Not sure why you poked your nose in. Anyhow, I would submit that there are no contradictions by me in this thread, despite Fergies constantly asserting (without documentation) that there are. If there is something I have said that is a seeming contradiction I would be happy to clarify (or correct, if necessary) if only I knew what the contradiction is.daveinzambia said:
- Status
- Apr 21, 2009
- 3,095
- 0
- 13,480
Claiming that Cadel and others are Gimmickcrankers when they don't meet the exclusive use criteria that you claim makes the good studies published in respected physiology journals null and void.
Thanks Frank, a paragraph in a autobiography is really good evidence, more amusement for me and another nail in the coffin of real science. Your Medicine and Engineering teachers must look at you with such pride.
Righto, off to coach a large group of kids on the Indoor Track in Invercargill while it snows outside. If we survive the 7 hour drive down.
Thanks Frank, a paragraph in a autobiography is really good evidence, more amusement for me and another nail in the coffin of real science. Your Medicine and Engineering teachers must look at you with such pride.
Righto, off to coach a large group of kids on the Indoor Track in Invercargill while it snows outside. If we survive the 7 hour drive down.
CoachFergie said:
Anyone who uses independent cranks in training is rightfully considered a PowerCranker whether they choose to follow my advice for best use or not. Perhaps, they have figured out a better way to use them than I have. My "exclusive use" recommendation is what I believe is necessary to see the on average benefits I claim in the time-frame I claim. A study designed to test those claims that ignores the requirements for the claim cannot test the claim. It is that simple, no contradiction. Try again.
- Jul 20, 2011
- 619
- 0
- 0
Poked my nose in because i wanted to. free forum. was actually trying to make a point in your defence. given you slightly aggressive response (now I am sure you are going to say where exactly was my response aggressive and demand detailed data, i found your response aggressive and that is all the data you are getting)
Coach said you had contradicted yourself by saying Cadel was your client. My point was even if it meant you had contradicted yourself (and frankly i do care in the slightest if you had and whether your cranks work) of course you were going to publicise the fact that Cadel used your product and you would be an idiot not too.
if you look at the quote you have used above I said that coach was trying to get you to contradict yourself, but seems like you want to pick a fight with everyone even those that thought there were making a point slightly in your favour.
to re iterate, i have no interest in whether your cranks work, have no understanding of whether they could work or not, no knowledge of Power meters and there relative benefits. if any of your or the coaches clients need training in 'using training rides as an excuse for over eating', 'generation of perfectly valid sounding excuses for not training today' and for the advanced 'generation of perfected valid sounding excuses for not training today while still allowing yourself to overeat' then I am your man. I think with my expertise i can safely make both your cranks and the coaches power meters redundant.
the cat whiskers may be too powerful for even me though.
Coach said you had contradicted yourself by saying Cadel was your client. My point was even if it meant you had contradicted yourself (and frankly i do care in the slightest if you had and whether your cranks work) of course you were going to publicise the fact that Cadel used your product and you would be an idiot not too.
if you look at the quote you have used above I said that coach was trying to get you to contradict yourself, but seems like you want to pick a fight with everyone even those that thought there were making a point slightly in your favour.
to re iterate, i have no interest in whether your cranks work, have no understanding of whether they could work or not, no knowledge of Power meters and there relative benefits. if any of your or the coaches clients need training in 'using training rides as an excuse for over eating', 'generation of perfectly valid sounding excuses for not training today' and for the advanced 'generation of perfected valid sounding excuses for not training today while still allowing yourself to overeat' then I am your man. I think with my expertise i can safely make both your cranks and the coaches power meters redundant.
the cat whiskers may be too powerful for even me though.
- Jul 4, 2009
- 9,666
- 0
- 0
...interesting article...maybe not specifically on topic but interesting non-the-less...
http://www.thepostgame.com/features/201107/usain-bolt-case-study-science-sprinting
Cheers
blutto
http://www.thepostgame.com/features/201107/usain-bolt-case-study-science-sprinting
Cheers
blutto
Interesting article although from a purely physics perspective some of what they say makes zero sense. Probably a problem of a journalist who doesn't understand much about this trying to put a complicated issue into simple terms.blutto said:
I do have to say I am slightly taken aback that there hasn't been a single response to the above comment, either agreeing with me, asking for more specifics, or, as is more typical here, commenting that I don't have a clue what I am talking about and bringing up PowerCranks as an example.FrankDay said:
Frank,
I just read the article ...
It is probably a fairly good explanation of why Bolt is so fast -
1) fewer strides per distance - thanks to his height.
2) leg speed & acceleration not reduced by his size - thanks to his strength.
Basically, the article describes someone who is 'gifted' for sprinting.
The article is 'informative', but not really 'helpful'.
Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
I just read the article ...
It is probably a fairly good explanation of why Bolt is so fast -
1) fewer strides per distance - thanks to his height.
2) leg speed & acceleration not reduced by his size - thanks to his strength.
Basically, the article describes someone who is 'gifted' for sprinting.
The article is 'informative', but not really 'helpful'.
Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
- Mar 9, 2009
- 540
- 7
- 9,595
Is there any danger we can have a thread about pedalling technique that doesn't degenerate into a debate about Powercranks? It was funny and entertaining at first, but now it's just boring! 
I dare someone to start a new thread, banning any mention of 'them'.
I dare someone to start a new thread, banning any mention of 'them'.
It is a fairly good explanation as to what sets elite sprinters apart from average runners but not what really sets Bolt apart from other elites. What is said about Bolt is true for all the elite sprinters. Nothing is said in there about what sets Bolt apart from his competition, other than his height, which conventional thinking would predict would work against him, and he excels at all three aspects of the race.JayKosta said:
The article also claims that ordinary people and elites have "essentially the same leg turnover". Using the numbers in the article I would submit that a turnover of 250/min is not "essentially the same" as a turnover of 300/min. The numbers sound reasonably similar but the amount of energy involved in attaining those two rates is hugely different.
The article fails to notice that elite runners are forced to have their foot on the ground less time than slower runners simply because they are running faster or the hip ROM while the foot is on the ground would be bizarre. It is a chicken or egg thing. "Normal" running form requires the faster one is going the shorter time the foot is going to be on the ground.
I also question some of the force data given. Horizontal forces have to be huge when these folks are accelerating but once up to speed all the foot is doing is putting enough horizontal force into the ground to overcome the slowing due to wind resistance when airborne (and any braking from foot plant, which is probably zero in elite sprinters) and the downward force to "hop" to the next foot plant. Most of the energy expended by these sprinters, during the speed maintenance phase, is used simply to make the legs go around (which has to be huge at a turnover of 300/min, but can be minimized by utilizing proper form).
Let me get this straight. You would like to have a thread about pedaling technique that bans mention the one product out there dedicated to training one particular pedaling technique?Captain Serious said:Is there any danger we can have a thread about pedalling technique that doesn't degenerate into a debate about Powercranks? It was funny and entertaining at first, but now it's just boring!
I dare someone to start a new thread, banning any mention of 'them'.
Even though the Ministry of Magic banned the mentioning of Valdemort, any discussion related to "he who can't be named" involved him whether he is named or not.
Just found out about a study ([url=http://sportsexerciseengineering.com/2012/08/14/study-of-the-pedal-stroke-force-magnitude-and-force-direction-changes-due-to-power-crank-use-over-traditional-connected-cranks/]http://sportsexerciseengineering.com/20 ... ed-cranks/)[/url] that is scheduled to start soon that might get us talking about this topic again. I am not sure of the details of the design but it is going to last 6 months and look at any changes in the pedaling dynamic that occurs as a result of this training and whether there is also any change in VO2max and efficiency that corresponds compared to a control group.
This is the only kind of study design that I know that could possibly answer the question: Does pedaling technique make any difference? Hopefully, this study will be a first step in definitively answering that question one way or the other.
This is the only kind of study design that I know that could possibly answer the question: Does pedaling technique make any difference? Hopefully, this study will be a first step in definitively answering that question one way or the other.
FrankDay said:
You just found out about it????????????? Interesting when they mention:
This study is supported by http://www.powercranks.com
sciguy said:
Yes, I, personally, just found out about it. I think we have agreed to provide them a pair of cranks for their bike they will be using.
FrankDay said:
How many Powercrank purchasers completed the 6 months of exclusive use. Why does it have to be exclusive use ?
I don't have a clue "how many" completed 6 months of exclusive use. Certainly some have as several users have used them exclusively for many years and actually race on them.coapman said:
The reason for "exclusive use" is to maximize the stimulus to train those "new" muscles and retrain the "natural" coordination pattern of the brain because the only time a rider is getting real feedback regarding pedaling technique is when they are riding the PowerCranks. We believe the benefits will come faster and be greater with exclusive use. 6 months is simply the minimum amount of time we think it takes for most to see that 40% power improvement we mention (even though some will not see that amount).
FrankDay said:
What are these "new" muscles" being trained, when trained can they apply effective crank torque. Does the PC user have to increase his normal daily training time. What are the pedaling objectives of the powercrank cyclist ? Have you used PC's exclusively for 6 months and if so, what effect did it have on these "new" muscles. Would torque improvement be apparent if a force/vector powermeter was used before and after using PC's for 6 months and where exactly on the pedaling circle would this torque increase be visible. What type of competitive cyclist could be guaranteed to see that full 40% improvement ?
The two big muscles that are not "new" but are simply being used more are the iliopsoas and the hamstring musclescoapman said:
Yes
No
I am not sure any have any specific pedaling objectives. Most simply are looking for cycling or running improvement.
Edit: let me give you an example that I got yesterday. This customer is a mid 40's runner who had a stroke in April of this year. His rehab was going nowhere and he was looking for ways that might help him to get back to marathoning when he stumbled across PowerCranks. We can assume he was getting the best of "traditional" rehabilitation care (they even had him do some one legged pedaling using the affected side) since his wife is a rehabilitation physician. She had never heard of PowerCranks but accepted this was a reasonable thing to try. Before getting on the PowerCranks he could not run more than 5-6 steps before seeing severe deterioration in his muscles and coordination. He has been on the PowerCranks for a month now. His wife noticed improvement in his gait starting in about a week. He can now run about 100 yards before starting to see gait issues and he is now planning on signing up to do a marathon in November!!! Talk about being a happy camper. Now, he is not a cyclist but I think this illustrates how the PowerCranks train muscles in the legs differently (and better?) than can be achieved in almost any other way.
Yes, in fact, I have used them exclusively for over 10 years. Those new muscles simply became better trained than they were before and they are used more effectively than they were before
Yes, the changes would be obvious. I have posted many times one example that a customer who worked at a university, so he had access to pressure plate pedals, measured himself and forwarded to us. Here it is again:
Anyhow, perhaps this new study will show us what the range of changes are and how the force pattern changes with continued use.
No one is guaranteed to see 40% improvement even though many do. All we guarantee is one will see enough improvement coming within 3 months to make the cranks worth the cost.
HUH? Cadel was a pro when he got on PC's and, presumably, he continues to use them (we got a call from Taylor Phinney last off season that went something like this: "Cadel says I need to get on PowerCranks" then he BOUGHT a pair). And, perhaps you missed this in an earlier post with a quote from Cadel's book.iZnoGouD said:40% improvement? hahaha
that means Cadel Evans is an amateur without that
And, last week we SOLD a pair to a Team Sky Domestique. Wonder where he heard about us?
Anyhow, it is ludicrous to suggest that our 40% improvement figure for our average customer would turn them into TDF champions when the current TDF (and Olympic) champions train on them. The question you had better ask is: If your goal is to become TDF champion are you more likely to reach that goal with or without them in view of what recent champions have done and what they are telling their peers? Anyhow, the training choices you make are yours to make. Others may make different choices than you and which techniques are superior are open to debate.
FrankDay said:Yes, the changes would be obvious. I have posted many times one example that a customer who worked at a university, so he had access to pressure plate pedals, measured himself and forwarded to us. Here it is again:
I have seen this many times but how does this comparison translate into a 40% improvement in power output.
I presume we see this degree of improvement because of three factors. 1. the rider is now using more muscles to propel the bicycle - more muscles being more powerful than fewer muscles and is measured by VO2max - demonstrated by Dixon. 2. The rider is using those muscles more efficiently - more efficient means more power from the same muscle use. Improved efficiency demonstrated by Luttrell study. And, 3. these riders are not TDF caliber so one would expect there to be some improvement just from additional training time effect that they would have seen whether they got on PC's or not (this improvement confuses people that I am attributing it to the PC's when I am not but since I don't know how large it is (or how large any of the components are) I simply lump them together in reporting what our average customer is reporting overall.coapman said:
Put all three together and our average new user is seeing an approximate 40% power improvement. Perhaps this upcoming study will be able to better document these changes and how much each change is worth, presuming they are worth something. Hopefully, this study will eliminate some of the confusion as to what is really going on.
FrankDay said:Yes, the changes would be obvious. I have posted many times one example that a customer who worked at a university, so he had access to pressure plate pedals, measured himself and forwarded to us. Here it is again:
This rider did not learn anything by using PC's because when he returned to regular cranks he does not unweight the rising pedal. That's why I asked what were the objectives of a PC'er. You are attempting to train cyclists as if they were monkeys. If instead of using PC's he had learnt the basic objectives of unweighting, his negative torque would have been eliminated and the effectiveness of his downstroke would have increased. As a PC user he is clearly applying some minimal almost insignificant torque on the entire back stroke but this results in a less effective downstroke, as can be clearly seen. The question arises, how would this comparison appear if he repeated the same test at maximal power output.
What this rider learned from this test is that he had not trained on the PC's enough to completely change how he rode his bike when on regular cranks. It is information like this that causes us to say that one needs to use the cranks exclusively and for a long period of time if one hopes to really make this transformation one must put in the effort. It is like trying to convert someone who throws right handed to become a left handed thrower. It can be done but it is not easy and isn't going to be with a part-time effort over a couple of weeks. Anyhow, the diagram says nothing about the downstroke because it compares the forces when riding at the same power and cadence. Under those conditions if one increases the forces at one part of the circle it would be necessary to decrease them somewhere else to keep the power the same. The real question you should be asking is what would happen to the power if he pushed as hard as he does when he is pushing hard but also was able to improve the forces where is is able to improve them using this other technique. There is zero evidence that pedaling a bike is a zero sum game.coapman said:
I guess you can criticize my method of training (which is simply to use a device that gives them feedback, both positive and negative, about which way they are pedaling on the back stroke. If you have a better method why don't you 1. tell us what it is and 2. prove that it is better.
- Apr 21, 2009
- 3,095
- 0
- 13,480
Countless studies on various forms of interval training, dietary interventions and methods of planning work-rest/recovery manipulations (periodization for want of a better word), chasing performance targets that have be shown to make a significant difference in performance.
Evidence based practice rather than marketing hype and the misguided rantings of a snake oil salesman.
Evidence based practice rather than marketing hype and the misguided rantings of a snake oil salesman.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 40K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s ITT, September 21- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 942
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram