New study shows leg flexion less efficient than extension.

[JayKosta]

Re: Re:

...
The problem here is your training is concentrated on your weakest muscles while your most powerful muscles are being neglected.

---------------------------------------------
Not really.

The muscles will be trained in tandem with the entire group becoming stronger and having more endurance.

I think this is similar to what you think happens with your technique when
drawing back and up between 5 and 9 o'c
and
pushing forward at 11 o'c

Or, do you think your technique results in non-training of weak muscles, and isolated extensive training of powerful ones?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[backdoor]

Re: Re:

...
The problem here is your training is concentrated on your weakest muscles while your most powerful muscles are being neglected.

---------------------------------------------
Not really.

The muscles will be trained in tandem with the entire group becoming stronger and having more endurance.

I think this is similar to what you think happens with your technique when
drawing back and up between 5 and 9 o'c
and
pushing forward at 11 o'c

Or, do you think your technique results in non-training of weak muscles, and isolated extensive training of powerful ones?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

It could not be more different from what I am doing. Because so little effort is involved in swinging the foot back and up, it happens automatically, it has no effect on the total concentration used during the 180 deg. power stroke. When you use 360 deg attempted power application as in circular pedalling or PC's, your brain's concentration is split in two with the unnatural pedalling side requiring more attention, resulting in a weaker down stroke and overall loss of power. No training is required for the swinging back muscles and the combination of muscles used around 12, 1 and 2 are already so powerful that only a percentage of their possible power is used.

 

[CoachFergie]

Re: Re:

...
But when we have data like the OP we have some pretty good evidence that mashing is less metabolically costly and more efficient than circular pedalling.
...

--------------------------------------------------
Do you think that the non-counterweighted single-leg technique used in the OP study is similar to typical two-leg circular pedaling on fixed cranks?
I believe the single-leg technique requires much more exertion on the up-stroke than would be done in two-leg circular.

Also, what are your thoughts about the amount of up-stroke muscle usage when 'mashing', or for other variations of 'non-circular'?
I ask this inorder to understand how much difference you think there is between mashing and circular.

Sure there are differences between a para rider pedalling with only one leg and a rider using an uncoupled crank. I would avoid using the word fixed as that implies a fixed gear like a track bike. But I would expect these differences would be minimal.

Thoughts about upstroke when mashing? As a coach, not worth wasting time on coaching. Haven't seen any evidence to suggest I should focus on this.

The OP case study gives us excellent data to show the difference between a rider pedalling circular for seven years and then mashing in terms of metabolic cost and efficiency.

I wouldn't be sidetracked by power around the pedal stroke, just look at total work over time. Especially relative to whatever event/ride you are doing. This is what matters in the performance process.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

5. only the muscular forces involved in pedaling should have an effect on pedaling efficiency.

This doesn't make sense at all, please explain the reasoning behind this statement.

 

[backdoor]

Re: Re:

...
But when we have data like the OP we have some pretty good evidence that mashing is less metabolically costly and more efficient than circular pedalling.
...

--------------------------------------------------


The OP case study gives us excellent data to show the difference between a rider pedalling circular for seven years and then mashing in terms of metabolic cost and efficiency.

If that rider had used his normal one legged style, his metabolic cost and efficiency results would still have improved by adding the counterweight. The counterweight made it much easier getting his leg up to and over TDC.

 

[FrankDay]

Re: Re:

5. only the muscular forces involved in pedaling should have an effect on pedaling efficiency.

This doesn't make sense at all, please explain the reasoning behind this statement.

Really, it is the only thing that makes sense to me. Pedaling efficiency is usually defined as the energy that gets to the wheel divided by the energy used by the cyclist. The non-muscular forces can provide zero net energy to the wheel so they can not increase or decrease the efficiency because they cannot increase or decrease the power. So, it seems then that efficiency is determined by what the muscles are doing. If a muscle is contracting but causing a force to the pedal that won't drive the bicycle (say, pushing down at BDC) that increases the energy consumed but doesn't increase the energy delivered to the wheel. Such muscle use would decrease efficiency because the demoninator is increased while the numerator is unchanged. Or, if one is pushing effectively but so hard as to invoke more of the less efficient fast twitch fibers that also would decrease efficiency. Something has to explain the wide range of pedaling efficiencies that have been measured in cyclists (16-26%). Differences in muscle type cannot explain such a large variation. The only other explanation that I can come up with is differences in pedaling technique which means differences in muscle usage.

If you have a theory that something other than muscle contractions (with the exception of the basal metabolic rate) affect efficiency put it out so we can discuss it.

 

[JayKosta]

Re: Re:

5. only the muscular forces involved in pedaling should have an effect on pedaling efficiency.

This doesn't make sense at all, please explain the reasoning behind this statement.

Really, it is the only thing that makes sense to me. Pedaling efficiency is usually defined as the energy that gets to the wheel divided by the energy used by the cyclist.
...

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it's a simple confusion of wording ....
Perhaps it would be more clear and accurate as -
"5. only the muscular forces involved WHILE pedaling should have an effect on pedaling efficiency."
That would include ALL of the muscles being used during the time period of the test.
Not just the muscles that are directly used strictly for moving the pedals.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[backdoor]

Re: Re:

5. only the muscular forces involved in pedaling should have an effect on pedaling efficiency.

This doesn't make sense at all, please explain the reasoning behind this statement.

Really, it is the only thing that makes sense to me. Pedaling efficiency is usually defined as the energy that gets to the wheel divided by the energy used by the cyclist. The non-muscular forces can provide zero net energy to the wheel so they can not increase or decrease the efficiency because they cannot increase or decrease the power. So, it seems then that efficiency is determined by what the muscles are doing. If a muscle is contracting but causing a force to the pedal that won't drive the bicycle (say, pushing down at BDC) that increases the energy consumed but doesn't increase the energy delivered to the wheel. Such muscle use would decrease efficiency because the demoninator is increased while the numerator is unchanged. Or, if one is pushing effectively but so hard as to invoke more of the less efficient fast twitch fibers that also would decrease efficiency. Something has to explain the wide range of pedaling efficiencies that have been measured in cyclists (16-26%). Differences in muscle type cannot explain such a large variation. The only other explanation that I can come up with is differences in pedaling technique which means differences in muscle usage.

If you have a theory that something other than muscle contractions (with the exception of the basal metabolic rate) affect efficiency put it out so we can discuss it.

My definition of pedalling efficiency is the percentage of force applied to the pedal that is converted into crank torque, which is why having the ability to apply continuous tangential maximal force over 90 deg. has to be the most efficient technique that is possible,

 

[FrankDay]

Re: Re:

5. only the muscular forces involved in pedaling should have an effect on pedaling efficiency.

This doesn't make sense at all, please explain the reasoning behind this statement.

Really, it is the only thing that makes sense to me. Pedaling efficiency is usually defined as the energy that gets to the wheel divided by the energy used by the cyclist.
...

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it's a simple confusion of wording ....
Perhaps it would be more clear and accurate as -
"5. only the muscular forces involved WHILE pedaling should have an effect on pedaling efficiency."
That would include ALL of the muscles being used during the time period of the test.
Not just the muscles that are directly used strictly for moving the pedals.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

I guess you can think about it however you would like as long as everyone knows exactly what you mean when you say something. But, in general, pedaling efficiency isn't usually defined as requiring to know anything about a single muscle, it is simply energy out vs energy cost (as measured by oxygen uptake) in a black box model. While I guess the muscles used to support the head and any weight (or force) on the handlebars also is an energy cost that doesn't drive the bicycle (thereby lowering gross efficiency) I think most think these are small and relatively unchanging such that they don't contribute much to overall pedaling efficiency. If you can point to any scientist even theorizing that these may play a role I would love to see it. I am unaware of anyone ever measuring these muscular uses and relating them to pedaling efficiency. I think if one is talking pedaling efficiency it is "close enough" to restrict ourselves to examining the muscles directly involved in the pedaling effort, which is pretty much the definition of delta efficiency. http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095708997

 

[JayKosta]

Re: Re:

...
But, in general, pedaling efficiency isn't usually defined as requiring to know anything about a single muscle, it is simply energy out vs energy cost (as measured by oxygen uptake) in a black box model.
...

----------------------------------------------
and that includes ALL the muscles of the entire body.
Yes, the muscles being used to produce 'crank power' are responsible for the majority of the energy cost, but if other muscles are being used in a highly untypical manner that could affect overall efficiency.

Some people have different understanding of
'muscles used IN / FOR / DURI NG pedaling'.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

5. only the muscular forces involved in pedaling should have an effect on pedaling efficiency.

This doesn't make sense at all, please explain the reasoning behind this statement.

Really, it is the only thing that makes sense to me. Pedaling efficiency is usually defined as the energy that gets to the wheel divided by the energy used by the cyclist. The non-muscular forces can provide zero net energy to the wheel so they can not increase or decrease the efficiency because they cannot increase or decrease the power. So, it seems then that efficiency is determined by what the muscles are doing. If a muscle is contracting but causing a force to the pedal that won't drive the bicycle (say, pushing down at BDC) that increases the energy consumed but doesn't increase the energy delivered to the wheel. Such muscle use would decrease efficiency because the demoninator is increased while the numerator is unchanged. Or, if one is pushing effectively but so hard as to invoke more of the less efficient fast twitch fibers that also would decrease efficiency. Something has to explain the wide range of pedaling efficiencies that have been measured in cyclists (16-26%). Differences in muscle type cannot explain such a large variation. The only other explanation that I can come up with is differences in pedaling technique which means differences in muscle usage.

If you have a theory that something other than muscle contractions (with the exception of the basal metabolic rate) affect efficiency put it out so we can discuss it.

Surely efficiency is just the metabolic cost to produce a certain amount of power? So the mass of the leg will impact the efficiency depending on how you move it?

 

[FrankDay]

Re: Re:

5. only the muscular forces involved in pedaling should have an effect on pedaling efficiency.

This doesn't make sense at all, please explain the reasoning behind this statement.

Really, it is the only thing that makes sense to me. Pedaling efficiency is usually defined as the energy that gets to the wheel divided by the energy used by the cyclist. The non-muscular forces can provide zero net energy to the wheel so they can not increase or decrease the efficiency because they cannot increase or decrease the power. So, it seems then that efficiency is determined by what the muscles are doing. If a muscle is contracting but causing a force to the pedal that won't drive the bicycle (say, pushing down at BDC) that increases the energy consumed but doesn't increase the energy delivered to the wheel. Such muscle use would decrease efficiency because the demoninator is increased while the numerator is unchanged. Or, if one is pushing effectively but so hard as to invoke more of the less efficient fast twitch fibers that also would decrease efficiency. Something has to explain the wide range of pedaling efficiencies that have been measured in cyclists (16-26%). Differences in muscle type cannot explain such a large variation. The only other explanation that I can come up with is differences in pedaling technique which means differences in muscle usage.

If you have a theory that something other than muscle contractions (with the exception of the basal metabolic rate) affect efficiency put it out so we can discuss it.

Surely efficiency is just the metabolic cost to produce a certain amount of power? So the mass of the leg will impact the efficiency depending on how you move it?

No, efficiency relates the relative metabolic cost of doing something. More massive legs usually have more muscle so while the work involved in moving a more massive leg is more the relative cost is usually about the same. Efficiency is the ratio of work done to metabolic cost. Further, the mass of the leg is something the rider cannot change (at least to lower it). I think what we are trying to discuss is effects on efficiency that the rider might be able to change to improve the situation.

 

[FrankDay]

Re: Re:

...
But, in general, pedaling efficiency isn't usually defined as requiring to know anything about a single muscle, it is simply energy out vs energy cost (as measured by oxygen uptake) in a black box model.
...

----------------------------------------------
and that includes ALL the muscles of the entire body.
Yes, the muscles being used to produce 'crank power' are responsible for the majority of the energy cost, but if other muscles are being used in a highly untypical manner that could affect overall efficiency.

Some people have different understanding of
'muscles used IN / FOR / DURI NG pedaling'.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Now you are getting into the definition of net efficiency. http://www.livestrong.com/article/549465-what-is-mechanical-efficiency-during-exercise/ Any additional energy expenditure while pedaling that doesn't drive the bicycle will lower gross or net efficiency. However, delta efficiency is unaffected by these uses. Use whichever definition you choose as long as people know what you are talking about. I am primarily talking about delta efficiency here even though the other losses (especially at power) are relatively small such that the principle pretty much applies to all of the definitions. Pedaling efficiency, whether gross, net, or delta, is primarily determined by what the muscles that drive the pedals are doing.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

5. only the muscular forces involved in pedaling should have an effect on pedaling efficiency.

This doesn't make sense at all, please explain the reasoning behind this statement.

Really, it is the only thing that makes sense to me. Pedaling efficiency is usually defined as the energy that gets to the wheel divided by the energy used by the cyclist. The non-muscular forces can provide zero net energy to the wheel so they can not increase or decrease the efficiency because they cannot increase or decrease the power. So, it seems then that efficiency is determined by what the muscles are doing. If a muscle is contracting but causing a force to the pedal that won't drive the bicycle (say, pushing down at BDC) that increases the energy consumed but doesn't increase the energy delivered to the wheel. Such muscle use would decrease efficiency because the demoninator is increased while the numerator is unchanged. Or, if one is pushing effectively but so hard as to invoke more of the less efficient fast twitch fibers that also would decrease efficiency. Something has to explain the wide range of pedaling efficiencies that have been measured in cyclists (16-26%). Differences in muscle type cannot explain such a large variation. The only other explanation that I can come up with is differences in pedaling technique which means differences in muscle usage.

If you have a theory that something other than muscle contractions (with the exception of the basal metabolic rate) affect efficiency put it out so we can discuss it.

Surely efficiency is just the metabolic cost to produce a certain amount of power? So the mass of the leg will impact the efficiency depending on how you move it?

No, efficiency relates the relative metabolic cost of doing something.

That is exactly what I just said.

You can't change the mass of your leg but you can change how you move it which will have an associated metabolic cost.

 

[FrankDay]

Re: Re:

This doesn't make sense at all, please explain the reasoning behind this statement.

Really, it is the only thing that makes sense to me. Pedaling efficiency is usually defined as the energy that gets to the wheel divided by the energy used by the cyclist. The non-muscular forces can provide zero net energy to the wheel so they can not increase or decrease the efficiency because they cannot increase or decrease the power. So, it seems then that efficiency is determined by what the muscles are doing. If a muscle is contracting but causing a force to the pedal that won't drive the bicycle (say, pushing down at BDC) that increases the energy consumed but doesn't increase the energy delivered to the wheel. Such muscle use would decrease efficiency because the demoninator is increased while the numerator is unchanged. Or, if one is pushing effectively but so hard as to invoke more of the less efficient fast twitch fibers that also would decrease efficiency. Something has to explain the wide range of pedaling efficiencies that have been measured in cyclists (16-26%). Differences in muscle type cannot explain such a large variation. The only other explanation that I can come up with is differences in pedaling technique which means differences in muscle usage.

If you have a theory that something other than muscle contractions (with the exception of the basal metabolic rate) affect efficiency put it out so we can discuss it.

Surely efficiency is just the metabolic cost to produce a certain amount of power? So the mass of the leg will impact the efficiency depending on how you move it?

No, efficiency relates the relative metabolic cost of doing something.

That is exactly what I just said.

You can't change the mass of your leg but you can change how you move it which will have an associated metabolic cost.

But, changing how you move it means changing how you use your muscles, which is exactly what I said. So, what was your issue again? (edit: also, your original reply did not use the term relative - "Surely efficiency is just the metabolic cost to produce a certain amount of power?" - so it is not exactly what you said.)

 

[CoachFergie]

Yawn, typical Frank Day, rearrange the facts to suit his marketing.

People, never lose sight of the fact that the study in the OP showed rather well that a cyclist who spent several years of immersion training pedalling like a Gimmickcranker found a change to a pedal style that was more like a masher lowered metabolic cost and improved efficiency.

 

[JayKosta]

Re:

...
People, never lose sight of the fact that the study in the OP showed rather well that a cyclist who spent several years of immersion training pedalling like a Gimmickcranker found a change to a pedal style that was more like a masher lowered metabolic cost and improved efficiency.

---------------------
You forgot to mention that the cyclist was only using one leg.
That's a significant fact that needs to be mentioned to give a truthful account of the OP study.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[backdoor]

Re:

Yawn, typical Frank Day, rearrange the facts to suit his marketing.

People, never lose sight of the fact that the study in the OP showed rather well that a cyclist who spent several years of immersion training pedalling like a Gimmickcranker found a change to a pedal style that was more like a masher lowered metabolic cost and improved efficiency.

Common sense is all that's required here, something that appears to be missing at that adult table where for almost a century they did not even realise that a narrower hand/arm position would improve performance in TT's, they probably required data before they would believe it. If that one legged rider had been asked during his first few pedal strokes after the fitting of the counterweight, where in his pedalling circle he felt most improvement, his answer would have confirmed it had nothing to do with mashing. His several years of one legged pedalling would still have an effect on his pedalling. Unlike the powercranker or circular pedaller who are using split concentration he can always give total concentration to his leg around the pedalling circle, resulting in a more powerful down stroke.

 

[CoachFergie]

Re: Re:

...
People, never lose sight of the fact that the study in the OP showed rather well that a cyclist who spent several years of immersion training pedalling like a Gimmickcranker found a change to a pedal style that was more like a masher lowered metabolic cost and improved efficiency.

---------------------
You forgot to mention that the cyclist was only using one leg.
That's a significant fact that needs to be mentioned to give a truthful account of the OP study.

That is pretty well set out in the OP.

 

[CoachFergie]

Re: Re:

Common sense is all that's required here, something that appears to be missing at that adult table where for almost a century they did not even realise that a narrower hand/arm position would improve performance in TT's, they probably required data before they would believe it. If that one legged rider had been asked during his first few pedal strokes after the fitting of the counterweight, where in his pedalling circle he felt most improvement, his answer would have confirmed it had nothing to do with mashing. His several years of one legged pedalling would still have an effect on his pedalling. Unlike the powercranker or circular pedaller who are using split concentration he can always give total concentration to his leg around the pedalling circle, resulting in a more powerful down stroke.

Wrong as we don't coach pedalling, we don't need to. People learn it rather quickly and research hasn't shown a better way. Those who make claims to be able to prove you can improve performance through different pedalling techniques have failed to provide any data. The OP study provides excellent data to show that mashing has a lower metabolic cost and greater efficiency than circular pedalling even after 7 years of immersion training in a circular style.

Is there a better way of pedalling than mashing? Possibly, but no one has provided any data to show this so far!

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

But, changing how you move it means changing how you use your muscles, which is exactly what I said. So, what was your issue again? (edit: also, your original reply did not use the term relative - "Surely efficiency is just the metabolic cost to produce a certain amount of power?" - so it is not exactly what you said.)

Inserting the word relative, without stating what it's relative to makes no difference Frank. Even if you are referring to relative to basal metabolic rate it makes no difference as that is constant. It is exactly the same statement.

It is not just how you change the movement of muscles but the associated mass those particular muscles are required to overcome. Using larger, more efficient (pushing) muscles to move the mass of the leg will, most likely, result in a lower metabolic cost than using pulling muscles to apply upwards force. In fact, that's what this study seems to show.

As such, every force associated with pedalling that results in an absolute metabolic cost should be taken into account, whether it contributes to power through the pedals or not.

 

[backdoor]

Re: Re:

Common sense is all that's required here, something that appears to be missing at that adult table where for almost a century they did not even realise that a narrower hand/arm position would improve performance in TT's, they probably required data before they would believe it. If that one legged rider had been asked during his first few pedal strokes after the fitting of the counterweight, where in his pedalling circle he felt most improvement, his answer would have confirmed it had nothing to do with mashing. His several years of one legged pedalling would still have an effect on his pedalling. Unlike the powercranker or circular pedaller who are using split concentration he can always give total concentration to his leg around the pedalling circle, resulting in a more powerful down stroke.

Wrong as we don't coach pedalling, we don't need to. People learn it rather quickly and research hasn't shown a better way. Those who make claims to be able to prove you can improve performance through different pedalling techniques have failed to provide any data. The OP study provides excellent data to show that mashing has a lower metabolic cost and greater efficiency than circular pedalling even after 7 years of immersion training in a circular style.

Just like all two legged cyclists who have a counterweight for each leg, there is nothing to prevent this one legged rider who has been fitted with a counterweight from using the basic circular style. The counterweight eliminates the one legged rider's added difficulty when taking the pedal from about 10 to 12 o'c which increases metabolic cost and reduces efficiency. How do you know he was using the mashing style ?

 

[backdoor]

Re: Re:

Common sense is all that's required here, something that appears to be missing at that adult table where for almost a century they did not even realise that a narrower hand/arm position would improve performance in TT's, they probably required data before they would believe it. If that one legged rider had been asked during his first few pedal strokes after the fitting of the counterweight, where in his pedalling circle he felt most improvement, his answer would have confirmed it had nothing to do with mashing. His several years of one legged pedalling would still have an effect on his pedalling. Unlike the powercranker or circular pedaller who are using split concentration he can always give total concentration to his leg around the pedalling circle, resulting in a more powerful down stroke.

Wrong as we don't coach pedalling, we don't need to. People learn it rather quickly and research hasn't shown a better way. Those who make claims to be able to prove you can improve performance through different pedalling techniques have failed to provide any data. The OP study provides excellent data to show that mashing has a lower metabolic cost and greater efficiency than circular pedalling even after 7 years of immersion training in a circular style.

Just like all two legged cyclists who have a counterweight for each leg, there is nothing to prevent this one legged rider who has been fitted with a counterweight from using the basic circular style. The counterweight eliminates the one legged rider's added difficulty when taking the pedal from about 10 to 12 o'c which increases metabolic cost and reduces efficiency. How do you know he was using the mashing style ?

F Day can tell you the Powercranker's most difficult sector in the pedalling circle.

 

[FrankDay]

Re: Re:

...
People, never lose sight of the fact that the study in the OP showed rather well that a cyclist who spent several years of immersion training pedalling like a Gimmickcranker found a change to a pedal style that was more like a masher lowered metabolic cost and improved efficiency.

---------------------
You forgot to mention that the cyclist was only using one leg.
That's a significant fact that needs to be mentioned to give a truthful account of the OP study.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

He also forgot to mention that the best efficiency found in this one-legged pedaling study (18.6%) was substantially lower than the typical efficiency seen in the two legged pedaler (20%), substantially lower than the measured efficiency found in a study of uncoupled pedaling (20%), and the improvement seen less than the improvement seen in the study of uncoupled pedaling (20%-22%).

Some people here seem to think that a single study can give definitive results. That is rarely the case and surely not the case in this instance. This study raises many more questions (how to explain the low efficiency seen compared to normal cycling and, even, uncoupled cycling, how to explain the difference, how did the muscle use change between the two techniques) than it answers (counterbalanced one-legged pedaling is more efficient than uncounterbalanced one-legged pedaling).

 

[FrankDay]

Re: Re:

But, changing how you move it means changing how you use your muscles, which is exactly what I said. So, what was your issue again? (edit: also, your original reply did not use the term relative - "Surely efficiency is just the metabolic cost to produce a certain amount of power?" - so it is not exactly what you said.)

Inserting the word relative, without stating what it's relative to makes no difference Frank.

LOL. Efficiency is expressed as a percentage. Determining a percentage requires a numerator and a denominator which, by definition, is a relationship between the two terms.