Pedal Technique-Write up and examples

kevin69

Yesterday i concentrated on pedalling smoothly rather than 'hard', particularly on
scraping the foot across the bottom of third of the revolution rather than thinking of
pistoning my knees up and down.

Compared to usual, i felt that i was probably using less force at the 3 o'clock position,
but more at 5-7 o'clock. No power meter, so no objective power results.
Subjectively, i picked up a few pbs on strava and felt that i was getting more power
for a bit less effort.

As a one-off experiment, it was enough to persuade me to have a go at smoothing out
my pedalling over the next month or so.

BenderRodriguez

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

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... 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.

And of course, it is entirely possible that the rider variances in GE at higher intensities are directly influenced by the torque profile and how this influences the recruitment of muscle fibres. Also it could well be that there are gains to be had from attempting to 'improve' a rider's pedaling style. As I said a number of posts ago, more research is needed to give a definitive answer. As such it would seem to be very shortsighted to dismiss such possibilities out of hand, as some seem to do, often on the basis of some rather obviously flawed or less than relevant studies. Until that evidence materialises perhaps the wisest thing to do is to go by 'feel' and many on here have already said that they feel that their performance benefits from focusing on their pedaling style.

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

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.

I would certainly agree that doing 'pedaling drills' is probably a waste of time. Then again if one is doing a training session, there seems nothing to lose by having some degree of awareness of just how one is pushing the pedals round. My experience is that in some situations focusing on pedaling style can have quite an impact on just how fluid one's style is. One example is when climbing a long col at 70- 80 rpm. Another is when riding at threshold on the rollers when the difference in smoothness can be so pronounced that you can plainly hear it, with the pulsing sound produced by the tyres against the rollers being greatly reduced.

Alex_Simmons/RST

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Until that evidence materialises perhaps the wisest thing to do is to go by 'feel' and many on here have already said that they feel that their performance benefits from focusing on their pedaling style.

Yet when attempts at doing this have been actually measured, performance hasn't been shown to improve. Feel and actual can be quite different. I prefer to know the actual before assuming it's better. I'm not saying it can't be or isn't but it's a big conclusion to arrive at with little real data.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

there seems nothing to lose by having some degree of awareness of just how one is pushing the pedals round. My experience is that in some situations focusing on pedaling style can have quite an impact on just how fluid one's style is. One example is when climbing a long col at 70- 80 rpm. Another is when riding at threshold on the rollers when the difference in smoothness can be so pronounced that you can plainly hear it, with the pulsing sound produced by the tyres against the rollers being greatly reduced.

TBH, if you are thinking about how you are pedalling, you are not focussed on more important things. Pedalling should be almost sub-conscious.

As for rollers and hearing the smoothness and similar examples, again that might be nice, but is it more effective and/or does it mean improved performance?

And if that smooth sound is what you're after, it might be a bike fit issue rather than assume it requires a conscious pedalling change.

BenderRodriguez

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Yet when attempts at doing this have been actually measured, performance hasn't been shown to improve. Feel and actual can be quite different. I prefer to know the actual before assuming it's better. I'm not saying it can't be or isn't but it's a big conclusion to arrive at with little real data.

But most of those studies that have found no benefit from changes in pedaling style have measured 'performance' in a rather narrow way. For example, by testing riders at relatively low power outputs, whilst the study I cited suggests that changes in economy are only apparent when working close to theshold. Also, studies often assume that measurable changes will be apparent simply by telling a rider to change their pedaling style, when it seems likely that an extended period of adaptation would be needed to 'reprogramme' the way the muscles are fired and so forth. In short the evidence 'against' is hardly conclusively in favour of the assumption that pedaling technique 'doesn't matter'.

Something interesting certainly seems to be going on, what with the variations in the torque profile being associated with variations in GE, the way whether you are clipped to the pedals or not affects the activation of the muscles and so forth. It may be that the benefits to be had from modifying one's pedaling style are more related to some other aspect of performance that hasn't been measured by the studies so far conducted.

You say "I'm not saying it can't be or isn't but it's a big conclusion to arrive at with little real data". This is fair enough but this works both ways, and for some reason some seem to treat the suggestion that pedaling technique might be significant as a heresy to be silenced. I think that better studies are needed to understand what is actually going on here and until then everyone should remain open-minded.

Also, with regards to your point that "Feel and actual can be quite different'. Does that mean that you would recommend that a rider ignores what 'feels right' with regards other aspects of pedaling, such as the way riders tend to self-select their cadence, and instead pedal faster or slower than 'feels right'?

With cadence there are some good reasons why a certain cadence 'feels right' to a given rider, which has a lot to do with the preferential selection of slow-twitch muscle fibres. This is despite the fact that some studies could be interpreted as showing that lower cadences are more efficient. I think that the whole issue of pedaling style could be similar, in that the studies conducted so far could easily be leading us to make erroneous conclusions.

Tom Dean

BenderRodriguez wrote:

some seem to treat the suggestion that pedaling technique might be significant as a heresy to be silenced.

:roll: No, they are actively discussing it with you, page after page, thread after thread. Despite the fact there seems to be little evidence to support the idea.

I think that considering your argument seems to consist of shifting the burden of proof, and your attitude, condescending and playing the persecuted victim, your pet theory has been given more than a fair and patient hearing.

Absolute horseshit.

BenderRodriguez

Tom Dean wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

some seem to treat the suggestion that pedaling technique might be significant as a heresy to be silenced.

:roll: No, they are actively discussing it with you, page after page, thread after thread. Despite the fact there seems to be little evidence to support the idea.

I think that considering your argument seems to consist of shifting the burden of proof, and your attitude, condescending and playing the persecuted victim, your pet theory has been given more than a fair and patient hearing.

Absolute horseshit.

Thanks for that constructive addition to the debate. :roll:

In reality most of the points I have been trying to make have been ignored, or at best no effort has been made to provide alternative interpretations as to what is going on (least of all by you). Alex Simmons has at least made some effort to answer my points and whilst it seems clear that he firmly doubts that pedaling style is of any importance, strongly hedges his conclusions with phrases such as "it's entirely possible ", "it could well be" and "I'm not saying it can't be or isn't". I wonder if you will be attacking Alex Simmons as well for his failure to reject out of hand 'absolute horseshit''?

mamba80

In Matt Rendells book - the death of Marco Pantani - it suggests that at the beginning of his career (before the drugs....probably!) he under went extensive re training of his pedaling technique and positioning - pg61
Maybe a complete waste of time then ?

In my daughters running adventures, running style is analyised time and time again to reduce fatigue, hold form and hence run faster for longer) with the RSR's with BC good technique is always encouraged, shown and expected to be followed.

could not good style etc result in less fatique rather than an absolute gain in power? Bahzobs experiences are in the mountains rather than around Ilton, where i doubt it matters a jots.

BenderRodriguez

Tom Dean wrote:

your pet theory has been given more than a fair and patient hearing

What 'pet theory' exactly?

It seems to me that rather than pushing a 'pet theory' (in fact I have argued against a number of pet theories along the way, such as the idea that 'pulling up' on the pedaling stroke is important), what I done most is seek alternative interpretations of the studies I have cited / a better understanding of hat might actually be going on. I have also been fully open to the possibility that whilst pedaling styles might vary, this might be a reflection of a riders specific physiology and as such not amenable to 'improvement', even if certain styles are more economic than others. For example:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

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.

BenderRodriguez

mamba80 wrote:

could not good style etc result in less fatigue rather than an absolute gain in power?

That was exactly my thought too, and I think that a key factor here relates to differences in the way variations in pedaling style might subtly influence the way 'slow' versus 'fast' twitch fibres are recruited, just as cadence selection does.

It also seems perfectly logical to believe that there is an advantage to be had from having a highly coordinated pedaling style where the agonist and antagonist muscles work 'with' each other with maximum effectiveness.

Tom Dean

It is your 'heresy' comment that is horseshit. If I dismissed your ideas 'out of hand' I would hardly bother to engage with you would I?

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Thanks for that constructive addition to the debate. :roll:

My last post on the detail of your theory including direct questions to you, you have ignored. Then you claim some would like to silence you. So much for constructive debate...

I'll let Alex answer whether stating 'it's entirely possible' constitutes strongly hedging his position.

Alex_Simmons/RST

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Alex Simmons has at least made some effort to answer my points and whilst it seems clear that he firmly doubts that pedaling style is of any importance, strongly hedges his conclusions with phrases such as "it's entirely possible ", "it could well be" and "I'm not saying it can't be or isn't". I wonder if you will be attacking Alex Simmons as well for his failure to reject out of hand 'absolute horseshit''?

Well I am acknowledging that we can't dismiss stuff out of hand, but I'm also not see anything beyond some correlations, certainly not established causations that provide us with actionable intelligence for a sound training intervention that will lead to improved performance.

BenderRodriguez

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Well I am acknowledging that we can't dismiss stuff out of hand, but I'm also not see anything beyond some correlations, certainly not established causations that provide us with actionable intelligence for a sound training intervention that will lead to improved performance.

Fair enough. Out of interest, do you advise your riders to ignore what 'feels right' when selecting cadence?

imposter2.0

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Well I am acknowledging that we can't dismiss stuff out of hand, but I'm also not see anything beyond some correlations, certainly not established causations that provide us with actionable intelligence for a sound training intervention that will lead to improved performance.

Fair enough. Out of interest, do you advise your riders to ignore what 'feels right' when selecting cadence?

You're being silly now...

Alex_Simmons/RST

mamba80 wrote:

In Matt Rendells book - the death of Marco Pantani - it suggests that at the beginning of his career (before the drugs....probably!) he under went extensive re training of his pedaling technique and positioning - pg61
Maybe a complete waste of time then ?

Who knows? All we can say is it's just another third party anecdote and of little value.

Alex_Simmons/RST

BenderRodriguez wrote:

You say "I'm not saying it can't be or isn't but it's a big conclusion to arrive at with little real data". This is fair enough but this works both ways, and for some reason some seem to treat the suggestion that pedaling technique might be significant as a heresy to be silenced.

Where have I suggested it's heresy?

All I am saying is that some are drawing conclusions from the available data that just isn't there to draw. But it's worse than that. We are told we should employ a particular training intervention (even though it hasn't really be explained how to actually do it) which so far isn't supported by anything more than belief and a misunderstanding of the evidence we do have.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

I think that better studies are needed to understand what is actually going on here and until then everyone should remain open-minded.

Please don't pull the "open minded" fallacy out. I thought I covered that one with the video I linked earlier.

If a body of evidence supports a particular training intervention, I'm all ears. Otherwise it's just belief based practice. Until then it doesn't pass the BS detector.

ric/rstsport

mamba80 wrote:

In Matt Rendells book - the death of Marco Pantani - it suggests that at the beginning of his career (before the drugs....probably!) he under went extensive re training of his pedaling technique and positioning - pg61
Maybe a complete waste of time then ?

you'd be amazed (perhaps). A lot of pro teams are awful with the support they provide (it's non existent). A lot of what they do suggest is even worse than doing nothing.

In my daughters running adventures, running style is analyised time and time again to reduce fatigue, hold form and hence run faster for longer) with the RSR's with BC good technique is always encouraged, shown and expected to be followed.

could not good style etc result in less fatique rather than an absolute gain in power? Bahzobs experiences are in the mountains rather than around Ilton, where i doubt it matters a jots.

running and cycling are two completely different sports, that just happen to require the use of your legs. In cycling, you're constrained by the pedals in the sagittal plane, and this means that there is only small variations in pedalling style that are possible. Whereas, in running you're not constrained by anything, and thus someone like me (who never runs) could have my legs going 'all over the place' and this would have an affect on economy.

ric

Alex_Simmons/RST

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Out of interest, do you advise your riders to ignore what 'feels right' when selecting cadence?

?

You don't select cadence. Cadence is an outcome of your effort level, gear choice and resistance forces. You can choose to modify the first two, the third you don't have much control over, other than attempting to improve aero position on the bike while riding.

I tell them how hard to ride and for how long. They can choose whatever gear they prefer to get the job done.
Exceptions might be specific training for track work where it's a fixed gear scenario.

If we spot that they are clearly using an inappropriate gear (e.g. over geared for the climbing they do and their capability) then we'll look to make changes to available gearing, or if it might be worth experimenting with other gear choice options, then we will.

For example, I've done that with my world masters hour record setting clients when we look at what gear choice works best for them.

BenderRodriguez

Imposter wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Out of interest, do you advise your riders to ignore what 'feels right' when selecting cadence?

You're being silly now...

Not at all. Seeing Alex hasn't answered this one yet, I'll borrow from what Ric Stern said recently over on the TimeTrial forum:

in nearly all cases it's probably likely that a lower cadence is going to be more efficient than a higher cadence.

just ride at whatever cadence produces the best power for you.

i'm not saying that a high or low or normal cadence is good. there are however, reasons why people may choose certain cadences though

in general, self-selected cadence is usually best. however, it can be constrained by topography, gearing and physics.

OK, so when it comes to cadence it seems that Ric's advice is, whatever the studies show about a low cadence being more efficient in 'nearly all cases', there are grounds for pedaling at whatever rate 'feels right'.

Surely, couldn't a similar case be made for pedaling style, in that if you feel that you benefit from pedaling in a certain way, then that is probably the style you should perfect, whatever the studies conducted so far might suggest.

This might be were a lot of the 'controversy' comes from in that some riders, due to the own physiological make ups, find pedaling in a style that is 'fluid', 'circular', 'has a low ratio between peak and average torque' or whatever is beneficial. Others, again due to their own physiological make ups don't find this. (One such difference might well be the different ratio of 'slow' to 'fast' twitch muscle fibres.) Now, if a group study is done the average values measured would in all probability mask these differences, leading to the conclusion that pedaling style doesn't actually matter. The reality it might matter very much, but is dependent on the individual.

BenderRodriguez

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

You don't select cadence.

Your colleague seems to think otherwise.

in general, self-selected cadence is usually best. however, it can be constrained by topography, gearing and physics.

http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/ind ... 7366&st=30

mamba80

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

In Matt Rendells book - the death of Marco Pantani - it suggests that at the beginning of his career (before the drugs....probably!) he under went extensive re training of his pedaling technique and positioning - pg61
Maybe a complete waste of time then ?

Who knows? All we can say is it's just another third party anecdote and of little value.

anecdotal evidence can be very valuable, especially as there seems to be a lack of scientific studies in this area.
what i dont agree with though is Bahzobs/benders almost religeous zeal on this subject, what does it matter? 6 pages of meaningless opinions.

bernithebiker

mamba80 wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

In Matt Rendells book - the death of Marco Pantani - it suggests that at the beginning of his career (before the drugs....probably!) he under went extensive re training of his pedaling technique and positioning - pg61
Maybe a complete waste of time then ?

Who knows? All we can say is it's just another third party anecdote and of little value.

anecdotal evidence can be very valuable, especially as there seems to be a lack of scientific studies in this area.
what i dont agree with though is Bahzobs/benders almost religeous zeal on this subject, what does it matter? 6 pages of meaningless opinions.

Personally I have no problem with 6 pages of discussion; its a complex subject that doesn't have ONE corrct answer so it's understanable that it gets a bit drawn out, but if I can glean something from it, who cares?

What I don't get is Alex discarding cadence as almost inconsequential. There is a big difference in pedaling at 50 and 100 rpm, both in terms of muscle use, fatigue, style, etc. if I'm going for a KOM climb, cadence is a big consideration, usually as high as possible!

mamba80

I should re word that .... what i meant is that after 6 pages we are all no further forward, each position is en trenched, closed to further reasoning either way.

For me any slight gain is worth while to explore, whether its components, positioning, cadence or pedaling technique BUT obviously fitness mental/physical is the over riding factor.

ric/rstsport

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

You don't select cadence.

Your colleague seems to think otherwise.

in general, self-selected cadence is usually best. however, it can be constrained by topography, gearing and physics.

http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/ind ... 7366&st=30

not really, your cadence is dictated by the power, the resistance forces and your gearing.

BenderRodriguez

bernithebiker wrote:

What I don't get is Alex discarding cadence as almost inconsequential. There is a big difference in pedaling at 50 and 100 rpm, both in terms of muscle use, fatigue, style, etc.

I was even more taken aback by Alex's claim that "You don't select cadence. Cadence is an outcome of your effort level, gear choice and resistance forces". In my own experience, for any level of effort or resistance it is perfectly possible to select one's preferred cadence, generally by reaching for the gear lever! I had always thought that was why road bikes have more than one gear!

I guess this attempt at obscuration might just because Alex can see where all this is leading. That is, the scientific evidence shows that a lower cadence than that which 'feels right' is 'almost universally' more efficient, yet coaches such as Ric Stern tell people that the best thing to do is go by what cadence 'feels right', presumably because they feel there is some benefit to be had from doing so. Also, the evidence collected so far suggests that a time triallist would be as well served with a flat pedal as a 'clipless' set up, but despite this coaches don't seem to tell people that the benefits of using clipless pedals are 'all in their head' and they might as well save their cash and buy a cheap pair of flat pedals.

Similarly, the evidence that is available has so far failed to show that a focus on pedaling style has any measurable effect on power output, but against this many people clearly feel that they benefit from adopting a certain pedaling style. Now it could well be this this lack of proof one way or the other is down to poorly designed studies and so forth, and it would seem logical to follow the examples provided by cadence and using clipless pedals and say 'if it feels right' it probably is right. For some reason, there seems to be a reluctance to do so. This is despite all the caveats that I have put forward, including the possibility that whether a certain pedaling style 'works' for a given rider probably depends on their own individual physiology, their history and so forth. I would certainly not argue that there is only one 'right' way to pedal that applies to all riders, any more than I would argue that there is a single 'right' cadence.

Perhaps coaches just need to give everyone the impression that everyone apart from them is an ignorant fool who knows nothing about how to ride a bike. How else would they persuade people to spend huge sums on their services!

Tom Dean

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Ric Stein

Could the above be summed up as 'pedal in a way that feels right'?

BenderRodriguez

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

You don't select cadence.

Your colleague seems to think otherwise.

in general, self-selected cadence is usually best. however, it can be constrained by topography, gearing and physics.

http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/ind ... 7366&st=30

not really, your cadence is dictated by the power, the resistance forces and your gearing.

So when you talk of 'self selected cadence', you are talking nonsense?

And to think that I have always thought that I could select what cadence I wanted to ride in [edit: meaning the cadence that feels right to me] by means of reaching for the gear lever. God I must be dumb! Better get a coach!

imposter2.0

BenderRodriguez wrote:

I was even more taken aback by Alex's claim that "You don't select cadence. Cadence is an outcome of your effort level, gear choice and resistance forces". In my own experience, for any level of effort or resistance it is perfectly possible to select one's preferred cadence, generally by reaching for the gear lever! I had always thought that was why road bikes have more than one gear!

First you were being silly - now you're being obtuse. I suspect you know perfectly well what Alex meant. Unless you specifically insist on riding at a specific cadence number in a given situation, then of course you do not 'select' cadence consciously.

If you are now trying to 'score points' on semantics then it shows how weak your argument really is.

BenderRodriguez

Imposter wrote:

First you were being silly - now you're being obtuse. I suspect you know perfectly well what Alex meant. Unless you specifically insist on riding at a specific cadence number in a given situation, then of course you do not 'select' cadence consciously. If you are now trying to 'score points' on semantics then it shows how weak your argument really is.

It is not me who is being obtuse or trying to 'score points on semantics'. I am sure that when Ric Stern advises people to ride at their selected cadence, he means 'ride at whatever cadence feels right', 'not ride at 93 Rpm' or whatever. That is exactly what I mean by the term as well.

ric/rstsport

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

You don't select cadence.

Your colleague seems to think otherwise.

in general, self-selected cadence is usually best. however, it can be constrained by topography, gearing and physics.

http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/ind ... 7366&st=30

not really, your cadence is dictated by the power, the resistance forces and your gearing.

So when you talk of 'self selected cadence', you are talking nonsense?

And to think that I have always thought that I could select what cadence I wanted to ride in by means of reaching for the gear lever. God I must be dumb! Better get a coach!

i was talking of self selected cadence in relation to self selected power output. i've mentioned gearing above as has alex.

your cadence is a result of the power that you're riding at, the resistant forces that you must overcome (which is in part related to your velocity), and the gear that you're in. If all else stays the same your cadence can't alter. Or if your cadence alters then one of the other variables has to change (e.g. you pedal with more power to ride at a faster velocity).

Tom Dean

Tom Dean wrote:

Could the above be summed up as 'pedal in a way that feels right'?

Sorry I added this question after some other responses.

Well BenderRodriguez?