For the "pedaling technique doesn't matter crowd"

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Perhaps you might want to check again as to what they were providing. It is impossible to provide with one power meter, located downstream from the cranks, the same information you can get from two located on each crank.

You did not specify information provided by independent component measurements, be they crank or pedal or elsewhere in the drive chain.

You referred to whole of circle torque data, which is exactly what the SRM was doing 10 years ago. Yes, the data provided at 200Hz by the SRM is the sum of all tangential crank forces irrespective of their origin.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

The wired SRMs sampled at 200 Hz - I don't know if this has changed in the newer wireless models (Alex?).

No change - it's just the means by which data reaches the head unit that is different.

In reality, earlier model SRMs and Powertaps were/are wireless too, it's just that they transmitted their data using a proprietary method over a very short range to a local sensor, which in turn was connected to a head unit via a wiring harness.

AFAIK, current "wireless" SRMs transmit two signal streams - an ANT+ signal for those head units, and their own for SRM Powercontrols VI & 7.

 

[FrankDay]

You did not specify information provided by independent component measurements, be they crank or pedal or elsewhere in the drive chain.

You referred to whole of circle torque data, which is exactly what the SRM was doing 10 years ago. Yes, the data provided at 200Hz by the SRM is the sum of all tangential crank forces irrespective of their origin.

Of course I "specified" that since that is all I have been talking about regarding the 2nd generation power meters. Yes, the SRM (and all power meters) provide the sum of the torques for both cranks for one pedal circle and Computrainer has been doing it for more than 20 years I believe. So, these devices "whol circle torque" data makes the assumption that nothing happens on the backstroke and then they present two 180º "pushing" torque patterns combined to look like a circle so everyone thinks that is what they are measuring. That is not the same as providing the sum of the pedal torques for each pedal for a complete circle. Do you folks actually pay attention to what is going on in the thread as a whole before you come in and comment? Apparently not.

 

[acoggan]

If you say so. Would you also be willing to bet you have a better understanding of all that medical literature you have supposedly read? My guess is, YES! LOL.

Of course, because not only have I read it, I have contributed to it, whereas you've never published a peer-reviewed original paper in your life, and let your medical license lapse (or had it taken away) years ago.

 

[FrankDay]

Of course, because not only have I read it, I have contributed to it, whereas you've never published a peer-reviewed original paper in your life, and let your medical license lapse (or had it taken away) years ago.

Now, let me get this straight. You are claiming that because you have actually written and had a paper published on your narrow area of claimed expertise that this makes you more knowledgeable in the area of cardiovascular physiology than a board certified anesthesiologist who hasn't published a paper. Why don't you take that view down to some of the anesthesiologists in your medical school and see how far down the hall the laughter can be heard when you present this proposition to them. Again, LOL.

 

[sciguy]

Now, let me get this straight. You are claiming that because you have actually written and had a paper published on your narrow area of claimed expertise that this makes you more knowledgeable in the area of cardiovascular physiology than a board certified anesthesiologist who hasn't published a paper. Why don't you take that view down to some of the anesthesiologists in your medical school and see how far down the hall the laughter can be heard when you present this proposition to them. Again, LOL.

A paper????????

A quick Pubmed search seems to show 61 papers directly or indirectly attributed to Andy while I'm not seeing any attributed to Frank Day.



Hugh

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Of course I "specified" that since that is all I have been talking about regarding the 2nd generation power meters. Yes, the SRM (and all power meters) provide the sum of the torques for both cranks for one pedal circle and Computrainer has been doing it for more than 20 years I believe. So, these devices "whol circle torque" data makes the assumption that nothing happens on the backstroke and then they present two 180º "pushing" torque patterns combined to look like a circle so everyone thinks that is what they are measuring. That is not the same as providing the sum of the pedal torques for each pedal for a complete circle.

Contrary to your statement, the devices make no assumption about what happens anywhere. They simply report the sum of all the tangential forces applied to the cranks, and in the case of an SRM do so at 200Hz, and that data has been available for a long time.

It's people (mis)interpreting the torque data stream that might lead to the things you are rabbiting on about, and is partly why spinscan numbers are often spuriously interpreted.

I make no such claim that with these existing torque data streams we are somehow magically able to differentiate out the individual sources of forces.

Do you folks actually pay attention to what is going on in the thread as a whole before you come in and comment? Apparently not.

I do pay attention Frank, but you are often so twisted in your logic, it can be hard to follow along.

 

[function]

I don't know the answer to that but I don't think the cardiovascular system will be the limiter in the long run. Of course, it will in the beginning because it has adapted to what it has been seeing but the cardiovascular system tends to adapt well to increased stress such that those endurance athletes who tend to use more muscles in their activity (nordic skiers, rowers) tend to have higher VO2max than those who use fewer muscles (cyclists/runners). So, given enough time I think the Cardiovascular system will adapt to at least a higher level than seen in most cyclists now. Even if it is limited in how much it can adapt, the rider should still see substantial improvement because I think spreading the work out will be more efficient.

Right, i think for efforts approaching VO2max you might end up with a higher vo2max, but i would not expect by much. It would be interesting to find out, although... more below

I am not sure what you are asking. My guess is that our pedaling pattern doesn't change much with effort except at the extremes. That is because the pattern becomes embedded into our unconscious coordination and is the coordination we learned as children on platform pedals. This is why it is so hard to change (aside from the fact we have had, until recently, the ability to measure what we are doing. So, the pattern is ingrained and mostly what people train is the ability to increase effort.Let me know what you find.

I was asking whether that pedaling technique could be conditioned into someone that they could carry out lactate threshold and vo2max efforts using said technique. The extremes because that's directly applicable to competition, although an improvement in efficiency would be very interesting . One problem of course is how long you would need just for the neuromuscular training aspect before the subjects would be efficient at the new technique.

Everything i found regarding pedaling technique at maximal efforts showed a fallback to "natural" technique, have you seen any studies showing otherwise?

Thanks

 

[JayKosta]

Contrary to your statement, the devices make no assumption about what happens anywhere. They simply report the sum of all the tangential forces applied to the cranks,
...

=====================================================
I believe those devices simply measure the 'net power' that is produced.
They are not capable of determining in which direction, where, or the specific amount of force being applied.

So, there might actually be a large amount of non-tangential (or even 'negative force') being applied to the pedals. With the result being rider energy being used which doesn't produce beneficial power.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[FrankDay]

A paper????????

A quick Pubmed search seems to show 61 papers directly or indirectly attributed to Andy while I'm not seeing any attributed to Frank Day.



Hugh

How many of those 61 papers were in the specific area of cardiovascular physiology? That is the issue here?

 

[FrankDay]

Contrary to your statement, the devices make no assumption about what happens anywhere. They simply report the sum of all the tangential forces applied to the cranks, and in the case of an SRM do so at 200Hz, and that data has been available for a long time.

Phooey, of course they make that assumption, otherwise they would not be making the right left claim. By the way, it is a reasonable assumption because what goes on in the back is small compared to what goes on in the front of the stroke. So, it does give show a reasonable facsimile of what the pushing side looks like, especially when the backside mechanics are symmetrical. Where it falls down is when backside mechanics are asymmetrical, as in the case I analyzed, where imbalances can be masked by such asymmetry.

It's people (mis)interpreting the torque data stream that might lead to the things you are rabbiting on about, and is partly why spinscan numbers are often spuriously interpreted.

I agree that spinscan (and spinscan numbers) are frequently misinterpreted because the average person doesn't have a clue how they were obtained nor what they really mean.

I make no such claim that with these existing torque data streams we are somehow magically able to differentiate out the individual sources of forces.



I do pay attention Frank, but you are often so twisted in your logic, it can be hard to follow along.

Phooey. You say you "make no such claim that with these existing torque data streams we are somehow magically able to differentiate out the individual sources of forces" yet here is what you wrote:

You referred to whole of circle torque data, which is exactly what the SRM was doing 10 years ago.

Now, exactly what was SRM doing 10 years ago that you referred to that goes to this topic?

I am probably one of the few around here with both a substantial background in both engineering and medicine (especially as it relates to physiology). While you may find my logic twisted but it may simply be that you don't have the background to interprete or understand some of my musings.

 

[FrankDay]

Right, i think for efforts approaching VO2max you might end up with a higher vo2max, but i would not expect by much. It would be interesting to find out, although... more below



I was asking whether that pedaling technique could be conditioned into someone that they could carry out lactate threshold and vo2max efforts using said technique. The extremes because that's directly applicable to competition, although an improvement in efficiency would be very interesting . One problem of course is how long you would need just for the neuromuscular training aspect before the subjects would be efficient at the new technique.

Everything i found regarding pedaling technique at maximal efforts showed a fallback to "natural" technique, have you seen any studies showing otherwise?

Thanks

Yes, I believe that is not only possible but probable, although it is not easy. The question is how long does it take to make the change. When I was doing my beta testing I had people training with PowerCranks come in monthly for ramp testing. I would increase power 50 watts every minute until they failed monitoring perceived effort and HR. (Edit: after the initial baseline test on regular cranks) I did these tests while on the PC's so I knew they were pedaling in a different fashion than when they had initially. One interesting observation was early on I would see people showing reduced PE and HR for the same power as before but they would quit early. So, it seemed we were seeing an initial improved efficiency but a decreased overall max ability. But, with more time (6-9 months), they were able to get to the same perceived effort and HR as before but we were at substantially higher power (40%, where have I heard that number before?). That to me is direct evidence that it is possible to train people to get to VO2 max using a different technique if one puts in enough time to make the change. Now, I was not measuring oxygen consumption so I do not know if the power improvements came from efficiency improvements alone, VO2 max improvements alone, or a combination (most probable, IMHO)

Regarding your last comment I am not aware of a single study in which a serious effort was made to change technique and then measure what happens at max intensity. If you have a link I would love to see it. My guess is it is natural for people to fall back to what is most familiar at maximum stress. That is why it takes so long to make these changes because the new technique must become "natural" for the athlete to be able to maintain it to VO2max.

 

[acoggan]

How many of those 61 papers were in the specific area of cardiovascular physiology? That is the issue here?

A lucky 13 (plus one review article currently in press). I've also spent the last 10 y as a member of Wash U's Cardiovascular Imaging Laboratory, and have been PI or co-I on various grants with a cardiovascular focus (including presently being co-PI of a study of patients with heart failure...a study which was my idea, BTW) totaling ~$3M.

Any more question?

 

[acoggan]

A paper????????

A quick Pubmed search seems to show 61 papers directly or indirectly attributed to Andy while I'm not seeing any attributed to Frank Day.

Frank has previously acknowledged that he's never published an original peer-reviewed study. What he has never addressed, however, is why he is no longer licensed to practice medicine...that's the one I'm always curious about.

 

[FrankDay]

Frank has previously acknowledged that he's never published an original peer-reviewed study. What he has never addressed, however, is why he is no longer licensed to practice medicine...that's the one I'm always curious about.

Really? That is something you are curious about? Did it ever occur to you that I have chosen to do something else? Perhaps you would be better off being curious as to why so many PowerCranks users report all these big cycling and running benefits. Perhaps, if you were to do that, you might learn something about cycling and cycling mechanics instead of trying to make your biased arguments with personal attacks. This would be really sad if it weren't so funny. LOL.

The fact that I have never published a peer reviewed study (even though I have had several letters to the editor published) does not counter the fact that I am a board certified anesthesiologist. Your academic bullying (and that is what it is) does not deter my confidence that I am quite qualified to discuss these issues with you (or anyone else).

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Phooey...

Only two phooeys Frank?

Again, I say that the SRM provides the sum of crank torques every 5/1000ths of a second.

I do not claim that one can differentiate from such data the individual forces that result in those sums.

Saying I have is, well, just being phooeymaniacal.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I am probably one of the few around here with both a substantial background in both engineering and medicine (especially as it relates to physiology). While you may find my logic twisted but it may simply be that you don't have the background to interprete or understand some of my musings.

Or it could just be that I'm not sufficiently gullible to fall for your nonsense.

 

[FrankDay]

Only two phooeys Frank?

Again, I say that the SRM provides the sum of crank torques every 5/1000ths of a second.

I do not claim that one can differentiate from such data the individual forces that result in those sums.

Saying I have is, well, just being phooeymaniacal.

Then, why did you bring it up in this discussion of pedaling technique. You have just admitted the information is pretty much useless to that end. Phooeymaniacal indeed.

 

[FrankDay]

Or it could just be that I'm not sufficiently gullible to fall for your nonsense.

Well, you are supposedly participating in this discussion, even though you hardly have anything positive to contribute. I mean if what I say is such nonsense you should have more to offer to support that statement than just your opinion.

 

[acoggan]

Really? That is something you are curious about? Did it ever occur to you that I have chosen to do something else?

Well, is that the explanation, or isn't it? Here's your chance to clarify matters.

I am a board certified anesthesiologist.

Are you? That is, how do you maintain such certification if you no longer hold a medical license?

Your academic bullying

My bullying? You're the one who started making all the claims re. your expertise.

 

[FrankDay]

Well, is that the explanation, or isn't it? Here's your chance to clarify matters.

Huh? Do you have any evidence that isn't the explanation? Come on, out with it. Let's see what you got. And, what does this have to do with this thread anyhow. As I have said, Dr. Coggan, you are about the biggest academic bully I have ever seen. I hardly know any physicians of my generation who are not looking for a way out of medicine. They are tired of being seen as "doing piece work" for the insurance companies. Anyhow, the specifics of my decision are beyond your ability to comprehend, as, I think, a lot of things in medicine are. Let's try to stay on topic.

Are you? That is, how do you maintain such certification if you no longer hold a medical license?

Ugh, it is like an academic degree. It simply doesn't disappear because you stop the active practice of medicine.

My bullying? You're the one who started making all the claims re. your expertise.

LOL. You simply have no idea how many people have told me they love the fact that I stand up to you. (edit: I mean, if you want to throw your weight around those under you at your school so be it. But, why one earth do you need to come to the internet and belittle the credentials of those who don't hold quite the same opinion as you? It is bizarre.) Now, if you have something to add to the discussion can we get back on topic?

 

[acoggan]

I will bet that I have read more CV system literature than you

In case you forgot...

 

[acoggan]

Do you have any evidence that isn't the explanation?

Not one iota. However, the fact that you always dodge the question sure does make it seem more complicated than just that.

it is like an academic degree. It simply doesn't disappear because you stop the active practice of medicine

Actually, it does. That is, unless your medical license is current AND you've been keeping up on your CME credits, your board certification will have lapsed...making you a liar to claim that you ARE (not WERE) a board-certified anesthesiologist.

(BTW, did you know that I was in a dept. of anesthesiology for over 6y? Only one in the dept. with an R01, too...)

 

[FrankDay]

Actually, it does. That is, unless your medical license is current AND you've been keeping up on your CME credits, your board certification will have lapsed...making you a liar to claim that you ARE (not WERE) a board-certified anesthesiologist.

(BTW, did you know that I was in a dept. of anesthesiology for over 6y? Only one in the dept. with an R01, too...)

Ugh, when I passed my boards and stopped practicing there was no requirement for regular recertification, although there was talk. Of course, if I were ever to decide to return to the active practice of medicine my credentials would not be current and I would have to go through quite a recertification process. But, having passed the Anesthesia Boards remains on my resume as does graduation from medical school, as does the fact I was an Assistant Clinical Professor of Anesthesia at the UCSF residency program for about 3 years - ask your anesthesia friends how that program ranks. (Hey, you don't have to publish any papers to teach doctors, what do you know?) Those things say a lot about by basic education (although not everything, since they say nothing about my science/engineering background) and knowledge base even though I may not be quite current on the very latest thinking. That having been said, I have yet to see any anesthesiologist come forward and say that my understanding of this stuff is deficient.

I am just blown away that you state you spent 6 years in an anesthesia department (doing what I don't know but I doubt it was doing what anesthesiologists do - just what is an R01 anyhow and what does it matter?) and you are arguing with me about basic cardiac physiology. Surely you know the basic curriculum just to get out of of a residency, let alone become board certified. Yet, you choose to try to demean rather than engage.

Now, can we get back on topic?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Then, why did you bring it up in this discussion of pedaling technique.

1. To clarify any misunderstanding that may have been created by suggesting availability of data from high frequency sampling of torque was a new thing, when it's been available for a long time.

2. For light comic relief. Something I needed this past week.