Why cycling and running/walking have almost nothing in common

In response to the q-factor debate (some people believe that narrower is always better, others feel it matters little) I often hear someone spout that our stance width when we walk (basically how widely spaced our feet are as we walk or run) is only a few inches wide, and therefore a very narrow q-factor is mechanically the best.

My response to this is very similar to one I heard from Keith Bontrager once "I'm not sure what walking and riding a bike have to do with one another." And that's true really, but let's look at the similarities and differences.

Similarities:

First, they are both reciprocal motions, meaning that one leg moves one direction while the other moves the opposite.

They are both weight-bearing activities. The amount of weight-bearing can vary drastically however. Walking slowly may produce ground forces equal to your body weight while running can record forces up to 9 times as high. Cycling on the other hand often runs on the range of perhaps 10% of body weight for very easy pedaling, to usually 30-40% for spinning on the flats, to perhaps at or just beyond one time your body weight (think about the times you have been pedaling uphill and your cadence slows enough, where you have to push on the pedals hard enough that it nearly lifts your butt off the seat -- this is roughly one time your body weight).

I could manufacture more similarities, like the fact that the quadriceps and hip extensors are the prime movers for locomotion in each activity, but this is a bit mundane seeing as how they are also the cause in most other forms of forward movement (skateboarding, nordic skiing, blah, blah, blah).

This is about where the similarities end.

Differences abound, and as you might imagine, I come down firmly on the skeptical side of the narro q-factor debate in cycling.

Firstly, running has significantly greater impact on the skeletal system, and most of these effects are good, since this aids with bone density. Cycling studies in the last 10 years or so have shown some scary results in nearly osteoporotic cyclists at pretty young ages, because they have years of training on the bike which is a limited weight-bearing activity.

Mechanically there is a lot going on that separates running from cycling. In running, you have one foot in contact with the ground for a short period (we call this a closed-chain position), then neither foot contacting, then the opposite foot in contact (walking has a brief phase where both feet are touching the ground at the same time). Cycling, however has both feet fixed to the pedals. In walking/running, when we have one foot in contact with the ground only, this allows the pelvis to unlock on one side, since it is not fixed in a closed-chain commitment (so we can swing our leg freely).

On the bike this doesn't happen. What about the recovery phase of the pedal stroke, you ask? (Recovery being roughly from the 6 o'clock position to about 11 o'clock) In this position the foot isn't bearing down on the pedal, you say? Well, actually, it still is. A perfect pedal stroke would have the recovery leg pulling up on the pedal to assist the other leg in it's downward force, and while it may feel like you do this when you pedal, all the research to date has shown that even the most efficient pedalers in the world do not "pull" their recovery leg up. That leg simply can't move fast enough to get out of the way, and we are left with a downward force on the pedal on the back side of the stroke, so in fact we all actually exert a negative torque on the pedals.

If you've ever been on a Compu-Trainer and used their SpinScan you will notice that with most riders if you look at the polar or the bar graph of the efficiency of each pedal at points of the stroke, that often the right leg will appear to be less efficient in it's power phase (roughly from 2 o'clock to 6 o'clock). Now this could be because of some imbalance causing weakness in the right leg, but more often than not it has nothing to do with the right leg pushing down, and everything to do with the left leg not getting out of the way fast enough. 

(Incidentally, this is a very common short-coming to the Compu-trainer technology -- the SpinScan is of very limited value because of it's lack of sensitivity.  Whenever I see other technology based on the Compu-trainer's I have to cringe -- the most glaring example being the Dynamic Fit Unit (DFU) from Guru.  Here is a machine that costs tens of thousands of dollars and the assessment tool it uses is the 15 year old software and hardware from Compu-Trainer.)

Without getting too much into it (because it could be a post or even a book unto itself) most of us are wired to favor or be dominant on our right sides -- even if we are left handed. Some people think this is because we talk so much and our talk centers are on the left side of the brain which is also responsible for right side motor control, and the talk centers stimulate everything and keep that side of the brain "lit up" -- I think that's a neat theory but I'm not 100% sure I believe all of it. regardless, this right dominance is something I see every day. It is certainly no coincidence that about 75% of us sit slightly to the right side of our bike seat.

So we've established that there are significant differences between walking and cycling in weight-bearing (or what could be thought of as total impact), the fixed foot or closed-chain nature of cycling is different as well.  A third area of discrepancy is total range of motion.  Walking/running involve moderate amounts of hip extension, while cycling has none.

One of the largest differences is one that I address in every bike fit I do, and that has to do with foot and lower leg mechanics.  In walking, our bodies are built to absorb impact (there's that word again) by having the midfoot move and collapse towards the ground after heel strike in order to absorb the energy of the foot making contact with the ground.  Cycling has none of this.  Part of that has to do with the lack of "impact" on the lower extremity, and the other half is due to only the forefoot being attached to the pedal.  Forefoot mechanics factor in heavily in cycling, and they are not very well understood. 

(I believe this is the case even in professionals who handle foot mechanics for a living.  I have tested dozens of sets of custom orthotics on the infrared system - made by orthotists, podiatrists, doctors, and therapists - and while some didn't cause any problems, many did, and none of them corrected any alignment issues that extended above the ankle.  Some actually made the foot more comfortable in the shoe, and that's great, but rarely is it necessary to go custom, and spend $400 in order to accomplish that.  I have found over-the-counter inserts to do just fine in these cases)

In cycling,  if you can control the forefoot you often have the ability to make corrections at the knee and the hip as well. 

So what about running you ask?  Haven't you expounded on the benefits of forefoot running postures?

Yes, certainly, I am a believer in...well I wouldn't necessarily say forefoot running because that prompts many people to run on their toes...I would say I'm a believer in not landing on your heels.  Does this amount to a similarity between running and cycling?  Perhaps, but not a very strong one due to two previously discussed facts -- the much greater impact on the foot in running really affects the demands on the foot (this makes correction of lower extremity mechanics on the bike a bit easier and more subtle), and the fact that our butt is also attached to the seat (which makes correction of lower extremity mechanics on the bike much more difficult). 

So, I think it's really difficult to make determinations of cycling mechanics by referencing walking/running.  In fact doing so will likely lead you astray and compund problems.  You'd really be hard-pressed to find two activities that are more dissimliar in some respects.  So be careful, if you are getting bike fit advice, in a bike shop or in a clinic, and the person you're talking to starts referencing walking or running mechanics or studies.  Cycling is different and deserves to be distinguished.

I'm back; SI joint Part 2; orthotics and cycling

Sorry again for the long delay -- this is such a busy time of year that I barely have time for anything besides bike fits and designing custom machines (and my family of course). This week, I purposely carved out some down time to catch my breath, and (gasp) even get out for a ride or two.

Of note recently: I had another client this past weekend with a clearly restricted SI joint (this time on the right side) and after a couple of tests, she too benefitted from treating that right side as a short right leg. A 3 mm leg length shim did the trick, and really allowed her mechanics to even out and she was sitting more equally on her seat as well. I will post the Retul files once I doctor them to block out her name, etc.

I've also had further reinforcement of my long held belief that custom orthotics do a very poor job of controlling lower extremity mechanics in cycling. I get a number of clients that have orthotics in their cycling shoes, and I routinely test them on the infrared with the orthotics as normal, and then without orthotics but with cleat wedges/shims as needed. I have never had a pair of orthotics do as good a job at controlling the mechanics as the cleat adjustments.

Part of the reason for this is that most people don't have two sets of orthotics made -- they have one set for walking/running made (because they're expensive). Walking/running orthotics WILL NOT help in cycling. They might not harm anything drastically, but they won't help -- the mechanics of running/walking and cycling have very little to do with one another. You can almost say they are opposite mechanical events of each other. Again, the orthotics may not cause harm, and they may even be more comfortable to the foot itself, because of the support it provides, but I have not found them to correct for much past that.

Even second sets of orthotics made (supposedly) for cycling have faired very poorly. My personal guess on this one is that most people making orthotics are not familiar with the mechanics of cycling. These health care professionals are educated in the context of gait training and evaluation. Walking is studying ad nauseum -- the micro-events that occur to the muscles during swing and stance phase, etc. (And, incidentally, they are often very good at assessing gait.) Some programs do not even spend a lot of time on running. The programs will acknowledge that there are significant differences between walking and running, however they often do not spend a lot of time on it. And cycling? Effectively "none" is my educated guess.

So my advice is to not spend another $200-$500 on cycling orthotics, when $30-$40 (max) of cleat wedges and shims is much more effective.

Anyhow, I will post some files to show this in a little bit, and I am making a concerted effort to post more regularly.

Stay tuned.

J

What are our muscles really doing when we pedal?

So my fit Studio is in a  Physical Therapy clinic, which makes sense, because I am a practicing PT.  My co-worker, and owner of the PT clinic, Rik is trained in a new biofeedback system.  Biofeedback uses electrode patches placed over the muscles to determine how much these muscles are working -- how much, how soon they kick in, how long they stay "on", how they "turn off", etc.  As you can imagine, this is highly useful with our clients.

So we decided to test a few cyclists and see what we came up with.  We could simultaneously use the Retul, to pick up movement imbalances and then cross reference with the biofeedback to try and figure out what the muscles on each side of the body were and were not doing.  We can even then use the biofeedback while the person pedals to "train" them what activating certain muscles at specific times "feels" like to help correct the underlying muscular problem.

First we have to test as many people as we can, to start to figure out common muscular patterns.  Hopefully we can figure out what is "normal" but if my line of work has taught me anything, it's that there aren't many "normals" out there.  That's why I think it's more likely we'll find common motor patterns that may not be symmetric, amongst many athletes.

Subject #1 : Me, 33 y/o, male, 5'10", 175#

I have a fairly symmetrical pedal stroke.  If I had to guess I would think that I am a bit right side dominant, and probably scoot off the right side of my saddle because of it.  But we don't have to guess, because here is a right and left Retul file from a recent test on myself:

Not bad.

Next was to hook up the biofeedback.  This involves placing small sticker-like electrodes strategically over the muscles you want to test.  Wires snap to the electrodes and run to a little processing unit that reminds me of a car radar detector.

The "radar detector" talks to the laptop via a BlueTooth connection -- the setup is pretty slick.

The software that Rik uses seems to have endless choices on how to set up the display screens so that you can simultaneously see what the

 different muscle groups are doing.

  When I was hooked up to the biofeedback unit we decided to test vastus lateralis (VL) (the quadricep or thigh muscle on the outside of the

 leg -- this tends to be very pronounced in cyclists), vastus medialis (VM) (quad to the inside just above the knee, and the hamstring.  We tested these muscles on both legs, so we could compare how much more the right or the left lateral quad was working, but we could also compare how much and when the medial vs. the lateral quad did work on the same side.  We could also compare this to how the hamstrings worked.

We tested all three muscle group -- VL, VM, hamstring -- on both legs, of course at 150 watts and at 215 watts.

The printout from the biofeedback looks like this:

The lines and squiggles at the top half of the page are usually in color, but they are a bit above what we want to get into here. 

Below are the printouts bottom half of the page.  The colum to focus on is the one that says "Mean" -- they are basically the normalized mA that the electrodes pick up from each of the

 muscles.

There are four sets of data:  comparing VMO/VL at 150 Watts, VMO/VL at 215 watts, VMO/hamstring at 150 watts, and VMO/hamstring at 215 watts.

VM/VL @ 150 watts

VM/VL @ 215 watts

VM/hamstring @150 watts

VM/hamstring @ 215 watts

As you can see from the sheets, my right quads (medial and lateral) both work more than the left at all wattages.  But when I increased from 150 watts to 215 watts my left quads increased their activity 18% while the right increased 23% (VL) and 29% (VM).

The next round of tests, comparing the VM to the hamstrings on both sides confirmed an 18% and 29% increase respectively for left and right for the VM when going from 150 watts to 215 watts.  The hamstrings, which overall, were not very active increased 31% on the right and 38% on the left; this increase on the left might make one think that the left "evens out" at higher wattage, but I think it is still a bigger issue: the right hamstring was more active at 150 than the left was at 215.  The fact that the starting point for the left hamstring was so bad made it's improvement seem more drastic.

What did we learn?

I think this first round of tests is encouraging and shows that we can, with good effect correlate what our mechanics are like (from the Retul data) and what the muscles themselves are doing.  We should be able to explain why a cyclist may pedal with an asymmetry and whether it is due to a poor motor plan or if it has more structural origins.

I think we can safely say that one of the main reason that I sit a bit skewed on the saddle is because my pedal stroke's motor plan has a significant emphasis on my dominant right leg.  I think with more data we will see that my current pedal stroke is poor in the efficiency category because I have not been riding as much  lately and I am getting a very small contribution from the hamstring muscles.  I am not "pedaling ellipses" but rather more up and down (and definitely more down than up).

Theory

I have a theory as well about the activation of our quadriceps when we pedal that has to do with left and right efficiency.  I believe I am more coordinated (because pedaling is a coordinated task) on my right leg -- it's clear my hamstring are more active on the right and help to smooth out my pedal stroke.  I am also more skilled at one leg pedaling drills on my right leg -- less "clunking" through the stroke and better cadence.  

I think, based on some of the muscle activation graphs that I saw for me (and they would have been difficult to post here -- sorry), that our more efficient leg will see the quads activate later and relax earlier than the non-dominant side.  So the non-dominant side will have a more consistent or longer activation patter than the dominant side.  

This to me seemed counter-intuitive at first, but after some thought I realized that because my dominant side hamstring were activating better, they would inhibit the quads sooner since the load was now taken up by this new group of muscles -- the more "normal" or efficient pedal stroke.  The dominant side could more accurately and quickly kick itself on and off in time with my cadence and when it kicked on it could fire more motor units more quickly.  I think this would have implications, of course, on negative torque values (when your quads are still pushing down on the pedal after it has passed the dead bottom center position and therefore exerting negative torque or power) but also in terms of fatigue.  The non-dominant quad is staying "on" longer, even when it shouldn't and wastes unnecessary effort -- it fatigues quicker even though it is adding less to the overall workload.

Anyway, I should have more data coming this weekend and next week with a  few more guinea pigs so stay tuned.

Cycling Research?

Unfortunately there is not as much science entrenched in the culture of cycling.  For years, Euro pros abstained from sex before races because it was feared that it would rob them of some essential power, for god's sake.  (Although Mario Cippolini worked hard to make us think he did not follow this logic.)  

Certainly this is changing, what with pro teams and amateurs alike making use of physiologic testing, wind-tunnels, and accurate power data.

The arena of bike fitting has had a few stabs at this, but many (like Specialized's BG Fit) are tainted by a corporate and retail driven focus.  

So I guess fads and marketing need to be treated with some apprehension.

In the realm of physical therapy and sports rehabilitation, certainly there are fads and marketing within the industry, but good therapists tend to use what works -- which is, most often, sound exercise regimens and manual treatment techniques -- not the Tony Little Gazelle, the Ab-Lounger, or that electrical stimulation belt for 6-pack abs.  

For this reason, I tend to default to good old published research, whenever I wish a fresh angle on some idea.  It's more work - information isn't already broken up into sound-bite worthy tidbits by some marketing department, it's not immune to corporate influence (many studies ARE funded by corporations with an angle to support), and some studies are just not set up very well, so they may or may not really tell us anything with any degree of certainty.  But that is why getting good information from them is more satisfying - because it does take a little work and you have to be discerning in your reading.

So as often as I can, I will share some of the more interesting things that are out there -- I think many will be surprised (I know I am constantly) at what some of the research shows.  Here's a taste:

Did you know that a study was done about 3 years ago looking at the most efficient crank length for trained cyclists?  They tested riders with crank lengths varying from 130mm up to 220mm, and found no significant difference for even some of the most extreme differences.  Granted the test was a very short and intense (I believe it may have been as brief as 3 or 4 minutes) but the fact that a cyclist could score anywhere close with 130mm cranks as they did with 200mm cranks, on any test, is amazing.  It certainly puts into perspective how futile the hand-wringing regarding 175 vs 172.5 cranks, that many cyclists do, may be.