For the "pedaling technique doesn't matter crowd"

[BroDeal]

The great thing about internet kooks like Frank is that it is easy to google all sorts of risible claims that they have made. I like this one from Slowtwitch about the 40% improvement:

"Ugh, "most" does not mean all, it would simply mean about half or more. Second, that claim requires the user to use the cranks exclusively (or nearly so) for a period of 6-9 months. To see the benefit one must do the hard work. Since many users do not use them exclusively, the fact that "most" users do not report such improvements is not evidence the claim is hogwash. Those who use them as I suggest frequently and regularly see such improvements well exceeding the 50% mark. Those who do not, do not."

Frequently and regularly...exceeding the 50% mark! What type of idiot makes a claim like that and expects people to believe him? Why stop at 50%? Why not 60% or 70%?

 

[FrankDay]

The great thing about internet kooks like Frank is that it is easy to google all sorts of risible claims that they have made. I like this one from Slowtwitch about the 40% improvement:

"Ugh, "most" does not mean all, it would simply mean about half or more. Second, that claim requires the user to use the cranks exclusively (or nearly so) for a period of 6-9 months. To see the benefit one must do the hard work. Since many users do not use them exclusively, the fact that "most" users do not report such improvements is not evidence the claim is hogwash. Those who use them as I suggest frequently and regularly see such improvements well exceeding the 50% mark. Those who do not, do not."

Frequently and regularly...exceeding the 50% mark! What type of idiot makes a claim like that and expects people to believe him? Why stop at 50%? Why not 60% or 70%?

Well, Joe Skufka reported his average speed for a 12 mile time trial he did about once a month to test his fitness improved from 20 to 25 mph in 6 months, was up to 27 mph the next year and up to 28 mph the third year. That is almost a doubling of calculated power (assuming his aerodynamics didn't change) in that first season and a 250% increase over 3 years.

Look. it really doesn't matter whether you believe these reports as possible or not. It doesn't really matter if my 40% number should really be 20% (or 10%). Those who are reporting these results seem to believe they are true. The only question you should be really asking is "what might they do for me?" You might really believe the potential for you is zero. That is what Phil Holman thought. But, as he proved, one cannot know for sure until one tries. Failing to try guarantees they will not work for you.

 

[BroDeal]

Well, Joe Skufka reported his average speed for a 12 mile time trial he did about once a month to test his fitness improved from 20 to 25 mph in 6 months, was up to 27 mph the next year and up to 28 mph the third year. That is a doubling of calculated power (assuming his aerodynamics didn't change) albeit over 3 years, not one season.

What? Now the claim has moved up to a 100% power increase. Where does it stop?

Gosh, do you think that this reported increase might be attributable to something other than a scam product with no verifiable record of working? You know, like training that would have produced similar results on regular cranks.

I can hardly wait for you to post an altered power data file and then express shock that someone can detect that it was modified.

But, as he proved, one cannot know for sure until one tries.

I don't need to send my money to Nigeria before figuring out that a scam is a scam.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

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

Not a study, but I used a power meter to help my client make sound equipment choices for an attempt to set a new world masters hour record.

The difference between helmet, wheels (all aero) and a few mm of saddle height gained him about another 1.5km.

On the basis of should I use a front disk or the 808?
Which aero helmet should I use - I have 3 to choose from?
What happens if we modify saddle height a little?

All answered with the smart use of a power meter and directly resulting in superior performance.

 

[FrankDay]

Well, Joe Skufka reported his average speed for a 12 mile time trial he did about once a month to test his fitness improved from 20 to 25 mph in 6 months, was up to 27 mph the next year and up to 28 mph the third year. That is a doubling of calculated power (assuming his aerodynamics didn't change) albeit over 3 years, not one season.

What? Now the claim has moved up to a 100% power increase. Where does it stop?

Gosh, do you think that this reported increase might be attributable to something other than a scam product with no verifiable record of working? You know, like training that would have produced similar results on regular cranks.

Well, I guess there could be some training effect in those improvements also, in fact, I would be surprised if there weren't. But, it is impossible to separate the two. Because it is impossible to separate the two, our claims simply include the total improvement our users typically see and report. That 40% improvement, of course, includes some normal training benefit. However, it is difficult to explain some of these results on training effect alone. Many of these reports occur in the face of users having plateaued using regular cranks (the reason they took the leap). Hard to attribute those improvements to training effect. Or, take Phil Holman, a well-trained 50 yo man being able to increase his sustainable HR as he gets older. How is that explained by simple training effect?

I don't need to send my money to Nigeria before figuring out that a scam is a scam.

Neither do I.

 

[FrankDay]

Not a study, but I used a power meter to help my client make sound equipment choices for an attempt to set a new world masters hour record.

The difference between helmet, wheels (all aero) and a few mm of saddle height gained him about another 1.5km.

On the basis of should I use a front disk or the 808?
Which aero helmet should I use - I have 3 to choose from?
What happens if we modify saddle height a little?

All answered with the smart use of a power meter and directly resulting in superior performance.

As you noted, not a study. And you were using the tool in a specialized manner, to avoid the need to go to the wind tunnel. This is not the typical use for a PM by the masses and it is not clear you couldn't have done an equally good job by going to the track on a calm day using speed (or a stopwatch) and PE or HR.

A PM is not worthless and the use you put it to is one I would use all the time if I were a coach. That use is simply beyond the capability of the typical PM user. Even so, the question is whether it is superior to other methods to achieve a racing end. There is simply zero scientific evidence to support that contention.

 

[BroDeal]

Well, I guess there could be some training effect in those improvements also, in fact, I would be surprised if there weren't. But, it is impossible to separate the two. Because it is impossible to separate the two, our claims simply include the total improvement our users typically see and report. That 40% improvement, of course, includes some normal training benefit. However, it is difficult to explain some of these results on training effect alone.

When I train with a bundle of cat whiskers in my pocket, I see a considerable increase in performance. I guess some of the gains could come from training and not the cat whiskers. In fact, I would be surprised if that was not so. But it is impossible to separate the training effects from the cat whisker effects, so I simply include the total improvements that I typically see. Although the improvements include some normal training benefit, it is difficult to explain some of these results on training effect alone.

In light of this less than peer reviewed research, I am now offering bundles of cat whiskers for the very reasonable price of $1000. Many--dare I say most--of our users experience power increases of 40% or more. Bengal cat whiskers are $200 extra but are said to provide an extra 10% improvement. Money back guarantee for 90 days; whiskers must be carried at all times for nine months to see a benefit. Order now and we will throw in not one but two Ginzu chef's knives.

 

[Tapeworm]

I've been using cat whiskers for two months now. I use them every time I train and when I'm doing my intervals they really seem to give me a lift. My FTP has gone from 250 to 270 in this time, I just don't think it would be possible without them. I've dropping more and more of my riding group and they have been trying the whiskers themselves and all say they really can feel them working. A friend if mine who is now a world champion rides with them every time.

Can't wait for the carbon whiskers to come out!

 

[FrankDay]

When I train with a bundle of cat whiskers in my pocket, I see a considerable increase in performance. I guess some of the gains could come from training and not the cat whiskers. In fact, I would be surprised if that was not so. But it is impossible to separate the training effects from the cat whisker effects, so I simply include the total improvements that I typically see. Although the improvements include some normal training benefit, it is difficult to explain some of these results on training effect alone.

In light of this less than peer reviewed research, I am now offering bundles of cat whiskers for the very reasonable price of $1000. Many--dare I say most--of our users experience power increases of 40% or more. Bengal cat whiskers are $200 extra but are said to provide an extra 10% improvement. Money back guarantee for 90 days; whiskers must be carried at all times for nine months to see a benefit. Order now and we will throw in not one but two Ginzu chef's knives.

Hey, no question people get better with training. It is simply my contention that if one spends that time being smarter about their training one can improve more than they otherwise would. I believe training more muscles and training a more efficient technique, all at the same time, results in such improvements. You cannot see the utility of this until some scientist proves the benefit. So be it.

I will pass on your cat whiskers. You can pass on my cranks.

Now can we get back to Leirdal

 

[BroDeal]

I've been using cat whiskers for two months now. I use them every time I train and when I'm doing my intervals they really seem to give me a lift. My FTP has gone from 250 to 270 in this time, I just don't think it would be possible without them. I've dropping more and more of my riding group and they have been trying the whiskers themselves and all say they really can feel them working. A friend if mine who is now a world champion rides with them every time.

Aha! An unsolicited testimonial. Cat whiskers do work. From now on until the end of time I will post this new evidence on every cycling message board from Australia to Zimbabwe and use it as a defense against anyone who questions Feline Powercranks--err, I mean Feline Power Whiskers. This is evidence that mere science cannot impugn.

 

[FrankDay]

Aha! An unsolicited testimonial. Cat whiskers do work. From now on until the end of time I will post this new evidence on every cycling message board from Australia to Zimbabwe and use it as a defense against anyone who questions Feline Powercranks--err, I mean Feline Power Whiskers. This is evidence that mere science cannot impugn.

There is one scientific difference between PC's and Cat Whiskers. PC's have a testable hypothesis as to how they might achieve their reported results. I look forward to hearing about what the testable hypothesis regarding cat whiskers might be. BTW, the leirdal paper (remember that?) is somewhat related to part of that PC hypothesis.

 

[acoggan]

What accounts for the rest of the variation?

Presumably power and technique (e.g., coincidence anticipation timing).

 

[FrankDay]

Presumably power and reaction time.

Huh? Since power is a function of force vs distance (and distance is fixed), it would seem to me that "force" is related to strength, and you have told us that strength only accounts for 25% of the variation. That would leave reaction time. Gear selection doesn't come into play? The amount of force the rider can exert pulling up that first turn or two or at the top and bottom doesn't come into play? Or, smoothness of power application? Come on, your use of the word presumably means no one knows. Really? If so little is known about 75% of the difference how can you be so sure about this other 25%?

 

[FrankDay]

Presumably power and technique (e.g., coincidence anticipation timing).

Oops, changed on me. You mean technique matters? Never thought I would hear those words off your keyboard. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "coincidence anticipation timing"?

 

[CoachFergie]

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.

No they don't and nowhere in Phil's quaint little testimonial do they mention power only an increase in speed. Seeing he was training in US (no indoor tracks back then) and Worlds were on Manchester (indoor board track where numerous World Records have been set) where speed will increase dramatically the increase is no surprise. I remain unimpressed.

 

[CoachFergie]

Well, Joe Skufka reported his average speed for a 12 mile time trial he did about once a month to test his fitness improved from 20 to 25 mph in 6 months, was up to 27 mph the next year and up to 28 mph the third year. That is almost a doubling of calculated power (assuming his aerodynamics didn't change) in that first season and a 250% increase over 3 years.

Look. it really doesn't matter whether you believe these reports as possible or not. It doesn't really matter if my 40% number should really be 20% (or 10%). Those who are reporting these results seem to believe they are true. The only question you should be really asking is "what might they do for me?" You might really believe the potential for you is zero. That is what Phil Holman thought. But, as he proved, one cannot know for sure until one tries. Failing to try guarantees they will not work for you.

Again an increase in speed. This in itself is meaningless as there is no control for weather or riding surface between tests. Phil Holman would have gone from an outdoor concrete track to an indoor board track. Real scientific!

Ah yes, the Frank Day leap of faith. Sorry Frank the evidence is there and it doesn't look good for Gimmickcrankers.

 

[CoachFergie]

Or, take Phil Holman, a well-trained 50 yo man being able to increase his sustainable HR as he gets older. How is that explained by simple training effect?

And that has what to do with performance?

 

[CoachFergie]

As you noted, not a study. And you were using the tool in a specialized manner, to avoid the need to go to the wind tunnel. This is not the typical use for a PM by the masses and it is not clear you couldn't have done an equally good job by going to the track on a calm day using speed (or a stopwatch) and PE or HR.

A PM is not worthless and the use you put it to is one I would use all the time if I were a coach. That use is simply beyond the capability of the typical PM user. Even so, the question is whether it is superior to other methods to achieve a racing end. There is simply zero scientific evidence to support that contention.

PE or HR

Please Frank, start coaching my rivals.

Even on an indoor track speed, HR and PE and lap times are nowhere near as sensitive as wattage.

 

[FrankDay]

And that has what to do with performance?

What is it about how the body gets oxygen to the muscles do you not understand? Plenty, I guess. Anyhow, it has to do with performance if means his cardiac output at AT has increased. Even though you didn't understand the significance of the change, the question was, how would you explain it? I can. How would you?

 

[FrankDay]

PE or HR

Please Frank, start coaching my rivals.

Even on an indoor track speed, HR and PE and lap times are nowhere near as sensitive as wattage.

I didn't say they weren't (although I might question your contention that lap times are not as sensitive since 0.1 second on a 20 second lap is a 0.5% difference. Not many power meters that sensitive or accurate.) All I asked for is some proof that using a PM for this purpose gives a better ultimate result for what was being attempted.

 

[CoachFergie]

Hey, no question people get better with training. It is simply my contention that if one spends that time being smarter about their training one can improve more than they otherwise would. I believe training more muscles and training a more efficient technique, all at the same time, results in such improvements. You cannot see the utility of this until some scientist proves the benefit. So be it.

Training smarter, yeah that's right, how would one best quantify that???

Training more muscles, hmmmm, I would have thought the idea is to train the body to use less muscle to carry out the same level of work at a lower energy cost. Sounds like something you would need to quantify. What could I use to quantify two different techniques Frank?

Ride more efficiently, yeah that's good. Probably couldn't train and race with a Cosmed Portable Gas Analyser so possibly some other tool that could at least measure the work I had performed. Any ideas Frank?

I will pass on your cat whiskers. You can pass on my cranks.

Well let's not be too hasty. We need a randomised control trial to compare the performance effects between both products to accurately assess these claims. Now seeing both products make a claim to improve performance we need to choose some variable to measure that would reflect a real improvement in performance. Any ideas Frank?

Now can we get back to Leirdal

Well there is a physiological difference between groups in the study. I guess now it needs to be tested to see if there is a performance difference between the two methods. Perhaps this has been done. Just trying to think if there have been any studies between a group that performed training using a normal pedalling style and a group that performed training using a crank that required a different pedalling style. May have to have a lookie on Google Scholar seeing they have some full studies available to those who are not involved in academia. Wouldn't want to just rely on the abstract.

 

[CoachFergie]

What is it about how the body gets oxygen to the muscles do you not understand? Plenty, I guess. Anyhow, it has to do with performance if means his cardiac output at AT has increased. Even though you didn't understand the significance of the change, the question was, how would you explain it? I can. How would you?

But heart rate is affected by so many other factors as well so isn't really the best measure of performance while a watt is a watt!

It's not like you can say that Contador needs to sustain a heart rate of 165 to win the Tour but you can say he needs to be able to sustain 6.8 W/kg on the big climbs to withstand the attacks from the Schleck brothers.

 

[FrankDay]

]Training more muscles, hmmmm, I would have thought the idea is to train the body to use less muscle to carry out the same level of work at a lower energy cost.

LOL. You heard it here folks. Fergie wants to reduce the amount of muscle he trains in his athletes and he apparently thinks that that this lesser amount of muscle can do the same work more muscle can do and he somehow thinks this lesser muscle mass can do this same amount of work at a lower energy cost. Fergie, regardless of whether what you say is possible or not (I submit it is not) I would have thought you would be looking to increase the work your athletes can do, but what would I know?

 

[FrankDay]

But heart rate is affected by so many other factors as well so isn't really the best measure of performance while a watt is a watt!

It's not like you can say that Contador needs to sustain a heart rate of 165 to win the Tour but you can say he needs to be able to sustain 6.8 W/kg on the big climbs to withstand the attacks from the Schleck brothers.

I didn't say it was the best measure of performance. Holman reported he increased his HR at AT from the low 150's to 160 (his previous max HR before the PowerCranks). How is that possible? I know to you that ignorance is bliss but I find this an interesting change that needs to be explained.

 

[CoachFergie]

I didn't say they weren't (although I might question your contention that lap times are not as sensitive since 0.1 second on a 20 second lap is a 0.5% difference. Not many power meters that sensitive or accurate.) All I asked for is some proof that using a PM for this purpose gives a better ultimate result for what was being attempted.

But one data point (two at best) every lap is not as good as a wattage, speed, cadence and heart rate every 1sec (or 10th of a second if you have the scientific model). The BCF and Kiwis even overlay the power data with video data to ensure the application of power is technically sound.

I mean it was good enough of Andy and I to point out that your chap who was going to have a crack at the Hour record on the stupid big gear was going to encounter problems trying to sustain an even pace. It was all nice in theory training on an erg but refresh our memory what happened when he tried to ride on the track like that