pedaling on the arches

A review suggests that the conventional wisdom of pedaling on the
balls of the foot might have it all wrong:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?...io-mxc2shoes09

I have to say I'm comfortable with the ball-of-the-foot cleat
position. But I often wonder -- since the ankle does not artilculate
much during pedaling, and therefore can't be contributing much power,
(and even for ankling pedalers, what force is generated by the ankle
has to be supported through the knee as well), wouldn't a cyclist's
typically bulging calves have to be taken as a sign of wasted energy?

Has there been any study on metabolic efficiency as it relates to foot
position?

-pm

On 4 June, 22:16, pm wrote:
A review suggests that the conventional wisdom of pedaling on the
balls of the foot might have it all wrong:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?...ws/biomac_bio-...

I have to say I'm comfortable with the ball-of-the-foot cleat
position. But I often wonder -- since the ankle does not artilculate
much during pedaling, and therefore can't be contributing much power,
(and even for ankling pedalers, what force is generated by the ankle
has to be supported through the knee as well), wouldn't a cyclist's
typically bulging calves have to be taken as a sign of wasted energy?

It would seem so. There are times, however when a rider is overgeared
and the absorption of force by the calf muscles will even out the
pedalling action to enable a reasonable delivery of power. I also
think there may be repercussions, using rearwards cleats, with the
knees and hips because of the fixation of rotational limits of these
joints. The traditional setup permits the rider to effectively extend
and reduce saddle height during a ride so minimising the negative
effects of the repetitive movements upon the joints.

Another point would be how it affects sprinting power. Efficiency
here is not too important, its purely a case of getting as much power
as possible projecting the bicycle forward. I think that involving
the ankles more, certainly helps with high rotational speeds and is
possibly an aid to keeping the bike under control during an all out
effort. This may also apply to climbing.

pm wrote:

A review suggests that the conventional wisdom of pedaling on the
balls of the foot might have it all wrong:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?...ws/biomac_bio-...

I have to say I'm comfortable with the ball-of-the-foot cleat
position. But I often wonder -- since the ankle does not artilculate
much during pedaling, and therefore can't be contributing much power,
(and even for ankling pedalers, what force is generated by the ankle
has to be supported through the knee as well), wouldn't a cyclist's
typically bulging calves have to be taken as a sign of wasted energy?

Has there been any study on metabolic efficiency as it relates to foot
position?

My impression-- admittedly unsupported by any research I'm aware of--
is that the ankle's role is primarily in keeping the pedal stroke
smooth and continuous (providing a buffer between the reciprocation of
the lower leg and the rotation of the crank), and not in providing
extra raw power above what the upper leg muscles can provide.

Because we are bipedal walkers, our legs are designed to transmit
power through the balls of our feet-- thus that's what feels natural
to us-- and our tendency to pedal on the forefoot might be just as
simple as that.

I use neither clipless pedals nor clips and straps (though I have
habits ingrained by many years of using one or the other). I find
that the only time it feels natural to shift my feet forwards on the
pedals is when I'm grinding up a steep grade on a single-speed, or
when I need to mount suddenly and get moving in a hurry. As soon as
my cadence moves into a normal range, my feet find their way back into
the usual balls-over-spindles position.

Chalo

On Jun 4, 5:16*pm, pm wrote:
A review suggests that the conventional wisdom of pedaling on the
balls of the foot might have it all wrong:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?...ws/biomac_bio-....

I have to say I'm comfortable with the ball-of-the-foot cleat
position. But I often wonder -- since the ankle does not artilculate
much during pedaling, and therefore can't be contributing much power,
(and even for ankling pedalers, what force is generated by the ankle
has to be supported through the knee as well), wouldn't a cyclist's
typically bulging calves have to be taken as a sign of wasted energy?

Has there been any study on metabolic efficiency as it relates to foot
position?

-pm

normaly, people don't run on the arch of their foot; try going up a
few flights of stairs holding your foot level eg without ankling and
you will soon feel the limitations- and don't forget the toe (or foot)
overlap that is likely to occur as a result. although the problems may
seem to be in the longitudnal location of the cleat on the foot, most
likely it is a result of a poor seat position on the bike. fix the
position and power and cadence should be optimal as a result.

========
normaly, people don't run on the arch of their foot; try going up a
few flights of stairs holding your foot level eg without ankling and
you will soon feel the limitations-
========

But a pedal has bearings and rotates under your foot, so even if you're
pedaling in the middle of your foot, it isn't terribly similar to trying
to climb stairs, or even walk, while trying to keep your feet parallel
to the ground at all times.

The other issue is one of balance. We apparently use our toes
extensively to maintain our sense of balance when on our feet. That's
not the case when cycling.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


wrote in message
...
On Jun 4, 5:16 pm, pm wrote:
A review suggests that the conventional wisdom of pedaling on the
balls of the foot might have it all wrong:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?...ws/biomac_bio-...

I have to say I'm comfortable with the ball-of-the-foot cleat
position. But I often wonder -- since the ankle does not artilculate
much during pedaling, and therefore can't be contributing much power,
(and even for ankling pedalers, what force is generated by the ankle
has to be supported through the knee as well), wouldn't a cyclist's
typically bulging calves have to be taken as a sign of wasted energy?

Has there been any study on metabolic efficiency as it relates to foot
position?

-pm

normaly, people don't run on the arch of their foot; try going up a
few flights of stairs holding your foot level eg without ankling and
you will soon feel the limitations- and don't forget the toe (or foot)
overlap that is likely to occur as a result. although the problems may
seem to be in the longitudnal location of the cleat on the foot, most
likely it is a result of a poor seat position on the bike. fix the
position and power and cadence should be optimal as a result.

On Jun 4, 9:07*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:
========
normaly, people don't run on the arch of their foot; try going up a
few flights of stairs holding your foot level eg without ankling and
you will soon feel the limitations-
========

But a pedal has bearings and rotates under your foot, so even if you're
pedaling in the middle of your foot, it isn't terribly similar to trying
to climb stairs, or even walk, while trying to keep your feet parallel
to the ground at all times.

The other issue is one of balance. We apparently use our toes
extensively to maintain our sense of balance when on our feet. That's
not the case when cycling.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

wrote in message

...
On Jun 4, 5:16 pm, pm wrote:





A review suggests that the conventional wisdom of pedaling on the
balls of the foot might have it all wrong:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?...ws/biomac_bio-....

I have to say I'm comfortable with the ball-of-the-foot cleat
position. But I often wonder -- since the ankle does not artilculate
much during pedaling, and therefore can't be contributing much power,
(and even for ankling pedalers, what force is generated by the ankle
has to be supported through the knee as well), wouldn't a cyclist's
typically bulging calves have to be taken as a sign of wasted energy?

Has there been any study on metabolic efficiency as it relates to foot
position?

-pm

normaly, people don't run on the arch of their foot; try going up a
few flights of stairs holding your foot level eg without ankling and
you will soon feel the limitations- and don't forget the toe (or foot)
overlap that is likely to occur as a result. although the problems may
seem to be in the longitudnal location of the cleat on the foot, most
likely it is a result of a poor seat position on the bike. fix the
position and power and cadence should be optimal as a result.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I fail to see how pedal rotation changes the equation= the cleats are
located over the pedal axle by physical necessity, one might as well
consider a tube in the sole of the shoe through which a pedal axle
would fit- it is a point of contact- and as such on the human foot the
arch is the least capable to endure the presure of walking or running-
fallen arches or flat-footedness was grounds for an army to reject a
recruit. time trialists will use slightly longer cranks to gain
leverage. moving cleats heelward reduces leverage.people with knee
problems or other anatomical difficulites may conclude the heel-cleat
is better, but they fail to take into account their disability is not
a universal condition.

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 14:16:10 -0700 (PDT), pm wrote:

A review suggests that the conventional wisdom of pedaling on the
balls of the foot might have it all wrong:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?...io-mxc2shoes09

I have to say I'm comfortable with the ball-of-the-foot cleat
position. But I often wonder -- since the ankle does not artilculate
much during pedaling, and therefore can't be contributing much power,
(and even for ankling pedalers, what force is generated by the ankle
has to be supported through the knee as well), wouldn't a cyclist's
typically bulging calves have to be taken as a sign of wasted energy?

Has there been any study on metabolic efficiency as it relates to foot
position?

The arch of the foot is not built to handle that sort of pressure. Riding like
that with anything but the most insanely rigid cycling shoes would result in
cramping, pain and maiming. That's one reason why people were taught to pedal on
the balls of the feet. Related phenomenon working on a ladder for long periods
of time even with steel shank boots.

Running or climbing stairs on the ball of the foot is more natural, pedaling is
a similar motion.

When I got back into "serious" cycling some years ago I just set the cleats up
as far back as they'd go. Figured it couldn't be that wrong, at least not in a
dangerous way. And all was fine for many months, maybe a year and then one day
it just started feeling uncomfortable and wrong. Moved the cleats and they've
stayed there ever since.

pm wrote:
A review suggests that the conventional wisdom of pedaling on the
balls of the foot might have it all wrong:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?...io-mxc2shoes09

I have to say I'm comfortable with the ball-of-the-foot cleat
position. But I often wonder -- since the ankle does not artilculate
much during pedaling, and therefore can't be contributing much power,
(and even for ankling pedalers, what force is generated by the ankle
has to be supported through the knee as well), wouldn't a cyclist's
typically bulging calves have to be taken as a sign of wasted energy?

Has there been any study on metabolic efficiency as it relates to foot
position?

-pm

I'm skeptical. People who study this stuff professionally report (the
last I heard) that cycling is highly self-optimizing, in other words,
your body seems to find the most efficient positions and motions
naturally. I'm always suspicious of forced techniques. As Chalo points
out, there seems to be no natural tendency to ride on the arches with
flat pedals.

On the opposite extreme, there have been claims for exaggerated
"ankling", with equally dubious benefits. I've moved my SPD cleats back
and forward over the range of adjustment (1" or so). The results weren't
dramatic. It's hard to believe that if there was a noticeable benefit to
moving the cleats so far back it would have taken 100 years to discover.

Moving cleats back is a suggested solution when riders get Achilles
tendon problems, which is pretty intuitive. I didn't find the analogy
about doing push ups on fingertips to be convincing.

On Jun 5, 6:43*am, Peter Cole wrote:
pm wrote:
A review suggests that the conventional wisdom of pedaling on the
balls of the foot might have it all wrong:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?...ws/biomac_bio-....

I have to say I'm comfortable with the ball-of-the-foot cleat
position. But I often wonder -- since the ankle does not artilculate
much during pedaling, and therefore can't be contributing much power,
(and even for ankling pedalers, what force is generated by the ankle
has to be supported through the knee as well), wouldn't a cyclist's
typically bulging calves have to be taken as a sign of wasted energy?

Has there been any study on metabolic efficiency as it relates to foot
position?

-pm

I'm skeptical. People who study this stuff professionally report (the
last I heard) that cycling is highly self-optimizing, in other words,
your body seems to find the most efficient positions and motions
naturally. I'm always suspicious of forced techniques. As Chalo points
out, there seems to be no natural tendency to ride on the arches with
flat pedals.

On the opposite extreme, there have been claims for exaggerated
"ankling", with equally dubious benefits. I've moved my SPD cleats back
and forward over the range of adjustment (1" or so). The results weren't
dramatic. It's hard to believe that if there was a noticeable benefit to
moving the cleats so far back it would have taken 100 years to discover.

Moving cleats back is a suggested solution when riders get Achilles
tendon problems, which is pretty intuitive. I didn't find the analogy
about doing push ups on fingertips to be convincing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

aside from medical necessity, an inch around the ball of the foot
seems to be a more natural variation; about 2 years ago or so a heel-
ward arch cleat position was being pushed by steve hogg, and there
were a number of letters on the cyclingnews forum where people
described pushing their cleats back, drilling their shoes etc and
benefiting from such an adaption. we even saw riders changing their
shoes during GT stages. I admit I was suckered into trying it too- and
really suffered for it. If one is lifting weights, or on a bench- then
one isn't using the ball of their feet to push the weight- so you
could get away with bigger gears on a bike; but that fails to take
into account the rotation of the pedal about the bb: a arch cleat
position ideally requires a linear pedal action ( up down - maybe that
might suit recumbant riders more). Further,in terms of peddaling
style, high cadence riders are known for "suplesse", they tend to ride
almost on their toes- lower the pressure on your joints and you'll be
able to enjoy cycling much longer. But the point is though cleats
should be at or around the ball of the foot as per conventional
thinking, if a heelward/ arch cleat position seems better it is likely
because the rider position on the bike is incorrect; correct the
position, the ball of the foot becomes the natural point of contact
and all else will fall into place, meaning speed endurance and comfort

On Jun 4, 5:16*pm, pm wrote:
A review suggests that the conventional wisdom of pedaling on the
balls of the foot might have it all wrong:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?...ws/biomac_bio-....

I have to say I'm comfortable with the ball-of-the-foot cleat
position. But I often wonder -- since the ankle does not artilculate
much during pedaling, and therefore can't be contributing much power,
(and even for ankling pedalers, what force is generated by the ankle
has to be supported through the knee as well), wouldn't a cyclist's
typically bulging calves have to be taken as a sign of wasted energy?

Boy, that sure is xxxtreeeeme. That said, the conventional wisdom of
setting up cleated shoes to have the interface right under the arch is
an outdated habit. We don't use toe clips these days, so nothing's
really stopping us from sliding that cleat back 15mm other than
tradition. I changed up my shoes early last year, after having ridden
the same toe-clip and slot cleat influenced position for twenty years.
The mild knee pain that I can get in the spring vanished.

That said, I actually do most of my riding free with Clarks or
Blunnies on MKS standard pedals, and with floppier shoes, it's natural
to ride with the ball of the foot over the pedal axle. Going with the
instep with casual pedals is a true sign of the salmon.