Pedal Technique-Write up and examples

BenderRodriguez

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

i was talking of self selected cadence in relation to self selected power output.

So as to put an end to all this 'sematic' banter / obscuration. How about adopting a term used Alex earlier, concluding that riders have 'a preferred cadence range' and self-select the gears they use in order to remain in that range. What's more, they do this despite the fact that, as you have put it, 'in nearly all cases it's probably likely that a lower cadence is going to be more efficient than a higher cadence'?

BenderRodriguez

Tom Dean wrote:

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

I might well be tempted to say that. What I don't understand is why, for example, when it comes to cadence and riding with clipless pedals, professional coaches appear to believe that it is a good idea to do 'what feels right' even if there is no scientific evidence supporting this, or even evidence to the contrary. However, they seems to be strongly opposed to the idea that it is a good idea to develop a pedaling style that 'feels right' for the individual, even though there is no conclusive evidence to show it is actually a waste of time.

ric/rstsport

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

i was talking of self selected cadence in relation to self selected power output.

So as to put an end to all this 'sematic' banter / obscuration. How about adopting a term used Alex earlier, concluding that riders have 'a preferred cadence range' and self-select the gears they use in order to remain in that range. What's more, they do this despite the fact that, as you have put it, 'in nearly all cases it's probably likely that a lower cadence is going to be more efficient than a higher cadence'?

not sure what the latter has to do with the former? a lower cadence is likely to be more efficient than a higher cadence

imposter2.0

BenderRodriguez wrote:

I might well be tempted to say that. What I don't understand is why, for example, when it comes to cadence and riding with clipless pedals, professional coaches appear to believe that it is a good idea to do 'what feels right' even if there is no scientific evidence supporting this, or even evidence to the contrary.

Maybe we should all be pedalling in a way that 'feels wrong' instead ??

BenderRodriguez wrote:

However, they seems to be strongly opposed to the idea that it is a good idea to develop a pedaling style that 'feels right' for the individual, even though there is no conclusive evidence to show it is actually a waste of time.

I'm pretty sure nobody has ever expressed any such opposition on here.

BenderRodriguez

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

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.

Would it not be best then to conclude that any gain in economy to be had from an efficient pedaling style is likely to be less than those to be had from a good running style, not that there are no gains to be had at all?

Also, what do you think might account for the correlations found in those studies that I cited earlier? Just to remind you of the ones I mean:

INFLUENCE OF PEDALING TECHNIQUE ON METABOLIC EFFICIENCY IN ELITE CYCLISTS

Biol. Sport 2012;29:229-233
DOI: 10.5604/20831862.1003448

… at the LT, there was a significant correlation between GE and mean torque and evenness of torque distribution

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

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.

ric/rstsport

hasn't alex been all over this with you before?

BenderRodriguez

Imposter wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

However, they seems to be strongly opposed to the idea that it is a good idea to develop a pedaling style that 'feels right' for the individual, even though there is no conclusive evidence to show it is actually a waste of time.

I'm pretty sure nobody has ever expressed any such opposition on here.

Er...

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

TBH, if you are thinking about how you are pedalling, you are not focussed on more important things.

BenderRodriguez

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

hasn't alex been all over this with you before?

Er, no. he did say of the first study:

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.

That was specifically targeted at my suggestion that fibre types played a role in what was going on.

What I would like is some insight into exactly what that 'other explanation' might be for the correlation between GE and the ratio of peak to average torque that was found. I am sure it must be a pretty convincing explanation for Alex to have been so reluctant to accept that the variation in GE might just be due to the variation in the torque patterns themselves, or factors directly related to this, such as the type of fibres being recruited.

imposter2.0

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Imposter wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

However, they seems to be strongly opposed to the idea that it is a good idea to develop a pedaling style that 'feels right' for the individual, even though there is no conclusive evidence to show it is actually a waste of time.

I'm pretty sure nobody has ever expressed any such opposition on here.

Er...

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

TBH, if you are thinking about how you are pedalling, you are not focussed on more important things.

Er..

As a matter of interest, are you the reincarnation of 'Trev the Rev' ??

BenderRodriguez

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

How about adopting a term used Alex earlier, concluding that riders have 'a preferred cadence range' and self-select the gears they use in order to remain in that range. What's more, they do this despite the fact that, as you have put it, 'in nearly all cases it's probably likely that a lower cadence is going to be more efficient than a higher cadence'?

not sure what the latter has to do with the former? a lower cadence is likely to be more efficient than a higher cadence

See the post just above this one of yours.

To recap. With cadence, it appears that there are benefits to be had from riding at a higher 'preferred' cadence range than, strictly speaking, that which is maximally efficient. (I would argue that the type of fibres being recruited is a significant factor here).

Similarly, when it comes to an individual's 'preferred' pedaling style, it may well be that there are benefits to be had from riding in such a manner, even if there is a lack of evidence showing that it results in an increase in sustainable power, let alone evidence that it is actually less efficient.

Same thing with clipless pedals. The studies so far conducted might show no gain in sustainable power, but this doesn't mean that they don't offer significant advantages, perhaps in terms of long-term fatigue, increased GE due to a reduced need to stabilise the leg position or whatever.

In a nutshell, laboratory measures of a rider's sustainable power probably only tell a part of the story!

BenderRodriguez

Imposter wrote:

As a matter of interest, are you the reincarnation of 'Trev the Rev' ??

No. Neither am I bahzob.

I am genuinely interested in understanding what is going on in those studies I cited though!

Tom Dean

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

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

I might well be tempted to say that. What I don't understand is why, for example, when it comes to cadence and riding with clipless pedals, professional coaches appear to believe that it is a good idea to do 'what feels right' even if there is no scientific evidence supporting this, or even evidence to the contrary. However, they seems to be strongly opposed to the idea that it is a good idea to develop a pedaling style that 'feels right' for the individual, even though there is no conclusive evidence to show it is actually a waste of time.

Because a pedalling style that feels right is what comes naturally, it doesn't need to be developed.

colinsmith123

[/quote]Because a pedalling style that feels right is what comes naturally, it doesn't need to be developed.[/quote]

I disagree. I thought my pedalling style was fine, turns out I don't use the largest muscle in my legs. Why would I not want to develop a pedalling technique to utilise this? Read my post earlier.

Tom Dean

colinsmith123 wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

Because a pedalling style that feels right is what comes naturally, it doesn't need to be developed.

I disagree. I thought my pedalling style was fine, turns out I don't use the largest muscle in my legs. Why would I not want to develop a pedalling technique to utilise this? Read my post earlier.

Exactly, you did what felt right. I don't want to comment on what you were told at your bike fit, but surely it's too soon to judge the quality of that advice.

BenderRodriguez

Of course, it is quite possible that what we should all be doing is taking more note of the currently available evidence and what the professional coaches say. We should also stop looking to what the pros do or look like. [After all "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."] Perhaps most of all, we should swap our clipless pedals for flat ones and take to mashing the cranks around with no thought to fluidity or technique at the lowest possible Rpm possible. After all, that is what the evidence indicates is the right thing to do, at least if our aim is to maximise our sustainable power outputs.

Alex_Simmons/RST

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Of course, it is quite possible that what we should all be doing is taking more note of the currently available evidence and what the professional coaches say. We should also stop looking to what the pros do or look like. [After all "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."] Perhaps most of all, we should swap our clipless pedals for flat ones and take to mashing the cranks around with no thought to fluidity or technique at the lowest possible Rpm possible. After all, that is what the evidence indicates is the right thing to do, at least if our aim is to maximise our sustainable power outputs.

Strawmen abound.

Alex_Simmons/RST

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

i was talking of self selected cadence in relation to self selected power output.

So as to put an end to all this 'sematic' banter / obscuration. How about adopting a term used Alex earlier, concluding that riders have 'a preferred cadence range' and self-select the gears they use in order to remain in that range. What's more, they do this despite the fact that, as you have put it, 'in nearly all cases it's probably likely that a lower cadence is going to be more efficient than a higher cadence'?

Well increasing economy or efficiency isn't typically the objective in bike racing, it's winning (or performing better).

And one important way we do that is through training to sustain higher power for longer. Personally I don't give a toss if I am less efficient, if I can sustain a higher power for the durations that matter to my events. Auto analogies are often bad ones, by does a drag car driver care about fuel economy? However a car that has a limited energy supply might, e.g solar power vehicles. So chasing efficiency as an end in itself is not an objective unless your goal event is going to be a function of your efficiency.

Fortunately though, as we develop as athletes and get fitter, efficiency likely improves a little along the way, but we are talking incrementally and over many years. By and large, efficiency is an inherit physiological characteristic and most club level racers are no more or less efficient on average that professional bike riders.

Alex_Simmons/RST

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. if I'm going for a KOM climb, cadence is a big consideration, usually as high as possible!

But I have not said that, indeed in a recent post I made it clear that gearing choice matters:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

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.

We use the term cadence as it's convenient and easy to measure and express to others, but when out riding your bike, the only things you really have a choice over are gear and effort. Try "choosing" a different cadence without first making a choice to change power/effort or gear (or both). You can't. Cadence is the outcome of those choices, not the other way round.

The only place it's possible to alter cadence without a change in power or gear is on an ergometer that controls the resistance load independent of crank or wheel speed. This for example is possible on a Computrainer in ERG and %of FTP modes (within wheel speed limits).

kevin69

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

We use the term cadence as it's convenient and easy to measure and express to others, but when out riding your bike, the only things you really have a choice over are gear and effort. Try "choosing" a different cadence without first making a choice to change power/effort or gear (or both). You can't. Cadence is the outcome of those choices, not the other way round.

Mechanically, cadence is a result of power and gear choices,
but my mental process is much more along the lines of
'My cadence is getting too low, i'll change down a gear.' or
'my legs can't go any faster, i'll change up a gear.'

So for me, gearing is a result of power and cadence choices (until i run out of gears),
rather than cadence being the result of gearing and power choices.

On the topic of self-selection (gearing, bike-fit, cadence, pedaling technique) we only self-select from things
we have tried. When i started cycling, i never really pedaled above 80rpm. After reading a bit and watching other people i tried higher cadences and came to prefer them.

Similarly, if you've only ever tried one pedaling technique then thats the one you'll use.
If you try a few, then you may find that you prefer one over the others.
If so, then for some people then the one they prefer won't be the first one they tried,
and for these people trying different techniques is worthwhile.

Similarly, i see plenty of commuter cyclists with self-selected bike fits that are (imho) pretty awful.
Those people are happy with them though, probably because they have never tried anything else.

Alex_Simmons/RST

I don't follow the analogy. Pedalling technique is evolutionary, a bike fit is static until you make a change to the equipment. It doesn't evolve on its own.

I'm sure if you placed sufficient power demands on yourself, the cadences you'd have ended up riding at would increase. Half a dozen crits and some solid interval work would soon sort that out.

Otherwise, if you are riding for exercise/enjoyment and not training for race specific performance improvement, then whether you ride at 80rpm or 100rpm really doesn't matter much. What matters is cycling and enjoying it.

But certainly I agree that getting a good bike fit is very important, and I've said that ad nauseum in these discussions. Indeed getting the bike fit right will more than likely sort out most pedalling technique problems.

kevin69

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

I don't follow the analogy. Pedalling technique is evolutionary, a bike fit is static until you make a change to the equipment. It doesn't evolve on its own.

I agree that pedaling technique is usually evolutionary, and from an initial technique will evolve over time
towards a local optimum. This local optimum may not be the global optimum. It it isn't, then the only way for you
to find the global optimum technique will be to make some large change to how you pedal, let that evolve
to a new local optimum, and then see how that compares with your old technique.

You might have to get worse before you get better, and smooth, continuous improvement may not get
you to a global optimum if you start from the wrong place.

Alex_Simmons/RST

kevin69 wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

I don't follow the analogy. Pedalling technique is evolutionary, a bike fit is static until you make a change to the equipment. It doesn't evolve on its own.

I agree that pedaling technique is usually evolutionary, and from an initial technique will evolve over time
towards a local optimum. This local optimum may not be the global optimum. It it isn't, then the only way for you
to find the global optimum technique will be to make some large change to how you pedal, let that evolve
to a new local optimum, and then see how that compares with your old technique.

You might have to get worse before you get better, and smooth, continuous improvement may not get
you to a global optimum if you start from the wrong place.

Which makes some rather bold assumptions that:
- one knows what the global optimum actually is (which has not been established by a long shot), and
- that the local optimum (whatever that is) is not a global optimum, and
- there is only one global optimum (when there may well be many),

let alone how one actually goes about making the change in practical training terms, assuming you can determine what the change needed actually is.

kevin69

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

kevin69 wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

I don't follow the analogy. Pedalling technique is evolutionary, a bike fit is static until you make a change to the equipment. It doesn't evolve on its own.

I agree that pedaling technique is usually evolutionary, and from an initial technique will evolve over time
towards a local optimum. This local optimum may not be the global optimum. It it isn't, then the only way for you
to find the global optimum technique will be to make some large change to how you pedal, let that evolve
to a new local optimum, and then see how that compares with your old technique.

You might have to get worse before you get better, and smooth, continuous improvement may not get
you to a global optimum if you start from the wrong place.

Which makes some rather bold assumptions that:
- one knows what the global optimum actually is (which has not been established by a long shot), and
- that the local optimum (whatever that is) is not a global optimum, and
- there is only one global optimum (when there may well be many),

let alone how one actually goes about making the change in practical training terms, assuming you can determine what the change needed actually is.

I don't think its very bold to assume that a local optimum is not a global one.
My local hill is unlikely to be the highest in the world.

If there are several global optima, then any one will do me.

I think its very unlikely you'll ever know if you are doing anything optimally.

Practically, if you try small changes what you do you'll either get better or worse.
At some point, you'll stop getting better and plateau instead.
If you want to improve beyond this then i think you'll need to try a bigger (non-evolutionary) change so that
you can then evolve towards a different local optimum.

The great advantage that amateurs have over professionals (and perhaps coaches?) is that we can
afford to experiment, try different things, and pursue the interventions that work for us
without knowing in advance that our interventions will work.

BenderRodriguez

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Of course, it is quite possible that what we should all be doing is taking more note of the currently available evidence and what the professional coaches say. We should also stop looking to what the pros do or look like. [After all "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."] Perhaps most of all, we should swap our clipless pedals for flat ones and take to mashing the cranks around with no thought to fluidity or technique at the lowest possible Rpm possible. After all, that is what the evidence indicates is the right thing to do, at least if our aim is to maximise our sustainable power outputs.

Strawmen abound.

More reductio ad absurdum than strawman.

BenderRodriguez

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

increasing economy or efficiency isn't typically the objective in bike racing, it's winning (or performing better).

But this ignores the possibility that being able to perform at a higher level is at least partly dependent on a rider's economy. This is certainly the case for running and whilst the dynamics of economy might be more constrained when cycling, there are studies showing that elite cyclists with better economy than average can be competitive against rider of a much higher VO2 max who have a lower economy. For example:

Inverse relationship between VO2max and economy/efficiency in world-class cyclists

MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE
DO1:10.1249/01.MSS.0000039306.92778.DF

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Auto analogies are often bad ones, by does a drag car driver care about fuel economy?

Yes, that is a particularly bad analogy, unless you perhaps believe that what applies to a track sprinter with regards economy applies equally to a stage race rider. 'Does a F1 driver care about fuel economy?' would be slightly better.

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Fortunately though, as we develop as athletes and get fitter, efficiency likely improves a little along the way, but we are talking incrementally and over many years. By and large, efficiency is an inherit physiological characteristic and most club level racers are no more or less efficient on average that professional bike riders.

I would certainly agree that once has has been riding for a few years, any gains in efficiency are likely to be slight and occur over a long time frame. However, do you have any solid evidence to back up your assertion that "By and large, efficiency is an inherit physiological characteristic", or is it effectively a declaration of faith? Is it not possible that the habits picked up in the first years of training, good or bad, efficient or inefficient, tend to become engrained and resistant to modification?

Also, your statement that 'most club level racers are no more or less efficient on average that professional bike riders' hides a very important point. That is there are large differences between individuals in terms of their economy, irrespective of whether they are pros or club riders. You seem to think that the causes of these differences are hardly worthy of investigation or write them off as being irrelevant as they are entirely due to 'inheritance'. Without being shown proof that economy in relation to pedaling style cannot be improve, I personally think it would be more productive to keep an open mind until what is going on with regards economy is more fully understood.

Of course, if you have such proof I would be interested to read it, but would say that the currently available studies are far from conclusive, usually having some rather obvious design flaws.

BenderRodriguez

Still waiting for your response to this post:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Would it not be best then to conclude that any gain in economy to be had from an efficient pedaling style is likely to be less than those to be had from a good running style, not that there are no gains to be had at all?

Also, what do you think might account for the correlations found in those studies that I cited earlier? Just to remind you of the ones I mean:

INFLUENCE OF PEDALING TECHNIQUE ON METABOLIC EFFICIENCY IN ELITE CYCLISTS

Biol. Sport 2012;29:229-233
DOI: 10.5604/20831862.1003448

… at the LT, there was a significant correlation between GE and mean torque and evenness of torque distribution

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

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.

ric/rstsport

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Inverse relationship between VO2max and economy/efficiency in world-class cyclists

MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE
DO1:10.1249/01.MSS.0000039306.92778.DF

FYI i would place zero relevance around this paper...

BenderRodriguez

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Inverse relationship between VO2max and economy/efficiency in world-class cyclists

MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE
DO1:10.1249/01.MSS.0000039306.92778.DF

FYI i would place zero relevance around this paper...

Your reasoning being?

And the two papers I actually asked an opinion on?

ric/rstsport

1) if you can't work it out, there isn't much of a conversation to have

2) dunno. it's hard to keep up when you post so much. this is cutting into my training time.

and, i haven't seen anything to support the need to pedal in a certain style, to make things more optimal. you'll get and have gotten a more in depth answer from alex than me on this.

BenderRodriguez

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

1) if you can't work it out, there isn't much of a conversation to have

2) dunno. it's hard to keep up when you post so much. this is cutting into my training time.

dunno.

Evasive, but at least you have given an honest reply.

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

you'll get and have gotten a more in depth answer from alex than me on this.

Sorry, that was originally directed at Alex. I still await his response.