I'm guessing this is the part you think I'm missing. I'm not. I said they were worth something because of the additional O2 allowed with that configuration. The correlation (or, lack, in this case) between non-counterweighted one-legged pedaling and 2 legged pedaling just points to the futility of the non-counterweighted drills. Training is all about specificity. Non-counterweighted one-legged pedaling is NOT specific to actual coupled 2-legged pedaling. Period.

Counterweighted pedaling actually allows one to pedal at higher outputs in a single leg than if one was pedaling with 2 legs. IIRC, Jim Martin has data demonstrating this. The benefit isn't from any pedal stroke manipulation, the benefit is a training benefit with a device that allows a normal pedal stroke. Like I said, this could be of use for folks living at altitude, in that they could work out their leg muscles in conditions mimicing the O2 delivery of 2-legged pedaling at higher air pressures (i.e train at higher power levels for a given interval -> higher training stimulus). That's the value, albeit fairly limited in scope.

So...I've got data backing up everything I've asserted in this thread. Show me the hard data that one-legged pedaling drills show ANY benefit to cycling power output.

Non-counterweighted one-legged pedaling drills are basically "tradition" based on mere supposition.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/