In Reply To:
[snip]
let me see if i understand the issues here.
there are people who believe that engaging hip flexors, and perhaps other muscles that aid the recovering leg, is generally accretive to faster cycling overall. those (like joe friel) who ascribe to the idea of a pedal stroke exhibiting a "flatter torque profile" fall into this camp as does, obviously, powercranks and its owner frank day. you can also throw in the people who ascribe to isolated leg training, one-leg drills, and the old (andy will remember this) "spin coach" sold by ralph ray.
then there are those, and i think perhaps ed coyle (u of texas) might be the best known exemplar, who believe that you just stomp down hard on the pedal, not unlike what we used to do as 3-year-olds on our tricycles. these people believe that what you do on the downstroke is what matters almost entirely, and engaging your hip flexors or flattening your torque profile is counterproductive to being a good cyclist.
am i on the right track so far?
Do those in the second camp believe that it is "counterproductive" or simply that it is not productive? Can this second camp be divided in to two subgroups? And what is meant by "good cyclist?" Would those in the second camp, regardless of whether they think it is counterproductive or merely not productive, still agree that there is some benefit to engaging the hip flexors for certain aspects of cycling, such as sprinting or a powerful in-saddle or out-of-saddle acceleration/attack?