For the "pedaling technique doesn't matter crowd"

[FrankDay]

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.

Fergie, let me get this straight. You are predicting that Mr. Gibson during this 6 month study will be completely wasting his time and that he will find nothing. Is that correct?

 

[CoachFergie]

I'm a Coach not a fortune teller. Right here and now there are a lot of evidence based approaches to performance. Independent cranks are not one of them.

Whatever Mr Gibson finds will be irrelevant as no real world cyclist is going to perform a six month block of one form of training. Thanks to research carried out we know that performance changes occur rather rapidly (physiological changes even more so) so any of the 5-6 week studies published in decent journals on independent cranks are more than sufficient.

 

[FrankDay]

I'm a Coach not a fortune teller. Right here and now there are a lot of evidence based approaches to performance. Independent cranks are not one of them.

Whatever Mr Gibson finds will be irrelevant as no real world cyclist is going to perform a six month block of one form of training. Thanks to research carried out we know that performance changes occur rather rapidly (physiological changes even more so) so any of the 5-6 week studies published in decent journals on independent cranks are more than sufficient.

So, let me get this straight. Regardless of what Mr Gibson finds from his study that you, CoachFergie, are, here and now, proclaiming that it will be irrelevant to the sport of bicycle racing. Is that correct?

 

[CoachFergie]

So, let me get this straight. Regardless of what Mr Gibson finds from his study that you, CoachFergie, are, here and now, proclaiming that it will be irrelevant to the sport of bicycle racing. Is that correct?

Pretty much.

 

[simo1733]

Starting from 300 watts at threshold, if I can get 40% from power cranks and 12% from Osymetrics, then I will be able to sleep soundly in my altitude tent ,knowing that I have no need to indulge in dodgy practices such as Peds or intervals.

 

[coapman]

If you add the additional positive torque of the pc'er between 180-360 and add all regular crank torque between 0-180, from the percentage aspect how do they compare. Even if there was not a reduction in the downstroke torque of a PC'er because of that work during the upstroke, this is the maximum improvement you could expect to get from PC pedaling or applying torque during the upstroke.

 

[JayKosta]

Let's examine that powercrank graph -
http://www.powercranks.com/assets/images/PowerCranks pedal forces.jpg
to see what it shows....

I assume that the testing was done in the same session and with the rider maintaining a constant 250W at 80rpm.
NOT that the rider was attempting to produce maximum power or rpm.

1) With PC, the rider's leg is always 'working' - except for a brief moment at about 315 degrees.
With non-PC, the leg is 'resting' (being raised by the other leg) for about 150 degrees.

2) Without PC, the downstroke torque needed to produce 250W appears to be about 20+ percent more than when using PC.

It would be interesting to see a graph of the rider's torque with non-PC prior to training with the PC.

A 'good test' of PC should include: power output, torque graph, oxygen usage, and pulse rate on non-PC BEFORE the start of PC training.
The test subjects should be strong active cyclists who have stopped improving (so the benefit of PC training is the only additional factor).

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[FrankDay]

If you add the additional positive torque of the pc'er between 180-360 and add all regular crank torque between 0-180, from the percentage aspect how do they compare. Even if there was not a reduction in the downstroke torque of a PC'er because of that work during the upstroke, this is the maximum improvement you could expect to get from PC pedaling or applying torque during the upstroke.

At the same power and the same cadence, the area under the curve will be the same. (power is equal to the average torque times the rotational velocity) So, in this instance, the areas under the curves are equal because the power is equal. With that restriction, change any of those lines and you have to change another line to compensate to keep the area under the curve constant.

 

[FrankDay]

It would be interesting to see a graph of the rider's torque with non-PC prior to training with the PC.

Yes it would be but we don't have that. This data should be commonplace though once independent PM's become widely available. And, it is something we should get out of this new study starting soon, since that is one of the main focuses of the study.

A 'good test' of PC should include: power output, torque graph, oxygen usage, and pulse rate on non-PC BEFORE the start of PC training.
The test subjects should be strong active cyclists who have stopped improving (so the benefit of PC training is the only additional factor).

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Yes, and if the testing period lasts long enough. This new study should come close to doing the trick (what concerns me some is I don't believe the PC use is exclusive so I am not sure this will be enough stimulus to definitively make the changes necessary). We will see.

If the study shows that such changes reliably improve cycling efficiency and increase VO2max I really look forward to hearing CoachFergie explain to his athletes why they don't need those improvements.

 

[coapman]

This new study should come close to doing the trick (what concerns me some is I don't believe the PC use is exclusive so I am not sure this will be enough stimulus to definitively make the changes necessary). We will see.

You say you have used PC's exclusively for 10 years, in your estimation what percentage of your downstroke torque do you now apply in your upstroke when riding at constant max speed ?

 

[FrankDay]

You say you have used PC's exclusively for 10 years, in your estimation what percentage of your downstroke torque do you now apply in your upstroke when riding at constant max speed ?

Most of the time 1-3% because all I do is barely more than unweight. But, when doing a little power burst I would guess I might get to 15-20% (I will push harder but I also pull up much harder). When I get the ability to measure and analyze these forces (hopefully soon) I will be able to answer this question with real numbers and not guesses.

 

[CoachFergie]

If the study shows that such changes reliably improve cycling efficiency and increase VO2max I really look forward to hearing CoachFergie explain to his athletes why they don't need those improvements.

If the new study shows that.

If the new study can show it was the ICs that caused the changes.

If the new study can show that the physiological changes that took place will have an effect on performance.

If the new study can show that changes in performance are better than other methods of performance enhancement.

 

[FrankDay]

If the new study shows that.

If the new study can show it was the ICs that caused the changes.

If the new study can show that the physiological changes that took place will have an effect on performance.

If the new study can show that changes in performance are better than other methods of performance enhancement.

But, according to you up above, it doesn't matter what this study might show, it will be irrelevant to serious cyclists.

 

[CoachFergie]

Most of the time 1-3% because all I do is barely more than unweight. But, when doing a little power burst I would guess I might get to 15-20% (I will push harder but I also pull up much harder). When I get the ability to measure and analyze these forces (hopefully soon) I will be able to answer this question with real numbers and not guesses.

You're a funny guy Frank.

So why do IC users claim using them hurts the hip flexors so much and why do you market them to runners if it is simple unweighting like lifting the leg to walk up stairs. Last time I did that it didn't hurt the hip flexors in the same way as doing single leg pedalling.

 

[CoachFergie]

But, according to you up above, it doesn't matter what this study might show, it will be irrelevant to serious cyclists.

Yup that too. Won't be applied science as like your exclusive use policy it is not practical for any serious cyclist to train like that.

 

[FrankDay]

You're a funny guy Frank.

So why do IC users claim using them hurts the hip flexors so much

me thinks the principle is the same as when a sedentary person starts run training for a marathon, they complain of the muscles being "sore" and "tired" until they get used to the stress.

and why do you market them to runners if it is simple unweighting like lifting the leg to walk up stairs.

because there is a substantial difference between climbing a flight of 10-20 stairs and lifting that leg 5,400 times an hour for 2-3 hours (what is necessary when running at a cadence of 90 - 180 steps per minute). We actually think it a benefit to runners to be able to train that kind of endurance in those muscles without joint impact and the inherent risk of injury that comes with actual running. Many runners who have used them have come to the same conclusion.

Hey, it looks like we are making some inroads here. You no longer are referring to IC's as gimmickcranks. Every trip has to start with a first step.

 

[FrankDay]

Yup that too. Won't be applied science as like your exclusive use policy it is not practical for any serious cyclist to train like that.

But, I don't think the study is going to be an "exclusive use" study. So, what if part-time use over a prolonged period shows those benefits, what do you say then? I simply think that exclusive use will achieve even greater benefits. If a serious cyclists wants to give up that extra potential that is their choice. Why they would make that choice and still call themselves a serious cyclist would baffle me but I am sure some will because they will find "exclusive use" just too hard.

 

[CoachFergie]

But, I don't think the study is going to be an "exclusive use" study. So, what if part-time use over a prolonged period shows those benefits, what do you say then? I simply think that exclusive use will achieve even greater benefits. If a serious cyclists wants to give up that extra potential that is their choice. Why they would make that choice and still call themselves a serious cyclist would baffle me but I am sure some will because they will find "exclusive use" just too hard.

Then how will they prove it was the IC, the pedalling technique or the type of training used

 

[CoachFergie]

You're a funny guy Frank.

So why do IC users claim using them hurts the hip flexors so much and why do you market them to runners if it is simple unweighting like lifting the leg to walk up stairs. Last time I did that it didn't hurt the hip flexors in the same way as doing single leg pedalling.

Second time recently I have asked this and no response

 

[FrankDay]

Then how will they prove it was the IC, the pedalling technique or the type of training used

Well, that will depend upon the study design. Don't you think it would be wiser to wait to see the study design and results before you prejudge what it will mean? That is the way science is supposed to work, as I remember.

 

[FrankDay]

Second time recently I have asked this and no response

see 364 above.

 

[coapman]

Most of the time 1-3% because all I do is barely more than unweight. But, when doing a little power burst I would guess I might get to 15-20% (I will push harder but I also pull up much harder). When I get the ability to measure and analyze these forces (hopefully soon) I will be able to answer this question with real numbers and not guesses.

If we were to add another 3 % for across the top/bottom, we get 6 % and that's after 10 yrs exclusive use, where does the 40 % come from after only 6 mths use. As I stated many times, without any additional training of muscles it's possible to apply maximal torque through 12, 1, 2 and 3 o'c. Would you consider making the special aero clip on bars for this Anquetil technique and then you could claim a genuine 20+ % power increase and explain exactly where it arises.

 

[CoachFergie]

me thinks the principle is the same as when a sedentary person starts run training for a marathon, they complain of the muscles being "sore" and "tired" until they get used to the stress.

But they are "simply unweighting" the leg on the upstroke.

because there is a substantial difference between climbing a flight of 10-20 stairs and lifting that leg 5,400 times an hour for 2-3 hours (what is necessary when running at a cadence of 90 - 180 steps per minute).

But I like to walk for an hour or two uphill "simply unweighting" my leg each upward step I make and never experience the same hip flexor muscle soreness I get when I did single leg pedalling.

Hey, it looks like we are making some inroads here. You no longer are referring to IC's as gimmickcranks. Every trip has to start with a first step.

I was asked not to by the moderators. They are still a gimmick and a bad one at that.

I look forward to watching Mr Gibson waste 6 months of his life when he could be studying things that really affect performance.

 

[FrankDay]

But they are "simply unweighting" the leg on the upstroke.

Which is more than they are used to doing.

But I like to walk for an hour or two uphill "simply unweighting" my leg each upward step I make and never experience the same hip flexor muscle soreness I get when I did single leg pedalling.

Your point?

I was asked not to by the moderators. They are still a gimmick and a bad one at that.

I guess I will have to take back my statement about that first step.

I look forward to watching Mr Gibson waste 6 months of his life when he could be studying things that really affect performance.

So, this statement is also preserved for posterity. I am sure we will be discussing this again in 6-12 months or so.

 

[CoachFergie]

I am sure we will be discussing this again in 6-12 months or so.

You will be discussing it.

We will be discussing stuff that actually does make a difference. The research has been done on ICs. If Mr Gibson want's to start his career as an academic arguing something as irrelevant as this then good luck to him.