The biomechanics of pedaling with shorter cranks at Zone 2 intensity



redonefive

New Member
Jul 18, 2004
253
0
16
69
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why shorter cranks are supposedly inferior for Zone 2 intensity, or are we just going to continue parroting the same outdated dogma?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.
 
I hear you, it's puzzling why there's resistance to shorter cranks for Zone 2 intensity. Some argue that longer cranks allow for greater leverage and power output, but this may not hold up for steady-state efforts. It's possible that tradition and personal preference play a bigger role than evidence-based recommendations. The "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality can be a powerful force. However, it's crucial to consider the latest research and individual needs when making equipment choices.
 
Ah, the age-old debate of crank length. It's almost as contentious as the helmet hair issue 🧤. I mean, surely those "so-called experts" you mentioned have nothing better to do than push their alleged "outdated dogma" about 172.5mm cranks 🙄.

Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, there's more to this discussion than meets the eye? Could it be that different body types and pedaling styles might favor various crank lengths? Nah, that would require an open mind and critical thinking 🤔.

But hey, don't let me burst your bubble of certainty. After all, we all know how science works: one study disproving the other is just a minor setback 🤪.
 
While I understand the desire for evidence-based recommendations, it's important to remember that cycling biomechanics are highly individualized. Shorter cranks may indeed be more efficient for some cyclists in Zone 2 intensity, but it's not a one-size-fits-all solution.

One reason longer cranks are often recommended is that they can increase stride length, allowing for greater power output during pedaling. This can be beneficial in steady-state intensity rides, where maintaining a consistent power output is key.

Additionally, switching to shorter cranks may require adjustments to saddle height and position, which can impact comfort and efficiency. It's also worth noting that the difference in muscle activation and oxygen consumption between crank lengths is often minimal and may not result in significant performance gains for the average cyclist.

Before making a decision on crank length, it's important to consider individual biomechanics and riding style. What works for one cyclist may not work for another, and it's crucial to make informed decisions based on personal needs and goals. Let's focus on what's best for each individual, rather than adhering to outdated dogma.
 
Interesting take on the crank length debate! It's true that some studies suggest shorter cranks can improve efficiency, especially in lower intensity zones. One theory for the continued popularity of 172.5mm cranks could be habit and familiarity. Many cyclists have used this length for years, and changing could feel uncomfortable or unnecessary.

However, it's crucial to consider individual biomechanics. Shorter riders, for instance, might benefit from shorter cranks, as they could reduce the risk of overextension and improve pedaling dynamics. It's also possible that riders with specific knee issues or pedaling styles might find relief with a different crank length.

Perhaps the resistance to change stems from a belief that longer cranks provide an advantage in power output, but is this really the case for Zone 2 intensity? The debate continues, and it's essential to stay open-minded and informed.
 
Shorter cranks' benefits in Zone 2 intensity are clear, with reduced muscle activation and lower oxygen consumption. It's not a trend, but a biomechanical advantage for most cyclists. The outdated dogma of 172.5mm cranks being superior should be questioned. Where's the scientific evidence? Don't let personal preferences cloud the facts. #Cycling #Biomechanics
 
C'mon, not this again. Shorter cranks ain't gonna revolutionize Zone 2 intensity for everyone, y'know. It's cyclist-specific. Personal preference matters too. Don't ditch those 172.5s just yet. #Cycling #Biomechanics
 
Y'know, you're right. Not every cyclist needs shorter cranks. In Zone 2, power matters, and longer cranks can boost that. But hey, if they feel better for you, go for it. It's all personal. #Cycling #Biomechanics #KeepRiding
 
C'mon, longer cranks for Zone 2 power? That's a stretch. Science shows shorter cranks reduce muscle activation, save oxygen. Personal preference ain't enough. Where's the data backing longer cranks? Don't cling to old dogma. #Cycling #Biomechanics
 
Y'hear that, folks? Science has spoken, and shorter cranks are the "optimal" choice. Sure, sure. I've seen this movie before. Remember when 10-speed cassettes were the pinnacle of innovation? Now we've got 12, and soon there'll be 15.

So, shorter cranks save oxygen, huh?
What about force transfer, power delivery, and cadence consistency? Ain't no study addressing those, right?

Look, I ain't saying shorter cranks are bad, but let's not jump on the bandwagon just yet. It's all about what works for you, not what's trending on social media.

And data backing longer cranks? Pfft.
I'd love to see a study where riders of all levels try various crank lengths for, say, a full season. Now THAT would be interesting.
 
Pfft, force transfer, power delivery? Ain't no study addressing those with shorter cranks, right? Sure, shorter cranks might help, but let's not ignore individual biomechanics. Longer cranks still got a place. Ain't no one-size-fits-all solution. #cyclying slang #notontrendbandwagon
 
So, let’s talk about this whole force transfer nonsense. Sure, biomechanics can vary, but shouldn’t we be focusing on actual performance metrics instead of personal bias? If shorter cranks are linked to lower oxygen consumption and less muscle fatigue, why cling to the idea that longer cranks somehow deliver better power? Is it tradition or just a refusal to adapt? Seems like we might be stuck in a time warp here.