One Legged Training



J-MAT

New Member
Mar 26, 2003
331
0
0
coapman:

I don't know very much about Carmichael as I'm sure you don't either. Ever met or talked to him??? You say you have read and disagreed with his training advice.

You also love to bag on Noel saying he is dodging questions. Here's a question for you to answer (don't dodge it): How is it you know so much about Carmichael??? What is the source of your information???

Since you can analyze a cycling coach at the highest level and find fault with him, you should certainly be able to provide some simple training advice to some of the members here on this board.

Step up "coach."

Your criticism is fit for a portable toilet. As far as excising mistruths and shining the light of correctness, you repeat the same tired jabs over and over and over like a broken record.
"Intellectual" discourse??? Hardly. When will you actually start to say something???

I don't know Noel, but at least he has ideas about something, and for that alone I have respect for him. Whether or not he backs them up is a separate issue. At least he's trying to say something. What is there to respect about you??? What are your ideas???

You and your coach love to talk about science and studies. You should be aware that all science begins with an observation. Since you know so much, why not step up and put something on the line for others to analyze???

Perhaps you are working off a debt for your coach by piping in when it gets too hot for him. He's here to make money, and there's nothing wrong with that, it's his business. However, your biased comments go beyond tacky.

It's funny how you state "And btw, Ric is a far better coach than Carmicheal could ever hope to be." Really??? You and your coach love to bag on others who don't have a study to support their observations. Since you both live by studies, do you have any "peer reviewed" data to support that claim???

If not, I guess it's not true.
 

VeloFlash

New Member
Feb 26, 2003
704
0
0
Noel Crowley has gained some internet infamy over the years for promoting his hypothesis on the JA pedalling style and its claimed but unproven benefits. NC is totally obsessed with this pursuit. He continually fails to produce any reference that could be remotely considered scientific.

I don't believe you would call his evidence even anecdotal as the theory appears to be his singular observation rather than the collective observation of others.

I think he spends a lot of time at the bottom of his garden conversing with the leprechauns (they are a form of fairy, aren't they?) to find the secrets of the treasure - the treasure being the "secret" JA took to his grave.

But J-MAT, in my view you are vying with NC. All your coaching methods you espouse have no scientific basis. You truly shoot from the hip in all your writings to date on cycle coaching.

I would give total credibility to a person like Ric (I don't know him nor have a relationship, business or other) who can refer to peer reviewed scientific studies as support than a coach like yourself who relies on gut feelings, old wives tales and his own version of common sense as "evidence".
 

VeloZoooooooom

New Member
Sep 3, 2003
20
0
0
Originally posted by J-MAT
coapman:

I don't know very much about Carmichael as I'm sure you don't either. Ever met or talked to him??? You say you have read and disagreed with his training advice.

I don't need to meet him to have an opinion on his theories.

The reason why I feel (and please note that I never claimed that this was verifiable fact, I made an opinion statement and defend only as such) that Richard Stern is a better coach is that Ric tailors his training programs to the individual and does not use a tempalte program as it appears that CTS does. One of the secrets to successful coaching is the ability to adapt to various clients' individual characteristics and work with their unique strengths and weaknesses.

Carmicheal in general seems to promote the idea that "one size fits all". By this I mean that he and his staff use the same program for everyone without regard to individualistic physiological differences. I have spoken with several people who used his coaching service at various levels, admittedly none of whom payed to actually be coached one on one by Carmicheal himself but with his name on the program the reasonable assumption is that it a program designed by Carmicheal that they are using, and the training for a Cat4 sprinter was nearly identical to a Cat1 climber/TTer. CTS training had the Cat1 doing intervals of high cadence when he is a masher by nature under the belief that, a la Lance, a higher cadence is *always* better. Well the Cat1 was getting fatigued and was not racing well. He switched to a different coach (not Ric) who eliminated the cadence requirements and worked more strictly with power and the results started to come in for the racer and he felt much better racing under the new program. Anecdotal evidence maybe, but I think it is significant.


You also love to bag on Noel saying he is dodging questions. Here's a question for you to answer (don't dodge it): How is it you know so much about Carmichael??? What is the source of your information???

I've answered this above and I never claimed to have inside or first-hand information. You are confusing opinion statements with assertions.
Since you can analyze a cycling coach at the highest level and find fault with him, you should certainly be able to provide some simple training advice to some of the members here on this board.

Step up "coach."

I'm not a coach nor do/have I claim(ed) to be. I have a basic understanding of cycling training but I leave it to my coach to come up with the specific program.
Your criticism is fit for a portable toilet. As far as excising mistruths and shining the light of correctness, you repeat the same tired jabs over and over and over like a broken record.
"Intellectual" discourse??? Hardly. When will you actually start to say something???

The burden of proof is not on me, it is on Noel for making his statements that his theories are fact without anything to back them up. Noel has goen on for years with his drivel. When I first ran across him I actually listened to him and tried to get what he was saying but when asked for anything to back up his statements he failed to produce anything other then opinion. The sarcasm and "color" in my posts to Noel is bred of years of reading the same tired unproven ideas that has been going on about.

I like to inject a little color into my posts at times, so what? It makes for a slightly less boring read I think.

I don't know Noel, but at least he has ideas about something, and for that alone I have respect for him. Whether or not he backs them up is a separate issue. At least he's trying to say something. What is there to respect about you??? What are your ideas???

When I have ideas I share them, but I never claim that they are true unless I am sure. That is the bid difference.

Perhaps you are working off a debt for your coach by piping in when it gets too hot for him. He's here to make money, and there's nothing wrong with that, it's his business. However, your biased comments go beyond tacky.

I don't see the "tacky" part of this. I like Ric and I make no effort to hide the fact that I consider him a personal friend and that I am also a client of his just as he is a client of mine. With those facts being made clear, my statements are free to be judged in their true context. I think it would be tacky to overly promote him and make biased commentary in response to someone else's statements without making our relationship clear.......but then again I have not done that. I have made one or two statements and certainly have not tried to bail him out or "pipe in when the water gets too hot". Ric has all the info he needs and can handle himself quite well, as you say.
 

J-MAT

New Member
Mar 26, 2003
331
0
0
Both of you don't get my point. All the benefits of modern life you enjoy such as light bulbs, electricity, automobiles, computers, etc. started with someone who had a dream, an idea, an observation.

Too many people have closed minds, they need a study to prove it or it doesn't exist. See Rob, you can't produce a study to show Ric is better than Carmichael, yet you say he is a better coach. Well, you can't prove it with a study. So it is true or not???

What about studies that come out every 6 months saying something is healthy, then 6 months later the same something is not. Who's right??? At some point, you have to rely on something else, like your gut, your observations, etc.

There is not a study for every possible contingency you will face in life. Why worry so much about studies in order for a grown man to ride a bicycle in his spare time??? If you need a study to ride a bicycle, how can you possibly face the greater complexities of living without one??? Surprisingly, we somehow manage without them, often quite well, don't we???

Rob, all you have is your belief based on your observations. I'm sure you believe with all your might you are right. Probably about the same as NC feels about JA's style. A man's dreams and ideas are are usually personal and private. When he shares those ideas with the world people often ridicule those thoughts.

Thank God the Wright brothers didn't let the pundits at the time stop them from trying. How many "experts" said man will never fly??? How many "experts" said it was impossible for man to travel in space??? How many "experts" tell people they will never walk, talk, or see again until they do???

How many times has the human spirit been the only thing to keep someone going when the whole world was kicking them in the head, telling them they were wrong???

It's better to try and fail than fail to try. People who require the safety of studies to ensure they're right aren't saying anything at all.
They use them as safety nets to protect them from ridicule when they speak, hoping the masses will respect the "sanctity" of the study as an absolute if they are challenged.

It takes a special kind of person to make a statement based on an observation. Observations are the foundation of the scientific method, which yields the science you covet so highly.

Most people are followers. What would we have in the world today if everyone waited for someone else to create something worth having???

It's easy to follow once the trail has been established. Blazing the path, not knowing what dangers lie ahead is the hard part, and very few people in the world have what it takes to do this, especially today.

History has clearly shown that the greatest human triumphs have often occured in the face of ridicule, persecution, and torment.

If you ask the best scientific minds in the world what is important, they will say one of the greatest prerequisites for achieving greatness is to be energized by failure. That is, when things don't go right, you don't pack your bags and go home, you come back for more and try again.

Rarely do people hit the bullseye on the first attempt. The effort is what is important. Following studies is like wheelsucking, it doesn't take much energy to follow.

Veloflash, I do shoot from the hip, it's who I am. I assure you, my aim is true. Really, if you think about it, Ric and I are almost identical except for one or two points of disagreement. As far as NC ripping off other's ideas did you invent algebraic equations in school, or was it passed down to you from another source??? Knowledge eventually dies unless it is shared. We have to learn from others. Ever hear of a guy named Cyrille Guimard??? He is the high-school dropout who has coached more TDF winners than any other coach in history, namely Hinault, Fignon, and LeMond. You don't need formal education or studies to win bicycle races at the highest professional level, let alone for someone who is cat-1/cat-4. Learn some truth from the real world.

Is NC firing blanks or will he lock and load a magzine of live ammo??? Who knows??? The burden is on him to follow through, but at least he has taken the first step, even if it's been years. Some people work at different speeds.

I'll support anybody out there who does their best to make an statement based on something they believe in. Right or wrong, you have to give people credit for trying. It's not trying that's wrong.
 

Bug Smasher

New Member
Sep 11, 2003
15
0
0
I once made the mistake on focusing on the upstroke when pedalling with one leg. It wasn't by choice. I was bike touring one summer in the Rockies when my crank axle broke (on the left side luckily) No problem, I thought. I've got SPDs. Of course I was at the base of a switch backed mountain pass with about 70 lbs of gear strapped to the bike.

I jammed my left foot in the frame and began pulling like a madman up the mountain. It wasn't long before I realized that was a bad idea. (I discovered that cyclists don't have strong flexor muscles) I had another two days ride before I found a bike shop. I made some interesting discoveries along the way.

1) you can push a much bigger gear with one leg than two. (I still managed ave. 30 km/h on the flats)
2) use momentum on the upstroke (ie. use very little pull).
3) be very careful when you use two legs again after 3 days with one. You'll feel very lopsided for a few minutes and be all over the place.
:)

As for training? I never thought about it. It may be good for strength (I haven't read Lance's book), but I think pedalling technique would suffer (or at least not improve). Remember it's all about efficiency!
 

crowley

New Member
May 29, 2003
26
0
0
80
Originally posted by Bug Smasher
I once made the mistake on focusing on the upstroke when pedalling with one leg. It wasn't by choice. I was bike touring one summer in the Rockies when my crank axle broke (on the left side luckily) No problem, I thought. I've got SPDs. Of course I was at the base of a switch backed mountain pass with about 70 lbs of gear strapped to the bike.

I jammed my left foot in the frame and began pulling like a madman up the mountain. It wasn't long before I realized that was a bad idea. (I discovered that cyclists don't have strong flexor muscles) I had another two days ride before I found a bike shop. I made some interesting discoveries along the way.

1) you can push a much bigger gear with one leg than two. (I still managed ave. 30 km/h on the flats)
2) use momentum on the upstroke (ie. use very little pull).
3) be very careful when you use two legs again after 3 days with one. You'll feel very lopsided for a few minutes and be all over the place.
:)

I would not agree with your first discovery, I would say that when
using one leg, using a bigger gear is more effective than a
smaller gear. Remember you are applying power to only less than half the chainring.
 

crowley

New Member
May 29, 2003
26
0
0
80
Originally posted by crowley
Originally posted by Bug Smasher
I once made the mistake on focusing on the upstroke when pedalling with one leg. It wasn't by choice. I was bike touring one summer in the Rockies when my crank axle broke (on the left side luckily) No problem, I thought. I've got SPDs. Of course I was at the base of a switch backed mountain pass with about 70 lbs of gear strapped to the bike.

I jammed my left foot in the frame and began pulling like a madman up the mountain. It wasn't long before I realized that was a bad idea. (I discovered that cyclists don't have strong flexor muscles) I had another two days ride before I found a bike shop. I made some interesting discoveries along the way.

1) you can push a much bigger gear with one leg than two. (I still managed ave. 30 km/h on the flats)
2) use momentum on the upstroke (ie. use very little pull).
3) be very careful when you use two legs again after 3 days with one. You'll feel very lopsided for a few minutes and be all over the place.
:)
I would not agree with your first discovery, I would say that when
using one leg, using a bigger gear is more effective than a
smaller gear. Remember you are applying power to only less than half the chainring.
On rereading it, I now understand what you mean, you can get
more power from one leg in one-legged pedaling than you can from the same leg when both legs are being used. I would agree
with that.
 

zakeen

New Member
Aug 14, 2003
87
0
0
41
@J-MAT - I understand you 110%

@Ricstern - you always ask for proof. I changed my training program purely on the one leg. My results improved so quick it was not funny! ridding uphill while sitting down was much better and easier!

@Ricstern - also you have not proven it does not work?? you have proven in your test that more power is generated on the down stroke and you didnt need to tell us that cause we all knew it.

A better coach or not. Well the first time I heard who ricstern was when I read his comments here on this forum. then I argued with him and disided to check out his webpage and found out he was a coach. Then he gave me a study to read and finding out it was written from him. and found out he was writing for cyclingnews.

So you have some credit. But you lost all that credit from me after reading you posts. I have disagree with everyone. You dont want to to learn cause you never ask something, but you come in and tell people that they are wrong I have a study do you? I have results of improvements. Everyones different and you seem to think everything you say works, well it doesnt!

Lances coach. Lance had and still does have him for such a long time, so I beleive he is doing something write.

So to work out the best coach.
I just read his book last week. I was given it. He says everything totally different to what ricstern has said. Lance has won the tour 5 times. So that is results. But I am sure ricstern has a study to prove that he is a better coach. Studies are not important here, results are!

But from my point of view. I like to have people listen to the athlete. I have found here that rictern doesn not listen and tell or throws studies in your faces and asks what studies do you have??

if you look at my post records I com here post and stay then I dont come back for a week or two because I get pretty ****** off with what rictern says back, thats where he lost my respect.

my two cents
 

Brizza

New Member
Jun 17, 2003
333
0
0
Back to the topic.

If we consider which muscles we are using in the action, by pulling up we are utilising the hamstrings and calves. I would imediatly suggest that this would have to add power.
What about the theory of "scrape the mud off the bottom of your shoe"? I find the action produces great bursts of power.

I have also watched good track riders rock their bike forwards and backwards though acceleration with each pedal stroke, maybe both techniques work?

And for the critism of Ric, Ric is a very knowledgable coach, he writes like a coach implying that his theory is correct and that the reader should follow it only... THATS WHAT COACHES DO!!

If you disagree with a coach, listen to him, think it over and if you disagree, let it go, they are the wrong people to argue with as they need to maintain their relationship with the other athletes.
 

ric_stern/RST

New Member
Nov 11, 2002
3,866
2
38
53
Hurstpierpoint
www.cyclecoach.com
zakeen wrote, i responded with >>

@J-MAT - I understand you 110%

@Ricstern - you always ask for proof. I changed my training program purely on the one leg. My results improved so quick it was not funny! ridding uphill while sitting down was much better and easier!

>>as others are here, i'm a scientist. however, primarily i'm a coach and am most interested in the applied performance of cyclists (from 200-m track sprinters, to long distance endurance racing). In fact my PhD is looking at performance in endurance racing cyclists. i've also been racing since 1984, and have done plenty of different cycle races (some well, and some very badly -- 1km TT to 12hr TT, and single and multiday RRs etc).

>>i like to see proof from sort of collected data, where n>1. Anecdotal evidence doesn't hold much sway for me, and i'm sure other scientists. i see allsorts of anecdotal reports that aren't true, for e.g., a friend has decided doing push (press) ups increases cycling performance because after doing some once he was better on his bike the next time. there is of course no evidence or reason why press ups should increase cycling performance, so, frankly i don't think press ups work.

@Ricstern - also you have not proven it does not work?? you have proven in your test that more power is generated on the down stroke and you didnt need to tell us that cause we all knew it.

>>but the evidence that is available, that i cited suggests the opposite of pulling up. i am merely quoting the evidence that is available, which is that *elite* cyclist push down with greater force, and pull up with less force than less elite cyclists (i.e., they don't push down as hard as elite cyclists, and pull up much harder)


A better coach or not. Well the first time I heard who ricstern was when I read his comments here on this forum. then I argued with him and disided to check out his webpage and found out he was a coach. Then he gave me a study to read and finding out it was written from him. and found out he was writing for cyclingnews.

>>with the article that i wrote (i'm assuming you're referring to the strength debate article), there are many references that i used, who have the same conclusion as me (i.e., strength training isn't required for endurance cycling).


So you have some credit. But you lost all that credit from me after reading you posts. I have disagree with everyone. You dont want to to learn cause you never ask something,

>>erm.... i think you're very wrong. of course i want to learn. i'm doing a PhD (in applied cycling performance). i read and learn new information on an almost daily basis.

>>Perhaps, you're not willing to learn, perhaps you just like to listen to old wives tales?


but you come in and tell people that they are wrong I have a study do you? I have results of improvements. Everyones different and you seem to think everything you say works, well it doesnt!

>>of COURSE EVERYTHING I SAY WORKS. <roars with hysterics>. Again, i'll state i'm citing the available non anecdotal evidence that is available in sports science/exercise physiology/coaching science. There are many studies that have looked at lots of differents aspects of performance and physiology, with cycling being one of the most studied sports (because of the ease in which it can be studied). I like to examine the available evidence of various related studies.


Lances coach. Lance had and still does have him for such a long time, so I beleive he is doing something write.

>>He also uses Dr Ferrari, who is also a scientist. and to set the record straight i haven't mentioned chris carmichael at all (either as a good or bad coach).

So to work out the best coach.
I just read his book last week. I was given it. He says everything totally different to what ricstern has said.

>>my guess is that we prescribe training probably quite similarly, especially as he has a similar philosophy to myself (i.e., that of increasing aerobic power)

Lance has won the tour 5 times. So that is results. But I am sure ricstern has a study to prove that he is a better coach. Studies are not important here, results are!

>>nope i don't have such a study, and i doubt one would be possible to do

But from my point of view. I like to have people listen to the athlete.

>>well you can write [email protected] if you like, but the fact is i do listen to my athletes. as i speak to them almost daily, i do listen.

I have found here that rictern doesn not listen and tell or throws studies in your faces and asks what studies do you have??

>>so there is something wrong with writing something and offering supporting evidence? what a strange world you live in zakeen. i'm sure, that if someone said you had done something wrong and you were arrested (please note i am not suggesting that zakeen is involved in any illegal activity -- just using an example) you would want them to offer proof/evidence.

>>okay, this is a *DISCUSSION* board where people can have a discussion. i was asked to moderate the forum, and to inject a scientific flavour. If you don't like that don't come here, or discuss things in a manner that is appropriate. There's plenty of cycling related discussion forums on the 'net. not all of them have a scientific interest. go to a forum you enjoy! (i don't watch all the films that come out at the cinema -- some of them i have no interest in, and those i don't go there and bore myself with).

>>personally, i'd rather you'd stayed here and kept a discussion going. everyone is welcome. why not stay and learn something?


if you look at my post records I com here post and stay then I dont come back for a week or two because I get pretty ****** off with what rictern says back, thats where he lost my respect.

>> do you always get ****** when someone doesn't agree with you? how are you going to get through life? do we all have to agree with you?

>>no one has to agree with me. i'm not always correct (and where i've been wrong i've made my apology public). there's lots of evidence that is repeatable and precise available within the scientific literature, using recreational athletes, well trained athletes, elite and world class athletes.

>>So, Zakeen, what is wrong with using well controlled, good evidence? (as opposed to flaky stuff, which you can't control)

Ric
 

zakeen

New Member
Aug 14, 2003
87
0
0
41
Originally posted by ricstern
but the evidence that is available, that i cited suggests the opposite of pulling up. i am merely quoting the evidence that is available, which is that *elite* cyclist push down with greater force, and pull up with less force than less elite cyclists (i.e., they don't push down as hard as elite cyclists, and pull up much harder)

This study is true I am sure but this has nothing to do with one legged cycling.

There are dead spot in the cycle, 12 and 6 oclock. The area or size of this dead spot is match on how good you techniq is.

Doing one legs is like drill training. 100m sprinters(running) most of there training is on drill. Does these drills make them a stronger runner?? No! But it improves there technig which they can perform better.

Originally posted by ricstern
Perhaps, you're not willing to learn, perhaps you just like to listen to old wives tales?

I am very willing to learn. If someone tells me something is good for you or help you I will try it and see how my body adops to this type of excerise. If someone says its not good or wont help, I will still try to see if it works or helps me. I do heaps of research on the web and I try new things all the time.

Originally posted by ricstern
of COURSE EVERYTHING I SAY WORKS.

I just wanted to repeat that.

Originally posted by ricstern
well you can write [email protected] if you like, but the fact is i do listen to my athletes. as i speak to them almost daily, i do listen.

well you have not listen to the question very well here.

soneone asked does it help?

you state No because Elite cyclist use less uppull then down pull then normal cyclist. - but you have not answered the question. In some points it does not even relate to the question. So you have not listened or understood.

Originally posted by ricstern
so there is something wrong with writing something and offering supporting evidence? what a strange world you live in zakeen.

Not at all but your study does not support anything to this question!

Originally posted by ricstern
do you always get ****** when someone doesn't agree with you? how are you going to get through life? do we all have to agree with you?

No, people dont agree with me all the time. But when I come to a question and I answer it and someone else says I am wrong and they provide a study that does not relate to the question and tells me I am wrong without backing it up, it is quite annying that you were not listening.

So why is doing one leg on a bike not important because elite cycles have a less uppull then normal cyclist?

To throw in a study that is not related says you were not listening. Also using one leg at a time you are able to push that leg muscel harder then using two at the same time, to get a harder workout! One heart for one leg! more blood to that leg. It is like the theroy on training on more then 20.9% O2 to get a better workout!

Originally posted by ricstern
So, Zakeen, what is wrong with using well controlled, good evidence? (as opposed to flaky stuff, which you can't control)

I dont think it is related - one leg is not only done to improve the uppull but for many other things too. That study only states that the uppull is not important - remember you also preform the uppull when ridding with two legs!
 

Not Sure

New Member
May 25, 2010
92
2
0
Office? What would your office mates have you involved in? Being obese? Drunk? Heart disease? Diabetes?

You have to isolate yourself from those who would be negative about your interests in health.

Maintenance of constant positive energy through 360 degrees rotation of the crankshaft with both legs is what matters.

Single legged pedaling drills, as recommended by Arnie Baker, M.D., are mostly to develop coordination.

Strength is best developed through strength training.

Squats, lunges, extensions, curls, calf raises, anterior tibialis curls.