For the "pedaling technique doesn't matter crowd" - Page 112 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Form & Fitness > General

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1111  
Old 02-19-13, 17:21
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coapman View Post
…But exclusive use of PC's over long periods will have a negative effect as P. Holman discovered, by weakening your more important downstroke muscles. Therefore PC style pedaling cannot increase power output, while you may gain minimal torque in other sectors, you will lose more in the down stroke sector because continuous equal concentration has to be given to both legs in all sectors regardless of the power than can be produced in those sectors.
P Holman discovered a negative effect from his training with PC's? Exactly how do you think P Holman increased his max speed from 35 to 38 mph without increasing his power? Since he did not actually measure his pedal forces anyone (including him) who tries to analyze exactly how they changes is guessing. All we know is the total outcome of his experiment. We have to guess (albeit, an educated guess) as to what changes occurred to cause it.
  #1112  
Old 02-19-13, 17:57
CoachFergie's Avatar
CoachFergie CoachFergie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,276
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
P Holman discovered a negative effect from his training with PC's? Exactly how do you think P Holman increased his max speed from 35 to 38 mph without increasing his power? Since he did not actually measure his pedal forces anyone (including him) who tries to analyze exactly how they changes is guessing. All we know is the total outcome of his experiment. We have to guess (albeit, an educated guess) as to what changes occurred to cause it.
Seriously, you would think a former engineer would know better than to claim an increase in speed as a improvement in performance.
__________________
Hamish Ferguson
http://coachfergblog.blogspot.co.nz/

Power Meters like Powercranks don't improve performance one bit. But at least with a Power Meter you can see yourself not improving because of it
  #1113  
Old 02-19-13, 18:01
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachFergie View Post
Seriously, you would think a former engineer would know better than to claim an increase in speed as a improvement in performance.
Yes, on the internet one can learn all sorts of stuff one never learned in school. For instance, in racing, going faster is not necessarily better or that in the past gravity was different http://now.msn.com/jose-canseco-tweets-gravity-theories What do those school trained bozos have to learn us anyhow?
  #1114  
Old 02-19-13, 18:28
coapman coapman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 670
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
P Holman discovered a negative effect from his training with PC's? Exactly how do you think P Holman increased his max speed from 35 to 38 mph without increasing his power?


You are conveniently overlooking the extra standard crank 'downstroke only' training he had to do because of the loss of power in his downstroke which was caused by exclusive PC use. Without this extra standard crank training his change in speed could have been reversed after 9 months or more of exclusive PC use. It's possible it was this intensive downstroke training together with an improved style in other sectors that was responsible for his increased speed.
  #1115  
Old 02-20-13, 19:00
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coapman View Post
You are conveniently overlooking the extra standard crank 'downstroke only' training he had to do because of the loss of power in his downstroke which was caused by exclusive PC use. Without this extra standard crank training his change in speed could have been reversed after 9 months or more of exclusive PC use. It's possible it was this intensive downstroke training together with an improved style in other sectors that was responsible for his increased speed.
I guess anything is possible but that isn't how Phil Holman evaluated his experience and he was there and he was also predisposed to "prove" the cranks worthless. Even if all that "extra work" allowed Phil Holman to keep his pushing force the same that work could not have, by itself, resulted in an increase in power and speed unless other improvements were seen. As I said, the only way to reasonably explain such large improvements is to say there are many small improvements occurring around the entire circle which add together to result in a large improvement.
  #1116  
Old 02-20-13, 19:29
CoachFergie's Avatar
CoachFergie CoachFergie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,276
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
I guess anything is possible but that isn't how Phil Holman evaluated his experience and he was there and he was also predisposed to "prove" the cranks worthless. Even if all that "extra work" allowed Phil Holman to keep his pushing force the same that work could not have, by itself, resulted in an increase in power and speed unless other improvements were seen. As I said, the only way to reasonably explain such large improvements is to say there are many small improvements occurring around the entire circle which add together to result in a large improvement.
Imaginary improvements in power. These were never measured with a power meter. You would think a former engineer would know better.
__________________
Hamish Ferguson
http://coachfergblog.blogspot.co.nz/

Power Meters like Powercranks don't improve performance one bit. But at least with a Power Meter you can see yourself not improving because of it
  #1117  
Old 02-20-13, 21:48
hiero2's Avatar
hiero2 hiero2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: In Descartes' reality
Posts: 2,624
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
Hey, while investigating another topic I found that the work done by Burns on the PowerCranks in his Masters Thesis finally got published (link here). Of course, it shows no benefit but, interestingly, it includes the reason why as it showed no difference between the groups in EMG activation. So much for Fergies contention that this is an adequate amount of time or stimulus to make these changes. I stand by my contention that in order to demonstrate that there is no benefit it is also necessary to demonstrate that the stimulus was adequate to make the expected changes in technique. The fact that Fergie declares it to be enough is not good evidence that it is enough.
While it is nice that one of you actually included a link, your conclusion is not supported by the abstract you link to. I quote from that abstract, the only mention of EMG:

Quote:
METHODS:

Sixteen trained cyclists were matched-paired into either an uncoupled-crank or a normal-crank training group. Both groups performed 5 wk of training on their assigned cranks. Before and after training, participants completed a graded exercise test using normal cranks. Expired gases were collected to determine economy of motion, gross efficiency, and VO2max, while integrated electromyography (iEMG) was used to examine muscle-activation patterns of the vastus lateralis, biceps femoris, and gastrocnemius.
Continuing - since it is just an abstract, and quite short:

Quote:
RESULTS:

No significant changes between groups were observed for economy of motion, gross efficiency, VO2max, or iEMG in the uncoupled- or normal-crank group.
CONCLUSIONS:

Five weeks of training with uncoupled cycling cranks had no effect on economy of motion, gross efficiency, muscle recruitment, or VO2max compared with training on normal cranks.
Nowhere there do they mention that they felt 5 weeks was insufficient data. As a matter of fact, they should feel that 5 weeks WAS sufficient, or else they would have mentioned that they felt the study period to short to even reach the conclusion they did.

9 months is an unrealistically long requirement time to show a difference. Muscle groups that would show any difference after 9 months should begin to show significant contribution towards that difference within the first few weeks. Also, any study of 9 months or more would be longitudinal, and would therefore require a larger sample size to validly isolate a single possible contributing factor, if I remember my college stat courses.

Frank, I don't believe what I have said will convince you in any manner whatsoever. I am going to ask for your cooperation, and that of Coach and others who are responding in this thread. No more anecdotal "proofs". You know that anecdotal "evidence" is not. You have already offered plenty along those lines - adding more is just repeating yourself and does not add to the conversation.

Coach and others - recall the usenet gem of online interaction: "Don't feed the troll." I'm not saying Frank is a troll, but he is engaging in troll-like behavior with you guys. You have a circular argument going here. New posts need new perspectives. Mentions of studies need links, or they need full reference if there is no link, so that ANY reader can print out the post, take it to their local librarian, and librarian can then find said material.

Thank you for your cooperation.
__________________
It is of great use to the sailor to know the length of his line, though he cannot with it fathom all the depths of the ocean. ~ John Locke
  #1118  
Old 02-20-13, 22:08
CoachFergie's Avatar
CoachFergie CoachFergie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,276
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hiero2 View Post
Nowhere there do they mention that they felt 5 weeks was insufficient data. As a matter of fact, they should feel that 5 weeks WAS sufficient, or else they would have mentioned that they felt the study period to short to even reach the conclusion they did.
You will also note that they were given an extra 3-4 weeks on the control group to ensure the training loads were matched. As a side note this has been the failing in most strength training studies where the training loads are not matched.

Quote:
9 months is an unrealistically long requirement time to show a difference. Muscle groups that would show any difference after 9 months should begin to show significant contribution towards that difference within the first few weeks. Also, any study of 9 months or more would be longitudinal, and would therefore require a larger sample size to validly isolate a single possible contributing factor, if I remember my college stat courses.
As we have seen in numerous studies using training, diet, supplements recovery etc, physiological, performance and fitness adaptations occur rather rapidly. But what is also seen after 5-6 weeks is subjects become adapted to any one training regime and improvements decline. Any claim that performance would decrease for 1-6 weeks and then shoot up by 40% over a nine month period are totally unrealistic.

Quote:
Coach and others - recall the usenet gem of online interaction: "Don't feed the troll." I'm not saying Frank is a troll, but he is engaging in troll-like behavior with you guys. You have a circular argument going here. New posts need new perspectives. Mentions of studies need links, or they need full reference if there is no link, so that ANY reader can print out the post, take it to their local librarian, and librarian can then find said material.
I would refer any person interested in performance improvement to read any exercise physiology text to see evidence based methods and also to see the time course of physiological adaptations to exercise.
__________________
Hamish Ferguson
http://coachfergblog.blogspot.co.nz/

Power Meters like Powercranks don't improve performance one bit. But at least with a Power Meter you can see yourself not improving because of it
  #1119  
Old 02-21-13, 02:00
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hiero2 View Post
Nowhere there do they mention that they felt 5 weeks was insufficient data. As a matter of fact, they should feel that 5 weeks WAS sufficient, or else they would have mentioned that they felt the study period to short to even reach the conclusion they did.
Of course they would not make the observation that 5 weeks was insufficient data. That would be like simply saying to the publication: "THIS STUDY IS TERRIBLE, PLEASE DO NOT PUBLISH IT" Their study is what it is. They did not see a statistically significant difference between groups in any aspect. Since the purpose of the PowerCranks is to change the pedaling coordination I think it is reasonable to conclude that because their study did not see a statistically significant difference in coordination between the groups before and after that the their intervention was not sufficient to make the expected change. That, in and of itself, is useful information for follow-on researchers because they will now know they need to do a more substantial intervention if they want to study this concept.
Quote:

9 months is an unrealistically long requirement time to show a difference. Muscle groups that would show any difference after 9 months should begin to show significant contribution towards that difference within the first few weeks. Also, any study of 9 months or more would be longitudinal, and would therefore require a larger sample size to validly isolate a single possible contributing factor, if I remember my college stat courses.
It should not take 9 months to see a difference. The 9 month requirement is what we say to see a 40% power improvement on average. That is the number with which most people have such heart burn. To disprove that number requires that kind of study. Both Luttrell and Dixon were able to demonstrate statistically significant differences in only 6 weeks. Luttrell did it by not using elite cyclists and having 18 hours in 6 weeks (compared to Burns 10 hours in 5 weeks. Dixon used "elite" cyclists but used immersion training (8 hours minimum a week as I remember) for 6 weeks or 48 hours on the cranks compared to Burns 10 and Lutrell's 18.
Quote:

Frank, I don't believe what I have said will convince you in any manner whatsoever. I am going to ask for your cooperation, and that of Coach and others who are responding in this thread. No more anecdotal "proofs". You know that anecdotal "evidence" is not. You have already offered plenty along those lines - adding more is just repeating yourself and does not add to the conversation.
Anecdotes are not proof. Anecdotes are evidence that some may use or not use. It is pretty much all we have to go by in making training and equipment choices. Studies have shown no benefit to using a power meter yet these forums are filled with anecdotal "proof" that power meters are necessary to get faster. Adding addictional anecdotal evidence, when it occurs, is not repeating onself unless that evidence had been given before. My reason for pursuing this is not to get people to buy my product but to get them to consider what they (or anyone else) don't know (be it about technique or crank length) such that they will not be afraid to make changes to improve. Some are more willing to take those chances than others. Those are the people threads like that are directed towards.
Quote:

Coach and others - recall the usenet gem of online interaction: "Don't feed the troll." I'm not saying Frank is a troll, but he is engaging in troll-like behavior with you guys. You have a circular argument going here. New posts need new perspectives. Mentions of studies need links, or they need full reference if there is no link, so that ANY reader can print out the post, take it to their local librarian, and librarian can then find said material.

Thank you for your cooperation.
Fergie was warned a long time ago by you folks to stop using inflammatory terms like gimmickcranks, snake oil, etc. He is back to it with no consequences. Are you guys up to the challenge of actually standing behind what you warn? He is the troll. Make him go away and this turns into a perfectly reasonable discussion about a topic many are interested in.
  #1120  
Old 02-21-13, 02:57
CoachFergie's Avatar
CoachFergie CoachFergie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,276
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
Of course they would not make the observation that 5 weeks was insufficient data. That would be like simply saying to the publication: "THIS STUDY IS TERRIBLE, PLEASE DO NOT PUBLISH IT" Their study is what it is. They did not see a statistically significant difference between groups in any aspect.
Why would they claim 5 weeks was insufficient. Fernandex-Pena and Bohm studies both found a change in power application around the pedal stroke in a much shorter change. There is clearly a change in the training stimulus but no change in cycling fitness or performance.

Quote:
Since the purpose of the PowerCranks is to change the pedaling coordination I think it is reasonable to conclude that because their study did not see a statistically significant difference in coordination between the groups before and after that the their intervention was not sufficient to make the expected change. That, in and of itself, is useful information for follow-on researchers because they will now know they need to do a more substantial intervention if they want to study this concept.
More nonsense, they do see a change, Burns gave the independent crank system group a 3-4 week head start to match the training loads between the experimental and control group.

Quote:
It should not take 9 months to see a difference. The 9 month requirement is what we say to see a 40% power improvement on average.
More nonsense.

Quote:
To disprove that number requires that kind of study. Both Luttrell and Dixon were able to demonstrate statistically significant differences in only 6 weeks. Luttrell did it by not using elite cyclists and having 18 hours in 6 weeks (compared to Burns 10 hours in 5 weeks.
No change in any performance measure from the Luttrell study. The independent crank system was not a more potent stimulus than a normal training system.

Quote:
Dixon used "elite" cyclists but used immersion training (8 hours minimum a week as I remember) for 6 weeks or 48 hours on the cranks compared to Burns 10 and Lutrell's 18.
Not a published study and no control group. Meaningless.

Quote:
Anecdotes are not proof. Anecdotes are evidence that some may use or not use.
No control and no taking into account bias and confounding variables.

Quote:
It is pretty much all we have to go by in making training and equipment choices.
More nonsense. I have been practising evidence based coaching for 21 years thanks to a huge volume of sport science research testing all of the pertinent questions in the sport of cycling.

Quote:
Studies have shown no benefit to using a power meter yet these forums are filled with anecdotal "proof" that power meters are necessary to get faster.
Red herring. You would think a former engineer would know the difference between a measurement tool and a tool or method that enhances performance.

Quote:
Adding addictional anecdotal evidence, when it occurs, is not repeating onself unless that evidence had been given before. My reason for pursuing this is not to get people to buy my product but to get them to consider what they (or anyone else) don't know (be it about technique or crank length) such that they will not be afraid to make changes to improve.
Despite the wealth of published evidence that crank length is not important. You are just here to SPAM people Frank.
__________________
Hamish Ferguson
http://coachfergblog.blogspot.co.nz/

Power Meters like Powercranks don't improve performance one bit. But at least with a Power Meter you can see yourself not improving because of it
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 15:35.


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.