For the "pedaling technique doesn't matter crowd"

[FrankDay]

What I do understand is that the only people trying to claim this stuff is important is some crank in Ireland and someone selling a product to fix a problem that doesn't really exist.

What you don't understand is this data was in a published study. It certainly is not what someone would have predicted that pedaling effectiveness and pedaling efficiency would be inversely related. Therefore, if you think this finding significant to counter my thoughts you had better be prepared to explain it or, at least, try to explain it or enlist someone else to explain it. Until then your (and their) silence says you (and they) really don't understand this stuff and your arguments are simply a lot of huffing and puffing.

BTW, I can present a mechanism to explain this finding.

 

[CoachFergie]

I have given mechanism's which are gear selection and training that will adequately explain differences in effectiveness and efficiency.

What is is yet to be explained is the magnitude of importance of these matters. I say small and the research would support this. You say up to a 40% improvement in power and have nothing to support this.

 

[FrankDay]

I have given mechanism's which are gear selection and training that will adequately explain differences in effectiveness and efficiency.

That is not a mechanism to explain the findings of the study where pedaling effectiveness and efficiency were inversely related when simply asking people to pedal in a different fashion. So, FAIL. You need to explain why the muscles in this study were found to be using more oxygen for any given power when the pedaling effectiveness (more work performed for any given force) improved?

What is is yet to be explained is the magnitude of importance of these matters. I say small and the research would support this. You say up to a 40% improvement in power and have nothing to support this.

The magnitude is unimportant. There was a distinct relationship found and it needs to be explained why it occurs or, if one cannot, one cannot say they understand pedaling fully. Any reasonably educated person would expect that pedaling effectiveness and efficiency would be directly related. The inverse was found. It needs to be explained. I can do so. I will patiently wait for your explanation so we might be able to discuss any differences and, perhaps, resolve them. Or, perhaps, your explanation might agree with mine, the only reasonable one I can think of.

 

[CoachFergie]

According to Broker's data track sprinters produced the most power using the least effective portion of the pedal stroke compared to XC riders who had the highest effective pedal stroke. Main distinction between the two groups is cadence.

Then compare with Coyle's data between two groups of time trial riders and the riders with the longer training histories produce more power and through a less effective pedal stroke. That was also Coyle's explanation for Lance's improvement over time, based on a large volume of riding although we now know a bit of pharmacological assistance.

Bit of a no brainer that the more one trains for something the more efficient they become at it. What is still to be explained is why someone would suggest people should train with a different pedal stroke to how they will perform in competition.

 

[CoachFergie]

The magnitude is unimportant. There was a distinct relationship found and it needs to be explained why it occurs or, if one cannot, one cannot say they understand pedaling fully.

Well kinda important. If it can make a meaningful impact on performance then it should be pursued. If not it should be left to the creator to make wild arsed claims on Internet forums.

 

[coapman]

According to Broker's data track sprinters produced the most power using the least effective portion of the pedal stroke compared to XC riders who had the highest effective pedal stroke. Main distinction between the two groups is cadence.

Then compare with Coyle's data between two groups of time trial riders and the riders with the longer training histories produce more power and through a less effective pedal stroke. That was also Coyle's explanation for Lance's improvement over time, based on a large volume of riding although we now know a bit of pharmacological assistance.

Bit of a no brainer that the more one trains for something the more efficient they become at it. What is still to be explained is why someone would suggest people should train with a different pedal stroke to how they will perform in competition.

How can Broker and Coyle claim to be doing different pedalling technique effectiveness and efficiency research when because they know of only one way to pedal, all they are doing is comparing variations of the same basic technique in which maximal torque is applied around the 3 o'c mark. From what you state above, what they are doing is cadence efficiency and effectiveness research. The more one trains for something, the more efficient the body becomes at doing this task but the effectiveness and efficiency of the technique used does not change. Improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the technique and you will get far greater rewards from the same training.

 

[CoachFergie]

A nice theory Noel ruined by a sad lack of evidence. And to think Dr Jim Martin has offered to set you up with people in the UK who can test the theory for you. Instead you duck for cover claiming you can't travel or waiting for the vaporware that is Brim Brother's power meters.

 

[coapman]

A nice theory Noel ruined by a sad lack of evidence. And to think Dr Jim Martin has offered to set you up with people in the UK who can test the theory for you. Instead you duck for cover claiming you can't travel or waiting for the vaporware that is Brim Brother's power meters.

You should ask J. Bobet if he believed pedalling technique could make a difference in time trial performance. As a man who studied the technique of Anquetil throughout all his racing years both as a rider and later from a car as a journalist, it would be interesting what he would think of this TT semi circular technique.

 

[FrankDay]

According to Broker's data track sprinters produced the most power using the least effective portion of the pedal stroke compared to XC riders who had the highest effective pedal stroke. Main distinction between the two groups is cadence.

Then compare with Coyle's data between two groups of time trial riders and the riders with the longer training histories produce more power and through a less effective pedal stroke. That was also Coyle's explanation for Lance's improvement over time, based on a large volume of riding although we now know a bit of pharmacological assistance.

Bit of a no brainer that the more one trains for something the more efficient they become at it. What is still to be explained is why someone would suggest people should train with a different pedal stroke to how they will perform in competition.

All of these folks in their so-called studies are only telling the WHAT. If one truly understands what is going on one can also explain the HOW and the WHY of the WHAT. And, if one truly truly understands what is going on one can also predict outcomes yet to be tested. So, we are still left with the connundrum of the Mornieux et. al. study (and posted by respected Dr. Martin as seemingly significant) showing an inverse relationship between pedaling effectiveness and pedaling efficiency. (Anyone else notice how quiet Dr. Martin is being?) Now, either the study is bunk or we need to explain the underlying biology/mechanics that explain this as possible (since it violates every tenet of mechanics that I know of). Discuss this study. Is it bunk or is it not? If not, why not?

Oh, and Coyle's explanation for his Lance findings were also hogwash. No one has ever demonstrated that pedaling efficiency improves with more training, especially at the World Champion level. No one has ever demonstrated that PED's improve cycling efficiency. There has to be another explanation for the approximate 10% improvement in efficiency demonstrated by Coyle over time in Lance. Anyhow, back to the study at hand.

 

[FrankDay]

=FrankDay;1122029]You must be quite the mental giant. I find it impossible to concentrate on both the right and left legs at the same time when they are doing two different things.

Do you mean like athletes need to do when they use PowerCranks?

LOL. PowerCrankers can't do it either. We tell them when they are learning to concentrate only on the backstroke, shifting focus as they come across the bottom, they know how to get the crank down without thinking about it. It is part of the reason they "lose" some of the ability to push hard, they just can't think about it when still learning the technique. It is only when the technique is well ingrained that the rider can then start thinking about pushing hard again, should they choose to. (Most of the time, like everyone else, they never think about it at all.) The only time a rider can "concentrate" on both pushing and pulling is when doing isolated leg training.

 

[FrankDay]

Well kinda important. If it can make a meaningful impact on performance then it should be pursued. If not it should be left to the creator to make wild arsed claims on Internet forums.

The magnitude is not important to understanding underlying mechanisms. (edit: the force of gravity is tiny compared to the electrostatic force but unless you can integrate it into the whole you don't understand the whole) If you cannot explain everything then you really don't understand. Pre-Newton theories of the universe could explain what they saw but could predict nothing. Newton's theories explained a lot but they didn't explain everything. Einstein's theories explained a lot more but still not everything. It is why physicists continue to pursue more data and new theories. Exercise physiologists seem content with an "earth centric", pre-Newton, understanding of pedaling mechanics. No need to explain anything at a basic level as long as I look smart. No need to point out inconsistencies if it might make me look not-smart.

 

[coapman]

I look forward to seeing the proof of what you do.

When can we expect to see the graphs of a fully trained PC rider at 200 watts and at maximal power output.

 

[FrankDay]

When can we expect to see the graphs of a fully trained PC rider at 200 watts and at maximal power output.

My guess is within a month. Of course that fully trained rider will be me so maximum power output isn't going to be 1500 watts.

 

[CoachFergie]

You should ask J. Bobet if he believed pedalling technique could make a difference in time trial performance. As a man who studied the technique of Anquetil throughout all his racing years both as a rider and later from a car as a journalist, it would be interesting what he would think of this TT semi circular technique.

Just convenient for your argument that he died in 1983.

 

[CoachFergie]

All of these folks in their so-called studies are only telling the WHAT. If one truly understands what is going on one can also explain the HOW and the WHY of the WHAT. And, if one truly truly understands what is going on one can also predict outcomes yet to be tested.

It's been done and the only person who hasn't moved along is the person trying to sell us a cure to a problem that doesn't exist.

So, we are still left with the connundrum of the Mornieux et. al. study (and posted by respected Dr. Martin as seemingly significant) showing an inverse relationship between pedaling effectiveness and pedaling efficiency. (Anyone else notice how quiet Dr. Martin is being?)

Can't recall if Dr Martin has ever posted to this forum. Pity you can't converse with him on Slowtwitch

Now, either the study is bunk or we need to explain the underlying biology/mechanics that explain this as possible (since it violates every tenet of mechanics that I know of). Discuss this study. Is it bunk or is it not? If not, why not?

I have explained it, sorry you choose to bury your head in the sand.

Oh, and Coyle's explanation for his Lance findings were also hogwash. No one has ever demonstrated that pedaling efficiency improves with more training, especially at the World Champion level. No one has ever demonstrated that PED's improve cycling efficiency. There has to be another explanation for the approximate 10% improvement in efficiency demonstrated by Coyle over time in Lance. Anyhow, back to the study at hand.

There are a lot of people calling for that study to be retracted from the JAP. But nevertheless you continue to delude your self that efficiency can't be trained the most logical reason for Lance improving so much over the years seeing he took drugs all along is that he did a lot of riding. More you train something the more efficient you become.

 

[CoachFergie]

The magnitude is not important

I guess you would have to say that seeing there is no evidence whatsoever that Gimmickcranks improve performance.

 

[FrankDay]

It's been done

Where? Link please?

Can't recall if Dr Martin has ever posted to this forum. Pity you can't converse with him on Slowtwitch

I guess that is possible that he has not posted here. I would be surprised if he hadn't. Who knows what screen name he would use here. Anyhow. Dr. Coggan certainly has posted here and in this very thread. He should be able to answer the question if he has an answer. Oh, and Slowman seems to not like people who don't follow the "politically correct view" of his fan boys. Uncomfortable debate simply not allowed

I have explained it, sorry you choose to bury your head in the sand.

Link please

There are a lot of people calling for that study to be retracted from the JAP. But nevertheless you continue to delude your self that efficiency can't be trained the most logical reason for Lance improving so much over the years seeing he took drugs all along is that he did a lot of riding. More you train something the more efficient you become.

Hey, is the study bunk or is it true? Isn't the JAP the most prestigious of them all? How could it be possible they published something bunk? Isn't Coyle about the most respected of all bicycle researchers? How is it possible he posted something bunk? BTW, he didn't post a study but simply a rehashing of his testing results with a 7 time TDF winner, which he thought might be of interest to the community. Apparently the JAP agreed.

 

[coapman]

Just convenient for your argument that he died in 1983.

His latest book was published in 2009 ?

 

[CoachFergie]

His latest book was published in 2009 ?

Ha ha, will fess up when I get something wrong. Louison died in 1983

 

[FrankDay]

I guess you would have to say that seeing there is no evidence whatsoever that Gimmickcranks improve performance.

Hey, PowerCranks proudly share the space of almost everything else used by athletes to improve themselves to include power meters, coaching, nutritional supplements, etc., etc., the list goes on and on for which there is absolutely zero proof that the intervention makes a difference. Scientific proof for issues that involve many variables and substantial time to see effects is almost impossible to come by. Somethings have to come from evaluating "possibilities" or on faith. When you, who hold yourself out as an elite level coach, can provide proof that coaching (or you) makes a positive difference for an athlete please let me know.

 

[CoachFergie]

I never make claims that I can't defend. You hold yourself to much lower standards.

 

[FrankDay]

I never make claims that I can't defend. You hold yourself to much lower standards.

Sure you do. You have claimed this study proves something about pedaling technique. If you cannot tell us why you are clearly just blowing smoke. Defend the finding or simply tell everyone you don't have a clue how to explain that finding.

 

[CoachFergie]

I have said that gear selection and power influence effectiveness. And that training influences efficiency. Sorry I can't make it clearer for you.

 

[FrankDay]

I have said that gear selection and power influence effectiveness. And that training influences efficiency. Sorry I can't make it clearer for you.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with the question. FAIL (again).

 

[coapman]

. And that training influences efficiency. Sorry I can't make it clearer for you.

Your application of effective force to your pedal can only be made between 1 and 5 o'c, what percentage of that force is converted into crank torque? That is pedalling efficiency. My technique is capable of increasing that torque value by 40+ % without increasing peak force to the pedal, and you believe that is of no importance.