For the "pedaling technique doesn't matter crowd"

[sciguy]

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

I think that is what you're after.

Thanks so much. It's just what I was looking for.

Hugh

 

[coapman]

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

Believe it or not, actually that is the objective of engineers who invented rotorcranks and all types of non circular rings, to reduce idling time spent in dead spot sector and slow down the crank in the power sector for increased power sector pedalling time in each crank revolution. What a waste of engineering time. Why does everybody accept without question, that the dead spot sector has to be a permanent fixture in the pedalling circle.

 

[FrankDay]

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.

You don't have a clue regarding the benefits of technique nor the ability of the CV system to adapt to new stress.

First, the benefit of improved technique. Contracting muscles demand oxygen whether they are doing work or not. If the muscles are contracting in a coordination that causes the resultant force to be "non-tantential" to the pedaling circle then a lot of that effort is wasted, as is a lot of that oxygen consumption. If one can simply change the timing of the contractions of the various muscle contractions the direction of the applied force can be made much more effective (more powerful) because it is now more tangential without requiring a single atom of oxygen more. The amount of improvement depends upon how "awful" the prior technique was from a mechanical efficiency point of view.

Second, oxygen demand goes up as "pushing force" goes up in a non-linear fashion since higher forces involve more fast twitch fibers. Since cycling is mostly an aerobic sport there is an advantage to being able to spread the work out over more of the circle by incorporating more slowtwitch fibers and avoiding use of fast twitch fibers as much as possible. This change also can squeeze more power out of the same oxygen consumption.

Third, the CV system (heart) can adapt to sustained aerobic exercise with increased output over time. It has nothing to do with effort. It is why aerobic athletes have higher VO2 max than 100m sprinters. It is why aerobic athletes that use more muscles (rowers, XC skiers) eventually adapt to have higher VO2 max than those who use less (cyclists). Cyclists who can train themselves to use more of their muscles aerobically will eventually increase their VO2 max and their anerobic threshold (as demonstrated by Dixon, et. al.).

But, if you insist that attempts to achieve these changes always fail then I can see why you might think this BS. But, of course, you have no evidence to back up your belief. Or, perhaps you think some improvement might be possible from these changes but don't believe a number like 40% possible. Then, why on earth you you eschew even trying to achieve these benefits, even though you think they might be smaller than I suggest they are for many? Too much work for you?

 

[coapman]

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.

interrupted should have read uninterrupted.

 

[CoachFergie]

But, if you insist that attempts to achieve these changes always fail then I can see why you might think this BS. But, of course, you have no evidence to back up your belief. Or, perhaps you think some improvement might be possible from these changes but don't believe a number like 40% possible. Then, why on earth you you eschew even trying to achieve these benefits, even though you think they might be smaller than I suggest they are for many? Too much work for you?

We eschew because no data has been presented that actually shows that a change in power application around the pedal stoke leads to a 1% change in performance let alone the widely outrageous claim of 40%.

Previous claims have used manipulated data or a engineer (MIT trained no less) who didn't figure out his power meter was mis-calibrated and didn't stop to think why his 60min power on rollers was far higher than his 20min power from an uphill time trial.

More Frank Day smoke and mirrors to try a sell more Snake oil.

 

[CoachFergie]

Believe it or not, actually that is the objective of engineers who invented rotorcranks and all types of non circular rings, to reduce idling time spent in dead spot sector and slow down the crank in the power sector for increased power sector pedalling time in each crank revolution. What a waste of engineering time. Why does everybody accept without question, that the dead spot sector has to be a permanent fixture in the pedalling circle.

Because no one has presented data (not opinion or delusion) otherwise.

 

[coapman]

Because no one has presented data (not opinion or delusion) otherwise.

As I see it, if research is necessary to confirm an advantage, that advantage is not worth pursuing, I let commonsense do my confirmation. What type of data would satisfy you. You being the expert coach who believes pedalling is of no importance what in your opinion was responsible for Anquetil's superiority only in TT's.

 

[CoachFergie]

You say common sense, I say delusion.

Jacques success? A lucky rabbits foot is as good a guess as yours.

 

[Tapeworm]

...Third, the CV system (heart) can adapt to sustained aerobic exercise with increased output over time. It has nothing to do with effort. It is why aerobic athletes have higher VO2 max than 100m sprinters. It is why aerobic athletes that use more muscles (rowers, XC skiers) eventually adapt to have higher VO2 max than those who use less (cyclists). Cyclists who can train themselves to use more of their muscles aerobically will eventually increase their VO2 max and their anerobic threshold (as demonstrated by Dixon, et. al.).

Skiers and rowers may have a higher VO2max but that is rather a meaningless metric. The real question is:- do they put out more power? Answer - not really.

So, what's your point again?

 

[CoachFergie]

Prof Andrew Jones who works with Paula Radcliffe has been testing her since just before she became a Junior World Cross Country champion and despite her economy, pace at V02max, pace at various thresholds or turnpoints her V02max hasn't changed a bit in that time. Been a few changes since the Dark Ages when Frank studied medicine.

 

[FrankDay]

We eschew because no data has been presented that actually shows that a change in power application around the pedal stoke leads to a 1% change in performance let alone the widely outrageous claim of 40%.

Previous claims have used manipulated data or a engineer (MIT trained no less) who didn't figure out his power meter was mis-calibrated and didn't stop to think why his 60min power on rollers was far higher than his 20min power from an uphill time trial.

More Frank Day smoke and mirrors to try a sell more Snake oil.

You eschew because you have no imagination or no ability to think beyond what you have been told is the truth.

 

[CoachFergie]

You say imagination, I say delusion.

 

[coapman]

Skiers and rowers may have a higher VO2max but that is rather a meaningless metric. The real question is:- do they put out more power? Answer - not really.

So, what's your point again?

It may be a meaningless metric but to me it demonstrates that those who combine upper and lower body muscles in their sport have a higher VO2MAX and that is something cyclists could also do if they switch to the perfect semi circular pedalling technique which makes max use of their arms when supplying resistance for that max force through the dead spot.

 

[Tapeworm]

It may be a meaningless metric but to me it demonstrates that those who combine upper and lower body muscles in their sport have a higher VO2MAX and that is something cyclists could also do if they switch to the perfect semi circular pedalling technique which makes max use of their arms when supplying resistance for that max force through the dead spot.

Again, if it doesn't improve power output why is raising VO2max relevant?

 

[CoachFergie]

Which goes to show how little Noel understand's about exercise physiology.

 

[coapman]

Again, if it doesn't improve power output why is raising VO2max relevant?

Does improving your power output increase VO2MAX ?? if it does, a change to a higher VO2MAX in an individual is an indicator of improved fitness and greater power output.

 

[coapman]

Which goes to show how little Noel understand's about exercise physiology.

I am not interested in physiology, physiology ruined cycling, all I am concerned with is applying greatest possible tangential force to each crank over 180 degrees for the greatest possible 360 degrees of chain drive power to the chain ring.

 

[CoachFergie]

Just as dumb as Frank thinking your method is the only way to improve as a cyclist.

 

[coapman]

Just as dumb as Frank thinking your method is the only way to improve as a cyclist.

No wrong again, the only way left to improve as a TT rider, now that aerodynamic equipment improvement is about to come to an end. Typical CoachFergie, I did not get an answer to my earlier question, what type of data will satisfy you.

 

[CoachFergie]

No wrong again, the only way left to improve as a TT rider, now that aerodynamic equipment improvement is about to come to an end. Typical CoachFergie, I did not get an answer to my earlier question, what type of data will satisfy you.

Outstanding, you think there will be no further improvement in aerodynamics. No improvement in physiology, nutrition, recovery, psychology, equipment and coaching. How small minded.

Data from a power meter showing or a force vector measuring pedal, both of which have been around for years would be a good start.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I am not interested in physiology, physiology ruined cycling, all I am concerned with is applying greatest possible tangential force to each crank over 180 degrees for the greatest possible 360 degrees of chain drive power to the chain ring.

Even if that does not result in the best outcome?

Why would you not be more concerned with what produces the highest power output for durations/circumstances of interest/relevance?

You are making an assumption/assertion that pedalling a certain way will result in more power.

It's a testable hypothesis Noel, so test it and report back when you have some real data. I'm not holding my breath though.

 

[CoachFergie]

It's a testable hypothesis Noel, so test it and report back when you have some real data. I'm not holding my breath though.

And it's not like the means to test that hypothesis hasn't been around for 30+ years.

 

[coapman]

Even if that does not result in the best outcome?

Why would you not be more concerned with what produces the highest power output for durations/circumstances of interest/relevance?

You are making an assumption/assertion that pedalling a certain way will result in more power.

It's a testable hypothesis Noel, so test it and report back when you have some real data. I'm not holding my breath though.

I don't fully understand your question, maybe CoachFergie could clarify it.

 

[CoachFergie]

It's quite simple Noel (and Frank this applies to you as well).

WE DON"T BELIEVE YOU!

 

[coapman]

It's quite simple Noel (and Frank this applies to you as well).

WE DON"T BELIEVE YOU!

Thanks, I take that as a compliment, if it's unbelievable it must be good.