The importance of crank length to the cyclist. - Page 30 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Form & Fitness > General

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #291  
Old 09-19-11, 18:42
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachFergie View Post
Athletes and coaches don't need a published study when one can see a valid and reliable measure of performance. For the Fosbury Flop it is centimetres jumped.

How does one make a valid and reliable measure of aerodynamics and power delivery while pedalling in a position without a wind tunnel and a power meter?
Yes, how did cyclists make these decisions before these were available? They couldn't have been very good, I guess, and this generation must be much better, I guess, because of the ready availability of these tools. That should be easy to prove.

Oh and where is the scientific proof that using wind tunnels and a power meter result in better results than not?

The scientific proof argument is simply useful to people like yourself to disparage ideas you disagree with and but must be conveniently disregarded when you are pushing ideas you agree with.
  #292  
Old 09-19-11, 19:06
CoachFergie's Avatar
CoachFergie CoachFergie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,168
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
Yes, how did cyclists make these decisions before these were available? They couldn't have been very good, I guess, and this generation must be much better, I guess, because of the ready availability of these tools. That should be easy to prove.
The same way that anything was measured till a better measurement tool was developed. Anyone can do the maths and determine the power required to ride a bike but now we have a tool that does it for us.

Quote:
Oh and where is the scientific proof that using wind tunnels and a power meter result in better results than not?
It staggers me that people can't tell the difference between a measurement tool and a performance enhancement method.
__________________
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

Last edited by CoachFergie; 09-19-11 at 19:25.
  #293  
Old 09-19-11, 19:32
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachFergie View Post
The same way that anything was measured till a better measurement tool. Anyone can do the maths and determine the power required to ride a bike but now we have a tool that does it for us.
Where is the proof it is a better measurement tool if the "better" one is interested in is "better" racing. The only "better" you can argue for the PM is one actually gets a power number.
Quote:
It staggers me that people can't tell the difference between a measurement tool and a performance enhancement method.
It staggers me that people are so concerned about a number they can compare with each other over how much they can improve their racing, which is really about how fast they can go. Right now on slowtwitch there is a thread with people marveling how Michael Weiss averaged 370 watts for the half IM course. Yet, he didn't even have the fastest bike split. Power is simply a number. By itself it really doesn't say much about how one will actually race. Power is simply the simplest thing to know so that is what people concentrate on. This thread tried to get us thinking about some of the other aspects of racing. Looks like it failed at least as regards you.
  #294  
Old 09-19-11, 19:48
CoachFergie's Avatar
CoachFergie CoachFergie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,168
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
Where is the proof it is a better measurement tool if the "better" one is interested in is "better" racing. The only "better" you can argue for the PM is one actually gets a power number.
That is why one buys a power meter to get that number so they can quantify performance in a valid and reliable way.

Quote:
It staggers me that people are so concerned about a number they can compare with each other over how much they can improve their racing, which is really about how fast they can go. Right now on slowtwitch there is a thread with people marveling how Michael Weiss averaged 370 watts for the half IM course. Yet, he didn't even have the fastest bike split. Power is simply a number.
A tool isn't bad because people choose to misinterpret the data or don't bother to learn what the numbers mean.

Quote:
By itself it really doesn't say much about how one will actually race. Power is simply the simplest thing to know so that is what people concentrate on. This thread tried to get us thinking about some of the other aspects of racing. Looks like it failed at least as regards you.
Actually says quite a bit about how well someone will race. Pointless comparisons with others aside if one knows the demands of the racing one can use the power meter to show them they are in the ball park in terms of their general conditioning and specific fitness.

I had a rider achieve two of his best results in his last two races and his power was down across the board. Guess that finally means the coaching to race smarter is sinking in.
__________________
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

Last edited by CoachFergie; 09-19-11 at 19:50.
  #295  
Old 09-19-11, 21:06
CoachFergie's Avatar
CoachFergie CoachFergie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,168
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldman View Post
The highlighted part is a possibility. That's where subtle, individual changes come into play and most forum lurkers are looking for measurable proof that radical departures actually work before wrecking their clients' position. You should offer up some research product to Fergie and others with some incentives to prove your point. Convincing tri-athletes to spend ridiculous money for radical measures isn't proof.
There are adjustable crank length cranks available to me here in Christchurch but I would just be replicating Martin, McDaniel and others work.

WRT aerodynamics there are many other (free and easy) options to try before one drops a bundle on shorter cranks, lifting the seat, shunting it back, lifting the bars and shortening the stem.
__________________
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
  #296  
Old 09-19-11, 21:35
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachFergie View Post
There are adjustable crank length cranks available to me here in Christchurch but I would just be replicating Martin, McDaniel and others work.
You would only be replicating their work if you reproduced their protocol and submitted it for publication. Seeing how it works for you is not replicating their work.
Quote:
WRT aerodynamics there are many other (free and easy) options to try before one drops a bundle on shorter cranks, lifting the seat, shunting it back, lifting the bars and shortening the stem.
What is your issue with adding something else to the list of things that someone might try, even if it might cost something (similar to, say, replacing the stem), if they are trying to optimize their aerodynamics? Really, what is your concern here with this discussion?
  #297  
Old 09-19-11, 21:44
CoachFergie's Avatar
CoachFergie CoachFergie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,168
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
You would only be replicating their work if you reproduced their protocol and submitted it for publication. Seeing how it works for you is not replicating their work.
Everyone has limited time and money so when choosing which of the many performance enhancing variables you wish to experiment with it pays to choose some with more than a 1% chance of an improvement. While I would not expect a 100% performance improvement like Burgomaster et al found it would certainly guide the direction I choose.

Quote:
What is your issue with adding something else to the list of things that someone might try, even if it might cost something (similar to, say, replacing the stem), if they are trying to optimize their aerodynamics? Really, what is your concern here with this discussion?
Time and money. Time that could be spent chasing real gains and money that could be spent on getting more racing or better diet or if really wanting to test each training, diet, racing, recovery, technique, tactical experiment then more wind tunnel time and a power meter.
__________________
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
  #298  
Old 09-19-11, 23:48
FrankDay FrankDay is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachFergie View Post
Time and money. Time that could be spent chasing real gains and money that could be spent on getting more racing or better diet or if really wanting to test each training, diet, racing, recovery, technique, tactical experiment then more wind tunnel time and a power meter.
Let me get this straight. I start a thread to discuss the potential advantages to consider trying shorter cranks and you think that readers could better spend their time and money considering:

1. better diet. Perhaps you have a study that shows this is a reliable way to improve and what the best diet is to accomplish this.

2. recovery technique. Perhaps you have a study that shows this is a reliable way to improve and what the best recovery technique is to accomplish this.

3. tactical experiment. Perhaps you have a study that shows this is a reliable way to improve and what the best teactical experiment is to accomplish this.

4. "more" wind tunnel time. As if most of the people here have had any wind tunnel time. Perhaps you have a study that shows this is a reliable way to improve and how much wind tunnel time is required to accomplish this. Oh, and how much does this cost compared to, say, $50 for a pair of internet shorter cranks.

5. A power meter. Perhaps you have a study that shows this is a reliable way to improve in view of the fact that the only study on this device that I am aware of shows no benefit to using the device compared to not using one. Since the cost of most of these devices is over $1,000 how does this fit in your time and money explanation.

Time and money indeed.

We all know you have your bias's but it really is possible that open discussions on internet forums might cause others to reach other conclusions. But, it is hard to have an open discussion if every time someone posts an alternative view to yours you call them stupid.
  #299  
Old 09-20-11, 00:44
CoachFergie's Avatar
CoachFergie CoachFergie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 2,168
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankDay View Post
Let me get this straight. I start a thread to discuss the potential advantages to consider trying shorter cranks and you think that readers could better spend their time and money considering:

1. better diet. Perhaps you have a study that shows this is a reliable way to improve and what the best diet is to accomplish this.
Plenty of research to support this contention. Where would you like me to start.

Quote:
2. recovery technique. Perhaps you have a study that shows this is a reliable way to improve and what the best recovery technique is to accomplish this.
A bit like pedalling technique, crank length, cleat position and so forth the research in this area allows people to separate the good from the bad. Massage, compression clothing, ice baths etc have no physiological basis.

Quote:
3. tactical experiment. Perhaps you have a study that shows this is a reliable way to improve and what the best teactical experiment is to accomplish this.
Again serves more as a warning when assessing power data from races. Vogt et al (2006) studied riders power from the Tour de France and suggested that tactical and team considerations could confound the results.

Quote:
4. "more" wind tunnel time. As if most of the people here have had any wind tunnel time. Perhaps you have a study that shows this is a reliable way to improve and how much wind tunnel time is required to accomplish this. Oh, and how much does this cost compared to, say, $50 for a pair of internet shorter cranks.
Seeing improvements in power delivery and metabolic efficiency are non significant you were the one who raised aerodynamic advantage. How else would you measure any improvement with a wind tunnel or a power meter and the Chung test. A road based TT will always be confounded by the weather.

Quote:
5. A power meter. Perhaps you have a study that shows this is a reliable way to improve in view of the fact that the only study on this device that I am aware of shows no benefit to using the device compared to not using one. Since the cost of most of these devices is over $1,000 how does this fit in your time and money explanation.
Staggers me that people confuse a tool that measures performance as opposed to a training method, dietary strategy or piece of equipment that intends to improve performance.

Swart's study compared performance looking at one number compared to looking at another and found no difference. Not very surprising. He might have well as compared a training session watching Simpsons verses watching Family Guy.

Quote:
Time and money indeed.
I have never told anyone I won't coach them without a power meter. If I had any sense I would tell them to steer clear of PMs because any claim I make is now easily tested.

Quote:
We all know you have your bias's but it really is possible that open discussions on internet forums might cause others to reach other conclusions. But, it is hard to have an open discussion if every time someone posts an alternative view to yours you call them stupid.
The issue is claims made with poor evidence (anecdotes, or poorly designed experiments).

The science tells us that there are no significant benefits in terms of power delivery or efficiency despite claims to the contrary.
__________________
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
  #300  
Old 09-20-11, 02:49
Boeing's Avatar
Boeing Boeing is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 4,035
Default

coachfargo, always telling us his crank is longer than ours
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 07:36.


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.