Pedalling Efficiency: You Vs. Olano
Tuesday, January 28, 2003 8:55:00 AM PT

Abraham Olano – Smoother than Butta…
Stephen S. Cheung, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Dalhousie University

Every off-season, cycling magazines fill their pages with articles on indoor workouts. Two workouts that you’re guaranteed to find in every one of these are one-legged cycling and also high-cadence spinning intervals, both designed to improve your pedaling stroke and efficiency. Meantime, the old-timers wax eloquent about riding fixed gears during the off-season to improve spin. Now, products like Powercranks isolate your legs by making each crankarm independent of each other, while others like the CompuTrainer permits analysis of your pedaling stroke with their SpinScan feature. Is there any point to all this effort devoted to doing this blatantly simple task of pedaling?

Most clichés are created from a nugget of truth, and an article in the December issue of the prestigious Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise journal nets us the big shiny gem (1). This particular research group from Madrid has done a number of quality studies focusing specifically on the physiological attributes of world-class cyclists (i.e., guys who can drop us into the gutter with one leg, let alone two!). For this specific study, they grabbed 11 active Spanish-based pros (ranging from climbers to GC riders to TT aces) who just happened to have world championships or stages in the Grand Tours on their palmares. They performed a ramp test to exhaustion to determine their VO2max (maximal aerobic capacity, an excellent indicator of endurance fitness) and also a 20 min ride at a constant workload near their time trialing pace.

The really interesting thing that this study found was that, independent of things like body mass, age, or cycling specialty, there was a very strong inverse relationship between VO2max and cycling efficiency in this group. This is similar to the results from another study on the same thing in world-class runners. The riders with the relatively low aerobic capacity were able to compensate for this handicap by being much more efficient, resulting in their requiring less energy to generate a particular power output. One of the subjects was the just-retired Abraham Olano, and he is an excellent example of somebody overcoming “average” genetics to garner an incredible palmares that included two Worlds titles, a Vuelta, a 2nd in the Giro and a 4th in Le Tour. Unbelievably, he actually had a ludicrously low VO2max compared to the other subjects and even many amateurs, but he compensated for it by having the second highest efficiency rating.

So what does all this mean? First, don’t get too hung up on your “genetic” potential or comparing your test results to anybody else. Smart and dedicated training can help you to exceed your perceived limits. Second, the smoother and more efficient you can train your pedaling stroke, the less energy you require to maintain any power output or speed, and who wouldn’t benefit from that? Happy retirement, Abraham Olano, and thanks for reminding us of the beauty of the bicycle and the “power” of smart training.
References

1. Lucia, A., J. Hoyos, M. Perez, A. Santalla, and J.L. Chicharro. Inverse relationship between VO2max and economy/efficiency in world-class cyclists. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 34: 2079-2084, 2002.

What evidence is there that Olano's efficiency is a result of training and not a result of genetics? Perhaps he has an inherent neuro-muscular efficiency that cannot be taught or learned. Maybe it is the result of training, but this article leaps to that conclusion without presenting any evidence. I would guess that both genetic physiologicial factors and proper training resuolt in his high efficiency and that neither training nor genetics is sufficient alone.

It's not surprising that a wide combination of efficiencies and VO2 maxes could result in world class performance. I'd be willing to bet that Eddy and a rarified few others had both.

Though Olano certainly could rip the legs off anyone here, it is fair to say that his abilities have declined significantly from the peak of his career. It's just possible that his numbers in 2004 are not representative of what he had on offer when winning those time trials. That said, per Reynolds 531, performance is a combination of energy production and efficiency, both of which have a significant genetic component. BTW, anyone who thinks "that genetics is everything" must be confused about a lot of other things too :)

one thing that's always fascinated me about cycling is the idea of people who are naturally superior at the sport, people who's bodies are then trained and coached into insane racing machines of death. but what i like even more about this idea is the idea of defeating people superior to yourself with dedication and willpower. voekler / gattica complex (even though voekler didn't "defeat" anyone), if you know what i mean.

The study is great but is useless by and lartge as last time I check,most of us here do not ride at that level..I mean I know it sounds crazy, but when was the last time all of us here finished a GT or placed in the top 5 in a DIV 1 TT? Sure, that has to be everyone here!

Hey, dont stop there, get a few National champions and BAM, a great study based on elite athletes that has absolutely no relationship at all to the every day rider. Which, bu the way, means===>us. :confused:

IMHO what the article is telling us, is that at any level, trainning and perfecting technique is more important than what is nature given, more so at our modest level.

IMHO what the article is telling us, is that at any level, trainning and perfecting technique is more important than what is nature given, more so at our modest level.
What the article tells me is that for a population in a small performance band, weakness in one area must be overcome by strength in another. This is almost obvious since an individual weak in both areas would lie below the performance band and one strong in both would be above it.

Exactly. I'm not aware of any evidence that having a "round pedal stroke" increases gross mechanical efficiency, which is the only kind of efficiency that makes sense.

-Andrew

IMHO what the article is telling us, is that at any level, trainning and perfecting technique is more important than what is nature given, more so at our modest level.

The article gives absolutely no evidence that training and perfecting technique improves efficiency and is more important than natural gifts. Why do you consider VO2 max to be a natural gift while efficiency is primarily a result of training? Are you just believing what you want to believe, or do you have a basis for this conclusion?

However, I think the article shows that it is important to condition for efficiency as well as aerobic capacity. It is unreasonable to assume, as the article does, that genetics does not play a role in efficiency. Think about mountain biking. I know no matter how hard I try I will not be able to bunny hop logs like some of my friends, but with training I have learned to be somewhat successful.... Something genetic must be a result for their ability, which seems to come so naturally to my friends. The same applies to pedaling efficiency, it is trainable to a point. Wouldn’t you think these inefficient riders would have figured this out by now and become just as efficient as the rest if they could?

It seems to me that there would have to be a larger sampling of riders of more varied ability to really draw and significant conclusions about the relationship between VO2 max and efficiency. I do have to disagree with werdna, about round pedal stroke not improving mechanical efficiency. I had fit and pedal stroke analysis done last year at UC Davis with Dr. Max Testa, and they rated me at 40% efficiency. It doesn't sound high, but his exact quote was "We could have Levi Leipheimer in here next week and he wouldn't be any higher". I attribute this almost entirely to a lot of fixed-gear riding - over 20,000 miles of commuting in the last few years. I do really think the muscle training from the fixie has tuned up my pedaling - I'm definitely no elite rider!

It seems to me that there would have to be a larger sampling of riders of more varied ability to really draw and significant conclusions about the relationship between VO2 max and efficiency. I do have to disagree with werdna, about round pedal stroke not improving mechanical efficiency. I had fit and pedal stroke analysis done last year at UC Davis with Dr. Max Testa, and they rated me at 40% efficiency. It doesn't sound high, but his exact quote was "We could have Levi Leipheimer in here next week and he wouldn't be any higher". I attribute this almost entirely to a lot of fixed-gear riding - over 20,000 miles of commuting in the last few years. I do really think the muscle training from the fixie has tuned up my pedaling - I'm definitely no elite rider!
How do they measure the efficiency of the pedal stroke?

This is an article that summarizes the findings of a study. Of course it's not going to offer up evidence. If you want evidence or data, read the study, not the article. It's premise is that there is too much emphasis placed on VO2 max when testing athletes and that other factors play a larger role than previously thought. Things like efficiency of pedal stroke, fatigue tolerance and repetitive power output capacity are other contributors to performance that have been overshadowed by VO2max. That's all it is saying.

This is the abstract of the study by Lucia, A., J. Hoyos, M. Perez, A. Santalla, and J.L. Chicharro:

Each of 11 male cyclists (26+/-1 yr (mean +/- SEM); VO2max: 72.0 +/- 1.8 mL x kg(-1) x min(-1)) performed: 1) a ramp test for O2max determination and 2) a constant-load test of 20-min duration at the power output eliciting 80% of subjects' VO2max during the previous ramp test (mean power output of 385 +/- 7 W). Cycling economy (CE) and gross mechanical efficiency (GE) were calculated during the constant-load tests. RESULTS: CE and GE averaged 85.2 +/- 2.3 W x L(-1) x min(-1) and 24.5 +/- 0.7%, respectively. An inverse, significant correlation was found between 1) VO2max (mL x kg(-0.32) x min(-1)) and both CE (r = -0.71; P = 0.01) and GE (-0.72; P = 0.01), and 2) VO2max (mL x kg(-1) x min(-1)) and both CE (r = -0.65; P = 0.03) and GE (-0.64; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: A high CE/GE seems to compensate for a relatively low VO2max in professional cyclists.

Here is the conclusion from Cheung' article:

One of the subjects was the just-retired Abraham Olano, and he is an excellent example of somebody overcoming “average� genetics to garner an incredible palmares that included two Worlds titles, a Vuelta, a 2nd in the Giro and a 4th in Le Tour. Unbelievably, he actually had a ludicrously low VO2max compared to the other subjects and even many amateurs, but he compensated for it by having the second highest efficiency rating.

As I pointed out before, to reach this conclusion from the study, Cheung must assume that VO2max is determined primarily by genetics while efficiency is determined primarily by training. There is no basis in the study for that conclusion. In fact, it has been known for more than a decade that some athletes have muscles which get up to 15% more mechanical energy out of the same amount of ATP compared to muscle of other athletes. For those of you who never took physiological biochemistry, the rate of max ATP formation is determined by VO2 max, while conversion of ATP to mechanical energy determines the body's internal efficiency.

All this study concludes is that some athletes are better at generating ATP, other athletes are better at converting ATP to mechanical energy, and if you're not as good at making ATP fast you have to be better at converting to energy efficiently or you're not a world class athlete. It says nothing about the effects of training on either ATP generation or conversion to mechanical energy. You could make an equally valid argument that Olano is the one that has been genetically blessed with efficient muscles and the other athletes have to make up for their disadvantage in efficiency by trainingg intensely, sleeping in hypobaric tents, and/or taking EPO to increase their VO2 max.

The conclusion I draw is that Cheung is a dolt.

How do they measure the efficiency of the pedal stroke?

I think it's the ratio of the power output at the weakest part of the stroke/circle vs. the strongest part.

I think it's the ratio of the power output at the weakest part of the stroke/circle vs. the strongest part.

In the Lucia study efficiency is defined as work produced divided by the total energy produced by aerobic metabolism .

All this study concludes is that some athletes are better at generating ATP, other athletes are better at converting ATP to mechanical energy, and if you're not as good at making ATP fast you have to be better at converting to energy efficiently or you're not a world class athlete. It says nothing about the effects of training on either ATP generation or conversion to mechanical energy. You could make an equally valid argument that Olano is the one that has been genetically blessed with efficient muscles and the other athletes have to make up for their disadvantage in efficiency by trainingg intensely, sleeping in hypobaric tents, and/or taking EPO to increase their VO2 max.

The conclusion I draw is that Cheung is a dolt.



I would also think power to weight ratio would be a factor in how good of a cyclist is, as well, which does not seem to be accounted for in this test (although I did not read it that closely).

the study is worthless. you think that any pro in this day and age has anything less than a perfect pedal stroke? find me a cat 2 with an inefficient pedal stroke and i'll buy you a 4 pack of la fin du monde.

the study is worthless. you think that any pro in this day and age has anything less than a perfect pedal stroke? find me a cat 2 with an inefficient pedal stroke and i'll buy you a 4 pack of la fin du monde.

We've debated this before, the very idea that there is a "perfect" pedal stroke is highly contentious. The simple fact is that pedaling a bike is such a constrained movement that there is almost no difference in pedaling efficiency whether you are a pro or you've been riding for a week.

Out of curiosity, I downloaded the pdf and reviewed the Lucia paper. After picking through the methodology and results, I agree with the posters (and especially reynolds531) who urge caution in drawing too many conclusions based on this study.

In terms of methodology, it was generally sound (I'm being generous), though one could (as with almost any study) bring up confounders that limit the validity of the results: 1) the study was performed in Jan/Feb, when riders could have significantly differed from one another in terms of their training and fitness. 2) The riders were pedalling bolt upright (trunk angle 75 degrees) on a standard cycle ergometer (ergometrics 900) that has no fore/aft adjustment for either the saddle (one of those big fat cruiser bike saddles) or the bars. 3) pedalling cadence was limited to 70-90 rpm.

So, we have a study in which a small (n=11) and heterogeneous group of riders (climbers, rouleurs, time-trialists and "complete riders") of varying degrees of accomplishment (from riders who had only one victory in their palmares up to Abe Olano) and possibly at different stages of preseason fitness, underwent physiologic exercise testing while riding in an unfamiliar position on an unfamiliar bike with a cadence limitation. Aside from these considerations, the methodology was rigorous. *snort*

With these caveats in mind, the authors found a modest but statistically significant negative correlation between VO2 max and cycling economy and gross mechanical efficiency. Whoopee.

What can you conclude from these data? Not much, as these results are merely hypothesis-generating at best. Do I fault the authors? No, since designing an airtight study of this nature would be incredibly difficult. I don't have a problem with using crappy data as long as you interpret it with an understanding of its limitations. However, for someone to cite this paper as proof that "average genetics" can be overcome by training to improve pedalling efficiency is just plain WRONG on so many levels I wouldn't even know where to begin. Incidentally, a suprising amount of dogma in medicine is based on data of this quality. Alright, now I'm grumpy.

"2) The riders were pedalling bolt upright (trunk angle 75 degrees) on a standard cycle ergometer (ergometrics 900) that has no fore/aft adjustment for either the saddle (one of those big fat cruiser bike saddles) or the bars."

This seems to me to be a big no-no, if you were going to conclude that you could become more efficient via pedaling technique. One would assume that the learning would be specific to the bike set-up.


"With these caveats in mind, the authors found a modest but statistically significant negative correlation between VO2 max and cycling economy and gross mechanical efficiency."

How could they have found otherwise? We know that there is wide variability in the Vo2max of athletes that perform at similar levels. If you then assume that "economy" is the only explanation that could "make up the gap" in Vo2 you had the answer all along :)
Using Vo2 as a measure of efficiency, especially at submaxal intensities where you may not be fully recruiting all of the motor units or driving them at their maximum rate is problematic because you can derive energy non-oxidatively from glycolysis.

How did they measure gross mechanical efficiency? (sorry my university doesn't have on-line acess to the journal).