For the "pedaling technique doesn't matter crowd"

[CoachFergie]

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

What, that the most effective pedal stroke may not be the most efficient? Is it really that surprising. But, again is it important is the real question and worthy of my time teaching riders an additional skill. Based on the available data, NO.

 

[CoachFergie]

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.

Wow, now you have hung the 40%, "+" even, not even Frank has been so bold, on the pedalling technique you only have in your mind and has yet to be tested at all, least we have sufficient data on Gimmicranks to pass on them, even despite the very kind offer by Dr Jim Martin to set you up with good people in the UK to get some actual data! Outstanding delusions Noel.

 

[FrankDay]

What, that the most effective pedal stroke may not be the most efficient? Is it really that surprising. But, again is it important is the real question and worthy of my time teaching riders an additional skill. Based on the available data, NO.

FAIL (again). As science goes it is not a sign of weakness to admit you do not know something but, rather, a sign of strength. But, alas, to Coach Fergie, as they say, ignorance is bliss.

 

[CoachFergie]

Well, the good thing about FAIL from Frank Day is that it is just a FAIL from Frank Day, who cares what the Cycling Worlds biggest snake oil salesman thinks. It's not up to me to justify your delusions. I'm not the one making claims I can't support.

I have said what I can see influences the difference between efficiency and effectiveness and if there is more to the story that makes it worth my attention as a coach being paid to help people improve performance then I'm sure you will let us know.

 

[FrankDay]

Well, the good thing about FAIL from Frank Day is that it is just a FAIL from Frank Day, who cares what the Cycling Worlds biggest snake oil salesman thinks. It's not up to me to justify your delusions. I'm not the one making claims I can't support.

I have said what I can see influences the difference between efficiency and effectiveness and if there is more to the story that makes it worth my attention as a coach being paid to help people improve performance then I'm sure you will let us know.

Fergie, your repeated and continued ad hominem attacks simply point out the weakness of your knowledge in this area. If that is all you got I guess that is all you got. Would anyone else care to take a stab at explaining a mechanism that might explain the inverse relationship between pedaling effectiveness and pedaling efficiency found by Mornieux et. al.? This is a thread about pedaling technique. I presume most of the people here are interested in stuff like this. Am I the only one who thinks this is easily explained?

 

[CoachFergie]

Well spill the beans Frank. What I am waiting with baited breath is how much you attribute this to the importance of pedalling.

While you claim that (and now so does Noel) training with a Gimmickcrank improves power by 40% you have not shown anyone whose power has improved by said amount. Well actually by 1% from just using Gimmickcranks alone. This is the catch, people must train, must eat, must recover and do all the other things that actually contribute to performance. If they improved the application of power people would produce more power instantaneously but they don't and if they created a more efficient pedal stroke and were a more potent training stimulus over once people adapted to them (1-2 weeks in most studies) then there would be a change in performance but there is none. Then you will say that people need longer for the change in pattern to take place but Bohm (2008) and Fernandez-Pena (2009) have shown this is not the case most coaches and sport scientists will tell you that after 4-8 weeks on any one programme cyclists start to adapt and need to change the training stimulus.

 

[FrankDay]

Well spill the beans Frank. What I am waiting with baited breath is how much you attribute this to the importance of pedalling.

Ugh, this is a thread abut pedaling technique. One cannot actually know anything about pedaling technique and power production unless they can explain all of the experimental evidence. You don't even care to try. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[CoachFergie]

Don't weasel out of it Frank, I know quite a bit about power production and enough about pedalling to know that there is no secret technique or gimmick that will improve power in the short term or serve as a better training stimulus than following a well designed training programme, eating a healthy diet, having goals, good recovery, good riding position, good technical skills, sound tactics, an aerodynamic position and that you are now back pedalling yourself.

Spill the beans and let is bask in the glow of your magnificence. Not that I really care as the research indicates there is little relevance for your argument to important gains in performance. As you know I just find you and Noel amusing.

 

[coapman]

While you claim that (and now so does Noel) training with a Gimmickcrank improves power by 40% you have not shown anyone whose power has improved by said amount. Well actually by 1% from just using Gimmickcranks alone. This is the catch, people must train, must eat, must recover and do all the other things that actually contribute to performance. If they improved the application of power people would produce more power instantaneously but they don't and if they created a more efficient pedal stroke and were a more potent training stimulus over once people adapted to them (1-2 weeks in most studies) then there would be a change in performance but there is none. Then you will say that people need longer for the change in pattern to take place but Bohm (2008) and Fernandez-Pena (2009) have shown this is not the case most coaches and sport scientists will tell you that after 4-8 weeks on any one programme cyclists start to adapt and need to change the training stimulus.

I believe using the powercrank technique will result in a loss of power not an increase. You are correct, if a change of technique is capable of increasing power output, this increase will take effect as soon as the rider starts to use the new technique and my change of technique is an example of this. The most powerful or most effective sector of your pedalling stroke is between 2 and 4 o'c, this is mainly because greatest tangential effect occurs there, my technique makes it possible to extend this 60 deg sector to 150 deg. while still using the same amount of maximal force with the same or even greater tangential effect. It's as simple as that. The problem with Frank and his powercranks is that PC users don't know what they are supposed to be training or where the 40 % power increase is supposed to occur and Frank cannot tell them.

 

[FrankDay]

As you know I just find you and Noel irritating.

Fixed that for you. Anyhow, if you knew as much about pedaling as you claim you know and you actually wanted to participate in a discussion about this you would have no problem to, at least, giving a best guess to explain the efficacy/efficiency conundrum as opposed to continued personal attacks.

 

[CoachFergie]

Fixed that for you. Anyhow, if you knew as much about pedaling as you claim you know and you actually wanted to participate in a discussion about this you would have no problem to, at least, giving a best guess to explain the efficacy/efficiency conundrum as opposed to continued personal attacks.

Ha ha, if you say so. Nothing you haven't done yourself.

You still haven't given your answer...

 

[JayKosta]

Regarding EFFICIENCY -
Efficiency is primarily a concern about -

DURATION - if the lack of efficiency causes exhaustion or depletion of fuel, so that the athlete can nolonger perform at the necessary level.

Being 'efficient' is not needed if the athlete can generate high levels of effective power output for the duration of the event.

An example is 'sprinters' - it is usual for a top-level sprinter to have a large amount of muscle and strength that can be used in short-duration-high-output situations. It is not usual for a top-level sprinter to be physically capable of individual performance comparable to long distance endurance athlete, when the event requires long duration and climbing.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[FrankDay]

Regarding EFFICIENCY -
Efficiency is primarily a concern about -

DURATION - if the lack of efficiency causes exhaustion or depletion of fuel, so that the athlete can nolonger perform at the necessary level.

Being 'efficient' is not needed if the athlete can generate high levels of effective power output for the duration of the event.

An example is 'sprinters' - it is usual for a top-level sprinter to have a large amount of muscle and strength that can be used in short-duration-high-output situations. It is not usual for a top-level sprinter to be physically capable of individual performance comparable to long distance endurance athlete, when the event requires long duration and climbing.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

While I agree to some extent that efficiency is much more important for an endurance athlete it seems to me that even a sprinter could benefit from a more efficient technique, if that improved efficiency allowed him or her to achieve even higher power for the same effective muscle use. The mechanical sciences would predict that improved efficiency should allow an engine to go either further on the same amount of fuel use or attain higher power for the same amount of energy expenditure. Why this fact should suddenly be stood on its head just because we are dealing with people as the engine makes little sense and, if true, needs to be explained. I, for one, doubt humans are the exception to this principle.

 

[FrankDay]

You still haven't given your answer...

Actually, my answer has been contained pretty much in previous posts if you would ever care to try to read and understand what I am saying. I won't repeat it until you or someone else gives it a whirl. It ain't rocket science but it is biology.

 

[CoachFergie]

Actually, my answer has been contained pretty much in previous posts if you would ever care to try to read and understand what I am saying. I won't repeat it until you or someone else gives it a whirl. It ain't rocket science but it is biology.

Amusing you think I would take anything you write seriously.

A million posts and you still haven't said anything that demonstrates the importance of pedalling technique.

Nothing that makes me think your theories or your product can aid my job of helping cyclists perform better in racing.

 

[FrankDay]

Amusing you think I would take anything you write seriously.

A million posts and you still haven't said anything that demonstrates the importance of pedalling technique.

Nothing that makes me think your theories or your product can aid my job of helping cyclists perform better in racing.

And there is nothing you write that anyone else who is the least bit serious ever takes seriously. One ad hominem attack after another and never addressing the issue actually TRYING to be discussed. Why would I answer your "question" when it has been clear to everyone that you couldn't care what the answer might be. Thanks for confirming you couldn't care less and you're here simply as a troll. You have yet to address the current question: FAIL. You don't care what is said anyhow: TROLL

 

[CoachFergie]

Water off a ducks back Frank. Being called a troll by the buggest cycling forum spammer is laughable.

A million posts and not one is convincing us that there is any point to changing the natural pedal stroke.

 

[JayKosta]

...
Would anyone else care to take a stab at explaining a mechanism that might explain the inverse relationship between pedaling effectiveness and pedaling efficiency found by Mornieux et. al.? This is a thread about pedaling technique.
...

=========================
Frank,

I think Coach Fergie DID give his explanation back in post #995 where he said
"And that training influences efficiency"
see - http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1122519&postcount=995

I interpret CF's explanation as "efficiency improves with training".
So a test of a different pedaling technique would not show its true efficiency until the test subject had become physically adjusted and adept to using the new technique (through the training that CF mentions).

Beyond that, my thinking is now in the direction that 'efficiency' is not a primary goal for competitive cycling. Effectiveness (going fast for the duration of an event) is the primary desired result of pedaling technique.
If this effectiveness is lessened by lack of efficiency, then that is a problem that needs to be corrected by a more effective technique that provides the needed efficiency.

Efficiency is probably included in many studies and journal articles because it is easy to measure and analyze. And also because efficiency IS important in many facets of daily living - e.g. vehicle fuel efficiency, production line efficiency, nutriional efficiency, etc. BUT in all those situations, a more primary concern is that the effectiveness of the task is not decreased.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[CoachFergie]

Effectiveness or other measures of pedalling are measurable but my question is how important are they to the overall picture. As a coach this means; is it something we need to focus on to see significant measurable improvements.

Training, recovery, diet etc are all evidence based methods to improve performance. I haven's seen anything anything from isolating pedalling alone that would suggest I invest time into coaching riders who employ me on pedalling.

As we zero in on NZ track nationals my focus has been on tapering, aerodynamics, gear selection, pacing and mental skills. All evidence based practice.

 

[FrankDay]

=========================
Frank,

I think Coach Fergie DID give his explanation back in post #995 where he said
"And that training influences efficiency"
see - http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1122519&postcount=995

I interpret CF's explanation as "efficiency improves with training".
So a test of a different pedaling technique would not show its true efficiency until the test subject had become physically adjusted and adept to using the new technique (through the training that CF mentions).

But that explanation cannot explain the finding of the study which showed that simply asking people to pedal in a different fashion resulted in them both pedaling "more effectively" and pedaling "less efficiently" without any training involved, the difference is immediate. The question is how can one explain that dichotomy. Fergie was just throwing out an answer hoping that no one would notice he didn't address the specific question.

But, your comment does come to some of my previous criticisms of these findings. Training does make a difference. It means nothing regarding evaluating different pedaling techniques unless the two groups have been equivalently trained in the two techniques. Asking someone to ride a different technique is not equivalent training. But, still, the question remains, the researchers got this unexpected finding.

So, again, the question is how does one explain the specific findings of this one study where pedaling effectiveness and efficiency are inversely related?

Beyond that, my thinking is now in the direction that 'efficiency' is not a primary goal for competitive cycling. Effectiveness (going fast for the duration of an event) is the primary desired result of pedaling technique.
If this effectiveness is lessened by lack of efficiency, then that is a problem that needs to be corrected by a more effective technique that provides the needed efficiency.

Efficiency is probably included in many studies and journal articles because it is easy to measure and analyze. And also because efficiency IS important in many facets of daily living - e.g. vehicle fuel efficiency, production line efficiency, nutriional efficiency, etc. BUT in all those situations, a more primary concern is that the effectiveness of the task is not decreased.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Well, scientists are stuck trying to examine single variables that can be actually measured. Efficiency is such a term. Effectiveness (as you define it - going fast for the duration of an event) is pretty worthless from a scientific perspective because there are just so many variables. I mean, in the study done by Coyle et. al., (Physiological and biomechanical factors associated with elite endurance cycling performance) frequently referenced by cyclists that the fastest cyclists just push down harder says no such thing. Their goal was to look at a lot of variables that might uncover some relationships that might be useful for further study. I have published an analysis of this study here. Interestingly the two subjects who "pushed the hardest" had a 40 km TT time of 54 and 57 minutes while the subject with the best time (51 minutes) was only the 4th strongest pusher in the group. How is it possible from this data to conclude that the fastest riders "just push harder"? Yet, people do. The rider with the fastest time had only the 6th highest VO2max on a per kg basis. The authors did not draw any conclusions from this data about pedaling technique yet many non-scientists have tried to use this to support their own bias.

Edit: I might add that the fastest rider (Figure 4 rider A) on close examination seems to have the widest force application on the downstroke and even has positive force on the upstroke for about 2/3 of the distance up. In addition, Rider A averaged the highest power over the hour - 376 Watts, 13 watts more than the next highest output. The question should be what elements are setting him apart from the others.

Good science tries to break down an examine each of the many variables independently so the "science" of going fast (or anything) can be better understood. But, where science tends to learn the most is when it is confronted with a finding that doesn't make much sense compared to the general understanding. That is the case here where it has been found that under the circumstances of this study that pedaling effectiveness and pedaling efficiency are inversely related. How to explain? It seems the approach of the general cycling community to this conundrum is on the order of "ignore that man behind the curtain".

 

[CoachFergie]

But that explanation cannot explain the finding of the study which showed that simply asking people to pedal in a different fashion resulted in them both pedaling "more effectively" and pedaling "less efficiently" without any training involved, the difference is immediate. The question is how can one explain that dichotomy. Fergie was just throwing out an answer hoping that no one would notice he didn't address the specific question.

When I originally brought up effectiveness it was in reference to the data supplied by Coyle (1991) and Broker (in High-Tech Cycling). I have a copy of Mornieux and while I am sure it is interesting to you there is little of interest for a coach looking to find worthwhile performance gains from any aspect of the racing equation (supply or demand).

But, your comment does come to some of my previous criticisms of these findings. Training does make a difference. It means nothing regarding evaluating different pedaling techniques unless the two groups have been equivalently trained in the two techniques. Asking someone to ride a different technique is not equivalent training. But, still, the question remains, the researchers got this unexpected finding.

So maybe the study was wrong, untrained subjects, lab environment, small sample size.

Good science tries to break down an examine each of the many variables independently so the "science" of going fast (or anything) can be better understood. But, where science tends to learn the most is when it is confronted with a finding that doesn't make much sense compared to the general understanding. That is the case here where it has been found that under the circumstances of this study that pedaling effectiveness and pedaling efficiency are inversely related. How to explain? It seems the approach of the general cycling community to this conundrum is on the order of "ignore that man behind the curtain".

Maybe the study is the issue and maybe the researcher's and coaches know there are bigger fish to fry. It's not like pedalling isn't well covered in the literature. I found another 20 studies on pedalling last night and none suggested there was any gains to fitness to be had. Big issue in sport science is getting more papers published that use performance as the dependant variable rather than efficiency, VO2max or other physiological variables.

 

[FrankDay]

When I originally brought up effectiveness it was in reference to the data supplied by Coyle (1991) and Broker (in High-Tech Cycling). I have a copy of Mornieux and while I am sure it is interesting to you there is little of interest for a coach looking to find worthwhile performance gains from any aspect of the racing equation (supply or demand).

Since you are responding with an argument and not personal attacks I will respond to your points.

It wasn't me who brought this study up as saying something about pedaling, it was Dr. Martin. Presumably he found it interesting also. While you may not think there will be any worthwhile performance gains from pursuing this line of inquiry not everyone agrees with you. For instance, how on earth do you explain the findings in the Coyle study in which the fastest time trialist (by far) at 378 Watts had the largest 1 hr avg power (by 13 watts to #2) but he only had only the 4th strongest maximum pushing force. I simply don't understand why someone would look at this data and conclude that pedaling technique doesn't matter. How else is it possible to explain this data?

So maybe the study was wrong, untrained subjects, lab environment, small sample size.

Well, if you have the study you should be able to critically read it and tell us where it is wrong (I assume there is a methods and procedures section to allow you to look for such issues since it was published in a peer reviewed journal) (and, perhaps, a letter to the editor so the world would learn from your diligence - that is part of the purpose of publishing letters to the editor). Dr. Martin posted a link to this study without comment that he found substantial issues with it.

Maybe the study is the issue and maybe the researcher's and coaches know there are bigger fish to fry. It's not like pedalling isn't well covered in the literature. I found another 20 studies on pedalling last night and none suggested there was any gains to fitness to be had. Big issue in sport science is getting more papers published that use performance as the dependant variable rather than efficiency, VO2max or other physiological variables.

Why would the researchers bother to do a study that they thought would lead to no new knowledge. Why would a journal publish such a study? That is a lot of maybe's to use as an excuse to not address the question at issue. Their finding was their finding. How do you explain it possible that pedaling effectiveness and efficiency are inversely related as found by this study?

 

[CoachFergie]

Since you are responding with an argument and not personal attacks I will respond to your points.

Amusing. You give as good as you get.

It wasn't me who brought this study up as saying something about pedaling, it was Dr. Martin.

Who doesn't post here. Tapeworm linked the discussion from Slowtwitch. Pity you were banned from that site so you could discuss this with him directly. Any consolation but he isn't speaking to me after I suggested some of his thoughts on training theory were sound in the lab but not in the field. Even unfriended me on Facebook

Presumably he found it interesting also. While you may not think there will be any worthwhile performance gains from pursuing this line of inquiry not everyone agrees with you. For instance, how on earth do you explain the findings in the Coyle study in which the fastest time trialist (by far) at 378 Watts had the largest 1 hr avg power (by 13 watts to #2) but he only had only the 4th strongest maximum pushing force.

Because cycling is about sustained power not maximum power.

I simply don't understand why someone would look at this data and conclude that pedaling technique doesn't matter.

That is what happens when you cherry pick, use case studies and anecdotes to make your argument.

Dr. Martin posted a link to this study without comment that he found substantial issues with it.

Tapeworm, Dr Martin doesn't post here.

Why would the researchers bother to do a study that they thought would lead to no new knowledge.

**** happens. I did a days testing of a Brand's shoe and got some encouraging data, switched the order of testing around the next day and the data was completely different. S**t happens. Find a better test.

Why would a journal publish such a study? That is a lot of maybe's to use as an excuse to not address the question at issue. Their finding was their finding. How do you explain it possible that pedaling effectiveness and efficiency are inversely related as found by this study?

This is the problem, if there is a finding that achieves significance then it gets published even if it is a physiological change and not a performance improvement.

If Mornieux had found a change in performance rather than effectiveness or efficiency then I would pursue it further.

 

[FrankDay]

For instance, how on earth do you explain the findings in the Coyle study in which the fastest time trialist (by far) at 378 Watts had the largest 1 hr avg power (by 13 watts to #2) but he only had only the 4th strongest maximum pushing force.

Because cycling is about sustained power not maximum power.

Huh? Wasn't Coyle studying sustained power in time-trialists? 378 Watts was what this man sustained for 40km. What did I miss?

 

[CoachFergie]

Huh? Wasn't Coyle studying sustained power in time-trialists? 378 Watts was what this man sustained for 40km. What did I miss?

Maximum pushing force then.