Improving pedalling efficiency

Tom Dean

Because what would the improved technique look like? There doesn't seem to be any evidence that 'smoothness' has any bearing on performance.

Trev The Rev

bernithebiker wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

cycling is a simple, gross motor sport. where are not talking about a fine motor skill sport such as archery. or even a non-constrained gross motor sport such as running. Cycling is somewhat specific because our legs are attached to the pedals and are thus constrained by the radii that the cranks make. We can only pedal in circles. If, when turning the pedals you aren't pedalling in circles then i suggest an immediate trip to your favourite bike mechanic to sort things out.

I think we all know that your pedal axle describes a perfect circle. 'Pedaling in circles' as most people define it, is the feeling that you are pedaling smoothly, evenly and consistently. I know, for example, that if I am knackered at the end of a very long ride, my pedaling is not as smooth as it was at the start.

You say that we are 'constrained by the pedals'. To some extent yes, but you can vary the angle at which your foot 'atttacks' the pedal (or crank to be more precise). Tilting or lifting your heel changes the angle of force applied to the crank. At 12 o'clock, -20' is better than -10'. This page is quite interesting; http://www.bikesplit.com/bsa4.htm

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

Pedal at a sensible cadence. train optimally towards your goal. make sure your bike fits you correctly. learn actual skills that are needed (e.g. how to corner while descending). These are things that will make your pedalling look good along with years of training.

Ric

All of those things are good to train, but if it comes naturally, then why not also improve pedaling technique?

""Try to develop this pedaling power flow as I've described; it will be worth the effort. Without any extra work to increase aerobic capacity you can gain speed by perfecting your pedaling technique.""

It all sounds good but is there any evidence pedaling in this way is worth the effort? Is there any evidence you can gain speed by perfecting your pedaling technique?

It seems to me that people assume pedaling technique is important. They take it as fact that scraping back pulling up and pushing over the top must be beneficial, so they preach it in all good faith, but have never searched or found any evidence that it works.

Surely Wattbike who advise these techniques and have the ability to measure forces throughout the pedal stroke, and coaches who preach these techniques, should produce some evidence these techniques help you to sustain more power for longer and pedal more efficiently.

bernithebiker

I would agree that hard evidence and figures are hard to come by, so as for many things, it may come down to what 'feels' right.

I know I can change my pedaling technique mid-ride. Mostly I don't think about, I just pedal, fairly smoothly, fairly high cadence.

But if I feel my main 'push' muscles tiring, I can, and do, change technique to 'pedal circles' more. This brings into play fresh muscles and gives relief to the main ones, for a short period (<1 min). It is probably not efficient to try to pedal long periods like this, but it works for me - I actually increase speed when I change, but the 'pull' muscles do tire quickly.

I also pull quite hard when out of the saddle, but I spend more time out of the saddle than most of my co-riders. On damp roads, wheelspin can be a problem when out of the saddle, but a smooth technique will help to reduce that.

ric/rstsport

There's a fair amount of evidence to show that pedalling in 'circles' doesn't do anything, or is counter productive. So, unless you happen to need to get off the start line maximally (think kilo TT here), or are racing in very low traction situations (think going uphill, in the wet off-road) there's little need to do pushing and pulling.

Efficiency, appears to be reduced when pedalling in 'circles', and it appears that better cyclist push down more and pull up less. In other words, apart from a couple of exceptions (see my above paragraph) there's no need to do 'pedal drills'. Just concentrate on getting more powerful for the goals you have in mind, and look at the true skills you need (e.g. cornering smoothly). Additionally, ensure that you are set up well on the bike.

By the way, nice site you have about Brittany. I used to race there

Ric

Alex_Simmons/RST

bernithebiker wrote:

You say that we are 'constrained by the pedals'. To some extent yes, but you can vary the angle at which your foot 'atttacks' the pedal (or crank to be more precise). Tilting or lifting your heel changes the angle of force applied to the crank.

Angle of ankle is a pretty natural pedalling choice, and none of them are always better than another. What works for you is what works for you may well be a woeful intervention to pedalling style for someone else. Here's a pretty good summary about it from someone I rate as one of the best bike fitters in the world:
http://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/blo ... t-is-best/

Another technique that people sometimes use (often not through choice though) is changing their fore-aft position on the saddle.

A pedalling anecdote (for what it's worth, which usually isn't much):

On my left side it's a physical impossibility for me to do anything but push down. I had a lower leg amputation in 2007 after a cycling accident and so now use a prosthetic cycling "leg" directly attached to the pedal. Even so I am renown in my riding/racing circles for being an exceptionally smooth pedaller, despite have absolutely no ability to pull up (if I did I'd start to pull my stump out of the leg socket), push forward over the top or scrape mud on that leg when I pedal and having a significant physical asymmetry.

Before losing the leg I was renown for being a smooth pedaller, so in essence, all I did was ensure I had a good bike fit, ride plenty, do some hard smart training and let my body figure out the pedalling. As someone said earlier, when you do enough training at high work rates, the pedalling action is the last thing you are thinking about. I managed to end up putting out more sustainable power than I did before the leg got chopped off. Took me a few years to get there though. Set a state and national record in masters team pursuit in the months before amputation. Set it again in 2011.

Trev The Rev

bernithebiker wrote:

I would agree that hard evidence and figures are hard to come by, so as for many things, it may come down to what 'feels' right.

I know I can change my pedaling technique mid-ride. Mostly I don't think about, I just pedal, fairly smoothly, fairly high cadence.

But if I feel my main 'push' muscles tiring, I can, and do, change technique to 'pedal circles' more. This brings into play fresh muscles and gives relief to the main ones, for a short period (<1 min). It is probably not efficient to try to pedal long periods like this, but it works for me - I actually increase speed when I change, but the 'pull' muscles do tire quickly.

I also pull quite hard when out of the saddle, but I spend more time out of the saddle than most of my co-riders. On damp roads, wheelspin can be a problem when out of the saddle, but a smooth technique will help to reduce that.

Don't get me wrong here. I ask for evidence because deep down inside I would like pedaling technique to be more important.

I think there is a lot in what you say about shifting emphasis to different muscles when other muscles tire. I also think you can maintain the same power longer by shifting emphasis from high cadence low force to low cadence high force and back again rather than sticking to a narrow cadence force range but to date I'm the only person on the planet who has found that. At least the idea has always been shot down in flames.

I really would like to see some ground breaking evidence which proves pedaling technique does enable a rider to generate more power for longer more efficiently but to date there would seem to be no evidence. It would be nice if technique could be proved to be far more important than the scientists say it is.

I can find no reference to pedaling technique in Training & Racing With A Power Meter other than the odd mention of smooth pedaling but I think they are referring to avoiding huge power spikes in triathlon there, though there is much about quadrant analysis, aerodynamic testing etc etc, no mention of testing pedaling techniques. Coggan I assume attaches little or no importance to it.

Should you test your pedaling technique using a power meter or would you be wasting your time?

I think Alex's last post answers the question. But surely there is a case here for some more research if only to bury the myth once and for all..

bernithebiker

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

By the way, nice site you have about Brittany. I used to race there

Ric

Thanks. It's a great place to cycle, and pretty hilly too. The standard here is pretty high, especially amongst the 50 to 65 year olds! Those boys know how to pedal!

Some of the local pros train here too, and they are starting to use Strava so nicking my KOM's, although not by that much.....!

I would love to organise a cycle week here based around the chateau, but for whatever reason, I can't find the interest....

Based on what I've read here, I'm recalibrating my mind a bit to think that pedaling circles isn't perhaps the Holy Grail that I thought, but I still maintain it can be useful, and that it can't be 100% 'just the downstroke'.

Trev The Rev

bernithebiker wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

By the way, nice site you have about Brittany. I used to race there

Ric

Thanks. It's a great place to cycle, and pretty hilly too. The standard here is pretty high, especially amongst the 50 to 65 year olds! Those boys know how to pedal!

Some of the local pros train here too, and they are starting to use Strava so nicking my KOM's, although not by that much.....!

I would love to organise a cycle week here based around the chateau, but for whatever reason, I can't find the interest....

Based on what I've read here, I'm recalibrating my mind a bit to think that pedaling circles isn't perhaps the Holy Grail that I thought, but I still maintain it can be useful, and that it can't be 100% 'just the downstroke'.

You old romantic you. Cycling was so much more enjoyable before all these scientific boys with their power meters and lab tests got involved. Much of the 'élan' has been lost.

ric/rstsport

Trev, things move on. I'm sure it was the same when Roger Bannister broke the 4-minute mile. From what i understand (and hey i may not!) Roger (and his rivals) didn't train in the consistent way that people train now. Things move on. PBs come down. 30 years from now, people will look on and say how old fashioned we were then... Merckx used the latest technology during his time, but now if you look at the tech, it looks utter naff. Even bikes from the early 90s look dross now. People will look on at this time and say it's less scientific than the time they compare to.

Brittany is 'rolling'. The Muur de Bretagne is quite hard, but it's shortish. Great riding around there. I was up in Rostrenen near Quimper. We used to see the Castorama team (or whatever it was called at the time) train a lot round there. Huge races too. And the GP Quest Plouay. Great cycling (well at least how i remember it in 95). Happy days.

Trev The Rev

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

Trev, things move on. I'm sure it was the same when Roger Bannister broke the 4-minute mile. From what i understand (and hey i may not!) Roger (and his rivals) didn't train in the consistent way that people train now. Things move on. PBs come down. 30 years from now, people will look on and say how old fashioned we were then... Merckx used the latest technology during his time, but now if you look at the tech, it looks utter naff. Even bikes from the early 90s look dross now. People will look on at this time and say it's less scientific than the time they compare to.

Brittany is 'rolling'. The Muur de Bretagne is quite hard, but it's shortish. Great riding around there. I was up in Rostrenen near Quimper. We used to see the Castorama team (or whatever it was called at the time) train a lot round there. Huge races too. And the GP Quest Plouay. Great cycling (well at least how i remember it in 95). Happy days.

Do you still want me to call you Mr Stern? I accept the science which is why I think the whole pedaling technique thing is a myth, but it isn't compulsory to like it as much as the days when we could actually believe things like pedaling stylishly made you faster.

Do you think there is any possibility there might be something in my variable cadence theory?

I find I am faster on fixed, one reason I think it might be down to, is it forces me to use a more variable cadence. The switch from high force low cadence to low force high cadence being necessary but giving the fast twitch slow twitch muscle fibres a change and a rest or switching the emphasis from cardiovascular to muscular enables a higher average power over a given time.

I raised it before but everyone shot it down in flames. Is there a scientific reason?

RChung

bernithebiker wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

By the way, nice site you have about Brittany. I used to race there

Thanks. It's a great place to cycle

Ah, yes, nice place to cycle. I hadn't clicked on the site -- I thought it might have been about the Berry, which is decidedly of less interest (to me) than Bretagne.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Trev The Rev wrote:

Do you think there is any possibility there might be something in my variable cadence theory?

I raised it before but everyone shot it down in flames. Is there a scientific reason?

I don't think one can reasonably shoot such a notion down in flames, nor suggest it's the next big thing in cycling.

It's possible that you simply pace better on fixed. By examining a quadrant analysis of pedal forces and speeds, you could get a sense of what type of QA equates with better performances for you.

One thing to be careful of when doing this sort of data analysis - it shows what you did and not necessarily what you should do (e.g. it might be reflective of the terrain, conditions, form, fatigue and available gearing, than what might actually be "optimal"). Also a QA doesn't show the temporal relationship of data points (except when we are examining only handful of points, such as in a standing start and it's fairly obvious) and this may or may not be a factor.

Trev The Rev

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

Do you think there is any possibility there might be something in my variable cadence theory?

I raised it before but everyone shot it down in flames. Is there a scientific reason?

I don't think one can reasonably shoot such a notion down in flames, nor suggest it's the next big thing in cycling.

It's possible that you simply pace better on fixed. By examining a quadrant analysis of pedal forces and speeds, you could get a sense of what type of QA equates with better performances for you.

One thing to be careful of when doing this sort of data analysis - it shows what you did and not necessarily what you should do (e.g. it might be reflective of the terrain, conditions, form, fatigue and available gearing, than what might actually be "optimal"). Also a QA doesn't show the temporal relationship of data points (except when we are examining only handful of points, such as in a standing start and it's fairly obvious) and this may or may not be a factor.

Thanks Alex. I've got a lot more work & testing to do on it. I have done some testing indoors varying cadence and comparing to my normal (optimal) cadence range. So far it works for me.

On fixed, despite the course being sporting and one you would not expect fixed to be viable, I have consistently got an improvement. Average cadence works out well below average cadence with gears, you would expect that with the hills, but obviously much of the time cadence is far higher than I would choose. Despite assumed losses of time up the steepest bits up or down I make up the time over the rest of the course.

It could be I just want fixed to be faster so get the results I want, very slight aero advantage, very slight weight advantage or the fact I can't change gear forces me to dig in more rather than change gear. I certainly spend more time out of the saddle on fixed.

Indoor tests comparing normal self selected cadence (87rpm to 93rpm) to variable cadence (one or two minutes at 80rpm then one or two minutes at 100rpm) show an improvement in power of approx 5 to 10 watts over 20 minutes.

Tests at 80 rpm are near enough the same as optimal as are tests at 100 watts. The improvement only shows with the swinging from one extreme to the other. Part of the gain might be purely that the change gives something of a mental rest, the pain does not get less but it changes the emphasis from leg pain to breathing pain - in my case anyway.

Would the there be any metabolic difference between the same power at 80rpm as opposed to 100rpm? Different recruitment of muscle fibre?

Alex_Simmons/RST

Trev The Rev wrote:

Would the there be any metabolic difference between the same power at 80rpm as opposed to 100rpm?

Not much, slightly more efficient at 80rpm.

Trev The Rev wrote:

Different recruitment of muscle fibre?

That's more a neuromuscular difference than metabolic, but keep in mind that if fast(er) twitch muscles were recruited to any significant degree, by their very nature they would fatigue very quickly, yet you are able to maintain the effort, and so it's unlikely they are being called upon all that much in a quasi steady state effort (if you have any that is, some don't have much FT).

Some just coordinate firing better at lower cadence. Some just simply prefer it. My last TT (World Cup in Sydney) I averaged 98rpm, probably 100rpm when pedalling as there were some non-pedal corners on the circuit. That's pretty normal for me when doing threshold tolerance work. Higher the power, the faster I prefer to pedal.

Others like much slower cadences. e.g. I know Andy Coggan prefers to pedal at closer to 80rpm.

The nice thing with power measurement is ability to experiment and try things. The hard thing is to understand what conclusions one can really infer from the data.

e.g. I know a coach who's been testing the impact on power out of using various cycling shoes, including (don't laugh) bedroom slippers on a flat bed pedal. His first round of testing revealed some difference in power he could sustain (we are talking ~10W difference between all shoes).

Then he tested again another day and reversed the test order. The results were counter to previous test. IOW - know the confidence limits of the data and what might seem to be a better choice might in fact be just noise and/or require a lot more data and/or better testing protocol.

ric/rstsport

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

e.g. I know a coach who's been testing the impact on power out of using various cycling shoes, including (don't laugh) bedroom slippers on a flat bed pedal. His first round of testing revealed some difference in power he could sustain (we are talking ~10W difference between all shoes).

Then he tested again another day and reversed the test order. The results were counter to previous test. IOW - know the confidence limits of the data and what might seem to be a better choice might in fact be just noise and/or require a lot more data and/or better testing protocol.

Imagine how wet your bedroom slippers could get riding your bike. terrible.

Trev The Rev

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

Would the there be any metabolic difference between the same power at 80rpm as opposed to 100rpm?

Not much, slightly more efficient at 80rpm.

Trev The Rev wrote:

Different recruitment of muscle fibre?

That's more a neuromuscular difference than metabolic, but keep in mind that if fast(er) twitch muscles were recruited to any significant degree, by their very nature they would fatigue very quickly, yet you are able to maintain the effort, and so it's unlikely they are being called upon all that much in a quasi steady state effort (if you have any that is, some don't have much FT).

Some just coordinate firing better at lower cadence. Some just simply prefer it. My last TT (World Cup in Sydney) I averaged 98rpm, probably 100rpm when pedalling as there were some non-pedal corners on the circuit. That's pretty normal for me when doing threshold tolerance work. Higher the power, the faster I prefer to pedal.

Others like much slower cadences. e.g. I know Andy Coggan prefers to pedal at closer to 80rpm.

The nice thing with power measurement is ability to experiment and try things. The hard thing is to understand what conclusions one can really infer from the data.

e.g. I know a coach who's been testing the impact on power out of using various cycling shoes, including (don't laugh) bedroom slippers on a flat bed pedal. His first round of testing revealed some difference in power he could sustain (we are talking ~10W difference between all shoes).

Then he tested again another day and reversed the test order. The results were counter to previous test. IOW - know the confidence limits of the data and what might seem to be a better choice might in fact be just noise and/or require a lot more data and/or better testing protocol.

I did tests back in the early 1980s, (not a biopsy though), and the scientists concluded I was very much a fast twitch athlete. In running terms a sprinter, but also with the ability to handle 400m and even 800m but with no chance of being competitive over 1500m. I was advised to stick to sports where explosive power, acceleration and quick reaction were advantages. (So why am I doing cycling an endurance sport?)

I have been reversing the order of the tests, I combine them with 2 x 20s so I get the work out and have something interesting to do at the same time. I have not been using SRM (but plan to in the future) so far the tests are repeatable but I take your point about noise.

I too have tested various shoes and pedals. Can't find any difference - but the lightest combination is quill pedal without clipps or straps and Merrell bare foot style shoes.

Thanks for your help.