For the "pedaling technique doesn't matter crowd"

[CoachFergie]

Fergie, you are so much fun. Not sure what the Cancellara/Nuyens thing is about but let's discuss the Stoltz thing. Let's see the quote again

It is clear you have much to learn about power meters and their benefits.

So, it appears Stoltz now has a PM

But you knew that, it was discussed on a thread in Slowtwitch last year where you were a participant.

and was able to give you his average watts for the race. But, it also appears he did the race on feel. He listened to his body and when it said back off, he backed off. The numbers on that PM didn't help him during the race at all, it would appear.

Either way, you are in a catch22. You now argue that the fact that Stoltz uses a PM is an argument for the PM. But, you forget, he also uses (and uses a lot) the PC's. You can't say that use is meaningless in one instance and important in the other. Well YOU can (and probably will) but the whole world will notice how silly you look trying to do so.

I made no comment about how or why he used a power meter. Simply responding to your comment that Stoltz and Carfrae not using power meters, when you knew for a fact that Stoltz does, when both use a power meter as part of their training and Stoltz obviously for some racing.

From a science perspective it doesn't matter who uses or doesn't use a PM.

So why did you bring up those three athletes then as examples of athletes who don't train with power meters?

Is it acceptable for you to use anecdote, flawed at that, to support your argument while we have to provide a RCT to support the use of power meters or to show that wattage is the best metric for monitoring cycling performance?

 

[CoachFergie]

Back to the Conrad Stoltz quote:

I wonder what part of the stroke might engage the "hammies" and what might cause them to "start catching fire"? Why on earth would anyone, let alone a world champion, want to use those muscles when they can't help with the pushing? LOL

Maybe his saddle was too high. I had one of my out of town riders come up and watched him race as he was having similar issues. We put his saddle down 5mm and problem was solved.

As I said previously most issues with pedalling technique are solved by getting the position right on the bike.

 

[FrankDay]

I made no comment about how or why he used a power meter. Simply responding to your comment that Stolz and Carfrae not using power meters when you knew for a fact that Stolz does and use a power meter as part of their training and racing.

Actually, I don't think that is quite right. Conrad is World Champion in Xterra triathlon. He was training and doing a the South African National time-trial and wanted to do well. I would guess he obtained some "outside" expertise for this particular race. Based upon what he said to me (the video is available on my web site) I would be surprised if he was using the PM for his Xterra racing or training, other than for occasional testing similar to Carfrae, it would seem. Even if he had changed his mind completely regarding PM's it would have zero scientific worth.

So why did you bring up those three athletes then as examples of athletes who don't train with power meters?

Because two of them use my product and I was hoping to get some power data from them. Both told me directly they don't use a PM in either training or racing (I have videos of both conversations if you would like to check it out). And the third trained with Sutton and none of his athletes use them and there is no indication she has changed since moving on.

Is it acceptable for you to use anecdote, flawed at that, to support your argument while we have to provide a RCT to support the use of power meters or to show that wattage is the best metric for monitoring cycling performance?

When I use anecdote, I don't claim it is proof. Is the fact we sold two more pair to Ivan Basso last month proof of anything other than he believes enough in the product he is willing to shell out his own money for it. Such information is useless from a scientific perspective. So, I understand the science to prove my claims is lacking, even though there is some that suggests we might be on to something. I look forward to seeing the science that proves or disproves what we say or do. If it is ever proven that my product is worthless then I will stop selling it, I promise. If there is ever proof that it does as we say, will you buy a pair?

 

[CoachFergie]

So we are back to ignoring several studies that show no improvement in power because of....

Too short a study period when other products and methods show an improvement within shorter periods.

Hmmmmm, you don't see any scientific evidence for a power meter but what did you want from those three athletes to test your product and what other performance metric could you use?

Always a constant source of amusement.

 

[FrankDay]

Maybe his saddle was too high. I had one of my out of town riders come up and watched him race as he was having similar issues. We put his saddle down 5mm and problem was solved.

As I said previously most issues with pedalling technique are solved by getting the position right on the bike.

One of your riders was "having an issue with technique" because he was using his hamstrings too much? And you were able to stop him by lowering his saddle? That sure seems like an easy way to get someone back to "just pushing harder".

Don't you think another explanation is he simply went out too hard because he was trying to follow a power number, that was too high for his abilities that day, and it hurt him, rather than helped him? Tell me again how a PM helps with pacing.

 

[FrankDay]

So we are back to ignoring several studies that show no improvement in power because of....

Too short a study period when other products and methods show an improvement within shorter periods.

Hmmmmm, you don't see any scientific evidence for a power meter but what did you want from those three athletes to test your product and what other performance metric could you use?

Always a constant source of amusement.

We are not ignoring anything. In these instances any study that intervenes 3 x per week for 5-6 weeks is simply inadequate to disprove claims that require 100% (or close to) stimulation for a period of months for the claimed improvements to be seen. But, if those studies had seen positive results (as a couple have), even if they were not the exact same as the claims, the study will support the concept. It is much more difficult to "prove a negative" than to prove a positive.

You cannot take the product, put it under your pillow, show that this use of the product didn't work for you, then tell everyone that what we say is bogus. Well, you can, but you don't seem to pay much attention to these nuance things.

 

[CoachFergie]

One of your riders was "having an issue with technique" because he was using his hamstrings too much? And you were able to stop him by lowering his saddle? That sure seems like an easy way to get someone back to "just pushing harder".

Don't you think another explanation is he simply went out too hard because he was trying to follow a power number, that was too high for his abilities that day, and it hurt him, rather than helped him? Tell me again how a PM helps with pacing.

Classic. Waaaay to misinterpret what I wrote or is that misrepresent?

Having a hamstring issue. On observation saw he was rocking on the saddle so put the saddle down and this solved the hamstring issue.

Dylan doesn't train or race with a power meter so not sure how the second part of your reply relates to the question. But at least you are consistent with your misunderstanding.

 

[CoachFergie]

We are not ignoring anything. In these instances any study that intervenes 3 x per week for 5-6 weeks is simply inadequate to disprove claims that require 100% (or close to) stimulation for a period of months for the claimed improvements to be seen.

Fernandez-Pena et al and Bohm showed a change in power application around the pedal stroke in the very same 5-6 weeks. Most studies on training interventions or use novel equipment (prob something to do with School terms) find a result. Earlier in this thread I gave examples of studies that found improvements in performance measures in as little as two weeks.

But, if those studies had seen positive results (as a couple have),

Not in performance measures. You claim an average 40% improvement in performance from Gimmickcrank use.

even if they were not the exact same as the claims, the study will support the concept. It is much more difficult to "prove a negative" than to prove a positive.

Maybe in your dream world.

You cannot take the product, put it under your pillow, show that this use of the product didn't work for you, then tell everyone that what we say is bogus. Well, you can, but you don't seem to pay much attention to these nuance things.

Several studies performed an intervention which lead to physiological changes but none in performance. Seems pretty clear cut.

 

[FrankDay]

Fernandez-Pena et al and Bohm showed a change in power application around the pedal stroke in the very same 5-6 weeks. Most studies on training interventions or use novel equipment (prob something to do with School terms) find a result. Earlier in this thread I gave examples of studies that found improvements in performance measures in as little as two weeks.

Look, let me tell you again. Most new users are just starting to see benefit in 5-6 weeks. It simply takes more time with the cranks that 3x/week for 6 weeks to be able to expect to see statistically significant results. I don't care what others have shown in other studies. They were not studying this training tool

Not in performance measures. You claim an average 40% improvement in performance from Gimmickcrank use.

Yes, after exclusive use for 6-9 months.

Several studies performed an intervention which lead to physiological changes but none in performance. Seems pretty clear cut.

Yes it does seem clear cut. Everyone of those studies were inadequate to the task.

 

[FrankDay]

Dylan doesn't train or race with a power meter so not sure how the second part of your reply relates to the question. But at least you are consistent with your misunderstanding.

I was referring to Stoltz, his race report, and your representing you might have fixed his hamstring issues by simply lowering his seat.

 

[CoachFergie]

I was referring to Stoltz, his race report, and your representing you might have fixed his hamstring issues by simply lowering his seat.

Misrepresenting.

 

[CoachFergie]

Look, let me tell you again. Most new users are just starting to see benefit in 5-6 weeks. It simply takes more time with the cranks that 3x/week for 6 weeks to be able to expect to see statistically significant results. I don't care what others have shown in other studies. They were not studying this training tool

It's okay Frank we fully understand why you ignore the good science.

Yes, after exclusive use for 6-9 months.

Does anyone use them exclusively? Pinotti uses them 1-2 x a week in the early season. Stoltz, Pinotti, Basso, Wellington and Carfrae don't race on them.

Guess that is convenient for you when so you can say that they didn't see these claimed gains

Yes it does seem clear cut. Everyone of those studies were inadequate to the task.

Luttrell?

A study which found a questionable improvement in efficiency which you claim is great science.

 

[FrankDay]

It's okay Frank we fully understand why you ignore the good science.


Does anyone use them exclusively? Pinotti uses them 1-2 x a week in the early season. Stoltz, Pinotti, Basso, Wellington and Carfrae don't race on them.

Guess that is convenient for you when so you can say that they didn't see these claimed gains

Yes, there are some who use them exclusively (I do) and even a few who race on them. Anyhow, it is more than convenient. It is what we have actually determined is necessary for most to see that kind of improvement. Based upon the experience of several thousands of users it is my considered opinion the more one uses the cranks the more likely they are going to see improvement and the larger the improvement they will see. Hence, the 40% power improvement claim requires essentially exclusive use. We have no control over what the user actually does. We give instructions that we think result in the best benefit. Some think they know better than we.

Luttrell?

A study which found a questionable improvement in efficiency which you claim is great science.

I believe Luttrell found statistically significant improvement in efficiency. Most scientists consider that to be somewhat better than "questionable." And, I don't claim Luttrell is "great science". Luttrell is what it is. It is my considered opinion that Luttrell did "good enough" science, which is what most do. There are no glaring flaws in the Luttrell protocol and it did get through peer review. The only two criticisms I have heard regarding the study is 1. he didn't disclose that he received a set of cranks from me in order to do the study and 2. the journal it is published in isn't very "prestigeous". Neither one of those seriously impact the results, IMHO.

 

[BroDeal]

Based upon the experience of several thousands of users it is my considered opinion the more one uses the cranks the more likely they are going to see improvement and the larger the improvement they will see. Hence, the 40% power improvement claim requires essentially exclusive use.

Why do scam artists use such outrageously laughable claims? If you are going to pull numbers out of your butt then why not choose numbers that sound plausible? Madoff's con worked well because he gave most people a steady return that was a little higher than people expected from the market. They could rationalize the higher return by thinking that Madoff was using information from his market making operation. This 40% figure makes you and your product a joke, and rightly so. You could suck in a lot more marks if you would use a figure like 4%.

 

[CoachFergie]

Why do scam artists use such outrageously laughable claims? If you are going to pull numbers out of your butt then why not choose numbers that sound plausible? Madoff's con worked well because he gave most people a steady return that was a little higher than people expected from the market. They could rationalize the higher return by thinking that Madoff was using information from his market making operation. This 40% figure makes you and your product a joke, and rightly so. You could suck in a lot more marks if you would use a figure like 4%.

I concur with your assessment Mr Deal

Frank has admitted elsewhere that the 40% figure is just a marketing claim because he felt that a smaller gain would not be as appealing.

Yes a softer approach to marketing the product would have been far more effective as it would not have encountered so much resistance.

The only purpose the claim has served is additional scientific attention than the product deserves seeing every study has found no performance benefits from their use within a widely acceptable time frame in which to see improvements.

Outside the lab in the real world no Gimmickcrank user whether exclusive use (I imagine a handful of non competitive schmucks who will defend the product so as to not look foolish for shelling out a Grand on a worthless product) or non exclusive who have yet to even see a small benefit otherwise after 11 years on the market the distinction between a 5% gain let alone 40% would be a like a Continental Tour rider becoming an outright Tour winning within 12 months.

Where are all the people who have achieved this average 40% gain. Of the 2 reported one clearly falsified his power for a climb in Spain while the other, a MIT student no less, failed to calibrate his power meter before doing a test and claimed a 40% gain in 60min power. Sounded good till we asked the question how his 60min power from a roller based effort was higher than his 20min power from a uphill time trial

Robert Chung labelled Frank a performance artist for the way he skirts around the lack of evidence for his claims and his attempts to marginalise the science behind the use of a power meter to measure performance. Robert also, btw, has developed a rather effective method for using a power meter to determine frontal area so there is another benefit.

So Frank what is a better metric than wattage to measure performance? Not results, performance!

 

[FrankDay]

Frank has admitted elsewhere that the 40% figure is just a marketing claim because he felt that a smaller gain would not be as appealing.

I have admitted that the 40% number is a marketing claim. It is only a marketing claim because I don't have proof that it is accurate and I use it in marketing. I have evidence to support making it but my evidence does not constitute proof. Because I don't have proof and because I understand that users might be necessarily hesitant to throw a grand my way for marketing hype I also offer a 90 day money-back guarantee. If a user isn't seeing improvement in that time that supports the products worth to them then they can get their money back. About 2 in a thousand send them back for that refund. The last one called to say he was sending them back and I asked him what the problem was. He said he simply couldn't adapt to them. When I got them and took a look at them they had never been installed on his bike!!! So, where on earth did you get that I pulled this number out of the air for marketing purposes because a smaller number would not look as good? Be specific please.

Yes a softer approach to marketing the product would have been far more effective as it would not have encountered so much resistance.

Phooey. The product either works or it doesn't. If it doesn't work, as you claim, a 5% claim (to look better) would be just as "scammy". If it does work, then the only questions are: 1. How much will it work for you? and 2. Is the amount of improvement you see coming worth a grand to you? (if not, we give you the opportunity to send them back and get your money back.) That 40% number is there because that is what our data says it should be, not because I wanted to choose a number that would look good.

Outside the lab in the real world no Gimmickcrank user whether exclusive use (I imagine a handful of non competitive schmucks who will defend the product so as to not look foolish for shelling out a Grand on a worthless product) or non exclusive who have yet to even see a small benefit otherwise after 11 years on the market the distinction between a 5% gain let alone 40% would be a like a Continental Tour rider becoming an outright Tour winning within 12 months.

A 40% power improvement adds about 2-3 mph to most users. I suspect that 2-3 mph would not get most of the people who read this to pro-tour status. Further, it is unlikely that it would bump someone here above those pro-tour riders since most of them are already using the product. The list is pretty long. Pretty hard to leap-frog someone already using a product by starting to use the product yourself.

Where are all the people who have achieved this average 40% gain. Of the 2 reported one clearly falsified his power for a climb in Spain while the other, a MIT student no less, failed to calibrate his power meter before doing a test and claimed a 40% gain in 60min power. Sounded good till we asked the question how his 60min power from a roller based effort was higher than his 20min power from a uphill time trial

If all you got are these ad hominem attacks, they are getting old. Your attacks on me fail so now you attack others who aren't here to defend themselves. It is really old. Anyhow, where are those people? Perhaps you have missed the video of users who have volunteered to us their stories. Here are the stories of about 50 cyclists regarding their cycling improvements and reports of the "rehab benefits" from users, many of whom are cyclists.

Robert Chung labelled Frank a performance artist for the way he skirts around the lack of evidence for his claims and his attempts to marginalise the science behind the use of a power meter to measure performance. Robert also, btw, has developed a rather effective method for using a power meter to determine frontal area so there is another benefit. [\QUOTE]

So Frank what is a better metric than wattage to measure performance? Not results, performance!

Well, here is a definition of performance I pulled off the web.
n.

The act of performing or the state of being performed.
The act or style of performing a work or role before an audience.
The way in which someone or something functions: The pilot rated the airplane's performance in high winds.
A presentation, especially a theatrical one, before an audience.
Something performed; an accomplishment.
Linguistics. One's actual use of language in actual situations.

It is a little unclear to me as to exactly what you mean when you say performance as it relates to cycling other than from a racers perspective, race results.

Anyhow, now that we have had this little PowerCranks diversion, is it possible to get back to discussing the leirdal paper.

 

[BroDeal]

Phooey. The product either works or it doesn't. If it doesn't work, as you claim, a 5% claim (to look better) would be just as "scammy". If it does work, then the only questions are: 1. How much will it work for you? and 2. Is the amount of improvement you see coming worth a grand to you? (if not, we give you the opportunity to send them back and get your money back.) That 40% number is there because that is what our data says it should be, not because I wanted to choose a number that would look good.

A 40% power improvement adds about 2-3 mph to most users. I suspect that 2-3 mph would not get most of the people who read this to pro-tour status. Further, it is unlikely that it would bump someone here above those pro-tour riders since most of them are already using the product. The list is pretty long. Pretty hard to leap-frog someone already using a product by starting to use the product yourself.

Jeebus! You just keep digging.

Research shows that EPO gives a 5 - 15% improvement. Those figures are probably high for elite athletes, but here you are telling people that your con job of a product can give people up to eight times the boost that EPO would. Why would any Pro Tour rider risk getting busted for dope when they can use Gimmick Cranks to get an improvement that could be almost an order of magnitude higher? Or maybe we could apply efficient market theory by pointing out that if your scam worked even a fraction as well as what you claim then every single pro would have to use it because they would be at a huge disadvantage if they did not, so huge that they would not be competitive.

You need to actually spend some time using a power meter before making yourself look like a fool. 40% is massive. There are vast numbers of riders who would move up to pro levels of performance if they could get a 40% improvement. Even your 2-3 mph, which you throw around like it is trivial, is huge. Triathletes who are averaging 22mph for the bike leg would trade in their BMWs to average 25. I would kill to average 25 for four and a half hours.

For an effective bamboozle, you should use a small figure. Not only will it be more believable but people will not be able to objectively determine whether the product works or not. The placebo effect will be enough to convince many that it works for them. Heck, cycling sites are full of dumbasses who actually claim that they can feel the difference while riding ceramic bearings. Those same dumbasses will feel that Gimmick Cranks work for them and tell others.

 

[ergmonkey]

A 40% power improvement adds about 2-3 mph to most users. I suspect that 2-3 mph would not get most of the people who read this to pro-tour status.

A 40% increase in my functional threshold power would result in my producing 590 watts at FTP. That's 7.11 watts/kg just in case you're wondering.

I'm not a pro tour level rider, nor am I stupid enough to think that I can be.

However, if you're so confident of your 40% performance gain, then you are more than welcome to buy a pro tour license, sign me for a typical market value gc-leader salary, hire some domestiques, and then take my 7.11 watts/kg to the Tour to dominate the competition.

Don't worry about my ability for longer efforts, either; I'm much stronger in stage racing and/or 5+ hour efforts than I am for 40-60 minute time trials.

I'll also point out that if "most" pro tour riders are using your product and enjoying these benefits, how on earth are the other riders making up for those missing "2-3 mph"?

How stupid do you think we are, Frank?

 

[CoachFergie]

I have admitted that the 40% number is a marketing claim. It is only a marketing claim because I don't have proof that it is accurate and I use it in marketing. I have evidence to support making it but my evidence does not constitute proof. Because I don't have proof and because I understand that users might be necessarily hesitant to throw a grand my way for marketing hype I also offer a 90 day money-back guarantee. If a user isn't seeing improvement in that time that supports the products worth to them then they can get their money back. About 2 in a thousand send them back for that refund. The last one called to say he was sending them back and I asked him what the problem was. He said he simply couldn't adapt to them. When I got them and took a look at them they had never been installed on his bike!!! So, where on earth did you get that I pulled this number out of the air for marketing purposes because a smaller number would not look as good? Be specific please.

Comedy Gold Frank.

Phooey. The product either works or it doesn't. If it doesn't work, as you claim, a 5% claim (to look better) would be just as "scammy". If it does work, then the only questions are: 1. How much will it work for you? and 2. Is the amount of improvement you see coming worth a grand to you? (if not, we give you the opportunity to send them back and get your money back.) That 40% number is there because that is what our data says it should be, not because I wanted to choose a number that would look good.

Is that the data you claimed you had but couldn't find. Damn, that's just too bad seeing nones seems to want to take your word for it.

A 40% power improvement adds about 2-3 mph to most users. I suspect that 2-3 mph would not get most of the people who read this to pro-tour status. Further, it is unlikely that it would bump someone here above those pro-tour riders since most of them are already using the product. The list is pretty long. Pretty hard to leap-frog someone already using a product by starting to use the product yourself.

A handful Frank, don't delude yourself and don't insult the large group of Pro's who clearly race and train on normal cranks.

If all you got are these ad hominem attacks, they are getting old. Your attacks on me fail so now you attack others who aren't here to defend themselves. It is really old. Anyhow, where are those people? Perhaps you have missed the video of users who have volunteered to us their stories. Here are the stories of about 50 cyclists regarding their cycling improvements and reports of the "rehab benefits" from users, many of whom are cyclists.

Well if you need an informercial to sell ya product

People can go to Slowtwitch and CyclingForums to confirm the deceit that went on over those two specific claims.

Well, here is a definition of performance I pulled off the web.
n.

The act of performing or the state of being performed.
The act or style of performing a work or role before an audience.
The way in which someone or something functions: The pilot rated the airplane's performance in high winds.
A presentation, especially a theatrical one, before an audience.
Something performed; an accomplishment.
Linguistics. One's actual use of language in actual situations.

It is a little unclear to me as to exactly what you mean when you say performance as it relates to cycling other than from a racers perspective, race results.

Nice side step Frank. We are talking about physiological measures that can be used to measure work. I propose power is the current Gold standard for riding a bike. You suggest miles per hour above

{quote]Anyhow, now that we have had this little PowerCranks diversion, is it possible to get back to discussing the leirdal paper.[/QUOTE]

We are Frank, we are learning how changing force application around the pedal stroke doesn't improve power on the bike and how clearly there are far more important performance factors in cycling and the only ones who claim otherwise have a product to market. Be sure to let us know when a study shows a performance improvement from changing force application around the pedal stroke.

 

[oldborn]

Actually, I think they do.
With relevant ratios and tactics of course.

Again to many variables Tapeworm. When i would have a chance to measure wind/air pressure/frontal area, and compared it with work, maybe wats would be 110% relevant figures.

If i want to be faster on 40km bike leg in Tri for 45 sec, what i should do?
Improving transition: 20 sec
Better position/aero wheels: 10 sec
Training for intervals and long tempo rides: 15 sec

If i want to spend 2000 euros for SRM, what i should looking to improve?
Maybe training strategy, looking at numbers and see „i was in red“ allready knowing that cos i am so ****ed up. 2000 euros for average Joe Cyclist is what? Zipp wheels.

If i want to spend 1000 USD for Power Cranks, what i should looking to improve?
Efficiency and less power needed for same speed, maybe!

So between two products; first is there to quantify numbers, second is maybe for improving efficiency, less power, i will go for PC. Hypothesis off course.

Why we are so scientific geeks in PC? Is there any product on the Earth which need so studies?

We are not eating it, and it is not Discovery shuttle. I am expecting United Nations and FDA to bless or disaprove PC.

On the other hand we are buying PM as donuts, without single evidence that training with them improve our speed, FTP, power, LT, **** etc.

Frank, you are selling it wright? So sell it, move those studies aproach cos any gear in cycling has not evidence it is actually work. If people love it let it be, if not return them money.

IMHO, forgot studies and those % improvement numbers, cos fitness industrie does not care for it.
Only ones who care for studies are people who are having same share of interest in industrie, and we know who are they.

 

[oldborn]

We are Frank, we are learning how changing force application around the pedal stroke doesn't improve power on the bike and how clearly there are far more important performance factors in cycling and the only ones who claim otherwise have a product to market. Be sure to let us know when a study shows a performance improvement from changing force application around the pedal stroke.

Please let us know when study shows a performance improvement from power meter

Move on Fergie from power, it so old and simple that even "Jillian Michaels lose weight guru" knows how to do handle it.

There is more than power Dude, strenght per example
When did you graduate, and when? In NZ? Hmmmmm

 

[FrankDay]

Where are all the people who have achieved this average 40% gain.

Not to beat a dead horse Fergie but where are all the people who ordered the product to prove I am a fraud and then confirmed it. Don't tell me you don't think anyone hasn't tried? Anyhow, where are those reports?

And, I thought of two examples for you. Two people just like you. Big disbelievers, thought my claims were "impossible". I challenged them on two different forums to use the product as I directed and simply report back to the group. One fellow (TTN) on slowtwitch was told the only caveate was if he liked the product he had to buy it. He sent me a check after only 3 weeks with the cranks. The other was a track cyclist named Phil Holman. This went all the way back to the old RBR user groups in 2000. Here is Phil's final report to the group:

"This will be my final report for 2000 having trained fairly consistently
with the Power Cranks for the last 7 months.
For those not familiar with my training and reports, I was a skeptic of the
claims made by their inventor Frank Day and volunteered to train with
them and report on my findings. The cranks work by going out of phase
if you do not pull up on them (each crank has its own freewheel so to speak)
The constant feedback forces the rider to modify their pedal stroke and
always provide positive torque to the cranks with both legs.

My final conclusion is that they worked for me.
I've been a life time sports and fitness enthusiast and have been cycling
competitively for the last 10 years. I'm 50 years old so for me to see the
improvement in my performance over the last several months has been
totally awesome.
Winning a Bronze Medal at World Masters Track has been a real kick. Its been
almost 3 weeks and I'm still grinning.
The following is a list of observations/hints that I discovered when using
the cranks and may be useful to some in obtaining maximum benefit.

1/ Pulling up on the cranks is best achieved at a lower cadence (80 rpm). At
this speed the hamstrings and hip flexors get a good workout but expect it
to take a couple of weeks for these muscles to be strong enough for you
to pedal continuously for a couple of miles at a time.

2/ Modification of ones pedal stroke with increased pull-up tends to
diminish the magnitude of the downstroke. Someone actually reported
that they deteriorated overall after using the Cranks.
This is noticeable when climbing out of the saddle or trying to
accelerate quickly with a pedal stomp. What I did to counteract this was to
do a few 10 minute sessions of climbing a week using my quads only to
maintain their power and strength.

3/ The Power Cranks require good discipline to use as they are more awkward
to get in and out of the pedals and are less user friendly when freewheeling
and riding in traffic. I choose a 10 mile loop with light traffic and a
cycle lane to do most of my training.
It had several good climbs in it and was ideal.
It may be difficult to ride them on a group ride especially if you are out
with a bunch of hammer heads.
Make sure you maintain this kind of ride in your workout program if it is
already there.

4/ I did notice increased leg strength after using the cranks not only when
riding but also when walking around. I seemed to have more spring in my step

5/ My training sessions got faster especially intervals on the track.
My pursuit pace for training improved from last years 30 mph to 32 mph this
summer.

6/ My top speed improved from around 35mph to 38mph.

7/ Although I didn't ride any TTs this year (missed Nats with broken arm) my
30min power workouts on the trainer improved to equal my best ever without
having to do my killer TT intervals.

8/ My AT heart rate improved from my usual (low 150s) to 160.
160 was normally my max yet I was able to sustain it for 30 mins......wow.

9/ Most good weeks I put in around 100 miles with the cranks. After several
weeks I noticed that I was automatically pedaling with the same action on my
race, rain and track bikes with regular cranks.

10/ The sound of my trainer has gone from whir....whir....whir....whir to
....whirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

I look forward to continue training with the cranks in the off season and
hope to do a PR in the 40k TT next season. Masters Nats in is in my
home state (WA) for 2001.
Regards
Phil Holman "

Now I must admit this degree of improvement doesn't meet our claims. The power improvements only calculate to about 30% in this 7 month period and if our claim was correct he should have won worlds. But, we have to accept these little inconsistencies in life.

 

[BroDeal]

Now I must admit this degree of improvement doesn't meet our claims. The power improvements only calculate to about 30% in this 7 month period and if our claim was correct he should have won worlds.

LOL. Only 30%.

 

[acoggan]

There is more than power Dude, strenght per example

Strength plays very little, if any, role in determining performance in most forms of cycling. Indeed, even in the case of a standing start performed on the track strength accounts for only ~25% of the variation between individuals in the time required to cover the first 25 m (i.e., about 3 pedal strokes).

 

[FrankDay]

Strength plays very little, if any, role in determining performance in most forms of cycling. Indeed, even in the case of a standing start performed on the track strength accounts for only ~25% of the variation between individuals in the time required to cover the first 25 m (i.e., about 3 pedal strokes).

What accounts for the rest of the variation?