Are clipless pedals faster?

ddraver

Just to be clear, in the article Trev is clinging to so strongly, Dr Andrew Coggan was testing:-

1)whether performance is related to the blood lactate responses and glycogen utilisation during sub-maximal exercise
2)the extent to which glycogen utilisation and time to fatigue during exercise at a given %VO2max can vary in athletes with the same %VO2max, and
3)whether or not muscle mitochondrial enzyme activity, capillary density, fiber type or cycling skill are associated with differences in glyocogen utilisation, lactate production and endurance performance among cylists with a similar VO2max
(pg 2622-2623)

Trev, can you explain to me where he specifically measures the difference in pedal system in that please?

Moreover, in the Discussion Dr Andrew Coggan states that

"Another step in translating these findings into actual competitive road cycling performance (e.g. time trial) would be to determine the actual bicycling road velocity that can be achieved by these men at 88%VO2max (i.e bicycling economy)

So Dr Andrew Coggan SPECIFICALLY STATES that the test did not measure any variation in power/speed.

Dr Andrew Coggan's conclusion of the paper is that

"induviduals with similar VO2max can vary greatly in glycogen utilisation and time to fatigue when cycling at the same workrate and %VO2max. These differences in performance ability during high intensity, sub-maxima; cycling are highly related (r=0.96, P<0.001) to a combination of lactate production (i.e. VO2max at LT) and muscle capillary density (e.g lactate acid removal)

[...]

It appears that intense cycle training performed for ~5yr compared with 2-3yr promotes continued nerological and/or muscular adaptions that reduce muslce glycogenolysis specifically when cycling

Again Trev - please tell me how this shows that clipless pedals are or are not more efficient

I say again, you are GROSSLY MISUSING his Paper, and you need to stop!

I also feel that it shoudl b pointed out that there are 3 other authors of the paper, and the correct reference that should be used is Coyle et al., 1988

Neale1978

bompington wrote:

Can someone please summarise this for me - am I right in thinking this research shows that, when measured at a constant power output, there was no increase in power?

Watch this.. makes total sense

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNpvASJD ... re=related

Sometimes in the real world (pros included) number results are not the be all and end all of performance. Iam pretty sure i read cav talking about this in one of his books

Clips do enable you to introduce a better rotation on the cranks compared to where the dead spots would be on flats and toestrap types but you must use the techniques (correctly) only where it will benefit such as short training rides, sprints etc. Its not good for long rides as it uses more energy. Simple as that

Trev The Rev

bompington wrote:

Can someone please summarise this for me - am I right in thinking this research shows that, when measured at a constant power output, there was no increase in power?

Constant power output no difference in response.

To Quote:

We were surprised to find, however, that the metabolic responses to submaximal cycling with and without toe clips and cleats were not appreciably different. These observations indicate that the reduced glycogenolysis observed in the vastus lateralis of group H compared to group L was not due to differences in skilled use of toe clips and shoe cleats.

See page 2626, Responses while cycling with and without shoe cleats. etc etc. End quote.


If shoe cleats or toe clips were more effective than ordinary shoe on flat pedal at the constant power maintained the responses would have been different. Coggan was surprised by the findings.

ddraver

So the type of pedal used does not cause changes in the muscles - well eureka! Who'd have thunk...

Again:-

The blood lactate, heart rate, percieved exertion and ventilatory responses to three cycling intensities ranging between 60 and 90%VO2max were not different when pedaling with toe clips and shoe cleats as opposed to when cycling with a standatd rubber pedal while wearing general athletic shoes. VO2max was also not different under the 2 conditions.

The variable that we are interested is the power output - which was kept constant and not measured. Therefore the paper is irrelevant to the question in the OP. If they have the raw data, an interesting evaluation of efficiency variation with clips/flats could be done by comparing time to fatigue on different pedals, however this would be a suggestion only. It was not done however, as it was not the subject of investigation (see above)

Edit - 3rd time we ve done this by t way

Trev The Rev

neale1978 wrote:

bompington wrote:

Can someone please summarise this for me - am I right in thinking this research shows that, when measured at a constant power output, there was no increase in power?

Watch this.. makes total sense

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNpvASJD ... re=related

Sometimes in the real world (pros included) number results are not the be all and end all of performance. Iam pretty sure i read cav talking about this in one of his books

Clips do enable you to introduce a better rotation on the cranks compared to where the dead spots would be on flats and toestrap types but you must use the techniques (correctly) only where it will benefit such as short training rides, sprints etc. Its not good for long rides as it uses more energy. Simple as that

Re Cav, yes he does say the that when British Cycling coaches measured his power in the lab it did not show his true on the road power but I do not know why that was.

You will find these interesting.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18418807

Int J Sports Med. 2008 Oct;29(10):817-22. Epub 2008 Apr 17.
Effects of pedal type and pull-up action during cycling.
Mornieux G, Stapelfeldt B, Gollhofer A, Belli A.
Source

Institut für Sport und Sportwissenschaft, Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. guillaume.mornieux@sport.uni-freiburg.de
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the influence of different shoe-pedal interfaces and of an active pulling-up action during the upstroke phase on the pedalling technique. Eight elite cyclists (C) and seven non-cyclists (NC) performed three different bouts at 90 rev . min (-1) and 60 % of their maximal aerobic power. They pedalled with single pedals (PED), with clipless pedals (CLIP) and with a pedal force feedback (CLIPFBACK) where subjects were asked to pull up on the pedal during the upstroke. There was no significant difference for pedalling effectiveness, net mechanical efficiency (NE) and muscular activity between PED and CLIP. When compared to CLIP, CLIPFBACK resulted in a significant increase in pedalling effectiveness during upstroke (86 % for C and 57 % NC, respectively), as well as higher biceps femoris and tibialis anterior muscle activity (p < 0.001). However, NE was significantly reduced (p < 0.008) with 9 % and 3.3 % reduction for C and NC, respectively. Consequently, shoe-pedal interface (PED vs. CLIP) did not significantly influence cycling technique during submaximal exercise. However, an active pulling-up action on the pedal during upstroke increased the pedalling effectiveness, while reducing net mechanical efficiency.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17545890

Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007 Jun;39(6):991-5.
Effect of pedaling technique on mechanical effectiveness and efficiency in cyclists.
Korff T, Romer LM, Mayhew I, Martin JC.
Source

Brunel University, Centre for Sports Medicine and Human Performance, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UK. thomas.korff@brunel.ac.uk
Abstract
PURPOSE:
To optimize endurance cycling performance, it is important to maximize efficiency. Power-measuring cranks and force-sensing pedals can be used to determine the mechanical effectiveness of cycling. From both a coaching and basic science perspective, it is of interest if a mechanically effective pedaling technique leads to greater efficiency. Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine the effect of different pedaling techniques on mechanical effectiveness and gross efficiency during steady-state cycling.
METHODS:
Eight male cyclists exercised on a cycle ergometer at 90 rpm and 200 W using four different pedaling techniques: preferred pedaling; pedaling in circles; emphasizing the pull during the upstroke; and emphasizing the push during the downstroke. Each exercise bout lasted 6 min and was interspersed with 6 min of passive rest. We obtained mechanical effectiveness and gross efficiency using pedal-reaction forces and respiratory measures, respectively.
RESULTS:
When the participants were instructed to pull on the pedal during the upstroke, mechanical effectiveness was greater (index of force effectiveness=62.4+/-9.8%) and gross efficiency was lower (gross efficiency=19.0+/-0.7%) compared with the other pedaling conditions (index of force effectiveness=48.2+/-5.1% and gross efficiency=20.2+/-0.6%; means and standard deviations collapsed across preferred, circling, and pushing conditions). Mechanical effectiveness and gross efficiency during the circling and pushing conditions did not differ significantly from the preferred pedaling condition.
CONCLUSIONS:
Mechanical effectiveness is not indicative of gross efficiency across pedaling techniques. These results thereby provide coaches and athletes with useful information for interpreting measures of mechanical effectiveness.

ddraver

Now the above two (and the identical post 2 pages above) are closer to the mark but not quite there

The first one shows that although pulling up on the pedal increases power, it is not possible to sustain it for long. Thinking for myself that suggests that there if you re doing (for example) a Track start or a final sprint then there is a benefit to pulling up, but for "normal cycling" then it is actually less efficient.

The second states the same as the first, but also that there is actually very little difference in power output or efficiency with different pedalling styles. Look at all the pedalling styles in the pro peloton, they re all pretty decent cyclists you'd assume

Again, none of them deal with clipless pedals and variations in power or efficiency

Trev The Rev

ddraver wrote:

Now the above two (and the identical post 2 pages above) are closer to the mark but not quite there

The first one shows that although pulling up on the pedal increases power, it is not possible to sustain it for long. Thinking for myself that suggests that there if you re doing (for example) a Track start or a final sprint then there is a benefit to pulling up, but for "normal cycling" then it is actually less efficient.

The second states the same as the first, but also that there is actually very little difference in power output or efficiency with different pedalling styles. Look at all the pedalling styles in the pro peloton, they re all pretty decent cyclists you'd assume

Again, none of them deal with clipless pedals and variations in power or efficiency

The first one specifically tested different pedal types.

ddraver

Yes, you re right there - do you have the link to the full paper please? That one only gives me the abstract.

I'd like to know how the test was run and for how long

racingcondor

I think this thread has brilliantly proven that selective reading can rob a potentially reasonable question of anything useful. Sub55 and ddraver, congratulations on your patience, you have more than me.

Whether clipless pedals are more efficient or not is largely irrelevant to a competative cyclist (until you're a pro and can actually access technology to measure efficiency and interpret the results correctly). The reasons I use them -
- I've done 54mph and needed the security of being attached,
- I race crits and need the security of being attached,
- Occasionally I hit potholes and need the security of being attached,
- Occasionally I bunnyhop potholes (and once someones arm) and need the security of being attached,
- I ride track and if you hold too high a cadence for too long you need the security of being attached (even if they still rode flats this wouldn't be true of the BMX example as freewheeling is an option).

Earlier in the year while I was racing I made a mistake and had pedal strike badly enough that although I kept the bike upright I skipped the back wheel a foot sideways and buckled the rim. Being attached made not crashing possible.

racingcondor

Trev The Rev wrote:

Re Cav, yes he does say the that when British Cycling coaches measured his power in the lab it did not show his true on the road power but I do not know why that was.

This one is actually quite easy.

The original text is along the lines of Cav has always performed better than his lab stats suggest he should and as a result some at BC had to ressess their methodology. The problem essentially was that the lab scientist couldn't work out how someone like Cav can consistently beat Greipel when Greipel has a max sprint power 200 (or so) Watts higher

Why? Because since Cav is relatively small he needs less power to achieve a particular speed. Simple aerodynamics that you can't see on a WattBike.

Trev The Rev

racingcondor wrote:

I think this thread has brilliantly proven that selective reading can rob a potentially reasonable question of anything useful. Sub55 and ddraver, congratulations on your patience, you have more than me.

Whether clipless pedals are more efficient or not is largely irrelevant to a competative cyclist (until you're a pro and can actually access technology to measure efficiency and interpret the results correctly). The reasons I use them -
- I've done 54mph and needed the security of being attached,
- I race crits and need the security of being attached,
- Occasionally I hit potholes and need the security of being attached,
- Occasionally I bunnyhop potholes (and once someones arm) and need the security of being attached,
- I ride track and if you hold too high a cadence for too long you need the security of being attached (even if they still rode flats this wouldn't be true of the BMX example as freewheeling is an option).

Earlier in the year while I was racing I made a mistake and had pedal strike badly enough that although I kept the bike upright I skipped the back wheel a foot sideways and buckled the rim. Being attached made not crashing possible.

I am not reading selectively. There is no other research that I can find. If you have any studies which prove that clipless pedals enable you to ride a bike faster, please post them.

ddraver

To be fair, he is reading it, he's just not understanding it...

Mystique

Trev The Rev wrote:

racingcondor wrote:

I think this thread has brilliantly proven that selective reading can rob a potentially reasonable question of anything useful. Sub55 and ddraver, congratulations on your patience, you have more than me.

Whether clipless pedals are more efficient or not is largely irrelevant to a competative cyclist (until you're a pro and can actually access technology to measure efficiency and interpret the results correctly). The reasons I use them -
- I've done 54mph and needed the security of being attached,
- I race crits and need the security of being attached,
- Occasionally I hit potholes and need the security of being attached,
- Occasionally I bunnyhop potholes (and once someones arm) and need the security of being attached,
- I ride track and if you hold too high a cadence for too long you need the security of being attached (even if they still rode flats this wouldn't be true of the BMX example as freewheeling is an option).

Earlier in the year while I was racing I made a mistake and had pedal strike badly enough that although I kept the bike upright I skipped the back wheel a foot sideways and buckled the rim. Being attached made not crashing possible.

I am not reading selectively. There is no other research that I can find. If you have any studies which prove that clipless pedals enable you to ride a bike faster, please post them.

OK, if we all agree you're right, can we carry on riding (clipped in...) in peace please? - I'm curious what your agenda is, as I simply don't get the point of your near-religious zeal for something so trivial in the real world.

As the old saying goes, we had girls at our school

graeme_s-2

racingcondor wrote:

The original text is along the lines of Cav has always performed better than his lab stats suggest he should and as a result some at BC had to ressess their methodology. The problem essentially was that the lab scientist couldn't work out how someone like Cav can consistently beat Greipel when Greipel has a max sprint power 200 (or so) Watts higher

Why? Because since Cav is relatively small he needs less power to achieve a particular speed. Simple aerodynamics that you can't see on a WattBike.

Cav also gets very low when he sprints which must improve his aerodynamics even further. I think with Cav there's probably also an issue around motivation. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he produces more watts when he catches a glimpse of the finish line coming out of the last corner on the Champs Elysees than he does when he's in a lab at Manchester Velodrome with a coach shouting at him.

Trev The Rev

ddraver wrote:

To be fair, he is reading it, he's just not understanding it...

One thing is certain, Dr Coggan understands it. You were unable to understand that one of the papers was specifically testing pedal types, even when it said this on the first line

"The aim of this study was to determine the influence of different shoe-pedal interfaces."

You understand a lot less than you pretend.

ddraver

Yes, and I admit the mistake and ask for clarification - see the difference?

Still waiting on the clarification by the way...

Trev The Rev

ddraver wrote:

Yes, and I admit the mistake and ask for clarification - see the difference?

Still waiting on the clarification by the way...

I still agree with Coggan.

ddraver

On what? He has nt said anything about the debate thus far...

NewTTer

Mystique wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

racingcondor wrote:

I think this thread has brilliantly proven that selective reading can rob a potentially reasonable question of anything useful. Sub55 and ddraver, congratulations on your patience, you have more than me.

Whether clipless pedals are more efficient or not is largely irrelevant to a competative cyclist (until you're a pro and can actually access technology to measure efficiency and interpret the results correctly). The reasons I use them -
- I've done 54mph and needed the security of being attached,
- I race crits and need the security of being attached,
- Occasionally I hit potholes and need the security of being attached,
- Occasionally I bunnyhop potholes (and once someones arm) and need the security of being attached,
- I ride track and if you hold too high a cadence for too long you need the security of being attached (even if they still rode flats this wouldn't be true of the BMX example as freewheeling is an option).

Earlier in the year while I was racing I made a mistake and had pedal strike badly enough that although I kept the bike upright I skipped the back wheel a foot sideways and buckled the rim. Being attached made not crashing possible.

I am not reading selectively. There is no other research that I can find. If you have any studies which prove that clipless pedals enable you to ride a bike faster, please post them.

OK, if we all agree you're right, can we carry on riding (clipped in...) in peace please? - I'm curious what your agenda is, as I simply don't get the point of your near-religious zeal for something so trivial in the real world.

As the old saying goes, we had girls at our school

He has some sort of mental issues, he does this with everthing, inicluding banning the running of TT's on the road, and I am sure many other things which in his jaded and troubled mind he feels the need to force upon the rest of us. Go over to the time trialling forum, from where he was banned, (hopefully eventually the mods here will wise up to him too) you can see some great examples of his modus operandi there

danowat

HE WAS NEVER BANNED!!!!!!

Trev The Rev

danowat wrote:

HE WAS NEVER BANNED!!!!!!

No but a lot of people did want me banned though.

ddraver

What forum...should be good for t train home...

Trev The Rev

ddraver wrote:

What forum...should be good for t train home...

timetrialling forum.

There was a really good thread where someone was asking for donations for tickets to Switzerland so I could visit Dignitas for my assisted suicide. Andrew Coggan is active on there. I was Dehydrated Horse as well as Trev The Rev on there.

danowat

Trev The Rev wrote:

I was Dehydrated Horse as well as Trev The Rev on there.

They were just two of your pseudonyms

ddraver

Awww, I can't do a username search with out joining up, I ll have to forgo the pseudosience....

Mystique

Trev The Rev wrote:

ddraver wrote:

What forum...should be good for t train home...

timetrialling forum.

There was a really good thread where someone was asking for donations for tickets to Switzerland so I could visit Dignitas for my assisted suicide. Andrew Coggan is active on there. I was Dehydrated Horse as well as Trev The Rev on there.

COGGAN LIVES!!!

*sinks to knees (kneeling is a more efficient way of praising than standing up...PHACT!!)

All hail Coggan, all hail Coggan, all hail Coggan

NewTTer

danowat wrote:

HE WAS NEVER BANNED!!!!!!

Accordingto him hew WAS, and he was revelling in the fact that he created another id that had remained undetected.

danowat

He asked to be removed from the forum.

kev the rev

definitely faster...that is, faster at getting me on two wheels, no need to dress up like a real cyclist either, just be a cyclist? - hang on ....trouser clips....bugger

kev the rev

...