The pedaling technique thread

[CoachFergie]

Certainly there is a lack of evidence showing that efficiency is improved with a "pulling up" technique, however the BIG thing that is missing is a training study. Acutely changing technique would likely result in poorer muscular coordination, which may explain why efficiency goes down when cyclists consciously alter their pedalling technique to anything other than "preferred".

A lot of training studies in the Powercrank thread that compare training with an uncoupled crank with training with a normal crank. No studies show an increase in performance over the control and only one study showed an increase in efficiency but none of the subsequent studies found this.

 

[FrankDay]

A lot of training studies in the Powercrank thread that compare training with an uncoupled crank with training with a normal crank. No studies show an increase in performance over the control and only one study showed an increase in efficiency but none of the subsequent studies found this.

Fergie, you seemed to miss the main point of Krebs…

…however the BIG thing that is missing is a training study. Acutely changing technique would likely result in poorer muscular coordination, which may explain why efficiency goes down when cyclists consciously alter their pedalling technique to anything other than "preferred".

And, as you know, there are other explanations (other than poor coordination) that can explain that drop in efficiency (and you forgot to mention the Dixon study which showed a positive performance improvement - increasing VO2max is seen as a positive performance improvement in your eyes isn't it?). While Krebs and I seem to disagree quite vehemently on some physiology questions we are in agreement on this point. Any study on pedaling technique needs to involve adequate training to actually change technique (while, at the same time, adequately training the new muscles needed in using the technique to be the "equivalent" of the old "preferred" muscles) and, before it is considered negative, monitor technique to "prove" that the stimulus was actually adequate to achieve the change desired. This requires actually documenting technique before and after. As I have stated repeatedly, and you refuse to accept, all of the negative studies you refer too are lacking on so many levels but the "proof of adequate training" mentioned above is the big one.

 

[CoachFergie]

(and you forgot to mention the Dixon study which showed a positive performance improvement - increasing VO2max is seen as a positive performance improvement in your eyes isn't it?).

No control group.

While Krebs and I seem to disagree quite vehemently on some physiology questions we are in agreement on this point. Any study on pedaling technique needs to involve adequate training to actually change technique (while, at the same time, adequately training the new muscles needed in using the technique to be the "equivalent" of the old "preferred" muscles) and, before it is considered negative, monitor technique to "prove" that the stimulus was actually adequate to achieve the change desired. This requires actually documenting technique before and after. As I have stated repeatedly, and you refuse to accept, all of the negative studies you refer too are lacking on so many levels but the "proof of adequate training" mentioned above is the big one.

This is only your opinion. Several studies from 5-10 weeks with a control group and none has ever shown the experimental group performs better in a performance test, and VO2max is not a measure of performance, ie the highest VO2max does not assure one of the best result.

Only Luttrell has shown a improvement in efficiency but no study since has found an improvement. Then of course the question is whether it was the uncoupled cranks that influenced efficiency or the training or distribution of type I and type II muscle fibres.

 

[CoachFergie]

Anyhow, did get a recent anecdotal report that might suggest that technique does, in fact, matter and that improvement does continue with more and more time. Drew Peterson has been racing for many years but "only" racing on PowerCranks for about 4 years. For the last 4 years he has won the Mt. Laguna bicycle classic, a 101 mile ride that involves over 10,000 ft of climbing. This year he set a new course record in 5:08, about 10 minutes faster than last year. http://www.flickr.com/photos/chriskostman/8667192066/in/set-72157633308148588

Utterly meaningless.

 

[FrankDay]

No control group.

LOL. You simply didn't understand the control group.

This is only your opinion. Several studies from 5-10 weeks with a control group and none has ever shown the experimental group performs better in a performance test, and VO2max is not a measure of performance, ie the highest VO2max does not assure one of the best result.

It also seems to be the opinion of Krebs. Anyhow, neither does the highest power assure the best result. So, are you saying that a demonstrated substantial increase in VO2max does not infer a similar increase in sustainable power? We already know that you don't believe that a demonstrable substantial increase in efficiency cannot be interpreted to infer a similar increase in sustainable power. You are so rigid that the only "performance" measure you can accept is for one to actually measure power. So be it.

Only Luttrell has shown a improvement in efficiency but no study since has found an improvement. Then of course the question is whether it was the uncoupled cranks that influenced efficiency or the training or distribution of type I and type II muscle fibres.

Well, no study subsequently has exactly reproduced Luttrell. They either had less intervention or had a higher quality cyclist enrolled. Luttrell was not trying to discern the mechanism of any improvement but, rather, whether there was any demonstrable improvement. Although, it can be inferred that the uncoupled cranks were responsible for the efficiency improvement as that was the only difference between groups. To determine the mechanism with certainty would require a different protocol to be left for follow-up studies.

Anyhow, all of the negative studies are deficient regarding "proving" the negative as none of them demonstrated the stimulus was adequate to make the expected changes. The fact you think it should have been is not evidence it was. The fact I think it was clearly less than necessary is not evidence it wasn't. The fact remains that the two studies with positive results just happened to be the two studies with the biggest relative intervention.

 

[CoachFergie]

LOL. You simply didn't understand the control group.

Revisionist biomechanics, revisionist physiology and now revisionist research methodology. LOL indeed.

Anyhow, neither does the highest power assure the best result.

That is correct.

So, are you saying that a demonstrated substantial increase in VO2max does not infer a similar increase in sustainable power?

In the Dixon case because there was no control group you can not make any assertion beyond "training works".

We already know that you don't believe that a demonstrable substantial increase in efficiency cannot be interpreted to infer a similar increase in sustainable power.

Does not equal an increase in power only that we are more efficient at that power.

You are so rigid that the only "performance" measure you can accept is for one to actually measure power.

Well not really. Based on power measurement a rider I coach could be expected to improve her 15km TT performance by 54 seconds from last year. At the regional championships she improved her time from last year by 2:30min.

Well, no study subsequently has exactly reproduced Luttrell. They either had less intervention or had a higher quality cyclist enrolled.

More revisionist methodology. One of the big issues in sport science is a lack of studies on world level athletes. A recent hot potato is Dietary Nitrates. A clear ergogenic effect in untrained subjects but when the same studies were performed on high performance athletes there was no meaningful effect.

Luttrell was not trying to discern the mechanism of any improvement but, rather, whether there was any demonstrable improvement.

Only performance measure they made was Individual Anaerobic Threshold (IAT) and there was no significant improvement over the control group.

Although, it can be inferred that the uncoupled cranks were responsible for the efficiency improvement as that was the only difference between groups. To determine the mechanism with certainty would require a different protocol to be left for follow-up studies.

Follow up studies compared two groups and measured efficiency. They found no significant difference between groups.

Anyhow, all of the negative studies are deficient regarding "proving" the negative as none of them demonstrated the stimulus was adequate to make the expected changes.

Your opinion. Fernandez-Pena showed that 2 weeks was sufficient to change the application of force around the pedal stroke. Numerous training studies have shown that a minimal training stimulus (SIT studies like Gibala with a 12-16min training load over a 2 week period leading to a 100% improvement in performance in untrained subjects) can lead to an increase in performance.

The fact you think it should have been is not evidence it was. The fact I think it was clearly less than necessary is not evidence it wasn't. The fact remains that the two studies with positive results just happened to be the two studies with the biggest relative intervention.

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

 

[FrankDay]

In the Dixon case because there was no control group you can not make any assertion beyond "training works".

LOL. There was a control group. You just don't have the experience to recognize the design. Remember the senior author is/was a well published researcher/author and the study was selected for oral presentation at the CSEP meeting, suggesting peer review and acceptance.

Does not equal an increase in power only that we are more efficient at that power.

Really? If you say so.

More revisionist methodology. One of the big issues in sport science is a lack of studies on world level athletes. A recent hot potato is Dietary Nitrates. A clear ergogenic effect in untrained subjects but when the same studies were performed on high performance athletes there was no meaningful effect.

You seem to forget that one precept of doing research is to do what is easy first. Choose the protocol to best uncover small differences, which would also uncover big differences. If one takes the hardest group to uncover differences as the first group being tested one may miss real but small differences.

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

LOL. 90 and 180 min/week. Unless they demonstrated that such an intervention actually changed their pedaling technique then the so-called negative findings have no basis. That is what Krebs said. That is the simple truth, regardless of how hard you want to interpret them differently.

 

[Krebs cycle]

Revisionist biomechanics, revisionist physiology and now revisionist research methodology. LOL indeed.

Don't waste your time Hamish

 

[Krebs cycle]

While Krebs and I seem to disagree quite vehemently on some physiology questions

Correction. I agree with the rest of the scientific world on what limits whole body VO2max at sea level in healthy humans. You do not

 

[FrankDay]

Correction. I agree with the rest of the scientific world on what limits whole body VO2max at sea level in healthy humans. You do not

LOL. Except for the part of the scientific world that doesn't agree with you and agrees with me. Make your argument on the physiology thread.

 

[CoachFergie]

LOL. There was a control group. You just don't have the experience to recognize the design.

Frank Day and the case of the Imaginary Control Group.

Remember the senior author is/was a well published researcher/author and the study was selected for oral presentation at the CSEP meeting, suggesting peer review and acceptance.

Appeal to authority. Utterly meaningless.

Really? If you say so.You seem to forget that one precept of doing research is to do what is easy first.

Yes, several studies doing an excellent job of disproving your wild arsed claims about using an uncoupled crank system.

90 and 180 min/week. Unless they demonstrated that such an intervention actually changed their pedaling technique then the so-called negative findings have no basis. That is what Krebs said.

Krebs also said your knowledge of physiology was 20 years behind the time. IMHO he was being generous.

 

[Krebs cycle]

LOL. Except for the part of the scientific world that doesn't agree with you and agrees with me.

Whatevs. Live and be merry in your little fantasy world, population = 1. Maybe one day you can write a book about the physiology of fairies and unicorns.

 

[FrankDay]

Whatevs. Live and be merry in your little fantasy world, population = 1. Maybe one day you can write a book about the physiology of fairies and unicorns.

Yes, whatever. Anyhow, good luck with your pedaling technique study. I, for one, look forward to seeing the results here someday soon.

 

[sittingbison]

lets keep it civil gents, remember shoot the message not messenger

cheers
bison

 

[CoachFergie]

What if the messenger is making claims that are clearly untrue.

 

[Boeing]

Can we at least agree that pedaling is in a forward motion?

 

[sittingbison]

What if the messenger is making claims that are clearly untrue.

report the post

 

[FrankDay]

Can we at least agree that pedaling is in a forward motion?

Probably not. I saw a gimmick bike at Sea Otter a few years back that had a mechanism that you could pedal forward or backward and either way drove the bike forward. So, you would have to be a little more specific before I think you got complete agreement.

 

[Krebs cycle]

report the post

who decides what is true and what is untrue and what the outcome would be in the event that something is untrue?

Would you give a warning leading to a ban if someone repeatedly claimed that pigs fly backwards?

What if they claimed that it is impossible to improve performance by altering your pedalling technique or cadence, or by losing weight or training at altitude?

 

[coapman]

Thanks. I didn't want to take the other thread too far off topic so I tried to address your concerns about the validity of the ergometer over there. (what I didn't say however is that there are a couple of dynamic calibration rigs elsewhere in Australia that will probably be used to do some checking. They have one and the Axis ergo at the AIS in Canberra).

On the subject of pedalling technique and efficiency its not an area I have spent much time reading, but (since it's my job to read scientific research) I just spent the last 20min having a look. What I found was a bit of a mixed bag. Certainly there is a lack of evidence showing that efficiency is improved with a "pulling up" technique, however the BIG thing that is missing is a training study. Acutely changing technique would likely result in poorer muscular coordination, which may explain why efficiency goes down when cyclists consciously alter their pedalling technique to anything other than "preferred".

What happens if a pedalling technique that minimises negative power is trained for weeks or months?

Wasted or unusable force around TDC is not detrimental to natural pedalling performance but wasted time around this sector is seriously detrimental to time trial performance. Unweighting minimises negative torque and gives instant improvement, after about a week of perfecting there will be nothing further to be gained from extended training. Pulling up also minimises negative torque but except on rare occasions it has an adverse effect on performance and no amount of extended training can alter that fact.

 

[CoachFergie]

Wasted or unusable force around TDC is not detrimental to natural pedalling performance but wasted time around this sector is seriously detrimental to time trial performance. Unweighting minimises negative torque and gives instant improvement, after about a week of perfecting there will be nothing further to be gained from extended training. Pulling up also minimises negative torque but except on rare occasions it has an adverse effect on performance and no amount of extended training can alter that fact.

And of course you will be able to produce data or research that supports any position you have on pedalling technique?

 

[hiero2]

And of course you will be able to produce data or research that supports any position you have on pedalling technique?

Coach, you have enough cred that you don't need the snark. And don't mention personal names, even if you know the person, unless they have done so themselves, and done it recently.

This is posted as a mod, not just a forumite.

 

[CoachFergie]

Let me rephrase that then...

I trust any person with a very firm position on pedalling technique has some data to present, that confirms it, or can direct us towards some research that supports their position.

 

[hiero2]

Let me rephrase that then...

I trust any person with a very firm position on pedalling technique has some data to present, that confirms it, or can direct us towards some research that supports their position.

Well said, sir, well said. Even, exceptionally well said. Thank you.

 

[coapman]

And of course you will be able to produce data or research that supports any position you have on pedalling technique?

Do you believe "unweighting" the rising pedal improves performance ?