The study evaluated the effects of different pedaling techniques (normal, emphasis on push, emphasis on pull, and emphasis on circular pedaling) on cycling efficiency, torque effectiveness, and pedal smoothness. Six skilled cyclists performed four minute trials at 85% of their VO2max for each technique while physiological and biomechanical metrics were measured. The results showed that the normal pedaling technique was the most metabolically efficient, while the pull-emphasis technique produced the highest torque effectiveness values. There were no significant differences in metabolic measures between techniques.

1. ! Pedaling technique and increasing pedaling efficiency has been an
important aspect of cycling. Certain methods and drills have been
established to focus on the push, pull, and smoothness of the pedal
stroke.
! Previous research shows mixed results to the effectiveness of using
these techniques.
! The new ROTOR Power meter is able to measure “torque
effectiveness” and “pedal smoothness” without using expensive lab
equipment.
! Using ROTOR Power and a metabolic cart to measure efficiency, the
goal of this study was to analyze several different pedaling techniques.
Effect of Pedaling Technique on Cycling Efficiency: A Pilot Study
Karl Nelson; Andrea Perman; Christie O’Hara, MS; and Robert D. Clark, PhD
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Pedaling technique can be a key component in improving
cycling performance by increasing gross efficiency (GE). Torque
effectiveness (TE) and pedal smoothness (PS) were examined in four
different pedaling techniques to determine their influence on metabolic
efficiency. Thus, the purpose of the study was to determine the most
effective pedaling technique to be used by competitive cyclists.
Methods: Six intermediate to elite level cyclists completed four stages
that were four minutes long and composed of specific pedaling
techniques; Normal, Emphasis on Pull, Emphasis on Push, & Emphasis
on Circular Pedaling. Each participant maintained a cadence of 90 rpm at
a workload equivalent to 85% of their VO2max for each technique
followed by a 4 min recovery stage. Respiratory exchange ratio, heart
rate, ventilation, VCO2expired, VO2consumption, GE, power, TE, and PS
were measured. Results: When the pull was emphasized, TE & PS
showed improved values as compared to the other pedaling techniques.
When subjects pedaled normally, metabolic efficiency increased as shown
by the highest GE value (21.2 ± 0.97) and lowest oxygen consumption
(VO2 = 44.0 ± 4.4 mL/kg/min.) Conclusion: There were no observable
differences for any of the metabolic dependent measures. However,
torque effectiveness values were higher in the “pull” phase, which could
show that with training one may be able to improve efficiency of pedal
stroke. A larger study needs to be completed with a higher sample size to
determine more reliable results.
BACKGROUND
CONCLUSION
To evaluate the effects of pedaling technique (normal, push, pull, circle)
on gross efficiency, torque effectiveness, and pedal smoothness in
cyclists. Several physiological and biomechanical markers (i.e.,
dependent measures) were examined including the respiratory exchange
ratio, heart rate, ventilation, volume of carbon dioxide expiration, volume
of oxygen consumption, gross efficiency, power, torque effectiveness, and
pedal smoothness.
OBJECTIVE
Subjects
! 6 intermediate-elite skilled cyclists
! Age (yrs): 26.3 ± 6.4
! Height (cm): 175.7 ± 9.8
! Weight (kg): 75.2 ± 15.2
! VO2 max (ml/kg/min): 52.5 ± 8.2
Instruments
! Parvo Medics’ TrueOne 2400
! RacerMate Lab CompuTrainer
! ROTR Power 170 mm cranks w/ TE
& PS software
! 54 cm Lab Bicycle
• Protocol
• Preliminary Maximal Graded Exercise Test
o 10 minute warm up at self selected pace
o Start at 150W, increase 30W after every 3 min stage
o Test ended at exhaustion
• Submaximal Exercise Test
o Repeated 4 times, random pedaling technique selection
" Normal (preferred)
" Emphasis on Push Phase
" Emphasis on Pull Phase
" Emphasis on Full Circle (Pedal Smoothness)
o Procedure:
" 10 minute warm up at self selected pace
" 4 min. steady state effort at workload equivalent to 85% VO2max
with maintained 90 rpm
" 4 min. recovery stage before next technique stage
METHODS
RESULTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
43.8
43.85
43.9
43.95
44
44.05
44.1
44.15
44.2
44.25
44.3
NORMAL CIRCLE PUSH PULL
mL/kg/min
Pedaling Technique
Relative Oxygen Consumption
Effect of Pedaling Technique
• Normal Pedaling Technique is the the most metabolically efficient
• Pull Pedaling Technique is the most mechanically efficient
• Application of these finding can include potential training that
emphasizes Pull Pedaling Technique leading to adaptations of
metabolic efficiency – in turn producing performance increases
Future Analysis
• Future research on whether training emphasizing Pull Technique can
lead to better metabolic and mechanical efficiency
• Potential benefits in determining the cross-over between mechanical
and metabolic efficiencies of Pull Pedaling Technique
• Greater sample size needed to determine further implications
Thank you to all those who helped including:
# Cal Poly Kinesiology Department
# Cal Poly College of Science and Math
# Dr. R.D. Clark
# Foothill Cyclery
# All current and future participants
For additional information please contact:
Karl Nelson or Andrea Perman
Kinesiology Department
California Polytechnic State University
knelso08@calpoly.edu
aperman@calpoly.edu
20.85
20.9
20.95
21
21.05
21.1
21.15
21.2
21.25
Normal Circle Push Pull
Average(Workload/REE)
Pedaling Technique
Gross Efficiency
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
NORMAL CIRCLE PUSH PULL
AverageEffectiveness%
Pedaling Technique
Torque Effectiveness
Metabolic Findings
" Under Normal Pedaling conditions metabolic values were substantially better
(lower Oxygen Consumption & higher GE)
! Followed in order by: Push, Pull, & Circle respectively
• Normal 43.98 ± 4.45 (mL/kg/min) & 21.23 ± 0.97 (W/RER)
• Push: 44.15 ± 4.51(mL/kg/min) & 21.08 ± 0.87 (W/RER)
• Pull: 44.19 ± 4.60 (mL/kg/min) & 21.02 ± 0.96 (W/RER)
• Circle 44.26 ± 4.44 (mL/kg/min) & 21.00 ± 1.04 (W/RER)
Mechanical Findings
" Under Pull Pedaling conditions mechanical values were
substantially higher (TE & PS)
! Followed in order by: Circle, Normal, Push respectively
• Pull: 86.4% ± 6.7 & 25.8% ± 3.2
• Circle: 83.2% ± 6.3 & 24.6% ± 3.3
• Normal: 82.0% ± 4.6 & 24.5% ± 2.9
• Push: 79.6% ± 2.5 & 23.0% & 1.7
21.5
22
22.5
23
23.5
24
24.5
25
25.5
26
NORMAL CIRCLE PUSH PULL
Smoothness%
Pedaling Technique
Pedal Smoothness
!"#$%!!"##$ℎ!"## =
!!"#
!!"#
!
!! =!100 ∗ (!! +!!!)/!!!