For the "pedaling technique doesn't matter crowd"

[FrankDay]

You/re too easy. I'd give it an F, since made-up numbers are made-up numbers no matter how prettily they might be presented. (Not that those graphs are in any way publication-worthy.)

Dr. Coggan, in an effort to stimulate reasonable discussion, the second generation power meters are coming. In the next edition of your book devoted to the proper use of power meters, how do you intend to instruct those, who have put down real money for your book, on the best use of these devices? Or, have you even thought about this?

 

[FrankDay]

I just got this anecdotal report that seems to support my analysis.

"I thought I would update you on this year's racing. My tri bike has 150mm crank arms. While I have had some good results, age group win at Kansas 70.3, this past weekend I won my age group at the Vegas 70.3 world championships. And it was my bike split that did it for me. I rode the first 15 mile or so and an Ironman pace, getting the legs moving, ingesting fluids and getting a sense for how hot it would be. 105 by race end! By the first turn at mile 25 I was pushing nearly as hard as an olympic distance race. My split for the last 30 miles was equal to or faster than most everyone over 40! Not bad for 58! While not extreme, my position is lower than ever and comfortable thanks to the 150s. Loss of power? Not by looking at my split times. However, I have recently developed a definite 'ankling' motion to my pedalling. Taking advantage of my hip flexors I actively dorsiflex my foot near the top, feeling pressure on my toes. Then from about the ten oclock position I begin pushing forward and down with my foot dorsiflexed. Looking at it in a mirror it is actually not that noticable. BUT the power meter shows a definite jump of 5 ot 10%! I have even placed padding in my shoes between my toes and the top of the shoe to make certain there is no slack when I 'toe up'. In Vegas, as my age group started early, when some of the younger riders caught up to me by concentrating on the toe up action I could stay with them for a bit."

Here is a guy who is doing pretty well concentrating on improving coming over the top.

 

[RedheadDane]

This might be slightly off-topic but given that it does have something to do with pedaling technique I'm gonna post it here, so I won't have to make a new thread just for this.

Is it possible to talk about a 'dominant leg' in cycling?
I've noticed that whenever I'm on a flat section, with not too much headwind, I tend to put just slightly more power into my right leg...

 

[acoggan]

Dr. Coggan, in an effort to stimulate reasonable discussion, the second generation power meters are coming. In the next edition of your book devoted to the proper use of power meters, how do you intend to instruct those, who have put down real money for your book, on the best use of these devices? Or, have you even thought about this?

At this stage, who knows if there will ever be a 3rd edition of TRWPM?

Regardless, my advice to people would be to not spend extra money to buy a powermeter that does R/L power balance (or pretends to, like the Quarq SRAM Red).

 

[FrankDay]

This might be slightly off-topic but given that it does have something to do with pedaling technique I'm gonna post it here, so I won't have to make a new thread just for this.

Is it possible to talk about a 'dominant leg' in cycling?
I've noticed that whenever I'm on a flat section, with not too much headwind, I tend to put just slightly more power into my right leg...

Lots of people do that. However, statistically, I think you will find you are more likely to sustain some sort of injury because of that imbalance.

 

[acoggan]

LOL. Is the data of Lierdal made up? How do you explain their findings? Math is math, whether the numbers are "made up" or not. This is a theoretical analysis of theoretically possible pedaling changes, forcing "made up" numbers, or was your comprehension clouded by the inability to get past the non-publication worthiness of the graphs? I'll give your analysis of my thoughts an 'F'.

No Lierdal et al.'s data appear to be real, and are not merely a figment of someone's imagination like your halfalysis. That probably explains why, after taking freely-chosen cadence into account, gross efficiency was not correlated with pedaling technique (measured as either force effectiveness or dead center size).

 

[acoggan]

statistically, I think you will find you are more likely to sustain some sort of injury because of that imbalance.

There is no evidence to support this assertion.

 

[FrankDay]

At this stage, who knows if there will ever be a 3rd edition of TRWPM?

Regardless, my advice to people would be to not spend extra money to buy a powermeter that does R/L power balance (or pretends to, like the Quarq SRAM Red).

And the reason for your advice? Is it because their is no proof that it will make a difference? If so, could you point to the scientific proof that having a power meter of any sort improves outcome for the cyclist? Since, I think none exists, how is it you came to write a book recommending its use.

Oh, and lots of current PM's "pretend" to do r/l power balance. SRM, powertap, Computrainer are three popular ones. Why do you single out Quarq when the most expensive one of all (SRM) does the same thing.

If you refuse to address this product I think there may be a good reason there may not be a third edition of your book, should that come to pass.

 

[coapman]

I don't own pedals or cranks that measure these forces so I don't know how well I do this. I think I do it pretty well since I can get my spin scan number up to 95 and a perfectly sinusoidal stroke should give a spin scan of 100. And, I have devised some training techniques to broaden my stroke further. When I get a set of these cranks I will see how well it works. Regarding perfecting the technique, I haven't perfected anything, neither have you since we are humans and we don't have the ability to measure what we are doing, at least yet. Aerobars do not prevent one from pedaling in this fashion as long as the rider is properly fit. And, lastly, independent cranks are not necessary to pedal in this fashion. Independent cranks will only help the rider learn this technique faster, IMO.

Spinscan number can be raised by simply reducing peak torque on downstroke. When you are capable of applying max torque through the 360 deg. mark you will know it, a powermeter is not necessary because you will have to supply additional resistance to counteract this max torque, you cannot get this resistance if you use standard aero bars. I have perfected my technique, this perfecting now gives simultaneous ending and starting of effective power strokes (11-5 o'c). If PC's were supposed to force a rider to pedal in a special way, how can the same PC's now be expected to force a rider to pedal in a completely different way.

 

[FrankDay]

There is no evidence to support this assertion.

Apparently I am not alone in this belief.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15335244

Or, http://velonews.competitor.com/2008/05/coaches-panel/balance-training-is-key-for-injury-free-bicycle-racing_76813

Or, http://education.athletesperformance.com/articles-2/articles-from-ap-specialists/correcting-hip-muscle-imbalances-and-the-prevention-of-a-stiff-iliotibial-band-in-cycling/

Or, http://www.lifetimeendurance.com/public/295.cfm

There are more.

Or, to turn your comment around, do you have any evidence that imbalances do not contribute to increased injury risk?

 

[FrankDay]

Spinscan number can be raised by simply reducing peak torque on downstroke.

That is one way. Because of this, spin scan isn't very useful

When you are capable of applying max torque through the 360 deg. mark you will know it, a powermeter is not necessary because you will have to supply additional resistance to counteract this max torque, you cannot get this resistance if you use standard aero bars.

While a PM may not be necessary to learn your technique I am afraid it is going to be necessary for you to convince others that you actually do what you think you do and that it is superior to what they do now.

I have perfected my technique, this perfecting now gives simultaneous ending and starting of effective power strokes (11-5 o'c).

I look forward to seeing your data

If PC's were supposed to force a rider to pedal in a special way, how can the same PC's now be expected to force a rider to pedal in a completely different way.

People completely misunderstand what the PC's do and don't do. The only people who seem to understand are those who have actually trained on them. Anyhow, PC's simply broaden the force/torque/power application around the circle while insuring there are no negatives. The no negatives part is only a small portion of the changes they encourage the user to make. I believe the big power improvements come in most people by what they will learn to do better over the top. As put in a previous post, national champion Gregory Taylor is seeing a 5-10% further power increase when he concentrates on doing more over the top. Maybe he can make that permanent with enough work

 

[coapman]

Imbalance can be rectified by using the old counting idea, the concentration involved enables you to continually change your leading power leg.

 

[CoachFergie]

Apparently I am not alone in this belief.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15335244

Or, http://velonews.competitor.com/2008/05/coaches-panel/balance-training-is-key-for-injury-free-bicycle-racing_76813

Or, http://education.athletesperformance.com/articles-2/articles-from-ap-specialists/correcting-hip-muscle-imbalances-and-the-prevention-of-a-stiff-iliotibial-band-in-cycling/

Or, http://www.lifetimeendurance.com/public/295.cfm

There are more.

Or, to turn your comment around, do you have any evidence that imbalances do not contribute to increased injury risk?

Not one actual study showing a L R imbalance leads to injury. Just more made up numbers or opinion presented as fact.

Just the same as your claim about an athlete. No evidence that a change in pedalling technique had anything to do with his performance.

Yes Andy a regrade is in order.

F

 

[coapman]

As put in a previous post, national champion Gregory Taylor is seeing a 5-10% further power increase when he concentrates on doing more over the top. Maybe he can make that permanent with enough work

Anquetil was never seen using dorsiflexion over the top.

 

[FrankDay]

Not one actual study showing a L R imbalance leads to injury. Just more made up numbers or opinion presented as fact

Fergie, the consensus of the medical community is that imbalances do contribute to future injury risk. Do you or Dr. (PhD) Coggan have any evidence to counter this belief? If so, time to say what it is.

 

[CoachFergie]

Opinion presented as fact is not a consensus.

 

[CoachFergie]

Anquetil was never seen using dorsiflexion over the top.

Hmmmmm Frank is not the only one with a vivid imagination

 

[FrankDay]

No Lierdal et al.'s data appear to be real, and are not merely a figment of someone's imagination like your halfalysis. That probably explains why, after taking freely-chosen cadence into account, gross efficiency was not correlated with pedaling technique (measured as either force effectiveness or dead center size).

My analysis is simply a mathematical look at the potential of one particular change. It suggests that substantial improvements might be possible by concentrating on this element of pedaling technique. The only way to increase cycling power is to increase the average power put on the pedals around the entire circle. The question has to be asked what is the best way to do this. My analysis showed there are three ways, only two of which are considered by the average cyclist now. With the advent of 2nd gen power meters it seems that cyclists should consider the third alternative also, now that they have a way to measure it. My analysis doesn't say such power improvements are guaranteed from these changes, only that the math says it is possible. Doesn't string theory says there are 11 dimensions, even though we can only see three. The fact that we can't see all of these dimensions doesn't seem to stop those pesky physicists from following where the math leads them. Of course, nothing is possible if you don't try.

 

[FrankDay]

Anquetil was never seen using dorsiflexion over the top.

Neither has Gregory Taylor been observed doing so: "Looking at it in a mirror it is actually not that noticeable." He was simply describing what he was trying to do and the result. What we think we are doing and what others observe are sometimes two different things. When I get my force measuring cranks I will lend them out to Gregory and we will be able to see what he is actually doing.

 

[acoggan]

lots of current PM's "pretend" to do r/l power balance.

No, only the Quarq.

SRM

'fraid not.

powertap

Sorry, wrong again.

Computrainer

Not an on-bike powermeter (but you're right in that it can't actually separate the actions of the two legs).

 

[acoggan]

Opinion presented as fact

...is still only opinion.

 

[CoachFergie]

Analysis of what Frank? Your imagination!

 

[CoachFergie]

...is still only opinion.

A biased opinion at that. Like Mr Gibson not a very scientific appoach before any data has been collected.

 

[FrankDay]

No, only the Quarq.

The Power tap I owned many years ago did. It didn't try to do the spinscan thing but it certainly gave me a r/l balance thing. It doesn't really matter. If you don't think balance is a metric worth considering so be it. That is your opinion and opinions differ.

 

[CoachFergie]

Powertap.

That is quite amusing.