We share a somewhat similar story I think. I'm 188cm tall and had bilateral hip replacements some 20 years ago now. in my early 40's. At that point my hips were shot and it made sense to get the replacements then. The surgeries were life-changing. I had both done within 30 days and was back on the bike (on the trainer) in 6 weeks. Since then I've been lucky to have had zero problems and no pain. I know you are wrestling with the decision of when to choose that option - not an easy decision for sure. The one thing I would say is not to wait too long (if replacements are inevitable) as your recovery will be quicker and potentially with fewer complications. That said, last year i had my first real bike fit and changed from 175 to 170 cranks and the results have been nothing but positive. Pedaling felt smoother immediately and my FTP jumped 15 watts right away. Looking forward to the rest of your journey with the shorter cranks - thanks for sharing it!
I was advised 6 years ago in my mid 40s to have both hips replaces, however I'm committed to avoiding this for as long as possible. Being that I am a physio I'm well versed in how to look after my hips with strength and flexibility exercises. My hope is that modern therapies that are currently still experimental, will mature to becoming more mainstream and more dependable (Stem Cell Therapy for example). Personally as long as I can maintain my strength and functional ability, I think it is ok to delay the surgeries. I'd rather not have artificial components in my body if I can avoid it.
Some how 175's became the new standard over 170's, I've never ridden 175's mostly 170's that was on my GIOS and 167.5 that was on my MOTTA if there's was lot's of climbing involved then I would be riding my Dale Saso Track bike that was modified to a road bike that had 172.5s because there a tiny bit more leverage with the longer crank arms that will help me with getting up the hills and yes there was a lot of toe over lap which I had no problems with, it was a great climber and it down hilled like a bat out of hell, those were the days when the norm was 42t/53t up front and a 7sp 12/24-26 with down tube friction shifters, bottom line I've been riding for so long and all of my components of my body is working just fine and I'm not worried about my heart rate. Way back in the early 80's I went through a smattering of testing with some sport medicine doctors, after the testing they were a bit baffled, they said you're only 21 but your resting heart rate is that of a seasonal Professional athlete, I simply said that I ride my bicycle a lot, between 350 to 400 miles per week, I then pointed out the window and said see those mountains, during the summer days I will ride over those mountains to the Santa Cruz about once a week back and fourth and I will also commute about 40 miles round trip to and back from work. I'm now 64 and I now live in the Netherlands where I'm still riding my bicycles, since it's so flat and cold so now I'm in the gym 8 to 10 times per week on average doing a 2 hour gym session, the 3 plus hour sessions are a killer session and my heart rate is still doing great and my lung capacity is huge, to where when doing a breathing test, the technician who was conducting the test thought that there was a problem with the test, so we had to start over again, so we did, then she said oh, the first teat must have been correct, my wife then asked, is there a problem, the tech then said no, she showed us the 2 read outs, she said she has never seen this before, his breathing is way off the charts, his are very strong because lung very large lung capacity. For my age my cardiovascular is VERY GOOD still and my stamina is crazy good, all this started with riding a bicycle, no matter what the length of my crank arms. Last thoughts, if you're a racer that needs that little edge over the others then great, if not and you're feeling good with what you got then just ride, I'm off to the gym.
There is a lot to be said for "just ride"! It sounds like you have a great love of exercise. I've recently read the book "The Midlife Cyclist" by Phil Cavell, which I found interesting because he points out some of the risks of "extreme" intensity exercise as we age.
I just started road biking last winter my specialized diverge came with 172.5 and i immediately switched to 165 made a huge difference. I also have hip and knee problems.I am now going to test pedal extenders 16mm to start because I feel my feet are too close to crank arms . I even tried to adjust the Cleat. Been running 155mm on my mountain bikes. I’m 5’8”.
@@podiumphysio657 just got my pedal extenders 16mm off eBay 11.89. Only did a short test on my indoor trainer and felt much better. Also got a copy of the specialized mirror saddle again off eBay 50 dollars and that also felt pretty good. Amazing sometimes you can get great information from youtubers. 👍
I can't help but think that some of the advantages you mentioned there are similar to those mentioned by using biopace cranks. I know that Sheldon Brown always touted the advantages of them on your knees.
Ive only been riding for 10 years so Biopace is before my time, but I've just had a quick look online at it. I guess there are other oval chain ring systems out there with similar purported and reported benefits.
I run 100mm cranks which is on the extreme side of things due to a knee injury with lack of flexion, I can tell you from experience that there is a significant amount of torque loss , There is a much higher demand in the legs to turn the cranks at stop & go, climbing or any low cadence work. High cadence helps to keep things moving with the right gearing... But gearing only gets you so far , You still need to push the gears to go anywhere.
Hey yes that sounds quite extreme. I know from the research I saw in 2018 at the ISCO conference that some of the benefits discussed with going to shorter cranks reverse at around the 120mm mark. However if those 10cm cranks are keeping you riding, then I'd say they have done the job!
Looking at the power data in the charts, although average power was the same for both crank lengths, variation appeared significantly increased with the 160's. Did you notice this (in hindsight) while riding? And to what would you ascribe this to? Also, I'm sure you have mentioned it at some point, but what do you feel is the cause of your hip degeneration at such a young age?
Yes i saw there was more power variation in the Tarmac trial also. I'm not sure I can explain why. I blame my hip OA on my father! Seriously I recall having hip restriction in my teenage years. Back then I just put it down to lack of stretching, but really it was a leading indicator of FAI and hip OA. I also recall having various xrays in my 20s where comment was made on "early hip osteoarthritis". Bad genes and bad luck!
daily i use 170. one day i try 160 because curiosity. i ride both and i love both. 160 i feel a bit extra work when i facing slow cadence in high gradient road. i'm slow in climbing. and i have habit cranking slow in climb, 160 feel more hard to push than 170. but in flat i feel 160 is more easy to gain speed. i don't know why
A longer crank arm obviously is a longer lever and requires less torque to turn. With a shorter crank, you compensate by changing into an easier gear. This, to be able to ride at a similar cadence to produce the same power. If the heart rate stays the same, does that mean that there isn't any change in efficiency? The same hr could mean that you are using the same amount of oxygen and producing the same amount of lactate? Mmmh, I am confused. Your hip angle is increased, so your thighs don't push into your stomach. How big a difference do 7,5 mm make? Did the World Tour riders adopt shorter cranks? I ride longer distances using aerobars and find this idea interesting, but I am not yet sure if I believe I can benefit.
Hi Herbert. If you have a look at the first video I did in this series it may answer some of your questions. I'm not a physiologist but I think there are mechanical advantages at play with shorter cranks. I've gone 15mm shorter, so I'm not sure about a 7.5 mm change. I suppose any differences would be much less significant. I've heard empirical reports that tour riders are moving to slightly shorter cranks, but probably not as extreme a change as I have made.
Humans have this way of always returning to the information that is stuck in their head instead of understanding the system of variables and testing what they think they know. The sheer number of videos about shorter cranks and midsole cleat position, with no explanation of how the benefits are achieved or what down sides there may be is alarming. I suffered a back injury in my 20’s that left me in a wheelchair for a few months. In that time I learned the major muscle groups used for locomotion, as well as how to map them using a TENS unit. I spent some time at the gym rebuilding strength in four muscle groups. Learning how to walk is a daunting task, it involves balance. Learning how to pedal a bike involves four muscle groups, so the second time around I learned how to pedal first. I learned what very few people have realized - pedaling a bike isn’t natural if your primary skill set is walking or standing. A quick look at force vectors produced by the average rider shows the longest vectors at the bottom of the pedal stroke, pointing straight down. That’s someone trying to adapt the skill set of walking or standing to the bike, and it doesn’t work. The engineer in me decided to reverse engineer the pedal stroke. Which pivots can produce force in which direction? Which motors (muscles) drive those pivots? I then looked at the muscles that drive those pivots. You have two large muscle groups that fight gravity all day, and you have the opposing muscles which return the leg to its original position. To put it simply, the glutes push from 1:00 to 4:00, the quads push from 11:00 to 2:00. People like to dispute this, so I built a test rig and tested lots of individuals (and won lots of bets in the process - the test rig wasn’t cheap). The two large muscle groups work very differently. The glutes are a very wide muscle group designed to produce torque which is normally used to support the weight of the body. The quad on the other hand is a much longer muscle with short distance from fulcrum to attachment point - designed for leg speed. This is where I run into humans wanting to stick to one piece of information. There is no “right cadence”. Glutes are limited by gravity, the upper body is the lever arm, gravity is the force behind it. Cadence isolating the glutes is limited to around 80 RPM on this planet. Quads on the other hand love leg speed, but can’t generate torque well. In teaching pedal stroke, I have a workout called the crossover workout which goes from low resistance to high resistance, alternating between isolating glutes and quads. Glutes fail to produce leg speed and quads grind to a halt. One thing learned in that exercise is efficient range of cadence for each muscle group. Once you’ve gotten to this point you’ve also isolated the variables to the point where you can start asking how crank length effects the outcome. My primary job is bike fitting. My first goal is always to keep people within their range of motion - nothing good happens when you exceed that (80 times/minute for as long as you ride). I have sold more than my fair share of short cranks. I’ve also noticed a disturbing trend in another segment of the bike shop. E-bike riders no longer have to produce the torque needed on a bike, as a result their position changes. It becomes more upright, taking angle out of the hip. We have a number of people on staff who have been on e-bikes for years. Watching them walk up stairs is painful, they no longer have the range of motion…
I havent thought a lot about how Ebikes could negatively impact locomotion. My first reaction as a physio and primary health care professional is that any technology that helps keep people active is good. But yes potentially there could be some downsides that become more apparent in the future.
@@podiumphysio657 that’s the egalitarian view of social media - everything is positive, there’s a like button but no dislike button… Social media can’t be critical, yet learning environments must be critical. This leads to lots of people believing the same thing without questioning it, and then reposting it. The number of TH-cam videos about shorter cranks being better has quadrupled since the beginning of the year. Only the positive aspects of shorter cranks are being discussed. Humans are idiots. I feel somewhat isolated being human and being aware of that…
Again, it's tough drawing conclusions when you're using two different bikes. How does it compare to your previous 30 mins efforts on the same bike with 175mm crank arms?
I've never specifically targeted 30 mins at 280 before. I'll look through my strava file to see if there is something similar I could do a comparison on. I've done a few sessions where I've set the ergo to 400W and hung on for as long as I can, but the results of those sessions are mostly dependant on how much training I've been doing in the lead up. I figured this was the best option (one day after the other) as it removes the inevitable fitness fluctuations from month to month. I got some very interesting power data on the weekend on an uphill sprint comparison which I'll post shortly...
@@podiumphysio657 It's difficult to have an appropriate comparison, because you could also feel better on the first day (or the second day). Besides, the weather changes every day. Anyways, I'm interested in seeing the rest of your tests, but the key is gonna be the level of pain in your hips and level of stress on your muscles and breathing.
Shorter cranks are better for old guys because your legs don’t bop your belly. Haha! Just wait till you get older and your no longer the reigning Tuesday Night World Champion.
Is getting the benefits of shorter cranks also a question of time. I can expect that your body must get used to it. Ever thought of getting in touch with Hambini? A real engineer (technical input), a bit verbal provocative perhaps....
Hambini is a bit of a legend isnt he! I think he is more interested in engineering concepts rather than physiological ones. But you never know. Maybe one day...
Short cranks create a mechanical advantage for knee extension, which means that the legs are better able to produce force. This can facilitate a lower cadence
![🔴 ฟุตบอลแชมป์กีฬา 7HD แชมเปียน คัพ 2024 [รอบรองชนะเลิศ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zPm8ClLVhoE/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Part 1] ทารกน้อยถูกทิ้ง👶 หญิงชราเก็บขวดขายเลี้ยงดูเขาจนโต #โลกการละคร](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nPTDvFCExks/mqdefault.jpg)
We share a somewhat similar story I think. I'm 188cm tall and had bilateral hip replacements some 20 years ago now. in my early 40's. At that point my hips were shot and it made sense to get the replacements then. The surgeries were life-changing. I had both done within 30 days and was back on the bike (on the trainer) in 6 weeks. Since then I've been lucky to have had zero problems and no pain. I know you are wrestling with the decision of when to choose that option - not an easy decision for sure. The one thing I would say is not to wait too long (if replacements are inevitable) as your recovery will be quicker and potentially with fewer complications. That said, last year i had my first real bike fit and changed from 175 to 170 cranks and the results have been nothing but positive. Pedaling felt smoother immediately and my FTP jumped 15 watts right away. Looking forward to the rest of your journey with the shorter cranks - thanks for sharing it!
I was advised 6 years ago in my mid 40s to have both hips replaces, however I'm committed to avoiding this for as long as possible. Being that I am a physio I'm well versed in how to look after my hips with strength and flexibility exercises. My hope is that modern therapies that are currently still experimental, will mature to becoming more mainstream and more dependable (Stem Cell Therapy for example).
Personally as long as I can maintain my strength and functional ability, I think it is ok to delay the surgeries. I'd rather not have artificial components in my body if I can avoid it.
Some how 175's became the new standard over 170's, I've never ridden 175's mostly 170's that was on my GIOS and 167.5 that was on my MOTTA if there's was lot's of climbing involved then I would be riding my Dale Saso Track bike that was modified to a road bike that had 172.5s because there a tiny bit more leverage with the longer crank arms that will help me with getting up the hills and yes there was a lot of toe over lap which I had no problems with, it was a great climber and it down hilled like a bat out of hell, those were the days when the norm was 42t/53t up front and a 7sp 12/24-26 with down tube friction shifters, bottom line I've been riding for so long and all of my components of my body is working just fine and I'm not worried about my heart rate. Way back in the early 80's I went through a smattering of testing with some sport medicine doctors, after the testing they were a bit baffled, they said you're only 21 but your resting heart rate is that of a seasonal Professional athlete, I simply said that I ride my bicycle a lot, between 350 to 400 miles per week, I then pointed out the window and said see those mountains, during the summer days I will ride over those mountains to the Santa Cruz about once a week back and fourth and I will also commute about 40 miles round trip to and back from work. I'm now 64 and I now live in the Netherlands where I'm still riding my bicycles, since it's so flat and cold so now I'm in the gym 8 to 10 times per week on average doing a 2 hour gym session, the 3 plus hour sessions are a killer session and my heart rate is still doing great and my lung capacity is huge, to where when doing a breathing test, the technician who was conducting the test thought that there was a problem with the test, so we had to start over again, so we did, then she said oh, the first teat must have been correct, my wife then asked, is there a problem, the tech then said no, she showed us the 2 read outs, she said she has never seen this before, his breathing is way off the charts, his are very strong because lung very large lung capacity. For my age my cardiovascular is VERY GOOD still and my stamina is crazy good, all this started with riding a bicycle, no matter what the length of my crank arms.
Last thoughts, if you're a racer that needs that little edge over the others then great, if not and you're feeling good with what you got then just ride, I'm off to the gym.
There is a lot to be said for "just ride"!
It sounds like you have a great love of exercise.
I've recently read the book "The Midlife Cyclist" by Phil Cavell, which I found interesting because he points out some of the risks of "extreme" intensity exercise as we age.
I am 103 years old with a resting heart rate of 34 and a VO2 max of 99.
I just started road biking last winter my specialized diverge came with 172.5 and i immediately switched to 165 made a huge difference. I also have hip and knee problems.I am now going to test pedal extenders 16mm to start because I feel my feet are too close to crank arms . I even tried to adjust the Cleat. Been running 155mm on my mountain bikes. I’m 5’8”.
That may well help with hip issues. I might test the same idea also.
Thanks
@@podiumphysio657 just got my pedal extenders 16mm off eBay 11.89. Only did a short test on my indoor trainer and felt much better. Also got a copy of the specialized mirror saddle again off eBay 50 dollars and that also felt pretty good. Amazing sometimes you can get great information from youtubers. 👍
I can't help but think that some of the advantages you mentioned there are similar to those mentioned by using biopace cranks. I know that Sheldon Brown always touted the advantages of them on your knees.
Ive only been riding for 10 years so Biopace is before my time, but I've just had a quick look online at it. I guess there are other oval chain ring systems out there with similar purported and reported benefits.
I run 100mm cranks which is on the extreme side of things due to a knee injury with lack of flexion, I can tell you from experience that there is a significant amount of torque loss , There is a much higher demand in the legs to turn the cranks at stop & go, climbing or any low cadence work. High cadence helps to keep things moving with the right gearing... But gearing only gets you so far , You still need to push the gears to go anywhere.
Hey yes that sounds quite extreme. I know from the research I saw in 2018 at the ISCO conference that some of the benefits discussed with going to shorter cranks reverse at around the 120mm mark. However if those 10cm cranks are keeping you riding, then I'd say they have done the job!
Looking at the power data in the charts, although average power was the same for both crank lengths, variation appeared significantly increased with the 160's. Did you notice this (in hindsight) while riding? And to what would you ascribe this to?
Also, I'm sure you have mentioned it at some point, but what do you feel is the cause of your hip degeneration at such a young age?
Yes i saw there was more power variation in the Tarmac trial also. I'm not sure I can explain why.
I blame my hip OA on my father! Seriously I recall having hip restriction in my teenage years. Back then I just put it down to lack of stretching, but really it was a leading indicator of FAI and hip OA. I also recall having various xrays in my 20s where comment was made on "early hip osteoarthritis". Bad genes and bad luck!
daily i use 170. one day i try 160 because curiosity. i ride both and i love both. 160 i feel a bit extra work when i facing slow cadence in high gradient road. i'm slow in climbing. and i have habit cranking slow in climb, 160 feel more hard to push than 170. but in flat i feel 160 is more easy to gain speed. i don't know why
I would guess that you just need to use a lower gearing ratio with the 160s on a steep incline.
Should the cadence be higher with the shorter cranks? Or perhaps you naturally pushed the metal less.. it's very interesting great work
No. The idea is to keep the cadence the same, adjust the gearing (if needed) and enjoy the benefits as presented in this and my previous 2 videos.
A longer crank arm obviously is a longer lever and requires less torque to turn. With a shorter crank, you compensate by changing into an easier gear. This, to be able to ride at a similar cadence to produce the same power.
If the heart rate stays the same, does that mean that there isn't any change in efficiency? The same hr could mean that you are using the same amount of oxygen and producing the same amount of lactate?
Mmmh, I am confused.
Your hip angle is increased, so your thighs don't push into your stomach. How big a difference do 7,5 mm make?
Did the World Tour riders adopt shorter cranks?
I ride longer distances using aerobars and find this idea interesting, but I am not yet sure if I believe I can benefit.
Hi Herbert. If you have a look at the first video I did in this series it may answer some of your questions. I'm not a physiologist but I think there are mechanical advantages at play with shorter cranks.
I've gone 15mm shorter, so I'm not sure about a 7.5 mm change. I suppose any differences would be much less significant.
I've heard empirical reports that tour riders are moving to slightly shorter cranks, but probably not as extreme a change as I have made.
Podacar rode shorter... 165 or 160? Idk exactly
Humans have this way of always returning to the information that is stuck in their head instead of understanding the system of variables and testing what they think they know. The sheer number of videos about shorter cranks and midsole cleat position, with no explanation of how the benefits are achieved or what down sides there may be is alarming.
I suffered a back injury in my 20’s that left me in a wheelchair for a few months. In that time I learned the major muscle groups used for locomotion, as well as how to map them using a TENS unit. I spent some time at the gym rebuilding strength in four muscle groups. Learning how to walk is a daunting task, it involves balance. Learning how to pedal a bike involves four muscle groups, so the second time around I learned how to pedal first. I learned what very few people have realized - pedaling a bike isn’t natural if your primary skill set is walking or standing. A quick look at force vectors produced by the average rider shows the longest vectors at the bottom of the pedal stroke, pointing straight down. That’s someone trying to adapt the skill set of walking or standing to the bike, and it doesn’t work.
The engineer in me decided to reverse engineer the pedal stroke. Which pivots can produce force in which direction? Which motors (muscles) drive those pivots? I then looked at the muscles that drive those pivots. You have two large muscle groups that fight gravity all day, and you have the opposing muscles which return the leg to its original position. To put it simply, the glutes push from 1:00 to 4:00, the quads push from 11:00 to 2:00. People like to dispute this, so I built a test rig and tested lots of individuals (and won lots of bets in the process - the test rig wasn’t cheap). The two large muscle groups work very differently. The glutes are a very wide muscle group designed to produce torque which is normally used to support the weight of the body. The quad on the other hand is a much longer muscle with short distance from fulcrum to attachment point - designed for leg speed.
This is where I run into humans wanting to stick to one piece of information. There is no “right cadence”. Glutes are limited by gravity, the upper body is the lever arm, gravity is the force behind it. Cadence isolating the glutes is limited to around 80 RPM on this planet. Quads on the other hand love leg speed, but can’t generate torque well. In teaching pedal stroke, I have a workout called the crossover workout which goes from low resistance to high resistance, alternating between isolating glutes and quads. Glutes fail to produce leg speed and quads grind to a halt. One thing learned in that exercise is efficient range of cadence for each muscle group. Once you’ve gotten to this point you’ve also isolated the variables to the point where you can start asking how crank length effects the outcome.
My primary job is bike fitting. My first goal is always to keep people within their range of motion - nothing good happens when you exceed that (80 times/minute for as long as you ride). I have sold more than my fair share of short cranks. I’ve also noticed a disturbing trend in another segment of the bike shop. E-bike riders no longer have to produce the torque needed on a bike, as a result their position changes. It becomes more upright, taking angle out of the hip. We have a number of people on staff who have been on e-bikes for years. Watching them walk up stairs is painful, they no longer have the range of motion…
I havent thought a lot about how Ebikes could negatively impact locomotion. My first reaction as a physio and primary health care professional is that any technology that helps keep people active is good. But yes potentially there could be some downsides that become more apparent in the future.
@@podiumphysio657 that’s the egalitarian view of social media - everything is positive, there’s a like button but no dislike button… Social media can’t be critical, yet learning environments must be critical. This leads to lots of people believing the same thing without questioning it, and then reposting it. The number of TH-cam videos about shorter cranks being better has quadrupled since the beginning of the year. Only the positive aspects of shorter cranks are being discussed.
Humans are idiots. I feel somewhat isolated being human and being aware of that…
Unequivocally, shorter cranks = reduced heart rate and improved stamina. Absolutely yes.
I've got a few more comparison tests to look at but that seems to be the way so far...
Again, it's tough drawing conclusions when you're using two different bikes. How does it compare to your previous 30 mins efforts on the same bike with 175mm crank arms?
I've never specifically targeted 30 mins at 280 before. I'll look through my strava file to see if there is something similar I could do a comparison on.
I've done a few sessions where I've set the ergo to 400W and hung on for as long as I can, but the results of those sessions are mostly dependant on how much training I've been doing in the lead up.
I figured this was the best option (one day after the other) as it removes the inevitable fitness fluctuations from month to month.
I got some very interesting power data on the weekend on an uphill sprint comparison which I'll post shortly...
@@podiumphysio657 It's difficult to have an appropriate comparison, because you could also feel better on the first day (or the second day). Besides, the weather changes every day.
Anyways, I'm interested in seeing the rest of your tests, but the key is gonna be the level of pain in your hips and level of stress on your muscles and breathing.
@@musclelessfitness2045 So far my hips have definitely been more comfortable.
Shorter cranks are better for old guys because your legs don’t bop your belly. Haha! Just wait till you get older and your no longer the reigning Tuesday Night World Champion.
Thankfully I dont have too much of a belly to worry about. Shorter cranks keep me riding more, which tends to keep the big belly at bay.
I tried 150mm cranks for a while and I think they made me fat.
I've definitely not had any weight gain due to shorter cranks
Is getting the benefits of shorter cranks also a question of time. I can expect that your body must get used to it. Ever thought of getting in touch with Hambini? A real engineer (technical input), a bit verbal provocative perhaps....
Yes there would be without doubt some adaptations that occur if you give this, or any position enough time.
Hambini is a bit of a legend isnt he! I think he is more interested in engineering concepts rather than physiological ones. But you never know. Maybe one day...
@@podiumphysio657 You could trie. I think there is quite a chance. He is interested in ideas that can make a difference...
Hambini uses short cranks I guess, for a five year old
@@pcdispatch 😆
short cranks and low rpm = strain.
I am 6'1" and I spin 85-90 rpm on 153 mm crank arms .
Short cranks create a mechanical advantage for knee extension, which means that the legs are better able to produce force. This can facilitate a lower cadence