# Learning be efficient when pedaling?



## knezz

Is the video spot on or not?

Any additional suggestions?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=AMHitTUnmZ4


----------



## brianmcg

Too much to think about. Just push down on the pedals. The more you ride the more efficient you will become.


----------



## Randy99CL

brianmcg said:


> Too much to think about. Just push down on the pedals. The more you ride the more efficient you will become.


Sorry, but I don't agree and most efficient pedalers won't either.

When you only push down you're not using many of your muscles. Finding the most efficient pedal stroke means getting all your muscles involved to spread the load. 
For example: when your legs start to get tired focus on just pulling up and relax each leg on the downstroke; you'll see that the muscles you're using now are totally fresh.

Finding the best pedal stroke isn't intuitive; you have to learn it.


----------



## brianmcg

Randy99CL said:


> Sorry, but I don't agree and most efficient pedalers won't either.
> 
> When you only push down you're not using many of your muscles. Finding the most efficient pedal stroke means getting all your muscles involved to spread the load.
> For example: when your legs start to get tired focus on just pulling up and relax each leg on the downstroke; you'll see that the muscles you're using now are totally fresh.
> 
> Finding the best pedal stroke isn't intuitive; you have to learn it.


Nobody in all the history of cycling does this. Even the "most efficient". They just pedal. Every study ever done on pedaling shows the most efficient pros don't pull up. Its wasted effort. "Finding the best pedal stroke isn't intuitive; you have to learn it" No you don't. My four year old daughter pedals perfectly. You should see it. The pedals go in perfect circles and all I did was stick her on her bike. Its amazing.


----------



## woodys737

Not sure if there is one answer that wraps this up into a nice little box for each of us to use. If one maintains constant power the HR increases over time. If one maintain constant HR the power drops over time. 

If I TT for extended periods of time while maintaining target power I seem to periodically emphasize different muscle groups. I can't really explain it and I don't know if it's efficient but, I'm doing whatever feels right to maintain power. Maybe that means I'm not very efficient or maybe it simply means I'm really untrained? Not sure but the overwhelming feeling I have is when I want more power I push down harder. How effective I push down (for me) is really unknown. 

It would be fascinating to chat with Fabian Cancellara and other elite time trial cyclist about this.


----------



## Randy99CL

brianmcg said:


> Nobody in all the history of cycling does this. Even the "most efficient". They just pedal. Every study ever done on pedaling shows the most efficient pros don't pull up. Its wasted effort. "Finding the best pedal stroke isn't intuitive; you have to learn it" No you don't. My four year old daughter pedals perfectly. You should see it. The pedals go in perfect circles and all I did was stick her on her bike. Its amazing.


I'm really surprised that you're writing that.

Have you ever read any of the books written by successful cyclists? All those I've read talk about ways to train yourself to pedal more efficiently.

Efficiency means using more muscles than those used just for pushing down, and putting power into the pedals for more of their rotation.
When I wrote of just pulling up I was using an example that I learned when I first started riding. When my legs got tired I would relax on the downstroke and focus on only pulling hard on the upstroke and discovered that I was using different muscles that were totally fresh because they are not used when you are pushing down. The key is using all of the different leg muscles as you apply power to as much of the circular stroke as you can.

Have you ever heard of "scraping mud off your shoes" as a way of putting more power into the lower part of the stroke?

Have you ever ridden rollers? You have to use a more circular stroke; just pushing down is jerky and usually doesn't work.

What you have written is contrary to everything I've ever read from the successful pros and experts.

Hopefully others will respond here and we'll get more opinions.


----------



## asgelle

Randy99CL said:


> Efficiency means using more muscles than those used just for pushing down, and putting power into the pedals for more of their rotation.


Efficiency is a very nice word with a clear, long established definition. What you wrote is not it. However, if you want to redefine words to mean whatever you want them to, go ahead, but don't be surprised when we can't communicate.



Randy99CL said:


> What you have written is contrary to everything I've ever read from the successful pros and experts.


You're reading the wrong experts. Physiological and biomechanical factors... [Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1991] - PubMed - NCBI Alex's Cycle Blog: Looking under the hood


----------



## Cableguy

I think pedaling efficiency is a red herring. Yes you can become more efficient at pedaling, but as your level of effort increases I think the general control you have over your pedaling style diminishes to the point where it basically becomes involtunary. Becoming more efficient at an easy effort doesn't really matter when you can literally maintain that effort all day long. And if you pedal in a way that is more efficient at a higher effort, for example FTP, is that really more *effective*? Are you going to revert back to your previous pedaling style as soon as you stop focusing on it?


----------



## brianmcg

Some good reading: Perfect Pedal Strokes | Road Bike Rider "Martin cited 1991 research by *Ed Coyle*, _et al_, involving regional level competitors and elite racers -- pros and U.S. national team members. Coyle found that elite cyclists pushed down harder and pulled up less than the less-accomplished riders."


----------



## looigi

Cableguy;4463485... as your level of effort increases I think the general control you have over your pedaling style diminishes to the point where it basically becomes involtunary...[/QUOTE said:


> The effects of training and practice can become involuntary.


----------



## Dave Cutter

brianmcg said:


> Too much to think about. Just push down on the pedals. The more you ride the more efficient you will become.


The more you ride.... the more you ride.... that's all. If you only repeat what you've learned in the first week of cycling you can only progress to that level. 

I am not sure the video is "spot on"... but most cyclist can improve... even the pros.


----------



## wim

brianmcg said:


> Coyle found that elite cyclists pushed down harder and pulled up less than the less-accomplished riders."


Cavanagh published a finding very similar to this in the 1970s. He put it nicely when he said "if the benefits [of pulling back, pulling up and pushing forward] were real, elite cyclists would claim them."

That's not saying that low-cadence touring cyclist and casual recreational riders couldn't benefit somewhat from these strokes at times. Cavanagh studied elite cyclist and most of his data came from ride segments during which the elite rider was generating a steady 400 watt or so.


----------



## Cableguy

looigi said:


> The effects of training and practice can become involuntary.


Is that why studies of pro cyclists seem to indicate their pedaling stroke is "bad" compared to less accomplished cyclists? Did these pro cyclists "practice" this "bad" pedal stroke form intentionally?


----------



## bikerector

wim said:


> Cavanagh published a finding very similar to this in the 1970s. He put it nicely when he said "if the benefits [of pulling back, pulling up and pushing forward] were real, elite cyclists would claim them."
> 
> That's not saying that low-cadence touring cyclist and casual recreational riders couldn't benefit somewhat from these strokes at times. Cavanagh studied elite cyclist and most of his data came from ride segments during which the elite rider was generating a steady 400 watt or so.


Did the findings clarify what "pulled up less" was? My skepticism says that maybe something like "they push down with 30% more force but only pull up with 10% more force" could be stated but not "they don't pull up at all".

I think the pedaling in squares, boxes, circles or whatever visualizer you use is designed to smooth out a pedal stroke more than create more power from the full circle away from the power stroke. Pedaling smoothly is more efficient; I would say that a lot of it would have to do with not wasting energy "chugging" that you see many low cadence, new riders do.. head bobbing, shoulders waving and all that.

From personal experience, pedaling in circles or "scraping the mud off the heel" helps a lot with higher cadence riding as "chugging" with a high cadence is a disaster. Pretty sure higher cadence has been proven to be more efficient in many instances than lower cadences, low being 80rpm and higher being 100rpm. Of course it varies from rider to rider but generally speaking comfortably high cadences are efficient.

Joe Friel mentions "ankling" in his "cycling bible" book (can't remember actual title). Supposed to be more efficient.



> Nobody in all the history of cycling does this. Even the "most efficient". *They just pedal*. Every study ever done on pedaling shows the most efficient pros don't pull up. Its wasted effort. "Finding the best pedal stroke isn't intuitive; you have to learn it" No you don't. My four year old daughter pedals perfectly. You should see it. The pedals go in perfect circles and all I did was stick her on her bike. Its amazing.


If this were the case then clipless pedals would surely never have been invented since platforms are just as effective on the downstroke. (I interpreted "just pedal" = "just push down" by other posts)

However, pulling up, as in actually not pushing down on the powerstroke and only pulling up, doesn't seem right either and I would agree that is wasted energy as the bike is ideally fitted to push downward most efficiently. Pulling through the bottom and pushing leading into the powerstroke I believe do increase efficiency, again as I think it smooths out pedaling. Pulling up some seems reasonable. 

I only know that I pull up when I'm sprinting, but that's a far from efficient pedaling style.


----------



## Mike T.

wim said:


> Cavanagh published a finding very similar to this in the 1970s.


That's weird. I just happen to be (re)reading his book "The Physiology and Biomechanics of Cycling" at this moment. Written 1978.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

Randy99CL said:


> Sorry, but I don't agree and most efficient pedalers won't either.
> 
> When you only push down you're not using many of your muscles. Finding the most efficient pedal stroke means getting all your muscles involved to spread the load.
> For example: when your legs start to get tired focus on just pulling up and relax each leg on the downstroke; you'll see that the muscles you're using now are totally fresh.
> 
> Finding the best pedal stroke isn't intuitive; you have to learn it.


Efficiency is a measure of energy out as a proportion of energy in. In the case of cycling, it's a ratio of the energy delivered to the cranks (power x time) to total energy metabolised.

There is plenty of established science on pedalling, and there will be more as the years roll on. What we know so far is that attempts to change a rider's natural/preferred pedalling action reduces efficiency, and that pedalling actions that involve a greater level of "pulling up" are the least efficient, which should come as no surprise once one understands the make up of the muscles involved.

But it's all moot, since efficiency isn't really the aim of the exercise, it's improved power output that we are after.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

bikerector said:


> Did the findings clarify what "pulled up less" was? My skepticism says that maybe something like "they push down with 30% more force but only pull up with 10% more force" could be stated but not "they don't pull up at all".


Well read the paper and you'll find out  They used sophisticated force measurement pedals to record the forces on each pedal. The faster more powerful national elite level cyclist simply pushed down harder than their slightly slower elite state level cyclists.

Indeed the national level cyclists even displayed some small negative torque on the upstroke, whereas the state level had some positive torque.

here's the average pedal forces for each group:











bikerector said:


> I think the pedaling in squares, boxes, circles or whatever visualizer you use is designed to smooth out a pedal stroke more than create more power from the full circle away from the power stroke. Pedaling smoothly is more efficient; I would say that a lot of it would have to do with not wasting energy "chugging" that you see many low cadence, new riders do.. head bobbing, shoulders waving and all that.


Yes, I'm basically in line with this. Smooth pedalling is a function of firing the most powerful muscles of the body with regular effectiveness and coordination and has very little to do with where one applies torque arounf the pedal stroke.

As an example, I am considered an exceptionally smooth pedaller, however I ride with a prosthetic lower leg and can only push down, it is impossible for me to pull, scrap, flick, ankle etc.



bikerector said:


> From personal experience, pedaling in circles or "scraping the mud off the heel" helps a lot with higher cadence riding as "chugging" with a high cadence is a disaster. Pretty sure higher cadence has been proven to be more efficient in many instances than lower cadences, low being 80rpm and higher being 100rpm. Of course it varies from rider to rider but generally speaking comfortably high cadences are efficient.


Well indeed it's just the opposite, lower cadences in general have a lower metabolic cost and higher efficiency level than higher cadences. That's very well established science.

Higher cadences are a natural consequence of riding at higher power outputs, and power is what matters, not efficiency.



bikerector said:


> Joe Friel mentions "ankling" in his "cycling bible" book (can't remember actual title). Supposed to be more efficient.
> 
> If this were the case then clipless pedals would surely never have been invented since platforms are just as effective on the downstroke. (I interpreted "just pedal" = "just push down" by other posts)


All clipless do is make sure the foot is securely in place to permit powerful downstroke under all sorts of conditions, and reduce the chance of foot slipping which aids in using the muscles in a consistent manner. Testing of athletes (e.g. Maximal Aerobic Power) shows no performance difference in MAP when using clipless / cleated shoes/pedals to when they are riding flat bed pedals and have no physical pedal restraint.



bikerector said:


> However, pulling up, as in actually not pushing down on the powerstroke and only pulling up, doesn't seem right either and I would agree that is wasted energy as the bike is ideally fitted to push downward most efficiently. Pulling through the bottom and pushing leading into the powerstroke I believe do increase efficiency, again as I think it smooths out pedaling. Pulling up some seems reasonable.


Again such actions have not been demonstrated to actually improve efficiency, let alone improve performance (power).



bikerector said:


> I only know that I pull up when I'm sprinting, but that's a far from efficient pedaling style.


That's correct, and just empahsises that cycling performance isn't about efficiency, it's about power output.


----------



## wim

bikerector said:


> Did the findings clarify what "pulled up less" was?


There was no "pulling up less" in the Cavanagh study I referred to. Both clock- and criterion diagrams were different for each elite cyclist, with some (world-class!) riders actually working against themselves (pushing down) during the recovery segment of the crank circle.

To make sense of this, it's helpful to know how the study defines "pulling up." In the Cavanagh study mentioned, "pulling up" is defined as the rider overcoming two forces and adding a third one:
(1) overcoming the weight of the leg pulled against the pedal by gravity,
(2) overcoming the inertial effect resulting from the limb mass resisting the moving pedal, and
(3) applying an additional force so that an upward force is actually acting on the pedal.

How elite cyclists actually pedal is shown clearly by the clock diagrams. The criterion diagrams showing percentages of effective force per crank circle segment over time are even more revealing.

As said, take a look at Cavanagh's (et al.) stuff if this interests you. It debunks popular cycling literature myths in a clear and straightforward manner with the help of good illustrations. And it definitely has stood the test of time.


----------



## tom_h

*Coyle 1991*

Whoops, didnt see Alex Simmons' post above!
I'm just duplicating what he said ;-)


brianmcg said:


> Nobody in all the history of cycling does this. Even the "most efficient". They just pedal. Every study ever done on pedaling shows the most efficient pros don't pull up. Its wasted effort. "Finding the best pedal stroke isn't intuitive; you have to learn it" No you don't. My four year old daughter pedals perfectly. You should see it. The pedals go in perfect circles and all I did was stick her on her bike. Its amazing.


Agreed!

Classic 1991 lab study by Coyle, measured power & torques applied to pedals by elite State & National caliber time trial cyclists. 

There was negligible torque applied during the "up stroke" phase. In fact, the higher performing national level TTers were a little negative -- ie, they allowed some weight on the "upstroke" leg. The best TTers simply push down harder. See solid black line in chart below.


----------



## looigi

Minor note: Total work done over a rev of the cranks is proportional the area under the curves above. Group 2 contributes area after 180, whereas Group 1 does not. Still looks like 2 does less work per rev than 1, but not as much less as the difference in peak at 90 might suggest.


----------



## tom_h

looigi said:


> Minor note: Total work done over a rev of the cranks is proportional the area under the curves above. Group 2 contributes area after 180, whereas Group 1 does not. Still looks like 2 does less work per rev than 1, but not as much less as the difference in peak at 90 might suggest.


I misplaced my copy of Coyle's article, & don't recall if the data is somehow adjusted for cadence.

Since power = cadence x torque x constants, the elite "national" caliber might also have been spinning faster in addition to their higher torque.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

tom_h said:


> I misplaced my copy of Coyle's article, & don't recall if the data is somehow adjusted for cadence.
> 
> Since power = cadence x torque x constants, the elite "national" caliber might also have been spinning faster in addition to their higher torque.


Group 1 produced 11% more power on average than group 2.


----------



## mikerp

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> As an example, I am considered an exceptionally smooth pedaller, however I ride with a prosthetic lower leg and can only push down, it is impossible for me to pull, scrap, flick, ankle etc.


Not to derail the thread but for what it's worth you are on my A list, I saw a gentlemen in my area tooling along on his bike with a lower prosthetic, this is up there with guys I've seen parking in the far end of the parking lots getting out of their vehicles with a lower leg prosthetic (Vets) and walking to the store. Seeing this now and then, gives me a small bit of hope, as I see folks with the blue hang tags, getting out of sporty cars, getting into the electric courtesy cart, and load up on the junk food.


----------



## Creakyknees

watch this video:

http://cyclo-core.com/CYCLO90/cycling-pedal-secrets/


----------



## tom_h

Creakyknees said:


> watch this video:
> http://cyclo-core.com/CYCLO90/cycling-pedal-secrets/


_"12%-20% increase in power expected!"_ , eh? 

Do I get a free set of Ginsu knives, or a ShamWow, with that? ;-)


----------



## otaner142

If pushing down the pedals its the efficient way then why pro use clipless shoes if they are just pushing down ? The efficient pedalingway to me is pushing down with my toes up and heel down ( not fully down but in the middle ) and then toes down heel up as you get into the up stroke .


----------



## tom_h

otaner142 said:


> If pushing down the pedals its the efficient way then why pro use clipless shoes if they are just pushing down ? ... .


I think it was explained in a previous post, but the reason is it securely locates your foot in your preferred position, whether you're seated or out of saddle. 

You'll especially appreciate this if you're ever in all-out sprint, out of saddle, turning the cranks 130+ rpm ;-)

But even for a semi-serious recreational rider, holding the foot location is a big factor for comfort and consistency of power output.


----------



## hummina shadeeba

There is no doubt in my mind that people pull the pedals while sprinting and even at other times getting the cranks around with a forward and backward effort other than the standard down or up effort.
If riding was just about pushing pedals it wouldn't matter if you rode with huge stack height in your shoes and cleats right? I say the stack makes pulling or pushing over the dead spot harder...assuming anyone does that, which I know at certain times I do.
I will sometimes consciously use muscles other than the downward force ones...a subtle pull at the bottom and roll over the top. It may be inefficient to use these smaller muscles for any length of time, they aren't as strong, but for short periods they give a slight rest to the mainly used leg muscles. I'll occasionally pedal purely with no downward motion and I can keep at 20mph on a flat for a bit of time.

The study cited, while I didn't look into it, might be limited to a certain restricted activity. I bet if they were to include a full days riding they'd find a forward, backward, and upward effort. 
Just look at cyclist's legs, there's a lot more developed muscles than just those used for pushing down and they aren't just for stability. I've got hip muscles from cycling which girls like to hold onto. You could have them too


----------



## tom_h

hummina shadeeba said:


> ... The study cited, while I didn't look into it, might be limited to a certain restricted activity. I bet if they were to include a full days riding they'd find a forward, backward, and upward effort. ...


The 1991 Coyle study and graph posted earlier, was from a 40km TT on a lab ergometer cycle. Times ranged 51-60 minutes. They were instructed to pedal at maximal sustainable or "race" pace.




hummina shadeeba said:


> ... Just look at cyclist's legs, there's a lot more developed muscles than just those used for pushing down and they aren't just for stability. I've got hip muscles from cycling which girls like to hold onto. You could have them too


My entire legs are very low body fat%, which emphasizes the underlying muscle structure. Eg, I don't think I have any particular strength in my calves, and in fact the calves are quite skinny, and to non-cyclists the calves might even be described as "ripped".

re "hip muscles", the gluteus muscle group is the largest single muscle group in the body and does get heavily recruited by experienced and/or "trained" cyclists ... even though to most people it's the quadriceps feeling the fatigue , probably because the quadriceps are a smaller muscle.

Interestingly, in the Coyle 1991 study, they also measured leg circumference at lower, mid, and upper thigh.
There was a very slightly bigger leg in the national level vs state level athletes, but it was under 2%.

There was no obvious correlation between leg size and TT performance and output wattage. 

There was a very strong & direct correlation between vO2 and TT performance, and the national-level cyclists were able to sustain a higher % of vO2max during the TT -- cycling is an aerobic, not a strength, sport!


----------



## hummina shadeeba

cycling is commonly known as aerobic but there are a lot of people who win races with a bad ass power sprint that looks far from aerobic. And I bet they're pulling up and possibly every other way on the pedals at moments. We may be comparing apples to oranges with TT vs road racing though. I wonder if a there's a similar study using huge cranks in which we could see some differences. I surmise that if you pushed a huge crank and you only were exerting effort when pushing down a rider would end up with a faster time. With the simplified we-only-push-down view it's just a larger lever with more leverage and it seems to follow that they would go faster. Maybe they would but I suspect the rest of the crank circle's rotation has relevance and it would show. 
Maybe no power shows in the up, forward, or back stroke in this study because this effort is so well timed after such repetition that it's just enough to pull the weight of the leg up and around the circle.


----------



## tom_h

hummina shadeeba said:


> cycling is commonly known as aerobic but there are a lot of people who win races with a bad ass power sprint that looks far from aerobic. And I bet they're pulling up and possibly every other way on the pedals at moments....


Oh yes, for sure ... but the very high power, anaerobic energy system can only operate for typically 12-20 seconds. 



hummina shadeeba said:


> ... I wonder if a there was a similar study with huge cranks you could see some differences and what those differences mean. If you pushed a huge crank, and you only were exerting effort when pushing down, why wouldnt they just simply end up with a faster time? With the simplified we-only-push-down view it's just a larger lever with more leverage. But I suspect the rest of the crank circle's rotation has relevance and it would show.


 No free lunch:
Power = cadence x torque = cadence x force x lever arm length.

With huge gearing or long cranks, your cadence will decrease and there will be no net increase in power. In fact, sustainable power will decrease at some point, because big gear recruits more fast twitch muscle and those tire more easily.

I observe both these 2 effects on my power data, and I'm pretty sure I am "typical".


----------



## hummina shadeeba

"With huge gearing or long cranks, your cadence will decrease and there will be no net increase in power. In fact, sustainable power will decrease at some point, because big gear recruits more fast twitch muscle and those tire more easily."

I wouldve thought a big gear and/or it's slow cadence would recruit slow twitch muscles not fast

A longer lever will give you more power or force (not sure on the proper terminology) and the only thing hindering this is the rest of the circle which the crank will have to go. This "rest of the circle" is an obstacle in that it slows your cadence (bigger circle is a longer distance) and with the bigger circle and necessary lowering of saddle, the optimum crank position, 3o'clock, will move away from the rider's optimum leg angle... at the extreme the rider's knee would be too bent to put out much effort. 
these are the obstacles to a longer crank as I see it.
With a longer crank it makes more sense that a rider would use the rest of the circle as there would be greater leverage all around and nowhere on the circle except maybe at 5 to 6 would they be able to push with a mostly elongated and powerful leg while with a shorter crank they could get good leg extension from possibly 3 to 6. The ideal pedaling position between 3 and 6 would be less valuable and the rest of the circle would be of greater use though. 

And what about those cool cranks that worked independently? They develop the other muscles other than just the pushing ones as you have to pull the pedal all around back to the top. Do you believe developing such muscles is valueless? 
And as I said before maybe the study doesn't contradict the idea of pulling on the pedals, it's just that pulling enough to unweight the foot is all that is being shown done. This would follow with the data as at the harder levels there was even a down-push on the backside, that would be counter productive, possibly from these smaller muscles being used for the upstroke being fatigued
And I also dont think that my hip muscles and any other leg muscles I have bulging out are the result of just being more defined. 
My legs can be exhausted after a ride to the extent I'll be having a hard time lifting my feet and tripping on things.


----------



## hummina shadeeba

I imagine someone will come out with a crank someday in the future that will enable the crank lever to keep the pedal in the ideal 3 to 6 0'clock position constantly. This will allow the rider to be in a most powerful/efficient leg angle continuously. maybe.


----------



## tom_h

hummina shadeeba said:


> ... I wouldve thought a big gear and/or it's slow cadence would recruit slow twitch muscles not fast.. .


Not so, that's a common misunderstanding.

"fast twitch" is engaged when doing explosive, very high strength activity. Think of jumping from the ground, up onto the top of a 3 ft high table. Or, a maximum effort "jump" on the first couple pedal strokes of a sprint.

The high strength needed to turn over a 53-12 gear going uphill, recruits mostly the easily tired, fast twitch muscles even though you are turning pedals very slowly. 

When have you ever seen a pro cyclist trying to win a long, multi-mile climb of 6-10% grade, while pedaling at 60 rpm? I'd safely say, "Never".


----------



## tom_h

hummina shadeeba said:


> ... And what about those cool cranks that worked independently? They develop the other muscles other than just the pushing ones as you have to pull the pedal all around back to the top. Do you believe developing such muscles is valueless? .."


Those Power Cranks™ don't work. Not a single, independent lab study has shown they offer any training improvement.

By "independent" I mean, isn't affiliated with or receiving payment from the manufacturer.


----------



## hummina shadeeba

ok you say they're called slow twitch muscles and lots of us seem to be calling them fast twitch. I'll agree on that but the rest I will contest. 


Just as a lab hasn't shown power cranks work..none have shown they don't, as far as I can read, and there are a lot of people out there who feel they're better because of them. 

But the issue of pedaling while possibly pulling over the top, along the bottom, and around the backside of the pedaling circle is still debatable even with this study having been done as I see it. As I wrote regarding the study: generally there is a lack of weight pushing down on the pedal on the backside of the pedal stroke and this could demonstrate muscles being used to lift just the leg's weight. In fact I can't imagine what else to attribute the lack of a twenty-something pound leg's resistance showing up. And then when the rider is at his limit these weaker muscles lifting the leg are exhausted and then there is weight being shown on the pedal.
Possibly?


----------



## tom_h

hummina shadeeba said:


> ok you say they're called slow twitch muscles and lots of us seem to be calling them fast twitch. I'll agree on that but the rest I will contest...


yes ... most people have misconceptions. 
Here's an intro from physiological viewpoint:
Skeletal striated muscle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Type I" fibers are the true slow-twitch, and are recruited mainly in the aerobic regime. Even pedaling 100 rpm, in aerobic regime, is mostly recruiting slow twitch fibers.

Note also, the triathletes have a website and forum called "Slow Twitch Forum" ... and triathlon cycling is all about long steady TT performance! ;-)




hummina shadeeba said:


> Just as a lab hasn't shown power cranks work..none have shown they don't, as far as I can read, and there are a lot of people out there who feel they're better because of them. ...


It is logically impossible to "prove a negative". The burden is on proponents to prove a positive benefit.

It is equivalent to asking "Prove there's Not a little green man behind you, who disappears without a trace whenever you turn around, or try to take his picture". There's no way to _prove _that.


----------



## hummina shadeeba

Id say the burden of proof is on you as you're the one saying they don't work. Just because something hasn't been proven to work doesn't mean it doesn't.

But I'd rather you just answer my one question about if you think it's possible the study demonstrates that cyclists were pulling on the backstroke since there is little to no weigh showing up there and people are not letting their leg weight (roughly 25 pounds) weigh the pedal.
Continuing the attempt to "prove a negative":
prove to me they aren't pulling on the backstroke. Or maybe the fact that the weight doesn't show there is proving they are pulling. Frame it how you will.
I didn't read the whole study though so I don't know...maybe they did prove this.


----------



## tom_h

hummina shadeeba said:


> ...
> But I'd rather you just answer my one question about if you think it's possible the study demonstrates that cyclists were pulling on the backstroke since there is little to no weigh showing up there and people are not letting their leg weight (roughly 25 pounds) weigh the pedal.
> Continuing the attempt to "prove a negative":
> prove to me they aren't pulling on the backstroke. Or maybe the fact that the weight doesn't show there is proving they are pulling. Frame it how you will.
> I didn't read the whole study though so I don't know...maybe they did prove this.


Find the Coyle paper, read it, and try to understand it. I can't keep trying to "re-explain" it, as it seems semi-futile.

The Coyle study measured torques and forces separately & independently on left & right pedals. The presence of a negative torque on the "upstroke" leg can only be interpreted as no pulling up, there is no other explanation grounded in mechanics & physics.

And in case you're skeptical about the "mechanics & physics" involved, the basic principles have been repeatedly proven true & valid for _at least_ the last 350 years.


----------



## hummina shadeeba

I found this link. talks about both the study and the power cranks and doesn't support either of what you are saying
PowerCranks related study - Coyle factors associated with elite performance
it is put out by powercrank but does have a good argument as far as I can tell

The Coyle study is over a hundred pages. I'm not going to read it. Not everyone agrees on what the Coyle study "proves" and I don't think it's fair to accept it as the end of the question. Supposedly the Coyle study goes against pretty much every other similar study done before.
It talks about exactly what I was saying..the weight of the leg on the backstroke. I'm feeling like a genius now.
I'll look into it some more.
peace.


----------



## ncr

hummina shadeeba said:


> I imagine someone will come out with a crank someday in the future that will enable the crank lever to keep the pedal in the ideal 3 to 6 0'clock position constantly. This will allow the rider to be in a most powerful/efficient leg angle continuously. maybe.


 Not much gain with that special crank, you are already pedalling like that. No need for a new type of crank, the most effective sector in the power stroke semi circle is between 2 - 4 o'c, here you get best torque return from the maximal force that is applied to the pedal. By a switch in technique this powerful sector effect can be doubled to extend from 11 - 4 o'c.


----------



## ibericb

Like old, dead threads?


----------

