Thoughts and opinions?? I just read through a section in Cyclingnews about pushing your cleats at the midfoot section you can get 10% to 15% pedaling efficiency. Most shoes can't have the cleats pushed that far back.
Arch cleats??
- Thread starter BlueJersey
- Start date
BlueJersey said:
This concept has been tested and found wanting in both theoretical and experimental scientific studies. IOW, I think that fitters and coaches who push this idea are barking up the wrong tree.
EDIT: I went and read Steve Hogg's replies to various questions on the topic. From the sounds of it, the reason that he's convinced that this approach works is because he doesn't understand how to properly define cycling efficiency.
Not to dispute what you're saying - you've obviously done research by reading articles or may have experimented yourself.acoggan said:
If a cyclist has reported a significant increase in power (i.e. 20 minute Field Test) after making a change just to experiment with it, why should that cyclist ignore the data and go back to the original pedal set up?
acoggan said:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=2625415&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16901493&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum
(Note the date of the original modeling study: 1989!!)
QUOTE=acoggan]This concept has been tested and found wanting in both theoretical and experimental scientific studies. IOW, I think that fitters and coaches who push this idea are barking up the wrong tree.
EDIT: I went and read Steve Hogg's replies to various questions on the topic. From the sounds of it, the reason that he's convinced that this approach works is because he doesn't understand how to properly define cycling efficiency.[/QUOTE]
Andy from my limited perspective I understand that there is ONE scientific study that suggests that the mid foot position does not work. But as for being "found wanting" I rather see more studies. This stuff potentially upsets a long held paradigm so it is contentious.
I know Steve quite well and are involved in trying to help him put so numbers to all this conjecture. Yesterday we tested a former world masters champion to see whether the mid position provided any advantage over a conventional position. What we found through analysis of the two torque curves was that peak torque was higher in the conventional position. Whilst in a mid foot position the torque peak was not as high but the spread of torque was wider across the pedal stroke. The consistent variables in both tests were speed and cadence. So perhaps when Steve writes about efficiency improvements he is referring to the reduction of top end torque required with the mid foot position compared to the conventional position at the same speed.
As soon as possible I try to get the torque curve for your viewing.
Cheers peter
EDIT: I went and read Steve Hogg's replies to various questions on the topic. From the sounds of it, the reason that he's convinced that this approach works is because he doesn't understand how to properly define cycling efficiency.[/QUOTE]
Andy from my limited perspective I understand that there is ONE scientific study that suggests that the mid foot position does not work. But as for being "found wanting" I rather see more studies. This stuff potentially upsets a long held paradigm so it is contentious.
I know Steve quite well and are involved in trying to help him put so numbers to all this conjecture. Yesterday we tested a former world masters champion to see whether the mid position provided any advantage over a conventional position. What we found through analysis of the two torque curves was that peak torque was higher in the conventional position. Whilst in a mid foot position the torque peak was not as high but the spread of torque was wider across the pedal stroke. The consistent variables in both tests were speed and cadence. So perhaps when Steve writes about efficiency improvements he is referring to the reduction of top end torque required with the mid foot position compared to the conventional position at the same speed.
As soon as possible I try to get the torque curve for your viewing.
Cheers peter
FWIW. I also recommend AGAINST doing this as it is counter-intuitive to me ...BlueJersey said:
If you must -- and, if you have NYLON soled shoes (e.g., older Shimano ROAD shoes) -- you can remount your cleats with self-taping WOOD screws after you drill pilot holes which are slightly smaller than the threads (of course!) ... the drill bit should be the same diameter as the central core of the screw.
Carbon soled shoes are another issue, and it is my understanding that carbon fiber cannot be tapped -- your results may vary in that regard.
BlueJersey said:
What Hogg fails to realize is that the same broom handle type lever example occurs between hip and knee, resulting in even more serious loss of effectiveness in pedal stroke when transferring generated power downwards from knee. This is demonstrated by the increase in power as hip moves forward when rider gets out of saddle. Just another of the many disadvantages associated with using vertical pedal pressure to power the pedals.
decrono said:
There are in fact numerous studies supporting the conclusion that the position of the cleat makes very little, if any, difference - I just cited those two because they are most directly relevant. Be that as it may, the point is that there are absolutely no scientific evdience to support the idea, but there is scientific evidence against it. IOW, this is not an area where the literature is split, or even an area that hasn't been studied.
decrono said:
In fact, he specifically states on cyclingnews.com that this is what he means by "efficiency". In the present context, however, this is a misuse of the term, as efficiency during exercise is properly defined as it would be for any other thermodynamic transformation, i.e., energy out/energy in x 100%. More importantly, however, is the fact that how the torque is distributed is 1) not necessarily related to the pattern of force application by the muscles (since there are significant gravitational and inertial influences, that can only be teased out using force pedals and hi-speed filming), and 2) isn't directly related to either efficiency or performance (in fact, the opposite appears to be true, i.e., several studies have shown that higher peak torques tend to be associated with higher efficiency). To just look at the pattern of torque application (and by both legs at that, since presumably he's using, e.g., an SRM crank, not force pedals) and make statements that moving the cleat around improves "efficiency" by XX%, and that this is beneficial to performance, is therefore quite naive.
Andy, I recently read the articles in cyclingnews.com and as I will often compulsively read up and study any idea that I think will give me a little advantage (the natural way), I think you just saved me a lot time that I can put towards training instead.acoggan said:
So thanks!
padawan said:
Well I just learned yesterday about arch cleats from the cycling news web site and so then I did some searching. Joe Friel is also trying these cleats for himself and his athletes (see: http://www2.trainingbible.com/joesblog/2007/01/cleat-position.html )
and he says he has seen an increase in his power-heart rate ratio of 9%. I am not sure what that means in the real world, so what do you make of that Andy?
I have very wide feet (EEEEE) , and when clipless pedals first came out, I had real issues with fit and trying to position the cleat over the ball of my feet. (My foot would rub against the pedal even when the show was moved to the extreme outer position, which is actually moving the cleat inward.) I also have some size differences between the two, almost a full American size, to make it even more dificult, and shorter toes on my left foot which means my ball isn't even in the traditional position within the shoe. The point of all this, is by necessity, I was forced to move the cleat to a more narrow part of the shoe. Over the course of at least four seasons (1988-92), I experrimented with moving it back closer to the arch, and even, in desparation, moving it closer to the toes, which clearly is less efficient.
IMHO, and based upon my funky anatomy, cleat placement appeared to be most efficent, i.e. defined as maintaining a higher speed on a 1988 vintage windtrainer over the course of an hour, with the cleat about 3/4 centimeter back from the traditional ball. I actually had played around with a homemade adapter at the time to allow it to be moved back and further away from the spindle. I went through fit kit evaluations also at my LBS to try and get the best postion. In the more rearward position, I did notice less power sometimes off the windtrainer, i.e. rising from the saddle to sprint and climb, and I also noticed that I had to lower my seat position and experienced some knee pain after long hard tempo rides. But, it does force you to keep your heels down in a long spin type ride, which is probably what these recent experiments are noticing. Now that both shoes (Sidi Mega) and cleats (with float) are better and can accomodate my flippers, I have basically moved it back to the traditional position. You can get the same effect in that position just by consciously focusing on keeping your heels down.
Having been forced to ride this way out of necessity, gone through other fads, i.e. the biopace era, and spent hours trying to find the best and most comfortable cleat position, I would have to see real data and proof over the long haul that this position doesn't cause damage to the foot structure or knees before I jumped in this new fad.
IMHO, and based upon my funky anatomy, cleat placement appeared to be most efficent, i.e. defined as maintaining a higher speed on a 1988 vintage windtrainer over the course of an hour, with the cleat about 3/4 centimeter back from the traditional ball. I actually had played around with a homemade adapter at the time to allow it to be moved back and further away from the spindle. I went through fit kit evaluations also at my LBS to try and get the best postion. In the more rearward position, I did notice less power sometimes off the windtrainer, i.e. rising from the saddle to sprint and climb, and I also noticed that I had to lower my seat position and experienced some knee pain after long hard tempo rides. But, it does force you to keep your heels down in a long spin type ride, which is probably what these recent experiments are noticing. Now that both shoes (Sidi Mega) and cleats (with float) are better and can accomodate my flippers, I have basically moved it back to the traditional position. You can get the same effect in that position just by consciously focusing on keeping your heels down.
Having been forced to ride this way out of necessity, gone through other fads, i.e. the biopace era, and spent hours trying to find the best and most comfortable cleat position, I would have to see real data and proof over the long haul that this position doesn't cause damage to the foot structure or knees before I jumped in this new fad.
JungleBiker said:
In and of itself, an increase in the power:heart rate ratio doesn't tell you very much, as you'd need to know more details about the testing conditions in order to be able to draw any conclusions as to the mechanism. That's especially true considering the n=1 nature of Friel's experiment. In contrast, when professional scientists have directly tested whether a mid-foot cleat position improves efficiency (which is one explanation for an increase the power:heart rate ratio) using multiple subjects under carefully controlled conditions, no effect has been found. I'll leave it up to you to decide whose data I think is more trustworthy.
decrono said:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=1997818&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_DocSum
Also see recent abstracts in MSSE by Martin et al. and Edwards et al...
(And while you're at it, you should draw his attention to my point about the importance of gravitational and inertial forces in influencing the torque curve...)
I'm all for innovations if they're proven to work, but Hogg basically admitted today that he doesn't have all the data yet to back up his claims. Seems like it's premature to be pushing the idea...
Quote from Hogg on today's cyclingnews:
"I have only five or six weeks of experience with midfoot cleat position in the sense of being able to use torque analysis software to confirm the effect of positional changes with hard data. So far, and I accept that it is early days yet, every single rider who has gone this route has a minimum efficiency improvement of 5 - 10 %. "
Entire article at http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=2007/letters05-15#1
Quote from Hogg on today's cyclingnews:
"I have only five or six weeks of experience with midfoot cleat position in the sense of being able to use torque analysis software to confirm the effect of positional changes with hard data. So far, and I accept that it is early days yet, every single rider who has gone this route has a minimum efficiency improvement of 5 - 10 %. "
Entire article at http://www.cyclingnews.com/fitness/?id=2007/letters05-15#1
I read the article by Steve and Joe Friel's blog last week and decided to do a computrainer test with an old pair of shoes. With the cleat under the arch I did a 20min interval at 245W which I do fairly often and my avg HR was 119bpm vs 127bpm with my normal cleat position. I also did a 5min interval at 325W and my HR was 144bpm with the cleat under arch vs 155bpm normal position. Thinking this was very promising I decided to do my next ride outdoors with the arch cleat shoes but after about 2 mins riding I almost killed myself with overlap on my front wheel (slow turns are not good) and climbing felt truly bizarre. I've since abandoned further experimentation - not much point I figure if I don't have any balance and am endangering my life!! As a side note I also posted a question on Joe's blog asking for % increase in power and he replied 5% across the board.
Similar threads
