The pedaling technique thread

[FrankDay]

Why measure anything?

Why indeed? Is there any evidence that measuring anything during practice or racing improves racing outcome? You are a big measuring advocate. Why do you do it?

Well seeing someone made a claim that training with an independent crank led to a 40% improvement in power and another person made a claim that in a TT (this should interest Marco) that using his pedal technique one could almost double their power then a well calibrated power meter sounds like an excellent tool to measure those claims.

Well, power does translate to speed so measuring power and power improvements is one way of comparing riders and training efforts. The problem is the power is the same whether it is being measured or not. But, measuring power is the gold standard for comparing training benefits which is why I might use that metric in describing the benefits of learning abetter pedaling technique.

What would you suggest Frank, a comparison of times from a race a year apart even if the course direction changes, is shorter and has totally different weather conditions or perhaps average speeds in a 2000m pursuit on an outdoor track without taking into account wind speed, wind direction, riding line, pacing, equipment used, competition etc. Or say if one did use such an improvement not comparing it to say 2000m IP times over a season that show similar if not better improvements. Or how about the fact a rider won a Bronze medal at Masters Worlds? But does that mean my rider that won a Silver in the IP at Masters Worlds 7 years later is better???

Like I said above measuring power is a good way scientists use to compare athletes and training efforts. However, it has yet to be shown that an athlete or coach having that information makes any different outcome in racing. The rider has the power they have from the training they have done regardless of whether they know what that number is or not. Probably the best metric to compare training methods might be to compare relative results of peers. Have you improved more (in race results) than your peers as that includes all of the variables involved in racing.

I guess some people have something to hide and fear the measurement ability of a well calibrated power meter.

No, it just isn't clear that knowing that number is of any benefit to the athlete. And, even if there is a benefit exactly how "well calibrated" must the meter be. Is it enough to know that I improved 10 watts +/- 5 watts vs 10 watts +/- 1 watt vs 10 watts +/- .0001 watt? There is zero evidence that even having a PM makes a difference let alone any evidence that a PM must be calibrated to within a certain percentage of being accurate makes the least bit difference.

 

[CoachFergie]

Why indeed? Is there any evidence that measuring anything during practice or racing improves racing outcome? You are a big measuring advocate. Why do you do it?

Well I like to have evidence that backs up my claims. If I can show a training method increases power or a piece of equipment allows one to ride faster at a given power then I know we are heading in the right direction.

Well, power does translate to speed so measuring power and power improvements is one way of comparing riders and training efforts.

Yeah not really.

The problem is the power is the same whether it is being measured or not.

Good to see that Engineering degree paying off with rather obvious comments like that.

But, measuring power is the gold standard for comparing training benefits which is why I might use that metric in describing the benefits of learning abetter pedaling technique.

Yes would be an excellent way to test a claim that one can improve their power by 40% on average or as Noel claims almost double their power in a TT.

Like I said above measuring power is a good way scientists use to compare athletes and training efforts. However, it has yet to be shown that an athlete or coach having that information makes any different outcome in racing.

I would suggest extreme caution in comparing athletes with different physiologies, pacing strategies, nutritional status's, skill levels, riding positions, aerodynamics etc.

I know of no decent research showing any effect of a power meter of outcomes. I'm sure some people see a $$$ making opportunity in making claims that they do in just the same way people do for pedalling technique whether it is for financial gain or because they are channelling the spirit of a past cycling champion.

The rider has the power they have from the training they have done regardless of whether they know what that number is or not.

Again a rather obvious comment.

Probably the best metric to compare training methods might be to compare relative results of peers.

Again not really unless they have similar physiologies, pacing strategies, nutritional status's, skill levels, riding positions, aerodynamics etc and most importantly racing goals.

And, even if there is a benefit exactly how "well calibrated" must the meter be.

Maybe ask Purito that. Difference between World Champion and heartbreak was tiny. Less than probably half a percent. Where in his training and equipment selection could have made the difference. Interesting that both 1-2 used a standard helmet while 3-4 used aerodynamic road racing helmets. Wheel choice, length of taper, position on the bike, pacing in such a long race. All things that can be measured with a power meter. So when chasing a watt here and a watt there it pays to know the difference is not just from measurement error.

Is it enough to know that I improved 10 watts +/- 5 watts vs 10 watts +/- 1 watt vs 10 watts +/- .0001 watt?

Well as I said 10 watts is 60-90sec in a 40km TT so being 1-2 watts out could lead to a pacing error in a time trial or overestimating the effect of a training method or piece of equipment.

There is zero evidence that even having a PM makes a difference let alone any evidence that a PM must be calibrated to within a certain percentage of being accurate makes the least bit difference.

And the calibration of a set of scales has no influence on what you eat or how you exercise but it does tell you if you are losing weight. Doesn't tell you if it is fluid loss, fat loss or lean mass loss (well technically some scales like Tanita do) so in the same way as we do in cycling it pays to take other measures.

 

[marcopinotti]

Aren't you supposed to be racing right now?

I raced only the Individual TT at Worlds.

 

[bike_boy]

I raced only the Individual TT at Worlds.

If you used a power crank you would have had an extra 40% more horsepower and been able to challenge TM for the win and take the pretty girls back to the hotel for the evening.

Also, i'm not one to dispense advice to those who don't ask for it. But I can see you're in need and i'm going to do you a favour, so in future I suggest you use a power meter thats been calibrated daily, otherwise your pacing strategy will be thrown off. A good pro never trusts their legs.

Both Ferg and Frank are among the internets best keyboard warriors, listen to them if you want to be a good cyclist. Marco, i'm very serious about this.

 

[coapman]

Yes would be an excellent way to test a claim that one can improve their power by 40% on average or as Noel claims almost double their power in a TT.

Forget about almost doubling the power, the questions for you to answer are: As a coach do you believe the dead spot sector will always be a permanent fixture in a cyclist's pedal stroke and can never be replaced with maximal torque. If it could be replaced with maximal torque, as a rough estimate what effect would it have on a TT rider's power output? Of course like AC you probably will not give direct answers.

 

[acoggan]

we can go back to waiting for Dr. Coggan to show up and clarify his pedaling technique comment that on the face of it seems pure BS.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

 

[FrankDay]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

LOL. Asking you (a supposed scientist no less) to support your definitive statement is not a "strawman argument". Your calling my request for you to support your statement a strawman is a strawman itself.

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.

If you believe I have misrepresented your statement now would be the time to clarify it. I refer you back to post #235 in this thread

Originally Posted by acoggan View Post
"Increasing the forward torque on the crank will always result in an increase in power"

IOW, unless the rider is actively resisting the rising pedal, there's no more "opportunity" on the upstroke than on the downstroke.

Reason #1 why this is complete BS.

Let's presume that a rider generates all of his power on the downstroke and does nothing on the upstroke (minus 20 lbf average force on the pedals). And, let's say he is maxed out, generating 400 watts (meaning 800 watts on the downstroke for half the time) with an average force on the pedals of 120 lbf during the downstroke 90 times a minute. (This gives him an average force on the pedals for the entire circle of 50 lbf)

Now, let's presume this rider wants to improve 5%. Is he more likely to improve by improving his push to 125 lbf 90 times a minute (increasing to 840 watts on the downstroke) or learning how to unweight 5 lbf on the upstroke (to a minus 15 lbf average on the upstroke - generating 40 watts on the upstroke) 90 times a minute?

So, putting it another way, is it easier to improve a muscle that is working maximally (or near maximally) and extra 10% or to start using a muscle that is not being used at all (or being totally underutilized) to generate improvement? Submit your votes folks.


Reason # 2 to follow soon if it isn't obvious what is wrong with this thinking.

 

[CoachFergie]

Forget about almost doubling the power

Why should I forget the claim you made. Did you make this all up or do you think that if tested with ANY power meter your claim of almost doubling the power would be proven wrong and you are now back pedalling?

 

[coapman]

Why should I forget the claim you made. Did you make this all up or do you think that if tested with ANY power meter your claim of almost doubling the power would be proven wrong and you are now back pedalling?

Because it would be impossible to prove even with a powermeter. I could always ease up on the power when using the mashing or circular technique. I believe that when Anquetil and other riders were taken to have their pedaling tested and compared, he simply switched from his powerful TT style to the circular style which enabled him to retain the secret of his success in flat time trials. With a suitable PM like BrimBros there should be no difficulty in proving my more important claims that the equivalent of 3 o'c maximal torque can be applied through 12, 1 and 2 o'c and its elimination of wasted force in this sector because these claims have a simple yes/no answer. The same can be said about its elimination of natural pedaling's stress effect on the lower back. Now get back and answer those questions you were asked.

 

[CoachFergie]

Sorry if I don't feel accountable to a pathological liar or the village idiot of pedalling discussions (you and Frank choose which is which). If one can almost double their power in a time trial it is easily testable with ANY power meter. Stop hiding behind lame excuses like Brim Brothers vapourware as you have been offered force measuring pedals in the past by Ric Stern and Jim Martin.

 

[coapman]

Sorry if I don't feel accountable to a pathological liar or the village idiot of pedalling discussions (you and Frank choose which is which). If one can almost double their power in a time trial it is easily testable with ANY power meter. Stop hiding behind lame excuses like Brim Brothers vapourware as you have been offered force measuring pedals in the past by Ric Stern and Jim Martin.

As I had expected, no answers to any questions, what are you afraid of.

 

[CoachFergie]

Not afraid, amused.

You are back pedalling on your claim of being able to almost being able to double your power with technique which is easily testable with ANY power meter. So stop hiding behind lame excuses and live up to your claims!

I am not making any claims I can't support so have nothing to be afraid of. Your argument is just as much a strawman as Frank's is of Andy. But we have come to expect that.

 

[coapman]

I am not making any claims I can't support so have nothing to be afraid of. Your argument is just as much a strawman as Frank's is of Andy. But we have come to expect that.

How can you make any claims when all you do is blindly follow traditional ways as Fignon did in that TT against Lemond. Andy is not infallible, this statement of his "Increasing the forward torque on the crank will always result in an increase in power"
is incorrect according to research by (Coyle et al),i.e. the circular style is not as powerful as the mashing technique.

 

[CoachFergie]

How can I blindly copy LeMond or Fignon when I have no data on them. That would be as dumb as copying how I thought a rider from the 50s rode their bike.

 

[coapman]

How can I blindly copy LeMond or Fignon when I have no data on them. That would be as dumb as copying how I thought a rider from the 50s rode their bike.

Again you are displaying your ignorance where pedalling is concerned because even if you had a PM graph which demonstrated exactly where torque was being applied, you would not have the slightest clue as to how the muscles generated this torque, that you have to discover for yourself.. What I meant in post above was, in the same way as Fignon and his coach did not have the common sense to realize that an aero hand/arm position could give a very significant advantage in TT's and as a consequence he lost the Tour de F, you as a coach do not have the common sense to realize the importance of replacing the dead spot sector with maximal torque, instead you believe there is more to be gained from using an expensive PM and knowing how to calibrate it, while following the traditional advice, "ride your bike, ride your bike, ride your bike".

 

[CoachFergie]

Again you are displaying your ignorance where pedalling is concerned because even if you had a PM graph which demonstrated exactly where torque was being applied

You made a claim that using your technique one could almost double their power. If this was true ANY power meter can be used to test your claim. It doesn't matter where the torque is being applied if it is in addition to the torque from mashing and does not cause a drop in torque elsewhere in the stroke then ANY power meter will show this. Of course if Tony Martin was putting out around 420-450 watts at Worlds you argument sounds very suspect if you claim he could almost be putting out 840-900 watts

 

[CoachFergie]

instead you believe there is more to be gained from using an expensive PM and knowing how to calibrate it, while following the traditional advice, "ride your bike, ride your bike, ride your bike".

Oh look, someone else hating on power meters. Heaven forbid we should ever want to test something to back up our claims. You guys are so predictable.

 

[JayKosta]

...
It doesn't matter where the torque is being applied if it is in addition to the torque from mashing and does not cause a drop in torque elsewhere in the stroke then ANY power meter will show this.
...

--------------------
AGREED !

So the question seems to be 'what crank rotation sector is most favorable to be trained for producing additional torque?'.
And is the training aimed at muscle strength, pedaling technique, or a combination?

Question for Frank Day -
Physiologically, is there a cardio / pulmonary concern about NOT HAVING a brief rest-period for the muscles during high output pedaling - e.g. a situation where there isn't a brief period of overall low contraction, such as if high torque could be evenly produced around an entire crank rotation?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[FrankDay]

Question for Frank Day -
Physiologically, is there a cardio / pulmonary concern about NOT HAVING a brief rest-period for the muscles during high output pedaling - e.g. a situation where there isn't a brief period of overall low contraction, such as if high torque could be evenly produced around an entire crank rotation?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Huh? Not sure I understand your question because there is always a brief rest period for all of the muscles during high output (and low output) pedaling because of the reciprocal nature of pedaling. The only question is "how brief" is that period (higher cadences result in briefer periods of rest both absolutely and as a percentage of the total time) and how much rest does the muscle need to recover adequately after the last contraction to get ready for the next contraction? So, even if even torque could be produced around the entire circle this would come about because of the use of different muscle groups at different times so each muscle group would be able to rest some during each rotation.

So, in general, each joint has agonist and antagonist muscles that act to bend that joint in different directions. When one group of muscles are acting the other group are resting and vice versa. The only significant muscle that doesn't work this way is the heart (because there is no antagonist muscle) and it rests during diastole/filling although the amount of rest time that it gets goes down with higher heart rates so it behaves similarly

There is no evidence that the heart cannot respond over time to extra aerobic demands placed upon it by the periphery (VO2 max goes up with training and goes up with the amount of muscle mass being used aerobically, e.g., higher in rowers and XC skiers than in runners and cyclists). All the evidence suggests that the limit to aerobic athletic performance is oxygen delivery/diffusion in the peripheral muscles.

 

[JayKosta]

Huh? Not sure I understand your question because there is always a brief rest period for all of the muscles during high output (and low output) pedaling because of the reciprocal nature of pedaling.
...

------------------------
Yes I understand about the cyclic contraction / relaxation of the individual muscles.

In the 'continuous high torque' situation, there would always 'some' (continually changing from one to another) large muscle group that is in high contraction. My question is whether that continual high-contraction negatively affects overall circulatory / cardiac / pulmonary function.
I.E. there would never be a brief period of overall low-contraction.

In 'mashing' style pedaling, the overall low-contraction occurs when the cranks are near TDC / BDC.

Do other high output endurance sports (e.g. running, swimming, rowing) NOT have brief periods of overall low contraction?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[FrankDay]

------------------------
Yes I understand about the cyclic contraction / relaxation of the individual muscles.

In the 'continuous high torque' situation, there would always 'some' (continually changing from one to another) large muscle group that is in high contraction. My question is whether that continual high-contraction negatively affects overall circulatory / cardiac / pulmonary function.
I.E. there would never be a brief period of overall low-contraction.

In 'mashing' style pedaling, the overall low-contraction occurs when the cranks are near TDC / BDC.

Do other high output endurance sports (e.g. running, swimming, rowing) NOT have brief periods of overall low contraction?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

I am not aware of any cardio pulmonary issue that would limit cardiac performance due to using the muscles in an imbalanced fashion. The periods of contraction are short enough that by the time the blood reaches the heart all it sees is a constant flow.

The heart has no idea what the individual muscles are doing. All it knows is its own environment and it responds to demands to try to maintain homeostasis. What is the filling pressure? What is the overall demand? Are the electrolytes and pH optimum for metabolic efficiency? What has been the training environment prior to this time? etc.

The question you (and everyone else) should be asking is why does the heart look like it is "failing" at VO2max. The issue causing this "failure" cannot be inadequate blood flow (or ischemia) to the heart or we would be seeing angina (heart pain) and heart attacks. We do not. Then, what is causing the "failure"? (edit: the only answer that makes any sense is that as peripheral muscles go anaerobic they change the pH/electrolyte environment at the heart making it less capable.) Ask that question and follow the dots and you will see that spreading the work out over more muscles (edit: delaying when any muscle goes anaerobic) allows the body to do more work and consume more oxygen before such failure is seen (remember rowers/C skiers>runners>cyclists). Then, ask yourself why a pedaling action that uses less muscles (mashing) would ever be considered better than one that uses more muscles (spinning) if one thinks that it is better to be able to use more oxygen than less. And, this analysis only involves total muscle use considerations and doesn't consider other technique aspects at all.

 

[CoachFergie]

So much fail in so few paragraphs, nice revisionist physiology Frank.

Ask that question and follow the dots and you will see that spreading the work out over more muscles (edit: delaying when any muscle goes anaerobic) allows the body to do more work and consume more oxygen before such failure is seen (remember rowers/C skiers>runners>cyclists).

But that isn't what people see. The highest VO2max values are seen in athletes who compete at VO2max (3-8mins). Also remember that VO2max is not a very good predictor of performance. The lactate threshold and economy of exercise come into play as well.

Then, ask yourself why a pedaling action that uses less muscles (mashing) would ever be considered better than one that uses more muscles (spinning) if one thinks that it is better to be able to use more oxygen than less.

Wrong again. Track sprinters pedalling at 130-160 rpm are the biggest mashers in the sport. Holding power constant the total oxygen cost of exercise doesn't change no matter how one exercises. What does change is how the muscle adapts to the exercise and oxygen cost is reduced (economy/efficiency).

And, this analysis only involves total muscle use considerations and doesn't consider other technique aspects at all.

Which ignores the specific adaptations to the demands of the exercise which is pretty crucial if ones preparing for any particular event. So if pedalling in competition on a fixed wheel bike, one should train on a fixed wheel bike or if racing on a standard crank then train with a standard crank, race on hills then train in the hills etc.

 

[coapman]

--------------------
AGREED !

So the question seems to be 'what crank rotation sector is most favorable to be trained for producing additional torque?'.
And is the training aimed at muscle strength, pedaling technique, or a combination?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Between 11 and 2 o'c but it has to be maximal force/torque that is being applied for merging with the downward force/torque, anything less will result in a weaker downstroke and defeat the purpose of the change. The training is aimed at technique, the combination of muscles used have more than enough strength from day 1.

 

[FrankDay]

So much fail in so few paragraphs, nice revisionist physiology Frank.

Fergie, you are really a kick. But, it is the internet where everyone, regardless of background or knowledge are invited to participate, so I will endeavor to answer your criticisms. (LOL, revisionist physiology, indeed)

But that isn't what people see. The highest VO2max values are seen in athletes who compete at VO2max (3-8mins).

Huh? Do you have any data to support such a contention. It is my contention that the highest VO2max is usually found in endurance athletes even though they don't race very close to their VO2max.

Also remember that VO2max is not a very good predictor of performance. The lactate threshold and economy of exercise come into play as well.

At least we can agree on this.

Wrong again. Track sprinters pedalling at 130-160 rpm are the biggest mashers in the sport. Holding power constant the total oxygen cost of exercise doesn't change no matter how one exercises. What does change is how the muscle adapts to the exercise and oxygen cost is reduced (economy/efficiency).

Really? Do you have any data to support this claim? I seem to find plenty of data to support that at the same power oxygen consumption varies quite a bit with cadence. For instance:

Optimal cadence selection during cycling

"Cadence or pedal rate is widely accepted as an important factor influencing economy of motion, power output, perceived exertion and the development of fatigue during cycling."

I especially like Figure 1a which shows how pedaling technique changes with power in that the higher the power, not only does the rider push harder on the down stroke but the rider does less negative work (and more positive work) on the upstroke. And, also, that it changes with cadence showing it is easier to get the rising foot out of the way on the upstroke when pedal speed is reduced. (not that the "just push harder crowd" cares).

But, here is the meat of the paper as it regards oxygen consumption. "Numerous studies have examined the influence of pedalling frequency on the efficiency and economy of cycling 6, 27, 44, 46, 48, 71, 72. Generally, when cycling at constant power outputs, lower cadences have been found to result in reduced oxygen cost (i.e. improved gross efficiency) compared with higher cadences 6, 15, 27. Improved efficiency of cycling observed at lower pedalling rates is likely to be dictated by the relationship between muscle shortening velocity and the efficiency of muscle contractions (percent Type I and Type II active fibres). For instance, under in vitro conditions, it has been observed that the efficiency of skeletal muscle contractions is augmented with increasing speed of contraction, until a maximum is reached (i.e. an economically optimal shortening velocity) 35. The most economical cadence appears to be extremely low (~50-60rpm) when cycling at low power outputs (?W), but increases to approximately 80-100rpm with increasing workloads (~350W) 26, 44, 58. The cause of the rise in the economically optimal cadence is unclear, but is again likely to be due to the power-velocity relationship of muscle contraction and the additional recruitment of fast twitch muscle fibres with increases in exercise intensity."

What Determines The Optimal Cadence?

" Data collected at Arizona State University suggest this may not be the case (Marsh and Martin, 1993). In the ASU study, experienced runners with no cycling experience, but of equal aerobic capacity to the cyclists, were asked to pedal at their freely selected cadence at a constant power output of 200 W. Surprisingly, their average preferred cadence was 92 rpm and their most economical cadence was approximately 63 rpm, essentially the same as the cadences recorded for the experienced cyclists (Figure 3). These data challenge the commonly held notion that many years of cycling experience are required to feel comfortable at high cadences. The data also suggest, some underlying similarities exist between the cyclists and runners perhaps due to their high fitness levels, or the aerobic training leading to the high fitness levels. "

Comment: What is strange to me is that no one seems to notice that 90 is close to everyone's natural endurance running cadence. It seems there might be something "natural" about a cadence of 90 so I am beginning to believe that crank length should be optimized to allow the most efficient muscle contraction velocity at a cadence of 90. If this were the case then the FCC of the athlete would probably be close to optimum. At least it could be studied. Any graduate students out there reading this?

Effects of the pedaling cadence on metabolic and cardiovascular responses during incremental and constant workload exercises in active individuals

"The maximal power (Pmax) attained during the incremental test, and the MLSS intens were significantly lower at 100 rpm (240.9 ± 12.6 W; 148.1 ± 154.W) compared to 50 rpm (263.9 ± 18.6 W; 186.1 ± 21.2 W), respectively. The HRmax did not change between cadences (50 rpm = 191.1 ± 8.8 bpm; 100 rpm = 192.6 ± 9.9 bpm). Regardless the cadence, the HRmax percentage (70, 80, 90, and 100%) determined the same lactate concentrations during the incremental test"

I found it interesting that these authors also found that the HRM was a better indicator of the bodies lactate load than the PM.

Effect of pedal cadence on the heterogeneity of muscle deoxygenation during moderate exercise

"These results indicate that pedal cadence has no effect on O2 extraction but that an elevated cadence would increase muscle V̇O2, suggesting an increase in muscle blood flow."

The relationship between cadence, pedalling technique and gross efficiency in cycling

"Energy expenditure is strongly coupled to cadence, but force effectiveness, as a measure for pedalling technique, is not likely the cause of this relationship."

Relation between preferred and optimal cadences during two hours of cycling in triathletes

"The FCC decreased significantly (p<0.01) from P1 (87.4 rpm) to P2 (68.6 rpm), towards the energetically optimal cadence."

Comment: I wonder why the freely chosen cadence tended to decrease to the more energy efficient cadence as the rider got tired? Wonder what would have happened if the rider had started out at the most energy efficient cadence?

Back to Fergie

Which ignores the specific adaptations to the demands of the exercise which is pretty crucial if ones preparing for any particular event. So if pedalling in competition on a fixed wheel bike, one should train on a fixed wheel bike or if racing on a standard crank then train with a standard crank, race on hills then train in the hills etc.

Really. I wonder how you might explain how a past multiple winner of the Mt. Washington hill climb could have possibly lived in and done most of his training in Florida, the flattest state in the US (the highest point is 345 ft above sea level in the entire state) and did most of that training on independent cranks even though he was racing on fixed cranks. This result doesn't seem to fit your prescription. Isn't it more likely that success is most likely to those who train for the demands of the event and that the specifics of achieving that are not so important?

 

[42x16ss]

Oh look, someone else hating on power meters. Heaven forbid we should ever want to test something to back up our claims. You guys are so predictable.

I really don't get why you continue to feed this circular discussion, you're tilting at windmills.

Face it, these guys will never truly test their claims, even if it is as simple as buying a powertap and booking some alone time at an indoor velodrome. It will devastate their claims...