Low cadences less efficient

bahzob

Tom Dean wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

Bahzob - how do you suggest improving pedaling technique? What are the best exercises to do?

Jesus may I suggest you do a search.

I think the OP is interesting but seems to contradict the previous evidence as I understand it, and as Ric has said, the measurement of efficiency they use is questionable.

er no. They are measuring at the sorts of power you should be trying to achieve.

What is questionable is any measure like Ric seems to be suggesting that require you to pedal an effort your granny could achieve on a bad day.

imposter2.0

bahzob wrote:

- timing the application of torque to the pedals by all muscles involved in an optimum manner regardless of cadence

are you sure that's 'torque' ?

bahzob

Imposter wrote:

bahzob wrote:

- In his recent book Bradley Wiggins describes a casebook example of how someone who was already at the peak of the sport was able to improve through a focussed change to the way he pedalled.

Good point. Apparently, Lance's improvements were all down to his cadence.

Three implications
- Bradley Wiggins is lying and won due to drugs.
- You can't learn anything from those better than you are
- You are sad and really have nothing useful to say

One of them is true. Guess which

imposter2.0

bahzob wrote:

Three implications
- Bradley Wiggins is lying and won due to drugs.
- You can't learn anything from those better than you are
- You are sad and really have nothing useful to say

One of them is true. Guess which

Bradders is on drugs ?? OMG

bahzob

Imposter wrote:

bahzob wrote:

- timing the application of torque to the pedals by all muscles involved in an optimum manner regardless of cadence

are you sure that's 'torque' ?

Yes it's torque. That's a part of why pedalling requires some skill to execute. You need to apply force in a manner that is consistent with the constantly varying angle with which it needs to be applied as the pedal rotates.

Different muscles will have different optimum periods to apply torque each stroke. Maximising/co-ordinating each of these is what improving pedalling skill is all about.

styxd

bahzob wrote:

Imposter wrote:

But as far as I'm aware, all that Alex/Ric have asked you to do is provide evidence for your claims, while linking to published studies which suggest that your anecdotes (for that is all that they are - just anecdotes) don't really mean much in a scientific world.

That's not the same a having a closed mind - it's just sensible.

In a scientific world what matters are theories.

The theory that Alex/Ric have seems to boil down to the following (it' hard to pin them down on this, they are very willing to contradict but not as willing to advance theories of their own on this subject)

"It is not possible to improve your cycling performance by changing the way you pedal and you are wasting your time by trying to do so. This makes pedalling a unique skill in that all other similar skills in other areas can be improved through training and adaptation."

My view is this is not true.

The way science then progresses is to put theories to the test.
- Alex et al put huge reliance on Korff's study which is seriously flawed.
- The study cited here shows that for a key area that affects real performance changing the way you pedal may have an impact.
- Looking at the real world it is clear that professional cyclists look quite different from amateur cyclists in the way they pedal. This is not anecdote, it is observation, a perfectly valid scientific method that underpins many areas of science.
- In his recent book Bradley Wiggins describes a casebook example of how someone who was already at the peak of the sport was able to improve through a focussed change to the way he pedalled.
- Much of our disagreement over this subject stems from the use of the Wattbike. This provides direct feedback on pedalling style and there is a lot of data that shows how this is directly linked to performance both in the sense that elite cyclists have a quite different style from average cyclists and that changing the style results in performance improvement.
- On a personal level I find Alex/Ric theory hard to believe, the more so since by adapting the way I pedal I have improved my performance (this is anecdote I accept).

The best you could say for the Alex/Ric theory then is I would suggest "not proven".

The "sensible" upshot then for those who wish to improve would be to disregard the views of Alex/Ric and work on improving their pedalling, since doing this will need have no impact on other areas of training.

If Alex/Ric are proved wrong (as they will be once power sensors come along that can provide on-road data similar to what the Wattbike can provide) then you will have not have missed an opportunity to get better.

If Alex/Ric are proved correct I will be amazed but nothing will have been sacrificed in terms of training gain,

How have you changed your peddling style to make it more efficient or powerful?

Do you peddle in circles?

manxshred

While an interesting discussion, I do think calling anyone with a FTP of 200W feeble is a bit low.

My FTP is currently 220W and I came in the top 25% of the Manx End2End race and I do not weigh 50kg. (237th out of 958 finishers)

The vast majority of cyclists will have low power and a lot of them would like help in increasing their power or improving their cycling overall.
I suspect a good number of these people would be put off by some of the comments on here.

by bahzob » Sun Feb 3, 2013 9:55 am

Froomes Edgar wrote:

Go to the Trainerroad thread - half of the posters have FTPs under 200w. Cheers me up no end on those occasions I have a crap ride.

An FTP of 200W is pretty feeble unless you weigh under 50kg. But that's not my point. Korff's tests were 6 minute intervals. Even your trainerroad posters would find these ridiculously easy.

RowCycle

I think I read (peak performance?) somewhere that someone proposed that the most efficient cadence varies depending on your power output. So those with a low power output are more efficient at lower cadences and those with a higher output are more efficient at higher cadences.

If I take this assumption then the results are not surprising. A test for people with a lower power output suggests that a lower cadence than pro cyclists if more efficient and a test for people with a high power output (pro cyclists) suggest that a higher cadence (that used by pro cyclists) is more efficient.

I did try to find the article the other night but couldn't.

imposter2.0

RowCycle wrote:

If I take this assumption then the results are not surprising. A test for people with a lower power output suggests that a lower cadence than pro cyclists if more efficient and a test for people with a high power output (pro cyclists) suggest that a higher cadence (that used by pro cyclists) is more efficient.

Or to put it another way - fitter cyclists tend to be better at pedalling than unfit cyclists. When do I collect my Nobel Prize ?

Tom Dean

bahzob wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

Bahzob - how do you suggest improving pedaling technique? What are the best exercises to do?

Jesus may I suggest you do a search.

I think the OP is interesting but seems to contradict the previous evidence as I understand it, and as Ric has said, the measurement of efficiency they use is questionable.

er no. They are measuring at the sorts of power you should be trying to achieve.

er why don't you address the issue that Ric raised

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

again, to measure efficiency you have to be riding in a steady state manner (i.e., below your FTP).

instead of avoiding it...

bahzob wrote:

What is questionable is any measure like Ric seems to be suggesting that require you to pedal an effort your granny could achieve on a bad day.

...and going on about the Korff study which is not about cadence.

bahzob wrote:

Most riders will not be able to just make an instant switch from pedalling at 70rpm to 100rpm, especially at high power output like that in the original study.

They are very likely to become uncoordinated with the end result that their actual output is no better or worse which may be the root of some of the confusion here.

Won't they? Have you got any evidence for this? If true does it affect performance?
Is it hard to change down a couple of gears and keep pedalling? I think it's easy.
The part in bold would suggest 'becoming uncoordinated' MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. You seem to be the one who are confused.

bahzob wrote:

So they will need to improve their pedalling "skill" which is basically
- timing the application of torque to the pedals by all muscles involved in an optimum manner regardless of cadence
- maintaining the consistency of this application through increasing effort levels

If you happen to have access to a Wattbike this will be a help in doing this since it provides instant feedback on how you are pedalling so what your "skill" level is.

Nothing wrong with calling pedalling a skill. But it is a very easy one that comes quite naturally to little kids. People who pedal a lot become better adapted to pedalling. If you have some EVIDENCE that training based on technique improves performance, lets see it.

p.s. a sentence in a poxy ghostwritten sports biography is not a piece of academic literature.

bernithebiker

Imposter wrote:

RowCycle wrote:

If I take this assumption then the results are not surprising. A test for people with a lower power output suggests that a lower cadence than pro cyclists if more efficient and a test for people with a high power output (pro cyclists) suggest that a higher cadence (that used by pro cyclists) is more efficient.

Or to put it another way - fitter cyclists tend to be better at pedalling than unfit cyclists. When do I collect my Nobel Prize ?

I thought you were in the camp that said 'You can't get better at pedaling, it's a natural skill'?'

Oh and pedaling only has one L.

imposter2.0

bernithebiker wrote:

Imposter wrote:

RowCycle wrote:

If I take this assumption then the results are not surprising. A test for people with a lower power output suggests that a lower cadence than pro cyclists if more efficient and a test for people with a high power output (pro cyclists) suggest that a higher cadence (that used by pro cyclists) is more efficient.

Or to put it another way - fitter cyclists tend to be better at pedalling than unfit cyclists. When do I collect my Nobel Prize ?

I thought you were in the camp that said 'You can't get better at pedaling, it's a natural skill'?'

Oh and pedaling only has one L.

I don't recall being in any 'camp' thankyou. Pedalling has one 'l' in US English and 'll' in UK English. But do carry on trying to be a smartarse, it's very entertaining..

ric/rstsport

bahzob wrote:

Imposter wrote:

But as far as I'm aware, all that Alex/Ric have asked you to do is provide evidence for your claims, while linking to published studies which suggest that your anecdotes (for that is all that they are - just anecdotes) don't really mean much in a scientific world.

That's not the same a having a closed mind - it's just sensible.

In a scientific world what matters are theories.

The theory that Alex/Ric have seems to boil down to the following (it' hard to pin them down on this, they are very willing to contradict but not as willing to advance theories of their own on this subject)

"It is not possible to improve your cycling performance by changing the way you pedal and you are wasting your time by trying to do so. This makes pedalling a unique skill in that all other similar skills in other areas can be improved through training and adaptation."

My view is this is not true.

The way science then progresses is to put theories to the test.
- Alex et al put huge reliance on Korff's study which is seriously flawed.

really? and your evidence is what, exactly?

- The study cited here shows that for a key area that affects real performance changing the way you pedal may have an impact.
- Looking at the real world it is clear that professional cyclists look quite different from amateur cyclists in the way they pedal. This is not anecdote, it is observation, a perfectly valid scientific method that underpins many areas of science.
- In his recent book Bradley Wiggins describes a casebook example of how someone who was already at the peak of the sport was able to improve through a focussed change to the way he pedalled.

anecdote

- Much of our disagreement over this subject stems from the use of the Wattbike. This provides direct feedback on pedalling style and there is a lot of data that shows how this is directly linked to performance

no it doesn't. you need force sensing devices on your pedals not something that guesstimates what happens. even wattbike agree with this (at least the scientists behind it rather than the marketing machine). you've had this pointed out to you on numerous occasions.

- On a personal level I find Alex/Ric theory hard to believe, the more so since by adapting the way I pedal I have improved my performance (this is anecdote I accept).

it's not our theory. it's science's theory.

The "sensible" upshot then for those who wish to improve would be to disregard the views of Alex/Ric and work on improving their pedalling, since doing this will need have no impact on other areas of training.

what *EVIDENCE* is there that improving your pedalling will be beneficial (other than applying a greater force at a constant or similar pedal velocity)?

If Alex/Ric are proved wrong (as they will be once power sensors come along that can provide on-road data similar to what the Wattbike can provide) then you will have not have missed an opportunity to get better.

pedal force measuring sensors are already available (albeit not in general use). you'll find that the data they produce support science's view (what a shock!)

If Alex/Ric are proved correct I will be amazed but nothing will have been sacrificed in terms of training gain,

i suspect you'll be amazed at a lot of things!

cheers
ric

Murr X

bahzob wrote:

Imposter wrote:

bahzob wrote:

- In his recent book Bradley Wiggins describes a casebook example of how someone who was already at the peak of the sport was able to improve through a focussed change to the way he pedalled.

Good point. Apparently, Lance's improvements were all down to his cadence.

Three implications
- Bradley Wiggins is lying and won due to drugs.
- You can't learn anything from those better than you are
- You are sad and really have nothing useful to say

One of them is true. Guess which

Hi Bazhob,

There is a great deal of truth to the second statement much of the time (but by no means all the time). I will also add an imperative point which is to never ever take seriously what any professional athlete states relating to training in a magazine or interview. Much (most) of it is made up nonsense and very often does not even come from the athletes themselves.

I would suggest that anybody takes a very large grain of salt with anything Bradley Wiggins has to say on the matter. What he or anyone in a position similar to him says is absolutely not evidence of anything.

Murr X

bernithebiker

Imposter wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

Imposter wrote:

RowCycle wrote:

If I take this assumption then the results are not surprising. A test for people with a lower power output suggests that a lower cadence than pro cyclists if more efficient and a test for people with a high power output (pro cyclists) suggest that a higher cadence (that used by pro cyclists) is more efficient.

Or to put it another way - fitter cyclists tend to be better at pedalling than unfit cyclists. When do I collect my Nobel Prize ?

I thought you were in the camp that said 'You can't get better at pedaling, it's a natural skill'?'

Oh and pedaling only has one L.

I don't recall being in any 'camp' thankyou. Pedalling has one 'l' in US English and 'll' in UK English. But do carry on trying to be a smartarse, it's very entertaining..

Well presumably you have an opinion one way or the other?

And OK, too much time spent in the US, reading American stuff.......

imposter2.0

bernithebiker wrote:

Well presumably you have an opinion one way or the other?

I'm happy to be convinced, if there's anything in it - which I've yet to see. But in the meantime, I'll just work on my fitness instead.

mamba80

For me, Bahzob is a happy amateur, who has found away to do well in Euro Sportives.
His posts, are like Trevs, sometimes interesting but mostly, abit like going down the pub listening to a bloke spurting off about how Chelsea need a (another) new manager and how the ref was wrong at whatever etc etc etc !

I stick with what Alex/Ric have to say.

Froomes Edgar

Imposter wrote:

bahzob wrote:

Three implications
- Bradley Wiggins is lying and won due to drugs.
- You can't learn anything from those better than you are
- You are sad and really have nothing useful to say

One of them is true. Guess which

Bradders is on drugs ?? OMG

On the plus side bahzob, you're losing your argument as well as your temper, so at least you're consistent

ncr

bahzob wrote:

Imposter wrote:

are you sure that's 'torque' ?

Yes it's torque. That's a part of why pedalling requires some skill to execute. You need to apply force in a manner that is consistent with the constantly varying angle with which it needs to be applied as the pedal rotates.

Different muscles will have different optimum periods to apply torque each stroke. Maximising/co-ordinating each of these is what improving pedalling skill is all about.

When pedalling at max power output, what percentage of the force a rider applies to his pedals between 1 and 5 o'c is converted into crank torque?

bernithebiker

ncr wrote:

bahzob wrote:

Imposter wrote:

are you sure that's 'torque' ?

Yes it's torque. That's a part of why pedalling requires some skill to execute. You need to apply force in a manner that is consistent with the constantly varying angle with which it needs to be applied as the pedal rotates.

Different muscles will have different optimum periods to apply torque each stroke. Maximising/co-ordinating each of these is what improving pedalling skill is all about.

When pedalling at max power output, what percentage of the force a rider applies to his pedals between 1 and 5 o'c is converted into crank torque?

This depends on the angle your foot is at relative to your leg and your natural ability to pedal, (using different muscles in different ways).

As you come over 12 o'clock, the tendency would be for your foot to be flat, i.e. at approx. 90' to your leg.

If you push vertically down in this position you are making zero torque as T = F x d, and d=0 (from BB axis) so no matter how high your Force, torque is zero.

So you have to 'slide' your foot forward and change the direction in which you are applying force, to make any torque at all. If you can tilt your foot, heel down, toe up, you make it easier to apply a 'forward' force.

At 1 o'clock, vertical downward force starts to become effective, and at 3 o'clock it is at it's maximum.

The motion then starts to lose effectiveness again as you go through 4, 5 and 6 o'clock, but the same basic principle applies; At 6, o'clock to have any positive effect you need to be applying forces in the horizontal plane, not vertical.

(The 2 extremes are; 3 o'clock = force should be as vertical as possible, 12 and 6 o'clock = force should be as horizontal as possible).

The argument (discussion?!) seems to be this; CAMP A = It's all about developing the power stroke (say 2 to 4 o'clock) and don't worry about the other areas (the 9 hours or so from 4 back to 2 o'clock again).

CAMP B = 9 hours is a lot - there must be some useful contribution your legs can make in this time - it helps to develop this.

Personally, I was very much CAMP B for as long as I can remember, but based on discussions here, I am starting to question this.

ric/rstsport

i think you've catorgorised these incorrectly. That is, i presume you think me/Alex (others) are in Camp A. We're not (ok, well, i'm not saying that). I'm saying that in the majority of cases - you just need to develop your fitness. in other words concentrate on increasing your power output - i.e. don't be worrying about your pedalling 'skill'.

bernithebiker

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

i think you've catorgorised these incorrectly. That is, i presume you think me/Alex (others) are in Camp A. We're not (ok, well, i'm not saying that). I'm saying that in the majority of cases - you just need to develop your fitness. in other words concentrate on increasing your power output - i.e. don't be worrying about your pedalling 'skill'.

OK fair enough, I don't want to put words in anyone's mouths, that's just the kind of impression I got.

I think it's very clear (to me at least) that your fitness and power output are by far the most important things to develop, but other smaller factors can play a role too, like position (to be comfortable and aero), cadence, pedaling, nutrition, etc.

ric/rstsport

i haven't said those other things aren't important. fitness, aero, comfort, nutrition all extremely important. cadence - pretty easy to get right from the get go.

slunker

Wowwww..........all this dialogue just to ride a bike. Is it me or are things getting a bit to serious for us??

I just ride my bike and after a while find out what's good for me and what's bad, what's good for some one will not be good for another.

2p worth.....

bernithebiker

slunker wrote:

Wowwww..........all this dialogue just to ride a bike. Is it me or are things getting a bit to serious for us??

I just ride my bike and after a while find out what's good for me and what's bad, what's good for some one will not be good for another.

2p worth.....

No problem with you making that choice.

Others may choose to be more inquisitive and explore different ways to improve. What's better, your brain and wisdom or your brain and wisdom + that of hundreds of others?

I've been cycling all my life, but only in the last year or so have I decided to see just how fast I can go before age (42) starts to take it's toll. To get faster I'm happy to sift through different posts/advice to glean various nuggets of wisdom.

MartinB2444

Very interesting, and there's hope for us yet

http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://da ... OGLtL22YHA

sturmey

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

you need to be riding steady state to measure efficiency, so, for one, even at my very fittest i would not have been able to ride steady state at 366 W. And that was when i was a 1st and 2nd cat roadie.

When exactly was this mate? I remember you from the Manchester/Cheshire racing scene in the 80's and 90's and you were never that good.

ric/rstsport

after that. i learnt to train properly

sturmey

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

after that. i learnt to train properly

The truthful answer he should have given is that he gave up competitive cycling 'cos he was cr*p and turned to coaching instead.

Alex_Simmons/RST

sturmey wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

after that. i learnt to train properly

The truthful answer he should have given is that he gave up competitive cycling 'cos he was cr*p and turned to coaching instead.

Or needed to work and earn a living, perhaps start a family? Who knows?

Such ad hominem comments are not only off topic and wrong, they are irrelevant, unproductive, unnecessary and uncalled for.