Riding with clipless pedals - first impressions

[Peter Cole]

Chris Neary wrote:
>>>What it does do is remove/reduce the dead weight on the pedal during the
>>>upstroke, maximizing the net power input of the opposing downstroke.
>>
>>Sure, but this is only useful to increase peak short power bursts, as in
>>sprinting, it does nothing for sustained power.
>
>
> Care to post a little data to go with that opinion?
>

Common sense says that enlisting more muscles doesn't increase
cardio-vascular output, which is the limiting factor for sustained
power. You seem to be claiming the opposite -- your data?

 

[Peter Cole]

jj wrote:
> I do know that even without thinking about 'pulling up' my hamstrings have
> had enormous development from cycling. Whereas before, even with weight
> training my hamstrings were developed, -now- they are huge handfuls of
> muscle and are noticeable to those riding behind me, even when I'm wearing
> tights. (and no, it's not fat, lol!)
>
> So I really wonder about this 'conscious' pulling up deal, that's all. ;-)

The hamstring muscles are both thigh extensors as well as leg flexors.
It is the first role that produces most of the power (and muscle
development) in cycling.

 

[Peter Cole]

Chris Neary wrote:
>>It seems hardly worth the concentration to do this. IOW, the energy to lift
>>2 more pounds over a rotating mass is so small as to be almost negligible,
>>I'd think.
>
>
> Using your numbers, that's a 3% net power improvement. Many serious riders
> would *kill* for 3%.

Since it's not the only way to increase peak power, the issue is whether
it's the best way. To make the pedal force exceed body weight, the rider
can either pull up on opposing pedal or pull up on handlebar -- the
power can also be increased by simply raising cadence (leaving peak
force at body weight).

Because of coordination issues, the pulling up technique works best at
low cadences, at high cadences, everyone reverts to "push-push" style
pedaling.

As another has pointed out, "circular" pedaling doesn't work at all
while standing, but even sitting uses relatively weak muscles and
requires muscular reaction force (upper body), rather than just gravity,
as in the case of pure downward pressure.

 

[jj]

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 10:08:00 -0400, Peter Cole <[email protected]>
wrote:

>jj wrote:
>> I do know that even without thinking about 'pulling up' my hamstrings have
>> had enormous development from cycling. Whereas before, even with weight
>> training my hamstrings were developed, -now- they are huge handfuls of
>> muscle and are noticeable to those riding behind me, even when I'm wearing
>> tights. (and no, it's not fat, lol!)
>>
>> So I really wonder about this 'conscious' pulling up deal, that's all. ;-)
>
>The hamstring muscles are both thigh extensors as well as leg flexors.
>It is the first role that produces most of the power (and muscle
>development) in cycling.

Uh, yeah, of course. <slaps forehead>...

But it is interesting that in the Pros, the most developed muscle seems to
be that Vastus Internus, with it's prominent bulge near the inside of the
knee?

http://www.letempledelaforme.com/anatomie/anatomie/vaste_externe.htm

I don't recall seeing any pros with large hamstring development, though
obviously it's not easy to see. Also interesting that the gutes, also a
thigh extensor don't seem to be prominent in Pro cyclists (certainly not
like that of speed skaters, though that's a different motion).

I must have a bit of anomaly in my pedal stroke, or my lower body anatomy
to cause such hyper development of my hams, I guess.

jj
..

 

[Roger Zoul]

jj <[email protected]> wrote:
:> On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 10:08:00 -0400, Peter Cole
:> <[email protected]> wrote:
:>
:>>jj wrote:
:>>> I do know that even without thinking about 'pulling up' my
:>>> hamstrings have had enormous development from cycling. Whereas
:>>> before, even with weight training my hamstrings were developed,
:>>> -now- they are huge handfuls of muscle and are noticeable to those
:>>> riding behind me, even when I'm wearing tights. (and no, it's not
:>>> fat, lol!)
:>>>
:>>> So I really wonder about this 'conscious' pulling up deal, that's
:>>> all. ;-)
:>>
:>>The hamstring muscles are both thigh extensors as well as leg
:>>flexors.
:>>It is the first role that produces most of the power (and muscle
:>>development) in cycling.
:>
:> Uh, yeah, of course. <slaps forehead>...
:>
:> But it is interesting that in the Pros, the most developed muscle
:> seems to be that Vastus Internus, with it's prominent bulge near the
:> inside of the knee?

I think that muscle is just easier to see when wearing cycling shorts. Its
shape make is seem more developed, too.

:>
:> http://www.letempledelaforme.com/anatomie/anatomie/vaste_externe.htm
:>
:> I don't recall seeing any pros with large hamstring development,
:> though obviously it's not easy to see. Also interesting that the
:> gutes, also a thigh extensor don't seem to be prominent in Pro
:> cyclists (certainly not like that of speed skaters, though that's a
:> different motion).

They're not bodybuilders....so too much muscle is a disadvantage...
:>
:> I must have a bit of anomaly in my pedal stroke, or my lower body
:> anatomy to cause such hyper development of my hams, I guess.

Genetics, plus years of weight training, muscle memory...

:>
:> jj
:> .

 

[Peter Cole]

Chris Neary wrote:
>>>What it does do is remove/reduce the dead weight on the pedal during the
>>>upstroke, maximizing the net power input of the opposing downstroke.
>>
>>Sure, but this is only useful to increase peak short power bursts, as in
>>sprinting, it does nothing for sustained power.
>
>
> Care to post a little data to go with that opinion?

This topic has been discussed a lot in the past, with some of the most
expert input coming from Andy Coggan, a researcher who sometimes posts.
A particularly relevant post from the past is quoted below, although you
might want to Google Groups for the whole thread, it's pretty interesting.

People have made a business out of selling books and magazines
proclaiming that pedaling is a learn-able skill, and some methods being
more "efficient" than others. Research doesn't bear this out, but true
believers aren't bothered by facts when there are so many exotic
opinions to pick from.

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV


6. Andrew Coggan Jul 2 2001, 4:49 pm show options
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
From: Andrew Coggan <[email protected]> - Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 16:47:49 -0400
Local: Mon, Jul 2 2001 4:47 pm
Subject: Re: Recumbent efficiency: try pedaling with one leg
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original |
Report Abuse

Jeff Potter wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:

> > > Training in round pedaling ensures that one leg isn't sagging and
putting
> > a
> > > drag on the other. If one leg has to push the dead weight of the
other,
> > then it
> > > works more. Probably quite a few people pedal so badly that the
legs are
> > > actively resisting each other at certain parts of the stroke.

> > Yes, apparently most pros do this.

> Of course, to some extent. Do the better riders do it less?

Again, no. Go read that Coyle et al. article I cited.

(snip)

> Right, a bent works the lift muscles less. But it works the "top dead
center"
> muscles more (it's where in the bent cycle the leg is working against
gravity).
> These would seem to be smaller muscles than the lifters. Aren't the
lifters the
> hamstrings?

Nope. The hamstrings are hip extensors as well as knee flexors, and
based on EMG
activity are active from just past top dead center to a little more past
bottom
dead center (where the knee stops bending). Thus, they are more involved
in pushing
down on the pedal than pulling up (back), although they can contribute
somewhat to
the latter. The "lifters", as you seem to be thinking of them, would be
the hip
flexors.

> OK, with a bent, gravity is more involved during the weak phases of
the stroke
> (tdc and bdc). With an upright, gravity is more involved during the major
> phases (3pm and 9pm). Is one scenario better for biomechanics? Any useful
> effects come from rotating the whole pedal phase back 90deg (as
viewed from the
> right)?

The energetic cost of unloaded cycling (which accounts not only for
lifting - and
dropping - the legs, but also viscoelastic forces that must be overcome)
is pretty
small, thus there is very little reason to expect a significant effect
of changing
the direction of gravity.

> > [ ] A point often overlooked is that you can be using the
"lift-muscles"
> > to generate useful power while at the same time getting negative
torque on
> > the crank due to the weight of the leg (is this classed as a "dead"
area?)

> Not sure I follow! : ) What is negative torque? Sounds like active
resistance.
> Are you saying the lifters have to overcome the weight of the leg?

What the other Andrew is saying that the hip flexors can be active and
can act to
*reduce* the negative torque, i.e., the force that must be applied to
lift the leg,
w/o generating positive torque. Once again, though, this seems rather
irrelevant to
overall cycling performance...

> Still, it's hard to believe that pedaling style has no relation to
efficiency.
> Can you elaborate?

Both biomechanical (thermodynamic) efficiency and pedaling dynamics
(i.e., pattern
of force application were determined in 15 or so elite cyclists. There
was no
relationship between performance and pedaling "style", as well as no
relationship
between efficiency and "style".

> Did the tests include real cyclists?

Members of the US national and Olympic team, i.e., the best stateside
roadies of
the mid/late 1980's.

> Are you saying that one
> can optimize a square pedaling style using a regular round crank?

Apparently so.

> Are you
> saying that spinning doesn't help?

Not in terms of efficiency. And, in fact, there is no reason to expect it
to...there is very little wasted energy even with a "square" pedaling
style, and
thus little room for improvement, *especially* when you consider the
very limited
extent to which one can alter the pattern of force application (which is
constrained by joint angles, muscle size/lengths, etc.).

Would it surprise you to learn that there is in fact very little
difference in the
pattern of force application between non-cyclists and elite cyclists? I
bet it
would, given your preconcieved notions, but that's what the data show.

> Can you note winning cyclists who were
> square pedalers?

It is not possible to determine the pattern of force application being
used w/o
measuring it, i.e., visual assessment is worthless.

> Pedaling in squares is what happens when someone bonks and is
> falling apart. Your physiologists

I'm one of those physiologists (and, BTW, have studied "bonking"...but
that's
another story).

> need better info than a citation if they want
> to prevail against what seems to cyclists to work in cycling. In
fact, journal
> citations wouldn't cut it. Such obvious and vital info would likely be in
> cycling books under biomechanics...but I don't recall any that refute the
> benefits of circular pedaling with round cranks. More info please....

I told you: start with that MSSE citation, then read some more. Or do a
Medline
search for articles by Gregor, Hull, etc. There's plenty of information
out there,
generated by individuals who are not only excellent scientists but avid
cyclists
themselves. Just because you're ignorant of it and wish to take
"pot-shots" (pun
intended) at the ideas based on that doesn't mean that the info doesn't
exist.

Andy Coggan

 

[Peter Cole]

Dave Vandervies wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Chris Neary wrote:
>>
>>>>I don't think it's a great idea to pull up on the pedals. It doesn't
>>>>contribute anything to sustainable effort/speed and it can be hazardous
>>>>if you pull out.
>>>
>>>
>>>What it does do is remove/reduce the dead weight on the pedal during the
>>>upstroke, maximizing the net power input of the opposing downstroke.
>>
>>Sure, but this is only useful to increase peak short power bursts, as in
>>sprinting, it does nothing for sustained power.
>
>
> I seem to recall that when I first mentioned it I was talking about peak
> power, not sustained power.

OK, as long as we're clarifying, you posted:

"I'm not sure if I have much of a point here, except perhaps to ask whether
it's normal to be pulling up on the pedals a lot and, if it's a Bad Thing,
whether it's something I can expect to reduce as I get used to having
the ability to do it. Comments and similar input are always welcome,
of course."

My reply: it's not normal, it *is* a "Bad Thing", especially in the
circumstances you describe (sprinting in traffic). It's just one way of
generating peak power, and not necessarily the best one because of the
chances of a pull out.

 

[jj]

On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 12:01:56 -0400, "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>jj <[email protected]> wrote:
>:> On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 10:08:00 -0400, Peter Cole
>:> <[email protected]> wrote:
>:>
>:>>jj wrote:
>:>>> I do know that even without thinking about 'pulling up' my
>:>>> hamstrings have had enormous development from cycling. Whereas
>:>>> before, even with weight training my hamstrings were developed,
>:>>> -now- they are huge handfuls of muscle and are noticeable to those
>:>>> riding behind me, even when I'm wearing tights. (and no, it's not
>:>>> fat, lol!)
>:>>>
>:>>> So I really wonder about this 'conscious' pulling up deal, that's
>:>>> all. ;-)
>:>>
>:>>The hamstring muscles are both thigh extensors as well as leg
>:>>flexors.
>:>>It is the first role that produces most of the power (and muscle
>:>>development) in cycling.
>:>
>:> Uh, yeah, of course. <slaps forehead>...
>:>
>:> But it is interesting that in the Pros, the most developed muscle
>:> seems to be that Vastus Internus, with it's prominent bulge near the
>:> inside of the knee?
>
>I think that muscle is just easier to see when wearing cycling shorts. Its
>shape make is seem more developed, too.

Yes, but besides bodybuilding and a few isolated sports like speed skating,
cyclists seem to have the most incredible lower quads; at least when you
see them straight on in full flight. Standing around their legs still look
rather thin.

>:> http://www.letempledelaforme.com/anatomie/anatomie/vaste_externe.htm
>:>
>:> I don't recall seeing any pros with large hamstring development,
>:> though obviously it's not easy to see. Also interesting that the
>:> gutes, also a thigh extensor don't seem to be prominent in Pro
>:> cyclists (certainly not like that of speed skaters, though that's a
>:> different motion).
>
>They're not bodybuilders....so too much muscle is a disadvantage...

Right, but if those muscles are the primary movers, you'd think with the
incredible number of reps and the force needed to climb that they'd have
bigger butts and larger hams than they do, considering as Peter says, the
leg extensors are prime movers in cycling.

Also, the muscles that make me ease off during intervals are the
quadriceps, but the pain is about 1/3 the way up the leg from the knee.
When I'm doing lots of emphasis on 'pushing my knee towards the handlbars'
I really feel it in the vastus internus. I can really make it ache. Wonder
if trying to keep my knees together (squeezing a ball between your knees)
when pedalling works the VI, too. It's almost humorous - when I'm working
hard to squeeze the knees together, 'scrape the dirt off', and push the
knee towards the handlebars those actions alone can start to tire me out -
iow, forget the pedalling, lol. It's almost relaxing after a half-mile of
doing that stuff to just relax and spin. ;-)

>:> I must have a bit of anomaly in my pedal stroke, or my lower body
>:> anatomy to cause such hyper development of my hams, I guess.
>
>Genetics, plus years of weight training, muscle memory...

Well I did a fair amount of specific work on the hams, in addition to
squats, and soforth, but they never even got close to the size they are
now, especially the biceps femoris - it's a distinct bulge, almost
baseball-sized.

Heh, wish I had know in my bodybuilding days how good hill-climbing and
sprinting was for the legs. I could have amost omitted squatting. ;-)

jj

 

[Peter Cole]

jj wrote:

> It's almost humorous - when I'm working
> hard to squeeze the knees together, 'scrape the dirt off', and push the
> knee towards the handlebars those actions alone can start to tire me out -
> iow, forget the pedalling, lol. It's almost relaxing after a half-mile of
> doing that stuff to just relax and spin. ;-)

That stuff is worse-than-useless. It won't make you any faster, and it
may cause you to over-stress something.

 

[jj]

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 15:56:00 -0400, Peter Cole <[email protected]>
wrote:

>jj wrote:
>
> > It's almost humorous - when I'm working
>> hard to squeeze the knees together, 'scrape the dirt off', and push the
>> knee towards the handlebars those actions alone can start to tire me out -
>> iow, forget the pedalling, lol. It's almost relaxing after a half-mile of
>> doing that stuff to just relax and spin. ;-)
>
>That stuff is worse-than-useless. It won't make you any faster, and it
>may cause you to over-stress something.

Yeah, once I normalize my position I won't be doing those. Thing is, my
knees had tended to be stuck out quite wide when I started, but over the
last year I've brought them in significantly. I don't do the other part
excessively, savinng them for going over small rises in the road and
occasionally cresting a hill - maybe 10% of the total ride.

jj

 

[Chris Neary]

>As another has pointed out, "circular" pedaling doesn't work at all
>while standing,

Any high cadence pedalling - seated or standing - will be "circular" in
motion.

If you are implying that high cadence pedalling while standing is not
possible, you are wrong.


Chris Neary
[email protected]

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

 

[Chris Neary]

Peter,

You appear to have missed a point which can be easily gleaned from the
research Andy cites: As there was no correlation found between
efficiency/performance and pedaling "style", it is obvious that the best
"style" for a given individual will not fit a prescribed formula - i.e,
"non-round good, round bad".

C



>>>>What it does do is remove/reduce the dead weight on the pedal during the
>>>>upstroke, maximizing the net power input of the opposing downstroke.
>>>
>>>Sure, but this is only useful to increase peak short power bursts, as in
>>>sprinting, it does nothing for sustained power.
>>
>>
>> Care to post a little data to go with that opinion?
>
>This topic has been discussed a lot in the past, with some of the most
>expert input coming from Andy Coggan, a researcher who sometimes posts.
>A particularly relevant post from the past is quoted below, although you
>might want to Google Groups for the whole thread, it's pretty interesting.
>
>People have made a business out of selling books and magazines
>proclaiming that pedaling is a learn-able skill, and some methods being
>more "efficient" than others. Research doesn't bear this out, but true
>believers aren't bothered by facts when there are so many exotic
>opinions to pick from.
>
>VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
>
>
>6. Andrew Coggan Jul 2 2001, 4:49 pm show options
>Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
>From: Andrew Coggan <[email protected]> - Find messages by this author
>Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 16:47:49 -0400
>Local: Mon, Jul 2 2001 4:47 pm
>Subject: Re: Recumbent efficiency: try pedaling with one leg
>Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original |
>Report Abuse
>
>Jeff Potter wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > Training in round pedaling ensures that one leg isn't sagging and
>putting
> > > a
> > > > drag on the other. If one leg has to push the dead weight of the
>other,
> > > then it
> > > > works more. Probably quite a few people pedal so badly that the
>legs are
> > > > actively resisting each other at certain parts of the stroke.
>
> > > Yes, apparently most pros do this.
>
> > Of course, to some extent. Do the better riders do it less?
>
>Again, no. Go read that Coyle et al. article I cited.
>
>(snip)
>
> > Right, a bent works the lift muscles less. But it works the "top dead
>center"
> > muscles more (it's where in the bent cycle the leg is working against
>gravity).
> > These would seem to be smaller muscles than the lifters. Aren't the
>lifters the
> > hamstrings?
>
>Nope. The hamstrings are hip extensors as well as knee flexors, and
>based on EMG
>activity are active from just past top dead center to a little more past
>bottom
>dead center (where the knee stops bending). Thus, they are more involved
>in pushing
>down on the pedal than pulling up (back), although they can contribute
>somewhat to
>the latter. The "lifters", as you seem to be thinking of them, would be
>the hip
>flexors.
>
> > OK, with a bent, gravity is more involved during the weak phases of
>the stroke
> > (tdc and bdc). With an upright, gravity is more involved during the major
> > phases (3pm and 9pm). Is one scenario better for biomechanics? Any useful
> > effects come from rotating the whole pedal phase back 90deg (as
>viewed from the
> > right)?
>
>The energetic cost of unloaded cycling (which accounts not only for
>lifting - and
>dropping - the legs, but also viscoelastic forces that must be overcome)
>is pretty
>small, thus there is very little reason to expect a significant effect
>of changing
>the direction of gravity.
>
> > > [ ] A point often overlooked is that you can be using the
>"lift-muscles"
> > > to generate useful power while at the same time getting negative
>torque on
> > > the crank due to the weight of the leg (is this classed as a "dead"
>area?)
>
> > Not sure I follow! : ) What is negative torque? Sounds like active
>resistance.
> > Are you saying the lifters have to overcome the weight of the leg?
>
>What the other Andrew is saying that the hip flexors can be active and
>can act to
>*reduce* the negative torque, i.e., the force that must be applied to
>lift the leg,
>w/o generating positive torque. Once again, though, this seems rather
>irrelevant to
>overall cycling performance...
>
> > Still, it's hard to believe that pedaling style has no relation to
>efficiency.
> > Can you elaborate?
>
>Both biomechanical (thermodynamic) efficiency and pedaling dynamics
>(i.e., pattern
>of force application were determined in 15 or so elite cyclists. There
>was no
>relationship between performance and pedaling "style", as well as no
>relationship
>between efficiency and "style".
>
> > Did the tests include real cyclists?
>
>Members of the US national and Olympic team, i.e., the best stateside
>roadies of
>the mid/late 1980's.
>
> > Are you saying that one
> > can optimize a square pedaling style using a regular round crank?
>
>Apparently so.
>
> > Are you
> > saying that spinning doesn't help?
>
>Not in terms of efficiency. And, in fact, there is no reason to expect it
>to...there is very little wasted energy even with a "square" pedaling
>style, and
>thus little room for improvement, *especially* when you consider the
>very limited
>extent to which one can alter the pattern of force application (which is
>constrained by joint angles, muscle size/lengths, etc.).
>
>Would it surprise you to learn that there is in fact very little
>difference in the
>pattern of force application between non-cyclists and elite cyclists? I
>bet it
>would, given your preconcieved notions, but that's what the data show.
>
> > Can you note winning cyclists who were
> > square pedalers?
>
>It is not possible to determine the pattern of force application being
>used w/o
>measuring it, i.e., visual assessment is worthless.
>
> > Pedaling in squares is what happens when someone bonks and is
> > falling apart. Your physiologists
>
>I'm one of those physiologists (and, BTW, have studied "bonking"...but
>that's
>another story).
>
> > need better info than a citation if they want
> > to prevail against what seems to cyclists to work in cycling. In
>fact, journal
> > citations wouldn't cut it. Such obvious and vital info would likely be in
> > cycling books under biomechanics...but I don't recall any that refute the
> > benefits of circular pedaling with round cranks. More info please....
>
>I told you: start with that MSSE citation, then read some more. Or do a
>Medline
>search for articles by Gregor, Hull, etc. There's plenty of information
>out there,
>generated by individuals who are not only excellent scientists but avid
>cyclists
>themselves. Just because you're ignorant of it and wish to take
>"pot-shots" (pun
>intended) at the ideas based on that doesn't mean that the info doesn't
>exist.
>
>Andy Coggan

 

[Bill]

Chris Neary wrote:
> Where I noticed the effect isn't so much that I am stronger, but I am able
> to vary my cadence over a wider range without significant power reductions.
> Instead of having to shift to close a gap, a momentary increase in cadence
> will often do the trick.
>
>
> Chris Neary
> [email protected]
What would be an interesting challenge here seems to be if one could
train themselves into only using the pull up energy for motive power and
not using their quads at all. It would be very clumsy feeling at first
but might be worth a shot for someone doing serious training. I don't
use clips since I am a street shoe person on a MTB but some of the more
serious riders might want to give this a shot and report on actual
experience.
Bill Baka

 

[Peter Cole]

Chris Neary wrote:
>>As another has pointed out, "circular" pedaling doesn't work at all
>>while standing,
>
>
> Any high cadence pedalling - seated or standing - will be "circular" in
> motion.
>
> If you are implying that high cadence pedalling while standing is not
> possible, you are wrong.

Creative, if far fetched, interpretation of what I said.

"Circular" pedaling is the name usually given to the style you
advocated/described:

"Much of the coaching on efficient pedaling doesn't so much talk about
"pulling up" as "pulling back" through the bottom of the pedal stroke.
The goal is simple, to produce more even power throughout the stroke,
using the leg muscles more efficiently."

"Pulling back" on the bottom of the stroke, etc. can't be done while
standing.

 

[Peter Cole]

Chris Neary wrote:
> Peter,
>
> You appear to have missed a point which can be easily gleaned from the
> research Andy cites: As there was no correlation found between
> efficiency/performance and pedaling "style", it is obvious that the best
> "style" for a given individual will not fit a prescribed formula - i.e,
> "non-round good, round bad".

That's one possible conclusion -- but it assumes that there is a best
individual "style". Another (more likely, IMO) is that style doesn't
matter at all.

If style does matter (on an individual basis), it leads to the question
of how one determines one's best style? In any case, it pretty much
eliminates the possibility of giving others "style advice" -- which was
where I entered this thread...

But, as to the issue of whether there really is an individual "style",
Andy Coggan writes in another post in the same thread:

"Would it surprise you to learn that there is in fact very little
difference in the pattern of force application between non-cyclists and
elite cyclists?"

And

"Why would that be, when there is no relationship between pedaling
circles and thermodynamic efficiency during upright cycling?"

"Round" or "circular" pedaling just doesn't have any support in the
research -- at least any I know of. You asked for "data" on the issue of
unweighting the upstroke leg, Andy Coggan wrote:

"What the other Andrew is saying that the hip flexors can be active and
can act to *reduce* the negative torque, i.e., the force that must be
applied to lift the leg, w/o generating positive torque. Once again,
though, this seems rather irrelevant to overall cycling performance..."

Since Andy Coggan is an expert, I hope that answers your request for "data".

Again, do you have any "data" which supports your claims?

Finally, I repeat my original statement (because I think it's an
important safety issue). "Pulling up" is not what clipless pedals were
designed to do, "pulling up" can be dangerous, and "pulling up" doesn't
help performance. The last can be said for other style variations:
"scraping", round/circular pedaling, unweighting, etc., but I think
worst-case they're just a waste of time, or perhaps might cause
over-stress injuries, but won't lead to a crash.

 

[Peter Cole]

Bill wrote:
> Chris Neary wrote:
>
>> Where I noticed the effect isn't so much that I am stronger, but I am
>> able
>> to vary my cadence over a wider range without significant power
>> reductions.
>> Instead of having to shift to close a gap, a momentary increase in
>> cadence
>> will often do the trick.
>>
>>
>> Chris Neary [email protected]
>
> What would be an interesting challenge here seems to be if one could
> train themselves into only using the pull up energy for motive power and
> not using their quads at all. It would be very clumsy feeling at first
> but might be worth a shot for someone doing serious training. I don't
> use clips since I am a street shoe person on a MTB but some of the more
> serious riders might want to give this a shot and report on actual
> experience.

The flexors are much weaker than extensors, so what's the point?

Cycling is all about cardio-vascular performance.

The claim here seems to be that "pulling up" enables somewhat higher
cadences without power loss in the short term. If you're riding at your
cardio-vascular limit and have to step up the power (accelerate), you'll
go into anaerobic mode, no matter what the cadence.

Performance at different cadences seems to be related to a few factors,
such as individual's fast/slow twitch ratio. All things being equal
though, it would seem that if the goal was avoiding the recruitment of
fast twitch (see below) that spreading the load to other muscles
(flexors) would be a useful technique to temporarily sustain
lower-than-optimal cadences, not faster-than-optimal. Again, below, the
point is made that optimal cadence increases with absolute power output.
The technique of developing flexors to assist with extensors seems
useful only in low cadence, high power situations, like sprinting off
the line or climbing hills with a fixed gear.


Newsgroups: rec.sport.triathlon
From: "Andrew Coggan" <[email protected]> - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 20:23:48 -0400
Local: Tues, Apr 30 2002 8:23 pm
Subject: Re: Pedal fast or hard?

"These, and literally dozens of scientific studies, support the following
general conclusions with regards to cycling cadence:

1) optimal cadence is greater than the energetically most efficient cadence
2) optimal cadence increases with increasing power output
3) optimal cadence decreases with increasing exercise duration (corollary to
#2 above)
4) optimal cadence appears to be lower in individuals with a high percentage
of slow twitch fibers
5) self-selected cadence is very close to, if not identical to, optimal
cadence

Other than the above, there's not much more that can be said... "

In another message (same thread) he defines optimal cadence:

"(My unifying hypothesis is that the optimal cadence is the *slowest*
one that allows you to avoid excessive recruitment of high threshold,
readily fatigable (and predominantly fast twitch) motor units. That
would explain all of the findings I mentioned previously, including the
fact that optimal cadence increases with absolute power output.)"

 

[jj]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:33:57 -0400, Peter Cole <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Bill wrote:
>> Chris Neary wrote:
>>
>>> Where I noticed the effect isn't so much that I am stronger, but I am
>>> able
>>> to vary my cadence over a wider range without significant power
>>> reductions.
>>> Instead of having to shift to close a gap, a momentary increase in
>>> cadence
>>> will often do the trick.
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris Neary [email protected]
>>
>> What would be an interesting challenge here seems to be if one could
>> train themselves into only using the pull up energy for motive power and
>> not using their quads at all. It would be very clumsy feeling at first
>> but might be worth a shot for someone doing serious training. I don't
>> use clips since I am a street shoe person on a MTB but some of the more
>> serious riders might want to give this a shot and report on actual
>> experience.
>
>The flexors are much weaker than extensors, so what's the point?
>
>Cycling is all about cardio-vascular performance.

What's interesting is just when you think maybe it's not, well...you learn
it is. heh-heh. There are some days when it really seems that the cardio is
really doing great - you're in the groove. Those are the days when it's fun
to play with the cadence and the pedalling.

>The claim here seems to be that "pulling up" enables somewhat higher
>cadences without power loss in the short term. If you're riding at your
>cardio-vascular limit and have to step up the power (accelerate), you'll
>go into anaerobic mode, no matter what the cadence.

This is why I have trouble picturing Hunrobe's 'dropping down to 130rpm'
when his legs are sore. Though that might be easier to get the pedals going
around, at 53x23 that's still going to require some serious cardio.

>Performance at different cadences seems to be related to a few factors,
>such as individual's fast/slow twitch ratio. All things being equal
>though, it would seem that if the goal was avoiding the recruitment of
>fast twitch (see below) that spreading the load to other muscles
>(flexors) would be a useful technique to temporarily sustain
>lower-than-optimal cadences, not faster-than-optimal. Again, below, the
>point is made that optimal cadence increases with absolute power output.

Good point, though until you do it, could seem counter-intuitive.

>The technique of developing flexors to assist with extensors seems
>useful only in low cadence, high power situations, like sprinting off
>the line or climbing hills with a fixed gear.

OK...

>Newsgroups: rec.sport.triathlon
>From: "Andrew Coggan" <[email protected]> - Find messages by this author
>Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 20:23:48 -0400
>Local: Tues, Apr 30 2002 8:23 pm
>Subject: Re: Pedal fast or hard?
>
>"These, and literally dozens of scientific studies, support the following
>general conclusions with regards to cycling cadence:
>
>1) optimal cadence is greater than the energetically most efficient cadence
>2) optimal cadence increases with increasing power output
>3) optimal cadence decreases with increasing exercise duration (corollary to
>#2 above)
>4) optimal cadence appears to be lower in individuals with a high percentage
>of slow twitch fibers
>5) self-selected cadence is very close to, if not identical to, optimal
>cadence
>
>Other than the above, there's not much more that can be said... "
>
>In another message (same thread) he defines optimal cadence:
>
>"(My unifying hypothesis is that the optimal cadence is the *slowest*
>one that allows you to avoid excessive recruitment of high threshold,
>readily fatigable (and predominantly fast twitch) motor units. That
>would explain all of the findings I mentioned previously, including the
>fact that optimal cadence increases with absolute power output.)"

Good reprint.

jj

 

[Peter Cole]

jj wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:33:57 -0400, Peter Cole <[email protected]>
> wrote:

>>Newsgroups: rec.sport.triathlon
>>From: "Andrew Coggan" <[email protected]> - Find messages by this author
>>Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 20:23:48 -0400
>>Local: Tues, Apr 30 2002 8:23 pm
>>Subject: Re: Pedal fast or hard?

> Good reprint.

Andy Coggan sometimes graces this NG with some real science. It's well
worth Googling some of the old threads if you have interest in
physiology related to cycling. There have been many studies done by good
scientists who were also passionate cyclists, and the results often
stand in stark contrast to popular beliefs. Unfortunately, most of the
source articles require subscriptions and the jargon can get deep, so
it's really a service when Andy Coggan shows up to summarize things in
layman's terms.

Google NG archives are a fantastic resource, useful for researching so
many practical questions. The only hard thing is separating the
information from the misinformation. You can't go wrong with Andy
Coggan, he's the real deal.

 

[jj]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 12:51:08 -0400, Peter Cole <[email protected]>
wrote:

>jj wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:33:57 -0400, Peter Cole <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>
>>>Newsgroups: rec.sport.triathlon
>>>From: "Andrew Coggan" <[email protected]> - Find messages by this author
>>>Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 20:23:48 -0400
>>>Local: Tues, Apr 30 2002 8:23 pm
>>>Subject: Re: Pedal fast or hard?
>
>> Good reprint.
>
>Andy Coggan sometimes graces this NG with some real science. It's well
>worth Googling some of the old threads if you have interest in
>physiology related to cycling. There have been many studies done by good
>scientists who were also passionate cyclists, and the results often
>stand in stark contrast to popular beliefs. Unfortunately, most of the
>source articles require subscriptions and the jargon can get deep, so
>it's really a service when Andy Coggan shows up to summarize things in
>layman's terms.
>
>Google NG archives are a fantastic resource, useful for researching so
>many practical questions. The only hard thing is separating the
>information from the misinformation. You can't go wrong with Andy
>Coggan, he's the real deal.

Well-known. ;-)

So what's your synopsis for someone who wants to be the best rec. cyclist
they can be? Maybe a check list of ten things, if you feel like it...

jj

 

[Bill]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>> Chris Neary wrote:
>>
> The flexors are much weaker than extensors, so what's the point?
>
> Cycling is all about cardio-vascular performance.
>

I agree that cycling is about cardio-vascular performance but why is
everybody here hung up on clip type pedals if there is no benefit to the
power output? When I stand up to attack a hill or even pedal mash I wind
up pulling up on the handlebars. This just makes me wonder why use clips
if they are not being used for added power.
Bill