Pedalling technique thread

Stalin

Why should discussions about the relevance of pedalling technique be removed by the moderators?

It is probably one of the most interesting subjects.

What is the point of a cycling forum if moderators remove threads about valid and interesting subjects?

Or is this forum reserved for a select few who use it as a cheap form of advertising?

lancew

Because its been mentioned before.

viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12959784&p=18753120&hilit=pedalling+technique#p18753120

viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12914896&p=18243023&hilit=pedalling+technique#p18243023

viewtopic.php?f=40020&t=12833161&p=17415403&hilit=pedalling+technique#p17415403

viewtopic.php?f=40028&t=12830786&p=17392419&hilit=pedalling+technique#p17392419

viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12782642&p=17002673&hilit=pedalling+technique#p17002673

viewtopic.php?f=40020&t=12776403&p=16935974&hilit=pedalling+technique#p16935974

Stalin

Lancew wrote:

Because its been mentioned before.

viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12959784&p=18753120&hilit=pedalling+technique#p18753120

viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12914896&p=18243023&hilit=pedalling+technique#p18243023

viewtopic.php?f=40020&t=12833161&p=17415403&hilit=pedalling+technique#p17415403

viewtopic.php?f=40028&t=12830786&p=17392419&hilit=pedalling+technique#p17392419

viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12782642&p=17002673&hilit=pedalling+technique#p17002673

viewtopic.php?f=40020&t=12776403&p=16935974&hilit=pedalling+technique#p16935974

It is a popular subject, people want to discuss it as evidenced by the number of threads and posts.

Almost every cycling subject has been discussed before over and over again, but for some reason some people don't like the discussion.

If you don't want to discuss something ignore the thread. Leave it to those who do want to discuss it. But no you moan and complain and whinge to the mods who remove the topic.

What is the point of a forum which won't allow valid discussion?

lancew

Maybe there should just be an official threat somewhere?

I didn't moan about it, I just answered your question.

Stalin

Lancew wrote:

Maybe there should just be an official threat somewhere?

I didn't moan about it, I just answered your question.

I just got an official threat.

But I agree, an official pedalling technique thread where those that are interested in the subject can discuss it without being harassed, would be a good idea.

supermurph09

That would explain why it went then

Stalin

Supermurph09 wrote:

That would explain why it went then

You did touch on something in your original post.

You mentioned that when you made an effort to pedal in a certain way, you got smoother power but less power.

This is the big question. If you were continue to work on the technique would power eventually improve more than if you did the same amount of training without working on the technique.

My gut feeling is that any technique you adopt will ultimately bring about less improvement than the technique you naturally adopt. Your brain works out what works best for you. If you try to change this you will fatigue faster.

But what does the evidence say?

supermurph09

I think less power came from the fatigue, but as I mentioned it was the fact that my power was kept within a better range, say around 320W as opposed to jumping to 400 and back to 250 etc. My feeling was is that rather than getting 3/4 into the interval and having the power drop off before managing an all out push, with better technique I could be withing 20 or so watts the whole interval.

As for the thread being removed, I agree we don't want to repeat the same thing over again, but new threads can sometimes give a fresh insight.

Stalin

Supermurph09 wrote:

I think less power came from the fatigue, but as I mentioned it was the fact that my power was kept within a better range, say around 320W as opposed to jumping to 400 and back to 250 etc. My feeling was is that rather than getting 3/4 into the interval and having the power drop off before managing an all out push, with better technique I could be withing 20 or so watts the whole interval.

As for the thread being removed, I agree we don't want to repeat the same thing over again, but new threads can sometimes give a fresh insight.

But is the object to deliver smooth power within a narrow range of watts or to average the most watts over the interval?

The point of a power meter is to measure the power output and thus your training. The idea isn't to tailor your training to the power meter.

supermurph09

It was to average the most watts over the interval. I'm doing my first FTP test this week so I was guessing a little on my interval workout. My intention was to be able to hold around 325W for the interval, I felt that this would be more achievable if I could maintain a constant range lets say 310 - 340 as opposed to it jumping to 400 and then back down to 200. It will all come with experience and knowing what my FTP actually is rather than making the assumption.

Alex_Simmons/RST

New research paper released:

Bilateral Asymmetry Assessment in Cycling Using Commercial Instrumented Crank System and Instrumented Pedals

Short version:
Be careful what you interpret from net torque profile data from both legs combined (e.g. charts from Wattbike, SRM Torque Analysis, Velotron, Computrainer) as these significantly mask over what's actually going on with one's pedalling.

Stalin

cyd190468 wrote:

Stalin wrote:

My gut feeling is that any technique you adopt will ultimately bring about less improvement than the technique you naturally adopt. Your brain works out what works best for you. If you try to change this you will fatigue faster.

But what does the evidence say?

Next time there's an international track n field meet on telly watch the sprinters really closely. Then go and watch some regular people running. Track sprinting and running are two very different things. Running is how you think you should do it sprinting is how science says you should do it. It's the same with swimming or kicking a football or any other sport. What feels right very rarely is.

Michael Johnson was told to change his style by many coaches. His view was he was winning doing it his way, although his coach may have changed a few things he did he recognised that his style was dictated by his particular physique and trying to make him conventional would slow him down.

I was though talking specifically about cycling and pedalling, you can't compare this to other sports.

I come from a judo and fencing background where technique is paramount. So, whilst I broadly agree with you for sports in general, I'm inclined to the view that pedalling is the exception.

I would however be pleased if someone does one day prove that sustainable power can be improved by changes in pedalling technique.

One problem in sport is that the accepted best technique is not necessarily the best technique for everyone. A good example is classical French fencing technique. It is best for tall fencers with height and reach, possibly, but the Russians and East Germans scientifically analysed fencing, developed a system, and smashed the frenchies to bits. The French had to go away and adapt their style.

Now the question of what feels best compared to what is the most effective is fascinating. Swimming is a good example, any swimming coaches on here? But in judo and fencing, the best technique changes for each individual. Broadly there are the correct ways to make moves and execute certain techniques but these have to be adapted to each individual.

Many techniques coached in sport are based on tradition, the views of prominent individuals, fashion, or flawed analysis. When you investigate, there was no actual science applied to working out what the correct technique is.

In boxing, look at Joe Frazier, the guy looked awkward, unbalanced, he looked like he had no technique, was just a brawler. But Frazier was in fact employing the techniques which best suited his physique and natural abilities. It may have looked horrible but he was short with a short reach. His coaches developed a style and techniques which enabled him to beat heavier and taller opponents.

Many so called correct techniques are based on myth or tradition or some new fashion rather than scientific analysis. Techniques which feel awkward and unnatural should be very carefully examined. Often they are rubbish techniques which damage performance but people persist with them because coaches tell them that is the way you should do it.

Then you should look at the appalling style of some of the great distance runners.

Another good example of technique is how well judo and jiu jitsu fighters have done in MMA, often against much bigger opponents.

But when you come to pedalling a bike and the motor skills involved who even knows or can prove what technique works best?

Stalin

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

New research paper released:

Bilateral Asymmetry Assessment in Cycling Using Commercial Instrumented Crank System and Instrumented Pedals

Short version:
Be careful what you interpret from net torque profile data from both legs combined (e.g. charts from Wattbike, SRM Torque Analysis, Velotron, Computrainer) as these significantly mask over what's actually going on with one's pedalling.

Alex, thanks for that. I can't access the whole paper but from reading the bit I can see, they are not able to test Garmin Vector and Look Keo Power Pedals?

Using the sort of equipment used in the study can pedalling technique be analysed to the extent we can actually test various techniques to find out which works best?

Is it a case of the equipment does not exist to prove pedalling techniques one way or the other or is it a case of no one has yet proved any particular technique is superior?

bahzob

Stalin wrote:

cyd190468 wrote:

Stalin wrote:

My gut feeling is that any technique you adopt will ultimately bring about less improvement than the technique you naturally adopt. Your brain works out what works best for you. If you try to change this you will fatigue faster.

But what does the evidence say?

Next time there's an international track n field meet on telly watch the sprinters really closely. Then go and watch some regular people running. Track sprinting and running are two very different things. Running is how you think you should do it sprinting is how science says you should do it. It's the same with swimming or kicking a football or any other sport. What feels right very rarely is.

Michael Johnson was told to change his style by many coaches. His view was he was winning doing it his way, although his coach may have changed a few things he did he recognised that his style was dictated by his particular physique and trying to make him conventional would slow him down.

This may or may not be true. Regardless in his book "Gold Rush" Johnson covers the meticulous preparation he takes the athletes he is training through.

This includes taking video from all directions including overhead and using this to make small adjustments to technique (that may well be imperceptible to the untrained eye). That is not to say one size fits all, Johnson proves this. But it does just one example of how looking at all the components that combine to make up a skill and trying to improve each will yield good results.

Anyone who has followed cycling surely understands this?? "Aggregation of marginal gains" has now become a cliche. In this context the notion that everyone, naturally, pedals in a perfect way as if by magic so cannot gain anything by looking at this aspect of the sport seems antediluvian. All the more so since spending time on this requires absolutely no time investment, just a bit of thought.

All the more so since there are multiple instances of cyclists of much greater pedigree than those contributing here (in any capacity) have talked about how changing their pedal technique has has good or negative effects on their results. Just the latest example
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Time-Trialling-Fly-Through-Pain-Barrier-ebook/dp/B009YL5JVG

Not just the athletes themselves. Many coaches are more enlightened than some here. Hunter Allen, doyen of power based training, advises include cadence drills in your workouts.

Why should someone ignore the advice of folks like this who are better than them in favour of the opinions of those who, as far as I know is worse (anyone here won the BBAR recently) ?

Citing "science" on the naive assumption that science is what people dressed in white coats do in labs is not, in my book sufficient reason. Often when examined closely these studies are flawed by the difficulty of establishing a robust protocol.

I stand by my prediction that, in time, pedalling technique will become part of the standard coaching approach just as power is now. The main impediment to that happening so far is the lack of objective data. This is changing, new releases of Cheetah/WKO et all will include the basic pedalling metrics that units like the Vector and Rotor products provide. And these metrics/Ant protocols themselves will evolve so that they provide more accurate data (Factor cranks being an example). The time will come when the information provided by the Wattbike will be available on road bike head units.

When this happens there will ofc still be deniers. Just as now we get folks who think power meters are a waste of money. But they will be in the minority and thankfully threads like this one will seem just bizarre.

ai_1

Stalin wrote:

....Many techniques coached in sport are based on tradition, the views of prominent individuals, fashion, or flawed analysis. When you investigate, there was no actual science applied to working out what the correct technique is.

In boxing, look at Joe Frazier, the guy looked awkward, unbalanced, he looked like he had no technique, was just a brawler. But Frazier was in fact employing the techniques which best suited his physique and natural abilities. It may have looked horrible but he was short with a short reach. His coaches developed a style and techniques which enabled him to beat heavier and taller opponents.

Many so called correct techniques are based on myth or tradition or some new fashion rather than scientific analysis. Techniques which feel awkward and unnatural should be very carefully examined. Often they are rubbish techniques which damage performance but people persist with them because coaches tell them that is the way you should do it....

Very true.
Accepted wisdom can be like religion. No evidence but heck, everyone can't be wrong, can they? YES

imposter2.0

bahzob wrote:

Why should someone ignore the advice of folks like this who are better than them in favour of the opinions of those who, as far as I know is worse (anyone here won the BBAR recently) ?

Conversely - I also know a BBAR winner who does not recommend pedalling drills. That's not to say they are specifically against it - just that they don't consider it as a major factor. A good balance of opinion is always useful, I find...

Tom Dean

bahzob wrote:

...The main impediment to that happening so far is the lack of objective data.

No, the problem is that no-one knows how to make use of the data, or whether it is useful at all.

bahzob

Imposter wrote:

bahzob wrote:

Why should someone ignore the advice of folks like this who are better than them in favour of the opinions of those who, as far as I know is worse (anyone here won the BBAR recently) ?

Conversely - I also know a BBAR winner who does not recommend pedalling drills. That's not to say they are specifically against it - just that they don't consider it as a major factor. A good balance of opinion is always useful, I find...

So another BBAR winner who agrees with me. Judged by the vehemence of their opinions many here, including you, seem to be specifically against spending any time or thought on pedalling drills, since apparently you get to this perfectly just by riding a bike.

And the whole point is that you progress be addressing ALL factors, not picking those you think are "major" and ignoring the rest. That is what "aggregation of marginal gains" means.

imposter2.0

bahzob wrote:

Imposter wrote:

bahzob wrote:

Why should someone ignore the advice of folks like this who are better than them in favour of the opinions of those who, as far as I know is worse (anyone here won the BBAR recently) ?

Conversely - I also know a BBAR winner who does not recommend pedalling drills. That's not to say they are specifically against it - just that they don't consider it as a major factor. A good balance of opinion is always useful, I find...

So another BBAR winner who agrees with me. Judged by the vehemence of their opinions many here, including you, seem to be specifically against spending any time or thought on pedalling drills, since apparently you get to this perfectly just by riding a bike.

And the whole point is that you progress be addressing ALL factors, not picking those you think are "major" and ignoring the rest. That is what "aggregation of marginal gains" means.

Not entirely sure how you arrive at the conclusion that someone who doesn't recommend working on pedalling is actually agreeing with you?

And just to be clear (in case you missed the previous 75,000 threads where I mentioned it) - I'm not against anything that may improve on-bike performance. Trouble is, I've not seen any evidence which suggests that working on pedal technique delivers any improvement whatsoever. Your persistent ranting does not count as evidence, by the way.

bahzob

Imposter wrote:

bahzob wrote:

Why should someone ignore the advice of folks like this who are better than them in favour of the opinions of those who, as far as I know is worse (anyone here won the BBAR recently) ?

Conversely - I also know a BBAR winner who does not recommend pedalling drills. That's not to say they are specifically against it - just that they don't consider it as a major factor. A good balance of opinion is always useful, I find...

Just to be crystal clear. I too do NOT recommend pedalling drills. Unless you have unlimited time for training they are a waste of your most precious resource >> time.

What I do recommend is spending time while doing training on focussing on not just what you are producing in terms of power but how you are producing it. So don't mindlessly do intervals at a self selected comfortable cadence but make a conscious effort to vary it. Focus on specific muscles/contact points and make small adaptations to see if they have any effect in terms of power or perceived effort. (For the majority this is all that they can do. A Wattbike allows you to be more precise since it provides feedback. New power meters will be able to do similar)


None of this is rocket science I agree but that's precisely why I find it so hard to credit people like you think it is a waste of time.

Tom Dean

bahzob wrote:

Focus on specific muscles/contact points and make small adaptations to see if they have any effect in terms of power or perceived effort. (For the majority this is all that they can do. A Wattbike allows you to be more precise since it provides feedback. New power meters will be able to do similar)

So is it about power/PE or something else 'more precise' that Wattbike tells you?

Alex_Simmons/RST

bahzob wrote:

A Wattbike allows you to be more precise since it provides feedback. New power meters will be able to do similar

I'm not so sure about that. Have a look at the significant difference in reported torque depending on how it is being measured and reported. A Wattbike will report the same as the SRM torque analysis shown.



The downstream torque measurement completely masks over what's actually going on and may very well lead one to draw the wrong conclusion about their pedalling.

xavierdisley

People still won't listen I fear.

I do sometimes prescribe incredibly high cadence efforts as a means to reinforce the neuromuscular pathway with both endurance and sprint riders. The premise is that pedalling at 190rpm+ can only be done using a near optimal muscular activation profile, as you'll struggle to pedal with suboptimal activation past 130rpm for your individual morphology, and if you're pedalling at >3x per second you're reinforcing that pathway as well as getting an anaerobic effort out.

Xav

Stalin

xavierdisley wrote:

People still won't listen I fear.

I do sometimes prescribe incredibly high cadence efforts as a means to reinforce the neuromuscular pathway with both endurance and sprint riders. The premise is that pedalling at 190rpm+ can only be done using a near optimal muscular activation profile, as you'll struggle to pedal with suboptimal activation past 130rpm for your individual morphology, and if you're pedalling at >3x per second you're reinforcing that pathway as well as getting an anaerobic effort out.

Xav

Would the optimum muscular activation profile be the same at 90 rpm?

If there is an optimal muscular activation profile, might this be considered a pedalling technique or style?

Are you saying that what comes naturally is dictated by your skeleton and musculature and the brain naturally finds the most effective way of pedalling?

ncr

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

bahzob wrote:

A Wattbike allows you to be more precise since it provides feedback. New power meters will be able to do similar

I'm not so sure about that. Have a look at the significant difference in reported torque depending on how it is being measured and reported. A Wattbike will report the same as the SRM torque analysis shown.



The downstream torque measurement completely masks over what's actually going on and may very well lead one to draw the wrong conclusion about their pedalling.

How does the downstream torque measurement mask over what exactly is going on and what type of wrong conclusion are you referring to. What type of PM would give a true picture of what is actually happening during the pedalling.

frisbee

Looks like measurement error or too small a sample size, taking the error bands(?) you can get the results to overlap.

Alex_Simmons/RST

ncr wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

bahzob wrote:

A Wattbike allows you to be more precise since it provides feedback. New power meters will be able to do similar

I'm not so sure about that. Have a look at the significant difference in reported torque depending on how it is being measured and reported. A Wattbike will report the same as the SRM torque analysis shown.



The downstream torque measurement completely masks over what's actually going on and may very well lead one to draw the wrong conclusion about their pedalling.

How does the downstream torque measurement mask over what exactly is going on and what type of wrong conclusion are you referring to. What type of PM would give a true picture of what is actually happening during the pedalling.

Compare the torque profile from chart D (downstream net torque measurement, in this case using SRM torque data) with the actual torque profile as measured by lab instrumented pedals in chart C.

Note the significantly different torque profile that's being generated by each measurement method, and how the downstream net torque measurement doesn't show what's actually going on with pedal torque.

The difference is so large (larger than I thought it might be) that I'd suggest you'd need to be very careful in using torque profiles from downstream net torque measurement when assessing pedalling dynamics, let alone suggesting a course of "corrective action". You may in fact be doing precisely the opposite of what you think you are doing.

A very simple example: downstream net torque measurement may indicate you are right leg dominant, when in fact you may very well be left leg dominant. For those that think they need to address such asymmetry, can you imagine how easily you might get the "corrective action" wrong?

But it's more than that simplistic example. The very shape of those polar type pedal torque plots from downstream net measurement devices are masking over what's actually going on and are misleading.

Again, just to emphasise - this does not mean the power data from such downstream measurement is wrong, it's not as using net torque data is exactly what should be used for that. But as a means to provide sound feedback for pedalling dynamics it is somewhat lacking.

Alex_Simmons/RST

frisbee wrote:

Looks like measurement error or too small a sample size, taking the error bands(?) you can get the results to overlap.

Consider the charts C and D.

The peak torque value of the low error bar line in chart C (instrumented pedals) is significantly higher than top of the high error bar line in chart D (the downstream net torque measurement). There's no overlap there

Quite clearly the shape of the torque profile as plotted from each measurement method is significantly different. Chart D looks pretty symmetrical for each leg and a limited range of variance, whereas chart C shows significant asymmetry and a far greater range of variance in torque profile.

paul2718

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

bahzob wrote:

A Wattbike allows you to be more precise since it provides feedback. New power meters will be able to do similar

I'm not so sure about that. Have a look at the significant difference in reported torque depending on how it is being measured and reported. A Wattbike will report the same as the SRM torque analysis shown.



The downstream torque measurement completely masks over what's actually going on and may very well lead one to draw the wrong conclusion about their pedalling.

Actually getting to this paper seems tricky.

But I do not see why C and D should differ other than that there is a difference in sample rate between the pedal system and the crank system. I think you can draw no conclusions from that particular comparison.

Paul

Alex_Simmons/RST

paul2718 wrote:

But I do not see why C and D should differ other than that there is a difference in sample rate between the pedal system and the crank system. I think you can draw no conclusions from that particular comparison.

Both measurement devices were sampled at 600Hz.

frisbee

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

paul2718 wrote:

But I do not see why C and D should differ other than that there is a difference in sample rate between the pedal system and the crank system. I think you can draw no conclusions from that particular comparison.

Both measurement devices were sampled at 600Hz.

The raw strain readings or through whatever filtering and processing the devices have?

From years of working with force sensors on similar applications it all looks a bit weird. Like, Why is the pedal system normalised to 0 at 0 degrees.