 Does having proper pedaling technique improve your cycling performance? As always, today we're going to be taking a look at the science to answer this question as well as touching on optimal cadence and at the end of the video I'll be discussing how exactly you can go about improving your pedaling efficiency. Welcome back to another video. The question of what proper pedaling technique should look like is an age-old concern for cyclists. And there are many theories out there. I've heard everything from focus on pedaling perfect circles to pulling up on the upstroke, to pretending you have gunk on the bottom of your shoe and you're trying to scrape it off with each pedal stroke. Now if you're thinking, hmm, I didn't know that it was possible to not pedal in circles, well, I can't really argue with you there, but what we're talking about specifically here is when you apply power to the pedals in the pedal stroke. Is it around the whole pedal stroke, only the downstroke, or something else? It seems logical that pedaling more smoothly or applying power more evenly around the pedal stroke would be beneficial. But then again, if this isn't the case, it wouldn't be the first time that a commonly held belief amongst cyclists falls apart when you actually look at the evidence. Dude, I don't know what you're talking about, you're going to have to provide some specific examples. Does your pedaling technique actually affect your cycling performance and if so, is it something that you can work on and improve? Perhaps a good place to start would be by taking a look at the pedaling techniques used by the best riders in the world. Do pros have a more even power delivery to the pedals as you might assume? This study on the pedaling technique of endurance cyclists measured the pedaling technique of elite 40 kilometer time trial lists as the workload increased to race pace. What they found was that there was an even split amongst the participants with two different pedaling styles that were adopted as the power increased. The first was that subjects showed no changes in pedal orientation and predominantly increased the vertical component of the applied force during the downstroke as the workload increased. Essentially what this means is that they did not adopt a more even distribution of power throughout the pedal stroke. As the power increased, they simply applied more force on the downstroke. For the others, in addition to increasing the vertical component during the downstroke, they also increased the toe up rotation of the pedal throughout the downstroke and increased the horizontal component between 0 degrees and 90 degrees. So slightly more force was applied to the top of the stroke when power increased, but were these riders pulling up during the upstroke at all or was the majority of their power being produced during the downstroke? While negative torque about the bottom bracket during the upstroke usually became positive torque at the higher workload, it did not contribute significantly to the external work done because 98.6% and 96.3% of total work done at the low and high workloads respectively was done during the downstroke. In these elite riders, increasing the power meant increasing the force during the upstroke but by way less than you might have previously thought and the vast majority of the power was still being produced during the downstroke. This study on physiology and biomechanical factors associated with elite cycling performance came to a similar conclusion. When looking at elite national class cyclists vs. good state class cyclists, they found that elite cyclists produced more power primarily by producing higher peak vertical forces and torque during the cycling downstroke and not by increasing the effectiveness of the force application to the pedal. This begs the question, if such a large percentage of our power is produced in the downstroke and elite riders set themselves apart by how much power they can produce in the downstroke, then what are we even talking about here? Does worrying about pedaling perfect circles or pulling up in the upstroke even matter? This study on the effect of pedaling technique on mechanical effectiveness and efficiency in cyclists looked at just that. Subjects pedaled at 90 rpm and 200 watts and were told to use four different pedaling techniques. Preferred pedaling, pedaling in circles, emphasizing the pull during the upstroke and emphasizing the push during the downstroke. What they found was that instructing riders to pull up on the upstroke resulted in the highest evenness of torque distribution and index of force effectiveness. Basically, when riders were told to pull up on the upstroke, their power was distributed more evenly. However, this did not equate to higher efficiency, which is the end goal of working on pedaling technique. Pulling up actually had the lowest gross efficiency, followed by trying to maintain circular pedaling, and preferred technique and pushing down were almost the same and had the highest gross efficiency. The study concludes that mechanical effectiveness did not reflect gross efficiency across different pedaling techniques during steady state cycling. This may have had something to do with the fact that the extensor muscles are more efficient power producers than the flexor muscles. These are probably not the results you would expect. It seems that having a less even power distribution may actually be preferred, or at the very least this whole pedaling technique issue is not something that you should worry about. These are just a few studies though, and we should probably do some further investigation before we come to a conclusion. For example, what about pedaling heel down versus toe down? Some people naturally adopt one of these two pedaling styles, and it's not because they're conscious of it, it's just because that's what's comfortable for them. But could actively trying to pedal heel down or toe down improve your performance? This study looked at this very question by instructing cyclists to pedal heel down or toe down during a test. They found that neither method provided benefit, and the preferred pedaling technique was the most efficient. These studies all look at instructing subjects to change their pedaling technique, which doesn't seem to be effective. However, interestingly enough, pedaling style will change under different cycling conditions, completely unprompted. Let's take, for example, your pedaling technique while climbing versus riding on the flats. While your cadence might be reduced while climbing, the activation of your muscles might change as well. This study showed that muscle activation occurs earlier in the pedal stroke with increasing gradient, and that riding uphill increased muscle activity level, mainly induced by increased calf muscle activity. Changes in pedaling technique can also be seen as we get tired. This study tested cyclists to exhaustion and measured their hip, knee, and ankle joints in the process. They found that with an increase in workload, there was an increased knee joint moment, plantar flexor moment, hip flexor moments, higher dorsi flexion, and an increased range of motion were observed for the ankle joint, and the hip joint had an increased flexion angle and a reduced range of motion. What the hell does any of that mean? Basically, movements on the bike can get more exaggerated as we get tired. If you've ever heard somebody use the term pedaling squares to describe somebody on the group ride whose pedaling style makes them look like they've got rocks shoved in their chamois, then this is what they're referring to. Not literally pedaling squares because obviously that's impossible, but somebody whose pedaling technique is so ugly that they might as well have a square chainring. That being said, this may be your body's way of trying to eke out every possible watt it can muster. We've already seen that pedaling technique can change as power increases, and it doesn't seem clear that focusing on pedaling technique will help. To sum things up, from this review on gross efficiency and cycling performance, whilst pedaling in circles allows pedaling to become mechanically more effective, this technique does not result in short-term improvements in gross efficiency. From this review on pedal force effectiveness and cycling, economy slash efficiency seems to be reduced when cyclists are instructed to improve pedal force effectiveness. And finally, from this article on post-cycling and efficiency, our findings add to a growing body of literature that short-term interventions in pedaling technique can change pedaling mechanics, but do not improve efficiency during steady-state cycling. In short, no, you shouldn't try to actively change your pedaling technique. Whatever pedaling technique you naturally use is the most efficient one for you. People often cite how smooth pro riders look when they pedal as a reason to improve your pedaling technique. However, if you pay attention, even in the pro peloton, pedaling styles can vary quite a bit. There are a few studies here and there that may contradict this, however, it's always important to look at the balance of evidence when coming to a conclusion, and the balance of evidence shows that pedaling technique is not something that you should be worried about. These findings remind me a lot of the research on cadence, which fits perfectly into the topic of pedaling. A lot of people claim that you need to either pedal with a high or a low cadence in order to improve your cycling performance and that this is something that you need to actively work on. These claims are usually backed up by the last dude to win the tour. People get obsessed with spinning or mashing when they see their cycling heroes do it. Haven't you heard, dude? Spin to win, just like Lance. Mmm, wait now, let me think of a better example. In reality, this may be a complete waste of your time and energy. From this review article on optimal cadence, they stated that it would appear then that a single optimal cadence for all cyclists does not exist, or indeed a single optimal cadence for an individual cyclist. The cadence at which perceived exertion is minimized would seem to reflect the optimal trade-off between the most metabolically efficient cadence and the most mechanically efficient cadence. Just like with pedaling technique, simply doing what comes natural to you and what is most comfortable for you, whether that be a high cadence or a low cadence, is the most efficient cadence. All of that being said, there is something that you can do to make sure that you're pedaling efficiently, and that is having your bike fit dialed. I just did a video on saddle height so I won't go too much into this, but basically what you need to know is that your saddle height and your saddle position can have a huge impact on your pedaling efficiency. Studies on saddle height show that small differences of just plus or minus 2% can affect gross efficiency and a saddle height that's too high is often worse than a saddle height that's too low. Further research demonstrates that the optimal saddle height is one that puts your knee at a 25 to 30 degree angle with cranks in the downward position. I discussed this at length in my saddle height video and I encourage you to check that out if you haven't already. In short, if you're concerned about your pedaling efficiency, stop concentrating on your pedaling technique and your cadence. Whatever is the most comfortable for you is likely the most efficient. Instead, focus on your bike fit and most importantly your saddle position. Thanks for watching. If you enjoyed this video, be sure to give it a like, subscribe, and share it with your cycling friends. I'll see you in the next one.