The pedaling technique thread

Page 60 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 18, 2015
98
0
2,680
Re: Re:

I'll have a go.
1 Efficiency is a mostly property of muscle. 2 There's nothing inefficient about normal pedaling as done by recreational cyclists. 3 Pros are faster because they have larger VO2 max values not because they pedal more efficiently.
How's that?


backdoor said:
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?
 
Nov 25, 2010
831
0
0
Re: Re:

PhitBoy said:
...
3) Pros are faster because they have larger VO2 max values not because they pedal more efficiently.
...
----------------
Am I correct in thinking that a large VO2 max value results from a combination of 2 primary factors -
1) A person's natural genetic and physiological ability to grow and develop the cardio-pulmonary (CP) system needed to supply a large amount of O2.

2) A person's training and physical development that develops both the CP system and the muscle mass that can utilize the large amount of O2.

Also is it possible for a cyclist to 'test' at a higher VO2 max (and power level) doing somthing like a treadmill test compared to a cycling test.

Is 'power output' mainly determined by the amount of muscle mass that can be utilized,

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
 
Jun 18, 2015
98
0
2,680
Re: Re:

1. Yes.
2. Yes but with some additional context. The muscle mass must be trained in terms of oxidative capacity but not in terms of increased mass. Increased mass would help with sprint power but the roll of increased mass for endurance capacity is not entirely agreed upon.
3. Non cyclists will exhbit a higher VO2max for treadmill running than cycling. Cyclists will not show such a difference.
4. As above, the roll of muscle mass on endurance performance is not clear. The oxidative capacity of that muscle is very important.

JayKosta said:
----------------
Am I correct in thinking that a large VO2 max value results from a combination of 2 primary factors -
1) A person's natural genetic and physiological ability to grow and develop the cardio-pulmonary (CP) system needed to supply a large amount of O2.

2) A person's training and physical development that develops both the CP system and the muscle mass that can utilize the large amount of O2.

Also is it possible for a cyclist to 'test' at a higher VO2 max (and power level) doing somthing like a treadmill test compared to a cycling test.

Is 'power output' mainly determined by the amount of muscle mass that can be utilized,

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
 
Nov 25, 2010
831
0
0
Re: Re:

PhitBoy said:
...
oxidative capacity of that muscle is very important.
...
--------------------------
thanks for the information.
I hadn't thought about the role of 'oxidative capacity' of muscles, but it makes sense, and helps explain why 'skinny cyclists' (even those with thin looking legs) can produce high power with good endurance.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
 
Jun 4, 2015
420
0
3,280
Re: Re:

PhitBoy said:
I'll have a go.
1 Efficiency is a mostly property of muscle. 2 There's nothing inefficient about normal pedaling as done by recreational cyclists. 3 Pros are faster because they have larger VO2 max values not because they pedal more efficiently.
How's that?


backdoor said:
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?
You did not mention pedalling effectiveness.
http://www.jsc-journal.com/ojs/index.php?journal=JSC&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=32
 
Nov 25, 2010
831
0
0
Pedalling Effectiveness (PedEffect) needs to be examined very carefully in regards to using it as an indicator of cycling performance. Basically PedEffect is a measure of strictly the mechanical forces on the pedals, and doesn't concern itself with the cyclist's physical effort or muscle actions that are involved.

As Frank Day often mentioned, gravity has a large impact. The upstroke will appear to have a negative force unless the cyclist is doing complete 'unweighting'. But actually the upstroke leg might be 'resting' and allowing the downstroke leg (assisted by gravity) to 'push' it up. That wouldn't give good PedEffect, and as the article mentioned -

"Conversely, economy/efficiency seems to be reduced when cyclists are instructed to improve pedal force effectiveness during acute intervention studies involving one session. Decoupled crank systems effectively improved pedal force effectiveness with conflicting effects on economy/efficiency and performance."

PedEffect itself is much less important than the amount of 'crank power' produced in a manner that can be maintained (endurance) for the duration of the event. And then of course there is aerodynamics, ability to manuever (steer and stay upright), etc.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
 
Jun 4, 2015
420
0
3,280
Re:

JayKosta said:
Pedalling Effectiveness (PedEffect) needs to be examined very carefully in regards to using it as an indicator of cycling performance. Basically PedEffect is a measure of strictly the mechanical forces on the pedals, and doesn't concern itself with the cyclist's physical effort or muscle actions that are involved.

As Frank Day often mentioned, gravity has a large impact. The upstroke will appear to have a negative force unless the cyclist is doing complete 'unweighting'. But actually the upstroke leg might be 'resting' and allowing the downstroke leg (assisted by gravity) to 'push' it up. That wouldn't give good PedEffect, and as the article mentioned -

"Conversely, economy/efficiency seems to be reduced when cyclists are instructed to improve pedal force effectiveness during acute intervention studies involving one session. Decoupled crank systems effectively improved pedal force effectiveness with conflicting effects on economy/efficiency and performance."

PedEffect itself is much less important than the amount of 'crank power' produced in a manner that can be maintained (endurance) for the duration of the event. And then of course there is aerodynamics, ability to manuever (steer and stay upright), etc.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
To me it looks like you are referring to torque effectiveness.
 
Nov 25, 2010
831
0
0
From the Bini paper -
Pedal force effectiveness in Cycling: a review of constraints and training effects

"Pedal force effectiveness in cycling is usually measured by the ratio of force perpendicular to the crank (effective force) and total force applied to the pedal (resultant force)."

note: I (Kosta) would not call the 'total force applied to the pedal' the 'resultant force'.
In my view the 'total force to the pedal' might be more properly called the 'originating force(s)'.
The 'force perpendicular to the crank' is the 'effective force', and it 'results' from the vector combination of the 'total force to the pedal'.

Is that different from what you call 'torque effectiveness'?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
 
Jun 4, 2015
420
0
3,280
Re:

JayKosta said:
From the Bini paper -
Pedal force effectiveness in Cycling: a review of constraints and training effects

"Pedal force effectiveness in cycling is usually measured by the ratio of force perpendicular to the crank (effective force) and total force applied to the pedal (resultant force)."

note: I (Kosta) would not call the 'total force applied to the pedal' the 'resultant force'.
In my view the 'total force to the pedal' might be more properly called the 'originating force(s)'.
The 'force perpendicular to the crank' is the 'effective force', and it 'results' from the vector combination of the 'total force to the pedal'.

Is that different from what you call 'torque effectiveness'?


https://www.cyclinganalytics.com/blog/2014/04/torque-effectiveness-and-pedal-smoothness


The important question appears to be, how can pedalling effectiveness be increased while also increasing efficiency instead of reducing it ?
 
Nov 25, 2010
831
0
0
Re: Re:

backdoor said:
-----
I think the definition of 'torque effectiveness' from that cyclinganalytics blog by David Johnstone has some serious weaknesses. Here is his definition, and note that it is only concerned with the 'power' (i.e. force) that is 'pushing the pedal forward' (I assume 'forward' means perpendicular to the crank), and 'pushing in the opposite direction'.
The problem is that all of the forces on the pedal that are NOT perpendicular to the crank are IGNORED. A cyclist typically does not do perfect perpendicular force application to the pedal, and in the process expends energy (calories) that doesn't produce power or torque.

Johnstone's definition -
"P+ is the power pushing the pedal forward, while P− is the power pushing the pedal in the opposite direction. Pmax is the maximum power applied to the pedal during the stroke, while Pavg is the average power applied to the pedal in the stroke.
Torque effectiveness measures how much of the power delivered to the pedal is pushing it forward. It is calculated as (P+ + P−) / P+ and is normally displayed as a percentage (P− will be a negative value or zero). A value of 100% means that all of the power was pushing the pedal in a positive direction (therefore, P− was zero). Values of 60–100% are common."


Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
 
Jun 18, 2015
98
0
2,680
Re: Re:

Right. Because, as has been discussed over and over, studies in which cyclists increase their pedal force effectiveness repeatedly show that efficiency decreases (metabolic cost increases). The extreme example is single leg cycling which has high effectiveness and low efficiency. When a counterweight is provided to facilitate single leg cycling metabolic cost decreases, even in a cyclist with years of single leg cycling experience.

backdoor said:
You did not mention pedalling effectiveness.
 
Apr 21, 2009
2,686
0
0
Re:

JayKosta said:
Pedalling Effectiveness (PedEffect) needs to be examined very carefully in regards to using it as an indicator of cycling performance. Basically PedEffect is a measure of strictly the mechanical forces on the pedals, and doesn't concern itself with the cyclist's physical effort or muscle actions that are involved.

As Frank Day often mentioned, gravity has a large impact. The upstroke will appear to have a negative force unless the cyclist is doing complete 'unweighting'. But actually the upstroke leg might be 'resting' and allowing the downstroke leg (assisted by gravity) to 'push' it up. That wouldn't give good PedEffect, and as the article mentioned -

"Conversely, economy/efficiency seems to be reduced when cyclists are instructed to improve pedal force effectiveness during acute intervention studies involving one session. Decoupled crank systems effectively improved pedal force effectiveness with conflicting effects on economy/efficiency and performance."

PedEffect itself is much less important than the amount of 'crank power' produced in a manner that can be maintained (endurance) for the duration of the event. And then of course there is aerodynamics, ability to manuever (steer and stay upright), etc.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
Frank Day said a lot of things. Most of them were blatant lies. I expect that those who buy into his nonsense are the type of people who will vote Trump.

Now where is the like button for Jims post!
 
Jun 4, 2015
420
0
3,280
Re: Re:

PhitBoy said:
Right. Because, as has been discussed over and over, studies in which cyclists increase their pedal force effectiveness repeatedly show that efficiency decreases (metabolic cost increases). The extreme example is single leg cycling which has high effectiveness and low efficiency. When a counterweight is provided to facilitate single leg cycling metabolic cost decreases, even in a cyclist with years of single leg cycling experience.

backdoor said:
You did not mention pedalling effectiveness.
They don't know how to do it. All they were doing was attempting to increase the effectiveness of a minimal force by forcing their weakest muscles to work at maximal effort. The correct way to do it is to increase the effectiveness of your maximal force by using your most powerful muscles. That way you can get an increase in effectiveness, efficiency and power output.
 
Apr 21, 2009
2,686
0
0
Yawn, Noel, all been show to be a fruitless exercise by real scientists. Your assertions are a joke. Present real data like we all have!!!

You still miss the point by a mile, that increasing power is the easy part. Sustaining it over the goal distance or duration is the challenge!
 
Mar 13, 2013
46
0
0
Re: Re:

backdoor said:
PhitBoy said:
Right. Because, as has been discussed over and over, studies in which cyclists increase their pedal force effectiveness repeatedly show that efficiency decreases (metabolic cost increases). The extreme example is single leg cycling which has high effectiveness and low efficiency. When a counterweight is provided to facilitate single leg cycling metabolic cost decreases, even in a cyclist with years of single leg cycling experience.

backdoor said:
You did not mention pedalling effectiveness.
They don't know how to do it. All they were doing was attempting to increase the effectiveness of a minimal force by forcing their weakest muscles to work at maximal effort. The correct way to do it is to increase the effectiveness of your maximal force by using your most powerful muscles. That way you can get an increase in effectiveness, efficiency and power output.
ie. stomp
 
Jun 18, 2015
98
0
2,680
Re: Re:

berend said:
backdoor said:
PhitBoy said:
Right. Because, as has been discussed over and over, studies in which cyclists increase their pedal force effectiveness repeatedly show that efficiency decreases (metabolic cost increases). The extreme example is single leg cycling which has high effectiveness and low efficiency. When a counterweight is provided to facilitate single leg cycling metabolic cost decreases, even in a cyclist with years of single leg cycling experience.

backdoor said:
You did not mention pedalling effectiveness.
They don't know how to do it. All they were doing was attempting to increase the effectiveness of a minimal force by forcing their weakest muscles to work at maximal effort. The correct way to do it is to increase the effectiveness of your maximal force by using your most powerful muscles. That way you can get an increase in effectiveness, efficiency and power output.
ie. stomp
Brilliant! :)
 
Jun 4, 2015
420
0
3,280
Re: Re:

berend said:
backdoor said:
PhitBoy said:
Right. Because, as has been discussed over and over, studies in which cyclists increase their pedal force effectiveness repeatedly show that efficiency decreases (metabolic cost increases). The extreme example is single leg cycling which has high effectiveness and low efficiency. When a counterweight is provided to facilitate single leg cycling metabolic cost decreases, even in a cyclist with years of single leg cycling experience.

backdoor said:
You did not mention pedalling effectiveness.
They don't know how to do it. All they were doing was attempting to increase the effectiveness of a minimal force by forcing their weakest muscles to work at maximal effort. The correct way to do it is to increase the effectiveness of your maximal force by using your most powerful muscles. That way you can get an increase in effectiveness, efficiency and power output.
ie. stomp
Obviously you don't know what is meant by the "effectiveness" of your pedalling. That's why I believe it should have been called pedalling efficiency (torque/force x 100) as distinct from the metabolic efficiency. In all natural pedalling styles the effectiveness cannot be improved where most force is being applied. That probably explains why it is overlooked by all the experts.
 
Jun 4, 2015
420
0
3,280
Re:

CoachFergie said:
Yawn, Noel, all been show to be a fruitless exercise by real scientists. Your assertions are a joke. Present real data like we all have!!!

You still miss the point by a mile, that increasing power is the easy part. Sustaining it over the goal distance or duration is the challenge!
Data data and more data, ye are obsessed with it, I use common sense. Why was all this pedalling effectiveness data required, there should have been more than enough data from all those circular pedalling studies.
It is you who is missing the point, when you can get much more torque return from the force you are applying in the most powerful sector of your pedalling than all other TT riders who are applying the same force, it could be said you are getting that "free lunch".
 
Re: Re:

backdoor said:
Obviously you don't know what is meant by the "effectiveness" of your pedalling. That's why I believe it should have been called pedalling efficiency (torque/force x 100) as distinct from the metabolic efficiency.
torque (N.m) divided by force (N) = crank length (m)

I doubt multiplying crank length by 100 adds any insight into pedalling dynamics.
 
Re: Re:

backdoor said:
CoachFergie said:
Yawn, Noel, all been show to be a fruitless exercise by real scientists. Your assertions are a joke. Present real data like we all have!!!

You still miss the point by a mile, that increasing power is the easy part. Sustaining it over the goal distance or duration is the challenge!
Data data and more data, ye are obsessed with it, I use common sense.
Noel, unless you provide data to support your assertions they will always remain meaningless twaddle.

The real problem you have with providing data is that it will in all likelihood show you to be wrong or, to be more kind, misguided.

If you are so convinced you are right, then the data will support your view and everyone else can shout about this revelation from the rooftops.
 
Apr 21, 2009
2,686
0
0
Problem with common sense is that it is not all that common.

Yes, if Jacques pedalling technique was the reason for his success as opposed to having a high VO2max, good metabolic efficiency and a high fractional utilisation of VO2max as has been well measured in Tour de France Champions and other well performed endurance athletes then you should be able to easily test and show that the technique allows one to produce more power. You have repeated said the technique produces more power. ANY power meter can easily measure this. Either need to hold speed constant and ANY power meter will show less power is needed. Or at a constant power you should see a lower heart rate as a proxy for VO2.

EASY TO TEST!
 
Jun 4, 2015
420
0
3,280
Re: Re:

Alex Simmons/RST said:
backdoor said:
Obviously you don't know what is meant by the "effectiveness" of your pedalling. That's why I believe it should have been called pedalling efficiency (torque/force x 100) as distinct from the metabolic efficiency.
torque (N.m) divided by force (N) = crank length (m)

I doubt multiplying crank length by 100 adds any insight into pedalling dynamics.
I see them only as two forces, tangential force from total force applied to pedal.
 
Nov 25, 2010
831
0
0
Re: Re:

backdoor said:
...
The correct way to do it is to increase the effectiveness of your maximal force by using your most powerful muscles. That way you can get an increase in effectiveness, efficiency and power output.
----------------------------------
THAT is what needs testing and data; to confirm that it is happening, and that it yields the suggested results.

I imagine that some training period would be needed to adapt the muscles, and to learn the fine coordination to perform the technique. But after that it seems easy enough to test.
The test subject could perform one test session while concentrating on the new technique, and another session without explicite concentration on technique (since concentration on technique has been mentioned to be critical to successful execution of the new technique).

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts