correct way to pedal

[blutto]

You mean like this?

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

...a couple of questions for Dr. Coggan...

...first...when I was first looking at the 1991 Coyle article I spent some time looking at the three graphs that showed pedal position, vertical force and horizontal force....what I found interesting initially was the timing differences between the two groups in terms of the moment of power applications...the rest of the graph information seemed pretty straight forward. as in, anything below the horizontal zero line was negative torque...when another study was presented here the power output was shown as a bar graph, and here the vertical and horizontal components seemed to all show positive torque...

...so I guess the question is...why does one graph show positive and the other negative?...

...second...when you look at the way human hearing works it is sometimes easier to look at the ear as a half-wave rectifier, that is, it responds much more effectively to the positive part of the sound wave than the negative...this function is supposedly a response by evolution to design for simplicity and since sound waves are generally symmetrical, measuring just one side of the wave more precisely is good enough...

...so the question is...since nature designs for simplicity and it sometimes uses similar machine language to solve different tasks is it possible that the system that operates our walking/running functions is also a kind of half-wave rectifier...as in the down-stoke and the back-stroke are much more elegant than the upstroke...( and to bring this back to the topic at hand...is a runner who is lighter on his feet more efficient than one who isn't? )

Cheers

blutto

 

[CoachFergie]

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.

What point of view was this Frank.

 

[FrankDay]

...so the question is...since nature designs for simplicity and it sometimes uses similar machine language to solve different tasks is it possible that the system that operates our walking/running functions is also a kind of half-wave rectifier...as in the down-stoke and the back-stroke are much more elegant than the upstroke...( and to bring this back to the topic at hand...is a runner who is lighter on his feet more efficient than one who isn't? )

The reason, IMHO, the legs seem so "unbalanced" fore and aft is because of gravity. The "pulling up" muscles seem much more ineffective because before they can exert any force they must overcome gravity whereas the "pushing muscles" seem to exert more force than they really do because gravity is additive.

This imbalance doesn't seem to exist as much in the upper extremities where we push just about as hard as we pull because we can more easily negate the effects of gravity.

And, according to my running sources, the faster, more efficient, runner is the one who spends the least amount of time on the ground. So, you want to land as close to the CG as possible (which naturally reduces braking effect) and get the foot off the ground ASAP.

 

[FrankDay]

What point of view was this Frank.

Pretty much everything you spout here. There simply isn't any proof of any of it yet you seem awfully certain about all of it.

 

[FrankDay]

...first...when I was first looking at the 1991 Coyle article I spent some time looking at the three graphs that showed pedal position, vertical force and horizontal force....what I found interesting initially was the timing differences between the two groups in terms of the moment of power applications...the rest of the graph information seemed pretty straight forward. as in, anything below the horizontal zero line was negative torque...when another study was presented here the power output was shown as a bar graph, and here the vertical and horizontal components seemed to all show positive torque...

...so I guess the question is...why does one graph show positive and the other negative?...

If you are looking at Figure 6 I think you have misinterpreted those graphs. Torque is either positive or negative depending upon the direction of the net force from the combined X and Y forces in relationship to the crank arm direction. So, before TDC one will most likely have a negative Y force and if that were the only force the torque would be negative but, there is also a positive X force pushing the foot forward and the net force results in a positive torque.

I am not sure that answers your question but that is what I thought you were asking.

 

[CoachFergie]

Pretty much everything you spout here. There simply isn't any proof of any of it yet you seem awfully certain about all of it.

What false claims have I made Frank. You are the expert of making false claims after all.

 

[FrankDay]

What false claims have I made Frank. You are the expert of making false claims after all.

It is impossible to know what you say is false or not in most of these issues because there is no proof either way, except, of course, other than your claim that the PC's have been proven to not work at all or as i claim. It may be proven in your mind but no such scientific proof exists.

 

[CoachFergie]

It is impossible to know what you say is false or not in most of these issues because there is no proof either way, except, of course, other than your claim that the PC's have been proven to not work at all or as i claim. It may be proven in your mind but no such scientific proof exists.

Ha ha hilarious Frank, several papers showing no performance benefit from training with a Gimmickcrank. Keep that head well buried in the sand.

To be specific no evidence has been provided that training with a Gimmickcrank is a better training stimulus than training on a normal crank and that no evidence has been provided that this avg 40% improvement in power has ever been attained.

Closest we have seen is the chap from Spain whose power file was clearly tampered with and the Grad Student (MIT no less) who didn't know you had to calibrate a power meter before each ride especially when testing. Funny how his 60min power from a roller's test was higher than his 20min power from an uphill time trial.

Keep em coming Frank, comedy Gold

 

[CoachFergie]

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.

Force/vector pedals have been available for the last 30 years. EMG studies from as far back as the eighties show that some riders apply torque naturally from 11 to 2 o'c without your technique.

You contradict yourself saying it doesn't need testing but the results from the force/vector pedals will reveal all.

Unlike Frank, the evidence is already there and your technique is nothing special.

 

[blutto]

If you are looking at Figure 6 I think you have misinterpreted those graphs. Torque is either positive or negative depending upon the direction of the net force from the combined X and Y forces in relationship to the crank arm direction. So, before TDC one will most likely have a negative Y force and if that were the only force the torque would be negative but, there is also a positive X force pushing the foot forward and the net force results in a positive torque.

I am not sure that answers your question but that is what I thought you were asking.

...unfortunately it didn't and that may be because the question wasn't stated as clearly as it could have been ( maybe I'm being tripped up by my unfamiliarity of the various terms )...but the Hanaki-Martin et al article shows bar graphs and a standard graph that all show the effective forces applied during a crank circle as positive...and since these forces operate perpendicular to the crank arm they would be the forces that would be most effectively affect the production of torque...and because this study shows these forces as always positive why does the Coyle study show negative torque numbers ( I can see some misapplied force being applied but not misapplied torque if the effective force is always positive or I am being supremely dense here? )

Cheers

blutto

 

[FrankDay]

...unfortunately it didn't and that may be because the question wasn't stated as clearly as it could have been ( maybe I'm being tripped up by my unfamiliarity of the various terms )...but the Hanaki-Martin et al article shows bar graphs and a standard graph that all show the effective forces applied during a crank circle as positive...and since these forces operate perpendicular to the crank arm they would be the forces that would be most effectively affect the production of torque...and because this study shows these forces as always positive why does the Coyle study show negative torque numbers ( I can see some misapplied force being applied but not misapplied torque if the effective force is always positive or I am being supremely dense here? )

Cheers

blutto

OK, I think I understand.

In the Couyle study the negative torque doesn't interfere with riding the bike because the cranks are connected. If the net torque (both cranks together) ever was zero or negative the cranks would stop turning. But, the net torque includes both cranks. So, even though the torque may be negative for a period on the right crank the left crank is 180º out of phase and if you look there it will be a positive torque and more than the negative torque, so the net torque is always positive. So, the cranks go around despite the negative torque.

Hanaki-Martin subjects had PowerCranks training. PowerCranks teach the athletes to avoid negative torques because the cranks are not connected so the opposite side cannot keep the crank going if a negative torque should appear so the crank simply stops. Negative forces are prohibited while on PowerCranks. Apparently these athletes had enough PC stimulation such that this learning stayed with them while on regular cranks, at least for the 30s of the test.

The difference in pedaling technique between these two studies is what PC's are trying to do for every athlete who wants to learn to pedal this way. Unfortunately, it has yet to be proven scientifically (which Fergie proclaims to the world every chance he can) that this learning this technique offers any performance benefit. It was unfortunate Hanaki-Martin did not test the subjects at the beginning of their study as we might have seen such change. They are the only study so far that has demonstrated they were actually able to cause the the technique the PC's require to occur on regular cranks.

Does that answer your question?

 

[CoachFergie]

So 6 weeks is long enough to carry out a study on Gimmickcranks. When the results serve your purpose

Both Fernandez-Pena et al 2009 and Bohm et al 2008 both showed that subjects pedalling techniques were changed within the study period and Fernandez-Pena showed that these changes were gone within two weeks of riding on normal cranks.

Pity there was no pre testing and also no control group training on normal cranks to ensure that the test results were not an artefact of the 30sec effort. Sprinters performing a standing start or an acceleration from a slow speed do pull on the pedals (hence the use of double straps, or a strap over a clip in pedal). Sperlich (2011) showed with a greater training stimulus using a Gimmmickcrank than Hanaki-Martin (2009) that there was no improvement in peak power or average power in a 30sec test compared to a control who trained using a normal crank.

The N was averaged over the whole 30s test so there is a possibility that the initial acceleration involved a greater level of pulling up. There is no record of peak power from each of the 4 tests.

What is interesting about this study is not what is in it but what appears to have been left out.

 

[FrankDay]

So 6 weeks is long enough to carry out a study on Gimmickcranks. When the results serve your purpose

What is "my purpose" in the case of that study? That group simply documented that the changes we would expect were actually obtained for the 30s required of their study. That is not quite the same as getting those changes to occur for much longer periods.

Sprinters performing a standing start or an acceleration from a slow speed do pull on the pedals (hence the use of double straps, or a strap over a clip in pedal). Sperlich (2011) showed with a greater training stimulus using a Gimmmickcrank than Hanaki-Martin (2009) that there was no improvement in peak power or average power in a 30sec test compared to a control who trained using a normal crank.

Apparently you have never done or even seen a wingate test. It is not quite the same as a sprinter doing a standing start. In a wingate test the rider brings the cadence up as fast as they can unloaded. At this point the test starts as a step resistance is added and fatigue is measured.

The N was averaged over the whole 30s test so there is a possibility that the initial acceleration involved a greater level of pulling up. There is no record of peak power from each of the 4 tests.

You ought to understand the Wingate test before you spout off, again, about something you know nothing about. There is no "initial acceleration" involved in a Wingate test. The wingate test load starts when the athlete is up to maximum cadence.

What is interesting about this study is not what is in it but what appears to have been left out.

What is most interesting about your comment is your ignorance regarding the Wingate test.

 

[CoachFergie]

What is most interesting about your comment is what you clearly don't know about the Wingate test.

If there is no initial acceleration why was there such a big difference between peak power and avg power the last time I did one.

Some of the measure's taken from a Wingate...

Peak Power
Time to Peak
Time at Peak
Avg Power
Fatigue Index

I actually don't rate it as a test because it does not recreate the demands of sprint cycling where riders tend to ride a more progressive effort and sprinters get punished for starting their efforts too hard in just the same way a pursuiter does.

 

[FrankDay]

If there is no initial acceleration why was there such a big difference between peak power and avg power the last time I did one.

Let me get this straight. You are telling me you have actually done this test and you don't understand why there is such a big difference between peak power and average power? Really???!!! Well, the last time I did this test, the Peak power was at the very beginning when I was the freshest and power steadily dropped after that for the period of the test, making the average power substantially lower than the peak. Not hard to understand. I put a link to how the test is actually run below.

Some of the measure's taken from a Wingate...

Peak Power
Time to Peak
Time at Peak
Avg Power
Fatigue Index

I actually don't rate it as a test because it does not recreate the demands of sprint cycling where riders tend to ride a more progressive effort and sprinters get punished for starting their efforts too hard in just the same way a pursuiter does.

Just because you don't rate it as a test doesn't mean that others don't find it useful. Either way, it was the test done in the paper, whether you like it or not.

link to wingate test description

 

[CoachFergie]

I know exactly why there is a difference between peak power and average power. Would you like me to lecture and brow beat you about it.

Had Hanaki-Martin published what Wingate protocol (there is no set protocol) they used and published the peak power data we may have a better understanding of the test results. No information is given about what cadence was used when the resistance was applied and there were differences in the avg cadences between the groups.

For mine the resistance was applied when I hit 90rpm and at the local sport sci testing lab they use an erg with SRM cranks so no resistance is dropped on. The latter would have more application to cycling than the one I performed but with an SRM on a track bike, BMX or road bike one can do an event specific test recreating as far more conditions than the lab based test.

 

[FrankDay]

I know exactly why there is a difference between peak power and average power. Would you like me to lecture and brow beat you about it.

Had Hanaki-Martin published what Wingate protocol (there is no set protocol) they used and published the peak power data we may have a better understanding of the test results. No information is given about what cadence was used when the resistance was applied and there were differences in the avg cadences between the groups.

Perhaps you didn't read the purpose of the study. As I remember, they were trying to look at whether slope changed pedaling technique. And, there were differences between cadences between the groups, the cadence being a little bit lower when they tested on the PC's, fairly typical of when people are on PC's and accounting for the higher pushing pedal forces when on the PC's.

For mine the resistance was applied when I hit 90rpm and at the local sport sci testing lab they use an erg with SRM cranks so no resistance is dropped on. The latter would have more application to cycling than the one I performed but with an SRM on a track bike, BMX or road bike one can do an event specific test recreating as far more conditions than the lab based test.

Whatever you are doing it is not a Wingate test. I posted a link that describes the Wingate test protocol. You ought to read it. If you do something else you should call it something else, even modified Wingate would do if it is based on a wingate test, then we will all call it the Fergie modification of the Wingate protocol. But, it doesn't sound like what you did was based even on the Wingate protocol. Perhaps it is your modification that causes you to find the test not useful such that you don't call it a test even. Either way, what you do is not a Wingate test. Don't blame the authors of that paper for your not understanding the difference.

 

[CoachFergie]

Whatever you are doing it is not a Wingate test.

Well not according to the first entry from a Google Search.

Seeing they used a Velotron in the test and their Wingate Handbook uses a different protocol. If someone wanted to repeat the study they should indicate the protocol used. Sperlich (2011) was more explicit in the details of the anaerobic test they performed.

The choice of test is important if one wants to generalise the findings. Cyclists in sprint events don't compete in the same fashion as they do in a Wingate Test. How can any recommendations be made to competitive cycling (assuming that people don't do a Wingate Test for recreation, no matter what protocol used a maximal 30sec hurts) if the test used does not relate to actual competition.

 

[FrankDay]

Well not according to the first entry from a Google Search.

Seeing they used a Velotron in the test and their Wingate Handbook uses a different protocol. If someone wanted to repeat the study they should indicate the protocol used. Sperlich (2011) was more explicit in the details of the anaerobic test they performed.

The choice of test is important if one wants to generalise the findings. Cyclists in sprint events don't compete in the same fashion as they do in a Wingate Test. How can any recommendations be made to competitive cycling (assuming that people don't do a Wingate Test for recreation, no matter what protocol used a maximal 30sec hurts) if the test used does not relate to actual competition.

The Velotron has a Wingate protocol follows the general protocol of the link I gave. Perhaps the only difference is I believe the Velotron collects data in less than 5 second intervals. The standard Velotron can do a wingate with peak power up to 1500 watts I believe. They make a special 85 tooth chain ring if the facility needs higher power, up to 2200 watts I believe.

The choice of test is what they did. Their purpose was to look at how changing slope influenced pedaling style. I suspect they chose the Wingate test for that purpose because pedaling style was unlikely to be influenced much by conscious effort because the cadence is so high and people tend to put out the hardest efforts when climbing. However, I have thought about this a bit and there is a drawback to what they did because Kautz et. al. (The Pedaling Technique of Elite Endurance Cyclists: Changes with Increasing Workload at Constant Cadence) showed that pedaling style changes with high effort to be more "PC like". The fact that they showed this pedaling style at the very highest effort may not reflect adequate PC training at all (we don't know because they didn't do pre-testing) but simply reflect the effort level.

Edit: Here is a graph illustrating how pedaling technique changes with effort. I presume this occurs because the athlete tries to recruit more muscle mass into the pedaling stroke as he approaches his limits so as to extend the limit.

 

[FrankDay]

Seeing they used a Velotron in the test and their Wingate Handbook uses a different protocol.

Actually, their software allows the user to modify the protocol if they desire. If the protocol is modified from what is considered the standard wingate test then the user has performed a "modified wingate test" and they should not confuse others by calling what they have done a wingate test. In order for others to understand what was done the person must describe how the test deviated from the standard.

 

[blutto]

Well not according to the first entry from a Google Search.

Seeing they used a Velotron in the test and their Wingate Handbook uses a different protocol. If someone wanted to repeat the study they should indicate the protocol used. Sperlich (2011) was more explicit in the details of the anaerobic test they performed.

The choice of test is important if one wants to generalise the findings. Cyclists in sprint events don't compete in the same fashion as they do in a Wingate Test. How can any recommendations be made to competitive cycling (assuming that people don't do a Wingate Test for recreation, no matter what protocol used a maximal 30sec hurts) if the test used does not relate to actual competition.

...if the test used does not relate to actual competition...hmmm...there-in, as Unca Willie said, lies the rub doesn't it...

...as you point out specificity is important in tests and the studies that are based on them if they are to have any positive contribution to the real world cycling...so how does one take the results gleaned from studies and apply them to cycling reality?...do you try for an exact fit or do you make some wiggle room to make things fit?...and how do you deal with any remainder if some wiggle room is required?...

...kinda curious how you approach that problem...

Cheers

blutto

 

[CoachFergie]

Each model of Erg or each lab has their own little variation of the Wingate protocol including Cyclus2 that uses a set cadence as in the last one I performed. Two years prior I did one on a Velotron with a different protocol. With even subtle variations the study should be explicit about what protocol they used.

Same deal with tests to exhaustion that are very popular in a lot of studies or the more commercial tests like lactate threshold or VO2max tests. We don't race to exhaustion, the lactate levels in the blood often don't match what is happening in the working muscle and VO2max is not a performance indicator. With the lactate test, some VO2max tests and seeing some people still perform Conconi testing there is a lot of guesswork interpreting the results determining breakpoints etc.

Many of these tests although reliable within the lab environment are not a valid measure of cycling performance. Always notable that many of studies people claim support various concepts don't find a performance benefit but get published because they found some physiological parameter achieved significance though vary rarely are confidence intervals supplied.

For those who like to waste their time and money measuring their training efforts with a power meter we perform tests to determine a functional threshold. There are many different ways to do this and the Gold Standard is a maximal 60min effort. Alex Simmons has been kind to write up some of the pitfalls of these tests and has a follow up article with some more potential mistakes with testing protocols.

What do I currently do? I swing between using a Critical Power Model using a 3min and 20min maximal test and using the MAP test for endurance athletes. For track endurance I look at 30sec power and 3min power as do the Queensland Academy of Sport. Their 30sec protocol just looks at average power and does one test on a medium gear and one test on a very low gear which has possible implications for gear selection (those who roll a big gear vs those who ride a high cadence).

For sprinters because of the large number of Wingate Test results I have seen not fitting with what happens in competition it has only been till recent that assessing power data gives me indications of the real demands of each event (a 20sec maximal effort in a Keirin is different to a 20sec maximal effort in a Match Sprint or a 20sec maximal effort in a Team Sprint), how well the rider is capable of meeting those demands and what effect the training methods are having on performance. The AIS sprinters had 20 different training drills their sprinters used to do. When they started using SRM this was narrowed down to just 4 different drills.

Although these tests have been well defined every lab or coach seems to have their own variation of how these are performed so when discussing these concepts in particular reporting them in scientific press the exact protocol used should be published even if it was something as simple as saying we used the Velotron version of the Wingate protocol and gave an appropriate reference.

 

[FrankDay]

...if the test used does not relate to actual competition...hmmm...there-in, as Unca Willie said, lies the rub doesn't it...

...as you point out specificity is important in tests and the studies that are based on them if they are to have any positive contribution to the real world cycling...so how does one take the results gleaned from studies and apply them to cycling reality?...do you try for an exact fit or do you make some wiggle room to make things fit?...and how do you deal with any remainder if some wiggle room is required?...

...kinda curious how you approach that problem...

Cheers

blutto

Look, if the test as described and understood by most does not meet your specific needs then modify it or design something completely different. But, don't refer to what you do by the name that everyone else understands to mean something else.

 

[function]

Edit: Here is a graph illustrating how pedaling technique changes with effort. I presume this occurs because the athlete tries to recruit more muscle mass into the pedaling stroke as he approaches his limits so as to extend the limit.

My theory for this is that at supra threshold power outputs, the forces required are high relative to what the subject is capable of at lower power and therefore the only way to increase power output is to increase cadence. Now when cadence increases at high torque, you end up applying torque in more sections of the stroke, I think this is especially the case with low inertia.

 

[FrankDay]

My theory for this is that at supra threshold power outputs, the forces required are high relative to what the subject is capable of at lower power and therefore the only way to increase power output is to increase cadence. Now when cadence increases at high torque, you end up applying torque in more sections of the stroke, I think this is especially the case with low inertia.

There is no indication that occurred in the Kautz, et. al. study since the held cadence steady. Further, it is much more difficult to apply any force on the pedal when pedal speed increases. More likely, in my view, is that when one is unable to efficiently "push harder" when trying to increase power the only other alternative is to recruit other muscles to aid in the effort.