One Legged Training

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by VeloFlash
I was having a discussion with Martin Vinnicombe, a cycling coach and former World track kilo champion, about pedal technique for a start of a track TT/pursuit.

He said to totally concentrate on your downstroke and forget about your upstroke. Bringing in concentrating on the upstroke is an inefficient application of power as for the maximum (wasted) effort you get about a 15% return versus 100% on the downstroke.

The upstroke only should come into play in the first couple of rotations and then it is total concentration on power application to the downstroke.

IMHO, from experience I find one legged cycling drills a waste of precious cycling time. You gain more neurological adaption by concentrating on technique by cycling with both legs, as the designs of Messrs. Shimano and Campagnola intended.

I agree 100 per cent with his advice, pulling up can offer extra
power for the initial acceleration but that is all. The best way to
practice this is to follow the stop at red lights advice and
give it all you have got at the green.
For anyone who is interested I did already state that Anquetil's
power generating technique can , when extreme effort is called for, totally eliminate the dead spot area (11 to 1 o'clock) but this
cannot be maintained for long. However a new idea ROTOR
CRANKS has come on the market and together with Anquetil's
technique give pedaling perfection and make completely
eliminating the dead spot area so easy. On their own, they only
give one third of the advantage and you still have all the
disadvantages of round pedaling, back pain , knee pain,
sliding forward on the saddle and the inability to combine arm
resistance and hip/leg power when riding at speed in the saddle.

Isolated leg training (ILT) or one-legged riding is highly effective. It will improve cycling-specific leg strength and power output.

If anyone out there has experience with weights, you know that it is much harder to press 2x50 dumbells than it is to press a 100 lb. barbell. ILT is no different.

ILT is hard to do even for very strong riders if they are not used to it. Most riders can't do 60 seconds in their easiest gear with one leg. After a month or so, they will be a heavy gear in the big ring lasting 3-5 minutes or more. Improvements with ILT are more rapid than with any other training, it's amazing how fast you improve.

You have to pull up when doing ILT, but forget about pulling up, that's not what's important. ILT builds massive pushdown forces, increasing torque, which traslates to increased power output at higher rpm. That's the major benefit.

Some people are against it, they say it doesn't work. I liken these people to doctors who tell people they will never walk again, until one day they do, proving that "experts" are often wrong at predicting outcomes.

I think some people could make a major decision, like the purchase of a new house or car in far less time than wondering if ILT works.

It only takes 10-20 minutes on a trainer to do an ILT workout. If you want to find out if ILT works, what's stopping you from trying???

Originally posted by J-MAT, i responded with >>

Isolated leg training (ILT) or one-legged riding is highly effective. It will improve cycling-specific leg strength and power output.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It won't increase strength or power output (unless you're untrained). the force requirements aren't sufficient

If anyone out there has experience with weights, you know that it is much harder to press 2x50 dumbells than it is to press a 100 lb. barbell. ILT is no different.

ILT is hard to do even for very strong riders if they are not used to it. Most riders can't do 60 seconds in their easiest gear with one leg. After a month or so, they will be a heavy gear in the big ring lasting 3-5 minutes or more. Improvements with ILT are more rapid than with any other training, it's amazing how fast you improve.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you improve at one-legged cycling because of neuromuscular adaptations. in the study by coyle et al., they looked at one legged cycling and the force requirements at the pedals between two group (elite, and well trained non elite cyclists). in both one and two legged cycling, the non elite group pulled up more than the elite group on the recovery phase of the pedal cycle. the elite group produced higher forces on the downward phase of the pedal cycle

You have to pull up when doing ILT, but forget about pulling up, that's not what's important. ILT builds massive pushdown forces, increasing torque, which traslates to increased power output at higher rpm. That's the major benefit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

why not just concentrate on building power with two legs...

Some people are against it, they say it doesn't work. I liken these people to doctors who tell people they will never walk again, until one day they do, proving that "experts" are often wrong at predicting outcomes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

there is *NO* evidence that ILT works in the manner that you say it does.

I think some people could make a major decision, like the purchase of a new house or car in far less time than wondering if ILT works.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

or you could just discard the idea in 30-secs flat. done it, tried it, didn't work (except at making a better one leg pedaller)

It only takes 10-20 minutes on a trainer to do an ILT workout. If you want to find out if ILT works, what's stopping you from trying???

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

tried it. didn't work, see above.

ric

hmm.. obviously a point of great controversy.. It sounds worth trying at least.
I'll give it a go on an indoor trainer in the gym. I'll have to read around but intuitively it does seem to make sense to me.

Ric:

Wow, you tried it, it didn't work, so that's it.

I didn't know you were the sole arbiter of cycling knowledge on planet earth.

If you or any other forum members don't think ILT has any value, check out this link:

http://www.arniebakercycling.com/resume.htm

I believe Arnie Baker coined the phrase ILT and he's the guy I got it from. Take a look at his coaching and riding credentials and then tell me there is nothing to back it up.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by J-MAT
Ric:

Wow, you tried it, it didn't work, so that's it.

I didn't know you were the sole arbiter of cycling knowledge on planet earth.

If you or any other forum members don't think ILT has any value, check out this link:

http://www.arniebakercycling.com/resume.htm

I believe Arnie Baker coined the phrase ILT and he's the guy I got it from. Take a look at his coaching and riding credentials and then tell me there is nothing to back it up.

sorry, but i don't recall saying that i was the "sole arbiter" of cycling knowledge. i said that the evidence doesn't support your theory. Other coaches and scientists who have conducted these sorts of studies have not found evidence to support your idea or Arnie Bakers.

I've no idea who coined the phrase ILT (is an acronymn important?). One legged pedalling has been around for longer than Arnie Baker.

How does his resume support ILT? I could find far more qualified people in many different areas that never mention ILT! :-)

I found his introduction on ILT. There is no evidence to support what he says.

Ric

Ric:

You certainly act as though you are the single source of cycling information. After all, if you can't find a study to back something up, it doesn't exist.

That's what the pundits who thought the world was flat said. They couldn't find any evidence the world was round until someone with some sack got off his butt and actually sailed aroun the world. To the "experts" surprise, the world was really round!!!

I posted Arnie Baker's resume so you could see he actually produces results at very high levels, results you would be happy to post on your website I'm sure. The relationship between his resume and ILT is obvious as Baker says you could spend an hour doing ILT alone. Lots of success, lots of ILT. Here's the link again in case you missed it:

http://www.arniebakercycling.com/resume.htm

If he's not good enough for you, what about Carmichael??? Lots of ILT for Armstrong and he has 5 Tour victories. I'll bet the riders who abandoned the Tour this year didn't do any ILT.

Why would these top coaches jeapordize their reputation by advocating ineffective training techniques???

Wait for your study if that's what you need. Others are out there today, producing results in the real world.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by J-MAT
Ric:

You certainly act as though you are the single source of cycling information. After all, if you can't find a study to back something up, it doesn't exist.

That's what the pundits who thought the world was flat said. They couldn't find any evidence the world was round until someone with some sack got off his butt and actually sailed aroun the world. To the "experts" surprise, the world was really round!!!

I posted Arnie Baker's resume so you could see he actually produces results at very high levels, results you would be happy to post on your website I'm sure. The relationship between his resume and ILT is obvious as Baker says you could spend an hour doing ILT alone. Lots of success, lots of ILT. Here's the link again in case you missed it:

http://www.arniebakercycling.com/resume.htm

If he's not good enough for you, what about Carmichael??? Lots of ILT for Armstrong and he has 5 Tour victories. I'll bet the riders who abandoned the Tour this year didn't do any ILT.

Why would these top coaches jeapordize their reputation by advocating ineffective training techniques???

Wait for your study if that's what you need. Others are out there today, producing results in the real world.

First, Ric is very knowledgable and is the first person to say that he does not know everything. You are way off base in this characterization of him. Each time he has posted on this he has referenced the evidence, not hos own personal knowledge. He even posted a link a study done on this subject, how does this translate into him considering himself the "sole arbiter of cycling knowledge"? I think it does not do that at all.

Second, using the anecdote of Armstrong doing ILT does not necessarily mean it is effective. Armstrong very well could/would have won five TdFs without ILT. He is clearly among the most gifted cyclists of our era and his focus on the Tour coupled with good genetics and good all-around trainging have given him the ability to dominate this one race like few others. This does not, however, translate into any sort of proof that ILT is or is not effective, the sample group is too small. Armstrong does a lot of training besides ILT which, even by its strongest proponents, is actually done a very very small percentage of a rider's total training time.

Tangental rant from a rickety soapbox- And btw, Ric is a far better coach than Carmicheal could ever hope to be. Carmicheal got where he is by shameless self-promotion and by being lucky enough to bag a star client who already had the genetic potential to achieve some great results. Lance could have gone with any number of coaches and still won 5 TdFs in a row. In this case it was the rider that made the coach, not the other way around. The real coach is the guy that can take someone with far less natural talent and hone those abilities into better results. (stepping off soapbox now....or at least until Noel ticks me off again)

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by noel wacko crowley
Anquetil used neither circles or squares, mentally he used
lines, the resistance pulling line of the arms which was
almost parallel to the power application line to the pedals,
this was where the secret of his mysterious extra pedal power
lay. The rotating pedals and cranks did the rest. Instead of
pulling up on the pedals, he just unweighted them as the
idling leg returned back to the top.

Like a trout, I sometimes find it impossible to resist rising to the bait....

NOEL! Wake up, dude! How the bloody (bleep) can you state in any certain terms what Anquetil (we all bow our heads at the mention of the Holy Name) was thinking?!?!?!?! How do you know where and when he began his power application in the pedal stroke? Did they even use terms like power application in reference to cycling in those days? In the days before cycling ergometers how do you even know there was "mysterious extra pedal power"? Maybe he was just that much stronger than everyone else? How do you know it was extra when you can't know for sure what the baseline power was?

Your ideas and claims are so full of holes they make Swiss Cheese look like good ship-building material. Wtf, over?

Let's look at this objectively, Noel. You have this assertion that one man in all of cycling history tapped into some mysterious pedaling technique which somehow had the effect of generating extra power as well as being the universal cure/remedy for back pain no matter the cause, told no one about it, and took the secret knowledge to is grave. No one figured this out for 40 years until some dude mysteriously "gets it". This guy can't back up his statements with data or fact, only conjecture and blind idolatry of this singular cyclist. He rants and raves for years on the subject and still has done not done one real test to prove his assertions as to the effectiveness of this mystery pedaling technique. Also,despite being only the second cyclist in all of history to have this amazing knowledge he has not won a single major (or minor for all we know) race in his life. The one half-assed test he did try did not back up his ideas and so he threw the results out with the protocol and claimed it all to be a waste of time because his ideas just have to be true.

Is it just me or is this starting to read like a work of fiction? You seem like an otherwise logical person but it's you vs the world on this. Can thousands of cyclists and scientistws be wrong and only you are right? What lunacy. The only reason I am even bothering to rebutt you at this point is to hopefully steer any neophytes reading this away from wasting their time with your unproven and baseless statements.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by VeloZoooooooom
Like a trout, I sometimes find it impossible to resist rising to the bait....

NOEL! Wake up, dude! How the bloody (bleep) can you state in any certain terms what Anquetil (we all bow our heads at the mention of the Holy Name) was thinking?!?!?!?! How do you know where and when he began his power application in the pedal stroke? Did they even use terms like power application in reference to cycling in those days? In the days before cycling ergometers how do you even know there was "mysterious extra pedal power"? Maybe he was just that much stronger than everyone else? How do you know it was extra when you can't know for sure what the baseline power was?

Your ideas and claims are so full of holes they make Swiss Cheese look like good ship-building material. Wtf, over?

Let's look at this objectively, Noel. You have this assertion that one man in all of cycling history tapped into some mysterious pedaling technique which somehow had the effect of generating extra power as well as being the universal cure/remedy for back pain no matter the cause, told no one about it, and took the secret knowledge to is grave. No one figured this out for 40 years until some dude mysteriously "gets it". This guy can't back up his statements with data or fact, only conjecture and blind idolatry of this singular cyclist. He rants and raves for years on the subject and still has done not done one real test to prove his assertions as to the effectiveness of this mystery pedaling technique. Also,despite being only the second cyclist in all of history to have this amazing knowledge he has not won a single major (or minor for all we know) race in his life. The one half-assed test he did try did not back up his ideas and so he threw the results out with the protocol and claimed it all to be a waste of time because his ideas just have to be true.

Is it just me or is this starting to read like a work of fiction? You seem like an otherwise logical person but it's you vs the world on this. Can thousands of cyclists and scientistws be wrong and only you are right? What lunacy. The only reason I am even bothering to rebutt you at this point is to hopefully steer any neophytes reading this away from wasting their time with your unproven and baseless statements.

Yes all medical and biomechanical researchers were wrong,
they made one fatal error and wasted so much valuable research
time. They based all their research on the circular pedaling style.
Did or do they have any proof that this is the only infallible
way to pedal. One quetsion for you Rob, have you seen the
video of Anquetil's career with excellent examples of his
pedaling action ?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by n crowley
Yes all medical and biomechanical researchers were wrong,
they made one fatal error and wasted so much valuable research
time. They based all their research on the circular pedaling style.
Did or do they have any proof that this is the only infallible
way to pedal. One quetsion for you Rob, have you seen the
video of Anquetil's career with excellent examples of his
pedaling action ?

Don't try and turn this around. How about answering some of my questions?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by VeloZoooooooom
Don't try and turn this around. How about answering some of my questions?

Anquetil took his pedaling style to the grave because it would have almost been impossible for him to pass it on. He did not
take the "elimination of back pain" secret with him. He could
never have known this because with a perfect lower back he
would never have suffered from back pain. In any case , he
knew of only one pedaling style, his own linear style.
With possibly the weakest and most injured lower back in the
sport , I tried and tested all pedaling styles and knew instantly
what worked. It is this important advantage that will make it
much easier to pass on Anquetil's style to the worst victims
of this pain. Being forced out of the sport, it's a case of pedal
like Anquetil or you can't pedal at all. Normal riders would not
have the patience needed to acquire and perfect this technique.
Anquetil proved its advantages in performance, being over 60
years of age I don't want to take that risk and end as Dr E
Burke R.I.P. did, at least not yet. I can prove its medical
advantage and that is what I am concentrating on. This is a
very powerful technique.

noel, without force instrumented pedals etc., you aren't going to be able to prove anything with any credibility. i don't know whether andrew bradley has this instrumentation (or if he even knows he's been invited to test you!).

assuming that you've been medically cleared, there's no reason why you shouldn't take part in maximal exercise. there's quite a bit of research in this area.

ric

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
noel, without force instrumented pedals etc., you aren't going to be able to prove anything with any credibility. i don't know whether andrew bradley has this instrumentation (or if he even knows he's been invited to test you!).

assuming that you've been medically cleared, there's no reason why you shouldn't take part in maximal exercise. there's quite a bit of research in this area.

ric

I would consider it better to pass on the technique first before
taking that risk. There was a medical query in Cycling Weekly a
few months ago about serious lower back pain on the bike,
so serious that he used have to walk home. I would say he
got very little staisfaction from the answer that he got. He
would make an ideal rider for this test and being young 16, could
test it for performance also. If you were a victim of persistant
lower back pain, you would give anything to be able to train and
compete completely pain free and consider getting rid of the pain
much more important than performance. I know, I've been there.
A Bradley is not invited, I just suggested a man like him might be
interested if asked.

no one is arguing that back pain isn't severe or that a cure is needed. what's required to satisfy those that have asked, is some empircal proof. it's well known that a placebo can have an effect, so to identify whether your/JA's method works you need controls and empirical evidence.

ric

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
no one is arguing that back pain isn't severe or that a cure is needed. what's required to satisfy those that have asked, is some empircal proof. it's well known that a placebo can have an effect, so to identify whether your/JA's method works you need controls and empirical evidence.

ric

The root cause of the pain is the continuous strain associated
with round pedaling, both in generating the pedal power and
having to support most of the upper body weight. Higher gears
should not cause back pain but with circular pedaling they do
because they are magnifying the strain that this power
generating technique places in the lower back area. It
can almost be compared to safe and dangerous weight lifting.
Anquetil's style hinges all power generating strain in the hips
and the working arms support all the upper body weight.
The result is a relaxed massaging effect on the lower back
and the higher the gear (within reason) the more of a
beneficial effect it has on the lower back.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by crowley
The root cause of the pain is the continuous strain associated
with round pedaling, both in generating the pedal power and
having to support most of the upper body weight. Higher gears
should not cause back pain but with circular pedaling they do
because they are magnifying the strain that this power
generating technique places in the lower back area. It
can almost be compared to safe and dangerous weight lifting.
Anquetil's style hinges all power generating strain in the hips
and the working arms support all the upper body weight.
The result is a relaxed massaging effect on the lower back
and the higher the gear (within reason) the more of a
beneficial effect it has on the lower back.

He asked for proof and empirical evidence, not another soliloquy.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by VeloZoooooooom
He asked for proof and empirical evidence, not another soliloquy.

What can you do for back pain victims?
The reason for getting the back pain victims to travel here is
to prove that it can be passed on, I already know it works, the
difficulty will be in getting the message to the riders but I am
confident it can be done. What I do not know is how Anquetil
as a child happened to arrive at this technique or did he ever
attempt to pass it on to other riders. Did they ask him?
The proof will be available when these riders are cleared of
back pain but a medical researcher would be required to
confirm it. Without that it would just be a repetition of what
is going on at present.
The natural way is not always best, remember [censored] Fosbury.

i'm not doubting per se your 'healing powers' noel, what i'm asking for is some substatiated evidence that it works. if you heal a group of cyclists who just say "i had bad back pain prior to noels intervention" then that's just anecdotal evidence - the same as the problem you currently have. what we're asking for, and of course $10K is at stake here, is some empirical evidence that it works. without that, how do we know that your evidence (i.e., presenting a group of 'healed' cyclists isn't biased).

i can't do anything per se about back pain (unless it relates to a badly positioned cyclist on a bike), velozoom can't do anything either as regards back pain, but then neither of us two have suggested we can (or at least not to my knowledge). and we don't know that you can either at present.

Mr. Crowley-

I've been thoroughly enjoying watching your increasingly strident descent into a kind of quasi-mystical realm over the past several dozen posts. Neglecting for the moment a few questions I have about your apparent prescience and insight into the vaunted (but dead) head of Mr. JA, based solely on having watched videos, and letting the facts as presented by Mr. Stern speak for themsleves, the most critical point I'm faced with is this: if this 'linear' pedalling method is so bloody effective, why are you not atop the podium, enjoying the attentions of comely young lasses in yellow dresses, along side Messrs. Armstrong and Ulrich?

Jefe