hi there ,

One month training with PC , 1370 km in the month my best ride was 4'10'00 122 km hilly , was very pain full the last hour , i ride mostly flat right now and try to spin 39 /19 39 /17 or 53 /23 at 90 + cadence , and a lot of alternate one leg training .

after one month i notice my muscle chanching in my legs and calf my calf get half centimeter big in diameter , and my ishio start to get much more big , it's realy hard on the legs you feel no rest at all when riding and a small burn all the time and the cardio is definately higher , well some day when i awake it's pain and i give it a rest , but I 'll go one more month without changing crancks and i will give a try with normal cranks for see the change , this month i try to go for 2000 kms easy with little bit more hilly ride and 4 and 5 hours once a week .

Are you new to cycling?

Do you use a heart rate monitor?

I'd suggest working out your max HR and doing zone training.

You should be aiming to increase your milage by only 10% per week.

overtraining can really be bad.

_________________
"Ride it like you've just stolen it!"

He's using Power Cranks, which are not fixed at 180 deg out of phase with each other. They force you to strengthen the dead spots in your stroke and in general pedal much more efficiently.

Really?

_________________
John979

Really http://www.powercranks.com/

_________________
i dont need some witty signature

Eddy,

Any news on the cranks? I heard that they are nasty but effective!

Rich

_________________
http://worksrider.wordpress.com/

Something to ponder from Dr. Coyle’s study of elite national class cyclists (group 1) and well-trained cyclists (group 2):

"Interestingly, the subjects of group 1 (elite national class cyclists) produced the larger propulsive torques by creating significantly larger forces in the vertical direction on the pedal during downstroke and by not attempting to pull up on the pedal during the upstroke.

However, (data) for both groups emphasize the importance of the downstroke for creating the propulsive torque and the relative unimportance , especially in elite national class cyclists, of the upstroke for creating propulsive force”

Side note: the cyclist in this study who produced the most torque on the upstroke was the least powerful of either group.

_________________
John979

again - this was a study that is almost 15 years old, although revolutionary

I don't know these cranks that well, but I suspect improving your upstroke is not so much about increasing torque production on the upstroke is it? more about pedalling in "circles" so to speak and avoiding spots within your pedal stroke where you may be coasting so to speak...

or am i missing something?

While it is true Coyle's test is 15 years old, there is to my knowledge no study refuting its finding that elite cyclists produce the vast majority of their propulsive forces (>95%) on the downstroke. In addition, in this study the elite cyclists produced torque over a narrow range of the pedal revolution, meaning non-elites had a "rounder" pedaling stroke. Particularly interesting is that the pedaling profile of the best "non-elite" is strikingly similar to that of the elites, and overall the least powerful subjects have the most "round" pedaling style.

True, this study did not address the issue of improvement. Could the elites become more powerful by "rounding" their pedal stroke? Personally, I think not.

Conversely, would non-elites evolve a pedaling style less "round" as their ability improved? Too bad such studies are difficult perform, as required is a fairly large group of participants over many years time.

_________________
John979

What was Coyle's sample size? If I recall correctly, something like 9 athletes. Pretty difficult to draw meaningful conclusions about a large population when you can't resolve any sort of distribution ...

Anyway, I disagree with the premise that engaging a larger set of muscles will do nothing for one's cycling. I've been riding PCs since my race season ended, pretty casually until now. And my fitness has declined, as it should, but I'm definitely feeling stronger than I was in August, even with reduced cardio. I plan on doing my base with them starting basically right now through February/March. PCs are much more difficult than normal cranks and at the very least are teaching my body not to rest as much as it has been on the "dead" spots in my stroke. I won't know for certain how much of a power increase they're giving me (if any) until the spring, when I will do a lactate threshold test.

Did anyone do a follow up on those riders that only push down? I'd be interested to see what injuries (ITB) they have sustained.

Pushing forward at the top of the stroke works the rectus medialis which counters the pull of overly tight ITBs on the patella.

Different riders pedal differently. I would imagine Ullrich uses a very powerful downstroke while Armstrong uses the full circle. One grinds the other spins but both are very good at their pedal technique.

Coyle's sample size was 15, larger than that in the PC study...



Do you have enough data to subtantiate this claim, like a MAP test now vs. the same time last year? In addition, do you track your training closely enough to enable year-year variations in volume?

Can you point to any study subtantiating a benefit? The opposite may in fact be true, based upon some studies showing FTP improvement with 30 second sprint intervals.

_________________
John979

15 is not 9, but it might as well be. One cannot construct a distribution from 15 data points, therefore one cannot make statistical inferences. Even if one had sufficient sample size to realistically construct the distribution with reasonable significance, one could certainly not infer cause and effect from the correlations obtained! So Coyle's study amounts to an interesting story in which one can find basically anecdotal support for the efficacy of a bad pedal stroke - if one were inclined to, say, try to start an argument on a message board

It has about as much weight as me saying that the guys on our team who are fast have a smooth stroke, while those that are not have a poor stroke. It's certainly true, with 100% validity and an approximately equivalent sample size to Coyle's study. And we could attach numbers to characterize their strokes, were we to spend money to perform the measurements. But it doesn't change the fact that it's anecdotal and doesn't say a thing about the general population. Moreover, it says nothing about the effect developing a smoother stroke would have on an individual rider.

As for the rest, I don't have a MAP test from last year because I didn't have a power meter. And there would be serious problems with exernal variables because my training volume remained the same but my intensity this year went up a great deal, due to a fairly consistent racing schedule. I will do a test in the spring, which should be interesting because I expect to have less volume over the winter due to riding the PCs. But there was no "claim" involved here; I said "feeling stronger." And I said I disagreed with a premise, which is of equivalent weight (in my mind) to "personally, i think not."

I cannot point to a study that indicates a smooth stroke is preferable to a square one - and even if I did, I'm sure I would find the same statistical issues with it that I do with Coyle's. If you can find a longitudinal study of an athlete who progressed from a smooth-pedaling weakling to a downstroke-exclusive powerhouse, I will buy you a beer (or send you a gift certificate to your beer store of choice). Same goes for the converse, ie. a strong rider who smoothed out his stroke and didn't improve.

Interestingly enough, I've been spending some time on PowerCranks to help with the rehabilitation from my accident. It has definitely helped rebuild some of my atrophied muscles.

On the other hand, I know a PhD who conducted a study on a pro team concerning PowerCranks. Basically, he checked their pedal stroke for "smoothness" using Spinsacan (on a computrainer) at the beginning. He then rechecked them periodically while they were using PowerCranks for some of their training. what he found (and yes, it's a small sample, there are many outside variables, etc) was that their pedal stroke actually got "rougher", and they were mashing on the downstroke more than their baseline figures. Again, take it all with a grain of salt.

Like I said, I'm using them, but I don't plan on switching over to them full-time anytime soon.

We are in complete agreement here; correlation is not causality.

Why do you presume the elite's stroke was "bad?" Because of a nonuniform force around the stroke? Coyle is not grading appearance; rather, he is measuring the forces applied throughout a rider's stroke. One can easily appear "smooth" and still have a force profile with a high, narrow peak. I suspect this is the case with elites.

Which may in fact be detrimental, if by "smoother" you mean trying to apply a lower, more even force throughout the pedal stroke.

Power meters very well capture changes in both intensity and volume. It is important to have a baseline to understand if a particular approach is working (i.e., more HISS training, Powercranks) or just to increased workload.

You may find that the reduced volume higher intensity approach effective (with or without PCs) and I certainly wish you the best success:!:

Certainly my experience is such and this again is where the baseline data would help proving. Next year I am going to save data from every ride (I put a Polar on my mountain bike) and even convert spin class HR data to an approximate TSS so every training mode is recorded to some degree.

Again, Coyle's study was not about appearance. Keep in mind too that even in the non-elite (less powerful group) 90% of the work performed is on the downstroke. I only wish a comprehensive longituinal study existed, and not for the free beer.

_________________
John979