Originally Posted by
u235
It can be separated. The additional power you apply pulling up still burns energy. You are not getting that additional power for nothing. If you are reducing your downstroke an equal amount it all evens out in terms of efficiency. You may be able to go longer and further in any given day because you are spreading the load but that is not an efficiency metric, that is a usage metric. That is pedaling effectiveness, your limit is not amount of energy available or burned, breathing, HR etc.. it is muscle fatigue. There are some studies that show although pulling up creates more power capability, there was no improvement and even a decrease in overall mechanical efficiency.
I'm not saying that you are getting power for nothing. Only that you are using the power you do develop more efficiently. Without clipless, you only put power to the pedal on the downstroke which means you a lot of other muscles more than you do some others. Look at table 3 in your link. Normalized to clipless, flat pedals make the rider work more muscle groups harder than with clipless. I'm not sure what the CLIPFBACK system is but looking at the noncyclists results, I wonder if the results, especially for the noncyclists is more influenced by fighting the system rather than any actual result. This statement
...this figure highlighted the difficulty for subjects to fully realize the feedback condition, as they could
not pull up enough to generate a positive FE during the whole upstroke.
This statement, along with the data for the noncyclists, says to me that the people had trouble learning how to use the system. That likely had more to influence on the results than the test did. Given time and training, the results may be vastly different.
Originally Posted by
u235
Not my study, I am just the messenger. I'm sure there are studies that may suggest otherwise.
http://www.radlabor.de/fileadmin/PDF...aefte_2008.pdf
that concept of efficiency and effectiveness clipped, unclipped, and pedal technique is littered thought the PDF and in the conclusion.
Firstly, shoe-pedal
interface did not influence the pedalling pattern during submaximal
cycling. Secondly, cyclists could change their technique by
actively pulling up during the recovery phase. However, doing
so impaired their mechanical efficiency.
Concerning the influence of the shoe-pedal interface, the lack of
difference between the pedals without toe-clips and clipless
pedals is somehow surprising. Indeed none of the kinetic quantities,
V˙ O2, NE and iEMG parameters showed any differences between
PED and CLIP, even for elite cyclists who are used to cycling
with clipless shoe-pedal systems.
Don't let someones study dictate what you feel. My pedal stroke and method is what it is and I'll ride on any given day until I don't feel like riding, maybe its my right leg, left knee, my nose running, I just felt like stopping, bored, I rode by a backyard BBQ and got a wiff of a steak and got hungry, my mind is elsewhere, I got a flat, who knows. It's never because I am pulling up or not that is impairing or helping.
You missed this bit
However, wearing clipless pedals could be advantageous in other cases, where the link between the foot and the pedal provided by the fixation could be necessary, e.g., during maximal cycling, cycling up hills, or any condition where maximal power is required. Indeed,Capmal and Vandewalle [2] have shown a greater power output during all-out sprints with toe-clips than without, while Hintzy et al. [8] reported a significant increase of the maximal values of force, velocity and power output when clipless pedals were used during all-out ergometer sprints
We touring cyclists run do more than just cruise along on flat roads. Yes, we tend to wool gather (does that have an influence on the results in the paper?), get tired (ditto) and forget about form. But when we start to climb, we get closer to those maximal efforts where clipless helps.