Calf muscles - is it worth working on them?

[Fday]

I don't believe in the Spinscan idea, I was hoping for your own estimation from the feeling you get when using the technique. If a rider was using Powercranks for the first time and used his lowest gear, would he have the same difficulty ?

I used spinscan data to show you the basis of the numbers I gave you. I know many do not think much of spinscan but the numbers (what they represent) are accurate and they were related to what you asked me.

Actually, riders have more trouble using PowerCranks in lower gears than in bigger gears because they are so hard at higher cadences. Athletes do not have the muscle abilities or coordination to ride them at high cadences. If I have a rider who is doing well on the cranks in an expo, if I want to make them harder for them I just take the resistance off the machine. Works every time.

 

[acoggan]

What that tells me is that one cannot stop training this way or one will revert back to the old "lazier" ways. It is so easy to do when one is riding regular cranks. The muscle between the ears is the toughest muscle to train. The brain will change much slower than the other muscles to change. Even if the muscles are trained, if the brain doesn't naturally use them, it isn't going to occur.

So that "muscle between our ears" can figure out when to stop walking and start jogging, when to shorten our stride or length our stride, when to change gaits (if you're horse, and have the option of trotting, cantering, or galloping), etc., etc., etc., but it can't figure out how to best pedal a bicycle? Right....

 

[Fday]

So that "muscle between our ears" can figure out when to stop walking and start jogging, when to shorten our stride or length our stride, when to change gaits (if you're horse, and have the option of trotting, cantering, or galloping), etc., etc., etc., but it can't figure out how to best pedal a bicycle? Right....

If this were all so easy and natural we would all pedal identically and have identical efficiencies and the only differences between athletes would be how many hours they trained and what muscle fibre types they have. That is not the case (you have even referenced a source in this thread that shows where cycling efficiency in the sedentary improves with training) so it does appear that "optimal" form is not natural, at least for most of us, even though superficially it seems we all are capable of doing the same thing. Same for running form. Some may have a closer to optimal natural form than others, but that does not mean that those with less optimal natural form cannot improve same with work and the proper feedback.

 

[whoawhoa]

If this were all so easy and natural we would all pedal identically and have identical efficiencies and the only differences between athletes would be how many hours they trained and what muscle fibre types they have. That is not the case (you have even referenced a source in this thread that shows where cycling efficiency in the sedentary improves with training) so it does appear that "optimal" form is not natural, at least for most of us, even though superficially it seems we all are capable of doing the same thing.

Uh, muscle fiber type *is* what causes differences in effiency.

 

[n crowley]

I used spinscan data to show you the basis of the numbers I gave you. I know many do not think much of spinscan but the numbers (what they represent) are accurate and they were related to what you asked me.

Actually, riders have more trouble using PowerCranks in lower gears than in bigger gears because they are so hard at higher cadences. Athletes do not have the muscle abilities or coordination to ride them at high cadences. If I have a rider who is doing well on the cranks in an expo, if I want to make them harder for them I just take the resistance off the machine. Works every time.

If the lower gears are more difficult, it does prove how inefficient their pedaling technique is because if you were to put that Powercranked bike on a trainer, set the trainer to its lowest resistance and use the hand to power the pedal there would be no problem. I still believe that trying to generate power in the dead spot areas, just like pulling up power, does not improve efficiency. As I see it, earlier unweighting, neutral drawing back and sliding forward and an earlier start to the main power stroke has more to offer. Don't forget different techniques are needed for the demands of competitive cycling, the dead spot area can be a bonus but only when the same max power can be applied there as in the 2 to 4 o'c area,(i.e) when it becomes part of your extended main power stroke.

 

[Fday]

If the lower gears are more difficult, it does prove how inefficient their pedaling technique is because if you were to put that Powercranked bike on a trainer, set the trainer to its lowest resistance and use the hand to power the pedal there would be no problem. I still believe that trying to generate power in the dead spot areas, just like pulling up power, does not improve efficiency. As I see it, earlier unweighting, neutral drawing back and sliding forward and an earlier start to the main power stroke has more to offer. Don't forget different techniques are needed for the demands of competitive cycling, the dead spot area can be a bonus but only when the same max power can be applied there as in the 2 to 4 o'c area,(i.e) when it becomes part of your extended main power stroke.

I believe the lower gears are more difficult because of two reasons. Almost everyone can get the coordination to do these at low cadences withing a few seconds. But, they are having to think about it. It is not possible to think about it at the higher cadences and the coordination is not there to do it naturally. And, second, and just as important, higher cadences require a lot more energy, and these new muscles just aren't up to the task.

You might be right as to what does or does not improve efficiency. All I know is PC's do improve efficiency and I am "guessing" (it is an educated guess, based upon my understanding of the science, but a guess nonetheless) as to what we are doing. It will be up to the researchers to figure out and prove what we are doing.

Frank

 

[Fday]

Uh, muscle fiber type *is* what causes differences in effiency.

Are you saying that those sedentary housewives who showed improvement in cycling efficiency with just some training must have changed their fiber types to see those changes. That changing muscle fibre type is the only method by which cycling efficiency can change. Is that what you believe?

 

[bikeguy]

How is this. Sam Whittingham held the HPV speed record of 72 mph. Then, 1 year after starting training on PC's he improved his own record to over 80 mph using essentially the same bike and fairing as the year before.

Essentially the same fairing huh?

You are so full of it. The CdA of the Varna Mephisto that Whittingham
did 72 mph in is much larger (30% !!) than the CdA of the Varna Diablo that he did 80 mph in. That means same power for the 80 mph run as the 72.



date, vehicle and rider of the IHPVA single men's 200 m records see:

http://www.ihpva.org/hpva/hpvarec7.html#nom01

CdA of various HPV's including the Varna Mephisto used to set the 72 mph
record and the Varna Diablo and Diablo II used to set the 80+ mph records:

http://people.msoe.edu/~eckersoa/cadence/data/compare.htm

-Bikeguy

 

[WarrenG]

Are you saying that those sedentary housewives who showed improvement in cycling efficiency with just some training must have changed their fiber types to see those changes. That changing muscle fibre type is the only method by which cycling efficiency can change. Is that what you believe?

Let's skip that, because most of us know we can sometimes improve our efficiency in just a few weeks with some drills intended to do this, or after 2-3 weeks of riding after a layoff. Coordinating those motor units doesn't take long.

And really Frank, feel your hamstring during a leg press or while pushing down on the pedal on a steep hill at low cadence/high force. There is no question the hamstring is contracted/tight/used to push down on the pedal. When you don't agree with something so basic, well...

I really have to wonder about a device that, according to its maker, needs more than a few months to really incorporate it's benefits, the benefits won't be maintained during further cycling with normal cranks, may be impossible to use above 100 (?) rpm's, and tries to utilize some muscles to move in ways they aren't really designed to do with maximum efficiency per contraction, and as far as I can see, haven't been proven with a proper study protocol comparing the PC's against other methods of improving pedaling efficiency.

Has anyone proven I can sprint faster/longer at 100+ rpm's or put out more VO2max power at 100 rpm's with PC's than I can with all the other drills intended to improve pedaling efficiency?

 

[whoawhoa]

Are you saying that those sedentary housewives who showed improvement in cycling efficiency with just some training must have changed their fiber types to see those changes. That changing muscle fibre type is the only method by which cycling efficiency can change. Is that what you believe?

No, but you claimed that effiency was separate from muscle fiber type.

 

[n crowley]

So that "muscle between our ears" can figure out when to stop walking and start jogging, when to shorten our stride or length our stride, when to change gaits (if you're horse, and have the option of trotting, cantering, or galloping), etc., etc., etc., but it can't figure out how to best pedal a bicycle? Right....

It could have done better with its high jump technique, Mr Fosbury proved that and the same applies to pedaling, the most obvious or natural way is not always the most sensible technique.

 

[Fday]

Let's skip that, because most of us know we can sometimes improve our efficiency in just a few weeks with some drills intended to do this, or after 2-3 weeks of riding after a layoff. Coordinating those motor units doesn't take long.

And really Frank, feel your hamstring during a leg press or while pushing down on the pedal on a steep hill at low cadence/high force. There is no question the hamstring is contracted/tight/used to push down on the pedal. When you don't agree with something so basic, well...

I really have to wonder about a device that, according to its maker, needs more than a few months to really incorporate it's benefits, the benefits won't be maintained during further cycling with normal cranks, may be impossible to use above 100 (?) rpm's, and tries to utilize some muscles to move in ways they aren't really designed to do with maximum efficiency per contraction, and as far as I can see, haven't been proven with a proper study protocol comparing the PC's against other methods of improving pedaling efficiency.

Has anyone proven I can sprint faster/longer at 100+ rpm's or put out more VO2max power at 100 rpm's with PC's than I can with all the other drills intended to improve pedaling efficiency?

My man, you are free to wonder about anything you care to wonder about. And, of course, you can wait until the studies are all completed before you are convinced that you ought to at least try them, and decide for yourself. After all most studies showing positive benefits have a 1 in 20 chance that the positive finding occured as a result of chance, so they can be bogus also. That is your option. If you expect improvements in form or power to come quickly and easily so be it. Most of my customers are just are really happy that there are lots of people like you out there. Just means they think they will have a bigger head start in this improvement process and you (and those like you) will be less competitive in the future. I know of one person who reliably beats Dr. Coggan (not many do) who is quite happy Dr. Coggan has the opinion he does. You and Dr. Coggan can both continue to hope these people (and me) are all wrong.

Frank

 

[Fday]

No, but you claimed that effiency was separate from muscle fiber type.

Efficiency can be related to both fibre type and pedaling style, that is my contention. Perhaps PC's change fibre type, but this seems unlikely in only 6 weeks. If not, then there must be another basis to explain the Luttrell (or the housewife) results. Perhaps this other basis (changes in technique) could also explain the Lance results. Of course, we will never know because the measurements to answer the question in Lance's case were not taken.

 

[WarrenG]

My man, you are free to wonder about anything you care to wonder about. And, of course, you can wait until the studies are all completed before you are convinced that you ought to at least try them, and decide for yourself. After all most studies showing positive benefits have a 1 in 20 chance that the positive finding occured as a result of chance, so they can be bogus also. That is your option. If you expect improvements in form or power to come quickly and easily so be it. Most of my customers are just are really happy that there are lots of people like you out there. Just means they think they will have a bigger head start in this improvement process and you (and those like you) will be less competitive in the future. I know of one person who reliably beats Dr. Coggan (not many do) who is quite happy Dr. Coggan has the opinion he does. You and Dr. Coggan can both continue to hope these people (and me) are all wrong.

Frank

I'm sorry you have taken that tone. I, and my coach are up to speed on virtually all of the latest training aids and methods and we do have quite a bit of experience trying to figure out how to get myself to my potential. I do a fair bit of some things intended to improve my pedaling motion but I still see relatively small gains from it. In the end I find myself mostly pushing straight down on the pedals and unweighting on the upstrokes because that's what I need to be good at to win more masters national championships.

My coach, Dr. Max Testa used to coach Steve Larsen (you mentioned earlier that Steve used them) a bit so I'll ask him about how the PC's worked out. I do know that Max has never mentioned to me that I might benefit from using PC's.

 

[Fday]

I'm sorry you have taken that tone. I, and my coach are up to speed on virtually all of the latest training aids and methods and we do have quite a bit of experience trying to figure out how to get myself to my potential. I do a fair bit of some things intended to improve my pedaling motion but I still see relatively small gains from it. In the end I find myself mostly pushing straight down on the pedals and unweighting on the upstrokes because that's what I need to be good at to win more masters national championships.

My coach, Dr. Max Testa used to coach Steve Larsen (you mentioned earlier that Steve used them) a bit so I'll ask him about how the PC's worked out. I do know that Max has never mentioned to me that I might benefit from using PC's.

According to A. C., doing all that stuff to improve your pedaling motion is a waste of time. Why do you bother? How did you get so good worrying about details such as pedaling style when all you need to do is push hard?

Max has a bike with PC's on it up there. Next time you are there why don't you ask to hop on and see how smooth you really are and see what the PC's really are. If you have spent all this time working on technique I suspect you will be much better than average. That doesn't mean, however, that there isn't room for further improvement. The only questions are, how much room is there and what is the best way to get there? If only we could get Max to actually do the study we came up and talked to him about.

Max is also currently coaching Levi Leipheimer. You might also ask him about Levi's experience with the PC's (although I don't believe Max knew or tested him in the prePC days so he may have no comparison). Or, what the experience with the PC's was at Mapei (it was through the efforts of Max that we got Mapei - Bettini, Nardello, and Garzelli - on them). Those folks were probably tested also but we don't have data. See what you can find out for me.

And, while you are at it I would also be interested in hearing how much he thinks the hamstrings are helping the quads to push when the knee is extending.

 

[bikeguy]

And, while you are at it I would also be interested in hearing how much he thinks the hamstrings are helping the quads to push when the knee is extending.

Who ever said the hamstrings help the quads to contract? The hamstrings and quads contraction is independent, but they can both generate a torque about the knee. I should say they can both generate a torque in the same direction!


-Bikeguy

 

[acoggan]

If this were all so easy and natural we would all pedal identically and have identical efficiencies

But that's precisely the point: essentially, we do. That is, the pattern of force application when pedaling is so stereotypical that 1) it differs little, if at all, between untrained individuals and those who have practiced their technique endlessly, i.e., trained cyclists, 2) as a corollary to #1, no one has demonstrated a superior mastery of pedaling compared to others, and 3) even pedaling backwards doesn't really change the sequence in which our muscles "fire" (probably because we pedal using essentially the same motor pattern we use when walking and running). As a consequence, cycling efficiency varies much less between individuals than, say, running or swimming economy, with said variation being highly correlated with fiber type, but not correlated with any biomechanical parameters.

and the only differences between athletes would be how many hours they trained and what muscle fibre types they have. That is not the case (you have even referenced a source in this thread that shows where cycling efficiency in the sedentary improves with training)

...which could be entirely due to biochemical changes, e.g., replacement of type IIx myosin with type IIa (which can happen in a matter of weeks, and does not require a tremendous training load).

so it does appear that "optimal" form is not natural

You shouldn't ASS U ME that just because untrained individuals experience an improvement in their cycling efficiency as a result of training that they have changed their "form".

, at least for most of us, even though superficially it seems we all are capable of doing the same thing. Same for running form. Some may have a closer to optimal natural form than others, but that does not mean that those with less optimal natural form cannot improve same with work and the proper feedback.

But runners aren't locked into using a fixed "stride length of 2 x 170 mm = 340 mm while running at nearly constant stride rate of 90-100 x 2 = 180-200 steps/min. They also don't have their body weight supported by sitting on a saddle such that changes in potential energy are minimized, and they don't lean on handlebars such that recruitment of upper body musculature is limited.

 

[acoggan]

I would also be interested in hearing how much he thinks the hamstrings are helping the quads to push when the knee is extending.

They aren't, but such co-contraction of agonists and antagonists is necessary to reorient the force vector downward, rather than forward. Thus, while simultaneous activation of the knee extensors and knee flexors while pedaling may seem inefficient, upon closer examination it becomes clear that it still beats the alternative (which would be to try to stretch the crank).

 

[acoggan]

Are you saying that those sedentary housewives who showed improvement in cycling efficiency with just some training must have changed their fiber types to see those changes. That changing muscle fibre type is the only method by which cycling efficiency can change. Is that what you believe?

On what basis do you reject this as a potential explanation?

 

[WarrenG]

According to A. C., doing all that stuff to improve your pedaling motion is a waste of time. Why do you bother? How did you get so good worrying about details such as pedaling style when all you need to do is push hard?

Yes, well A.C. isn't exactly my "go-to-guy" for all things training, but I suspect he sees some value in improving pedaling motion for people with my racing priorities (criteriums and track events) as opposed to a person mainly concerned about using self-selected cadences for virtually all of their racing and training. Max has me do some things for improving my pedaling and they help, but he's never suggested using PC's to do that. Perhaps it's because the experiment to try PC's would detract from my training so much, or for so long that for my current 1-2 year plan it's not worth the risk.

Max has a bike with PC's on it up there.

I vaguely recall seeing the bike with PC's more than a year ago. I haven't seen it since. I'll ask him about it.

Next time you are there why don't you ask to hop on and see how smooth you really are and see what the PC's really are. If you have spent all this time working on technique I suspect you will be much better than average.

I still haven't read something from you that convinces me that being able to pedal well with PC's is an improvement. Okay, so I'm using up energy to get small muscles more involved and big muscles used during more of the pedal circle, but I can see how that would be detrimental if we're concerned with doing the most with the available energy.

You mentioned the RAAM people jumping on the bike with PC's and being able to ride with the PC's much longer than other people at the Expos. This can be because they tend towards slowr cadences and have much more slow twitch (endurance) fibers from their previous training, including in the little muscles needed to utilize PC's, yes? I do not want to be converting the faster fibers I have to a more endurance-like ability, at least not to an extent anywhere near that of a RAAM rider.

Max is also currently coaching Levi Leipheimer. You might also ask him about Levi's experience with the PC's (although I don't believe Max knew or tested him in the prePC days so he may have no comparison). Or, what the experience with the PC's was at Mapei (it was through the efforts of Max that we got Mapei - Bettini, Nardello, and Garzelli - on them). Those folks were probably tested also but we don't have data. See what you can find out for me.

And, while you are at it I would also be interested in hearing how much he thinks the hamstrings are helping the quads to push when the knee is extending.

I will ask him about these things and report back.