Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Form & Fitness > General

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1001  
Old 01-26-13, 03:11
CoachFergie's Avatar
CoachFergie CoachFergie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,072
Default

Well, the good thing about FAIL from Frank Day is that it is just a FAIL from Frank Day, who cares what the Cycling Worlds biggest snake oil salesman thinks. It's not up to me to justify your delusions. I'm not the one making claims I can't support.

I have said what I can see influences the difference between efficiency and effectiveness and if there is more to the story that makes it worth my attention as a coach being paid to help people improve performance then I'm sure you will let us know.
__________________
Hamish Ferguson
http://coachfergblog.blogspot.co.nz/

"I couldn't have won today without my power meter" Said no rider ever!!!
  #1002  
Old 01-26-13, 05:23
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachFergie View Post
Well, the good thing about FAIL from Frank Day is that it is just a FAIL from Frank Day, who cares what the Cycling Worlds biggest snake oil salesman thinks. It's not up to me to justify your delusions. I'm not the one making claims I can't support.

I have said what I can see influences the difference between efficiency and effectiveness and if there is more to the story that makes it worth my attention as a coach being paid to help people improve performance then I'm sure you will let us know.
Fergie, your repeated and continued ad hominem attacks simply point out the weakness of your knowledge in this area. If that is all you got I guess that is all you got. Would anyone else care to take a stab at explaining a mechanism that might explain the inverse relationship between pedaling effectiveness and pedaling efficiency found by Mornieux et. al.? This is a thread about pedaling technique. I presume most of the people here are interested in stuff like this. Am I the only one who thinks this is easily explained?
__________________
Life is short, both reading my posts and training with PowerCranks will make it seem longer
  #1003  
Old 01-26-13, 05:37
CoachFergie's Avatar
CoachFergie CoachFergie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,072
Default

Well spill the beans Frank. What I am waiting with baited breath is how much you attribute this to the importance of pedalling.

While you claim that (and now so does Noel) training with a Gimmickcrank improves power by 40% you have not shown anyone whose power has improved by said amount. Well actually by 1% from just using Gimmickcranks alone. This is the catch, people must train, must eat, must recover and do all the other things that actually contribute to performance. If they improved the application of power people would produce more power instantaneously but they don't and if they created a more efficient pedal stroke and were a more potent training stimulus over once people adapted to them (1-2 weeks in most studies) then there would be a change in performance but there is none. Then you will say that people need longer for the change in pattern to take place but Bohm (2008) and Fernandez-Pena (2009) have shown this is not the case most coaches and sport scientists will tell you that after 4-8 weeks on any one programme cyclists start to adapt and need to change the training stimulus.
__________________
Hamish Ferguson
http://coachfergblog.blogspot.co.nz/

"I couldn't have won today without my power meter" Said no rider ever!!!
  #1004  
Old 01-26-13, 05:52
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachFergie View Post
Well spill the beans Frank. What I am waiting with baited breath is how much you attribute this to the importance of pedalling.
Ugh, this is a thread abut pedaling technique. One cannot actually know anything about pedaling technique and power production unless they can explain all of the experimental evidence. You don't even care to try. Ignorance is bliss.
__________________
Life is short, both reading my posts and training with PowerCranks will make it seem longer
  #1005  
Old 01-26-13, 06:07
CoachFergie's Avatar
CoachFergie CoachFergie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,072
Default

Don't weasel out of it Frank, I know quite a bit about power production and enough about pedalling to know that there is no secret technique or gimmick that will improve power in the short term or serve as a better training stimulus than following a well designed training programme, eating a healthy diet, having goals, good recovery, good riding position, good technical skills, sound tactics, an aerodynamic position and that you are now back pedalling yourself.

Spill the beans and let is bask in the glow of your magnificence. Not that I really care as the research indicates there is little relevance for your argument to important gains in performance. As you know I just find you and Noel amusing.
__________________
Hamish Ferguson
http://coachfergblog.blogspot.co.nz/

"I couldn't have won today without my power meter" Said no rider ever!!!
  #1006  
Old 01-26-13, 11:20
coapman coapman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 554
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachFergie View Post

While you claim that (and now so does Noel) training with a Gimmickcrank improves power by 40% you have not shown anyone whose power has improved by said amount. Well actually by 1% from just using Gimmickcranks alone. This is the catch, people must train, must eat, must recover and do all the other things that actually contribute to performance. If they improved the application of power people would produce more power instantaneously but they don't and if they created a more efficient pedal stroke and were a more potent training stimulus over once people adapted to them (1-2 weeks in most studies) then there would be a change in performance but there is none. Then you will say that people need longer for the change in pattern to take place but Bohm (2008) and Fernandez-Pena (2009) have shown this is not the case most coaches and sport scientists will tell you that after 4-8 weeks on any one programme cyclists start to adapt and need to change the training stimulus.

I believe using the powercrank technique will result in a loss of power not an increase. You are correct, if a change of technique is capable of increasing power output, this increase will take effect as soon as the rider starts to use the new technique and my change of technique is an example of this. The most powerful or most effective sector of your pedalling stroke is between 2 and 4 o'c, this is mainly because greatest tangential effect occurs there, my technique makes it possible to extend this 60 deg sector to 150 deg. while still using the same amount of maximal force with the same or even greater tangential effect. It's as simple as that. The problem with Frank and his powercranks is that PC users don't know what they are supposed to be training or where the 40 % power increase is supposed to occur and Frank cannot tell them.
  #1007  
Old 01-26-13, 15:17
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachFergie View Post
As you know I just find you and Noel irritating.
Fixed that for you. Anyhow, if you knew as much about pedaling as you claim you know and you actually wanted to participate in a discussion about this you would have no problem to, at least, giving a best guess to explain the efficacy/efficiency conundrum as opposed to continued personal attacks.
__________________
Life is short, both reading my posts and training with PowerCranks will make it seem longer

Last edited by FrankDay; 01-26-13 at 16:21.
  #1008  
Old 01-26-13, 16:47
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
Fixed that for you. Anyhow, if you knew as much about pedaling as you claim you know and you actually wanted to participate in a discussion about this you would have no problem to, at least, giving a best guess to explain the efficacy/efficiency conundrum as opposed to continued personal attacks.
Ha ha, if you say so. Nothing you haven't done yourself.

You still haven't given your answer...
__________________
Hamish Ferguson
http://coachfergblog.blogspot.co.nz/

"I couldn't have won today without my power meter" Said no rider ever!!!
  #1009  
Old 01-26-13, 16:50
JayKosta JayKosta is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 358
Default

Regarding EFFICIENCY -
Efficiency is primarily a concern about -

DURATION - if the lack of efficiency causes exhaustion or depletion of fuel, so that the athlete can nolonger perform at the necessary level.

Being 'efficient' is not needed if the athlete can generate high levels of effective power output for the duration of the event.

An example is 'sprinters' - it is usual for a top-level sprinter to have a large amount of muscle and strength that can be used in short-duration-high-output situations. It is not usual for a top-level sprinter to be physically capable of individual performance comparable to long distance endurance athlete, when the event requires long duration and climbing.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
  #1010  
Old 01-26-13, 17:09
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayKosta View Post
Regarding EFFICIENCY -
Efficiency is primarily a concern about -

DURATION - if the lack of efficiency causes exhaustion or depletion of fuel, so that the athlete can nolonger perform at the necessary level.

Being 'efficient' is not needed if the athlete can generate high levels of effective power output for the duration of the event.

An example is 'sprinters' - it is usual for a top-level sprinter to have a large amount of muscle and strength that can be used in short-duration-high-output situations. It is not usual for a top-level sprinter to be physically capable of individual performance comparable to long distance endurance athlete, when the event requires long duration and climbing.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
While I agree to some extent that efficiency is much more important for an endurance athlete it seems to me that even a sprinter could benefit from a more efficient technique, if that improved efficiency allowed him or her to achieve even higher power for the same effective muscle use. The mechanical sciences would predict that improved efficiency should allow an engine to go either further on the same amount of fuel use or attain higher power for the same amount of energy expenditure. Why this fact should suddenly be stood on its head just because we are dealing with people as the engine makes little sense and, if true, needs to be explained. I, for one, doubt humans are the exception to this principle.
__________________
Life is short, both reading my posts and training with PowerCranks will make it seem longer
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 08:18.


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.