Question for the Coaches: Power meter use and pedal technique, what say you? (Page 2)

I probably should have put my post in pink, but it was almost as sincere as it was smart . I disagree with people that say that technique means nothing and mashing down is basically all there is to it.  I don't think we generate much force in the pulling back and up, and pushing forward, but it still contributes to a smooth pedal stroke and assists the leg that is pushing down.  My experience has been that you can really see the difference in technique vs. mashing down on the pedals when the road goes up.

One channel of data to analyze = good.

Two channels of data to analyze = mind bogglingly awesome.

(On a personal note my knee surgery left me with some imbalance that it actually would be useful to me to be able to quantify both sides independently.  For me this is a real issue.)

IDK.  Interesting, maybe.  It remains completely unclear to me that it would be useful.

I've had two knee surgeries since 6/10 including major one last month. My strength imbalance is noticeable....visible to anyone looking at my quads.  I did IMFL and other races last year.

Why would quantifying the difference in left vs. right matter? For me the reality is they are different. Doing PT helps but so does cycling.  Would knowing my output on left is 25% less than right help me ride better or just an interesting fact?

Interesting thread.  I imagine that a "smooth" pedal stroke must help over long distances.

As for power.   If I simplfy pedal stroke into simply pushing (a) with the toe down or (b) more with the heel down (and ignoring comfort, endurance etc.), are we saying that if I were to get on the same bike on a trainer and ride at exactly the same cadence for the same period of time that I would get precisely the same power output?   I would imagine that I can probably "push" slightly harder one way or the other (heel down?) based on physiology amd physics?

I have absolutely no data - just curious.  Have at it!

Nobody really defines what they mean by "smooth" when they say it's better (other than saying  things like 'scraping mud').  I imagine that putting out more power on each pedal stroke helps over long distances.  So, that's what I focus on.  I let the "technique" work itself out by riding.  It seems to work just fine--on the flats or up a hill.

I would guess you can get better power output one way or the other.  Based on YOUR physiology.  That is, some prefer more toe-down vs. heel-down, or vice-versa, and their body adapts to that style.  But, I'm not aware of any evidence that you can improve someone's power or efficiency by altering their self-selected style (much like foot-strike in running).

I hold out hope that I can even out the imbalance.  Every situation is different.  Having a number to start from and track would be a large help. 

Heel up/down is just an example of what some might view as a pedalling technique to be studied (as noted, I don't think it matters which you prefer).  The whole muscle activation/deactivation is what you do everytime you ride the bike.  And if you want to become better at it, the most efficient way to do so is likely by...

Wow, AdventureBear, thank you for the answer and the resources. I have to plow through those. Excellent.

After his amputation his MMP for 30'+ is almost the same as before or stronger. But for shorter than 30' his MMP is less after his amputation.

As I stated before my leg strength is different due to significant knee issues.  Again I don't see how knowing with new technology I could measure my MMP for my right leg vs. my MMP for my left leg vs. my MMP with both legs will help me train better.

My power is what it is and I train to improve it....is it more complicated than that?

Well said.

I have a back injury that resulted in left leg atrophy of the calf, numbness in the hamstring and foot. single legged drills shows that my left leg is 50-60watts lower than my right. Is this useful, helpful? I find it somewhat important since my left him flexor was in severe pain the day after longer trainer ride, the right handled it great the left was severely overtaxed on a very simple workout.. should I be relaying on my good leg to carry 80% of the load, or should I be working to strengthen the weaker leg to bring it to 50-50 .. how do I measure that? seems pretty useful to measure independently with single legged drills.

AdventureBear - 2012-01-20 3:33 PM

tjfry - 2012-01-20 2:13 PM

AdventureBear - 2012-01-20 2:29 PM

eel down/Heel up isn't really a part of the equation here, but rather activiating and deactivating the various large and small muscle groups that make the leg go round in circles (yes, everyone pedals in circles). This transition and seamless application of no wasted power (ie, not pulling on the upstroke, just unweighting) is what is meant in my mind by a "smooth" pedal stroke. This is different than what many people assume which is that the power applicatoin should be somewhat equalized at all angles of the pedaling cycle. it's well known that force application differs with not only cycling experience, but also the discipline (mountain, road, TT, track, etc).

Well said.

Once again, TJ and I on the same page.

Haha, AND well played.

Tom when I first starting cycling (racing) I tried a lot of the classic taught “Pedaling Technique” in training.  Concentrate on circles, scrapping the soles of the shoe, pulling up etc… btw that was in the mid 80’s starting with USCF and then Triathlons. 

My out come was it didn’t matter.  During a race the pace dictated the peddling.  I push hard on the pedal going down the return followed.  My fit really prevented me pointing my toes or dropping my heals too much. 

I want to interject a historical perspective to this because, well, I'm as old as history.

I'll suggest, based on a forensic examination of cycling history and anatomy, that the angle of the foot through the pedal stroke is predetermined by the configuration of the rider's lower leg. Specifically, the anterior tibialis, gastrocnemius muscles and the soleus muscles.

Exhibit A:

Jacques Anquetil was the first man to win five Tours de France. Perhaps more significantly he won the Gran Prix de Nations, the then de facto "time trial world championships' a staggering ten times.

Anquetil's lower leg was extremely slim with long gastrocnemius and soleus muscles. In the front of his leg his anterior tibialis was narrow and oddly long. Anquetil favored large gears, custom 188mm cranks and a pronounced toes-down pedaling style. Unsurprisingly, other cyclists adapted his style as consensus and morphed toward a toes-down style with ultra-long cranks.

Exhibit B.

Eddy Merckx had a more robust, less lithe build compared to Anquetil.

Merckx also turned big gears on larger cranks but did so with a dropped heel. There is suggestion that this was because of the configuration of his lower leg. Larger and wider anterior tibialis, gastrocnemius muscles and the soleus muscles.

Exhibit C.

This moderated somewhat in the Bernard Hinault era. Hinault is about 1 inch shorter than me (he's about 5'8") and used 175mm cranks. Hinault's lower leg configuration was more robust, with a thick hock of a lower leg. Consequently he drove his pedals in an angry, mashing style with his heels very low, as with Merckx.

The Summation:

You can't "coach" pedal stroke. You're either a toe pedaler (Anquetil) or you're a heel masher (Merckx, Hinault). You can improve the symetrical application of power around the pedal stroke and this likely makes pedaling more physiologically efficient once the neurological task is ingrained.

Coping ones style is human nature to do.  This does not make it right. 

imo people should experiment with in reason different ways and come into there own natural pedal stroke.

I remember everybody eating pizza crust and drinking pickle juice because “The Man” did so.  What did we know about nutrition back then?  Just food for thought.

"Well I think what we are all awaiting is some concrete science to support your 'summation' "

With respect, I'll suggest the competitive outcomes of 15 combined Tour de France victories may support a preponderance of evidence in lieu of a "concrete science" hypothesis.

The nature of any proferred hypothesis on a forum is it shall be argued. For and against.