Cadance

ric_stern/RST said:

most peer reviewed research on this subject. for e.g., see ncbi.nlm.nih.govquery.fcgiOpen ↗

Ric

This link does not support your assertion that Pros do not use the upstroke of the cycling motion.

It says nothing even remotely similar.

BillM said:

This link does not support your assertion that Pros do not use the upstroke of the cycling motion.

It says nothing even remotely similar.

😕

Quoted post said:

The higher performance power output of group 1 was produced primarily by generating higher peak torques about the center of the crank by applying larger vertical forces to the crank arm during the cycling downstroke. Compared with group 2, group 1 also produced higher peak torques and vertical forces during the downstroke even when cycling at the same absolute work rate as group 2. Factors possibly contributing to the ability of group 1 to produce higher "downstroke power" are a greater percentage of Type I muscle fibers (P less than 0.05) and a 23% greater (P less than 0.05) muscle capillary density compared with group 2. We have also observed a strong relationship between years of endurance training and percent Type I muscle fibers (r = 0.75; P less than 0.001). It appears that "elite-national class" cyclists have the ability to generate higher "downstroke power", possibly as a result of muscular adaptations stimulated by more years of endurance training.

Emphasis mine. How is that not remotely similar to Ric's statement that you quoted in post #10? 😕

frenchyge said:

😕

Emphasis mine. How is that not remotely similar to Ric's statement that you quoted in post #10? 😕

It doesn't really mention how much force was applied during the upstroke by the 6 riders in Group 1 (actually the average of group 1, individuals within that group could vary). It only says that they apply more force during the downstroke at a given power than the other group.

Not worth worrying about anyway since the group is so small, we know little about the type of racing each group prepares for, and the issue of whether the upstroke could be more utilized for even better performance is not addressed.

WarrenG said:

It doesn't really mention how much force was applied during the upstroke by the 6 riders in Group 1 (actually the average of group 1, individuals within that group could vary). It only says that they apply more force during the downstroke at a given power than the other group.

Not worth worrying about anyway since the group is so small, we know little about the type of racing each group prepares for, and the issue of whether the upstroke could be more utilized for even better performance is not addressed.

Exactly.

This link does not even discuss the upstroke and it sure doesn't say that Pro riders do not use the upstroke which was the original assertion.

It's a study that proves nothing that you couldn't ascertain from 10 minutes on a bike.

I'm just a beginner, but all I know is that on the flats or near flats my legs burn at anything less than 90rpms.

BillM said:

Exactly.

This link does not even discuss the upstroke.....

That's true, the abstract doesn't (however the charts within the study show it very clearly). But if the force was as even as you'd think, why would they have spent so much time talking about the more powerful downstroke? Look at the first sentence, which litterally states that the greater power was primarily due to greater downstroke force. Why are you arguing that that's not even remotely in support of what Ric said?

BillM said:

...and it sure doesn't say that Pro riders do not use the upstroke which was the original assertion.

C'mon Bill, 12 posts here and you can't even be bothered to go back and look at the text you quoted in your own post? 🙄 Here it is, for your convenience:

ric_stern/RST said:

From data from force measuring pedals, better (e.g. elite) riders push down more and pull up less, in other words they don't pedal all the way around the circle.

Ric

WarrenG said:

It doesn't really mention how much force was applied during the upstroke by the 6 riders in Group 1 (actually the average of group 1, individuals within that group could vary).

Not in the abstract, but it does within the collected data.

WarrenG said:

It only says that they apply more force during the downstroke at a given power than the other group.

Not worth worrying about anyway since the group is so small, we know little about the type of racing each group prepares for, and the issue of whether the upstroke could be more utilized for even better performance is not addressed.

Sure, I won't try to defend the quality of the study. I'm just not sure why some people try to build up strawman arguments in order to win an internet debate. Most of us are just here to learn or share -- not win arguments.

hazyjane said:

Nice - pick one out of over 100 scientific reports on the subject. Please!?!?

What about these studies (all scientific reports with links to abstract at PubMed):

• In professional road cyclists, low pedaling cadences are less efficient
  
• Cycling cadence alters exercise hemodynamics
  
• Effect of pedal cadence on the accumulated oxygen deficit, maximal aerobic power and blood lactate transition thresholds of high-performance junior endurance cyclists.
  

I'm not saying you must pedal at 120 all the time ONLY that it's probably not a good idea treading at 60 rpm and worth a try to increase a little and see if it feels better.

Non-sequitor: Ric's point was essentially that elite cyclists typically don't pull up more than non-elite cyclists, and nobody pulls up very much at all. Cadence, per se, has nothing to do with this fact, and so the references that he chose not to cite (but you did) are not approros to the discussion.

WarrenG said:

It doesn't really mention how much force was applied during the upstroke by the 6 riders in Group 1 (actually the average of group 1, individuals within that group could vary). It only says that they apply more force during the downstroke at a given power than the other group.

Not worth worrying about anyway since the group is so small, we know little about the type of racing each group prepares for, and the issue of whether the upstroke could be more utilized for even better performance is not addressed.

Clearly you haven't read the paper, because if you had, you'd know that 1) individual data are presented therein, and 2) sufficient information is provided about the subjects' racing backgrounds to not only know what type of events they competed in, but even to identify them by name (if you were around the US racing scene in the late 1980's, that is).

Dietmar said:

Typically, the guys with the really big legs will be more efficient at lower cadences, and vice versa. You can observe that law at work in pro riders as well, comparing e.g. Armstrong with Ullrich.

Just a little sidetrack: As far as I remember Ullrich weighed in 2-3kg lighter than Armstrong in TdF 2005, and he (Ullrich) is also 4-5cm taller.

It's a myth that Ullrich has got big legs, Armstrong had bigger legs... :eek:

_________
CycleFast

acoggan said:

Clearly you haven't read the paper, because if you had, you'd know that 1) individual data are presented therein, and 2) sufficient information is provided about the subjects' racing backgrounds to not only know what type of events they competed in, but even to identify them by name (if you were around the US racing scene in the late 1980's, that is).

...Relying on a study of 6 US racers from 15+ years ago to support an approach to pedaling. That's weak evidence in light of the fact that countless people have improved their ability by teaching themselves to apply a bit more force on the upstroke than they did previously...

Do you have any studies to share where the riders tried various cadences and upstroke/downstroke strategies with sufficient time (weeks, months) to adapt to what could help them?

WarrenG said:

...Relying on a study of 6 US racers from 15+ years ago to support an approach to pedaling.

Nobody's offered an approach to pedalling. It's merely been said that at least one study on the topic showed that the tendency is such, contrary to popular belief which doesn't seem to be based on anything even as tenuous as the study which has been offered -- unless you have a study to add, for comparison.

You guys keep this discussion going and what's his name with the power crank thingy will back for a more lively and repeated debate. 🙂

WarrenG said:

...Relying on a study of 6 US racers from 15+ years ago to support an approach to pedaling. That's weak evidence in light of the fact that countless people have improved their ability by teaching themselves to apply a bit more force on the upstroke than they did previously...

Repeat after me, Warren: the plural of anecdote is not evidence.

WarrenG said:

Do you have any studies to share where the riders tried various cadences and upstroke/downstroke strategies with sufficient time (weeks, months) to adapt to what could help them?

I don't know of anyone who has wasted their time doing such a study, because it is clear from what has already been done that this is basically barking up the wrong tree. For example, if some particular way of pedaling were particularly advantageous, then you would expect that the "crucible of competition" would rapidly eliminate those who haven't mastered this technique, as occurs/has occurred in other sports (e.g., speedskating). Yet, when the pattern of muscle use of professional cyclists is examined, it turns out to be all over the map:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15098128&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum

frenchyge said:

Nobody's offered an approach to pedalling. It's merely been said that at least one study on the topic showed that the tendency is such, contrary to popular belief which doesn't seem to be based on anything even as tenuous as the study which has been offered -- unless you have a study to add, for comparison.

Warren doesn't believe in science.

Felt_Rider said:

You guys keep this discussion going and what's his name with the power crank thingy will back for a more lively and repeated debate. 🙂

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! 😄 :eek: 🙄

acoggan said:

Repeat after me, Warren: the plural of anecdote is not evidence.

I don't know of anyone who has wasted their time doing such a study, because it is clear from what has already been done that this is basically barking up the wrong tree. For example, if some particular way of pedaling were particularly advantageous, then you would expect that the "crucible of competition" would rapidly eliminate those who haven't mastered this technique, as occurs/has occurred in other sports (e.g., speedskating). Yet, when the pattern of muscle use of professional cyclists is examined, it turns out to be all over the map:

Has anyone said that one way is the best way for everyone?

Spend a few hours in the infield at masters track nat's or worlds. Go up to each rider who is riding rollers and ask them what riding rollers teaches them, or has taught them about the benefits of smoothing out the pedal stroke- which is done by evening out the forces being applied around the pedal circle (relatively speaking). Ask them what used to happen when they applied too much of the force (relatively speaking) during the downstroke and ask them how their extensive practice has, and continues to help them on the track and on the road.

Then tell them they're "barking up the wrong tree". Your unique blend of arrogant ignorance was the source of amusement last week among a suprising number of successsful racers who have read your comments like this, so this latest one should be good for some more amusement.

As for your comment that the, ' "crucible of competition" would rapidly eliminate those who haven't mastered this technique', you can learn about this by considering the high percentage of the top riders at these events who have employed rollers to help improve, and maintain their pedaling. In effect, their improved pedaling has helped them to prevail over others who have not fully explored this area and who could benefit from this learning and practice.

We also see this on the road where some top riders have used various methods of improving their pedaling on their way to the top, and while they're around the top.

Maybe the possible improvement is small-maybe too small to stand up to the statistical demands of a formal study. Afterall, who cares about a possible 1% improvement in speed, power, endurance, time, etc.?

WarrenG said:

Spend a few hours in the infield at masters track nat's or worlds. Go up to each rider who is riding rollers and ask them what riding rollers teaches them, or has taught them about the benefits of smoothing out the pedal stroke- which is done by evening out the forces being applied around the pedal circle (relatively speaking). Ask them what used to happen when they applied too much of the force (relatively speaking) during the downstroke and ask them how their extensive practice has, and continues to help them on the track and on the road.

Then tell them they're "barking up the wrong tree". Your unique blend of arrogant ignorance was the source of amusement last week among a suprising number of successsful racers who have read your comments like this, so this latest one should be good for some more amusement.

As for your comment that the, ' "crucible of competition" would rapidly eliminate those who haven't mastered this technique', you can learn about this by considering the high percentage of the top riders at these events who have employed rollers to help improve, and maintain their pedaling. In effect, their improved pedaling has helped them to prevail over others who have not fully explored this area and who could benefit from this learning and practice.

We also see this on the road where some top riders have used various methods of improving their pedaling on their way to the top, and while they're around the top.

Maybe the possible improvement is small-maybe too small to stand up to the statistical demands of a formal study. Afterall, who cares about a possible 1% improvement in speed, power, endurance, time, etc.?

The fallacy of your arguments is illustrated by the thread over on fixedgearfever.com about the rider who raced all of master nationals in the wrong freakin' gear!! Given that our kinesthetic sense is unable to detect differences such as this one, why would you believe that you have any true idea of how you're applying force to the pedals w/o direct measurements? The answer is that you can't...which makes all of your "evidence" above essentially meaningless.

(BTW, as part of the US Olympic effort in 1984, the team pursuit squad trained extensively on ergometers with direct measurement of the pattern of force application at the pedal for feedback. This enabled them to alter their pattern of force application such that it was "rounder", but did not improve their performance ability, and sans feedback they reverted to their previous pedaling motion...which, interestingly enough, did not entail a significant degree of "pulling up", despite the many hours such riders had spent spinning rollers.)

acoggan said:

The fallacy of your arguments is illustrated by the thread over on fixedgearfever.com about the rider who raced all of master nationals in the wrong freakin' gear!!

One person to make something a fallacy for many?

acoggan said:

Given that our kinesthetic sense is unable to detect differences such as this one, why would you believe that you have any true idea of how you're applying force to the pedals w/o direct measurements?

You're so funny! 😄 😄 😄 Thanks for that.

WarrenG said:

Has anyone said that one way is the best way for everyone?

Just this person:

hazyjane said:

Last, but not least, don't forget to not just push down the pedals but keep a smooth circle utilizing every inch of it.

Everything else has been Ric, me, and now Andy saying that there's *not* a certain style that needs to be adopted -- with you apparently arguing the contrary. 😉