by Tom Scotto | May 10, 2017 | Master Instructor Blog
Over the last few weeks, I’ve noticed a number of riders in my classes that were setup incorrectly on their bikes. I found this odd only because these riders had been positioned correctly on their bikes a few weeks earlier. What happened?
I talked to 3 of the riders. Two of them said that another instructor told them that they were too far away from the handlebars and then proceeded to move their seats forward. The third rider told an instructor that she wanted to be in a more aero or aggressive position on the bike so the instructor moved her seat back.
STOP! DON’T TOUCH THAT DRIVETRAIN!
TERMINOLOGY: It is common to refer to the settings related to the seat (height, fore-aft and saddle tilt) as the “drivetrain”. The handlebars, including height and fore-aft are often referred to as the “cockpit”.
NEVER!
NEVER change the drivetrain to compensate for the cockpit! NEVER! Those that know me are probably reading this in shock. Not because they didn’t know this, but because I used the word “never”. Those of us that coach and present on scientific and medical topics avoid words like “never” and instead use words or phrases like “in many cases, it is often found, some instances, etc.” We use less definitive words not because we are unsure, but because we understand that science changes with research and we also respect the immense complexity of the human body. However, in this case, the word is definitively NEVER.
Without going into a 4-hour rant on biomechanics, here are 3 reasons why we should never compromise the drivetrain to compensate for upper body position:
(1) Our feet are “fixed” to the pedals and any change to the hip, knee and ankle position will greatly impact the angles and articulation of the joints. On the other hand (literally), our hands can move, shift and adjust with minimal impact to our mechanics.
(2) Our legs are in motion (mechanically) and our upper bodies, including our hands and arms, are not. Even a slight change in saddle position can have and exponential impact because of the thousands of rotations our legs will experience during a single class.
(3) The legs are manipulating mechanical forces. Not only are they applying forces to propel the bike (figuratively), they are resisting and controlling the momentum of the bikes weighed flywheel. Making changes to the seat height or fore-aft position will alter the angles of the legs while they are under force and “may” place the joints and surrounding muscles at risk.
So What Can We Do?
As always, it depends. It depends on the bike and which options are available. It also depends on what the rider can physically do considering their strengths, weaknesses, flexibility and mobility. In my next article I’m going to address how to determine the optimum cockpit length and height (handlebar height and fore-aft position), but for now, here is something to consider:
Avoid Using Specific Hand Position Cues for Drills
With the inception of indoor cycling came numbered hand positions (i.e. position 1, position 2 and position 3). Besides not being something we do as cyclists, using handlebar numbering systems like this can often predetermine a set of positions for an indoor rider that may not be appropriate for them. Instead, provide guidelines for best hand placement based on comfort, power and safety.
Here are 3 examples:
(1) We recommend using the outer (wider) part of the handlebar for better balance and stability when standing.
(2) If you are taller, you may find that gripping the handlebars farther away from you is more comfortable.
(3) Placing your hands closer to you and closer together can put you in a position to generate more power when climbing seated.
Regardless of how you address the upper-body position and comfort of the rider, never disturb the integrity of the drivetrain and mechanics of the legs in the process.
There, I said it again – “never”.
Originally posted 2011-12-22 09:02:03.
by Gino | May 5, 2017 | Master Instructor Blog
If you are a data-geek, you’ve stumbled onto the right blog. If you love learning about the science behind your training, you should find these posts pretty interesting. If you’re the type who likes to not only know what, but has to know WHY training is prescribed in one way rather than another, your “show me” approach to training should be appeased in our Evidence Based Cycling.
However, if you just like to ride, and not worry about heart rate, not care about your power to weight ratios, could care less about threshold & VO2, then you might not get much out of Evidence Based Cycling.
Being patterned after the practice of evidence-based medicine, we (Cycling Fusionâ„¢) are defining Evidence Based Cycling in the following way:
The practice of Evidence Based Cycling is a process of life-long, self-directed learning in which caring for our own riders creates the need for cycling relevant information about diagnosis, prognosis, training methodologies, and other cycling and health issues that we can measure and improve.
Training protocols and methods used by Indoor Cycling Instructors and Outdoor Cycling Coaches that ascribe to Evidence Based Cycling are based on the following:
Integrating individual expertise with the best available external evidence from systematic research, but neither expertise nor external evidence alone is enough.
By individual expertise we mean the proficiency and judgment that we individual instructors and/or coaches acquire through relevant experience and practice.
This expertise is also reflected in thoughtful identification and compassionate use of individual rider life situations, rights, and preferences in making decisions about their training.
By best available external evidence we mean cycling relevant research, often from the basic sciences of training, but especially from rider centered research into the accuracy and precision of diagnostic tests.
External evidence can confirm previous theories or studies, but sometimes it can invalidate previously accepted methods and understanding. In these instances, it replaces them with new ones that are more powerful, more accurate, more efficacious, and safer.
Without cycling expertise, students risk becoming tyrannized by external evidence, for even excellent external evidence may be inapplicable to or inappropriate for an individual rider.
Without current best external evidence, training methods may become rapidly out of date, sometimes to the detriment of riders.
Evidence Based Cycling converts information needs into answerable questions:
Track down, with maximum efficiency, the best evidence with which to answer them.
- From the first hand accounts of coaches, instructors and riders the diagnostic laboratory from research evidence, or other sources.
- Critically appraise that evidence for its validity (closeness to the truth) and usefulness (cycling specific applicability).
- Integrate this appraisal with our personal cycling expertise and apply it in practice.
- Evaluate our performance.
- Report back and record the results for others to benefit from.
No doubt, this definition and outline will be refined and/or expanded over time, as we continue to build a practice of Evidence Based Cycling. With the last 3 posts amounting to essentially a foundation or background for why we believe this is something worth writing about and implementing, the next post will be an example of how anyone can implement their own Evidence Based Cycling program.
Originally posted 2012-04-13 13:34:50.
by John | May 4, 2017 | Big Box Instructor, Instructor Tech Help, Master Instructor Blog
PRO member Kay asked a very good question about ANT+
… I'm also wondering about Heart Rate. If the bikes are ANT+, will they only pick up ANT+ Heart Rate Monitors? I noticed that the new Schwinn did not pick up my Polar HRM
Thank you for your comments!
Kay
The short answer is; No. Indoor Cycles with or without ANT+ consoles will detect and display most Heart Rate straps.
It all comes down to the type of HR strap you are using, but it can get confusing. I'll try to explain.
First let's identify the three players:
- Analog (Low Frequency) HR Monitor straps
- Digital/ANT+ (High Frequency) HR Monitor straps
- Hybrid HR Straps that offer both High and Low Frequencies
Analog HR straps & monitors have been around for years. I guess you could say they are the generic version and any inexpensive HR monitor is Analog. For many people they work just fine but they have two problems:
- They will “Cross Talk” with other monitors as they are indiscriminate in which signal they will choose to display.
- Battery life of the strap can be relatively short (measured in months of use) due to the amount of power they consume broadcasting their low frequency (5000Hz) signal. It takes comparably more energy to generate low frequencies vs. high frequencies – think how much work a Tuba Player expends vs. the Piccolo Player in a marching band and I'm not referring to the weight of the instrument.
To solve these two problems HR manufactures introduced Digital HR straps and monitors using a very high frequency 2.4gHz or 2,400,000,000Hz which is what is referred to as ANT+ or some like Polar describe it as “Coded”.
- ANT+ receivers will lock onto the source – commonly known as “Pairing”, they will reject other competing signals once they have been successfully paired.
- Battery life is measured in years – Garmin says their strap's battery will last over 5 years, operating one hour a day.
ANT+ has another ability that Analog doesn't, the ability to transmit and receive multiple data sets over multiple channels. Where your Analog monitor can only understand; Beat…Beat…Beat, ANT+ can transmit an incredible amount of information that's really limited to the engineer's imagination. I'll bet that that CycleOps PowerCal Power Meter that uses only heart rate data from the users chest strap to estimate Power Output is transmitting a lot more than just Beat…Beat…Beat
Examples of ANT+ HR straps are:
So ANT+ looks like the perfect solution, except for one little problem… every piece of fitness equipment on the planet is designed to receive and display Analog signals. But this is changing and Garmin as an article here that lists the change with more and more pieces of equipment adding ANT+ technology.
Enter Hybrid HR straps that transmit in both the high ANT+ and Low Analog frequencies. This give the user the option to display their HR on a club's treadmill, while at the same time only pairing with a compatible ANT+ device.
Hybrid HR Straps include.
So back to your question about not being able to see your HR on the Schwinn AC, Kay. Either the Schwinn AC MPower Console or FreeMotion's should display your HR, regardless of what strap you were wearing. I have a Hybrid Polar strap which works just fine on the Schwinn, but not an exclusively ANT+ strap – so I don't have first hand experience.
I've asked the question to both companies and will update this post when I know more.
UPDATE: Schwinn Master Instructor Julz Arney got back to me with:
Yes, the wireless technology used by the MPower console is ANT+ (owned by Garmin.) Any HR strap using ANT+ should connect. There are a few hints to make it easier:
-Have HR strap on and functioning before turning on console
-Be on the bike saddle (i.e. in close range of the console)
The console looks for a HR signal for approximately 30 seconds from when it's turned on. If it doesn't find a signal it will stop looking. The rider will then need to turn off the console and turn it back on.)
I hope this helps!
Both the Schwinn AC and FreeMotion have a limited time for the rider to pair to the console. The S1.9 will only connect during when the console shows Warm Up.
Sally Edwards has a great article you can read that adds additional detail on choosing a digital or analog Heart Rate monitor here.
Originally posted 2012-10-17 10:09:58.
by Jim Karanas | May 4, 2017 | Master Instructor Blog
This is the last of our re-publishing of of past articles from Team ICG® Master Trainer Jim Karanas.
Pyramid training is a method typically used by strength athletes and body builders. A session starts with high reps and low weight and incrementally adds weight while reducing reps per set.
Pyramids are typically described as ascending or descending. Descending pyramids are also called reverse pyramids: you warm up, then start with your heaviest weight. From there, you decrease the total load, while trying to do a few more repetitions. Triangle (or up-down) pyramids include both ascending and descending pyramids.
Pyramids are less commonly used by cardiovascular athletes, although they’re strongly recommended by many pros. Ascending pyramids are the only type discussed, and the format involves decreasing time with increasing intensity. An example is a 4-3-2-1 ascending pyramid: 4 minutes easy, 3 minutes moderate, 2 minutes hard, 1 minute very hard. Descending and triangle pyramids are seldom referenced.
In previous posts, I’ve referred to ascending and descending pyramids as ladders and referred to a triangle pyramid as a pyramid. I change the nomenclature here simply to align with how other trainers refer to these training patterns.
The infrequent use of pyramids in indoor cycling always amazed me. Rowing introduced me to structured cardiovascular workouts. I rowed competitively on the water in the ‘70s and competitively indoors in the ‘90s. Rowing ergometer workouts investigate every possible variation of pyramid training and provide a useful template for indoor cycling instructors. With that, you can create an almost endless variety of trainings.
Whether or not you have a computer on your bike, you have four primary variables: cadence, resistance, intensity, and time. In cycling, most ascending pyramids use only time and intensity. The interval gets shorter and the intensity (RPE, HR or power) goes up. This overlooks many potential training opportunities. What about time and cadence? Interval gets shorter and cadence goes up.
What if you involved more variables? How about time, cadence and intensity? Interval gets shorter, cadence goes up, but RPE, HR or power output has to stay the same. This requires a subtle adjustment in the resistance as well as a greater integration of breathing to facilitate relaxation. The result is greater efficiency at high cadences.
How about an ascending pyramid to build strength at higher RPM and improve the ability to spin a harder gear? Time and resistance stay constant but cadence increases. Perform three 1-minute intervals with a fixed resistance and ascending cadence (80-100-120 or moderate, fast, faster). You can also put three of those pyramids together and add in ascending resistance. After each pyramid, you increase the fixed resistance level for the next pyramid.
How about a reverse pyramid to facilitate strength development? The intervals get longer as the cadence decreases, but intensity must increase. This requires massive addition of resistance, as the slower RPM will tend to drop the HR or reduce power. Increasing intensity while cadence is slowing requires a very hard gear. Increasing duration as this happens is quite challenging.
Up-Down (triangle) pyramids are by far my favorite. An 11-minute triangle consists of intervals that are formatted 3-2-1-2-3. How about cadence going up and down (80-100-120-100-80) while intensity goes up and down? I rarely see people coach the down side of this kind of pyramid effectively.
One of my favorite ways to coach this pyramid is to extend a super-threshold effort. First, these 11 minutes are done after extensive warm-up. The ascending and descending portions of the pyramid are performed at different intensities. I’ll use HR percentages of max just for an example: 75%, 85%, 90%, 88%, 86%. As the super-threshold effort begins to induce muscle failure, you drop the HR just enough to squeeze out the next interval.
You can vary this. How about using the same ascending pyramid for HR but with a fixed cadence at 100 RPM? On the descending portion, you maintain the 90% HR but drop the cadence (90 and then 80 RPM). The slower cadences will very likely make 90% impossible for most people when sitting, so you move everyone to the standing position. 90% is possible when jogging at 90, as well as 80 RPM, but you’ll have to increase the resistance as you drop the cadence to 80. Brutal.
The variations are endless. For those who haven’t had the benefit of training on an indoor rowing ergometer, I’d strongly suggest reviewing the rowing workouts available on the Concept 2 website (www.concept2.com). You’ll find many workouts that are easily adaptable to indoor cycling.
Originally posted 2015-01-22 05:09:42.
by Chuck Cali | May 2, 2017 | Best Practices, Engage Your Students, Instructor Training, KEEPING IT FUN, Master Instructor Blog, Training With Power
That's me in the hat – with the MI team from ICG.
I taught my last class today. My last ride so-to-speak. It all started seven years ago. I had been Spinning® for years. That day our regular instructor asked me to lead her class. She was just too sick.
To me – a pilot – it was like being asked to safely land an airliner because the pilots were incapacitated. Truth be told, I was far more prepared to land a 747 than lead the class. But I did it, and that is where my ride as indoor cycle instructor began.
Penning this post for ICI/PRO is – for the most part – where it ends. A memoire of sorts that highlights milestones of my journey from certified but lost, to Master Instructor, what I learned along the way about our craft and our industry.
Realizing the joy of being in the front of the studio, I took the first of countless certifications the next month. A one day, eight hour class. Leaving that afternoon I realized what I didn’t know.
I knew that to be the instructor I wanted to be, would require more than eight hours. So I did what all red blooded Americans do, a Google search on teaching indoor cycling.
Lucky for me John understands search engine optimization. ICI/PRO was top of the list and my life as an instructor changed.
Back then John was publishing ‘podcasts’ and posts talking about something he called Indoor Cycling 2.0. What?? I was in my car a lot in those days with my iPod plugged into the radio. I listened to it all trying to figure the best way to integrate such wisdom into my teaching.
There were guest speakers who discussed everything from music to very cycle specific training.
There were posts from this guy, Gene Nacey, who had started a company called Cycling Fusion. Gene wrote a book back then about training with power. The forward, written by Sally Edwards. Who were these people and why are they always talking about heart rate, power and cadence?
ICI/PRO offered class profiles with music suggestions. I found these very helpful but they had names like muscular strength or climbing power or aerobic volume training. It was all very overwhelming.
I realized what made it so overwhelming was that I had not really been educated. That my eight hour class hardly scratched the surface of what ‘training’ on an indoor cycle was really about.
My experience taking classes was just the opposite. My favorite instructor never did any of this stuff. I had reached a defining moment. Indoor cycling version 1.0 or 2.0.
I chose 2.0 because it had the education I yearned for and the structure that seemed missing from the classes I took. I had always been a fan of heart rate. Moreover, the new bikes at the JCC – where I was trying to land a sub job – measured heart rate and had power meters. I knew that seemed like the perfect combination but – at the time – had no idea why.
I got the sub job and a fair amount of opportunity to teach in those early years. I began my quest to get better through education. My sub classes (all I had at the time) were – unbeknownst to them – my guinea pigs.
Having read Gene’s Power Training Book there were some questions. I had found a way to land a ‘regular’ class in prime time by offering to do a power training course. I had questions, so I called him.
Gene is the quintessential professional. He always gave freely of his time to answer my questions. But he warned me, “Chuck where you are going you will discover a culture, the culture of indoor cycling. Good luck.” But more on that later.
Later that year he was doing the official launch of his new company, Cycling Fusion by hosting a summit of some of the most nationally regarded indoor cycle instructors. I’m not sure where I found the nerve, but I offered to kick off the summit suggesting that I was representative of the new 2.0 instructor. To my surprise Gene said yes.
The rest is history. My relatively short, but incredibly intense career really began at that summit, west of Denver high in the Rocky Mountains at Keystone Ski Resort. Why? I met Sally Edwards. Talk about unbridled energy. Sally – the only person ever inducted into both triathlon halls of fame – epitomizes it.
Suffice it to say that when I ran into Sally at the Denver airport after the summit I knew I was home. John led me into the room, Gene opened the window and Sally was the sunshine that poured through. There are not enough words to describe the learning one experiences working with Sally Edwards.
But if Sally was the sun shining on my personal learning crusade, Jim Karanas was the fresh air flowing through the open window.
Jim was indoor cycling 2, 3, 4 and 5.0 way before anyone ever heard of a ‘podcast’. Sadly, Jim left us a while ago, but his legacy lives on in all of those he touched. From Jim I learned to put the icing on the cake. That at the end of the day, it was not about me or just about heart rate or power, cadence or cycle specific training. It was about bringing to class the ability to touch each rider such that they were sure I was teaching class just for them.
When I made the choice to give up leading classes I did it with the knowledge that I had met my own challenge – to understand the whole of indoor cycling yes, but to touch the people who trusted me in a positive manner. How did I know? Simple really, rider feedback. Additionally, I had grown past the place where I was committed to only one way. I was comfortable teaching outside the keep-it-real philosophy that had governed my every thought for so long. I knew that Indoor cycling 2.0 was only a pass to explore and learn, not a rigid protocol to vigorously defend. That my job was not to suppose I knew what my riders needed, or how they got it, but to provide for them what THEY thought they needed that day. I can do that. I have done that. I am content. I have moved on but I have not forgotten.
In the coming weeks I will give John some additional posts written but never submitted. Posts that take a close, perhaps inside look at the realities of our industry. Fruit for thought or maybe, fuel for a fire.
It has been my privilege to have met and worked with so many great and talented individuals.
I wish you all well!
Originally posted 2015-02-08 14:30:39.
by Tom Scotto | Apr 30, 2017 | Master Instructor Blog
In my last article I focused on the implications of making adjustments to the drivetrain (seat height, fore-aft, tilt, etc.) to compensate for issues and limitations surrounding the upper-body and cockpit.
Drivetrain … Cockpit….. are these “technical” terms in the cycling industry? No, not really. They are however terms that have been used for years when we want to refer to an area on the bike and not a specific part or movement. For example, I could say that we are going to discuss the impact of handlebar height, handlebar fore-aft position and posture to address comfort and performance, but it is much easier to lump the whole thing together as the “cockpit”.
SIDE NOTE: Keep in mind that indoor bikes are often limited in their adjustments. On a real bike, in addition to handlebar height and fore-aft position, the following would be considered: handlebar width, angle, position of brake levers, reach, drop and type of bend.
4 Considerations for Handlebar Position
As always, there can be multiple factors which contribute to each consideration, but here are some basic principles to give you a starting point in helping riders make the best decision and adjustment.
Comfort: Many riders (both indoors and outdoors) find handlebars that are set low to be uncomfortable. This can be due to weak core muscles, poor posture, back and spine issues, and simply because it is not something they are accustomed to. Raising the handlebars can relieve pressure, relax tight muscles and provide a more upright and comfortable position.
Performance and Power: Relatively speaking, handlebars that are lower can help riders gain more power and better performance. Besides aerodynamic considerations, deeper torso flexion can provide better gluteal and hip flexor activation often resulting in a more efficient pedal stroke and more powerful down-stroke.
Flexed Spine: When the fore-aft position of the handlebars is too close to the rider (cockpit too short), riders may have the tendency to hunch (curve or flex their spine). This can put their back and spine at risk particularly when they are using large amounts of resistance. Adjusting the fore-aft position to lengthen the cockpit can help neutralize and relax the spine and surrounding muscles.
Over-Extended: When the fore-aft position of the handlebars is too far away from the rider (cockpit too long), riders can find themselves reaching, hyper-extending the spine and in deep flexion at the hips. This over-extended position can cause lower back pain, shoulder pain, strain on the neck and leave riders with fatigued arms. Adjusting the fore-aft position to shorten the cockpit will relax some of the aggressive angles and allow the arms and core muscles to support the upper body.
In many cases you will find yourself both adjusting the handlebar height the fore-aft simultaneously to get the desired position. Also, don’t assume that more aggressive settings (in either direction) are necessarily wrong. I’ve seen road cyclists and triathletes that are comfortable and safe using a very low handlebar position, as well as, a rider recovering from back surgery with their handlebars appropriately in the highest, closest position.
Determining The Optimal Cockpit
Our first concern is always safety which is why the first question we should ask any rider before we suggest or make an adjustment to their bike is “Do you have any injures that may be aggravated by riding?” Knowing this information upfront can save you from putting a rider in a risky position plus allow you to help them make better decisions as to what may be best at this time.
Handlebar Height
Assuming we have no physical concerns, it is simply a matter of comfort vs. power. When I setup a rider for the first time, I prefer to place their handlebars level with their seat (often referred to as “neutral”). This can sometimes be a challenge with shorter riders because the handlebars on some indoor bikes cannot be adjusted that low. Do what you can. If a rider feels uncomfortable, raise the handlebars in small increments. If a rider feels they are too high or wants more power, lower their handlebars in small increments. I’ve talked to instructors who feel that the handlebars should never be lower than the seat. I’m not sure where they received that information, but it is incorrect. It is not uncommon for outdoor riders (particularly road cyclists and triathletes) to have their handlebars more than 4 inches below the level of their seat. Consider the safety and needs of the individual rider and avoid making up rules.
Handlebar Fore-aft Position
Many of the bikes we use indoors may still not have the ability to adjust the fore-aft position of the handlebars. Even though, you still may be able to make suggestions for where a rider should grip the handlebars based on what you observe. As I mentioned in my previous article, this is the reason we should avoid numbered hand positions.
To determine the optimal starting point for handlebar fore-aft position, have the rider (seated) bring their foot and pedal to 12 o’clock keeping their ankle relaxed. Have them place their elbow to their kneecap with the end of their arm (hand and wrist) on top of the handlebars. The other hand should be gripping the handlebars and providing support.
Simply observe the alignment of the wrist and the crossbar of handlebars. If the crossbar is more than a fingers-width in either direction, you can suggest making an adjustment (keeping the above considerations in mind). You may find yourself incorporating a combination of hand position and handlebar position depending on what range of adjustment is available.
My Strong Opinion
I’m certain no one is surprised as I’m also certain I’m preaching to the choir on this one: “there are no short cuts when dealing with the variables and complexity of the human body in motion”. Certifications and individuals that advocate specific settings and positions will often find themselves wrong, and worse, lead others astray or toward injury. However, I’m comforted knowing that all of us at ICI/Pro default to knowledge. Doing something right requires understanding, where following rules…not so much.
Originally posted 2011-12-29 12:36:14.
