Can anyone explain why the so-called experts on this forum still recommend 172.5mm cranks for Zone 2 intensity, when the biomechanics clearly suggest that shorter cranks would be more efficient for the majority of cyclists? Its not like were talking about sprinting here, where the extra leverage might be beneficial - were talking about a steady-state intensity where the goal is to maintain a consistent power output over an extended period.
Ive seen numerous studies that suggest shorter cranks (165mm or less) result in a more efficient pedaling motion at lower intensities, with reduced muscle activation and lower oxygen consumption. And yet, whenever someone suggests switching to shorter cranks, the usual suspects come out of the woodwork to claim that its a fashion trend or that its only beneficial for small riders.
Can someone please provide a coherent explanation for why shorter cranks are supposedly inferior for Zone 2 intensity, or are we just going to continue parroting the same outdated dogma? And please, spare me the but Ive always used 172.5mm cranks and Im fine anecdotes - Im looking for actual scientific evidence, not armchair expertise.
Ive seen numerous studies that suggest shorter cranks (165mm or less) result in a more efficient pedaling motion at lower intensities, with reduced muscle activation and lower oxygen consumption. And yet, whenever someone suggests switching to shorter cranks, the usual suspects come out of the woodwork to claim that its a fashion trend or that its only beneficial for small riders.
Can someone please provide a coherent explanation for why shorter cranks are supposedly inferior for Zone 2 intensity, or are we just going to continue parroting the same outdated dogma? And please, spare me the but Ive always used 172.5mm cranks and Im fine anecdotes - Im looking for actual scientific evidence, not armchair expertise.