Mashing as efficient as circles?

I recall a thread a few years ago where Andrew Coggan referred to
studies that showed that pedaling in circles was no more efficient than
just mashing.

Anyone remember this, or such studies?

I would think that a trained cyclist, pedaling in circles, puts out
more watts and uses a wider variety of muscles, than someone just
mashing.

To complicate things I notice there's a website that advises pedaling
in "triangles." Wassup there?

Here it is: http://www.thesportfactory.com/article_253.shtml

--JP
allbikemag.com

wrote in news:1152820358.614801.169450
@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
I would think that a trained cyclist, pedaling in circles, puts out
more watts and uses a wider variety of muscles, than someone just
mashing.

The only studies I have read are based on non-serious, untrained
cyclists.

sally wrote:
wrote in news:1152820358.614801.169450
@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

I would think that a trained cyclist, pedaling in circles, puts out
more watts and uses a wider variety of muscles, than someone just
mashing.


The only studies I have read are based on non-serious, untrained
cyclists.

aka most cyclists.

wrote:
I recall a thread a few years ago where Andrew Coggan referred to
studies that showed that pedaling in circles was no more efficient than
just mashing.

Anyone remember this, or such studies?

I would think that a trained cyclist, pedaling in circles, puts out
more watts and uses a wider variety of muscles, than someone just
mashing.

To complicate things I notice there's a website that advises pedaling
in "triangles." Wassup there?

Here it is: http://www.thesportfactory.com/article_253.shtml

--JP
allbikemag.com

Here is a possible study:

Get on a trainer and leave the rear wheel without touching the
resistance roller. get on the bike and atached one foot to one pedal
and push down. Have someone count the number of turns of the wheel, or
the amount of time the wheel spins freely.

Next push down and then pull up. See if the amount of time that the
wheel spins freely is the same, more or less.

I think that pulling up is good. When i ride, I concentrate on pulling
up and not pushing down. Sometimes I try to push down but I find it
more difficult.

Andres

On 13 Jul 2006 12:52:38 -0700, wrote:

I recall a thread a few years ago where Andrew Coggan referred to
studies that showed that pedaling in circles was no more efficient than
just mashing.

Anyone remember this, or such studies?

I would think that a trained cyclist, pedaling in circles, puts out
more watts and uses a wider variety of muscles, than someone just
mashing.

To complicate things I notice there's a website that advises pedaling
in "triangles." Wassup there?

Here it is: http://www.thesportfactory.com/article_253.shtml

--JP
allbikemag.com

Dear Jeff,

The effect of "pulling up" (if that's what you have in mind) is
negligible at best when tested through strain gauges on the pedals at
ordinary cadences.

That is, the strain gauges show scarcely any upward force on the back
half of the pedal stroke.

Browse down to the graph on page 8 of this pdf:
http://www.midweekclub.com/articles/coyle91.pdf

Browse down to the graph on page 3 of this pdf:
http://www.me.utexas.edu/~neptune/Papers/job32(10).pdf
(You may have to cut and paste the address above.)

A typical graph:
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/kautz.png

A nice QuickTime video with colored animated lines superimposed:
http://www.hkin.educ.ubc.ca/biomech/demo/akmcylab.htm

Browse down in the large left-hand window:
http://www.analyticcycling.com/Pedal...edal_Page.html

Another kind of graph:
http://www.princeton.edu/~humcomp/bi...t/histo_27.htm

The lack of upward "pull" is not surprising. Few riders develop
calloused insteps, much less complain of the kind of pain that would
accompany the sides of their feet being unnaturally squeezed inward by
the shoe as they pulled upward on the tongue of the shoe. The foot,
after all, normally presses down on the sole and flattens out.

Comparing the size of the muscles involved in pushing a leg down to
those that lift it up adds weight (pardon the pun) to the results of
the testing.

Of course, you can briefly pull up hard at a low cadence, but you'll
exhaust yourself roughly twice as fast. At a normal cadence, it seems
to be next to impossible to pull up.

Training appears to make little. if any, difference.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

wrote in message
...
On 13 Jul 2006 12:52:38 -0700, wrote:

Comparing the size of the muscles involved in pushing a leg down to
those that lift it up adds weight (pardon the pun) to the results of
the testing.

Runners do pretty well on their hamstrings which are not that insignificant!

Of course, you can briefly pull up hard at a low cadence, but you'll
exhaust yourself roughly twice as fast. At a normal cadence, it seems
to be next to impossible to pull up.

I admit that the only time I really pull is when I am climbing out of the
saddle.

Training appears to make little. if any, difference.

The key to this is not pulling per se but avoiding wasting energy by using
the down stroke leg to lift the weight of the upstroke leg. Single leg
pedalling drills can certainly help here to develop what I understand to be
the "pedalling in circles" concept.

"Graham Steer" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On 13 Jul 2006 12:52:38 -0700, wrote:

Comparing the size of the muscles involved in pushing a leg down to
those that lift it up adds weight (pardon the pun) to the results of
the testing.

Runners do pretty well on their hamstrings which are not that
insignificant!

Of course, you can briefly pull up hard at a low cadence, but you'll
exhaust yourself roughly twice as fast. At a normal cadence, it seems
to be next to impossible to pull up.

I admit that the only time I really pull is when I am climbing out of
the
saddle.

Training appears to make little. if any, difference.

The key to this is not pulling per se but avoiding wasting energy by
using
the down stroke leg to lift the weight of the upstroke leg. Single leg
pedalling drills can certainly help here to develop what I understand
to be
the "pedalling in circles" concept.

This has been discussed here at length in the past under the heading
Powercranks. In a nutshell, it is my opinion that aerobic endurance is
improved by utilizing more muscle mass. There are plenty of experts who
disagree.

Phil H

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 22:16:12 +0100, "Graham Steer"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On 13 Jul 2006 12:52:38 -0700, wrote:

Comparing the size of the muscles involved in pushing a leg down to
those that lift it up adds weight (pardon the pun) to the results of
the testing.

Runners do pretty well on their hamstrings which are not that insignificant!

Of course, you can briefly pull up hard at a low cadence, but you'll
exhaust yourself roughly twice as fast. At a normal cadence, it seems
to be next to impossible to pull up.

I admit that the only time I really pull is when I am climbing out of the
saddle.

Training appears to make little. if any, difference.

The key to this is not pulling per se but avoiding wasting energy by using
the down stroke leg to lift the weight of the upstroke leg. Single leg
pedalling drills can certainly help here to develop what I understand to be
the "pedalling in circles" concept.

Dear Graham,

As I understand it, there are two main factors in pedal effort.

First, we move our feet in circles. The effort to raise the back leg
isn't wasted--it's necessary, even with no chain.

It doesn't matter whether we push the trailing leg up with extra
effort from the leading leg that's busy pushing down, or pull it up
with extra effort from the trailing leg that would otherwise be
idle--the same power is required to work both feet in a circle.

(I'm tempted to add that we could pull the trailing leg up with a
string, too, but that would add extra effort--raising and lowering the
arms.)

Second, we add force against the chain.

The chain can't tell which leg the force comes from.

Nor can our cardio-pulmonary system tell which leg is doing the work.

That is, our hearts and lungs cannot produce more power by shifting
the total effort around, any more than a car engine can produce more
power by sending it to four wheels instead of two.

Jobst points out that this is why we don't add hand-cranks to bikes.

First, our hearts and lungs won't process oxygen and lactic acid any
faster just because we try to use more muscles. So our legs either put
out less power because of the extra drain from the arms, or else we
reach our cardio-pulmonary limit sooner.

The same thing is true if we try to work leg muscles both ways. If we
add more effort to pull up, we reduce the effort we can put into
pushing down. (That's why pulling up can work on a very short, steep,
non-aerobic climb. Pushing and pulling produces more power, and leaves
us exhausted much sooner.)

Second, using more and more muscles tends to be less and less
efficient. Bigger muscles handle repeated effort better. (Imagine
trying to climb a hill by repeatedly squeezing handgrips.)

In the case of bicycling, our bodies are not at all efficient at
pulling our heels up powerfully in the tiny pedal circle.

Just about anyone can repeatedly and rapidly raise an impressive
weight by straightening a leg--that's how we climb stairs, raising our
body weight up each step, one leg at a time.

Try to climb the same stairs with that weight attached to either foot.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

"Graham Steer" wrote in
:

wrote in message
...
On 13 Jul 2006 12:52:38 -0700, wrote:

Comparing the size of the muscles involved in pushing a leg down to
those that lift it up adds weight (pardon the pun) to the results of
the testing.

Runners do pretty well on their hamstrings which are not that
insignificant!


Plus the fact that the hamstrings are involved in both extending the foot
and retrieving it. They are two joint muscles, and don't follow the simple
lever rule of extension and retraction.

Of course, you can briefly pull up hard at a low cadence, but you'll
exhaust yourself roughly twice as fast. At a normal cadence, it seems
to be next to impossible to pull up.

I admit that the only time I really pull is when I am climbing out of
the saddle.


I find that I only consciously use them when I'm tired and climbing from
the seat. Then, it falls in the following idea of using all the muscle
mass, but it does tire them at a much higher rate.

Training appears to make little. if any, difference.

The key to this is not pulling per se but avoiding wasting energy by
using the down stroke leg to lift the weight of the upstroke leg.
Single leg pedalling drills can certainly help here to develop what I
understand to be the "pedalling in circles" concept.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 22:16:12 +0100, "Graham Steer"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On 13 Jul 2006 12:52:38 -0700, wrote:

Comparing the size of the muscles involved in pushing a leg down to
those that lift it up adds weight (pardon the pun) to the results of
the testing.

Runners do pretty well on their hamstrings which are not that
insignificant!

Of course, you can briefly pull up hard at a low cadence, but you'll
exhaust yourself roughly twice as fast. At a normal cadence, it
seems
to be next to impossible to pull up.

I admit that the only time I really pull is when I am climbing out of
the
saddle.

Training appears to make little. if any, difference.

The key to this is not pulling per se but avoiding wasting energy by
using
the down stroke leg to lift the weight of the upstroke leg. Single leg
pedalling drills can certainly help here to develop what I understand
to be
the "pedalling in circles" concept.

Dear Graham,

As I understand it, there are two main factors in pedal effort.

First, we move our feet in circles. The effort to raise the back leg
isn't wasted--it's necessary, even with no chain.

It doesn't matter whether we push the trailing leg up with extra
effort from the leading leg that's busy pushing down, or pull it up
with extra effort from the trailing leg that would otherwise be
idle--the same power is required to work both feet in a circle.

Carl, I'll play devil's advocate here. How about if we use just one leg.
We can push down and pull up with one leg and as that leg is supported
by the same cardio-pulmonary system (the limiting factor we hear) then
we should be able to sustain the same endurance power output using two
legs.

Hand crankers cannot match the power output of two legs. Why do you
suppose that the limit to sustainable output is reached exactly at the
utilization of muscles only employed in "mashing". What scientific
evidence is there to support this.


(I'm tempted to add that we could pull the trailing leg up with a
string, too, but that would add extra effort--raising and lowering the
arms.)

Second, we add force against the chain.

The chain can't tell which leg the force comes from.

Nor can our cardio-pulmonary system tell which leg is doing the work.

That is, our hearts and lungs cannot produce more power by shifting
the total effort around, any more than a car engine can produce more
power by sending it to four wheels instead of two.


Jobst points out that this is why we don't add hand-cranks to bikes.

First, our hearts and lungs won't process oxygen and lactic acid any
faster just because we try to use more muscles. So our legs either put
out less power because of the extra drain from the arms, or else we
reach our cardio-pulmonary limit sooner.

The same thing is true if we try to work leg muscles both ways. If we
add more effort to pull up, we reduce the effort we can put into
pushing down. (That's why pulling up can work on a very short, steep,
non-aerobic climb. Pushing and pulling produces more power, and leaves
us exhausted much sooner.)

I would dispute that. Some of the highest oxygen uptakes have been
recorded by athletes who use both arm and legs (xc skiers).


Second, using more and more muscles tends to be less and less
efficient. Bigger muscles handle repeated effort better. (Imagine
trying to climb a hill by repeatedly squeezing handgrips.)

In the case of bicycling, our bodies are not at all efficient at
pulling our heels up powerfully in the tiny pedal circle.

Just about anyone can repeatedly and rapidly raise an impressive
weight by straightening a leg--that's how we climb stairs, raising our
body weight up each step, one leg at a time.

Try to climb the same stairs with that weight attached to either foot.

It will take more than a mind experiment to convince anybody. The
hamstrings and hip flexors are a significant source of input to the
pedal stroke. There was a study a while back that showed significant
increases in gross efficiency although the study was criticized on a
technicality (its hypothesis statement or some such).

Phil H