Improving pedal stroke
Comments
-
I also think that it would be surprising if even the novice rider possessed near-perfect co-ordination of the various agonist and antagonist muscles involves in pedalling, with no further improvement being possible.
It seems to me that even very subtle differences in the way the various muscles are recruited could well affect factors such as power output and GE. For example, Alex himself has said the following about turbo training:Inertial load is the next main differential factor when comparing indoor and outdoor training. Without going into too much detail, when we ride outdoors, we have the inertial load of a bike and rider moving at some speed, plus that of the wheels turning. If we stopped pedaling, our rear wheel doesn't suddenly slow or stop turning, we would coast for quite some time. On many trainers however, since we are not moving, the inertial load is much less and confined to the rear wheel spinning and any small flywheel that the trainer has attached to the roller. When you stop pedaling, the wheel slows and comes to a halt relatively quickly. Some are worse than others.
Now what happens is each scenario feels quite different to ride, muscle activation is different, the neuromuscular demands are different and these can be enough for some to make power production much harder. In general, low inertial load trainers tends to emphasise the "dead spots" in the pedal stroke (when the cranks are passing through the 12/6 O'Clock position), whereas riding with a higher inertial load enables one to breeze through (and not waste effort on) the dead spots and focus on the downstroke where the bulk of power is produced.
Fortunately there is a way to increase the inertial load of a trainer, and that's by having a flywheel attached to the trainer's roller (or even by adding mass to the wheel itself). How much mass is needed? Well to replicate the inertial load of a rider, it would need a very heavy flywheel spinning very quickly.
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.fr/2009/01/t ... ining.html
OK, so Alex qualified what he said by admitting there weren't any scientific studies supporting his recommendations, but presumably he must still think that his views have some merit, otherwise why make the recommendation in the first place? (I am unclear as to why in this instance, but not others relating to pedalling technique, he seems to hold that anything not supported by scientific studies is effectively worthless).
Interestingly enough, Graham Obree also puts a lot of weight on the importance of pedalling style, although he gives exactly the opposite advice to Alex, arguing that having a trainer with a low inertial load is better as it forces one to pedal though the 'dead spots', rather than being carried though them by the inertia of the trainer, so developing a more efficient style.There is just one more thing to be done to your turbo to make it conform to the ‘Obree Way’ of training. This is optional but advisable. Every commercial turbo comes with a fly-wheel on the opposite side from the magnetic unit. I ask you to remove it or have your local shop remove it for you. It may be worth telling them that it is most likely fitted using a ‘left hand thread’. The reason for this is that pedalling is as complicated as a swimming stroke and certainly not an up and down affair. Removing the flywheel will help train an all round more efficient stroke. I explain all in the section about pedalling, but for now, trust me, and get rid of it!
From The Obree Way."an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
More from The Obree Way:You would be forgiven for thinking that pedalling is such a simple act that the efficiency of it is what it is and there is not much we can do about it. That is not the case and quite often the divide that separates equally talented opponents is not who can produce the most amount of energy, but who can waste the least. The entire quest in looking at the pedalling action and retraining our technique is to have the largest proportion of our precious energy as possible go into producing movement.
Everybody who rides a bike knows how to pedal just the same as anybody who does not drown in deep water knows how to swim. The fundamental problem with pedalling is that the pedals bowl round and round whether you pedal in a good way or not and bad technique looks no different from good technique. I make the analogy to swimming again in this chapter because the complexity of pedalling with optimum efficiency is probably as complex and engaging as learning a good stroke from a bad one. In swimming, a poor technique would be instantly noticeable and correctable to the trained eye, and more to the point, the swimmer would be eager to improve technically since success would be impossible otherwise.
The majority of cyclists on the other hand learn to ride a bike as children and don’t think about the detail of the pedal action at any point. Where it is an absolute priority in swimming to improve technically at all levels of the sport, this has not been the case in the world of cycling. Even at elite level it has been quite rare to investigate the entire pedal action to the degree that a swimmer will eagerly pursue every possibility of improvement. This problem, apart from firstly having to convince the rider that it is essential, is that the entrenched habitual pedalling signals from the brain have to be untrained while a new set of impulses are learned. Just like the breathing technique, this is similar to trying to teach someone to play a musical instrument correctly who has been playing it wrongly all their life. That person is you, and if you open your mind to learn a more complex sequence of muscle stimuli that will produce more movement, less heat and less muscle strain, then you open yourself up to the possibility of a considerable improvement in performance.
...The basic principles of using the full pedal cycle are relatively simple. The difficult part is learning to use it on the bike all the time without having to think deeply about every single pedal stroke. At the start you will have to do just that to replace your old pedalling habit with a better one. When I set out on this quest in the late 1980s, it took at least a month before it became my new way. This will take perseverance and on top of the breathing technique you can understand better why I said near the start of this book that there is enough to think about on the bike without the need for computers and heart monitors. I can also tell you that if you follow my stretching routine on a
daily basis, this technique will just seem to get easier and easier. If you master this, then you will never go back to the old way.
The first point of the stroke is when the cranks are straight up and down (top dead centre). This is the most neglected part of the stroke and conventional thinking is that you have to wait until your legs have bowled past to 30° or 40° before applying a proper standing force on the pedal. This is where we must learn to use the most neglected muscle in cycling, the vastus medial – the muscle you kick a football with. You have to start at the top by kicking that football. On the upstroke leading up to this point you should have allowed your ankle to drop so that your foot is at an acute angle to your shin (hence the need for free movement).
This is not Zofseu man explosive kick, but because your ankle is dropped, you roll onto where you would normally put the force down and use the available movement in the ankle to employ the calf muscles as well as the muscles in the thigh to drive the pedal stroke downwards. This enables you to use the entire half circle of the downward stroke. At the start you will need to do this in slow motion to get to grips with it, but if you think L—O—N—G (as in the stroke) it will keep you focused on distance of stroke rather than force during the long downstroke. Don’t try to put one burst of strength at the middle point. This is about using just a little less force than a stomping style but delivering it evenly over a long stroke. Because the peak force is less than before there is the advantage that fatigue is also less, even though more power is being outputted...
PEDAL STROKE TECHNIQUE
• Start with you heel dropped with the cranks vertical
• Kick that football and follow through with calf and thigh muscles
• Think L—O—N—G stroke
• Kick with your opposite leg just as you go to pull for the upstroke
• Slightly rock onto each pedal
I think Obree is right when he talks about using a 'long' stroke in order to reduce the peak force, and this is something that ties in with the study I cited earlier.
Looking at my own pedalling style I do pretty much the opposite of what Obree says he does with respect to passing though the 'dead spots' at the top and bottom of the stroke. Rather than 'kicking' through the top of the stroke, I pull through and up at the bottom of the stoke. This is very evident from watching the lower part of my leg, with the tendon running down the front of the shin to the top of the foot really tensioning at the bottom of each stroke as the legs pulls back and up.
As an aside, I stopped doing this with my right leg after a bad ankle injury resulting from a rock climbing fall. Afterwards my pedalling style felt nowhere near as fluid, as though I was pedalling in 'half circles', and at first I thought that this was due to the loss in mobility in my ankle. I then noticed the way the tendon in the front of my left leg was tensioning through the bottom of the stroke, something that wasn't apparent in my right leg. After a period of consciously using the right leg in the same way, I am now back to doing this pretty much automatically and my pedalling style feels much more fluid for it, especially when climbing."an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
bahzob wrote: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
Again, maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see anything unusual about anyone's pedal technique in that video. I'm sure many people pedal differently, much in the same way that many people walk or run differently. But I still don't see anything particularly unusual or different while watching Anquetil in that vid...0 -
I'd question Obree's analogy with swimming training, because of: the mechanical complexity of a swimming stroke, involving all parts of the body; how best to use the individual parts in combination body to drag itself through a liquid; and the necessity for streamlining the body when carrying out those movements. Making pedals go round in circles, when the circles are dictated by the pedals, is rather less complex, I'd have thought.0
-
Imposter wrote:I still don't see anything particularly unusual or different while watching Anquetil in that vid...
Perhaps Obree was right? (See above).The fundamental problem with pedalling is that the pedals bowl round and round whether you pedal in a good way or not and bad technique looks no different from good technique."an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
briantrumpet wrote:I'd question Obree's analogy with swimming training...Making pedals go round in circles, when the circles are dictated by the pedals, is rather less complex, I'd have thought.
Less complex, maybe, but not without complexity. After all, when pedalling a lot of muscles still need to work together in a coordinated way, and there are a multitude of ways one could generate the torque required, help the pedals pass through the 'dead spots' and so forth."an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
BenderRodriguez wrote:Imposter wrote:I still don't see anything particularly unusual or different while watching Anquetil in that vid...
Perhaps Obree was right? (See above).The fundamental problem with pedalling is that the pedals bowl round and round whether you pedal in a good way or not and bad technique looks no different from good technique.
Or maybe - like running - there is no 'bad' techique - and all that really matters is how quickly you get from A-B..?0 -
Er...Imposter wrote:maybe - like running - there is no 'bad' techique
http://www.sociciens.org/2004_Rev._Fact ... conomy.pdfTaking body mass (BM) into consideration, runners with good RE use less energy and therefore less oxygen than runners with poor RE at the same velocity. There is a strong association between RE and distance running performance, with RE being a better predictor of performance than maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max) in elite runners who have a similar VO2max.
http://jeb.biologists.org/content/211/20/3266.full.pdfBetter running economy (i.e. a lower rate of energy consumption at a given speed) is correlated with superior distance running performance. There is substantial variation in running economy, even among elite runners.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/12 ... roduction/
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/12 ... my-part-i/
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/12 ... my-part-2/
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/12 ... -part-iii/My personal feeling is that biomechanics, small calves and long legs aside, there is something critical that we can’t quite measure. I am a big believer in the neuromuscular factors affecting performance. I believe that running economy is in fact a symptom of some underlying neuromuscular process or system that confers an advantage of certain runners. When you train, your neuromuscular system improves, you become more co-ordinated and your running economy improves, along with performance. But quite what this neuromuscular adaptation is (apart from the ones we’ve discussed) is not clear just yet. I feel it will go a long way to explaining the East African dominance in running and will also explain fatigue more comprehensively than any other theory.
Bottom line seems to be that having an economic running style is very important in running. It also seems, as in the case of cycling and pedalling style, there is something of importance here that the sports scientists have not yet been sharp enough to tease out."an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
BenderRodriguez wrote:Bottom line seems to be that having an economic running style is very important in running. It also seems, as in the case of cycling and pedalling style, there is something of importance here that the sports scientists have not yet been sharp enough to tease out.
Doesn't alter the fact that you only have to look at any 5k or 10k running race on the telly to see several running styles in action - and all seem to be no more or less effective than any other. Which kind of blows all these theories out of the water really. On that basis, there's no reason to think that cycling should be any different.0 -
Imposter wrote:you only have to look at any 5k or 10k running race on the telly to see several running styles in action - and all seem to be no more or less effective than any other. Which kind of blows all these theories out of the water really. On that basis, there's no reason to think that cycling should be any different.
Not at all, running or cycling economy is just one factor, but it is one that is significant enough to turn someone with a huge VO2 max into an average runner / cyclist, and someone with an average VO2 max into a champion, as studies of elite runners and cyclists have shown. Elite runners and cyclists who have a high economy often compete at the highest level despite having an unexceptional VO2 max. Conversely, those who have an average economy almost invariably have a very high VO2 max which compensates for their poor economy. The rare beast who has both will dominate the sport.
You might as well say that aerodynamics or power output are irrelevant, on the basis that, despite there being variations in these between riders, it is not possible to predict who will win a race from any single one of them!"an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
Perhaps there is a significance of the cadence used.
at 60rpm you're taking 1 second per revolution (duh!) and say around 0.3-0.4 seconds on each down stroke - where you'd put the most power in. It's a significant time - enough perhaps to think about how is best to apply that torque.
At 90rpm it's only 0.2-0.3 seconds on each powerdown stroke and at 120rpm it's 0.15-0.2 seconds - a very small time window and with correspondingly less torque required than the slower cadence perhaps there is very little to be gained by kicking, dragging and lifting.
I don't buy for one minute that nobody can improve on their pedal stroke - but perhaps it's not just the foot that needs concentrating on - the whole leg and body needs to be looked at. Again, not everyone will be the same - some like a high cadence, some like a lower cadence.0 -
BenderRodriguez wrote:
You might as well say that aerodynamics or power output are irrelevant, on the basis that, despite there being variations in these between riders, it is not possible to predict who will win a race from any single one of them!
Which is exactly the point I am making. None of those things in isolation will guarantee you a good race performance. Having said that, there is significantly more evidence to suggest that developing good sustainable power would make a lot more sense than developing some kind of 'mystery' pedalling technique. I say 'mystery' because it has never actually been described in any practical, actionable sense.0 -
Imposter wrote:there is significantly more evidence to suggest that developing good sustainable power would make a lot more sense than developing some kind of 'mystery' pedalling technique.
But that is a false dichotomy. 'Good sustainable power' is effectively an output, whilst 'good' pedalling technique would appear to be one of the 'inputs' which contribute to this desired output. One might as well say 'there is significantly more evidence to suggest that developing good sustainable power would make a lot more sense than developing some kind of 'mystery' ability to utilise blood lactate / preferentially burn fat / increase the number of mitochondria in the muscle cells', and so forth.
Yes, exactly how 'good' pedalling technique contributes to performance is not yet fully clear, although I think that some of the factors I have mentioned, such as evenness of torque application, especially in situations of low crank inertial load (i.e. when climbing) will be shown to be significant. It could also be that 'good' technique is essentially a product of getting the miles in, and is not something that can be developed in isolation by mean of pedalling 'drills' or whatever. Even so, this would make having a 'good' pedalling technique little different from many other physiological factors that contribute to performance."an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
My daughter ran at a high level and at all clubs and all sessions, technique was drilled into them from an early age, drills are a staple part of any runners program and the ability to learn how to run, is often what separates the average from the great.
She now cycles and on youth RSR road and track sessions, National level BC coaches encourage riders to study how they pedal, they are encouraged to do one legged drills on rollers etc, its not a heavily emphasised thing but riders are encouraged to do this at home so they do want riders to learn correct tech0 -
Which is?Lookyhere wrote:My daughter ran at a high level and at all clubs and all sessions, technique was drilled into them from an early age, drills are a staple part of any runners program and the ability to learn how to run, is often what separates the average from the great.
She now cycles and on youth RSR road and track sessions, National level BC coaches encourage riders to study how they pedal, they are encouraged to do one legged drills on rollers etc, its not a heavily emphasised thing but riders are encouraged to do this at home so they do want riders to learn correct techAnd the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made.0 -
Lookyhere wrote:its not a heavily emphasised thing but riders are encouraged to do this at home so they do want riders to learn correct tech
So what is the 'correct' tech? I'm still not clear.0 -
And not one person has ever said that.bahzob wrote: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.
Strawman argument.
Who exactly?bahzob wrote: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.
More strawmen.
Please let us know who has ever said any of the above?bahzob wrote: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??
More strawmen.
You really are very good at this strawman game.
Ah, the "they've got a closed mind" fallacy. Was wondering when that one would come out. More nonsense.bahzob wrote: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)
Make some sense in your arguments rather than waste effort making up strawmen. It's devaluing what you are saying. A lot.0 -
Of course pedalling improves the more your ride and race and get fitter. I've never said otherwise.bahzob wrote: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.
You'll need to be more specific. Amateur is a very broad term.bahzob wrote: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?)
Since I haven't said any of the things you say I have, there is nothing to apologise for.
Hmmm. It's definitely possible to measure the forces and velocities involved while pedalling. Keep in mind that such measurements vary a LOT depending on how they are done. e.g. I get the impression that you don't quite understand what a Wattbike is actually measuring. Because of the way it measures forces (i.e. downstream of the cranks), you need to be VERY careful in how you interpret such data as it can be quite misleading wrt what's actually going on. It can be significantly different to the data that is attained from lab grade independent crank/pedal force sensing devices.bahzob wrote:But you also believe its impossible to measure the quality of the pedal stroke or judge the the extent of its improvement.
Secondly, making a leap from such data to defining what is "quality" is a big step.
It's also a big step to then presume that there is only one version of quality (although I'm not saying you are saying that), and that everyone should attempt to pedal in such a manner.
Not sure I quite understand this. Watch someone pedal?bahzob wrote:And nothing that can be done to facilitate learning and nothing to be gained from watching those already skilled and attempting to emulate them?
You can learn from watching them execute moves in a race perhaps, how they manage themselves in a race, evaluate how their bike position might apply/not apply to you, but pedalling?
Merckx, Anquetil and Hinault all had very different pedalling styles to the eye. As do many pros - quite wide and varied. Which was/is better/best? What can you learn from the fact they are all quite different?
Hmmm. I never said that either (but that's no surprise for you). But I do think you are confusing correlation with causation. There is quite a leap to go from one to the other.bahzob wrote: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.
No argument from me.bahzob wrote:And it's not just me that's misguided.
My programs have "pedalling drills" (not that I call them that) where it makes sense. But I don't sit people on a Wattbike (or similar) and tell them to change the shape of their peanut chart. I doubt Hunter does either but I bet he'd have some fun with it, which is about what's it's worth. Hunter likes having fun. He's fun to ride with, I know that much.bahzob wrote:Riders like Bradley Wiggins and coaches like Hunter Allen are too when they advise including pedal specific drills into a training programme.
lol, as I'd mentioned before (perhaps elsewhere), my left leg has "perfect" pedalling according to such charts, which just goes to show how much they can misinform.
Hmmm. Show me the science then.bahzob wrote: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."
As for the latter, well if you can't see the logical fallacy in that, I really can't help you.0 -
BenderRodriguez wrote:More from The Obree Way:You would be forgiven for thinking that pedalling is such a simple act that the efficiency of it is what it is and there is not much we can do about it. That is not the case and quite often the divide that separates equally talented opponents is not who can produce the most amount of energy, but who can waste the least. The entire quest in looking at the pedalling action and retraining our technique is to have the largest proportion of our precious energy as possible go into producing movement.
Obree does not say how wasting the least is done. All he is describing in his book is another variation of the circular technique which according to research by Coyle et al. is not as effective as the mashing technique. He uses kicking a ball to explain applying force over TDC instead of rolling your foot over a barrel.0 -
ncr wrote:Obree does not say how wasting the least is done. All he is describing in his book is another variation of the circular technique which according to research by Coyle et al. is not as effective as the mashing technique.
Was that the same Coyle whose 'research' argued that Armstrong's transformation from a Tour also-ran into multiple 'winner' was due to Armstrong becoming more 'efficient'? Wasn't Coyle also one of those who pushed the 'when exercising you should drink as much expensive sports drink as you can' myth? Not a man with much credibility!
Whatever, who's to say that the study done by Coyle was well enough designed to actually pick up any advantage to be had from having a 'good' pedalling style? Did his study (as is the case with most in this area) expect a rider to show differences in power output or GE without giving them time to adapt to a modified technique? Did it look at conditions where there was a low inertial load, or did it just look at conditions where there was a high inertial load? Were the riders working close to their threshold or at some other power output? Did it expect the advantage to be derived from 'pulling up', or did it focus on exactly how the torque was applied on the down stroke? (More recent studies indicate that a more sustained application of force with a lower peak torque is associated with a higher GE.)
Perhaps you could give a reference or link to the exact paper you are referring to?
Obree does not just reiterate what has been said before about using a 'round' pedalling style. Crucially (in my view) he also says that using a 'long', sustained downward application of force with a minimal peak value is important, and there is evidence to support such a view (see my earlier post). A couple of posters have asked what it means to have a 'good' pedalling style that will promote a high GE and I would suggest that doing exactly this on the down stroke (as opposed to having a 'punchier' pedalling style) may well be one of the essential characteristics of an efficient style.
Whatever may have been found by earlier, flawed studies, Obree may also be right about the need to minimise the effect of 'dead spots' in the pedalling stroke:Because cycling is an extreme endurance sport, energy saving and therefore efficiency is of importance for performance. It is generally believed that gross efficiency (GE) is affected by pedaling technique. A measurement of pedaling technique has traditionally been done using force effectiveness ratio (FE; ratio of effective force and total force). The aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship among GE, FE, and a new technique parameter, dead center (DC) size in competitive cyclists... Multiple regressions revealed that DC size was the only significant (P = 0.001) predictor for GE. Interestingly, DC size and FE ratio did not correlate with each other.
CONCLUSIONS:
DC size is a pedaling technique parameter that is closely related to energy consumption. To generate power evenly around the whole pedal revolution may be an important energy-saving trait.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20798659"an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
NeXXus wrote:
Which is?Lookyhere wrote:My daughter ran at a high level and at all clubs and all sessions, technique was drilled into them from an early age, drills are a staple part of any runners program and the ability to learn how to run, is often what separates the average from the great.
She now cycles and on youth RSR road and track sessions, National level BC coaches encourage riders to study how they pedal, they are encouraged to do one legged drills on rollers etc, its not a heavily emphasised thing but riders are encouraged to do this at home so they do want riders to learn correct tech
as I said its not something that is emphasised a great deal, her notes from the last RSR say "really think about pedalling in circles and not snapping down on the pedals" also "practice one legged drills of 8x 1min, one handed, swopping hands" all on rollers
I have to say that I don't believe pedal tech hasn't the effect on performance that running tech has and I BC don't believe so either, certainly not at this level anyhow.0 -
BenderRodriguez wrote:
CONCLUSIONS:
DC size is a pedaling technique parameter that is closely related to energy consumption. To generate power evenly around the whole pedal revolution may be an important energy-saving trait.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20798659
You mean your objective should be to try and apply the same torque between 6-12 o'c as that applied between 12-6 o'c ? I would change that to ( To generate power as evenly as possible over your entire 180 deg. power stroke may be an important energy saving trait ) It takes as much effort to apply minimal torque in the up stroke as it does to apply maximal torque in the down stroke. You don't need Coyle's research to prove which technique is most effective, you only have to look at the technique used by seated sprinters on track or road.0 -
ncr wrote:
You mean your objective should be to try and apply the same torque between 6-12 o'c as that applied between 12-6 o'c ? I would change that to ( To generate power as evenly as possible over your entire 180 deg. power stroke may be an important energy saving trait ) It takes as much effort to apply minimal torque in the up stroke as it does to apply maximal torque in the down stroke. You don't need Coyle's research to prove which technique is most effective, you only have to look at the technique used by seated sprinters on track or road.
No offence, but the notion of 'pulling on the upstroke' is hardly a breakthrough in pedalling dynamics, is it? It's been discussed (mostly without resolution) for decades.0 -
ncr wrote:BenderRodriguez wrote:
CONCLUSIONS:
DC size is a pedaling technique parameter that is closely related to energy consumption. To generate power evenly around the whole pedal revolution may be an important energy-saving trait.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20798659
You mean your objective should be to try and apply the same torque between 6-12 o'c as that applied between 12-6 o'c ? I would change that to ( To generate power as evenly as possible over your entire 180 deg. power stroke may be an important energy saving trait ) It takes as much effort to apply minimal torque in the up stroke as it does to apply maximal torque in the down stroke. You don't need Coyle's research to prove which technique is most effective, you only have to look at the technique used by seated sprinters on track or road.
I certainly agree that it is rather a big jump to go from observing that it is more efficient to minimise the size of the 'dead spots' to arguing suggesting that generating 'power evenly around the whole pedal revolution may be an important energy-saving trait'! As you say, what evidence there is suggests trying to generate positive torque on the upstroke is something of a non-starter, something that I also mentioned earlier."an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
BenderRodriguez wrote:
I think Obree is right when he talks about using a 'long' stroke in order to reduce the peak force, and this is something that ties in with the study I cited earlier.
Looking at my own pedalling style I do pretty much the opposite of what Obree says he does with respect to passing though the 'dead spots' at the top and bottom of the stroke. Rather than 'kicking' through the top of the stroke, I pull through and up at the bottom of the stoke. This is very evident from watching the lower part of my leg, with the tendon running down the front of the shin to the top of the foot really tensioning at the bottom of each stroke as the legs pulls back and up.
When using the natural technique, the problem with using a long smooth stroke and reducing the peak force is, you will probably get less torque return from the force applied throughout the long stroke than if you applied peak force around 3 o'c because greatest torque return occurs between 2-4 o'c and most wasted force occurs outside this sector. My special 180 deg smooth stroke gives greater torque return while reducing peak force, this is due to the close to maximal tangential effect of the force being applied between 11-4 o'c. What is your upper leg doing when your lower leg is pulling back and up ?0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Of course pedalling improves the more your ride and race and get fitter. I've never said otherwise.bahzob wrote: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.
You'll need to be more specific. Amateur is a very broad term.bahzob wrote: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?)
Since I haven't said any of the things you say I have, there is nothing to apologise for.
Hmmm. It's definitely possible to measure the forces and velocities involved while pedalling. Keep in mind that such measurements vary a LOT depending on how they are done. e.g. I get the impression that you don't quite understand what a Wattbike is actually measuring. Because of the way it measures forces (i.e. downstream of the cranks), you need to be VERY careful in how you interpret such data as it can be quite misleading wrt what's actually going on. It can be significantly different to the data that is attained from lab grade independent crank/pedal force sensing devices.bahzob wrote:But you also believe its impossible to measure the quality of the pedal stroke or judge the the extent of its improvement.
Secondly, making a leap from such data to defining what is "quality" is a big step.
It's also a big step to then presume that there is only one version of quality (although I'm not saying you are saying that), and that everyone should attempt to pedal in such a manner.
Not sure I quite understand this. Watch someone pedal?bahzob wrote:And nothing that can be done to facilitate learning and nothing to be gained from watching those already skilled and attempting to emulate them?
You can learn from watching them execute moves in a race perhaps, how they manage themselves in a race, evaluate how their bike position might apply/not apply to you, but pedalling?
Merckx, Anquetil and Hinault all had very different pedalling styles to the eye. As do many pros - quite wide and varied. Which was/is better/best? What can you learn from the fact they are all quite different?
Hmmm. I never said that either (but that's no surprise for you). But I do think you are confusing correlation with causation. There is quite a leap to go from one to the other.bahzob wrote: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.
No argument from me.bahzob wrote:And it's not just me that's misguided.
My programs have "pedalling drills" (not that I call them that) where it makes sense. But I don't sit people on a Wattbike (or similar) and tell them to change the shape of their peanut chart. I doubt Hunter does either but I bet he'd have some fun with it, which is about what's it's worth. Hunter likes having fun. He's fun to ride with, I know that much.bahzob wrote:Riders like Bradley Wiggins and coaches like Hunter Allen are too when they advise including pedal specific drills into a training programme.
lol, as I'd mentioned before (perhaps elsewhere), my left leg has "perfect" pedalling according to such charts, which just goes to show how much they can misinform.
Hmmm. Show me the science then.bahzob wrote: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."
As for the latter, well if you can't see the logical fallacy in that, I really can't help you.
Must say I am getting more and more confused about your opinions.
Apparently you do believe that the way you pedal a bike can be improved, to the point of including them in some training plans. It just feels like you can't bring yourself to call them "pedalling" drills.
Given this I can't understand the vehemence of your views, especially given the fact there is absolutely no downside to paying some attention to how you are pedalling while you work out.
It just seems bizarre to me to hope that as if by magic simply riding a bike the improvements that you accept can take place will appear. I suspect this may be due to your background of track and racing which may well accelerate this approach. You fail to understand that many cyclists won't do either of these. I see literally thousands every time I ride a sportive, struggling up hills and having a thoroughly miserable time as a result. They could mostly be quicker and have more enjoyment if they just pedalled better but I would be willing to bet most have not ever experimented with approaches like trying out different cadences or focusing on the weak points of their action. If it is works for Bradley Wiggins it seems like blinkered hubris of the highest order to state it can't work for them.
PS As I have repeatedly said I fully agree there are differences between pros. My point is that nonetheless there is a hugely greater difference between them and the bulk of amateur riders I see to the extent that they form 2 different populations, which you can see just by looking at them and is consistent with their polar profiles on the Wattbike. Just as, say, Zulus vary in height so you get "short" Zulu but still they will be obviously taller and in an clearly different population to, say, pygmies. This difference is genetic. The difference in pedalling between pro and amateur probably partly is too. But it is just defeatist to say its all in the DNA and you can learn nothing from trying to emulate a good rider.
PPS I know you have a bee in your bonnet about the Wattbike. It's interesting that you can pedal in perfect circle with one leg but not exactly big news. It would only be relevant if regardless of how you pedalled a perfect circle appears. It doesn't. If you change the way you pedal the shape will change. And it will do so consistently, as you change the way you pedal it changes its format in near real time. You seem to expect that if a device can't measure a phenomenon to 100% precision it's can't measure anything at all. This is a touchingly/laughingly naive view of science. By your criteria Galileo was a fool to use his telescope because it couldn't provide the resolution of the Hubble.Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
bahzob wrote:If it is works for Bradley Wiggins it seems like blinkered hubris of the highest order to state it can't work for them.
This is everything that is wrong with your argument - right here. Alex has science on his side, whereas you have second-hand anecdote. So it's hugely patronising and highly ironic for you to refer to Alex's view of science as 'touchingly-naive'...0 -
Imposter wrote:Alex has science on his side...
But many of the studies Alex cites are fatally flawed. For example, by expecting to be able to measure an increase in GE or power output without the rider having time to adapt to the novel style that the study asks them to use. (See my earlier post.)
Also, other studies indicate that pedalling style is significant, such as the study I cited which found that a more sustained and even application of torque on the down stroke, with a lower peak force, was associated with a higher GE.
There are a few other points that I would like to see more fully explained. For example, it seems that different events demand rather different pedalling styles, and even if one can perform well in one domain it does not seem that this means you will be able to perform equally well in other domains. I.e. it seems possible that there is no single pedalling style that is optimum for all situations.
Alex (on his own blog) has given one example in relation to the differences in inertial load that exist between a turbo trainer and riding on the road, noting that each makes unique neuro-muscular demands which mean transfer between the two may be limited. I have found even more striking differences between the skills needed to pedal at a high cadence on the track, climb at around 80 Rpm and ride on the flat using a large gear at 90 - 95 Rpm, as one would do in a time trial. For example, without specific training / practice I would find that, no matter how well I was climbing (and so would have had no problem developing the required torque) I would find it much harder to 'get the power down', maintain a similar heart rate and so forth when riding on the flat in a big gear. Surely, it is not reasonable to say that what is being developed here is a pedalling-related skill?
Another small point, I have read claims that the calf muscles do not contribute significantly to the torque generated in pedalling, with the main job of the calf muscles being to 'stabilise the foot'. If this is the case who do so many cyclists have such hypertrophic calf muscles? It does not seem likely that this would happen if the lower leg were only 'stabilising' the foot."an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
Your confusion has been evident for a long time, but it's mostly of your own doing since you make up what people say, instead of reading what they actually write.bahzob wrote:Must say I am getting more and more confused about your opinions.
Since you have no experience of how I might coach or what I might want a client to focus attention on, then your desire to speculate shines through once more.bahzob wrote:Apparently you do believe that the way you pedal a bike can be improved, to the point of including them in some training plans. It just feels like you can't bring yourself to call them "pedalling" drills.
Given this I can't understand the vehemence of your views, especially given the fact there is absolutely no downside to paying some attention to how you are pedalling while you work out.
Again, you make up stuff about me, my knowledge, experience and methodologies.bahzob wrote:It just seems bizarre to me to hope that as if by magic simply riding a bike the improvements that you accept can take place will appear. I suspect this may be due to your background of track and racing which may well accelerate this approach. You fail to understand that many cyclists won't do either of these.
Most would have a better time if they had a better fitting bike, rode more beforehand, gained experience in riding well with others and how to safely and effectively use their equipment, and became much fitter. Those priorities far outweigh thinking about how they pedal.bahzob wrote:I see literally thousands every time I ride a sportive, struggling up hills and having a thoroughly miserable time as a result. They could mostly be quicker and have more enjoyment if they just pedalled better but I would be willing to bet most have not ever experimented with approaches like trying out different cadences or focusing on the weak points of their action. If it is works for Bradley Wiggins it seems like blinkered hubris of the highest order to state it can't work for them.
Ah, once again you are assigning a level of implied wisdom from such charts without really understanding what they actually represent (again I suggest you are misunderstanding this, and it makes a big difference to how one can interpret the data, and as importantly, whether one can draw certain conclusions from such data).bahzob wrote:PS As I have repeatedly said I fully agree there are differences between pros. My point is that nonetheless there is a hugely greater difference between them and the bulk of amateur riders I see to the extent that they form 2 different populations, which you can see just by looking at them and is consistent with their polar profiles on the Wattbike.
But then since you have such pedalling chart info on all these pros and amateur cyclists, perhaps you'd care to share them so we can view these two populations.
Um, what? Sorry you've lost me here. Your Zulu / Pygmy metaphor makes absolutely no sense. Who said anything about DNA or being defeatist?bahzob wrote:Just as, say, Zulus vary in height so you get "short" Zulu but still they will be obviously taller and in an clearly different population to, say, pygmies. This difference is genetic. The difference in pedalling between pro and amateur probably partly is too. But it is just defeatist to say its all in the DNA and you can learn nothing from trying to emulate a good rider.
I do?bahzob wrote:PPS I know you have a bee in your bonnet about the Wattbike.
Here, let me lay this to rest. I think Wattbikes are very fine training bikes. I'd certainly have one if it made sense for me, and indeed before Wattbikes were available, I had my own home made version, with multi-adjustable bike position and crank lengths, high inertia flywheel, and power monitoring using SRM's online system. I called it Thunderbird 7. Unfortunately Wattbike isn't suitable for me personally due to crank set up restrictions unique to me.
I have no "bee in my bonnet" (if that what you think I have) about Wattbikes at all. They are a great product if a dedicated home ergo bike with power measurement is on your buying radar.
What I am trying to point out is when people misunderstand the information such tools provide, and then make large unsupported leaps about how to interpret and use such data.
It's one thing to measure something, it's quite another to know whether or not it is actionable intelligence. In particular when it's clear someone doesn't really understand the data they are looking at.
Hmmm. It seems you have totally missed the point. I don't pedal in a perfect circle (no-one does) but the output of such pedal charts indicate that my pedalling is something that it isn't. And that's because of the way the data is measured. When you think data tells you something that it's not, it leads one down a path of intervention that may well be inappropriate.bahzob wrote:It's interesting that you can pedal in perfect circle with one leg but not exactly big news.
Hmmm, yes, I can change the way the chart appears by changing the way I try to pedal, but it's still not realistically representing what's actually going on with my left leg. It can only provide the sum of the forces from both legs.bahzob wrote:It would only be relevant if regardless of how you pedalled a perfect circle appears. It doesn't. If you change the way you pedal the shape will change. And it will do so consistently, as you change the way you pedal it changes its format in near real time.
But even so, you are assuming that aiming for one shape is better than another, let alone how one might attain such a shape.
There you go, making stuff up again.bahzob wrote:You seem to expect that if a device can't measure a phenomenon to 100% precision it's can't measure anything at all. This is a touchingly/laughingly naive view of science. By your criteria Galileo was a fool to use his telescope because it couldn't provide the resolution of the Hubble.
No, what I am saying is you should take some time to understand:
1. what is actually being measured (because it's apparent you don't understand it)
2. whether such measurements represent meaningful, useful intelligence and in what way it is meaningful, useful intelligence e.g. whether there are any correlations of interest (which are often nice to know but not always helpful), and then more importantly, if there any are causations of note
3. what, if any, training intervention makes sense based on the causations that have been established
You haven't got past #1. Once that's dealt with, well you'll begin to realise that's it's not a matter of precision, but rather what's actually being measured and how one interprets it.
You believe you've got past #1, and have driven straight down highways #2 and #3. Problem is, you haven't the road map you think you have.0 -
Where I quote certain studies (not sure I have in this thread) it's mostly likely to point out something specific and relevant to the point in question. Not sure I've pointed out any "fatally flawed" studies anywhere. The only flaws that are fatal are in misinterpreting the study.BenderRodriguez wrote:Imposter wrote:Alex has science on his side...
But many of the studies Alex cites are fatally flawed. For example, by expecting to be able to measure an increase in GE or power output without the rider having time to adapt to the novel style that the study asks them to use. (See my earlier post.)
Also, other studies indicate that pedalling style is significant, such as the study I cited which found that a more sustained and even application of torque on the down stroke, with a lower peak force, was associated with a higher GE.
There are a few other points that I would like to see more fully explained. For example, it seems that different events demand rather different pedalling styles, and even if one can perform well in one domain it does not seem that this means you will be able to perform equally well in other domains. I.e. it seems possible that there is no single pedalling style that is optimum for all situations.
Alex (on his own blog) has given one example in relation to the differences in inertial load that exist between a turbo trainer and riding on the road, noting that each makes unique neuro-muscular demands which mean transfer between the two may be limited. I have found even more striking differences between the skills needed to pedal at a high cadence on the track, climb at around 80 Rpm and ride on the flat using a large gear at 90 - 95 Rpm, as one would do in a time trial. For example, without specific training / practice I would find that, no matter how well I was climbing (and so would have had no problem developing the required torque) I would find it much harder to 'get the power down', maintain a similar heart rate and so forth when riding on the flat in a big gear. Surely, it is not reasonable to say that what is being developed here is a pedalling-related skill?
Another small point, I have read claims that the calf muscles do not contribute significantly to the torque generated in pedalling, with the main job of the calf muscles being to 'stabilise the foot'. If this is the case who do so many cyclists have such hypertrophic calf muscles? It does not seem likely that this would happen if the lower leg were only 'stabilising' the foot.0
