The pedaling technique thread

Page 18 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
coapman said:
1 Why is physiologically impossible to apply such force, I don't remove full force, normal torque is applied from 3 to 5 o'c. The advantage of my technique is that it enables one to apply maximal torque through 12,1,2 and 3 o'c.
Well, that could be an advantage depending upon the direction that the force is being applied and also it depends upon what is going on over the other 2/3 of the stroke. The bike doesn't give a whit what the maximum power applied during the stroke is, it only knows what the average power is around the circle. Concentrating on only part of the stroke may not give the best total outcome.
2 I fully realize what goes on during the backstroke, I spent over a year experimenting in that sector. What that taught me was, except for unweighting any extra pedaling work attempted here resulted in a loss of torque in the downstroke. Having said that my legs are not idling there, the muscles are being prepared with spring loaded effect for that instant application of maximal torque at TDC.
Another problem you have is you tell us you know exactly what your feet are doing but you have never measured the forces to confirm. Sometimes what we think we are doing and what we really are doing can be miles apart. When you can show everyone what you do (rather than just telling them) then you will start to gain a little credibility as to your technique and its possibilities.
 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
0
FrankDay said:
When you can show everyone what you do (rather than just telling them) then you will start to gain a little credibility as to your technique and its possibilities.
Oh the irony.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
CoachFergie said:
Oh the irony.
LOL. If you had ever ridden a pair of my cranks you would realize that the cranks tell the rider what they are doing and not doing. I don't have to say anything.
 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
0
FrankDay said:
LOL. If you had ever ridden a pair of my cranks you would realize that the cranks tell the rider what they are doing and not doing. I don't have to say anything.
Amazing how people confuse something that is hard or hurts with something that improves performance.

I bet Taylor Phinney is wishing he never listened to Cadel Evans:cool:

Isn't it also interesting that Phinney come on to the scene with a hiss and roar straight off the track (fixed gear) and Cadel won the Tour the year that Aldo Sassi had him do a lot of fixed gear riding in the off-season.
 
Mar 10, 2009
965
0
0
FrankDay said:
1. you do not seem to know that it is physiologically impossible to instantaneously apply full force to the pedal.
If you know, explain why it is impossible. Nobody told me it was impossible, I just went and did it.
 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
0
coapman said:
If you know, explain why it is impossible. Nobody told me it was impossible, I just went and did it.
Isn't that nice. Can you show us how you know it happened. Now in the same way that power doesn't happen because it is measured what you think happened, may or may not have, but the only way to be sure is to measure it in some fashion. And, no, sorry voices in your head is not an acceptable answer:p
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
coapman said:
If you know, explain why it is impossible. Nobody told me it was impossible, I just went and did it.
For one thing, full force cannot be applied until all of the slack is taken out of the system. for another it would require every single muscle fiber to fire at the same time which is unlikely since the nerve to each one is a slightly different path and length. One can apply force rapidly but it is impossible to apply it instantaneously.

As I said, what you think you are doing and what you are actually doing are probably two completely different things. Until you measure and can confirm that you are doing what you think you are doing we will all remain quite skeptical.
 
Mar 10, 2009
965
0
0
FrankDay said:
For one thing, full force cannot be applied until all of the slack is taken out of the system. for another it would require every single muscle fiber to fire at the same time which is unlikely since the nerve to each one is a slightly different path and length.
Correct all the slack has to be taken out of the system, that is why I spring load all the required muscles during the upstroke and from hip to toe all muscles fire at the same time. Instant max force application requires instant resistance and for that I use independent active resistance instead of the delayed effect of gravity that is used with natural pedalling.
 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
0
FrankDay said:
Until you measure and can confirm that you are doing what you think you are doing we will all remain quite skeptical.
Can one ever have too much irony?

Amazing that Gimmickcranks have been around for 13 years and not one person has even made a legitimate claim of having improved their power by an actual 40%.

I would be surprised that anyone in that time has actually done 6-9 months of just training on a Gimmickcrank. Even then were the outcomes due to the cranks or the type of training done, type of recovery between, nutrition, colour of socks they wore, time of day they could train etc.

Lot of things affect performance unless you have one thing to sell or the voices in your head tell you your pedalling technique is the only way to TT fast:rolleyes:
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
coapman said:
Correct all the slack has to be taken out of the system, that is why I spring load all the required muscles during the upstroke and from hip to toe all muscles fire at the same time. Instant max force application requires instant resistance and for that I use independent active resistance instead of the delayed effect of gravity that is used with natural pedalling.
Sigh. If you say so. I would still like to see some confirmation that you actually do what you say. :)
 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
0
coapman said:
Correct all the slack has to be taken out of the system, that is why I spring load all the required muscles during the upstroke and from hip to toe all muscles fire at the same time. Instant max force application requires instant resistance and for that I use independent active resistance instead of the delayed effect of gravity that is used with natural pedalling.
Better write that up and send it to the Applied Journal of Sports Science Fiction.
 
Mar 10, 2009
965
0
0
FrankDay said:
Sigh. If you say so. I would still like to see some confirmation that you actually do what you say. :)
It needs total concentration from start to finish. You have said your PC's do the opposite and teach a rider to pedal unconsciously, that in my opinion produces less power and leads to pedalling imbalance because without instructions to follow, the brain selects a leading power leg.
 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
0
coapman said:
It needs total concentration from start to finish. You have said your PC's do the opposite and teach a rider to pedal unconsciously, that in my opinion produces less power and leads to pedalling imbalance because without instructions to follow, the brain selects a leading power leg.
So no learning effect from your method Noel? And Frank's method that takes 10,000hrs to perfect shows a lack of understanding which way the learning curve slopes.

All of these are very testable claims. Yet you choose not to.
 
Mar 10, 2009
965
0
0
FrankDay said:
LOL. If you had ever ridden a pair of my cranks you would realize that the cranks tell the rider what they are doing and not doing. I don't have to say anything.


That is why when a PC rider returns to standard cranks they tell him he can get the same power without all the extra awkward PC work around the pedalling circle. Common sense soon tells him which way to go.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Some pretty impressive performances at the Ironman World Championships today from those who train with PowerCranks. Aside from the record setting performance by pro Mirinda Carfrae there were two especially notable efforts both from age groupers.

Sam Gyde had a sub 4:30 bike split for the 112 miles. Only 4 pros rode faster than him. He was good enough to win his age group (35-39) for the third straight year.

Stefanie Adams had a sub 4:50 bike split for the 112 miles. She also won her age group (35-39) for the second straight year. My analysis showed her bike split was faster than all other women including all of the pros. The closest time to hers was about 5 minutes slower.

I know, I know, it is all anecdotal and means "nothing". But, those do seem like pretty good results to me coming from people who have trained themselves to "pedal in circles" and hold day jobs.
 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
0
Yes Frank, utterly meaningless.

Another fail at providing real evidence for your product and your theories.
 
FrankDay said:
Sam Gyde had a sub 4:30 bike split for the 112 miles. Only 4 pros rode faster than him. He was good enough to win his age group (35-39) for the third straight year.
It's always nice to see Sam credit the use of his SRM power meter to help him pace intelligently. He really loves his Qrings too;)

"My SRM power meter has been one of my most valued training aids, always because it gives precise feedback unlike heart rate and speed over what you are actually aligning on the bike."

 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
0
Yes was reading an interview with Taylor Phinney and his coach just raved about the SRM data and using TrainingPeaks to monitor the training process.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
CoachFergie said:
Yes was reading an interview with Taylor Phinney and his coach just raved about the SRM data and using TrainingPeaks to monitor the training process.
Fergie, I thought you agreed that using a power meter in training or racing offers no racing outcome advantage. However, such data is interesting and potentially useful and does show the results of all that training and what occurred during the race in case people wonder.

Anyhow, this is a thread about pedaling technique and the anecdote was about the results of some people who have trained a different than usual pedaling technique.

And since it is so important to you here is Sam's training peaks data for the race. http://www.trainingpeaks.com/av/4IA7KR2ERDSQFNGGMHR3A3QKX4
 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
0
FrankDay said:
Fergie, I thought you agreed that using a power meter in training or racing offers no racing outcome advantage.
Frankie, did I say otherwise, have I ever said otherwise, have I not unleashed the fury of caps lock even to say that a PM has no influence on outcomes?

However, such data is interesting and potentially useful and does show the results of all that training and what occurred during the race in case people wonder.
Yes and when you take a decent sample of riders using one technique and compare them with a group using the current recommendations you can draw meaningful conclusions.

I am going to make a bold claim and say the three riders you name above achieved success because of a huge number of variables and based on the research available, that pedalling technique and your cranks had zero percent influence on their performance no matter what they may blog about it!

Anyhow, this is a thread about pedaling technique and the anecdote was about the results of some people who have trained a different than usual pedaling technique.
If we are back to busting out sad anecdotes then I would point to the far greater numbers that improved their performance using normal cranks, conventional training, achieve aero positions using 165-180mm cranks and follow evidence based training methods.

And since it is so important to you here is Sam's training peaks data for the race. http://www.trainingpeaks.com/av/4IA7KR2ERDSQFNGGMHR3A3QKX4
This in itself is pretty meaningless. It is the measurement over time that matters.

I'm sure that is what Taylor Phinney is doing to try and assess what change he made this year that led to him going from 6sec behind Tony Martin at Worlds in 2012 to over 2mins behind:cool:
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
CoachFergie said:
Frankie, did I say otherwise, have I ever said otherwise, have I not unleashed the fury of caps lock even to say that a PM has no influence on outcomes?
Then, what was the purpose or implication of the earlier response in this thread on pedaling technique?
Yes was reading an interview with Taylor Phinney and his coach just raved about the SRM data and using TrainingPeaks to monitor the training process.
Yes and when you take a decent sample of riders using one technique and compare them with a group using the current recommendations you can draw meaningful conclusions.

I am going to make a bold claim and say the three riders you name above achieved success because of a huge number of variables and based on the research available, that pedalling technique and your cranks had zero percent influence on their performance no matter what they may blog about it!
Perhaps you could show me where this decent sample of riders using one technique being compared to another group using another technique can be found? I have been looking and have yet to find same.

My what a bold prediction. LOL. Of course there are a huge number of variables involved in any improvement and performance. However, your truly bold claim is your insistence that pedaling technique could have zero influence on performance despite the insistence by many who have taken the time to learn a different technique from the predominant mashing style that it does and despite the lack of a single good study in this area. Here is what Sam said in an interview on SlowTwitch in 2011
What has happened since 2009 that you improve that much? Going 40 minutes faster is not that impressive when the previous race was in the 13-hour range, but going from 9:29 to 8:50 is quite another story.

Sam: Well, I changed my coach in April of 2009 and that really made a huge difference. We started with a long term plan and this seems to work out pretty well. The focus was merely on the run because I already was a solid cyclist. What really gave me a boost this year is the use of powercranks. Since January I am doing all my bike training with powercranks and that made me a lot stronger in the run and I also gained some watts extra power on the bike.
If we are back to busting out sad anecdotes then I would point to the far greater numbers that improved their performance using normal cranks, conventional training, achieve aero positions using 165-180mm cranks and follow evidence based training methods.
Improving is not the same as having exceptional performances. And, who says that those who experiment with crank length or pedaling technique cannot follow evidence based training methods? The number of riders who train with PowerCranks is miniscule compared to the general population but their presence at the highest level is not miniscule. What could possibly account for this mismatch? Did we just get lucky or is it possible PowerCranks actually helped these riders improve beyond what can be done without them? That is the general perception of those who actually use the product yet you claim this couldn't be possible because, well, just because. It is a laughable position for anyone who claims to be the least bit scientific.
This in itself is pretty meaningless. It is the measurement over time that matters.
Oh phoeey! This was an exceptional performance by a 38 yo amateur. Especially after swimming 2.4 miles and before an anticipated 3 hour marathon. This is a cycling site. How many people here that think they are pretty good could produce a similar power profile or a sub 4.5hr 112 mile time trial? Or, how many women could you find that could do a sub 4:50 112 mile time-trial (amateur or pro?) like Stefanie Adam? Don't you find it a bit strange that both of these individuals train on PowerCranks pretty much exclusively and have done so for years? No, probably not. Just outliers they are.
I'm sure that is what Taylor Phinney is doing to try and assess what change he made this year that led to him going from 6sec behind Tony Martin at Worlds in 2012 to over 2mins behind:cool:
LOL. Your implication? LOL
 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
0
FrankDay said:
Then, what was the purpose or implication of the earlier response in this thread on pedaling technique?
That if one makes claims about performance enhancement it can be measured with ANY power meter.

Perhaps you could show me where this decent sample of riders using one technique being compared to another group using another technique can be found? I have been looking and have yet to find same.
Luttrell, Williams, Sperlich, Bohm and Burns among other studies comparing two different pedalling techniques over time frames where numerous other products, techniques, practices or nutritional practices have shown a significant improvement in performance.

Here is what Sam said in an interview on SlowTwitch in 2011Improving is not the same as having exceptional performances.
Based on his website he is sponsored by you so hardly a scientific claim.

And, who says that those who experiment with crank length or pedaling technique cannot follow evidence based training methods?
Well I guess if you do ignore every study that used cycling performance as the dependant variable then you could :p

The number of riders who train with PowerCranks is miniscule compared to the general population but their presence at the highest level is not miniscule. What could possibly account for this mismatch?
Your vivid imagination.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
CoachFergie said:
Luttrell, Williams, Sperlich, Bohm and Burns among other studies comparing two different pedalling techniques over time frames…
There hasn't been a single study that actually has demonstrated that the two measured groups used substantially different technique as their naturally used and trained technique. All of those studies tried to look at the effect of training a new pedaling technique but none of them measured whether the training achieved the desired goal. Without that how is one supposed to interpret negative results?
…where numerous other products, techniques, practices or nutritional practices have shown a significant improvement in performance.
Point me to a single study done by independent researchers that has been subsequently independently confirmed showing significant improvement in any of the areas mentioned above compared to alternatives?
 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
0
FrankDay said:
There hasn't been a single study that actually has demonstrated that the two measured groups used substantially different technique as their naturally used and trained technique. All of those studies tried to look at the effect of training a new pedaling technique but none of them measured whether the training achieved the desired goal. Without that how is one supposed to interpret negative results? Point me to a single study done by independent researchers that has been subsequently independently confirmed showing significant improvement in any of the areas mentioned above compared to alternatives?
Classic.

Both Bohm and Fernandez-Pena showed that the experimental group developed a different pedalling technique.

Gibala compared a group performing 12-16mins of Short Interval Training over a 2 week period and saw a 100% increase in performance in a test to exhaustion.

Does that mean with 10,000 hours of SIT one could expect a 5 Million percent improvement in performance:D
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts