Which is more advisable...standing or sitting while climbing hillls?

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
>The uh, social situation
> is usually different from the normal road ride, too.

Interesting way to put it. I like to sit in the back.

Joseph

 

[Mike Reed]

[email protected] wrote:
> Joseph Santaniello writes:
>
> >>> Pushing yourself back on the saddle is normal for a lot of
> >>> climbers; LeMond prefers such a position. But you'll do better
> >>> overall if you can move around and adapt multiple positions for
> >>> longer climbs.
>
> >> I always thought people sit up on the saddle nose while climbing --
> >> at least for intense efforts. Not true?
>
> > I always found that when I am mashing up a hill with the ankling
> > turned up a notch that sliding back to I guess increase the
> > effective seat height is the only way to do it. But doing some high
> > cadence, high effort spinning (like a long seated sprint, or trying
> > to drop people on a descent) necessitates moving forward to the
> > nose. I think cadence and ankling are the two important factors
> > here.
>
> The reason for pushing back on the saddle is to move rider CG back and
> enable pulling on the bars to increase downward pedaling thrust, the
> rider's weight being behind the downward stroke enough to add useful
> weight to the downstroke. Pulling up on the pedals to accomplish this
> is wasteful in the long haul because it is more tiring by involving
> extra muscles in the effort. Each muscle has its overhead losses.

I agree that there's a cost to everything, but you can offset the
additional cost of engaging more muscles in a climb by not stomping so
hard. Smoother is better in my experience.

My mentor back in 1992, Mason Rickard, once took 5th in the Mt. Evans
Hill Climb 1/2/P (beating Alexi Grewal that year). He instructed me
that pedalling in full circles = faster climbing. He told me to drag my
foot back at the bottom, at least unweight my leg on the way up, and
kick across the top. Since you lose momentum so fast on a climb, a
smooth circular stroke keeps your speed more consistent, so you're not
hitting a bunch of accelerations all the time.

Davis Phinney also specifically wrote (in Winning Mag.) about how
pulling up while climbing helped him become an all-around rider instead
of the pure sprinter he started out as. He even used the upstroke as a
recovery mechanism. If the legs started burning too much in the climbs,
he would "turn off" his quads on one leg for 5-10 pedal strokes, and
just use his hamstrings and hip flexors. This gave his quads a break to
clear some of the lactic acid.

> Note that work is force x distance. Therefore, pulling on the bars is
> not directly work expended because the rider mass does not move
> significantly relative to the bars. Pulling up on pedals, is work.

True, but we can't pull on something that's immobile without using
energy, especially with bent arms. For example, it's easy to hold a 30
lb weight with a straight arm at your side, as your bones are
countering the force. But if you lift it up to your chin, and hold it
there, your arms will tire quickly since your muscles have to do it.

Granted, your static effort through the arms isn't going to use as much
energy as the dynamic effort of the upstroke with your legs. Still,
pulling on the bars is not free. This was one of the big challenges
when Tyler Hamilton broke his collar bone -- he couldn't pull on the
bars in the climbs because it required too much "work" through his
shoulder.

-Mike

 

[Peter Cole]

[email protected] wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>
>>> Pushing yourself back on the saddle is normal for a lot of climbers;
>>> LeMond prefers such a position. But you'll do better overall if you
>>> can move around and adapt multiple positions for longer climbs.
>> I always thought people sit up on the saddle nose while climbing -- at least
>> for intense efforts. Not true?
>
> I always found that when I am mashing up a hill with the ankling turned
> up a notch that sliding back to I guess increase the effective seat
> height is the only way to do it. But doing some high cadence, high
> effort spinning (like a long seated sprint, or trying to drop people on
> a descent) necessitates moving forward to the nose. I think cadence and
> ankling are the two important factors here.

I think it's all about cadence. At high cadence, muscular coordination
is such that you can't provide much of a "duty cycle", muscular
contractions have to be very short (duration) and intense to get maximum
power, so you tend to move over the crank. For slower cadence, you get
better power with a longer contraction, so you want to start it earlier
in the crank cycle, so you shift backward to improve both the angle and
extension (lower) at the early part of the cycle.

 

[Mike Reed]

[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >The uh, social situation
> > is usually different from the normal road ride, too.
>
> Interesting way to put it. I like to sit in the back.
>
> Joseph

It's amazing how wonderful of a display rack a bicycle is. No?

 

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

Per Elmsäter wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>
>>> Pushing yourself back on the saddle is normal for a lot of climbers;
>>> LeMond prefers such a position. But you'll do better overall if you
>>> can move around and adapt multiple positions for longer climbs.
>>
>> I always thought people sit up on the saddle nose while climbing --
>> at least for intense efforts. Not true?
>
> That's usually true when offroad. You have to or you'll tip backwards
> Sliding back on the saddle gives you extra power and is easy to
> do on the road.

Sliding forward on intense efforts allows me to use more of the
back-of-the-thigh muscles... whatever they're called. They're always sore
after the fast club rides.
--
Phil

 

[[email protected]]

Mike Reed writes:

>>>>> Pushing yourself back on the saddle is normal for a lot of
>>>>> climbers; Lemond prefers such a position. But you'll do better
>>>>> overall if you can move around and adapt multiple positions for
>>>>> longer climbs.

>>>> I always thought people sit up on the saddle nose while climbing
>>>> -- at least for intense efforts. Not true?

>>> I always found that when I am mashing up a hill with the ankling
>>> turned up a notch that sliding back to I guess increase the
>>> effective seat height is the only way to do it. But doing some
>>> high cadence, high effort spinning (like a long seated sprint, or
>>> trying to drop people on a descent) necessitates moving forward to
>>> the nose. I think cadence and ankling are the two important
>>> factors here.

>> The reason for pushing back on the saddle is to move rider CG back
>> and enable pulling on the bars to increase downward pedaling
>> thrust, the rider's weight being behind the downward stroke enough
>> to add useful weight to the downstroke. Pulling up on the pedals
>> to accomplish this is wasteful in the long haul because it is more
>> tiring by involving extra muscles in the effort. Each muscle has
>> its overhead losses.

> I agree that there's a cost to everything, but you can offset the
> additional cost of engaging more muscles in a climb by not stomping
> so hard. Smoother is better in my experience.

The old smoothness axiom doesn't make it true. Work is force times
distance and rate of work is power. You are suggesting that you can
fool that basic condition and create power. Climbing rate (power),
when in good physical condition, is limited by aerobic capacity.

> My mentor back in 1992, Mason Rickard, once took 5th in the Mt.
> Evans Hill Climb 1/2/P (beating Alexi Grewal that year).

Once again physical ability is assumed to be derived from
intelligence, such that the great ball player understands the dynamics
and trajectory of the ball and why he can propel it farther than
others. The powerful bicyclist, likewise is assumed to have an inside
understanding of physiology. Athletes are our omniscient gods, just
look at the sports pages.

> He instructed me that pedalling in full circles = faster climbing.
> He told me to drag my foot back at the bottom, at least unweight my
> leg on the way up, and kick across the top. Since you lose momentum
> so fast on a climb, a smooth circular stroke keeps your speed more
> consistent, so you're not hitting a bunch of accelerations all the
> time.

Oh BS! Watching racers climb the Stelvio or any of the other great
mountain passes in the Alps, dashes that theory. It is retold so
often it must be true. Right here in San Francisco there was no
"round pedaling" on Fillmore St. Watching riders in a TT on the flat
also belies that as they lunge onto the downward pedal with their
upper bodies. Every now and then I see riders around here playing the
"I'm a machine, nothing moves but my legs", as they round pedal at
some inconsequential rate.

> Davis Phinney also specifically wrote (in Winning Mag.) about how
> pulling up while climbing helped him become an all-around rider
> instead of the pure sprinter he started out as. He even used the
> upstroke as a recovery mechanism. If the legs started burning too
> much in the climbs, he would "turn off" his quads on one leg for
> 5-10 pedal strokes, and just use his hamstrings and hip flexors.
> This gave his quads a break to clear some of the lactic acid.

I think you'll need more proof of that than an item written by a man
with big lungs. I suppose it is expected of good physical performers
to reveal their secrets but alas, it does the average athlete no good
to try to make more of less after all the training is done. This
hearkens back to Jacques Anquetil and the secret of his "ankling".
His chemist knew better.

>> Note that work is force x distance. Therefore, pulling on the bars
>> is not directly work expended because the rider mass does not move
>> significantly relative to the bars. Pulling up on pedals, is work.

> True, but we can't pull on something that's immobile without using
> energy, especially with bent arms. For example, it's easy to hold a
> 30 lb weight with a straight arm at your side, as your bones are
> countering the force. But if you lift it up to your chin, and hold
> it there, your arms will tire quickly since your muscles have to do
> it.

Don't do that too long or you'll get a charley horse. When the muscle
remains flexed, blood circulation ceases and causes pain. That's why
the sot at the bar changes from one leg to the other now and then. He
is not working!

> Granted, your static effort through the arms isn't going to use as
> much energy as the dynamic effort of the upstroke with your legs.
> Still, pulling on the bars is not free. This was one of the big
> challenges when Tyler Hamilton broke his collar bone -- he couldn't
> pull on the bars in the climbs because it required too much "work"
> through his shoulder.

I think you need to review that concept. You are mixing work, force
and power.

Jobst Brandt

 

[Dave Larrington]

In article <[email protected]>,
([email protected]) wrote:
> Mike Reed writes:
> > Granted, your static effort through the arms isn't going to use as
> > much energy as the dynamic effort of the upstroke with your legs.
> > Still, pulling on the bars is not free. This was one of the big
> > challenges when Tyler Hamilton broke his collar bone -- he couldn't
> > pull on the bars in the climbs because it required too much "work"
> > through his shoulder.
>
> I think you need to review that concept. You are mixing work, force
> and power.

Not to mention the fact that Robert Millar says you shouldn't do it...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
May you have an accident shaped like an umbrella.

 

[Mike Reed]

Ok, here we go...

[email protected] wrote:
> Mike Reed writes:
>
> >>>>> Pushing yourself back on the saddle is normal for a lot of
> >>>>> climbers; Lemond prefers such a position. But you'll do better
> >>>>> overall if you can move around and adapt multiple positions for
> >>>>> longer climbs.
>
> >>>> I always thought people sit up on the saddle nose while climbing
> >>>> -- at least for intense efforts. Not true?
>
> >>> I always found that when I am mashing up a hill with the ankling
> >>> turned up a notch that sliding back to I guess increase the
> >>> effective seat height is the only way to do it. But doing some
> >>> high cadence, high effort spinning (like a long seated sprint, or
> >>> trying to drop people on a descent) necessitates moving forward to
> >>> the nose. I think cadence and ankling are the two important
> >>> factors here.
>
> >> The reason for pushing back on the saddle is to move rider CG back
> >> and enable pulling on the bars to increase downward pedaling
> >> thrust, the rider's weight being behind the downward stroke enough
> >> to add useful weight to the downstroke. Pulling up on the pedals
> >> to accomplish this is wasteful in the long haul because it is more
> >> tiring by involving extra muscles in the effort. Each muscle has
> >> its overhead losses.
>
> > I agree that there's a cost to everything, but you can offset the
> > additional cost of engaging more muscles in a climb by not stomping
> > so hard. Smoother is better in my experience.
>
> The old smoothness axiom doesn't make it true. Work is force times
> distance and rate of work is power. You are suggesting that you can
> fool that basic condition and create power. Climbing rate (power),
> when in good physical condition, is limited by aerobic capacity.

True, but why not dial back the quads slightly and let the other
muscles take up the slack? I understand that your body can only put out
some limited amount of energy, but that energy can be distributed over
several muscles efficiently. It won't produce higher power output, and
it may produce less power output. But it can help keep your muscles
supple and responsive, where focusing on just a small group of muslces
makes them tighter and tired sooner.

> > My mentor back in 1992, Mason Rickard, once took 5th in the Mt.
> > Evans Hill Climb 1/2/P (beating Alexi Grewal that year).
>
> Once again physical ability is assumed to be derived from
> intelligence, such that the great ball player understands the dynamics
> and trajectory of the ball and why he can propel it farther than
> others. The powerful bicyclist, likewise is assumed to have an inside
> understanding of physiology. Athletes are our omniscient gods, just
> look at the sports pages.

So if a fast guy says he says something, are we to discount it just
because he's fast? Physical ability in this case is assumed to be
derived from experience. Mason understood the sensations in his legs,
and explained them to me. He was, at the time, studying kinesiology at
the University of Colorado.

> > He instructed me that pedalling in full circles = faster climbing.
> > He told me to drag my foot back at the bottom, at least unweight my
> > leg on the way up, and kick across the top. Since you lose momentum
> > so fast on a climb, a smooth circular stroke keeps your speed more
> > consistent, so you're not hitting a bunch of accelerations all the
> > time.
>
> Oh BS! Watching racers climb the Stelvio or any of the other great
> mountain passes in the Alps, dashes that theory. It is retold so
> often it must be true. Right here in San Francisco there was no
> "round pedaling" on Fillmore St. Watching riders in a TT on the flat
> also belies that as they lunge onto the downward pedal with their
> upper bodies. Every now and then I see riders around here playing the
> "I'm a machine, nothing moves but my legs", as they round pedal at
> some inconsequential rate.

Just because you're smoother doesn't mean you're smooth. Of course
you're going to see surges during the downstroke stroke when you're
putting out so close to the limit. The body is just set up for there to
be more power on the downstroke. That doesn't preclude smoothing the
stroke out though.

With your argument, there's no benefit to clipless pedal systems. Just
stomp on platforms all day.

> > Davis Phinney also specifically wrote (in Winning Mag.) about how
> > pulling up while climbing helped him become an all-around rider
> > instead of the pure sprinter he started out as. He even used the
> > upstroke as a recovery mechanism. If the legs started burning too
> > much in the climbs, he would "turn off" his quads on one leg for
> > 5-10 pedal strokes, and just use his hamstrings and hip flexors.
> > This gave his quads a break to clear some of the lactic acid.
>
> I think you'll need more proof of that than an item written by a man
> with big lungs. I suppose it is expected of good physical performers
> to reveal their secrets but alas, it does the average athlete no good
> to try to make more of less after all the training is done. This
> hearkens back to Jacques Anquetil and the secret of his "ankling".
> His chemist knew better.

?? whisky tango foxtrot ??

So you're saying it doesn't relieve the quads to give them a rest?

>
> >> Note that work is force x distance. Therefore, pulling on the bars
> >> is not directly work expended because the rider mass does not move
> >> significantly relative to the bars. Pulling up on pedals, is work.
>
> > True, but we can't pull on something that's immobile without using
> > energy, especially with bent arms. For example, it's easy to hold a
> > 30 lb weight with a straight arm at your side, as your bones are
> > countering the force. But if you lift it up to your chin, and hold
> > it there, your arms will tire quickly since your muscles have to do
> > it.
>
> Don't do that too long or you'll get a charley horse. When the muscle
> remains flexed, blood circulation ceases and causes pain. That's why
> the sot at the bar changes from one leg to the other now and then. He
> is not working!

So if Ivan Basso (or some other skinny-armed cyclist) was holding the
30 lb weight with a bent arm at the same time that 80s-Ahnold was
holding the same weight with a bent arm, they'd both tire
simultaneously because strength doesn't play into it?

What I'm saying is that pulling on the bars takes some amount of energy
as well. Pulling on the bars while seated climbing is an effective
technique that I practice on my own rides, but it's not free. I also
practice using leg muscles besides my quads to spread the load out. I'm
not trying to pull up with the same effort as I'm pushing down. My goal
is simple to always be adding energy to the system continuously through
both cleats.

This makes me smoother than I would be on platform pedals. Not smooth,
but smoother.

-Mike

 

[[email protected]]

Mike Reed wrote:

> Ok, here we go...

> > > My mentor back in 1992, Mason Rickard, once took 5th in the Mt.
> > > Evans Hill Climb 1/2/P (beating Alexi Grewal that year).
> >
> > Once again physical ability is assumed to be derived from
> > intelligence, such that the great ball player understands the dynamics
> > and trajectory of the ball and why he can propel it farther than
> > others. The powerful bicyclist, likewise is assumed to have an inside
> > understanding of physiology. Athletes are our omniscient gods, just
> > look at the sports pages.
>
> So if a fast guy says he says something, are we to discount it just
> because he's fast? Physical ability in this case is assumed to be
> derived from experience. Mason understood the sensations in his legs,
> and explained them to me. He was, at the time, studying kinesiology at
> the University of Colorado.

Hi Mike,

As happens so often, Jobst is simultaneously brusque and right (like
all of us, Jobst is sometimes wrong--but not in this case).
Professional athletes are notoriously bad at describing the actions
they're so good at performing. For example, Bernard Hinault used to
advocate making small turns within a larger turn, thereby cornering
faster. This makes little sense and is contraindicated by data
collected from car and motorcycle racers (which are collected by
instruments...telemetry is very important in those worlds). See Keith
Code's books on motorcycle racing.

I'm confident that I understand the theory (that is, the dynamics) of a
turning bicycle better than Hinault. I'm also confident that Hinault
could drop me like a hot pomme de terre on any descent or corner one
would care to name. The point is that what an elite athlete *thinks*
he's doing and what an elite athlete actually *is* doing are only
loosely correlated.

Experience or virtuosity is no indicator of a true understanding of the
physical or chemical phenomina involved. A great example of this
appeared in the New York Times today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/16/health/nutrition/16run.html

(Here's a link to an article for those who don't have a NYTimes.com
login):
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/121/114239.htm

The idea is that lactic acid is not actually a byproduct of exertion
but rather a fuel for exertion. Everyone has misunderstood the
phenomenon for roughly the last hundred years. Even so, coaches and and
kinesiologists have developed methods (lactate threshold training) that
are theoretically wrong but produce results anyway. That is, the
methods work, but for the reasons the coaches and kinesiologists
thought they did.

So a metaphor was developed that worked but did not describe the actual
biochemical phenomena. The subject at hand is a biomechanical
phenomenon, and the metaphor you've put forth does not describe it
accurately. That doesn't mean that your metaphor (or Mr. Rickard's) is
worthless as a training method, but it is less than useful for a
discussion of biomechanical phenomena.

> Just because you're smoother doesn't mean you're smooth. Of course
> you're going to see surges during the downstroke stroke when you're
> putting out so close to the limit. The body is just set up for there to
> be more power on the downstroke. That doesn't preclude smoothing the
> stroke out though.
>
> With your argument, there's no benefit to clipless pedal systems. Just
> stomp on platforms all day.
>
> > > Davis Phinney also specifically wrote (in Winning Mag.) about how
> > > pulling up while climbing helped him become an all-around rider
> > > instead of the pure sprinter he started out as. He even used the
> > > upstroke as a recovery mechanism. If the legs started burning too
> > > much in the climbs, he would "turn off" his quads on one leg for
> > > 5-10 pedal strokes, and just use his hamstrings and hip flexors.
> > > This gave his quads a break to clear some of the lactic acid.
> >
> > I think you'll need more proof of that than an item written by a man
> > with big lungs. I suppose it is expected of good physical performers
> > to reveal their secrets but alas, it does the average athlete no good
> > to try to make more of less after all the training is done. This
> > hearkens back to Jacques Anquetil and the secret of his "ankling".
> > His chemist knew better.
>
> ?? whisky tango foxtrot ??

Jacques Anquetil famously said that one cannot ride the Tour de France
on mineral water alone. Amphetamine use was widespread during his
reign, and few if any top riders raced "clean." I suspect Jobst was
just making the same point I made above: top riders rarely do what they
say they do, whether subconsciously (perhaps in Hinault's case) or
cynically (almost certainly in Anquetil's case).

>
> So you're saying it doesn't relieve the quads to give them a rest?
>
<snip>
>
> So if Ivan Basso (or some other skinny-armed cyclist) was holding the
> 30 lb weight with a bent arm at the same time that 80s-Ahnold was
> holding the same weight with a bent arm, they'd both tire
> simultaneously because strength doesn't play into it?

No, that's not what Jobst is saying. I think the problem here is that
you are genuinely misunderstanding Jobst's distinctions between work,
force and energy, which are the same distinctions made in physics.
Jobst is using these terms in a fairly rigorous way, and you are using
them in a more common-sense way, and these two modes of usage are not
compatible. A common-sense understanding can be quite useful, but until
you and Jobst are using the same terms, you'll just talk past one
another.

>
> What I'm saying is that pulling on the bars takes some amount of energy
> as well. Pulling on the bars while seated climbing is an effective
> technique that I practice on my own rides, but it's not free. I also
> practice using leg muscles besides my quads to spread the load out. I'm
> not trying to pull up with the same effort as I'm pushing down. My goal
> is simple to always be adding energy to the system continuously through
> both cleats.
>
> This makes me smoother than I would be on platform pedals. Not smooth,
> but smoother.

Sadly, I cannot cite any sources, but a few years ago a widely-read
biomechanical study showed that professional cyclists ended up lifting
their rising leg with force from the falling leg as this was more
efficient than actually exerting a net upward force with the rising
leg. Perhaps someone else can name the study...I'm feeling a bit lame
for not being able to.

Various forms of visualization (e.g., pedal circles, not squares, or
"scrape mud from your shoes as your foot travels backwards") can be
quite useful for training, but we should all be careful not to mistake
the visualization of an action for a biomechanical description of that
action.

Cheers,

Jason

 

[SYJ]

[email protected] wrote:
---snip---
>Pictures of Boardman and the hour racer who committed suicide
> recently
---/snip---

Obree? I knew that he had attempted suicide in January, but I thought
that he survived. Or is there another suicidal hour rider?

SYJ

 

[SYJ]

Mike Reed wrote:
---snip---
> Also, while climbing out of the saddle, you may need to shift 1 or 2
> cogs to a smaller one, unless you were overgeared when seated. Standing
> is a lower cadence position, and needs more pedal resistance to be
> comfortable.
>
> -Mike
---/snip---

It was always fun to watch Pantani climb - he'd stand up, honking a
huge gear, until he got his cadence up nice & high. Then, he'd sit and
spin until the cadence dropped. Then, back up, cranking away again.
Lather, rinse, repeat. I recall watching him do one of the classic
tour climbs (Ventoux or L'Alpe), and thinking that he hadn't shifted
once from bottom to top.

SYJ

 

[Mike Reed]

[email protected] wrote:
> Mike Reed wrote:

> >
> > What I'm saying is that pulling on the bars takes some amount of energy
> > as well. Pulling on the bars while seated climbing is an effective
> > technique that I practice on my own rides, but it's not free. I also
> > practice using leg muscles besides my quads to spread the load out. I'm
> > not trying to pull up with the same effort as I'm pushing down. My goal
> > is simple to always be adding energy to the system continuously through
> > both cleats.
> >
> > This makes me smoother than I would be on platform pedals. Not smooth,
> > but smoother.
>
> Sadly, I cannot cite any sources, but a few years ago a widely-read
> biomechanical study showed that professional cyclists ended up lifting
> their rising leg with force from the falling leg as this was more
> efficient than actually exerting a net upward force with the rising
> leg. Perhaps someone else can name the study...I'm feeling a bit lame
> for not being able to.
>
> Various forms of visualization (e.g., pedal circles, not squares, or
> "scrape mud from your shoes as your foot travels backwards") can be
> quite useful for training, but we should all be careful not to mistake
> the visualization of an action for a biomechanical description of that
> action.

Now that's interesting. If this is the case, then I'll agree that I'm
partially wrong.

Consider this:
There is a tradeoff between efficiency and the ability to strain our
muscles in spikes over long periods of time. Like Lance's high cadence
or Kenyan shuffle-run strides, they are less efficient, but allow for
better muscle use over the length of the event. It's easier to replace
some carbs to make up for the lower efficiency than to have the muscles
shut down from hard use.

-Mike

 

[[email protected]]

Mike Reed wrote:
> Ok, here we go...
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Mike Reed writes:
> >
> > >>>>> Pushing yourself back on the saddle is normal for a lot of
> > >>>>> climbers; Lemond prefers such a position. But you'll do better
> > >>>>> overall if you can move around and adapt multiple positions for
> > >>>>> longer climbs.
> >
> > >>>> I always thought people sit up on the saddle nose while climbing
> > >>>> -- at least for intense efforts. Not true?
> >
> > >>> I always found that when I am mashing up a hill with the ankling
> > >>> turned up a notch that sliding back to I guess increase the
> > >>> effective seat height is the only way to do it. But doing some
> > >>> high cadence, high effort spinning (like a long seated sprint, or
> > >>> trying to drop people on a descent) necessitates moving forward to
> > >>> the nose. I think cadence and ankling are the two important
> > >>> factors here.
> >
> > >> The reason for pushing back on the saddle is to move rider CG back
> > >> and enable pulling on the bars to increase downward pedaling
> > >> thrust, the rider's weight being behind the downward stroke enough
> > >> to add useful weight to the downstroke. Pulling up on the pedals
> > >> to accomplish this is wasteful in the long haul because it is more
> > >> tiring by involving extra muscles in the effort. Each muscle has
> > >> its overhead losses.
> >
> > > I agree that there's a cost to everything, but you can offset the
> > > additional cost of engaging more muscles in a climb by not stomping
> > > so hard. Smoother is better in my experience.
> >
> > The old smoothness axiom doesn't make it true. Work is force times
> > distance and rate of work is power. You are suggesting that you can
> > fool that basic condition and create power. Climbing rate (power),
> > when in good physical condition, is limited by aerobic capacity.
>
> True, but why not dial back the quads slightly and let the other
> muscles take up the slack? I understand that your body can only put out
> some limited amount of energy, but that energy can be distributed over
> several muscles efficiently. It won't produce higher power output, and
> it may produce less power output. But it can help keep your muscles
> supple and responsive, where focusing on just a small group of muslces
> makes them tighter and tired sooner.

This is the basis of my theory that elite cyclists high LT as a
percentage of VO2max is partially related to their pedaling with the
load spread to many muscles. At sub maximal efforts that are still
anaerobic, the weak link of the system is the overworked muscles that
are flooding the bloodstream with lactic acid. Doing some pedal tricks
may unload these weak link muscles enough to allow the lactic acid
oversupply to be reduced, while still maintaining a given power output
(at sub VO2max/maxHR effort levels, such that the heart and lungs still
have some available capacity).


> > > My mentor back in 1992, Mason Rickard, once took 5th in the Mt.
> > > Evans Hill Climb 1/2/P (beating Alexi Grewal that year).
> >
> > Once again physical ability is assumed to be derived from
> > intelligence, such that the great ball player understands the dynamics
> > and trajectory of the ball and why he can propel it farther than
> > others. The powerful bicyclist, likewise is assumed to have an inside
> > understanding of physiology. Athletes are our omniscient gods, just
> > look at the sports pages.
>
> So if a fast guy says he says something, are we to discount it just
> because he's fast? Physical ability in this case is assumed to be
> derived from experience. Mason understood the sensations in his legs,
> and explained them to me. He was, at the time, studying kinesiology at
> the University of Colorado.
>
> > > He instructed me that pedalling in full circles = faster climbing.
> > > He told me to drag my foot back at the bottom, at least unweight my
> > > leg on the way up, and kick across the top. Since you lose momentum
> > > so fast on a climb, a smooth circular stroke keeps your speed more
> > > consistent, so you're not hitting a bunch of accelerations all the
> > > time.
> >
> > Oh BS! Watching racers climb the Stelvio or any of the other great
> > mountain passes in the Alps, dashes that theory. It is retold so
> > often it must be true. Right here in San Francisco there was no
> > "round pedaling" on Fillmore St. Watching riders in a TT on the flat
> > also belies that as they lunge onto the downward pedal with their
> > upper bodies. Every now and then I see riders around here playing the
> > "I'm a machine, nothing moves but my legs", as they round pedal at
> > some inconsequential rate.
>
> Just because you're smoother doesn't mean you're smooth. Of course
> you're going to see surges during the downstroke stroke when you're
> putting out so close to the limit. The body is just set up for there to
> be more power on the downstroke. That doesn't preclude smoothing the
> stroke out though.
>
> With your argument, there's no benefit to clipless pedal systems. Just
> stomp on platforms all day.

Sometimes folks who are very strong, are that way despite themselves.
The fact that elite riders sometimes surge their way up steep hills
does not necessarily mean that it is a good thing, nor that it is not a
bad thing.

> > > Davis Phinney also specifically wrote (in Winning Mag.) about how
> > > pulling up while climbing helped him become an all-around rider
> > > instead of the pure sprinter he started out as. He even used the
> > > upstroke as a recovery mechanism. If the legs started burning too
> > > much in the climbs, he would "turn off" his quads on one leg for
> > > 5-10 pedal strokes, and just use his hamstrings and hip flexors.
> > > This gave his quads a break to clear some of the lactic acid.
> >
> > I think you'll need more proof of that than an item written by a man
> > with big lungs. I suppose it is expected of good physical performers
> > to reveal their secrets but alas, it does the average athlete no good
> > to try to make more of less after all the training is done. This
> > hearkens back to Jacques Anquetil and the secret of his "ankling".
> > His chemist knew better.
>
> ?? whisky tango foxtrot ??
>
> So you're saying it doesn't relieve the quads to give them a rest?

I think he means you can give them a rest, but as a consequence the
power output and speed go down too. And is thus a sort of "no duh"
solution.

> > >> Note that work is force x distance. Therefore, pulling on the bars
> > >> is not directly work expended because the rider mass does not move
> > >> significantly relative to the bars. Pulling up on pedals, is work.
> >
> > > True, but we can't pull on something that's immobile without using
> > > energy, especially with bent arms. For example, it's easy to hold a
> > > 30 lb weight with a straight arm at your side, as your bones are
> > > countering the force. But if you lift it up to your chin, and hold
> > > it there, your arms will tire quickly since your muscles have to do
> > > it.
> >
> > Don't do that too long or you'll get a charley horse. When the muscle
> > remains flexed, blood circulation ceases and causes pain. That's why
> > the sot at the bar changes from one leg to the other now and then. He
> > is not working!
>
> So if Ivan Basso (or some other skinny-armed cyclist) was holding the
> 30 lb weight with a bent arm at the same time that 80s-Ahnold was
> holding the same weight with a bent arm, they'd both tire
> simultaneously because strength doesn't play into it?
>
> What I'm saying is that pulling on the bars takes some amount of energy
> as well. Pulling on the bars while seated climbing is an effective
> technique that I practice on my own rides, but it's not free. I also
> practice using leg muscles besides my quads to spread the load out. I'm
> not trying to pull up with the same effort as I'm pushing down. My goal
> is simple to always be adding energy to the system continuously through
> both cleats.
>
> This makes me smoother than I would be on platform pedals. Not smooth,
> but smoother.
>
I'm with you on that one. In theory at least...

Joseph

 

[[email protected]]

Mike Reed writes:

>>>>>>> Pushing yourself back on the saddle is normal for a lot of
>>>>>>> climbers; Lemond prefers such a position. But you'll do better
>>>>>>> overall if you can move around and adapt multiple positions
>>>>>>> for longer climbs.

>>>>>> I always thought people sit up on the saddle nose while
>>>>>> climbing -- at least for intense efforts. Not true?

>>>>> I always found that when I am mashing up a hill with the ankling
>>>>> turned up a notch that sliding back to I guess increase the
>>>>> effective seat height is the only way to do it. But doing some
>>>>> high cadence, high effort spinning (like a long seated sprint,
>>>>> or trying to drop people on a descent) necessitates moving
>>>>> forward to the nose. I think cadence and ankling are the two
>>>>> important factors here.

>>>> The reason for pushing back on the saddle is to move rider CG
>>>> back and enable pulling on the bars to increase downward pedaling
>>>> thrust, the rider's weight being behind the downward stroke
>>>> enough to add useful weight to the downstroke. Pulling up on the
>>>> pedals to accomplish this is wasteful in the long haul because it
>>>> is more tiring by involving extra muscles in the effort. Each
>>>> muscle has its overhead losses.

>>> I agree that there's a cost to everything, but you can offset the
>>> additional cost of engaging more muscles in a climb by not
>>> stomping so hard. Smoother is better in my experience.

>> The old smoothness axiom doesn't make it true. Work is force times
>> distance and rate of work is power. You are suggesting that you
>> can fool that basic condition and create power. Climbing rate
>> (power), when in good physical condition, is limited by aerobic
>> capacity.

> True, but why not dial back the quads slightly and let the other
> muscles take up the slack? I understand that your body can only put
> out some limited amount of energy, but that energy can be
> distributed over several muscles efficiently. It won't produce
> higher power output, and it may produce less power output. But it
> can help keep your muscles supple and responsive, where focusing on
> just a small group of muslces makes them tighter and tired sooner.

When you're out of gas, you're out of gas, and shifting gears won't
help. When a rider gets dropped on a hill, it isn't for lack of
strength but rather lack of power, standing, sitting or shifting gears
will not keep up with the faster rider. You might consider that the
best racers (of a certain weight) do not press on the pedals harder,
they just do it faster.

>>> My mentor back in 1992, Mason Rickard, once took 5th in the Mt.
>>> Evans Hill Climb 1/2/P (beating Alexi Grewal that year).

>> Once again physical ability is assumed to be derived from
>> intelligence, such that the great ball player understands the
>> dynamics and trajectory of the ball and why he can propel it
>> farther than others. The powerful bicyclist, likewise is assumed
>> to have an inside understanding of physiology. Athletes are our
>> omniscient gods, just look at the sports pages.

> So if a fast guy says he says something, are we to discount it just
> because he's fast? Physical ability in this case is assumed to be
> derived from experience. Mason understood the sensations in his
> legs, and explained them to me. He was, at the time, studying
> kinesiology at the University of Colorado.

The same goes for Eddy Merckx or Greg Lemond and other great
bicyclists who put bicycle on the marked with their name on them. The
assumption is that if he was a great racer, he must know all about
frame design... or for that matter, physiology. Kinesiology is not
physiology and passes as a marginal pseudo-science that has little to
do with aerobic performance.

>>> He instructed me that pedalling in full circles = faster climbing.
>>> He told me to drag my foot back at the bottom, at least unweight
>>> my leg on the way up, and kick across the top. Since you lose
>>> momentum so fast on a climb, a smooth circular stroke keeps your
>>> speed more consistent, so you're not hitting a bunch of
>>> accelerations all the time.

>> Oh BS! Watching racers climb the Stelvio or any of the other great
>> mountain passes in the Alps, dashes that theory. It is retold so
>> often it must be true. Right here in San Francisco there was no
>> "round pedaling" on Fillmore St. Watching riders in a TT on the
>> flat also belies that as they lunge onto the downward pedal with
>> their upper bodies. Every now and then I see riders around here
>> playing the "I'm a machine, nothing moves but my legs", as they
>> round pedal at some inconsequential rate.

> Just because you're smoother doesn't mean you're smooth. Of course
> you're going to see surges during the downstroke stroke when you're
> putting out so close to the limit. The body is just set up for
> there to be more power on the downstroke. That doesn't preclude
> smoothing the stroke out though.

I don't understand what you are claiming here.

> With your argument, there's no benefit to clipless pedal systems.
> Just stomp on platforms all day.

You are dodging. I never said that and you should know that pulling
up on pedals and not falling off the pedal on a rough bump are
essentials to high performance bicycling.

>>> Davis Phinney also specifically wrote (in Winning Mag.) about how
>>> pulling up while climbing helped him become an all-around rider
>>> instead of the pure sprinter he started out as. He even used the
>>> upstroke as a recovery mechanism. If the legs started burning too
>>> much in the climbs, he would "turn off" his quads on one leg for
>>> 5-10 pedal strokes, and just use his hamstrings and hip flexors.
>>> This gave his quads a break to clear some of the lactic acid.

You seem to be claiming that because one must pull up on pedals at
times it should be a routine in continuous riding. That's the usual
overstatement to make a point. I don't accept that as proof of
anything.

>> I think you'll need more proof of that than an item written by a man
>> with big lungs. I suppose it is expected of good physical performers
>> to reveal their secrets but alas, it does the average athlete no good
>> to try to make more of less after all the training is done. This
>> hearkens back to Jacques Anquetil and the secret of his "ankling".
>> His chemist knew better.

> ?whisky tango foxtrot?

> So you're saying it doesn't relieve the quads to give them a rest?

I think you may recall that this thread started as changing position
to relax muscles that have worked hard. That doesn't prove one should
engage all these muscles all the time, as in round pedaling. You
might want to search the archives on this. The subject has been beat
to death often in this forum.

>>>> Note that work is force x distance. Therefore, pulling on the
>>>> bars is not directly work expended because the rider mass does
>>>> not move significantly relative to the bars. Pulling up on
>>>> pedals, is work.

>>> True, but we can't pull on something that's immobile without using
>>> energy, especially with bent arms. For example, it's easy to hold
>>> a 30 lb weight with a straight arm at your side, as your bones are
>>> countering the force. But if you lift it up to your chin, and
>>> hold it there, your arms will tire quickly since your muscles have
>>> to do it.

>> Don't do that too long or you'll get a charley horse. When the
>> muscle remains flexed, blood circulation ceases and causes pain.
>> That's why the sot at the bar changes from one leg to the other now
>> and then. He is not working!

> So if Ivan Basso (or some other skinny-armed cyclist) was holding the
> 30 lb weight with a bent arm at the same time that 80s-Ahnold was
> holding the same weight with a bent arm, they'd both tire
> simultaneously because strength doesn't play into it?

> What I'm saying is that pulling on the bars takes some amount of energy
> as well. Pulling on the bars while seated climbing is an effective
> technique that I practice on my own rides, but it's not free. I also
> practice using leg muscles besides my quads to spread the load out. I'm
> not trying to pull up with the same effort as I'm pushing down. My goal
> is simple to always be adding energy to the system continuously through
> both cleats.

So what else is new.

> This makes me smoother than I would be on platform pedals. Not smooth,
> but smoother.

"Nothing moves but my legs, I ride like a well oiled machine!"

Jobst Brandt

 

[Mike Reed]

[email protected] wrote:
> Mike Reed writes:
>
> >>>>>>> Pushing yourself back on the saddle is normal for a lot of
> >>>>>>> climbers; Lemond prefers such a position. But you'll do better
> >>>>>>> overall if you can move around and adapt multiple positions
> >>>>>>> for longer climbs.
>
> >>>>>> I always thought people sit up on the saddle nose while
> >>>>>> climbing -- at least for intense efforts. Not true?
>
> >>>>> I always found that when I am mashing up a hill with the ankling
> >>>>> turned up a notch that sliding back to I guess increase the
> >>>>> effective seat height is the only way to do it. But doing some
> >>>>> high cadence, high effort spinning (like a long seated sprint,
> >>>>> or trying to drop people on a descent) necessitates moving
> >>>>> forward to the nose. I think cadence and ankling are the two
> >>>>> important factors here.
>
> >>>> The reason for pushing back on the saddle is to move rider CG
> >>>> back and enable pulling on the bars to increase downward pedaling
> >>>> thrust, the rider's weight being behind the downward stroke
> >>>> enough to add useful weight to the downstroke. Pulling up on the
> >>>> pedals to accomplish this is wasteful in the long haul because it
> >>>> is more tiring by involving extra muscles in the effort. Each
> >>>> muscle has its overhead losses.
>
> >>> I agree that there's a cost to everything, but you can offset the
> >>> additional cost of engaging more muscles in a climb by not
> >>> stomping so hard. Smoother is better in my experience.
>
> >> The old smoothness axiom doesn't make it true. Work is force times
> >> distance and rate of work is power. You are suggesting that you
> >> can fool that basic condition and create power. Climbing rate
> >> (power), when in good physical condition, is limited by aerobic
> >> capacity.
>
> > True, but why not dial back the quads slightly and let the other
> > muscles take up the slack? I understand that your body can only put
> > out some limited amount of energy, but that energy can be
> > distributed over several muscles efficiently. It won't produce
> > higher power output, and it may produce less power output. But it
> > can help keep your muscles supple and responsive, where focusing on
> > just a small group of muslces makes them tighter and tired sooner.
>
> When you're out of gas, you're out of gas, and shifting gears won't
> help. When a rider gets dropped on a hill, it isn't for lack of
> strength but rather lack of power, standing, sitting or shifting gears
> will not keep up with the faster rider. You might consider that the
> best racers (of a certain weight) do not press on the pedals harder,
> they just do it faster.
>
> >>> My mentor back in 1992, Mason Rickard, once took 5th in the Mt.
> >>> Evans Hill Climb 1/2/P (beating Alexi Grewal that year).
>
> >> Once again physical ability is assumed to be derived from
> >> intelligence, such that the great ball player understands the
> >> dynamics and trajectory of the ball and why he can propel it
> >> farther than others. The powerful bicyclist, likewise is assumed
> >> to have an inside understanding of physiology. Athletes are our
> >> omniscient gods, just look at the sports pages.
>
> > So if a fast guy says he says something, are we to discount it just
> > because he's fast? Physical ability in this case is assumed to be
> > derived from experience. Mason understood the sensations in his
> > legs, and explained them to me. He was, at the time, studying
> > kinesiology at the University of Colorado.
>
> The same goes for Eddy Merckx or Greg Lemond and other great
> bicyclists who put bicycle on the marked with their name on them. The
> assumption is that if he was a great racer, he must know all about
> frame design... or for that matter, physiology. Kinesiology is not
> physiology and passes as a marginal pseudo-science that has little to
> do with aerobic performance.
>
> >>> He instructed me that pedalling in full circles = faster climbing.
> >>> He told me to drag my foot back at the bottom, at least unweight
> >>> my leg on the way up, and kick across the top. Since you lose
> >>> momentum so fast on a climb, a smooth circular stroke keeps your
> >>> speed more consistent, so you're not hitting a bunch of
> >>> accelerations all the time.
>
> >> Oh BS! Watching racers climb the Stelvio or any of the other great
> >> mountain passes in the Alps, dashes that theory. It is retold so
> >> often it must be true. Right here in San Francisco there was no
> >> "round pedaling" on Fillmore St. Watching riders in a TT on the
> >> flat also belies that as they lunge onto the downward pedal with
> >> their upper bodies. Every now and then I see riders around here
> >> playing the "I'm a machine, nothing moves but my legs", as they
> >> round pedal at some inconsequential rate.
>
> > Just because you're smoother doesn't mean you're smooth. Of course
> > you're going to see surges during the downstroke stroke when you're
> > putting out so close to the limit. The body is just set up for
> > there to be more power on the downstroke. That doesn't preclude
> > smoothing the stroke out though.
>
> I don't understand what you are claiming here.

You were stating that it doesn't make sense to pursue a smooth stroke,
and I'm agreeing. We can't pedal in uniform circles (even power). We
can, however smooth it out a bit, and there is some level of rounding
out the power loop that is more efficient than simply pounding downward
every stroke.

> > With your argument, there's no benefit to clipless pedal systems.
> > Just stomp on platforms all day.
>
> You are dodging. I never said that and you should know that pulling
> up on pedals and not falling off the pedal on a rough bump are
> essentials to high performance bicycling.

I wasn't dodging. I thought you were saying that we shouldn't bother
pulling on the pedals. Now that we've established that we should pull
on the pedals, we just need to figure out how much...

> >>> Davis Phinney also specifically wrote (in Winning Mag.) about how
> >>> pulling up while climbing helped him become an all-around rider
> >>> instead of the pure sprinter he started out as. He even used the
> >>> upstroke as a recovery mechanism. If the legs started burning too
> >>> much in the climbs, he would "turn off" his quads on one leg for
> >>> 5-10 pedal strokes, and just use his hamstrings and hip flexors.
> >>> This gave his quads a break to clear some of the lactic acid.
>
> You seem to be claiming that because one must pull up on pedals at
> times it should be a routine in continuous riding. That's the usual
> overstatement to make a point. I don't accept that as proof of
> anything.
>
> >> I think you'll need more proof of that than an item written by a man
> >> with big lungs. I suppose it is expected of good physical performers
> >> to reveal their secrets but alas, it does the average athlete no good
> >> to try to make more of less after all the training is done. This
> >> hearkens back to Jacques Anquetil and the secret of his "ankling".
> >> His chemist knew better.
>
> > ?whisky tango foxtrot?
>
> > So you're saying it doesn't relieve the quads to give them a rest?
>
> I think you may recall that this thread started as changing position
> to relax muscles that have worked hard. That doesn't prove one should
> engage all these muscles all the time, as in round pedaling. You
> might want to search the archives on this. The subject has been beat
> to death often in this forum.

Ok, but a note: round pedalling doesn't engage all the muscles all the
time. It engages and disengages them in a sequence around a stroke.

> >>>> Note that work is force x distance. Therefore, pulling on the
> >>>> bars is not directly work expended because the rider mass does
> >>>> not move significantly relative to the bars. Pulling up on
> >>>> pedals, is work.
>
> >>> True, but we can't pull on something that's immobile without using
> >>> energy, especially with bent arms. For example, it's easy to hold
> >>> a 30 lb weight with a straight arm at your side, as your bones are
> >>> countering the force. But if you lift it up to your chin, and
> >>> hold it there, your arms will tire quickly since your muscles have
> >>> to do it.
>
> >> Don't do that too long or you'll get a charley horse. When the
> >> muscle remains flexed, blood circulation ceases and causes pain.
> >> That's why the sot at the bar changes from one leg to the other now
> >> and then. He is not working!
>
> > So if Ivan Basso (or some other skinny-armed cyclist) was holding the
> > 30 lb weight with a bent arm at the same time that 80s-Ahnold was
> > holding the same weight with a bent arm, they'd both tire
> > simultaneously because strength doesn't play into it?
>
> > What I'm saying is that pulling on the bars takes some amount of energy
> > as well. Pulling on the bars while seated climbing is an effective
> > technique that I practice on my own rides, but it's not free. I also
> > practice using leg muscles besides my quads to spread the load out. I'm
> > not trying to pull up with the same effort as I'm pushing down. My goal
> > is simple to always be adding energy to the system continuously through
> > both cleats.
>
> So what else is new.
>
> > This makes me smoother than I would be on platform pedals. Not smooth,
> > but smoother.
>
> "Nothing moves but my legs, I ride like a well oiled machine!"

I wish.

Unfortunately, my legs are anchored to my hips and get their leverage
through contact with the saddle and handle bars. So, my whole body gets
into the action. I just try to stay supple and feel the rhythm. Again,
just adding energy to the system where I can.

I'm not sure we're actually disagreeing any more, now that I understand
what you're saying. Athletes think they know more than they do (but so
do engineers). You can't pedal in circles and wouldn't want to anyway.
Cleats help.

Sounds reasonable.

My assertion is that your legs can take a beating longer if you pedal
with some finesse and just eat an extra Gu here and there to make up
for it.

-Mike

 

[Antti]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Reed writes:
>
>>>>>>>> Pushing yourself back on the saddle is normal for a lot of
>>>>>>>> climbers; Lemond prefers such a position. But you'll do better
>>>>>>>> overall if you can move around and adapt multiple positions
>>>>>>>> for longer climbs.
>
>>>>>>> I always thought people sit up on the saddle nose while
>>>>>>> climbing -- at least for intense efforts. Not true?
>
>>>>>> I always found that when I am mashing up a hill with the ankling
>>>>>> turned up a notch that sliding back to I guess increase the
>>>>>> effective seat height is the only way to do it. But doing some
>>>>>> high cadence, high effort spinning (like a long seated sprint,
>>>>>> or trying to drop people on a descent) necessitates moving
>>>>>> forward to the nose. I think cadence and ankling are the two
>>>>>> important factors here.
>
>>>>> The reason for pushing back on the saddle is to move rider CG
>>>>> back and enable pulling on the bars to increase downward pedaling
>>>>> thrust, the rider's weight being behind the downward stroke
>>>>> enough to add useful weight to the downstroke. Pulling up on the
>>>>> pedals to accomplish this is wasteful in the long haul because it
>>>>> is more tiring by involving extra muscles in the effort. Each
>>>>> muscle has its overhead losses.
>
>>>> I agree that there's a cost to everything, but you can offset the
>>>> additional cost of engaging more muscles in a climb by not
>>>> stomping so hard. Smoother is better in my experience.
>
>>> The old smoothness axiom doesn't make it true. Work is force times
>>> distance and rate of work is power. You are suggesting that you
>>> can fool that basic condition and create power. Climbing rate
>>> (power), when in good physical condition, is limited by aerobic
>>> capacity.
>
>> True, but why not dial back the quads slightly and let the other
>> muscles take up the slack? I understand that your body can only put
>> out some limited amount of energy, but that energy can be
>> distributed over several muscles efficiently. It won't produce
>> higher power output, and it may produce less power output. But it
>> can help keep your muscles supple and responsive, where focusing on
>> just a small group of muslces makes them tighter and tired sooner.
>
> When you're out of gas, you're out of gas, and shifting gears won't
> help. When a rider gets dropped on a hill, it isn't for lack of
> strength but rather lack of power, standing, sitting or shifting gears
> will not keep up with the faster rider. You might consider that the
> best racers (of a certain weight) do not press on the pedals harder,
> they just do it faster.

That last detail is vice versa. I can easily pedal the same ~100 rpm that
the elite cyclists, but I'm producing maybe 60-70 % of the power they can
generate. So the elite cyclists are pressing harder.

Otherwise, on some physiology journal there were a study about elite
cyclists muscle usage, and results were that cyclists in the study had very
different patterns in using their muscles, but the power outputs were quite
the same. So, for me the conclusion looked like there is no tricks there,
like learning some secret style for producing more power. Just train your
power at the so called LT, VO2max etc and etc.

>>>> My mentor back in 1992, Mason Rickard, once took 5th in the Mt.
>>>> Evans Hill Climb 1/2/P (beating Alexi Grewal that year).
>
>>> Once again physical ability is assumed to be derived from
>>> intelligence, such that the great ball player understands the
>>> dynamics and trajectory of the ball and why he can propel it
>>> farther than others. The powerful bicyclist, likewise is assumed
>>> to have an inside understanding of physiology. Athletes are our
>>> omniscient gods, just look at the sports pages.
>
>> So if a fast guy says he says something, are we to discount it just
>> because he's fast? Physical ability in this case is assumed to be
>> derived from experience. Mason understood the sensations in his
>> legs, and explained them to me. He was, at the time, studying
>> kinesiology at the University of Colorado.
>
> The same goes for Eddy Merckx or Greg Lemond and other great
> bicyclists who put bicycle on the marked with their name on them. The
> assumption is that if he was a great racer, he must know all about
> frame design... or for that matter, physiology. Kinesiology is not
> physiology and passes as a marginal pseudo-science that has little to
> do with aerobic performance.
>
>>>> He instructed me that pedalling in full circles = faster climbing.
>>>> He told me to drag my foot back at the bottom, at least unweight
>>>> my leg on the way up, and kick across the top. Since you lose
>>>> momentum so fast on a climb, a smooth circular stroke keeps your
>>>> speed more consistent, so you're not hitting a bunch of
>>>> accelerations all the time.
>
>>> Oh BS! Watching racers climb the Stelvio or any of the other great
>>> mountain passes in the Alps, dashes that theory. It is retold so
>>> often it must be true. Right here in San Francisco there was no
>>> "round pedaling" on Fillmore St. Watching riders in a TT on the
>>> flat also belies that as they lunge onto the downward pedal with
>>> their upper bodies. Every now and then I see riders around here
>>> playing the "I'm a machine, nothing moves but my legs", as they
>>> round pedal at some inconsequential rate.
>
>> Just because you're smoother doesn't mean you're smooth. Of course
>> you're going to see surges during the downstroke stroke when you're
>> putting out so close to the limit. The body is just set up for
>> there to be more power on the downstroke. That doesn't preclude
>> smoothing the stroke out though.
>
> I don't understand what you are claiming here.
>
>> With your argument, there's no benefit to clipless pedal systems.
>> Just stomp on platforms all day.
>
> You are dodging. I never said that and you should know that pulling
> up on pedals and not falling off the pedal on a rough bump are
> essentials to high performance bicycling.
>
>>>> Davis Phinney also specifically wrote (in Winning Mag.) about how
>>>> pulling up while climbing helped him become an all-around rider
>>>> instead of the pure sprinter he started out as. He even used the
>>>> upstroke as a recovery mechanism. If the legs started burning too
>>>> much in the climbs, he would "turn off" his quads on one leg for
>>>> 5-10 pedal strokes, and just use his hamstrings and hip flexors.
>>>> This gave his quads a break to clear some of the lactic acid.
>
> You seem to be claiming that because one must pull up on pedals at
> times it should be a routine in continuous riding. That's the usual
> overstatement to make a point. I don't accept that as proof of
> anything.
>
>>> I think you'll need more proof of that than an item written by a man
>>> with big lungs. I suppose it is expected of good physical performers
>>> to reveal their secrets but alas, it does the average athlete no good
>>> to try to make more of less after all the training is done. This
>>> hearkens back to Jacques Anquetil and the secret of his "ankling".
>>> His chemist knew better.
>
>> ?whisky tango foxtrot?
>
>> So you're saying it doesn't relieve the quads to give them a rest?
>
> I think you may recall that this thread started as changing position
> to relax muscles that have worked hard. That doesn't prove one should
> engage all these muscles all the time, as in round pedaling. You
> might want to search the archives on this. The subject has been beat
> to death often in this forum.
>
>>>>> Note that work is force x distance. Therefore, pulling on the
>>>>> bars is not directly work expended because the rider mass does
>>>>> not move significantly relative to the bars. Pulling up on
>>>>> pedals, is work.
>
>>>> True, but we can't pull on something that's immobile without using
>>>> energy, especially with bent arms. For example, it's easy to hold
>>>> a 30 lb weight with a straight arm at your side, as your bones are
>>>> countering the force. But if you lift it up to your chin, and
>>>> hold it there, your arms will tire quickly since your muscles have
>>>> to do it.
>
>>> Don't do that too long or you'll get a charley horse. When the
>>> muscle remains flexed, blood circulation ceases and causes pain.
>>> That's why the sot at the bar changes from one leg to the other now
>>> and then. He is not working!
>
>> So if Ivan Basso (or some other skinny-armed cyclist) was holding the
>> 30 lb weight with a bent arm at the same time that 80s-Ahnold was
>> holding the same weight with a bent arm, they'd both tire
>> simultaneously because strength doesn't play into it?
>
>> What I'm saying is that pulling on the bars takes some amount of energy
>> as well. Pulling on the bars while seated climbing is an effective
>> technique that I practice on my own rides, but it's not free. I also
>> practice using leg muscles besides my quads to spread the load out. I'm
>> not trying to pull up with the same effort as I'm pushing down. My goal
>> is simple to always be adding energy to the system continuously through
>> both cleats.
>
> So what else is new.
>
>> This makes me smoother than I would be on platform pedals. Not smooth,
>> but smoother.
>
> "Nothing moves but my legs, I ride like a well oiled machine!"
>
> Jobst Brandt

Antti

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 16 May 2006 10:37:06 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>As happens so often, Jobst is simultaneously brusque and right (like
>all of us, Jobst is sometimes wrong--but not in this case).
>Professional athletes are notoriously bad at describing the actions
>they're so good at performing. For example, Bernard Hinault used to
>advocate making small turns within a larger turn, thereby cornering
>faster. This makes little sense and is contraindicated by data
>collected from car and motorcycle racers (which are collected by
>instruments...telemetry is very important in those worlds). See Keith
>Code's books on motorcycle racing.

(Code has one on cycling too.)

>I'm confident that I understand the theory (that is, the dynamics) of a
>turning bicycle better than Hinault. I'm also confident that Hinault
>could drop me like a hot pomme de terre on any descent or corner one
>would care to name. The point is that what an elite athlete *thinks*
>he's doing and what an elite athlete actually *is* doing are only
>loosely correlated.

It's worth pointing out there that sometimes the description an
athlete or coach provides is not accurate, but is effective in
teaching. To take the example back to this thread, very few if any
cyclists pull up much when pedalling at high cadence. But poor
pedallers actually continue pushing down a lot with their legs on the
"upstroke" -- actually fighting the leg that's propelling the bike!
The thought-piece "pull up" is a very effective way to stop doing
that.

JT

PS -- Davis Phinney has a good cycling camps business going. I haven't
been to one, but have seen riders go to them and improve. Maybe he's
not explaining things accurately. But from a coaching perspective
he's teaching them to do things better.


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 16 May 2006 10:37:06 -0700, [email protected] wrote:


>Sadly, I cannot cite any sources, but a few years ago a widely-read
>biomechanical study showed that professional cyclists ended up lifting
>their rising leg with force from the falling leg as this was more
>efficient than actually exerting a net upward force with the rising
>leg. Perhaps someone else can name the study...I'm feeling a bit lame
>for not being able to.
>
>Various forms of visualization (e.g., pedal circles, not squares, or
>"scrape mud from your shoes as your foot travels backwards") can be
>quite useful for training, but we should all be careful not to mistake
>the visualization of an action for a biomechanical description of that
>action.

Exactly. I read that same info about pedalling as well and will try
to find it.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Booker C. Bense]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <[email protected]>,
John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 16 May 2006 10:37:06 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>As happens so often, Jobst is simultaneously brusque and right (like
>>all of us, Jobst is sometimes wrong--but not in this case).
>>Professional athletes are notoriously bad at describing the actions
>>they're so good at performing. For example, Bernard Hinault used to
>>advocate making small turns within a larger turn, thereby cornering
>>faster. This makes little sense and is contraindicated by data
>>collected from car and motorcycle racers (which are collected by
>>instruments...telemetry is very important in those worlds). See Keith
>>Code's books on motorcycle racing.

_ But bikes aren't cars or motorcycles. The ratio of braking to
accelleration is so vastly different that not braking in the
turn is much more important than the line you take.

Faster cornering is about getting the nerve not to touch the
brakes and if braking is not involved, the sooner you start
pedaling the faster you will be. Hinault's method may do that
very well. The less time you spend turning the more time you can
spend pedaling.

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBRGti5GTWTAjn5N/lAQFxBwP+K/DQjNj7AxP7TKmLZYLUWpjhuH4f2eVf
fQKa+939JxKK6en5ptAJPLs7JMSmr7DRxDaO88VOGyQSbjWBR37f/O+EMD80YCeo
QKhuRVnmMDSErusWVW+82ZjAUh+/0UJuJr3wkfebXpjfqQSS2RmyVvJcmgLtpYXT
Zx5jw0EiDTI=
=Wj8v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"Mike Reed" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Great links! The last one mentioned Kautz and Hull, which I googled and
> produced this, which may be the paper John and Jason are referring to.
> I still need to read it though...
> http://www.me.utexas.edu/~neptune/Papers/job32(10).pdf

One point:
They think and have evidence that at a high cadence some
negative muscular work in pedaling is inevitable because
of the finite time it takes to fully activate our muscles.

--
Michael Press