The pedaling technique thread

[CoachFergie]

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

I don't practice belief based coaching so what I believe is irrelevant.

Present some data to support your theory on pedalling technique. Force measuring pedals have been available for over 30 years now so this should not be so hard to do.

 

[coapman]

I don't practice belief based coaching so what I believe is irrelevant.

Present some data to support your theory on pedalling technique. Force measuring pedals have been available for over 30 years now so this should not be so hard to do.

I did not ask you what you teach or how you coach. I asked you a straight question, do you believe unweighting improves performance ? Yes or no.

 

[CoachFergie]

Whether you mash harder or unweight is pretty irrelevant IMO.

Just the same as trying to change where you apply power to the pedal around the stroke. Try to apply extra power at one point and you detract from application of power elsewhere. And certain muscle groups are more suited to delivery of power like the quads and glutes for mashing which is why I don't feel the need to coach unweighting.

Just the same as I don't feel the need to coach your method of pedalling because you do a poor job of explaining it and have turned down serious offers to test it with a force measuring pedal. Or uncoupled cranks which have never been shown to improve performance despite clearly showing their use changes the way we apply power around the pedal stroke.

 

[CoachFergie]

http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/A...dient_on_Cycling_Gross_Efficiency_and.15.aspx

Effect of Gradient on Cycling Gross Efficiency and Technique
ARKESTEIJN, MARCO1; JOBSON, SIMON A.2; HOPKER, JAMES1; PASSFIELD, LOUIS1
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise:
May 2013 - Volume 45 - Issue 5 - p 920-926
doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e31827d1bdb
Applied Sciences
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of gradient on cycling gross efficiency and pedaling technique.
Methods: Eighteen trained cyclists were tested for efficiency, index of pedal force effectiveness (IFE), distribution of power production during the pedal revolution (dead center size [DC]), and timing and level of muscle activity of eight leg muscles. Cycling was performed on a treadmill at gradients of 0% (level), 4%, and 8%, each at three different cadences (60, 75, and 90 rev·min?1).
Results: Efficiency was significantly decreased at a gradient of 8% compared with both 0% and 4% (P < 0.05). The relationship between cadence and efficiency was not changed by gradient (P > 0.05). At a gradient of 8%, there was a larger IFE between 45° and 225° and larger DC, compared with 0% and 4% (P < 0.05). The onset of muscle activity for vastus lateralis, vastus medialis, gastrocnemius lateralis, and gastrocnemius medialis occurred earlier with increasing gradient (all P < 0.05), whereas none of the muscles showed a change in offset (P > 0.05). Uphill cycling increased the overall muscle activity level (P < 0.05), mainly induced by increased calf muscle activity.
Conclusions: These results suggest that uphill cycling decreases cycling gross efficiency and is associated with changes in pedaling technique

All this screams out is specificity, specificity, specificity, and to train how you intend to perform!

 

[coapman]

specificity, specificity, specificity[/B], and to train how you intend to perform!

Why would anyone do otherwise? They are forgetting bike set-up and position has also changed.

 

[FrankDay]

http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/A...dient_on_Cycling_Gross_Efficiency_and.15.aspx



All this screams out is specificity, specificity, specificity, and to train how you intend to perform!

Really, that is all it screams out to you. Pretty much that is what everything screams out to you me thinks.

 

[JayKosta]

My guess is that the reason for the decrease in efficiency is the rider not able to maintain a 'constant instantaneous crank speed'.
The repeated slowing of the bike caused by gravity results in the rider having to use additional power to accelerate 2x per pedal rotation in order to maintain an average speed.

If the pedals could be turned at a constant speed, less power would be needed to maintain the average speed, and efficiency would be greater.

I think this is the reason for the increased use of lower gearing (e.g. compact chain rings, etc.) for mountain stages. By spinning at a faster and more constant speed the rider is able to reduce the repeated deceleration / acceleration.

It will be interesting to read the full text of the article.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[CoachFergie]

My guess is that the reason for the decrease in efficiency is the rider not able to maintain a 'constant instantaneous crank speed'.

Because they haven't trained this.

 

[JayKosta]

Because they haven't trained this.

-
Perhaps, but how do you know? Have you read the full text of the article?
The abstract says they are 'trained cyclists', so maybe they HAVE trained (to what degree?) for climbing.

Or perhaps the gearing was too high for best efficiency on the grade.

I agree that 'specific training' is critical for best results, but using the 'best equipment' has to be considered.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[FrankDay]

Because they haven't trained this.

Perhaps, but there is little evidence to support such a supposition. One of our athletes, professional rider Phil Gaimon, won the Mt Washington Hill Climb two years in a row while living and training in Florida, the flattest state in the US. It is clear to me one doesn't need to train a lot in the mountains to climb well. There must be another explanation. The increased variation in crank speed and change in bike position frequently seen with increased grade makes more sense to me. Anyhow, we are all guessing unless someone studies this issue.

 

[CoachFergie]

Perhaps, but there is little evidence to support such a supposition. One of our athletes, professional rider Phil Gaimon, won the Mt Washington Hill Climb two years in a row while living and training in Florida, the flattest state in the US. It is clear to me one doesn't need to train a lot in the mountains to climb well. There must be another explanation. The increased variation in crank speed and change in bike position frequently seen with increased grade makes more sense to me. Anyhow, we are all guessing unless someone studies this issue.

Yes and Dutch riders Stephen Rooks and Gert-Jan Theunisse were amazing climbers so perhaps where you live doesn't limit your climbing speed. Just in the same way I have coached riders to Masters World Track Titles even though they live 1000s of miles away from a Velodrome. Still very easy to be specific with your training.

 

[nick101]

well I heard someone say in this forum about mashing gears working for some people better. imo and I think science backs this up also, pedalling smoothly generates more power. imo also, the reason why mashing suits some people is that their muscles are only used to pushing up and down, not in circles, so a smooth pedalling technique would be less efficient in the short term. but if they concentrated on developing a smoother pedalling technique over time, they would begin to recruit additional muscles to pedal through their weak spots and eliminate their dead spots, meaning they develop more power as they are not only generating the same power through the up and down stroke but also in previously dead spots.

I noticed this seems to generate more power for me when I was first starting cycling. haven't really paid much attention in recent years on this, I've gotten better obviously, but my pedalling technique has progressively got worse and my dead spots larger. im trying to combat this by doing one leg pedalling at a very high resistance and low cadence on the erg. it allows me to slow my pedalling down so I can isolate my dead spots and focus on my dead spots, plus using high resistance should mean that I build necessary muscle quicker. obviously a lot of this is my opinion so im not sure if its right or not and ive only been trying this for a few weeks now that i'm in my off season so won't notice if it works for a while

 

[sciguy]

I'd read then forgotten about this one. It seems like it belongs in this thread.


Int J Sports Med. 2008 Oct;29(10):817-22. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1038374. Epub 2008 Apr 17.
Effects of pedal type and pull-up action during cycling.
Mornieux G, Stapelfeldt B, Gollhofer A, Belli A.
Source
Institut für Sport und Sportwissenschaft, Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. guillaume.mornieux@sport.uni-freiburg.de
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the influence of different shoe-pedal interfaces and of an active pulling-up action during the upstroke phase on the pedalling technique. Eight elite cyclists (C) and seven non-cyclists (NC) performed three different bouts at 90 rev . min (-1) and 60 % of their maximal aerobic power. They pedalled with single pedals (PED), with clipless pedals (CLIP) and with a pedal force feedback (CLIPFBACK) where subjects were asked to pull up on the pedal during the upstroke. There was no significant difference for pedalling effectiveness, net mechanical efficiency (NE) and muscular activity between PED and CLIP. When compared to CLIP, CLIPFBACK resulted in a significant increase in pedalling effectiveness during upstroke (86 % for C and 57 % NC, respectively), as well as higher biceps femoris and tibialis anterior muscle activity (p < 0.001). However, NE was significantly reduced (p < 0.008) with 9 % and 3.3 % reduction for C and NC, respectively. Consequently, shoe-pedal interface (PED vs. CLIP) did not significantly influence cycling technique during submaximal exercise. However, an active pulling-up action on the pedal during upstroke increased the pedalling effectiveness, while reducing net mechanical efficiency.

I'm sure someone will attempt to shoot it full of holes

Hugh

 

[coapman]

I noticed this seems to generate more power for me when I was first starting cycling. haven't really paid much attention in recent years on this, I've gotten better obviously, but my pedalling technique has progressively got worse and my dead spots larger. im trying to combat this by doing one leg pedalling at a very high resistance and low cadence on the erg. it allows me to slow my pedalling down so I can isolate my dead spots and focus on my dead spots, plus using high resistance should mean that I build necessary muscle quicker. obviously a lot of this is my opinion so im not sure if its right or not and ive only been trying this for a few weeks now that i'm in my off season so won't notice if it works for a while

It will not work because the muscles you are using at TDC and BDC cannot be trained to produce effective crank torque, you are trying to use your knee to generate effective pedalling force and this is an impossible task. Research done on Powercranks confirm this. Effective pedalling force can only be generated by the hips/thighs.

 

[FrankDay]

I'd read then forgotten about this one. It seems like it belongs in this thread.


Int J Sports Med. 2008 Oct;29(10):817-22. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1038374. Epub 2008 Apr 17.
Effects of pedal type and pull-up action during cycling.
Mornieux G, Stapelfeldt B, Gollhofer A, Belli A.
Source
Institut für Sport und Sportwissenschaft, Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. guillaume.mornieux@sport.uni-freiburg.de
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the influence of different shoe-pedal interfaces and of an active pulling-up action during the upstroke phase on the pedalling technique. Eight elite cyclists (C) and seven non-cyclists (NC) performed three different bouts at 90 rev . min (-1) and 60 % of their maximal aerobic power. They pedalled with single pedals (PED), with clipless pedals (CLIP) and with a pedal force feedback (CLIPFBACK) where subjects were asked to pull up on the pedal during the upstroke. There was no significant difference for pedalling effectiveness, net mechanical efficiency (NE) and muscular activity between PED and CLIP. When compared to CLIP, CLIPFBACK resulted in a significant increase in pedalling effectiveness during upstroke (86 % for C and 57 % NC, respectively), as well as higher biceps femoris and tibialis anterior muscle activity (p < 0.001). However, NE was significantly reduced (p < 0.008) with 9 % and 3.3 % reduction for C and NC, respectively. Consequently, shoe-pedal interface (PED vs. CLIP) did not significantly influence cycling technique during submaximal exercise. However, an active pulling-up action on the pedal during upstroke increased the pedalling effectiveness, while reducing net mechanical efficiency.

I'm sure someone will attempt to shoot it full of holes

Hugh

Shoot it full of holes, Aye, Aye!
There are two problems that make their "findings" flawed. First, little is to be gained from asking someone to do something they haven't been trained to do and then determine if it is better or worse than what they normally do. Yesterday I saw an episode of mythbusters that goes to this problem. Watch the important part here.. The conclusion is that if you want to do something well it is necessary to train that motion.

Second, pedaling effectiveness is a pretty worthless metric because it doesn't look at the pedal forces that come from muscle action but, instead, includes forces coming from muscle action and gravity. So, on the upstroke, one could measure a huge improvement in overall "effectiveness" by simply seeing a change from a small negative force to a small positive force, even if that change came about because of a large muscle force that is nowhere near to being tangential. Such a muscle force would be very inefficient compared to near unweighting but look more efficient when measured by the pedaling effectiveness metric.

 

[FrankDay]

It will not work because the muscles you are using at TDC and BDC cannot be trained to produce effective crank torque, you are trying to use your knee to generate effective pedalling force and this is an impossible task. Research done on Powercranks confirm this. Effective pedalling force can only be generated by the hips/thighs.

What on earth are you talking about? How on earth is is possible to provide a large force across the top (something you say you do) without using the knee (since the direction is forward and the knee is normally bent at TDC)?

 

[coapman]

What on earth are you talking about? How on earth is is possible to provide a large force across the top (something you say you do) without using the knee (since the direction is forward and the knee is normally bent at TDC)?

The knee is used to provide a large force across the top, but not to generate this torque, together with the lower leg and ankle it is used to deliver or apply the power generated at the hip to the crank in the most effective way. This cannot be done if you are using the circular style.

 

[FrankDay]

The knee is used to provide a large force across the top, but not to generate this torque, together with the lower leg and ankle it is used to deliver or apply the power generated at the hip to the crank in the most effective way. This cannot be done if you are using the circular style.

I am afraid you are talking gibberish.

 

[coapman]

I am afraid you are talking gibberish.

As I have said many times, this technique and muscles used at TDC are similar to the technique and muscles used by indoor Tug o'War competitors and you would not call the forward force they can generate gibberish.

 

[coapman]

What on earth are you talking about? How on earth is is possible to provide a large force across the top (something you say you do) without using the knee (since the direction is forward and the knee is normally bent at TDC)?

After 6 or 12 months of continuous intensive training with powercranks or bungee cords, by how much as a percentage of 3 o'c torque could this cyclist increase his TDC torque. How much of that promised 40% increase in power application is supposed to take place here or were all your claims a load of garbage.

 

[FrankDay]

As I have said many times, this technique and muscles used at TDC are similar to the technique and muscles used by indoor Tug o'War competitors and you would not call the forward force they can generate gibberish.

What was gibberish was this:

The knee is used to provide a large force across the top, but not to generate this torque

Any non-radial force around a circle generates torque.

 

[FrankDay]

After 6 or 12 months of continuous intensive training with powercranks or bungee cords, by how much as a percentage of 3 o'c torque could this cyclist increase his TDC torque. How much of that promised 40% increase in power application is supposed to take place here or were all your claims a load of garbage.

I don't have the data to answer the question with any specificity as to where the improvement comes from. I suspect it will vary from rider to rider depending upon each riders particular weaknesses that the cranks address. I have theorized there are several areas of improvement that add together to give the large whole. Potential improvements (and guesses as to average magnitude) include (but are not limited to):

1. eliminating negative forces on the upstroke (about 5-15%?)
2. increasing forces across the top quadrant (about 5-15%) (use of bungie cords could increase this even more)
3. increasing forces across the bottom quadrant (about 0-10%)(use of bungie cords could increase this even more)
4. improving the direction of the applied muscle force on the downstroke (5-15%)
5. slowing the cadence allowing higher pedal forces (0-5%)
6. shortening the crank length (for those who experiment with this) improving the upstroke and further slowing pedal speed (0-5%)
7. Of course, some of the improvement people see may simply be training effect that would have come anyhow (0-25%)

 

[coapman]

What was gibberish was this.

What I was trying to get across was that the power for this maximal (3 o'c equivalent) torque across the top was coming from the hip and not from the knee. The knee along with the lower leg and ankle were used to deliver this power from the hip to the crank in the most advantageous way. The knee is not capable of generating and applying effective forward torque to a fast moving crank, the force it can apply is described by some as similar to that of rolling your foot over a barrel.

 

[FrankDay]

What I was trying to get across was that the power for this maximal (3 o'c equivalent) torque across the top was coming from the hip and not from the knee. The knee along with the lower leg and ankle were used to deliver this power from the hip to the crank in the most advantageous way. The knee is not capable of generating and applying effective forward torque to a fast moving crank, the force it can apply is described by some as similar to that of rolling your foot over a barrel.

The hip is only one of several muscles in series that must work in concert before the foot can deliver one ounce of torque to the pedals. It doesn't matter how strong the hip is if the hip (or ankle) is flacid. It is the weakest muscle in the chain that determines what the force is, not the strongest.

 

[FrankDay]

What I was trying to get across was that the power for this maximal (3 o'c equivalent) torque across the top was coming from the hip and not from the knee. The knee along with the lower leg and ankle were used to deliver this power from the hip to the crank in the most advantageous way. The knee is not capable of generating and applying effective forward torque to a fast moving crank, the force it can apply is described by some as similar to that of rolling your foot over a barrel.

The hip is only one of several muscles in series that must work in concert before the foot can deliver one ounce of torque to the pedals. It doesn't matter how strong the hip is if the knee (or ankle) is flacid. It is the weakest muscle in the chain that determines what the force is, not the strongest.