The pedaling technique thread

[FrankDay]

At a cadence of 90, how do you manage to make 2160 of these marginal power improvements per minute. ( one every 30 deg of pedalling circle)

Training with PowerCranks seem to do it quite well. Whether there are other methods I guess is possible but not, as of yet, described.[/QUOTE]
What makes a high gear TT technique sustainable ?[/QUOTE]Training to do this. It is why we say it takes 6-9 months of intensive training to see this benefit.

 

[FrankDay]

At a cadence of 90, how do you manage to make 2160 of these marginal power improvements per minute. ( one every 30 deg of pedalling circle)

Training with PowerCranks seem to do the trick quite well. Whether there are other methods I guess it is possible but not, as of yet, described.

What makes a high gear TT technique sustainable ?

Training to do this. It is not easy. It is why we say it takes 6-9 months of intensive training to see this benefit.

 

[sciguy]

Frank,

How about showing us some screen shots of your pedal stroke as visualized by the Icrank software? Since you've got more years on Powercranks than anyone else,your pedal stoke must be about perfect by now.

Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

Frank,

How about showing us some screen shots of your pedal stroke as visualized by the Icrank software? Since you've got more years on Powercranks than anyone else,your pedal stoke must be about perfect by now.

Hugh

I would be happy to do that as soon as they get that ability to me. I am told it shouldn't be too long now. I also intend to go out and recruit a lot of local riders to come in for analysis so we can document what doing things like changing crank length does to their stroke and/or what changing position (upright to aero) does to their stroke and what putting them on PowerCranks does for their stroke (we will do this at expos also). I will also make this available when I have it.

It isn't a question of whether my stroke is "perfect" or not but whether all that time on the PowerCranks have made it substantially better than what most do. Perfection (whatever that is) is a very high bar to reach don't you think?

I will say this that I can ride at a steady state power on the Velotron with a spinscan number between 95-98 (not many can say that) so I expect my stroke should look pretty good. Although, I suspect, I will still have some improving to do over the top. For some reason I think that is the weak spot of the stroke (after the backstroke is fixed) on almost everyone, including me. We will see. Oh, and I have ideas for improving any weak spots that are identified beyond what the PC's can do on their own but until you know what the issues are it is not appropriate to try to address them, me thinks. Knowledge is power.

 

[coapman]

I would be happy to do that as soon as they get that ability to me. I am told it shouldn't be too long now. I also intend to go out and recruit a lot of local riders to come in for analysis so we can document what doing things like changing crank length does to their stroke and/or what changing position (upright to aero) does to their stroke and what putting them on PowerCranks does for their stroke (we will do this at expos also). I will also make this available when I have it.

It isn't a question of whether my stroke is "perfect" or not but whether all that time on the PowerCranks have made it substantially better than what most do. Perfection (whatever that is) is a very high bar to reach don't you think?

I will say this that I can ride at a steady state power on the Velotron with a spinscan number between 95-98 (not many can say that) so I expect my stroke should look pretty good. Although, I suspect, I will still have some improving to do over the top. For some reason I think that is the weak spot of the stroke (after the backstroke is fixed) on almost everyone, including me. We will see. Oh, and I have ideas for improving any weak spots that are identified beyond what the PC's can do on their own but until you know what the issues are it is not appropriate to try to address them, me thinks. Knowledge is power.

What prevents a circular pedaller from gaining the same power increase as a PC user. How does a PC user increase torque in his down stroke and gain that extra 1% all the way down from 1 to 5 o'c over that of a masher.

 

[FrankDay]

What prevents a circular pedaller from gaining the same power increase as a PC user. How does a PC user increase torque in his down stroke and gain that extra 1% all the way down from 1 to 5 o'c over that of a masher.

I don't know what you are talking about. Define what you mean by circular pedaler as I consider what PC's does is teach circular pedaling so in that case there would be nothing that prevents a circular pedaler from seeing the same gains as they would be doing the same thing.

I expect any improvement on the down stroke comes from changing the direction of the applied forces to be more tangential, increasing torque that way, rather than by pushing harder. I would expect down stroke improvements to be much much smaller than what is seen on the top, bottom, and back part of the stroke for most people. Anyhow, it is all pretty much a guess right now. We won't know for sure what happens until we are able to measure it over time with lots and lots of people.

 

[CoachFergie]

What prevents a circular pedaller from gaining the same power increase as a PC user. How does a PC user increase torque in his down stroke and gain that extra 1% all the way down from 1 to 5 o'c over that of a masher.

Plenty of studies have tried to estimate the effects of different equipment, pedalling styles and crank lengths and found no meaningful differences in performance. Only seem to exists in those trying to prove a point (badly) and those trying to sell us something.

Meanwhile a ton of studies showing specific training, planning of training and recovery, diet, 3 in a Million supplements do make a meaningful difference to performance.

 

[FrankDay]

Plenty of studies have tried to estimate the effects of different equipment, pedalling styles and crank lengths and found no meaningful differences in performance. …

Wow!!! Certainly powerful stuff there all that TRYING and all that ESTMATING. Certainly no need to do a study an actually measure the effect, if any, of any of those changes. I'll tell that fellow currently doing the study on the effects of crank length on power while in the aero position that he may as well stop since he is most certainly wasting his time. LOL

 

[coapman]

I don't know what you are talking about. Define what you mean by circular pedaler as I consider what PC's does is teach circular pedaling so in that case there would be nothing that prevents a circular pedaler from seeing the same gains as they would be doing the same thing.

I expect any improvement on the down stroke comes from changing the direction of the applied forces to be more tangential, increasing torque that way, rather than by pushing harder. I would expect down stroke improvements to be much much smaller than what is seen on the top, bottom, and back part of the stroke for most people. Anyhow, it is all pretty much a guess right now. We won't know for sure what happens until we are able to measure it over time with lots and lots of people.

Are you equally effective at both the circular and mashing styles ?

 

[veganrob]

Wow!!! Certainly powerful stuff there all that TRYING and all that ESTMATING. Certainly no need to do a study an actually measure the effect, if any, of any of those changes. I'll tell that fellow currently doing the study on the effects of crank length on power while in the aero position that he may as well stop since he is most certainly wasting his time. LOL

Well then, what are you waiting for?

 

[CoachFergie]

Well then, what are you waiting for?

Probably waiting to understand why we try and measure as many subjects as possible so we don't just assume because something appears to work for one person it will work for all.

 

[sciguy]

I would be happy to do that as soon as they get that ability to me. I am told it shouldn't be too long now.
.

Gosh it looks like one can go to the Icrank web site, purchase a unit and download the Icrank installer so what's the hangup?

Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

Gosh it looks like one can go to the Icrank web site, purchase a unit and download the Icrank installer so what's the hangup?

Hugh

What works right now is the iCranks on the Biobike. The Biobike has a unit that picks up the ANT+ signal from the cranks and sends it to the computer for analysis. Nothing like that exists for cranks on a bike yet so all we get is R/L and total power displayed on the Garmin, etc. One manufacturer promised them they would do it a year ago but then they just sort of disappeared so they have had to go to China to have their own head unit made that will collect the data in a form that can be transmitted to a computer for analysis. I am told this is close to being done and that I will get one of the first units when they get them. So, until I get a unit that allows me to do this stuff I can't. That is the "hangup."

 

[sciguy]

Just read about some new research on pedaling technique that will soon be published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology. Jim Martin just posted this over on Slowtwitch.


http://forum.slowtwitch.com/cgi-bin/gforum.cgi?post=4964241#4964241


"I happen to be aware of a study that was just accepted for publication in European Journal of Applied Physiology. The authors evaluated metabolic cost of cycling in three conditions: normal double leg cycling, single leg cycling, single leg cycling with a counterweight. The counterweight serves to lift the leg and maintain similar biomechanics to double leg cycling. Single leg cycling without the counterweight was much less efficient than the other two conditions. For any specific VO2, power was about 40 watts less with single leg no counterweight. Thus pedaling in a way that mimics single leg cycling is a really bad idea.
This of course has nothing to do with powdercranks so it should be okay.
Cheers,
Jim "



I'm sure they didn't carry it out for the 10,000 hours that some would say is required to show a real benefit. It's amazing how I can see measurable benefit from just two VO2 max sessions in a single week's time.

 

[BroDeal]

Just read about some new research on pedaling technique that will soon be published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology. Jim Martin just posted this over on Slowtwitch.


http://forum.slowtwitch.com/cgi-bin/gforum.cgi?post=4964241#4964241


"I happen to be aware of a study that was just accepted for publication in European Journal of Applied Physiology. The authors evaluated metabolic cost of cycling in three conditions: normal double leg cycling, single leg cycling, single leg cycling with a counterweight. The counterweight serves to lift the leg and maintain similar biomechanics to double leg cycling. Single leg cycling without the counterweight was much less efficient than the other two conditions. For any specific VO2, power was about 40 watts less with single leg no counterweight. Thus pedaling in a way that mimics single leg cycling is a really bad idea.
This of course has nothing to do with powdercranks so it should be okay.
Cheers,
Jim "

I'm sure they didn't carry it out for the 10,000 hours that some would say is required to show a real benefit. It's amazing how I can see measurable benefit from just two VO2 max sessions in a single week's time.

There you have it. The jury is finally in, and with rigorous scientific data to back it up. Power Cranks make you slower. I repeat. Power Cranks make you slower.

It turns out that Frank Day was not completely full of sh!t after all. He just read the data wrong. Power Cranks do not give a 40% increase in performance, a figure that everyone with a scintilla of common sense immediately knew was ludicrous. What the data actually meant is that Power Cranks take 40% away from a rider's performance. Day simply got the sign wrong.

In case anyone missed it. Power Cranks make you slower.

 

[FrankDay]

Just read about some new research on pedaling technique that will soon be published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology. Jim Martin just posted this over on Slowtwitch.


http://forum.slowtwitch.com/cgi-bin/gforum.cgi?post=4964241#4964241


"I happen to be aware of a study that was just accepted for publication in European Journal of Applied Physiology. The authors evaluated metabolic cost of cycling in three conditions: normal double leg cycling, single leg cycling, single leg cycling with a counterweight. The counterweight serves to lift the leg and maintain similar biomechanics to double leg cycling. Single leg cycling without the counterweight was much less efficient than the other two conditions. For any specific VO2, power was about 40 watts less with single leg no counterweight. Thus pedaling in a way that mimics single leg cycling is a really bad idea.
This of course has nothing to do with powdercranks so it should be okay.
Cheers,
Jim "



I'm sure they didn't carry it out for the 10,000 hours that some would say is required to show a real benefit. It's amazing how I can see measurable benefit from just two VO2 max sessions in a single week's time.

You know, the tough thing about studies is not in the data collection but in the interpretation of the data. The problem is this work, as near as I can tell, has pretty much already been done and done by Martin. If Martin knew anything about PowerCranks he would know that this work actually supports the PowerCranks thesisbecause counterweighted single legged pedaling is much closer to what PC's require of the athlete than un-counterweighted single legged pedaling. And, if you knew anything about PowerCranks you wouldn't be regurgitating this BS here as if it were something important. Martin has done some interesting work but his interpretation of his work is, IMHO, particularly lacking.

Of course, I find it interesting that Martin posted that comment at a site where it has been determined that I am too controversial so they don't want me posting so his snide remarks will probably go unchallenged rather than posting here where an actual discussion could take place. Of course, Coggan piled on because it makes him look smart to that lay community also. What are they afraid of in not posting that here (they do hang out here) in a thread devoted to pedaling technique? Me, I suppose.

Anyhow, one might want to tell the average amputee, who generally develops way more than half the power of the typical dual legged cyclist, that single legged pedaling is not effective and see how long it takes them to stop laughing. Of course, the average amputee actually has spent some time training that pedaling technique, something this study failed to do. But, by your comment, seem to be discounting the importance of training. No need for any training, let alone 10,000 hours.

Come back when you have a useful study regarding PowerCranks.

 

[FrankDay]

There you have it. The jury is finally in, and with rigorous scientific data to back it up. Power Cranks make you slower. I repeat. Power Cranks make you slower.

LOL. This is like determining that because the NE has had a particularly cold winter this year that global warming is a hoax. I know lots of people have drawn that conclusion but science it is not. LOL.

 

[sciguy]

[/URL]because counterweighted single legged pedaling is much closer to what PC's require of the athlete than un-counterweighted single legged pedaling.

Frank,

Only a person who had never spent time riding counter weighted cranks would make a statement like the one above.

Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

Frank,

Only a person who had never spent time riding counter weighted cranks would make a statement like the one above.

Hugh

Really? Why is that? I would submit that only someone who has not spent time on PowerCranks would submit they are not similar. So, submit your evidence to support your statement.

Edit: I guess until we are able to compare the pedal forces between single legged pedaling (not counterweighted), single legged pedaling (counterweighted) and PowerCranks pedaling we will never know for sure, will we.

 

[sciguy]

\
Edit: I guess until we are able to compare the pedal forces between single legged pedaling (not counterweighted), single legged pedaling (counterweighted) and PowerCranks pedaling we will never know for sure, will we.

It's too bad someone like Jim Martin doesn't have access to that sort of technology......................... oh wait . Guess you need to lend him a set of PCs if you'd like to see how things stack up.

Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

It's too bad someone like Jim Martin doesn't have access to that sort of technology......................... oh wait . Guess you need to lend him a set of PCs if you'd like to see how things stack up.

Hugh

Too bad someone like Jim Martin doesn't, apparently, have an interest in doing anything other than "proving" his own biases. The interest starts with the researcher. Providing cranks to researchers who have a real interest in examining some of these questions is not usually a problem. I have done so many times. Other researchers have actually purchased the cranks so there would be not even the possibility of a conflict of interest. The ball is in Martin's court. I am left to simply comment on his work and how it is usually over and misinterpreted.

 

[coapman]

Really? Why is that? I would submit that only someone who has not spent time on PowerCranks would submit they are not similar. So, submit your evidence to support your statement.

Edit: I guess until we are able to compare the pedal forces between single legged pedaling (not counterweighted), single legged pedaling (counterweighted) and PowerCranks pedaling we will never know for sure, will we.

PC's force and train a rider to unweight the rising pedal, non counterweighted single leg pedalling does the same, counterweighted single leg pedalling encourages the lazy non unweighting style.

 

[FrankDay]

PC's force and train a rider to unweight the rising pedal, non counterweighted single leg pedalling does the same, counterweighted single leg pedalling encourages the lazy non unweighting style.

That is not my impression. Non-counterweighted single legged pedaling encourages the rider to pull up with force on the back stroke, not just unweight. Counterweighted single legged pedaling will, depending on the size of the counterweight, come closer to simple unweighting, what PowerCranks tend to do for the rider. Of course, without pedal force data to compare we are all just guessing as to what is actually going on in these different conditions.

 

[coapman]

That is not my impression. Non-counterweighted single legged pedaling encourages the rider to pull up with force on the back stroke, not just unweight. Counterweighted single legged pedaling will, depending on the size of the counterweight, come closer to simple unweighting, what PowerCranks tend to do for the rider. Of course, without pedal force data to compare we are all just guessing as to what is actually going on in these different conditions.

How is it possible to reproduce the counterweighted single legged pedaling effect when you are using an independent crank ?

 

[FrankDay]

How is it possible to reproduce the counterweighted single legged pedaling effect when you are using an independent crank ?

Pedal speed is determined by bike speed. Normal two legged pedaling involves a nearly constant pedal speed around the entire circle. The problem with single legged pedaling is maintaining pedal speed on the upstroke because forces are so small that bike speed tends to drop considerably (especially when momentum is small as seen indoors). Counterweighted single legged pedaling helps maintain pedal speed so the rider isn't forced to pull up with force on the backstroke to maintain pedal speed thus it better replicates the two legged condition. With independent cranks bike speed (and, hence, pedal speed) is also maintained because the weight of the other leg acts the same as the counterweight (plus you have the muscle efforts added into the mix) so pedal speed remains reasonably constant similar to the counterweighted condition.