For the "pedaling technique doesn't matter crowd"

[M Sport]

Just out of interest, are you the guy about 4-6 months ago that was trying to convince people they should be on really short cranks and odd bike fit positions?

I did post something trying to stimulate discussion regarding crank length. Got the usual amount of unthinking replies. But, it is the internet so what else is to be expected? Not sure what the "odd" bike fit positions to which you refer were/are. Anyhow, I have a few people exploring this and I would not be surprised if within one or two years most of you think of crank length differently than you do now. We will see.

Ah, I thought so. From what I remember people put some thought into their responses, just because they didn’t fit with your crack pot theories doesn’t make them “unthinking”. In fact given that all or at least the majority of people didn’t have product sales riding on their opinion make them more believable than your marketing dribble. Certainly less biased.

Let me guess. You have a new short crank that will give a 20% increase in performance.

If you would read the thread you wouldn't have to guess.

Otherwise, posts that stay on the original topic would be appreciated by most. Anything to say about the study?

Oh I think that BroDeal’s comment is quite valid and on topic. Your threads could all be re-named with the same title ‘More irrelevant studies on why you should buy my products”. The two threads are linked by the fact you are trying to sell your products in both. The link http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=10234

To actually reply now to the outlandish claim there is a "pedaling technique doesn't matter crowd". I don’t think you will find a serious elite/pro level cyclist that would say such an absurd comment.

Likewise, the majority of said group will tell you that producing power in the downstroke is what really matters. Learning to pedal in perfect circles will just teach you how to pedal in better circles, not make more usable power. And that is really all that counts when you’re heading into the red zone.

The difference between the pro’s and the rest is that they produce much more power in the downstroke compared to the rest of the pedal circle. So, you want to go fast? Perfect the downstroke and make it more powerful. Don’t buy power cranks they are just a gimmick.

 

[brianf7]

Well, the interesting thing about this study is it looked at the differences as to how people tend to pedal naturally and if there was anything that could account for the efficiency differences seen. They found something. They did not investigate what might account for these differences in the people (is it genetics or training or some combination?). Your question, as to whether how people pedal "naturally" can be changed to influence this parameter is a different question. Since people can change a lot of things (how they high jump, how they shoot a basketball, how they play the piano, etc.) with enough practice I suspect your question is one more of "how much am I willing to do to improve my cycling ability?" Not, can this be changed?

With me its just old injuries but when in the bunch you see all sorts of all shapes and sizes when the hammer is down. when we ease up the brain will try to change. so mind over matter.
Me I just hang in and hope they will slow down soon. Get to the finish best way I can. Bike & foot set-up will always help 50%on eficency but what one rider will find good is different to an other

 

[CoachFergie]

Wondered when Leirdal's two papers so far would bring you back onto the forums. Funny you haven't chosen to respond to several more studies showing no improvement in performance from using a independent crank system which just goes to show that training power application through the entire pedal stroke is not the ideal for a high performance cyclist.

 

[CoachFergie]

In fact you may want to hold fire and peruse...

The relationship between cadence, pedalling technique and gross
efficiency in cycling

by Stig Leirdal and Gertjan Ettema whose latest study essentially contradicts the findings of their 2010 study finding no relationship between DC and GE.

 

[ergmonkey]

Wondered when Leirdal's two papers so far would bring you back onto the forums. Funny you haven't chosen to respond to several more studies showing no improvement in performance from using a independent crank system which just goes to show that training power application through the entire pedal stroke is not the ideal for a high performance cyclist.

But wait, Coach Fergie, what am I supposed to buy now that will make my bike heavier but me faster if independent crank systems don't help?

What's that you say? A power meter? I don't know...sounds awfully scientific.

 

[FrankDay]

Wondered when Leirdal's two papers so far would bring you back onto the forums. Funny you haven't chosen to respond to several more studies showing no improvement in performance from using a independent crank system which just goes to show that training power application through the entire pedal stroke is not the ideal for a high performance cyclist.

I am not so sure I know which papers to which you refer. If you could be more specific I would be happy to "respond" with some specifics. Of course, that would be slightly off topic since the purpose of this thread was to discuss the issue of pedaling technique in general - does it make a difference and, if so, what are the important elements, not specific methods for training different pedaling techniques. But, if you want to go there I would be more than happy to do so.

 

[ergmonkey]

Of course, that would be slightly off topic since the purpose of this thread was to discuss the issue of pedaling technique in general... not specific methods for training different pedaling techniques.

So now you don't want us to talk about your product?

 

[FrankDay]

From what I read, those paragraphs didn't say pedaling efficiency was the most responsible for Lance's improvement. Rather, pedaling efficiency improved more than other parameters. That in no way rules out the other parameters having been more significant in actual performance gains. The text even seems to concede as much.

The text says (as I read it) the only major change found in this testing over those seven years was a huge improvement in power to weight ratio. There were two things that accounted for this, 1. he lost weight - something all of us can do. This changed the weight part of the equation. 2. he improved his pedaling efficiency, something not so easy to do. This changed the power part of the equation. Since this change is so unusual, everyone who would like to race like Lance should be asking how did he do this.

Anyhow, it was the combination of these two changes that accounted for the huge improvement in power/weight number over these 7 years. Carmichael told us one thing Lance worked on during this time and Leirdal is telling you this could possibly account for the efficiency improvement seen in Lance. Now the ball is in your court as to what to do with this information.

 

[ergmonkey]

The text says (as I read it) the only major change found in this testing over those seven years was a huge improvement in power to weight ratio. There were two things that accounted for this, 1. he lost weight - something all of us can do. This changed the weight part of the equation. 2. he improved his pedaling efficiency, something not so easy to do. This changed the power part of the equation. Since this change is so unusual, everyone who would like to race like Lance should be asking how did he do this.

Anyhow, it was the combination of these two changes that accounted for the huge improvement in power/weight number over these 7 years. Carmichael told us one thing Lance worked on during this time and Leirdal is telling you this could possibly account for the efficiency improvement seen in Lance. Now the ball is in your court as to what to do with this information.

The ball is in my court? Well, intimidating though that might be, here you go:

-that study doesn't offer complete information about Lance nor does it pretend to

-it's insulting to suggest that the only things to account for Lance's performance gains were weight loss and pedaling efficiency

-okay, scratch the above; if you want to define pedaling efficiency so broadly as to mean total body efficiency (i.e. power to weight ratio) while pedaling a bicycle then maybe you can talk about Lance's "improvements in pedaling efficiency." But then, the discussion would have very little--if anything--to do with your product.

-the article does not appear to talk about--nor rule out--miscroscopic physical changes that may account for "efficiency" gains--such as muscle fiber composition, capillary density, blood composition, and all of the other basic physical parameters that have been shown to respond to training

-your reasoning around these studies is completely backwards; you assert that because there were performance gains and because pedaling changed then the pedaling must be responsible for the performance gains and any doubters must prove otherwise (or capitulate and start saving up for some new Powercranks). The reality is that the burden remains with you to actually establish that this "pedaling efficiency" was the key, while the rest of us are more than entitled to give the studies their appropriate readings by recognizing that the magic bullet has not been identified and many factors remain incompletely accounted for.

 

[FrankDay]

Ah, I thought so. From what I remember people put some thought into their responses, just because they didn’t fit with your crack pot theories doesn’t make them “unthinking”. In fact given that all or at least the majority of people didn’t have product sales riding on their opinion make them more believable than your marketing dribble. Certainly less biased.




Oh I think that BroDeal’s comment is quite valid and on topic. Your threads could all be re-named with the same title ‘More irrelevant studies on why you should buy my products”. The two threads are linked by the fact you are trying to sell your products in both. The link http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=10234

To actually reply now to the outlandish claim there is a "pedaling technique doesn't matter crowd". I don’t think you will find a serious elite/pro level cyclist that would say such an absurd comment.

Likewise, the majority of said group will tell you that producing power in the downstroke is what really matters. Learning to pedal in perfect circles will just teach you how to pedal in better circles, not make more usable power. And that is really all that counts when you’re heading into the red zone.

The difference between the pro’s and the rest is that they produce much more power in the downstroke compared to the rest of the pedal circle. So, you want to go fast? Perfect the downstroke and make it more powerful. Don’t buy power cranks they are just a gimmick.

Look, you will get no argument from me if you want to insist that the majority of the power comes from the downstroke. But, there is more to it than that. Look carefully at the Coyle data. The fastest participant by far with a 51 minute 40k TT time, only had the 4th highest "Pushing force" but he had one of the highest forces coming over the top whereas the three participants who pushed the harder than this best rider had the 4th, 5th, and 10th fastest times in this group of 15. In fact, the person who pushed the second hardest was in the "slow group". In addition, there were substantial group differences, the most important one being the faster group had 3 more years of aerobic training under their belt than the slower group on average). Lots of people point to that study as showing that power comes from pushing hard and nothing else. However, if you dissect the data, that conclusion is hard to come by. It stands to reason that if you analyze two groups, one more powerful than the other that on average, the more powerful one is going to push harder on the pedals as that is part of how power is generated on the bike. But, this data shows that pushing harder is neither necessary nor sufficient for generating more power or going faster.

So, you have to ask yourself, if someone is trying to increase power further is it more beneficial to train onself to "just push harder" or to better develop the weaker parts of the circle? If you believe efficiency to be an important metric then you should consider improving the top and bottom of the circle.

The fact that I start these threads doesn't change the science involved. Don't let my involvement here cause you to make an emotional decision that keeps you from learning and moving forward. Most people never think about pedaling technique at all. Whatever you decide, if you decide to do so one is perfectly capable of working on this without purchasing my product - seems Lance was able to achieve this end (he started his quest before we even had a product).

Thanks for participating.

 

[FrankDay]

In fact you may want to hold fire and peruse...

The relationship between cadence, pedalling technique and gross
efficiency in cycling

by Stig Leirdal and Gertjan Ettema whose latest study essentially contradicts the findings of their 2010 study finding no relationship between DC and GE.

Fergie, it will be nice when someday you understand how to read and interpret a scientific paper. It is rare that a study ever definitively decides an issue. The best we usually get are hints to an answer and it can lead us to additional areas to study to more efficiently find the answer we are looking for. This requires looking at each study in detail so we can contrast and compare.

I would submit that the two Leirdal studies are completely different. The one referenced above is primarily looking at the effect of cadence on efficiency, seeing what changes when athletes change position and cadence, etc. They found that increasing cadence decreased efficiency. They also found that "Within subjects, FE, DC and GE decreased as cadence increased (p < 0.001)." So, in this group, as efficiency decreased with increasing cadence, so did DC. I see nothing in these two results that are contradictory. The second study is looking at the effect of FE and DC alone, keeping cadence constant. They found a relationship between DC and GE (P<.001) but not with FE and GE. I find that interesting, which is why I started this thread.

If you have an alternative analysis I look forward to seeing it.

 

[FrankDay]

So now you don't want us to talk about your product?

The purpose of the thread is to discuss whether pedaling technique makes a difference to performance as there are many "loud" voices out there that say it doesn't. I want to discuss the implications of this paper in this thread and nothing else.

 

[FrankDay]

The ball is in my court? Well, intimidating though that might be, here you go:

-that study doesn't offer complete information about Lance nor does it pretend to

Correct. All that is presented is the testing data he performed on this individual over a period of years. No one would be interested in this stuff except for who the individual is. This is not a study. It is what we call in medicine, a case report

-it's insulting to suggest that the only things to account for Lance's performance gains were weight loss and pedaling efficiency

This is a case report. He is not suggesting anything other than this is what I tested. Unfortunately for those of you who seem to insist that Lance couldn't have done what he did without drugs there are some improvements that suggest he could have (since no PED has ever been shown to improve efficiency and drugs are not necessary for weight loss).

-okay, scratch the above; if you want to define pedaling efficiency so broadly as to mean total body efficiency (i.e. power to weight ratio) while pedaling a bicycle then maybe you can talk about Lance's "improvements in pedaling efficiency." But then, the discussion would have very little--if anything--to do with your product.

Pedaling efficiency has nothing to do with power to weight ratio. Efficiency has to do with power out compared to energy consumed. Increasing efficiency means the athlete can put out more power without increasing VO2max, or anything else. That is the important finding of the Coyle testing. It should be causing researchers to ask the question "how did he do it?". Leirdal might be giving us a partial answer.

-the article does not appear to talk about--nor rule out--miscroscopic physical changes that may account for "efficiency" gains--such as muscle fiber composition, capillary density, blood composition, and all of the other basic physical parameters that have been shown to respond to training

No. he didn't test for those. As I said, this was not a study but a case report, just giving the world the results of many years testing.

-your reasoning around these studies is completely backwards; you assert that because there were performance gains and because pedaling changed then the pedaling must be responsible for the performance gains and any doubters must prove otherwise (or capitulate and start saving up for some new Powercranks). The reality is that the burden remains with you to actually establish that this "pedaling efficiency" was the key, while the rest of us are more than entitled to give the studies their appropriate readings by recognizing that the magic bullet has not been identified and many factors remain incompletely accounted for.

Look, how does one explain the efficiency improvements of Armstrong over 7 years? The Leirdal study combined with what Carmichael says Lance did over those years lends credence to my theory. If you have an alternative theory to explain this change let's hear it. That is the point of this thread, to discuss this issue.

 

[oldborn]

Fergie, it will be nice when someday you understand how to read and interpret a scientific paper.

That day would come Hi Fergie

It is rare that a study ever definitively decides an issue. The best we usually get are hints to an answer and it can lead us to additional areas to study to more efficiently find the answer we are looking for. This requires looking at each study in detail so we can contrast and compare.

I must agree on that, but!

Frank, unloading the upstroke pedal would not make the quads any more efficient in any way- the quads on the down leg would not even realize you have unloaded the other pedal.

Second, you claim that PC can improve running? I mean Tudor and other Russians claims that also. But how the hell is possible to be faster when riding bike? IMHO it is impossible.

 

[ergmonkey]

Look, how does one explain the efficiency improvements of Armstrong over 7 years? ... If you have an alternative theory to explain this change let's hear it.

What, so some novel sort of scientific res ipsa loquitur is your new approach to explaining performance gains? It just must be the explanation--unless someone has a different proven theory?

That's simply not how it works. You have insulted other posters here for "not knowing how to read a scientific paper" and yet you consistently brutalize any notion of the scientific method. You can't just throw out a hypothesis, find a study or two after the fact that is tangentially related to your predetermined end, and then say that your "explanation" is correct until proven otherwise.

No one has to provide an explanation to Lance's performance gains to find your reasoning unpersuasive. Your arguments can be attacked on their own merits while still maintaining the simple position that: the performance gains do not appear to be completely explained, period.

 

[BroDeal]

The purpose of the thread is to discuss whether pedaling technique makes a difference to performance as there are many "loud" voices out there that say it doesn't. I want to discuss the implications of this paper in this thread and nothing else.

People might believe your purpose if you had not spent years pimping your power cranks scam on every cycling forum on the net using the same technique of misconstruing the implications of one study or another and then arguing tedium ad nauseum until people just tune you out.

Can't you just spend some of your suckers' money on ads?

 

[FrankDay]

I must agree on that, but!

Frank, unloading the upstroke pedal would not make the quads any more efficient in any way- the quads on the down leg would not even realize you have unloaded the other pedal.

Here is the problem. Muscles have a most efficient contractile velocity and force. If they contract too fast efficiency goes down. If they contract too slow efficiency goes down. If they contract too hard, they must recruit more of the less efficient muscle fibers and efficiency goes down. This muscle physiology fact is why the "just push harder" philosophy is so misguided. If one is currently pushing beyond their most efficient muscle range simply unloading the upstroke will allow the pushing on the down stroke to be reduced to maintain the same power and we can expect efficiency to improve.

Second, you claim that PC can improve running? I mean Tudor and other Russians claims that also. But how the hell is possible to be faster when riding bike? IMHO it is impossible.

Tudor and other Russians claim PC's improve running? Do you have a link?

Why did you have to bring this up on this thread? A PM or email would have worked as well for this totally off topic issue. Just let it be said that the first person who talked to me about how and why the PC's can help runners was no other than Alberto Salazar. The second is the current US age-group champion for the 60 and 100m dash, Aaron Thigpen. So, there are reasons. Contact me (or go to the web page where we have a further explanation) if you want to know more.

 

[FrankDay]

What, so some novel sort of scientific res ipsa loquitur is your new approach to explaining performance gains? It just must be the explanation--unless someone has a different proven theory?

That's simply not how it works. You have insulted other posters here for "not knowing how to read a scientific paper" and yet you consistently brutalize any notion of the scientific method. You can't just throw out a hypothesis, find a study or two after the fact that is tangentially related to your predetermined end, and then say that your "explanation" is correct until proven otherwise.

I have only "insulted" another poster in that I pointed out that his characterization of studies bears no relationship to the facts. If you would like to agree with him and point out to me how these two studies contradict each other I am all ears. And, I guess you and I can agree to disagree as to how the scientific method actually works.

No one has to provide an explanation to Lance's performance gains to find your reasoning unpersuasive. Your arguments can be attacked on their own merits while still maintaining the simple position that: the performance gains do not appear to be completely explained, period.

Let me get this straight. This is your position? "I disagree with you in your analysis but I don't care to give an alternative explanation just because I don't care. It is enough for me that this data remains unexplained."

 

[ergmonkey]

Let me get this straight. This is your position? "I disagree with you in your analysis but I don't care to give an alternative explanation just because I don't care. It is enough for me that this data remains unexplained."

No. My position is not "I don't care." My position is that I don't have all of the tools needed to explain the performance gains. Neither do you. The important difference between me and you is that I am not a charlatan, liar, or impossible wishful thinker. When the pieces don't fit together yet, I am content to recognize that fact rather than attempting to manipulate the existing information to suit my own commercial objectives.

I'll say it one more time: your beloved "data" do not conclusively demonstrate why Lance improved so much. I do not need to introduce an "alternative explanation" for this to be true.

Your insistence upon applying specious reasoning is extraordinary. Your masquerading as the voice of "science" is offensive. Scientists do not presuppose conclusions. Scientists do not hold out to know more than they have tested and proven. Your suggestion that I should hold out to know more than I do and pretend to have a thorough explanation for certain training results is absurd.

 

[ergmonkey]

And, I've had enough of this thread.

Bro, you can take it from here.

 

[FrankDay]

No. My position is not "I don't care." My position is that I don't have all of the tools needed to explain the performance gains. Neither do you. The important difference between me and you is that I am not a charlatan, liar, or impossible wishful thinker. When the pieces don't fit together yet, I am content to recognize that fact rather than attempting to manipulate the existing information to suit my own commercial objectives.

I'll say it one more time: your beloved "data" do not conclusively demonstrate why Lance improved so much. I do not need to introduce an "alternative explanation" for this to be true.

Your insistence upon applying specious reasoning is extraordinary. Your masquerading as the voice of "science" is offensive. Scientists do not presuppose conclusions. Scientists do not hold out to know more than they have tested and proven. Your suggestion that I should hold out to know more than I do and pretend to have a thorough explanation for certain training results is absurd.

Ugh, nobody has the tools needed to explain Lance's efficiency gains. That is not a good reason to stop people from hypothesizing what might have occurred. It is only from testing such hypotheses that science is advanced. The hypothesis is either correct or it is not. I may be wrong, but at least I have put forth a hypothesis that can be relatively easily tested. The only other hypothesis out there that I know of is Coyle's "changing fiber composition" hypothesis, which cannot be easily tested, since it seems to take 7 years to see the change in elite cyclists and would be impossible to retroactively test in Lance.

 

[CoachFergie]

Are you reading the full studies or just the abstracts like you usually do Frank? Not my comments that one contradicts the findings of the other.

When you say in medicine, when did you last hold a licence?

 

[oldborn]

Here is the problem. Muscles have a most efficient contractile velocity and force. If they contract too fast efficiency goes down. If they contract too slow efficiency goes down. If they contract too hard, they must recruit more of the less efficient muscle fibers and efficiency goes down. This muscle physiology fact is why the "just push harder" philosophy is so misguided.

Big guns that really fight gravity are glutes and quads, wright? Hip flexors only help us to lift our feet off the ground.
I claim that we can spent a lot of time (maybe 7 years) working on them and still never see significant gains in power output.
I would not say that anything is misguided in cycling. It is relatively "soft" science.

If one is currently pushing beyond their most efficient muscle range simply unloading the upstroke will allow the pushing on the down stroke to be reduced to maintain the same power and we can expect efficiency to improve.

Simply unloading and actively pull up are two things. Agree on simply unloading

Tudor and other Russians claim PC's improve running? Do you have a link?

I was aluding on transfer of motion. Every drunking Russians who s escape in West wrote at least three books on that.

Why did you have to bring this up on this thread?

Frank i can bring whatever i like, it is free world

A PM or email would have worked as well for this totally off topic issue. Just let it be said that the first person who talked to me about how and why the PC's can help runners was no other than Alberto Salazar. The second is the current US age-group champion for the 60 and 100m dash, Aaron Thigpen. So, there are reasons. Contact me (or go to the web page where we have a further explanation) if you want to know more.

You talked with Salizar and put a claim on your site that PC helps in Running, Hockey, Basketball, Golf, Football, i mean what next? Do not need to answer if want.

Thanks Frank, i will PM you if i find something interested. Appreciate that!

 

[oldborn]

And, I've had enough of this thread.

Bro, you can take it from here.

You guys working in pairs? Who is cox?
Maybe I don t have a clue what i am writing or i am jerk, but Bro you can really throw a lot of **** on people without telling anything about thread.
Go to Cuba Dude it is warm and you can shoot and jail people arround for free.

 

[CoachFergie]

You guys working in pairs? Who is cox?
Maybe I don t have a clue what i am writing or i am jerk, but Bro you can really throw a lot of **** on people without telling anything about thread.
Go to Cuba Dude it is warm and you can shoot and jail people arround for free.

Best April Fools Day post EVER!!!

Seriously pot kettle black??? Coming from a guy who pretended to be a personal friend of the terminally ill Aldo Sassi.