Pedal Technique-Write up and examples

BenderRodriguez

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Which makes some rather bold assumptions... let alone how one actually goes about making the change in practical training terms, assuming you can determine what the change needed actually is.

Perhaps the issue here is that professional coaches, who are in the business of selling their services, naturally tend to focus on what they, and the science, appears to understand reasonably well and dismiss everything else as being irrelevant.

Bottom line is that riders do show large differences in their economy. However, the reason for this is ill-understood. As they can't sell a program based on such incomplete knowledge, it is easier for coaches to believe that economy and so forth are simply due to 'inheritance' and then get on with selling something they understand, or at least think they understand better.

My hunch is that economy is to some degree 'inherited', and with regards pedaling style some riders are just lucky enough to have a more efficient style than others. Over countless thousands of miles of cycling these pedaling habits, good or bad, become engrained and so it is unlikely that without extensive 'reprogramming' an inefficient pedaling style could be changed into a more efficient one. Certainly, asking some to pedal in different way to that they are used to as part of a study, and expecting to be able to see an immediate change is hopelessly naive, even if this is exactly what many studies do.

That said, I think that it is entirely possible that over time the mechanics and biology of cycling efficient will become more fully understood, and I feel that those two papers that I cited might help to point the way. Thus one day it might well be possible to take riders who are new to the sport and help them to ensure that the pedaling habits they develop are the most efficient possible.

In the meantime, as is the case with cadence and the use of clipless pedals, it is probably best to not get to hung up on what the as-yet incomplete science suggests, and do what 'feels right'.

imposter2.0

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Perhaps the issue here is that professional coaches, who are in the business of selling their services, naturally tend to focus on what they, and the science, appears to understand reasonably well and dismiss everything else as being irrelevant.

news just in - "sports scientist adopts scientific approach, while remaining open-minded on anecdote and conjecture"

Did it really take eight pages for you to reach that conclusion?

Alex_Simmons/RST

As a coach I need to provide sound practical advice to clients about their training, and in a manner that leads to improved performance.

So far on this thread:
- we have not received any evidence to guide us on what better pedalling actually means (we are getting lots of speculation and belief-based thinking though),
- nor any information on how one would practically assess it (aside from misinterpretations of charts from an ergobike),
- nor guidance on what training intervention one should do in order to attain this unexplained objective.

And worse, nothing to demonstrate if any of this actually leads to improved performance, which is not surprising since no-one has been able to demonstrate what better pedalling actually means.

in the meantime, I'll keep focussing on helping riders improve their power output over durations of relevance, and other elements of performance that matter for their particular development needs and goals, while keeping abreast of information of value that can provide actionable intelligence to help people become better bike riders/racers.

YMMV

Alex_Simmons/RST

BenderRodriguez wrote:

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.

Well perhaps, although they way it was quoted I read it as implying that's what I have said people should do, which would make it a strawman.

Alex_Simmons/RST

kevin69 wrote:

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.

Perhaps, but with n=1 and a typical lack of controls and natural biases, it's also likely that correlation will be confused with causation and one can incorrectly attribute the real reason(s) for a change (or indeed if the change is real or perceived).

Alex_Simmons/RST

BenderRodriguez wrote:

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.

1. Cycling is not running.

2. Sustainable aerobic power is a function of efficiency, VO2max and the % of VO2max one can sustain at threshold, so that's hardly a surprise, and TBH, is pretty basic stuff and not new.

3. What longitudinal data is available shows there can be movement in efficiency over a longish time frame, but it's not something that moves a great deal, and importantly, the most influential correlation to changing efficiency is the intensity and duration of training (now, where have I mentioned that before?).

http://www.academia.edu/1758369/The_Eff ... Efficiency

Recently, the use of longitudinal study designs is providing growing evidence for the possibility of increasing cycling efficiency via training. Specifcally, this research has demonstrated that effciency can be improved over the course of one, or multiple cycling seasons. In these studies, the increases in cycling effciency were signifcantly correlated with the volume and intensity of training completed. Moreover, subsequent research has further suggested that high intensity training might provide the most potent stimulus for improving cycling effciency.

Interestingly, although this high intensity training approach improves cycling effciency, it does not cause a change in
VO2max in trained cyclists. Indeed, an inverse relationship between cycling effciency and VO2max appears to exist. Cyclists with a high VO2max seem to be less responsive to training related changes in cycling effciency than those with a lower VO2max.

Even though the studies outlined above have demonstrated that gross efficiency can increase as a result of training, it is still unclear whether such chronic changes will actually impact on performance.

So, based on the sound information we have, the very best means to improve performance, efficiency and power output is to include hard work in your training diet, and to ride more. Oh, and make sure you have a good bike fit.

Alex_Simmons/RST

BenderRodriguez wrote:

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.
<snip>
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.

How about this one?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15241718

BenderRodriguez

Imposter wrote:

news just in - "sports scientist adopts scientific approach, while remaining open-minded on anecdote and conjecture"

Rejecting something out of hand on the basis of incomplete knowledge and poorly conducted studies is not very 'scientific' in my book!

ric/rstsport

was just going to post that last reference. but had more fun, kicking the cr@p out of myself in some sicko intervals. now, where's the bucket cos i feel quite vomitty

BenderRodriguez

Alex, in the interests doing justice to the scientific approach by considering all the available evidence, I would still like to hear your views on these studies.

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.

Tom Dean

BenderRodriguez wrote:

In the meantime, as is the case with cadence and the use of clipless pedals, it is probably best to not get to hung up on what the as-yet incomplete science suggests, and do what 'feels right'.

In other words, until the science suggests there is some way to improve performance through technique, we can assume it is irrelevant.

BenderRodriguez

Tom Dean wrote:

until the science suggests there is some way to improve performance through technique, we can assume it is irrelevant.

I know that it is fashionable these days to rate all research purely on its potential practical (i.e. economic) value, but research 'for its own sake' is often that which leads to the real breakthroughs in understanding. Similarly, what you say is in one sense true, but on the other hand there is clearly much we don't know about human performance, so to reject something as being irrelevant simply because it is not yet possible to design a training program around it does seem a little short sighted.

I would agree that the degree to which pedaling technique can be modified is unknown, especially if one's current technique has been established for a long period. However, a more fundamental question that needs to be definitively answered first is whether or not different pedaling techniques do actually have an influence on performance. Those studies I have cited have found a correlation between the torque profile when pedaling and GE. This suggests that such a link might well exist, at least for near-threshold efforts. This is an interesting finding that I feel deserves further explanation, even if some 'experts' in the field would prefer to ignore the findings, or avoid discussing what my be going on by simply saying that they 'dunno' what their implications are.

Tom Dean

No problem with research for its own sake, but we come on here to discuss training. None of what you have cited has been shown to have any practical implications for training. There is no useful action a cyclist can take based on these studies. This is what I mean when I say it is irrelevant.

imposter2.0

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Imposter wrote:

news just in - "sports scientist adopts scientific approach, while remaining open-minded on anecdote and conjecture"

Rejecting something out of hand on the basis of incomplete knowledge and poorly conducted studies is not very 'scientific' in my book!

If by 'rejecting out of hand' you actually mean 'awaiting a body of reviewed evidence' then you are absolutely bang on. Unfortunately, I suspect that is not what you mean. In which case, carry on desperately clutching at straws to save face.

ric/rstsport

i was saying i "dunno" in relation to what happened to me answering your query. not what the implications of such research was.

pedalling biomechanics isn't a specific area that i personally am much involved in - my main areas of interest lie in the field of physiology, psychology of sport, coaching and training. however, one of the RST coaches is working in a related field (hello Xavier).

however, i am aware of what happens in these areas by looking at research from e.g. Jim Martin or Jeffrey Broker, etc. and having had useful talks with others such as Andy Coggan.

I've also followed with interest, research centred around independent clutch controlled cranks that force you to pedals in 'circles'. research hasn't borne these out to be of much use ;-)

Some of the earlier work by Coyle et al 1991, showed that those who stomped down more and pulled up less were more efficient, and produced higher average power. These data were measured with force detecting pedal sensors.

as the author of one of those studies (you mention) is a friend (hello Linds) who i've known a reasonable amount of time, i suspect that his research shows again that non circular pedalling is more efficient. admittedly, i've not read Lindsay's paper (oops!) but as that's what his preliminary or previous research showed that's what i'm *guessing* this paper shows (i'm just trying to get hold of a copy of the paper)

having worked/working with riders on national squads such as GB, and Australia who lead the way in NGB coaching i'm also aware of what these nations do or don't do in terms of pedalling (answer = nothing in terms of pedalling technique). I'd imagine that these nations want to get the most out of their riders as possible, and if they're thinking this is a dead end (so to speak) and the evidence suggests the same...

of course we could be barking up the wrong tree and there could be something we're missing, but nothing is pointing that way so far. so, i prefer to give my athletes something that i know they'll get a return on (i.e., fitness training, aerodynamics, psychology, etc)

bernithebiker

Tom Dean wrote:

There is no useful action a cyclist can take based on these studies. This is what I mean when I say it is irrelevant.

Could said cyclist not try different pedaling techniques and see what the results are?

eg. go from low cadence, power stroke intensive style to ;

a higher cadence, more circular style? Or a mixture of the two?

According to the critics, he will see no change whatsoever, either in performance or in body stats.

Maybe, maybe not.

But if it was me, I'd be intrigued to try.

Tom Dean

Isn't it you? You can try if you want to!

Some are claiming to have done exactly that. But no, you can't really see what the results are. That is why properly designed experiments are done.

bernithebiker

Tom Dean wrote:

Isn't it you? You can try if you want to!

Some are claiming to have done exactly that. But no, you can't really see what the results are. That is why properly designed experiments are done.

I did try! And it worked for me. I don't have computer print-outs of the results, and I can't pin my improvements 100% on pedal technique, but I'm cycling better and faster than I ever did*, despite getting older (42)!

*not super-scientific, but I can now beat several fellow club riders who I couldn't before, and I am bettering all my best Strava times, KOM's all the time. I also feel better in the saddle and capable of undertaking longer and tougher rides. Not all of this is down to pedal technique/cadence, but some of it, yes, I'm certain of it. Dismiss this as anecdotal if you wish, but I don't think I'm alone in this.

Tom Dean

bernithebiker wrote:

Dismiss this as anecdotal if you wish

I don't doubt you believe it, but what else do you expect me to do?

imposter2.0

bernithebiker wrote:

Dismiss this as anecdotal if you wish,

As Tom said - it is anecdotal. What else would you call it?

bernithebiker

Imposter wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

Dismiss this as anecdotal if you wish,

As Tom said - it is anecdotal. What else would you call it?

Fine, it's an anecdote, we're all agreed.

BenderRodriguez

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

...i suspect that his research shows again that non circular pedalling is more efficient.

Yes, I thought that we had all agreed that the idea that 'pulling up' gives rise to greater efficiency is wrong, even if the 'Powercranks' guy still seems to believe it.

To repeat, once again, those studies seem to show something else. That is that whilst it is the down stroke that is important, exactly how you push down may itself be significant.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

I think that there is some evidence that applying torque on the down stroke in a more sustained manner, rather than with a short, high peak, does contribute to GE. For example:

INFLUENCE OF PEDALING TECHNIQUE ON METABOLIC EFFICIENCY IN ELITE CYCLISTS.
Biol. Sport 2012;29:229-233
DOI: 10.5604/20831862.1003448

This study measured the average and peak torque values for elite cyclists working at threshold and found that the longer the torque was applied (effectively meaning on the down stroke) the greater the Gross Efficiency (GE) "the ratio of how much mechanical work is produced compared to the overall metabolic energy expended". That is, 'simply pushing harder', so maximizing the peak torque generated, was much a less efficient strategy than that adopted by those riders who instead applied the torque through a longer proportion of the pedaling stroke. The difference measured was significant, with those who applied a more sustained application of torque achieving GE values in excess of 22%, as opposed to those with what might be called a 'punchier' pedaling style, whose GE was nearer 19%. Their conclusion?

…the lack of a significant relationship between the Tmax and the GE suggest that at the power outputs at which the LT and OBLA were produced, increases in GE are associated to increments in torque applied throughout the whole pedal revolution and not to increases in the maximum torque during the downward phase of the crank cycle.

See also:

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).

I still look forward to reading any comments you or Alex might have with regards this possibility, or any other interpretations of what might be going on here.

Tom Dean

Has it occurred to you that there may be no useful conclusion to be drawn at this stage?

Alex_Simmons/RST

bernithebiker wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

Isn't it you? You can try if you want to!

Some are claiming to have done exactly that. But no, you can't really see what the results are. That is why properly designed experiments are done.

I did try! And it worked for me. I don't have computer print-outs of the results, and I can't pin my improvements 100% on pedal technique, but I'm cycling better and faster than I ever did*, despite getting older (42)!

*not super-scientific, but I can now beat several fellow club riders who I couldn't before, and I am bettering all my best Strava times, KOM's all the time. I also feel better in the saddle and capable of undertaking longer and tougher rides. Not all of this is down to pedal technique/cadence, but some of it, yes, I'm certain of it. Dismiss this as anecdotal if you wish, but I don't think I'm alone in this.

See, problem with anecdotes is that we all have them but they are not all that useful as evidence since they are full of biases and uncontrollable variables, any one of a number of which might be the real reason for a performance change (let alone whether the performance change was in fact real or perceived).

e.g. take my own useless anecdote:
My performance* was same before and after a lower leg amputation**, which kind of screwed with my pedalling "technique" and during which time my age went from 42 to 46. Go figure.


* sustainable aerobic power output and race results
** actually my FTP W/kg improved a bit on pre-amputation level

Alex_Simmons/RST

BenderRodriguez wrote:

I still look forward to reading any comments you or Alex might have with regards this possibility, or any other interpretations of what might be going on here.

I thought I'd already commented on the first one, and all I see are correlations, not causations, nor actionable intelligence.

As for the latter, sure (is Lindsay in Tassie still? - he used to coach with us) and it's but one study of many looking at pedalling and efficiency, and really there is nothing much to be taken from it in isolation. We already know from other subsequent research into training interventions involving drastic pedal action modification to force this "style" that neither efficiency or performance have been shown to be improved as a result. Indeed what also happens is people revert to their former pedalling action when they return to regular crank/chainring systems.

ric/rstsport

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

I still look forward to reading any comments you or Alex might have with regards this possibility, or any other interpretations of what might be going on here.

I thought I'd already commented on the first one, and all I see are correlations, not causations, nor actionable intelligence.

As for the latter, sure (is Lindsay in Tassie still? - he used to coach with us) and it's but one study of many looking at pedalling and efficiency, and really there is nothing much to be taken from it in isolation. We already know from other subsequent research into training interventions involving drastic pedal action modification to force this "style" that neither efficiency or performance have been shown to be improved as a result. Indeed what also happens is people revert to their former pedalling action when they return to regular crank/chainring systems.

linds is back in blighty must have missed the rain and naff weather ;-)

kevin69

If pedaling technique is irrelevant, but i perceive a improvement when i consciously change it then
the simplest explanation (or so it seems to me) is that this is largely a placebo effect.

Have there been any studies on placebo effects in cycling training? (or sports training in general?)

Alex_Simmons/RST

kevin69 wrote:

Have there been any studies on placebo effects in cycling training? (or sports training in general?)

Quite a few.

Here's one for example:
http://www.gundluth.org/upload/docs/Res ... lacebo.pdf

These data suggest that the placebo effect is more likely to be present during exercise that may need to be sustained for some moments and is more likely in individuals least likely to adequately monitor their physical response to exercise. The magnitude of effect supports the concept that something in excess of one-third of individuals will be responsive to the placebo effect.

weightlifting placebo steroid pills:
http://www.arielnet.com/articles/show/a ... f-placebos

Taking the placebo apparently supplied the psychological inducement to increase strength gains above and beyond reasonable progression.

placebo carb drink on 40km TT performance:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10994918

The placebo effect of a potentially ergogenic treatment during unblinded laboratory time trials lasting approximately 1 h is probably a small but worthwhile increase in endurance power.

placebo caffeine on 10km TT performance:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17146324

Quantitative and qualitative data suggest that placebo effects are associated with the administration of caffeine and that these effects may directly or indirectly enhance performance in well-trained cyclists.

there are others.

It supports my hypothesis that such things (e.g. big gear hill repeats) are generally more of a ruse (intentional or not) to make people simply do more work at higher intensities than they might otherwise have done, and of course we end up with a correlation-causation fallacy.

kevin69

thanks.

So you're suggesting that any performance gains from 'pedaling technique', power cranks,
magnetic wrist bands etc. are actually from higher intensity riding encouraged by placebo effects?

Alex_Simmons/RST

kevin69 wrote:

thanks.

So you're suggesting that any performance gains from 'pedaling technique', power cranks,
magnetic wrist bands etc. are actually from higher intensity riding encouraged by placebo effects?

No, but it's certainly a plausible explanation, at least as plausible as anything else that's on offer.

I wouldn't necessarily lump all those items in the same basket though. e.g. independent clutch cranks don't result in higher training loads typically, just higher loads on specific muscles (esp hip flexors).