ECSS - Congress

[Chapeau!]

Or how I show no difference in MAP tests between cycling shoes and running shoes.

Ha Ha... I'll pass on the jogging shoes.

fergs just wants his NZ minions to stay on top of the world with this journal jargon.

Top 1 easiest way for getting dropped from a group?... Wear a pair of joggers when your cycling.

This place is f*^in crazy.

 

[alienator]

Ha Ha... I'll pass on the jogging shoes.

fergs just wants his NZ minions to stay on top of the world with this journal jargon.

Top 1 easiest way for getting dropped from a group?... Wear a pair of joggers when your cycling.

This place is f*^in crazy.

So, you don't have an objective response, re: the information presented, eh? You don't a have a point that can refute the "journal jargon?"

 

[fergie]

So, you don't have an objective response, re: the information presented, eh? You don't a have a point that can refute the "journal jargon?"

The voices in his head must be out getting a cuppa

 

[Chapeau!]

So, you don't have an objective response, re: the information presented, eh? You don't a have a point that can refute the "journal jargon?"

Other than using my own common sense. There is a reason why nobody in the peleton wears jogging shoes.

I'm gonna throw on my sandals for my next ride, see if there are any performance gains to be made.

You guys love pulling my leg.

 

[fergie]

Ha Ha... I'll pass on the jogging shoes.

I coach two Professional Downhill cyclists getting paid 200,000 Euro a year who choose to race in flats and sand shoes.

There is a reason why road and track cyclists use cycling shoes and clipless pedals but it's not to facilitate circular pedalling.

 

[fergie]

Other than using my own common sense.

I'm gonna throw on my sandals for my next ride, see if there are any performance gains to be made.

Did we say there were performance gains? I would expect that in a road based test or in a longer trainer/erg based test that cycling shoes would start to win out and in shorter (10-30sec) tests the cycling shoes would win out.

Sounds like a easy Masters project for me to do. Maybe I will do a 6 week study on the differences between using an independent crank and a normal crank seeing most normal people can pick up their use in 2-3 rides and it doesn't take people long to change their application of force through the pedal stroke with them.

 

[Chapeau!]

I coach two Professional Downhill cyclists getting paid 200,000 Euro a year who choose to race in flats and sand shoes.

lol.

Because clipless pedals would have benefited the downhill cyclist's & all there 5 RPM's.

There is a reason why road and track cyclists use cycling shoes and clipless pedals but it's not to facilitate circular pedalling.

Shame.

I guess some cyclists will never reach there full potential aka Lance Armstrong & his facilitation of circular pedalling.

 

[fergie]

I guess some cyclists will never reach there full potential aka Lance Armstrong & his facilitation of circular pedalling.

Lance and Chris's anecdotes were duly noted. No testing has been reported on his actual pedal stroke so the only thing we can actually deduce is that his cadence increased which funny enough is an indication that he mashes more and uses less of his muscle while riding.

Goes to show that you can win 7 Tours de France without actually knowing why you won.

 

[alienator]

Other than using my own common sense. There is a reason why nobody in the peleton wears jogging shoes.

I'm gonna throw on my sandals for my next ride, see if there are any performance gains to be made.

You guys love pulling my leg.

Again, you don't have an objective, on point response. If "common sense" were the standard for proving something, science would be a hundred, if not more, years behind where it is now. Common sense does not a fact make. That is why tests are done. This idea is borne out by years of testing and experimentation sometimes resulting in counter-intuitive results.

As it stands, I don't think you can point to a single test which shows that Armstrong "pedals in circles."

 

[Chapeau!]

As it stands, I don't think you can point to a single test which shows that Armstrong "pedals in circles."

* Taken from: Sarre et al (2005). Stability of pedalling mechanics during a prolonged cycling exercise performed at different cadences. Journal of Sports Sciences.

Force production and fatigue during cycling at different pedal cadences - Beat:YourB

About the author of this training article.

Marc Laithwaite, is Sports Science & Coaching Director, at The Endurance Coach. Mark has a Bsc (Hons) sports science and is working towards his Phd sports science. He is a member of the British Association of Sports and Exercise Scientists (BASES), a British Cycling Federation Blood Analyst, BTF Level 3 Coach & Coach Educator, UKA Level 3 Coach and ABCC Level 3 Coach.

 

[alienator]

* Taken from: Sarre et al (2005). Stability of pedalling mechanics during a prolonged cycling exercise performed at different cadences. Journal of Sports Sciences.

Force production and fatigue during cycling at different pedal cadences - Beat:YourB

That doesn't say that tests showed that Armstrong pedals in circles. In fact, there's no proof of anything in the article.

 

[fergie]

* Taken from: Sarre et al (2005). Stability of pedalling mechanics during a prolonged cycling exercise performed at different cadences. Journal of Sports Sciences.

Have the actual study in front of me, not an internet rehash of the study.

No where in the study does it show any of the subjects applied force positively through the entire pedal stroke. Even Gimmickcrankers don't pedal in circles (Bohm, 2008).

 

[Chapeau!]

Have the actual study in front of me, not an internet rehash of the study.

No where in the study does it show any of the subjects applied force positively through the entire pedal stroke. Even Gimmickcrankers don't pedal in circles (Bohm, 2008).

ferg's states; "It's actually terribly inefficient (circular pedalling) because as you increase the amount of muscle involved you increase the energy cost".

I will agree.

BUT.

Like with everything involved with increasing athletic performance, can't the body adapt to the ever increasing energy cost's we place upon our bodies to get faster & stronger?.

 

[roadhouse]

ferg's states; "It's actually terribly inefficient (circular pedalling) because as you increase the amount of muscle involved you increase the energy cost".

I will agree.

now wouldn't using a wider variety of muscles to produce the same pedaling effect offset the singular use of the only "major" muscles, thus one not being any more inefficient than the other?

 

[roadhouse]

let me rephrase that, wouldn't using a wider variety of less taxed muscles and less needing to be taxed as they are working in unison by way of 'reciprocal inhibition' as Doc C put it to produce the same pedaling effects offset the use of the demands and strain of the one always taxed group of muscles, thus not one way of pedaling being more or less efficient than the other.?

 

[Chapeau!]

 

[roadhouse]

 

[jollyrogers]

now wouldn't using a wider variety of muscles to produce the same pedaling effect offset the singular use of the only "major" muscles, thus one not being any more inefficient than the other?

The problem isn't efficiency, it's the ability to do work. Pedaling "smoothness" doesn't have appear to have any beneficial effect on efficiency (defined as work out / work in - the energy required by the body to perform).

When it comes to the ability to do work, Coyle's cross-sectional look at regional and national class cyclists show that the national class cyclists have a pedal stroke that is less smooth than the than the inferior regional class cyclists. If smoothness is important to winning races, then the national class folks should have the smoother stroke. While the national class cyclists were less smooth, they unsurprisingly, did produce more power than the regional class athletes. Being that the national class cyclists were less smooth, this extra power came from the down stroke.

The muscles that work on the downstroke, the quadriceps and glutes, are larger and capable of producing more force than the muscles that work during the lifting phase of the pedal stoke, the hamstrings and hip flexors.

I'll give an admittedly imperfect analogy:

You have 4 people attempting to carry a long and heavy length of telephone pole, 2 Navy SEALS (representing the quadriceps and glutes) and 2 junior high girls cross country runners (representing the hamstrings and hip flexors.

Because the pole is rigidly connected, the 2 Navy SEALs are able to do the bulk of the work with some minimal contribution from the 2 runners. This is how a conventional crank works. The stronger muscles can assist the weaker.

Now let's "decouple" the telephone pole into 4 pieces each connected by 6 feet of rope so that the team still has to carry the pole together, but each person has to bear their own portion directly. Will the decoupled group go faster? Sure, with enough training and adaptation, eventually the girls may get strong enough to carry their portion of the pole, but the decoupled team won't ever be as fast as the team that can work together.

 

[roadhouse]

i quite thoroughly enjoy how you mention Navy Seals, i think about them when i 'train', "if they can do that, then the least i can do is this."

how long does it take to become national vs regional? who's been riding longer?

 

[jollyrogers]

i quite thoroughly enjoy how you mention Navy Seals, i think about them when i 'train', "if they can do that, then the least i can do is this."

how long does it take to become national vs regional? who's been riding longer?

Regional = Mid Atlantic, Northeast, etc

National = USA

A regional class athlete is someone who is competitive at regional events/championships; national class - upper tier of the regional athletes.