Sorry, but that is exactly what the tests were focusing on. Again: They are using pedals that detect the application of forces applied to the pedal. The pedals record the precise direction of the forces applied in 360º; the amount of force; where in the pedal stroke the force is applied; even where, on the pedal itself, the force is applied. It provides instantaneous cadence information at a much higher sample rate than a standard cadence meter.

Also, there are dozens of parameters that human beings simply cannot evaluate in a remotely accurate manner based on subjective measures. Cadence, speed, acceleration, elevation, duration and distance traveled, power applied to the drivetrain, heart rate, aerobic vs anaerobic efforts -- none of these can be measured accurately without mechanical assistance. On what basis, then, is "direction and amount of force applied to the pedal" any different?

From what I can tell, CFB isn't using power or cadence meters, he's just guessing, a subjective process that is heavily influenced by his own expectations. For example, he asserts that he's applying an even amount of power on both the downstroke and upstroke. However, legs are not massless; each leg is 10-15% of your body's mass. So for a 175lb individual, when seated that could easily mean that on the downstroke gravity is pulling 5-10 lbs down, and on the upstroke you need to lift an additional 5-10 lbs. When standing, these effects due to gravity will be significantly greater. To apply equal amounts of force to the drivetrain on both up and down strokes, you'd actually have to supply more force on the upstroke, especially when standing. I guess this just didn't make it to his diagram somehow.


OK, let's put it this way.

Pruitt heads up a sports medicine and training facility in Boulder, CO. He's been using force-measuring pedals since 1996. He's worked with elite riders such as Olympic track sprinters (who cycle at up to 130rpm) and Team Saxo Bank. Separately, Metrigear (bought this week by Garmin, btw) is working on its own force-measuring pedal system. They have a broad and deep sample pool.

So why exactly aren't they confirming the hypothesis that cyclists provide usable force to the drivetrain on the upstroke?


Incorrect.

This is not a single specific test that was run once and that's it. They've used the force-measuring pedals on a large pool of cyclists, ranging from track to road to off-road, for years. They've done standing vs sitting, flats vs climbs, you name it and I'm reasonably certain they've done it.


They are making no such claims. I am the one saying that, when you look at the data and consider the touring context, that developing a smooth stroke is most likely far more important than clipping in.

Or, to put it another way: Let's say that clipping in does somehow make you more efficient, and on a typical day you save 2 minutes on the climbs. You then spend another 2 minutes per day switching and dealing with shoes, and now need to carry 2 sets of footwear instead of 1. Is clipless still worth it? If you prefer the ride feel of clipless or toe clips, sure. If you don't, or prefer convenience over a tiny bit of efficiency, then no.