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.

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.
I don't disagree. I am trying ankling more these days, and find it not very productive at higher power.

I video taped my pedaling. Even when I don't want to ankle, I end up ankling a bit, and I think this is enough. When I volontary try to involve calve muscles in a more dynamic way, as opposed to static way, I ankle more, but that feels strange. I am not very confortable so far doing this.

:)

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



Let's say a rider or myself unweights correctly as I always do, where is this 40 % increase going to come from. Of course the power must be generated by the rider but what difference do I have to make in my power generating technique to gain this 40 % increase. Has anyone researched the % gain in power that comes from total unweighting?

Let's say a rider or myself unweights correctly as I always do, where is this 40 % increase going to come from. Of course the power must be generated by the rider but what difference do I have to make in my power generating technique to gain this 40 % increase. Has anyone researched the % gain in power that comes from total unweighting?

If you already unweight correctly it is unlikely you will see a 40% increase, or any increase, from using my product. How is it you know you already unweight correctly?

Let's say a rider or myself unweights correctly as I always do, where is this 40 % increase going to come from. Of course the power must be generated by the rider but what difference do I have to make in my power generating technique to gain this 40 % increase. Has anyone researched the % gain in power that comes from total unweighting?Stepping back from Frank's product for the moment, the underlying theory seems to be that cyclists develop pedaling mechanics that are sub-optimal for maximum sustainable power and that, with training and adaptation (e.g., with a device that forces one to pedal differently) one can get closer to the optimal pedaling mechanics and increase their sustainable power significantly. If this is true, wouldn't biomechanics scientists all over the planet be rushing to set up a proper test to confirm this theory? I don't know much about force instrumented pedal technology, but is it not possible to measure the force being applied to each crank independently throughout the pedal stroke? Wouldn't you set up two groups and run tests at their FT power before/after different durations of adaptation? Wouldn't such a test, conducted properly, be big news in both the scientific and cycling communities and put the scientist on the map? So, the fact that such a study has not been published suggests to me that either (1) the technology doesn't exist to properly measure crank force precisely and independently or (2) the scientists don't believe in the underlying theory.

If you already unweight correctly it is unlikely you will see a 40% increase, or any increase, from using my product. How is it you know you already unweight correctly?




So the result of all this is that the stomper who can totally unweight will produce more power than a POWERCRANKER. Q.E.D.

Stepping back from Frank's product for the moment, the underlying theory seems to be that cyclists develop pedaling mechanics that are sub-optimal for maximum sustainable power and that, with training and adaptation (e.g., with a device that forces one to pedal differently) one can get closer to the optimal pedaling mechanics and increase their sustainable power significantly. If this is true, wouldn't biomechanics scientists all over the planet be rushing to set up a proper test to confirm this theory? I don't know much about force instrumented pedal technology, but is it not possible to measure the force being applied to each crank independently throughout the pedal stroke? Wouldn't you set up two groups and run tests at their FT power before/after different durations of adaptation? Wouldn't such a test, conducted properly, be big news in both the scientific and cycling communities and put the scientist on the map? So, the fact that such a study has not been published suggests to me that either (1) the technology doesn't exist to properly measure crank force precisely and independently or (2) the scientists don't believe in the underlying theory.






I asked this question earlier, if everything was possible in pedalling what would you expect from a technique before it could be called perfection ?
If you cannot dream of the perfect pedalling style, how can you ever hope to find it. What would your answer be ?
R Hallett in an article in Cycling Weekly on "The Quest For Perfect Pedalling" stated " on the face of it pedalling in circles should be easy to perfect ". Like all other experts who tried before him, with that statement and objective he fell at the first fence.

I asked this question earlier, if everything was possible in pedalling what would you expect from a technique before it could be called perfection ?
If you cannot dream of the perfect pedalling style, how can you ever hope to find it. What would your answer be ?
R Hallett in an article in Cycling Weekly on "The Quest For Perfect Pedalling" stated " on the face of it pedalling in circles should be easy to perfect ". Like all other experts who tried before him, with that statement and objective he fell at the first fence.
How do you even know that there is a "perfect" pedaling technique?

I asked this question earlier, if everything was possible in pedalling what would you expect from a technique before it could be called perfection ?
If you cannot dream of the perfect pedalling style, how can you ever hope to find it. What would your answer be ?
R Hallett in an article in Cycling Weekly on "The Quest For Perfect Pedalling" stated " on the face of it pedalling in circles should be easy to perfect ". Like all other experts who tried before him, with that statement and objective he fell at the first fence.I don't think we need to go that far. Wouldn't it warrant a scientific study if pedaling mechanics could be improved sufficiently to attain a "significant" increase in sustainable power? I would define significant as something in the vicinity of 5% or greater. I, for one, would attempt to improve my pedaling mechanics for a 5% increase in FT. But, I wouldn't attempt such a change in mechanics merely on the basis of a "money back for any reason" proposal. I would need to be persuaded that there was (1) a biomechanical scientific logic behind the claim of improvement and (2) a sound, scientific study supporting such improvement in a majority of study subjects.

Stepping back from Frank's product for the moment, the underlying theory seems to be that cyclists develop pedaling mechanics that are sub-optimal for maximum sustainable power and that, with training and adaptation (e.g., with a device that forces one to pedal differently) one can get closer to the optimal pedaling mechanics and increase their sustainable power significantly. If this is true, wouldn't biomechanics scientists all over the planet be rushing to set up a proper test to confirm this theory? I don't know much about force instrumented pedal technology, but is it not possible to measure the force being applied to each crank independently throughout the pedal stroke? Wouldn't you set up two groups and run tests at their FT power before/after different durations of adaptation? Wouldn't such a test, conducted properly, be big news in both the scientific and cycling communities and put the scientist on the map? So, the fact that such a study has not been published suggests to me that either (1) the technology doesn't exist to properly measure crank force precisely and independently or (2) the scientists don't believe in the underlying theory.

(1) is wrong, the technology does exist but I have been told it is hard to keep working.

(2) is correct as several "esteemed" researchers have declared PC's to be total hype and it not possible to improve pedaling dynamics (since Coyle has already "prooved" mahsing is the optimum technique) and have also declared the one study (so far) that does show a PC positive effect to be laughable and not worthy of repeating. I have offered some of these researchers (some of whom are prominent here) a free pair for their own evaluation/study and they seen to think it beneath them to even consider the possibility these might work at all, let alone work to the degree I have claimed. Anyhow, several studies are underway now. The truth will be known.

So the result of all this is that the stomper who can totally unweight will produce more power than a POWERCRANKER. Q.E.D.

Nothing prevents a PC'er from also being a stomper, as long has he/she totally unweights on the backstroke.

R Hallett in an article in Cycling Weekly on "The Quest For Perfect Pedalling" stated " on the face of it pedalling in circles should be easy to perfect ". Like all other experts who tried before him, with that statement and objective he fell at the first fence.

Was he on PowerCranks?

I don't think we need to go that far. Wouldn't it warrant a scientific study if pedaling mechanics could be improved sufficiently to attain a "significant" increase in sustainable power? I would define significant as something in the vicinity of 5% or greater. I, for one, would attempt to improve my pedaling mechanics for a 5% increase in FT. But, I wouldn't attempt such a change in mechanics merely on the basis of a "money back for any reason" proposal. I would need to be persuaded that there was (1) a biomechanical scientific logic behind the claim of improvement and (2) a sound, scientific study supporting such improvement in a majority of study subjects.

Read the Luttrell study (which I provided a link to the abstract in an earlier post) and let us know your thoughts.

Read the Luttrell study (which I provided a link to the abstract in an earlier post) and let us know your thoughts.I did read the study abstract, and would be interested in reading the full text. Do you have a link to the full text version? My quick conclusion was that the study did not address my primary objective: to increase my FT. The study did not appear to test that question. IOW, if my FT is 250w (fortunately it is a bit more than that), then what change in FT am I likely to realize as a function of improving my pedaling mechanics alone as opposed to the old fashioned way -- lots of intervals or MBing amongst Bengal Tigers?

I did read the study abstract, and would be interested in reading the full text. Do you have a link to the full text version? My quick conclusion was that the study did not address my primary objective: to increase my FT. The study did not appear to test that question. IOW, if my FT is 250w (fortunately it is a bit more than that), then what change in FT am I likely to realize as a function of improving my pedaling mechanics alone as opposed to the old fashioned way -- lots of intervals or MBing amongst Bengal Tigers?

The study looked at pedaling efficiency, not at looking at increasing power. One can presume that if one increases one's hour pedaling efficiency 10% one's sustainable power for one hour would also increase 10%, but that, as yet, is unproven. this improvement was seen in 6 weeks and was compared to a control group and unlikely to occur in that time frame from intervals or any other technique.

The study looked at pedaling efficiency, not at looking at increasing power. One can presume that if one increases one's hour pedaling efficiency 10% one's sustainable power for one hour would also increase 10%, but that, as yet, is unproven. this improvement was seen in 6 weeks and was compared to a control group and unlikely to occur in that time frame from intervals or any other technique.Well, that's my problem. I don't know why I would presume that if I can increase my pedaling efficiency 10% at FT-50w that therefore I can increase my FT. Frankly, I don't care very much how efficiently I can pedal at FT-50w. I care very much how efficiently I can pedal at FT and higher. About the only advantage I see to pedaling more efficiently at FT-50w is that I can lose a race but be less fatigued as I watch the medal presentations.

Well, that's my problem. I don't know why I would presume that if I can increase my pedaling efficiency 10% at FT-50w that therefore I can increase my FT. Frankly, I don't care very much how efficiently I can pedal at FT-50w. I care very much how efficiently I can pedal at FT and higher. About the only advantage I see to pedaling more efficiently at FT-50w is that I can lose a race but be less fatigued as I watch the medal presentations.
Do you understand what efficiency means? It is watts to the wheel for energy expended. Why would you presume that because you become more efficient that you are unable to expend as much energy as before. If you can expend the same amount of energy you will get more watts to the wheel if you are more efficient. What is so difficult about that concept?

Do you understand what efficiency means? It is watts to the wheel for energy expended. Why would you presume that because you become more efficient that you are unable to expend as much energy as before. If you can expend the same amount of energy you will get more watts to the wheel if you are more efficient. What is so difficult about that concept?I probably don't understand what efficiency means. I only have a doctorate from Harvard, but I don't recall that course. What I'm talking about is pedaling mechanics at different power levels. The assumption I'm not prepared to make is that improvements in any aspect of pedaling mechanics at FT-50w translates to any improvement whatsoever at FT. I could have the most efficient pedaling mechanics known to man at 100w and so what? Now, you can continue to insult my intelligence or you can address my legitimate (IMO) question.

I probably don't understand what efficiency means. I only have a doctorate from Harvard, but I don't recall that course. What I'm talking about is pedaling mechanics at different power levels. The assumption I'm not prepared to make is that improvements in any aspect of pedaling mechanics at FT-50w translates to any improvement whatsoever at FT. I could have the most efficient pedaling mechanics known to man at 100w and so what? Now, you can continue to insult my intelligence or you can address my legitimate (IMO) question.

Then, why do you presume your pedaling mechanics change with power? I am not aware of any studies to suggest that. Our data suggests that the efficiency improvements are constant throughout the spectrum, but that is unpblished and Luttrell did not look at that. So one, I guess, needs a leep of faith to take a risk that the potential for improvement is real or one can wait for the data, however much it takes to convince you, presuming I am right and it eventually comes. You are in charge of your own destiny.

Then, why do you presume your pedaling mechanics change with power? I am not aware of any studies to suggest that.I'm not prepared to presume anything about pedaling mechanics. But, the absence of a study to suggest something doesn't mean it's not true. I've seen no study suggesting that I can't win the TdF, but I'm not prepared to presume therefore that I can win the TdF. And, logically, I can imagine that I could do certain things with respect to muscle control in the pedaling stroke at low power that I cannot do at high power because at high power I am too preoccupied with a limited range of the stroke.

I'm not prepared to presume anything about pedaling mechanics. But, the absence of a study to suggest something doesn't mean it's not true. I've seen no study suggesting that I can't win the TdF, but I'm not prepared to presume therefore that I can win the TdF. And, logically, I can imagine that I could do certain things with respect to muscle control in the pedaling stroke at low power that I cannot do at high power because at high power I am too preoccupied with a limited range of the stroke.

Whatever.

Frank