pedaling on the arches
pm
balls of the foot might have it all wrong:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=/tech/2009/reviews/biomac_bio-mxc2shoes09
I have to say I'm comfortable with the ball-of-the-foot cleat
position. But I often wonder -- since the ankle does not artilculate
much during pedaling, and therefore can't be contributing much power,
(and even for ankling pedalers, what force is generated by the ankle
has to be supported through the knee as well), wouldn't a cyclist's
typically bulging calves have to be taken as a sign of wasted energy?
Has there been any study on metabolic efficiency as it relates to foot
position?
-pm
someone
> A review suggests that the conventional wisdom of pedaling on the
> balls of the foot might have it all wrong:
>
>
> I have to say I'm comfortable with the ball-of-the-foot cleat
> position. But I often wonder -- since the ankle does not artilculate
> much during pedaling, and therefore can't be contributing much power,
> (and even for ankling pedalers, what force is generated by the ankle
> has to be supported through the knee as well), wouldn't a cyclist's
> typically bulging calves have to be taken as a sign of wasted energy?
It would seem so. There are times, however when a rider is overgeared
and the absorption of force by the calf muscles will even out the
pedalling action to enable a reasonable delivery of power. I also
think there may be repercussions, using rearwards cleats, with the
knees and hips because of the fixation of rotational limits of these
joints. The traditional setup permits the rider to effectively extend
and reduce saddle height during a ride so minimising the negative
effects of the repetitive movements upon the joints.
Another point would be how it affects sprinting power. Efficiency
here is not too important, its purely a case of getting as much power
as possible projecting the bicycle forward. I think that involving
the ankles more, certainly helps with high rotational speeds and is
possibly an aid to keeping the bike under control during an all out
effort. This may also apply to climbing.
Chalo
>
> A review suggests that the conventional wisdom of pedaling on the
> balls of the foot might have it all wrong:
>
>
> I have to say I'm comfortable with the ball-of-the-foot cleat
> position. But I often wonder -- since the ankle does not artilculate
> much during pedaling, and therefore can't be contributing much power,
> (and even for ankling pedalers, what force is generated by the ankle
> has to be supported through the knee as well), wouldn't a cyclist's
> typically bulging calves have to be taken as a sign of wasted energy?
>
> Has there been any study on metabolic efficiency as it relates to foot
> position?
My impression-- admittedly unsupported by any research I'm aware of--
is that the ankle's role is primarily in keeping the pedal stroke
smooth and continuous (providing a buffer between the reciprocation of
the lower leg and the rotation of the crank), and not in providing
extra raw power above what the upper leg muscles can provide.
Because we are bipedal walkers, our legs are designed to transmit
power through the balls of our feet-- thus that's what feels natural
to us-- and our tendency to pedal on the forefoot might be just as
simple as that.
I use neither clipless pedals nor clips and straps (though I have
habits ingrained by many years of using one or the other). I find
that the only time it feels natural to shift my feet forwards on the
pedals is when I'm grinding up a steep grade on a single-speed, or
when I need to mount suddenly and get moving in a hurry. As soon as
my cadence moves into a normal range, my feet find their way back into
the usual balls-over-spindles position.
Chalo
raa...@gmail.com
> A review suggests that the conventional wisdom of pedaling on the
> balls of the foot might have it all wrong:
>
>
> I have to say I'm comfortable with the ball-of-the-foot cleat
> position. But I often wonder -- since the ankle does not artilculate
> much during pedaling, and therefore can't be contributing much power,
> (and even for ankling pedalers, what force is generated by the ankle
> has to be supported through the knee as well), wouldn't a cyclist's
> typically bulging calves have to be taken as a sign of wasted energy?
>
> Has there been any study on metabolic efficiency as it relates to foot
> position?
>
> -pm
normaly, people don't run on the arch of their foot; try going up a
few flights of stairs holding your foot level eg without ankling and
you will soon feel the limitations- and don't forget the toe (or foot)
overlap that is likely to occur as a result. although the problems may
seem to be in the longitudnal location of the cleat on the foot, most
likely it is a result of a poor seat position on the bike. fix the
position and power and cadence should be optimal as a result.
Mike Jacoubowsky
normaly, people don't run on the arch of their foot; try going up a
few flights of stairs holding your foot level eg without ankling and
you will soon feel the limitations-
But a pedal has bearings and rotates under your foot, so even if you're
pedaling in the middle of your foot, it isn't terribly similar to trying
to climb stairs, or even walk, while trying to keep your feet parallel
to the ground at all times.
The other issue is one of balance. We apparently use our toes
extensively to maintain our sense of balance when on our feet. That's
not the case when cycling.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
<raa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8befebbc-452e-492b...@z7g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
raa...@gmail.com
> ========
> normaly, people don't run on the arch of their foot; try going up a
> few flights of stairs holding your foot level eg without ankling and
> you will soon feel the limitations-
> ========
>
> But a pedal has bearings and rotates under your foot, so even if you're
> pedaling in the middle of your foot, it isn't terribly similar to trying
> to climb stairs, or even walk, while trying to keep your feet parallel
> to the ground at all times.
>
> The other issue is one of balance. We apparently use our toes
> extensively to maintain our sense of balance when on our feet. That's
> not the case when cycling.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
>
> news:8befebbc-452e-492b...@z7g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 4, 5:16 pm, pm <zzyzx.xy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > A review suggests that the conventional wisdom of pedaling on the
> > balls of the foot might have it all wrong:
>
> >http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=/tech/2009/reviews/biomac_bio-...
>
> > I have to say I'm comfortable with the ball-of-the-foot cleat
> > position. But I often wonder -- since the ankle does not artilculate
> > much during pedaling, and therefore can't be contributing much power,
> > (and even for ankling pedalers, what force is generated by the ankle
> > has to be supported through the knee as well), wouldn't a cyclist's
> > typically bulging calves have to be taken as a sign of wasted energy?
>
> > Has there been any study on metabolic efficiency as it relates to foot
> > position?
>
> > -pm
>
> normaly, people don't run on the arch of their foot; try going up a
> few flights of stairs holding your foot level eg without ankling and
> you will soon feel the limitations- and don't forget the toe (or foot)
> overlap that is likely to occur as a result. although the problems may
> seem to be in the longitudnal location of the cleat on the foot, most
> likely it is a result of a poor seat position on the bike. fix the
>
> - Show quoted text -
I fail to see how pedal rotation changes the equation= the cleats are
located over the pedal axle by physical necessity, one might as well
consider a tube in the sole of the shoe through which a pedal axle
would fit- it is a point of contact- and as such on the human foot the
arch is the least capable to endure the presure of walking or running-
fallen arches or flat-footedness was grounds for an army to reject a
recruit. time trialists will use slightly longer cranks to gain
leverage. moving cleats heelward reduces leverage.people with knee
problems or other anatomical difficulites may conclude the heel-cleat
is better, but they fail to take into account their disability is not
a universal condition.
RonSonic
The arch of the foot is not built to handle that sort of pressure. Riding like
that with anything but the most insanely rigid cycling shoes would result in
cramping, pain and maiming. That's one reason why people were taught to pedal on
the balls of the feet. Related phenomenon working on a ladder for long periods
of time even with steel shank boots.
Running or climbing stairs on the ball of the foot is more natural, pedaling is
a similar motion.
When I got back into "serious" cycling some years ago I just set the cleats up
as far back as they'd go. Figured it couldn't be that wrong, at least not in a
dangerous way. And all was fine for many months, maybe a year and then one day
it just started feeling uncomfortable and wrong. Moved the cleats and they've
stayed there ever since.
Peter Cole
I'm skeptical. People who study this stuff professionally report (the
last I heard) that cycling is highly self-optimizing, in other words,
your body seems to find the most efficient positions and motions
naturally. I'm always suspicious of forced techniques. As Chalo points
out, there seems to be no natural tendency to ride on the arches with
flat pedals.
On the opposite extreme, there have been claims for exaggerated
"ankling", with equally dubious benefits. I've moved my SPD cleats back
and forward over the range of adjustment (1" or so). The results weren't
dramatic. It's hard to believe that if there was a noticeable benefit to
moving the cleats so far back it would have taken 100 years to discover.
Moving cleats back is a suggested solution when riders get Achilles
tendon problems, which is pretty intuitive. I didn't find the analogy
about doing push ups on fingertips to be convincing.
raa...@gmail.com
> pm wrote:
> > A review suggests that the conventional wisdom of pedaling on the
> > balls of the foot might have it all wrong:
>
>
> > I have to say I'm comfortable with the ball-of-the-foot cleat
> > position. But I often wonder -- since the ankle does not artilculate
> > much during pedaling, and therefore can't be contributing much power,
> > (and even for ankling pedalers, what force is generated by the ankle
> > has to be supported through the knee as well), wouldn't a cyclist's
> > typically bulging calves have to be taken as a sign of wasted energy?
>
> > Has there been any study on metabolic efficiency as it relates to foot
> > position?
>
> > -pm
>
> I'm skeptical. People who study this stuff professionally report (the
> last I heard) that cycling is highly self-optimizing, in other words,
> your body seems to find the most efficient positions and motions
> naturally. I'm always suspicious of forced techniques. As Chalo points
> out, there seems to be no natural tendency to ride on the arches with
> flat pedals.
>
> On the opposite extreme, there have been claims for exaggerated
> "ankling", with equally dubious benefits. I've moved my SPD cleats back
> and forward over the range of adjustment (1" or so). The results weren't
> dramatic. It's hard to believe that if there was a noticeable benefit to
> moving the cleats so far back it would have taken 100 years to discover.
>
> Moving cleats back is a suggested solution when riders get Achilles
> tendon problems, which is pretty intuitive. I didn't find the analogy
>
> - Show quoted text -
aside from medical necessity, an inch around the ball of the foot
seems to be a more natural variation; about 2 years ago or so a heel-
ward arch cleat position was being pushed by steve hogg, and there
were a number of letters on the cyclingnews forum where people
described pushing their cleats back, drilling their shoes etc and
benefiting from such an adaption. we even saw riders changing their
shoes during GT stages. I admit I was suckered into trying it too- and
really suffered for it. If one is lifting weights, or on a bench- then
one isn't using the ball of their feet to push the weight- so you
could get away with bigger gears on a bike; but that fails to take
into account the rotation of the pedal about the bb: a arch cleat
position ideally requires a linear pedal action ( up down - maybe that
might suit recumbant riders more). Further,in terms of peddaling
style, high cadence riders are known for "suplesse", they tend to ride
almost on their toes- lower the pressure on your joints and you'll be
able to enjoy cycling much longer. But the point is though cleats
should be at or around the ball of the foot as per conventional
thinking, if a heelward/ arch cleat position seems better it is likely
because the rider position on the bike is incorrect; correct the
position, the ball of the foot becomes the natural point of contact
and all else will fall into place, meaning speed endurance and comfort
landotter
> balls of the foot might have it all wrong:
>
>
> I have to say I'm comfortable with the ball-of-the-foot cleat
> position. But I often wonder -- since the ankle does not artilculate
> much during pedaling, and therefore can't be contributing much power,
> (and even for ankling pedalers, what force is generated by the ankle
> has to be supported through the knee as well), wouldn't a cyclist's
> typically bulging calves have to be taken as a sign of wasted energy?
Boy, that sure is xxxtreeeeme. That said, the conventional wisdom of
setting up cleated shoes to have the interface right under the arch is
an outdated habit. We don't use toe clips these days, so nothing's
really stopping us from sliding that cleat back 15mm other than
tradition. I changed up my shoes early last year, after having ridden
the same toe-clip and slot cleat influenced position for twenty years.
The mild knee pain that I can get in the spring vanished.
That said, I actually do most of my riding free with Clarks or
Blunnies on MKS standard pedals, and with floppier shoes, it's natural
to ride with the ball of the foot over the pedal axle. Going with the
instep with casual pedals is a true sign of the salmon.
--D-y
(everything snipped to make a comment)
It's amazing how much weight some people can lift in a toe raise.
The soleus and gastrocnemius are also involved in knee flexion to some
extent. Didn't find a clear quote on that one
Quoting freely without attribution from a wwwebsite that put a non-
defeatable popup on my screen:
<The function is the Soleus is exactly the same as the Gastrocnemius:
to raise the heel. The only difference is that it works in a different
position: with the knee bent.>
Maybe many riders don't "ankle" much while pedaling, at least visibly,
but those, esp, the gastrocnemius, are very powerful muscles (again,
go watch someone do toe raises with massive weights at the gym) that
I'm guessing would be missed if they were absent <g>, or if taken out
of the equation by pedaling on the arches.
FWIW, I seem to faintly remember someone calling those the "sprinter
muscles". --D-y
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> A review suggests that the conventional wisdom of pedaling on the
>> balls of the foot might have it all wrong:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=/tech/2009/reviews/biomac_bio-mxc2shoes09
>> I have to say I'm comfortable with the ball-of-the-foot cleat
>> position. But I often wonder -- since the ankle does not
>> articulate much during pedaling, and therefore can't be
>> contributing much power, (and even for ankling pedalers, what force
>> is generated by the ankle has to be supported through the knee as
>> well), wouldn't a cyclist's typically bulging calves have to be
>> taken as a sign of wasted energy?
>> Has there been any study on metabolic efficiency as it relates to
>> foot position?
> I'm skeptical. People who study this stuff professionally report
> (the last I heard) that cycling is highly self-optimizing, in other
> words, your body seems to find the most efficient positions and
> motions naturally. I'm always suspicious of forced techniques. As
> Chalo points out, there seems to be no natural tendency to ride on
> the arches with flat pedals.
> On the opposite extreme, there have been claims for exaggerated
> "ankling", with equally dubious benefits. I've moved my SPD cleats
> back and forward over the range of adjustment (1" or so). The
> results weren't dramatic. It's hard to believe that if there was a
> noticeable benefit to moving the cleats so far back it would have
> taken 100 years to discover.
We haven't had an ankling thread recently, whereas a few years ago it
was claimed to be an important technique for enhanced bicycling just
as spinning is today.
> Moving cleats back is a suggested solution when riders get Achilles
> tendon problems, which is pretty intuitive. I didn't find the analogy
> about doing push ups on fingertips to be convincing.
Pedaling with the arches is as unnatural as walking by landing the
feet flat on the ground with each step instead of articulating the
ankle while walking and running. If you doubt that, try spinning with
the pedal under the arch of the foot.
Jobst Brandt
raa...@gmail.com
seated climbing uses the upper quads to move the foot in a back/forth
action, with a relatively low cadence
Andre Jute
> Peter Cole wrote:
> >> A review suggests that the conventional wisdom of pedaling on the
> >> balls of the foot might have it all wrong:
>
>
> Pedaling with the arches is as unnatural as walking by landing the
> feet flat on the ground with each step instead of articulating the
> ankle while walking and running. If you doubt that, try spinning with
> the pedal under the arch of the foot.
>
> Jobst Brandt
Mmm. I cycle on the arch because that is where my foot rests most
easily. But a couple of months ago when I was looking into improving
pedalling efficiency (about the time I wrote enquiring about different
pedals), I noticed that I put the ball of my foot on the pedal, for a
while at least. Now I've gone back to being comfortable as I am riding
faster anyway this year -- maybe fitter, maybe just a really good
bike, maybe the Rohloff gearbox is better adapted to my hills, maybe
the 5kg or so that my current fave bike (Utopia Kranich) is lighter
than my ali bikes actually matters (just joking!), maybe it's just
cooler than in previous years (bring back global warming!) though I
must say I've been fast by my standards on the recent warm days as
well. Truth is, unless one is a racer, or trying to prove one is still
a hard case capable of pulling a huge gear up a mountain, it doesn't
really matter with which part of your foot you are accustomed to
cycling: what matters is what you're accustomed to, what feels good,
what you slip into without thinking, as I slipped into cycling on the
ball of the foot when I wanted efficiency.
Andre Jute
A roadie in full fig is a visual incitement to efficiency
--D-y
I don't think Lance done it that way.
--D-y
raa...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
right, he stands and dances on the pedals. high cadence. basso climbs
seated, good climber, poor time trialist.
Crescentius Vespasianus
I actually do pedal on the arches, the only drawback is you may get some
toe strike on the front wheel, depending on your bike geometry. Been
doing it for years.
raa...@gmail.com
wrote:
> pm wrote:
> > A review suggests that the conventional wisdom of pedaling on the
> > balls of the foot might have it all wrong:
>
>
> > I have to say I'm comfortable with the ball-of-the-foot cleat
> > position. But I often wonder -- since the ankle does not artilculate
> > much during pedaling, and therefore can't be contributing much power,
> > (and even for ankling pedalers, what force is generated by the ankle
> > has to be supported through the knee as well), wouldn't a cyclist's
> > typically bulging calves have to be taken as a sign of wasted energy?
>
> > Has there been any study on metabolic efficiency as it relates to foot
> > position?
>
> > -pm
>
> ------------
> I actually do pedal on the arches, the only drawback is you may get some
> toe strike on the front wheel, depending on your bike geometry. Been
>
> - Show quoted text -
are you are using clipless pedals ?
Dan O
> A review suggests that the conventional wisdom of pedaling on the
> balls of the foot might have it all wrong:
>
>
> I have to say I'm comfortable with the ball-of-the-foot cleat
> position. But I often wonder -- since the ankle does not artilculate
> much during pedaling, and therefore can't be contributing much power,
> (and even for ankling pedalers, what force is generated by the ankle
> has to be supported through the knee as well), wouldn't a cyclist's
> typically bulging calves have to be taken as a sign of wasted energy?
>
> Has there been any study on metabolic efficiency as it relates to foot
> position?
>
Hmm... I don't know, but I just the other day I noticed my daughter
pedaling her little training-wheel-equipped Electra that way. I was
tempted to show her the "correct" foot placement, but then just let it
go. (First, the training wheels... ) (She also holds her pencil
funny, but writes beautifully nonetheless.)
Michael Press
<58ecf235-257a-4f62...@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
--D-y <dusto...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 9:59 am, retroguybi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> (everything snipped to make a comment)
>
> It's amazing how much weight some people can lift in a toe raise.
> The soleus and gastrocnemius are also involved in knee flexion to some
> extent. Didn't find a clear quote on that one
>
> Quoting freely without attribution from a wwwebsite that put a non-
> defeatable popup on my screen:
>
> <The function is the Soleus is exactly the same as the Gastrocnemius:
> to raise the heel. The only difference is that it works in a different
> position: with the knee bent.>
I am working through the Anatomy Coloring Book. Soleus
and gastrocnemius are enormous flexors. They give the
calf its charictaristic shape. Both insert in the calcaneous,
(big bone of the heel.) Gastrocnemius is outermost and
has a divided shape, as it inserts at two point in femur
(thigh bone). Gastrocnemius ends just below mid-calf
and the tendon continues to calcaneous. When gastrocnemius
is highly developed the calf looks all clenched and cleft
near the back of the knee. Soleus inserts at the top of
tibia (shin bone), is broad and long, extending almost
all the way to the ankle, giving the calf a long smooth contour.
Other muscles of the posterior lower leg buried beneath
soleus and gastrocnemius flex the ankle joint and bones of the foot.
>
> Maybe many riders don't "ankle" much while pedaling, at least visibly,
> but those, esp, the gastrocnemius, are very powerful muscles (again,
> go watch someone do toe raises with massive weights at the gym) that
> I'm guessing would be missed if they were absent <g>, or if taken out
> of the equation by pedaling on the arches.
>
> FWIW, I seem to faintly remember someone calling those the "sprinter
> muscles".
--
Michael Press
Crescentius Vespasianus
yes, spd's on sandals. Like I said, if you move the cleat as far back
as it goes, you may get some toe strike from the front wheel on a road
bike. My foot size is a 10.5 or 11 depending on the shoe. I'm a hot
foot survivor. Did all the standard remedies, sidi megas look cleats
and none of it prevented hot foot in anything over 100 miles. Problem I
finally figured out was that my feet probably swell more than average,
pinching a nerve on the top of my feet (yes top, not bottom) giving me
hot foot. The solution was sandals with spd's, as sandals give your
foot room to swell on the top side. Wear them winter and summer.
Winter solution is to put a toe warmer directly over the bare toes, a
heavy wool sock over the entire foot, and then the sandals. Actually
warmer than the standard shoe set up, for one you can't get a thick wool
sock inside most bike shoes.
raa...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
medical necessity. when I 1st got into cycling my mountain bike came
with toe clips; I started with my shoes pushed in as far as they could
fit- then, as I improved and got faster I observed I was pushing the
pedal axle with the ball of my foot. proponents of the arch cleat are
found on cyclingnews.com forum bemoaning the lack of shoes made to
accomodate their prediliction and resort to drilling the slots etc.
themselves.
datakoll
french ankling stimulating for occasional muscle training and
stretching.
Same for the instep. Instep pedaling stretchs the system beneifitting
arch movement or does so in occasional releif over along distance.
Good for foot abrasion ! Moving foot around inside shoe may relieve,
ameliorate building pressures.
NEXT ! MTB unicycling ....
(PeteCresswell)
>The arch of the foot is not built to handle that sort of pressure. Riding like
>that with anything but the most insanely rigid cycling shoes would result in
>cramping, pain and maiming.
Maybe I'm "superman", but I've been doing it for quite a few
years wearing Dockside loafers a lot of the time, lightweight
hiking shoes the rest of the time.
viz: http://tinyurl.com/6kvzjs
No damage, no discomfort.
It's not a conscious style; it's just where my size fifteens wind
up all the time. I've tried changing to the Good-Right-And-Holy
way, but it doesn't work as well.
--
PeteCresswell
RonSonic
Could just as well be that my extremely arched feet are more sensitive to that
sort of thing. Standing on a ladder any length of time is also very rough on my
feet.
raa...@gmail.com
dockside loafers are not the epitomy of performance; anything goes for
casual cycling, but for people who are riding around anaerobic
threshold cleat location is vitally important
someone
Perhaps moving the saddle back an inch would let you prefer and
benefit from a more efficient position. Dont do it in one go, enjoy
the bike first.
someone
I have made an assuption that your leg extension is almost ideal. A
slightly higher saddle would also encourage forefoot use. You may
benefit from longer cranks.
Andre Jute
I get the higher saddle in your other post, but haven't you got this
one the wrong way round? Shouldn't I be moving the seat forwards if I
want to get the max efficiency/cycle on the ball of the feet?
Just for the record, the seat on any bike of mine is fitted right from
the start as far back as it can go, and I'm not actually looking for
greater efficiency right now. I'm still getting over the pleasant
surprise of how well my new bike has done by my efficiency, though I'm
taking care not to overanalyze it.
My experience last year with the geribikes was that crank-forward and
more reclined designs are *less* pedal-efficient than an upright
comfort bike with the body much more forward over the pedals than on
the CF designs.
Andre Jute
A roadie in full fig, arse in the air, is a visual incitement to
"pour encourager les autres"