For the "pedaling technique doesn't matter crowd"

[FrankDay]

Here is a study out of Norway that sort of kicks that notion into the garbage can, at least if you think improving efficiency is something to aim for. Now if they will just repeat this and see if power correlates as well and this debate should pretty much end.

I don't agree with everything they say in their analsis but their data is their data.

From the abstract (DC is essentially the size of the force at top and bottom dead center): "Results: Mean work rate was 279 W, mean FCC was 93.1 rpm, and mean GE was 21.7%. FE was 0.47 and 0.79 after correction for inertial forces; DC was 27.3% and 25.7%, respectively. DC size correlated better with GE (r = 0.75) than with the FE ratio (r = 0.50). Multiple regressions revealed that DC size was the only significant (P = 0.001) predictor for GE. Interestingly, DC size and FE ratio did not correlate with each other.

Conclusions: DC size is a pedaling technique parameter that is closely related to energy consumption. To generate power evenly around the whole pedal, revolution may be an important energy-saving trait."

 

[BroDeal]

Gee, you think you could have posted your Gimmick Cranks promotion in the existing pedalling thread?

 

[FrankDay]

Gee, you think you could have posted your Gimmick Cranks promotion in the existing pedalling thread?

Well, I did that but I also started this thread because I thought this study deserved a discussion of its own.

I might point out that this is the first study AFAIK that supports that information gained from a tool such as Computrainer SpinScan could actually be beneficial to the athlete. This study has ramifications that go way beyond just supporting what I say about my product.

 

[Indurain]

I thought you were going to use Bjarne Riis as living proof that it matters. Didn't he say his adjustment in Pedaling technique gained him an extra 20+% in power in 1996!!

I'm sure his 60% hematocrit level had nothing to do with it at all.

 

[brianf7]

No matter what pedaling tech you use or try to train to use you will always revert back to what your body wants to do when the bunch turn on the gas and you hit the red zone.
you do whatever you can to hang on.

 

[FrankDay]

No matter what pedaling tech you use or try to train to use you will always revert back to what your body wants to do when the bunch turn on the gas and you hit the red zone.
you do whatever you can to hang on.

Well, the interesting thing about this study is it looked at the differences as to how people tend to pedal naturally and if there was anything that could account for the efficiency differences seen. They found something. They did not investigate what might account for these differences in the people (is it genetics or training or some combination?). Your question, as to whether how people pedal "naturally" can be changed to influence this parameter is a different question. Since people can change a lot of things (how they high jump, how they shoot a basketball, how they play the piano, etc.) with enough practice I suspect your question is one more of "how much am I willing to do to improve my cycling ability?" Not, can this be changed?

 

[ergmonkey]

Training with Powercranks sounds like a great way to improve one's ability to ride with Powercranks.

Can my Norwegian neighbors confirm that for us?

 

[bc_hills]

I saw this "crowd" out for group ride the other day. They were all bouncing around in their seats on each pedal stroke. One guy was mashing out of the saddle on the flats while another was spinning like a track racer but in his granny gear. The rest were just kinda pausing their pedal stroke here and there and an elite smug few would only apply force during the "pull-up" phase of the pedal stroke so to save their quads (the triathletes, obviously). One guy chose to pedal backwards, but he got dropped early. He blamed his Rotor Cranks, but a group of Norwegian scientists were able to demonstrate that the Power factors (PF) involved in directionally asymmetric (DA) circular preponderances were negatively related to forward propulsion, in most cases, at least in Norway.

There is no "pedaling technique doesn't matter crowd" FFS.

But thanks for the synopsis of the study. I too found it interesting that, "DC size and FE ratio did not correlate with each other."

 

[BroDeal]

I saw this "crowd" out for group ride the other day. They were all bouncing around in their seats on each pedal stroke. One guy was mashing out of the saddle on the flats while another was spinning like a track racer but in his granny gear. The rest were just kinda pausing their pedal stroke here and there and an elite smug few would only apply force during the "pull-up" phase of the pedal stroke so to save their quads (the triathletes, obviously). One guy chose to pedal backwards, but he got dropped early. He blamed his Rotor Cranks, but a group of Norwegian scientists were able to demonstrate that the Power factors (PF) involved in directionally asymmetric (DA) circular preponderances were negatively related to forward propulsion, in most cases, at least in Norway.

Were they all dressed like this.

 

[M Sport]

<sniped>

Just out of interest, are you the guy about 4-6 months ago that was trying to convince people they should be on really short cranks and odd bike fit positions?

 

[blutto]

Were they all dressed like this.

...actually that is a picture of the folks who have responded so positively to the discussion of this study...

...and correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you the clown...err...rider on the extreme right....

Cheers

blutto

 

[bc_hills]

...actually that is a picture of the folks who have responded so positively to the discussion of this study...

...and correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you the clown...err...rider on the extreme right....

Cheers

blutto

Nice one. I think BroDeal was taking the picture. I'm at the bottom of the hill behind them waiting for the next Norwegian study to tell me the most efficient way to pedal up hill on my 132 mm Power Cranks with Rotor Rings. I just hope the new study doesn't mean I'll have to buy another piece of gear!

If someone can reference any cyclist of any significance ever saying that "pedaling technique doesn't matter", then I'll admit to being the monumental jerk that I just may be.

 

[FrankDay]

Just out of interest, are you the guy about 4-6 months ago that was trying to convince people they should be on really short cranks and odd bike fit positions?

I did post something trying to stimulate discussion regarding crank length. Got the usual amount of unthinking replies. But, it is the internet so what else is to be expected? Not sure what the "odd" bike fit positions to which you refer were/are. Anyhow, I have a few people exploring this and I would not be surprised if within one or two years most of you think of crank length differently than you do now. We will see.

 

[FrankDay]

If someone can reference any cyclist of any significance ever saying that "pedaling technique doesn't matter", then I'll admit to being the monumental jerk that I just may be.

Apparently you don't pay much attention to these threads. Anyhow, I have been told that a lot by a whole list of "people of significance" including national team coaches, national champions, and well-respected researchers in the area. It is rare that a pro-cyclist has ever said to us that they don't believe technique matters but I am sure there are a few who believe such. Anyhow, the philosophy of this group for getting better can be congealed into two simple phrases: JFR (just effing ride) and JPH (just push harder). Would you like to see the references that have been provided that supposedly have "proven" that technique doesn't matter. Here is the famous Coyle study (select #40 on the list) I suspect, if you were to do a search on any cycling forum you would find those to be some of the more common posts made when someone asks about cycling technique. (here is a typical post found with minimal effort on another forum: "Just ride more. Things will naturally work themselves out. Cycling isn't like swimming where you need to do specific things 'the right way'. If you're like 90% of people your body will learn to be efficient on the bike with enough riding time.")

Thanks for at least reading the thread and taking the time to comment even though your posts didn't seriously address the issue raised.

 

[BroDeal]

Here is the famous Coyle study (select #40 on the list) ...

LOL. Coyle? That clown has been the butt of jokes for years. His search for non-doping explanations to explain Armstrong's performance is about as credible as O.J.'s search for the real killer.

I did post something trying to stimulate discussion regarding crank length.

Let me guess. You have a new short crank that will give a 20% increase in performance.

 

[oldborn]

Coyle? What his famous study says? In simple words force we apply during upstroke indeed reduce total work required during the downstroke. What a revelation!

But it did not contribute significantly to the external work, cos majority of it was done during downstroke.

Is he the guy who claims that Armstrong is such successuful cyclist cos its efficiency? I would say Armstrong was stronger, and it has nothing to do with cadence or technique.


"In summary, although great insight into human physiology can be gained from carefully controlled examinations of elite athletes, poor experimental design and methodology can lead to inappropriate conclusions, which in the case of a sporting hero can quickly become more hype than fact. Coyle’s data supporting the assumption that training can improve cycling efficiency in an elite cyclist are not compelling. It appears that other more conventional explanations describing why Armstrong is such a successful cyclist may be equally tenable"

End of quote

Dude relax

Now, we are waiting for my friend Andrew.

 

[FrankDay]

Let me guess. You have a new short crank that will give a 20% increase in performance.

If you would read the thread you wouldn't have to guess.

Otherwise, posts that stay on the original topic would be appreciated by most. Anything to say about the study?

 

[FrankDay]

Coyle? What his famous study says? In simple words force we apply during upstroke indeed reduce total work required during the downstroke. What a revelation!

But it did not contribute significantly to the external work, cos majority of it was done during downstroke.

Is he the guy who claims that Armstrong is such successuful cyclist cos its efficiency? I would say Armstrong was stronger, and it has nothing to do with cadence or technique.


"In summary, although great insight into human physiology can be gained from carefully controlled examinations of elite athletes, poor experimental design and methodology can lead to inappropriate conclusions, which in the case of a sporting hero can quickly become more hype than fact. Coyle’s data supporting the assumption that training can improve cycling efficiency in an elite cyclist are not compelling. It appears that other more conventional explanations describing why Armstrong is such a successful cyclist may be equally tenable"

End of quote

Dude relax

Now, we are waiting for my friend Andrew.

My criticism of the Coyle Armstrong study went to his assumption that the cycling efficiency improvements he documented came from a change in muscle fiber type. He ignored other possibilities, including technique improvements, which the current study shows could be a possibility, especially now in view of the fact that Carmichael has said this is an area Lance concentrated on. From that page: "But despite Lance’s symmetrical pedal stroke, there were areas where he could improve. The scientists noted that at the top and bottom of the pedal stroke, Lance contributed very little force to the pedals. By increasing his push over the top and his pull back through the bottom, they reasoned, Lance could deliver more power with each pedal stroke. Increasing energy delivery to the pedals at both of these phases in the stroke could result in a few more watts of power. Even though the changes would only result in a handful of additional watts with each revolution, Chris and Lance knew those increases could add up to significant performance gains during the course of a long training ride or race."

Not only could improving the top and the bottom of the stroke result in a "few more watts", it also looks like it could improve efficiency per the Leirdal study and as documented as occurring in Lance by Coyle.

 

[oldborn]

My criticism of the Coyle Armstrong study went to his assumption that the cycling efficiency improvements he documented came from a change in muscle fiber type.

Not as i heard and read from him.

He ignored other possibilities including technique improvements, which the current study shows could be a possibility, especially now in view of the fact that

No he did not, but never mind.

Carmichael has said this is an area Lance concentrated on. From that page: "But despite Lance’s symmetrical pedal stroke, there were areas where he could improve. The scientists noted that at the top and bottom of the pedal stroke, Lance contributed very little force to the pedals. By increasing his push over the top and his pull back through the bottom, they reasoned, Lance could deliver more power with each pedal stroke. Increasing energy delivery to the pedals at both of these phases in the stroke could result in a few more watts of power. Even though the changes would only result in a handful of additional watts with each revolution, Chris and Lance knew those increases could add up to significant performance gains during the course of a long training ride or race."

Not only could improving the top and the bottom of the stroke result in a "few more watts", it also looks like it could improve efficiency per the Leirdal study and as documented as occurring in Lance by Coyle.

Maybe ergometer was junk, did not calibrated, were all tests performed on same machine, Lance VO2 max data?

He changes his technique after this revelation? In late 2Os or early 30s come on. It takes years to practice and easy to forget, especially on mountains. So how he improve his technique, he was thinking 6 hours on stage on bottom of the stroke?

So why we are stupid and do not ride as Lance?

 

[FrankDay]

Not as i heard and read from him.

Here is the last paragraph from his paper. "This report has identified the physiological factor that improved
the most from ages 21 to 28 yr in the bicyclist who has
now become the six-time consecutive Grand Champion of the
Tour de France as muscular efficiency. As a result, power
production when cycling at an absolute V˙ O2 of 5.0 l/min
increased by 8%. Another factor that allowed this individual to
become Grand Champion of the Tour de France was his large
reductions in body weight and body fat during the months
before the race. Therefore, over the 7-yr period, he displayed a
remarkable 18% improvement in steady-state power per kilogram
body weight when cycling at a given V˙ O2 (e.g., 5 l/min).
We hypothesize that the improved muscular efficiency might
reflect alterations in muscle myosin type stimulated from years
of training intensely for 3–6 h on most days. It is remarkable
that at age 25 yr this individual developed advanced cancer,
requiring surgeries and chemotherapy, yet these events did not
appear to impede his physiological maturation and athletic
achievements. Clearly, this champion embodies a phenomenon
of both genetic natural selection and the extreme to which the
human can adapt to endurance training performed for a decade
or more in a person who is truly inspired."

I find no other mention of any other mechanism to explain this finding in the paper. If I missed one perhaps you can point it out. He further fails to explain why only Lance sees this change and no other professional cyclist has demonstrated this despite training similar hours and intensity.

Maybe ergometer was junk, did not calibrated, were all tests performed on same machine, Lance VO2 max data?

He changes his technique after this revelation? In late 2Os or early 30s come on. It takes years to practice and easy to forget, especially on mountains. So how he improve his technique, he was thinking 6 hours on stage on bottom of the stroke?

Well, of course all that is possible but Coyle has answered those criticisms. The data is all we have and we will have to live with it. At least we have something. The only people who seem upset are those in whom the data conflicts with their bias. An efficiency improvement of 10% cannot come from drugs and is about the advantage that comes from PED's. This could explain Lance's dominance without invoking PED use. That, however, is not evidence that Lance did not use PED's also.

So why we are stupid and do not ride as Lance?

Most people don't ride like Lance because they don't train like Lance. They don't train as hard and they don't, it appears, train as smart. It is easy to explain.

 

[ergmonkey]

From what I read, those paragraphs didn't say pedaling efficiency was the most responsible for Lance's improvement. Rather, pedaling efficiency improved more than other parameters. That in no way rules out the other parameters having been more significant in actual performance gains. The text even seems to concede as much.

Then again, buying a set of Powercranks might be slightly cheaper than buying Lance's drug regimen, so perhaps we should all start out small.

 

[oldborn]

I find no other mention of any other mechanism to explain this finding in the paper. If I missed one perhaps you can point it out.

http://journals.humankinetics.com/jab-back-issues/jabvolume7issue1february/thepedalingtechniqueofeliteendurancecyclistschangeswithincreasingworkloadatconstantcadence

He further fails to explain why only Lance sees this change and no other professional cyclist has demonstrated this despite training similar hours and intensity.

Cos there is nothing to explain IMHO, FYI, WTF.

Well, of course all that is possible but Coyle has answered those criticisms. The data is all we have and we will have to live with it. At least we have something. The only people who seem upset are those in whom the data conflicts with their bias. An efficiency improvement of 10% cannot come from drugs and is about the advantage that comes from PED's. This could explain Lance's dominance without invoking PED use. That, however, is not evidence that Lance did not use PED's also.

I am not upset now
An 10% improvement cannot come from nothing in such short time it is impossible.

Most people don't ride like Lance because they don't train like Lance. They don't train as hard and they don't, it appears, train as smart. It is easy to explain.

It is easy to explain there is nothing mythical or Mayan Calendar related with LA training methods. As someone think.

 

[oldborn]

From what I read, those paragraphs didn't say pedaling efficiency was the most responsible for Lance's improvement. Rather, pedaling efficiency improved more than other parameters. That in no way rules out the other parameters having been more significant in actual performance gains. The text even seems to concede as much.

Then again, buying a set of Powercranks might be slightly cheaper than buying Lance's drug regimen, so perhaps we should all start out small.

It becomes Lance thread so i am out. Before someone execute Seppuku in front his wife.

 

[ergmonkey]

It becomes Lance thread so i am out. Before someone execute Seppuku in front his wife.

Sorry. Didn't mean to constructively evict you. I promise He will not be named again here by me.

 

[FrankDay]

http://journals.humankinetics.com/jab-back-issues/jabvolume7issue1february/thepedalingtechniqueofeliteendurancecyclistschangeswithincreasingworkloadatconstantcadence

What does that have to do with my criticism of the coyle armstrong paper not addressing other possible explanations of the finding.

Cos there is nothing to explain IMHO, FYI, WTF.

Well, you may not feel there is any need to explain but this change and a weight loss were the only remarkable changes found. Since such an efficiency change has not been reported in any other elite cyclist despite the presumption that they all train similar hours and intensities and I suspect they all get tested regularly. You may accept this blindly but I believe it deserves a discussion. Why Lance and nobody else? If there are some others, what sets them apart from those who do not see efficiency improvements.

I am not upset now
An 10% improvement cannot come from nothing in such short time it is impossible.

Didn't this change occur over 7 years? Do you really consider this a "short time" and think it impossible?

It is easy to explain there is nothing mythical or Mayan Calendar related with LA training methods. As someone think.

If you say so.