ECSS - Congress
- Thread starter fergie
- Start date
Chapeau! said:
So, you're brain cells--at least 3, by your reckoning--are rich with biomechanical knowledge, eh? Data and studies would be good things to use to support your biomechanical "knowledge." Otherwise, your opinions carry zero weight. Anyone with more than 2 brain cells should know that.
Chapeau! said:
Ah, name calling. Your intellectual well certainly must be deep.
Common sense.....hmmm. So, we're supposed to use the single notion that because hamstrings are strong muscles (which they are) to conclude that they would obviously improve, by pulling on the back half of the pedal stroke, the complex series of biomechanical actions that are required to complete a pedal stroke and thusly achieve that magical perfect circle of pedaling. Hmmm. The evidence that they would positively improve said pedal stroke is where? You do realize, don't you, that "common sense" quite often fails to accurately describe or explain events in the physical world, aren't you?
Well, if your "common sense" bears truth, then there must be evidence to support it, right? Now, keep in mind that watching someone pedal is not evidence. What Chris Carmichael says or believes isn't evidence. Evidence is stuff that can be found from testing, lab work,.....you know empirical studies (Here's an article to help you understand what empirical means.). Of course, with your deep understanding of how real data is obtained and how real conclusions about the physical world are achieved...well........you must deeply understand, given your claims, the complex interplay of muscles in the pedal stroke. Obviously, you've studied it deeply.
Common sense really is the gold standard. Golly, remember when it was common sense that the world was flat? Remember when it was common sense that man couldn't fly?
Alien, Someone once told me that a person could read every book ever printed about swimming. This person could go to all the swim meets he could attend. He could travel to all the beaches of the world. Yet if he never tried to swim himself he would most likely drown if he fell in and the water was over his head. So read all you can Alien, just don't confuse reading about something with actually doing it.
Sums up the guys on this forum.
Sums up the guys on this forum.
Chapeau! said:
Ah, classic sign of a weak argument: changing the topic.
Doing it. Hmmm. "Sums up the guys on this forum." Hmmm. It's presumptuous to think that you know anything about the people on this forum and whether or not they're "doing it." You've yet to make any substantive argument that supports your "common sense" notions. See, others have done the research to actually answer these questions because they were interested in finding out what the truth was about efficient pedaling, and what actually improved efficiency and what didn't. A significant number of those people and their studies found things that don't jive with your "common sense". Keep in mind, when they did these studies, they used people that were "doing it."
To put your claims in perspective, while you may be "doing it", your statements show you have know idea how efficiently you're "doing it" or whether or not your notions about "doing it" are true or not. All of claims aren't worth anything without anything backing them up. Alas, you've provided zero to back up your claims........or your "common sense."
Chapeau! said:
Oh? Is that your "common sense" talking, or is this an actual, verifiable statement as it applies to the efficiency of the pedaling stroke? Do you have something objective with which to further the topic at hand? Note that common sense is anything but objective.
Alas, I don't think I'll go away, thanks. The topic is interesting, especially as it appears that quite a few studies seem to contradict entrenched ideas and what some view as "common sense." See, my mind is open to learning, and I'm always interested in what application of the scientific method reveals. I don't like to limit myself to the quaint ideas that are what some consider "common sense."
I couldn't help but notice that you've addressed nothing on point.
roadhouse said:
In the same way as talking on a phone takes from your driving, divided concentration. I also use additional muscles, I combine the lower body's most powerful muscles with the upper body's most powerful muscles but because they are in direct opposition this action can be given total concentration (as in rowing). The linear style with maximal torque over the top is the result of this successful combination.
n crowley said:
What a comparison.
Hamstrings?. Some "additional" muscle.
n crowley said:
You've got it all wrong man, all wrong.
You have underestimated your ALREADY using two of the most powerful muscles used in cycling anyway (Glutes/Quadriceps) for that job (Downstroke/Over the top). Of course they produce the greater torque, there the most powerful. In fact the same relates to walking & running. BUT, in no way are you going to disadvantage yourself for recruiting the hamstrings. There a significant muscle group with significant power, hence greater speed.
Its like 100m sprinting-Marathon running, lowerbody weight training, you use the hamstrings, everday things; walking upstairs, pushing a shopping trolley etc, same applies for the bike. Any action you perform, the more muscles you can recruit for that action, the easier that action becomes (speed).
You adapt.
Chapeau! said:
You keep insisting such things, but you don't bring anything to prove what you're saying. You can guess, assume, and use all the common sense you think you have, but it means nothing without evidence. A fact is that the human body is not infinitely adaptable. The makers of Powercranks would have you believe they're improving your efficiency by "training" your legs to work more on the upstroke; yet, studies indicate that isn't the case. So much for "you adapt" having any relevance to efficiency.
alienator said:
They actually do (train you to work more on the upstroke) but it's not to actually train you to produce power during the upstroke, which is a big difference from what people have been trying to do for years.
After using the cranks for the first 3 to 6 months I've always believed that the studies for PC's have been too short. Sure, after a couple of weeks you're able to go out and train for an hour or so - but you still come back with dead hipflexors and you still have to think about whats going on. By comparison, at around the 3 month stage you don't have to think about what's going on and you end up actually thinking more about the downstroke - at least I did - and that's when the power increases begin.
Oddly, I find I use the hamstrings way more with the PC's during the downstroke than I ever did before.
swampy1970 said:
It is noticeable that you appear to be ignoring those 11-1 and 5-7 o'c areas where Frank claimed much of that 40% increase could be found. The improvement you are describing in your power output seems to be no different from that of a masher who perfects the unweighting technique, (i.e.) the use of hip flexors without concentration during the upstroke except for the changeover between strokes and total concentration to the downstroke with mental elimination of the dead spot areas. On standard cranks this could be perfected within a week, no power training of the hip flexors would be required.
n crowley said:
The hamstring and quads more than do their fair share during the 5 to 7 o'clock areas and the quads have the 11 to 3 covered. Both sets cover the inbetween bits very well too... or so it seems. I've really given up on trying to 'think' what happens - I thought I new years ago. A decade of racing would have you clued in right? Wrong.
I "thought" I was good at pulling up... less than a minute on the PC's proved otherwise.
The 'up part' just happens. While training with PC's for this long you 'seem' to notice what's going on with each leg a little better but I still don't think there's a way to really turn the upstroke into a significant source of power - i.e. adding 100+ watts. If you'd ridden on independant cranks, I don't care what your linear pedaling technique on fixed cranks 'feels like' but I'd bet that within a minute your hip flexors will be disowning you and your perception of what you thought you'd been doing for all those years and what you were actually doing where two completely different things.
The end result is basically 'does it make me go faster or do I feel better at the speed I was at before?' If I could answer yes to one of those then I'd be in for a win. Yes to both, as the case is, then I'd say I'd changed something for the better and was improving because of it.
It'll be interesting to get these on the time trial mule for some testing. Not just to see if the new found power is going to have me going pretty quick from the get go (i somewhat suspect not) but to have a powermeter on the TT bike outdoors and to see what effect the powercranks have in stopping me from getting too low. I 'suspect' that I was too low on the tt bike before and that may have been hindering more than it was helping. The PC's are great at stopping you from putting the bars and saddle in a position that you're not ready for.
Are we taking bets on how many miles it'll take me to lock up the hipflexors in a deep tuck position, wobble uncontrolably on the TT bike while on the aerobars and end up in a ditch?
swampy1970 said:The hamstring and quads more than do their fair share during the 5 to 7 o'clock areas and the quads have the 11 to 3 covered. Both sets cover the inbetween bits very well too... or so it seems. I've really given up on trying to 'think' what happens - I thought I new years ago. A decade of racing would have you clued in right? Wrong.
I "thought" I was good at pulling up... less than a minute on the PC's proved otherwise.
The 'up part' just happens. While training with PC's for this long you 'seem' to notice what's going on with each leg a little better but I still don't think there's a way to really turn the upstroke into a significant source of power - i.e. adding 100+ watts. If you'd ridden on independant cranks, I don't care what your linear pedaling technique on fixed cranks 'feels like' but I'd bet that within a minute your hip flexors will be disowning you and your perception of what you thought you'd been doing for all those years and what you were actually doing where two completely different things.
The end result is basically 'does it make me go faster or do I feel better at the speed I was at before?' If I could answer yes to one of those then I'd be in for a win. Yes to both, as the case is, then I'd say I'd changed something for the better and was improving because of it.
It'll be interesting to get these on the time trial mule for some testing. Not just to see if the new found power is going to have me going pretty quick from the get go (i somewhat suspect not) but to have a powermeter on the TT bike outdoors and to see what effect the powercranks have in stopping me from getting too low. I 'suspect' that I was too low on the tt bike before and that may have been hindering more than it was helping. The PC's are great at stopping you from putting the bars and saddle in a position that you're not ready for.
Are we taking bets on how many miles it'll take me to lock up the hipflexors in a deep tuck position, wobble uncontrolably on the TT bike while on the aerobars and end up in a ditch?
The difficulty in trying to apply torque on the upstroke would seem to be caused by the fact that at the start as your knee pulls up and moves forward, your pedal/foot is moving backward and upwards, this makes any effective torque application a very straining task. While with the unweighting technique you only have to raise the knee as the lower leg swings free with foot floating above the rising pedal. As for how long before the locking of your hip flexors, that will probably depend on how forward a position you are using.
n crowley said:
The difficulty in trying to apply torque on the upstroke is because cycling is predominately downstroke dominant & for this very reason, the upstroke is a straining task (FOR THE RIDERS WHO DON'T TRAIN IT).
No need too over-complicate it with jargon.
You & fergs have been getting it wrong for a long time. Yes, the upstroke is less efficient, you'll find that, especially when you don't train it.
Neural adaptation.
Chapeau! said:
... Says the man whose pedaling model is completely wrong.
Even if you spend a lot of time, and I mean a lot, with a tool like powercranks then you learn to pull up effectively but you're still not gonna produce a bunch of power - a few watts at best.
