different muscles for standing pedaling



K

Ken Roberts

Guest
There's some opportunities to use unexpected muscles to help push the pedals
while standing -- I'm offering four here -- because you have more freedom of
body position when standing on the bike. I'm listing these four moves here
because they can be fun to try out (and I couldn't figure out how to post
them to rec.bicycling.fun). Also because some people have been saying
recently on r.b.t that they believe that using more different muscles for
pedaling will make you go faster -- so here's some chances for them to try
to prove their point.

More different muscles to help push while standing:
(A) pull up on handlebar with arm
(B) tilt pelvis to push hip down toward pedal
(C) push upper leg sideways from hip (w bike tilted)
(D) push lower leg sideways from knee
.. (more details below)

Questions:
* which ones have you tried? which ones were fun?
* did you find some others?
* which ones seemed to help more?
* which ones do pro racers use? in what situations?
* which ones do pro racers not use? why not?

more details on each move:

(A) pull up on handlebar with arm.
I see two possible modes of this:
.. (A1) static: Prevent the upper body from rising, so more of the main leg
down-push goes into pushing the pedal down, and less into lifting the weight
of the upper body.
.. (A2) dynamic: Actually move the upper body downward a little bit, so it
adds positive Work to pushing on the pedal. (The key difference with A2 is
that you don't just think about moving it, or try to move it -- you actually
succeed in moving it down a little.)

(B) tilt the pelvis sideways to push hip down toward pedal.
While the hip on the downstroke moves down, the other hip tends to move up.
Perhaps this is what kinesiologists call "Lateral Flexion" or "Abduction" of
the lower spine?
http://www.exrx.net/Articulations/Spine.html#anchor166721
The "rotational axis" of this move is a horizontal line front-to-back
roughly thru center of pelvis or midpoint between hips.

(C) push the upper leg + knee out sideways, from below hip joint (with bike
tilted).
This move only helps to push the pedal down if the hip is already out away
to the side, nowhere near the seat or the top tube. I think the
kinesiologists call this "Hip Abduction":
http://www.exrx.net/Articulations/Hip.html#anchor847041
The "rotational axis" of this move is a horizontal line front-to-back thru
the hip joint.

(D) push the lower leg + ankle out sideways, from below knee joint (with
bike tilted).
This move only helps to push the pedal down if the knee is already out away
to the side, not near bike frame.
I think the kinesiologists call this "Medial Hip Rotation" or "Internal Hip
Rotation":
http://www.exrx.net/Articulations/Hip.html#anchor849446
The "axis" of this move is roughly the long bone of the upper leg. If I'm
standing with my leg straight, this move just aims my kneecap more inside
toward the other leg, not very interesting. But if I'm sitting down with my
knee bent and my lower leg hanging down, this move moves my whole lower leg
with ankle toward the outside -- and that's the way to make it push the
pedal down, if the knee is first put into a good position for it. Sometimes
I've tried to exaggerate this knee position by thinking of "pointing" my
knee out to the side.

Ken
 
"Ken Roberts" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> There's some opportunities to use unexpected muscles to help push the
> pedals while standing -- I'm offering four here -- because you have
> more freedom of body position when standing on the bike. I'm listing
> these four moves here because they can be fun to try out (and I
> couldn't figure out how to post them to rec.bicycling.fun). Also
> because some people have been saying recently on r.b.t that they
> believe that using more different muscles for pedaling will make you
> go faster -- so here's some chances for them to try to prove their
> point.


Supporting your whole body weight when riding has been found to be less
effective.

Phil H
 
Phil Holman wrote
> Ken Roberts wrote
>> some people have been saying ... they believe that using more different
>> muscles for pedaling will make you go faster -- so here's some chances
>> for them to try to prove their point.


> Supporting your whole body weight when riding has been found to be less
> effective.


OK, but the comparison would not be between standing pedaling (supporting
body weight) versus seated pedaling (body weight resting on seat). It would
be between standing pedaling (supporting body weight) _with_ more different
muscles versus standing pedaling (supporting body weight) without more
different muscles.

I'm proposing to get that argument about "using more muscles" away from just
quantitative: less hip-flexion versus more hip-flexion (and we're not sure
how much the "less" is because we're not usually able to measure). Instead
try out some new muscles (especially C + D), muscles where I can
definitely tell if I'm using the muscle -- and especially to definitely tell
if I'm not using it. I think being sure I'm not using the muscle is
easier with muscles that I don't use hardly at all for pedaling. With
muscles that I'm already familiar with using a lot, it's hard to be sure
that my unconscious neuro-muscular control module is not engaging it without
letting my conscious mind know.

Ken
 
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:49:02 -0800, Phil Holman wrote:

> Supporting your whole body weight when riding has been found to be less
> effective.


It's less efficient, but when you've been working hard seated for a while,
stretching out is a big relief.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Ken Roberts" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Phil Holman wrote
> > Ken Roberts wrote
> >> some people have been saying ... they believe that using more
> >> different muscles for pedaling will make you go faster -- so
> >> here's some chances for them to try to prove their point.

>
> > Supporting your whole body weight when riding has been found to be
> > less effective.

>
> OK, but the comparison would not be between standing pedaling
> (supporting body weight) versus seated pedaling (body weight resting
> on seat). It would be between standing pedaling (supporting body
> weight) _with_ more different muscles versus standing pedaling
> (supporting body weight) without more different muscles.
>
> I'm proposing to get that argument about "using more muscles" away
> from just quantitative: less hip-flexion versus more hip-flexion (and
> we're not sure how much the "less" is because we're not usually able
> to measure). Instead try out some new muscles (especially C + D),
> muscles where I can definitely tell if I'm using the muscle -- and
> especially to definitely tell if I'm not using it. I think being
> sure I'm not using the muscle is easier with muscles that I don't
> use hardly at all for pedaling. With muscles that I'm already
> familiar with using a lot, it's hard to be sure that my unconscious
> neuro-muscular control module is not engaging it without letting my
> conscious mind know.


I am reminded of the children's story of the centipede trying to figure
out how to run.

Ken, you can indulge in this kind of stuff if you like, but riding a
bike is simple. Why make it more complicated?
 
Tim McNamara wrote
> I am reminded of the children's story of the centipede
> trying to figure out how to run.


I am reminded of climbing up the north side of Col de l'Iseran and turning
on move D and blowing past the rider ahead of me.

I am reminded of a long evenly-graded boring section on a longer climb where
it was nice to know some different moves to play with -- just to play.

I am reminded of the first time I tried move C in the second half of a hill
training workout, and it seemed like a whole new source of power that I
could draw on.

I am reminded of watching a Euro pro race on TV and noticing that one rider
standing was pointing his knees out like method D, but two other riders were
not.

> riding a bike is simple. Why make it more complicated?


The feeling of riding a bike is mostly simple.
Technically and scientifically, what the muscles and nerves and brain
control modules are doing while pedaling is very complicated and
non-intuitive. This newsgroup is called rec.bicycles.tech, so it seems to
me not inappropriate to get into the "Technically" stuff. Maybe somebody
needs to start another newsgroup called rec.bicycles.just-keep-it-simple

If somebody's got some scientific evidence that what's happening with
muscles and neural activation timing while pedaling is "simple" -- by all
means please share it.

Ken
 
Ken Roberts wrote:
> Phil Holman wrote
> > Ken Roberts wrote
> >> some people have been saying ... they believe that using more different
> >> muscles for pedaling will make you go faster -- so here's some chances
> >> for them to try to prove their point.

>
> > Supporting your whole body weight when riding has been found to be less
> > effective.

>
> OK, but the comparison would not be between standing pedaling (supporting
> body weight) versus seated pedaling (body weight resting on seat). It would
> be between standing pedaling (supporting body weight) _with_ more different
> muscles versus standing pedaling (supporting body weight) without more
> different muscles.


I think the comparison _should_ be between sitting and standing,
including pulling up on the bars and pulling up on the pedals when
standing. Sitting is generally more efficient, but standing and pulling
up lets you apply more power.

In my experience, too much standing in big gears (or speep hills) can
lead to muscle fatigue and cramping. But occasional standing is a good
thing to stretch the back and give your butt a rest. And sometimes (on
steep hills) you don't have a choice but to stand. I don't think
tilting the bike and such makes much difference in itself, but is a
natural part of standing and pulling on the bars.

Art Harris
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Michael Warner <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:49:02 -0800, Phil Holman wrote:
>
> > Supporting your whole body weight when riding has been found to be
> > less effective.

>
> It's less efficient, but when you've been working hard seated for a
> while, stretching out is a big relief.


Using a different set of muscles- or using the same set through a
different range of movement- can provide a bit of rest for muscles that
are fatigued.
 
Ken Roberts wrote:
> More different muscles to help push while standing:
> (A) pull up on handlebar with arm


When standing and pedaling hard, such as when sprinting uphill, a
common technique is to pull up on the handlebar on the same side as
your leg is pushing down. I assume that is what you meant.

Tom
 
On Nov 1, 1:10 am, "Ken Roberts" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> There's some opportunities to use unexpected muscles to help push the pedals
> while standing -- I'm offering four here -- because you have more freedom of
> body position when standing on the bike. I'm listing these four moves here
> because they can be fun to try out (and I couldn't figure out how to post
> them to rec.bicycling.fun). Also because some people have been saying
> recently on r.b.t that they believe that using more different muscles for
> pedaling will make you go faster -- so here's some chances for them to try
> to prove their point.
> Ken


Yes these more different and more powerful muscles are the hips which
are used to supply the power when riding out of the saddle. The other
normally used muscles are used to increase and direct this power to the
pedals. The trick is to make it possible to use this same hip technique
when seated on the saddle with arm power used to compensate for gravity
advantage lost on the saddle. Riding out of the saddle with total
unweighting reduces the dead spot area effect, using the technique in
the saddle with additional ankle technique completely eliminates it.
 
Ken Roberts wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote
>> I am reminded of the children's story of the centipede
>> trying to figure out how to run.

>
> I am reminded of climbing up the north side of Col de l'Iseran and turning
> on move D and blowing past the rider ahead of me.
>
> I am reminded of a long evenly-graded boring section on a longer climb where
> it was nice to know some different moves to play with -- just to play.
>
> I am reminded of the first time I tried move C in the second half of a hill
> training workout, and it seemed like a whole new source of power that I
> could draw on.
>
> I am reminded of watching a Euro pro race on TV and noticing that one rider
> standing was pointing his knees out like method D, but two other riders were
> not.
>


The guy pedaling in a funky manner was just stretching, he wasn't doing
it to eke out a .00012% gain of efficiency.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
 
Tim McNamara wrote
> Muscles, in fact, are very simple in their primary function: they only
> do two things (contraction and relaxation). The neurological processes
> are basically bundles of simple processes with a nested organizational
> structure which are governed by perception and intention.


What I'm hearing is a claim that since each constituent part is simple, the
total system must be simple.

There are major scientific sub-disciplines based on the assumption that that
claim is false.

There are some scientists who study bicycling. Some of them have been
carefully studying the interactions among the simple constituent parts --
both in computer simulations and with human riders -- and coming up with
some non-intuitive results.

> Some useful references here:
> http://education.umn.edu/kin/research/hfrl/Students/ecological_systems.ht
> ml
> http://education.umn.edu/kin/research/hfrl/Students/ecological_action.htm
> l


Those references do not even mention bicycling.

> The field of study you are looking for is kinesiology.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinesiology


Again, lots of focus on the constituent parts, not on how those parts
interact dynamically under the specific constraints and with the specific
goals of bicycling.

What would be wrong with actually looking at scientific research actually
focused on bicycling?

Ken
 
Tom wrote
> Ken Roberts wrote:
>> (A) pull up on handlebar with arm


> When standing and pedaling hard, such as when sprinting uphill,
> a common technique is to pull up on the handlebar on the same
> side as your leg is pushing down.


Yes that's what I mean for (A1) -- pulling on the handlebar to stabilize the
upper body. I think I understand the physics of why that can be an effective
move, especially for high-force pedaling. So A1 isn't really a "move" by the
muscles, but rather the static "isometric" prevention of movement. (I'm
thinking this stabilizing of the upper body changes the _timing_ of when the
work from the big leg-extension muscles gets transmitted to pedals:
immediate versus delayed, and that immediate turns out to be more efficient
mechanically.)

For me (A2) is the move that's interesting (and questionable): successfully
using the arms (and perhaps other upper body muscles) to drive the pelvis
downward like a centimeter. Is it believed that some riders do that? even
some pro racers?

My suspicion is that this move (perhaps also move B?) gets into a "range of
motion conflict" with the big leg-extension muscles -- so that adding one
centimeter of effective pushing distance with the arms and upper body
results in subtracting one centimeter of range of motion from the
hip-extension and knee-extension muscles. But pedaling standing offers lots
of freedom, so maybe there's some clever way around this conflict?

What's interesting for me about moves C + D is that the "aiming" of their
push force (sort of sideways) is in a very different direction from the main
down-push, so perhaps those moves can avoid the "range of motion conflict"
problem.

Ken