Cycling Coaches in Sydney

[cyclissimo]

... that they make pedalling technique unimportant and something to be dismissed as a waste of valuable coaching time. ....

Before you can coach a behavior you have to hold a belief that training your client to adapt that behavior is in their best interest and will benefit them in some way.

Your continual arguments in favor of a pedaling style that apparently only you understand aren't really ready for the realm of coaching. First establish exactly what you're trying to accomplish and how it benefits the riders (that's the realm of sports science) then figure out a way to instruct and train riders to adopt this new technique (now we're getting to sports instruction and coaching).

But for all your drooling over Anquetil's pedaling I haven't seen any strong evidence that it makes a typical rider any faster nor have you proposed a reliable method for instructing this magical technique. Until you do those things (and people here have repeatedly asked you for this kind of supporting evidence) you're in the realm of supposition, not science and definitely not coaching.

If you've got it all figured out then work with a group of athlete's train them in this style of pedaling and get them out onto the racing circuit to kick some serious ass. It won't take long before riders are lining up at your door to learn your secret methods and coaches are calling you up for guidance in your approach. Or maybe approach a reputable university with a sports science program and pitch your observations on the benefits of this style of pedaling and your method for changing the nearly universal habits cyclist use while pedaling and have them perform some controlled and well constructed studies. But if you can't do something like that then exactly what would you like the coaches to start doing with their clients?

 

[fergie]

Your continual arguments in favor of a pedaling style that apparently only you understand aren't really ready for the realm of coaching.

And explain why increasing tangental force by X amount is effective when Coyle (1991) showed that cat 1 riders deliver more force over a lesser part of the pedal stroke at a higher power output than cat 2 riders.

 

[n crowley]

Before you can coach a behavior you have to hold a belief that training your client to adapt that behavior is in their best interest and will benefit them in some way.

Your continual arguments in favor of a pedaling style that apparently only you understand aren't really ready for the realm of coaching. First establish exactly what you're trying to accomplish and how it benefits the riders (that's the realm of sports science) then figure out a way to instruct and train riders to adopt this new technique (now we're getting to sports instruction and coaching).

But for all your drooling over Anquetil's pedaling I haven't seen any strong evidence that it makes a typical rider any faster nor have you proposed a reliable method for instructing this magical technique. Until you do those things (and people here have repeatedly asked you for this kind of supporting evidence) you're in the realm of supposition, not science and definitely not coaching.

If you've got it all figured out then work with a group of athlete's train them in this style of pedaling and get them out onto the racing circuit to kick some serious ass. It won't take long before riders are lining up at your door to learn your secret methods and coaches are calling you up for guidance in your approach. Or maybe approach a reputable university with a sports science program and pitch your observations on the benefits of this style of pedaling and your method for changing the nearly universal habits cyclist use while pedaling and have them perform some controlled and well constructed studies. But if you can't do something like that then exactly what would you like the coaches to start doing with their clients?

It's hard to know where to begin but here's a start, quoting B.Hinault who had a total of 10 Tour and 5 World Championship
TT victories during his cycling career. " Contrary to commomn belief and despite the apparent simplicity of the movements involved, pedalling must be learned. This doesn't mean you should force yourself into this or that style, trying to imitate some champion's technique. You can't copy from anyone else. But your personal style can gain a lot if you go beyond the stage of instinct , by thinking abiut the movement itself and doing special workouts to improve your natural efficiency. Adapting to big gears provides an excellent opportunity to work on your pedal style. If you want to go fast in a 53x12, which rolls out to 9.19 meters , it's not possible to use the economical style appropriate for moderate gears , doing most of the work at the power points and following the pedal for the rest of the revolution. That would put too much demand on the hip extensors and knee flexors. On the contrary you must work on powering the pedal through the complete etc. " Is that enough ?

 

[cyclissimo]

... Is that enough ?

No, you entirely sidestepped my questions.

What exactly do you think coaches should be instructing their clients to do and what evidence do you have that these clients will benefit from your methods?

The Badger's personal observations don't explain your theories nor do they explain what you find lacking in coaches instructional techniques. Find a way to demonstrate the superiority of your preferred pedaling technique and explain how coaches should proceed with their client's in terms of instructing this method.

P.S. BH's personal thoughts on the subject are obviously contrary to Coyle's famous study, so why do you accept the former and apparently ignore or reject the latter as Fergie keeps asking?

 

[daveryanwyoming]

I didn't realize coaching in Sydney was such a contentious occupation....

 

[n crowley]

No, you entirely sidestepped my questions.

What exactly do you think coaches should be instructing their clients to do and what evidence do you have that these clients will benefit from your methods?

The Badger's personal observations don't explain your theories nor do they explain what you find lacking in coaches instructional techniques. Find a way to demonstrate the superiority of your preferred pedaling technique and explain how coaches should proceed with their client's in terms of instructing this method.

P.S. BH's personal thoughts on the subject are obviously contrary to Coyle's famous study, so why do you accept the former and apparently ignore or reject the latter as Fergie keeps asking?

There is no contradiction, I agree with Coyle's findings, which is, the rider who stomps down hardest on the pedal will produce the greatest crank torque. But this is instantaneous power, ideal for sprinting or acceleration purposes but useless for sustainable high gear output in TT's. Coyle's instantaneous power is got by concentrating maximal effort in the "push down"
pedaller's very restricted tangential area around 3 o'c, this gives a lower gear effect. A rider can greatly increase the total crank torque in his downstroke by extending his area of max pedal force application to 180deg. of the downstroke while also extending his tangential effect area to 140 deg. This enables the rider to apply maximal crank torque through 12 o'c and eliminate that waste of applied pedal force caused by the lesser tangentially effective area in the downstroke of the natural or "push down" Coyle style pedaller.

 

[cyclissimo]

There is no contradiction, I agree with Coyle's findings, ... But this is instantaneous power, ideal for sprinting or acceleration purposes but useless for sustainable high gear output in TT's. ....

Coyle's 1991 study was explicitly in the context of 40K time trials, not sprints, not kilo starts, not peak power.

He found that national class time trial riders pushed down harder during a smaller percentage of the pedal cycle than state level riders and using that stomp harder method the national class riders rode faster 40K time trials.

I don't see how you can possibly suggest that Coyle's findings are restricted to peak power generation and not applicable to time trials, his findings were directly related to time trials.

 

[fergie]

It's hard to know where to begin but here's a start, quoting B.Hinault who had a total of 10 Tour and 5 World Championship
TT victories during his cycling career. " Contrary to commomn belief and despite the apparent simplicity of the movements involved, pedalling must be learned.

Well there is the problem. Taking an anecdote from a Professional Athlete who AFAIK is not a trained biomechanist or looking at video footage of a past legend without any hard data and acknowledging that his success could have been from other factors or pedalling may have even limited his performance over the well controlled research on the subject.

 

[n crowley]

Coyle's 1991 study was explicitly in the context of 40K time trials, not sprints, not kilo starts, not peak power.

He found that national class time trial riders pushed down harder during a smaller percentage of the pedal cycle than state level riders and using that stomp harder method the national class riders rode faster 40K time trials.

I don't see how you can possibly suggest that Coyle's findings are restricted to peak power generation and not applicable to time trials, his findings were directly related to time trials.

Coyle was comparing the stomping style to the weakest of all styles, the circular style, not the linear style that I use.

 

[cyclissimo]

Coyle was comparing the stomping style to the weakest of all styles, the circular style, not the linear style that I use.

Funny, a moment ago you were arguing that Coyle's findings didn't apply to time trials.

Damn busted on that one, better try another tack...

So none of these national class time trialists happened upon your 'linear' method and based on the force curves of the state level (still quite good riders) time trialists none of them happened on your magic method either.

Well that gets us back to my earlier post, if you want to gain any credibility with this approach you'd better recruit some cyclists that can demonstrate success with this 'linear' method and then you can run your own studies and show how much better it is than stompers or spinners. Given the 'obvious' superiority of the linear method, why do you suppose you seem to be the only person on the planet that's figured it out?

But until you demonstrate that 'obvious' superiority you've got nothing but supposition backed with no evidence.

Has it ever occurred to you that Anquetil might have developed a really bad pedaling habit but he was so damn fit he managed to get away with it?

 

[steve]

The OP asked;

Does anyone know of any decent cycling coaches in the Sydney area?
Preferably around South Western Sydney, say Liverpool?

It might be an idea to start another thread if you want to discuss studies on pedaling technique

 

[n crowley]

Has it ever occurred to you that Anquetil might have developed a really bad pedaling habit but he was so damn fit he managed to get away with it?

Well you are wrong there, Anquetil's technique was so superior in TT's that he was able to wine and dine into the early hours and still win his TT's next day. The latest Powermeters currently being built should be able to print out simultaneous applied pedal force/resultant crank torque values every 3 deg. of the pedalling circle, but we are only interested in the downstroke half, for me that's 11 to 5 for you 12 to 6 o'c. Results could be very interesting.

 

[n crowley]

Given the 'obvious' superiority of the linear method, why do you suppose you seem to be the only person on the planet that's figured it out?

Two important facts were responsible, I did not believe the teaching of the experts (narrow bars restrict breathing) and because of this when I had the idea of biomechanically combining the upper body arm power of a handcrank rider with the lower body leg power of a natural cyclist, I was successful. Anquetil's linear pedalling style was the result.

 

[fergie]

The latest Powermeters currently being built should be able to print out simultaneous applied pedal force/resultant crank torque values every 3 deg. of the pedalling circle, but we are only interested in the downstroke half, for me that's 11 to 5 for you 12 to 6 o'c. Results could be very interesting.

Frank is creaming himself over that as well. Ignoring the fact that we have been measuring pedal forces for the last 30 years. Not sure why you both are expecting a different result to come from the pedal based power meter when the data is no different to previous measures.

 

[Alex Simmons]

The OP asked;



It might be an idea to start another thread if you want to discuss studies on pedaling technique

LOL - it has a life of it's own

 

[Alex Simmons]

I didn't realize coaching in Sydney was such a contentious occupation....

You don't know the half of it.

Well, if I could only improve my pedalling technique.

Hang on, I'm missing an ankle. Bugger, there goes that idea down the body parts waste bin.

Must explain how I was able to do my 2 x 20-min TTIs today at 306 & 307 watts, or ~97% of my pre amputation TTI power levels. More to come on that front I'd say.

 

[Fday]

Coyle's 1991 study was explicitly in the context of 40K time trials, not sprints, not kilo starts, not peak power.

He found that national class time trial riders pushed down harder during a smaller percentage of the pedal cycle than state level riders and using that stomp harder method the national class riders rode faster 40K time trials.

I don't see how you can possibly suggest that Coyle's findings are restricted to peak power generation and not applicable to time trials, his findings were directly related to time trials.

Actually, if you will read the paper carefully, about all he showed was:

1. the better riders had 3 more years of aerobic training than the lesser riders and,

2. the better riders also had to have been more aerodynamic since they were, as I remember generated only 11% more power but were 10% faster. A 10% increase in speed, if the aerodynamics are the same, would require an approximate 30% increase in power.

 

[cyclissimo]

Actually, if you will read the paper carefully, about all he showed was:

1. the better riders had 3 more years of aerobic training than the lesser riders and,

2. the better riders also had to have been more aerodynamic since they were, as I remember generated only 11% more power but were 10% faster. A 10% increase in speed, if the aerodynamics are the same, would require an approximate 30% increase in power.

No argument, but it also showed that the national class riders generated higher peak forces distributed over a smaller percentage of the pedal stroke which is actually relevant to the tangent this discussion has taken. It does not as you've previously pointed out demonstrate a causal relationship but it does demonstrate a very strong correlation between less round pedal strokes, higher sustained power and faster time trial times.

The 10% power increase, more years of cycling and perhaps better aerodynamics are all interesting but not the point of this discussion and if anything suggests that successful riders with more years of training spin less and push more.

Maybe better aerodynamics makes them push more and spin less or maybe it's the other way around or maybe it's pure coincidence but the study did show what these riders were doing and the faster guys spun less.

 

[Enriss]

Did the better riders exert less force or proportionally less force outside of the "stomp" ?

 

[Fday]

No argument, but it also showed that the national class riders generated higher peak forces distributed over a smaller percentage of the pedal stroke which is actually relevant to the tangent this discussion has taken. It does not as you've previously pointed out demonstrate a causal relationship but it does demonstrate a very strong correlation between less round pedal strokes, higher sustained power and faster time trial times.

The 10% power increase, more years of cycling and perhaps better aerodynamics are all interesting but not the point of this discussion and if anything suggests that successful riders with more years of training spin less and push more.

Maybe better aerodynamics makes them push more and spin less or maybe it's the other way around or maybe it's pure coincidence but the study did show what these riders were doing and the faster guys spun less.

The purpose of the study was to try to determine what sets the "elite" rider apart from the good rider. It does not seem like such a surprising finding that more powerful riders push on the pedals harder than less powerful riders. It is also not clear what the paper also said about "spinning" since the elite group completely unweighted on the backstroke, which many define as spinning.

The paper was brought into this discussion by someone other than myself with an attempt to show the paper "proved" something it did not, to make a point. You would think as often as this paper has been discussed that some of them would have learned what this paper actually says by now.