Improving pedal stroke
Comments
-
If he could make space/time warp around the entire athlete/bike, he might be onto something...0
-
xavierdisley wrote:Even a video of you doing it would be good? I don't understand what you're explaining, are you talking about recumbent cycling?
Xav
No I am referring to upright cycling and I am trying to explain the perfect high gear TT 180 deg. pedalling power stroke for the perfect flat TT course. It involves the merging of a Tug o' War man's forward force from shoe to floor mat for the first 90 deg. of this stroke (11-2 o'c) with the most effective 90 deg. sector of a masher's down stroke ( 2-5 o'c). It would be interesting to see how Alex would fare in an indoor Tug o' War contest.0 -
Their movement relies entirely on hip and knee extension, and as I've explained at 11 o'clock the knee and hip are undergoing flexion (there's no way around that!) so I'm afraid your theory can't hold true. Any kind of graphical representation of what you're describing would be helpful, as I think you're misunderstanding the role of the musculature in the pedal stroke
Xav0 -
xavierdisley wrote:Their movement relies entirely on hip and knee extension, and as I've explained at 11 o'clock the knee and hip are undergoing flexion (there's no way around that!) so I'm afraid your theory can't hold true. Any kind of graphical representation of what you're describing would be helpful, as I think you're misunderstanding the role of the musculature in the pedal stroke
Xav
Their movement also involves maximal use of foot, ankle and lower leg which natural cyclists never use when generating their pedal power. I created a new pedal stroke which brings additional muscles into use and enable a rider make maximal use of the dead spot sector. Your ideas on the pedal stroke are based on the technique you instinctively began using as a child. I have been using this special technique since 1997.0 -
ncr wrote:Their movement also involves maximal use of foot, ankle and lower leg which natural cyclists never use when generating their pedal power.
How much more force can be generated by using the foot, ankle and lower leg?? :?0 -
Imposter wrote:ncr wrote:Their movement also involves maximal use of foot, ankle and lower leg which natural cyclists never use when generating their pedal power.
How much more force can be generated by using the foot, ankle and lower leg?? :?
It's the correct combination and use of hip, thigh and all muscles below the knee that generate this maximal forward tangential force through TDC which is equal to torque applied at 3 o 'c.0 -
Ok, but.....how much more force can be generated in this way - and do you have any data to show it..???0
-
Imposter wrote:Ok, but.....how much more force can be generated in this way - and do you have any data to show it..???
Excluding gravity effect the same force as is generated by tug o 'war men but unlike these t o 'g men, because you are applying it to a fast moving target you do not get to use all of it. What you do get is more than enough to equal torque at 3 o'c. No data, I am not into PM's computer analysis etc.0 -
That's nice and clear then. First we had golf swings, and now tug o' war. But no actual data...
0 -
ncr wrote:Your ideas on the pedal stroke are based on the technique you instinctively began using as a child.
I can assure you my understanding of the pedal stroke is certainly not based on instinct!
Xav0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:If you write some nonsense, then don't be upset that such things may be challenged and any conclusions that are drawn.
Your opinion that something is nonsense doesn't mean that it is nonsense. Nevertheless it may be nonsense.0 -
Someone made nonsense (i.e. false) statements about what I have said. That is not opinion, it's fact.liter wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:If you write some nonsense, then don't be upset that such things may be challenged and any conclusions that are drawn.
Your opinion that something is nonsense doesn't mean that it is nonsense. Nevertheless it may be nonsense.
That I call nonsense of their suggestion that they can legitimately make up stuff I have said, is quite rightly my opinion, although I'd be surprised if anyone other than the one purveying such nonsense disagreed with me. You simply cannot claim someone said something if they didn't. It's a nonsense argument falling under the logical fallacy type known as a strawman argument.0 -
Well I said I was open-minded, but that's being tested to the limit here with the whole tug of war theme......
Ncr, how come it's taken you 17 years to share this info with us?!0 -
xavierdisley wrote:ncr wrote:Your ideas on the pedal stroke are based on the technique you instinctively began using as a child.
I can assure you my understanding of the pedal stroke is certainly not based on instinct!
Xav
What is it based on ?0 -
It depends on what you'd consider an adequate qualification I suppose
Xav0 -
xavierdisley wrote:It depends on what you'd consider an adequate qualification I suppose
Xav
Regardless of what your understanding or adequate qualification is, if your technique has a dead spot sector around TDC / BDC and its peak torque application is restricted to around the 3 o'c mark, you are using the basic natural instinctive method of pedalling.0 -
ncr wrote:Regardless of what your understanding or adequate qualification is, if your technique has a dead spot sector around TDC / BDC and its peak torque application is restricted to around the 3 o'c mark, you are using the basic natural instinctive method of pedalling.
What we need is someone who can explain what the alternative might be. Preferably without referring to golf swings or tug o' war teams....0 -
Imposter wrote:ncr wrote:Regardless of what your understanding or adequate qualification is, if your technique has a dead spot sector around TDC / BDC and its peak torque application is restricted to around the 3 o'c mark, you are using the basic natural instinctive method of pedalling.
What we need is someone who can explain what the alternative might be. Preferably without referring to golf swings or tug o' war teams....
I never referred to golf swings. Using only one sentence, If you were asked to explain to a person who had never pedaled a bike or trike, what muscles were involved and how they were used when applying most effective torque to the cranks, how would you do it.0 -
ncr wrote:Imposter wrote:ncr wrote:Regardless of what your understanding or adequate qualification is, if your technique has a dead spot sector around TDC / BDC and its peak torque application is restricted to around the 3 o'c mark, you are using the basic natural instinctive method of pedalling.
What we need is someone who can explain what the alternative might be. Preferably without referring to golf swings or tug o' war teams....
I never referred to golf swings. Using only one sentence, If you were asked to explain to a person who had never pedaled a bike or trike, what muscles were involved and how they were used when applying most effective torque to the cranks, how would you do it.
Not sure I can answer that, but then I'm not the one claiming to have invented a new pedalling technique - you are.0 -
Imposter wrote:ncr wrote:Imposter wrote:ncr wrote:Regardless of what your understanding or adequate qualification is, if your technique has a dead spot sector around TDC / BDC and its peak torque application is restricted to around the 3 o'c mark, you are using the basic natural instinctive method of pedalling.
What we need is someone who can explain what the alternative might be. Preferably without referring to golf swings or tug o' war teams....
I never referred to golf swings. Using only one sentence, If you were asked to explain to a person who had never pedaled a bike or trike, what muscles were involved and how they were used when applying most effective torque to the cranks, how would you do it.
Not sure I can answer that, but then I'm not the one claiming to have invented a new pedalling technique - you are.
I would use another exercise or sport that used identical muscles in exactly the same way as an example of how it's done. In this case it would be the leg press machine in the gym. That's why I used the indoor tug o 'war technique to explain how maximal torque can be applied through TDC to those who believe it is an impossible task.0 -
Indoor tug of war, leg press etc. all require knee and hip extension! I am not sure how you can claim to understand the torque involved if you don't have the equipment to measure it, even indirectly?
Back to the general topic of pedalling action - the work I've done with athletes does highlight that an inefficient pedalling action shows up most clearly in lateral knee displacement, and concurrently gross mechanical efficiency (which is related to/more or less how much oxygen you are consuming at a particular power output, a higher %GME is better). More unstable cyclists train for fewer hours than the stable cyclists, and there's information out there to suggest that your GME increases with volume/intensity of training which fits fairly nicely.
So increases in your GME (a good thing) come about through banking volume and intensity, or generally cycling more. This means that you don't need to pretend to invent a magical and bogus pedalling technique, but instead these benefits come over time as you rack up a history of cyclesport. Clearly there's an end limit, and each person's GME will vary (and we can see that it varies within a season from the link above), but there's never been any evidence that a new and different type of pedalling action (and these things have been studied!) provides an increase in GME. Not decoupled cranks, pedalling in circles, ankling, nothing. A shame as it would be nice to have an extra boost to your cycling, but human musculature has evolved to be very efficient at hip and knee extension, and this is what pedalling a bike seeks to harness.
Xav0 -
xavierdisley wrote:Indoor tug of war, leg press etc. all require knee and hip extension! I am not sure how you can claim to understand the torque involved if you don't have the equipment to measure it, even indirectly?
Back to the general topic of pedalling action - the work I've done with athletes does highlight that an inefficient pedalling action shows up most clearly in lateral knee displacement, and concurrently gross mechanical efficiency (which is related to/more or less how much oxygen you are consuming at a particular power output, a higher %GME is better). More unstable cyclists train for fewer hours than the stable cyclists, and there's information out there to suggest that your GME increases with volume/intensity of training which fits fairly nicely.
So increases in your GME (a good thing) come about through banking volume and intensity, or generally cycling more. This means that you don't need to pretend to invent a magical and bogus pedalling technique, but instead these benefits come over time as you rack up a history of cyclesport. Clearly there's an end limit, and each person's GME will vary (and we can see that it varies within a season from the link above), but there's never been any evidence that a new and different type of pedalling action (and these things have been studied!) provides an increase in GME. Not decoupled cranks, pedalling in circles, ankling, nothing. A shame as it would be nice to have an extra boost to your cycling, but human musculature has evolved to be very efficient at hip and knee extension, and this is what pedalling a bike seeks to harness.
Xav
To apply maximal torque you need resistance to counteract that maximal force, gravity supplies this for the downward 3 o'c force but for the forward force over TDC this resistance has to be found elsewhere and you have a good estimate of the torque that is being applied from the resistance that has to be generated for this purpose.
Back to the topic of pedalling action you say then veer away on the topic of increasing body efficiency VO2MAX etc.
I am only concerned with increasing the pedalling torque and efficiency of each pedal stroke and this I do by doubling the maximal torque sector and reducing the wasted non tangential crank force. There is nothing magical about it, it's a matter of using common sense and I am satisfied this technique was the source of Anquetil's mysterious extra power in TT's. BrimBros have now promised to deliver their new PM in August, It should be able to measure both tangential and non tangential forces in the power stroke and I am hoping they will put this technique to the test and supply the proof of what the perfect TT technique is capable of.0 -
ncr wrote:To apply maximal torque you need resistance to counteract that maximal force, gravity supplies this for the downward 3 o'c force
?Back to the topic of pedalling action you say then veer away on the topic of increasing body efficiency VO2MAX etc. I am only concerned with increasing the pedalling torque and efficiency of each pedal stroke
I didn't mention Vo2 max, no. You're confusing what mechanically would be a perfect pedal stroke (100% torque applied evenly all the way round) with what the human body is capable of, I've already explained the role of human musculature.and this I do by doubling the maximal torque sector and reducing the wasted non tangential crank force. There is nothing magical about it, it's a matter of using common sense and I am satisfied this technique was the source of Anquetil's mysterious extra power in TT's. BrimBros have now promised to deliver their new PM in August, It should be able to measure both tangential and non tangential forces in the power stroke and I am hoping they will put this technique to the test and supply the proof of what the perfect TT technique is capable of.
I have already built force measuring pedals that measure torque in all three axes for the laboratory! And others have built similar instrumented pedals before as well. Your supposed technique does not exist.
Xav0 -
0
-
It seems that this thread has degenerated into the usual entrenched 'handbags at dawn' stuff, with each side being as bad as the other. Whatever (and I know that I should know better) here are a few of my thoughts on this issue.
First point is that many riders are convinced that maintaining a 'good' pedalling style helps them to stave of fatigue and so on. Given this, surely what is needed are some robust studies to investigate exactly why they think this, even if many studies to date have not found that pedalling style influences power output and so on. Perhaps this is a 'just' a psychological effect, but one that might non-the-less (assuming that there is any validity in the 'Central Governor' model) still have a marked effect on how quickly a rider feels 'fatigued'. After all, it has been noted that even the smoothest of styles tends to become ragged when the rider is close to breaking point, so perhaps the longer a rider can maintain a 'good' style, the longer it is possible to convince the 'Central Governor' that one can take more and there is no need to start shutting things down just yet.
Another crucial point is that most studies in this area seem to be very badly designed. For example, by taking a rider who has pedalled the same way for years, asking them to modify their pedalling style in a laboratory set up, and then expecting this change to result in immediately measurable changes in various physical parameters. This looks like idiocy to me, as surely a significant period of adaptation, neuro-muscular reprogramming and so forth would be needed for any benefits from a novel pedalling style to become apparent? I have seen studies that make the same mistake with parameters such as saddle height, with the conclusion being that saddle height is effectively an irrelevance, on the basis that the most efficient height for a given rider is whatever they are currently most used to!
Perhaps exercise physiologists should look the example set by physicists in their search for the Higg's Boson, not throw the idea out because they have not yet been able to design robust enough studies to show the effect they are investigating!
Then there is the issue of inertial load. I have seen many comments on forums such as this where the importance of having a good style is said to be most noticeable when climbing at a modest cadence; that is under conditions of a low inertial load. From what I have read most studies seem to ignore this factor, and it would not surprise me that what is found for conditions where there is a high inertial load does not fully apply to conditions where there is a low inertial load.
Whilst it seems that 'pulling up' adds little to power output or GE (probably because the effort of doing this reduces the availability of oxygen and so forth to those muscles that 'push down' and which are in a much better position to produce power), exactly how one pushes down (that is the exact nature of the torque profile) probably is significant.
A high GE is associated with the preferential selection of fatigue-resistant, 'slow twitch' muscle fibers. It seems credible that a 'punchy' pedaling style that has a higher peak torque, which is maintained for a shorter time, may well recruit a higher number of fatigue-prone 'fast twitch' muscle fibers for the same power output. (That is, when compared with a style that has a more even torque distribution with a lower peak torque value). It would also make sense if such an effect was only really noticeable when the rider was performing close to their threshold, as a lower outputs they would be able to produce the power needed without resorting to the recruitment of significant numbers of 'fast twitch' muscle fibers in any case. In my view, the following study supports such a hypothesis:Influence of pedaling technique on metabolic efficiency in elite cyclists.
DOI: 10.5604/20831862.1003448
Biol. Sport 2012;29:229-233
Our objective was to investigate the influence of pedaling technique on gross efficiency (GE) at various exercise intensities in twelve elite cyclists… at the LT, there was a significant correlation between GE and mean torque and evenness of torque distribution (r=0.65 and r=0.66, respectively; p < 0.05).
http://biolsport.com/fulltxt.php?ICID=1003448
I also see the issue of whether it is possible to consciously modify one's style in order to make it better as being independent of the issue of whether or not some riders have a 'good' style that brings them benefits in terms of an increased GE, and so forth. It could well be that yes, pedaling style is important, but the only way to get a 'better' style is to train more and, especially, log more miles. Even so, it seems that as you log those miles, having an awareness of what constitutes a 'good' style might enable a rider to avoid bad habits, just as learning to play a musical instrument is largely a matter of practice, but one that is aided by an awareness of what 'good' and 'bad' technique looks like."an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
ncr wrote:There is nothing magical about it, it's a matter of using common sense and I am satisfied this technique was the source of Anquetil's mysterious extra power in TT's.
Take a look at the first 3 mins. of this video, what amazes me is that except for Jean Bobet who studied Anquetil's pedalling both as a rider and later as a journalist, nobody noticed that Anquetil's pedalling did not have a dead spot sector during serious seated TT riding.0 -
http://video-hned.com/video/vXCQCMo_n34 ... art-2.htmlncr wrote:ncr wrote:There is nothing magical about it, it's a matter of using common sense and I am satisfied this technique was the source of Anquetil's mysterious extra power in TT's.
Take a look at the first 3 mins. of this video, what amazes me is that except for Jean Bobet who studied Anquetil's pedalling both as a rider and later as a journalist, nobody noticed that Anquetil's pedalling did not have a dead spot sector during serious seated TT riding.0 -
I might be missing something here - but how can you tell from watching that clip that his pedalling style 'did not have a dead spot'..?0
-
Imposter wrote:I might be missing something here - but how can you tell from watching that clip that his pedalling style 'did not have a dead spot'..?
To an extent that's not the issue. (Though it may help you to check out the Wattbike polar examples which I have linked in the past which help you know what to look for)
You would have to be blind if you thought everyone pedals the same way as shown in the video.
And in my opinion you would have to just be plain daft to think that those who pedal differently are doing so in a manner every bit as effective as M. Anquetil
But apparently that seems to be the view of many here.
They honestly believe that when they and everyone else rides they look just like in this video.
That or the fact that the fact you pedal differently, sometimes closer to a square than a circle, has absolutely no effect.
Apparently we are all born with a God given talent to ride a bike perfectly??
tbh I really don't care if they want to keep a closed mind on the subject. If they want to fail that's their choice. But it does hack me off when they, as in this thread, troll others with a more positive mindset who ask for advice. (see the first page of this topic for examples)Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:What a load of nonsense.
Once again, my commentary on various specific pedalling matters has appeared in many threads on the topic, including this one. And in none of them do I say what you claim I say. So stop making crap up.
Asking someone to state their opinion wrt the broad issue of pedalling is just silly. But if you must - OK, here's my opinion: Pedalling is good, get a good bike fit, choose an appropriate gear for the riding you are doing and don't overcomplicate it, the more you ride and the fitter you become as a result the better you'll get, and racing does wonders for one's pedalling. Further opinion would probably need questions to be a little more specific.
If I see something that doesn't make sense, well I see no reason why I shouldn't comment on it. Or should we just let nonsense and false claims pervade the forum?
If you write some nonsense, then don't be upset that such things may be challenged and any conclusions that are drawn.
LOL "If you write some nonsense, then don't be upset that such things may be challenged and any conclusions that are drawn." Pot calling the kettle black I think. I havn't been especially upset, except at the moronic trolling at the start of this thread in response to an open question. Its that sort of thing pervading the forum I would expect you to be more upset about but apparently not.
Just so I can understand. You accept that pedalling is something that can be improved since this can be achieved through riding a bike. (tbh this really is not the impression you have given and not sure it is that of the various others here who agree with you. When I have pointed out that pro cyclists pedal a bike differently from amateurs in the past all you have done is rubbish the idea. Now apparently you seem to agree, apology in order maybe?)
But you also believe its impossible to measure the quality of the pedal stroke or judge the the extent of its improvement. And nothing that can be done to facilitate learning and nothing to be gained from watching those already skilled and attempting to emulate them?
Also you think if you improve your power output your pedalling gets better but its impossible to improve your pedal stroke and get more power as a result.
And it's not just me that's misguided. Riders like Bradley Wiggins and coaches like Hunter Allen are too when they advise including pedal specific drills into a training programme.
Bizarre. Hardly strikes me as an especially scientific approach. And ironic, it pretty much sounds like a rehash of those who decried power meters "You don't need power meters, all you need to do is ride your bike more."Martin S. Newbury RC0
