Pedalling form and using the right muscles at the right time

cyco2

ncr wrote:

mac220 wrote:

Thanks for your honest and understandable reply. I wonder how your reply to Dick Fosbury would have read if he had posted a brief description of his new high jump technique. If the brightest minds in cycling's science dept. did not have the brains to realize the importance of an aerodynamic hand/arm position in time trials how could you expect them to discover the intricate biomechanics of the perfect pedaling technique. You say you don't see this technique being used by top tt'ers, well you can see the man who is still regarded as the world's greatest ever tt'er (J Anquetil a self admitted drug user) using it in both road and track events if you take a look at footage of his pedaling on video. Take special note, there is no dead spot sector in his pedaling, it is continuous torque application. But his unaero shoulder width bars forced him to use a more awkward double handed resistance technique instead of the more suitable and more beneficial alternate handed method made possible by aero bars. As for the medical aspect, by extending the peak torque application sector from 30 to 120 deg., knee stress is greatly reduced, unlike irregular chainrings which force a rider to put even greater stress on the knees in this confined 30 deg. sector. By transferring all the stressful workload from the lower back to the hips, the root cause of genuine cycling (pedaling) related lower back pain is eliminated. PS The combination of both arms and legs (what you call pushing and shoving) in this technique is very discreet and undetectable by an observer

I am a very cynical about so call 'greatest' riders of the past.

indjke

dw300 wrote:

WTF

+1

bahzob

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Your memory is pretty reasonable (studies by Coyle et al, Korff et al and Martin et al), and agreed, pedal technique is way over blown.

Sorry Alex your memory doesnt seem to be so good. Last time we crossed swords on this topic I pointed out a number of errors with the studies above. Korff is full of flaws and would barely merit a GCSE pass. Amongst its issues is that it used what must rank as the most stupid work interval in any study ever. 200W for 6 mins??? This does more than just compromise any interpretation of its conclusions. It demonstrates the experimenters simply do not understand their subject. Pedaling is a skill and you test skills by seeing how consistently they can be maintained under pressure and you measure improvement by how well it can be sustained under conditions of highest stress. Korff's approach applied to golf would come to conclusions on how well a golfer performed by how they could hit a ball, roughly forward, 50yds on a range, to a marathon running by how well you can jog 100 yards or so.

If my memory serves Martin at least used a meaningful measure but was only concerned with max peak sprint power so pretty irrelevant 99%. of the time. I also recall that, contrary to your argument, it did in fact show that non-cyclists could be trained to improve pedal technique (it just showed this adaption was quite quick). However didn't this study also show the bizarre effect that after only a few days training non-cyclists outperformed experienced cyclists???

I invited you to either respond or stop quoting them as others may not have the time to read the originals and be misled. Don't recall you doing the former so please stop the latter.

The fact that poor work like this is still being used as prime evidence so many years after it was originally carried out only goes to show how lacking knowledge in this area is and acts as a commentary on the sad state of sports science (where one poorly conducted suck it and see observation "proves" something) compared to its much more mature brethren. (cf pretty much any other science you choose to mention)

Alex_Simmons/RST

bahzob wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Your memory is pretty reasonable (studies by Coyle et al, Korff et al and Martin et al), and agreed, pedal technique is way over blown.

Sorry Alex your memory doesnt seem to be so good. Last time we crossed swords on this topic I pointed out a number of errors with the studies above. Korff is full of flaws and would barely merit a GCSE pass. Amongst its issues is that it used what must rank as the most stupid work interval in any study ever. 200W for 6 mins??? This does more than just compromise any interpretation of its conclusions. It demonstrates the experimenters simply do not understand their subject. Pedaling is a skill and you test skills by seeing how consistently they can be maintained under pressure and you measure improvement by how well it can be sustained under conditions of highest stress. Korff's approach applied to golf would come to conclusions on how well a golfer performed by how they could hit a ball, roughly forward, 50yds on a range, to a marathon running by how well you can jog 100 yards or so.

If my memory serves Martin at least used a meaningful measure but was only concerned with max peak sprint power so pretty irrelevant 99%. of the time. I also recall that, contrary to your argument, it did in fact show that non-cyclists could be trained to improve pedal technique (it just showed this adaption was quite quick). However didn't this study also show the bizarre effect that after only a few days training non-cyclists outperformed experienced cyclists???

I invited you to either respond or stop quoting them as others may not have the time to read the originals and be misled. Don't recall you doing the former so please stop the latter.

The fact that poor work like this is still being used as prime evidence so many years after it was originally carried out only goes to show how lacking knowledge in this area is and acts as a commentary on the sad state of sports science (where one poorly conducted suck it and see observation "proves" something) compared to its much more mature brethren. (cf pretty much any other science you choose to mention)

Do you have any additional or better evidence to add/point people to?

Last time I recall all you had was a YouTube video of people riding bikes on a climb, which told us nothing about the topic of pedal technique*, and presumably would merit a GCSE fail.

Perhaps I can also point you to a range of studies used to investigate the impact on performance and pedalling technique from using independent cranks, something that forces the rider to adopt a different technique. All that research has shown that despite this technique retraining, it doesn't change performance, and people quickly revert back to their natural ways when they go back to normal cranks (not that I am advocating this, nor making any suggestion that this is the way to "improve technique", just as an example of what doing so does, i.e. bugger all).

* well perhaps other than some probably could use a better bike fit, choose more appropriate gears and need to get fitter.

bahzob

Sorry Alex again rather than respond to my arguments you seem to prefer to go defensive and try to change the subject.

As you know you are either being willfully thick or misrepresenting what I said but regardless, it doesn't alter the fact that the studies you continuously cite are flawed and cannot be offered as substantial evidence in favour of your position.

So please stop quoting them.

mac220

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Rollemynot wrote:

dw300 wrote:

WTF

Ditto

C'mon guys, play ball, this could be epic.

OK, I'm picking something up here, I assume there been other discussion along a similar line?

Alex, Ric,

Am I just out of date on this, has there been any studies which support Noels Theory?

If you could get the kind of gains which Anquetil talked about, was it something in the region of 5kph, then this would be a massive improvement for something which isn't limited directly by a person aerobic system. I suppose its not unknown for this type of claim to be used to get a psychological advantage even when there's no actual basis to the claim i.e. how was the baseline that this claim was measure against set and was it even possible at that period i.e. did the tools required to accurately measure that claim exist?

Cheers,

Mark

ncr

mac220 wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Rollemynot wrote:

dw300 wrote:

WTF

Ditto

C'mon guys, play ball, this could be epic.

OK, I'm picking something up here, I assume there been other discussion along a similar line?

Alex, Ric,

Am I just out of date on this, has there been any studies which support Noels Theory?

If you could get the kind of gains which Anquetil talked about, was it something in the region of 5kph, then this would be a massive improvement for something which isn't limited directly by a person aerobic system. I suppose its not unknown for this type of claim to be used to get a psychological advantage even when there's no actual basis to the claim i.e. how was the baseline that this claim was measure against set and was it even possible at that period i.e. did the tools required to accurately measure that claim exist?

Cheers,

Mark

When required, Anquetil could gain minutes over other top riders in non climbing time trials by using his special high gear tt technique. Quoting from CYCLE SPORT, J. Bobet who studied Anquetil's pedaling both as a rider and later as a journalist, when asked why Anquetil's ability was so specialised replied "I think it was to do with his pedaling, his muscles and the smooth constant way that they delivered power to his bike ", and " Although I studied literature, I am fascinated by mathematics and physics, Anquetil was perfection at continuous motion, his system was totally adapted to it".

---

I have been working on this technique for about fifteen years, it is now perfected. Over the past years I have been on various forums.

Tom Dean

Anquetil FFS! Are we doing this because we can't talk about Armstrong's cadence anymore?

ShutUpLegs

Tom Dean wrote:

Anquetil FFS! Are we doing this because we can't talk about Armstrong's cadence anymore?

dw300

Number of cyclists ever : Millions

Number of cyclists who found a 10% more effective pedal stroke : 1

:roll:

ric/rstsport

mac220 wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Rollemynot wrote:

dw300 wrote:

WTF

Ditto

C'mon guys, play ball, this could be epic.

OK, I'm picking something up here, I assume there been other discussion along a similar line?

Alex, Ric,

Am I just out of date on this, has there been any studies which support Noels Theory?

If you could get the kind of gains which Anquetil talked about, was it something in the region of 5kph, then this would be a massive improvement for something which isn't limited directly by a person aerobic system. I suppose its not unknown for this type of claim to be used to get a psychological advantage even when there's no actual basis to the claim i.e. how was the baseline that this claim was measure against set and was it even possible at that period i.e. did the tools required to accurately measure that claim exist?

Cheers,

Mark

while i can't really be arsed to get into a discussion with Noel (been there, done it) as i have better things to do, we have chatted previously. IIRC, Noel was offered a trip to the USA, to a top university to explain/demonstrate the technique (from memory it was organised by Andy Coggan). Noel turned it down.

I put it in the same category as Frank Day's stupidity, where he suggests that you can gain a 40% (ROTFLMFAO) increase in aerobic power by using his independent clutch cranks. There have been studies using these cranks and of course there's no 40% increase. Or any increase.

A quick search of the internet and you'll likely turn up these threads on various forums, along with me talking about weight training.

ncr

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

mac220 wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Rollemynot wrote:

dw300 wrote:

WTF

Ditto

C'mon guys, play ball, this could be epic.

OK, I'm picking something up here, I assume there been other discussion along a similar line?

Alex, Ric,

Am I just out of date on this, has there been any studies which support Noels Theory?

If you could get the kind of gains which Anquetil talked about, was it something in the region of 5kph, then this would be a massive improvement for something which isn't limited directly by a person aerobic system. I suppose its not unknown for this type of claim to be used to get a psychological advantage even when there's no actual basis to the claim i.e. how was the baseline that this claim was measure against set and was it even possible at that period i.e. did the tools required to accurately measure that claim exist?

Cheers,

Mark

while i can't really be arsed to get into a discussion with Noel (been there, done it) as i have better things to do, we have chatted previously. IIRC, Noel was offered a trip to the USA, to a top university to explain/demonstrate the technique (from memory it was organised by Andy Coggan). Noel turned it down.

I put it in the same category as Frank Day's stupidity, where he suggests that you can gain a 40% (ROTFLMFAO) increase in aerobic power by using his independent clutch cranks. There have been studies using these cranks and of course there's no 40% increase. Or any increase.

A quick search of the internet and you'll likely turn up these threads on various forums, along with me talking about weight training.

Frank is not stupid, it's those who buy his cranks or do the studies that are the stupid ones. Another 6 months study has just started. If Frank could never explain where exactly in the pedal stroke or how these cranks improved performance, how could any sensible person expect an improvement. I am not selling anything, just stating some pedaling facts. I am glad I did not take that trip because this technique was only in its infancy then and needed further years of experiment and perfecting which is now completed. I hope when BrimBros new force/vector PM goes on the market to get a genuine graph of this pedaling torque on different forums. That PM is being built here in Dublin. A free demonstration and more detailed explanation will then be available to anyone who is prepared to do the travelling.

Alex_Simmons/RST

mac220 wrote:

Am I just out of date on this, has there been any studies which support Noels Theory?

None that I'm aware of.

Pithy Power Proverb: "There's no free lunch."

Alex_Simmons/RST

bahzob wrote:

Sorry Alex again rather than respond to my arguments you seem to prefer to go defensive and try to change the subject.

As you know you are either being willfully thick or misrepresenting what I said but regardless, it doesn't alter the fact that the studies you continuously cite are flawed and cannot be offered as substantial evidence in favour of your position.

So please stop quoting them.

What arguments?

If you don't like the science that has been done, then point me to better evidence (unvalidated assertions about pedalling and a YouTube video don't count). If I've missed or forgotten what they are, my apologies.

Alex_Simmons/RST

dw300 wrote:

Number of cyclists ever : Millions

Number of cyclists who found a 10% more effective pedal stroke : 1

:roll:

No, 2.
apparently

Tom Dean

ncr wrote:

I hope when BrimBros new force/vector PM goes on the market to get a genuine graph of this pedaling torque on different forums. That PM is being built here in Dublin. A free demonstration and more detailed explanation will then be available to anyone who is prepared to do the travelling.

You should contact Brim Bros and Garmin if you think you can prove your theory with their product, I imagine it would be quite valuable to them if you did.