For the "pedaling technique doesn't matter crowd"

[FrankDay]

You did some HPV work, how does peak torque of a HPV rider (across the top ?) compare to peak torque of an upright rider.

I have never measured this but I suspect the HPV rider is substantially stronger "across the top" than an upright rider because they are using their anti-gravity muscles there.

 

[FrankDay]

You mean to say that you conned Cadel Evans or Poalo Bettini into using a Gimmickcrank but you can't talk a sport science student into doing a some basic testing? Weak!

I didn't talk (or con) either of these riders into using my product. Bettini got on them after we showed the product to Dr. Max Testa when he was still at UC Davis and he had us send 5 pair to Mapei (he was still a team doctor for them at the time) for them to test. One set was give to Bettini. The story is when they asked for them back after awhile he refused to give them back. Not sure how Cadel Evans got on them except it was many years ago and I know he contacted me. I was so effective in making him an idiot regarding pedaling technique that last fall we got a phone call from Taylor Phinney who simply said "Cadel says I need to get on these things". But, what would he know, he has been conned by me hasn't he?

 

[FrankDay]

I really have to thank Fergie for the information that led to this post. Sometimes he really does post useful information although it is not clear he realizes it. A few pages back he posted a comment that the group that started this thread had a subsequent paper that contradicted their first finding. I did a little google search and found the paper, the full text available here.

In this paper I found this:

Thus, in principle, FE affects GE in a direct manner. A number of studies have demonstrated a moderate to strong relationship between FE and GE (e.g., Zameziati et al. 2006; Candotti et al. 2007).

So, I thought it might be interesting to see what Zameziati et al. and Candotti et. al. did and found.

Zameziati (abstract here) found this:

IE(360 degrees) and IE(180 degrees Asc) were significantly correlated with GE (r = 0.79 and 0.66, respectively) and NE (r = 0.66 and 0.99, respectively). In contrast, IE(180 degrees Desc) was not correlated to GE or to NE. From a mechanical point of view, during the upstroke, the subject was able to reduce the non-propulsive forces applied by an active muscle contraction, contrary to the downstroke phase. As a consequence, the term 'passive phase', which is currently used to characterize the upstroke phase, seems to be obsolete.

In other words, what was done on the backstroke was what was important in determining cycling efficiency. This could explain the 10% cycling efficiency improvement seen in 6 weeks of PowerCranks training seen by Luttrell over the control group. Now wait for it, Fergie will be here soon stating that efficiency is not an important metric when it comes to cycling.

Candotti (abstract and full text available here) found this:

Cyclists produced significantly more effective force and a higher index of pedalling effectiveness at 60 and 75 rev/min and were significantly more economic at all cadences than triathletes. The significant and positive correlation between effective force and economy at all cadences suggests that improvement of the effective force would reflect on economy.

Now we are finding that cadence is also an important part of this equation. I might note that it is significantly easier to unweight on the upstroke when one is at a lower cadence. Now wait for it, Fergie will be here soon stating that efficiency/economy is not an important metric when it comes to cycling.

Anyhow, while Fergie seems to think this is all settle science it does seem as if there is substantial reason one might believe otherwise. Enjoy.

 

[CoachFergie]

Earlier in the paper they write:
They then go on to discuss why this might be an issue.

Fergie, if you want to discuss a paper and what it might mean it would seem best to post a link to it and let everyone have a chance to interpret what it might mean to an overall argument rather than just declaring that proof of what you say exists. Thanks for the heads up though. Interesting paper.

So nothing to really draw conclusions on, but you do so anyway.

Cool the full paper is online. I don't like just posting abstracts as I like to look at the data and the abstracts usually do a poor job of reporting this.

I would never offer anything as "proof" as any good scientist knows nothing is really proved. Theories are on disproved or myths are busted. Like a 40% improvement from using a Gimmickcrank or a significant benefit from changing crank length.

 

[CoachFergie]

I am not forgetting anything. From a scientific perspective it is really impossible for me to prove my points because I am seen as biased.

Frank Dodge strikes again. Nothing wrong with sponsoring or conducting your own study as long as it is duly acknowledged.

Mark my words, the cycling community is soon to learn that "pedaling technique matters" and it matters big time. Of course, it isn't possible to know what your technique really is unless you can measure it.

Ha ha classic comedy! The thing that matters is the amount of power you can put into the pedals over a specific distance or duration which is more a matter of bioenergetics than force application around the pedal stroke. Keep dreaming. Mark my words people will learn more about their cycling from knowing what power they can apply for a given time than they can from knowing irrelevant details about force application around the pedal stroke.

 

[CoachFergie]

In this paper I found this: So, I thought it might be interesting to see what Zameziati et al. and Candotti et. al. did and found.

Zameziati (abstract here) found this:In other words, what was done on the backstroke was what was important in determining cycling efficiency. This could explain the 10% cycling efficiency improvement seen in 6 weeks of PowerCranks training seen by Luttrell over the control group. Now wait for it, Fergie will be here soon stating that efficiency is not an important metric when it comes to cycling.

Well it is and it isn't.

Mosely et al found no difference in efficiency between elite and recreational cyclists. But that could be an artefact of the testing as the cadence was controlled and I would contend a lab test is not as accurate measure of cycling fitness as a field test with a power meter. But then harder to measure expired gases in the field.

Candotti (abstract and full text available here) found this:Now we are finding that cadence is also an important part of this equation. I might note that it is significantly easier to unweight on the upstroke when one is at a lower cadence. Now wait for it, Fergie will be here soon stating that efficiency/economy is not an important metric when it comes to cycling.

Well not as important as it is to a runner and no surprise that cyclists are more efficient than triathletes as they only focus on becoming a better cyclist. Efficiency is really a true reflection of the specificity principle and illustrates that if you follow the rule of specificity you become more efficient.

The difference between cyclists and triathletes but no difference between elite cyclists and recreational cyclists illustrates that magnitude of effects is important. For some sports efficiency or economy is very important like the big changes Prof Andrew Jones saw in Paula Radcliff over her career with no change in VO2max since she was 18 but cycling less so as experiments designed to improve efficiency (Gimmickcranks, Rotorcranks, Elliptical rings etc) have yet to cause a radical change in the way people ride a bike.

The best thing one can do to improve performance is understand the demands of the sport, test where they are at in relation to them and spend as much time as possible training to meet those demands. Far more data on hand to support that than any data you have presented.

 

[FrankDay]

I would never offer anything as "proof" as any good scientist knows nothing is really proved. Theories are on disproved or myths are busted. Like a 40% improvement from using a Gimmickcrank or a significant benefit from changing crank length.

Wow, have you really come around to finally believe that science doesn't prove things to be true but can only disprove things claimed to be true. "Truth" in science only occurs when the hypotheses sustain all attempts to disprove it.

As regards my product, as I have repeatedly stated, it is impossible for me to prove our claims and at least now you admit this to be true. So, now it is up to you and your cronies to disprove them. As you have repeatedly said this should be easy to do as the technology to do so has been available for years. However, let me remind you that the claim of a 40% power improvement involves "exclusive" use for 6-9 months of "normal" training effort by the average but serious cyclist. I would take that as about 6 days a week or 150-230 training sessions. Such claims are not debunked by negative results after 10 training sessions performed 2 days per week, as you seem to believe.

Anyhow, the "disproving" ball is in your court. Let's see what you can do with it.

 

[BroDeal]

As you have repeatedly said this should be easy to do as the technology to do so has been available for years. However, let me remind you that the claim of a 40% power improvement involves "exclusive" use for 6-9 months of "normal" training effort by the average but serious cyclist. I would take that as about 6 days a week or 150-230 training sessions. Such claims are not debunked by negative results after 10 training sessions performed 2 days per week, as you seem to believe.

Jeebus! This is why people sneer at you. You are a snake oil salesmen who is too stupid to use lies that are within the realm of possibility. No one has to know much about cycling, training, or anything else to figure out that your claims are not possible. It is like a Ponzi schemer claiming your investment will make 10% a month. You don't have to be Warren Buffet to realize that it cannot possibly be legit; it has to be a scam. Why do you continue to insult everyone's intelligence with these outrageous claims? Is your product so worthless that you need to tell the biggest lie possible to promote it?

 

[coapman]

I have never measured this but I suspect the HPV rider is substantially stronger "across the top" than an upright rider because they are using their anti-gravity muscles there.

What I meant was how does peak torque of a recumbent rider around 12 o'c compare with peak torque of an upright rider around 3 o'c. My technique enables a rider to combine both of these powerful forces for one extended upright power stroke. About that 40% Powercrank increase, you now have the ideal means of proving your claim is genuine, why not do it. All you have to do is pedal at max power output using independent crank setting and then repeat the exercise using the fixed setting on cranks and natural pedaling style, in both cases torque in the 2-4 sector must be almost equal. The sinusoidal graphs will supply the proof all are seeking.

 

[FrankDay]

No one has to know much about cycling, training, or anything else to figure out that your claims are not possible. … You don't have to be Warren Buffet to realize that it cannot possibly be legit; it has to be a scam. … Is your product so worthless that you need to tell the biggest lie possible to promote it?

With all this on your side just think how easy it would be to prove. Get to it. Then, if once you did that and I kept it up you could turn me into the authorities

 

[coapman]

With all this on your side just think how easy it would be to prove. Get to it. Then, if once you did that and I kept it up you could turn me into the authorities

You can always claim a 40% increase in average power outside the 1-5 o'c main power application sector.

 

[BroDeal]

With all this on your side just think how easy it would be to prove. Get to it. Then, if once you did that and I kept it up you could turn me into the authorities

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You are the one making risible claims for your product. If the gains were only a fraction of your lies then they would still be easy to verify. Even with a simple experiment they would show up like turning on a light at the bottom of a coal mine.

I don't think the authorities have the resources to deal with a small fry swindler.

 

[CoachFergie]

Several well performed studies have disproved the Gimmickcrank marketing claims and several anecdotes have proven to be fraudulent. But hey it's fun watching Frank lie through his teeth.

 

[coapman]

Wow, have you really come around to finally believe that science doesn't prove things to be true but can only disprove things claimed to be true. "Truth" in science only occurs when the hypotheses sustain all attempts to disprove it.

As regards my product, as I have repeatedly stated, it is impossible for me to prove our claims and at least now you admit this to be true. So, now it is up to you and your cronies to disprove them. As you have repeatedly said this should be easy to do as the technology to do so has been available for years. However, let me remind you that the claim of a 40% power improvement involves "exclusive" use for 6-9 months of "normal" training effort by the average but serious cyclist. I would take that as about 6 days a week or 150-230 training sessions. Such claims are not debunked by negative results after 10 training sessions performed 2 days per week, as you seem to believe.

Anyhow, the "disproving" ball is in your court. Let's see what you can do with it.

If a masher trains exclusively with PC's for 9 months, how would you describe his technique at the end of 9 months. Would he still be capable of using his mashing style and if he would, does the power increase also apply with his mashing style.

 

[FrankDay]

If a masher trains exclusively with PC's for 9 months, how would you describe his technique at the end of 9 months.

"pedaling in circles" At the minimum he would be completely unweighting on the backstroke and doing more across the top and bottom than before.

Would he still be capable of using his mashing style and if he would, does the power increase also apply with his mashing style.

Would he be capable of going back? Of course, (and if he stopped training with the PC's he would eventually return to that style although not to the same extent, perhaps) but why would he want to if he was more powerful/efficient using the new style? One style is going to be most powerful/efficient. Why would any rider want to ride a less powerful/efficient style if they had a choice?

 

[FrankDay]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Indeed. But, as we have been discussing it is impossible for science to "prove" any of this. All science can do is disprove a hypothesis. Hop to it, the world is waiting.

 

[CoachFergie]

Indeed. But, as we have been discussing it is impossible for science to "prove" any of this. All science can do is disprove a hypothesis. Hop to it, the world is waiting.

No need, Bohm, Williams and Sperlich papers are all very well performed studies and clearly disprove your claims. Bohm and Fernandez-Pena show that pedalling technique changes using a Gimmickcrank and Fernandez-Pena shows that when one reverts back to a normal crank that power application reverts back to normal. But this is old news.

 

[coapman]

"pedaling in circles" At the minimum he would be completely unweighting on the backstroke and doing more across the top and bottom than before. Would he be capable of going back? Of course, (and if he stopped training with the PC's he would eventually return to that style although not to the same extent, perhaps) but why would he want to if he was more powerful/efficient using the new style? One style is going to be most powerful/efficient. Why would any rider want to ride a less powerful/efficient style if they had a choice?

I have perfected four techniques and can use all four inside a minute, there is no eventually going back to another style, the brain has the objectives of each technique and any of them can be turned on instantly. If I was to train my circular style exclusively with PC's for 9 months, I am certain my mashing would still give me greater explosive acceleration power, regardless of what training I did to improve my circular pedalling because it's all about the downstroke and how the power is applied there. Do PC's improve downstroke power.

 

[CoachFergie]

I have perfected four techniques and can use all four inside a minute, there is no eventually going back to another style, the brain has the objectives of each technique and any of them can be turned on instantly. If I was to train my circular style exclusively with PC's for 9 months, I am certain my mashing would still give me greater explosive acceleration power, regardless of what training I did to improve my circular pedalling because it's all about the downstroke and how the power is applied there. Do PC's improve downstroke power.

Ha ha, perfected 4 techniques but has no data whatsoever to show this. What vivid imaginations you and Frank have.

 

[coapman]

Ha ha, perfected 4 techniques but has no data whatsoever to show this. What vivid imaginations you and Frank have.

Yes four, circular, semi circular, mashing and mashing plus unweighting.

 

[CoachFergie]

Yes four, circular, semi circular, mashing and mashing plus unweighting.

And all from your own imagination. If you were a 5 year old I would be very impressed with that.

 

[coapman]

And all from your own imagination. If you were a 5 year old I would be very impressed with that.

How many techniques does your brain have available for use. Why do so many road racers hate TT's? Because they have only one technique which is expected to cope with completely different requirements.

 

[CoachFergie]

How many techniques does your brain have available for use. Why do so many road racers hate TT's? Because they have only one technique which is expected to cope with completely different requirements.

Don't bore us with assumptions. Present data showing that Roadies preference for bunch racing over time trials is due to a presumed lack of pedalling options.

 

[FrankDay]

I have perfected four techniques and can use all four inside a minute, there is no eventually going back to another style, the brain has the objectives of each technique and any of them can be turned on instantly. If I was to train my circular style exclusively with PC's for 9 months, I am certain my mashing would still give me greater explosive acceleration power, regardless of what training I did to improve my circular pedalling because it's all about the downstroke and how the power is applied there. Do PC's improve downstroke power.

Fergie and I agree on one thing, it would be nice to see some evidence that you can do what you say you do. Regardless, it doesn't make much difference what you can do what you are thinking about it as most people do not spend much time while on the bicycle thinking about pedaling technique. So, what is important is what one does when they are not thinking about it.

While it may be true that one could get "greater explosive power" by returning to a mashing style I think most PowerCranks trained riders would say that they see the best improvement in "explosive power" by concentrating on increasing the upstroke part of the stroke. None of this has yet to be demonstrated though so we are all debating "impressions".

 

[CoachFergie]

While it may be true that one could get "greater explosive power" by returning to a mashing style I think most PowerCranks trained riders would say that they see the best improvement in "explosive power" by concentrating on increasing the upstroke part of the stroke. None of this has yet to be demonstrated though so we are all debating "impressions".

Wow what vivid imaginations you both have.

Broker in High-Tech Cycling reported data from different groups of cyclists who found that force effectiveness was negatively correlated with power and gave the example of sprint cyclists who produce the greatest amounts of power through the smallest amount of the downstroke.

Only time a sprinter will concentrate on the upstroke is for the first 2-3 pedal strokes from an out of saddle start or acceleration.

But even for the most explosive of riders beyond the first 50-80 metres of their race it's bioenergetics that wins races.