Pedal Technique-Write up and examples

BenderRodriguez

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...

And, despite your 'expert' knowledge, you feel unable to suggest exactly why there is such a correlation?

BenderRodriguez

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

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.

Perhaps any improvements from paying a coach are down to the same phenomena, and people would be better off saving their cash and simply working a bit harder.

Certainly much of what coaches have sold over the years has turned out to be little more than 'snake oil', and there are such huge gaps that still exist in our understanding of sports peformance that much coaches 'sell' today will doubtless turn out to be wrong in the future.

There has been some interesting discussion in the running world of late as to why standards, at anything other than the very top, are so much lower than they were in the days before 'scientific' training. An interesting blog on this issue can be found here:

http://acceptableintheighties.wordpress.com/

The argument that sports scientists tend to make when you point out that the likes of Brendan Foster and Charlie Spedding achieved all that they did without nutritionists and scientific testing is that they would have been even faster if they’d done these new things too. Huge amounts of scientific data are compiled on the benefits of training at altitude and on new forms of strength and flexibility training. But those trying to apply scientific methods conveniently fail to recognise the simple objective fact that British distance runners were faster thirty years ago than they are now. A lot faster. And that is the only test that really matters.

ric/rstsport

so it is Trev

imposter2.0

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Certainly much of what coaches have sold over the years has turned out to be little more than 'snake oil', and there are such huge gaps that still exist in our understanding of sports peformance that much coaches 'sell' today will doubtless turn out to be wrong in the future.

Trev - it's a bit ironic that you are talking about coaches selling 'snake oil' when you are desperately flogging some unproven pedalling technique, which - as far as I can tell - doesn't even have any 'pseudoscience' behind it..

Alex_Simmons/RST

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Certainly much of what coaches have sold over the years has turned out to be little more than 'snake oil', and there are such huge gaps that still exist in our understanding of sports peformance that much coaches 'sell' today will doubtless turn out to be wrong in the future.

The premise presented is resplendent with so many logical fallacies rolled into one, it's pretty impressive really.

ncr

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

bahzob wrote:

But worse still, it makes a really bad assumption that energy put into a system is then lost to the system.

bahzob wrote:

This means that the rider must produce more power to achieve the same speed as a rider who pedals more effectively.

If that is a basis of your argument, that by changing pedalling action, one can go faster for the same power (ceteris paribus) then I'm lost for words.

By changing pedalling action a cyclist can go faster for the same applied force to the pedal, it's done by changing tangential effect of the force you are applying. At max power output only about half the force applied between 1 and 2 o'c is used to power the crank, the rest is wasted. By a complete change of technique you can get a 100% torque return from this force. Researchers and physiologists have a lot to learn about pedalling, at max power output the lower leg is capable of generating greater torque between 11 and 2 o'c than the upper leg can generate between 2 and 5 o'c.

GiantMike

Chebrikov

An interesting subject.

Whatever your opinion how would you best design an experiment to prove whether pedaling technique can improve performance?

You would need a control group and a placebo group (god knows what they would do) as well as those testing pedaling technique. What exactly would the pedaling technique be? How best to measure performance? Power meters using strain gauges due to the way they measure power may not be the best choice (I'm asking here)? You would need to measure distance & speed as well as power to an accuracy far greater than most power meters. You would need to measure oxygen consumption. How would you make sure results are not skewed by increased or decreased effort? How would you make the tests double blind? Where to measure power, at the pedal, the crank, wheel, chain, flywheel? Pedaling technique measured in a lab may not transfer to pedaling technique on the road. Tests on the road would be affected by terrain, so would an indoor track with controlled temperature and air pressure with bikes set up with power meters be the better option?

I don't think it is possible to run such a test.

Using SRM or Powertap how would you be able to measure pedaling technique? Does an SRM measure force throughout the whole pedal stroke?

Do a perfectly calibrated SRM and a perfectly set up mechanical device which measures at the flywheel or distance always get the same measurements through the whole power range?

As yet I don't think we have the tools available to prove one thing or the other. But we do know the differences must be small.

But then, if something feels better or easier or faster, how much is that worth?

Edit: SRM Pro version accuracy 0.5%. How exactly does this measure power, would it be suitable for measuring pedaling technique?

ric/rstsport

noel has previously been offered access to a leading facility to show/demonstrate how his pedalling technique works, and he turned it down.

Chebrikov

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

noel has previously been offered access to a leading facility to show/demonstrate how his pedalling technique works, and he turned it down.

Who is Noel? What leading facility?

ric/rstsport

noel is ncr above.

leading facility was the offer to fly Noel to the USA and house him and provide him with force sensing pedals, and all manner of hi tec equipment to fully explain about his pedalling technique.

bernithebiker

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

noel is ncr above.

leading facility was the offer to fly Noel to the USA and house him and provide him with force sensing pedals, and all manner of hi tec equipment to fully explain about his pedalling technique.

Nice! Can I go instead please?!

Chebrikov

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

noel is ncr above.

leading facility was the offer to fly Noel to the USA and house him and provide him with force sensing pedals, and all manner of hi tec equipment to fully explain about his pedalling technique.

These force sensing pedals, what are they exactly?

ric/rstsport

i don't understand exactly what you mean? they're pedals that measure the forces applied to them (is that what you mean or something else?)

Chebrikov

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

i don't understand exactly what you mean? they're pedals that measure the forces applied to them (is that what you mean or something else?)

I assume they are not Garmin Vector or Look Keo Power pedals, but are a scientific model which measure the forces through the whole pedal stroke including any pulling up pushing over the top and scraping back?

ric/rstsport

those are power measuring pedals.

Chebrikov

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

those are power measuring pedals.

Garmin Vector (were / are? might be) & Look Keo power are power measuring pedals which measure force & cadence or velocity. What is the difference between those and the force measuring pedals to which you refer?

imposter2.0

bernithebiker wrote:

Nice! Can I go instead please?!

oi - get in the queue

ncr

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

noel has previously been offered access to a leading facility to show/demonstrate how his pedalling technique works, and he turned it down.

The inconvenience of travelling and that waste of time is something I don't like. Pedal force testing is only necessary for those playing around with variations of the same basic natural style because any changes are not significant. When you make an important breakthrough, all that's required is common sense. My special semi circular TT technique merges the maximal generated forward and downward shoe forces from two different sports for 180 degrees of highly effective crank torque with continuous max torque from 12 to 3, it starts at 11 and ends at 5 o' clock. Indoor Tug o' war supplies that all important forward force and natural pedalling the downward force. Why would a person need force measuring pedals to convince someone this has to be a more effective way to power the cranks in a TT. The arms also take an active part in this technique, eliminating all lower back stress and any resultant lower back pain. Brimbros new PM when it arrives should convince all non believers.

NeXXus

ncr wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

noel has previously been offered access to a leading facility to show/demonstrate how his pedalling technique works, and he turned it down.

The inconvenience of travelling and that waste of time is something I don't like. Pedal force testing is only necessary for those playing around with variations of the same basic natural style because any changes are not significant. When you make an important breakthrough, all that's required is common sense. My special semi circular TT technique merges the maximal generated forward and downward shoe forces from two different sports for 180 degrees of highly effective crank torque with continuous max torque from 12 to 3, it starts at 11 and ends at 5 o' clock. Indoor Tug o' war supplies that all important forward force and natural pedalling the downward force. Why would a person need force measuring pedals to convince someone this has to be a more effective way to power the cranks in a TT. The arms also take an active part in this technique, eliminating all lower back stress and any resultant lower back pain. Brimbros new PM when it arrives should convince all non believers.

It wouldn't be a waste of time, it would be highly informative for all.

Chebrikov

ncr wrote:

Ric/RSTSport wrote:

noel has previously been offered access to a leading facility to show/demonstrate how his pedalling technique works, and he turned it down.

The inconvenience of travelling and that waste of time is something I don't like. Pedal force testing is only necessary for those playing around with variations of the same basic natural style because any changes are not significant. When you make an important breakthrough, all that's required is common sense. My special semi circular TT technique merges the maximal generated forward and downward shoe forces from two different sports for 180 degrees of highly effective crank torque with continuous max torque from 12 to 3, it starts at 11 and ends at 5 o' clock. Indoor Tug o' war supplies that all important forward force and natural pedalling the downward force. Why would a person need force measuring pedals to convince someone this has to be a more effective way to power the cranks in a TT. The arms also take an active part in this technique, eliminating all lower back stress and any resultant lower back pain. Brimbros new PM when it arrives should convince all non believers.

A most entertaining post which I assume was the intent.

How do you think the Brim Bros cleat based power metering system will prove your ideas where other power meters are unable to? Brim Bros is no more than vapourware anyway.