The pedaling technique thread

[FrankDay]

Re: Re:

Of course I have a bias that technique influences efficiency. This is obvious from the OP in this thread. But, more importantly, engineering principles demand such a view. Your assertion that it doesn't is so naive in this regards as to be laughable. But, if you don't understand this nothing I am going to say is going to change your mind. The only real question to an engineer is exactly what are all the elements involved in this "influencing" and how to optimize them. The fact that the same researchers came up with two conflicting results is no more compelling that one is right and the other wrong than if it were two different researchers. The statement "Thus, the present study provides no indication for the notion that technique affects energy consumption" is not evidence that technique doesn't affect energy consumption but only indicates that this study didn't find it. Perhaps their cohort were different the second time around such that the DC differences were so small in this group that differences couldn't be detected. All this represents is conflicting data. Technique has to affect energy efficiency, there is no other rational option.

You seem to be missing the point here. People aren't saying that technique doesn't matter, they are suggesting that the 'natural' technique that people use has been demonstrated to be just as efficient (or more efficient) as modified techniques. Your bias is displayed when you promote one study that supports your view, while at the same time downplaying another study, by the same authors, that doesn't support your view.

Cool. Prove it. Start by addressing Lutrell.

Oh, and you might address exactly which "natural" technique is best as what people "naturally" do seems to be all over the place

Oh, and then tell me WHY the best technique of yours is best and can't be improved upon.

All I have said is I think technique matters. I think I can theorize a better technique than what most people do. I can't prove it. But, you are telling me what most people do can't be improved upon. Prove it.

 

[JamesCun]

Re: Re:

Of course I have a bias that technique influences efficiency. This is obvious from the OP in this thread. But, more importantly, engineering principles demand such a view. Your assertion that it doesn't is so naive in this regards as to be laughable. But, if you don't understand this nothing I am going to say is going to change your mind. The only real question to an engineer is exactly what are all the elements involved in this "influencing" and how to optimize them. The fact that the same researchers came up with two conflicting results is no more compelling that one is right and the other wrong than if it were two different researchers. The statement "Thus, the present study provides no indication for the notion that technique affects energy consumption" is not evidence that technique doesn't affect energy consumption but only indicates that this study didn't find it. Perhaps their cohort were different the second time around such that the DC differences were so small in this group that differences couldn't be detected. All this represents is conflicting data. Technique has to affect energy efficiency, there is no other rational option.

You seem to be missing the point here. People aren't saying that technique doesn't matter, they are suggesting that the 'natural' technique that people use has been demonstrated to be just as efficient (or more efficient) as modified techniques. Your bias is displayed when you promote one study that supports your view, while at the same time downplaying another study, by the same authors, that doesn't support your view.

Cool. Prove it. Start by addressing Lutrell.

Oh, and you might address exactly which "natural" technique is best as what people "naturally" do seems to be all over the place

Oh, and then tell me WHY it can't be improved upon.

I don't have to address Lutrell. That has been done before.

Natural is whatever people do, of course if varies to some extent. But, based on the info it seems to be fairly consistent. ie no one pulls up significantly like the powercrankers do.

Who said it can't be improved upon? But, you need to prove that it does improve things.

 

[JamesCun]

Re: Re:

All I have said is I think technique matters. I think I can theorize a better technique than what most people do. I can't prove it. But, you are telling me what most people do can't be improved upon. Prove it.

I've never said any such thing. Others haven't said that either. They have said, show me the evidence. You consistently trot out your 'theories' and say that everyone now has the responsibility to disprove you. It doesn't work like that. You want people to change their pedalling technique, you need to prove that it is beneficial before anyone will follow you.

 

[FrankDay]

Re: Re:

All I have said is I think technique matters. I think I can theorize a better technique than what most people do. I can't prove it. But, you are telling me what most people do can't be improved upon. Prove it.

I've never said any such thing. Others haven't said that either. They have said, show me the evidence. You consistently trot out your 'theories' and say that everyone now has the responsibility to disprove you. It doesn't work like that. You want people to change their pedalling technique, you need to prove that it is beneficial before anyone will follow you.

Nope, they have said, that is impossible, show me the evidence. How many times have I been called a con artist, snake oil salesman, etc. here. Show the the evidence it is impossible. It doesn't exist. Therefore, in view of the lack of compelling evidence for either side, it would seem we should be able to have a reasoned discussion regarding the possibilities. But, we can't.

 

[CoachFergie]

Lots of research on "better techniques" than mashing that have been falsified. Burden of proof is on those making claims in first place. Successful coaches will keep on using proven methods that have yet to been proven wrong. When evidence is lacking they will use experience. In my experience I have never seen a rider improve as remarkably as the marketing claims around various pedalling technique improvements. Not once. I will direct people who seek my advice to focus on developing their time training fitness, threshold power and event specific power, ensuring they recover from training, racing and other life stressors, that they eat well, are set up for comfort, performance and aerodynamics on their bike, learn to use/select their gears, have good riding technique, understand the rules of the sport and IMHO develop the top two inches. The last is hardest to measure which makes it the hardest to coach but, again IMHO, is where the real gold in performance enhancement is found.

 

[CoachFergie]

Re: Re:

All I have said is I think technique matters. I think I can theorize a better technique than what most people do. I can't prove it. But, you are telling me what most people do can't be improved upon. Prove it.

I've never said any such thing. Others haven't said that either. They have said, show me the evidence. You consistently trot out your 'theories' and say that everyone now has the responsibility to disprove you. It doesn't work like that. You want people to change their pedalling technique, you need to prove that it is beneficial before anyone will follow you.

Nope, they have said, that is impossible, show me the evidence. How many times have I been called a con artist, snake oil salesman, etc. here. Show the the evidence it is impossible. It doesn't exist. Therefore, in view of the lack of compelling evidence for either side, it would seem we should be able to have a reasoned discussion regarding the possibilities. But, we can't.

I think I have called you a con artist, snake oil salesman and lets not forget things like performance artist and most laughable person on the cycling interweb quite a bit.

Now, just who is saying it is impossible. Burden of proof is on the person making outlandish claims. None, zero, zippo of your claims in the last 15 years have panned out and many of the claims you have made have proven to be outright lies and fraudulent.

 

[FrankDay]

Re: Re:

All I have said is I think technique matters. I think I can theorize a better technique than what most people do. I can't prove it. But, you are telling me what most people do can't be improved upon. Prove it.

I've never said any such thing. Others haven't said that either. They have said, show me the evidence. You consistently trot out your 'theories' and say that everyone now has the responsibility to disprove you. It doesn't work like that. You want people to change their pedalling technique, you need to prove that it is beneficial before anyone will follow you.

Nope, they have said, that is impossible, show me the evidence. How many times have I been called a con artist, snake oil salesman, etc. here. Show the the evidence it is impossible. It doesn't exist. Therefore, in view of the lack of compelling evidence for either side, it would seem we should be able to have a reasoned discussion regarding the possibilities. But, we can't.

I think I have called you a con artist, snake oil salesman and lets not forget things like performance artist and most laughable person on the cycling interweb quite a bit.

Now, just who is saying it is impossible. Burden of proof is on the person making outlandish claims. None, zero, zippo of your claims in the last 15 years have panned out and many of the claims you have made have proven to be outright lies and fraudulent.

No, the outlandish claim is that what we do now cannot be improved upon or that technique doesn't matter (which it clearly does). This is supposed to be a discussion forum where ideas such as these can be thrown about and discussed. People like you make it impossible. So, I say to you, prove your view.

 

[FrankDay]

Re:

Lots of research on "better techniques" than mashing that have been falsified.

example please

Burden of proof is on those making claims in first place. Successful coaches will keep on using proven methods that have yet to been proven wrong.

Nor proven correct, just something that "everyone knows works"

When evidence is lacking they will use experience. In my experience I have never seen a rider improve as remarkably as the marketing claims around various pedalling technique improvements.

Well, in my experience I have. Perhaps you have never tried.

Not once.

How many times have you tried? Not once I suspect.

I will direct people who seek my advice to focus on developing their time training fitness, threshold power and event specific power, ensuring they recover from training, racing and other life stressors, that they eat well, are set up for comfort, performance and aerodynamics on their bike, learn to use/select their gears, have good riding technique, understand the rules of the sport and IMHO develop the top two inches. The last is hardest to measure which makes it the hardest to coach but, again IMHO, is where the real gold in performance enhancement is found.

Cool. Now would you let those of us interested in the subject get back to discussing pedaling technique.

 

[FrankDay]

Re: Re:

All I have said is I think technique matters. I think I can theorize a better technique than what most people do. I can't prove it. But, you are telling me what most people do can't be improved upon. Prove it.

I've never said any such thing. Others haven't said that either. They have said, show me the evidence. You consistently trot out your 'theories' and say that everyone now has the responsibility to disprove you. It doesn't work like that. You want people to change their pedalling technique, you need to prove that it is beneficial before anyone will follow you.

It seems to me there is really nothing to discuss once something has been proven. This is a discussion forum isn't it?

 

[JamesCun]

Re: Re:

All I have said is I think technique matters. I think I can theorize a better technique than what most people do. I can't prove it. But, you are telling me what most people do can't be improved upon. Prove it.

I've never said any such thing. Others haven't said that either. They have said, show me the evidence. You consistently trot out your 'theories' and say that everyone now has the responsibility to disprove you. It doesn't work like that. You want people to change their pedalling technique, you need to prove that it is beneficial before anyone will follow you.

It seems to me there is really nothing to discuss once something has been proven. This is a discussion forum isn't it?

really Frank, let's stick to the discussion. You say prove it in one comment, then turn around and say there is no discussion of it is already proven. Which is it Frank?

 

[CoachFergie]

Burden of providing evidence is on you Frank, you're the only one here making outlandish claims. Don't sidetrack things by asking for proof that we have supplied ten times over. That is just another dodge. This is a discussion forum. People like you and Noel have made a claim. We have called your bluff and not accepted what either of you think is evidence. The ball is in your court Frank.

As a cycling coach I get paid to do two things. Improve performance and get results. So I want to find a better way, I live and breathe cycling performance because the better a job I do the more opportunities I get to learn, grow and develop as a coach. I also don't like to have my time wasted and don't like seeing other people sucked into wasting their time. All I see from you and Noel is meaningless claims with no evidence to support them.

 

[sciguy]

Re: Re:

FrankDay

What I can't tell you is exactly which technique is optimum. I have ideas but I don't know.

Well I've got to admit it, it does appear that pedaling technique does matter. This just in from professional triathlete Eric Lagerstrom over on Slowtwitch. http://forum.slowtwitch.com/cgi-bin/gforum.cgi?post=5602062#5602062

I'm right there with you on the pedaling efficiency improvement. I was a bit skeptical of whether that could or should be improved when I first started using the Pioneer system. My coach (Paulo Sousa) utilized it in the early season when we did high power-low RPM work and he actually told me to focus on higher peak forces on the downstroke. Over the course of 6 weeks, my efficiency numbers jumped by 4% and my power by about 20 watts. The nice thing about having that data is that you can use it how you please and fit it into your philosophy

In case you don't know about Eric, he recently won the famous Escape from Alcatraz Triathlon beating many time former winner Andy Potts in the process. So once again we see pushing harder does the job

Hugh

 

[backdoor]

Re: Re:

FrankDay

What I can't tell you is exactly which technique is optimum. I have ideas but I don't know.

Well I've got to admit it, it does appear that pedaling technique does matter. This just in from professional triathlete Eric Lagerstrom over on Slowtwitch. http://forum.slowtwitch.com/cgi-bin/gforum.cgi?post=5602062#5602062

I'm right there with you on the pedaling efficiency improvement. I was a bit skeptical of whether that could or should be improved when I first started using the Pioneer system. My coach (Paulo Sousa) utilized it in the early season when we did high power-low RPM work and he actually told me to focus on higher peak forces on the downstroke. Over the course of 6 weeks, my efficiency numbers jumped by 4% and my power by about 20 watts. The nice thing about having that data is that you can use it how you please and fit it into your philosophy

Hugh

That is why I said, if changes to improve technique are made, they must be in the same 180deg. where peak force is being applied, there they also can be given total concentration. Now if he knew how to extend that most tangential and most forceful 60 deg. sector over 120+ deg., he would have the perfect technique. According to FD one of the advantages of PC's is, they teach a rider how to pedal without having to concentrate on what their legs are doing.

 

[Irondan]

Great discussion guys! I've learned way more about pedaling technique than I ever thought I would know. I'm looking forward to putting this knowledge to practice!

 

[backdoor]

Re: Re:

What I So once again we see pushing harder does the job

Hugh

I would make that controlled pushing harder. Glad to see Eric and myself are on the same wavelength as regards pedalling efficiency.

" The efficiency numbers are essentially a ratii of total power to tangential power. So the amount of force being applied in the direction the crank needs to go. (Straight down when the crank is at 3 o'clock versus straight down when it's at 6 o'clock)



Here's a quote I got straight from the engineers:
"We measure and transmit positive and negative tangential and
non-productive radial forces 12 times or every 30 degree of rotation per
leg. The mechanical formula for efficiency is all forces divided by the
tangent forces. We use a 100% scale only achievable by a machine. Our
system provides a clear picture in real time or ride averaging of how much
and where in your pedal stroke you are producing all forces good and bad
allowing you to understand your pedaling technique and efficiency at all
ranges of power by leg." "

 

[JayKosta]

Re: Re:

...
Well I've got to admit it, it does appear that pedaling technique does matter. This just in from professional triathlete Eric Lagerstrom over on Slowtwitch. http://forum.slowtwitch.com/cgi-bin/gforum.cgi?post=5602062#5602062
...

I'm waiting to see if there is more info from Eric about his 'new' overall pedaling technique, and whether it is successful in an actual event.
I'm sure there are other factors involved other than him discovering that he could push harder on the downstroke!

Has he written about what his previous 'technique' was? e.g. mashing, circular, unweighting, pulling-up, etc.

His experience might be the spark needed to get some additional thoughtful analysis of technique.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[sciguy]

Re: Re:

...
Well I've got to admit it, it does appear that pedaling technique does matter. This just in from professional triathlete Eric Lagerstrom over on Slowtwitch. http://forum.slowtwitch.com/cgi-bin/gforum.cgi?post=5602062#5602062
...

I'm waiting to see if there is more info from Eric about his 'new' overall pedaling technique, and whether it is successful in an actual event.

He did just beat Andy Potts in Escape from Alcatraz Triathlon. To put that in perspective Andy was 4th in Kona last October and just crushed the rest of the Pro field at IMCDA this past weekend racing within 3 minutes of the course record despite 105*F temperatures. So no slouch there.

Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

Re: Re:

...
Well I've got to admit it, it does appear that pedaling technique does matter. This just in from professional triathlete Eric Lagerstrom over on Slowtwitch. http://forum.slowtwitch.com/cgi-bin/gforum.cgi?post=5602062#5602062
...

I'm waiting to see if there is more info from Eric about his 'new' overall pedaling technique, and whether it is successful in an actual event.

He did just beat Andy Potts in Escape from Alcatraz Triathlon. To put that in perspective Andy was 4th in Kona last October and just crushed the rest of the Pro field at IMCDA this past weekend racing within 3 minutes of the course record despite 105*F temperatures. So no slouch there.

Hugh

and what Andrew Starkyowicz says about pedaling technique https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search...ou+tube&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001 is irrelevant? Which one is considered the better biker? Without actual technique data all this is nothing but a bunch of anecdotes and pretty worthless to this discussion.

 

[backdoor]

Re: Re:

...
Well I've got to admit it, it does appear that pedaling technique does matter. This just in from professional triathlete Eric Lagerstrom over on Slowtwitch. http://forum.slowtwitch.com/cgi-bin/gforum.cgi?post=5602062#5602062
...

I'm waiting to see if there is more info from Eric about his 'new' overall pedaling technique, and whether it is successful in an actual event.
I'm sure there are other factors involved other than him discovering that he could push harder on the downstroke!

Has he written about what his previous 'technique' was? e.g. mashing, circular, unweighting, pulling-up, etc.

His experience might be the spark needed to get some additional thoughtful analysis of technique.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

I saw him in action in that Alcatraz race on a very technical course. My understanding of his change is, unlike the advice given by Broker, he concentrates greatest force in that push down where it has most tangential effect, thereby reducing wasted non tangential force.

 

[backdoor]

Re: Re:

[quote="FrankDay

and what Andrew Starkyowicz says about pedaling technique [url]https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=starkyowicz+pedaling+technique+you+tube&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001 is irrelevant? Which one is considered the better biker? Without actual technique data all this is nothing but a bunch of anecdotes and pretty worthless to this discussion.[/quote]

Obviously Andrew does not yet know that it is more efficient to let the rising pedal be pushed up from 10 to 12 o'c than by using the hip flexors to do it.

 

[FrankDay]

Re: Re:

FrankDay

and what Andrew Starkyowicz says about pedaling technique https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search...ou+tube&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001 is irrelevant? Which one is considered the better biker? Without actual technique data all this is nothing but a bunch of anecdotes and pretty worthless to this discussion.

Come on, really? What does any of that have to do with this discussion? Anecdotes can sometimes be useful but in this case they are particularly useless.

 

[JamesCun]

Re: Re:

FrankDay

and what Andrew Starkyowicz says about pedaling technique https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search...ou+tube&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001 is irrelevant? Which one is considered the better biker? Without actual technique data all this is nothing but a bunch of anecdotes and pretty worthless to this discussion.

How did Andrew do at Alcatraz? How has he done in any triathlon this year? How many KPR points does he have? Most importantly, how much data do we have regarding how he actually pedals? Oh, not a bit well that's helpful

Come on, really? What does any of that have to do with this discussion? Anecdotes can sometimes be useful but in this case they are particularly useless.

frank, you asked the question of which one was a better rider.

But we agree on one thing. A bunch of anecdotes are useless. The data clearly shows no benefit to changing pedalling technique. I'll go with that data and leave the anecdotes for marketing pitches.

 

[CoachFergie]

Re: Re:

Where do you guys make this stuff up? Do you have a club or something? What I have consistently said is 6 weeks of part time use is not enough time in a study to ensure a statisically significant (p<0.05) result. In 6 weeks most people are just starting to see improvement on the bike. Almost everyone is seeing it by 8 weeks and in 10 weeks if you are not seeing improvement the cranks are probably not for you. We have even extended the time for those who have asked. I don't think a single one of those people kept the cranks. They don't work for everyone and if they are not working for you in that 10-12 week period you can get your money back. About 1 in 1,000 does that.

Two ten week studies that didn't find any improvement...

The Impact of 10 weeks of Independent Cycle Crank use on
Run Performance
Alicia Diaz, Robert M. Otto, FACSM, Christopher Kushner, Jessica
Marra, Laura Walsh, Carolyn Richardson, John W. Wygand. Adelphi
University, Garden City, NY.
Email: wygand@adelphi.edu
(No relationships reported)
Enhanced endurance run performance is usually associated with improved aerobic power
and run efficiency resulting from high intensity, tempo, interval, and/or long slow distance
run training. However improvement in run performance has been reported in triathletes
from cycle training, despite the contradiction to principles of specificity.
PURPOSE: The purpose was to evaluate the effect of ten weeks of independent cycle
crank (ICC) training on run performance as measured by oxygen efficiency (OxE),
time trial performance (TT), and leg strength
METHODS: After a medical/health screening, thirty triathletes (16 male, 14 female)
(age 43.2 [range 25-54 yr], ht 176 [range 160-188 cm], and body mass 73.3 [range
54.3-97.7.5 kg]), participated in familiarization trials including leg strength (LE [leg
extension], LF [leg flexion]), and treadmill based steady state OxE (mLO2/kg-meter)
trial and a 5 K time trial. Identical testing was performed during the familiarization
trial, pre-test (within one week) and the post-test (ten weeks later). After the pre-test
trial, subjects were randomly assigned to one of three groups (C = control, 90 = 90
min/wk and 180 = min/wk). For ten weeks all subjects exercised (swim, cycle, run) a
minimum of eight hours each week. All groups ran a minimum of 2.5 hours/week at
low-moderate intensity (<75% HRR) and cycled a minimum of three hours/week with
C in fixed cranks, 90 for 90 min fixed and 90 min ICC, and 180 for 180 min ICC.
RESULTS: Changes of -3.8%, -6.2%,and -0.8% in OxE, -4.0%, -5.3%, and -0.4% in
TT, 7.1%, 8.8%, and 3.2% for LE, and 5.4%, 6.5%, and 5.5%, were evident for the
C, 90 and180 groups, respectively. Statistical analysis by ANOVA (P<.05) reveals no
significant difference among groups or pre-post changes within groups, except group
90 significantly improved run efficiency (OxE).
CONCLUSION: Ten weeks of winter time, base training for seasoned triathletes
reveals subtle changes that for the most part are not statistically significant. Although
self report indicates perceived improvement, the principle of specificity is upheld with
little influence of independent cycle crank arm use on run or strength performance.

And

The Impact of 10 weeks of Independent Cycle Crank use on
Cycle Performance
Robert M. Otto, FACSM, Laura Walsh, Jessica Marra, Christopher
Kushner, Alicia Diaz, Carolyn Richardson, John W. Wygand.
Adelphi University, Garden City, NY.
Email: otto@adelphi.edu
(No relationships reported)
Improvements in cycle performance may be a result of enhanced efficiency and/or a greater
power output. Cyclists strive to achieve both by over-distance training, high intensity
training, and specific cycle drills. Special products that claim to improve performance
by offering improved aerodynamics, reduced total cycle mass, better force transfer to the
crank, or providing biomechanical feedback rely on a paucity of research.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of ten weeks of using independent cycle cranks
(ICC) on cycling performance as measured by oxygen efficiency (OxE), time trial
performance (TT), and body composition (BC).
METHODS: After a medical/health screening, thirty triathletes (16 male, 14 female)
(age 43.2 [range 25-54 yr], ht 176 [range 160-188 cm], and body mass 73.3 [range
54.3-97.7.5 kg]), participated in familiarization trials including DEXA scan, electronic
cycle ergometer based steady state OxE trial and a time trial. Identical testing was
performed during the familiarization trial, pre-test (within one week) and the posttest
(ten weeks later). After the pre-test trial, subjects were randomly assigned to one
of three groups (C = control, 90 = 90 min/wk and 180 = min/wk). For ten weeks all
subjects exercised (swim, cycle, run) a minimum of eight hours per week. All groups
cycled a minimum of three hours/week with C in fixed cranks, 90 for 90 min fixed and
90 min ICC, and 180 for 180 min ICC.
RESULTS: Statistical analysis by ANOVA (P<.05) reveals no significant difference among or
between trials.
CONCLUSION: The use of independent cycle crank arms for a maximum of 30 hours
within ten weeks, requires the user to apply force independent of crank position, but
does not result in quantifiable changes in cycle efficiency or performance

And of course Fernandez Pena showing that even after two weeks neurological adaptations are taking place from uncoupled crank riding. But they are lost shortly after going back to coupled cranks.

Training With Independent Cranks Alters Muscle Coordination Pattern in Cyclists
Fernández-Peña, Eneko1,2; Lucertini, Francesco1; Ditroilo, Massimiliano1,2

Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research:
September 2009 - Volume 23 - Issue 6 - pp 1764-1772

Abstract
Fernández-Peña, E, Lucertini, F, and Ditroilo, M. Traning with independent cranks alters muscle coordination pattern in cyclists. J Strength Cond Res 23(6): 1764-1772, 2009-In cycling, a circular pedaling action makes the most useful contribution to forward propulsion. Training with independent cranks (IC) has been proposed to improve the pedaling action. The aims of this study were, first, to assess whether the intermuscular coordination pattern of the pedaling action with normal cranks (NC) is modified after a training period with IC and, second, to determine if the new coordination pattern is maintained after a washing-out period. Eighteen cyclists, divided into a control (CG) and an experimental (EG) group, underwent 2 test sessions (T1 and T2) separated by 2 weeks of training (18 hours). The electromyographic (EMG) activity of 4 lower limbs' muscles was recorded while the athletes pedaled at 80 rpm for 60 seconds at 30 and 50% of the maximal power output determined during a maximal pedaling test. The tasks were performed with IC (EG) and NC (EG and CG). The EG underwent a retention test session (T3) after another 18-hour training with NC. EG showed a significant (45.8 ± 8.8 vs. 36.0 ± 6.1%, p < 0.01 at 30% intensity) and a quasi-significant (62.7 ± 10.3 vs. 54.2 ± 8.7%, p = 0.09 at 50% intensity) decrease in vastus lateralis EMG activity and a quasi-significant (36.4 ± 13.4 vs. 43.5 ± 10.9%, p = 0.09 at 30% intensity) and a significant (54.5 ± 12.1 vs. 65.5 ± 16.1%, p < 0.05 at 50% intensity) increase in biceps femoris EMG activity between T1-NC and T2-NC. By T3, EMG activity returned to initial levels (T1). On the contrary, CG did not reveal any significant variation. The results provide scientific support for muscle coordination pattern alteration from the use of IC, potentially achieving a more effective pedaling action. IC training reduces quadriceps exertion, thus preserving it for important moments during competition.

 

[CoachFergie]

And lets not forget this study, soon to be published in full, that provides excellent data that a cyclist who has been pedaling like he was riding uncoupled cranks for SEVEN years, what some would call immersion training, found that he improved efficiency and lowered metabolic cost by changing to a way of pedaling more like he was riding an uncoupled crankset.

Session: B-41-Sports Equipment
Wednesday, May 27, 2015, 1:00 PM - 6:00 PM
Presentation: 914 - A Counterweight Improves Efficiency for an Amputee Cyclist
Location: Exhibit Hall F, Poster Board: 310
Pres. Time: Wednesday, May 27, 2015, 2:00 PM - 3:30 PM
Category: 0402. Biomechanics and Neural Control of Movement - sport biomechanics
Keywords: cycling; efficiency; amputee
Author(s): Brett A. Weitzel1, Daniel S. Nelson1, Steven J. Elmer2, Jim C. Martin, FACSM1. 1The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT. 2Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI. (Sponsor: Jim C. Martin, FACSM)
Abstract: Cycling technique is steeped in cultural lore. One deeply held belief is that pedaling techniques which increase the pulling action (muscular leg flexion) will improve efficiency. In contrast, research indicates that cycling efficiency is reduced when cyclists increase leg flexion power. These previous studies used acute interventions that may not have allowed sufficient time to adapt to and refine the technique. Single-leg amputee cyclists must produce substantial leg flexion power to lift the leg and thus have likely optimized the pulling action. The cyclist who volunteered for this investigation is a 4 time U.S. National Champion in road and track events who has performed single-leg cycling for 7 years. Thus, he should have a fully adapted and refined pulling technique. Purpose: To evaluate the effect of a counterweight system, which reduces the requirement for muscular leg flexion, on the metabolic cost and efficiency of a single-leg amputee cyclist. Methods: The cyclist performed two incremental cycling trials (100W + 35W/5min); one with and one without an 11.6kg counterweight on the unused crank. Expired gasses were measured and data from the last minute of each stage were used to calculate metabolic cost and efficiency. Differences in metabolic cost and efficiency for the four stages were evaluated using separate paired Student’s t tests. Results: Metabolic cost for the four incremental stages was reduced by 1.2±0.1kcal/min (p<0.001) and efficiency was increased from 16.8±2.0% to 18.6±1.8% (p<0.001) when cycling with the counterweight system. Conclusion: A counterweight system, which reduced the requirement for muscular leg flexion, decreased metabolic cost and increased efficiency even in this amputee single-leg cyclist who must pull up substantially during his normal cycling. The changes observed in this individual were similar to those observed during previous acute double- and single-leg interventions suggesting that previous results were not confounded by lack of practice. Rather, it appears that pulling up during cycling is inherently more metabolically costly and less efficient than pushing down. These data suggest that cyclists should not adopt pedaling techniques which increase the pulling action. Finally, a counterweight system may increase performance and enjoyment for amputee cyclists.
Disclosures: B.A. Weitzel: None.

 

[Irondan]

Please keep this a civil discussion that focuses on the thread topic. Any posts that are designed to bait another member into a retaliatory comment will be deleted.