View Single Post
Old 02-21-21, 07:45 PM
just another gosling
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 17,551

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2979 Post(s)
Liked 901 Times in 684 Posts
Originally Posted by rubiksoval View Post
I got to where I could ride them for 30 minutes or so, but to what end, I never figured out. There was zero difference when I got back on my bike.

I guess it's called a spin scan. Scantron are those bubble sheets you take tests on in school Woops! It was something that showed where you were delivering power throughout the pedal stroke; essentially whether you unweighted the up leg as much or not (there is generally not significant differences here, apparently, but still some more efficient than others).

Pedaling is pedaling and it, like cadence, varies on preference, seat height, heel extension, etc. Smashing down is where the power comes from. Lifting toes on the backstroke is about one of the last things I'd think about for my own riding, though I sit a bit lower than most and keep my foot more horizontal through the bottom and top.

Just like Basso, there's nothing I care about in regards to Armstrong and Pantani, personally. Their era is over and was so egregiously f'ed up that I don't think much of anything is applicable, especially what they did in training or racing.
Yeah, some experiments show favorable results, others not so much.

I was really interested that they pedaled identically, coming from completely different traditions. They lift that toe to start the power stroke earlier, like 11:00 and then pull through the bottom and another maybe 20 with that heel cup. Putting more degrees into the power stroke seems helpful to me. Those slo-mo Ironwoman videos (not dopers) I've posted show the same pedaling extension of power stroke, though it's hard to see it's the same because of the body rotation on the tri-bike. I guess if I want to copy that, I have to train for it, like anything else.

I thought the most interesting aspects of the modern sports drugging was how steroids increased recovery ability - pretty obvious on stage races who stayed strong evenly day after day. The fad for high cadence was based on EPO. We've always known that folks who TT at high cadence had big VO2max numbers. EPO accentuated that. I still shake my head at those old Lance standing attacks. Oh sure, anyone could train to do that. Not. OTOH, those folks brought in some new technology other than doping, probably through the money that was involved with the doped riders' fame. I still ride the same frame model on which Lance won the '99 tour, not the same size though.

There was an article, I think in Outside, by a journalist who doped. He went to an unnamed doctor and said I'm a sports journalist and amateur athlete and I want to find out what happens to these pros who dope. And I have an expense account. So the doctor gradually introduced him to performance-enhancing drugs, one at a time. The journalist couldn't believe how fast and strong he got. IIRC, like $20k in 6 months for just the drugs. So when we hear of amateurs doping, it's just nuts in terms of ROI. Ego crazed folks.
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline