For the "pedaling technique doesn't matter crowd"

[CoachFergie]

At least I do coach!

What is your contribution to the sport?

 

[oldborn]

At least I do coach!

So do it, instead insulting people Or you are selling on line plans?

What is your contribution to the sport?

What should i do? Maybe Mother Theresa kind of approach, maybe to start Cycling can help rain forrest fondation? Or Sport will fed houngry children?
What do you suggest?
I just love it, without hidden marketing as some others do.

Only difference between you and Frank, Coggan, Freil etc. is that they are trying to sell something without shame or well packaged science mumbling and they do not hide at all, i respect that.

You are just some mediocracy coach going on forums and pretending to be a cycling Einstein.

Sorry Dude i do not buy it

Get married, girlfriend, boyfriend, kids etc.

 

[FrankDay]

Here's some N=1 longitudinal data. It represents my personal best 5-minute mean maximal power to weight ratio for each year from 2006 to 2011.

In early 2007 I had two legs. In May 2007 I had a trans tibial amputation.

Since then I've pedaled with a prosthetic and can do nothing other than push down. My pedaling technique with a prosthetic means pull up, pull over, scrape mud etc is simply impossible.

So how come my W/kg is better with 1.5 legs?
Maybe pushing down is more efficient?

Note that in terms of race performance comparisons (masters racing):

In 2007, I (and my team) set a State record in wining the team pursuit championships and I was on podium at national points race and 4th place at States.

In 2011, I (and my team) set a State record in winning the team pursuit championships and I bombed the points race at nationals (going for a lap mind you with two world champs in the field) and was 4th at States (with two world champs in the field).

Seems to me that something as drastic to one's pedaling "technique" as removing an entire lower leg hasn't actually had much impact on ability to generate useful power.

Really, you can't apply any forward or backwards pressure on the pedals? If you kick a can your prosthesis will fall off? If you try to run your prosthesis will fall off? Have you actually measured your pedal forces around the entire circle before and after? How much does your prosthesis weigh? Is it possible, if your prothesis weighs less than the parts you lost that you actually unweight better on that side now for the same amount of effort than you did before? Perhaps you just pushed before your accident such that what you do now represents little change?

My questions simply point out that perhaps what you think is happening really isn't happening unless you have actual data that proves what you say.

Anyhow, it would be interesting to know what is going on (how you changed) as perhaps we could learn something more about power generation. Investigating observations like yours that seemingly make little sense can lead to new knowledge. Of course, it is impossible now since I suspect you don't have the pre injury data to compare.

Anyhow, your n=1 annecdote is off-topic regarding the study referenced that started this post.

 

[acoggan]

Here is a study out of Norway that sort of kicks that notion into the garbage can, at least if you think improving efficiency is something to aim for. Now if they will just repeat this and see if power correlates as well and this debate should pretty much end.

I don't agree with everything they say in their analsis but their data is their data.

From the abstract (DC is essentially the size of the force at top and bottom dead center): "Results: Mean work rate was 279 W, mean FCC was 93.1 rpm, and mean GE was 21.7%. FE was 0.47 and 0.79 after correction for inertial forces; DC was 27.3% and 25.7%, respectively. DC size correlated better with GE (r = 0.75) than with the FE ratio (r = 0.50). Multiple regressions revealed that DC size was the only significant (P = 0.001) predictor for GE. Interestingly, DC size and FE ratio did not correlate with each other.

Conclusions: DC size is a pedaling technique parameter that is closely related to energy consumption. To generate power evenly around the whole pedal, revolution may be an important energy-saving trait."

Two comments:

1. Since this is a cross-sectional study, it is impossible to determine cause-and-effect. That is, while it is possible that the subjects who were more efficient because of how they pedaled, it is equally possible that the two measurements were not causally related to each other, but to a third (e.g., muscle fiber type distribution).

2. Regardless of the above, other studies interventional studies have shown that deliberately altering how you pedal to enhance FE actually reduces thermodynamic efficiency. That's clearly bad news for PowerCrank users...

 

[acoggan]

I might point out that this is the first study AFAIK that supports that information gained from a tool such as Computrainer SpinScan could actually be beneficial to the athlete.

No scientist (social or otherwise) would interpret it that way.

 

[acoggan]

LOL. Coyle? That clown has been the butt of jokes for years.

Not among his peers.

His search for non-doping explanations to explain Armstrong's performance is about as credible as O.J.'s search for the real killer.

Coyle did not search for any such explanations, but merely reported what data he had.

 

[acoggan]

Coyle’s data supporting the assumption that training can improve cycling efficiency in an elite cyclist are not compelling.

I don't think even Coyle himself would label them "compelling"...more like "intriguing".

Now, we are waiting for my friend Andrew.

Wait for it...wait for it...now!

Cross-sectional studies of cycling efficiency:

No difference
Boning et al. Int J Sports Med 1984; 5:92-97
Marsh and Martin Med Sci Sports Exerc 1993; 25:1269-1274
Nickleberry and Brooks Med Sci Sports Exerc 1996; 28:1396-1401
Marsh et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32:1630-1634
Mosely et al. Int J Sports Med 2004; 25:374-379

Higher in trained cyclists
Sallet P et al. J Sports Med Fitness 2006; 46:361-365
Hopker et al. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2007; 32:1036-1042

Longitudinal studies of cycling efficiency:

No change
Roels et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005; 37:138-146

Increases with training
Hintzy et al. Can J Appl Physiol 2005; 30:520-528
Paton and Hopkins J Strength Cond Res 2005; 13:826-830
Majerczak et al. J Physiol Pharmacol 2008; 59:589-602
Sassi et al. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2008; 33:735-742
Hopker et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009; 41:912-919
Hopker et al. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2010; 35:17-22
Sunde et al. J Strength Cond Res 2010 (in press)

Given that more weight is always given to longitudinal than cross-sectional studies, I still predict that Coyle's belief that efficiency improves with training will stand the test of time...

 

[FrankDay]

Two comments:

1. Since this is a cross-sectional study, it is impossible to determine cause-and-effect. That is, while it is possible that the subjects who were more efficient because of how they pedaled, it is equally possible that the two measurements were not causally related to each other, but to a third (e.g., muscle fiber type distribution).

2. Regardless of the above, other studies interventional studies have shown that deliberately altering how you pedal to enhance FE actually reduces thermodynamic efficiency. That's clearly bad news for PowerCrank users...

1. Of course there may be other elements associated with pedaling efficiency, such as fiber mix. But, this study showed a definite relationship to pedaling efficiency to forces at DC without regard to muscle fiber type. With a P<.001 it would seem this is most likely real should someone try to replicate the study, even if they were to control for muscle fiber type or anything else.

2. "interventional studies", again LOL. You don't seem to understand that there is a substantial difference between asking someone to do something different than what they do naturally and measuring the effect and changing what they do naturally and measuring the effect. If you look carefully at the results of the "interventional study" that, I suspect, you are referring to, the riders when asked to do one thing, changed how they pedaled but they were unable to pedal in the fashion asked for. Probably because there are substantial delays when control is coming from the brain as opposed to the spinal cord. Is it any surprise people test worse when doing something that is not "natural" to them compared to how they typically train?

The natural follow-on study to this one would be one to see whether actually training riders to change forces at DC changes efficiency. Of course, this requires training the rider to pedal "naturally" differently than they do now and then measuring the effect (one could go either way increasing or decreasing DC forces). When this is done and there is no effect then you might get my attention. I believe Luttrell did this but he didn't measure the pedaling forces, so that is all supposition. Pena in Italy has shown it is possible to change coordination and forces, but he didn't measure efficiency. So, someone needs to put this all together. And, if you would like to know, I could design a protocol that could do this training without resorting to using my product. My product is not the only way of attaining this end. The question EVERYONE SERIOUS should be asking, is it worth the effort? That can't be answered with confidence right now.

The best use of studies is to stimulate further questions. Seems to me that is what the referenced study should do.

 

[BroDeal]

Not among his peers.

Yeah, I would think that among those who always have a non-doping explanation, no matter how ludicrous the performance, he as a solid reputation. Among people who don't ignore the big elephant in the room, not so much.

 

[FrankDay]

Yeah, I would think that among those who always have a non-doping explanation, no matter how ludicrous the performance, he as a solid reputation. Among people who don't ignore the big elephant in the room, not so much.

So, you are saying that bias substantially influences opinion?

 

[acoggan]

Yeah, I would think that among those who always have a non-doping explanation, no matter how ludicrous the performance, he as a solid reputation. Among people who don't ignore the big elephant in the room, not so much.

I know plenty of scientists who believe, or at least suspect, that Armstrong doped who nonetheless hold Coyle in high esteem. The question is, what do they know (understand) that people like you don't?

 

[CoachFergie]

So do it, instead insulting people Or you are selling on line plans?

Nope I am not selling anything, looking to discuss, debate and learn. If you go back to that strength thread you were the one doing the insulting. Funny you claim the high ground now.

What should i do? Maybe Mother Theresa kind of approach, maybe to start Cycling can help rain forrest fondation? Or Sport will fed houngry children?
What do you suggest?
I just love it, without hidden marketing as some others do.

What was I selling again?

Only difference between you and Frank, Coggan, Freil etc. is that they are trying to sell something without shame or well packaged science mumbling and they do not hide at all, i respect that.

Shows how little you understand. Andy isn't trying to sell anything either. Sadly Frank has only one motive.

You are just some mediocracy coach going on forums and pretending to be a cycling Einstein.

Is that the best you got, cowardly remarks behind an anonymous login?

Try being a coach. I last approached someone or marketed myself in 1995, since then everyone else has approached me. Sure someone with your intellect will have no problems attracting clients

 

[oldborn]

I don't think even Coyle himself would label them "compelling"...more like "intriguing".

More like "do not disturb, the study is under construction"

Semantic for sure

Given that more weight is always given to longitudinal than cross-sectional studies

As Coyle did, how long it takes seven years?
Do not get me wrong, studies are just here to let discussion and further questions go on.

I still predict that Coyle's belief that efficiency improves with training will stand the test of time...

I don t. In swimming absolute and big yes, it comes with technique, but in cycling i doubt.
Again, could muscles fibres types get changed, maybe in and out of season and in non trained athletes.

For me cycling science is so soft and yet to be discovered, as for his majesty LA all those discussion is hype.
The King was eather doped or stronger, efficiency and muscle fibres changes are Red Herring.

Thanks for links, i would go through out of each one again

 

[oldborn]

I last approached someone or marketed myself in 1995, since then everyone else has approached me.

Are you a new Messiah, we are waiting for 2000 years for a new one

You are just fat Choleric

Stay well Fergie!

 

[CoachFergie]

Of course, this requires training the rider to pedal "naturally" differently than they do now and then measuring the effect (one could go either way increasing or decreasing DC forces). When this is done and there is no effect then you might get my attention. I believe Luttrell did this but he didn't measure the pedaling forces, so that is all supposition. Pena in Italy has shown it is possible to change coordination and forces, but he didn't measure efficiency. So, someone needs to put this all together.

Bohm 2008 showed that the use of an independent crank system led to a change in the application of power through the pedal stroke but after a sufficient training period (6 weeks remembering that training gains from other training methods have been shown in as little as 2 weeks) led to no improvement in peak aerobic power on the bike or IAT.

Williams et al 2009 performed a similar study and found no increase in performance measure and GE. So if Fernandez-Pena (2009) showed a change in force application around the pedal stroke from using a IC as did Bohm (2008) and no study yet has shown an increase in performance the evidence seems pretty clear.

 

[CoachFergie]

Are you a new Messiah, we are waiting for 2000 years for a new one

You are just fat Choleric

Stay well Fergie!

Your anonymous (cowardly) opinion is duly noted.

 

[FrankDay]

Bohm 2008 showed that the use of an independent crank system led to a change in the application of power through the pedal stroke but after a sufficient training period (6 weeks remembering that training gains from other training methods have been shown in as little as 2 weeks) led to no improvement in peak aerobic power on the bike or IAT.

One thing Bohm proves for sure is: If you don't follow the directions of the manufacturer one may not see the results the manufacturer claims. First, Bohm's study only lasted 5 weeks, not 6. Second, if you ask all the people who have actually trained with the device I think the number who would tell you that 5 weeks was enough time to evaluate the product would be close to zero. But, you researchers seem to know more than people who have real experience with the device. Third, despite these issues, there were differences (PO; 333.3+/-32.8 W vs. 323.3+/-21.8 W) and PO at IAT (229.6+/-30.1 W vs. 222.7+/-25.2 W) between the groups suggesting a difference, they were just not big enough to reach the 95% probability level. If there had been more than 20 total subjects or if the study had lasted longer it is not clear if a statistically significant difference would have been reached.

Williams et al 2009 performed a similar study and found no increase in performance measure and GE. So if Fernandez-Pena (2009) showed a change in force application around the pedal stroke from using a IC as did Bohm (2008) and no study yet has shown an increase in performance the evidence seems pretty clear.

I am not familiar with the Williams study. Perhaps you could give a link so I could comment.

Anyhow. Here is the one essential item that needs to be in any study that "proves" independent cranks don't work for performance or efficiency enhancement: There has to be ENOUGH training to change the underlying UNCONSCIOUS pedaling coordination of the athlete to show a)zero negative forces on the upstroke, b) increased forces across the TDC, c) increased forces across BDC.

If that level of training and change is documented in the study and it shows no performance enhancement (or, even, performance detriment) then you have me by the balls. Until then…

 

[CoachFergie]

One thing Bohm proves for sure is: If you don't follow the directions of the manufacturer one may not see the results the manufacturer claims.

Ahhh that old dodge Frank. Have to use them exclusively. Not ideal when you wouldn't consider racing on them and some countries like Britain ban their use in racing.

First, Bohm's study only lasted 5 weeks, not 6. Second, if you ask all the people who have actually trained with the device I think the number who would tell you that 5 weeks was enough time to evaluate the product would be close to zero. But, you researchers seem to know more than people who have real experience with the device.

Uhhhh Frank in this very thread you suggest this is all the Gimmickcrank forces you to do....

That is what most of these folks who are so adamant against this product don't understand. All it forces the rider to do is simple, but complete, unloading, nothing more. For most people this is nothing more than 10% more than they do now during "recovery". Sometimes you get the feeling they think the PC's make you pedal like a martian.

Good to see when it suits Gimmickcranks are easy to use and at other times they are so challenging it takes weeks.

Third, despite these issues, there were differences (PO; 333.3+/-32.8 W vs. 323.3+/-21.8 W) and PO at IAT (229.6+/-30.1 W vs. 222.7+/-25.2 W) between the groups suggesting a difference, they were just not big enough to reach the 95% probability level. If there had been more than 20 total subjects or if the study had lasted longer it is not clear if a statistically significant difference would have been reached.

Well you're the one who is a stickler for statistical significance.

I am not familiar with the Williams study. Perhaps you could give a link so I could comment.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19417225

Anyhow. Here is the one essential item that needs to be in any study that "proves" independent cranks don't work for performance or efficiency enhancement: There has to be ENOUGH training to change the underlying UNCONSCIOUS pedaling coordination of the athlete to show a)zero negative forces on the upstroke, b) increased forces across the TDC, c) increased forces across BDC.

This should happen in one session. If I take a rider whose 3min power is 400 watts and get him to perform 3 x 1min at 410 watts the expectation is (and is borne out on a daily basis with those monitoring their training with a power meter) that their 3min power will increase.

So after several sessions using a IC and no improvement in a riders power (a performance indicator) across several studies one must conclude that they have no impact on performance. Unlike various interval protocols that see improvements in power from as little as one session.

If that level of training and change is documented in the study and it shows no performance enhancement (or, even, performance detriment) then you have me by the balls. Until then…

Well funnily enough and backed by SRM data I find it is minimal levels of overload that lead to the real gains. The key is the specificity of the overload. If people want to hurt their legs they can use Gimmickcranks, run down hills, do plyometrics and sure they will overload the system but in a non-specific manner. It surprises me (again benefits of using a power meter) how little specific training is required to get an increase in performance.

So my suggestion if you want to see if you are actually making gains from any form of training or using any product is to measure the progress with a power meter to see you are getting value for money.

 

[CoachFergie]

Second, if you ask all the people who have actually trained with the device I think the number who would tell you that 5 weeks was enough time to evaluate the product would be close to zero.

A mere snippet of studies finding a performance gain from using a interval method in less than 5 weeks...

Paton et al 2009 Performance gains from 4 weeks of training.

Steptoe et al 1999 Performance gains from 3 weeks of training.

Burgomaster et al 2006 Performance gains from 2 weeks training.

Gross et al 2007 Performance gains from 3 weeks of training.

Hmmmmmm, no performance benefits from a Gimmickcrank after 5-6 weeks of use from every study carried out.

 

[oldborn]

Your anonymous (cowardly) opinion is duly noted.

I over reacted. As a Gentlemen i am apologizing to be such a *** for once more.
Please take mine apologize.

Stay well!

Peace

 

[Tapeworm]

See, I said Frank shoulda just been banned and this thread could have died a nice quite death.

Then we could get back to ragging on vegans.



And anyhow, single leg counterweighted drills is where it's at, not silly cranks, eh Fergie?

 

[FrankDay]

Well funnily enough and backed by SRM data I find it is minimal levels of overload that lead to the real gains. The key is the specificity of the overload. If people want to hurt their legs they can use Gimmickcranks, run down hills, do plyometrics and sure they will overload the system but in a non-specific manner. It surprises me (again benefits of using a power meter) how little specific training is required to get an increase in performance.

So my suggestion if you want to see if you are actually making gains from any form of training or using any product is to measure the progress with a power meter to see you are getting value for money.

Now that you have established your considered belief that my product is a complete scam would it be possible for you to comment on the original topic of this thread, the Leirdal paper and their finding that cycling efficiency is highly correlated to DC.

 

[CoachFergie]

Now that you have established your considered belief that my product is a complete scam would it be possible for you to comment on the original topic of this thread, the Leirdal paper and their finding that cycling efficiency is highly correlated to DC.

Who cares, it's all about performance.

Efficiency is correlated to performance. But correlation does not imply causation.

Wattage causes performance. 95% of the time person with the highest power to weight or best power to frontal area wins the race.

Celebrate the red herrings all you like but the power meter is the tool you need to ensure you are training with appropriate overload and with specificity.

 

[Polyarmour]

Well this thread certainly descended into a pie fight.

 

[CoachFergie]

Well this thread certainly descended into a pie fight.

Mmmmmmm Pies.

Which do not bode well for performance. Will have to find some correlated factor to justify their place in my diet or just settle for being thin for a cycling coach