Pedaling Technique

After reading all the recent posts about the merits of Power Cranks I’ve started wondering if there is a definitive technique that is optimal for pedaling that works best for all riders.

Are there any scientific studys to justify “pedaling in circles vs. mashing the pedals”? Are different variations of these techniques appropriate for various types of terrain or riders or for that matter in different types of events?

Although I haven’t tried Power Cranks, I can see the benefits of strengthening the hip flexor muscles in training, but doesn’t the use of PC’s in racing create a situation where the fatiguing of the hip flexors becomes a limiting factor to even finish the race. When you ride with regular cranks you have a choice of using various muscles to turn the cranks, but it would seem with PC’s when your hip flexors are shot you’re out of the race.

Also when using PC’s can you climb out of the saddle or are you limited to staying seated and spinning?

I’m not anti-PC’s and will probably try them after I get a season on my Computrainer and see what improvements that makes.

Richard

Francois,

I know you have said in the past that you pedal about 70 rpm’s with PC’s. Would your cadence be faster if you weren’t using the PC’s? I ask this because I like to pedal >82 rpm’s and wonder if I would have to slow down my cadence at first or permanently with the PC’s.

Also have you compared your spin scan numbers with and w/o the PC’s? Just curious.

thanks

Richard

Figured I would bring up a old debate. Anyone got answers? I do not see any comparable difference concerning cadence with my Qrings on setting 3. But I do see that my legs are fresher for the run and that the “dead spot” seems not to be there. Feels as if I am pedaling with more efficiancy. If you have PC’s do you see that or do you see that your legs are stronger from using different muscles. Anyone tried all three and have a comparision?

Huh? Is that like making a motion similar to a cross country skiing motion?

Can you elaborate on the ankling ?

Sounds kind of like when I try to sprint from a sitting position till I am up to a sustainable speed. Maybe I should try to do this more? In practice and see how it pans out first of course.

Are there any scientific studys to justify “pedaling in circles vs. mashing the pedals”?
You probably want to read this paper:
** **Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007 Jun;39(6):991-5.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.tproxy01.lib.utah.edu/corehtml/query/egifs/http:--www.lwwonline.com-pt-pt-core-template-journal-lwwgateway-images-pmlogo.gif Links http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.tproxy01.lib.utah.edu/corehtml/query/egifs/g_100x25_DB__ft__3347.gif Effect of pedaling technique on mechanical effectiveness and efficiency in cyclists. Korff T, Romer LM, Mayhew I, Martin JC.
Brunel University, Centre for Sports Medicine and Human Performance, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UK. thomas.korff@brunel.ac.uk
PURPOSE: To optimize endurance cycling performance, it is important to maximize efficiency. Power-measuring cranks and force-sensing pedals can be used to determine the mechanical effectiveness of cycling. From both a coaching and basic science perspective, it is of interest if a mechanically effective pedaling technique leads to greater efficiency. Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine the effect of different pedaling techniques on mechanical effectiveness and gross efficiency during steady-state cycling. METHODS: Eight male cyclists exercised on a cycle ergometer at 90 rpm and 200 W using four different pedaling techniques: preferred pedaling; pedaling in circles; emphasizing the pull during the upstroke; and emphasizing the push during the downstroke. Each exercise bout lasted 6 min and was interspersed with 6 min of passive rest. We obtained mechanical effectiveness and gross efficiency using pedal-reaction forces and respiratory measures, respectively. RESULTS: When the participants were instructed to pull on the pedal during the upstroke, mechanical effectiveness was greater (index of force effectiveness=62.4+/-9.8%) and gross efficiency was lower (gross efficiency=19.0+/-0.7%) compared with the other pedaling conditions (index of force effectiveness=48.2+/-5.1% and gross efficiency=20.2+/-0.6%; means and standard deviations collapsed across preferred, circling, and pushing conditions). Mechanical effectiveness and gross efficiency during the circling and pushing conditions did not differ significantly from the preferred pedaling condition. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical effectiveness is not indicative of gross efficiency across pedaling techniques. These results thereby provide coaches and athletes with useful information for interpreting measures of mechanical effectiveness.

Cheers,

Jim

Are there any scientific studys to justify “pedaling in circles vs. mashing the pedals”?
You probably want to read this paper:
** **Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007 Jun;39(6):991-5.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.tproxy01.lib.utah.edu/corehtml/query/egifs/http:--www.lwwonline.com-pt-pt-core-template-journal-lwwgateway-images-pmlogo.gif Links http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.tproxy01.lib.utah.edu/corehtml/query/egifs/g_100x25_DB__ft__3347.gif Effect of pedaling technique on mechanical effectiveness and efficiency in cyclists. Korff T, Romer LM, Mayhew I, Martin JC.
Brunel University, Centre for Sports Medicine and Human Performance, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UK. thomas.korff@brunel.ac.uk
PURPOSE: To optimize endurance cycling performance, it is important to maximize efficiency. Power-measuring cranks and force-sensing pedals can be used to determine the mechanical effectiveness of cycling. From both a coaching and basic science perspective, it is of interest if a mechanically effective pedaling technique leads to greater efficiency. Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine the effect of different pedaling techniques on mechanical effectiveness and gross efficiency during steady-state cycling. METHODS: Eight male cyclists exercised on a cycle ergometer at 90 rpm and 200 W using four different pedaling techniques: preferred pedaling; pedaling in circles; emphasizing the pull during the upstroke; and emphasizing the push during the downstroke. Each exercise bout lasted 6 min and was interspersed with 6 min of passive rest. We obtained mechanical effectiveness and gross efficiency using pedal-reaction forces and respiratory measures, respectively. RESULTS: When the participants were instructed to pull on the pedal during the upstroke, mechanical effectiveness was greater (index of force effectiveness=62.4+/-9.8%) and gross efficiency was lower (gross efficiency=19.0+/-0.7%) compared with the other pedaling conditions (index of force effectiveness=48.2+/-5.1% and gross efficiency=20.2+/-0.6%; means and standard deviations collapsed across preferred, circling, and pushing conditions). Mechanical effectiveness and gross efficiency during the circling and pushing conditions did not differ significantly from the preferred pedaling condition. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical effectiveness is not indicative of gross efficiency across pedaling techniques. These results thereby provide coaches and athletes with useful information for interpreting measures of mechanical effectiveness.

Cheers,

Jim
Well, we have been all over this paper before. It really doesn’t show anything worthwhile.

Asking someone to pedal in a manner that they haven’t trained themselves to pedal in (using muscles and a coordination they normally don’t use when riding) is hardly likely to demonstrate improvement. Further, as a rule, no group actually was able to pedal in the pattern they were asked to pedal.

we have been all over this paper before. It really doesn’t show anything worthwhile.
Ah, yes after a quick search for Korff I see that you and Andy have discussed it a bit. Despite your previous discussion and the dismissive comment above, it would seem that editors and reviewers at MSSE, the official journal of the American College of Sports Medicine, thought it had something worthwhile to show. Also, the original poster was interested specifically in studies on pedaling circles vs mashing so pointing him/her to the Korff paper might is about as relevant as I can imagine.

The way I read the Korff paper, the cyclists in the study were able to change the way they pedaled significantly and increase their mechanical effectiveness. I believe that many cyclists and triathletes would think that was “worthwhile”. Paradoxically, pulling up more was actually less efficient, which suggests that muscles that flex the leg may be less efficient than those that extend the leg.

Of course I can understand how this would not set well with you, the owner of power cranks, because it shows that the whole notion of pulling up is not beneficial for efficiency. Perhaps a more recent paper by Williams and coworkers from University of Tasmania would provide some additional information on pedaling technique after training for six weeks with uncoupled cranks. Happy reading.
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2009 Mar;4(1):18-28.Links Cycling efficiency and performance following short-term training using uncoupled cranks. Williams AD, Raj IS, Stucas KL, Fell JW, Dickenson D, Gregory JR.
School of Human Life Sciences, University of Tasmania, Australia.
OBJECTIVES: Uncoupled cycling cranks are designed to remove the ability of one leg to assist the other during the cycling action. It has been suggested that training with this type of crank can increase mechanical efficiency. However, whether these improvements can confer performance enhancement in already well-trained cyclists has not been reported. METHOD: Fourteen well-trained cyclists (13 males, 1 female; 32.4 +/- 8.8 y; 74.5 +/- 10.3 kg; Vo2max 60.6 +/- 5.5 mL.kg-1.min-1; mean +/- SD) participated in this study. Participants were randomized to training on a stationary bicycle using either an uncoupled (n = 7) or traditional crank (n = 7) system. Training involved 1-h sessions, 3 days per week for 6 weeks, and at a heart rate equivalent to 70% of peak power output (PPO) substituted into the training schedule in place of other training. Vo2max, lactate threshold, gross efficiency, and cycling performance were measured before and following the training intervention. Pre- and posttesting was conducted using traditional cranks. RESULTS: No differences were observed between the groups for changes in Vo2max, lactate threshold, gross efficiency, or average power maintained during a 30-minute time trial. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that 6 weeks (18 sessions) of training using an uncoupled crank system does not result in changes in any physiological or performance measures in well-trained cyclists.

we have been all over this paper before. It really doesn’t show anything worthwhile.

In your haste to slam him, you evidently missed the fact that the second study you cited was discussed a few days ago. I’m not a fan of PC’s, but the study had them cycling 3 hours per week in 3 separate 1 hour sessions at 70% of VO2. NOTHING will make a difference in that small of a workload.

John

Can you elaborate on the ankling ?

This is a great visual on ankling with commentary. I found a saddle height change necessary and well as moving it forward a bit, but once I did I have never experienced such a big boost in performance. I dropeed about 8 beats/min average for the same speed. Doesn’t work for everyone, but it sure did for me in instant performance and really made my stroke feel like there were no dead spots…of course it’s not perfect, but it’s much better than the previous 24 years of cycling for sure. There are a couple of other links here that get hyper-technical, but hopefully one of them will have a buzz word of diagram that helps get the point across. I do believe once you find it you will say ‘bingo’…you will feel things smooth out methinks. I love it.

http://www.dshen.com/training/pedalstroke.pdf
http://www.perfectcondition.ltd.uk/Articles/Pedalling/index.htm
http://www.cyclingtipsblog.com/2009/05/efficiency-of-pedal-stroke-ankling/

Looks to be exactly what I am looking for to read and show me.
THANKS ! I am thinking your cadence dropped ? or your heart rate ? either way sounds like you found a way to get your legs fresher for the run. Coupled with the Qrings I have hopefully my legs will feel even better after my bike. Work smarter not harder is what I keep telling myself. I only have about 4 years of cycling to fall back on and most tri training long hours by myself. Before that it was BMX when I was mucho younger (40 now). Time to get serius about the bike.

Yea I think my cadence dropped, but only slightly as I didn’t count it out. Never had a cadence meter until this year. I know while maintaining my spot on the pace line over the same course, same guys, same speeds…my HR went down as much as 8-10 bpm and yea I would say it was a slightly slower cadence, but some of that could have been borne out of being more aware that my pedal stroke is not just a mash down move at 3 o’clock if you follow me? I know it’s harder to do when the cadence gets REALLY fast, but I’m a masher so that isn’t really an issue too often.

we have been all over this paper before. It really doesn’t show anything worthwhile.

In your haste to slam him, you evidently missed the fact that the second study you cited was discussed a few days ago. I’m not a fan of PC’s, but the study had them cycling 3 hours per week in 3 separate 1 hour sessions at 70% of VO2. NOTHING will make a difference in that small of a workload.

John
And, it is even less likely that asking someone to change something (without regard to how well they can make the change) and measuring the effect, when there has been zero time for training effect to occur has an even smaller chance of showing a difference.

To answer one of your questions… Yes you can climb out of the saddle with PCs and it is a joy to do so. You’re not going to be able to do it on your first attempt for sure, but with just a little practice it will come. What takes more practice is standing and maintaining a high cadence, it is difficult to “spin” while standing. Once you master it though, you will be “dancing on the pedals” when you climb out of the saddle on your regular cranks.

One more answer…the use of PCs in racing doesn’t create anything different than the use of PCs in training. If you aren’t comfortable riding the race distance and then running immediately after in training, then I would’nt recommend doing so in a race. You are right that once your hip-flexors are shot, they’re shot, but it would be foolish to take it to that limit on race day for the first time.

Cheers Big Ears!

To answer one of your questions… Yes you can climb out of the saddle with PCs and it is a joy to do so. You’re not going to be able to do it on your first attempt for sure, but with just a little practice it will come. What takes more practice is standing and maintaining a high cadence, it is difficult to “spin” while standing. Once you master it though, you will be “dancing on the pedals” when you climb out of the saddle on your regular cranks.

One more answer…the use of PCs in racing doesn’t create anything different than the use of PCs in training. If you aren’t comfortable riding the race distance and then running immediately after in training, then I would’nt recommend doing so in a race. You are right that once your hip-flexors are shot, they’re shot, but it would be foolish to take it to that limit on race day for the first time.

Cheers Big Ears!
We have had some people race on them way before they were ready, struggling the last 25% on the bike. Almost to a man they have reported having above average runs. Luke Dragstra did the Tucson tri a couple of years ago after only 6 weeks on the PC’s. Reported being in survival mode the last 10 miles of the bike. Got off the bike and had the fastest run of the day and he came in 2nd overall, as I remember. He couldn’t believe it.

It seems that the HF’s seem to recover pretty quickly during the 2-3 minutes during transition and they are not used as extensively during the run as the PC’s force you to use them on the bike.

You are thinkin to hard. I think it comes down to “just pedal” …really

I’m not sure if you realized this but that post from from december of 2002

jaretj
.

There’s a whole section in the new Pose Triathlon book on pedaling technique. It is very interesting stuff and brings up a lot of points that aren’t talked about much when dealing with pedaling. Of interest is the fact that you aren’t “pushing” a pedal, you are simply applying a percentage of your body weight into the bike’s system. He really gets into what he believes is the most effecient method to pedal when looking at it from all angles…gravity, etc. It has definitely made me think.
david K

the second study you cited was discussed a few days ago. I’m not a fan of PC’s, but the study had them cycling 3 hours per week in 3 separate 1 hour sessions at 70% of VO2. NOTHING will make a difference in that small of a workload.

No? Then why did efficiency at 70% of VO2max and, more importantly, average power during the 30 min TT significantly improve in both groups?