. Power meters are in widespread use. It is easy to discount coaching success if the best athletes just keep showing up because of reputation. But, since Wellington is undefeated, her success cannot be reconciled with statements that PM feedback and monitoring is superior to other types of monitoring of training or racing effort. BTW, to keep my argument in perspective, Wellington has never used, AFAIK, PC's either.

 

[CoachFergie]

If a technique or tool is clearly superior and in wide spread use it seems to me that it would be unusual, if not impossible, for those who don't use it to succeed.

Like those who use normal cranks when the Gimmickcrank user can expect to see an average 40% improvement in power

Power meters are in widespread use. It is easy to discount coaching success if the best athletes just keep showing up because of reputation.

What is coaching success? How is that quantified? If Sutton was such a good coach why would Wellington move on? If Sutton was such a good coach why did he not teach Wellington to read the signs she was getting so sick she didn't start Kona? Other athletes have raced when sick. Riders in the Tour with Bronchitis and Kimmage reported of LeMond having diarrhoea running down his legs on the final stage of one of his wins.

But, since Wellington is undefeated, her success cannot be reconciled with statements that PM feedback and monitoring is superior to other types of monitoring of training or racing effort. BTW, to keep my argument in perspective, Wellington has never used, AFAIK, PC's either.

Celebrity endorsement does not constitute evidence of anything Frank. Perhaps Wellington would be a better athlete with a Power Meter.

 

[FrankDay]

Perhaps Wellington would be a better athlete with a Power Meter.

Perhaps. One thing for sure though is that, right now, all those girls (and many men) who use a PM however they think is best for them are not as good as she, who chooses to not use one, is.

 

[CoachFergie]

And Celebrity Endorsement is not evidence of anything.

 

[oldborn]

Still we have no prove at all that cyclist who train with Power Cranks are inferior to those whos training without it.
Still we have no prove at all that cyclist who train with Power Meter are superior to those whos training without it.

 

[FrankDay]

And Celebrity Endorsement is not evidence of anything.

Isn't that the point I am trying to make, that there is simply no good (or in the case of the PM, no) scientific evidence to support your view. As is the case with most things in life people have to make choices and decisions based upon partial and inadequate information.

 

[coapman]

However there is nothing like a good foodfight so here is my OT addition (subtraction).


Coapman asserts that the pedaling technique is effective and that this will be tested on new "Power meter" pedals becoming available. I accept, that until then, I am intrigued but questioning.



Right now:

. I accept that both Frank and Coapman are convinced of their methods and
. I understand both have their adherents

However for me, and I suspect others, more evidence of effectiveness is required.

.

The all important differences between Frank's and my claim are, Frank's PC's are using the basic circular/ankling style and the only way power output can be increased while using this style is by pressing down harder on the pedals. Frank does not explain where or how in the pedaling circle this power increase will occur after a year of exclusive PC training. Confirmation of this can be seen in that PC graph where power application was no different from that of a circular pedaler. I am using a completely different technique, the same basic idea as that used by Anquetil. I combine arm resistance with hip/leg muscle power. My power output increase occurs between 11 and 2, where 2 o'c equivalent torque is applied through 12 o'c. The fact that peak torque application occurs around 1 o'c instead of 3 o'c should be a clear indication that this special technique is far removed from natural pedaling styles. My technique does not need testing to prove it gives an advantage, the graph of torque application from the force/vector PM will demonstrate there has to be a dramatic improvement in TT performance. But alas the earliest time given for the release of this new PM is now early 2012.