Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Form & Fitness > General

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #981  
Old 01-25-13, 21:51
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachFergie View Post
According to Broker's data track sprinters produced the most power using the least effective portion of the pedal stroke compared to XC riders who had the highest effective pedal stroke. Main distinction between the two groups is cadence.

Then compare with Coyle's data between two groups of time trial riders and the riders with the longer training histories produce more power and through a less effective pedal stroke. That was also Coyle's explanation for Lance's improvement over time, based on a large volume of riding although we now know a bit of pharmacological assistance.

Bit of a no brainer that the more one trains for something the more efficient they become at it. What is still to be explained is why someone would suggest people should train with a different pedal stroke to how they will perform in competition.
All of these folks in their so-called studies are only telling the WHAT. If one truly understands what is going on one can also explain the HOW and the WHY of the WHAT. And, if one truly truly understands what is going on one can also predict outcomes yet to be tested. So, we are still left with the connundrum of the Mornieux et. al. study (and posted by respected Dr. Martin as seemingly significant) showing an inverse relationship between pedaling effectiveness and pedaling efficiency. (Anyone else notice how quiet Dr. Martin is being?) Now, either the study is bunk or we need to explain the underlying biology/mechanics that explain this as possible (since it violates every tenet of mechanics that I know of). Discuss this study. Is it bunk or is it not? If not, why not?

Oh, and Coyle's explanation for his Lance findings were also hogwash. No one has ever demonstrated that pedaling efficiency improves with more training, especially at the World Champion level. No one has ever demonstrated that PED's improve cycling efficiency. There has to be another explanation for the approximate 10% improvement in efficiency demonstrated by Coyle over time in Lance. Anyhow, back to the study at hand.
__________________
Life is short, both reading my posts and training with PowerCranks will make it seem longer
  #982  
Old 01-25-13, 21:56
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sciguy View Post
Quote:
[B]=FrankDay;1122029]You must be quite the mental giant. I find it impossible to concentrate on both the right and left legs at the same time when they are doing two different things.
Do you mean like athletes need to do when they use PowerCranks?
LOL. PowerCrankers can't do it either. We tell them when they are learning to concentrate only on the backstroke, shifting focus as they come across the bottom, they know how to get the crank down without thinking about it. It is part of the reason they "lose" some of the ability to push hard, they just can't think about it when still learning the technique. It is only when the technique is well ingrained that the rider can then start thinking about pushing hard again, should they choose to. (Most of the time, like everyone else, they never think about it at all.) The only time a rider can "concentrate" on both pushing and pulling is when doing isolated leg training.
__________________
Life is short, both reading my posts and training with PowerCranks will make it seem longer

Last edited by FrankDay; 01-25-13 at 22:06.
  #983  
Old 01-25-13, 22:04
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachFergie View Post
Well kinda important. If it can make a meaningful impact on performance then it should be pursued. If not it should be left to the creator to make wild arsed claims on Internet forums.
The magnitude is not important to understanding underlying mechanisms. (edit: the force of gravity is tiny compared to the electrostatic force but unless you can integrate it into the whole you don't understand the whole) If you cannot explain everything then you really don't understand. Pre-Newton theories of the universe could explain what they saw but could predict nothing. Newton's theories explained a lot but they didn't explain everything. Einstein's theories explained a lot more but still not everything. It is why physicists continue to pursue more data and new theories. Exercise physiologists seem content with an "earth centric", pre-Newton, understanding of pedaling mechanics. No need to explain anything at a basic level as long as I look smart. No need to point out inconsistencies if it might make me look not-smart.
__________________
Life is short, both reading my posts and training with PowerCranks will make it seem longer

Last edited by FrankDay; 01-25-13 at 22:27.
  #984  
Old 01-25-13, 22:06
coapman coapman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
I look forward to seeing the proof of what you do.


When can we expect to see the graphs of a fully trained PC rider at 200 watts and at maximal power output.
  #985  
Old 01-25-13, 22:08
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coapman View Post
When can we expect to see the graphs of a fully trained PC rider at 200 watts and at maximal power output.
My guess is within a month. Of course that fully trained rider will be me so maximum power output isn't going to be 1500 watts.
__________________
Life is short, both reading my posts and training with PowerCranks will make it seem longer
  #986  
Old 01-25-13, 22:31
CoachFergie's Avatar
CoachFergie CoachFergie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coapman View Post
You should ask J. Bobet if he believed pedalling technique could make a difference in time trial performance. As a man who studied the technique of Anquetil throughout all his racing years both as a rider and later from a car as a journalist, it would be interesting what he would think of this TT semi circular technique.
Just convenient for your argument that he died in 1983.
__________________
Hamish Ferguson
http://coachfergblog.blogspot.co.nz/

"I couldn't have won today without my power meter" Said no rider ever!!!
  #987  
Old 01-25-13, 22:38
CoachFergie's Avatar
CoachFergie CoachFergie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
All of these folks in their so-called studies are only telling the WHAT. If one truly understands what is going on one can also explain the HOW and the WHY of the WHAT. And, if one truly truly understands what is going on one can also predict outcomes yet to be tested.
It's been done and the only person who hasn't moved along is the person trying to sell us a cure to a problem that doesn't exist.

Quote:
So, we are still left with the connundrum of the Mornieux et. al. study (and posted by respected Dr. Martin as seemingly significant) showing an inverse relationship between pedaling effectiveness and pedaling efficiency. (Anyone else notice how quiet Dr. Martin is being?)
Can't recall if Dr Martin has ever posted to this forum. Pity you can't converse with him on Slowtwitch

Quote:
Now, either the study is bunk or we need to explain the underlying biology/mechanics that explain this as possible (since it violates every tenet of mechanics that I know of). Discuss this study. Is it bunk or is it not? If not, why not?
I have explained it, sorry you choose to bury your head in the sand.

Quote:
Oh, and Coyle's explanation for his Lance findings were also hogwash. No one has ever demonstrated that pedaling efficiency improves with more training, especially at the World Champion level. No one has ever demonstrated that PED's improve cycling efficiency. There has to be another explanation for the approximate 10% improvement in efficiency demonstrated by Coyle over time in Lance. Anyhow, back to the study at hand.
There are a lot of people calling for that study to be retracted from the JAP. But nevertheless you continue to delude your self that efficiency can't be trained the most logical reason for Lance improving so much over the years seeing he took drugs all along is that he did a lot of riding. More you train something the more efficient you become.
__________________
Hamish Ferguson
http://coachfergblog.blogspot.co.nz/

"I couldn't have won today without my power meter" Said no rider ever!!!
  #988  
Old 01-25-13, 22:41
CoachFergie's Avatar
CoachFergie CoachFergie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
The magnitude is not important
I guess you would have to say that seeing there is no evidence whatsoever that Gimmickcranks improve performance.
__________________
Hamish Ferguson
http://coachfergblog.blogspot.co.nz/

"I couldn't have won today without my power meter" Said no rider ever!!!
  #989  
Old 01-25-13, 22:45
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachFergie View Post
It's been done
Where? Link please?
Quote:
Can't recall if Dr Martin has ever posted to this forum. Pity you can't converse with him on Slowtwitch
I guess that is possible that he has not posted here. I would be surprised if he hadn't. Who knows what screen name he would use here. Anyhow. Dr. Coggan certainly has posted here and in this very thread. He should be able to answer the question if he has an answer. Oh, and Slowman seems to not like people who don't follow the "politically correct view" of his fan boys. Uncomfortable debate simply not allowed
Quote:




I have explained it, sorry you choose to bury your head in the sand.
Link please
Quote:



There are a lot of people calling for that study to be retracted from the JAP. But nevertheless you continue to delude your self that efficiency can't be trained the most logical reason for Lance improving so much over the years seeing he took drugs all along is that he did a lot of riding. More you train something the more efficient you become.
Hey, is the study bunk or is it true? Isn't the JAP the most prestigious of them all? How could it be possible they published something bunk? Isn't Coyle about the most respected of all bicycle researchers? How is it possible he posted something bunk? BTW, he didn't post a study but simply a rehashing of his testing results with a 7 time TDF winner, which he thought might be of interest to the community. Apparently the JAP agreed.
__________________
Life is short, both reading my posts and training with PowerCranks will make it seem longer

Last edited by FrankDay; 01-25-13 at 22:59.
  #990  
Old 01-25-13, 22:46
coapman coapman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachFergie View Post

Just convenient for your argument that he died in 1983.


His latest book was published in 2009 ?
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:00.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.