Pedal Technique-Write up and examples
Comments
-
Tom Dean wrote: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.
Well, whoever wrote that article wouldn't be the only one to think that 'efficient' pedaling means producing a torque profile akin to an electric motor, or come to that think that pedaling style is of no significance because they disagree with such a view of what constitutes efficiency.
On the other hand, there does seem to be something interesting going on in relation to how peak versus average torque on the down stroke, GE and the preferential recruitment of fast-twitch fibres might relate to one another."an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
These would be two opposing positions surely?BenderRodriguez wrote:Well, whoever wrote that article wouldn't be the only one to think that 'efficient' pedaling means producing a torque profile akin to an electric motor, or come to that think that pedaling style is of no significance because they disagree with such a view of what constitutes efficiency.
What do you mean 'on the other hand..'? that is what I was referring to. It looks like the figure-of-eight might lead to higher GE than the 'better' peanut on the examples given.BenderRodriguez wrote:On the other hand, there does seem to be something interesting going on in relation to how peak versus average torque on the down stroke, GE and the preferential recruitment of fast-twitch fibres might relate to one another.0 -
'In the example given', maybe. However, care should not be taken to conflate what the 'Powercranks' / Wattbike interpretation of what is mean by 'efficient' pedaling - with its focus on, as far as is possible, having an equal distribution of torque for the entire pedaling cycle- and what those studies I have cited indicate constitutes efficient pedaling. That is minimising the ratio between average and peak torque on the down stroke.Tom Dean wrote:It looks like the figure-of-eight might lead to higher GE than the 'better' peanut on the examples given."an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
BenderRodriguez wrote:'In the example given', maybe. However, care should not be taken to conflate what the 'Powercranks' / Wattbike interpretation of what is mean by 'efficient' pedaling - with its focus on, as far as is possible, having an equal distribution of torque for the entire pedaling cycle- and what those studies I have cited indicate constitutes efficient pedaling. That is minimising the ratio between average and peak torque on the down stroke.
I have always taken 'efficiency' to be a measure of input vs output of a system. The peak:average ratio approach seems to be more about smoothness than efficiency.0 -
GiantMike wrote:I have always taken 'efficiency' to be a measure of input vs output of a system. The peak:average ratio approach seems to be more about smoothness than efficiency.
That is not what the papers I keep on citing (the implications of which everyone pointedly keeps on ignoring) suggest...INFLUENCE OF PEDALING TECHNIQUE ON METABOLIC EFFICIENCY IN ELITE CYCLISTS.
Biol. Sport 2012;29:229-233
DOI: 10.5604/20831862.1003448
ABSTRACT:...at the LT, there was a significant correlation between GE and mean torque and evenness of torque distribution (r=0.65 and r=0.66, respectively; p < 0.05).Whole-body efficiency is negatively correlated with minimum torque per duty cycle in trained cyclists.
Journal of Sports Sciences 01/2009; 27(4):319-25.
DOI:10.1080/02640410802526916
ABSTRACT...The most notable results were as follows: gross efficiency (r = -0.72, P < 0.05 at 250 W) was inversely correlated with the ratio of minimum to peak torque, particularly at higher work rates. There was a highly significant inverse correlation between delta efficiency and average minimum torque at 200 W (r = -0.76, P < 0.01).
And in relation to the suggestion I made elsewhere that having an efficient pedaling style has a lot to do with having good muscle co-ordination.Muscle coordination is key to the power output and mechanical efficiency of limb movements
The Journal of Experimental Biology 213, 487-492
doi:10.1242/jeb.036236
The purpose of this study was to determine which features of muscle mechanics and muscle coordination affect the power output from a limb during locomotion. Eight subjects were tested while cycling at maximum exertion for 25min on a stationary dynamometer... maximum limb power occurs when some of the individual muscles cannot be generating maximum power output. Increases in EMG intensity occurred with no increase in power output from the limb: these corresponded to decreases in the efficiency and changes in coordination. Increases in power were achieved that were not matched by equivalent increases in EMG intensity, but did occur with changes in coordination. It is proposed that the power output from the limb is limited by the coordination pattern of the muscles rather than the maximum power output from any one muscle itself."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 am not conflating the two, I am pointing out that these two examples of 'good' pedalling are different. One seems to ignore the fundamental principle behind the other. Just a point of interest.BenderRodriguez wrote:
'In the example given', maybe. However, care should not be taken to conflate what the 'Powercranks' / Wattbike interpretation of what is mean by 'efficient' pedaling - with its focus on, as far as is possible, having an equal distribution of torque for the entire pedaling cycle- and what those studies I have cited indicate constitutes efficient pedaling.Tom Dean wrote:It looks like the figure-of-eight might lead to higher GE than the 'better' peanut on the examples given.
I do not dispute what the cited studies say, nor have I ignored them, obviously. Showing that lower ratio between average and peak in the downstroke leads to higher GE, however, is not the same as saying this is what constitutes efficient pedalling.
No, not 'that is...' Higher GE may be a result of the above.BenderRodriguez wrote:That is minimising the ratio between average and peak torque on the down stroke.
GiantMike's definition of efficiency is right. The study says that there is a correlation between peak:average and efficiency. I don't know what your point is here.BenderRodriguez wrote:GiantMike wrote:I have always taken 'efficiency' to be a measure of input vs output of a system. The peak:average ratio approach seems to be more about smoothness than efficiency.
That is not what the papers I keep on citing (the implications of which everyone pointedly keeps on ignoring) suggest...0 -
P.s. as a follow on from the above, surely the example of track riders, especially sprinters, reinforces the idea that there are gains to be made by developing a more coordinated pedaling style?
Generally, riders seem to select a cadence that balances bio-mechanical losses (which rise as the pedaling rate increases, largely because it becomes more difficult to keep all the muscles coordinated with one other as the cadence rises) with a the desire to preferentially recruit as high a proportion of slow-twitch fibers as is possible for the required power output. A lower cadence makes the most of the available oxygen, but there will come a point when the effort is perceived as being 'harder' due to the recruitment of ever-more fast twitch fibers, with a corresponding increase in blood lactate levels and so forth. Conversely, a higher cadence usually feels 'easier on the legs', but demands more oxygen for the same power output. For example see:
Now, the losses from a lack of a fully coordinated pedaling style tend to outweigh the benefits to be had from preferentially recruiting slow-twitch fibers at somewhere between 90 and 110 Rpm for most riders. Despite this, track sprinters routinely pedal at cadences above 160 Rpm. OK, so other factors come into play when sprinting, such as the need to be able to accelerate quickly, but the fact that sprinters can generate large amounts of power at such cadences suggest that their training has enable them to pedal at such rates with a high degree of efficiency.
If this principle works for sprinters, why not other riders? Surely, increasing the cadence that one can pedal at in a coordinated (and so economic) manner would allow a rider to recruit a higher proportion of slow-twitch fibers for a given level of effort, something that in itself would lead to a higher GE, with the added benefit of minimising the bio-mechanical losses due to a lack of coordination. To do this it seems likely that they would have to pedal more quickly than their usual rate at close to their threshold, rather than just spinning against minimal resistance.
Such a focus on efficient pedaling at a higher cadence would have the benefit of 'sparing' the more fatigue prone fast twitch fibers, and potentially reduce the level of micro-tears due to the lower torque values being generated. In fact Isn't this much the same approach adopted by the Epo and blood-doping crowd, such as Armstrong and Basso, who were noted for their adoption of a much higher than usual cadence whilst seemingly 'breathing through their skin'. Main difference was that with Epo and blood doping, there is actually little need to increase ones coordination and economy, as one will have such a large amount of aerobic 'headroom' that one can pedal at 110 Rpm plus up a mountain pass with little thought as to how bio-mechanically costly this might be."an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
Tom Dean wrote:Showing that [a] lower ratio between average and peak in the downstroke leads to higher GE, however, is not the same as saying this is what constitutes efficient pedalling.
Eh? But saying that minimising the ratio between peak and average torque on the down stroke constitutes 'efficient' pedaling is exactly what I have been arguing. (Given my various caveats about the relationship between a riders torque profile and their ratio of slow to fast muscle fibre type."an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
Low ratio between peak and average torque in the downstroke is not the definition of efficient pedalling. Maybe I'm being picky about the way you express it, but I think your comment to GiantMike suggests you have not understood what you have read in these studies.
I understand that they have shown an increase in GE and I do not dispute it.0 -
Who says sprinters pedal with a high degree of efficiency? And why would they need to?BenderRodriguez wrote:
Now, the losses from a lack of a fully coordinated pedaling style tend to outweigh the benefits to be had from preferentially recruiting slow-twitch fibers at somewhere between 90 and 110 Rpm for most riders. Despite this, track sprinters routinely pedal at cadences above 160 Rpm. OK, so other factors come into play when sprinting, such as the need to be able to accelerate quickly, but the fact that sprinters can generate large amounts of power at such cadences suggest that their training has enable them to pedal at such rates with a high degree of efficiency.
Maybe you missed the part in the linked article where it points out that GE decreases as cadence increases.0 -
Tom Dean wrote:Who says sprinters pedal with a high degree of efficiency? And why would they need to?
OK, they pedal with a high enough degree of efficiency so as to still be able to generate high power outputs, despite the very high cadences they pedal at and the fact that GE tend to decrease as cadence increases.
I am fully aware that GE tends to decrease as cadence increases, as I thought was obvious from my post. Question is, can appropriate training minimise the degree to which this happens? Given that sprinters can generate high power outputs at 160 Rpm plus, when those who have not specifically trained as sprinters can find that they 'run out of revs' at 40 rpm or more less that this, suggests that this is indeed possible. I have even seen posts on here from people who claim that they cannot pedal smoothly on rollers at over 110 Rpm, suggesting that their muscular coordination when pedaling is pretty poor. This is significant given that the paper I cited suggests that muscular coordination is an important contributor to GE."an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
BenderRodriguez wrote:Tom Dean wrote:Who says sprinters pedal with a high degree of efficiency? And why would they need to?
OK, they pedal with a high enough degree of efficiency so as to still be able to generate high power outputs, despite the very high cadences they pedal at and the fact that GE tend to decrease as cadence increases.
Track sprinters are probably not the best examples to use, to be fair - given that their training is geared almost exlusively towards putting out very high outputs at high cadences for a very limited amount of time - usually only a matter of seconds. I assumed we were originally talking about aerobic efforts, seeing as that is what the original article was linked to...0 -
Any level is high enough if GE has no effect on performance. As I understand it, it's irrelevant.BenderRodriguez wrote:Tom Dean wrote:Who says sprinters pedal with a high degree of efficiency? And why would they need to?
OK, they pedal with a high enough degree of efficiency so as to still be able to generate high power outputs, despite the very high cadences they pedal at and the fact that GE tend to decrease as cadence increases.
It doesn't suggest anything of the sort! Why are you assuming the difference between trained and untrained sprinters has anything to do with GE?BenderRodriguez wrote:I am fully aware that GE tends to decrease as cadence increases, as I thought was obvious from my post. Question is, can appropriate training minimise the degree to which this happens? Given that sprinters can generate high power outputs at 160 Rpm plus, when those who have not specifically trained as sprinters can find that they 'run out of revs' at 40 rpm or more less that this, suggests that this is indeed possible.0 -
Let alone the fact that the energy systems in dominant use, i.e. the phosphgen system and anaerobic glycolosis provide energy at a high rate / quickly but are very inefficient (aerobic metabolism is ~19 times more efficient in terms of energy released per unit of glycogen).Imposter wrote:BenderRodriguez wrote:Tom Dean wrote:Who says sprinters pedal with a high degree of efficiency? And why would they need to?
OK, they pedal with a high enough degree of efficiency so as to still be able to generate high power outputs, despite the very high cadences they pedal at and the fact that GE tend to decrease as cadence increases.
Track sprinters are probably not the best examples to use, to be fair - given that their training is geared almost exlusively towards putting out very high outputs at high cadences for a very limited amount of time - usually only a matter of seconds. I assumed we were originally talking about aerobic efforts, seeing as that is what the original article was linked to...0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:...the phosphgen system and anaerobic glycolosis provide energy at a high rate / quickly but are very inefficient (aerobic metabolism is ~19 times more efficient in terms of energy released per unit of glycogen).
OK, track sprinters do represent an extreme. However, the main point I was trying to make is that the ability to pedal in a coordinated manner is something that is 'trainable'. Hence some riders find themselves 'bouncing out of the saddle' at 110 Rpm, and yet sprinters can pedal in fluid manner at 160 Rpm plus. The research indicates that the higher metabolic cost of a higher cadence is largely due to the muscles not working in a coordinated matter as the cadence rises. Logically it would seem that improving one's muscle coordination at higher cadences would reduce these loses."an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
But all this says is that the more 'co-ordinated' (better technique) rider has higher GE, which is what the study you referred to suggests. what has cadence go to do with it?
If you could train to make a higher cadence more efficient for you, what would be the point?0 -
Tom Dean wrote:Who says sprinters pedal with a high degree of efficiency? And why would they need to?
It's obvious neither of you have trained for track sprinting nor understand the demands of the disciplines. Keirin and the Kilo, which are also sprint events demand much more then a "matter of seconds" of power output.Imposter wrote:Track sprinters are probably not the best examples to use, to be fair - given that their training is geared almost exlusively towards putting out very high outputs at high cadences for a very limited amount of time - usually only a matter of seconds....I’m a sprinter – I warmed up yesterday.0 -
Correct - but this does not imply that efficiency is a significant factor for performance in these events.0
-
Tom Dean wrote:But all this says is that the more 'co-ordinated' (better technique) rider has higher GE, which is what the study you referred to suggests. what has cadence go to do with it?
If you could train to make a higher cadence more efficient for you, what would be the point?
Given I have already covered these points you are clearly failing to read what I have posted, or are selectively reading what I have written with the sole aim of looking for something to argue against.
To repeat in case you are 'hard of understanding' or something. Cadence is significant as the higher the cadence the more difficult it appears to be to pedal in a coordinated manner, hence the increasing metabolic cost associated with a higher cadence.
As to why it might be advantageous to improve your coordination so that you can pedal at higher cadences whilst maintaining good economy. Doing this would enable a rider to recruit a higher percentage of slow-twitch fibres for a given level of effort, due to the reduced torque required, so 'sparing' the more fatigue-prone, fast twitch fibres for more intense efforts, reducing the level of micro muscle tears and in turn enhancing recovery and so forth. this is something that would probably be most beneficial in something like a stage race."an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
'hence'..? Has it been established that loss of co-ordination is the reason GE is seen to decrease at higher cadences? I don't think so.BenderRodriguez wrote:To repeat in case you are 'hard of understanding' or something. Cadence is significant as the higher the cadence the more difficult it appears to be to pedal in a coordinated manner, hence the increasing metabolic cost associated with a higher cadence.
If you look at the examples in the link you posted, the measure of efficiency seems to *decrease fairly linearly between cadences of 60-100rpm. If loss of technique were the cause of this, it would mean the riders showed best technique way below their normal self-selected range i.e. at 50-60rpm. I don't know if technique vs cadence has been studied, but this doesn't seem right to me. What's more, I think it highly unlikely that they would have trained themselves to do this.
We have two variables here; cadence and technique, which both seem to correlate with GE. You are connecting the two and assuming cause and effect where none has been shown.
*edited0 -
Tom Dean wrote:Has it been established that loss of co-ordination is the reason GE is seen to decrease at higher cadences? I don't think so.
There is certainly evidence indicating that it is a factor. As with this paper which I cited a few posts ago.Muscle coordination is key to the power output and mechanical efficiency of limb movements
The Journal of Experimental Biology 213, 487-492
doi:10.1242/jeb.036236
The purpose of this study was to determine which features of muscle mechanics and muscle coordination affect the power output from a limb during locomotion. Eight subjects were tested while cycling at maximum exertion for 25min on a stationary dynamometer... maximum limb power occurs when some of the individual muscles cannot be generating maximum power output. Increases in EMG intensity occurred with no increase in power output from the limb: these corresponded to decreases in the efficiency and changes in coordination. Increases in power were achieved that were not matched by equivalent increases in EMG intensity, but did occur with changes in coordination. It is proposed that the power output from the limb is limited by the coordination pattern of the muscles rather than the maximum power output from any one muscle itself.Tom Dean wrote:If you look at the examples in the link you posted, the measure of efficiency seems to *decrease fairly linearly between cadences of 60-100rpm. If loss of technique were the cause of this, it would mean the riders showed best technique way below their normal self-selected range i.e. at 50-60rpm.
As I said earlier, I fully accept that there are also other factors in play apart from the desire to minimise losses due to a lack of muscular coordination. Most significantly at low cadences with a high torque demand more fast-twitch muscle fibres are recruited, which contributes to the perception that the effort is 'hard', leads to more rapid fatigue and so forth. Also, as I have also already mentioned, the preferential selection of fast-twitch fibres has itself being associated with higher level of GE.
Given the above I am not saying that cadence, muscular coordination or the profile of the torque curve on the downstroke are the ultimate determinants of GE, rather it is the way these interact with other factors, such as the ratio of fast versus slow twitch fibres that are recruited for a given power output.Tom Dean wrote:We have two variables here; cadence and technique, which both seem to correlate with GE. You are connecting the two and assuming cause and effect where none has been shown.
See above. Anyhow, I would be interested to hear your interpretation of what might be happening here, making appropriate references to the studies I have cited, and any others you have read. From what I have seen so far your posts are largely confined to trying to pick holes in what others say without actually putting forward anything constructive yourself!
"an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
Mechanical efficiency and GE are not the same thing, so no, this is not evidence that it is a factor.BenderRodriguez wrote:Tom Dean wrote:Has it been established that loss of co-ordination is the reason GE is seen to decrease at higher cadences? I don't think so.
There is certainly evidence indicating that it is a factor. As with this paper which I cited a few posts ago.Muscle coordination is key to the power output and mechanical efficiency of limb movements…
but you don't seem to accept that there are other factors in play at the other end of the cadence scale. [edit -added] - you want to put the reduction in GE seen down to a single factor - technique. Even if the principle behind what you say is correct, what reason do we have to think that a self-selected cadence is lower than optimal?BenderRodriguez wrote:Tom Dean wrote:If you look at the examples in the link you posted, the measure of efficiency seems to *decrease fairly linearly between cadences of 60-100rpm. If loss of technique were the cause of this, it would mean the riders showed best technique way below their normal self-selected range i.e. at 50-60rpm.
As I said earlier, I fully accept that there are also other factors in play apart from the desire to minimise losses due to a lack of muscular coordination. Most significantly at low cadences with a high torque demand more fast-twitch muscle fibres are recruited, which contributes to the perception that the effort is 'hard', leads to more rapid fatigue and so forth. Also, as I have also already mentioned, the preferential selection of fast-twitch fibres has itself being associated with higher level of GE.
Is the relationship between cadence and muscle fibre-type recruitment also linear?
[added]This still doesn't explain the difference in GE between e.g. 80 and 100 rpm, which seems to be the basis of your theory, but where it's not clear there is a significant difference in technique.BenderRodriguez wrote:Given the above I am not saying that cadence, muscular coordination or the profile of the torque curve on the downstroke are the ultimate determinants of GE, rather it is the way these interact with other factors, such as the ratio of fast versus slow twitch fibres that are recruited for a given power output.
See above, you have not shown that there is any causal link between the two.BenderRodriguez wrote:Tom Dean wrote:We have two variables here; cadence and technique, which both seem to correlate with GE. You are connecting the two and assuming cause and effect where none has been shown.
See above. Anyhow, I would be interested to hear your interpretation of what might be happening here, making appropriate references to the studies I have cited, and any others you have read. From what I have seen so far your posts are largely confined to trying to pick holes in what others say without actually putting forward anything constructive yourself!
My interpretation of what is happening is
When you can put forward a flawless theory in a perfectly understandable way, then you can whinge about being asked questions about it. It wouldn't be very constructive of me to allow you to confuse e.g. mechanical efficiency and GE would it?Tom Dean wrote:We have two variables here; cadence and technique, which both seem to correlate with GE. You are connecting the two and assuming cause and effect where none has been shown. 0 -
Tom Dean wrote:When you can put forward a flawless theory in a perfectly understandable way, then you can whinge about being asked questions about it.
Does anyone have a flawless theory that provides the perfect answer?
No, I don't think anyone does, or if they do, they're keeping very quiet.
It's a bit of a grey area, where even the experts don't fully agree with each other, and also, because everyone's a bit different, thin, fat, good climber, sprinter, whatever, there is no one, fits all, perfect answer.
So there has to be a bit of supposition, theorizing and faith. And a dash of common sense; for example, have you ever tried riding your road bike with normal flat pedals (no clips)? I have and it feels totally weird, and terrible, like I'm missing 1/3 of my power. That tells me there is something in developing pedal technique, but exactly how much, I don't know.0 -
Not as much as you might think.bernithebiker wrote:And a dash of common sense; for example, have you ever tried riding your road bike with normal flat pedals (no clips)? I have and it feels totally weird, and terrible, like I'm missing 1/3 of my power. That tells me there is something in developing pedal technique, but exactly how much, I don't know.
I have seen MAP tests from riders on clip in and flat bed pedal with little difference in the outcome.
There is this study which reports no difference in GE between flat bed and using toe clips:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17852673
And this one which compared flat bed with clip in pedals (and clip in with force feeback info to riders could adjust their pedalling)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18418807
Outcomes reported:Consequently, shoe-pedal interface (PED vs. CLIP) did not significantly influence cycling technique during submaximal exercise. However, an active pulling-up action on the pedal during upstroke increased the pedalling effectiveness, while reducing net mechanical efficiency
Note that the term pedalling effectiveness is not really a measure of effectiveness in the sense that it would suggest an improvement in actual performance, but the term defined by the researchers to measure the difference in upstroke torque. There has been nothing to suggest that actually makes a cyclist more effective.0 -
I went for a bike fit earlier this week. I repeatedly have suffered from piriformis pain, cramping in the left calf whilst training and racing, and back ache on longer rides. I attributed this to an incorrect fit or someother bio-mechanical issue.
So lets get the bike fit out of the way; the bars were lowered 15mm to create a more race-like position and my cleats adjusted. That's it, for now.
Not much bike adjustment there! What else was leant.
Video evidence shows I rotate my left hip down in a twisting motion albeit a small one and with further tests it turns out my left glute muscles do not fire. Technical term; glute inhibition. Quite common in people who spend alot time sitting. That identified the cause of the hip rotation, the effect is the pain experienced. The consequence of this is a poor pedal stroke technique, rather than engage the biggest muscle in the leg; the glutes on the downstroke I am using my hamstrings instead.
What needs to change? Re-educate the electrical signals from my brain to the glutes, stretching, physio type exercises and a change to my pedal technique. Wipe that mat at the bottom of the pedal stroke and lift my heel towards my glutes on the upstroke, allow my ankle to pivot.
As the title of the post is called Pedal Technique - Write up and examples, I think I've fulfilled that.
At the end I was tempted to discuss whether the changes proposed would bring about an improvement in efficiency and power. I did not ask, as I concluded, how could it not.
Bike fit carried out by Ben Hallam at Bespoke.
http://www.bespokecycling.com/bike-fittingLive to ski
Ski to live0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Not as much as you might think.bernithebiker wrote:And a dash of common sense; for example, have you ever tried riding your road bike with normal flat pedals (no clips)? I have and it feels totally weird, and terrible, like I'm missing 1/3 of my power. That tells me there is something in developing pedal technique, but exactly how much, I don't know.
I have seen MAP tests from riders on clip in and flat bed pedal with little difference in the outcome.
So, when clients come to your for paid advice, do you follow your convictions and tell them not to bother with clipless pedals?
There certainly seems to be something to be gained from being firmly clipped to the pedals and I have never seen a photo of a high-level competitive road or track cyclist who didn't use toe clips or clipless pedals. In some situations, such as when sprinting out of the saddle, I think that the benefits they give are obvious, if only in terms of the way they ensure you can never become detached from the bike. Then again, one does see sprinters 'pulling their foot out' even with clip less pedals. I wonder how this could happen if cyclists never in reality 'pull up' in order to generate more power?
I would hazard to guess that the benefits to be had from using a 'clipless' pedal system are rather more subtle than the study you cited allows for. When riding without being clipped in I always get the sensation that I am having to stabilise my leg position in order to keep it in the 'right' position. If this is happening and extra muscle fibres are being fired off in order to keep the feet in a stable position, I wonder if this would lead to additional fatigue over a long period. The following study suggests that there are measurable differences in they way the muscles fire in a 'clipped in' versus 'unclipped' situation.Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol. 2001 Jun;41(4):247-52.
Electromyography in cycling: difference between clipless pedal and toe clip pedal.
Cruz CF, Bankoff AD.
The purpose of this study was to verify if there is electromyographic difference in biceps femoris (long portion), semitendinous, semimembranous and gastrocnemius (lateralis and medialis) muscles, using clipless pedal and toe clip pedal. Thirty seven triathletes answered a questionnaire about their preferred type of pedal, which showed that 5.4% used toe clip pedal and 94.6% used clipless pedal. Four male triathletes (age: 21.75 +/- 2.50 years old; cycling experience: 5.00 +/- 2.45 years; preferred cadence: 83.75 +/- 7.5 rpm) rode their own bicycles on a stationary roller at 100 rpm. The subjects performed one trial with each type of pedal. Bipolar surface electrodes placed on right lower limb picked up the EMG signal during 6 s. A band-pass filter (10-600 Hz) was used. Two muscles (semitendinous and semimembranous) presented lower activity with clipless pedal for all subjects. Biceps femoris and gastrocnemius lateralis presented lower activity with clipless pedal for three subjects. This led us to conclude that there is less electromyographic activity with the use of clipless pedal.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11441642"an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
Of course not.BenderRodriguez wrote:So, when clients come to your for paid advice, do you follow your convictions and tell them not to bother with clipless pedals?
All I was pointing out is that an inability to pull up is not a major inhibitor to our ability to generate sustainable power and that people way over estimate the amount of force involved on anything other than the down stroke.
Clip in pedals provide a number of advantages for the performance cyclist, but poor fit and cleat placement can cause trouble too.0 -
Anyway, where's Noel?0
-
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:All I was pointing out is that an inability to pull up is not a major inhibitor to our ability to generate sustainable power and that people way over estimate the amount of force involved on anything other than the down stroke.
I fully agree. Apart from the 'Powercrank' guy, I think this is pretty much universally accepted now.
More interestingly, what are your views on the studies I cited earlier showing that a higher GE is associated with having a lower ratio between peak and average torque on the downstroke? (Particularly, the study which found that those who applied a more sustained application of torque achieved GE values in excess of 22%, as opposed to those with what might be called a 'punchier' pedaling style, whose GE was nearer 19%.)INFLUENCE OF PEDALING TECHNIQUE ON METABOLIC EFFICIENCY IN ELITE CYCLISTS.
Biol. Sport 2012;29:229-233
DOI: 10.5604/20831862.1003448
Also, the possibility that developing better muscular coordination might well reduces the increase in the metabolic cost of pedaling at a higher cadence, and in turn facilitate the preferential recruitment of more 'slow' rather than 'fast' twitch fibres (due to the lower torque needed), so sparing the more fatigue-prone fast-twitch fibres for higher intensity efforts, potentially enhancing recovery and so forth."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 could find nothing in the study that would give an indication of the fibre type make-up of the riders, so it's entirely possible there is another explanation for inter rider variances in GE at higher intensities. Even a simple simple seated sprint/peak power test would have been quite helpful in that regard. Then we would have a reasonable idea of who is likely to be dominantly slow twitch and who has a good proportion of faster twitch muscle fibre.BenderRodriguez wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:All I was pointing out is that an inability to pull up is not a major inhibitor to our ability to generate sustainable power and that people way over estimate the amount of force involved on anything other than the down stroke.
I fully agree. Apart from the 'Powercrank' guy, I think this is pretty much universally accepted now.
More interestingly, what are your views on the studies I cited earlier showing that a higher GE is associated with having a lower ratio between peak and average torque on the downstroke? (Particularly, the study which found that those who applied a more sustained application of torque achieved GE values in excess of 22%, as opposed to those with what might be called a 'punchier' pedaling style, whose GE was nearer 19%.)INFLUENCE OF PEDALING TECHNIQUE ON METABOLIC EFFICIENCY IN ELITE CYCLISTS.
Biol. Sport 2012;29:229-233
DOI: 10.5604/20831862.1003448
Also, the possibility that developing better muscular coordination might well reduces the increase in the metabolic cost of pedaling at a higher cadence, and in turn facilitate the preferential recruitment of more 'slow' rather than 'fast' twitch fibres (due to the lower torque needed), so sparing the more fatigue-prone fast-twitch fibres for higher intensity efforts, potentially enhancing recovery and so forth.
Also, all it suggests is a correlation between EV and GE, not that it is something one would necessarily seek to alter to improve performance. If that is the natural style of a rider, then it could well be that attempting to alter it makes thing worse.
The other thing that it seems to suggest is that the way to develop "technique" is simply to ride at high power levels, i.e. place a power demand on the body with sufficient frequency that it will adapt to meet that demand by recruiting the muscles required.0
