correct way to pedal

[FrankDay]

I am happy to debate the presentation of data. You raised LeMond and Armstrong, I presume to support your argument, but this is evidence of nothing.

You made the statement that I was the only one making this claim. I simply presented two high profile people who would show your statement to be false. And, there are many more but most here would not recognize their names.

And speculation is where pedalling technique sits till someone provides more than claims or celebrity endorsement.

Of course, none of this is proven, including your thoughts as to what is best (or, perhaps, that it doesn't make any difference so don't worry about it). That is why there is a debate or discussion since if proof actually existed along these line this debate would have gone away a long time ago. The fact that there is no debate in your mind is not sufficient evidence to sway many I am afraid.

So, why don't you present the evidence as to why you believe why you do instead of throwing personal insults to make your case. Then the other side can comment on the evidence. That is how discussions and debates are supposed to work, at least up here in the northern hemisphere.

 

[M Sport]

LOL. Perhaps you should open both your eyes and your brain. If you haven't noticed, there is actually a debate on this subject here and elsewhere. Further, There is at least one other who has demonstrably made such a claim, Chris Carmichael in regards to Lance Armstrong. (link here)

From your Carmichael link ...

Chris was careful not to ask Lance to “pedal in circles” because the force plate analysis had shown that no positive force was produced during the upstroke. Then, as now, the prevailing belief was that the best a cyclist could do was unweight the leg as it traveled through the upstroke. In other words, the best you can do with the upstroke leg is to get it out of the way so it doesn’t subtract from the force being exerted by the leg on the downstroke.

I think that is exactly what we have been saying in both of these threads for weeks now.

 

[CoachFergie]

You made the statement that I was the only one making this claim. I simply presented two high profile people who would show your statement to be false. And, there are many more but most here would not recognize their names.

Only person here. I am sure that many others see any opportunity to beat up the whole pedalling issue.

Of course, none of this is proven, including your thoughts as to what is best (or, perhaps, that it doesn't make any difference so don't worry about it). That is why there is a debate or discussion since if proof actually existed along these line this debate would have gone away a long time ago. The fact that there is no debate in your mind is not sufficient evidence to sway many I am afraid.

Interesting the only person 'here' creating the debate is a person with a vested interest in pedalling technique. Also interesting that in several reviews of performance in cycling in the peer review press pedalling technique doesn't get a mention and the one that does cover it (Faria, 2009) does so to illustrate that none of the research in the area has added much to actual performance.

So, why don't you present the evidence as to why you believe why you do instead of throwing personal insults to make your case. Then the other side can comment on the evidence. That is how discussions and debates are supposed to work, at least up here in the northern hemisphere.

Back to playing the victim Frank, should I get my Violin out?

Well down in the Southern Hemisphere if we make a claim it is considered common courtesy to back it up with evidence. I thought that was universal actually.

Evidence: specific training, recovery, diet, motivation, good health, injury free, good bike set up, good tactics etc. Where would you like me to start brow beating you?

 

[FrankDay]

Interesting the only person 'here' creating the debate is a person with a vested interest in pedalling technique.

I didn't start this thread. It was started with this comment: "may sound stupid but is there a correct way to pedal. i am told you should pull up with one foot as you push down with the other …" I do have some strong views on the subject though so when it comes up I will typically chime in because most of what he would hear here is "whoever told you that is crazy, just push harder" or "Coyle PROVED pushing harder is better", and other BS. There is another view as evidenced by what he was told by someone else. I doubt the person who told him this has a financial interest in my product. My product simply facilitates riders learning this technique. It remains unproven how valuable learning this is. I would have the same views whether I had a financial interest in the topic or not, at least until proof one way or the other is available. One thing for sure, I do not try to hide my relationship to my product so people can judge what I say with that in mind.

 

[FrankDay]

From your Carmichael link ...

Chris was careful not to ask Lance to “pedal in circles” because the force plate analysis had shown that no positive force was produced during the upstroke. Then, as now, the prevailing belief was that the best a cyclist could do was unweight the leg as it traveled through the upstroke. In other words, the best you can do with the upstroke leg is to get it out of the way so it doesn’t subtract from the force being exerted by the leg on the downstroke.

I think that is exactly what we have been saying in both of these threads for weeks now.

Oh Phooey. It depends upon how one defines pedaling in circles. Equal force around the entire circle is how many define pedaling in circles. How Carmichael wanted Lance to pedal is what I call pedaling in circles in that no negative forces are applied around the entire circle. This means none of the circle can be done passively, the rider must pedal the entire circle even though he is putting minimal force on the pedals on the upstroke. That does not mean he is doing minimal work on the upstroke though because he is increasing the potential energy of the leg as he lifts it against gravity. So, despite not putting any force on the pedal during the upstroke the rider, when he unweights, is doing considerable work that he can recover (mostly) during the downstroke.

What most of you believe is, because most of the propulsive force occurs during the downstroke, all that matters is how hard the rider pushes and what occurs at the top, bottom, and back don't matter in the least. I, Carmichael, and Armstrong all apparently believe that what happens at the top, bottom and back of the stroke can make a big difference. If you now agree with us, GREAT! Now all we need do is sit around and wait for proof that we are all right.

Edit: I might add, I am not aware that there is any evidence that "the best you can do with the upstroke leg is to get it out of the way" as Carmichael says. Getting the leg out of the way is certainly an improvement (IMHO) but why is it the best we can do? Is it possible that actually applying force on the upstroke might be beneficial if one were to train oneself to actually do so? Kautz, et. al. certainly has shown that is what elite riders tend to do as they increase their effort. Except for the lack of training, why couldn't that technique be useful all the time?

 

[M Sport]

Oh Phooey. It depends upon how one defines pedaling in circles. Equal force around the entire circle is how many define pedaling in circles.

Bullsh1t. Anyone claiming that pedaling in circles means EQUAL force around the ENTIRE pedal circle is seriously deluded. I doubt that is a belief held by more than a couple of crack pots and no doubt being brought up by you in an attempt to derail the discussion yet again.

How Carmichael wanted Lance to pedal is what I call pedaling in circles in that no negative forces are applied around the entire circle. This means none of the circle can be done passively, the rider must pedal the entire circle even though he is putting minimal force on the pedals on the upstroke. That does not mean he is doing minimal work on the upstroke though because he is increasing the potential energy of the leg as he lifts it against gravity. So, despite not putting any force on the pedal during the upstroke the rider, when he unweights, is doing considerable work that he can recover (mostly) during the downstroke.

You don't have any source to back that up. You are taking Carmichael's words and putting your own spin on them. Carmichael says "Lance, I don't want you to pedal in circles" Frank says "That's what I call pedaling in circles". Admittedly I'm not a big fan of Carmichael or Lance but at least Chris has more creditability than you.

What most of you believe is, because most of the propulsive force occurs during the downstroke, all that matters is how hard the rider pushes

Can't speak for the others but for me, mostly true.

and what occurs at the top, bottom, and back don't matter in the least.

Absolutely never said that about the top and bottom. Again, don't twist what some say and lump us all in one category to suit your argument.

Back doesn't matter, no point trying to pull up or consciously 'unweight' by pulling.

 

[CoachFergie]

I didn't start this thread. It was started with this comment: "may sound stupid but is there a correct way to pedal. i am told you should pull up with one foot as you push down with the other …" I do have some strong views on the subject though so when it comes up I will typically chime in because most of what he would hear here is "whoever told you that is crazy, just push harder" or "Coyle PROVED pushing harder is better", and other BS.

Nothing is ever proved Frank, evidence is presented and evaluated. Where the waters get muddied is when some makes claims they can't provide good evidence for.

 

[CoachFergie]

Oh Phooey. It depends upon how one defines pedaling in circles. Equal force around the entire circle is how many define pedaling in circles. How Carmichael wanted Lance to pedal is what I call pedaling in circles in that no negative forces are applied around the entire circle. This means none of the circle can be done passively, the rider must pedal the entire circle even though he is putting minimal force on the pedals on the upstroke. That does not mean he is doing minimal work on the upstroke though because he is increasing the potential energy of the leg as he lifts it against gravity. So, despite not putting any force on the pedal during the upstroke the rider, when he unweights, is doing considerable work that he can recover (mostly) during the downstroke.

Which is about as wild an arsed guess as Noel (or Neal or Bob)'s guess over how Anquetil pedalled.

What most of you believe is, because most of the propulsive force occurs during the downstroke, all that matters is how hard the rider pushes and what occurs at the top, bottom, and back don't matter in the least. I, Carmichael, and Armstrong all apparently believe that what happens at the top, bottom and back of the stroke can make a big difference. If you now agree with us, GREAT! Now all we need do is sit around and wait for proof that we are all right.

More guessing.

Edit: I might add, I am not aware that there is any evidence that "the best you can do with the upstroke leg is to get it out of the way" as Carmichael says. Getting the leg out of the way is certainly an improvement (IMHO) but why is it the best we can do? Is it possible that actually applying force on the upstroke might be beneficial if one were to train oneself to actually do so? Kautz, et. al. certainly has shown that is what elite riders tend to do as they increase their effort. Except for the lack of training, why couldn't that technique be useful all the time?

Cherry picking data points that suit your argument and ignoring anything is evidence against your argument is very typical Frank.

 

[CoachFergie]

You don't have any source to back that up. You are taking Carmichael's words and putting your own spin on them. Carmichael says "Lance, I don't want you to pedal in circles" Frank says "That's what I call pedaling in circles". Admittedly I'm not a big fan of Carmichael or Lance but at least Chris has more creditability than you.

But not by much, did you read that Carmichael link? Comedy Gold

 

[FrankDay]

Bullsh1t. Anyone claiming that pedaling in circles means EQUAL force around the ENTIRE pedal circle is seriously deluded. I doubt that is a belief held by more than a couple of crack pots and no doubt being brought up by you in an attempt to derail the discussion yet again.

… You are taking Carmichael's words and putting your own spin on them. Carmichael says "Lance, I don't want you to pedal in circles" Frank says "That's what I call pedaling in circles". Admittedly I'm not a big fan of Carmichael or Lance but at least Chris has more creditability than you.
.

Tell me how you would interpret Carmichael saying "I don't want you to pedal in circles, I just want you to un-weight (get the leg out of the way) on the back stroke." What did he mean by his use of the term "pedaling in circles" in that sentence? We have been through this before. I have stated what I believe pedaling in circles is, as I use the term. It doesn't involve putting upward pressure on the backstroke. It does involve the upward moving leg doing all the work necessary to get that leg up on the back stroke.

 

[FrankDay]

Nothing is ever proved Frank, evidence is presented and evaluated. Where the waters get muddied is when some makes claims they can't provide good evidence for.

Well, when that evidence is evaluated with statistics things can be "proved", at least in the scientific sense to a statistical certainty. That is why statistics are useful in science. Without statistics we would always be guessing and no argument would ever get resolved.

 

[FrankDay]

Absolutely never said that about the top and bottom. Again, don't twist what some say and lump us all in one category to suit your argument.

Back doesn't matter, no point trying to pull up or consciously 'unweight' by pulling.

Well, the top and the bottom are part of the circle. Glad you agree with me there (or so it would seem from your comment). Now, why you would want to assert that negative work on the upstroke is a good thing or doesn't make any difference makes no sense to me. Could you explain why you believe that? Certainly makes no sense from a thermodynamic analysis point of view that negative work anywhere on the circle would be a positive to making a bike go faster.

 

[Tapeworm]

Well, the top and the bottom are part of the circle. Glad you agree with me there (or so it would seem from your comment). Now, why you would want to assert that negative work on the upstroke is a good thing or doesn't make any difference makes no sense to me. Could you explain why you believe that? Certainly makes no sense from a thermodynamic analysis point of view that negative work anywhere on the circle would be a positive to making a bike go faster.

Unless the negative quantity of work actually resulted in a greater net amount of work being done rather than keeping postive work all the way around resulting in a smaller amount of work overall.

Now, where have we seen this before?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Perhaps you could provide some proof of the word sound in that statement. The internet itself provides the proof that people have no trouble making judgments regarding stuff they have no knowledge about. The only question is whether it is a sound judgement. Sound judgment usually requires adequate and accurate information combined with excellent analysis of that information. Do you have evidence you possess all of those requirements in this particular case?

Well since the evidence you provide is neither accurate or adequate, then you've got me there Frank.

Fortunately, others have performed some actual science and it's pretty helpful.

 

[FrankDay]

Unless the negative quantity of work actually resulted in a greater net amount of work being done rather than keeping postive work all the way around resulting in a smaller amount of work overall.

Now, where have we seen this before?

??? Huh? Adding in a negative results in an increased net? Is that the argument? Perhaps you could show the math that supports this statement.

 

[FrankDay]

Fortunately, others have performed some actual science and it's pretty helpful.

Perhaps you could point us to this "actual science" others have done that prove your view or is "pretty helpful".

 

[JayKosta]

...
Back doesn't matter, no point trying to pull up or consciously 'unweight' by pulling.

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

M Sport,
What do you think is consciously (or unconsciously) done on the back motion?

Is there unconscious pull-up?
Is the leg allowed to relax and be pushed-around?
Is the rotational motion of the leg maintained without an attempt to have positive force?
Is the foot position changed to be ready for the down stroke?

I think that to some degree each rider has a technique or motion that occurs on the the back & up stroke.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[Tapeworm]

??? Huh? Adding in a negative results in an increased net? Is that the argument? Perhaps you could show the math that supports this statement.

We've already seen the graphs, but to explain how a negative in an equation can result in a higher net:-

35 + -5 = 30
20 + 5 = 25

Wow, advanced maths here.

 

[FrankDay]

We've already seen the graphs, but to explain how a negative in an equation can result in a higher net:-

35 + -5 = 30

??? Really!!! 30 is bigger than 35?

 

[Spider1964]

This little internet forum war between CoachFergie and FrankDay is rivalling some of the all time greats -

Itchy & Scratchy come to mind

http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/content/pictures/regulars/ItchyScratchy1.gif

Maybe Luke and his Dad

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTrclRW3Fww7370vICKjmgkGq98gyBkVFSqz8vyCxdf8ruBD1VmXA&t=1

 

[Tapeworm]

??? Really!!! 30 is bigger than 35?

How did you work that one out?

Obtuse to the point of banality, Frank. Given the context of the conversation being in regards pedaling, the point being that simply because torque is positive for all/most if the pedal stroke does not in itself yield a higher net value than a higher amount of torque being produced for part of the cycle with small negative amount of torque. Of course you have seen the graph which demonstrates this. Obfuscate much?

 

[FrankDay]

How did you work that one out?

Obtuse to the point of banality, Frank. Given the context of the conversation being in regards pedaling, the point being that simply because torque is positive for all/most if the pedal stroke does not in itself yield a higher net value than a higher amount of torque being produced for part of the cycle with small negative amount of torque. Of course you have seen the graph which demonstrates this. Obfuscate much?

The point is that if the torque is the same at all other parts of the circle how does adding a negative torque at the back part increase power. Or, the other way of looking at this is: How does adding a negative torque at the back of the circle somehow allow the rider to push that much harder and more on the downstroke to overcome that negative torque (because that is what they have to do if that is a superior way of developing power)?

It is not obfuscating. It is simply doing the proper thermodynamic (energy) analysis. You are the one with your head in the sand thinking those Coyle graphs are the be all and end all of this argument. Since Coyle is also an author on the Kautz study I think even he would not draw that conclusion from his own data. Of course, he is smarter than all of us are as he doesn't wade into these "discussions".

Anyhow, I have seen plenty of graphs. The composite graph of Coyle is useless as it is a composite and the riders making up that composite had a wide variety of pedaling styles. In fact, the rider with the fastest time only pushed the 4th hardest and had almost zero negative forces on the upstroke (compared to most). There is a lot of useful information in that Coyle study but there is simply not enough information in that study (or any other study) to make a determination as to what is the best pedaling style. A better study to look at this was Kautz, et. al. There were three distinct pedaling styles in these elite cyclists. But, they did not analyze to see if there were any differences attributable to pedaling style amongst these seemingly equal cyclists and any differences in training that can account for the different pedaling styles. That should be done.

Your analysis makes no thermodynamic sense. If negative forces on the upstroke somehow magically facilitate the ability of the rider to push more or equally harder on the upstroke, without any excess energy cost, then you might be on to something but that has yet to be shown as occurring and thermodynamics (and biology, because of the necessary recruitment of less efficient fast twitch fibers when pushing harder) says this possibility is highly unlikely.

Putting a negative force on the upstroke is like letting the air out of the tires and increasing rolling resistance. It simply increases the amount of "pushing work" required to make the bike go a certain speed. No one would claim that increasing rolling resistance makes the bike go faster. But, peoples brains seem to go dead when we start talking about pedaling.

 

[Tapeworm]

The point is that if the torque is the same at all other parts of the circle how does adding a negative torque at the back part increase power. Or, the other way of looking at this is: How does adding a negative torque at the back of the circle somehow allow the rider to push that much harder and more on the downstroke to overcome that negative torque (because that is what they have to do if that is a superior way of developing power)?

It is not obfuscating. It is simply doing the proper thermodynamic (energy) analysis. You are the one with your head in the sand thinking those Coyle graphs are the be all and end all of this argument. Since Coyle is also an author on the Kautz study I think even he would not draw that conclusion from his own data. Of course, he is smarter than all of us are as he doesn't wade into these "discussions".

Anyhow, I have seen plenty of graphs. The composite graph of Coyle is useless as it is a composite and the riders making up that composite had a wide variety of pedaling styles. In fact, the rider with the fastest time only pushed the 4th hardest and had almost zero negative forces on the upstroke (compared to most). There is a lot of useful information in that Coyle study but there is simply not enough information in that study (or any other study) to make a determination as to what is the best pedaling style. A better study to look at this was Kautz, et. al. There were three distinct pedaling styles in these elite cyclists. But, they did not analyze to see if there were any differences attributable to pedaling style amongst these seemingly equal cyclists and any differences in training that can account for the different pedaling styles. That should be done.

Your analysis makes no thermodynamic sense. If negative forces on the upstroke somehow magically facilitate the ability of the rider to push more or equally harder on the upstroke, without any excess energy cost, then you might be on to something but that has yet to be shown as occurring and thermodynamics (and biology, because of the necessary recruitment of less efficient fast twitch fibers when pushing harder) says this possibility is highly unlikely.

Putting a negative force on the upstroke is like letting the air out of the tires and increasing rolling resistance. It simply increases the amount of "pushing work" required to make the bike go a certain speed. No one would claim that increasing rolling resistance makes the bike go faster. But, peoples brains seem to go dead when we start talking about pedaling.

"And yet it does move."

Amazing how we can get a bike to move with all this negative torque in the equation. And "...and biology, because of the necessary recruitment of less efficient fast twitch fibers when pushing harder..." is pure gold, keep 'pushing' that one. Whilst physics is not my strongest suite I think that your take on thermodynamics is a little narrow, remembering that it takes in the system. Total work. Remind me what all these studies involving power cranks have shown.

Oh, one thing you haven't addressed earlier which I posed:- how does removal of the negative torque part of the pedal motion by applying positive torque on the upstroke deal with thermal stress?

 

[FrankDay]

"And yet it does move."

Amazing how we can get a bike to move with all this negative torque in the equation. And "...and biology, because of the necessary recruitment of less efficient fast twitch fibers when pushing harder..." is pure gold, keep 'pushing' that one. Whilst physics is not my strongest suite I think that your take on thermodynamics is a little narrow, remembering that it takes in the system. Total work. Remind me what all these studies involving power cranks have shown.

Of course we get it to move, 2 year olds can get a tricycle to move (and Fergie can see no room for improvement in their technique). The question is whether what people are doing is optimal or not?

If you look at the "system" the thermodynamics analysis becomes simple. If one is working against oneself in order to get the energy out of the system and to the wheel it simply cannot be as efficient as if the "system" does not contain these inefficiencies.

The fact that physics and thermodynamics (and, I presume, biology) are not your strong suite should give you pause in coming here and arguing about things with someone trained in all of these disciplines where these issues are paramount in the analysis .

And, what have all those studies shown. Well, they have shown a mixed bag with none lasting more than 6 weeks. However, the one that had the subjects that should be the easiest to change (lesser trained subjects) was able to show statistically significant efficiency improvement in that 6 weeks (18 sessions) and the one that had the highest intensity of involvement (immersion training, 8 hours/week for 6 weeks) showed power and VO2 max improvement. Lesser studies have not reached that level of change. That is not necessarily the fault of the product since in our experience most new users are just beginning to feel comfortable with the product and be able to start riding hard on them in 6 weeks.

Oh, one thing you haven't addressed earlier which I posed:- how does removal of the negative torque part of the pedal motion by applying positive torque on the upstroke deal with thermal stress?

The simply removing the negative torque and reducing the pushing stress the same amount reduces the "thermal stress" because, once the new muscles are trained to do the unweighting, it reduces the percentage of fast-twitch fibers being utilized for the same power. Since FT fibers are less thermodynamically efficient, the thermodynamic load is reduced. Now, if that were the only change, the benefit would be small because the total contractile muscle mass would be the same (although there would be more reserve for the rider to push just as hard again so overall power potential increases as the CV system adapts, which takes time). But, as the rider starts utilizing the entire circle the rider has to start anticipating the directional change of the pedals and the applied force becomes more tangential. Now, this is a big deal because as the applied force becomes more tangential a smaller applied force to the pedal gives the same tangential force, keeping power the same. This change can result in large reductions in thermal (energy) load for any given power, increasing efficiency.

 

[Tapeworm]

Of course we get it to move, 2 year olds can get a tricycle to move (and Fergie can see no room for improvement in their technique). The question is whether what people are doing is optimal or not?

If you look at the "system" the thermodynamics analysis becomes simple. If one is working against oneself in order to get the energy out of the system and to the wheel it simply cannot be as efficient as if the "system" does not contain these inefficiencies.

And hence at the same moment such a simple premises may exist you've seemed to exclude once again that the pedaling action is a system and have to quantify the amount of negative work being done. There is no free lunch, for a leg to be raised work needs to be done. Now whether this work is done by the opposing leg or by the raising leg itself still results in the same amount of work. IIRC the amount of negative torque seemed to be inline (usually) with the same amount that would be expected from gravity acting on the mass of the leg?

The fact that physics and thermodynamics (and, I presume, biology) are not your strong suite should give you pause in coming here and arguing about things with someone trained in all of these disciplines where these issues are paramount in the analysis .

Ah! I am not qualified, hence commentary is not welcome eh?
T'would seem hypocritical of you Frank, given your outstanding qualifications here, so you're a physicist, engineer and physiologist are you? And if you are you certainly seem lacking in detailed explaination of such things that, should you be such an expert would be simple to explain, yes?

]And, what have all those studies shown. Well, they have shown a mixed bag with none lasting more than 6 weeks. However, the one that had the subjects that should be the easiest to change (lesser trained subjects) was able to show statistically significant efficiency improvement in that 6 weeks (18 sessions) and the one that had the highest intensity of involvement (immersion training, 8 hours/week for 6 weeks) showed power and VO2 max improvement. Lesser studies have not reached that level of change. That is not necessarily the fault of the product since in our experience most new users are just beginning to feel comfortable with the product and be able to start riding hard on them in 6 weeks.

Given the gross inefficiencies mentioned above it would seem that measurable differences would be far easier to detect. How do you define "lesser" studies?

The simply removing the negative torque and reducing the pushing stress the same amount reduces the "thermal stress" because, once the new muscles are trained to do the unweighting, it reduces the percentage of fast-twitch fibers being utilized for the same power. Since FT fibers are less thermodynamically efficient, the thermodynamic load is reduced. Now, if that were the only change, the benefit would be small because the total contractile muscle mass would be the same (although there would be more reserve for the rider to push just as hard again so overall power potential increases as the CV system adapts, which takes time). But, as the rider starts utilizing the entire circle the rider has to start anticipating the directional change of the pedals and the applied force becomes more tangential. Now, this is a big deal because as the applied force becomes more tangential a smaller applied force to the pedal gives the same tangential force, keeping power the same. This change can result in large reductions in thermal (energy) load for any given power, increasing efficiency.

And I am the one who doesn't understand biology??