Training & Nutrition - Mindless 360 degree pedaling help needed

Having a problem getting full circle pedal down to a thoughtless process. As long as I can think about it - no problem. Any tips or hints appreciated.

Thoughtful practice is the thing. You can also do FastPedal intervals, where you hold a cadence of 115 or so as continuously as possible for long periods, up to 45 minutes. I'm not sure how much that helps the particular thing you're talking about, but they do help with getting the neuromuscular coordination down. I do an interval once a week in the winter.

Having a problem getting full circle pedal down to a thoughtless process. As long as I can think about it - no problem. Any tips or hints appreciated.

Why are you using full circle when effective torque can only be applied between 1 and 5 o'c.

Why are you using full circle when effective torque can only be applied between 1 and 5 o'c.

If you have clipless pedals you can generate force on the upstoke as well.

Learn round spin pedaling with a Moving Bottom Bracket - MBB - bike, like a Cruzbike.

http://www.cruzbike.com/

Clumsy pedal forces have to be taken up by the upper body, to the point that the builder suggests learning to ride with open hands, that can't grip.

One legged pedalling.

Good for identifying where your pedal circle weaknesses are, and for building up a bit of leg strength and stamina.

Unclip from one side, pedal 10, 20 or 50 strokes on the other (preferably on the flat), then change over.

If you have clipless pedals you can generate force on the upstoke as well.You can, but elite, national-class cyclists don't. Whether you want to spend a lot of time worrying about getting a few extra watts from the upstroke is up to you.

You can, but elite, national-class cyclists don't. Whether you want to spend a lot of time worrying about getting a few extra watts from the upstroke is up to you. I have found two things that make for less stress on my old knees and feet - spinning and 360. Keeping cadence up helps my knees and 360 power stroke helps my feet. When I can keep them both going my speed and distance go up and fewer aches/pains during and after longer rides. Riding an old body requires new skills - for me anyhow.

You can, but elite, national-class cyclists don't. Whether you want to spend a lot of time worrying about getting a few extra watts from the upstroke is up to you.
What I remember reading about is that the elite cyclists could output more watts when asked to pull on the upstroke, but they were spending much more energy than they gained from it. What you should do is pull your leg up so it does not weigh on the pedal during the up stroke and you can kick back and forward as well.

I am in the same situation as the OP, when I put my mind to it I can do the kicking, pulling and lifting but it is not done automatically. The one legged thing sound like a good way to practice it.

I have found two things that make for less stress on my old knees and feet - spinning and 360. Keeping cadence up helps my knees and 360 power stroke helps my feet. When I can keep them both going my speed and distance go up and fewer aches/pains during and after longer rides. Riding an old body requires new skills - for me anyhow.No question, spinning is easier on your knees. I'm not sure what you mean by 360 power stroke as most cyclists power stroke looks something like:http://i34.tinypic.com/1tk83s.jpg

Most of the power comes on the downstroke when the pedal is at 3 o'clock.

What I remember reading about is that the elite cyclists could output more watts when asked to pull on the upstroke, but they were spending much more energy than they gained from it.I think you are mis-remembering. Elite cyclists would gladly give up some efficiency for more power if it were possible. Power is far more important than efficiency when racing.

No question, spinning is easier on your knees. I'm not sure what you mean by 360 power stroke as most cyclists power stroke looks something like:http://i34.tinypic.com/1tk83s.jpg

Most of the power comes on the downstroke when the pedal is at 3 o'clock.Suppose we were to look at a graph of torque vs. crank angle for a rider who was being spun, i.e. their legs were doing nothing, just along for the ride. The only difference between the shapes of the above graph and my hypothetical graph would be the near absence of torque on the upstroke in the above graph.

What one is really doing when one thinks they are "pedaling circles" is maintaining a constant torque on the bottom bracket.

Have you tried riding on a trainer?

I can't claim to have 360 degree pedalling down to a mindless practice, but I was astonished the first time I got on a trainer to find out just how not-360 I was. You can't fool it - the second you stop applying force, it stops moving. You can really feel the difference between a smooth circle and a jerky downstroke-only motion.

I think you are mis-remembering. Elite cyclists would gladly give up some efficiency for more power if it were possible. Power is far more important than efficiency when racing.

Now I am confused. In post #7 you say that elite cyclists don't generate power on the up stroke and now you say they do?

No question, spinning is easier on your knees. I'm not sure what you mean by 360 power stroke as most cyclists power stroke looks something like:http://i34.tinypic.com/1tk83s.jpg

Most of the power comes on the downstroke when the pedal is at 3 o'clock.
And can you cite the study.

As I recall, from the reading of studies on this, there are deficiencies in the methodology.

Suppose we were to look at a graph of torque vs. crank angle for a rider who was being spun, i.e. their legs were doing nothing, just along for the ride. The only difference between the shapes of the above graph and my hypothetical graph would be the near absence of torque on the upstroke in the above graph.

What one is really doing when one thinks they are "pedaling circles" is maintaining a constant torque on the bottom bracket.Thinking about this a little further, my hypothetical graph would only show a similar pedal force curve at very low cadences. A leg is composed of three pieces with three joints. These leg segments accelerate at differing rates in different parts of the pedal stroke. It would be interesting to see a graph of pedal force vectors vs. crank angle with the passive pedaler's legs being rotated at a high cadence. This would be interesting because the difference between those force vectors and the actual observable force vectors of an active cyclist would be very different. It could be that much of the effort involved in pedaling is in simply overcoming the natural accelerations of our various leg parts. We know that heart rate increases with cadence even if output power is held steady.

For instance, beginning riders are unable to pedal high cadences without bouncing in the saddle, while expert cyclists can pedal at cadences of well over 150 without bouncing. Expert cyclists do this by stopping the downward motion of the leg before it reaches bottom dead center. Were they not to do this, the force of the pedal decelerating their leg would propel their butt off the saddle. Therefore pedaling smoothly and pedaling circles is a much more complicated activity than one might think from looking at a graph of the crankarm torque of a single pedal.

Wouldn't a watt meter give somewhat of an answer. Maybe a couple of riders with meters could try some tests. 360 = more power? I don't know, but when I go to 360 my cadence/speed go up and that sounds like more power to me. But then I'm a EE not ME.

For instance, beginning riders are unable to pedal high cadences without bouncing in the saddle, while expert cyclists can pedal at cadences of well over 150 without bouncing. Expert cyclists do this by stopping the downward motion of the leg before it reaches bottom dead center. Were they not to do this, the force of the pedal decelerating their leg would propel their butt off the saddle. Therefore pedaling smoothly and pedaling circles is a much more complicated activity than one might think from looking at a graph of the crankarm torque of a single pedal.

Oh yeah, that thing about trying to coast on a fixed gear bike. Talk about lift your butt off the saddle then!!

But maybe look at it from the viewpoint of not stopping the downward motion, but rather modifying the movement down into an arc.

I also wonder about the merits of lifting up on the pedal (attached with cleats or straps) when climbing.
Well, I don't wonder, because I do it and it feels beneficial... ;)

Oh yeah, that thing about trying to coast on a fixed gear bike. Talk about lift your butt off the saddle then!!

But maybe look at it from the viewpoint of not stopping the downward motion, but rather modifying the movement down into an arc.

I also wonder about the merits of lifting up on the pedal (attached with cleats or straps) when climbing.
Well, I don't wonder, because I do it and it feels beneficial... ;)Lift your butt right into the ditch! Yes, you're right about that. One does try to modify the vector rather than reverse it. I pull up when I'm attacking on a steep hill, otherwise not. It's exhausting - the psoas or whatever is quite small compared with hams or quads. I do well to just unweight the pedal.

And can you cite the study.

As I recall, from the reading of studies on this, there are deficiencies in the methodology.
Physiological and biomechanical factors associated with elite endurance cycling performance. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1997818)

I think you are mis-remembering. Elite cyclists would gladly give up some efficiency for more power if it were possible. Power is far more important than efficiency when racing.


Now I am confused. In post #7 you say that elite cyclists don't generate power on the up stroke and now you say they do?No. I'm saying that if it were true that cyclists could gain power by pulling up on the inactive leg then they would do this and live with the decreased efficiency. Since it has been found that elite cyclists don't generate significant power on the upstroke, I conclude that this technique is not particularly useful unless you are sprinting or going hard up a hill.

Suppose we were to look at a graph of torque vs. crank angle for a rider who was being spun, i.e. their legs were doing nothing, just along for the ride. The only difference between the shapes of the above graph and my hypothetical graph would be the near absence of torque on the upstroke in the above graph.

What one is really doing when one thinks they are "pedaling circles" is maintaining a constant torque on the bottom bracket.


No matter what changes riders believe they are making to their style, their pedaling graph will always appear like the one above because they are still using the basic natural pedaling stroke in which maximal torque can only be applied around 3 o'c. The perfect TT pedaling technique does exist and it completely changes the shape of the pedaling graph. It is a semi-circular technique which has no dead spot sector, it starts with the equivalent of 2 o'c torque at 11 o'c, increasing to continuous maximal torque as crank moves through 12, 1, 2 and 3 o'c, returning to normal torque between 3 and 5 o'c where it ends, as the other leg simultaneously takes over at 11. I am waiting on the new more accurate force/vector powermeter to confirm my claims with a very different pedaling graph. When pedaling circles each leg can only get 50% concentration from the brain, weakening power in the important downstroke. The semi-circular style guarantees total concentration to each leg. This special technique has been discussed on other forums and has led to many arguments with the experts claiming it's impossible to apply maximal torque to the cranks at 12 o'c, so no further discussion here as it would be a waste of time.

No. I'm saying that if it were true that cyclists could gain power by pulling up on the inactive leg then they would do this and live with the decreased efficiency. Since it has been found that elite cyclists don't generate significant power on the upstroke, I conclude that this technique is not particularly useful unless you are sprinting or going hard up a hill.

And this is where the problem starts to occur in interpreting these results, because 99% of cyclists aren't elite cyclists who have been trained to use particular muscles on a particular fit of bike for a particular purpose, and who are the subject of these types of efficiency tests.

And this is where the problem starts to occur in interpreting these results, because 99% of cyclists aren't elite cyclists who have been trained to use particular muscles on a particular fit of bike for a particular purpose, and who are the subject of these types of efficiency tests.So what? If beginner cyclists don't pull up and elites don't pull up, what is the point of spending a bunch of time training yourself to pull up on the upstroke?

You're far better off focussing on putting out more power consistently, however you manage to do it.

The perfect TT pedaling technique does exist and it completely changes the shape of the pedaling graph.How do you define perfect? Do you have any evidence for your claims as there are no studies that I'm aware of that confirm your theory.

The study seems to say that simply riding harder faster for many years is the most important thing. Ankling, or trying to do a full 360 is not the main contributor in speed/power. However, I agree that one pedal practicing once every couple of weeks is a good help to keep your legs ready for high cadences. Work on maximum possible cadence, and force yourself to ride in lower gears at the same speed and that will help you pedal a lot more smoothly.
What is you max RPM?

How do you define perfect? Do you have any evidence for your claims as there are no studies that I'm aware of that confirm your theory.Right-o! Who's going to pay? Only those with an idea to push and the money to push it. We could take up a collection?

Seriously, "everyone knows" that pedaling circles gives the rider more endurance. May not be faster in the short term, but it is in the long term. I define "pedaling circles" as a constant torque on the BB, because that's what feels smooth. Doesn't involve pulling up on the whole backstroke, just the start of it. Like "everyone says," pull back with your foot at the bottom of the stroke, like scraping mud off it. Continuing that for another ~30° compensates for the weak part of the downstroke. Similarly, generating max torque at the bottom of the downstroke compensates for the worst or even negative torque near the top of the backstroke. Pedal with your heel cups, not the ball of your foot.

I've studied the crap out of this while chasing better, younger, more talented riders than I up various climbs. I've tried everything and have rarely but occasionally been the first one over the top. Pedaling circles works and everyone knows it. Google presents us with 173,000 web pages. Here's one that does a fair job of explaining it:
http://www.cyclesportcoaching.com/Files/CUTraining7.pdf

Like he says, it's easiest just to forget about pushing down. That takes care of itself.

However! As many have noted, to produce maximum seated power for a short period, especially when riding a TT bike or aerobars, the downstroke is the main mover. In an aero tuck that becomes more important because in that position it's very hard to activate the other muscles used in pedaling circles.

However! That works great at speed on a TT, but on a steepish climb, the downstroke really sucks because the bike stops moving when you stop pushing. For an perfect illustration of the problem, get on a really steep climb, like 20% or so. Try climbing it out of the saddle, max effort, with the downstroke only. Next try it out of the saddle adding pulling up. Then try sitting and pedaling downstroke only. Lastly, try it in the saddle pedaling circles. Same lowest gear each attempt. If it's a short climb, standing and pulling up will win hugely. If it's a long climb you'll blow up pulling up, and sitting with circles will win over standing with downstroke only. You'll probably find it impossible to climb it at all while seated with downstroke only. This is so obvious that I don't know why we even talk about it.

<snip>
What is you max RPM?Riding a single speed with geared bikes, I can pull for a few minutes at 135. Over that and I blow up.

Right-o! Who's going to pay? Only those with an idea to push and the money to push it. We could take up a collection?There have been a number of studies and they haven't found any benefit to focusing on pulling up or pedalling in circles.


Seriously, "everyone knows" that pedaling circles gives the rider more endurance. May not be faster in the short term, but it is in the long term. I define "pedaling circles" as a constant torque on the BBYou might feel like you're putting constant torque on the crank but the reality is the torque peaks around 3 o'clock and you have very little torque coming from the inactive leg on the upstroke.

The primary benefit of pedalling smoothly is to eliminate any 'bounce' that happens when you're still pushing down on the pedal when it gets to 6 o'clock. Bouncing is inefficient but you'll notice the torque curves shown above would eliminate bounce but are a long way from constant torque.

There have been a number of studies and they haven't found any benefit to focusing on pulling up or pedalling in circles.

You might feel like you're putting constant torque on the crank but the reality is the torque peaks around 3 o'clock and you have very little torque coming from the inactive leg on the upstroke.

The primary benefit of pedalling smoothly is to eliminate any 'bounce' that happens when you're still pushing down on the pedal when it gets to 6 o'clock. Bouncing is inefficient but you'll notice the torque curves shown above would eliminate bounce but are a long way from constant torque.It's more than "feel." With me pedaling on my rollers, no matter what gear or cadence, the rollers make a constant sound. Your posted torque curve could not help but create a rhythmic variation in note and loudness. Please try that and report. I'm willing to postulate that you could easily change your pedaling technique to produce a constant hum. It just wouldn't be with that posted torque curve. Same thing when climbing 10%+ grades on a single speed. No variation in the speed of the bike. I invite you to find a 20% hill and see if what I posted above is correct or not. Note that I am not arguing about technique to produce maximum short-term power. I'm arguing that smooth pedaling increases endurance, which will affect the cyclists maximum power on the third pass of the day. I haven't seen any studies which have a single thing to say about that.

I believe I said that I have little or no torque and more probably negative torque on part of the backstroke. However, I push the max torque point further down the stroke, so that it occurs at about 4:30, which exactly matches the hardest to unload part of the upstroke. Don't think of it as a single leg pedaling circles. It's the additive torque of both legs.

Way too much reliance on test curves of people we don't know, pedaling under very particular test circumstances which we did not observe. We can, however, observe our own pedaling very closely and derive useful conclusions from that. We cannot derive useful conclusions about pedaling in circumstances and using individuals unlike the ones tested.

I don't trust any scientific experiment that was not verified by someone trying to disprove the original experiment. That's what my HS biology teacher taught me. She's now 97 and neither of us have seen any reason to back off from that reasoning.

No. I'm saying that if it were true that cyclists could gain power by pulling up on the inactive leg then they would do this and live with the decreased efficiency. Since it has been found that elite cyclists don't generate significant power on the upstroke, I conclude that this technique is not particularly useful unless you are sprinting or going hard up a hill.

Ah, I see.
This is not where I read it, but it reflects the same point:http://www.roadbikerider.com/cycling-science/perfect-pedal-strokes

So what is the reason you say pulling hard on upstroke is useful for sprinting, if it is not generating more power?

The trouble is that greg posted a link to a study to justify his stance. The research in the link is too deeply flawed to present an argument discounting roundness in pedal strokes.

The Ns are ridiculously small and compare the performance of elites with "good state class" ones.

The issue is that none of these athletes was trained with anything else in mind but an uneven pedal stroke (obviously based on the notion that the development of another muscle group wasn't worth the effort).

Next...

Also, if there was no ability to develop torque on the upstroke while pedalling, it would be impossible to pedal a bike one-legged while maintain any semblance of the same speed.

It's more than "feel." With me pedaling on my rollers, no matter what gear or cadence, the rollers make a constant sound. Your posted torque curve could not help but create a rhythmic variation in note and loudness.With all due respect, that is nonsense. There is still a fair amount of inertia involved when riding on the rollers so the velocity of the rollers is not going to drop very much when the pedals are at 6 o'clock. Remember that graph I showed was for one pedal. You would need to superimpose a similar graph for the other pedal to get the overall torque through 360 degrees. At 90 RPM there is less than 6mS between power peaks so the rollers won't be slowing down much and the sound you hear will be constant.

Ah, I see.
This is not where I read it, but it reflects the same point:http://www.roadbikerider.com/cycling-science/perfect-pedal-strokes

So what is the reason you say pulling hard on upstroke is useful for sprinting, if it is not generating more power?That's a good summary article. Maybe I wasn't clear, but I agree you get extra power by pulling up on the pedals during a sprint.

The trouble is that greg posted a link to a study to justify his stance. The research in the link is too deeply flawed to present an argument discounting roundness in pedal strokes.

The Ns are ridiculously small and compare the performance of elites with "good state class" ones.

The issue is that none of these athletes was trained with anything else in mind but an uneven pedal stroke (obviously based on the notion that the development of another muscle group wasn't worth the effort).

Next...You're starting to sound like Frank Day! The athletes were trained to put out maximum power over time. Perhaps if you were their coach they would be world-class athletes instead of just national class athletes.

If you disagree with the conclusions of the paper I cited, feel free to cite an alternate study supporting your position. Otherwise I'll continue to assume you're pulling ideas out of your ass with no evidence other than your vague notion of how much torque you apply throughout a pedal stroke.

Have a read of the link posted by mr_pedro, it provides a good summary.

Ah, I see.
This is not where I read it, but it reflects the same point:http://www.roadbikerider.com/cycling-science/perfect-pedal-strokes

So what is the reason you say pulling hard on upstroke is useful for sprinting, if it is not generating more power?The problem with pulling up is that it does not seem to be sustainable for very long, at least that is my experience. I'll pull up seated when attacking or purposely going over a crest in a larger than normal gear. One has to pull up standing in a hill sprint to maximize power, but that seems to max out at about 45 seconds. Sprinting on the flat, one can pull up to get on top of the gear, but then that stops working and one just pushes down. It doesn't seem to work to pull up standing at cadences much over 90. There's probably a biological reason for that, but I don't know what it is.

The article in your link hints at the issue of learning how to pedal circles but doesn't really state what it is. The issue is that one must develop what is called neuro-muscular coordination to automatically pedal circles. This coordination is rooted in the nervous system, not in the brain. The fastest way to develop it is to pedal very fast on rollers or a trainer for long periods. I do this every fall and winter, starting about now. I pedal in low gears, at cadences of 115-120, and in zone 2, starting with 15 minutes and lengthening over time to 45 minutes. I do this once a week. I use just enough tension or gearing so that the chain stays taut. Over time I gradually increase the gear. One may not be able to pedal this fast and stay in zone 2 without some practice. One can either let the effort go up or cut back on the cadence. Which to do will depend on ones' recovery, i.e. what else one is doing during the week. Your legs may be sore as the devil the first time you do this for a half hour. Keep your feet flat. Maintain what feels like a layer of air between the sole of your foot and your shoe. Neither push down nor pull up. Just rotate your feet in perfect circles as fast as possible.

One hears many people recommending fast pedaling intervals for one or two minutes. IMO this is nearly useless. The idea is to develop a permanent change in one's neuro-muscular coordination. This takes a lot of time, totaling many hours, not 1 or 2 minutes.

Since the idea of doing this is to increase sustainable climbing power, I quit doing the fast pedaling in late January, switching to one-legged pedaling in that same time slot to build strength. It's a combination: neuro-muscular conditioning and strength/endurance conditioning.

It's more than "feel." With me pedaling on my rollers, no matter what gear or cadence, the rollers make a constant sound. Your posted torque curve could not help but create a rhythmic variation in note and loudness. Please try that and report. I'm willing to postulate that you could easily change your pedaling technique to produce a constant hum. It just wouldn't be with that posted torque curve. Same thing when climbing 10%+ grades on a single speed. No variation in the speed of the bike. I invite you to find a 20% hill and see if what I posted above is correct or not. Note that I am not arguing about technique to produce maximum short-term power. I'm arguing that smooth pedaling increases endurance, which will affect the cyclists maximum power on the third pass of the day. I haven't seen any studies which have a single thing to say about that.

I believe I said that I have little or no torque and more probably negative torque on part of the backstroke. However, I push the max torque point further down the stroke, so that it occurs at about 4:30, which exactly matches the hardest to unload part of the upstroke. Don't think of it as a single leg pedaling circles. It's the additive torque of both legs.

Way too much reliance on test curves of people we don't know, pedaling under very particular test circumstances which we did not observe. We can, however, observe our own pedaling very closely and derive useful conclusions from that. We cannot derive useful conclusions about pedaling in circumstances and using individuals unlike the ones tested.

I don't trust any scientific experiment that was not verified by someone trying to disprove the original experiment. That's what my HS biology teacher taught me. She's now 97 and neither of us have seen any reason to back off from that reasoning.

Have you had your pedal stroke measured and analyzed and can post the results?

That would be nice to show.

The problem with pulling up is that it does not seem to be sustainable for very long, at least that is my experience. I'll pull up seated when attacking or purposely going over a crest in a larger than normal gear. One has to pull up standing in a hill sprint to maximize power, but that seems to max out at about 45 seconds. Sprinting on the flat, one can pull up to get on top of the gear, but then that stops working and one just pushes down. It doesn't seem to work to pull up standing at cadences much over 90. There's probably a biological reason for that, but I don't know what it is.

I'd guess that hamstrings and hip flexors are not strong enough to pull the weight of your leg up that fast.


The article in your link hints at the issue of learning how to pedal circles but doesn't really state what it is. The issue is that one must develop what is called neuro-muscular coordination to automatically pedal circles. This coordination is rooted in the nervous system, not in the brain. The fastest way to develop it is to pedal very fast on rollers or a trainer for long periods. I do this every fall and winter, starting about now. I pedal in low gears, at cadences of 115-120, and in zone 2, starting with 15 minutes and lengthening over time to 45 minutes. I do this once a week. I use just enough tension or gearing so that the chain stays taut. Over time I gradually increase the gear. One may not be able to pedal this fast and stay in zone 2 without some practice. One can either let the effort go up or cut back on the cadence. Which to do will depend on ones' recovery, i.e. what else one is doing during the week. Your legs may be sore as the devil the first time you do this for a half hour. Keep your feet flat. Maintain what feels like a layer of air between the sole of your foot and your shoe. Neither push down nor pull up. Just rotate your feet in perfect circles as fast as possible.

One hears many people recommending fast pedaling intervals for one or two minutes. IMO this is nearly useless. The idea is to develop a permanent change in one's neuro-muscular coordination. This takes a lot of time, totaling many hours, not 1 or 2 minutes.

Since the idea of doing this is to increase sustainable climbing power, I quit doing the fast pedaling in late January, switching to one-legged pedaling in that same time slot to build strength. It's a combination: neuro-muscular conditioning and strength/endurance conditioning.

How does 120 rpm help with sustained climbing power?

You're starting to sound like Frank Day! The athletes were trained to put out maximum power over time. Perhaps if you were their coach they would be world-class athletes instead of just national class athletes.

If you disagree with the conclusions of the paper I cited, feel free to cite an alternate study supporting your position. Otherwise I'll continue to assume you're pulling ideas out of your ass with no evidence other than your vague notion of how much torque you apply throughout a pedal stroke.

Have a read of the link posted by mr_pedro, it provides a good summary.

I am going to give a very measured response here to your snotty post.

Number one: We are not dealing with elite athletes, and we are not talking about sprinting and hillclimbing per se. We are talking about ordinary cyclists whose style is likely unrefined at least, and certainly not very efficient because their muscles haven't been trained either aerobically or technically.

Number two: The research articles discussed in your previous post, and in the blog account are light on for science in terms of sample sizes. Especially the first one. A sample of 9 in one group, and five in the other does not constitute anywhere near enough of a sample size other than to give an indication of possible outcomes. A sample size of 35 is getting up there in the Broker-Martin test, but that is balanced by only 13 in their comparative group. That's probably why there are "may not" and "cast doubt" phrases used -- because the tests haven't proved a thing beyond doubt.

Number three: The blog article actually supports the position that I have taken, and that of carbonfibreboy. Why? Because the blog article says:

"... the studies usually deal with short-duration power output where pushing down as hard as possible, with the resulting ragged pedaling action, is more effective. However, this masher style is fatiguing over several hours. "

And here is the cruncher for the average cyclist:
"As a result, good riders automatically smooth their pedaling to increase comfort and efficiency over the long haul. Elite riders can do both -- produce maximum power for short periods as well as pedal elegantly for hours."

The fact that he cites Lance Armstrong who changed his pedalling style from being a masher to a smooth high-cadence pedaller, suggests two things:

1. The practice of developing a round pedalling style does in fact carry benefits in terms of overall efficiency over extended periods (because the rider is not fatiguing by using the masher style).

and

2. The rider can adapt to this style of pedalling with an increase in cadence and by concentrating on technique.

I'll add this. If you want to talk about elite, top-class cyclists (and no, not national level), the gains in performance are now being measured in fractions of a per cent. Evidence of this was the appointment of a manager for the British Olympic cycling team to identify and achieve these fractions of a difference.

This leads to the suggestion that if the difference between winning and losing is a matter of 0.5%, surely recruitment of additional muscles to engage upward torque might just make that difference between two riders who are almost identical in performance across a race.

Also I found it interesting that Greg Lemond was an advocate of the mud-scraping scenario, and that Jeff Broker said that while he didn't believe in working excessively on pedal stroke in training, he did pay attention to it and used Lemond's imagery.

And anyone who looks seriously at these sorts of style and technique issues will see that the vast majority of GT riders use a very smooth, silky pedalling style that still have elements of Lemond's mud-scrapers.

Even more compelling is John Tomac's smoothness.

I am glad I didn't have to go any further than the blog discussion you suggested I read to disagree with your proposition.

To the OP, go out and do some one-legged pedalling drills. You'll be a better cyclist for it.

I am glad I didn't have to go any further than the blog discussion you suggested I read to disagree with your proposition.You didn't really disagree with anything I said. Those 'elite' cyclists that were studied also have a 'smooth' pedalling style. My point is it isn't necessary to have anything close to constant torque to have a 'smooth' pedalling style and the torque profile for all cyclists looks very similar to the graph I provided. You could test 100 or 1000 cyclists and it wouldn't make any difference, they all have the same basic style. Some just push harder than others :)

I'd guess that hamstrings and hip flexors are not strong enough to pull the weight of your leg up that fast.



How does 120 rpm help with sustained climbing power?You're probably right about the flexors. It's the acceleration. Thanks.

120 rpm teaches your nerves when and how to fire. Once you have that down, circles at 80 rpm feels really slow and easy. It's about efficiency. Everything has to be just so to get the maximum out of this rider's crappy aerobic system. One is always limited by one's aerobic capacity. That being a given, the question then becomes how to use that aerobic capacity to get up the mountain faster. I suppose it's the same thing as advocating for light wheels. The less energy you expend in useless acceleration, the more becomes available for moving the bike steady-state.

Which brings up a concurrent question: Why? Why do lighter wheels make you faster? After all, one gets the momentum back between power strokes, doesn't one? So why should lighter wheels make you faster? I've heard many inexperienced riders opine that heavier wheels should make you faster because then the bike wouldn't slow as much between power strokes. Why is that not true?

The answer to that rhetorical question is simple. Peak power is expensive. The reason we spin rather then mash is because we hope to reduce the maximum force of muscular contractions, thus sparing glycogen. So by pedaling circles, we win in two ways: we reduce peak power by not accelerating the bike, and we reduce the peak power of each muscle by spreading out the work load among more muscles. Peak power being lower in each muscle, they last longer.

Have you had your pedal stroke measured and analyzed and can post the results?

That would be nice to show.I'd love to. I'm near Seattle. Tell me where. I've asked around but no one I've talked to knows.