correct way to pedal

[FrankDay]

Getting back to the theme of this thread, a thread about pedaling technique, as I come to think about it more the Kautz, et. al. paper seems quite important to me but it gets short shrift. What did this paper do?

1. It identified three different basic pedaling styles. I have included Figure 5(a) of the three different riders that the authors felt best illustrated these three styles.

2. Despite these three groups having substantially different pedaling styles all three groups tended to modify their style in the same way as load increased without changing their basic style.

3. These three styles are the same styles seen in the Coyle paper but not identified by them because their analysis was different.

These findings should naturally lead to several follow-on questions.

1. What is it that caused these elite cyclists to develop three different pedaling styles. Is it ingrained in our genes or does it come about from our training experience?

2. Why do all three groups tend to modify their pedaling style in the same fashion as the load increases? The fact this modification is the same across all three groups suggests there is an advantage to this modification that all tried to utilize. What is this advantage? Would the advantage be there still if applied to lesser loads?

3. What differences in these groups can account for the development of these different pedaling styles?

4. Are there any differences discernable between these styles that suggest an advantage for one over another?

Anyhow, it seems to me this paper gets totally ignored when it really contains some very interesting information.

From the conclusion of the Kautz, et. al. paper:

“A second finding of this study was the negative torque present during the upstroke at the low workload was either reduced to negligible magnitude or reversed to a positive (propulsive) torque at the high workload. …

Our findings are positive values of (normal force) over much of the upstroke (although not large enough to do significant work) represents a finding that differs from the consensus of the literature (citations). In comparing our data with the literature the conditions (90 RPM and 123 single leg watts) of our low workload were very similar to those (90 RPM and 235 W) of McLean and Lafortune (1988). …

Because of the similarity of our data and that from other studies collected under similar conditions, we feel that the character of the positive torque produced by our subjects does reflect their pedaling technique under conditions simulating competition. Our data show that while negative torque occurs at a low workload, positive normal forces appear for some subjects as the workload increases to a high level. Because positive normal forces appear mainly at the high work load, we feel that one reason may be other studies failed to show them was in part because the studies did not collect data at a high enough workload.…

Further study is needed to determine the biomechanical techniques employed by elite cyclists. Given the variability shown in the pedaling technique data among the subjects in this study, it is not unreasonable to hypothesize that performance differences between elite subjects could in part be related to biomechanical differences. However, pedaling technique data alone cannot provide enough information to observe these performance differences. Since pedaling technique is merely the output of a complex biomechanical system, further investigations must integrate pedaling technique data with the kinematics and dynamics of the lower extremities during cycling."

 

[function]

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.

Thanks for elaborating, i agree with the above.

 

[CoachFergie]

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.

Unable to push harder? When the average 40km TT power is 200-450watts and most riders are easily capable of much higher power the challenge in cycling is not pushing harder but to sustain a power for a certain distance.

This applies to sprinters who ride for 10sec at 80-85% of the their peak power to TT riders who ride at 20-80min at 35-45% of their peak power.

 

[function]

Unable to push harder? When the average 40km TT power is 200-450watts and most riders are easily capable of much higher power the challenge in cycling is not pushing harder but to sustain a power for a certain distance.

This applies to sprinters who ride for 10sec at 80-85% of the their peak power to TT riders who ride at 20-80min at 35-45% of their peak power.

However we're discussing the wingate test, not 40k TT power.

 

[CoachFergie]

However we're discussing the wingate test, not 40k TT power.

That is why I said the same applies to a sprinter who rides for 10sec at 85-90% of their peak power. They have the capacity to push harder but it comes at the cost of greater fatigue. We see this in sprint cycling where the better riders have far less drop off between the 100m splits of the flying 200m TT. The slower riders have a far greater drop off in speed from the first 100m to the 2nd 100m (Tissottiming.com). They push too hard and it costs them in the 2nd half of the timed section.

 

[function]

Unable to push harder? When the average 40km TT power is 200-450watts and most riders are easily capable of much higher power the challenge in cycling is not pushing harder but to sustain a power for a certain distance.

That is why I said the same applies to a sprinter who rides for 10sec at 85-90% of their peak power. They have the capacity to push harder but it comes at the cost of greater fatigue.

Which is what Frank said, you cannot push harder (apply more force) for the remaining duration of the test as it would result in premature failure.

 

[CoachFergie]

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.

And I am saying that people can always push harder. Frank is creating another strawman saying there is a point where one is unable to push harder (unless your event is over 50m) to promote the myth that the only way to go faster is to draw on other muscle groups like the hip flexors (cuing a plug for Gimmickcranks).

I am saying that one can always push harder but doing so comes at a cost of fatigue relative to event duration. This has been my experience with Wingate Testing where the higher peak a rider pushes their peak power the higher the fatigue index and lower the average power. This is another reason why the Wingate Test is not all that appropriate for competition cyclists.

Unless there is a Wingate World Championships I am unaware of

 

[JayKosta]

And I am saying that people can always push harder.
...
I am saying that one can always push harder but doing so comes at a cost of fatigue relative to event duration. This has been my experience with Wingate Testing where the higher peak a rider pushes their peak power the higher the fatigue index and lower the average power.
This is another reason why the Wingate Test is not all that appropriate for competition cyclists.
...

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

It sounds to me that you are saying that for each individual there is an 'optimum strategy' (i.e when, how much, how long, etc.) for applying power to get the best results in a test.

My view is that if a rider can exert full peak power for the entire duration of the test, then to improve it would be necessary to increase the peak power, or perhaps find a more effective way of converting the peak power into forward motion.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[CoachFergie]

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

It sounds to me that you are saying that for each individual there is an 'optimum strategy' (i.e when, how much, how long, etc.) for applying power to get the best results in a test.

My view is that if a rider can exert full peak power for the entire duration of the test, then to improve it would be necessary to increase the peak power, or perhaps find a more effective way of converting the peak power into forward motion.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Really should have said maximum power because peak power is often used to describe peak aerobic power like pVO2max or MAP.

Maximum Power can only be held for 1-3 seconds then fatigue kicks in as ATP supply to the working muscle can not meet demand.

From SRM data we see a sprinter will complete a flying 200m at around 85-90% of their maximum power so the trick is not how much peak power they have but how they sustain a percentage below it. As mentioned raising the maximum tends to raise the fatigue index and drop the avg power. Maybe not in a 10sec Wingate but certainly in a 30sec effort.

The Aussies made this mistake training maximum speed and power on the bike and maximum strength in the gym and through plyometrics and had the best jumps in the world. Only problem was at Beijing they were racing longer than the 6sec efforts that was their core training duration.

Each athlete will have their own fatigue profile. The 2nd edition of Racing and Training with a Power Meter outlines the concept. For a sprinter the drop off from 5sec to 10sec and 10sec to 20sec power is used. For a road cyclist 20min avg power, 60min normalised power and 90min normalised power is used. It's quite effective for determining if you have a sprinter who is better a shorter sprints from a slow jump or a good Man 1 in a team sprint or those with better fatigue resistance who are more suited to going long or riding the Keirin.

 

[JayKosta]

...
Maximum Power can only be held for 1-3 seconds then fatigue kicks in as ATP supply to the working muscle can not meet demand.
...

================================
Yes, that is the 'technical bit' that I forgot about - and I agree.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[FrankDay]

I am saying that one can always push harder but doing so comes at a cost of fatigue relative to event duration. This has been my experience with Wingate Testing where the higher peak a rider pushes their peak power the higher the fatigue index and lower the average power. This is another reason why the Wingate Test is not all that appropriate for competition cyclists.

You are saying this as if we are all steam engines and to push harder all we need do is increase the pressure a bit. That is not how muscles work.. Check out the force-velocity graph on the right seen in the link and notice at every contraction velocity there is a maximal contractile force (except for those velocities where the muscle cannot exert any force). Edit: image added directly since not copyrighted.

The Wingate test is not meant to reproduce the stress of any specific competition but, rather, is simply a standardized measure of anaerobic fatigability. Such a test itself can be useful in evaluating athletes who participate in anaerobic sports. If you want to modify to something that you think might be better feel free but your thoughts do not invalidate the test per se nor the thoughts of those who choose to use the test unmodified.

 

[function]

And I am saying that people can always push harder. Frank is creating another strawman saying there is a point where one is unable to push harder (unless your event is over 50m)

I am saying that one can always push harder but doing so comes at a cost of fatigue relative to event duration. Unless there is a Wingate World Championships I am unaware of

So can you or can you not push harder for the duration of the Wingate test? I'm saying you cannot because of premature failure, you keep saying that you can, but then fall back to saying it'll result in fatigue. Which is it?

Furthermore it appears you're creating the strawman by referring to a Wingate world championship when all this time we have been discussing the Wingate results from the study.

 

[CoachFergie]

So can you or can you not push harder for the duration of the Wingate test? I'm saying you cannot because of premature failure, you keep saying that you can, but then fall back to saying it'll result in fatigue. Which is it?

And this is why the Wingate Test is a poor measure of actual cycling performance. While racing whether sprinting 200m or riding 21 days one should pace themselves over the distance rather than try to attain a maximum power at any point. In the NZ sprint team the ones with the highest maximum power are the ones with the slowest flying 200m times.

Furthermore it appears you're creating the strawman by referring to a Wingate world championship when all this time we have been discussing the Wingate results from the study.

Lets sum up by saying that Hanaki-Martin is not a very good study because of a lack of information supplied about whether they performed a true Wingate Test or some modifications were made to facilitate anyone wishing to recreate the study. Or the use of a Wingate Anaerobic Test when it does not match the demands of any cycling event. Atkinson (2007) writes about the progress being made in developing more specific tests for cycling. That's if we wish to generalise the results to real events.

 

[FrankDay]

Lets sum up by saying that Hanaki-Martin is not a very good study because of a lack of information supplied about whether they performed a true Wingate Test or some modifications were made to facilitate anyone wishing to recreate the study.

What on earth does that have to do with whether Hanaki-Martin was a "good" study or not. The stated purpose of the study was to investigate whether slope affected pedaling mechanics in both the case of regular and independent cranks and nothing else, isn't that true? How does your "objection" to what they did interfere with their findings?

 

[CoachFergie]

All variables were averaged over all pedal cycles performed during the 30 second trial

My original contention was that using a Wingate protocol there would be differences at the start of each test where the test chosen could affect the results rather than the way the riders pedalled.

 

[FrankDay]

My original contention was that using a Wingate protocol there would be differences at the start of each test where the test chosen could affect the results rather than the way the riders pedalled.

Wouldn't that be a potential problem using a modified Wingate test also? The riders pedaled the way they did under the conditions of the test which included a Wingate test. If you think another test might give other results then you should perform that test and report the results.

No study is perfect. We almost always wish the researchers might have done something different than what they actually did, regardless of what the study is. If we are stuck with 6 week PowerCranks studies I would prefer that researchers get in the same amount of PowerCranks stimulus that Dixon did in that period (48 hours) than the amount that most do (10-18 hours) as I believe that more stimulus is more likely to demonstrate the benefit compared to lesser amount of stimulus. But, we are stuck with what is out there.

 

[CoachFergie]

Wouldn't that be a potential problem using a modified Wingate test also? The riders pedaled the way they did under the conditions of the test which included a Wingate test. If you think another test might give other results then you should perform that test and report the results.

We don't know if they performed a Wingate test or a modified as this was not reported.

The issue is that in a Wingate Test the rider starts with a maximal effort and this is where a rider does tend to pull on the pedals to get off the mark. Because it was unreported how the test was started (I have seen some Wingate Tests performed in the saddle and others out) we don't know if the FC riders pulled excessively on the pedals at the start, for how long they may have done this, if they started out of the saddle which means there are potential confounding variables affecting the data.

No study is perfect. We almost always wish the researchers might have done something different than what they actually did, regardless of what the study is. If we are stuck with 6 week PowerCranks studies I would prefer that researchers get in the same amount of PowerCranks stimulus that Dixon did in that period (48 hours) than the amount that most do (10-18 hours) as I believe that more stimulus is more likely to demonstrate the benefit compared to lesser amount of stimulus. But, we are stuck with what is out there.

Sperlich's (2011) experimental group did 30hours on GimmickCranks. Doesn't alter the fact that other interventions have shown that performance can be improved significantly from a 12-18 minute training stimulus over a 12 day period.

 

[FrankDay]

Sperlich's (2011) experimental group did 30hours on GimmickCranks. Doesn't alter the fact that other interventions have shown that performance can be improved significantly from a 12-18 minute training stimulus over a 12 day period.

I am unfamiliar with Sperlich's study. Perhaps you could provide a link.

 

[FrankDay]

We don't know if they performed a Wingate test or a modified as this was not reported.

Sure we do. The authors said they did a Wingate test and the two groups had different max cadences, which is consistent with a standard Wingate test, not your modified variety which controls starting cadence. Either way, does not knowing affect the results, which was trying to determine if slope affected pedaling style?

The issue is that in a Wingate Test the rider starts with a maximal effort and this is where a rider does tend to pull on the pedals to get off the mark. Because it was unreported how the test was started (I have seen some Wingate Tests performed in the saddle and others out) we don't know if the FC riders pulled excessively on the pedals at the start, for how long they may have done this, if they started out of the saddle which means there are potential confounding variables affecting the data.

In a standard Wingate test the rider starts at maximum cadence. Under these circumstances it is unlikely that they were "pulling up excessively at the start" and it is unlikely that they were out of the saddle.

Either way, I don't think that deficiency detracts much from their overall findings. You are simply objecting to the fact they found these folks had no negative forces on the backstroke. It doesn't really matter what they did because why that happened (was it because of the high effort or because they had time on the PC's, or some combination) is not going to be answered by that little tidbit of extra information.

 

[CoachFergie]

I am unfamiliar with Sperlich's study. Perhaps you could provide a link.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21193924

 

[CoachFergie]

Sure we do. The authors said they did a Wingate test and the two groups had different max cadences, which is consistent with a standard Wingate test, not your modified variety which controls starting cadence. Either way, does not knowing affect the results, which was trying to determine if slope affected pedaling style?

They didn't say what Wingate protocol they used. Did they use the same protocol from 1974 where power was recorded every 5 sec manually or did they take advantage of some new form of measuring power? There is insufficient information to know just what happened at the start of each trial and this confounds the results.

In a standard Wingate test the rider starts at maximum cadence. Under these circumstances it is unlikely that they were "pulling up excessively at the start" and it is unlikely that they were out of the saddle.

Define maximum cadence? Did the rider perform a max cadence test to determine their maximum cadence and did they start the test at their maximum cadence or at a pre determined cadence?

Speculation as to whether the riders were in the saddle or how much they pulled as this information is not supplied.

Either way, I don't think that deficiency detracts much from their overall findings. You are simply objecting to the fact they found these folks had no negative forces on the backstroke.

I am saying that insufficient information is supplied to draw any conclusions from the study.

It doesn't really matter what they did because why that happened (was it because of the high effort or because they had time on the PC's, or some combination) is not going to be answered by that little tidbit of extra information.

There is insufficient information given in methods and results to draw any real conclusions.

 

[FrankDay]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21193924

Found the entire manuscript. What is missing, of course, is any evidence as to how these two groups actually pedaled and as to whether there was any change in how they pedaled pre and post. From the study. "All cycle testing was conducted with regular cranks for both the groups, using a cycle ergometer with electrical braking…" We don't know if the independent cranks group reverted when tested post training. Unless change is documented, the results are pretty meaningless because we cannot know if the stimulus was adequate to effect the desired change.

 

[FrankDay]

There is insufficient information given in methods and results to draw any real conclusions.

If you say so. Same can be said for Sperlich also (see my earlier comments).

 

[CoachFergie]

Found the entire manuscript. What is missing, of course, is any evidence as to how these two groups actually pedaled and as to whether there was any change in how they pedaled pre and post. From the study. "All cycle testing was conducted with regular cranks for both the groups, using a cycle ergometer with electrical braking…" We don't know if the independent cranks group reverted when tested post training. Unless change is documented, the results are pretty meaningless because we cannot know if the stimulus was adequate to effect the desired change.

Pedalling was not the purpose of the study. The purpose was to test if a higher number of training sessions on a Gimmickcrank than previous studies had any effect on performance and physiological variables.

Bohm etal (2008) and Fernandez-Pena (2009) showed that the time period is sufficient to see a change in pedalling technique.

 

[CoachFergie]

If you say so. Same can be said for Sperlich also (see my earlier comments).

Well walk me through the methodology and point out the gaps and then how the results don't support their conclusions.