“Pull up through the top and back of the stroke.” It is one of the most persistent cues in cycling coaching. The image it creates is appealing: a smooth, circular pedal stroke in which each leg contributes evenly around the entire crank revolution. The problem is that the mechanical and metabolic logic of the pedaling cycle does not support the cue as a general efficiency strategy. This article examines what actually happens during the upstroke, why forcing a pull-up changes muscle coordination rather than improving economy, and how to think about circular-pedaling drills without dismissing them entirely.
The pedaling cycle, sector by sector
To discuss the upstroke precisely, it helps to divide the crank cycle into four functional sectors. Using the convention where 0° is top dead center (TDC), the sectors are:
- Sector 1 (330°–30°): top dead center, where the pedal passes over the top.
- Sector 2 (30°–150°): downstroke, the primary power phase.
- Sector 3 (150°–210°): bottom dead center (BDC).
- Sector 4 (210°–330°): upstroke or recovery phase.
During submaximal cycling, the effective force — the component perpendicular to the crank arm that actually produces torque — is strongly positive during the downstroke and near zero or negative during the upstroke. The negative torque arises because the mass of the leg and foot is being lifted against gravity while the contralateral leg is pushing down. As Hug and colleagues note, “negative torque is classically measured during the upstroke phase (also called ‘recovery’ phase), when exercise intensity is submaximal” (Hug et al., 2013).
This negative torque is not a flaw in technique. It is a predictable consequence of the linked crank system and the passive dynamics of the lower limb. The contralateral leg’s downstroke does the work of lifting the recovering leg. The recovering leg’s muscles are largely unloaded during this phase in normal pedaling.
What independent cranks reveal about the pull-up
Independent cranks (such as PowerCranks) remove the mechanical coupling between the two legs. Each crank rotates independently, so the contralateral leg cannot lift the recovering pedal. The rider must actively pull up through the top and back of the stroke to keep both cranks moving. This makes independent cranks a useful experimental model for studying what happens when a pull-up is enforced.
In a study of ten healthy males with no history of cycling training, pedaling with independent cranks at 100 W and 70 rpm produced a dramatic shift in muscle activation (Hug et al., 2013). Compared with normal fixed cranks, the independent-crank condition significantly increased mean EMG activity in:
- Tibialis anterior (+336%)
- Gastrocnemius medialis (+47%)
- Rectus femoris (+123%)
- Biceps femoris long head (+162%)
- Semimembranosus (+304%)
- Tensor fascia latae (+586%)
The increased activity of hip and knee flexors occurred mainly during top dead center and the upstroke phase — exactly the region where the pull-up cue is meant to apply. The study also found high inter-individual variability in how participants adapted to the independent cranks.
These findings are mechanistically informative: forcing a pull-up recruits muscles that are normally quiet during the upstroke. But the study measured acute muscle coordination and mechanical effectiveness, not energy cost, efficiency, or performance. The authors themselves state that “further studies are needed to determine whether training with independent cranks has the potential to induce long-term changes in muscle coordination, and, if so, whether these changes are beneficial for cycling performance” (Hug et al., 2013).
Why pulling up is metabolically expensive
The metabolic cost of cycling is dominated by the downstroke, where the large extensor muscles of the hip and knee produce the majority of the positive work. The upstroke, by contrast, is a phase of low force and low metabolic demand in normal pedaling. When a rider actively pulls up, they are adding muscular work to a phase that was previously passive. That work requires oxygen and substrate, and it does not increase the total positive work delivered to the crank — it merely redistributes it.
In fact, because the pull-up recruits smaller, less powerful muscle groups (hip flexors, knee flexors, tibialis anterior), the metabolic cost per unit of force is likely higher than for the large extensors. The retrieved evidence does not directly quantify this energy cost, but the muscle activation data are consistent with the interpretation that a forced pull-up is metabolically inefficient. The evidence is mixed on whether any efficiency benefit could emerge from long-term training, and the retrieved sources do not resolve that question.
There is also a coordination cost. The high inter-individual variability in the independent-crank study suggests that some riders adapt more easily than others. For riders who find the pull-up awkward or fatiguing, the drill may simply add noise to an already effective motor pattern.
What the evidence does and does not support
It is important to separate what is established from what is inferred. The retrieved study establishes that:
- Negative torque is classically measured during the upstroke in submaximal cycling.
- Independent cranks eliminate contralateral assistance and force an active pull-up.
- Acute independent-crank pedaling increases activation of hip and knee flexors, especially around TDC and upstroke.
- There is high inter-individual variability in the acute response.
The study does not establish that:
- Circular-pedaling drills improve gross efficiency or time-trial performance.
- Independent cranks produce long-term changes in muscle coordination.
- Pulling up through the top of the stroke wastes energy in a way that has been directly quantified.
- The findings apply to trained cyclists; the participants had no history of cycling training.
The practical argument against making the pull-up a central efficiency strategy rests on the mechanistic mismatch: the upstroke is not where the work is done, and adding work there does not increase total positive work. It may, however, change coordination in ways that are individually variable and not yet shown to be beneficial.
Practical implications for coaches and athletes
For most endurance riders, training time is better spent on sustainable force production during the downstroke, appropriate gearing, and bike fit. These factors have a clearer mechanistic link to performance than an exaggerated upstroke pull. The downstroke is where the large extensor muscles can produce high force at relatively low metabolic cost. Improving force application there — through strength training, cadence manipulation, and position adjustments — is a more direct route to efficiency.
That does not mean circular-pedaling drills are worthless. They can serve as a coordination experiment or a diagnostic tool. A rider might use short bouts of independent cranks or exaggerated pull-up drills to explore a different movement pattern, but the evidence does not support prescribing them as a required efficiency intervention. If a drill changes muscle activation without demonstrated performance benefit, it is optional technique practice, not a cornerstone of training.
Because inter-individual variability is high, a drill that feels productive for one rider may be awkward or fatiguing for another. A reasonable approach is to test the drill in a low-risk setting — for example, a few short efforts on an indoor trainer — and observe whether it improves smoothness or reduces perceived effort. If it does not, there is no mechanistic reason to persist.
What would change this recommendation
The recommendation against prioritizing the pull-up is based on the current evidence. It would change if long-term training studies showed that circular-pedaling drills or independent cranks improve gross efficiency or performance in trained cyclists. Such studies would need to measure outcomes like oxygen consumption, time-trial power, or efficiency — not just muscle activation. Until then, the mechanistic case and the available acute data point in the same direction: the upstroke is a recovery phase, and forcing work there adds cost without a demonstrated benefit.
FAQ
Does this mean I should never pull up on the pedals?
No. During very high-intensity efforts, such as a sprint or a steep climb, a brief pull-up can help maintain power. The argument here is against making the pull-up a general efficiency strategy for submaximal endurance riding.
Are independent cranks useless?
They are a useful research tool and can be a coordination drill. The evidence does not support them as a performance-enhancing intervention for most riders.
What about the ‘scraping mud’ cue?
That cue focuses on the bottom of the stroke and the early upstroke. It may help some riders smooth the transition, but the same caveat applies: it changes coordination without proven efficiency benefit.
Should I focus on pedaling smoothness instead?
Smoothness is a subjective quality. The objective measure is mechanical effectiveness, which is already high during the downstroke in trained cyclists. Improving effectiveness during the upstroke has not been shown to improve performance.
How do I know if a pedaling drill is helping?
Look for changes in power output at a given perceived effort, or improvements in time-trial performance. Changes in muscle activation alone are not sufficient evidence of benefit.
Source: Hug, F., Boumier, F., & Dorel, S. (2013). Altered muscle coordination when pedaling with independent cranks. Frontiers in Physiology, 4, 232.