That's a very interesting study and I thank you for posting it. I must confess that I already knew that elite national-class cyclists were faster than I am and can generate higher pedal forces. I think, however, that you have reached a conclusion that is not supported by the data.

From pp 105&106:
Thus the authors admit that experienced cyclists "display more uniform pedal force application" than non-cyclists, and that this difference is likely to "reflect cycling skill and experience rather than muscle type."

So how are we do reconcile these conflicts in the study? Simply by coming back to the obvious: elite cyclists can generate more pedal force than non-elite cyclists. I, for example, can train with the finest coaches in the world and I will not be able to hammer on the pedals hard enough to keep up with those folks. Never could. If I could, I would.

So what about the differences in pedaling strategy between group 1 and group 2? I think the authors have it backwards. Group 1 is not group 1 because they hammer on the pedals during the downstroke harder than group 2. They are group 1 because they are physically more talented. Group 2 uses a more efficient pedal stroke to make up for their inability to hammer that hard. If they could, they would. But this is what they do to stay as competitive as they can.

One of my core beliefs is that people are not, in general, stupid. When people do a particular thing in a particular way after long study and practice, it's just possible that they are doing the best they can.

Please note that subject A (and national champion), with the highest continuous wattage, pulled up very noticeably late in the backstroke, something that I've never gotten strong enough to do, the efficacy of which I've always doubted, and which you are preaching against. He also did not have the highest peak pedal torque. Also note how A's torque persisted much later in the pedal stroke than anyone else. I pedal much more like subject F, perhaps because I have well developed hams and glutes from skiing and hiking.

One thing that these studies ignore, and I don't know the reason for it, is that what one wants to do is to put a near constant momentary torque on the bottom bracket. This does absolutely not mean pulling up on the backstroke. I can't do it hard except for very short periods, probably not even a minute, in spite of all the MTI and OLP work I've done. Why would one do that, after all, since one is already pushing down much more effectively with the other foot? Although there must be a reason for some folks, as we see that the national champion pulls up. IMO one does better to increase the area under the curve by keeping torque on the BB more constant from about 20° to 200°.

For if it were true that all we needed to do was hammer harder on the downstroke, then why do we have light climbing wheels? Simply because momentary accelerations are a waste of energy. We don't get all the energy spent in acceleration back. Yeah, one would think we do, simply examining the equations, just like you were saying that a heavy bike must be easier to pedal on the flats. But in the experience of all cyclists, heavy wheels are a drag on a climb and a heavy bike is not easier to pedal on the flats. The reason is the inefficient conversion of resources into ATP.

My takeaway from this study is that we don't actually learn anything except that elite cyclists are more talented and that less talented cyclists are more likely to have acquired improved technique as a defense, though the best of the elites may also have improved technique, see Lance Armstrong and the unnamed national champion.