knobster

I've found it's helped my technique. I don't much care about technique because I'm just a recreational cyclist. But I concentrate on it when I'm on the stationary bike because I want to make sure my left leg which is recovering from a broken tibia so I watch my output very closely to make sure my pedal stoke is as smooth as possible and keep my numbers even. Took me awhile to get that and my left leg gets much more tired than my right so it's certainly helping.

gregf83 

I don't really like high cadence and low load. If I'm racing in a crit my cadence naturally goes up and I might average around 105 for 45 min. If I'm noodling along I prefer a lower cadence.

For the winter I ride a 1x10 setup with a 42 ring in the front and 12-26 in the back. For fun these days I'm trying to see how high I can get my cadence at the bottom of a steep short hill near the beginning of my ride. I was up to 167 today but that was taking over 600W so it didn't last long. I'll try lowering my gears and see how high I can go.

sgtdirt

i did a spin class this morning! is it the same as riding on the road? of course not! did i get in a good aerobic/anaerobic workout? hell, yeah.
i did do some "bike" training, though. i felt the need to make circles while pedaling (i.e. ride smooth).

Spin class is like any other training aid. you get what you put into it. i see people just spinning but then i see people SPINNING. personally, i like it. at least it's better than running!

Maelochs

Only because I am not sufficiently fit to run---and it can more easily be done indoors with loud music playing.

Running may be stupid, but i look forward to the day when I can be that stupid again.

By the way ... thanks for the very rational appraisal of spinning. It's not evil, nor is it the path to heaven, not even bicycle heaven. It will Not hurt my road riding and it beats sitting on the couch in front of the TV stuffing my face ... in fact, it allows me to sit on the couch in front of the TV and stuff my face with far fewer negative side effects.

Carbonfiberboy 

I don't think anyone likes high cadence/low load. Me neither. I hate it, actually. I do it because it's effective.

Here's the deal: Maintaining a cushion of air under the foot, as I said to do in a previous post, makes it impossible to push down on the downstroke. Pushing down negates the whole value of it. Thus there really is an almost perfectly smooth torque on the BB. Doing it for such a long period, as I said, up to 45', causes neuromuscular changes in the legs. They learn to when and what to fire to pedal smoothly and the normally smaller helper muscles are stimulated to grow. This takes time. I started doing this once a week for about 3 months at the start of every winter, and it took maybe 3 years before I got good at it. It's a Carmichael/Burke technique. And it has to be at quite a high cadence or it doesn't put enough load on the muscles to develop them. It's something to do with dealing with leg inertia.

I don't suppose that a 115-120 cadence should be a limiter. 130 is probably fine, but for most folks that's an impossible goal because of the stricture of staying in zone 2. I suppose that's specified to encourage VT1 type adaptations. If you're legs are loading, you're going too hard. That zonal limit also encourages one to figure out how to spin like that at the lowest possible energy outlay, always a good thing. I've always kept it at right about VT1 and increased the gear if I started to go over 120.

Of course it's only possible to "pull the punch" of the quads up to a certain power level, which will vary with each person and how much time and effort they've devoted to work on the other leg muscles. Above that level, there's an obvious torque spike on the downstroke. So if you watch top modern pros on the flat or minor hills, even up to maybe 30 mph, their upper bodies are almost perfectly still. We don't even see arm muscle flexion. This is because their BB torque curve is pretty flat.

But as soon as they turn up the heat, we see that characteristic upper body motion, indicating downstroke force has increased. Today, few bob their upper body up and down as was done by Eddy and other old and great pros. Now the top pros curve their spine from side to side, putting upper body weight over the downstroke pedal, but not using upper body momentum to assist with glute flexion. They do it all with the legs. I'm thinking of Quintana and the Sky team last year. I'm guessing that maybe they use lower gears today, or maybe have just figured out that it takes more energy to bob their upper body than to flex their spine. Athletes tend to copy winners. I like to experiment. Sometimes it works out and I write about it.

chaadster

Well I've lost track of what's been said in this thread, as a lot of it just seems ill-defined, or speculative,and of questionable relevance.

Anyway, I brought up the issue of quality earlier, in the context of both equipment quality and program quality. The highest quality "spin" bikes have power meters, smart electronic resistance adjustment, and freewheel. The best "spinning classes" are actually programs targeting cycling results and based on power output.

That said, even fixed-gear/flywheel equipped "spin bikes" can be effective cycling training tools in the hands of a compent rider working in a serious program. Take a look at this article from Spinning (the brand) Instructors Manual, and you'll see not only a specific concern that Spinning instructors tailor the classes to cyclists, but that they be familiar with cycling themselves. Knowing how to use the resistance control properly and effeictively can allow the rider to dial-in their efforts.

https://www.spinning.com/media/spinni...ews_2-2005.pdf

gregf83 

I think you're reading much more into upper body movement than justified. With a strong core someone's upper body can be perfectly still while still applying uneven torque.

All the studies on pedaling mechanics are contrary to what you're talking about. Cyclists aren't generally limited by their muscles. Training a group of smaller inefficient muscles is not going to increase your VO2Max. VO2Max is trainable but it takes hard work.

Keep experimenting though. It is a hobby after all and anything that makes it interesting is good.

Carbonfiberboy 

Actually that truism about "all studies" being contrary is not true. I only know of one study where differing pedaling styles were studied, this one:
https://www.radlabor.de/fileadmin/PDF...MSS_-_2011.pdf
which confirms exactly what I'm talking about. Note that this study was done with untrained pedalers who almost instantly showed improvement in endurance. If they continued working on that constantly, for years, imagine the further improvement.

Here's a good thread from other experienced pedalers, from the 50+ forum:
https://www.bikeforums.net/fifty-plus...ing-about.html
particularly this post by an elite track racer:
https://www.bikeforums.net/fifty-plus...l#post12829628
who independently came to the same conclusions as I.

And another article advocating same, but with an appropriate emphasis on foot position:
https://www.bikesplit.com/bsa4.htm

No, of course pedaling style won't increase VO2max. That's not the point. But if we spread out the same work among more muscles, we can delay the exhaustion of the main drivers. This might even be of interest to those who do 1 hour crits, but certainly to those who do long competitive rides or races.

If I'm not in good form and cramp my quads after redlining it on a climb, I can stay with the group, pedaling almost entirely with my hams and flexors until my quads ease up, your graph not withstanding.

gregf83 

I'm thinking of studies like Effect of Pedaling Technique on MechanicalEffectiveness and Efficiency in Cyclists which found a decrease in efficiency when cyclists were instructed to 'pull up' or pedal in circles.

The study you linked was interesting but had the cyclists ride for 45 min at 75RPM in order to induce fatigue in their legs. I suspect the results may have been different if the cyclists would have pedaled at a more normal 90-100 RPM. I also noted that even with the feedback there was still significant negative torque on the upstroke. Better cyclists tend to unweight the pedal on the upstroke and perhaps that is what you are really advocating.

My original point was that even with all this feedback, torque is not close to constant and looking at cyclist's upper body doesn't allow one to make any conclusions about how smoothly they're applying torque.

Carbonfiberboy 

I'm advocating more pushing forward at the top and pulling back at the bottom. Dropping the heel, one can start pushing forward before TDC. Plus simply not pushing down consciously until you have to. Unweighting is good, but not as important as the other things, the quads being so much stronger than the flexors.

The idea that pulling up, as in your linked study, is an element of "pedaling in circles" is a canard. This is obviously true because it only effects one quadrant of the pedal stroke, that quadrant being where the quads are dominant. For an approximately constant BB torque to be applied, we only have to make sure that the two crank torques add evenly through 180° of travel for each crank. That said, many of us pull up strongly to accelerate at a hilltop or going up a short, steep climb when it's faster to do that than to shift. We can immediately tell it's not efficient, just fast for a short period, exactly as that study found. We knew that.

More to the point, no differences in gross efficiency were found between pedaling normally, pedaling circles, or pushing down strongly. Again, I don't claim any efficiency differences between those pedaling techniques, only what was found in the study to which I linked: that pedaling circles increases the time to exhaustion during hard efforts.

We'll have to disagree about the upper body being a tell. I think you do have to admit that the upper bodies of the top pros do vary in motion according to the watts they're putting down. More watts = more motion. I don't think there can be another reason other than that the more watts they put out, the harder they push down.

Whether the increase in motion is is because the downstroke force overwhelms what their core can deal with, or whether the downstroke is overwhelming their other pedaling muscles is, I think, where we disagree. But if the imbalance is captured in their core, where is the opposing force? When they go hard, we can easily see arm flexion.

gregf83 

Fine but there was no difference found between pedaling in circles and the preferred pedaling style or pushing down.

How can you tell it's not efficient? You get tired because you're putting out high power for a short period not because of a minor change in efficiency.

With the added caveat that the test was done at an unusually low cadence that normal cyclists would never use.

I'm saying the upper body motion is a red herring and not relevant. Contador bobs up and down more than Chris Froome at the same power levels. So what? They're both world class cyclists.

Like I said, it's a red herring. Some world class cyclists have more upper body motion than others. Beyond that I don't think there's any evidence to draw any incite on their pedaling style. Some sprinters bob their heads when sprinting. Hard to make a connection between head bobbing and pedaling technique.

trailangel

I never tried it. I have never been to a gym. I would need to have someone sterilize the whole room before I tried it.
I can just imagine the smell.......

sgtdirt

the higher quality gyms provide antibacterial spray and wipes so you can "sterilize" the spin bike. Smell? none, at least not at my gym. the room is basically a wind tunnel as fans constantly blowing and vents provide circulation.

AristoNYC

This video made me so happy.

trailangel

I am not wiping up some stranger's sweat!

Carbonfiberboy 

There is this weird thing about cleanliness that permeates some quarters of Anglo society. It's like avoiding lifting anything because you might strain a muscle. Some people don't get that human beings have immune systems. They work just like every system in our bodies: they respond positively to stress. So the more bacteria you interact with, the more resistant to said bacteria one becomes. Duh. Did you know that the bacterial cells in and on your body outnumber your human cells? They're a part of how we function and stay healthy. So stop washing your hands so much and throw away any anti-bacterial cleaners you might have around the house.

FLvector

My guess is you're exposing yourself to much worse when using the public restrooms at work or at a restaurant, or touching hand rails, door handles, etc in other locations. Surprising how many don't bother to even wash their hands. Many of the gyms are diligent on having their people wipe down the equipment, even if you don't want to do it. I'm impressed by the attention that is given to keeping the equipment clean.

woodcraft

Plus this upper body movement could be bad for your pedal stroke-

you're right to stay home!

gsa103

Lower gears. Compact cranks or 30t rear cassettes start appearing for the climbing stages. There's obviously a large degree of personal preferences.

I would tend to agree that a stable upper body, seems most efficient. But then you see someone like Froome, and you can pretty well toss any argument about form and efficiency into a trash bin. Minor variations in form are probably a smaller difference than ceramic vs steel bearings.

Carbonfiberboy 

Glad someone finally brought up ceramic bearings! Sheeesh.

kbarch

Let's not confuse the issue of efficiency by talking about what anyone does during all-out efforts. That flailing about is more like afterburners on a jet, and some are more flamboyant than others. It may do the trick - it may give an extra boost that couldn't be had otherwise - but nobody rides like that all the time because it is so inefficient.

chaadster

Let's not talk about efficiency like we know what we're talking about.

Aerodynamic? Biomechanical? Metabolic? Just what kind of efficiency are you talking about. I'd argue that what you call "flamboyant afterburners" are precisely efficient, because there is no other way to get the job done, and that they don't ride like that all the time because they don't need to, and can't. If Froome could crush out 400w every meter of every day of The Tour, he'd be assured victory, so why not ride "like that"? Can't.

kbarch

You know what else is inefficient? Rhetoric like that.
Im talking about energy efficiency, economical use of the available resources. In the case of afterburners, miles per gallon of jet fuel, or in the case of cycling, per gram of energy bar or what have you. Nobody can say that Froome's flailings are ineffective - perhaps they are as effective as jet afterburners, i.e., very. But they would be just as much of a waste if used unnecessarily.

chaadster

You cannot provide any support for the proposition that upper body movement is more metabolically inefficient than being still, can you? I mean, we accept it takes energy to move, but the amount required to bob or weave on the bike is nothing-to-miniscule compared to what it takes to propel the bike. I just don't think it's relevant to performance in a meaningful way, and particularly not in the context of climbing (which was the original context put forth by CFB; whether you think climbing is an all-out effort is irrelevant) where shifting weight over the power stroke clearly and obviously helps generate power during hard efforts.

andr0id

Some spin bikes have a very wide Q factor. If you're sensitive to knee issues and fit, then you might have a problem.

I've heard newer models have narrower BB and you can really dial in your fit quite easily.

Other than that, enjoy the hot chicks.