Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

why ankling doesn't work

Started by Ken Roberts · · Last activity · 9 posts · 764 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
22 October 2006
Last activity
29 October 2006
Original author
Ken Roberts
Posts
9
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
764
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–9 of 9
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Using ankles to help push the pedals adds more muscles, so how could that be
    bad? Isn't the worst that could happen that the ankle muscles would steal
    some oxygen pressure from other muscles, and the net result would just be a
    "no gain"?

    That's what I thought, and so I just spent two years working hard on using
    my ankle muscles lots in my stroke cycle.

    What's here: My story / Why down-push ankling is bad / Why up-stroke
    ankling is bad.

    I didn't achieve any noticeable gains in speed from ankling, but I kept
    working on it in faith that one day it would pay off. Then last weekend I
    was figuring out the dynamical equations of the hip + knee + ankle joints
    driving the pedal, and as I thought about their implications it hit me that
    ankling must result in lower total power than non-ankling. Next I looked
    at the pedal-angle-force measurements from the elite racers, and noticed
    they were not ankling, rather slightly the opposite -- see the Coyle + Kautz
    1991 articles and this diagram for LA:
    http://www.princeton.edu/~humcomp/bikes/design/desi_76.htm

    So three days ago I stopped my ankling. Problem is that I've gotten so good
    at ankling that it's taking me a while to unlearn it, and I still catch
    myself lapsing back into it. But the benefits are already obvious, most of
    all in a whole new freedom in thrusting with my knee-extension muscles
    (quads etc). Also a bigger range of motion with my hip-extension muscles
    (glutes, etc), and the fun of easily conquering hills.
    __________________
    * Why ankling in the down-push is counterproductive:
    Because the role of the ankle thru most of the down-push is to _transmit_
    force from the big hip-extension and knee-entension muscles, _not_ to try to
    add force with its own ankle-extension (a.k.a. "plantar-flexion"😉 muscles.
    The big upper leg muscles are very powerful, but they're not connected to
    the pedal. The only way they can transmit their force to the pedal is thru
    the ankle joint. The only way the ankle can transmit the combined force from
    the strongest muscles in the cyclist's body is to just do its best try to
    hold stable (isometric). The other key strategy is to transmit much of the
    force thru bone rather than muscle. This is done by pointing the toe down
    before the start of the down-push, so the bones of the length of the foot
    are partly in line with the main leg-thrust -- and the torque load on the
    ankle-extension muscles is reduced by getting the ankle joint farther in
    "radius" from the crank center, closer to the radius of the pedal.
    My concept for implementing this is . . .

    Piston-rod: Before and during the main down-stroke, try to align the length
    the foot more like a piston-rod, less like a down-push paddle. What's
    amazing to me in the Lance Armstrong diagram is that despite trying to align
    his foot-bone somewhat into the push-direction, his ankle joint actually
    "collapses" during the down-push: It's less extended at the finish than at
    the start. My interpretation is that LA pushed so strongly with his big
    hip-extension and knee-extension muscles, that his ankle-extension muscles
    were not able to fully and optimally _transmit_ all of the power.

    Even _trying_ to achieve signicant range of motion of ankle-extension
    (a.k.a. "plantar flexion"😉 in the down-push is counter-productive -- because
    it requires first lowering the ankle relative to the pedal before the push,
    which increases the effective "moment arm" of the pedal from the ankle axis
    (i.e. gives the force more leverage on the ankle), and which increases the
    torque on the ankle from the same magnitude of force to be transmitted. But
    this increased torque is beyond what the ankle could transmit, so the only
    option is to reduce the force from the big upper leg muscles. I'm pretty
    sure I did this by unconsciously holding back on the full power of my
    knee-extension muscles (quads etc) -- which is silly strategy because I've
    got rather strong quads. No doubt about the result: less total power, lower
    speed.
    __________________
    * Why ankling in the up-stroke is counterproductive:
    Because the knee is not raised as high, and then the range-of-motion of the
    big hip-extension muscles (glutes etc) in the following down-push is
    shorter.

    The ankle-flexion (or "dorsi-flexion"😉 muscles (shin, etc) pull the ball and
    toe of the foot up toward the knee. During the upstroke, if the ankle joint
    is somewhere near the line from the crank center out thru the pedal, then an
    ankle-flexion move can reduce the negative torque of the leg's weight on the
    pedal, and thus add propulsive work. But . . .

    The hip-extension muscles push the knee down. Every centimeter the pedal is
    raised relative to the ankle joint in the upstroke is one less centimeter
    for the hip-extension muscles to push the pedal through in the downstroke.
    Work = Force * Distance, and the force of hip-extension is much much more
    than the force of the ankle-flexion, so the gain of work in ankle-flexion is
    dwarfed by the loss of propulsive work in hip-extension. Ankle-flexion in
    the upstroke is a definite loser.
    My concept for avoiding this is . . .

    Piston-rod: Relax the ankle thru most of the upstroke, to use the length of
    the foot as a piston-rod, not as an up-push paddle. Raise the knee as high
    as possible.
    __________________
    Those are my experiences and thoughts . . . Looking forward to corrections
    from the experts . . . and better experience stories.

    Ken

  2. On 2006-10-22, Ken Roberts <[email hidden]> wrote:
    [snip]

    Quoted message said:

    The ankle-flexion (or "dorsi-flexion"😉 muscles (shin, etc) pull the ball and
    toe of the foot up toward the knee. During the upstroke, if the ankle joint
    is somewhere near the line from the crank center out thru the pedal, then an
    ankle-flexion move can reduce the negative torque of the leg's weight on the
    pedal, and thus add propulsive work. But . . .

    The hip-extension muscles push the knee down. Every centimeter the pedal is
    raised relative to the ankle joint in the upstroke is one less centimeter
    for the hip-extension muscles to push the pedal through in the downstroke.

    But can't they can both push over the same centimeter at the same time?

    Quoted message said:

    Work = Force * Distance, and the force of hip-extension is much much more
    than the force of the ankle-flexion, so the gain of work in ankle-flexion is
    dwarfed by the loss of propulsive work in hip-extension.

    I don't understand why there's a loss of propulsive work in the down-leg
    because you're pulling up with the up-ankle. They can both do work at
    the same time-- just because the up-ankle is pulling up with a small
    force doesn't reduce the amount of force the down-leg can apply to its
    crank.

    I would have thought if ankling did have a benefit, it would be more
    likely to be on the up-stroke where the forces are much smaller. As you
    explained, on the down stroke the best thing for the ankle to do is act
    as a good linkage and not compromise the effect of the much stronger
    quads etc.

  3. in response to

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The hip-extension muscles push the knee down. Every centimeter the pedal
    is
    raised relative to the ankle joint in the upstroke is one less centimeter
    for the hip-extension muscles to push the pedal through in the
    downstroke.


    Ben C wrote

    Quoted message said:

    But can't they can both push over the same centimeter at the same time?

    Yes, the Left leg can make its down-push at the same time as the Right leg
    makes an upstroke ankle-flexion move.

    But I'm not seeing how the Right leg's hip-extension + knee-extension
    down-push move can occur at the same time as the Right leg's ankle-flexion
    up-pull move. And that's where I'm seeing the conflict: between the how far
    the Right knee goes up in the upstroke of the Right leg, and how large a
    distance you can get between the start and finish of the Right knee during
    the next down-stroke of the Right leg.

    Actually this range-of-motion distance conflict is also a problem for using
    an ankle-extension (a.k.a. "plantar flexion"😉 move in the down-push. One
    more centimeter of motion in ankle-extension is one less centimeter of
    distance available for the hip-extension + knee-extension moves -- during
    0-135 degrees, most of the downstroke. Since there's more sustainable power
    in glutes + quad muscles than the calf muscle, ankle-extension is a _loser_
    (even apart from high force _transmission_ problems) -- except maybe for a
    little somewhere in the lower 135-180 degree range of the down-push.

    I'm starting to think that the most critical "bottleneck" resource that
    determines elite racer endurance _technique_ is the fixed circumference of
    the path of the pedal.

    Tom Compton on August 6, 2000 on this newsgroup wrote:
    "Work at the pedal comes from force acting through some distance. Moving
    the ankle trades range of motion of the ankle for range of motion of some
    other part of the leg. It's the combination of muscle force, mechanical
    advantage, and range of motion that together act to perform mechanical work
    at the pedal."

    Ken

  4. Ken Roberts said:

    in response to

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The hip-extension muscles push the knee down. Every centimeter the pedal
    is
    raised relative to the ankle joint in the upstroke is one less centimeter
    for the hip-extension muscles to push the pedal through in the
    downstroke.


    Ben C wrote

    Quoted message said:

    But can't they can both push over the same centimeter at the same time?

    Yes, the Left leg can make its down-push at the same time as the Right leg
    makes an upstroke ankle-flexion move.
    But I'm not seeing how the Right leg's hip-extension + knee-extension
    down-push move can occur at the same time as the Right leg's ankle-flexion
    up-pull move. And that's where I'm seeing the conflict: between the how far
    the Right knee goes up in the upstroke of the Right leg, and how large a
    distance you can get between the start and finish of the Right knee during
    the next down-stroke of the Right leg.

    I think I see. I thought I must have misunderstood.

    So if you "ankle" you fold up your right foot at the top of the stroke
    (lifting the pedal a bit), and unfold it at the bottom (pushing the
    pedal down a bit)?

    Quoted message said:

    Actually this range-of-motion distance conflict is also a problem for using
    an ankle-extension (a.k.a. "plantar flexion"😉 move in the down-push. One
    more centimeter of motion in ankle-extension is one less centimeter of
    distance available for the hip-extension + knee-extension moves -- during
    0-135 degrees, most of the downstroke.

    So how about "reverse ankling"-- you open the ankle at the top of the
    up-stroke to lift the knee as high as you can, and fold it up at the
    bottom so you can push further?

    You'd have to be careful not to back-push as you opened the ankle, but
    if you did this at the very top of the stroke it would be possible. You
    wouldn't be adding power by ankle flexion here, just increasing the
    travel of the downpush.

    But then if this was a real benefit, why not just use slightly longer
    cranks?

    And then you could add a further couple of centimetres to the cranks and
    try normal ankling again.

  5. Ben C wrote

    Quoted message said:

    . . . why not just use slightly longer cranks?
    . . . and try normal ankling again.

    That raises a very good point -- that the choice of ankling strategy depends
    strongly on equipment configuration -- especially seat height and crank
    length.

    If you used a sufficiently long crank, it would impossible to both remain
    seated and keep your foot in contact with the pedal thru both Bottom Dead
    Center and Top Dead Center _without_ making some big ankling moves. But
    seat height is easier for most of us to play with . . .

    If the seat is set low enough, it's pretty difficult while staying on the
    seat to get the pedal thru Top Dead Center without significant ankle
    flexion. I could believe there's some less radical seat height where the
    highest power stroke technique includes significant ankle-flexion near TDC
    and then significant ankle-flexion pushing during the down-push.

    Tendonitis:
    Come to think of it, I bet that's how I got tendonitis in my left achilles
    tendon: focusing on ankling, and then setting my seat too low, which made
    ankling feel more comfortable. I usually don't sprint because I'm
    long-distance rider, but one time on a mostly-gentle distance ride I got the
    chance to draft behind a group of riders, and it was fun. Around a sharp
    corner there was a short steep hill, and the group sprinted, and I didn't
    want to lose the draft for the following gentle miles, so I sprinted too. I
    noticed something funny in my achilles tendon, but I had no trouble
    finishing the ride. But now it's stayed with me for a while.

    My best theory so far about how that happened to me is that my unconscious
    muscle controllers responded to the unexpected sprint demand by thrusting
    hard with my quads, but my ankle was below the pedal, so it was not at all
    positioned to transmit the force thru bone. So the torque on the ankle joint
    was very high, a little too much for my left achilles tendon.

    So while playing funny mechanical games with equipment configuration to get
    around the "conflict over fixed total range-of-motion" problem, I recommend
    keeping a close eye on the "big force transmission thru the ankle" problem.

    Quoted message said:

    So how about "reverse ankling" ... ?

    I'm sure I'll get skewered by the experts for saying this, but the key test
    I would suggest for any refinement of ankle positions or moves or equipment
    is this:
    It's good if it helps you feel free to totally mash the hell out of the
    pedal with the big upper leg muscles.

    Ken

  6. Ken Roberts said:

    ...
    I'm starting to think that the most critical "bottleneck" resource that
    determines elite racer endurance _technique_ is the fixed circumference of
    the path of the pedal....

    There used to be (still is?) a device on the market called "Power
    Savers" that was a cam attached to the end of the crank that
    effectively lengthened the crank at its farthest point from the
    seat/saddle and effectively shortened the crank at its closest point to
    the seat/saddle.

    Obviously the idea never really caught on (I have never seen Power
    Savers in real life).

    Whether or not the Power Savers provided any advantage is hard to
    answer (due to their obscurity), but they certainly had the
    disadvantages of additional weight, cost and increased "Q" factor.

    --
    Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

  7. Tom Sherman wrote

    Quoted message said:

    device ... that was a cam attached to the end of the
    crank that effectively lengthened the crank at its farthest
    point from the seat/saddle and effectively shortened the
    crank at its closest point to the seat/saddle.

    Sounds like that device encouraged greater ankling. (And perhaps sometimes
    more greatly punished the greater ankling?)

    Quoted message said:

    the idea never really caught on

    I'm not surprised.

    btw - When I say the fixed circumference of the path of the pedal is a
    "bottleneck" resource, I'm not saying that it puts a limit on _power_
    output. Not saying that a different shape, or another "degree of freedom" in
    pedaling motion, would add power.

    I'm saying only that the fixed path strongly determines selection of the
    _technique_ for producing the maximum sustainable power through it.

    Unlike other land propulsive motions like skating and running and skiing,
    where you don't see so many range-of-motion conflicts (but do sometimes have
    to deal with critical points for _transmitting_ force)

    Ken

  8. Ken Roberts said:

    Using ankles to help push the pedals adds more muscles, so how could that be
    bad?

    At same output power there should indeed always be a benefit in making
    more muscles work, provided one is used to the excercise and the
    geometrical set up is sensible (I say this because I know of a stupid
    design in which one could help his legs by, in a way, pedalling also
    with his hands: just inconvenient).
    However, the only time I tried hard to ankle I ended up with tiring
    badly my achilles tendons.
    I always got the impression that Marco Pantani used to ankle a bit; try
    to find a video and take a look yourself.

    Sergio
    Pisa

  9. sergio wrote

    Quoted message said:

    However, the only time I tried hard to ankle I ended up with
    tiring badly my achilles tendons.

    Sharon was pedaling indoors and I watched and saw that despite not having
    down any serious work on technique other than some occasional single-leg
    pedaling and high-cadence spinning, she had a basically sound technique with
    her ankles -- slight extension on the upstroke and slight flexion on the
    downstroke -- which might be called "reverse ankling". She said she never
    thinks about her ankles. I said that confirmed what I'd read from an expert,
    that if you just set the seat-position right, the ankles will take care of
    themselves.

    But I couldn't resist asking to show her the technique mistakes she _could_
    have made, and she agreed. So in a position in the top quarter of the
    downstoke, I moved her ankle down to a configuration relative to the pedal
    where it could deliver substantial positive ankle-extension work and
    range-of-motion in the downstroke. As soon as she felt the configuration she
    said,
    "No wonder you hurt your achilles tendon."

    Quoted message said:

    At same output power there should indeed always be a benefit
    in making more muscles work, provided ... the geometrical set up is
    sensible

    What I found out was that with a normal crank-length and seat-position, the
    "geometrical set up" is _not_ sensible for getting benefit from ankling on
    either the upstroke or downstroke of seated pedaling. Yes there's lots of
    examples in other propulsive sports (skating, cross-country skiing, running)
    where adding more muscles adds to total power output. But for trying to use
    ankle-flexion or ankle-flexion moves in most cycling situations, the
    negative impact on the work from other bigger muscles is larger than the
    positive contribution from the ankle.

    Ken

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.