Pedal Technique-Write up and examples
Comments
-
With reference to the above. Those in denial need to also make their position clear wrt to the original article I published.
It is quite a straightforward question.
Do they deny that the patterns described below exist?
Or do they assert that yes they do exist but in practice all will produce exactly the same results in terms of end performance?
Or do they believe something else, if so what exactly?
"Three Phases of Development of Good Pedalling Technique
The Figure Of Eight
The figure of eight typifies a beginner, or even a more experienced cyclist who has never been coached. The rider loses pedal momentum on the transition from right-leg to left-leg (point 1) and left-leg to right-leg (point 2).This has the effect of accelerating the bike during the left and right leg down stroke, but allowing the bike to slow down again during the transition between legs.
This means that the rider must produce more power to achieve the same speed as a rider who pedals more effectively.
The Peanut
The Peanut typifies a good cyclist, or someone who naturally understands how to deliver force to the pedals to good effect - people who ride fixed crank bikes naturally have a better understanding of maintaining pedal momentum and often show the peanut shape.
This cyclist maintains some pedal momentum between leg drives. However, there is still a noticeable loss of momentum - especially since (in this case) at point 2 there is a larger dead spot than at point 1. Although better than the figure of eight, this rider is still wasting some of their power with ineffective transition between left and right legs.
The Sausage
This is the shape we have seen from elite cyclists and triathletes, no matter what their discipline, track, road, mountain, time-trial or triathlon. The shape demonstrates a strong down stroke with a good draw to maintain the pedal momentum throughout the transition between legs. "Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
The irony, that you try to agree with bernithebiker and then come out with this crap! (sorry berni). bahzob, you are just repeating the same things without any regard to what anyone else is saying, this is not intelligent discussion.bahzob wrote:bernithebiker wrote:This great! Intelligent discussion with noone pissing on anyone's fireworks.
We might just learn something here!
Hopefully and eventually yes.
Please all get some focus on what those in denial that the way you pedal has an effect on your performance seem to be saying.
Straw man.bahzob wrote:It boils down to a belief that in some magic way everyone pedals a bike perfectly and are incapable of improving despite the fact they seem to be doing it in a very different way and with very different results.
If true it would make pedalling quite unique in physiological terms and cycling unlike any other sport.
You state your view over and over, but never show that the part in bold has any basis in reality. (I would question that it is completely orthodox, but even if if were, that doesn't mean it's correct.)bahzob wrote:I am constantly being asked to "prove" my views yet all I am doing is stating the completely orthodox position that pedalling is just like every other skill,
- it varies due to a combination of genetics and experience.
- the portion that is not down to genetics can be improved by focused trainingand this will result in an improvement in overall performance.
You are misrepresenting my view in the sense that I have not offered one. I simply want to see some evidence for your claim that training pedalling technique can result in improved performance.bahzob wrote:Seriously, its not my views that are weird and wonderful it's those of those that seem to have a belief bordering on the religious to the contrary.
If I am in any way misrepresenting their view please can they state clearly what their position actually is rather than just saying what others think is wrong.
We don't need another bald statement of your belief, try answering some of the questions you have been asked or engaging in some way with some of the other posters. Personally I think your position as you choose or are able to put it has been dealt with. Luckily there are smarter people than you with interesting things to say on the subject. You are offering nothing to the discussion at this point.0 -
I wasn't being ironic. I really meant it.
It's sad you take so much time to copy paste so much but can't reply to some simple yes no answers.
Anyway just so I can understand your position clearly.
You believe that all cyclists are born with the innate ability to pedal a bike perfectly, there is no difference between a rank amateur and an elite cyclist in this regard and that any attempt to train this aspect of the sport is a waste of time.
This also implies that pedalling differs fundamentally from every other skill humans possess.
Is this your position? No need to cut paste, just a simple yes or no will suffice.
(sorry it is not an option to say you have no position. If you wish to take part in a debate it is not sufficient to simply snipe at the views of others. You have to make your position clear and be prepared to defend it. Failure to do this just makes you nothing more than a sad little troll.)
.Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
bahzob wrote:You believe that all cyclists are born with the innate ability to pedal a bike perfectly, there is no difference between a rank amateur and an elite cyclist in this regard and that any attempt to train this aspect of the sport is a waste of time.
Most people here who you claim are deniers are actually people who take training and science seriously so they're not convinced by your n=1 experience and hunches and guesses. A couple of papers supporting your guesses isn't wholly convincing either - no matter what your viewpoint on just about anything you could probably find a paper or article supporting it.
Now, if you want to have a discussion about something then that's fine, but all your threads seem to start with you preaching and an I-know-best attitude and when people legitimately question you you just start insulting them.
So please stop presenting your guesses and hunches as established fact.More problems but still living....0 -
No, I know you weren't trying to be ironic.bahzob wrote:I wasn't being ironic. I really meant it.
I copy and paste your words in order to make clear what I am commenting on and asking you about. You asked if you had clearly represented my views and I think I answered very clearly.bahzob wrote:It's sad you take so much time to copy paste so much but can't reply to some simple yes no answers.
but...
Since you ask so nicely, my position is that I would like to see some evidence before agreeing that training pedalling technique leads to improved performance. Sorry if this was not clear before.bahzob wrote:Anyway just so I can understand your position clearly.
You believe that all cyclists are born with the innate ability to pedal a bike perfectly, there is no difference between a rank amateur and an elite cyclist in this regard and that any attempt to train this aspect of the sport is a waste of time.
This also implies that pedalling differs fundamentally from every other skill humans possess.
Is this your position? No need to cut paste, just a simple yes or no will suffice.
(sorry it is not an option to say you have no position. If you wish to take part in a debate it is not sufficient to simply snipe at the views of others. You have to make your position clear and be prepared to defend it. Failure to do this just makes you nothing more than a sad little troll.)
.0 -
I'm still waiting for an answer to HOW I can actually, physically, practically, improve my pedal technique in order to perfect this power delivery to the cranks. You know, useful stuff like "pull up here, push down there, pull through here," etc. On the other hand, for all I know I may be doing it already - but it would be good to know.
The theory itself is getting a bit repetitive - time for some practical instruction now, I would suggest. Sorry if that seems like trolling, but it's all I've ever really been asking.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Most have a preferred cadence range, that's normal, and we don't operate as well outside of that, but we can certainly improve our performance outside of of comfort zone. Whether or not one needs to do that is an individual case by case matter.GiantMike wrote:As an aside, I did 2 days of 'speed work' earlier this week focussing on cadence, spinning at around 100-105rpm rather than my usual sluggish 80-85. For the same perceived effort I produced less power and seemed to tire quicker and have a higher HR. Clearly this says nothing on its own, but I was surprised that a 25% increase in cadence seemed to have such an effect on my efficiency, either because I'm physiologically pre-determined to have a slower cadence or have trained for so long at 80-85 that my muscles work best there.
Preferred / efficient cadence tends to rise with absolute and relative power output.
There is an alternate and from a scientific point of view, better ,answer to exactly this phenomenon which I have observed myself.
Your muscles generate a force which is applied to the pedals. However power is dependent not on force but torque and there is a difference.
Torque depends on two varying variables (I precise varying because there are also other variables but these are effectively constant for the purposes of this discussion.)
The two variables are
- The force your muscles exert
- A coefficient resulting from angle at which this force is applied relative to the motion of the crank. This varies from 0 to 1.
The latter is important, if the force is applied at anything but a perfect angle it will result in a loss of torque.
This is most clearly seen in the extreme example of you pushing down when the pedal is vertical. All the force in the world will result in no useful turning motion because angle coefficient is 0.
Conversely in a simple example where the pedal is at 3 o'clock and you press straight down the value of the angle coefficient is 1 and so all the force gets converted to torque and therefore power.
Between these points you have to constantly alter the angle in which force is applied. Failure to do this perfectly results in a loss of torque for a given force and therefore a loss of power.
Sadly it is, in fact, anatomically impossible to maintain a perfect angle throughout.
However it possible to exercise some control over this angle. One example is heel position. Keeping this constant throughout a stroke is poor technique. Correct technique is to vary it in accordance with the crank position (as the main drive force is applied just before 3 the heel should be dropped very slightly returning to level at 3 then as the crank moves from 3->6 the heel should lift) precisely because this maintains a more optimal direction of force and therefore more torque and therefore more power. There are other means as well, learning and improving them is part and parcel of becoming a more skilled cyclist capable of producing more power for a given amount of effort.
This is the explanation of why advice to imagine scraping the mud off your shoes works. Sadly because the underlying reason is often not understood it is can be misinterpreted as saying you should try to force the pedal through the deadspot with your ankle, which is not good technique.
Coming now to the issue of cadence.
Power depends on two varying factores
- Torque (already discussed, power per rev varies with the total torque per rev which in turn will affected by the angle at which you apply muscle force relative to the ideal)
- Cadence
Increasing either while leaving the other constant results in increased power.
However, because cycling is a skill like any other it becomes progressively more difficult to execute as a function of speed. (anybody in the world can play any piece on the piano provided they can read music, no where the notes are and can ignore the time signature. The challenge is to play it at the correct tempo)
So it is quite easy to apply force in the optimal direction if you are turning the pedals at 40 rpm, small errors in timing don't really matter much. However at 140rpm the margins of error are hugely changed. Now the same small errors in timing will result in significant loss of torque because force is ineffectively applied.
So it if you are unskilled increased cadence > less torque > no power benefit.
Further increasing cadence is not without cost. You are having to perform significantly more work in terms of moving muscle mass and if this mass is not working efficiently because it is not exerting force at the correct time then it will be worse than turning the pedal more slowly, resulting in exactly the situation noted above and which I have observed myself in my own training.
(In passing and relevant to the topic as a whole increasing cadence is not without other benefits apart from power increase. Increased cadence is one means to reduce the momentum loss during the periods of low force that occur in any pedal stroke. It is not, however, the only means, the other main one also being technique related).
This is one reason why professional cyclists produce more power by increasing their cadence while unskilled amateurs do not or may even suffer a power loss.
Its no complicated. They are simply more skilled at applying force at the correct time and angle of a pedal stroke than amateurs.
In any other sport/activity the notion that those at the top possess more skill than those at the bottom would not be a surprise. So it's not really a surprise that cycling is, in fact, no different.Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
Please stop.More problems but still living....0
-
Ride a fixed wheel, climb with one leg only. Or just carry on pedalling as you are if you think you cannot improve as yours is perfect?Imposter wrote:I'm still waiting for an answer to HOW I can actually, physically, practically, improve my pedal technique in order to perfect this power delivery to the cranks. You know, useful stuff like "pull up here, push down there, pull through here," etc. On the other hand, for all I know I may be doing it already - but it would be good to know.
The theory itself is getting a bit repetitive - time for some practical instruction now, I would suggest. Sorry if that seems like trolling, but it's all I've ever really been asking.
At the end of the day it is up to you what you believe or think and how you will train and do what is best for you, or what you believe is best for you.0 -
Imposter wrote:I'm still waiting for an answer to HOW I can actually, physically, practically, improve my pedal technique in order to perfect this power delivery to the cranks. You know, useful stuff like "pull up here, push down there, pull through here," etc. On the other hand, for all I know I may be doing it already - but it would be good to know.
The theory itself is getting a bit repetitive - time for some practical instruction now, I would suggest. Sorry if that seems like trolling, but it's all I've ever really been asking.
Step 1 is have an open mind. Sorry but it is not clear that you and others have that regards this topic.
Clearly if you believe that you cannot improve then you wont. That is basic.
Step 2 depends on what you have access to.
The ideal is try to find a Wattbike and ride it. I don't own shares in the company or anything, it is just that it is the only piece of equipment that I am aware of that provides accurate real time feedback on your pedal stroke.
Using one you will see what type of rider you are wrt the original link I pasted.
More important using one will help you improve. This is because it allows you to "see" your stroke and change it directly through practice. There is nothing magic about this, it is simply a tried and tested means of skills testing called biofeedback which is way more effective than trying to explain in words what to do. ***
If you don't have access to a Wattbike then its more complicated. I am happy to cover what I think you would need to do based on my experience and will do so in due course.
However I am not going to do it on this thread, since it is beyond its scope and will most likely only be trolled.
One observation that I would have though is that the closest experience I have had regarding feedback of pedalling style is riding a MTB uphill in very slippery conditions. This forces you into a good style as any big force variations will lead to loss of traction and/or falling over. So if you can try that and then try to replicate the same feeling when riding a road bike. So you could try that.
*** There is a huge irony here. I was an early adopter of power meters and liked them precisely because they told me exactly how I was performing on a bike. The information provided by the Wattbike is simply a step on from that in that it shows your power in a far more detailed manner and gives an insight into how you may be able to improve it. It really isn't much more than that.Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
...Martin S. Newbury RC0
-
bahzob wrote:...
Ha ha. Read it before you deleted it.
Not a troll, just don't agree with much of what you say.
And please, don't talk about open mindedness.More problems but still living....0 -
bahzob wrote:The figure of eight typifies a beginner, or even a more experienced cyclist who has never been coached. The rider loses pedal momentum on the transition from right-leg to left-leg (point 1) and left-leg to right-leg (point 2).This has the effect of accelerating the bike during the left and right leg down stroke, but allowing the bike to slow down again during the transition between legs.
Can you provide us with some actual data on that quantifies this acceleration/deceleration of bike + rider? Or have you just blindly accepted this statement as factual?
I know Eric Lin did some work on this (measurement of actual micro changes in velocity during a pedal stroke). And that was not even accounting for the full inertial load of bike + rider on flat road (and as a result most likely reflects speed variances when hill climbing). When you run the numbers, the answers come out in units of milliwatts.
But worse still, it makes a really bad assumption that energy put into a system is then lost to the system.
If that is a basis of your argument, that by changing pedalling action, one can go faster for the same power (ceteris paribus) then I'm lost for words.bahzob wrote:This means that the rider must produce more power to achieve the same speed as a rider who pedals more effectively.
Please, have a critical think about what you've said here.0 -
oldwelshman wrote:
Ride a fixed wheel, climb with one leg only. Or just carry on pedalling as you are if you think you cannot improve as yours is perfect?Imposter wrote:I'm still waiting for an answer to HOW I can actually, physically, practically, improve my pedal technique in order to perfect this power delivery to the cranks. You know, useful stuff like "pull up here, push down there, pull through here," etc. On the other hand, for all I know I may be doing it already - but it would be good to know.
The theory itself is getting a bit repetitive - time for some practical instruction now, I would suggest. Sorry if that seems like trolling, but it's all I've ever really been asking.
At the end of the day it is up to you what you believe or think and how you will train and do what is best for you, or what you believe is best for you.
I never claimed anything, let alone 'perfection', although to be honest after reading Bahzob's 'description' I've got a feeling I do most of that already. I just assumed it was 'normal'.0 -
The title of this thread you started would suggest otherwise. If one can't actually describe how to implement a training intervention that is suppose to lead to improved performance, then what's the point?bahzob wrote:However I am not going to do it on this thread, since it is beyond its scope and will most likely only be trolled.
As for trolling, if by your definition you mean asking questions to validate assumptions and premises, provide evidence and references to relevant information, then I guess that makes me a troll.
Well it is more than that, because we need to critically appraise such new data in a manner that assesses whether or not it provides sound actionable intelligence, because this is how it is being portrayed. The problem here is that some large assumptions on that front are being made, and naturally they will be challenged.bahzob wrote:The information provided by the Wattbike is simply a step on from that in that it shows your power in a far more detailed manner and gives an insight into how you may be able to improve it. It really isn't much more than that.
Just because we have a new stream of data, doesn't immediately imply it is of value. To do that we need to apply some sound critical thinking skills to assess what it actually means, then assess what actionable intelligence it provides. What I am reading here is a lot of assumptions and assertions, without appropriate validation. In essence it's a belief based approach.0 -
But doesn't the article say that illustration relates to a single rider? As such it may not be representative of what the author would consider as being the ideal, even for a 'peanut pedaler'. Also, the ideal 'sausage' forms shown are much more even.Tom Dean wrote:
Interestingly, and assuming you are saying this is 'better' (although we know GE is not the same as performance)- compare this to the OP's Wattbike link, and their examples of worse and better pedalling; the figure of eight and the peanut. The latter plot, while more even through the whole stroke, seems to be less even with a peak in the downstroke.BenderRodriguez wrote:To return to something that I posted on an earlier thread, I do think that there is some evidence that applying torque on the down stroke in a more sustained manner, rather than with a short, high peak, does contribute to GE.
Whatever, that Wattbike article seems to be pretty much a repetition of what the promoter of 'Powercranks' argues. This is the notion that having an efficient pedaling style means, so as far as is possible, producing a torque output that is smooth for the entire revolution of the pedals and the idea that increasing the contribution the 'up-stroke' makes to the power output is important. From what I have read there is no real evidence for this, and the available research seems to indicate that all that really matters is the way power is produced on the down stroke.
This is where everyone seems to be failing to see the wood for the trees. Those studies I referred to did not support the notion that an efficient style is one that gives a torque output akin to an electric motor. Rather they showed that it is only the down stroke that really matters. However, they also show that how the torque is applied on the down stroke also matters. That is, pushing on the down stroke with a more even application of torque (so minimising the difference between the peak and average torque values) is associated with a significantly higher economy than riding with a 'punchier' style. OK, so this is one step down the road to arguing that economy is related to having an even output of torque, but it is a long way from making the assumptions that the promoters of 'Powercranks' make. There are also studies that go some to to explaining just why minimising the peak between average and maximum torque on the down stroke should be associated with a higher economy, relating this to the preferential recruitment of slow-twitch fibres.
All in all, I think there is ample evidence that GE is associated with minimising the peak between the average and maximum torque of the down stroke, at least when working close to threshold. The big questions are:
1) Why do riders, even at the pro level, vary so much in this regard, with some pro riders having a poor economy, seeminly due to their 'punchy' pedaling style, whilst other pros are able to compete at the highest level even though they have an unexceptional VO2 because, or so it seems, they have such good pedaling-style related economy.
2) Can a rider really modify their pedaling style in order to improve their economy? I have a feeling that the answer is yes, but that this is something that would have to happen over a very long period, i.e over a number of years, with the longer a rider had been using a less than optimal style, the longer it would take for any 'reprograming' to occur. Perhaps pedaling style is something that needs to be focused on very early in a riders career if it to have a positive impact.
Given the indicated links between the way a rider applies torque on the down stroke, economy and the preferential recruitment of slow versus fast twitch muscle fibers, it might be that a rider's torque profile is determined by their ratio of fast and slow twitch type fibers. Basically you use what you have got as best you can! As such, trying to alter one's torque profile without there being any change in the balance of the fast / slow muscle fibers might be unproductive.
As they say, more research is probably needed to give any definitive answers to the above."an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
Having an open mind is the basis of sound science and evidence based practice. Accusing people who are following evidence based practice of being closed minded is simply false and an ad hominem.bahzob wrote:Step 1 is have an open mind. Sorry but it is not clear that you and others have that regards this topic.
If you cannot support a premise or supposition with evidence, then I'm afraid all it will ever be is opinion. Nothing wrong with opinion, but don't dress it up as fact.
That method is common for MTB riders for whom traction is a factor, but what you nor anyone else can say is that it translates to an increase in power. All we can say is that it translates to an increase in traction.bahzob wrote:One observation that I would have though is that the closest experience I have had regarding feedback of pedalling style is riding a MTB uphill in very slippery conditions. This forces you into a good style as any big force variations will lead to loss of traction and/or falling over. So if you can try that and then try to replicate the same feeling when riding a road bike. So you could try that.
It's entirely plausible MTB riders are trading off power for a traction benefit (analogous to a TT rider trading off some power for an aero benefit). That's great for an MTB rider on slippery surfaces, but not something a road or track rider typically need concern themselves with.
I am open minded on it, just provide the evidence and not supposition.0 -
For those with a real interest in improving this provides some guidance though it is by no means all the picture nor is it as good as using a Wattbike.
http://www.bicycling.com/training-nutrition/training-fitness/perfect-pedal-stroke
The reason why the heel position is important is straightforward and linked to the fact that it is torque that generates power and to maximise this you need to exercise fine control over the direction force is applied through a pedal rev.
As I said earlier this is also why simply increasing cadence may not have the desired effect, because it demands more in terms of the skill of timing force application.
I'd be interested to hear how those in denial think that doing otherwise with the heel, such as keeping it level or letting it drop can be as good as that shown in the link.
Otherwise, happily I am off for a few days now. But don't worry I will respond on my return.Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
While it's a bit of a stray from the topic, since the "open minded" genie was brought forth, I suggest watching this video. It's pretty instructive on what being open minded is really all about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 69TOuqaqXI0 -
I don't know - my point was the second plot is more circular, which is what they are trying to show, but it is worse in the downstroke by your standards. The rider's technique has improved in one way but apparently worsened in another.BenderRodriguez wrote:
But doesn't the article say that illustration relates to a single rider? As such it may not be representative of what the author would consider as being the ideal, even for a 'peanut pedaler'. Also, the ideal 'sausage' forms shown are much more even.Tom Dean wrote:
Interestingly, and assuming you are saying this is 'better' (although we know GE is not the same as performance)- compare this to the OP's Wattbike link, and their examples of worse and better pedalling; the figure of eight and the peanut. The latter plot, while more even through the whole stroke, seems to be less even with a peak in the downstroke.BenderRodriguez wrote:To return to something that I posted on an earlier thread, I do think that there is some evidence that applying torque on the down stroke in a more sustained manner, rather than with a short, high peak, does contribute to GE.0 -
More ad hominem. Suggest you watch the video link I posted.bahzob wrote:I'd be interested to hear how those in denial....0 -
There's a lot of experience and knowledge on this forum so...
Q1: Who here has used a Wattbike for pedalling analysis and tried to use the information to change their pedal technique?
Q2: Who here thinks that their pedal technique has changed since they started cycling?
For me...
Q1 = no. I've used one but it was the usual 'power competition' at a show.
Q2 = yes. I think I have become smoother and less 'mashy', but I have no data to prove it.0 -
This just tells you how to pedal, without showing why it is a good idea. Sounds familiar...bahzob wrote:For those with a real interest in improving this provides some guidance though it is by no means all the picture nor is it as good as using a Wattbike.
http://www.bicycling.com/training-nutrition/training-fitness/perfect-pedal-stroke
Conjecture presented as fact, as usual.bahzob wrote:The reason why the heel position is important is straightforward and linked to the fact that it is torque that generates power and to maximise this you need to exercise fine control over the direction force is applied through a pedal rev.
As I said earlier this is also why simply increasing cadence may not have the desired effect, because it demands more in terms of the skill of timing force application.
Is there any evidence that heel position makes any difference? A quick google shows there is some evidence to the contrary so lets see it.bahzob wrote:I'd be interested to hear how those in denial think that doing otherwise with the heel, such as keeping it level or letting it drop can be as good as that shown in the link.
Your snide use of the term 'in denial' isn't going to make anyone think your view is established fact or supported by overwhelming evidence. Give it a rest and allow your view to stand on its merits, if you think it has any.0 -
Tom Dean wrote:...my point was the second plot is more circular, which is what they are trying to show, but it is worse in the downstroke by your standards. The rider's technique has improved in one way but apparently worsened in another.
Do we have 'before' and 'after' plots for this rider? Perhaps they always pedaled with a significant peak in the torque produced, only before the 'dead spots' were larger as well."an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
I thought that was what you were saying.BenderRodriguez wrote:Tom Dean wrote:...my point was the second plot is more circular, which is what they are trying to show, but it is worse in the downstroke by your standards. The rider's technique has improved in one way but apparently worsened in another.
Do we have 'before' and 'after' plots for this rider? Perhaps they always pedaled with a significant peak in the torque produced, only before the 'dead spots' were larger as well.
I'm not trying to attach any significance to any of it.BenderRodriguez wrote:But doesn't the article say that illustration relates to a single rider?
I know they are just trying to show an improvement in the 'dead spots'. It seems strange to illustrate this with apparent glaring problems in other areas being worse in the 'after' than the 'before', whether the plots were genuinely made by the same rider or not. Maybe Wattbike do not think it is significant either.0 -
1. Not for the purpose of attempting to change pedal technique.GiantMike wrote:Q1: Who here has used a Wattbike for pedalling analysis and tried to use the information to change their pedal technique?
Q2: Who here thinks that their pedal technique has changed since they started cycling?
2. Mine changed significantly, in particular after I returned to competitive cycling following a trans-tibial amputation. On my amputation side I use a pylon directly connecting my prosthetic to the pedal, which places my "foot" directly under where my ankle would have been. The other side I have not altered. My ability to sustain power over durations more than a few minutes did not suffer. Indeed I was able to improve on my pre-amputation sustainable power.0 -
GiantMike wrote:Q2: Who here thinks that their pedal technique has changed since they started cycling?
I think it would be more reasonable to ask who doesn't think their pedal technique has changed since they started cycling. I would assume that in most cases, technique improves and adapts over time, as technical ability/experience/fitness level increases.0 -
It's interesting, I don't even know what my natural pedalling technique is. I seem to vary it all the time. Is this not what most cyclists do?
Uphill, I find I drop my heels quite alot and tend to shift back in the saddle. This is for lower cadence, high force riding.
On the flat, I often ride "on the rivet", pedal more "toes down" and at a higher cadence, when I want to put in a hard effort.
I quite often use the "ankling" technique as I find it can give some of my other muscles a bit of a rest.0 -
I have no idea if my technique has changed - my flexibility has varied and I have made positional changes for various reasons.
I have a hunch that most of what people might perceive as problems with technique could be corrected with bike fit.0
