The pedaling technique thread

Page 59 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
0
Re: Re:

backdoor said:
CoachFergie said:
backdoor said:
JayKosta said:
backdoor said:
...
The biomechanics of Anquetil's TT pedalling are somewhat like the Rotor crank idea,
...
--------------------------
If Anquetil's TT technique was similar to using ROTOR (or other oval) chainrings, then the article mentioned earlier -
http://trstriathlon.com/elliptical-chain-rings-dont-work-because-you-wont-let-them/
might provide an explanation about why it's use has not 'caught-on' as a mainstream method.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
One of the advantages claimed by the Rotor Crank inventor was that it gave extra pedalling time per hour of pedalling, the problem with this was that extra time occurred in part of the dead spot sector where minimal if any torque could be applied. Anquetil's pedalling gives more than 5 times more extra pedaling time than the Rotor Crank and it occurs where (with his technique) almost maximal torque can be applied. I am referring to the 'Rotor Crank' not the Rotor or any other type of non round chainring.
5 x more! Very specific statement!! So you must have some data to support that very specific claim!!!
Yes, each leg's pedalling power stroke gets an extra 60 degrees (entire dead spot sector where your leg muscles are effectively idling) of almost maximal torque application. Rotor cranks could give you an extra 10-12 degrees of minimal torque application and that was only if you got the timing of your muscle action correct.
Data, not speculation Noel. Some of us are real scientists.
 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
0
Re: Re:

Alex Simmons/RST said:
backdoor said:
CoachFergie said:
Data, not speculation Noel. Some of us are real scientists.

Real scientists make discoveries, they are not satisfied with being spoon fed everything they know.
Real scientists do the hard work to present actual data for scrutiny.
Correct Alex, they don't just accept what they think they see they measure it, understand it and then challenge what they think they understand. If you thought like a real scientist Noel, you would find out how foolish your stance is.

If your method had any validity you could easily coach anyone to use it and compare the outcomes against a control. Very very very easy to study. Yet you cower from any form of real science to verify your claims. Pathetic.
 
Jun 4, 2015
785
0
3,280
Re: Re:

CoachFergie said:
Alex Simmons/RST said:
backdoor said:
CoachFergie said:
Data, not speculation Noel. Some of us are real scientists.

Real scientists make discoveries, they are not satisfied with being spoon fed everything they know.
Real scientists do the hard work to present actual data for scrutiny.
Correct Alex, they don't just accept what they think they see they measure it, understand it and then challenge what they think they understand. If you thought like a real scientist Noel, you would find out how foolish your stance is.

If your method had any validity you could easily coach anyone to use it and compare the outcomes against a control. Very very very easy to study. Yet you cower from any form of real science to verify your claims. Pathetic.
You won't find a cyclist today who is interested in pedaling technique, how could you when like yourself all coaches are telling them pedalling technique is of no importance. http://www.peakendurancecoaching.ie/2015/11/30/one-legged-cycling-drills-a-waste-of-time/
 
Re: Re:

CoachFergie said:
...
you could easily coach anyone to use it and compare the outcomes against a control. Very very very easy to study.
...
-------------------------
I generally agree, but first it would be necessary to do an actual quantitative analysis of the technique that Noel DOES (or what he proposes to be done). Then, ATTEMPT to coach/teach the test subjects to PERFORM the desired technique. And finally, to measure the test subjects to determine whether they were using the technique, and how it affected their performance.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
0
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
0
Re: Re:

JayKosta said:
CoachFergie said:
...
you could easily coach anyone to use it and compare the outcomes against a control. Very very very easy to study.
...
-------------------------
I generally agree, but first it would be necessary to do an actual quantitative analysis of the technique that Noel DOES (or what he proposes to be done). Then, ATTEMPT to coach/teach the test subjects to PERFORM the desired technique. And finally, to measure the test subjects to determine whether they were using the technique, and how it affected their performance.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
Perhaps if Noel would ever actually quantify his technique. In his book Graeme Obree suggests trying to apply force over the top like "kicking a soccer ball". But we know from the Gimmickcrank days that trying or being forced to pedal in different ways only detracts from the natural way of pedalling. And that when any constraint or instruction is removed a rider will revert back to normal pedalling.
 
Jun 4, 2015
785
0
3,280
Re: Re:

CoachFergie said:
JayKosta said:
CoachFergie said:
...
you could easily coach anyone to use it and compare the outcomes against a control. Very very very easy to study.
...
-------------------------
I generally agree, but first it would be necessary to do an actual quantitative analysis of the technique that Noel DOES (or what he proposes to be done). Then, ATTEMPT to coach/teach the test subjects to PERFORM the desired technique. And finally, to measure the test subjects to determine whether they were using the technique, and how it affected their performance.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
Perhaps if Noel would ever actually quantify his technique. In his book Graeme Obree suggests trying to apply force over the top like "kicking a soccer ball". But we know from the Gimmickcrank days that trying or being forced to pedal in different ways only detracts from the natural way of pedalling. And that when any constraint or instruction is removed a rider will revert back to normal pedalling.

I did quantify my power generating technique over the top. When using circular, ankling or POWERCRANK pedalling you are forcing your brain to combine your weakest muscles with your most powerful muscles, splitting its concentration in the process. When serious torque is required your brain will do the most sensible thing and revert back to the most powerful downstroke muscles which can then be given total concentration. When using Anquetil's technique you are only extending your power stroke by combining your most powerful downstroke muscles with equally powerful muscles that your brain was unaware of when developing your technique as a child and because it does not extend over 180 degrees, it can get your total concentration.
 
Jun 4, 2015
785
0
3,280
Re: Re:

backdoor said:
CoachFergie said:
JayKosta said:
CoachFergie said:
...
you could easily coach anyone to use it and compare the outcomes against a control. Very very very easy to study.
...
-------------------------
I generally agree, but first it would be necessary to do an actual quantitative analysis of the technique that Noel DOES (or what he proposes to be done). Then, ATTEMPT to coach/teach the test subjects to PERFORM the desired technique. And finally, to measure the test subjects to determine whether they were using the technique, and how it affected their performance.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
Perhaps if Noel would ever actually quantify his technique. In his book Graeme Obree suggests trying to apply force over the top like "kicking a soccer ball". But we know from the Gimmickcrank days that trying or being forced to pedal in different ways only detracts from the natural way of pedalling. And that when any constraint or instruction is removed a rider will revert back to normal pedalling.

I did quantify my power generating technique over the top. When using circular, ankling or POWERCRANK pedalling you are forcing your brain to simultaneously combine your weakest muscles with your most powerful muscles, splitting its concentration in the process. When serious torque is required your brain will do the most sensible thing and revert back to the most powerful downstroke muscles which can then be given total concentration. When using Anquetil's technique you are only extending your power stroke by combining your most powerful downstroke muscles with equally powerful muscles that your brain was unaware of when developing your technique as a child and because it does not extend over 180 degrees, it can get your total concentration.
 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
0
Re: Re:

backdoor said:
CoachFergie said:
JayKosta said:
CoachFergie said:
...
you could easily coach anyone to use it and compare the outcomes against a control. Very very very easy to study.
...
-------------------------
I generally agree, but first it would be necessary to do an actual quantitative analysis of the technique that Noel DOES (or what he proposes to be done). Then, ATTEMPT to coach/teach the test subjects to PERFORM the desired technique. And finally, to measure the test subjects to determine whether they were using the technique, and how it affected their performance.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
Perhaps if Noel would ever actually quantify his technique. In his book Graeme Obree suggests trying to apply force over the top like "kicking a soccer ball". But we know from the Gimmickcrank days that trying or being forced to pedal in different ways only detracts from the natural way of pedalling. And that when any constraint or instruction is removed a rider will revert back to normal pedalling.

I did quantify my power generating technique over the top. When using circular, ankling or POWERCRANK pedalling you are forcing your brain to combine your weakest muscles with your most powerful muscles, splitting its concentration in the process. When serious torque is required your brain will do the most sensible thing and revert back to the most powerful downstroke muscles which can then be given total concentration. When using Anquetil's technique you are only extending your power stroke by combining your most powerful downstroke muscles with equally powerful muscles that your brain was unaware of when developing your technique as a child and because it does not extend over 180 degrees, it can get your total concentration.
Bullsnizzle!

You, nor has anyone else ever measured and presented data showing this. So like Frank Day you now resort to making snizzle up.

Pathetic!
 
Thanks for posting the link to that research article - it might provide some useful insight.

I'll try to find a full-text of the article to review, but from the abstract it's interesting that they mention -
"In conclusion, professional cyclists had better pedalling technique than elite and club cyclists, because they opted for enhancing pulling force at the recovery phase to sustain the same power output".

So, at least 3 items for more discussion
1) is there really a 'better technique'?
2) is 'pulling UP' really part of it?
3) can it be trained/coached?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
 
Re:

JayKosta said:
Thanks for posting the link to that research article - it might provide some useful insight.

I'll try to find a full-text of the article to review, but from the abstract it's interesting that they mention -
"In conclusion, professional cyclists had better pedalling technique than elite and club cyclists, because they opted for enhancing pulling force at the recovery phase to sustain the same power output".

So, at least 3 items for more discussion
1) is there really a 'better technique'?
2) is 'pulling UP' really part of it?
3) can it be trained/coached?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
I'd love to read the whole study and see the data. The conclusion mentions "enhancing pulling force at the recovery phase" while earlier in the abstract the phrasing is " mainly due to a lower resistive torque during the upstroke" To me "pulling" implies torque applied in the direction of rotation while exerting lower resistive torque would imply partially but not completely unweighting the rising foot.

With a good number of actual two sided power meters cropping up it would be very instructive to see real data from race files.


Hugh
 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
0
Have briefly looked at whole paper and in the discussion was mentioned that the professional had an advantage at 300 watts as this would have been well below their threshold power while for some of the amatuer and most of the recreational this is a power they struggle to hold for more than 5min.

Certainly poses more questions. Is the professionals ability reflected in the result in the same way as their experience. Coyle 1991 suggested that experience was one of the differences between cat 1 and cat 2 time trialists in the US even though the training volumes were not that much different.
 
Would have been good to normalise power outputs relative to rider's fitness, which is in effect what Coyle et al did by gathering such data during a TT test. How one pedals at recovery and endurance power levels will be different to when fatiguing at end of a VO2max effort.
 
Re: Re:

backdoor said:


Many times by using the indoor tug o 'war analogy. How does the forward force these legs are generating compare with the force of the 'kicking a ball' technique. You want a continuous force not an instantaneous one.
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWosQfk15_Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWosQfk15_Q
[/quote]

Noel,

Day dreaming about something isn't quantifying it. Last winter I offered to help set you up with the Verve Infocranks folks in your area so that we could see what your technique looks like when the effort is actually quantified but you declined. Day dreaming isn't quantifying as if one was quantifying something it would involve actual measurement.

Hugh
 
Apr 21, 2009
3,095
0
0
Well there you go Noel, a third science person prepared to help you support your claims. An awesome opportunity to prove us all wrong!
 
Jun 4, 2015
785
0
3,280
Re:

CoachFergie said:
Well there you go Noel, a third science person prepared to help you support your claims. An awesome opportunity to prove us all wrong!
Back to that study made available by JayKosta, can you explain why there was no change in efficiency?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS