For the "pedaling technique doesn't matter crowd"

[FrankDay]

Several well performed studies on independent cranks that have done just that although the manufacturer of independent cranks would beg to differ. Wonder why?

They were good enough to be published in EJAP so they considered them well performed.

LOL. Show me one of those "well-performed" studies that meets the criteria I set forth as being necessary to seriously examine the question. Or, make the argument that a lesser standard is adequate to prove the argument. It is laughable to contend that just because a study gets published in an esteemed journal suggests it is a "good" study or is definitive. Just look at the controversy over the Coyle "Armstrong" "study" published in JAP, the "most esteemed" of them all. Lots of crap makes it into the most esteemed of publications.

 

[CoachFergie]

Yet you keep using Lutrell et al and worse Dixon as evidence that independent cranks work. And resort to numerous anecdotes rather than perform the research yourself if the results would be so obvious.

That Coyle had a new one torn for him over that paper only proves the system works where others have the right to challenge published work or perform research to disprove current theories.

 

[FrankDay]

Yet you keep using Lutrell et al and worse Dixon as evidence that independent cranks work. And resort to numerous anecdotes rather than perform the research yourself if the results would be so obvious.

LOL. Luttrell and Dixon are simply studies done that had a positive outcome. What sets both of them apart from your "negative" studies is the amount of the stimulus (18 hours in Luttrell, 6 weeks immersion training in Dixon). Neither study however is definitive as they fail to meet my criteria to prove the difference is due to pedaling technique. Anecdotes also do not prove anything yet they are not useless as they certainly suggest there might be a benefit.

That Coyle had a new one torn for him over that paper only proves the system works where others have the right to challenge published work or perform research to disprove current theories.

LOL. Coyle did not have a "new one torn for him" as a result of that paper. It is simply that others questioned what his results showed and his methods. Further, it wasn't a study but simply a case report regarding a subject of interest to many.

 

[coapman]

We have been trying to get Noel to explain just what we are missing from video's of Jacques.

People have been asking the question and testing hypothesis's (in well performed studies) for about pedalling for over 30 years and that is why the status quo remains.

You are forgetting that I developed this technique a few years before that Anquetil video became available. To a normal cyclist the video would reveal absolutely nothing but to me who had already discovered the secret and knew what to look for, it soon became apparent that it was almost the same technique. I say almost because while the foot action was identical, Anquetil was hampered by his shoulder width bars which forced him to use double handed action for resistance purposes instead of alternate single handed action which you can use with much narrower aero bars and gives even more powerful pedaling. I got the idea for this technique after seeing a 180 deg. hand crank trike rider in action and the only clue I got about Anquetil's technique was from Hinault's book which stated " you have to realize Anquetil developed his technique in training with a concentration that made him resent the presence of other riders around him, as he searched for his own best way of applying greatest possible tangential force to the crank". The remarks of others about his style also agree with the characteristics of the semi circular style I am using. eg. "Anquetil was perfection at continuous motion". His style is not suitable for climbing, two up and team TT's or technical TT courses which prevent the use of constant max high gear power output. He also used a higher than normal handlebar setting. In pedaling footage in that all important TT in which he gained 21 seconds over the last mile and half over a flying psyched up Poulidor who was certain he was on his way to victory, Anquetil can be clearly seen applying max force over the top just before the finish.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Or, if not max torque, at least some torque? And, how and why would anyone seriously argue that applying negative torque anywhere around the circle is part of an optimal technique?

If it resulted in an improvement in power output for the durations of interest, then I would.

Given we already know that some high performing cyclists already do display some negative torque in parts of their pedal stroke, and that there is nothing firmly conclusive to suggest that any attempt to change one's pedal torque application results in improved performance, then the null hypothesis remains in tact.

IOW there is just as much validity (i.e. not a lot) to suggest introducing some negative torque into a pedal technique will improve performance as there is that one should remove it, or attempt to introduce positive torque where none currently exists.

 

[FrankDay]

If it resulted in an improvement in power output for the durations of interest, then I would.

Given we already know that some high performing cyclists already do display some negative torque in parts of their pedal stroke, and that there is nothing firmly conclusive to suggest that any attempt to change one's pedal torque application results in improved performance, then the null hypothesis remains in tact.

I know no such thing as it applies to optimal performance. It is clear from viewing the video that this Olympic champion demonstrates plenty of negative torque at less than the higher efforts. But, she demonstrates no negativre torque at the higher efforts measured here. All of the studies I know of only give a single snapshot of each riders technique. It is clear from this video that technique is somewhat dynamic with power, especially what is done on the backstroke. So, even if you can find some elite riders who do apply some negative torque on the backstroke at high power you (nor anyone else) have yet to come up with a physiological or mechanical explanation as to why that would be optimal nor any scientific evidence to support that explanation.

I will give you that there is no conclusive evidence that changing one's pedal stroke to X technique would result in improved performance but there is plenty of scientific evidence to support the conclusion pedaling technique might make a difference as well as plenty of anecdotal evidence. You have the choice of ignoring this possibility or exploring it.

IOW there is just as much validity (i.e. not a lot) to suggest introducing some negative torque into a pedal technique will improve performance as there is that one should remove it, or attempt to introduce positive torque where none currently exists.

No, there is no theoretical basis to suggesting introducing negative work into a technique should improve overall work output. It seems to me that the burden is on anyone who does so to demonstrate that it is true and to explain why. The fact that many elites seem to do that (notice that the Olympic champion rider in the video stopped doing that at higher power) is not good evidence that what they are doing is optimal for them or anyone else. The only thing that a particular riders technique means is that what you are seeing is what they have learned and trained. Unless we can compare riders who have learned an alternative technique and trained that technique equivalently we cannot say with certainty which is better, although we might presume a technique that introduces negative work might be less powerful than another that doesn't, don't you think?

 

[CoachFergie]

You are forgetting that I developed this technique a few years before that Anquetil video became available. To a normal cyclist the video would reveal absolutely nothing but to me who had already discovered the secret and knew what to look for, it soon became apparent that it was almost the same technique. I say almost because while the foot action was identical, Anquetil was hampered by his shoulder width bars which forced him to use double handed action for resistance purposes instead of alternate single handed action which you can use with much narrower aero bars and gives even more powerful pedaling. I got the idea for this technique after seeing a 180 deg. hand crank trike rider in action and the only clue I got about Anquetil's technique was from Hinault's book which stated " you have to realize Anquetil developed his technique in training with a concentration that made him resent the presence of other riders around him, as he searched for his own best way of applying greatest possible tangential force to the crank". The remarks of others about his style also agree with the characteristics of the semi circular style I am using. eg. "Anquetil was perfection at continuous motion". His style is not suitable for climbing, two up and team TT's or technical TT courses which prevent the use of constant max high gear power output. He also used a higher than normal handlebar setting. In pedaling footage in that all important TT in which he gained 21 seconds over the last mile and half over a flying psyched up Poulidor who was certain he was on his way to victory, Anquetil can be clearly seen applying max force over the top just before the finish.

Nice infomercial. But like most informercials is not based in science and is just a sad tired joke.

 

[CoachFergie]

It is clear from viewing the video that this Olympic champion demonstrates plenty of negative torque at less than the higher efforts.

Yawn, n=1 so who cares. Even us lowly coaches know that just because something works for one person it may not work for all or some unknown variable (or several) may be at play.

Do a proper study or stop wasting peoples time peddling your snake oil.

 

[coapman]

Or, if not max torque, at least some torque? And, how and why would anyone seriously argue that applying negative torque anywhere around the circle is part of an optimal technique?

Sorry Frank, it has to be max torque there or none because otherwise you cannot merge top and down forces for one extended power stroke. Applying independent unequal forces will result in an overall loss of torque. You are nearly there, all you are missing is the knack of generating that max torque across the top. It's generated and applied in exactly the same way as indoor tug o'war men do it as they apply that forward/downward force to the mat from their shoes and that force can be many times more powerful than what the most powerful cyclists use in their downstroke. That kicking type action which you referred to cannot generate effective crank torque. Concentrate only on that over the top/down stroke and instant unweighting and drawing back of foot from 5 o'c.

 

[coapman]

Nice infomercial. But like most informercials is not based in science and is just a sad tired joke.

Best thing you could do is get yourself a pair of Powercranks, learn and memorize the objectives of circular pedaling, then perfect it without the PC's. It's only a short step from there to the semi circular style, the perfect technique which experts claim does not exist.

 

[CoachFergie]

Best thing I do is keep following the published research on all aspects of cycling to find the real best practices a cyclist can adopt. Ones that lead to real gains as opposed to one persons delusions or the marketing of a training gimmick.

 

[FrankDay]

Sorry Frank, it has to be max torque there or none because otherwise you cannot merge top and down forces for one extended power stroke. Applying independent unequal forces will result in an overall loss of torque. You are nearly there, all you are missing is the knack of generating that max torque across the top. It's generated and applied in exactly the same way as indoor tug o'war men do it as they apply that forward/downward force to the mat from their shoes and that force can be many times more powerful than what the most powerful cyclists use in their downstroke. That kicking type action which you referred to cannot generate effective crank torque. Concentrate only on that over the top/down stroke and instant unweighting and drawing back of foot from 5 o'c.

Phooey. I would submit that tug o'war men are putting more force down into the ground (their full body weight) than they are horizontally. Until you show it is actually possible to apply "maximum" torque parallel to the ground your arguments are going to fall on deaf ears. At least, with one of the soon to be available 2nd gen PM's this will be available to you. I look forward to seeing it. Until then I will continue to believe the most powerful cycling torque will come from effective use of the anti-gravity muscles in the direction against gravity (in an upright bicycle).

 

[coapman]

Phooey. I would submit that tug o'war men are putting more force down into the ground (their full body weight) than they are horizontally. Until you show it is actually possible to apply "maximum" torque parallel to the ground your arguments are going to fall on deaf ears. At least, with one of the soon to be available 2nd gen PM's this will be available to you. I look forward to seeing it. Until then I will continue to believe the most powerful cycling torque will come from effective use of the anti-gravity muscles in the direction against gravity (in an upright bicycle).

They need that downward force for traction purposes, as they apply their forward force to the mat which will force their body backwards and pull their opponents towards them. A cyclist does not have to worry about this traction, he has cleats to take care of that. That's why this technique was possible from the time cleats were introduced into cycling and it is said Anquetil had his own special cleats.

 

[FrankDay]

They need that downward force for traction purposes, as they apply their forward force to the mat which will force their body backwards and pull their opponents towards them. A cyclist does not have to worry about this traction, he has cleats to take care of that. That's why this technique was possible from the time cleats were introduced into cycling and it is said Anquetil had his own special cleats.

Perhaps, but IMHO the muscles and joints are not optimized to apply force in that direction. Further, gravity augments the forces going down due to the weight of the leg being added to the pedal torque. It simply is not reasonable to assert that maximum torque can be applied at the top of the stroke. A reasonable torque can be applied there but not maximal torque, IMHO.

 

[coapman]

Perhaps, but IMHO the muscles and joints are not optimized to apply force in that direction. Further, gravity augments the forces going down due to the weight of the leg being added to the pedal torque. It simply is not reasonable to assert that maximum torque can be applied at the top of the stroke. A reasonable torque can be applied there but not maximal torque, IMHO.

Gravity effect is taken care of by the alternate use of the arms with the right bars which supply the necessary resistance for that forward/downward force. Natural pedalers can't use their arms to assist in generating torque because they area applying only a downward force. A cyclist is only using a fraction of the force that is possible with this technique and it is surprising how easily this technique can be used when the cranks get turning. It also demonstrates how easily equally powerful forward and downward forces can be merged or used together.

 

[coapman]

Gravity effect is taken care of by the alternate use of the arms with the right bars which supply the necessary resistance for that forward/downward force. Natural pedalers can't use their arms to assist in generating torque because they area applying only a downward force. A cyclist is only using a fraction of the force that is possible with this technique and it is surprising how easily this technique can be used when the cranks get turning. It also demonstrates how easily equally powerful forward and downward forces can be merged or used together.

In perfecting this technique you are aiming for an earlier and earlier start across the top until you get a simultaneous starting and ending of both power strokes and total elimination of the dead spot sector.

 

[FrankDay]

In perfecting this technique you are aiming for an earlier and earlier start across the top until you get a simultaneous starting and ending of both power strokes and total elimination of the dead spot sector.

From the study that started this thread, what you describe should be very powerful. But you take their finding to the very extreme and insist it is the ONLY way. Only when you show everyone that you can actually do what you think you do then, perhaps, you might be taken more seriously. Until then I will continue to believe that just increasing the torque across the top is an enviable goal for most cyclists.

 

[CoachFergie]

From the study that started this thread, what you describe should be very powerful. But you take their finding to the very extreme and insist it is the ONLY way. Only when you show everyone that you can actually do what you think you do then, perhaps, you might be taken more seriously. Until then I will continue to believe that just increasing the torque across the top is an enviable goal for most cyclists.

Both your arguments suffer from a lack of data which is very sad because the ability to test your positions has been available for over 30 years.

 

[BroDeal]

Ladies and gentlemen, gather round. Let me introduce you to a revolutionary product that gives you free power. That's right, free power. Even if you are at your maximum oxygen consumption, producing as much power as you are physically capable, our product will give you more power. "How much more," you ask. Could be 10%. Could be 30%. Some users have even testified to 40%. No one really knows, and we are too busy promoting the benefits of this new revolution to do scientifically valid testings, but rest assured, this gimick works.

 

[coapman]

From the study that started this thread, what you describe should be very powerful. But you take their finding to the very extreme and insist it is the ONLY way. Only when you show everyone that you can actually do what you think you do then, perhaps, you might be taken more seriously. Until then I will continue to believe that just increasing the torque across the top is an enviable goal for most cyclists.

It is the only perfect pedaling technique, but the fact still remains as I have explained many times, no one technique is ideal for all the situations that arise in competitive cycling. This perfect technique because of its higher gear effect is made for non technical TT courses where interrupted constant high gear max power output can be used and that is why Anquetil excelled in non climbing TT's and was reduced to little more than a normal rider at other times, eg climbing, one day races. Mashing is a necessity for explosive acceleration purposes and for technical sections of TT courses, circular is ideal for warming up, recovery rides or sheltered group riding and there is nothing to prevent any rider from perfecting all three techniques. Applying less than equal max torque across the top will result in a weaker downstroke and overall loss of torque.

 

[sciguy]

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.

Frank,

I've read the abstract that started this thread several times and have yet to fish out any sort of explanation of "DC". Did you access the whole study in order to come up with "DC is essentially the size of the force at top and bottom dead center". I'd actually prefer the read exactly how DC was defined by those who conducted the study. If you have that available would you be so kind as to paraphrase it way more closely....perhaps give the equation the researchers used. For the time being the abstract leaves me completely in the dark.

Thanks,

Hugh

 

[coapman]

Ladies and gentlemen, gather round. Let me introduce you to a revolutionary product that gives you free power. That's right, free power. Even if you are at your maximum oxygen consumption, producing as much power as you are physically capable, our product will give you more power. "How much more," you ask. Could be 10%. Could be 30%. Some users have even testified to 40%. No one really knows, and we are too busy promoting the benefits of this new revolution to do scientifically valid testings, but rest assured, this gimick works.

There is no free power in cycling but what you do have is wasted power which could be recovered with the correct technique. What percentage of that power you apply between 1 and 3 o'c is converted into crank torque, with the correct technique it could be a 100 %. Riders like Bradley Wiggins are using awkward Osymetric rings as they attempt to compensate for the fact that crank torque can't be applied at 12 o'c by trying to apply extra torque in an area where max torque is already being applied. By switching to another technique with a standard chainring he could apply max torque between 11 and 1 o'c where all other riders' legs are effectively idling, gaining many minutes of extra pedaling time in TT's.

 

[CoachFergie]

gaining many minutes of extra pedaling time in TT's.

Most of us train to spend less time pedalling but hey, it's your delusion.

The equipment to test all this has been around for 30 plus years and it's not like Wiggins and the BCF are not constantly pushing the envelope of training and equipment even if they follow a few dead ends like Osymetric chainrings where there is no encouraging data either.

One also needs to look at the magnitude of any potential gains. Just because Frank markets an adjustable length crank he jumps all over a very minimal gain which in reality is 7sec at best in a 40km TT for the very tallest or the very shortest of rider from moving from a 170mm length crank. Much ado over nothing.

One only needs to look at all the well performed studies on independent cranks that force a change of force application around the pedal stroke to see that it's a pointless exercise compared to manipulating numerous training, recovery, nutritional, psychological, equipment, aerodynamic and riding technique variables.

 

[CoachFergie]

Frank,

I've read the abstract that started this thread several times and have yet to fish out any sort of explanation of "DC". Did you access the whole study in order to come up with "DC is essentially the size of the force at top and bottom dead center". I'd actually prefer the read exactly how DC was defined by those who conducted the study. If you have that available would you be so kind as to paraphrase it way more closely....perhaps give the equation the researchers used. For the time being the abstract leaves me completely in the dark.

Or the follow up paper by the same authors where they published data that contradicted the findings of the paper that Frank linked.

 

[M Sport]

Frank,

I've read the abstract that started this thread several times and have yet to fish out any sort of explanation of "DC". Did you access the whole study in order to come up with "DC is essentially the size of the force at top and bottom dead center". I'd actually prefer the read exactly how DC was defined by those who conducted the study. If you have that available would you be so kind as to paraphrase it way more closely....perhaps give the equation the researchers used. For the time being the abstract leaves me completely in the dark.

Thanks,

Hugh

Recently, Leirdal and Ettema (2010) introduced a new pedalling technique parameter, which described the dead centre (DC) and was deffined as the minimum power divided by the average power during the pedal stroke. It had a stronger relationship with GE than FE and it was, unlike FE, not affected by inertial forces that increase with cadence. Thus, it could be hypothesised that DC is not affected by cadence in the way that FE and GE are.

http://sportsexerciseengineering.co...ling-technique-and-gross-eyciency-in-cycling/

I think that is what you're after.