how about " because they hadn’t used PC’s to train that style of pedalling".
honestly mr NOt, what is with that line of query. these riders had not done what PC’s do. it would be expected then, that they would not perform well at PC riding at all. they would be like anybody else just starting them, and completely uncoordinated in that style of riding - that is the whole point of PC’s !!
dude. the thing that is special about PC’s is that they train yu to do this W-E-L-L. riders who come to PC’s last like 5 minutes on them at first - these would be the riders from the test. a group of PC trained riders who can ride for hours on PC’s would unquestionably do better. the paper you keep citing is simply irrelvant to the conversation/debate. do you mean to say you honestly can’t see this?
well there we have it. my experience gives me EVERY reason to believe this group of riders would be wildly more efficient if they did the same test after prolonged PC use.
the point is the test has not been done thus. and so it means nothing other than you guessing one way on a possible outcome and me guessing another. i reckon this is why people actually DO tests, eh? and actually do test which are relevant to the points of inquiry. of course, i could also say that at least my guess is based on experience WITH the devices in question, and yours is based on. . . . . . . .what again? but that would be rather obvious by now, i should say.
- The ‘square’ pedal stroke of even the most powerful masher is cadence limiting. In other words, no matter how powerful the downstroke, if the rider can’t ‘get his foot ‘out-of-the-way’ on the upstroke, cadence is limited.
Tell that to the Marty Nothsteins of the world, who produce >2000 W at 120-140 rpm by mashing down hard on the pedals. (Ever watch a match sprint? You can see the bike scoot forward with each pedal stroke when these guys hit the gas.)
This whole issue would be easy to validate. Put a powerful ‘masher’ on some flat pedals and see if he can match this effort. If all the power is coming from the downstroke, these guys should be just as powerful on flats.
I have looked at Coyles paper and I have some comments regarding what I learned from it based upon my PC experience.
On page 12 it says “Group one was able to generate 11% more power than group 2 and they maintained a 10% higher bicycling velocity for 40 km.” An 11% increase in power should only result in a 3.5% increase in speed if aerodynamics are the same. But, if one has a more aero position, it is harder to lift the foot on the backstroke, accounting for the group one’s “lesser forces” on the backstroke. These guys have better learned (as they are more experienced) that they are faster sacrificing some efficiency for increased aerodynamcis. since, they are also in an extreme aero position, it is very difficult for them to “pull up” so to further increase power their only option is to push down more.
I see nothing in this paper that goes to “proving” or even suggesting that pulling up on the backstroke is bad or undesireable. The major thing to take from this study is that the more experienced and faster riders have developed better capillary beds, better strength, and better aerodynamics than lesser riders. Duh.
Frank
everyone has their own gas analyzer to measure efficiency. It is called heart rate.
Frank
my experience gives me EVERY reason to believe this group of riders would be wildly more efficient if they did the same test after prolonged PC use.
Why is that? Do you have gas analyzers such that you can measure your own efficiency?
mr Not you are beginning to disappoint me. ahhhh, no i do not have a whatever analyser. i am speculating just as you are on what your test would show if we used a group of PC trained athletes instead of untrained ones. as i have said i have ample reason to guess that the results would be different from your irrelevant to this debate test. these reasons include my own experience on PC’s, other users reports, the way in which untrained riders have difficulty adapting to PC’s, and numerous others. it is guess on an unknown. your own position is likewise a complete guess base don oservation and experience on an unknown.
your position is likewise a guess on an unknown, albeit based not on experience at all. perhaps yu fancy it based on the findings of your study which we have already identified as irrelevant - your choice. i might add that your steadfast devotion to form a guess in direct opposition to those who have used the devices is somewhat. . . . . . interesting, shall we say?
but let us be clear you are guessing, and not putting forward fact as you like to pretend. only when a test is run with PC trained riders will we know. i can live with this, and don’t mind admitting it at all. can you?
If Coyle had been on his toes he should have mentioned this obvious aerodynamics conclusion. He didn’t.
Also, on page 14 (106) he speculates “that these “low LT cyclists” may not yet have developed proper cycling technique” without defining what he means by “proper cycling technique”. Did he mean they weren’t mashing enough or what?
Seminal paper my foot.
Frank
…'everyone has their own gas analyzer to measure efficiency. It is called heart rate."…
well i’ll take mr day’s word on this. in my case my HR was 12 - 15 BPM lower at the same speed for 50% longer distance less than 10 weeks after starting PC riding. 
admittadly not a scientific test but plenty good enuf for me. oh, and my run off the bike was 1 min per mi faster for 50% longer at the same HR, too. the distances in question were a 1/2 IM distance as the pre PC baseline, and 3/4 IM distance after.
Aside from differences in courses, weather conditions, etc., there is also the fact that this study was conducted right at the beginning of the aero bar era - thus, some of the times may reflect that advantage, and others not.
I agree, there is nothing in this study that necessarily says that pulling up is bad or undesirable (aside from the fact that the subjects who pulled up the most, i.e., group 2, had lower LT and generated less powerthan those who pulled up less or not at all, i.e., group 1). However, it also doesn’t show any of the purported advantages to pulling up, such as increased power output or metabolic efficiency.
This “begging of the aero bar era” may explain the high negative pressures on the upstroke. I suspect it would be less today which would be supported by, i think, times have dropped since then. the problem is, inmy opinion, the author mentions this “fact” without commenting on it. Probably because it was in an era before aerodynamics was thought really important and this author had bought into this bias.
The the only study that can show which is more important are studies that compare PC riders to non-PC riders. I only know of a few and none have been published. One guy at University of Kansas did one on trained but not elite cyclists and showed efficiency improvements. nardello was studied at Mapei center last year and after, I think, 380 watts for an hour, had lower heart rate and lower lactate than the year before.
The suggestion is there that PC’s improve efficiency and power in cyclists at all levels. It just hasn’t been proven yet.
Frank
While HR can vary a lot between individuals for the same effort, and can very somewhat in an individual based upon state of training, HR is an extremely accurate indicator of exertion in any individual over short periods of time as it changes (under normal cirrcumstances) solely to maintain CO2 constant. And it is available everywhere and doesn’t require any equipment other than a watch. HR monitors make it simpler still and are quite affordable.
180+ responses to your original post. Must be a record.
Frank
ktalon, did you have any idea what you had given birth to when you started this thread?
I thought it was a pretty good paper. In 1988 I would have thought it was a great paper. In view of what I know now though it missed a lot and reached, I think, the wrong conclusions based on the data. I think there are better conclusions which makes me say this is not a seminal paper.
i can assure you Coyle (and many others) know more about mitochondrial function minutia than I do. But few know more about ordinary physiology and pathological physiology than an anesthesiologist. And having a nuclear engineering background gives me some background in mechanics to talk about engine efficiency.
So, i would love a point/counterpoint discussion as long as we could stay on topic (can learning to pedal in circles actually improve elite cyclists) and stay civilized.
BTW, i have had a few letters published in the anesthesia/medical literature so a search will turn up my name. However, i was a worker, not a researcher who was paid to publish. Anyone who reads a lot of these things knows a lot of the published literature is real crap. Don’t know about Coyle’s. This paper was pretty good, especially for the time.
Jaylew wrote: ktalon, did you have any idea what you had given birth to when you started this thread?
Dr. Jay, I had no idea. I was just reporting a very early test I made up. And, the test is faulty, because I had to stop pedaling with PC’s to maintain my Heartrate. On regular cranks, I didn’t ever stop. I need to re-do the test at a level where I can maintain a heartrate range without stopping with either set of cranks. AND, to be more meaningful to me, I need to do it at a higher level of exertion.
By the way…a did another max speed test on my regular cranks…still improving on them…I’m up to 38.5 mph in a 53X14, and I don’t go faster in a 53X13 on regular cranks. On PC’s, my max speed test is now 43 mph in a 53X14. I tried it in a 53X13, and went 44 mph! So, I’m still “getting in my way” on regular cranks in a sprint, and I think I’m limited in speed on PC’s by the rpms…that’s why a higher gear resulted in higher speeds on PCs. I did not go faster on PCs in a 53X12, though…
And, after this workout today, although it was short, and it followed a 3 hour PC ride two days ago with a 5K brick (in 23 minutes…real good for me), I ran another 5K…this time in 20:58! This wasn’t a race, but it was a hard effort. (My best time in a straight 5K race the past few years was 20:27, or something close to that, I don’t remember the exact time.)
Something good is happening for me…whatever the reason (s).
Wasn’t that about the speed Cippo was going when he got his “ticket”? Perhaps your next piece of equipment should be a radar detector and I thought PC’s was all anybody would ever need
Frank
Dr. Day wrote: 180+ responses to your original post. Must be a record.
I wonder if this is like getting the award for having the worst air quality in the nation! It has been informative in many ways, though this certainly is an imperfect medium to use for discussions. It’s too easy to write in a way that comes across as insulting, even when it isn’t meant to be. Heck, I’m chuckling as I write most any quip, which comes across as cutting or even rude sometimes. The smile and chuckle just don’t transmit over the internet. Well, everybody realizes it, I hope.
Force pedal recordings obtained today look no different than those recorded back in 1991 (or for decades before that - putting strain gauges on a bicycle crank is not a new idea). The reason people go faster now is A) aerodynamics and B) drugs.
The “force pedal recordings” that are put forth in Whitt and /wilson’s book (my main source) while not quantified, seems to have less back pressure than the data in the Coyle study which is why I thought this may be due to poor adaption to the aero position and that things may be somewhat less now.
I have been anxiously awaiting for someone to do a force pedal analysis and energy analysis on a PC’er for whom such data was available before they started on PC’s. It would also be interesting to get this on a regular basis and watch how they transition and see what happens if they go back to regular cranks. I can’t even get simple force pedal analysis as everyone who tells me they want to do this also tells me they are always broken.
It would be very informative to this discussion to get this data on just a single rider let alone a study.
You are correct, that data seems less than what is presented in Whitt and Wilson, although that data is not quantified so it is difficult to tell.
The group two data is the first time I have ever seen any data to suggest that anyone has developed the ability to keep forward pressure on the pedal for extended periods. Certainly Whitt and Wilson do not show that.
If your presumption is correct (that it is better to push down harder and pull up less) then the following question must be asked and answered. Why do cyclists progress from not pulling up at all (impossible before one is attached to pedals, how we all learn from age 2 to 10-20 or so) to pulling up some, then pulling up less as they progress from beginner, to good to elite? Coyle ignores this question in this paper. I think it is not intended by the cyclists but secondary to the more extreme aero position ridden by the elite cyclist as shown by the power/tt time ratios between the groups in Coyles paper which he failed to comment on. Do you have a different explanation?
Further, back pressure is more than just vertical pressure as it also constitutes backwards horizontal pressure near the top and bottom of the arc. So, “circular pedaling” involves constantly changing horizontal and vertical vectors for peak efficiency.
Since the ratio of O2 consumption at LT to VO2 max is different between the two groups (Table 4) I think the only valid real conclusion that can be drawn from this data is that those with better capillary density in the prime movers can sustain higher efforts than those that don’t.