That is how it appears on the website.

Yay for cut & paste!

As long as you don't claim it as your own work

Efficiency in cycling: a review
Journal European Journal of Applied Physiology
Issue Volume 106, Number 1 / May, 2009
Pages 1-14

Efficiency in cycling: a review

Gertjan Ettema1 Contact Information and Håvard Wuttudal Lorås1
(1) Human Movement Science Programme, Faculty of Social Sciences and Technology Management, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7941 Trondheim, Norway

Accepted: 2 February 2009 Published online: 20 February 2009
Abstract We focus on the effect of cadence and work rate on energy expenditure and efficiency in cycling, and present arguments to support the contention that gross efficiency can be considered to be the most relevant expression of efficiency. A linear relationship between work rate and energy expenditure appears to be a rather consistent outcome among the various studies considered in this review, irrespective of subject performance level. This relationship is an example of the Fenn effect, described more than 80 years ago for muscle contraction. About 91% of all variance in energy expenditure can be explained by work rate, with only about 10% being explained by cadence. Gross efficiency is strongly dependent on work rate, mainly because of the diminishing effect of the (zero work-rate) base-line energy expenditure with increasing work rate. The finding that elite athletes have a higher gross efficiency than lower-level performers may largely be explained by this phenomenon. However, no firm conclusions can be drawn about the energetically optimal cadence for cycling because of the multiple factors associated with cadence that affect energy expenditure.

The rotor pedaling system improves anaerobic but not aerobic cycling performance in professional cyclists
Journal European Journal of Applied Physiology
Issue Volume 106, Number 1 / May, 2009
Pages 87-94

The rotor pedaling system improves anaerobic but not aerobic cycling performance in professional cyclists

Jose A. Rodríguez-Marroyo1 Contact Information, Juan García-López1, Karim Chamari2, Alfredo Córdova3, Olivier Hue4 and Jose G. Villa1
(1) Department of Physical Education and Sports, University of León, Campus de Vegazana s/n, 24071 León, Spain
(2) Research Unit National Center of Medicine and Science in Sport (CNMSS) El Menzah, Tunis, Tunisia
(3) Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Physiology, University of Valladolid, Soria, Spain
(4) ACTES Laboratory, UPRES-EA 3596, UFR-STAPS, University of Antilles-Guyane, Pointe à Pitre, France

Abstract The aims of this study were to evaluate the effects of both noncircular (ROT) and conventional (CON) chainring systems on aerobic and anaerobic cycling performances of professional cyclists, while analyzing the influence of varying the crank angle of maximum crank arm length of ROT. Fifteen professional road cyclists performed both incremental and sub-maximal aerobic tests and the Wingate anaerobic test in the laboratory. There were no statistical differences between CON and ROT in the aerobic tests, even when the best ROT position (ROT+) was selected. However, in the anaerobic test, maximal (4.2–9.1%) and mean (0.7–4.7%) power outputs were higher in ROT (P < 0.05). These differences were greater when the ROT+ was selected (11.2 and 7.0%, respectively). Our findings suggest that ROT is able to improve anaerobic but not aerobic cycling performance in professional cyclists. Nevertheless, it must be adapted to each cyclist to ensure these improvements.

they should put them on the pursuit bikes for the start, the chain slap might be a problem though

AFIK Marianne Vos uses them on her track bike. I'm no engineer but apparently the oval rings don't affect chain tension??? Anyone? Bueller?

An analysis of the pacing strategies adopted by elite athletes during track cycling

Jo Corbett, In Press, Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance.

Abstract
Purpose: To investigate pacing strategy during the 1 km time trial (TT) and 3 and 4 km individual pursuit (IP), in elite cyclists. Methods: Total times and intermediate times were obtained from the 2007 and 2008 cycling World Championships in the 1 km TT and 2006, 2007 and 2008 World Championships in the 3 and 4 km IP. Data were analysed to examine the pacing-profiles employed and pacing strategies of ‘slow’ and ‘fast’ performances. Results: Similar pacing-profiles were evident in each event, which were characterised by an initial acceleration followed by a progressive decay in split times. In the 1 km TT, the first 250 m split time was a primary determinant of total time, whereas the rate of fatigue over the remainder of the race did not discriminate between performances. The first 250 m split time was also related to total time in the 3 and 4 km IP, although to a lesser extent than in the 1 km TT, whereas the ability to maintain a consistent pacing-profile was of increased importance. There were differences in the pacing strategies of ‘slow’ and ‘fast’ performances in the 3 and 4 km IP, with ‘slow’ performances characterised by an overly quick start with a concomitant slowing at the finish. Conclusion: The pacing profiles adopted were similar to the optimal pacing strategies proposed in simulation models of cycling performance. However, in the 3 km and 4 km IP small alterations in pacing strategy appear to be important, at the elite level.

Im impressed that people can still publish papers that say dont start to fast.

Yeah, im hoping in 3 years time that I can get away with something as trivial for my Masters. Easy to obtain data as well. Just go to TissotTiming.com and it's all there. Hardly applied science. I would like to see more analysis of power files in relation to frontal area. This is where the big gains can be made in pursuiting.

johnL wrote:Im impressed that people can still publish papers that say dont start to fast.

You'd be surprised at some of the papers that manage to get published full stop!

There's a journal for everything It's all about the impact factor baby!

Hooking back into some study through Otago and have access to their Library databases. So instead of finishing my assignments due tomorrow I went on a spree reading the full articles. Here is some of the interesting stuff...

-Beta Alanine is good
-Caffeine is very good
-A high intensity warm up prepares one better for racing than just riding
-Post exercise carbohydrate AND protein is better than high carb alone
-Best aerobic adaptations come from training at or around Wmax (power at Vo2)
-All athletes benefit from some anaerobic work (ie sprints)
-A 4 week block of 30sec efforts at >Wmax will retain all aerobic adaptations
-Eccentric rings may improve anaerobic performance but not aerobic
-Power cranks do not improve performance
-Hypoxic training may have some benefits (jury is still out)
-Pre exercise high carbohydrate meals have little effect on performance
-For long distance events aim to eat/drink 90gr carbohydrate per hour (1440kJ)

The warm up guidelines comes from research done by Craig Palmer (Otago/Bike NZ) and post exercise feeding from David Rowlands (Massey). Great to see Kiwi Sport Scientists doing such excellent work.

i can't believe powercranks don't work. the website is so believable

PowerCranks, just looked them up.. LOL..

The owner claims a 40% improvement in performance from using them. Quite expert in manipulating the findings from the research. Guess anything that requires an infomercial (check out youtube) has to be given a wide berth.

Also found out that Quercetin has some good research on humans as means of preventing upper respiratory tract infections and some potential for Beta Glucan and Curcumin (awaiting more studies on humans).

Strength and conditioning journals advocating resistance training to improve endurance performance. No evidence, they just believe it works. Most of the research I saw that proposed some benefit had very low subject numbers and the gains were minimal (if any) compared to short duration intervals (<6sec) or medium term intervals (<30sec).

Lots of benefits from doing short - medium term intervals ranging from protein signalling, improved anaerobic ability (well duh) and even maintaining aerobic power. Stepto and others showed several years ago that 30sec intervals at 125% of Wmax led to the same improvements as 5min eforts at 80% (as I recall) of Wmax in a 1 hour time trial although he suggested this was for different physiological reasons.