Training and Racing with a Power Meter

Stato
Chiusa ad ulteriori risposte.

ciclotrainer

Apprendista Scalatore
25 Novembre 2007
2.639
237
Visita sito
Bici
S3, R3, P3C, SLC-SL TdF, Cinelli Willi'n, Cinelli Experience
As previously reported by Broker and Gregor
(1994), most of the mechanical work generated by
joint power occurred in the power phase of the
crank cycle (0 – 180° of crank angle). Contrary to
walking and running, most of the mechanical energy
related to cycling movement is provided by
the concentric actions of the lower limb muscles
(Kautz & Neptune, 2002; Williams, 1985). We can
observe this by the small negative power in all three
lower limb joints in Figure 1, as the hip and knee
joint power were higher than the ankle joint. Therefore,
Hawkins and Hull (1990) conducted a computational
simulation to calculate the mechanical work
developed by some of the most important muscles
of cycling movement. Their concern was on the
occurrence of stretch-shortening cycles (eccentric
followed by concentric contraction) during cycling,
which was observed to occur at the hip joint extensors
(i.e.​
m. gluteus maximus and m. biceps femoris)
and knee joint extensors (i.e.
m. vastus lateralis

and​
m. rectus femoris). Results indicate that the
storage of elastic energy, even lower than in running,
could be observed during cycling. Sanderson,
Martin, Honeyman, and Keefer, 2006) reported that
the
m. soleus worked eccentrically at the recovery
phase of pedaling cadence while
m. gastrocnemius

acted concentrically, also presenting evidence of eccentric
contraction during the cycling movement.
In Figure 2, we summarize in six events the ankle
joint muscles’ storage and release of energy during​
the power phase of crank cycle.
The energy storage introduced in Figure 2 can
be observed in Figure 3 by the ankle angle and the
resultant moment analysis during the power phase​
of crank cycle.
In Figure 3, we can observe two events related
to storage and release of mechanical energy by the
plantar​
fl exor muscles. Data were analyzed based
on previous studies Bini, Diefenthaeler, and Mota
(in press) and Dingwell, Joubert, Diefenthaeler, and
Trinity (2008). During event 1, the increased dorsi
fl

exion associated with increased plantar​
fl exor
moment indicates triceps surae increasing in length
while this muscle group increases the plantar
fl exor
moment. During the second event, the ankle joint
moves to the plantar
fl exion while the resultant moment
is also plantar
fl exor. This second event is associated
with energy transfer from proximal segments,
which will be introduced in the following

contents.
 

ciclotrainer

Apprendista Scalatore
25 Novembre 2007
2.639
237
Visita sito
Bici
S3, R3, P3C, SLC-SL TdF, Cinelli Willi'n, Cinelli Experience
Gli autori e l'anno delle ricerche sono tutti citati.

Effects of workload on joint
mechanical work and coordinative
pattern​
The​
fi rst result that emerges from the management
of workload is that the positive mechanical
work produced by the joints increases (Ericson,
1988), which is related to the concentric muscle
contraction. Regarding the different contributions
of ankle, knee and hip joints to workload increases,
Ericson and Nisell (1988) reported that all joints
have increased their mechanical work, while Broker
and Gregor (1994) reported small changes for the
ankle joint with an increase of the workload. In this
regard, Gonzalez and Hull (1989) have previously
indicated that the majority of the propulsive force
generated is developed by the hip and knee joints.
Broker and Gregor (1994) have also reported
that 6% of the knee joint’s mechanical work is related
to the transfer of mechanical energy from the
hip joint. Biarticular muscles (Hof, 2001; van Ingen
Schenau, Pratt, & Macpherson, 1994) and intersegmental
joint forces (Fregly & Zajac, 1996)
are related to the force transfer through the lower
limb segments.
As the main link between the propulsive joints
(hip and knee) and the crank, the ankle joint has
been the subject of research. Cannon, Kolkhorst,
and Cipriani (2007) measured the gross ef
fi ciency
(ratio between mechanical energy production and
energy expenditure) and EMG of
m. vastus lateralis,

m. gastrocnemius lateralis​
, m. biceps femoris,
and
m. tibialis anterior. The authors compared three
pedaling techniques: (1) preferred ankle position;
(2) pronounced dorsi
fl exion; and (3) pronounced
plantar
fl exion. The authors reported a reduction
in the gross ef
fi ciency (2.6%) and an increase in m.
gastrocnemius lateralis
activation. These results
can be explained by changes in the ankle joint muscles’
length and force production with the shift in
ankle joint position. Foot position during crank cycle
has been reported to be important for the effectiveness
of pedal force application (Korff, Romer,
Mayhew, & Martin, 2007) and also for the optimization
of force transfer of mechanical energy from
the limbs to the crank (Raasch & Zajac, 1999; So,
Ng, & Ng, 2005).
Even with the evidence reported by Cannon,
et al. (2007) and Korff, et al. (2007) of the ankle
joint position effects on cycling mechanics, there
are also few studies regarding ankle joint contribution
to the total mechanical work with the management
of workload. Sanderson, et al. (2008) reported
that ankle joint mechanical power remained
unchanged with the increase of workload (150, 250,
and 350 W), while the hip increased and the knee
reduced their contribution to the total joint mechanical
work. As reported by Mornieux, et al. (2007),
the contribution of hip and knee joints seems to
be different from the ankle joint with changes in
workload during cycling, because the ankle joint
muscles should be tuned to optimize stiffness and
maximize effective transmission of mechanical energy

to the crank.
There are also few studies with evidence regarding
the effects of maximal situations on the
joint mechanical work during cycling (i.e. fatigue).
Sanderson, et al. (2008) evaluated subjects pedaling
in a hypoxia situation, while they have calculated
ankle, knee, and hip joints mechanical power.
The authors observed that joint mechanical power
distribution was not affected by hypoxia. Their hypothesis
was that during maximal conditions (i.e.
hypoxia) there are no differences in the motor pattern
during cycling as proposed by Mornieux, et al.
(2007) and Sanderson, et al. (2008). Unfortunately,
only Mornieux, et al. (2007), based on Sanderson
and Black (2003) results, reported that during fatigue
situations there is no change on the joint moment
distribution. However, they have not reported
any additional explanation for the unchanged coordinative
pattern while the joint kinematics and
pedal force application have been modi​
fi ed (Amoroso,
Sanderson, & Henning, 1993; Black, Sanderson,
& Hennig, 1993; Sanderson & Black, 2003),
and pedaling cadence seems to be reduced (Lepers,
Hausswirth, Maf
fi uletti, Brisswalter, & van
Hoecke, 2000; Lepers, Maf
fi uletti, Rochette, Brugniaux,
& Millet, 2002) during a fatigue situation.

Therefore, Bini, et al. (in press) described a reduced
contribution of the ankle joint contribution to the
total joint moments. Their results indicated that coordinative
pattern is modi​
fi ed during fatigue based
on the changes in joint moment distribution and altered
kinematics pattern.
Workload effects during fatigue based on
changes in the mechanical balance between resistive
forces and pedaling cadence for the same power
output are not clear. Controversial effects of fatigue
in joint moment distribution have been reported
(Bini, et al., in press; Mornieux, et al., 2007).
We can also include the existing lack of evidence
in the ankle joint function during fatigue during
cycling. Mechanical energy transfer and stiffness
needs to be addressed by future studies in cycling

in fatigue situations.
 

marcuzzo

Apprendista Velocista
4 Maggio 2007
1.729
28
Ferrara
Visita sito
ma anche se al posto del bicipite femorale metti una molla che poi si scarica nella fase di ascesa della pedivella,quella molla la caricano gli altri muscoli mica pantalone,e anche se ci fossero differenze da una pedalata a un altra per il riuso e l'accumulo d i energia elastica ,similmente alla corsa a piedi il powermeter non si lascierebbe fregare e misurerebbe la potenza necessaria a bici+ciclista ad avanzare,inflessibile come un contatore dell enel
 

ciclotrainer

Apprendista Scalatore
25 Novembre 2007
2.639
237
Visita sito
Bici
S3, R3, P3C, SLC-SL TdF, Cinelli Willi'n, Cinelli Experience
Effects of pedaling cadence on joint
mechanical work and coordinative
pattern​
Analysis of pedaling cadence effects on joint
mechanical work has been also conducted as an attempt
to understand the coordinative pattern during
cycling (Sanderson, et al., 2008). When power output
is not​
fi xed and pedaling cadence is increased,
there is a higher joint mechanical work due to the

increased internal and external work (Hansen, et
al., 2004). For the same power output, increased internal
work with the increase of pedaling cadence
has been associated with the negative power produced
by eccentric contractions (Ericson & Nisell,
1988) in an attempt to control force application to
the pedals (Neptune & Herzog, 1999). Ettema, et
al. (in press) reported that the increase of pedaling
cadence results in a shift of the joints’ peak power
to a later instant of crank cycle due to an unchanged
electromechanical delay (Li & Baum, 2004).
Hansen & Ohnstad (2008) reported that pedaling
cadence is set by robust neural networks and it
is unchanged when the physiological or mechanical
load increases. Moreover, Candotti, et al. (in
press) observed that pedaling cadence manipulation
(60, 75, 90, and 105 rpm) does not affect the
co-contraction of the​
m. rectus femoris-m. biceps
femoris
, or the m. vastus lateralis-m. biceps femoris

muscles pairs of well-trained cyclists. Ettema, et
al. (in press) have also suggested that pedaling cadence
is chosen to​
fi t the best relationship between
force production and muscle shortening velocity.
This should be indirectly observed in MacIntosh,

Neptune and Horton (2000) results, who described
an increase of the optimal pedaling cadence (based
on muscle activation) for higher workloads.
While small changes in pedaling cadence (from
90 to 100 rpm) do not seem to affect joint mechanical
work distribution (Broker & Gregor, 1994),
wide ranges of pedaling cadence seem to change
(Hoshikawa, et al., 2007; Sanderson, et al., 2008)
or do not affect (Ericson, 1988) the contribution of
the hip, knee, and ankle joint to the total mechanical
work. As we should expect an increased contribution
of inertial forces to joint mechanical work
at higher pedaling cadence, Neptune and Herzog

(1999) and Sanderson, et al. (2008) observed an
increased
contribution of the knee joint and a reduced
contribution of the hip joint to the total joint mechanical
work. This increased contribution can also
be related to force transfer by biarticular muscles
from the thigh to the shank (Hof, 2001; van Ingen
Schenau, et al., 1994). However, Hoshikawa, et al.
(2007) observed opposite results with the manipulation
of pedaling cadence, and Ericson (1988) reported​
no effects of pedaling cadence on the joint
mechanical work distribution. All authors have only
agreed with the unchanged contribution of the ankle
joint to total mechanical work.
Hoshikawa, et al. (2007) presented evidence
that the cycling experience affects joint mechanical
work distribution, which re-enforces the results observed
by Chapman, et al. (2007) where the muscle
recruitment pattern is affected by the cycling experience.
These results would give an explanation for
the differences observed in joint mechanical work
distribution reported in literature (Hoshikawa, et
al., 2007; Sanderson, et al., 2008).
For pedaling cadence effects, controversial results
have been reported in the analysis of joint contribution
to total mechanical work. Hoshikawa, et
al. (2007) introduced evidence that cycling expertise
would affect joint contribution and coordinative
pattern when pedaling cadence changes. More studies
should be conducted with the focus on mechanical
adaptation of different groups sorted by cycling​
expertise when pedaling cadence is modi
fied.
 

ciclotrainer

Apprendista Scalatore
25 Novembre 2007
2.639
237
Visita sito
Bici
S3, R3, P3C, SLC-SL TdF, Cinelli Willi'n, Cinelli Experience
Mettevi il cuore in pace, attualmente i misuratori di potenza misurano tutta la potenza, ma quello che conta è la forza che viene trasferita al pedale, con tutte le sue componenti.
Quando saranno disponibili i misuratori di forza allora sarà possibile stimare la potenza effettiva al pedale.
Nell'equazione P= F x V l'incognita è F, quando sarà noto F il valore P sarà diverso.
 

Big_63

Passista
28 Maggio 2009
3.893
622
Bergamo
Visita sito
In effetti piu o meno e cosi il fatto è che prima facevo le stesse cose ma riuscivo a fare qualcosa di più ogni volta ora invece ho qualche guizzo poi torno nel limbo non riesco a dire oggi faccio 2x20 minuti a 350 perche magari quel giorno ne faccio una poi mer*a schietta,sono sempre stato soggetto a giorni no fin da quando andavo in palestra.
Il divario è tale da un giorno si ad un giorno no che su 20 minuti ci sono 30/40 w di differenza considera che quando ero in forma facevo tanti allenamenti >380w@20 minuti passando ogni tanto i 400 ora invece un giorno formidabile è 360-365 uno no invece 320-330(fatica)....saranno i 40 anni.
P.s secondo una mia personale stima quando ho fatto 356 w in un ora dovevo valere un 410-415 sui 20 minuti
Hai perso ca il 10%...., il volume dei tuoi allenamenti è diminuito?
Cmq penso sia normale un calo della potenza e della ripetibilità dopo i 40 anche se non in quella misura.;nonzo%
 
  • Mi piace
Reactions: MrSpock

Roberto Massa

t.me/massarob
11 Marzo 2008
7.294
2.343
Visita sito
Bici
n+1
infatti tutti i rapporti e coppie torcenti desunti da un PT sono spesso grossolane (SOPRATTUTTO perchè F è desunta da cadenza e questa sopra e sotto determinati valori è sovra/sotto stimata dal misuratore interno a PT) e questo annulla ogni ipotesi attendibile e ripetibile su questi riferimenti.

Sono già disponibili i mis di forza/torque, Wattbike, ecc ma anche SRM con torque analisys (non calcola la media ma riporta output diretto @ 200 Hz)
http://books.google.com/books?id=optom1F4uLEC&pg=PA443&lpg=PA443&dq=SRM+Torque+Analysis+of+Standing+Starts+in+Track+Cycling&source=bl&ots=6wCadLiVlx&sig=hl0exy-yKkn7kr12jmFOdu8S5Hw&hl=it&ei=KHkYTrL_CtGQswbv9pmrDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=SRM%20Torque%20Analysis%20of%20Standing%20Starts%20in%20Track%20Cycling&f=false
orig.jpg


ed F non incognita, il punto di applicazione influisce sull'algoritmo di calcolo. Secondo il tuo presupposto quindi PT è uno strumento inutile poichè non affidabile (si basa su una F incognita).
Non è inaffidabile ma è meno preciso di quello che altri strumenti (ovviamente più costosi) possono GIA' offrire.
 

marcuzzo

Apprendista Velocista
4 Maggio 2007
1.729
28
Ferrara
Visita sito
Mettevi il cuore in pace, attualmente i misuratori di potenza misurano tutta la potenza, ma quello che conta è la forza che viene trasferita al pedale, con tutte le sue componenti.
Quando saranno disponibili i misuratori di forza allora sarà possibile stimare la potenza effettiva al pedale.
Nell'equazione P= F x V l'incognita è F, quando sarà noto F il valore P sarà diverso.
guarda che non è per mancare di rispetto ma questa fa veramente ridere,il powermeter misura innazitutto la coppia che è la cosa piu difficile da misurare sopratutto quando si presenta in modo discontinuo come nella pedalata la coppia è forza per il braccio per cui non ci vuole Rubbia a ricavare la forza.
Un atleta può essere fortissimo e alzare 300 kg su panca ma essere meno potente di uno che ne fa 220kg e muove il peso piu velocemente,secondo te in un lancio del peso chi ha più possibilità di vincere ?
 

fast1

Apprendista Cronoman
15 Marzo 2007
3.029
108
Visita sito
Bici
Mettevi il cuore in pace, attualmente i misuratori di potenza misurano tutta la potenza

Ma tutta quale? Secondo te misurano pure il flusso di calore che attraversa la tua pelle?
Un misuratore nel mozzo misura solo la potenza che "attraversa" il mozzo.
Ma poi quei testi in inglese che hai postato non confermano certo le tue strampalate idee.
 
  • Mi piace
Reactions: Roberto Massa

ciclotrainer

Apprendista Scalatore
25 Novembre 2007
2.639
237
Visita sito
Bici
S3, R3, P3C, SLC-SL TdF, Cinelli Willi'n, Cinelli Experience
ma anche se al posto del bicipite femorale metti una molla che poi si scarica nella fase di ascesa della pedivella,quella molla la caricano gli altri muscoli mica pantalone,e anche se ci fossero differenze da una pedalata a un altra per il riuso e l'accumulo d i energia elastica ,similmente alla corsa a piedi il powermeter non si lascierebbe fregare e misurerebbe la potenza necessaria a bici+ciclista ad avanzare,inflessibile come un contatore dell enel

Quello che fa avanzare la bici è la forza, la potenza è il consumo energetico.
 

marcuzzo

Apprendista Velocista
4 Maggio 2007
1.729
28
Ferrara
Visita sito
Quello che fa avanzare la bici è la forza, la potenza è il consumo energetico.
Ma parli della forza di guerre stellari o della forza in senso fisico?
Se tu hai un martinetto idraulico che spinge 5000 kg per un milllimetro in un secondo e un altro che spinge 50 kg per 50 cm in un secondo ,sei d'accordo che il secondo ha compiuto piu lavoro nell unità di tempo quindi ha sviluppato piu potenza pur spostando meno peso?
Hai mai notato che in agricoltura usano trattori da 200 cv potrebbero usare benissimo trattori da 50 cv riuscirebbero ad arare lo stesso ma farebbbero molto meno lavoro nello stesso tempo.
 

GiAnFrA

Scalatore
18 Maggio 2004
7.254
51
Torino
Visita sito
Bici
Giant TCR Advanced
perchè?? trovo intollerabile la tua mancanza di fede

OT: Maestro marcuzzo... Imploro il Vostro perdono, per un momento ho sentito tentennare la forza, o era la potenza?? :) E' il principio di azione e reazione inscatolata che regola le nostre azioni, esempio: io tentenno (azione) e voi Maestro marcuzzo mi richiamate all'ordine (reazione), io rinsavisco (rereazione), Voi siete soddisfatto (rerereazione)
 
Stato
Chiusa ad ulteriori risposte.