For the "pedaling technique doesn't matter crowd"

[FrankDay]

Yet a variety of training, nutritional, recovery, technical and even psychological studies find rather large performance improvements in a very short time. Face it Frank, your product doesn't work as you claim.

Now, let me get this straight. You are saying that because I say it takes a reasonably long time and a lot of hard work to see any benefit from my product that I must be making it up because other products (that presumably do other things) claim to or have shown improvement in short periods of time? Is that what you just said?

 

[FrankDay]

So the Bohm and Fernandez-Pena studies confirm that an independent crank training system changes the training stimulus and application of power around the pedal stroke

But the Burns study showed that the intervention they used was inadequate to demonstrate such change. It is reasonable to expect that no change in technique should result in no change in other measured metrics also. If the object of a study is to see if a change in pedaling technique results in a change in metrics such as power, efficiency, etc. it seems a necessary condition that one must document is that their intervention caused an actual technique change before drawing any conclusions regarding technique and these metrics. The only study of independent cranks that I know of that has even attempted such a correlation has been Burns and they failed to achieve the necessary condition to reach any conclusion.

All your sputtering as to what you think all this should mean should have little impact on the thinking person.

 

[CoachFergie]

But the Burns study showed that the intervention they used was inadequate to demonstrate such change. It is reasonable to expect that no change in technique should result in no change in other parameters also. If the object of a study is to see if a change in pedaling technique results in a change in parameters such as power, efficiency, etc. it seems a necessary condition that one must document that their intervention caused an actual technique change before drawing any conclusions. The only study of independent cranks that I know of that has even attempted such a correlation has been Burns and they failed to achieve the necessary condition to reach any conclusion.

The object of the study was to see if the Gimmickcrank was a better training stimulus than regular training. It wasn't.

Both Bohm and Fernandez-Pena did show a change in pedalling technique was achieved. Fernandez-Pena showed that when subjects go from Gimmickcranks to normal cranks any changes in muscle activation are rapidly lost.

Muscle activation in the Graded Exercise Test was done using normal cranks which explains why there was no change in iEMG.

Several well performed studies now showing that training with a Gimmickcrank is not an effective training stimulus.

 

[FrankDay]

The object of the study was to see if the Gimmickcrank was a better training stimulus than regular training. It wasn't.

Both Bohm and Fernandez-Pena did show a change in pedalling technique was achieved. Fernandez-Pena showed that when subjects go from Gimmickcranks to normal cranks any changes in muscle activation are rapidly lost.

Muscle activation in the Graded Exercise Test was done using normal cranks which explains why there was no change in iEMG.

Several well performed studies now showing that training with a Gimmickcrank is not an effective training stimulus.

I seem to remember that back in the 70's was when a term was coined to describe your manner of interaction/discussion. Says something about how old I am. It was called" "broken record". If the shoe fits…

 

[coapman]

Now, let me get this straight. You are saying that because I say it takes a reasonably long time and a lot of hard work to see any benefit from my product that I must be making it up because other products (that presumably do other things) claim to or have shown improvement in short periods of time? Is that what you just said?

Where in the pedaling circle does the hardest work have to be done ? Does this hard work improve performance or is it something that has to be done only because you are using more awkward and unsuitable training equipment.

 

[FrankDay]

Where in the pedaling circle does the hardest work have to be done ? Does this hard work improve performance or is it something that has to be done only because you are using more awkward and unsuitable training equipment.

The "hardest part" of the pedaling circle would be the weakest part or the part for which you are under trained. For most new PowerCrankers the weakest part is usually the last half of the back stroke. Once that part of the circle has been trained appropriately then there is no "hardest" part of the circle. PowerCranks are only "awkward and unsuitable" when one hasn't trained on them. Once one is appropriately trained on them they are no harder nor no more awkward nor no more "unsuitable" than any other bicycle crank.

 

[CoachFergie]

I seem to remember that back in the 70's was when a term was coined to describe your manner of interaction/discussion. Says something about how old I am. It was called" "broken record". If the shoe fits…

You repeat the lie, I repeat the data showing it is a lie!

 

[coapman]

The "hardest part" of the pedaling circle would be the weakest part or the part for which you are under trained. For most new PowerCrankers the weakest part is usually the last half of the back stroke. Once that part of the circle has been trained appropriately then there is no "hardest" part of the circle. PowerCranks are only "awkward and unsuitable" when one hasn't trained on them. Once one is appropriately trained on them they are no harder nor no more awkward nor no more "unsuitable" than any other bicycle crank.

That explains why PC riders revert back to their natural style when they return to using standard cranks. Why would they continue to put this extra workload on their weaker muscles when there is nothing to be gained, the down moving leg can send the rising crank under the unweighted leg in this sector at no energy cost.

 

[FrankDay]

…the down moving leg can send the rising crank under the unweighted leg in this sector at no energy cost.

True if one is only looking at the energy cost because the potential energy put into the leg moving it up is returned on that down stroke as that potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. The problem is, the energy it takes to get the leg up robs from the energy available to get to the wheel. Therefore, if that energy can come from other muscles then all the energy put in by the pushing muscles can go to the wheel. It isn't important if one is only interested in riding around the neighborhood to get a little exercise. It is important if one is interested in maximizing power and efficiency for the purposes of racing.

 

[coapman]

True if one is only looking at the energy cost because the potential energy put into the leg moving it up is returned on that down stroke as that potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. The problem is, the energy it takes to get the leg up robs from the energy available to get to the wheel. Therefore, if that energy can come from other muscles then all the energy put in by the pushing muscles can go to the wheel. It isn't important if one is only interested in riding around the neighborhood to get a little exercise. It is important if one is interested in maximizing power and efficiency for the purposes of racing.

When (as i said) the rising leg is unweighted ahead of the rising pedal there can be no loss of power in the downstroke. Powercrankers have the task of dragging the pedal and crank round that difficult curve from 9 to 12 o'c. You don't maximize power with PC's because contrary to what you believe, that dragging of the crank up and over results in a loss of torque where it matters most around 3 o'c. How do you explain that reverting back to their natural pedaling style on their return to standard cranks. There are thousands of PC users, why don't you get some of them to describe on these forums how and where their power has been maximized by their use of PC's.

 

[FrankDay]

There are thousands of PC users, why don't you get some of them to describe on these forums how and where their power has been maximized by their use of PC's.

When they do show up to talk about the product they typically get beat about the head and shoulders by the usual suspects. A better question, of those thousands of users, where are those who feel the product is useless and a complete scam? Really, the only people bad mouthing the product are those who haven't used it to any extent. That goes for you also as you really don't have a clue what the product does or doesn't do or what regular crankers do or don't do (and, I suspect, that includes you - even though you think you know what you are doing).

 

[CoachFergie]

There are thousands of PC users, why don't you get some of them to describe on these forums how and where their power has been maximized by their use of PC's.

Asking Frank or a Gimmickcranker what they think is only good for amusement value.

Lets hear about the Gimmickcrankers who have been using the product with a power meter and actually seen a quantifiable improvement. The only ones we have heard of is a chap in Spain whose power files had clearly been Doctored (pun intended Frank) and a Engineer (MIT no less) who didn't understand he needed to calibrate his power meter and wasn't suspicious that his 60min power from a rollers based test was higher than his 20min power from an uphill time trial.

 

[coapman]

When they do show up to talk about the product they typically get beat about the head and shoulders by the usual suspects. A better question, of those thousands of users, where are those who feel the product is useless and a complete scam? Really, the only people bad mouthing the product are those who haven't used it to any extent. That goes for you also as you really don't have a clue what the product does or doesn't do or what regular crankers do or don't do (and, I suspect, that includes you - even though you think you know what you are doing).

I have never said the product was useless, what I did say was it should be ideal for teaching riders the objectives of the circuilar style and how to unweight the rising pedal. When after a few days of PC use, a rider returns to standard cranks and his normal style, he should find his idling leg creates a resistance free path for the idling pedal. But exclusive use of PC's over long periods will have a negative effect as P. Holman discovered, by weakening your more important downstroke muscles. Therefore PC style pedaling cannot increase power output, while you may gain minimal torque in other sectors, you will lose more in the down stroke sector because continuous equal concentration has to be given to both legs in all sectors regardless of the power than can be produced in those sectors.

 

[FrankDay]

…But exclusive use of PC's over long periods will have a negative effect as P. Holman discovered, by weakening your more important downstroke muscles. Therefore PC style pedaling cannot increase power output, while you may gain minimal torque in other sectors, you will lose more in the down stroke sector because continuous equal concentration has to be given to both legs in all sectors regardless of the power than can be produced in those sectors.

P Holman discovered a negative effect from his training with PC's? Exactly how do you think P Holman increased his max speed from 35 to 38 mph without increasing his power? Since he did not actually measure his pedal forces anyone (including him) who tries to analyze exactly how they changes is guessing. All we know is the total outcome of his experiment. We have to guess (albeit, an educated guess) as to what changes occurred to cause it.

 

[CoachFergie]

P Holman discovered a negative effect from his training with PC's? Exactly how do you think P Holman increased his max speed from 35 to 38 mph without increasing his power? Since he did not actually measure his pedal forces anyone (including him) who tries to analyze exactly how they changes is guessing. All we know is the total outcome of his experiment. We have to guess (albeit, an educated guess) as to what changes occurred to cause it.

Seriously, you would think a former engineer would know better than to claim an increase in speed as a improvement in performance.

 

[FrankDay]

Seriously, you would think a former engineer would know better than to claim an increase in speed as a improvement in performance.

Yes, on the internet one can learn all sorts of stuff one never learned in school. For instance, in racing, going faster is not necessarily better or that in the past gravity was different http://now.msn.com/jose-canseco-tweets-gravity-theories What do those school trained bozos have to learn us anyhow?

 

[coapman]

P Holman discovered a negative effect from his training with PC's? Exactly how do you think P Holman increased his max speed from 35 to 38 mph without increasing his power?

You are conveniently overlooking the extra standard crank 'downstroke only' training he had to do because of the loss of power in his downstroke which was caused by exclusive PC use. Without this extra standard crank training his change in speed could have been reversed after 9 months or more of exclusive PC use. It's possible it was this intensive downstroke training together with an improved style in other sectors that was responsible for his increased speed.

 

[FrankDay]

You are conveniently overlooking the extra standard crank 'downstroke only' training he had to do because of the loss of power in his downstroke which was caused by exclusive PC use. Without this extra standard crank training his change in speed could have been reversed after 9 months or more of exclusive PC use. It's possible it was this intensive downstroke training together with an improved style in other sectors that was responsible for his increased speed.

I guess anything is possible but that isn't how Phil Holman evaluated his experience and he was there and he was also predisposed to "prove" the cranks worthless. Even if all that "extra work" allowed Phil Holman to keep his pushing force the same that work could not have, by itself, resulted in an increase in power and speed unless other improvements were seen. As I said, the only way to reasonably explain such large improvements is to say there are many small improvements occurring around the entire circle which add together to result in a large improvement.

 

[CoachFergie]

I guess anything is possible but that isn't how Phil Holman evaluated his experience and he was there and he was also predisposed to "prove" the cranks worthless. Even if all that "extra work" allowed Phil Holman to keep his pushing force the same that work could not have, by itself, resulted in an increase in power and speed unless other improvements were seen. As I said, the only way to reasonably explain such large improvements is to say there are many small improvements occurring around the entire circle which add together to result in a large improvement.

Imaginary improvements in power. These were never measured with a power meter. You would think a former engineer would know better.

 

[hiero2]

Hey, while investigating another topic I found that the work done by Burns on the PowerCranks in his Masters Thesis finally got published (link here). Of course, it shows no benefit but, interestingly, it includes the reason why as it showed no difference between the groups in EMG activation. So much for Fergies contention that this is an adequate amount of time or stimulus to make these changes. I stand by my contention that in order to demonstrate that there is no benefit it is also necessary to demonstrate that the stimulus was adequate to make the expected changes in technique. The fact that Fergie declares it to be enough is not good evidence that it is enough.

While it is nice that one of you actually included a link, your conclusion is not supported by the abstract you link to. I quote from that abstract, the only mention of EMG:

METHODS:

Sixteen trained cyclists were matched-paired into either an uncoupled-crank or a normal-crank training group. Both groups performed 5 wk of training on their assigned cranks. Before and after training, participants completed a graded exercise test using normal cranks. Expired gases were collected to determine economy of motion, gross efficiency, and VO2max, while integrated electromyography (iEMG) was used to examine muscle-activation patterns of the vastus lateralis, biceps femoris, and gastrocnemius.

Continuing - since it is just an abstract, and quite short:

RESULTS:

No significant changes between groups were observed for economy of motion, gross efficiency, VO2max, or iEMG in the uncoupled- or normal-crank group.
CONCLUSIONS:

Five weeks of training with uncoupled cycling cranks had no effect on economy of motion, gross efficiency, muscle recruitment, or VO2max compared with training on normal cranks.

Nowhere there do they mention that they felt 5 weeks was insufficient data. As a matter of fact, they should feel that 5 weeks WAS sufficient, or else they would have mentioned that they felt the study period to short to even reach the conclusion they did.

9 months is an unrealistically long requirement time to show a difference. Muscle groups that would show any difference after 9 months should begin to show significant contribution towards that difference within the first few weeks. Also, any study of 9 months or more would be longitudinal, and would therefore require a larger sample size to validly isolate a single possible contributing factor, if I remember my college stat courses.

Frank, I don't believe what I have said will convince you in any manner whatsoever. I am going to ask for your cooperation, and that of Coach and others who are responding in this thread. No more anecdotal "proofs". You know that anecdotal "evidence" is not. You have already offered plenty along those lines - adding more is just repeating yourself and does not add to the conversation.

Coach and others - recall the usenet gem of online interaction: "Don't feed the troll." I'm not saying Frank is a troll, but he is engaging in troll-like behavior with you guys. You have a circular argument going here. New posts need new perspectives. Mentions of studies need links, or they need full reference if there is no link, so that ANY reader can print out the post, take it to their local librarian, and librarian can then find said material.

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[CoachFergie]

Nowhere there do they mention that they felt 5 weeks was insufficient data. As a matter of fact, they should feel that 5 weeks WAS sufficient, or else they would have mentioned that they felt the study period to short to even reach the conclusion they did.

You will also note that they were given an extra 3-4 weeks on the control group to ensure the training loads were matched. As a side note this has been the failing in most strength training studies where the training loads are not matched.

9 months is an unrealistically long requirement time to show a difference. Muscle groups that would show any difference after 9 months should begin to show significant contribution towards that difference within the first few weeks. Also, any study of 9 months or more would be longitudinal, and would therefore require a larger sample size to validly isolate a single possible contributing factor, if I remember my college stat courses.

As we have seen in numerous studies using training, diet, supplements recovery etc, physiological, performance and fitness adaptations occur rather rapidly. But what is also seen after 5-6 weeks is subjects become adapted to any one training regime and improvements decline. Any claim that performance would decrease for 1-6 weeks and then shoot up by 40% over a nine month period are totally unrealistic.

Coach and others - recall the usenet gem of online interaction: "Don't feed the troll." I'm not saying Frank is a troll, but he is engaging in troll-like behavior with you guys. You have a circular argument going here. New posts need new perspectives. Mentions of studies need links, or they need full reference if there is no link, so that ANY reader can print out the post, take it to their local librarian, and librarian can then find said material.

I would refer any person interested in performance improvement to read any exercise physiology text to see evidence based methods and also to see the time course of physiological adaptations to exercise.

 

[FrankDay]

Nowhere there do they mention that they felt 5 weeks was insufficient data. As a matter of fact, they should feel that 5 weeks WAS sufficient, or else they would have mentioned that they felt the study period to short to even reach the conclusion they did.

Of course they would not make the observation that 5 weeks was insufficient data. That would be like simply saying to the publication: "THIS STUDY IS TERRIBLE, PLEASE DO NOT PUBLISH IT" Their study is what it is. They did not see a statistically significant difference between groups in any aspect. Since the purpose of the PowerCranks is to change the pedaling coordination I think it is reasonable to conclude that because their study did not see a statistically significant difference in coordination between the groups before and after that the their intervention was not sufficient to make the expected change. That, in and of itself, is useful information for follow-on researchers because they will now know they need to do a more substantial intervention if they want to study this concept.

9 months is an unrealistically long requirement time to show a difference. Muscle groups that would show any difference after 9 months should begin to show significant contribution towards that difference within the first few weeks. Also, any study of 9 months or more would be longitudinal, and would therefore require a larger sample size to validly isolate a single possible contributing factor, if I remember my college stat courses.

It should not take 9 months to see a difference. The 9 month requirement is what we say to see a 40% power improvement on average. That is the number with which most people have such heart burn. To disprove that number requires that kind of study. Both Luttrell and Dixon were able to demonstrate statistically significant differences in only 6 weeks. Luttrell did it by not using elite cyclists and having 18 hours in 6 weeks (compared to Burns 10 hours in 5 weeks. Dixon used "elite" cyclists but used immersion training (8 hours minimum a week as I remember) for 6 weeks or 48 hours on the cranks compared to Burns 10 and Lutrell's 18.

Frank, I don't believe what I have said will convince you in any manner whatsoever. I am going to ask for your cooperation, and that of Coach and others who are responding in this thread. No more anecdotal "proofs". You know that anecdotal "evidence" is not. You have already offered plenty along those lines - adding more is just repeating yourself and does not add to the conversation.

Anecdotes are not proof. Anecdotes are evidence that some may use or not use. It is pretty much all we have to go by in making training and equipment choices. Studies have shown no benefit to using a power meter yet these forums are filled with anecdotal "proof" that power meters are necessary to get faster. Adding addictional anecdotal evidence, when it occurs, is not repeating onself unless that evidence had been given before. My reason for pursuing this is not to get people to buy my product but to get them to consider what they (or anyone else) don't know (be it about technique or crank length) such that they will not be afraid to make changes to improve. Some are more willing to take those chances than others. Those are the people threads like that are directed towards.

Coach and others - recall the usenet gem of online interaction: "Don't feed the troll." I'm not saying Frank is a troll, but he is engaging in troll-like behavior with you guys. You have a circular argument going here. New posts need new perspectives. Mentions of studies need links, or they need full reference if there is no link, so that ANY reader can print out the post, take it to their local librarian, and librarian can then find said material.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Fergie was warned a long time ago by you folks to stop using inflammatory terms like gimmickcranks, snake oil, etc. He is back to it with no consequences. Are you guys up to the challenge of actually standing behind what you warn? He is the troll. Make him go away and this turns into a perfectly reasonable discussion about a topic many are interested in.

 

[CoachFergie]

Of course they would not make the observation that 5 weeks was insufficient data. That would be like simply saying to the publication: "THIS STUDY IS TERRIBLE, PLEASE DO NOT PUBLISH IT" Their study is what it is. They did not see a statistically significant difference between groups in any aspect.

Why would they claim 5 weeks was insufficient. Fernandex-Pena and Bohm studies both found a change in power application around the pedal stroke in a much shorter change. There is clearly a change in the training stimulus but no change in cycling fitness or performance.

Since the purpose of the PowerCranks is to change the pedaling coordination I think it is reasonable to conclude that because their study did not see a statistically significant difference in coordination between the groups before and after that the their intervention was not sufficient to make the expected change. That, in and of itself, is useful information for follow-on researchers because they will now know they need to do a more substantial intervention if they want to study this concept.

More nonsense, they do see a change, Burns gave the independent crank system group a 3-4 week head start to match the training loads between the experimental and control group.

It should not take 9 months to see a difference. The 9 month requirement is what we say to see a 40% power improvement on average.

More nonsense.

To disprove that number requires that kind of study. Both Luttrell and Dixon were able to demonstrate statistically significant differences in only 6 weeks. Luttrell did it by not using elite cyclists and having 18 hours in 6 weeks (compared to Burns 10 hours in 5 weeks.

No change in any performance measure from the Luttrell study. The independent crank system was not a more potent stimulus than a normal training system.

Dixon used "elite" cyclists but used immersion training (8 hours minimum a week as I remember) for 6 weeks or 48 hours on the cranks compared to Burns 10 and Lutrell's 18.

Not a published study and no control group. Meaningless.

Anecdotes are not proof. Anecdotes are evidence that some may use or not use.

No control and no taking into account bias and confounding variables.

It is pretty much all we have to go by in making training and equipment choices.

More nonsense. I have been practising evidence based coaching for 21 years thanks to a huge volume of sport science research testing all of the pertinent questions in the sport of cycling.

Studies have shown no benefit to using a power meter yet these forums are filled with anecdotal "proof" that power meters are necessary to get faster.

Red herring. You would think a former engineer would know the difference between a measurement tool and a tool or method that enhances performance.

Adding addictional anecdotal evidence, when it occurs, is not repeating onself unless that evidence had been given before. My reason for pursuing this is not to get people to buy my product but to get them to consider what they (or anyone else) don't know (be it about technique or crank length) such that they will not be afraid to make changes to improve.

Despite the wealth of published evidence that crank length is not important. You are just here to SPAM people Frank.

 

[CoachFergie]

Gimmick
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In marketing language, a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries. However, the special feature is typically thought to be of little relevance or use.

Seeing no credible data has been presented for the efficacy of any independent crank system I think Gimmickcranks is very appropriate.

 

[FrankDay]

Why would they claim 5 weeks was insufficient. Fernandex-Pena and Bohm studies both found a change in power application around the pedal stroke in a much shorter change. There is clearly a change in the training stimulus but no change in cycling fitness or performance.

Of course, they wouldn't claim it was insufficient. What they did was simply what they did. Whether Fernandes-Pena and or Bohm found a change in this period of time is not important as Burns demonstrated they did not. That finding, in and of itself, is useful to those who follow on. If one doesn't measure one doesn't know.

More nonsense, they do see a change, Burns gave the independent crank system group a 3-4 week head start to match the training loads between the experimental and control group.

Huh? They do? Where is that change documented as being statistically significant (the only change that counts in a scientific paper)?

No change in any performance measure from the Luttrell study. The independent crank system was not a more potent stimulus than a normal training system.

Luttrell found a statistically significant change in efficiency. If you don't believe that is an important performance metric, so be it. Others might have another opinion on that.

Not a published study and no control group. Meaningless.

Meaningless to you because your understanding of study design is pretty minimal (just where are you in your path towards a doctorate?). In the big picture the importance of this study is similar to a poster presentation except it was felt to be more meaningful as it was selected to be presented orally before the group. You may not like it but the design was such that the subjects acted as their own controls. This study was considered worthy for this recognition by the Canadian Society of Exercise Physiologists. Contact them if you don't like it. Every year major journals publish a supplement of usually hundreds of studies not quite worthy of publication but worthy of mention. You might be surprised but people actually read these and sometimes they contain gems.