The pedaling technique thread

[42x16ss]

Instead you believe there is more to be gained from using an expensive PM and knowing how to calibrate it, while following the traditional advice, "ride your bike, ride your bike, ride your bike".

It has worked wonders for many pros over many years now - Greg LeMond was one of the first adopters of power meters in his comeback. Just about every Grand Tour contender since has followed this philosophy to some degree to gauge their preparedness and structure their training, not fussing about with where their peak torque is developed

 

[FrankDay]

It has worked wonders for many pros over many years now - Greg LeMond was one of the first adopters of power meters in his comeback. Just about every Grand Tour contender since has followed this philosophy to some degree to gauge their preparedness and structure their training, not fussing about with where their peak torque is developed

Really, Lemond and others not fussing about their pedaling technique, huh? Then why on earth did Greg Lemond say to me when he saw the PowerCranks that "I spent years trying to learn how to pedal in this fashion and now people can learn how to do it in months." Why on earth did Taylor Phinney say to us when he called us to get a pair: "Cadel says I need to get on these." Or why when Mapei gave a pair of PowerCranks to Bettini for him to evaluate he refused to give them back when they asked for them. Or why M. Bagstadt used to take his PC's out on the cobbles to train because he knew if he could ride them with power there he could stay efficient on the cobbles on regular cranks.

While power generation is important to racing you somehow seem to think that owning a power meter is somehow going to make training to generate that power easier or more efficient and that pros do not concern themselves with technique. There isn't a single piece of evidence to back up such thoughts. So, Lemond and other pros do a lot of things to get better some of which are evident and some of which are not. Which are the most useful is still up for debate.

 

[CoachFergie]

It has worked wonders for many pros over many years now - Greg LeMond was one of the first adopters of power meters in his comeback. Just about every Grand Tour contender since has followed this philosophy to some degree to gauge their preparedness and structure their training, not fussing about with where their peak torque is developed

One does not engage these two in meaningful debate only prod them lower their standards even further.

Like listing a whole range of pointless studies on cadence and efficiency that don't reflect the real world where events are ridden in a fairly tight cadence band.

None of those studies have influenced gear selection in racing one bit.

Or another pointless anecdote about one rider training flat and racing well uphill. More likely would have performed better with more climbing. But that is the point of anecdotes, doesn't apply to the general population.

 

[FrankDay]

ke listing a whole range of pointless studies on cadence and efficiency that don't reflect the real world where events are ridden in a fairly tight cadence band.

None of those studies have influenced gear selection in racing one bit.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to ask the question as to why such studies haven't had any effect on cyclists rather than call the studies pointless because they haven't changed things? Wait, no need to ask that question, I know the answer. It is because most cyclists are influenced by people like you who don't care to think about this stuff very deeply. "I know what i know and that is enough."

Or another pointless anecdote about one rider training flat and racing well uphill. More likely would have performed better with more climbing. But that is the point of anecdotes, doesn't apply to the general population.

Pointless studies. Pointless anecdotes. Is there any way of making a point with you?

 

[sciguy]

Back to Fergie
Really. I wonder how you might explain how a past multiple winner of the Mt. Washington hill climb could have possibly lived in and done most of his training in Florida, the flattest state in the US (the highest point is 345 ft above sea level in the entire state) and did most of that training on independent cranks even though he was racing on fixed cranks. This result doesn't seem to fit your prescription. Isn't it more likely that success is most likely to those who train for the demands of the event and that the specifics of achieving that are not so important?

Here is an interesting read about the current Mt. Washington Hill Climb champion who is a couple of minutes faster than your Powercranker Phil. Guess he'd be really fast if he learned how to pedal correctly Oh, and he spends a lot of time training on hills all with fixed cranks too. Maybe Phil could learn a thing or two from him.

http://www.ccbracing.com/content/mt-washington-hillclimb-case-study

Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

Here is an interesting read about the current Mt. Washington Hill Climb champion who is a couple of minutes faster than your Powercranker Phil. Guess he'd be really fast if he learned how to pedal correctly Oh, and he spends a lot of time training on hills all with fixed cranks too. Maybe Phil could learn a thing or two from him.

http://www.ccbracing.com/content/mt-washington-hillclimb-case-study

Hugh

Your point? According to Fergie to climb well one must train climbing. My anecdote was to show his "truism" a lie. Most of this guys work was not in hills either. My point was success comes from training for the demands of the event and the specifics of how one does this is not that important. You reinforce my point. Thanks for this.

Oh, and perhaps he might be better if he were to improve his pedaling technique. Or, maybe his technique is already pretty good (there are a few out there). Unfortunately we don't know what his technique is (although I suspect it is above average) so it is not possible for me to speculate here. Maybe one day when 2nd generation PM's are ubiquitous we won't have to be guessing about this stuff.

 

[sciguy]

Your point? According to Fergie to climb well one must train climbing. My anecdote was to show his "truism" a lie. Most of this guys work was not in hills either. My point was success comes from training for the demands of the event and the specifics of how one does this is not that important. You reinforce my point. Thanks for this.

Oh, and perhaps he might be better if he were to improve his pedaling technique. Or, maybe his technique is already pretty good (there are a few out there). Unfortunately we don't know what his technique is (although I suspect it is above average) so it is not possible for me to speculate here. Maybe one day when 2nd generation PM's are ubiquitous we won't have to be guessing about this stuff.

My point would be that a fellow who trained with a good bit more specificity performed at a much higher level than your Powercranker poster boy. Your rebuttal that he may already have good technique somehow doesn't square with the 10,000 hours needed to learn good technique that you've been harping on lately.


YMMV,

Hugh

 

[CoachFergie]

Your point? According to Fergie to climb well one must train climbing. My anecdote was to show his "truism" a lie. Most of this guys work was not in hills either. My point was success comes from training for the demands of the event and the specifics of how one does this is not that important. You reinforce my point. Thanks for this.

Have done no such thing. As always your anecdote proves nothing. With no control to compare against you can not prove the rider could not have performed better with a more climbing based approach.

Oh, and perhaps he might be better if he were to improve his pedaling technique. Or, maybe his technique is already pretty good (there are a few out there). Unfortunately we don't know what his technique is (although I suspect it is above average) so it is not possible for me to speculate here. Maybe one day when 2nd generation PM's are ubiquitous we won't have to be guessing about this stuff.

All just speculation.

We have the studies already to show us that changes in pedalling technique have no influence on performance. Even if an extremely small minority delude themselves into thinking there is.

 

[FrankDay]

We have the studies already to show us that changes in pedalling technique have no influence on performance. Even if an extremely small minority delude themselves into thinking there is.

I am glad that you believe that the science done so far on this question has closed the door on the possibility that technique (is cadence part of technique?) could have any influence on performance. However, not everyone believes the data, so far, as being definitive as you seem to believe. Would it be too much to ask of you to let those of us who still have an open mind on this issue to discuss the possibility and our interpretation of the science that currently exists (and that might be published in the future) without your constant interference? Let me predict your answer, NO! Oh well. It is the internet.

 

[FrankDay]

My point would be that a fellow who trained with a good bit more specificity performed at a much higher level than your Powercranker poster boy. Your rebuttal that he may already have good technique somehow doesn't square with the 10,000 hours needed to learn good technique that you've been harping on lately.


YMMV,

Hugh

I am not sure it is possible to perform "a much higher level" than having won Mt Washington Hill climb on two occasions. The problem is you don't know what his technique is now and neither do I. I do know there are people out there who have good technique (from my perspective) who have never seen my product. One fellow his first weekend with the product rode Seattle to Portland without any difficulty. Most people can't do 20 minutes with it in that amount of time. About 1 in 1,000 seem to have developed excellent technique without any help from us. Is this guy one of them? So, unless one knows with some specificity what technique one is using one cannot speculate as to whether a tool like PowerCranks has any or much ability to improve them and by how much. Nor can you say that his performance was done using (by my standards) "poor" technique because you just don't know. Neither do I.

That is why I am looking forward to the wide use of 2nd gen PM's so this information can be made available so it will be possible to compare technique and performance in the real world and these debates are not entirely speculative and theoretical.

 

[sciguy]

I am not sure it is possible to perform "a much higher level" than having won Mt Washington Hill climb on two occasions. \

Cameron has won the last two years so they would seem to be equal on that score. S let's compare their times to see how they stack up.. Phil did it in 54:57 in 2008 and 54:37 in 2009. Cameron did it in 52:28 in 2012 and 50:48 in 2013. Those represent about 4% and 8% difference. Perhaps the weather was a factor but it kind of looks like Mr. Fixy cranks did pretty well in his two attempts

I'm excited to see the data generated by the vector measuring cranks as well. Once Garmin rolls out their analysis software there will quickly be plenty of very interesting data from a wide variety of unbiased sources.

Hugh

 

[CoachFergie]

I am glad that you believe that the science done so far on this question has closed the door on the possibility that technique (is cadence part of technique?) could have any influence on performance.

If new data comes to hand I will keep an open mind.

However, not everyone believes the data, so far, as being definitive as you seem to believe. Would it be too much to ask of you to let those of us who still have an open mind on this issue to discuss the possibility and our interpretation of the science that currently exists (and that might be published in the future) without your constant interference? Let me predict your answer, NO! Oh well. It is the internet.

You have an open mind

Funny that all roads lead to a Gimmickcrank.

 

[CoachFergie]

I am not sure it is possible to perform "a much higher level" than having won Mt Washington Hill climb on two occasions.

UCI World Tour?

The problem is you don't know what his technique is now and neither do I.

The difference is some of us don't make up claims based on this.

I do know there are people out there who have good technique (from my perspective) who have never seen my product.

Without data how can you make any claim on good technique?

Nor can you say that his performance was done using (by my standards) "poor" technique because you just don't know. Neither do I.

So we won't make any claims we can't support.

That is why I am looking forward to the wide use of 2nd gen PM's so this information can be made available so it will be possible to compare technique and performance in the real world and these debates are not entirely speculative and theoretical.

A lot of research has been done with force vector measuring pedals, but you seem to keep ignoring it and claiming it is bad science unless it might enhance your confirmation bias.

 

[CoachFergie]

Would it be too much to ask of you to let those of us who still have an open mind on this issue to discuss the possibility and our interpretation of the science that currently exists (and that might be published in the future) without your constant interference?

Let's be honest, you are just here to sell product because you are too cheap to buy advertising. Your interest in cycling performance starts and ends with a Gimmickcrank. Pity as there is a wide range of avenues to make gains in cycling performance.

 

[CoachFergie]

http://www.ccbracing.com/content/mt-washington-hillclimb-case-study

A great read, good to see some MIT grads know their stuff!

 

[coapman]

We have the studies already to show us that changes in pedalling technique have no influence on performance. Even if an extremely small minority delude themselves into thinking there is.

You must be king of those village pedalling morons that you referred to. Those studies are worthless or even worse because they mislead young riders into believing the rubbish you and other coaches tell your customers about technique and prevent them from doing their own experimenting. They are worthless because in all of them the same basic natural technique was used, in which all the important torque was applied between 1-5 o'c and of course all techniques used in this research produced the same pedalling sinusoidal graph, so how could there be any worthwhile difference. That small minority includes J Martin who instantly spotted the potential of my completely different unnatural technique, he was one of the scientists who tried and failed to do something about cycling's main drawback, the pedalling dead spot sector. My perfected technique completely eliminates it.

 

[sciguy]

That small minority includes J Martin who instantly spotted the potential of my completely different unnatural technique, he was one of the scientists who tried and failed to do something about cycling's main drawback, the pedalling dead spot sector. My perfected technique completely eliminates it.

Sorry to break this to you Noel but I'm quite certain that Jim was just having a bit of little fun with you. I'm certain his offer to "hook you up" with a group that could test you with force plate pedals was genuine but the intent was to prove to you what really is happening.

Hugh

 

[CoachFergie]

You must be king of those village pedalling morons that you referred to.

Ever wonder why you are the **** of nearly every Internet Cycling forums jokes. You and Frank are the ones making claims you can't back up.

Even Frank agrees with my claim that a power meter does indeed measure power.

Those studies are worthless or even worse because they mislead young riders into believing the rubbish you and other coaches tell your customers about technique and prevent them from doing their own experimenting.

I give the riders I work with a fairly long leash and many do try all sorts of stuff. What I don't do, even if they win a UCI World Title, or six, is assume that just because they are winning that it was one element of the programme or perhaps even it had nothing to do with my coaching, perhaps all 50 NZ titles, 3 US titles and 2 Finnish titles were a fluke. That is why I offer evidence based coaching rather than results based coaching.

That small minority includes J Martin who instantly spotted the potential of my completely different unnatural technique, he was one of the scientists who tried and failed to do something about cycling's main drawback, the pedalling dead spot sector. My perfected technique completely eliminates it.

The same Jim Martin who was skepticap of your claim and offered the use of force measuring pedals in a lab in the UK to test your theory and you declined in the same way you declined an offer to test them in a US lab. If I was 100% sure of something I would leap at such an opportunity.

Yet you choose to hide behind vapourware like Brim Brothers pedals and make ludicrous claims that one can almost double their power using your technique. A claim that can be tested with ANY power meter.

 

[coapman]

Yet you choose to hide behind vapourware like Brim Brothers pedals and make ludicrous claims that one can almost double their power using your technique. A claim that can be tested with ANY power meter.

I already told you it does not work like that. While it can almost double the torque from each pedal stroke, other factors come into play when pedalling, such as cadence. This is the ideal technique for flat TT's because it gives the rider an extra 15+ minutes of maximal torque application time over every other riders' hour of tt pedalling. This enables him to reduce the maximal or peak torque which reduces stress on knees and all muscles while still applying winning TT power. This is the most effective way of producing sustainable high gear high power in TT's.

 

[FrankDay]

Cameron has won the last two years so they would seem to be equal on that score. S let's compare their times to see how they stack up.. Phil did it in 54:57 in 2008 and 54:37 in 2009. Cameron did it in 52:28 in 2012 and 50:48 in 2013. Those represent about 4% and 8% difference. Perhaps the weather was a factor but it kind of looks like Mr. Fixy cranks did pretty well in his two attempts

I'm excited to see the data generated by the vector measuring cranks as well. Once Garmin rolls out their analysis software there will quickly be plenty of very interesting data from a wide variety of unbiased sources.

Hugh

Hey, Phil rode the ride on fixed cranks also. We just know he trained on PowerCranks. As I said, until we know pedaling technique data we are all guessing. I can assume that Philip pedaling technique probably resembled our ideal (until, perhaps, he got tired). Who knows what this other fellows technique looked like although I would hazard a guess he has pretty good technique. Until we have real data it is all speculation.

Regarding Garmin Vector, let's not hold our breath regarding when Garmin comes out with their software. They finally came out with their pedals. Woohoo! They have been working on this product for years and their software only differentiates true left and right which makes the product little more than a really expensive power meter with some promised future potential. Why they didn't deliver pedaling technique from the get go to give themselves some separation from the pack is beyond me, but they didn't. What are they waiting for? Who knows? I am not holding my breath.

If they had done that they would have an advantage over, even, iCranks (because they could also mount on PowerCranks). They did not. iCranks finally have some working units out there (although I don't have any). I expect a pair soon and I am told the software will be ready soon. As soon as I have this I will go to the local cycling club and invite them all to come over and let us do some testing and I will see what we can learn.

 

[FrankDay]

If new data comes to hand I will keep an open mind.

You ignore the cadence and efficiency data (pointless studies was how you referred to the data I believe), why would you care about any other "new" data. When you die I hope they analyze you brain to see if they can learn why humans get stuck in the past.

 

[CoachFergie]

I already told you it does not work like that.

So you make a claim that your pedalling technique can almost double power and it can't be measured with a meter that measures power. Riiiiggggghhhtttt.

While it can almost double the torque from each pedal stroke, other factors come into play when pedalling, such as cadence.

Oh so it is doubling the torque now. So this change in torque will have what effect on power production? If this is meant to increase power delivery there should be a difference in watts measured with ANY power meter.

This is the ideal technique for flat TT's because it gives the rider an extra 15+ minutes of maximal torque application time over every other riders' hour of tt pedalling.

Wow, that sounds as amazing as a 40% gain from using Gimmickcranks. Do you have to do 10,000hrs to perfect this technique. Does it require any specific equipment. Like a set of Scott Rake bars that haven't been made for 15 years and were banned by the UCI 16 years ago?

This enables him to reduce the maximal or peak torque which reduces stress on knees and all muscles while still applying winning TT power. This is the most effective way of producing sustainable high gear high power in TT's.

"Winning TT Power" and "High Gear Power", gosh, wish there was a tool to measure power to test those claims!

 

[FrankDay]

A great read, good to see some MIT grads know their stuff!

So you are calling anecdotal evidence you think you can use "a great read" and that their authors "know their stuff" and anecdotal evidence and their authors that you can't …

 

[FrankDay]

Without data how can you make any claim on good technique?

It is easy. Such "claims" are based upon theory and empirical evidence. While this differs from a scientific basis for making a claim it is not without worth.

 

[CoachFergie]

Hey, Phil rode the ride on fixed cranks also. We just know he trained on PowerCranks. As I said, until we know pedaling technique data we are all guessing. I can assume that Philip pedaling technique probably resembled our ideal (until, perhaps, he got tired). Who knows what this other fllows technique looked like although I would hazard a guess he has pretty good technique. Until we have real data it is all speculation.

Which you offered as definitive evidence that one could train on the flat and perform in a hilly race. Riiiggghhhtttt!

Regarding Garmin Vector, let's not hold our breath regarding when Garmin comes out with their software. They finally came out with their pedals. Woohoo! They have been working on this product for years and their software only differentiates true left and right which makes the product little more than a really expensive power meter with some promised future potential. Why they didn't deliver pedaling technique from the get go to give themselves some separation from the pack is beyond me, but they didn't. What are they waiting for? Who knows? I am not holding my breath.

Because most people understand there is little to be gained from measuring pedal forces. Only ones claiming otherwise have a financial interest or are the Internet Village Idiot.

If they had done that they would have an advantage over, even, iCranks (because they could also mount on PowerCranks). They did not. iCranks finally have some working units out there (although I don't have any). I expect a pair soon and I am told the software will be ready soon. As soon as I have this I will go to the local cycling club and invite them all to come over and let us do some testing and I will see what we can learn.

Too heavy to be used in racing, over US$2.5K for Cranks and another US$2K for the software to tell you what the research has been telling us for 30+ years that changes to pedalling technique have no significant impact on performance.