Is the "right" pedal stroke over-rated?

[FastforaSlowGuy]

On the drive into work today, I was thinking about all the time, effort and money we all spend trying to perfect the biomechanics of our pedal stroke - to fit it into the "right" box. Press down, scrape back, kick over the top, repeat (or some variation on that). Then I was thinking about golfers and golf swing. I don't golf in any serious way, but guys that do spend a LOT of time on their stroke. In both cases, I get it: form=efficiency. But then there are always those cases of people who do REALLY well with a stroke (golf or pedal) that is just ugly to see and appears to break all the rules.

I mean really, look at these guys:
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/06/who-...to-fellow-pros

I'm sure the same is true in cycling. Most top riders have a beautiful pedal stroke and riding style, but there are always some who buck the trend (I think someone here compared Froome to Skelator pushing a shopping cart).

Anyway, it got me wondering whether anyone has done a truly empirical analysis of pedal stroke form and success in competitive cycling. We collect all this data on left-right balance, how "round" a pedal stroke is, etc., but where's the evidence that all of this actually means anything?

[nooneline]

I think there's some uninformed talk about developing a pedal stroke that is round and even. That's misguided - you're always going to be stronger pushing down on the pedal than anywhere else in the stroke.

I figure, as long as your right leg pushing down on the pedal isn't also pushing your left leg up, you're in a good place.

[kgreene10]

Originally Posted by nooneline

I figure, as long as your right leg pushing down on the pedal isn't also pushing your left leg up, you're in a good place.

It makes sense to me that unweighting the upstroke leg is an important step toward efficiency. It will be nice when power meters that can show closer to the full stroke are readily available. I saw some early data from the Pioneer PM that showed a seasoned rider exerting a good amount of downward pressure with the upstroke leg. Many of us may be in for a ride awakening when we can see our results.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by kgreene10

It makes sense to me that unweighting the upstroke leg is an important step toward efficiency. It will be nice when power meters that can show closer to the full stroke are readily available. I saw some early data from the Pioneer PM that showed a seasoned rider exerting a good amount of downward pressure with the upstroke leg. Many of us may be in for a ride awakening when we can see our results.

To measure efficiency, you need more than just a power meter - you also need something to measure metabolic energy expenditure (this is usually done by measuring inhaled and exhaled gasses).

Several studies have been done to try to measure efficiency changes with different pedaling techniques. These studies have shown that some techniques can change maximal power, or time to fatigue, but none have shown much change in overall metabolic efficiency.

[FastforaSlowGuy]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

To measure efficiency, you need more than just a power meter - you also need something to measure metabolic energy expenditure (this is usually done by measuring inhaled and exhaled gasses).

Several studies have been done to try to measure efficiency changes with different pedaling techniques. These studies have shown that some techniques can change maximal power, or time to fatigue, but none have shown much change in overall metabolic efficiency.

I guess this is closer to what I'm getting at. Because it may sound better to have equal power from each leg (to pick one metric), but does it actually MATTER from an outcome perspective? Before we all get bent out of shape staring at our left-right power, perhaps we need to figure out whether there's any evidence whether 50%-50% is any better than 42%-58%.

Put another way: if someone's goal is to win bike races, do we have real evidence that all these metrics we stare at actually contribute to that goal?

[Bob Ross]

Originally Posted by FastforaSlowGuy

Put another way: if someone's goal is to win bike races, do we have real evidence that all these metrics we stare at actually contribute to that goal?

This reminds me a bit about the discussions/arguments that go on around "proper technique" [sic] when playing a musical instrument.

There's a crap-ton of pedagogy that defines what "proper technique" is on any particular instrument. I'm a bass player, so most of my familiarity is with that instrument. There are bass players that I absolutely cannot bear to watch, because their technique is so dramatically contrary to what the accepted proper technique is.

But it turns out that not watching them is a good idea, because what's the goal of playing a bass? Making music. I close my eyes, and they're some of the finest bassists on the planet. Open them, horrified; close them, awed.

So it all gets back to What Is The Goal? And yeah, that's not always clearly defined when somebody tells you "You're not pedaling that bicycle correctly."

[Dead Man]

How about watching David Fray play piano...

I have a beautiful golf swing. To watch me swing a long iron, perfectly sweeping the grass and coming to a smooth, clean finish pose like a slung long-bow.... you'd think I could play.

Unfortunately for me, I'm just a really good imitator... my long game is @#$ing horrible.

I remember trying to train myself to use "circular" peddling technique when I started getting serious on the bike. Never took. Instead, I go to a "scissor" stroke when spinning up... on the track you really have to do this. But trying to engage all these other little, weak, non-strength muscles in the hopes of taking some strain off the major up/down muscle groups.... I just don't think it pans out in reality. It's always felt like I'm tiring out faster, not conserving energy.

[carpediemracing]

I think there's a point to doing a reasonably efficient pedal stroke. I've watched less experienced racers make huge efforts but not go very fast, usually when attacking (watch any Cat 5 race at the bell and you'll see what I'm talking about). They're fine in the field sitting on wheels but when they get out of the saddle they seem to double or triple their output and go only 1-2 mph faster. I think those riders can (and probably will) radically improve their return on energy expended.

Likewise if you watch a pro (or ex-pro) pedal, there's an element of efficiency there. They can be out of shape, heavy, whatever, and still be pretty efficient in terms of not much wasted energy.

I'm not a pro but over the years I've become more efficient. A teammate had a helmet cam in a race where I started cramping almost at the start of the race. I kept thinking "just another lap" for 45 minutes or something nutty like that. I finally started cramping everything and stopped. My teammate caught his on his clip. When I watched it it looks like I just stopped. There's no sign that I'm cramping all over the place - hamstrings, calves, quads. The clip is here. At 44:40 he's looking for me, thinking of leading me out. He finds me at about 45:35. At about 46:20 he rolls by me, wanting to lead me out. I never got on his wheel, I was absolutely maxed out at 23 mph or whatever.

I'm realistically a better violin player than a bike racer. One of the reasons is I apparently was taught good form. This gave me an efficient base, if you will, from which I could play the violin. Eliminate some of the advantages that basic form gave me and I'd lose this aspect or that aspect of the violin. Bow hold, holding the violin with the chin/neck instead of with the arm, etc. I can see how my tone or speed or intonation would deteriorate if I had poor form.

I think that a talented person, music or bike or whatever, can succeed in spite of their form drawbacks. For the rest of us good form is a way to optimize what limited talent we have.

[Black Dog]

^..This..^

It really comes down to your whole body. People who look very fluid on the bike are not wasting any effort on moving any part of their body that is no directly involved in making the bike go forward, especially when they are near the red line. In racing you need a good poker face to hide the pain and just as much a poker body to do the same. Racing teaches riders to not waste even the smallest amount of energy unless you have to. Keeping the upper and body relaxed and fluid saves a lot of energy and keeps the oxygen moving to your legs. The winner is of a race is not the guy or girl who was strongest on the start line, it the person who is strongest on the finish line. Efficiency is king.

[sandyrs]

People tell me I have a smooth pedal stroke and I'm slow as hell, so...

[Black Dog]

Originally Posted by sandyrs

People tell me I have a smooth pedal stroke and I'm slow as hell, so...

Smooth does not mean fast, it generally means faster than not smooth all else being equal...

[Bob Ross]

Originally Posted by Black Dog

Smooth does not mean fast, it generally means faster than not smooth all else being equal...

Well...since you can't be really fast -- or really fast and safe -- without being smooth, it can be a handy aphorism to skip all the caveats and middlemen by just saying "Smooth Is Fast"

[Ti Designs]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

Several studies have been done to try to measure efficiency changes with different pedaling techniques.

Do any of these studies change pedaling technique using the standard motor leaning process, or do they assume that people can change it just by thinking about how they pedal? The best I've seen so far has been 45 minutes of instruction before testing. So they get into the cognitive portion of the leaning process and just skip the rest - yeh, I can't see how that wouldn't work...

Training for cycling has little to do with metabolic efficiency, it has to do with the interface between human and machine - how to best use your body to get somewhere. You probably know how to walk and how to swim - which one is better? That depends on conditions, on land walking works best. In a few inches of water, walking still wins. When the water gets over your head you probably want to switch to swimming. Different ways for different conditions - it's not that complicated. When they take it into a lab, that common sense goes out the window and they try to find the one best way to pedal or the most efficient cadence.

I've worked with sprinters who can generate huge amounts of power for short bursts, I've worked with time trial specialists who can how a narrow power band for an hour, I've worked with climbers who have amazing power to weight ratios, none of these people pedal the same, but there are some things in common in their training programs. The concept of not letting what you've learned by standing or walking waste energy on the bike keeps coming up. When you stand or walk you have weight on your feet - it's just a normal state. Keeping weight on the foot as it comes up the back of the pedal stroke follows - it's what you've learned elsewhere. As your effort increases, so does that force. I'm working with a number of riders using the Pioneer power meters, those long, down facing vectors don't lie. When I first start working on hip flexors people think they're going to climb better 'cause they have this extra muscle group to use. Then reality sets in - you might be able to pedal for 2 minutes just using that muscle, in a very easy gear. There's just no wattage there. So why use it? There's something called reciprocal inhibition, the body doesn't fire opposing muscle groups. So in just getting the hip flexor active you are shutting down the muscle that pushes down.

[Dead Man]

Here's my essentially unapplicable, off-topic, but related-sounding post of the day...

In competitive shooting, we have an expression slow is smooth and smooth is fast. In summary, having good form means having an economy of motion that will be overall efficient, and efficiency is more important than speed in training, because efficiency begets speed.

Train correctly; speed will follow.

[jr59]

That's the question. What is correct? Because correct for one person,may very well not be correct for the next.