The pedaling technique thread

[JamesCun]

Frank, do you have any data from the icranks on a rider going through the spectrum of intensities and durations or do you only have low intensity data?

 

[FrankDay]

Frank, do you have any data from the icranks on a rider going through the spectrum of intensities and durations or do you only have low intensity data?

The iCranks are new to me and not available to the public as yet so the answer to your question is: NO. It will come.

Edit: I might add, the manufacturers of the iCranks seem to be delaying the introduction until they can make them "perfect". No product is ever perfect. I push them to get out what they have and improve the product as they can. Hopefully, it will be available to all soon.

 

[JamesCun]

The iCranks are new to me and not available to the public as yet so the answer to your question is: NO. It will come.

Edit: I might add, the manufacturers of the iCranks seem to be delaying the introduction until they can make them "perfect". No product is ever perfect. I push them to get out what they have and improve the product as they can. Hopefully, it will be available to all soon.

I thought you were icranks? Never seen anything about them except on your website, with the same hyperbole as you've written here ;-)

 

[FrankDay]

I thought you were icranks? Never seen anything about them except on your website, with the same hyperbole as you've written here ;-)

iCranks are a licensed PowerCranks product coming out of an Australian company. I have no control over what they do or don't do. I find some of their choices very frustrating. Edit: I have considered some of their choices so bad I have considered doing something like this myself (only a lot better) but I don't have the resources to make it happen. So, we will have to wait until they appear on the market.

 

[sciguy]

So explain this to me

Frank.

I keep wondering if pedaling technique really matters a significant amount

Why doesn't the cream float to the top?

It's not like the technique you espouse is a complete revolution in method like switching from straddling the bar to the Fosbury flop was for high jumping.

Cyclist have been able to pull up, scrape the mud of the shoe and kick the soccer ball since toe clips were invented.

Mountain bikers long ago modified their pedaling technique to resemble what you espouse as it serves to improve the traction they attain on slippery trails. This has been measured on verified many times. Mountain biker John Tomac was even proclaimed the king of even power production.

So why don't any of the high level road cyclists generate any significant power in the flexion phase of the crank revolution?

It has been shown that they all unweight to a significant degree and yet they don't go that further step of pulling up a bit harder even though the capability is obviously there.

If pulling up just a bit more helped in any way why don't the folks that randomly do it gain an advantage and work harder to do it even more?
I see those folks when I'm out cycling. They even brag to me about how hard they're working on the upstroke......as my 60+ year old body passes them.

Why don't mountain bikers that move to road cycling totally kick #ss and take names. Why do they quickly drop their old method of pedaling?

So if pedaling technique really does matter why doesn't the cream float to the top?

Hugh

 

[JayKosta]

...
So why don't any of the high level road cyclists generate any significant power in the flexion phase of the crank revolution?
...

----------------------------------
That's a very interesting assertion.
What is your basis for believing that it's true?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[sciguy]

----------------------------------
That's a very interesting assertion.
What is your basis for believing that it's true?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Jay,

This is an interesting read-

http://roadcyclinguk.com/riding/bike-fitting-the-myth-of-the-upstroke.html#iRTZztAXiLRUA51I.97

? The research says we don?t ? Dr Jeff Broker has done extensive pedalling kinesiology tests on 100 elite and professional cyclists over 10 years and his data shows that not one of them produces a meaningful upstroke. So what hope is there for the rest of us?
Read more at http://roadcyclinguk.com/riding/bike-fitting-the-myth-of-the-upstroke.html#7TTyIw8prtk45uw2.99

Google Jeff Broker while you're researching- He's based in Colorado Springs Colorado.......perhaps that might provide a hint as to who he was working for while doing his research.

Hugh

 

[acoggan]

there is zero data to even suggest that those properly trained in a different technique would revert

Prior to the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles, the US team pursuit squad trained extensively on ergometers with feedback re. their pedaling technique, trying to get better at pulling up. They all apparently reverted to their normal pedaling style after the intervention was ceased.

(You'd have to dig through Chet Kyle's or Ed Burke's old publications for details, and/or talk to Chet or Jeff Broker.)

 

[JayKosta]

...
This is an interesting read-

http://roadcyclinguk.com/riding/bike-fitting-the-myth-of-the-upstroke.html#iRTZztAXiLRUA51I.97
...

-----------------------
Yes - interesting and seems to have been done with a good batch of test subjects. But even if it is correct for the majority of high ranked riders, it doesn't mean that NOBODY can, or does, improve their performance by 'pulling up' - as might be the case for someone who is physiologically 'gifted' for that motion. And I think it is pretty well established that elite athletes are gifted for their sport.

But regardless, even if some pulling up is not done, perhaps a pedaling technique for the upstroke that produces only 'direction of rotation' force on the foot would be better.

If the muscles are producing (or attempting to produce) any contractions in a direction that is counter to the rotation of the pedal, then that effort is using fuel and tiring the muscle.

If there is a desire is to 'rest' the muscles on the upstroke, then the foot should move freely in the direction of rotation, or be exerting some force in the direction of rotation - and NOT using contractions to exert a counter force.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[acoggan]

Fwhy don't any of the high level road cyclists generate any significant power in the flexion phase of the crank revolution?

It has been shown that they all unweight to a significant degree and yet they don't go that further step of pulling up a bit harder even though the capability is obviously there.

...except, of course, when sprinting (or really any time when absolute power output is prioritized over efficiency, fatigue resistance, etc.).

 

[acoggan]

...except, of course, when sprinting (or really any time when absolute power output is prioritized over efficiency, fatigue resistance, etc.).

Here's an example...the light blue and fuschia data points are the gross (i.e., muscular +/- gravitational +/- inertial) power absorbed by my right and left legs during an incremental exercise test to fatigue, plotted against one leg power. As you can see, even w/o the ability to differentiate between muscular and non-muscular components, the total approaches zero during high intensity exercise. If you accounted for the non-muscular forces - or asked to sprint all-out, at least while seated - positive power would be produced (i.e., power absorption would become negative).

 

[FrankDay]

Boy, you go away for a few days and all sorts of stuff happens, much of it, it seems, schizophrenic. Do cyclists do work on the upstroke or do they not?

So why don't any of the high level road cyclists generate any significant power in the flexion phase of the crank revolution? It has been shown that they all unweight to a significant degree and yet they don't go that further step of pulling up a bit harder even though the capability is obviously there.

And then a few post later

Jay,

This is an interesting read-

http://roadcyclinguk.com/riding/bike-fitting-the-myth-of-the-upstroke.html#iRTZztAXiLRUA51I.97

? The research says we don?t ? Dr Jeff Broker has done extensive pedalling kinesiology tests on 100 elite and professional cyclists over 10 years and his data shows that not one of them produces a meaningful upstroke. So what hope is there for the rest of us?
Read more at http://roadcyclinguk.com/riding/bike...w8prtk45uw2.99

Google Jeff Broker while you're researching- He's based in Colorado Springs Colorado.......perhaps that might provide a hint as to who he was working for while doing his research.

Hugh

So, which is it, do they do work on the upstroke or not? Just what is meant by a "meaningful upstroke" anyhow? Let's look at this a bit by reviewing the comparison of the actual muscle work done by an ordinary cyclist and the true circular pedal stroke

If the "upstroke" is mostly what is occurring at 270 let us focus there. Even though it would seem the rider is not doing a meaningful upstroke there because the negative forces on the pedal are almost maximum there when we look at the muscle work done there it is at a maximum (for the backstroke, at least) and almost equal to the work being done by the circular pedal stroke. So, Broker, despite his esteemed position is wrong because the forces on the pedal do not well represent the work being done by the muscles. He simply forgot to account for gravity in his analysis. (How can negative forces on the upstroke result in positive work you ask? It is because lifting the leg increases the POTENTIAL ENERGY in the leg, which can be returned to the bike as KINETIC ENERGY on the down stroke. The work being done by the muscles on the up stroke is just delayed in its transmission to the bicycle until the downstroke.) What looks like negative work is actually gravity masking positive work, all that is different between the two styles is the amount of the work being done and at 270 the difference is pretty small. Where the big difference exists between the two styles is what happens at the top and the bottom of the stroke. Anyone remember that study where cycling efficiency correlated with the size of the forces at the top and bottom of the stroke. Hmmmm. Perhaps that finding, as it relates to this discussion, may get some of you thinking on a different track.

I think it is clear we all pedal in circles (in that there is some positive work being done around the entire circle) to some degree. The difference in pedaling technique is a nuanced one as to how balanced and evenly distributed that work is. Is there an advantage to increasing the work being done in the weak areas or is the advantage to maximize the work being done in the strong areas (should the "ordinary rider" be pushing harder and pulling up less to improve efficiency)?

 

[FrankDay]

Why don't mountain bikers that move to road cycling totally kick #ss and take names.

Yes, why didn't moutain bikers like Sagan, Hesjedal, C. Evans continue to kiss a$$ and take names when they converted to road racing?

 

[JamesCun]

Yes, why didn't moutain bikers like Sagan, Hesjedal, C. Evans continue to kiss a$$ and take names when they converted to road racing?

I'm not sure any of them kiss it ;-)

And we know in Hesjdals case it was significantly impacted by doping.

 

[coapman]

Boy, you go away for a few days and all sorts of stuff happens, much of it, it seems, schizophrenic. Do cyclists do work on the upstroke or do they not?

And then a few post later

So, which is it, do they do work on the upstroke or not? Just what is meant by a "meaningful upstroke" anyhow? Let's look at this a bit by reviewing the comparison of the actual muscle work done by an ordinary cyclist and the true circular pedal stroke

If the "upstroke" is mostly what is occurring at 270 let us focus there. Even though it would seem the rider is not doing a meaningful upstroke there because the negative forces on the pedal are almost maximum there when we look at the muscle work done there it is at a maximum (for the backstroke, at least) and almost equal to the work being done by the circular pedal stroke. So, Broker, despite his esteemed position is wrong because the forces on the pedal do not well represent the work being done by the muscles. He simply forgot to account for gravity in his analysis. (How can negative forces on the upstroke result in positive work you ask? It is because lifting the leg increases the POTENTIAL ENERGY in the leg, which can be returned to the bike as KINETIC ENERGY on the down stroke. The work being done by the muscles on the up stroke is just delayed in its transmission to the bicycle until the downstroke.) What looks like negative work is actually gravity masking positive work, all that is different between the two styles is the amount of the work being done and at 270 the difference is pretty small. Where the big difference exists between the two styles is what happens at the top and the bottom of the stroke. Anyone remember that study where cycling efficiency correlated with the size of the forces at the top and bottom of the stroke. Hmmmm. Perhaps that finding, as it relates to this discussion, may get some of you thinking on a different track.

I think it is clear we all pedal in circles (in that there is some positive work being done around the entire circle) to some degree. The difference in pedaling technique is a nuanced one as to how balanced and evenly distributed that work is. Is there an advantage to increasing the work being done in the weak areas or is the advantage to maximize the work being done in the strong areas (should the "ordinary rider" be pushing harder and pulling up less to improve efficiency)?

How does unweighting affect the peak torque sector in the downstroke ?
How does pulling up affect the peak torque sector in the downstroke ?

 

[acoggan]

More evidence why attempting to pedal PowerCrank style is counterproductive...notice how tduring normal pedaling the bicep femoris and tensor fascia lata are already stressed more than the gluteus maximus, as demonsrated by the greater degree of deoxygenation at lower intensities and eariler decline as a function increasing power output (which was incremented from 150 to 300 W in 25 W/min steps). In the case of the latter, it is probably simply due to the small size of the muscle in question, whereas although the former is larger, it isn't nearly as large as the g. maximus, and is active during both the downstroke and the upstroke. Yet, Frank would have everyone believe it is better to place even greater demands on these muscles (by attempting to even out the pattern of force application), when the largest muscle in the body is largely just cruising along, waiting to be called upon at really high intensities (e.g., sprinting) when it is needed.

 

[JayKosta]

More evidence why attempting to pedal PowerCrank style is counterproductive
...

-----------------------------
But are those smaller muscles being used only for efficiently moving the leg/foot in the 'direction of rotation'?
If they are being stressed by 'less useful' contractions, then perhaps that contributes to their unsaturation.

It would be interesting to know whether a 'PowerCrank' type tool ONLY encourages 'pull up' at any cost, or if it also 'teaches' the rider how to achieve 'pull up' AND to avoid counter productive muscle efforts.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[acoggan]

-----------------------------
But are those smaller muscles being used only for efficiently moving the leg/foot in the 'direction of rotation'?

EMG data says yes (see, e.g., Neptune's work).

 

[JayKosta]

EMG data says yes (see, e.g., Neptune's work).

---------------------
Thanks for the reference, I'll look into his research.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[FrankDay]

How does unweighting affect the peak torque sector in the downstroke ?
How does pulling up affect the peak torque sector in the downstroke ?

It is pretty simple. For any given total power the total power seen by the rider is the average of all the instantaneous powers seen around the pedal circle. If one compares two riders at the same power if one is a little higher here he has to be a little lower somewhere else so the average ends up the same.

 

[FrankDay]

More evidence why attempting to pedal PowerCrank style is counterproductive...notice how tduring normal pedaling the bicep femoris and tensor fascia lata are already stressed more than the gluteus maximus, as demonsrated by the greater degree of deoxygenation at lower intensities and eariler decline as a function increasing power output (which was incremented from 150 to 300 W in 25 W/min steps). In the case of the latter, it is probably simply due to the small size of the muscle in question, whereas although the former is larger, it isn't nearly as large as the g. maximus, and is active during both the downstroke and the upstroke. Yet, Frank would have everyone believe it is better to place even greater demands on these muscles (by attempting to even out the pattern of force application), when the largest muscle in the body is largely just cruising along, waiting to be called upon at really high intensities (e.g., sprinting) when it is needed.

That is truly a bizarre interpretation of that data as far as I am concerned. If different muscles are desaturating differently that, to me, suggests that the muscles have simple been trained differently and that the weaker muscles need to be brought up to the level of the strongest muscle. It seems to me that an athlete wants all the muscles used to be used equally (at least relative to their ability) such that they all fail at the same time. No chain is stronger than the weakest link. Why someone would interpret this as evidence not to train the weaker muscles more makes no sense to me.

 

[FrankDay]

It would be interesting to know whether a 'PowerCrank' type tool ONLY encourages 'pull up' at any cost, or if it also 'teaches' the rider how to achieve 'pull up' AND to avoid counter productive muscle efforts.

Yes it would be interesting to study this. But, of course, the experts, like Dr. Coggan, have pre-determined that pedaling technique doesn't matter so why bother. Nothing to see here folks, move along.

 

[JayKosta]

These articles by Richard Neptune look interesting.
On initial cursory look, they appear to show differences in muscle use and activation timing that is dependent on cadence and power output.
If there are significant differences, then that indicates changes in the 'pedaling 'technique' used.
I am particularly interested in how the activation timing differences that are related to differert power demands is related to the amount of power change (delta) among the various power levels.

Cadence, power, and muscle activation in
cycle ergometry

Muscle Activation and Deactivation Dynamics:
The Governing Properties in Fast Cyclical
Human Movement Performance?

The Effect of Pedaling Rate on Coordination in Cycling

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[acoggan]

That is truly a bizarre interpretation of that data as far as I am concerned. If different muscles are desaturating differently that, to me, suggests that the muscles have simple been trained differently and that the weaker muscles need to be brought up to the level of the strongest muscle. It seems to me that an athlete wants all the muscles used to be used equally (at least relative to their ability) such that they all fail at the same time. No chain is stronger than the weakest link. Why someone would interpret this as evidence not to train the weaker muscles more makes no sense to me.

<sarcasm mode on>

Yes, I'm quite sure I can train my tensor fascia lata to be as large and powerful (and hence as immune to metabolic strain) as my gluteus maximus.

<sarcasm mode off>

 

[FrankDay]

<sarcasm mode on>

Yes, I'm quite sure I can train my tensor fascia lata to be as large and powerful (and hence as immune to metabolic strain) as my gluteus maximus.

<sarcasm mode off>

You are deliberately obtuse I suspect because no one could really be so stupid. The goal would be to get the muscles to contribute work relative to their capability. So, when at 70% of VO2max each muscle would be at 70% of its max, whatever that was. That would require training each muscle (relatively) equally don't you think. Differing saturations between the muscles suggest that the the muscles with the lower venous saturation would be expected to fatigue faster than those extracting less oxygen. This suggests that the more desaturated the muscle is (compared to the other muscles in the system) the less well trained it is for the task it is being asked to do. As one muscle in a system fails due to fatigue then the work of that muscle must be taken up by others to compensate, causing those muscles to fatigue faster than they were. It becomes a vicious cycle. It seems obvious to anyone putting the least bit of thought into this that optimum performance would ensue if the muscles involved in an effort were all working equally relative to their capability and fatiguing at the same rate. It would also seem that, at the same time, it would be optimal if each muscle was being used at the optimal time during the cycle to most efficiently transfer the work being done to the intended purpose. Just sayin...