Don’t Touch My Drivetrain!

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.

Evidence Based Cycling – Blog Post #3

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.