Pedal Power - Pictures and an easy 300W hour

bahzob

I have been banging for a while now about how improving your pedaling can improve your performance.

The reason for doing is that it's worked surprisingly well for me and I'd encourage others to give it a go. All the more so because there is no downside, you can develop a better pedal action without compromising other training. Indeed I have found quite the opposite. The biggest issue is being able to tell good from bad in terms of pedaling so you can improve. I have used a Wattbike for this and got some great results.

Three pictures follow to demonstrate these

The first two are polar views from a Wattbike. (For more info on these seehttp://wattbike.com/uk/guide/cycling_tests/pedalling_technique_test/what_the_polar_view_shapes_mean/)

First is my original pedal action, second is what it is now. Both are from workouts around threshold level.

"BEFORE" (workout 2x20 under over with work varying 250W>320W + warmup/cooldown



"NOW " (workout 60 minute steady power 300W>320W + warm up/cool down)


It's pretty clear that the two images differ despite both producing steady output power in a similar zone.
"Before" - Clear differences between work stroke and recovery stroke. Wide fluctuations in power during work >600W at points.
"Now" - Consistent, compact stroke at all efforts. Power spread through much wider range of stroke with much reduced peak power <450W

Adapting to the "Now" stroke took around a month or so, using the polar display on a Wattbike as a guide. It's since become complete habit and I don't use the polar view during training and focus on power zones. Going back to try to produce the "before" stroke now feels very strange.

Ofc simply changing pedal stroke isn't much of a deal if it if doesn't result in improvement of some sort.

Well it has. Firstly in terms of feel, riding is smoother and it's easier to adjust power to conditions. e.g. a sudden shift of gradient/acceleration seems much easier.

And, I guess most important, its just easier to produce more power for longer. Most vivid example to date is the workout below. In the past I have rarely pumped out a solid 300W for an hour and when I have it's been tough. Last Sunday I felt a bit rough after a few hard days training then spending 8 hours Saturday heavy lifting helping my daughter move flats. So I just planned a sweetspot workout to burn off a few calories. I ended up knocking out 300W and it felt, by a country mile, the easiest workout at this intensity I have ever done. The graph is a thing of beauty, ideal negative split pacing and rock steady HR.



I was all the more surprised by this since I was never expecting to be able to do this sort of workout atm. The "before" picture above was from back in August 2009 when I was at absolute peak form. I am 3 years older now and at an age when you are meant to lose performance not gain it. I've taken a long out from all sorts of serious exercise and have only done 100 hours or so of training since starting up again from a zero base/fat body in June. Moreover I have prioritised losing weight over performance, which has gone pretty well shifting 1-2 pounds per week.

My first reaction on seeing this workout was that maybe the Wattbike was overstating power. So since then I have been out on my road bike/Powertap. Results have matched, my form atm is as good or better than it's ever been.

I am training petty much as I used to, the only significant thing that I have changed is my pedaling, it feels way better now. I am pretty sure in my own mind its the main reason why I have been able to progress so quickly. I just regret not making these changes years ago, but look forward to my next trip to the mountains when I will be aiming to set 300W+ marks and break some PBs.

Note: Obviously I am well aware that this is a sample of n=1. However I am pretty experienced in training with power, having done so since 2007 and ridden 10s of thousands of miles since then. So I reckon I can recognise when my performance changes significantly one way or another.

Also I think my experience serves to show why studies purporting to investigate pedaling are often just examples of bad science and fail. I was not unaware of the idea of trying to improve your pedaling in previous years. I did all sorts of drills to work on this and still ended up with the "before" picture. If asked I would have said my stroke was pretty good and it certainly produced better results than most. It's very difficult to change a lifetime habit simply by telling yourself to do it better. Just ask any golfer. The game changer for me was the Wattbike polar view which gives instant feedback in a form your mind finds much easier to process. Still it took several weeks of practice to get to the point where my new stroke was ingrained.

Any study that simply gets a bunch of cyclists and tells them to "pedal in circles" or whatever is simply demonstrating its naivety and that it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks, hardly news. I think my experience shows that while hard its not impossible to get an old dog to do things differently and be better as a result.

dw300

Dis gona be good ..

estampida

http://www.jamphat.com/rap/

t.m.h.n.e.t

YES!

amaferanga

Better effort than the Rotor thread, but I fear that once again no-one can be arsed....

Herbsman

Have you tried pedaling harder?

arthur_scrimshaw

estampida wrote:

http://www.jamphat.com/rap/

classic

Alex_Simmons/RST

bahzob wrote:

I am training petty much as I used to, the only significant thing that I have changed is my pedaling,

Or you could just be fitter.

I put out better power in my late 40's after a leg amputation, than I did before it. I trained pretty much as I used to. Go figure.

And you are the one wagging your finger about bad science?

IOW: Anecdotes are not evidence.

ncr

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Or you could just be fitter.

I put out better power in my late 40's after a leg amputation, than I did before it. I trained pretty much as I used to.

I asked you this same question twice before today, did you ever get to measure how the power output from each of your legs compares.

ncr

bahzob wrote:

I am training pretty much as I used to, the only significant thing that I have changed is my pedaling, it feels way better now.

Also I think my experience serves to show why studies purporting to investigate pedaling are often just examples of bad science and fail.

How and where did you make the changes in your pedaling circle 1 to 12 o'c. From what I have seen, all these studies have been nothing more than repetitive analysis or comparison of the two old styles circular and mashing.

Alex_Simmons/RST

ncr wrote:

I asked you this same question twice before today, did you ever get to measure how the power output from each of your legs compares.

Not by using laboratory force measurement pedals, which really is the only way to do such analysis.

Anything else and you may as well be reading tea leaves.

bahzob

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

bahzob wrote:

I am training petty much as I used to, the only significant thing that I have changed is my pedaling,

Or you could just be fitter.

I put out better power in my late 40's after a leg amputation, than I did before it. I trained pretty much as I used to. Go figure.

And you are the one wagging your finger about bad science?

IOW: Anecdotes are not evidence.

Yes I guess I could be fitter. If I am it would make this forum and most every book on training wrong/irrelevant though.

Same person 3 years older gets fitter after 100 hours sporadic training than after 3 years structured training including time with a professional coach? Go figure.

Bad science: Arbitrarily dismissing on the basis of faith the one factor clearly shown to have changed = science?

As for anecdotes. Given the lack of/poor quality of the studies into this area I'd back my experience any day.

bahzob

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

ncr wrote:

I asked you this same question twice before today, did you ever get to measure how the power output from each of your legs compares.

Not by using laboratory force measurement pedals, which really is the only way to do such analysis.

Anything else and you may as well be reading tea leaves.

A Wattbike is perfectly adequate for the purpose.


Alex is a bit mixed up on this subject and has a bee in his bonnet about how exactly it measures power from each leg.

But truth is that the polar display on the Wattbike is just a more sophisticated power meter.

A power meter shows you what you are really putting out as opposed to what you think you are.

The Wattbike shows how you are really pedaling as opposed to how you think you are.

All such measurements are subject to a bit of error. So a Powertap won't be as accurate as an SRM professional meter. Still makes it perfectly fit for purpose. ditto Wattbike for pedaling.

bahzob

ncr wrote:

bahzob wrote:

I am training pretty much as I used to, the only significant thing that I have changed is my pedaling, it feels way better now.

Also I think my experience serves to show why studies purporting to investigate pedaling are often just examples of bad science and fail.

How and where did you make the changes in your pedaling circle 1 to 12 o'c. From what I have seen, all these studies have been nothing more than repetitive analysis or comparison of the two old styles circular and mashing.

I expected the responses from Alex and the rest. TBH I don't expect them to change their minds and equally I don't care. The reason for posting was to try to convince those with a bit more of an open mind to try something that's working surprising well for me.

So thanks for asking an intelligent question.

The answer is that I spent a few weeks doing most training on a Wattbike. That has a polar display that shows you in real time a detailed picture of each and every pedal stroke showing where/when you are applying force and where/when not.

This site http://wattbike.com/uk/guide/cycling_tests/pedalling_technique_test/what_the_polar_view_shapes_mean/ has some suggestions as to what the display will look like according to your ability level.

I started midway between a beginner and good. During training I just tried to make the display look more like the elite profile, while still hitting power target.

While doing this I was aware of the way I pedaled changing, less emphasis on quads and having to use parts of my body that had been pretty passive before. Without getting too detailed my arse and groin are more involved now. It's not exactly a surprise if they were not doing much work before and are now it might help.

Eventually this became automatic and now I can pretty much focus on power zones, I just check the polar view post ride.

The crucial point is that this method of learning is exactly what you would expect to be most effective if pedaling is a skill like any other. It' s entirely automatic and connects your eyes directly with your muscles, making learning a subconscious process which is what it should be.

The other way of trying to learn tries to make adapting a conscious process and injects a verbal content by telling your muscles what to do/trying to think about what is going on at 1 o'clock, pedaling in circles and the like. This is highly inefficient and not at all appropriate for this type of skill. Anyone who has any understanding of this area knows this which is why its pretty sad that that the few studies into this area fail so badly.

So best advice I can give is try to find a Wattbike or something similar and see what its display shows.

If that isn't possible then you can try imagining circles, scraping mud off shoes etc but just have these as a background image. I'd accompany this while riding by just spending a few seconds focusing on each part of the body involved in pedaling and becoming aware of what it's doing/how it is contributing to the stroke.

amaferanga

bahzob wrote:

I expected the responses from Alex and the rest. TBH I don't expect them to change their minds and equally I don't care. The reason for posting was to try to convince those with a bit more of an open mind to try something that's working surprising well for me.

FFS what did you expect? Anecdotal evidence from n=1 means absolutely nothing. So what you've done appears to have worked for you, but what would make you think it would work for anyone else? Evidence?

Your post is really no different to someone coming along and claiming that their new aero wheels increased their average speed by 3mph.

Alex_Simmons/RST

bahzob wrote:

A Wattbike is perfectly adequate for the purpose.

How do you know?

bahzob wrote:

Alex is a bit mixed up on this subject and has a bee in his bonnet about how exactly it measures power from each leg.

I'm not mixed up. I think understanding what it actually is measuring is pertinent to any discussion on the topic.

From Wattbike:

The Wattbike .... measures absolute mechanical power in Watts with the amount of power produced measured from the sum of all the forces applied to the chain through the cranks. The forces are measured by one load cell and sequencing of the applied force is calculated according to crank position (determined by the location of two magnetic sensors on the crank).

It's important to understand the implications of this when considering such matters.

bahzob wrote:

But truth is that the polar display on the Wattbike is just a more sophisticated power meter.

Wattbike's torque data is less sophisticated than that available from an SRM (using SRM's torque analysis mode), and it samples torque at half the frequency of an SRM, although granted the Wattbike graphic looks nicer.

Details like this matter when considering the validity of the information, let alone how one should interpret it.

Alex_Simmons/RST

bahzob wrote:

I expected the responses from Alex and the rest. TBH I don't expect them to change their minds and equally I don't care. The reason for posting was to try to convince those with a bit more of an open mind to try something that's working surprising well for me.

So those that suggest evidence (and not anecdote) is required to assess the validity of a claim are close minded?

That's a classic logical fallacy of the ad hominem variety.
And suggesting someone is close minded simply because they don't agree with you is also fallacious.

Using an evidence based approach is the most open minded way there is.

And I don't have a bee in my bonnet. I've never worn a bonnet.


Anyway, threads like this just remind us that forums are an amplifier of differences, not agreements.

jgsi

I am totally flummuxed by this thread.
If the OP is stating that when you are on the rivet you can easily start to pedal 'squares' then I can understand.... but that's been received information since bikes were first raced, surely,?
So, when the chips are down and you have totally committed yourself in a race to a solo break for instance, I dont think any amount of wattbike training and technicolour graphs are going to make it any easier to stay away to the finish.
I only hear '2 voices' 1 says 'relax, relax' the other says 'bllx to that,push the pedals harder'.
Just a personal opinion.. not scientific in any way.

MarksMintness

JGSI wrote:

I am totally flummuxed by this thread.
If the OP is stating that when you are on the rivet you can easily start to pedal 'squares' then I can understand.... but that's been received information since bikes were first raced, surely,?
So, when the chips are down and you have totally committed yourself in a race to a solo break for instance, I dont think any amount of wattbike training and technicolour graphs are going to make it any easier to stay away to the finish.
I only hear '2 voices' 1 says 'relax, relax' the other says 'bllx to that,push the pedals harder'.
Just a personal opinion.. not scientific in any way.

+1 a simple summary and has always been my understanding from my amateurish perspective. I've tried the different techniques, but as JGSI says above, by the time I'm well into the ride and getting knackered I just concentrate on relatively smooth mashing

danowat

Easy 300w hour?, I wish.....

wacka

It would be nice to have a Wattbike for starters!!

bahzob

amaferanga wrote:

bahzob wrote:

I expected the responses from Alex and the rest. TBH I don't expect them to change their minds and equally I don't care. The reason for posting was to try to convince those with a bit more of an open mind to try something that's working surprising well for me.

FFS what did you expect? Anecdotal evidence from n=1 means absolutely nothing. So what you've done appears to have worked for you, but what would make you think it would work for anyone else? Evidence?

Your post is really no different to someone coming along and claiming that their new aero wheels increased their average speed by 3mph.

The value of evidence depends on the context. The studies into pedaling so far are just examples of bad science but are quoted to "prove" a particular opinion that some folks may have.

According to Alex and the like its something you are born with and can do nothing to improve. If it does get better it does this through a magical process when you ride. (Sorry Alex if this isn't what you believe please do what you have failed to do so far and say exactly what it is you do think.)

I guess they think pros look completely different from the average rider because they ride more or are just born with an innate skill the rest of us can't hope to emulate.

One of the beliefs of this group is that you cannot change your pedaling in the long term. If you change you will revert back to your old form after a while. (Alex said as much in another thread on this topic).

Well sorry but in this case n=1 is a perfectly adequate number to prove that belief is, at least, open to doubt. That's the way science works.

What's more I give a perfectly clear reason why I believe this approach will work for others. All I have done is claim that training through biofeedback can be quite effective in changing a skill. Much better than methods that rely on verbal instruction like "pedal in circles" etc.

For every other motor skill this is just an accepted fact. For some reason I am a total loss to fathom some cyclists think pedaling is unique, can't be trained so a priori biofeedback training won't work.

Whatever if you care to go along with this view that's fine, I really don't care. One thing is for sure, if you don't believe you can't improve you won't.








.

bahzob

MarksMintness wrote:

JGSI wrote:

I am totally flummuxed by this thread.
If the OP is stating that when you are on the rivet you can easily start to pedal 'squares' then I can understand.... but that's been received information since bikes were first raced, surely,?
So, when the chips are down and you have totally committed yourself in a race to a solo break for instance, I dont think any amount of wattbike training and technicolour graphs are going to make it any easier to stay away to the finish.
I only hear '2 voices' 1 says 'relax, relax' the other says 'bllx to that,push the pedals harder'.
Just a personal opinion.. not scientific in any way.

+1 a simple summary and has always been my understanding from my amateurish perspective. I've tried the different techniques, but as JGSI says above, by the time I'm well into the ride and getting knackered I just concentrate on relatively smooth mashing

If you take the view that pedaling is a skill, like any other, then you also understand that two key things that differentiate good vs poor skill are:
- for the same effort you get more output
- you can maintain good form closer to redline and maintain it longer there.

I think everyone, even Alex, accepts this. What marks out a "skilled" exponent of any sport is often how easy they make things look even when going at the max, despite their max being a level we can only marvel at.

Problem is you can't just tell yourself to get more skilled. It may work ok for a bit but the skill gained is very fragile and often breaks down when under stress. Or after a while you just fall back into bad habits.

What I have demonstrated to my own satisfaction is that by using a Wattbike to train I have changed the way I pedal at a deep level so that it has become my new habit. Contrary to what you might think from the views expressed here this isn't a controversial view. The Wattbike uses a biofeedback training mechanism and this is recognised as an effective training technique in lots of areas. The weird thing is that some believe cycling is an exception.

This has made me more efficient so I can generate more power for a given effort.

And has allowed me to maintain this effort longer. The point of the 300W hour was to show this. I have experience of riding these in events and they were hard. This one was easy. Getting to your point, it will make it easier to hold a break for longer.

Another thing I have noticed will also help in competing. My pedaling is much smoother now (the polar profiles showed this). One good thing about this is that its much easier to react to sudden changes in effort, say an acceleration or sudden up pitch. Before I used to be a bit like a truck, clunky shift of pace had to take place. Now it feels like a sports car, I can just rev up a bit and accelerate. It feels great.

bahzob

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

bahzob wrote:

I expected the responses from Alex and the rest. TBH I don't expect them to change their minds and equally I don't care. The reason for posting was to try to convince those with a bit more of an open mind to try something that's working surprising well for me.

So those that suggest evidence (and not anecdote) is required to assess the validity of a claim are close minded?

That's a classic logical fallacy of the ad hominem variety.
And suggesting someone is close minded simply because they don't agree with you is also fallacious.

Using an evidence based approach is the most open minded way there is.

And I don't have a bee in my bonnet. I've never worn a bonnet.


Anyway, threads like this just remind us that forums are an amplifier of differences, not agreements.

Alex for someone who tries to rely on science to support their beliefs you have a remarkable reticence to actually state your views so they can be challenged. All you seem to be capable of is saying what doesn't work.


My views are straight forward.
- pedaling is a skill.
Like any other skill:
- it is part inherited, part learned.
- learning can be achieved through practice but will be more effective if specific focus is made on it.
- some learning methods will be more effective than others (judged on performance improvement and resistance to degradation over time).
- biofeedback is likely to be an effective way to learn.

What, exactly, are your views??

Alex_Simmons/RST

bahzob wrote:

According to Alex and the like its something you are born with and can do nothing to improve.

I have never said this. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth (keyboard?). It's a habit you needs to ditch.

My thoughts have been written before. You overcomplicate the issue of pedalling as a skill.

The Bounce

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

My thoughts have been written before. You overcomplicate the issue of pedalling as a skill.

So... if a client comes to you for coaching and that person has a bad/inefficient/insert what ever description you want pedaling technique, you will do nothing to correct it and just let them get on with it?

ncr

bahzob wrote:

Alex for someone who tries to rely on science to support their beliefs you have a remarkable reticence to actually state your views so they can be challenged. All you seem to be capable of is saying what doesn't work.


My views are straight forward.
- pedaling is a skill.
Like any other skill:
- it is part inherited, part learned.
- learning can be achieved through practice but will be more effective if specific focus is made on it.
- some learning methods will be more effective than others (judged on performance improvement and resistance to degradation over time).
- biofeedback is likely to be an effective way to learn.

When you have perfected the" elite" polar view, how would you describe or classify the technique you are then using.(ie) circular, mashing or mashing + unweighting. Cycling must be the only sport in which very expensive equipment is used, yet technique is completely ignored by coaches.

RoadMeridaBen

An hour on the rollers will sort out your pedaling technique, it's pedaling not rocket science

briantrumpet

RoadMeridaBen wrote:

it's pedaling not rocket science

It could be both.

Alex_Simmons/RST

The Bounce wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

My thoughts have been written before. You overcomplicate the issue of pedalling as a skill.

So... if a client comes to you for coaching and that person has a bad/inefficient/insert what ever description you want pedaling technique, you will do nothing to correct it and just let them get on with it?

I would review their training, medical & injury history, and equipment, as well as anything else pertinent to their cycling and training (that's a long list). There might be factors you uncover here that have direct impact on how someone functions on a bike, and so corrective action/advice is taken/given accordingly.

I would also ensure they had a good bike set up or saw someone suitably qualified/experienced to deal with their individual circumstances (very good people in this field are rare though).

Some equipment may be found to be unsuitable for them and need changing (plenty of bikes are sold that are unsuitable for the rider).

It's also possible they may need other forms of off bike intervention to deal with issues that can affect their pedaling (e.g. body functional structural matters, dealing with being overweight).

They may also need help with appropriate gear choice/how to use gears.

No doubt there are other matters I've not outlined.

Once the above are dealt with, then an "awkward" pedaling action cleans up remarkably quickly with good training focused on increasing a rider's power output.

"Polar charts" from trainer devices are a red herring.

Alex_Simmons/RST

RoadMeridaBen wrote:

An hour on the rollers will sort out your pedaling technique, it's pedaling not rocket science

Ironically, I did study the latter at one time in another life.