The pedaling technique thread

[CoachFergie]

You still don't get it, opinions are meaningless, your opinion, my opinion, Jim's opinion. Where is the evidence for your claims! Jim has published study after study to back his assertions.

I am not interested in what fluff pieces in cycling mags or blogs have to say about pedalling. Again, just opinion pieces.

 

[backdoor]

Re:

You still don't get it, opinions are meaningless, your opinion, my opinion, Jim's opinion. Where is the evidence for your claims! Jim has published study after study to back his assertions.

I am not interested in what fluff pieces in cycling mags or blogs have to say about pedalling. Again, just opinion pieces.

My claims are based on experience and common sense.
How can more mechanically effective pedalling be less metabolically efficient, one of Jim's assertions ?

 

[CoachFergie]

Your claims are based on opinion, nothing more. But continue to delude yourself.

Jim's claims are backed up by data and reflects that mechanically effective pedalling does not have a relationship with actual performance. This has been very well documented for years.

 

[PhitBoy]

Re:

continue to delude yourself

I'm not sure he is actually deluded. If he actually believed what he said he would have taken us up on offers to demonstrate his fictional technique. I believe he is a pure troll who sits at his computer and thinks "what can I say that would really stir up Coach Fergie and all those other rational guys?". Then he types the most absurd thing he can come up with. Only a troll would refuse to show the world how much he claims to know.
The guy is a 74 yo recreational cyclist who gets his jollies being an internet troll. Lets all stop feeding the troll!
Alternatively, he might be acting as a Backdoor for FD.
Cheers,
Jim
PS Really wish I could have been in Cambridge for the WC last weekend!

 

[backdoor]

Re:

Your claims are based on opinion, nothing more. But continue to delude yourself.

Jim's claims are backed up by data and reflects that mechanically effective pedalling does not have a relationship with actual performance. This has been very well documented for years.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17545890

While it is claimed in the above research that four different pedalling techniques are used, nothing has changed in the mechanical effectiveness of the all important downstroke (1-5 o'c) in all four.

 

[JayKosta]

Re:

...
Jim's claims are backed up by data and reflects that mechanically effective pedalling does not have a relationship with actual performance. This has been very well documented for years.

-------------------------------------

YES, only when improvement of 'actual performance' is seen as being accomplished more effectively by a change to pedaling technique will it become 'interesting', and 'popular' with cyclists. And similar to CoachFergie, many cyclists want (demand?) that the value of a new technique be verified before they devote any of their limited training time to it. I can't fault them for that.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[backdoor]

Re: Re:

continue to delude yourself

I'm not sure he is actually deluded. If he actually believed what he said he would have taken us up on offers to demonstrate his fictional technique. I believe he is a pure troll who sits at his computer and thinks "what can I say that would really stir up Coach Fergie and all those other rational guys?". Then he types the most absurd thing he can come up with. Only a troll would refuse to show the world how much he claims to know.
The guy is a 74 yo recreational cyclist who gets his jollies being an internet troll. Lets all stop feeding the troll!
Alternatively, he might be acting as a Backdoor for FD.
Cheers,
Jim
PS Really wish I could have been in Cambridge for the WC last weekend!

Can you name one claim or statement from me that is wrong ?

 

[CoachFergie]

Re: Re:

continue to delude yourself

I'm not sure he is actually deluded. If he actually believed what he said he would have taken us up on offers to demonstrate his fictional technique. I believe he is a pure troll who sits at his computer and thinks "what can I say that would really stir up Coach Fergie and all those other rational guys?". Then he types the most absurd thing he can come up with. Only a troll would refuse to show the world how much he claims to know.
The guy is a 74 yo recreational cyclist who gets his jollies being an internet troll. Lets all stop feeding the troll!
Alternatively, he might be acting as a Backdoor for FD.
Cheers,
Jim
PS Really wish I could have been in Cambridge for the WC last weekend!

Can you name one claim or statement from me that is wrong ?

Unsubstantiated is the word that comes to mind. Your claims and statements are unsubstantiated!

 

[CoachFergie]

Re: Re:

[quote="
PS Really wish I could have been in Cambridge for the WC last weekend![/quote]

Not going to lie, it was fricking awesome. Was expected a big show and was not disappointed.

Most track cycling coaches will tell you that riding a fixed gear improves your pedalling for the simple reason that you can't stop. Linda Villumsen finally won Commonwealth Games in 2014 and World Champs TT this year after spending a summer chasing me on the motorbike around Denton Park in Christchurch on the instruction of Marco Pinotti.

Aldo Sassi instructed Cadel Evans and Ivan Basso to do fixed gear riding in the off season.

Notable in Broker (Cycling Science ed II) that he presented data that track cyclists had the lowest effectiveness at the highest power outputs.

 

[backdoor]

Re: Re:

Notable in Broker (Cycling Science ed II) that he presented data that track cyclists had the lowest effectiveness at the highest power outputs.

More important than data, does he explain why.

 

[backdoor]

Re: Re:

Notable in Broker (Cycling Science ed II) that he presented data that track cyclists had the lowest effectiveness at the highest power outputs.

More important than data, does he explain why.

The most obvious answer is those involved in the research were mashers wasting force at the bottom of the stroke

 

[backdoor]

Re: Re:

Notable in Broker (Cycling Science ed II) that he presented data that track cyclists had the lowest effectiveness at the highest power outputs.

More important than data, does he explain why.

The most obvious answer is those involved in the research were mashers wasting force at the bottom of the stroke

"
Dr. Jeff Broker on pedaling Quote | Reply


From VeloNews.com report on the Cycling Science Symposium and Expo in Colorado(http://www.velonews.com/...rticles/11504.0.html):

"Opening the list of speakers Monday was Jeff Broker, Ph.D., former biomechanist for the U.S. Olympic Committee. Broker currently serves as an assistant professor in the biology department at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Armed with years of pedal-force graphs obtained from ongoing studies of elite cyclists at the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs, Broker demonstrated an intimate understanding of how a rider produces power at this most critical contact point.

Broker separated out the gravitational and inertial components of a pedaling force diagram, so that one could really see exactly what was being produced and at what cost to the rider. Broker noted that most cycling coaches spend a great deal of effort trying to eliminate the downward forces at bottom dead center part of a pedal stroke. That effort, he explained, is essentially futile, since most of that downward force present there is non-muscular and takes virtually no energy. Offering an extreme example, Broker suggested that one could knock a rider out cold, clip him into the pedals, tape him down to the saddle and handlebars and crank up the pedals up to 90rpm. The result, he said, would show similar forces expended at the bottom of the pedal stroke.

Understanding those non-muscular effects could prevent a coach from engaging in a counter-productive effort of trying to encourage a rider to eliminate forces which actually come at no energy cost. Indeed, the effort to eliminate them can actually cost a rider energy and efficiency."


(This post was edited by Andrew Coggan on Jan 24, 07 10:58) "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this wasted force used in the pedalling effectiveness metric ?

 

[JayKosta]

Re: Re:

...
Notable in Broker (Cycling Science ed II) that he presented data that track cyclists had the lowest effectiveness at the highest power outputs.

-------------------------------------------------------
I'm not surprised by that - at 'highest power output' the cyclist is not concerned with mechanical effectiveness (or efficiency), only with producing power.

Achieving high levels of mechanical effectiveness requires that muscle usage be limited to those that produce tangental force. Using other muscles to produce non-tangental force can increase the total amount of power, but at a lower mechanical effectiveness.

Regarding the concern of having gravitational downward force at 6 o'clock - yes that gravitational downward force doesn't require any effort from the cyclist and doesn't reduce the power AT or BEFORE the pedal reaches 6 o'clock.
But BEYOND 6 o'clock that gravitational force needs to be overcome - by a combination of muscle pull-up, and pedal push-up.

In the situation of fixed-gear riding, I'd wager that the cyclist developes a highly skilled technique to reduce (or prevent) gravitational downward force from affecting the pedal on the upstroke.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[PhitBoy]

Re: Re:

BEYOND 6 o'clock that gravitational force needs to be overcome - by a combination of muscle pull-up, and pedal push-up.

During double leg cycling, one leg balances the gravity force on the other leg. No need to pull up because the other leg is pushing down.
Not really sure what you mean but pedal push-up so this may be same thing.

 

[JayKosta]

Re: Re:

...
During double leg cycling, one leg balances the gravity force on the other leg. No need to pull up because the other leg is pushing down.
Not really sure what you mean but pedal push-up so this may be same thing.

----------------------------------------------
edit: I'll try to be a more clear about my use of the term 'pull-up'.
I've been using the single term 'pull-up' to include BOTH
(1) the muscle usage that attempts to LIFT the weight of the leg and foot and to MOVE them from the 6 o'clock to the 12 o'clock position without any particular intent of producing crank power. I also call this 'unweighting'.
and
(2) the muscle usage in excess of that done for #1, that attempts to apply PULLING force to the pedal axle to move the axle in its revolving around the BB spindle.
-- end of edit --

Yes, that 'balance' is certainly possible. However in Coyle 1991 'Physiological and biomechanical factors
associated with elite endurance cycling performance', figures 4, 5, and 6 seem to clearly show (to me anyway) that those cyclists are doing a large amount of 'unweighting' on the upstroke, and are not depending on a gravity 'balance' from the weight of the downstroke leg. And the upstroke 'unweighting' is done by active muscle pull-up of the weight of the leg, without necessarily adding torque to the crank. I believe that the low level of crank torque during the upstroke is due to unweighting of the leg and foot without much actual pull-up force acting on the pedal.

If the movement of the upstroke leg was largely accomplished without active muscle pull-up - i.e solely due to the 'balance' from the weight of the downstroke leg, there would be considerable 'negative torque' produced on the crank during the upstroke.

Do you interpret those figures from the Coyle paper differently?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[backdoor]

Re: Re:

...
During double leg cycling, one leg balances the gravity force on the other leg. No need to pull up because the other leg is pushing down.
Not really sure what you mean but pedal push-up so this may be same thing.

----------------------------------------------
edit: I'll try to be a more clear about my use of the term 'pull-up'.
I've been using the single term 'pull-up' to include BOTH
(1) the muscle usage that attempts to LIFT the weight of the leg and foot and to MOVE them from the 6 o'clock to the 12 o'clock position without any particular intent of producing crank power. I also call this 'unweighting'.
and
(2) the muscle usage in excess of that done for #1, that attempts to apply PULLING force to the pedal axle to move the axle in its revolving around the BB spindle.
-- end of edit --

Yes, that 'balance' is certainly possible. However in Coyle 1991 'Physiological and biomechanical factors
associated with elite endurance cycling performance', figures 4, 5, and 6 seem to clearly show (to me anyway) that those cyclists are doing a large amount of 'unweighting' on the upstroke, and are not depending on a gravity 'balance' from the weight of the downstroke leg. And the upstroke 'unweighting' is done by active muscle pull-up of the weight of the leg, without necessarily adding torque to the crank. I believe that the low level of crank torque during the upstroke is due to unweighting of the leg and foot without much actual pull-up force acting on the pedal.

If the movement of the upstroke leg was largely accomplished without active muscle pull-up - i.e solely due to the 'balance' from the weight of the downstroke leg, there would be considerable 'negative torque' produced on the crank during the upstroke.

Do you interpret those figures from the Coyle paper differently?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

" UNWEIGHTING IN CYCLING

Unweighting in cycling is simpler than it sounds. To unweight your foot is to remove the weight of your body from that foot by shifting the weight to the other foot. When you see cyclists "throwing their bike from left to right" during races - what you're witnessing is maximum application of the person's bodyweight to the pedal by way of bodyweight shifting, which produces faster movement forward. The level of skill of transferring the bodyweight determines who goes faster.

Unweighting is also often confused with active pulling of the foot up. The fact is - you can unweight your foot without actually actively moving your foot. So the unweighting is subtle, but when performed correctly, it plays a major role in pedalling stroke, allowing you to apply maximum body weight to the pedals. Unweighting drills should be practiced both on and off the saddle.

The point of unweighting your foot is to release the tension on the pedals, allowing your opposite foot to apply your transferred body weight to the pedal, this facilitates maximum energy transfer, i.e. to get better results with less effort. The hard work is done on the trainer, when it comes to training on the road, your perception should already be primed and ready so that you are not fumbling between attempting to perceive unweighting and not running your bike off the road. "

Unweighting uses only minimal effort from the upper leg, pulling up needs more awkward muscle action from the entire leg.

 

[berend]

Re: Re:

...
During double leg cycling, one leg balances the gravity force on the other leg. No need to pull up because the other leg is pushing down.
Not really sure what you mean but pedal push-up so this may be same thing.

----------------------------------------------
edit: I'll try to be a more clear about my use of the term 'pull-up'.
I've been using the single term 'pull-up' to include BOTH
(1) the muscle usage that attempts to LIFT the weight of the leg and foot and to MOVE them from the 6 o'clock to the 12 o'clock position without any particular intent of producing crank power. I also call this 'unweighting'.
and
(2) the muscle usage in excess of that done for #1, that attempts to apply PULLING force to the pedal axle to move the axle in its revolving around the BB spindle.
-- end of edit --

Yes, that 'balance' is certainly possible. However in Coyle 1991 'Physiological and biomechanical factors
associated with elite endurance cycling performance', figures 4, 5, and 6 seem to clearly show (to me anyway) that those cyclists are doing a large amount of 'unweighting' on the upstroke, and are not depending on a gravity 'balance' from the weight of the downstroke leg. And the upstroke 'unweighting' is done by active muscle pull-up of the weight of the leg, without necessarily adding torque to the crank. I believe that the low level of crank torque during the upstroke is due to unweighting of the leg and foot without much actual pull-up force acting on the pedal.

If the movement of the upstroke leg was largely accomplished without active muscle pull-up - i.e solely due to the 'balance' from the weight of the downstroke leg, there would be considerable 'negative torque' produced on the crank during the upstroke.

Do you interpret those figures from the Coyle paper differently?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

" UNWEIGHTING IN CYCLING

Unweighting in cycling is simpler than it sounds. To unweight your foot is to remove the weight of your body from that foot by shifting the weight to the other foot. When you see cyclists "throwing their bike from left to right" during races - what you're witnessing is maximum application of the person's bodyweight to the pedal by way of bodyweight shifting, which produces faster movement forward. The level of skill of transferring the bodyweight determines who goes faster.

Unweighting is also often confused with active pulling of the foot up. The fact is - you can unweight your foot without actually actively moving your foot. So the unweighting is subtle, but when performed correctly, it plays a major role in pedalling stroke, allowing you to apply maximum body weight to the pedals. Unweighting drills should be practiced both on and off the saddle.

The point of unweighting your foot is to release the tension on the pedals, allowing your opposite foot to apply your transferred body weight to the pedal, this facilitates maximum energy transfer, i.e. to get better results with less effort. The hard work is done on the trainer, when it comes to training on the road, your perception should already be primed and ready so that you are not fumbling between attempting to perceive unweighting and not running your bike off the road. "

Unweighting uses only minimal effort from the upper leg, pulling up needs more awkward muscle action from the entire leg.

When you see cyclists "throwing their bike from left to right" their sprinting, or climbing out of the saddle.

When sprinting, the bike gets thrown around because the arms are involved, because you're doing it for 10 seconds so you should use everything you have. Efficiency is not important; maximum acceleration is important. Stomp the pedal into the ground as hard as you can.

When climbing out of the saddle throwing the bike left and right is (should be) done because the bike has a lower mass than your body. Just throwing your bodyweight sideways is extra effort (you're moving mass) for no benefit. You're not actually going faster. You're less efficient because there's still wasted sideways movement.

For both your hips should stay as level as possible, so you're not lifting your upper body mass against gravity, which would be a waste of effort. Lifting 40kg of body weight every pedal stroke is an error.

 

[backdoor]

Re: Re:

...
During double leg cycling, one leg balances the gravity force on the other leg. No need to pull up because the other leg is pushing down.
Not really sure what you mean but pedal push-up so this may be same thing.

----------------------------------------------
edit: I'll try to be a more clear about my use of the term 'pull-up'.
I've been using the single term 'pull-up' to include BOTH
(1) the muscle usage that attempts to LIFT the weight of the leg and foot and to MOVE them from the 6 o'clock to the 12 o'clock position without any particular intent of producing crank power. I also call this 'unweighting'.
and
(2) the muscle usage in excess of that done for #1, that attempts to apply PULLING force to the pedal axle to move the axle in its revolving around the BB spindle.
-- end of edit --

Yes, that 'balance' is certainly possible. However in Coyle 1991 'Physiological and biomechanical factors
associated with elite endurance cycling performance', figures 4, 5, and 6 seem to clearly show (to me anyway) that those cyclists are doing a large amount of 'unweighting' on the upstroke, and are not depending on a gravity 'balance' from the weight of the downstroke leg. And the upstroke 'unweighting' is done by active muscle pull-up of the weight of the leg, without necessarily adding torque to the crank. I believe that the low level of crank torque during the upstroke is due to unweighting of the leg and foot without much actual pull-up force acting on the pedal.

If the movement of the upstroke leg was largely accomplished without active muscle pull-up - i.e solely due to the 'balance' from the weight of the downstroke leg, there would be considerable 'negative torque' produced on the crank during the upstroke.

Do you interpret those figures from the Coyle paper differently?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

" UNWEIGHTING IN CYCLING

Unweighting in cycling is simpler than it sounds. To unweight your foot is to remove the weight of your body from that foot by shifting the weight to the other foot. When you see cyclists "throwing their bike from left to right" during races - what you're witnessing is maximum application of the person's bodyweight to the pedal by way of bodyweight shifting, which produces faster movement forward. The level of skill of transferring the bodyweight determines who goes faster.

Unweighting is also often confused with active pulling of the foot up. The fact is - you can unweight your foot without actually actively moving your foot. So the unweighting is subtle, but when performed correctly, it plays a major role in pedalling stroke, allowing you to apply maximum body weight to the pedals. Unweighting drills should be practiced both on and off the saddle.

The point of unweighting your foot is to release the tension on the pedals, allowing your opposite foot to apply your transferred body weight to the pedal, this facilitates maximum energy transfer, i.e. to get better results with less effort. The hard work is done on the trainer, when it comes to training on the road, your perception should already be primed and ready so that you are not fumbling between attempting to perceive unweighting and not running your bike off the road. "

Unweighting uses only minimal effort from the upper leg, pulling up needs more awkward muscle action from the entire leg.

When you see cyclists "throwing their bike from left to right" their sprinting, or climbing out of the saddle.

When sprinting, the bike gets thrown around because the arms are involved, because you're doing it for 10 seconds so you should use everything you have. Efficiency is not important; maximum acceleration is important. Stomp the pedal into the ground as hard as you can.

When climbing out of the saddle throwing the bike left and right is (should be) done because the bike has a lower mass than your body. Just throwing your bodyweight sideways is extra effort (you're moving mass) for no benefit. You're not actually going faster. You're less efficient because there's still wasted sideways movement.

For both your hips should stay as level as possible, so you're not lifting your upper body mass against gravity, which would be a waste of effort. Lifting 40kg of body weight every pedal stroke is an error.

Did you ever search for a more effective way to power your cranks ?

 

[berend]

Re: Re:

...
During double leg cycling, one leg balances the gravity force on the other leg. No need to pull up because the other leg is pushing down.
Not really sure what you mean but pedal push-up so this may be same thing.

----------------------------------------------
edit: I'll try to be a more clear about my use of the term 'pull-up'.
I've been using the single term 'pull-up' to include BOTH
(1) the muscle usage that attempts to LIFT the weight of the leg and foot and to MOVE them from the 6 o'clock to the 12 o'clock position without any particular intent of producing crank power. I also call this 'unweighting'.
and
(2) the muscle usage in excess of that done for #1, that attempts to apply PULLING force to the pedal axle to move the axle in its revolving around the BB spindle.
-- end of edit --

Yes, that 'balance' is certainly possible. However in Coyle 1991 'Physiological and biomechanical factors
associated with elite endurance cycling performance', figures 4, 5, and 6 seem to clearly show (to me anyway) that those cyclists are doing a large amount of 'unweighting' on the upstroke, and are not depending on a gravity 'balance' from the weight of the downstroke leg. And the upstroke 'unweighting' is done by active muscle pull-up of the weight of the leg, without necessarily adding torque to the crank. I believe that the low level of crank torque during the upstroke is due to unweighting of the leg and foot without much actual pull-up force acting on the pedal.

If the movement of the upstroke leg was largely accomplished without active muscle pull-up - i.e solely due to the 'balance' from the weight of the downstroke leg, there would be considerable 'negative torque' produced on the crank during the upstroke.

Do you interpret those figures from the Coyle paper differently?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

" UNWEIGHTING IN CYCLING

Unweighting in cycling is simpler than it sounds. To unweight your foot is to remove the weight of your body from that foot by shifting the weight to the other foot. When you see cyclists "throwing their bike from left to right" during races - what you're witnessing is maximum application of the person's bodyweight to the pedal by way of bodyweight shifting, which produces faster movement forward. The level of skill of transferring the bodyweight determines who goes faster.

Unweighting is also often confused with active pulling of the foot up. The fact is - you can unweight your foot without actually actively moving your foot. So the unweighting is subtle, but when performed correctly, it plays a major role in pedalling stroke, allowing you to apply maximum body weight to the pedals. Unweighting drills should be practiced both on and off the saddle.

The point of unweighting your foot is to release the tension on the pedals, allowing your opposite foot to apply your transferred body weight to the pedal, this facilitates maximum energy transfer, i.e. to get better results with less effort. The hard work is done on the trainer, when it comes to training on the road, your perception should already be primed and ready so that you are not fumbling between attempting to perceive unweighting and not running your bike off the road. "

Unweighting uses only minimal effort from the upper leg, pulling up needs more awkward muscle action from the entire leg.

When you see cyclists "throwing their bike from left to right" their sprinting, or climbing out of the saddle.

When sprinting, the bike gets thrown around because the arms are involved, because you're doing it for 10 seconds so you should use everything you have. Efficiency is not important; maximum acceleration is important. Stomp the pedal into the ground as hard as you can.

When climbing out of the saddle throwing the bike left and right is (should be) done because the bike has a lower mass than your body. Just throwing your bodyweight sideways is extra effort (you're moving mass) for no benefit. You're not actually going faster. You're less efficient because there's still wasted sideways movement.

For both your hips should stay as level as possible, so you're not lifting your upper body mass against gravity, which would be a waste of effort. Lifting 40kg of body weight every pedal stroke is an error.

Did you ever search for a more effective way to power your cranks ?

Yes, I have searched. That's the reason for reading this thread.

Despite all my Internet searches I still have to push the pedals.

 

[backdoor]

Re: Re:

...
During double leg cycling, one leg balances the gravity force on the other leg. No need to pull up because the other leg is pushing down.
Not really sure what you mean but pedal push-up so this may be same thing.

----------------------------------------------
edit: I'll try to be a more clear about my use of the term 'pull-up'.
I've been using the single term 'pull-up' to include BOTH
(1) the muscle usage that attempts to LIFT the weight of the leg and foot and to MOVE them from the 6 o'clock to the 12 o'clock position without any particular intent of producing crank power. I also call this 'unweighting'.
and
(2) the muscle usage in excess of that done for #1, that attempts to apply PULLING force to the pedal axle to move the axle in its revolving around the BB spindle.
-- end of edit --

Yes, that 'balance' is certainly possible. However in Coyle 1991 'Physiological and biomechanical factors
associated with elite endurance cycling performance', figures 4, 5, and 6 seem to clearly show (to me anyway) that those cyclists are doing a large amount of 'unweighting' on the upstroke, and are not depending on a gravity 'balance' from the weight of the downstroke leg. And the upstroke 'unweighting' is done by active muscle pull-up of the weight of the leg, without necessarily adding torque to the crank. I believe that the low level of crank torque during the upstroke is due to unweighting of the leg and foot without much actual pull-up force acting on the pedal.

If the movement of the upstroke leg was largely accomplished without active muscle pull-up - i.e solely due to the 'balance' from the weight of the downstroke leg, there would be considerable 'negative torque' produced on the crank during the upstroke.

Do you interpret those figures from the Coyle paper differently?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

" UNWEIGHTING IN CYCLING

Unweighting in cycling is simpler than it sounds. To unweight your foot is to remove the weight of your body from that foot by shifting the weight to the other foot. When you see cyclists "throwing their bike from left to right" during races - what you're witnessing is maximum application of the person's bodyweight to the pedal by way of bodyweight shifting, which produces faster movement forward. The level of skill of transferring the bodyweight determines who goes faster.

Unweighting is also often confused with active pulling of the foot up. The fact is - you can unweight your foot without actually actively moving your foot. So the unweighting is subtle, but when performed correctly, it plays a major role in pedalling stroke, allowing you to apply maximum body weight to the pedals. Unweighting drills should be practiced both on and off the saddle.

The point of unweighting your foot is to release the tension on the pedals, allowing your opposite foot to apply your transferred body weight to the pedal, this facilitates maximum energy transfer, i.e. to get better results with less effort. The hard work is done on the trainer, when it comes to training on the road, your perception should already be primed and ready so that you are not fumbling between attempting to perceive unweighting and not running your bike off the road. "

Unweighting uses only minimal effort from the upper leg, pulling up needs more awkward muscle action from the entire leg.

I don't mean on the internet, I mean by experimenting while out cycling.

 

[berend]

Re: Re:

I don't mean on the internet, I mean by experimenting while out cycling.

Yes, I have, thanks for asking.

I have tried a number of different techniques, and tools, and just swapping cadence, for different reasons and purposes. I'm sad to say I've tried too many, but I'm better now.

Have you tried just stomping?

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re: Re:

" UNWEIGHTING IN CYCLING

There's a quotation mark at the end of that entry. Is that from some other source?

The point of unweighting your foot is to release the tension on the pedals, allowing your opposite foot to apply your transferred body weight to the pedal...

While unweighting one foot, I'd say that the weight is transferred to the saddle, and not the other foot. I've no idea how this would be practiced "off the saddle." as I tend to think of the natural shifting of weight that occurs while standing as something different than "unweighting."

The unweighting bit has always been interesting to me though, and I've often wondered if there's a way to measure the resistance created by the dead weight of one leg being pushed through the upstroke by the other leg, as opposed to less resistance when the upstroke leg is "unweighted" by conscious effort.

(Although as speed and power demands increase, the unweighting of one leg seems to become somewhat irrelevant as body mechanics don't allow for such subtlety. That's my observation, at least.)

 

[backdoor]

Re: Re:

" UNWEIGHTING IN CYCLING

There's a quotation mark at the end of that entry. Is that from some other source?

The point of unweighting your foot is to release the tension on the pedals, allowing your opposite foot to apply your transferred body weight to the pedal...

While unweighting one foot, I'd say that the weight is transferred to the saddle, and not the other foot. I've no idea how this would be practiced "off the saddle." as I tend to think of the natural shifting of weight that occurs while standing as something different than "unweighting."

The unweighting bit has always been interesting to me though, and I've often wondered if there's a way to measure the resistance created by the dead weight of one leg being pushed through the upstroke by the other leg, as opposed to less resistance when the upstroke leg is "unweighted" by conscious effort.

(Although as speed and power demands increase, the unweighting of one leg seems to become somewhat irrelevant as body mechanics don't allow for such subtlety. That's my observation, at least.)

http://www.posetech.com/training/archives/000647.html

In both legs some of the leg weight will always be on the saddle, it's all about balance, when you unweight you create a resistance free path for the rising pedal and double the effective leg weight gravity effect of the other leg. When unweighting out of the saddle, apart from transferring that extra body weight for increased downward force, you are cutting off that wasted downward force to the ground that increases rolling resistance and getting an earlier start to the other leg's down stroke. As speed increases the idling leg will have to be accelerated upwards at a faster pace if you don't unweight. Once you have the knack, there should be no difficulty in or out of the saddle. What I find interesting is I can't find a published study on unweighting.

 

[berend]

Re: Re:

http://www.posetech.com/training/archives/000647.html

In both legs some of the leg weight will always be on the saddle, it's all about balance, when you unweight you create a resistance free path for the rising pedal and double the effective leg weight gravity effect of the other leg. When unweighting out of the saddle, apart from transferring that extra body weight for increased downward force, you are cutting off that wasted downward force to the ground that increases rolling resistance and getting an earlier start to the other leg's down stroke. As speed increases the idling leg will have to be accelerated upwards at a faster pace if you don't unweight. Once you have the knack, there should be no difficulty in or out of the saddle. What I find interesting is I can't find a published study on unweighting.

Please use consistent vocabulary. I'll give you some examples of where your terminology causes confusion. This may be why you feel everyone wants additional explanations.

"double the effective leg weight gravity effect". means "effective leg" or "effective weight"? (English is ambiguous that way) "gravity effect" is just "gravity". "weight gravity effect" is just "weight".

Physics won't let you use weight to power your bicycle for very long unless you're on a downhill. You can do it for half a crank rotation, or one stroke. Then physics demands that you expend energy (burn calories) to get the weight back up to gain potential energy before you can do it again. This isn't going to change with some pedalling technique.

 

[backdoor]

Re: Re:

http://www.posetech.com/training/archives/000647.html

In both legs some of the leg weight will always be on the saddle, it's all about balance, when you unweight you create a resistance free path for the rising pedal and double the effective leg weight gravity effect of the other leg. When unweighting out of the saddle, apart from transferring that extra body weight for increased downward force, you are cutting off that wasted downward force to the ground that increases rolling resistance and getting an earlier start to the other leg's down stroke. As speed increases the idling leg will have to be accelerated upwards at a faster pace if you don't unweight. Once you have the knack, there should be no difficulty in or out of the saddle. What I find interesting is I can't find a published study on unweighting.

Please use consistent vocabulary. I'll give you some examples of where your terminology causes confusion. This may be why you feel everyone wants additional explanations.

"double the effective leg weight gravity effect". means "effective leg" or "effective weight"? (English is ambiguous that way) "gravity effect" is just "gravity". "weight gravity effect" is just "weight".

Physics won't let you use weight to power your bicycle for very long unless you're on a downhill. You can do it for half a crank rotation, or one stroke. Then physics demands that you expend energy (burn calories) to get the weight back up to gain potential energy before you can do it again. This isn't going to change with some pedalling technique.

It's not done to save energy, it's done to reduce the workload on your pressing down muscles by making use of the most natural muscle action in the world. When you know how to apply max torque through TDC, for the same power output you can reduce the workload on your pressing down muscles by over 50%.