Martin318is said:
to follow the point that Coach has been quite clearly stating, if someone is not required to produce evidence to make a "scientific" claim, then they can quite easily state that Sastre's performances are declining for exactly that reason.
No one is required to produce evidence to make a scientific claim. Evidence is only required to support or refute the claim. Einstein did not have any evidence beyond his thought experiments when he proposed the relativity theories, he wasn't even working as a physicist but, rather, as a patent clerk at the time. The fact he had no "hard" evidence (his math was pretty solid) to back up his ideas did not diminish his theory in any way because it was completely consistent with what was known at the time only deviating substantially from neutonian physics at the extreme. What was so unusual in his case was his theories weren't even put forth to explain observations that were unexpalined. They came about solely on the basis of "observations" made in his mind in his thought experiments. It wasn't until many years later that observational science advanced to the point that evidence confirmed his theories. There is evidence to support my claim but it is mostly anecdotal. It is one reason when someone comes forth with anecdotal evidence saying "they didn't work" I questioned as to how they were used. In general, those reports also support my claim that in order to insure good results one needs to use the cranks pretty much exclusively for a substantial period of time.
Scientists are supposed to be good observers and the purpose of a theory is to explain what is observed. But, the real power of a theory is it can then make predictions. In the case of PowerCranks, when I had the idea I first tested it on myself. In about 3 months I was riding 3 mph faster than I had ever done before. When I decided I had something worth selling I then recruited some local riders to do some testing so I could have an idea as to what to claim. Of the riders who continued long enough to get good data we saw about a 40% increase in power in the 6-9 month time-frame. Since then we have had the feedback from users and we find that, on average, those who use them a lot report improvements that support that 40% claim. Those who use them part-time or infrequently generally see much lesser improvement. We have also received many reports of substantial running and rehabilitation success. As a result of these continued OBSERVATIONS I have modified my "theories" as to why they work.
On the basis of my observations that almost everyone who trains on my product sees substantial improvement (usually more than one would normally expect from training effect alone) I have concluded that pedaling technique really does matter and that the technique the PC's encourage is better than what is generally used. In another thread I offered a paper (Leirdal) that supported that proposition.
So, why don't I do the studies to prove my 40% claim. Well, the one big reason is because it wouldn't do any good because, since I have a financial interest in the outcome. Any study I did would be tainted. Therefore, it must be left to others to prove or disprove either my marketing claims, based upon my observations, or my "scientific claims" (pedaling technique matters but it is hard to change. But, if you can "improve" your technique both power and efficiency will improve), based upon my observations.
What I would personally like to see is some facts produced by Frank. At this stage it is all conjecture and I have seen nothing that leads to scientific statement as opposed to assumption based marketing.
Me thinks you don't quite understand the difference between science and marketing. As I stated above, it does little good for me to provide "facts" because any work I did in this area would rightfully be discounted as being tainted by observer bias. The best I can do is provide further anecdotal reports that support my claims. The problem is, any user who comes to a site like this and provides a positive report frequently gets shouted down by the usual suspects because they simply cannot bring themselves to believe what I say might be true. But, there are plenty of examples of unbiased positive reports including Phil Holman and the recent report on the weight weenies forum which I have to thank Fergie for directing me to (I linked to it earlier)
To make a broad analogy - theoretical physics showed that rocketry was possible but what person in their right mind would have strapped themselves into one prior to them being tested? As to this conversation, the cranks may OR may not be better than standard cranks, but frankly (LOL) until Frank actually produces some factually supportive data - I for one wouldn't be switching from something that currently works for me. Case in point - Biopace vs the average knee...
I would submit that the risks associated with strapping yourself to a rocket or putting a different set of cranks on your bike to see if they can help you to get faster are substantially different and should require substantially different levels of "proof" before one takes the plunge. There is zero scientific evidence that PM's do anything to enhance athletic performance yet they are a relatively easy sell based upon anecdotal evidence alone. Why is it a pair of cranks suddenly requires scientific proof before people will even consider listening to the reports of others.
I have put forth the case as to why you won't be getting "scientific" factual supportive data from me to support our claims because no one would believe them anyhow. The one thing I can do though is offer customers a 90 day money-back guarantee, which we believe is enough time for each user to "prove" to themselves as to whether they think my explanations are correct or not but also, more importantly, as to whether the product actually works for them well enough to justify the price. As I have said before, about 2 in 1,000 take advantage of that return policy. And, don't you find it strange that in the 10+ years of selling these that there haven't been at least a few who have purchased them with the intent of "proving me a fraud" and reporting back to the world? Just where are all those reports. The few negative reports come from those who didn't use them according to our instructions.
And, we actually
sell these things to elite cycling pros, the latest
sale of note being an additional two pair to Ivan Basso. And, i believe we have a request pending from another world champion to modify his SRM cranks to PowerCranks. And, even though I hadn't seen it, in the weight weenie thread someone posted an excerpt from Cadel Evans book "Close to Flying"
Quote:
In the shed is a bike that has a special crank configuration. It is aluminium but golden coloured. You notice the difference immediately when you see the frame, without wheels, hanging from a hook as you enter the shed. It's on the back wall and it's really a bike of pain devised to perfect pedalling. He doesn't like to talk about it. 'It's something I do,' he says, trying to dismiss any enquiry. 'It's to force me to use my hamstrings as well as my quadriceps.' The idea is this: the pedals have a freewheel, clutched axle assembly and unless you pull the crank arm up, it will not follow the natural flow and the urge of the other crank arm. You can push them down, but first you have to pull back, and up, and forward - or else it just hovers at the bottom of the pedalling arc. 'It took me ages to perfect,' he says of the first rides, 'but now I'll use this bike, especially at the start of the season when I'm reminding my legs of what's about to come.'
So, there continue to be people who have never actually used the product and call it snake oil because there is no proof of what I say and there are those who have actually tried them and seem to like them. Your dilemna is to figure out whether you want to listen to the group who have never used them but have determined they couldn't possibly work or listen to those who have used them and report a positive experience. In the hostile climate you find here it takes a little guts to say: "I think I would like to decide for myself".
So, in summary, the science to prove or disprove what I say will have to be left to others. What has been done so far is totally inadequate as 6 weeks is simply not enough time, especially if that time involves part-time use.
Therefore, you will have to accept that our 40% claim is simply a marketing claim, albeit based on internal testing and user experience, to inform the potential buyer what we think the product might do for them rather than a scientific claim. If ever there is any scientific work done to indicate the claim is inflated then I will revise it. But, I would submit that a claim that requires 6-9 months of exclusive use to attain cannot be disproven in a study lasting 6 weeks involving part-time use, regardless of how loud Fergie shouts. Even if our claim was only for a 5% power improvement, Fergie would still be shouting because there still would not be any proof.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram