pealling push up push down

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Having experimented and tested every possible style of pedalling, I know that it can take time to train muscles but the improvement must be visiable from day one, if not why continue. What are the inefficiencies in the circular and stomping styles that PC's can eliminate and what are the muscles that take so long to train or could it be that they are not trainable.

Most new users do see changes starting from day one that they interpret as improvements even though they are actually going slower. In addition, they see improvement everytime they get on the bike the first few weeks or so. If they did not i suspect no one would make it through the transition.

Any muscle requires time to train, whether for strength or endurance. In addition, PC's are retraining the unconscious coordination (the brain). This also takes time, especially when you are undoing your current coordination and trying to learn another. It is impossible to explain to someone what we are doing differently from what you think you are doing now without your riding them. Just accept the fact that most who try them are positively impressed and feel they are worth the investment. Those who are most critical of them are those who have never tried them, for whatever reason.

Most new users do see changes starting from day one that they interpret as improvements even though they are actually going slower. In addition, they see improvement everytime they get on the bike the first few weeks or so. If they did not i suspect no one would make it through the transition.

Any muscle requires time to train, whether for strength or endurance. In addition, PC's are retraining the unconscious coordination (the brain). This also takes time, especially when you are undoing your current coordination and trying to learn another. It is impossible to explain to someone what we are doing differently from what you think you are doing now without your riding them. Just accept the fact that most who try them are positively impressed and feel they are worth the investment. Those who are most critical of them are those who have never tried them, for whatever reason.






I still believe they make excellent training equipment for a beginner seeking a smooth pedalling style but as for increasing power with the circular style, I cannot accept that. If you need more power, you need a completely different technique.

Most new users do see changes starting from day one that they interpret as improvements even though they are actually going slower. In addition, they see improvement everytime they get on the bike the first few weeks or so. If they did not i suspect no one would make it through the transition.

Any muscle requires time to train, whether for strength or endurance. In addition, PC's are retraining the unconscious coordination (the brain). This also takes time, especially when you are undoing your current coordination and trying to learn another. It is impossible to explain to someone what we are doing differently from what you think you are doing now without your riding them. Just accept the fact that most who try them are positively impressed and feel they are worth the investment. Those who are most critical of them are those who have never tried them, for whatever reason.


Could it be that the visible changes which they experience at the beginning is a feeling of the ability to apply power to the pedals in areas where they never did before such as the dead spot areas and rising leg. But that is when you are pedalling in slow motion as you state above with them going slower.The problem with this is that with a cadence of 90+, you have to return to your normal power application with no time for power application in these areas. From your own experience, how does power application with these cranks at a cadence of 100 differ from normal cranks.

Could it be that the visible changes which they experience at the beginning is a feeling of the ability to apply power to the pedals in areas where they never did before such as the dead spot areas and rising leg. But that is when you are pedalling in slow motion as you state above with them going slower.The problem with this is that with a cadence of 90+, you have to return to your normal power application with no time for power application in these areas. From your own experience, how does power application with these cranks at a cadence of 100 differ from normal cranks.
I really don't understand the question or concern. At any particular cadence the rider has the same amount of time to provide power at any particular position as he does anywhere else. I know of no data to suggest that some muscles in the leg have a slower response time when stimulated or contraction speed after stimulation that might lead to such a concern. The only problem new PC'ers have is they are forced to use muscles that are not equivalently trained to all the usual pushing muscles, so until these muscles are equivalently trained, the rider finds themselves slowing the cadence down to give these muscles the rest they need between contractions. As these muscles are trained PC'ers can ride at any cadence they want. One track rider has told be he has gotten his PC's above 200 rpm. Nothing "forces" the rider to return to the old style just because the cadence come up. What forces the rider to return to the old style is the fatigue in these new muscles preventing them from continuing before they are equivalently trained, and this can only occur on regular cranks, where the old style is allowed.

Once the athlete is adequately trained on the device I the changes PC's cause in pedaling style, from what they would do before, is similar (a smoothing and balancing around the entire circle) whether the cadence is high or low.

I really don't understand the question or concern. At any particular cadence the rider has the same amount of time to provide power at any particular position as he does anywhere else. I know of no data to suggest that some muscles in the leg have a slower response time when stimulated or contraction speed after stimulation that might lead to such a concern. The only problem new PC'ers have is they are forced to use muscles that are not equivalently trained to all the usual pushing muscles, so until these muscles are equivalently trained, the rider finds themselves slowing the cadence down to give these muscles the rest they need between contractions. As these muscles are trained PC'ers can ride at any cadence they want. One track rider has told be he has gotten his PC's above 200 rpm. Nothing "forces" the rider to return to the old style just because the cadence come up. What forces the rider to return to the old style is the fatigue in these new muscles preventing them from continuing before they are equivalently trained, and this can only occur on regular cranks, where the old style is allowed.

Once the athlete is adequately trained on the device I the changes PC's cause in pedaling style, from what they would do before, is similar (a smoothing and balancing around the entire circle) whether the cadence is high or low.




I am talking about applying effective power to the crank as an "ankler" does, it means having to continually change the direction through which the power is being applied. It is possible to use PC's and only enough energy to draw the cranks back, up and slide over the top but that will not be applying effective chain drive power to the cranks. With the ankling style it gets more difficult to apply effective power in all directions as cadence increases.

Well, it is quite possible it has happened. I don't know everyone who uses them nor, if I did, would I recognize all of their names, and i don't follow every race that could have a user in it. I know we came close at the World Track Championships with Phil Holman awhile back, who got a bronze after increasing his pursuit speed 2 mph in 7 months. Of course, this improvement only represented an approximate 28% power improvement in 7 months which would explain his failure to win the gold.


Not to take anything away from Phil Holman, but that was Masters World Champs. You keep suggesting that a typical cat 2 or 3 rider --- of which i am one --- would increase 40% in power. That would enable me to place in the first few in the *ELITE SENIOR* world TT championships or in the case of track pursuiting likely put me in the medals in the elite senior world pursuit championships. Not the Masters. You seem to fail to understand this difference and the effect that gaining 40% power would have on the typical rider.

Now, if you want to suggest a more plausible 4% increase in power, at least that would be believable rather than the fairy tale rubbish you keep promoting.

Ric

...
Now, if you want to suggest a more plausible 4% increase in power, at least that would be believable rather than the fairy tale rubbish you keep promoting.

Ric Even then, that is already quite significant.

Even then, that is already quite significant.

I know, but it's not as ridiculous as 40% :D

...
Now, if you want to suggest a more plausible 4% increase in power, at least that would be believable rather than the fairy tale rubbish you keep promoting.

Ric Even then, that is already quite significant.

Even then, that is already quite significant.

Yeah, but at least people with experience would see it as within reach. Anyone with any experience (riding or coaching) would realise that 40% for a trained rider is impossible.

There is no evidence presented in this thread to show that the improvements in the riders quoted came from the cranks. The riders may well have improved whether they were using them or not.

I am talking about applying effective power to the crank as an "ankler" does, it means having to continually change the direction through which the power is being applied. It is possible to use PC's and only enough energy to draw the cranks back, up and slide over the top but that will not be applying effective chain drive power to the cranks. With the ankling style it gets more difficult to apply effective power in all directions as cadence increases.

So, you're saying that anklers pull up on the back stroke (while also pulling back on the bottom and pushing across the top) and PC'ers don't?

Whether PC'ers pull up or not I would love to see your data that shows that anklers pull up as I am not sure anyone has ever shown any rider in any style, who has trained on regular cranks, applies positive force around the entire circle. Reference please.

And, whatever your style not only is it more difficult to apply effective power on the upstroke as cadence increases it is also more difficult to apply it on the downstroke.

Not to take anything away from Phil Holman, but that was Masters World Champs. You keep suggesting that a typical cat 2 or 3 rider --- of which i am one --- would increase 40% in power. That would enable me to place in the first few in the *ELITE SENIOR* world TT championships or in the case of track pursuiting likely put me in the medals in the elite senior world pursuit championships. Not the Masters. You seem to fail to understand this difference and the effect that gaining 40% power would have on the typical rider.

Now, if you want to suggest a more plausible 4% increase in power, at least that would be believable rather than the fairy tale rubbish you keep promoting.

Ric

Now let me get this straight. You seem to think my product could produce a plausible 4% increase in power but you won't try it because you don't like the fact that I think that many can achieve a 40% increase. Therefore, you choose to forego improving that 4% because you think my claim is excessive. OK, I will guarantee that you will see a 4% increase in power in 3 months or your money back. Hey, wait, I already have that guarantee, except you don't have to even not achieve any specific improvement, you just don't have to like them for any reason. But, in the off chance over 6-9 months (if you use them as I suggest) if you see more better not tell anyone or they will think you are smoking something illegal.

Oh, and I did have a masters ride in the elite track championships this year after less than a year on the PC's. He was very disappointed with his result, rode about 10 seconds slower than he expected if I remember but it was his first major track event. He did pretty well at masters a couple of weeks later if I remember. Robert Black is the name. Check him out. I think he intends to be back next year.

Now let me get this straight. You seem to think my product could produce a plausible 4% increase in power but you won't try it because you don't like the fact that I think that many can achieve a 40% increase. Therefore, you choose to forego improving that 4% because you think my claim is excessive. OK, I will guarantee that you will see a 4% increase in power in 3 months or your money back. Hey, wait, I already have that guarantee, except you don't have to even not achieve any specific improvement, you just don't have to like them for any reason. But, in the off chance over 6-9 months (if you use them as I suggest) if you see more better not tell anyone or they will think you are smoking something illegal.

Oh, and I did have a masters ride in the elite track championships this year after less than a year on the PC's. He was very disappointed with his result, rode about 10 seconds slower than he expected if I remember but it was his first major track event. He did pretty well at masters a couple of weeks later if I remember. Robert Black is the name. Check him out. I think he intends to be back next year.
No, he's saying that maybe people wouldn't think you're spouting nonsense if you claimed 4%. I think most buyers are too smart to think simply by riding power cranks for several months that they will be able to win at an elite level.

No, he's saying that maybe people wouldn't think you're spouting nonsense if you claimed 4%. I think most buyers are too smart to think simply by riding power cranks for several months that they will be able to win at an elite level.

I disagree, the same people would think a 4% claim in an elite to be an outrageous claim because they think the product can't work. If they thought the product really worked even at 4% they would discount my blabbering and get one anyhow as most of them have spent more money on products that do less than that.

Now let me get this straight. You seem to think my product could produce a plausible 4% increase in power but you won't try it because you don't like the fact that I think that many can achieve a 40% increase. Therefore, you choose to forego improving that 4% because you think my claim is excessive. OK, I will guarantee that you will see a 4% increase in power in 3 months or your money back. Hey, wait, I already have that guarantee, except you don't have to even not achieve any specific improvement, you just don't have to like them for any reason. But, in the off chance over 6-9 months (if you use them as I suggest) if you see more better not tell anyone or they will think you are smoking something illegal.

Oh, and I did have a masters ride in the elite track championships this year after less than a year on the PC's. He was very disappointed with his result, rode about 10 seconds slower than he expected if I remember but it was his first major track event. He did pretty well at masters a couple of weeks later if I remember. Robert Black is the name. Check him out. I think he intends to be back next year.

I don't think he's acknowledging that there is any improvement using your product. He's just saying that when you claim 40% most people stop reading (knowing that 40% for a trained cyclist is impossible).

If you claim 4% many people might see that as reasonable.

You still haven't provided any studies that your product produces improvements. Citing individuals who have improved, whether it be 4% of 400% counts for nothing because you don't have a control group.

Keep trying.

I don't think he's acknowledging that there is any improvement using your product. He's just saying that when you claim 40% most people stop reading (knowing that 40% for a trained cyclist is impossible).

If you claim 4% many people might see that as reasonable.

You still haven't provided any studies that your product produces improvements. Citing individuals who have improved, whether it be 4% of 400% counts for nothing because you don't have a control group.

Keep trying.
Phooey. Many people find my 40% claim reasonable, most of them are customers. A 4% improvement would be hard to separate from training effect. Anyhow, one independent controlled study was published by Luttrell. He managed to show a 10% improvement in cycling efficiency in trained cyclists (not elite cyclists) for a full hour after only 6 weeks of PC training. check it out: http://nsca.allenpress.com/nscaonline/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1519%2F1533-4287(2003)017%3C0785:EOSTUP%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Phooey. Many people find my 40% claim reasonable, most of them are customers. A 4% improvement would be hard to separate from training effect. Anyhow, one independent controlled study was published by Luttrell. He managed to show a 10% improvement in cycling efficiency in trained cyclists (not elite cyclists) for a full hour after only 6 weeks of PC training. check it out: http://nsca.allenpress.com/nscaonline/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1519%2F1533-4287(2003)017%3C0785:EOSTUP%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Frank, I'll write this in simple terms for you to understand: a 40% increase in power output for a typical cyclist - as defined by you in 6 to 9 months - is extraordinarily unlikely. The magnitude of such improvement is so large that it would take that typical cyclist (a category 2 or 3 racer) to such a high level that (i.e., first few in the World Senior Elite TT Championship) that these riders would stick out like a sore thumb. They'd be obvious improvements. Unknowns would be placing in the Worlds, the whole order of cycling would be changed. The UCI would be falling over themselves to ban your cranks. Everyone would have to use them.

So, SHOW ME THESE TYPICAL CYCLISTS (I.E., CAT 2 OR 3 RACERS) THAT HAVE IMPROVED THIS 40% (AND SUDDENLY FOUND THEMSELF RACING FOR A PRO TEAM OR WHATEVER) AND PLACING AT A VERY HIGH SENIOR WORLD LEVEL. Without such proof you're writing absolute drivel, that as was previously mentioned is "snake oil". Either put up or shut up.

Ric

So, you're saying that anklers pull up on the back stroke (while also pulling back on the bottom and pushing across the top) and PC'ers don't?

Whether PC'ers pull up or not I would love to see your data that shows that anklers pull up as I am not sure anyone has ever shown any rider in any style, who has trained on regular cranks, applies positive force around the entire circle. Reference please.

And, whatever your style not only is it more difficult to apply effective power on the upstroke as cadence increases it is also more difficult to apply it on the downstroke.



Call it what your like, pulling or pushing, the ankling rider (a more extreme version of the circular style) attempts to apply effective force to the cranks through the dead spot and upward stroke areas. Of course effective crank power is reduced on the downward stroke with cadence increase, this is because your power application time is reduced but as I stated above this time reduction has an even more dramatic effect on the ankler or powercranker as he will rapidly lose the ability to apply power in the additional areas. At a cadence of 90, a stomper will only have to make 3 adjustments to his power application muscles per second but the ankler or PC'er will have to make 12 and he ends up applying effective crank power in the downward stroke only and because he is still trying to concentrate on the additional areas, his downstroke will be weaker than that of the stomper. That is why stomping is more effective than circular pedalling when the need for power is really turned on.
If there is a 40 % increase in power, this power must come from the cranks, so how is it produced and in what area of the pedal stroke is it applied ?
Andrew Bradley has an animinated simulation of his ankling style at his site.

Call it what your like, pulling or pushing, the ankling rider (a more extreme version of the circular style) attempts to apply effective force to the cranks through the dead spot and upward stroke areas. Of course effective crank power is reduced on the downward stroke with cadence increase, this is because your power application time is reduced but as I stated above this time reduction has an even more dramatic effect on the ankler or powercranker as he will rapidly lose the ability to apply power in the additional areas. At a cadence of 90, a stomper will only have to make 3 adjustments to his power application muscles per second but the ankler or PC'er will have to make 12 and he ends up applying effective crank power in the downward stroke only and because he is still trying to concentrate on the additional areas, his downstroke will be weaker than that of the stomper. That is why stomping is more effective than circular pedalling when the need for power is really turned on.
If there is a 40 % increase in power, this power must come from the cranks, so how is it produced and in what area of the pedal stroke is it applied ?
Andrew Bradley has an animinated simulation of his ankling style at his site.

Sorry about the spelling of animated above.

Call it what your like, pulling or pushing, the ankling rider (a more extreme version of the circular style) attempts to apply effective force to the cranks through the dead spot and upward stroke areas. Of course effective crank power is reduced on the downward stroke with cadence increase, this is because your power application time is reduced but as I stated above this time reduction has an even more dramatic effect on the ankler or powercranker as he will rapidly lose the ability to apply power in the additional areas. At a cadence of 90, a stomper will only have to make 3 adjustments to his power application muscles per second but the ankler or PC'er will have to make 12 and he ends up applying effective crank power in the downward stroke only and because he is still trying to concentrate on the additional areas, his downstroke will be weaker than that of the stomper. That is why stomping is more effective than circular pedalling when the need for power is really turned on.
If there is a 40 % increase in power, this power must come from the cranks, so how is it produced and in what area of the pedal stroke is it applied ?
Andrew Bradley has an animinated simulation of his ankling style at his site.

I think you have a very poor understanding of what is going on. First, after about 2 years old the pedaling motion requires no concentration on the part of the doer, regardless of how many "adjustments" you think they have to make or not make. It is similar to walking, running, typing, or playing the piano. Once learned, the doer doesn't have to think at all about the control of the muscles to do the activity. One can concentrate on it if one is trying to change something (for instance actors can walk with a convincing limp when they think about it) but most of the time we do not think about it and the activity is done without thinking about it.

Second, you don't seem to understand what is happening on the upstroke, where everyone is doing substantial work to drive the bicycle even though they are not putting any forward force (many are putting negative force onthe pedals there) on the pedals. The reason is they are adding potenial energy to the leg during this portion of the stroke which is recovered to drive the bicycle during "the stomping" portion of the stroke. So all the forces from this "stomping portion" are not coming from the "stomping" muscles. The only difference between PC'er, "circular" pedaler, or masher, is where the energy comes from to put the potential energy into the upward moving leg. The PC'er will get it entirely from the muscles in that leg, while those other, who do not unweight completely, will only get a portion of that energy from the muscles of the leg and the rest from diverting energy from the "stomping" pedal. The amount of energy that is diverted will depend upon how much the rider is unweighting the pedal.

All the energy to drive the bicycle, including my 40% increases, come from the engine although they must of course go through the cranks, but they do not come "from the cranks". They are passive. All the energy comes from the rider. It only depends upon how big the engine is and how efficiently that energy is applied to the cranks to get through to the wheels. power at the wheel can be increased by both increasing the size of the engine and increasing the efficiency of the transmission. That is where the main benefit of the PC's come from, increasing the efficiency of this transmission.

Frank