14 weeks to the Marmotte; what can/should I focus on?

imposter2.0

bahzob wrote:

Just for the record, this was my first post here. Not a negative word to be found anywhere I think you will find and pretty humble to boot.

After this I got trolled. By folks who it turns out don't really have much experience of this subject. I even got criticised for citing experience of riding the Marmotte in a thread about the Marmotte from someone who has never even ridden the Marmotte.

So sorry if I seem a bit pissed off. It's because I am. I started cycling several years ago and its a sad reflection on this forum that had I used it them I would not be anywhere near as good as I am now.

All I was asking for was evidence of your claim to have increased your sustainable power through improved pedalling technique. That would be pretty ground-breaking stuff if you could prove it - which by the sounds of it you can't. On the upside though, your dogged persistence in avoiding a perfectly reasonable question is admirable

wallace_and_gromit

Imposter wrote:

All I was asking for was evidence of your claim to have increased your sustainable power through improved pedalling technique.

Turning this on its head, why wouldn't improved pedalling technique help you go faster? Improved technique helps in any other self-propelled get from A to B asap type event.

I guess there is the secondary issue of whether technique helps you improve your power output or whether it simply reduces losses due to inefficiencies, resulting in more power available to overcome resistance, for the same amount of power output by the body.

BenderRodriguez

There is research to back up what bazob has said.

Biol. Sport 2012;29:229-233

INFLUENCE OF PEDALING TECHNIQUE ON METABOLIC EFFICIENCY IN ELITE CYCLISTS

…at the power outputs at which the LT and OBLA were produced, increases in GE are associated to increments in torque applied throughout the whole pedal revolution and not to increases in the maximum torque during the downward phase of the crank cycle. This pedaling technique may redistribute the work to a greater number of muscles, thus increasing the metabolic efficiency.

…at the exercise intensity at which the LT was produced, a higher mean torque and a higher evenness of torque distribution were metabolically more efficient

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise:
April 2011 - Volume 43 - Issue 4 - pp 701-705
doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181f6b7ea
Applied Sciences
Pedaling Technique and Energy Cost in Cycling
LEIRDAL, STIG; ETTEMA, GERTJAN

Conclusions: DC size is a pedaling technique parameter that is closely related to energy consumption. To generate power evenly around the whole pedal revolution may be an important energy-saving trait.

Or, as bahzob put it

bahzob wrote:

How you pedal can make a big difference to how easy/hard the long climbs are. The aim is summed up in one word: smooth (the French call it "souplesse"). You should imagine you are pedalling in circles putting out a flat line of power with no peaks/troughs through each pedal revolution. The nature of the pedal stroke makes this impossible to achieve in practice but you can feel you are getting close during recovery sections of rides. When switching to the work sections this will be a lot harder and you will notice a peak on each leg each rev. Aim to make this peak as smooth as possible, it should feel as if its 25% or so of a rev not 5%. If you can achieve this it translates into a much less fatiguing way of climbing the mountains that feature in the Marmotte and similar.

imposter2.0

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Turning this on its head, why wouldn't improved pedalling technique help you go faster?

It might do, I don't know. That's why I was asking for evidence. Bahzob was claiming an 'improvement' in sustainable power, so I don't think it is unreasonable to ask him a) how he identified the improvement and b) how he ascribed the improvement specifically to pedalling technique. I'm not the first person to ask him that, to be fair. And it's not the first time he's ignored it.

imposter2.0

BenderRodriguez wrote:

To be honest, many 'respected coaches' are as ill-informed on this topic as some of the posters on here. I guess some people just don't like been told that others know better than they do and naturally resort to personal attacks in response!

I'm guessing you're a mate of Bahzob's. Sensible people would rather be shown evidence. Here's link to the last time this came up...

viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12902068&hilit=pedalling+efficiency

BenderRodriguez

Imposter wrote:

I'm guessing you're a mate of Bahzob's.

Wrong. I just know that there is evidence to support what he has argued...

Imposter wrote:

Sensible people would rather be shown evidence.

Quite...

Biol. Sport 2012;29:229-233

INFLUENCE OF PEDALING TECHNIQUE ON METABOLIC EFFICIENCY IN ELITE CYCLISTS

…at the power outputs at which the LT and OBLA were produced, increases in GE are associated to increments in torque applied throughout the whole pedal revolution and not to increases in the maximum torque during the downward phase of the crank cycle. This pedaling technique may redistribute the work to a greater number of muscles, thus increasing the metabolic efficiency.

…at the exercise intensity at which the LT was produced, a higher mean torque and a higher evenness of torque distribution were metabolically more efficient

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise:
April 2011 - Volume 43 - Issue 4 - pp 701-705
doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181f6b7ea
Applied Sciences
Pedaling Technique and Energy Cost in Cycling
LEIRDAL, STIG; ETTEMA, GERTJAN

Conclusions: DC size is a pedaling technique parameter that is closely related to energy consumption. To generate power evenly around the whole pedal revolution may be an important energy-saving trait.

Imposter wrote:

Here's link to the last time this came up...

viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12902068&hilit=pedalling+efficiency

Now cadence is another can of worms altogether.

To make sense of it just think of how the 'slow' and 'fast' twitch fibres contribute to the force generated as cadence and power output vary.

imposter2.0

Thanks, but I was asking for evidence of how Bahzob improved his sustainable power. Specifically:

1. what was it before he introduced his magic pedalling technique?
2. what was it after he applied his magic pedalling technique?
3. how did he ascribe the improvement specifically to this technique, as opposed to some other general improvement in aerobic fitness?

If he can't answer those, then his 'claim' to have improved his sustainable power through improved technique is technically and practically worthless. I personally can't see how any of those questions would be difficult or unreasonable in the circumstances. I'm still not holding my breath though..

bahzob

I have not ignored the demands.

I posted here a full description what I have changed in terms of technique and the results.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12876827&p=17854352&hilit=wattbike+pedalling#p17854352]

A key thing to note is that my experience is in large part due to getting access to a real time measure of how I actually pedal and working with this to improve. Most cyclists don't have such and so really don't actually know how they pedal or if the are good or not.

As for results. It may seem "arrogant" but since posting the above I have continued to work on technique and improve and am now, by a comfortable margin, pushing out bigger numbers than I have ever done before.

Rather than criticise you may want to ask yourself why I keep going on about the subject. I have no vested interest and frankly would prefer not to have to argue with some of the people here about the subject.

The reasons I keep going on about it are simple:
- It may seem "arrogant" but I was already a pretty good rider with experience of training with power dating back many years. So I know what I am talking about in terms of variables that affect my performance.

- I changed one thing about my training, the way I pedal and found, to my surprise I started putting out much better power numbers while feeling more comfortable.

- I was pretty pissed off that I had spent so many years of hard training without any useful suggestions about this topic and its importance. Those that did exist were mainly about spending dedicated time on "pedal drills" which are in fact worse than useless.

- So I thought and still think that all cyclists should spend time working on pedal technique. And that it would be a shame if the blinkered views of some prevent others from at least trying and seeing what the result is.

This seems just basic common sense to me. Done properly it requires absolutely nothing in terms of time. You simply integrate into your normal training. Chances are you will improve. Even if you don't you have lost nothing.

As for the critics. The main issue they seem to have is the need to provide "evidence", usually cited in some connection with "science".

Again it may seem arrogant but I am a science graduate and I know how science works. It is more than just someone in a white coat working in a laboratory. Citing this or that paper, especially of the terrible quality of many in sports science, neither "proves" or "disproves" anything. (The paper most often referenced, the terrible Korff one is a classic. It is claimed to "prove" pedalling makes no difference while, if actually read in detail shows it does. Whatever it really doesn't matter since it is fatally flawed by the ridiculous tests it used which would be akin to testing a sports car by seeing how fast it can go in reverse gear).

Yet many posting here seem to be confused that is all it is about. By their definition neither Charles Darwin or Albert Einstein could be considered scientists.

Science is about theory.

My theory is simple:
- Pedalling is a motor skill. Like every other motor skill it varies between individuals in terms of efficiency. These differences are in part genetically determined and are in part the result of adaptation. With focused training individuals can facilitate the process of adaptation, resulting in performance gains.

One prediction of this theory is that, like most other motor skills, learning can be improved through a biofeedback process (like a Wattbike) which is a tried and trusted technique and far more effective than just telling someone what to do.

It's frustrating that while I am happy to put my view forward so it can be trolled those that disagree will not.

So I have to do it for them, which they also don't like.

Still again here, as far as I understand it, is the opposing theory,

- Pedalling is a unique skill. Unlike every other voluntary motor skill it is fixed (at birth?) for every individual, they cannot improve it and are wasting their time if they try.


The failure of many here to understand how science really works is the trolling of my "Youtube" example.

Observation is just as valid a scientific process as sticking an electrode into something. Again to give Darwin as an example that's what he did. While the views of some of my critics sound close to Creationism in terms of denial I presume they. at least, accept Darwin had a point.

Look at my example again.

The theory that pedalling is a skill is consistent with the fact that those who practice a sport best are the most skilled. It makes the specific prediction that you can make an assessment of the level of a rider by how they pedal a bike. The pro riders going up a 12% ramp at 6w/kg and looking as if they are on a Sunday run are a pretty good example. (Before people troll. It also predicts there will be variation. So in golf you can usually tell a golfer by the quality of their swing. Outliers like Jim Furyk, John Daly and Lee Trevino doesn't invalidate this proposition)

The theory that it really doesn't matter how you pedal your bike would predict that such a group should have all manner of weird and wonderful styles. It would predict that you could not tell if the difference between a typical amateur rider going up the Alpe d'Huez at the end of the Marmotte and a pro going up the same climb at the end of a tour stage.

Clearly, I hope, this is rubbish and anyone can tell the difference. The explanation for this is presumably that the pros are "fitter" in some way. Well yes they are and to an extent this is simply because they ride a bike better.

In all humility I suggest those with an open mind who want to get better look at the pros and attempt to learn from them.

BenderRodriguez

Imposter wrote:

Thanks, but I was asking for evidence of how Bahzob improved his sustainable power. Specifically:

1. what was it before he introduced his magic pedalling technique?
2. what was it after he applied his magic pedalling technique?
3. how did he ascribe the improvement specifically to this technique, as opposed to some other general improvement in aerobic fitness?

If he can't answer those, then his 'claim' to have improved his sustainable power through improved technique is technically and practically worthless. I personally can't see how any of those questions would be difficult or unreasonable in the circumstances. I'm still not holding my breath though..

Who cares if bahzob hasn't conducted a controlled study? What matters here is understanding the physiology, not scoring personal points! Bottom line is that other studies have shown that a 'good' pedaling technique will make the most of the aerobic capacity one has, and help to delay the onset of fatigue, at least when working close to one's threshold. As bahzob said, having a 'good' pedaling technique when pootling along means nothing, what matters is to "concentrate on delivering smooth power especially as the demands increase".

Maybe the stuff about the position of one's heels was questionable as a general 'rule', but on the other hand if Nibali's optimum style does not involve dropping his heels, then if he starts doing so this might well be a sign that he is under real pressure. Whatever, this is a side issue.

BenderRodriguez

bahzob wrote:

Pedalling is a motor skill. Like every other motor skill it varies between individuals in terms of efficiency. These differences are in part genetically determined and are in part the result of adaptation. With focused training individuals can facilitate the process of adaptation, resulting in performance gains.

Quite, and what is more gains in efficiency, although small, do not seem to have a ceiling. In comparison one's VO2 max will probably be as high as it ever will be after only a few months of training, being largely genetically determined, and one's ability to use blood lactate as a fuel will probably top out after only a couple of years.

The gain to be had from developing a 'reasonable' pedaling technique into an 'excellent' one might be small, but has to be worthwhile, and of course having a genuinely poor pedaling technique can be costly in terms of reduced power output and accelerated fatigue.

bahzob

One other comment.

This particular topic reminds me very much of ones back in the day when I and some others were early adopters of power meters.

Then we were repeatedly told that they were just expensive gimmicks and that real cyclists had nothing to learn from them. Those days are passed and I look forward to the time when the same can be said about the value of integrating pedalling technique into workouts.

Tom Dean

bahzob wrote:

Again it may seem arrogant but I am a science graduate and I know how science works.

Taking the argument from authority up a level! Bravo

-you clearly don't, btw.

edit:
bahzob, you may have found something that has not been clearly proven elsewhere. From what we can see of your reasoning process, I don't think anyone sensible would bother listening to you. Maybe you are holding something back? I'm not sure you have actually told us what you do to produce the improvements you claim.

BenderRodriguez

Tom Dean wrote:

Taking the argument from authority up a level! Bravo

-you clearly don't, btw.

Oh dear, it seems that many would rather trade personal insults than discuss the evidence, such as that which I have quoted. Clearly there is no point going on with this, or presenting any more evidence from the journals. That's me out of here!

imposter2.0

bahzob wrote:

I have not ignored the demands.

I posted here a full description what I have changed in terms of technique and the results.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12876827&p=17854352&hilit=wattbike+pedalling#p17854352]

Unfortunately, none of that answers any of my above questions - unless you feel that anecdotes qualify as answers. Ironically, that thread tells its own story.

bernithebiker

I think we have all seen poor pedaling technique.

It's when for example someone's given it too much too early on a big col and collapses into a low cadence, jerky motion, with lots of upper body movement. Noone, surely, would suggest that this is 'efficient'.

By definition, then, the opposite must be true - a smooth motion with no discernible power stroke, good cadence, and still upper body. Not only does it 'look' right, it must help efficiency and the onset of fatigue.

On the flats and small hills, this effect can be hidden or is less obvious. Where you really see it is in the mountains, and I think Bahzob is right to say that long climbs of 7 % +, benefit the most from a smooth pedal technique.

Try it. It feels right, to me anyway.

imposter2.0

bernithebiker wrote:

I think we have all seen poor pedaling technique.

It's when for example someone's given it too much too early on a big col and collapses into a low cadence, jerky motion, with lots of upper body movement. Noone, surely, would suggest that this is 'efficient'.

By definition, then, the opposite must be true - a smooth motion with no discernible power stroke, good cadence, and still upper body. Not only does it 'look' right, it must help efficiency and the onset of fatigue.

On the flats and small hills, this effect can be hidden or is less obvious. Where you really see it is in the mountains, and I think Bahzob is right to say that long climbs of 7 % +, benefit the most from a smooth pedal technique.

Try it. It feels right, to me anyway.

Like I said earlier - nobody is disputing that technique breaks down when you are tired. The answer then is to work on your fitness and push out the point at which you get tired. Like someone else pointed out earlier - good technique is easy to deliver when you are feeling good - not so easy when your head has fallen off halfway up a mountain. Bahzob's own 'Nibali v Wiggins' comment on p1 is a case in point. Try telling Nibali he can improve his FTP simply by correcting his pedalling technique and see what he says...

wallace_and_gromit

Imposter wrote:

Try telling Nibali he can improve his FTP simply by correcting his pedalling technique and see what he says...

This would surely depend on who was saying it. If it was some punter off the street, then he'd most likely kick them into touch. If it was a well respected cycling coach then he should at least listen, as no-one is perfect.

Steve Redgrave and Matthew Pinsent (in particular) were always open to technical coaching advice from their long term coach, even when they had lord knows how many gold medals between them.

imposter2.0

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Try telling Nibali he can improve his FTP simply by correcting his pedalling technique and see what he says...

This would surely depend on who was saying it. If it was some punter off the street, then he'd most likely kick them into touch. If it was a well respected cycling coach then he should at least listen, as no-one is perfect.

And if I was Nibali, the first thing I would ask for was evidence..

bernithebiker

Imposter wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Try telling Nibali he can improve his FTP simply by correcting his pedalling technique and see what he says...

This would surely depend on who was saying it. If it was some punter off the street, then he'd most likely kick them into touch. If it was a well respected cycling coach then he should at least listen, as no-one is perfect.

And if I was Nibali, the first thing I would ask for was evidence..

I think this passion for 'evidence' is well intentioned, but unfortunately it's not that easy.

Pedaling a bike is highly complex and there are so many variables like gradient, cadence, weight, VO2max, FTPs, etc.etc. that it's hard to pin down precise figures for stuff like this; several studies have tried and many are inconclusive and many contradict each other.

There comes a point where you may just have to put some faith into your coach's ideas or a good cyclist's theories and try them. I would imagine many top class athletes experiment with different methods and ideas.

Good pedaling technique seems logical to me, as is holding on to that technique as long as you can even when knackered. I doubt any study is ever going to prove that to me, but it doesn't mean it doesn't work.

imposter2.0

bernithebiker wrote:

Pedaling a bike is highly complex

it really isn't.

phreak

Given that for a 7 hour ride you might do anything up to 35,000 pedal strokes, surely it would be sensible that an improvement in the efficiency of those strokes is a good thing?

wallace_and_gromit

Imposter wrote:

And if I was Nibali, the first thing I would ask for was evidence..

This is where the identity of the person giving the advice is crucial. If it's someone who's coached numerous people to success over the years then you'd have to be an arrogant fool not to give them the benefit of the doubt. A sack load of winners medals is usually good evidence that a coach's methods work. Asking for evidence is fine, but sometimes you just have to trust that a successful coach knows what they're on about.

Going back to Steve Redgrave, when the Berlin wall came down, his club (Leander) was very quick off the mark and hired Jurgen Grobler from East Germany as the club coach, primarily to coach Redgrave and his new partner, Pinsent. To say Grobler's methods were "different" to what had gone before was an understatement, and counter-intuitive to everything that they'd previously been taught. However, Grobler's crews had won multiple world and Olympic gold medals, so they decided to follow his instructions to the letter for the first season (1991) and revert to old methods for the Olympic year if things hadn't gone well. As it turned out, they broke the world record by several seconds in 1991 and never went back to the old methods.

imposter2.0

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Imposter wrote:

And if I was Nibali, the first thing I would ask for was evidence..

This is where the identity of the person giving the advice is crucial. If it's someone who's coached numerous people to success over the years then you'd have to be an arrogant fool not to give them the benefit of the doubt. A sack load of winners medals is usually good evidence that a coach's methods work. Asking for evidence is fine, but sometimes you just have to trust that a successful coach knows what they're on about.

Going back to Steve Redgrave, when the Berlin wall came down, his club (Leander) was very quick off the mark and hired Jurgen Grobler from East Germany as the club coach, primarily to coach Redgrave and his new partner, Pinsent. To say Grobler's methods were "different" to what had gone before was an understatement, and counter-intuitive to everything that they'd previously been taught. However, Grobler's crews had won multiple world and Olympic gold medals, so they decided to follow his instructions to the letter for the first season (1991) and revert to old methods for the Olympic year if things hadn't gone well. As it turned out, they broke the world record by several seconds in 1991 and never went back to the old methods.

Interesting, but unfortunately it's just another anecdote. Besides, think 'Rowing, East Germans, early 90s, unorthodox coaching methods' and then think 'cycling, Americans, late 90s-2000s and unorthodox coaching methods' - see where this is going?

Of course coaching advice is valuable and worth listening to - but it's usually based on science and evidence - not whim and anecdote.

Tom Dean

bernithebiker wrote:

I think this passion for 'evidence' is well intentioned, but unfortunately it's not that easy.

Not if you want to ignore the evidence, no.

bernithebiker wrote:

There comes a point where you may just have to put some faith into your coach's ideas or a good cyclist's theories and try them.

Do you think the advice of an educated, qualified, professional coach, and that of some guy who happens to be a fast bike rider carry equal weight?

wallace_and_gromit

Imposter wrote:

Of course coaching advice is valuable and worth listening to - but it's usually based on science and evidence - not whim and anecdote.

There's nothing anecdotal about Grobler's success as GB's rowing coach. The "new" methods he brought over from East Germany are mainstream now - Miles and miles of sub-threshold training and then miles and miles more during the off-season, with minimal high intensity work, as this requires too much recovery time. Pre Grobler, GB rowing training was all about manic high intensity stuff at the weekends with precious little in the week, all year round.

imposter2.0

So as a rowing coach, Grobler prescribed 'lots of rowing' - presumably to improve their aerobic base. I half expected his methods to be technique-based, given the nature of the discussion here.

His success is probably not in question. But you used his example as.....actually, I'm not really sure why you chose to bring it up. It's certainly got feck-all to do with cycling.

bernithebiker

Imposter wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

Pedaling a bike is highly complex

it really isn't.

It really is.

Multiple articulations and muscles in action, creating infinitely variable lever lengths and forces before you even start to look at differences in cadence, muscle fatigue, cleat position, etc.

imposter2.0

bernithebiker wrote:

Imposter wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

Pedaling a bike is highly complex

it really isn't.

It really is.

No - it really isn't. You push the pedals, the wheels go round. If you want to go faster, you push them harder. If you make it any more complex than that, you simply disappear up your own ar5e - as we have already witnessed a couple of times on this thread.

Breathing is also highly complex, if you want to get anal about it. But most people do it without training.

bernithebiker

Imposter wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

Imposter wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

Pedaling a bike is highly complex

it really isn't.

It really is.

No - it really isn't. You push the pedals, the wheels go round. If you want to go faster, you push them harder. If you make it any more complex than that, you simply disappear up your own ar5e - as we have already witnessed a couple of times on this thread.

Breathing is also highly complex, if you want to get anal about it. But most people do it without training.

I'm a mechanical engineer, and I can only say that to effectively analyse a pedal stroke, you would need to put in place a lot of equipment.

You keep asking for evidence. If you really want empirical data then you have to set up highly complex test rigs that are capable of reading a multitude of different things. So in that context, it is, yes, undoubtedly complex.

Maybe this is where you're going wrong? Breathing too can be made as simple or as complex as you like. There must be countless in depth breathing studies. To suggest that breathing is easy and that you can't improve that either, kind of weakens your case, I would say.....

imposter2.0

bernithebiker wrote:

I'm a mechanical engineer, and I can only say that to effectively analyse a pedal stroke, you would need to put in place a lot of equipment.

You keep asking for evidence. If you really want empirical data then you have to set up highly complex test rigs that are capable of reading a multitude of different things. So in that context, it is, yes, undoubtedly complex.

You're spot on about the equipment needed to analyse pedal dynamics though. Kind of reinforces the point that the speculation and conjecture we've been reading about so far is somewhat worthless, no?

bernithebiker wrote:

Maybe this is where you're going wrong? Breathing too can be made as simple or as complex as you like. There must be countless in depth breathing studies. To suggest that breathing is easy and that you can't improve that either, kind of weakens your case, I would say.....

You're beginning to disappear..