Article: why amateurs shouldn’t try to pedal like Chris Froome

[Allrounder]

You can waste up to 60% of energy if you try to spin like Froome. 

 

More energy goes into moving your legs than moving forward....

 

http://www.cyclingwe...-froome-191779 

[bertusras]

You can waste up to 60% of energy if you try to spin like Froome. 

 

More energy goes into moving your legs than moving forward....

 

Citation Required

[Allrounder]

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/fitness/why-amateurs-shouldnt-try-to-pedal-like-chris-froome-191779 

[SwissVan]

You can waste up to 60% of energy if you try to spin like Froome.

 

More energy goes into moving your legs than moving forward....

He who spins, wins

[Fat Boab]

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/fitness/why-amateurs-shouldnt-try-to-pedal-like-chris-froome-191779 

 

Interesting article, probably an even more interesting paper. I wonder how the % loss, utilised in moving the legs, changes as power output is increased? And what % loss, the likes of Froome have when going full gas at a high cadence?

[Allrounder]

Interesting article, probably an even more interesting paper. I wonder how the % loss, utilised in moving the legs, changes as power output is increased? And what % loss, the likes of Froome have when going full gas at a high cadence?

would make an interesting graph

[Fat Boab]

Here's the full research article for those interested http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.14814/phy2.12500/full#references

 

Unfortunately the output power range is quite small (50 to 150 Watts), but the % loss referred to in the Cycling Weekly article drops from 60% at 50 W to 43% at 100 W and 34% at 150 W (all at 110 rpm).

[bertusras]

Thanks Admin for splitting this one out, I think it deserves a discussion on its own.

 

The article is interesting and valid, but I think it ignores some important aspects of real world cycling which are not measured on an ergometer (stationary bike).

 

The first would be the difference between torque and power, and what effect cadence has on power, because, let's remember. Power = Torque x Cadence. Gearing plays a huge part in how you can manipulate torque to increase acceleration. To keep it simple, I'm going to post these two videos below, which yes, focuses on motor engines, but still uses the same fundamental mechanics as a cycling crank (and maybe even teach you how to drive better).

 

 

 

Now I've went and did some more reading on this, starting with the original article. As Fat Boab mentioned above, the 60% loss was at 50W, which we all can acknowledge is not a lot of power. You'd be spinning like a maniac, with very little torque being applied to actually generate that power, which would reinforce the results. Lower cadence, higher torque, same power. And at 50W you're not doing a huge amount of work and a lot of energy is wasted moving your legs up and down. The study is 100% correct in their findings. The article however is 100% click-bait.

 

I then found this article by William Bertucci et al

 

They studied the "Effects on the crank torque profile when changing pedalling cadence in level ground and uphill road cycling."

 

From the abstract:

 

 

The most important finding of this study indicated that at maximal aerobic power the crank torque profile (relationship between torque and crank angle) varied substantially according to the pedalling cadence and with a minor effect according to the terrain. At the same power output and pedalling cadence (80 rpm) the torque at a 45 crank angle tended (po0:06) to be higher (+26%) during uphill cycling compared to level cycling. During uphill cycling at 60 rpm the peak torque was increased by 42% compared with level ground cycling at 100 rpm.When the pedalling cadence was modified, most of the variations in the crank torque profile were localised in the power output sector (45 to 135).

 

Further on in the article

 

 

Our results indicate that on the same terrain torque applied to the crank arm increased in the power output sector when the pedalling cadence decreased.

 

This makes sense. At the same power, torque will need to increase if cadence reduces.

 

Towards the end of the study come the real interesting bits

 

 

Our results also indicate that when the pedalling cadences were the same (U80 and L80), the crank torque profile differences were minimal, despite the difference in field conditions (level ground vs. uphill). This suggests that the muscle activity pattern is almost similar at the same cadence and is not influenced by grade. However, competitive cyclists generally climb hills at lower pedalling cadences (close to 70 rpm)( Lucia et al.,ARTICLE IN PRESS 1008 W. Bertucci et al. / Journal of Biomechanics 38 (2005) 1003–1010 2001) than when cycling in level ground conditions, despite several studies suggesting that using higher pedalling cadences could improve performance (Patterson and Moreno, 1990; Swain and Wilcox, 1992; McNaughton and Thomas, 1996; Neptune and Herzog, 1999; Marsh et al., 2000). Using higher pedalling cadences during uphill cycling could : (1) reduce the muscle mass used to stabilise the trunk, (2) reduce cycling velocity oscillations, (3) increase blood flow and oxygenation to working muscles (Swain and Wilcox, 1992; Takaishi et al., 2002) and (4) decrease the crank inertial load to reduce the stimulation of mechano receptors in the lower limbs (Hansen et al., 2002a,b). Moreover, higher pedalling cadences allow an important reduction of mean torque and Tpeak: For the same power output, the mean torque at 80 rpm is 25% lower compared with the mean torque at 60 rpm. A reduction of peripheral muscular and neuromuscular fatigue can be obtained by increasing the pedalling cadence (Patterson and Moreno, 1990; Sanderson, 1991; Sargeant, 1994; Takaishi et al., 1994, 1996, 1998). There is a discrepancy in the literature with respect to the most economical cadence. Some studies have shown that the high pedalling cadences were associated with an increase in oxygen consumption compared with the lower pedalling cadences (Widrick et al., 1992; Marsh and Martin, 1993) but others did not show significant

differences on physiological variables (Hagberg et al., 1981; Chavarren and Calbet, 1999; Lepers et al., 2001; Millet et al., 2002). However, it appears that the cyclist’s preferred cadence was always higher than the most economical cadence at low (Marsh and Martin, 1993, 1997), moderate (Neptune and Herzog, 1999) and high (Nielsen et al. 2004) exercise intensity. Using the most economical cadence does not always signify that the most optimal cadence is used. The decreased muscle stress (by increasing pedalling cadence) could contribute to a greater relative recruitment of ST muscle fibers which have greater fatigue resistance and a higher mechanical efficiency, despite increased oxygen consumption caused by increased repetitions of leg movements (Takaishi et al., 1998, 2002). Also, Swain et al.,

1992 have shown that uphill cycling was more economical at higher pedalling cadences. Moreover, all one hour records on track were performed with pedalling cadences higher than 100 rpm (Sargeant, 1994).The reasons why some cyclists use lower cadences during hill climbing are not totally clear, although in some cases it appears to be a limitation of gearing options. It was reported that in the Tour de France of 1991, the Motorola Team members used a gear combination of 39 25 (Swain and Wilcox, 1992). With this gear ratio the cyclist used sometimes (road slope of 20%) a pedalling cadence of approximately 45 rpm (Swain and Wilcox, 1992). From a mathematical model (Grappe et al., 1997; Martin et al., 1998) it is possible to estimate the necessary gear ratio. At a power output close to 400 W (anaerobic threshold of elite cyclists of Padilla et al. (1999)), with a pedalling cadence of 100 rpm for a cyclist of 80 kgon a 10% uphill road cycling, it is necessary to use a gear ratio of 39 31 or a triple chainrings. This suggests that cyclists who want to use a high pedalling cadence when cycling uphill (with a high slope), must employ a triple chainrings in order to have appropriate gear ratios. Our data indicate that the crank torque profile (relationship between torque and crank angle) in road cycling at MAP varies according to the pedalling cadence and with a minor effect to the field conditions (level ground vs. uphill). Most variations were localised in the power output sector (45–135) and at DPtop and DPbot. Also, our results show that when the pedalling cadences are the same, the crank torque profile differences are minimal between level ground and uphill road cycling. Thus, to limit variations of the muscular activity pattern, pedalling cadences close to 80–100 rpm could be used both during level ground and uphill cycling.

 

[Fat Boab]

Doesn't their first comment (below) contradict itself? ie a 26% difference in peak torque between uphill and flat cycling, doesn't seem like a minor effect as they claim?

 

 

First comment: "The most important finding of this study indicated that at maximal aerobic power the crank torque profile (relationship between torque and crank angle) varied substantially according to the pedalling cadence and with a minor effect according to the terrain. At the same power output and pedalling cadence (80 rpm) the torque at a 45 crank angle tended (po0:06) to be higher (+26%) during uphill cycling compared to level cycling. During uphill cycling at 60 rpm the peak torque was increased by 42% compared with level ground cycling at 100 rpm.When the pedalling cadence was modified, most of the variations in the crank torque profile were localised in the power output sector (45 to 135)."

[Jewbacca]

Hahahahahahaha

 

Captain Science!

 

I'm pretty sure these numbers only mean something if you operate in the top 0.00004% of cyclists. Most people hacking around on their keyboards here will see 50 gazillion times better results by eating properly, training properly, riding more and stopping drinking long before any of this becomes relevant.

 

But that's just me.. I just think this is a wheel size debate or a suspension setup debate between 4 guys all weighing 140kg.

 

Science says many things and the 'testers' will often find exactly what they are looking for by extrapolating the data that suits their outcome.

 

I love watching Froome spin like a hamster in a wheel. I loved watching Bertie stand and trap.. I am not going to debate which one is 'better' as both are grand tour winners, both have a drug cloud over them and both specifically train to ride like they do because it is where they feel most comfortable.

 

Numbers numbers numbers for rank overweight, boozing, binge eating amateurs means as little as a promise from Trump.

 

Amateurs probably shouldn't spin like Froome, but if they want to, who actually cares?!

 

No one should throw the no look backwards side spin pass like Carlos Spencer did, but I have seen hundreds of kids do it and no one died....  

[Allrounder]

I just thought I created a topic without knowledge of doing so..... Made me think of what else I did....

[Allrounder]

Hahahahahahaha

 

Captain Science!

 

I'm pretty sure these numbers only mean something if you operate in the top 0.00004% of cyclists. Most people hacking around on their keyboards here will see 50 gazillion times better results by eating properly, training properly, riding more and stopping drinking long before any of this becomes relevant.

 

But that's just me.. I just think this is a wheel size debate or a suspension setup debate between 4 guys all weighing 140kg.

 

Science says many things and the 'testers' will often find exactly what they are looking for by extrapolating the data that suits their outcome.

 

I love watching Froome spin like a hamster in a wheel. I loved watching Bertie stand and trap.. I am not going to debate which one is 'better' as both are grand tour winners, both have a drug cloud over them and both specifically train to ride like they do because it is where they feel most comfortable.

 

Numbers numbers numbers for rank overweight, boozing, binge eating amateurs means as little as a promise from Trump.

 

Amateurs probably shouldn't spin like Froome, but if they want to, who actually cares?!

 

No one should throw the no look backwards side spin pass like Carlos Spencer did, but I have seen hundreds of kids do it and no one died....  

In the end I believe it is basically what works for you and your body. My friend might as well go SS because he doesn't use his gears very often and like to stomp the pedals. Another friend spins like a hamster, but yet they do more or less the same time in every race.

[dave303e]

because we don't have the volume of sulbutamol in our system?

[billygoat0523]

because we don't have the volume of sulbutamol in our system?

the effect lasts for 30 seconds.  yawn.

[billygoat0523]

it's weird that in races i spin at 85-95 rpm, but in training it's about 75 rpm.  i don't have the power of froome though, so whatever i'm saying and the article is trying to prove is basically useless.

 

hey allrounder... you need to ride your bike more.