Originally Posted by
asgelle
I would think that anyone, regardless of occupation, who communicates in either their professional or personal life would be in favor of clear language.
"Clear" is not always the same as correct or precise. I am a music teacher, and much of what we explain is conceptual. Even if I knew precisely how many hundredths of a mm a trumpet player needed between their tongue and their upper palate in order to play a high C versus a low C, specifying that would do nothing for them. Telling them to "say Tee for the high C and Tah for the low C", and to "breath in to your stomach" will go much further, yet the player isn't actually speaking anything, nor are they taking air into their stomach.
Likewise, I think cyclists sometimes use terms that make sense conceptually, even if they are not exactly correct. "Pedal circles" is a common technique for pedaling efficiency (yes, I just had to use the term... couldn't resist), but no matter how good or bad your form is, you're pedaling circles because the cranks won't spin the pedals in any other pattern.
To a layman, "efficient" just means what we can sustain for a longer time period, or optimum for a level of exertion. We don't necessarily realize that the actual amount of energy consumed isn't the factor there, and honestly, we don't care. Regarding that other thread, I would be annoyed if someone told me, "60 RPM is the most efficient cadence... but you don't want to do that".