For the "pedaling technique doesn't matter crowd"

[Tapeworm]

And in case there was any confusion about the issue I linked the post made by Jim Martin from slowtwitch. That post in slowtwitch was not in reference to this thread however I thought it relevant. Hence I linked it here. I thought it would be good to have a separate and scientific viewpoint.

I found it good reading

 

[FrankDay]

Maximum pushing force then.

Huh? Are you saying a larger pushing force is more important to going fast in a time trial than a larger sustained power?

In the Coyle study the two cyclists who had the highest maximum pushing force were 3 and 6 minutes slower in the 40 km TT and their 1 hour sustained power was 19 and 41 Watts lower than the fastest rider (a 51 minute 40km time-trialist) whose maximum pushing force was only the 4th highest in the group of 15 subjects. What point are you trying to make again?

 

[FrankDay]

And in case there was any confusion about the issue I linked the post made by Jim Martin from slowtwitch. That post in slowtwitch was not in reference to this thread however I thought it relevant. Hence I linked it here. I thought it would be good to have a separate and scientific viewpoint.

I found it good reading

Of course it was relevant. Thanks for the link.

 

[CoachFergie]

Huh? Are you saying a larger pushing force is more important to going fast in a time trial than a larger sustained power?

In the Coyle study the two cyclists who had the highest maximum pushing force were 3 and 6 minutes slower in the 40 km TT and their 1 hour sustained power was 19 and 41 Watts lower than the fastest rider (a 51 minute 40km time-trialist) whose maximum pushing force was only the 4th highest in the group of 15 subjects. What point are you trying to make again?

That maximum pushing force is not a priority for cycle sport.

 

[FrankDay]

That maximum pushing force is not a priority for cycle sport.

Well, we agree on something. About time! So, regarding the Coyle study let's look at riders A and D. Both riders were about 80kg. Rider A had the highest sustained power (376W) and fastest 40km speed (51 min). Rider D had the highest max torque (11% greater than Rider A - 90N-m vs 81N-m) but only generated 95% of the power of Rider A (357W) and rode a 40km time 3 minutes slower (54 min). Can you come up with an explanation to explain this difference between the riders that doesn't involve invoking a difference in pedaling technique between these riders explaining these numbers? If you cannot then can you, at least, bring yourself to admit that pedaling technique can make a difference and that while "just pusing harder" is one way to increase power that "just pushing harder" isn't the only answer to increasing power nor, necessarily, even the best way?

Once we understand this basic fact then the question becomes trying to understand what is the best technique and how can we train everyone to do it? I would suggest that your approach of ignoring pedaling technique is not the best way to achieve this end.

 

[CoachFergie]

Different lean body mass
Different limb circumferences
Different VO2max
Different Economy
Different distribution of muscle fibre types
Different capilarization
Different fiber areas
Different Myoglobin, Citrate Synthase, BetaOAC, PFK, LDH

So a lot of things going on that could explain the differences.

 

[FrankDay]

Different lean body mass
Different limb circumferences
Different VO2max
Different Economy
Different distribution of muscle fibre types
Different capilarization
Different fiber areas
Different Myoglobin, Citrate Synthase, BetaOAC, PFK, LDH

So a lot of things going on that could explain the differences.

Huh? While I will grant you that all of those things can affect power could you expand on how any of those things (other than economy because economy can be affected by pedaling technique) could possibly explain how a pedal technique with a higher maximum torque has less overall power than a pedal technique with a lower maximum torque? Everyone of those things (except, perhaps, economy) is upstream from the pedals. Power is determined solely by the magnitude and direction of the forces on and the speed of the pedals, nothing else. Try again.

 

[CoachFergie]

Huh?

Reading the discussion Coyle explains the differences mainly through volume of type 1 muscle fibres and training history. But scope for a mechanical difference.

So then we look at the studies comparing different types of pedalling technique, conscious or forced by type of equipment to see there is no performance gains from altering technique.

 

[FrankDay]

Reading the discussion Coyle explains the differences mainly through volume of type 1 muscle fibres and training history. But scope for a mechanical difference.

So then we look at the studies comparing different types of pedalling technique, conscious or forced by type of equipment to see there is no performance gains from altering technique.

Coyle in his paper is trying to explain the differences between the groups. The only real difference between the groups to explain why one was better than the other is one had 3 more years of training. But, here I am asking you to explain the difference between rider A and Rider D. This study is frequently pointed to as "proof" that "just pushing harder" is the main difference between fast riders and slower riders, a claim never made by Coyle. Comparing Riders A and D show that to be pure BS. So, explain the difference pointed out above between Rider A and D that doesn't involve a difference in pedaling technique. Perhaps you missed these words in the study:"It is clear that any future research attempting to quantify effectiveness must consider more than the orientation of the applied pedal forces. This finding makes it unclear whether feedback devices that allow a cyclist to improve pedaling effectiveness (2,3,21) will lead to improved performance." or this "however, it should be recognized that biomechanical factors which alter the distribution of work also have potential to reduce fatiguability and improve performance." What could possibly be meant by those words? Now go back and compare Rider A and D and keep those words in mind then get back to us.

 

[CoachFergie]

Coyle in his paper is trying to explain the differences between the groups. The only real difference between the groups to explain why one was better than the other is one had 3 more years of training. But, here I am asking you to explain the difference between rider A and Rider D.

I have explained the rather large number of individual differences between the two riders in terms of physiology. Coyle explained there could be mechanical differences but this was beyond the scope of the study. Hence we look at papers that changed the mechanics and currently find no performance advantage.

This study is frequently pointed to as "proof" that "just pushing harder" is the main difference between fast riders and slower riders, a claim never made by Coyle. Comparing Riders A and D show that to be pure BS. So, explain the difference pointed out above between Rider A and D that doesn't involve a difference in pedaling technique.

I have and as you point out I don't think there is a point in focusing on pedalling technique so unlikely I will say "just push harder". As a coach I will ask the rider for a goal. I will work out the performance parameters (say 425 watts for a 40km TT), measure the current ability and develop a programme to get them from A to B.

Perhaps you missed these words in the study:"It is clear that any future research attempting to quantify effectiveness must consider more than the orientation of the applied pedal forces.

Perhaps you missed that I get paid for improving cycling performance and am not an effectiveness coach as "sorry you lost Bob but look, your effectiveness has improved".

This finding makes it unclear whether feedback devices that allow a cyclist to improve pedaling effectiveness (2,3,21) will lead to improved performance." or this "however, it should be recognized that biomechanical factors which alter the distribution of work also have potential to reduce fatiguability and improve performance." What could possibly be meant by those words?

Well I expect the word potential means we need to study these things and since 1991 I haven't seen a paper that shows a performance improvement from changing pedalling mechanics. As for a feedback device you yourself have pointed out that a power meter has never been shown to improve performance, and on that point I concur.

 

[coapman]

Well I expect the word potential means we need to study these things and since 1991 I haven't seen a paper that shows a performance improvement from changing pedalling mechanics.

You have not seen a paper but the fact still remains, while using the same seated racing drops position my semi circular technique will give me almost double your crank torque from the same force applied to the pedal between 1 and 2 o'c. What would you call that, improved pedalling effectivenes, efficiency or both.

 

[FrankDay]

Well I expect the word potential means we need to study these things and since 1991 I haven't seen a paper that shows a performance improvement from changing pedalling mechanics. As for a feedback device you yourself have pointed out that a power meter has never been shown to improve performance, and on that point I concur.

I will accept that you personally, as a coach, are unwilling to do anything that you don't believe has been proven (even though much of what you use and do is unproven). But, I am just blown away about your reticence to consider that there might be new things that might improve performance beyond what is known now and you believe it is stupid for us to even discuss this issue because YOU haven't seen anything to CONVINCE you to change your ways and/or this area remains speculative and unproven.

Regarding the power meter (as you know it), it is not a feedback device that will allow a cyclist to improve pedaling effectiveness as mentioned by Coyle but rather, only an effort feedback/measuring device and, as you concede, has yet to be proven effective. Surely you can allow those of us who believe that there might be something positive to come from finding and developing a better pedaling technique, even if such efforts remain unproven, to discuss this possibility without your constant interference and/or personal attacks against anyone who thinks different than you. I think close analysis of Riders A and D in the Coyle paper clearly demonstrate there is more to developing sustainable power than simply learning how to push harder. While training to push harder can make one more powerful clearly more can be done. Why don't you either go away and let those of us interested in this area of cycling discuss this without your constant personal attacks or, in the alternative, you could actually enter the discussion?

 

[JayKosta]

...
So, regarding the Coyle study let's look at riders A and D. Both riders were about 80kg. Rider A had the highest sustained power (376W) and fastest 40km speed (51 min). Rider D had the highest max torque (11% greater than Rider A - 90N-m vs 81N-m) but only generated 95% of the power of Rider A (357W) and rode a 40km time 3 minutes slower (54 min). Can you come up with an explanation to explain this difference between the riders that doesn't involve invoking a difference in pedaling technique between these riders explaining these numbers?

=====================================

1) TORQUE is a 'static measurement' which does not include any value of speed or power or energy.

2) POWER is a combination of both torque and rotational speed. Slower crank speed produces less power even if the torque is the same.

3) PUSHING HARDER only gives more power if the crank speed increases.

Being forced to a 'stand-still' on an extreme hill can still have lots of torque being applied - just not enough to overcome gravity and produce any forward motion.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[FrankDay]

=====================================

1) TORQUE is a 'static measurement' which does not include any value of speed or power or energy.

Correct

2) POWER is a combination of both torque and rotational speed. Slower crank speed produces less power even if the torque is the same.

It is more than the combination, it is the cross product of the two (since they are vectors). Torque can go up and speed can go down and power can go up, down, or stay the same, depending on the amount each changes

3) PUSHING HARDER only gives more power if the crank speed increases.

Wrong. Crank speed may increase if the rider doesn't shift gears and bike speed increases but torque can go up and crank speed go down and power still go up as evidenced by what happens to most when they climb

Being forced to a 'stand-still' on an extreme hill can still have lots of torque being applied - just not enough to overcome gravity and produce any forward motion.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Correct, or, one could even be forced backwards if the torque were not high enough. It is all pretty simple physics. F=ma, P=Force x velocity or torque x omega (rotational velocity)

Edit: While it might be possible to explain these numbers if Rider A rode a significantly higher cadence than Rider D (the authors did not indicate the cadence during the one hour trial) but in another portion they controlled for cadence and it appears the cadence differences were minimal and not large enough to account for the difference. (Interestingly, the general pedaling technique of the cyclists in each group remained the same when the subject were all compared at the same power output (162 W for SLP)and at a cadence of90 rpm (Fig. 7 and Table 7)") So, this is a possibility, I guess, but unlikely, I think.

 

[JayKosta]

...
Wrong. Crank speed may increase if the rider doesn't shift gears and bike speed increases but torque can go up and crank speed go down and power still go up as evidenced by what happens to most when they climb
...

=======================================
Yes of course what you said is correct, but for cyclists on a (fairly) constant incline and wind condition, PUSHING HARDER really means turning the cranks faster. And yes, to turn the cranks faster does require application of more torque to give acceleration to the entire bike & rider mass. But the cyclist is then faced with the problem of continuing to apply enough torque (and foot speed) to keep the cranks turning at the higher rate.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[FrankDay]

=======================================
Yes of course what you said is correct, but for cyclists on a (fairly) constant incline and wind condition, PUSHING HARDER really means turning the cranks faster. And yes, to turn the cranks faster does require application of more torque to give acceleration to the entire bike & rider mass. But the cyclist is then faced with the problem of continuing to apply enough torque to keep the cranks turning at the higher rate.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

No, under constant conditions turning the cranks faster requires the application of more power. Power is the integration of all the torques around the entire circle with the current crank speed. To increase power does not REQUIRE one to increase the maximum torque, which is only a tiny part of the circle, (although that is what many do) but it can also be increased by increasing some of the more minor torques and keeping max torque the same. So, it is possible to increase power also by pulling up on the backstroke instead of simple unweighting, or some other manipulation.

Then, you are correct, that once the power is increased the problem is keeping it there. This is not a big problem if one is well below threshold but it is if one is near threshold.

 

[JayKosta]

No, under constant conditions turning the cranks faster requires the application of more power. Power is the integration of all the torques around the entire circle with the current crank speed. To increase power does not REQUIRE one to increase the maximum torque, which is only a tiny part of the circle, (although that is what many do) but it can also be increased by increasing some of the more minor torques and keeping max torque the same. So, it is possible to increase power also by pulling up on the backstroke instead of simple unweighting, or some other manipulation.
...

==============================
Yes, and the 'pulling up on the backstroke' requires the cyclist to attempt to increase the rotational speed of the pedal in that portion of the circle.
The effort (force) of attempting to increase pedal rotational speed is what produces the additional torque (the pulling up) which results in more power.

I think we are saying nearly the same thing, but with minor terminology and 'causation' differences.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[FrankDay]

==============================
Yes, and the 'pulling up on the backstroke' requires the cyclist to attempt to increase the rotational speed of the pedal in that portion of the circle.
The effort (force) of attempting to increase pedal rotational speed is what produces the additional torque (the pulling up) which results in more power.

I think we are saying nearly the same thing, but with minor terminology and 'causation' differences.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

It is not possible to apply torque without resistance. Every torque or force not only attempts to increase speed but does so if the forward torque is greater than the the current resistive load (F=ma where F = F+ minus F-, F- being the combination of rolling and air resistance) such that at low speeds increased pedal speed is perceptable as we accelerate but, at cruising speed the pedal speed increase is so small that it is imperceptible, especially on the road where the mass is particularly high and the resistive load high. I think we discussed this a bit before.

The larger the variation between the maximum torque and the minimum torque around the pedal circle the larger and more noticeable this speed variation will be. It is why a "masher" when on the trainer (and the moving mass is small) will hear a whir, whir, whir instead of a constant whirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Either way, if we consider crank speed essentially constant, all a rider need do to increase power is to increase the torque at any point around the pedal circle such that the average torque around the circle increases. Or, the rider can downshift and increase pedal speed while keeping crank torque constant (hard to do), or some combination of these two that results in an average instantaneous power increase around the pedal circle.

 

[CoachFergie]

You have not seen a paper but the fact still remains, while using the same seated racing drops position my semi circular technique will give me almost double your crank torque from the same force applied to the pedal between 1 and 2 o'c. What would you call that, improved pedalling effectivenes, efficiency or both.

You keep using that word fact but I'm not sure you know what it means.

 

[CoachFergie]

I will accept that you personally, as a coach, are unwilling to do anything that you don't believe has been proven (even though much of what you use and do is unproven). But, I am just blown away about your reticence to consider that there might be new things that might improve performance beyond what is known now and you believe it is stupid for us to even discuss this issue because YOU haven't seen anything to CONVINCE you to change your ways and/or this area remains speculative and unproven.

Well that is the thing Frank, a lot of what I do is proven. I pride myself on staying up to date with the evidence and don't waste my clients time with wild goose chases if there isn't a worthwhile improvements to be made.

Regarding the power meter (as you know it), it is not a feedback device that will allow a cyclist to improve pedaling effectiveness as mentioned by Coyle but rather, only an effort feedback/measuring device and, as you concede, has yet to be proven effective. Surely you can allow those of us who believe that there might be something positive to come from finding and developing a better pedaling technique, even if such efforts remain unproven, to discuss this possibility without your constant interference and/or personal attacks against anyone who thinks different than you.

Not going anywhere Frank, your marketing claims need to be challenged because they are untrue.

I think close analysis of Riders A and D in the Coyle paper clearly demonstrate there is more to developing sustainable power than simply learning how to push harder. While training to push harder can make one more powerful clearly more can be done. Why don't you either go away and let those of us interested in this area of cycling discuss this without your constant personal attacks or, in the alternative, you could actually enter the discussion?

Cherry picking two data points that suit your argument. Fairly typical Frank Day approach.

 

[CoachFergie]

No, under constant conditions turning the cranks faster requires the application of more power. Power is the integration of all the torques around the entire circle with the current crank speed. To increase power does not REQUIRE one to increase the maximum torque, which is only a tiny part of the circle, (although that is what many do) but it can also be increased by increasing some of the more minor torques and keeping max torque the same. So, it is possible to increase power also by pulling up on the backstroke instead of simple unweighting, or some other manipulation.

And no gimmickcrank or other study where the pedal stroke around the crank has been shown to improve the power or serve as a training stimulus over time to improve performance.

So your claims, like Noels, are still in your imagination.

 

[JayKosta]

...
Either way, if we consider crank speed essentially constant, all a rider need do to increase power is to increase the torque at any point around the pedal circle such that the average torque around the circle increases. Or, the rider can downshift and increase pedal speed while keeping crank torque constant (hard to do), or some combination of these two that results in an average instantaneous power increase around the pedal circle.

========================
Ah!, that is our main difference of opinion - I DON'T consider crank speed essentially constant.

The overall rpm might be constant, but the instantaneous rotational speed has a pattern similar to a sine wave.

And 'yes' "all a rider need do to increase power is to increase the torque at any point around the pedal circle.."
But since power is 'mass in motion' (mV**2), the increase in power has to be due to increased speed (motion) at that point, the amount of mass stays constant, so the crank has to have greater instantaneous rotational speed.

If a rider could keep the instanteous rotational crank speed constant throughout the entire rotation (at the same velocity as the maximum crank speed, or perhaps slightly lower), then the overall power would increase.

I think about it this way...
At the low torque section of a crank rotation, the torque decreases because the feet are unable to maintain the instanteous crank speed. Those low torque sections are where the feet need to make a significant change in direction - e.g. from 'pushing down' to 'moving back', and from 'pulling up' to 'moving forward'.
Achieving constant instantaneous rotational crank speed requires the cyclist to be trained so the muscles and coordination are capable of performing the task.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[FrankDay]

========================
Ah!, that is our main difference of opinion - I DON'T consider crank speed essentially constant.

The overall rpm might be constant, but the instantaneous rotational speed has a pattern similar to a sine wave.

I agree

And 'yes' "all a rider need do to increase power is to increase the torque at any point around the pedal circle.."
But since power is 'mass in motion' (mV**2), the increase in power has to be due to increased speed (motion) at that point, the amount of mass stays constant, so the crank has to have greater instantaneous rotational speed.

Basic error here. Power is not mass in motion. Kinetic energy is mass in motion KE=1/2mv^2 Power is the rate that energy is put into an object or expended. Another way to look at power is rate the kinetic energy of an object changes, which is known as the work-energy principle (link here). The speed of an object plays no role in defining power. However, the work energy principle explains why it is easier to accelerate a bike 2 mph from zero than from 20 mph and why it is easier to slow a bike from 2 mph to zero than from 22 mph to 20 mph. Because the amount of energy contained varies with the square of the velocity the energy change is much smaller going from 0 to 2 mph than from 20 to 22 mph. You seem to be confusing energy and power. They are different concepts.

If a rider could keep the instanteous rotational crank speed constant throughout the entire rotation (at the same velocity as the maximum crank speed, or perhaps slightly lower), then the overall power would increase.

agreed, and this is because the integral of the work done around the circle would increase.

I think about it this way...
At the low torque section of a crank rotation, the torque decreases because the feet are unable to maintain the instanteous crank speed. Those low torque sections are where the feet need to make a significant change in direction - e.g. from 'pushing down' to 'moving back', and from 'pulling up' to 'moving forward'.

Yes, at least as things are now for most people although where they have trouble keeping the foot speed up with the crank speed is coming up on the back stroke (where they apply negative torque). This is masked though when the two cranks are tied together where it looks like the weakest part of the stroke is the top and bottom. Remember, runners are able to exhibit quite large forces in the rear direction with no trouble at all as are soccer players able to exhibit quite large forces in the forward direction when kicking the ball. There is nothing physiological that demands a cyclist need be "weak" at the top and bottom of the stroke

Achieving constant instantaneous rotational crank speed requires the cyclist to be trained so the muscles and coordination are capable of performing the task.

True, and while, I guess this would be theoretically possible I believe this is practically impossible even though it is possible to get quite close. I generally have no trouble achieving a spinscan number of about 95 when I am thinking about it. The SpinScan number is nothing more than the ratio of the average torque to the peak torque. This is about as smooth as is humanly possible I think.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

========================
Ah!, that is our main difference of opinion - I DON'T consider crank speed essentially constant.

The overall rpm might be constant, but the instantaneous rotational speed has a pattern similar to a sine wave.

Similar pattern but it would be incorrect to think of the speeds at the peak and trough of the pseudo-sinusoidal pattern as being significantly variable, when even on a trainer with fairly low inertial loads the difference in highest and lowest instantaneous crank rotational speed is only ~ 0.5%, and I suspect even less than that at higher inertial loads.

 

[coapman]

Remember, runners are able to exhibit quite large forces in the rear direction with no trouble at all as are soccer players able to exhibit quite large forces in the forward direction when kicking the ball. There is nothing physiological that demands a cyclist need be "weak" at the top and bottom of the stroke.

Obree also refers to using this kicking style action at the top, but how would the strength of these kicking or rearward power producing muscles compare to that of a cyclist's down push muscles while using a leg press machine or equivalent. A seated cyclists's muscle strength at the top can be more powerful than that of his down stroke muscles, but not if that kicking style technique is used. Rearward power is best forgotten.