For the "pedaling technique doesn't matter crowd"

[acoggan]

if I were ever to decide to return to the active practice of medicine my credentials would not be current

So IOW, not only are you no longer a licensed physician, you are no longer board-certified as an anesthesiologist. You should therefore stop lying and claiming that you are.

I have yet to see any anesthesiologist come forward and say that my understanding of this stuff is deficient.

Having spent ~20 y working in medical schools (and 6+ y in a department of anesthesiology in particular), I can state w/ considerable certainty that, even at prestigious medical centers, very few MDs know much about the physiology of exercise. Hence, probably the reason that no MD has stepped forward is that they haven't a clue whether you're right or wrong.

you are arguing with me about basic cardiac physiology.

Only because 1) like your understanding of high school physics, your understanding of exercise physiology is deficient, yet 2) you like to beat your chest about your lapsed credentials.

 

[FrankDay]

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.

Wow, I can now see that was meant to be very helpful to the reader. It would have been a little more helpful though if you had pointed out that the "old" high frequency data being collected by SRM is pretty much useless whereas, what is going to be new, is information that actually bears a resemblance to actual pedal torque which the user might find useful.

Perhaps you find it funny when you see the less informed reader getting confused by your obfuscations.

 

[FrankDay]

So IOW, not only are you no longer a licensed physician, you are no longer board-certified as an anesthesiologist. You should therefore stop lying and claiming that you are.



Having spent ~20 y working in medical schools (and 6+ y in a department of anesthesiology in particular), I can state w/ considerable certainty that, even at prestigious medical centers, very few MDs know much about the physiology of exercise. Hence, probably the reason that no MD has stepped forward is that they haven't a clue whether you're right or wrong.



Only because 1) like your understanding of high school physics, your understanding of exercise physiology is deficient, yet 2) you like to beat your chest about your lapsed credentials.

If you say so. LOL. Anyhow, can we get back on topic? Anything to add?

 

[acoggan]

If you say so.

I do say so, and if I see you lying again about your qualifications and credentials, I'll call you on it then, too.

Anyhow, can we get back on topic? Anything to add?

Yeah: speculating endlessly about made-up data is a waste of time, especially given the wealth of scientific literature providing strong evidence against your hypotheses.

 

[acoggan]

Wow, I can now see that was meant to be very helpful to the reader.

??

I think that correcting your false assertions that 1) the PowerTap used to give R/L balance, and 2) that the new, what you call "2nd generation" powermeters are all capable of providing information that wasn't previously available very helpful to readers (if only to illustrate how ill-informed you are).

Perhaps you find it funny when you see the less informed reader getting confused by your obfuscations.

You're the one obfuscating: I gave you the chance to clearly explain why you are no longer licensed to practice medicine, but you ducked the question.

 

[FrankDay]

??

I think that correcting your false assertions that 1) the PowerTap used to give R/L balance, and 2) that the new, what you call "2nd generation" powermeters are all capable of providing information that wasn't previously available very helpful to readers (if only to illustrate how ill-informed you are).

If they are not capable of giving such detailed informaiton then I would not call them a second generation PM.

You're the one obfuscating: I gave you the chance to clearly explain why you are no longer licensed to practice medicine, but you ducked the question.

LOL. And what does this have to do with this topic. Your problem is you don't have any facts on your side so you have to resort to what you perceive as personal attacks to try to reduce my credibility. It probably works on your minions. Anyhow, oh great wizard, my educational background remains unchanged regardless of whether I am actively practicing or not. The fact that I am no longer in college does not mean I have forgotten everything I was taught there (although, I will admit, I have forgotten a lot of the stuff I never used once leaving) or that I no longer serving on nuclear submarines does not mean that I have forgotten all there is to know about them (although I can't remember the valve numbers I'll bet I could trim the ship, maintain depth, and do a start-up - the routine stuff - but I wouldn't trust me in an emergency). What the heck does the fact that I am not currently practicing medicine have to do with what I know or the arguments I make?

Anyhow, a bully you are and you keep reinforcing my argument in that regard by your continuing to harp on this small non-issue to this debate to make yourself look better.

 

[coapman]

??



You're the one obfuscating: I gave you the chance to clearly explain why you are no longer licensed to practice medicine, but you ducked the question.

You appear to be continuously obsessed by Frank's qualifications, who cares what they are, this topic is about pedaling. The fact that you (with all your qualifications) do not yet realize that maximal torque can be applied through 12 o'c while in the natural racing position, means you are no expert in the physiological/biomechanical science of pedaling. Where does that leave your infallability?

 

[FrankDay]

I do say so, and if I see you lying again about your qualifications and credentials, I'll call you on it then, too.

giving someone one's educational background is not quite the same as "lying" about one's qualifications and credentials. Now, just exactly what did you do in that anesthesia department for 6 years?

Yeah: speculating endlessly about made-up data is a waste of time, especially given the wealth of scientific literature providing strong evidence against your hypotheses.

LOL. First, perhaps you missed this in Science 101 but "hypotheses" and "theories" are commonly based upon "made-up" data because the actual data doesn't exist yet. Just how did Einstein explain the theory of relativity before observational data existed to prove him correct? The fact that the hypothesis doesn't conform to your bias or that the numbers used to illustrate the principle are "made up" is not evidence the hypothesis is wrong. Show me again that "wealth of scientific literature" that provides that "strong evidence" against this hypothesis. We have been through this before. It simply doesn't exist. (You do realize the tough part of science is not in doing the studies but in the interpretation of the results don't you?) The first study that has a chance of actually seriously examining this hypothesis is the one being started by Gibson this month in Ireland. Since it is lasting 6 months we may not see the results for 12-18 months if he intends to publish them. Sooner, I suppose, if he just puts the results on his web site. I guess we will all have to wait unless you know of something coming out sooner.

But, go ahead, tell the few who are still following this thread what that wealth of scientific data actually is and I will give my rebuttal (again) and we will let each reader judge for themselves. And you complain that I misrepresent my credentials when it is quite clear you misrepresent what scientific studies actually show, even though we have been through this exercise many time before and you know better. LOL.

 

[acoggan]

giving someone one's educational background is not quite the same as "lying" about one's qualifications and credentials.

You lied when you claimed that you ARE a board-certified anesthesiologist. You aren't.

Now, just exactly what did you do in that anesthesia department for 6 years?LOL.

I generated the majority of their indirect-cost $$ (which is undoubtedly why the chair tried to get me to stick around).

First, perhaps you missed this in Science 101 but "hypotheses" and "theories" are commonly based upon "made-up" data because the actual data doesn't exist yet. Just how did Einstein explain the theory of relativity before observational data existed to prove him correct?

What, so now you're the equivalent of Einstein?

Fact: there are already plenty of data available that the goal that your product is aimed at helping people achieve is not worth pursuing. You refuse to admit that, though, because doing so would likely put you out of business.

 

[FrankDay]

What, so now you're the equivalent of Einstein?

You don't understand the concept of an example?

Fact: there are already plenty of data available that the goal that your product is aimed at helping people achieve is not worth pursuing. You refuse to admit that, though, because doing so would likely put you out of business.

Ugh, we are talking in this thread about pedaling technique. As I said, how about some specific links to those papers and then tell everyone what is specifically in that paper that makes your case so everyone here can check your claim. I will wait patiently. I mean I started this thread with a link to a study that seems to suggest that increasing the forces over the top improve pedaling economy. Has that study been repeated and refuted? What else, of a specific nature, might you have to make your argument? LOL.

 

[FrankDay]

I generated the majority of their indirect-cost $$ (which is undoubtedly why the chair tried to get me to stick around).

Yes, but what did you do that makes you smarter than any of them in the area of cardiovascular physiology?

 

[FrankDay]

Some more data folks. This is out of Italy, from someone who does a lot of bike fits for the pros. He simply didn't believe there could be much benefit to going shorter. So, he put himself on an excaliber ergometer (which has the capability of measuring crank torque r/l for the entire circle) and did 90 seconds at about the same wattage on 150 and 170 cranks. Here are screenshots of the results First the 150 results:

Now the 170 results:

What a lot to learn from this. First, look at that right leg. The peak torque/power on the right is actually greater than on the left but the negatives on that leg are so great that the average power of the left leg is actually substantially greater. So much for the "just push harder" view. What happens on the back stroke is really important. And, a combined analysis like spinscan or SRM would tell you that the right leg was stronger. So much for the value of that tool.

Next compare the average minimums between 170 and 150, they decrease so much on the shorter cranks that the average power is actually increased even though the average maximums are slightly decreased. Apparently it is a lot easier to get the foot out of the way on the upstroke if one doesn't have to move it so far.

And, however this machine measures efficiency, it is substantially higher on the 150 cranks than the 170. Yes, I think we can say technique matters.

 

[coapman]

So, I have now proven that my modification I did on the exercise bike, to improve training for improved pedal forces over the top is doable on a bike you can ride outdoors. I am not sure I will get more than 10 miles out of this first try but I have ridden it and it is fine. As you can see I simply screwed some plastic pipe onto a cargo carrier and then made extensions to properly position my bungie cords. When I showed this to my wife she said "Loonie, I don't want to be seen with you!" LOL.

Have you returned to this training since the equipment failure ?

 

[FrankDay]

Have you returned to this training since the equipment failure ?

No, other things on my plate. My intention here was more to prove the concept so I could talk about it based on experience as well as theory. Someday (soon, I hope) I will get back to this.

 

[acoggan]

this machine measures efficiency, it is substantially higher on the 150 cranks than the 170.

That isn't efficiency, that is force effectiveness...which means nada by itself.

To put it another way: about all these data really show is that changing crank length didn't significantly alter the way the subject pedaled/their R/L (a)symmetry when power was essentially equivalent.

 

[FrankDay]

…about all these data really show is that changing crank length didn't significantly alter the way the subject pedaled/their R/L (a)symmetry when power was essentially equivalent.

I disagree. What this data showed is that pushing down isn't the only thing important to developing power. The right leg pushed down substantially more than the left at both the 170 and 150 crank length yet the right leg is substantially weaker than the left leg for total power generated at both lengths. And, as the cranks shorten the "pushing down power" becomes substantially less but the total power remains essentially unchanged. Power generation involves the entire circle and not just the pushing phase. Increasing power does not come simply from pushing harder, as many claim.

 

[CoachFergie]

The right leg pushed down substantially more than the left

The Performance Artist at work. You claim substantial but you can't show it is significant. Keep pushing for those schmucks who would rather try and buy power, imaginary at that, rather than train specifically and progressively harder.

 

[FrankDay]

The Performance Artist at work. You claim substantial but you can't show it is significant. Keep pushing for those schmucks who would rather try and buy power, imaginary at that, rather than train specifically and progressively harder.

Let me put this another way that, perhaps, even you can understand.

On the 170 cranks his right leg max pushing power was 646.48 watts while the left leg max pushing power attained was 633.04 watts, a 13.44 watt difference, a 2.12% difference. But, despite this difference, the average power for the two legs was 146.93 for the right and 166.03 for the left, an almost 20 watt difference or a 13% difference.

So the peak power for the right leg is 2% greater than the left but the right leg average power is 13% less than the left.

Now, I guess one could quibble over whether those difference qualify as substantial. I doubt anyone, even you, would quibble over whether those differences are noteworthy.

 

[CoachFergie]

n=1 so I choose to quibble.

In Martin's study the difference in power was not significant. In any IC study there was no significant improvement in fitness from training with a IC.

Some of us have moved on.

 

[FrankDay]

Some of us have moved on.

then, I suggest you move on from this thread and let those of us who haven't moved on discuss this stuff.

 

[CoachFergie]

then, I suggest you move on from this thread and let those of us who haven't moved on discuss this stuff.

Ha ha no way, Andy, Alex, Tapeworm and others will be here to point out your logical fallacies and pursuit of the trivial for a long time to come. Get used to it Frank.

 

[function]

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.

Thanks for the reply, regarding studies, it was years ago when i looked and it wasn't exactly matched to what we were discussing but it showed pedalling techniques following a "increased force on the downstroke" pattern under high load versus lower load and more distributed force. Unfortunately i can't find the references anymore, so my comment isn't of much use here

 

[FrankDay]

Thanks for the reply, regarding studies, it was years ago when i looked and it wasn't exactly matched to what we were discussing but it showed pedalling techniques following a "increased force on the downstroke" pattern under high load versus lower load and more distributed force. Unfortunately i can't find the references anymore, so my comment isn't of much use here

That makes sense to me. I would love to see the paper(s)

 

[coapman]

Ha ha no way, Andy, Alex, Tapeworm and others will be here to point out your logical fallacies and pursuit of the trivial for a long time to come. Get used to it Frank.

That was not very clever CoachFergie, what were you called ?

 

[CoachFergie]

Last thing I was called was Bike NZ Road and Track Coach of the Year.