This one’s not as controversial. I think.
Several people have mentioned that they used to have what they thought was a smooth pedal stroke, only to discover that their smoothness was a result, partially, of applying back pressure on the upstroke.
This seems like an odd problem to have. Is it common? Is there a down and dirty way to diagnose it? Besides a spin scan, etc.
These two things helped with my pedaling:
One legged pedaling drills on fluid trainer (concentrate on smoothness first. When you think you’re “good”, go for high RPM’s.
Trying to spin at 100+ RPMs in a soft gear. Do it in front of a big mirror and watch for “bounce” in hips/lower torso. If you can hit and maintain 120 RPM’s in the small ring without bouncing, you’re doing good.
Seems to work good for us “budget” racers.
Brett
RVP left out the last line of the paragraph he cited. The last line reads thusly: “Although there is nothing inherently inefficient about the presence of counter torque, it would represent poor performance if significant negative work were done by the muscles of the upstroke leg.”
Just wanted to complete the paragraph, don’t know why this was left out.
In all fairness, the word ‘if’ should be in bolds and caps.
In the multitude of references that have been posted on this subject, have any actually shown “significant negative work done by the muscles of the upstroke leg” even with the most unskilled cyclists?
JC wrote: In all fairness, the word ‘if’ should be in bolds and caps.
I think the word significant should be, too. To me, any amount would be significant…it represents counter-torque. Counter-torque that doesn’t have to be there, in my opinion.
Nice article however you slice it!
Nuts. Cousin Elwood is right, I shouldn’t have slept through high school.
Thus, counter-torque can simply represent the transfer of energy from the downstroke leg to the upstroke leg
Does this mean that counter-torque is simply the downstroke leg lifting the upstroke leg?
OK, this isn’t what I thought those posts about back pressure were about. I thought they were applying work/force/power/something to the upstroke pedal, in the wrong direction. This is saying that they’re not “unweighting” their leg. . .right?
OK, I gotcha.
I don’t know why everyone (I mean YOU, yaquicarbo!) is so concerned about back pressure, then. If it had meant what I thought it did- actively applying downward force to the upstroke pedal- I’d see the problem.
Knowledge about how we operate continues to change over time. I don’t think that the totality of knowledge about pedalling has been set forth.
MY attempts to understand the significant, real improvements in my own riding and running performance coinciding with training on PowerCranks; that is where my interest in all of this begins. If the idea put forth in this article published in 2002 turns out to be 100% true in all cases, it would have to hold up to scrutiny from other investigators, AND do so comparing a subset of PC trained individuals. Otherwise, it is still incomplete.
Look, it doesn’t really matter. As JustCurious has eloquently stated, it may be that PC training does “something” for some people that results in more power reaching the back wheel…that doesn’t mean that PC-style pedalling is “the best way”. Then again, maybe it is. Scientific study can find out, but there really isn’t a whole lot of interest in the scientific community to pursue it.
Consider this paper: it wasn’t published until 2002, and it may have helped clear up some previously held notions about the cost of pedalling without resistance being related to the cost of pedalling with resistance…this paper gives very compelling evidence as to why there is not a good relationship at all. That means that many previously done studies contain a GIANT fault. Fine! Great! New information, or information provided in a different format, or a twist on the old information.
Do you see what I mean? New ideas about pedalling are being put out there…that means that EVERYTHING about pedalling is NOT known. Not yet. Especially as new ways of training are being tried. Just as the paper stated, some realities of the pedal stroke may be counterintuitive. But, if your mindset considers everything in this paper to be intuitive (just as rake and trail relationships are counterintuitive to the uninitiated, but, rake and trail relationships become intuitive after you are used to thinking about them), those with a mindset that there is nothing new in pedalling may find it counterintuitive to consider the possibility that PowerCrank-type training sets a new place at the scientific variable table, and this PC-type of training may require a NEW study to consider those that have this training.
I really don’t know. I do know that a lack of curiosity or a close-mindedness certainly makes new ideas less likely to be considered to have any merit…thank goodness everyone is not this way or we wouldn’t have progress as fast as we have had in the science community.
All I know for sure is that I had a kick-in-the-pants increase in running speed, and a more gentle, but just as real push-in-the-back increase in biking speed coinciding with PowerCrank training.
Furthermore, I’m now testing Rotorcranks to see if there is something else I can glean from working a little differently at pedalling. As I said, I am certainly not convinced everything has been learned about pedalling that is to be learned.
There’s really nothing wrong with thinking there is nothing positive to be gained by PC training or PC style riding or Rotorcranks. It may turn out that there are monsters right over the egde of the horizon, and that THIS time, the earth is flat. We PC’ers and Rotorcrank riders will simply disappear. Then again, we may find there is a new world to discover.
Who knows? Until proven otherwise, I’m willing to get on the boat to see for myself.
I think you’re mistaken in the belief that it’s closed mindedness.
If researchers were united in the belief (with data in hand) that ‘circular pedaling’ did in fact lower the metabolic cost of cycling and/or improve cycling efficiency or economy, they would all be scrambling to be the first to validate the effectiveness of PC style pedaling. I doubt that anyone would dispute the belief that PC’s help one develop a more ‘circular’ pedaling style. Problem is, no one can prove that ‘circular’ is better (or even ‘as good’) than pedaling in whatever way comes naturally to the athlete.
If for a given individual PC’s do offer training benefits, it’s probably because they’re simply a convenient way to add some badly needed variety and/or training intensity. My mailbox is stuffed every day with catalogs full of unique tools for athletic training. That doesn’t mean the next Olympic gold medalist in the 100 meter dash is going to win the Olympic finals in a weighted vest with a cute little parachute dragging behind.
I hear what you’re saying. I don’t think it is a fault to be closed minded to all the gimics out there…such as the vest with the parachute, etc. I too, think most of this stuff is simple gimmickery. But, nobody has ever really been willing/able to train with a forced-circular-pedalling-tool before, so, this may not be a gimmick. We really don’t know, yet.
I honestly thought that PowerCranks were going to “probably be a gimmick”, but, they came with a 60 day guarantee. I planned to train with them for a month or so, and ship them back. Nothing but the cost of shipping would be lost, it was late December, why not try them? I honestly had no expectations of big improvements. I thought a small improvement would be nice, but, I didn’t really expect it. The benefits to my run times were almost immediate, and they were significant. After a few weeks on them, I knew I wouldn’t be sending them back, just due to the run benefits. I was happy enough with them right there. Then, I had a near-PR (set almost 20 years ago) in a Half Marathon running about 12 miles a week, never more than 8 at one time (just like I’ve done for YEARS). I was even happier. Then, I had a bad heel counter in a shoe that caused achilles tendonitis, but, I was able to PowerCrank, and did so right through that injury, came out on the other side with even more speed than I had before…at least in the run.
In the meantime, my biking splits improved, and my standalone TT improved. I wasn’t riding more hours, and was even riding a little less distance because I’m not as fast on PowerCranks. I was even more satisfied. My posts regarding MY results are in response to the improvements I have seen in my performance, and trying to explain them in some way.
Maybe my performance gains, and my explanations don’t go hand-in-hand with the majority of researchers…but, my results do seem to be supported by at least one recently published study. Are there faults with the most recent study that will render it’s results invalid? That’s to be decided by the scientific method. Are there faults with other studies? You bet. That’s the nature of the progress of scientific knowledge.
Now, Rotorcranks have appeared on my scene. I thought, why not try them…they seem different enough from anything else out there, and they have a couple of angles that might help pedalling that seem plausible (to me at least). So, I’m trying them, too. I’m already past the 30 day money-back guarantee period, so, they’re mine, but, I think they’re working. How much, I can’t say…haven’t been tested enough to tell. If I’m wrong. So what? If I’m right…well, so what again?
Some day, it will become scientifically supported or rejected, or amended, or something. In the meantime, as long as I am improving, I don’t really care if science has had the time to sift through all the nuances. Maybe it is just a training effect and not a better way to pedal. Maybe it is a better way to pedal.
As I said before, there is nothing inherently wrong with not accepting that these devices may offer benefits to the athletic community, but, there’s also nothing wrong with trying them for myself to see what, if any, benefits may occur…whatever the underlying reason for the improvements. My explanations may be off base, but, they may not be. Science will sort it out eventually.
Curious wrote: "In the multitude of references that have been posted on this subject, have any actually shown “significant negative work done by the muscles of the upstroke leg” even with the most unskilled cyclists? "
It is unlikely that any of the “negative work” is done by muscles because of the natural physiolgic effect called “reciprocal inhibition”. What it results from is the incomplete lifting of weight of the leg by the muscles against gravity. The negative work would not occur if you were riding in outer space.
RIP wrote: "The reason that people get so wound up about backpressure is that they assume that it is the result of active muscle contractions, and therefore does indeed represent a waste of energy. One of the major points of the Kautz and Neptune paper is that this assumption isn’t necessarily correct. "
I have never assumed this backward pressure is due to muscular contraction since it is generally smaller than the weight of the leg, which means the HF’s etc. have to be contracting a little on the upstroke in even the most inefficient rider. It is simply this contraction is less than it could be and if the back pressure could be eliminated then more power or force can be transmitted to the wheel for the same amount of muscular effort on the downstroke or, at a minimum, assuming CO cannot be increased, the same amount of power is transmitted but the major driver (the downstroke) is working less, meaning it will fatique slower.
Curious wrote: "I think you’re mistaken in the belief that it’s closed mindedness.
If researchers were united in the belief (with data in hand) that ‘circular pedaling’ did in fact lower the metabolic cost of cycling and/or improve cycling efficiency or economy, they would all be scrambling to be the first to validate the effectiveness of PC style pedaling. I doubt that anyone would dispute the belief that PC’s help one develop a more ‘circular’ pedaling style. Problem is, no one can prove that ‘circular’ is better (or even ‘as good’) than pedaling in whatever way comes naturally to the athlete. "
Close mindedness is the problem as I see it, at least in some on this forum and elsewhere. Otherwise the Lutrell study (which showed a statisitcally significant pedaling efficiency improvement in only 6 weeks in the PC group - and they didn’t even use them as I recommend) would not be criticized primarily based upon the journal it was published in.
Even though the cold fusion study was thought to be hogwash by the majority of the scientific community when it was first published, the curious had the intellectual courage to try to repeat it, just in case. the so-called scientist posting here has no interest in doing so as he knows the outcome and he expects everyone to just “trust him” on this. The interesting thing about the PC’s is those naysayers who have the courage to try the product as recommended (a few post here) frequently become the most vocal advocates after the experience. The only problem is some refuse to try yet continue to lambast based upon preconceived notions.
**I don’t think that the totality of knowledge about pedalling has been set forth. **Hey, look, I’m so ignorant about cycling in general and pedaling particular that I wouldn’t have any idea what the state of research into the field is. I’m just asking questions and trying to form a basic understanding, that’s all.
**Who knows? **Definitely not me.
I’m not arguing for or against PCs, primarily because I don’t know anything about this stuff. I have no idea if they work or not. If circular pedaling is good, as seems to be the conventional wisdom, and if the anecdotal evidence is to be believed, they seem to be quite valuable. On the other had, RVW can be pretty convincing, and there does not yet seem to be much hard science supporting PCs, yet.
Actually, I really don’t even care about the PC war, since either way, I don’t see myself buying a set. I’m still trying to figure out how I should pedal.
All I was trying to clear up in this thread was what you and others mean when you say that you used to apply backpressure on the upstroke pedal. I think I completely misunderstood what you’ve been saying about that. (If you had meant what I thought you meant, you would have been applying wasted effort to the pedals. As RVW explains it, you’re not- although I will concede that I don’t know if applying back pressure in the manner Rip describes is physiologically optimal or not.)
Even though the cold fusion study was thought to be hogwash by the majority of the scientific community when it was first published…
Geez Frank. You’re putting yourself into some pretty fast company. Cold fusion, PC’s… Theory of relativity maybe?
Bottom line. You’ve got the ultimate “circular pedal stroke” training device. If you had a list of studies validating the performance value of circular pedaling that was even a fraction as long as the list of independent studies that indicate it doesn’t really matter, it would be case closed, you could post the list of websites, and the debate would be over.
I don’t know that your argument that since PC’s have only recently come on the scene, no one has discovered the ‘true’ value of circular pedaling holds water either. PC’s or no PC’s, there’s always going to be someone out on the edge of the bell shaped curve with a naturally circular pedal stroke. You’ve named a few yourself who have hopped on PC’s for the first time and ridden them without undue stress. If circular pedalers had an economy or metabolic cost advantage, it would have been documented by now.
As for the “so-called scientist posting here”, you may not like his delivery or his message but you may want to view it as ‘tough love’. No one on this forum does a better job of both explaining his position and backing it up with a reference (and usually numerous references).
I’m still trying to figure out how I should pedal.
…although I will concede that I don’t know if applying back pressure in the manner Rip describes is physiologically optimal or not.)
Evidence seems to indicate you should just ‘ride your damned bike’. Pedaling should be about as hard to master as feeding yourself.
Don’t know that anyone would argue that you should “apply” backpressure on the upstroke. All that’s being said is that it doesn’t matter how you get your foot ‘up and over’.
Look, you can believe what I say and what others report or not. I could care less. I am comfortable what the research will show when it is actually done. More is underway as we speak so, thankfully, we don’t have to rely strictly on the scientists that inhabit this site to do so, although i am quite certain we can expect derision on the methods and journal if the study should show some PC advantage. But, that will have to wait.
Regarding the so called references posted by the scientist here, if you read them closely (and have the background to understand them), most of them are pure BS in supporting his arguments. Lots of academics argue this way. I once got a letter to the editor published criticizing a high mucky muck doctor’s scholrly review article disproving the existence of a chronic pain syndrome I treated everyday. His scholarly review was highly referenced. It was only when you went to the references (few actually read them) that you found out that about half of them were authored by himself, one went back to the civil war, and he simply ignored a huge volume of literature to the contrary. Lots of study references look impressive at first glance. What is more impressive is if the references really support the argument and give a complete picture. Apparently Rip was won you over. Fine. As far as I am concerned we will have to wait until the studies are done before we can make any determinations as to the real worth or not of these things. RVW has made up his mind without requiring a single study being done. I was pretty confident what the studies will show (I did my own afterall) and Luttrell supports my original opinion. Someday we will all know. if I am wrong, i will be the first to admit it if I am. I am looking forward to seeing Rip’s unpublished “study” proving PC’s to be worthless. It would save everyone a lot of time and many of you a lot of money if he would only get it out.
The fact that it seems pretty clear that elite cyclists do not tend to pedal in any particular way is not evidence that one way of pedaling is not superior to another. It is simply evidence that, if there is a superior way, that those who pedal in the inferior way have developed compensatory mechanisms (improved aerodynamics, different training regimen, drugs perhaps) to remain competetive or those that pedal in the superior fashion have not found it necessary to invoke all of the mechanisms available to remain competitive. This is especially true in a sport like cycling where so much of winning is based upon things other than raw power, like tactics, having a strong team, etc.
If one wants to prove that all pedaling styles are equal then one must be able to take mashers, turn them into “spinners” and show there was no change AND vice versa, keeping everything else equal of course (and how would you blind this study?). But, first, one must be able to show that one has a training technique that can reliably make a cyclist pedal in one way or another. I don’t think that has ever been done, hence the fact that cyclists are all over the place on pedaling technique.
vitus wrote: All I was trying to clear up in this thread was what you and others mean when you say that you used to apply backpressure on the upstroke pedal. I think I completely misunderstood what you’ve been saying about that.
No, I think you understood. I found out that I HAD been applying backpressure for the sake of smoothness. That IS a bad thing. My spin-scan peaks and valleys were pretty much very smooth looking (compared to most cyclists) pre-PC training. Now, I have much more variation between the peaks and valleys, but the entire graph average has moved higher. PC’s didn’t make me smoother, they did the opposite, because they taught me smoothness for the sake of smoothness was not good. I don’t know what my spin-scan on Rotorcranks shows, hopefully I’ll get a peak (pun intended) at that sometime soon. First, I want to find out if I’m actually faster on them on a measured, repeatable course.
RVW, JC, anybody will tell you that actively applying backpressure for the sake of smoothness is not a good strategy. I think RVW, JC, and almost everyone else that thinks about these things would agree…it’s just that I think they say a cyclist should be able to find their own pedal stroke style, and that pedal style will be OK. Maybe I was just an exception…my pedal stroke was very screwed up compared to what it is now, PowerCranks taught me better. FWIW, my pedalling is much choppier than it was prior to PowerCrank training…but, I’m faster…faster is what counts, regardless of how I got there. So, it isn’t smoothness, or continous tangential power application, or any such other adjective to describe a pedal stroke that is most important, what is most important is that you get the most out of your capabilities as possible. I imagine I would still be doing the same old thing had I not trained on PowerCranks, and I would still be solid MOP…after all, MOP is pretty good, why change? I’m glad I took the chance.
NOW, whether or not PowerCrank circular-style pedalling is THE cat’s pajama’s is yet to be proven in scientific literature. I understand that position. The position may never be changed. However, before the invention of the PowerCrank device, nobody has really been training this way, with the possible exception of the one-legged cyclists. One study seems to point that benefits are to be had by PowerCrank training. Time will tell if this holds up to scrutiny.
Curious writes: “Don’t know that anyone would argue that you should “apply” backpressure on the upstroke.”
Winkle does, or, he, at least, argues there is no benefit to trying to reduce or remove the backpressure on the upstroke. Push harder is the Winkle mantra.