New study shows leg flexion less efficient than extension.

[FrankDay]

Re:

Frank, just giving you a chance to feel superior in your own mind.

Now, back to reality. They look at the overall grouping to avoid the cherry picking that you are doing. They do the stats to see if they can find a difference that can't be explained by random chance. They use actual numbers instead of ranked order, saying 1st and 4th is totally meaningless.

Any other sideshows here???

LOL. then why didn't they separate the groups with 6 in the fast group and 9 in the slow group? A 1.5 minute separation at 54 minutes is much more significant than a 1 minute separation at 56 minutes. And, they are not even looking at pedaling technique anyhow since they are looking at pedal forces which have lots of other influences besides what the muscles are doing and they didn't seem to care what the cadence of the riders was even though that greatly influences the non-muscular pushing forces they measure. It doesn't matter cause you are gonna believe what you want to believe anyhow.

 

[JamesCun]

Re: Re:

Frank, just giving you a chance to feel superior in your own mind.

Now, back to reality. They look at the overall grouping to avoid the cherry picking that you are doing. They do the stats to see if they can find a difference that can't be explained by random chance. They use actual numbers instead of ranked order, saying 1st and 4th is totally meaningless.

Any other sideshows here???

LOL. then why didn't they separate the groups with 6 in the fast group and 9 in the slow group? A 1.5 minute separation at 54 minutes is much more significant than a 1 minute separation at 56 minutes. And, they are not even looking at pedaling technique anyhow since they are looking at pedal forces which have lots of other influences besides what the muscles are doing and they didn't seem to care what the cadence of the riders was even though that greatly influences the non-muscular pushing forces they measure. It doesn't matter cause you are gonna believe what you want to believe anyhow.

Frank, talking about 1st vs 4th and such things is plain stupidity and shows how you just grasp at anything to weave your way out of objective data that goes against your theory. What a total disgrace to the universities you attended.

Edit: if we want to cherry pick data, explain why Dave Campbell can't bike himself out of a wet paper bag after 10years of nearly 100% immersion training?

 

[JayKosta]

To me it seems that both groups had very similar 'pedaling techniques' - HIGH power on the downstroke, and MINIMAL power (positive or negative) on the the upstroke. Yes, there are noticeable small differences, but the overall shape of the graphs show a mutual pattern / style.

The minimal upstroke power seems to indicate that both groups use a technique of actively raising their leg on the upstroke to prepare for the following downstroke. The amount of power (negative or positive) on the upstroke is small compared the amount of 'unweighting' that is is done.

For basic 'pedaling technique' if a rider demostrates a style that does not produce a similar upstroke action, would it be reasonable to mention this to the rider as an area of possible improvement?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[acoggan]

Re:

if a rider demostrates a style that does not produce a similar upstroke action, would it be reasonable to mention this to the rider as an area of possible improvement?

Even non-cyclists rarely actively resist the rising pedal.

 

[JayKosta]

Re: Re:

...
Even non-cyclists rarely actively resist the rising pedal.

---------------------------------------
I'm sure that's true - few 'actively resist'.

I think that for most cyclist the question is
'how much to ASSIST the rising pedal?'
e.g.
Not much - let the pedal push the leg up w/o active resistance.
A little - continue pedal-in-circle motion, but don't be concerned with un-weighting.
Unweight - continue p-i-c motion, and strive for minimal +/- pedal pressure.
Pull UP actively - continue p-i-c motion, and have noticeable but not strenuous pull-up.
Strong pull UP - p-i-c motion, and train for strength and endurance of pull-up.

Looking back at the one-legged study from the start of this thread, it appears to me that the counterweight 'probably' allowed the rider to reduce the amount of pull-up effort and still continue a p-i-c motion with better efficiency.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[FrankDay]

Re:

To me it seems that both groups had very similar 'pedaling techniques' - HIGH power on the downstroke, and MINIMAL power (positive or negative) on the the upstroke. Yes, there are noticeable small differences, but the overall shape of the graphs show a mutual pattern / style.

The minimal upstroke power seems to indicate that both groups use a technique of actively raising their leg on the upstroke to prepare for the following downstroke. The amount of power (negative or positive) on the upstroke is small compared the amount of 'unweighting' that is is done.

The amount of power provided by the athlete is always positive on the upstroke even when the forces are negative on the pedal.

What is a little bit "funny" is the power isn't seen at that time because what the rider is doing is increasing the potential energy contained in leg (sort of like winding a clock) that is retrieved on the downstroke. This is an artifact that occurs because we are pedaling in a gravitational field. Just looking at pedal forces misrepresents what the athlete is really doing.

For basic 'pedaling technique' if a rider demostrates a style that does not produce a similar upstroke action, would it be reasonable to mention this to the rider as an area of possible improvement?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

It might be reasonable to mention such as an area of possible improvement (and I would probably be one to do so even though I think the top and bottom of the stroke is where the big areas for improvement really lie) unfortunately what is optimum technique has never been definitively proven. So, any such recommendation (or any other recommendation) is based upon theoretical considerations or tradition.

 

[FrankDay]

Re: Re:

if a rider demostrates a style that does not produce a similar upstroke action, would it be reasonable to mention this to the rider as an area of possible improvement?

Even non-cyclists rarely actively resist the rising pedal.

The only people I can think of who actively resist the rising pedal are those riding a "fixie" who are trying to slow down and those standing out of the saddle and coasting one pedal forward and one backwards, where the negative forces exactly balance the positive forces.

 

[CoachFergie]

Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research:
June 2015 - Volume 29 - Issue 6 - p 1534–1541
doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000905

Comparison of Kinetics, Kinematics, and Electromyography During Single-Leg Assisted and Unassisted Cycling
Bini, Rodrigo R.1; Jacques, Tiago C.2; Lanferdini, Fábio J.2; Vaz, Marco A.2

Abstract: Bini, RR, Jacques, TC, Lanferdini, FJ, and Vaz, MA. Comparison of kinetics, kinematics, and electromyography during single-leg assisted and unassisted cycling. J Strength Cond Res 29(6): 1534–1541, 2015—To use single-leg cycling training for varying populations, it is important to understand whether a counterweight attached to the contralateral crank during single-leg cycling drills replicates the effects of the opposite leg in the ipsilateral leg. Therefore, we compared single-leg assisted cycling using a counterweight on the contralateral crank for joint kinetics, kinematics, and lower-limb muscle activation. Fourteen healthy nonathletes performed 2 bilateral cycling trials (240 ± 23 W and 90 ± 2 rpm) and 2 single-leg trials (120 ± 11 W and 90 ± 2 rpm) for measurements of pedal force, joint kinematics, and muscle activation of their right lower limb. For 1 single-leg trial, a custom-made adaptor was used to attach 10 kg of weight to the contralateral leg. Total force applied on the pedal, pedal force effectiveness, the mean joint angles and range of motion, mechanical work at the crank, hip, knee, and ankle joints, electromyography, pedaling cadence, and right crank mechanical work were assessed. Biceps femoris (87%), vastus lateralis (15%), rectus femoris (57%), tibialis anterior (57%), and gastrocnemius medialis (12%) activations were larger in the single-leg assisted trial compared with the bilateral trial. Lower total pedal force (17%) and increased index of effectiveness (16%) also indicate mechanical differences in single-leg cycling using a counterweight on the contralateral crank than conventional bilateral cycling. Single-leg assisted training should be used with caution because of potential differences in muscle recruitment and pedaling kinetics compared with bilateral cycling.

 

[FrankDay]

Re:

Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research:
June 2015 - Volume 29 - Issue 6 - p 1534–1541
doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000905

Comparison of Kinetics, Kinematics, and Electromyography During Single-Leg Assisted and Unassisted Cycling
Bini, Rodrigo R.1; Jacques, Tiago C.2; Lanferdini, Fábio J.2; Vaz, Marco A.2

Abstract: Bini, RR, Jacques, TC, Lanferdini, FJ, and Vaz, MA. Comparison of kinetics, kinematics, and electromyography during single-leg assisted and unassisted cycling. J Strength Cond Res 29(6): 1534–1541, 2015—To use single-leg cycling training for varying populations, it is important to understand whether a counterweight attached to the contralateral crank during single-leg cycling drills replicates the effects of the opposite leg in the ipsilateral leg. Therefore, we compared single-leg assisted cycling using a counterweight on the contralateral crank for joint kinetics, kinematics, and lower-limb muscle activation. Fourteen healthy nonathletes performed 2 bilateral cycling trials (240 ± 23 W and 90 ± 2 rpm) and 2 single-leg trials (120 ± 11 W and 90 ± 2 rpm) for measurements of pedal force, joint kinematics, and muscle activation of their right lower limb. For 1 single-leg trial, a custom-made adaptor was used to attach 10 kg of weight to the contralateral leg. Total force applied on the pedal, pedal force effectiveness, the mean joint angles and range of motion, mechanical work at the crank, hip, knee, and ankle joints, electromyography, pedaling cadence, and right crank mechanical work were assessed. Biceps femoris (87%), vastus lateralis (15%), rectus femoris (57%), tibialis anterior (57%), and gastrocnemius medialis (12%) activations were larger in the single-leg assisted trial compared with the bilateral trial. Lower total pedal force (17%) and increased index of effectiveness (16%) also indicate mechanical differences in single-leg cycling using a counterweight on the contralateral crank than conventional bilateral cycling. Single-leg assisted training should be used with caution because of potential differences in muscle recruitment and pedaling kinetics compared with bilateral cycling.

I am just wondering what you think the significance of this study is in view of the prior discussion? Other than the rather silly statement "Single-leg assisted training should be used with caution because of potential differences in muscle recruitment and pedaling kinetics compared with bilateral cycling" which has nothing to do with their stated objective ("it is important to understand whether a counterweight attached to the contralateral crank during single-leg cycling drills replicates the effects of the opposite leg in the ipsilateral leg."). So, all they did was show what should be obvious to anyone sitting down and thinking about it (e.i, counterweighted single legged pedaling does not fully replicate bilateral pedaling) and since they didn't demonstrate any detrimental effects from the activity one has to wonder where the conclusion that the rider should be cautious comes from? Isn't the whole point of isolated leg training to potentially change the pedaling dynamic?

 

[acoggan]

Re:

Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research:
June 2015 - Volume 29 - Issue 6 - p 1534–1541
doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000905

Comparison of Kinetics, Kinematics, and Electromyography During Single-Leg Assisted and Unassisted Cycling
Bini, Rodrigo R.1; Jacques, Tiago C.2; Lanferdini, Fábio J.2; Vaz, Marco A.2

Abstract: Bini, RR, Jacques, TC, Lanferdini, FJ, and Vaz, MA. Comparison of kinetics, kinematics, and electromyography during single-leg assisted and unassisted cycling. J Strength Cond Res 29(6): 1534–1541, 2015—To use single-leg cycling training for varying populations, it is important to understand whether a counterweight attached to the contralateral crank during single-leg cycling drills replicates the effects of the opposite leg in the ipsilateral leg. Therefore, we compared single-leg assisted cycling using a counterweight on the contralateral crank for joint kinetics, kinematics, and lower-limb muscle activation. Fourteen healthy nonathletes performed 2 bilateral cycling trials (240 ± 23 W and 90 ± 2 rpm) and 2 single-leg trials (120 ± 11 W and 90 ± 2 rpm) for measurements of pedal force, joint kinematics, and muscle activation of their right lower limb. For 1 single-leg trial, a custom-made adaptor was used to attach 10 kg of weight to the contralateral leg. Total force applied on the pedal, pedal force effectiveness, the mean joint angles and range of motion, mechanical work at the crank, hip, knee, and ankle joints, electromyography, pedaling cadence, and right crank mechanical work were assessed. Biceps femoris (87%), vastus lateralis (15%), rectus femoris (57%), tibialis anterior (57%), and gastrocnemius medialis (12%) activations were larger in the single-leg assisted trial compared with the bilateral trial. Lower total pedal force (17%) and increased index of effectiveness (16%) also indicate mechanical differences in single-leg cycling using a counterweight on the contralateral crank than conventional bilateral cycling. Single-leg assisted training should be used with caution because of potential differences in muscle recruitment and pedaling kinetics compared with bilateral cycling.

I'm surprised, for a couple of reasons:

1) Jim of course made such measurements a long time ago, and considers bilateral and unilateral + counterweight pedaling to be quite similar.

2) If I take the SRM torque analysis curves from unilateral counterweighted pedaling with either the right or left leg and sum them, the result is quite similar to bilateral pedaling (consistent with Jim's statements).

In any case, if differences like these exist when using a counterweight, just think how big they'd be without one (or with uncoupled cranks)!!

 

[FrankDay]

Re: Re:

Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research:
June 2015 - Volume 29 - Issue 6 - p 1534–1541
doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000905

Comparison of Kinetics, Kinematics, and Electromyography During Single-Leg Assisted and Unassisted Cycling
Bini, Rodrigo R.1; Jacques, Tiago C.2; Lanferdini, Fábio J.2; Vaz, Marco A.2

Abstract: Bini, RR, Jacques, TC, Lanferdini, FJ, and Vaz, MA. Comparison of kinetics, kinematics, and electromyography during single-leg assisted and unassisted cycling. J Strength Cond Res 29(6): 1534–1541, 2015—To use single-leg cycling training for varying populations, it is important to understand whether a counterweight attached to the contralateral crank during single-leg cycling drills replicates the effects of the opposite leg in the ipsilateral leg. Therefore, we compared single-leg assisted cycling using a counterweight on the contralateral crank for joint kinetics, kinematics, and lower-limb muscle activation. Fourteen healthy nonathletes performed 2 bilateral cycling trials (240 ± 23 W and 90 ± 2 rpm) and 2 single-leg trials (120 ± 11 W and 90 ± 2 rpm) for measurements of pedal force, joint kinematics, and muscle activation of their right lower limb. For 1 single-leg trial, a custom-made adaptor was used to attach 10 kg of weight to the contralateral leg. Total force applied on the pedal, pedal force effectiveness, the mean joint angles and range of motion, mechanical work at the crank, hip, knee, and ankle joints, electromyography, pedaling cadence, and right crank mechanical work were assessed. Biceps femoris (87%), vastus lateralis (15%), rectus femoris (57%), tibialis anterior (57%), and gastrocnemius medialis (12%) activations were larger in the single-leg assisted trial compared with the bilateral trial. Lower total pedal force (17%) and increased index of effectiveness (16%) also indicate mechanical differences in single-leg cycling using a counterweight on the contralateral crank than conventional bilateral cycling. Single-leg assisted training should be used with caution because of potential differences in muscle recruitment and pedaling kinetics compared with bilateral cycling.

I'm surprised, for a couple of reasons:

1) Jim of course made such measurements a long time ago, and considers bilateral and unilateral + counterweight pedaling to be quite similar.

2) If I take the SRM torque analysis curves from unilateral counterweighted pedaling with either the right or left leg and sum them, the result is quite similar to bilateral pedaling (consistent with Jim's statements).

In any case, if differences like these exist when using a counterweight, just think how big they'd be without one (or with uncoupled cranks)!!

I guess it depends upon how one defines "similar." For any given power the power is the average of the instantaneous powers around the entire pedaling stroke. For the same power, adding a counterweight to the other side will make the stroke more similar on the upstroke but less similar on the downstroke. Neither counterweighted nor uncounterweighted single legged pedaling can look very much like bilateral pedaling because in bilateral pedaling most riders unweight about 90% on the upstroke so the opposite doesn't have to do extra work to push the entire counterweight up.

The one type of pedaling of the three (single legged, counterweighted single legged, uncoupled) that would come the closest to bilateral pedaling (as done by most) would be uncoupled because the rider has to only increase what they do on the upstroke about 10% and they would then see a concomitant decrease of about 10% on the downstroke to maintain the same power. For the same power this keeps the overall pedaling effort on both the upstroke and downstroke quite similar with only small changes going up and down. (What sets the uncoupled cranks apart is this change also seems to change what is done across the top and the bottom, especially the top - another fly in the ointment so to speak.) Whereas, single legged pedaling sees huge changes on the upstroke and downstroke and counterweighted single legged pedaling sees huge changes on the downstroke (as shown in this study).

It just boggles my mind that you people who supposedly study this stuff can't figure this out. For any given power if you change what is done in one part of the stroke it has to have an equal and opposite effect in some other part of the stroke such that the average is the same.

 

[JamesCun]

Frank, can you refresh our memory on where the 90% unweighting figure comes from?

 

[JayKosta]

Re:

Frank, can you refresh our memory on where the 90% unweighting figure comes from?

---------------------------
A good source of info is the 1991 Coyle article -
Physiological and biomechanical factors associated with elite endurance cycling performance
E. F. COYLE, M, E. FELTNER, S, A. KAUTZ,
M. T. HAMILTON, S. J. MONTAIN, A. M. BAYLOR,
L. D. ABRAHAM, and G. W. PETREK
0195-9131/91/2301-0093$3.00/0
MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE

It contains several useful graphs of pedal force through a full rotation.
They all show low pedal force on the upstroke (positive or negative).
One interpretation of the graphs is that the low force could only happen if the rider was unweighting on the upstroke.
You can make your own estimation of the '% amount of unweighting' from those graphs.

If you don't have (or can't find) a copy of the article, let me know your email and I'll send you a 9meg PDF of it.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[FrankDay]

Re:

Frank, can you refresh our memory on where the 90% unweighting figure comes from?

There is no memory to refresh because you never knew this in the first place. From my perspective, it is what I believe to be a reasonable guess of a typical unweighting when riding at race power coming from the knowledge that the amount of unweighting increases with increasing power, that the amount of "reverse force" that would come from not unweighting is constant for any given rider at a given cadence and from knowledge of what typical rider forces on the upstroke look like at power. In the below image the amount of unweighting would be the difference between the blue line (what the forces would look like if there were no unweighting) and the black line and the zero line at 270º and in this case I would estimate the unweighting to be about 70%.

But, at race effort, the negatives are usually even less than the black line as demonstrated by the Kautz study - the famous "just push harder study" - in which both groups were essentially 100% unweighted at 270º.

If the blue line is "constant" then the unweighting percentage is increased to near 100% (or more as was the case for Group 2). Therefore, it seems to me that 90% is a good number to represent the amount of the unweighting the "average" rider is doing at or near race effort without over representing what they do.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

(ten characters)

 

[JamesCun]

Re: Re:

There is no memory to refresh because you never knew this in the first place.

Thanks for the attempted insult Frank. Does it bother you when people you consider inferior can trip you up so easily?

From my perspective, it is what I believe to be a reasonable guess...

I've quoted the relevant text in your post. Thanks for confirming that you have no real data to support that 90% number. Somewhat similar to the 40% efficiency that you talk about as another reason why changing pedaling technique can lead to such massive improvements in power.

So, question for you. If people are near 100% unweighting at race effort, why is it so hard to adapt to PC and why do people need to use them 100% of the time for at least 6months to get any benefit?

 

[FrankDay]

Re: Re:

There is no memory to refresh because you never knew this in the first place.

Thanks for the attempted insult Frank. Does it bother you when people you consider inferior can trip you up so easily?

That wasn't an insult, wasn't even intended to be an insult, simply a statement of what I believe to be a fact. All you need do to prove me wrong is state where it is that you "knew" that typical rider unweights about 90% but you just forgot where that information came from so you asked to be "refreshed" in that regard.

From my perspective, it is what I believe to be a reasonable guess...

I've quoted the relevant text in your post. Thanks for confirming that you have no real data to support that 90% number. Somewhat similar to the 40% efficiency that you talk about as another reason why changing pedaling technique can lead to such massive improvements in power.

So, we are all waiting for you (or anyone else like Dr. Coggan or Dr. Martin) to provide the data that shows that riders unweight some other lesser amount.

So, question for you. If people are near 100% unweighting at race effort, why is it so hard to adapt to PC and why do people need to use them 100% of the time for at least 6months to get any benefit?

There are several reasons. For instance:

1. The study that showed near 100% unweighting at race effort was done in national level riders. They are substantially better than our average customer. But, even they are not uniform in their ability in this area.

2. We don't have the details of that study in that we don't know if their technique was the same at the end of the ride as it was at the beginning. (Further, the technique of the group 2 riders had never been described before so there is also the question as to what was going on to explain this.) The issue with PowerCranks training is not, usually, being able to do the technique (that is pretty simple because, as we have demonstrated here, it is not that far from what they normally do) but, rather, one of endurance in muscles that are being asked to do a little more. It is like improving your marathon pace from 10 min/mile to 9:30 min/mile. It is just a little bit more effort but it may take months of work to achieve that ability. It is the endurance issue (and retraining the unconscious pattern so it stays even when one returns to regular cranks) that takes all the time.

3. Most of our customers are not currently elite level riders. Elite riders seem to adapt a lot faster than "average" riders.

All you guys have to do is to provide some evidence that my way of estimating how much the typical rider unweights is flawed. Of course, you won't be able to do that because such data simply doesn't exist.

 

[FrankDay]

Another thing that amuses me about this thread. Dr. Coggan a few posts back comes here and posts that the counterweighted single-legged system reproduces bilateral pedaling well because Dr. Martin believes this to be a case. He posts this in a thread about a study that shows that counterweighted single legged pedaling doesn't reproduce bilateral pedaling. Apparently good sense overcame him and he deleted his comments.

 

[elapid]

Re: Re:

As per usual Frank, you are full of the proverbial. You now want someone to conduct a study to refute your guess that most riders unweight 90% on the upstroke. All you have is a guess and, as per your usual scientific method ( ), you treat this as though it is a fact. You are truly laughable, Frank.

 

[JamesCun]

Re: Re:

You are correct. I should have been more direct. My actual question should have been "Frank, please provide the evidence to back up your claim that a typical rider unweights about 90% on the upstroke". Regardless of how the question was asked, the answer is clear, you have nothing more than guesses and random collections of random graphs.

There are several reasons. For instance:

...blah blah blah...more guesses and totally irrelevant and unsubstantiated claims.

All you guys have to do is to provide some evidence that my way of estimating how much the typical rider unweights is flawed. Of course, you won't be able to do that because such data simply doesn't exist.

Edited you post to reflect reality.

What a joke. Make up some stuff, and they turn around and demand others prove you wrong. How about showing evidence to support your claim in the first place.

 

[FrankDay]

Re: Re:

As per usual Frank, you are full of the proverbial. You now want someone to conduct a study to refute your guess that most riders unweight 90% on the upstroke. All you have is a guess and, as per your usual scientific method ( ), you treat this as though it is a fact. You are truly laughable, Frank.

No need for someone to conduct a study as, apparently, it has already been done and, AFAIK, it doesn't refute anything I say. And, the evidence upon which I base by conclusions was posted here by Dr. Coggan (my guess is this comes from Dr. Martin).

He (or someone he knows) has this data unless, of course, they made it up. But, it is unlikely he has made up evidence that supports my case. You should ask him to come here and present the evidence he has to prove me wrong. I am sure he would be happy to do so as long as his evidence did prove me wrong but all we seem to hear are crickets chirping and see you guys peeing into the wind.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

the evidence upon which I base by conclusions was posted here by Dr. Coggan.

Not to my recollection. (Not that it really matters, since it appears correct...I just don't wish to be inadvertently credited for somebody else's work.)

 

[acoggan]

Re:

Another thing that amuses me about this thread. Dr. Coggan a few posts back comes here and posts that the counterweighted single-legged system reproduces bilateral pedaling well because Dr. Martin has found this to be a case.

Fixed that part for you.

He posts this in a thread about a study that shows that counterweighted single legged pedaling doesn't reproduce bilateral pedaling.

That's not what this thread is originally about (cf. the thread title), and as I said, I find the results of the study introduced subsequently a bit surprising, based on both what I've been told by a world-class expert on cycling biomechanics (hi Jim!) and my own experience/experiments. (The difference could be that Jim has focused on resultant joint powers, whereas that abstract emphasizes differences in iEMG activity.)

 

[elapid]

Re: Re:

[quote="FrankDay"You should ask him to come here and present the evidence he has to prove me wrong.[/quote]

Why should I ask him? I don't know Jim. If you know Jim, then you should ask him. Based on his publications, I don't think he has anything to prove. The burden of proof is, as per usual, in your ball court. You continue to pretend a guess is a fact, and of course you have no publications by yourself or others to support your guess.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

the evidence upon which I base by conclusions was posted here by Dr. Coggan.

Not to my recollection. (Not that it really matters, since it appears correct...I just don't wish to be inadvertently credited for somebody else's work.)

It was originally posted in this thread by a FrankDay...