The Dixon Study

[sciguy]

Since the Dixon Study is mentioned so frequently on this forum and is often cited as "proof" of efficacy of a certain product I felt that it deserved its own thread.

On 08-18-14 at 18:08 I made the following post:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1552158&postcount=631

I've never been able to understand after why Frank hasn't been given access to the complete study. Since he was the one that gave or loaned the Powercranks to the folks for the project you'd think the least they would do as a thank you is to provide him with the fine details of the whole study. Even more troubling, it makes no sense to me that Frank never sought these details out. There is enough inconsistency between what Frank as told us and what the limited abstract data implies to make all of us very interested in the finer details.

So what's stopping you from getting Dixon to cough up the full study details Frank? It certainly wouldn't be rude for you to ask for them as you provided a good deal of assistance.


Hugh

Frank responded with the following post on 08-18-14 at 18:14.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1552150&postcount=629

Nothing is stopping me. I would love to get my hands on it. All my efforts have failed though. Maybe you can contact one of the authors and convince them to release the study to me or someone else.

So I went ahead and attempted to contact the 5 authors of the study. To my utter surprise, three of the authors responded nearly immediately and were able to provide a few details regarding the study. Sadly none of the three that responded had access the the complete study or any of the data from the study. One of the authors actually participated in the treatment group and so had a bit better first hand knowledge than the other responders.

I'm in the middle of several important projects at the moment but will endeavor share some of the details that were revealed to me over the coming days.

 

[sciguy]

So let's start out with the time of year that the intervention took place.

Frank Day tells us:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1555102&postcount=711

It is my understanding that the Dixon study was designed to do the experimental phase at the end of the racing season
in a bunch of pretty serious racers.

and this:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1551930&postcount=618

My friend, that was the construct of the Dixon study. He started it at the end of the racing season when he expected his subjects would be at their peak form and further training, not preparing for a race, would do no more than maintain their current condition.

One of the authors tells me "- The study starting in the spring " and a second author who actually was a subject describes the timing as "Intervention occurred February/March/April at end of winter training schedules.". So we have a pretty good agreement between the two authors but not so much with Dr. Day's version on this part.

More to come.

Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

So let's start out with the time of year that the intervention took place.

Frank Day tells us:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1555102&postcount=711




One of the authors tells me "- The study starting in the spring " and a second author who actually was a subject describes the timing as "Intervention occurred February/March/April at end of winter training schedules.". So we have a pretty good agreement between the two authors but not so much with Dr. Day's version on this part.

More to come.

Hugh

All I can tell you is what my understanding was. Perhaps fall was the original intent but as they saw results they tried to get more participants who acted later. I don't know. If you get further details that is cool. It is what it is.

 

[veganrob]

Seema like since you had the most to gain by the experiments you would have kept closer track of what was going on.

 

[CoachFergie]

Great stuff Hugh.

Yet another distortion of the truth by Frank.

 

[sciguy]

If you get further details that is cool. It is what it is.

Well I already have more details but would rather parcel them out one at a time as apposed to all at once Learned that trick from a master performance artist.

Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

Seema like since you had the most to gain by the experiments you would have kept closer track of what was going on.

If an experiment is independent I should have no involvement. All I knew was what I was told was the plan when I agreed to supply cranks for their study and what the result was.

 

[sciguy]

If an experiment is independent I should have no involvement. All I knew was what I was told was the plan when I agreed to supply cranks for their study and what the result was.

All I can say is that you must not have made a very concerted effort to contact the authors. Eight years is a heck of a long time to wait to make an effort and I still had good 3/5 success.

Hugh

 

[JamesCun]

If an experiment is independent I should have no involvement. All I knew was what I was told was the plan when I agreed to supply cranks for their study and what the result was.

Don't twist things. Just own up to it.

Keeping track of results that benefit your product is totally different than compromising the integrity of the experiment. You know that, otherwise you should ask how you every graduated from high school.

 

[FrankDay]

All I can say is that you must not have made a very concerted effort to contact the authors. Eight years is a heck of a long time to wait to make an effort and I still had good 3/5 success.

Hugh

If you are in touch with Dixon or Cheung you might ask them why they didn't respond to my efforts for further clarification (Dixon - email, Cheung - email and through Pez). Also, might ask why they didn't follow the study design put forth to me (at least, as I understood it). Of course, I am pretty much used to researchers doing something different that what they proposed. Hazard of the game I suppose.

 

[FrankDay]

Don't twist things. Just own up to it.

Keeping track of results that benefit your product is totally different than compromising the integrity of the experiment. You know that, otherwise you should ask how you every graduated from high school.

Huh? Don't twist things? Anyhow, I have kept track of all the results I have been able to find on this study. The abstract is all I got. What more do you want?

 

[JamesCun]

Huh? Don't twist things? Anyhow, I have kept track of all the results I have been able to find on this study. The abstract is all I got. What more do you want?

Go back to your previous post. You said it would be inappropriate to be involved in the study. No one said you had to be involved. People suggested you make a little bit of an effort to collect the results after it was done, or at least a little more info on the study. That is how you twisted things, similar to how you always twist or just lie.

Sciguy seems to have some info after a few quick emails or calls. Didn't seem that hard to get some answers.

 

[hiero2]

Speaking as a non-mod, but who usedtabe mod. Lighten up. Quit nit-picking. If you can't say something positive, DON'T SAY IT.

This thread has value. When you have something positive to add, it is good for us who want to read what it is about. If ALL YOU CAN DO IS CARP, please - take a day off, and think about the relative value of things in life.

Y'all know me. You know I have no friendship for Frank. But in this case, you (spoken generally, as there are multiple participants) are persecuting Frank.

I've reported one post in the thread. Please let the conversation move forwards, not sideways, backwards, or down.

Thank you.

H.

 

[FrankDay]

Go back to your previous post. You said it would be inappropriate to be involved in the study. No one said you had to be involved. People suggested you make a little bit of an effort to collect the results after it was done, or at least a little more info on the study. That is how you twisted things, similar to how you always twist or just lie.

here is the original post that I was responding to.

Originally Posted by veganrob
Seema like since you had the most to gain by the experiments you would have kept closer track of what was going on.

"of what was going on" implies I should have been aware of what was going during the time of the study. That implies sticking my fat nose in and is, scientifically, completely inappropriate. Don't you boys have any reading comprehension skills or sense of bias being injected into the scientific method?

Sciguy seems to have some info after a few quick emails or calls. Didn't seem that hard to get some answers.

Let's see what answers he comes up with. I am as anxious as anyone to get the details of this study. Why do you all seem to think I have something to hide? Loosen up folks, let's see what sciguy can uncover.

 

[JamesCun]

here is the original post that I was responding to. "of what was going on" implies I should have been aware of what was going during the time of the study. That implies sticking my fat nose in and is, scientifically, completely inappropriate. Don't you boys have any reading comprehension skills or sense of bias being injected into the scientific method?

Let's see what answers he comes up with. I am as anxious as anyone to get the details of this study. Why do you all seem to think I have something to hide? Loosen up folks, let's see what sciguy can uncover.

Twist it however you want...

You obviously don't want more details since you can't seem to be bothered to check with the authors. When anyone asks you for evidence you say just try it for yourself. You have everything to lose if the results show something different than what you've been claiming based on an abstract.

 

[CoachFergie]

Speaking as a non-mod, but who usedtabe mod. Lighten up. Quit nit-picking. If you can't say something positive, DON'T SAY IT.

This thread has value. When you have something positive to add, it is good for us who want to read what it is about. If ALL YOU CAN DO IS CARP, please - take a day off, and think about the relative value of things in life.

Y'all know me. You know I have no friendship for Frank. But in this case, you (spoken generally, as there are multiple participants) are persecuting Frank.

I've reported one post in the thread. Please let the conversation move forwards, not sideways, backwards, or down.

Thank you.

H.

All due respect but Franks claims about the quality and content of the Dixon study and refutations of negative independent crank studies were quite offensive. He gets what he deserves.

I moderate the Cycling Science page on LinkedIn and we wouldn't stand for his nonsense there. He has been banned from Slowtwitch and other cycling and triathlon forums for spamming and trolling.

 

[hiero2]

All due respect but Franks claims about the quality and content of the Dixon study and refutations of negative independent crank studies were quite offensive. He gets what he deserves.

I moderate the Cycling Science page on LinkedIn and we wouldn't stand for his nonsense there. He has been banned from Slowtwitch and other cycling and triathlon forums for spamming and trolling.

Coach - YOU find his claims "offensive". I merely see them as inaccurate and biased. Quite honestly, you yourself set a very bad example by throwing in personal attacks whenever Frank posts. You regularly put yourself, not at his level, but at the level of a nuisance poster in this forum. Example. Your post in this thread that started with "Good post, Hugh." You could have left it at that. You SHOULD have left it at that. You made your point right there, in that first sentence. Making your point did not require the 8 pound mallet followup.

It is a good thing to follow up and fill in details that have not been filled in. It is a good thing to go to original researchers and actually do good secondary research to then share with an audience. It is not a good thing to then start a catfight over whoshoulda youshoulda nonsense. It is not a good thing to engage in piling-on. Piling-on in a forum thread puts everyone who contributes into the "troll" category.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1572939&postcount=7645

 

[sciguy]

Today let's move on to the make up of the group that underwent the treatment in this study.

On Nov 3, 06 at 14:01 in his post on Slowtwitch Dr. Day stated the following.
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/cgi-bin/gforum.cgi?post=1054372#1054372

I do know that the subjects were apparently quite experienced cyclists (pro/cat 1 level) so I would certainly think that these results, if confirmed, put to rest the theory put forth by many that cycling power is centrally limited.

My bold added for emphasis.

When asked about the make up of the treatment group one of the two responding authors offer the following.

- The sample was mixed male and female. I'm not sure of the exact distribution.
- The participants were recreational local cyclists. They did train as a group,
but many were only competing in local competition.

again the bold is my emphasis

While the other responding author responded with the following.

8 subjects were amateur cyclists / triathletes who were actively training; 2-3 of us were doing an Ironman during this season, 1 qualified for Kona. The group was split 4/4 M/F or 5/3 M/F

I very specifically asked if there were any Cat 1,2 or Pro participants but the responses don't seem to reflect their inclusion.

More to follow in the future.

Hugh

 

[sciguy]

If you are in touch with Dixon or Cheung you might ask them why they didn't respond to my efforts for further clarification (Dixon - email, Cheung - email and through Pez). Also, might ask why they didn't follow the study design put forth to me (at least, as I understood it). Of course, I am pretty much used to researchers doing something different that what they proposed. Hazard of the game I suppose.

Stephen Dixon left academia in 2006 shortly after the presentation. This was not his Masters project as I for one might have guessed. None of the 3 responders knew if Stephen had gone on to complete his Masters but I have found no record of it if he did so. He recently opened a craft brewing company,Grimross Brewing, with his wife in Fredericton NB. I was unable to find an email in the public domain and his old UNB email is no longer viable.

Dr. Cheung has never responded to any of my emails regarding the study so you and I have had the same luck with him. Dr. Patrick Neary the second adviser on the project responded quickly and as helpfully as he was able to. It turns out that Dr. Neary left UNB in 2005 and therefore was "out of the loop" on many of the project details. My good luck came from trying to contact all 5 authors rather than just 2.

Hugh

 

[hiero2]

Stephen Dixon left academia in 2006 shortly after the presentation. This was not his Masters project as I for one might have guessed. None of the 3 responders knew if Stephen had gone on to complete his Masters but I have found no record of it if he did so. He recently opened a craft brewing company,Grimross Brewing, with his wife in Fredericton NB. I was unable to find an email in the public domain and his old UNB email is no longer viable.

Dr. Cheung has never responded to any of my emails regarding the study so you and I have had the same luck with him. Dr. Patrick Neary the second adviser on the project responded quickly and as helpfully as he was able to. It turns out that Dr. Neary left UNB in 2005 and therefore was "out of the loop" on many of the project details. My good luck came from trying to contact all 5 authors rather than just 2.

Hugh

Good post, Hugh.

Also, good job! Useful research, thank you.

 

[FrankDay]

Today let's move on to the make up of the group that underwent the treatment in this study.

On Nov 3, 06 at 14:01 in his post on Slowtwitch Dr. Day stated the following.
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/cgi-bin/gforum.cgi?post=1054372#1054372



My bold added for emphasis.

When asked about the make up of the treatment group one of the two responding authors offer the following.

again the bold is my emphasis

While the other responding author responded with the following.



I very specifically asked if there were any Cat 1,2 or Pro participants but the responses don't seem to reflect their inclusion.

More to follow in the future.

Hugh

all I reported was what I was told or what I understood of what I was told. That puts my information the equivalent of yours except your information comes from memory after a several year delay. Why don't you simply try to get the actual details of the study rather than focusing on your having been told something different than I was told. I suspect I was told what the plan for the study was which allowed me to agree to supply cranks for them to study. The fact they ended up doing something different is not evidence of anything nefarious on my part. You are too focused on trying to make me look bad. Why don't you focus on trying to find out what actually happened and avoid the snide remarks. My entire knowledge of this study comes from what I was told before the study and being excitedly informed the study had been selected for presentation at the CSEP and being sent the abstract. If some of what I understood was in error I think that might explain why.

 

[FrankDay]

Stephen Dixon left academia in 2006 shortly after the presentation. This was not his Masters project as I for one might have guessed. None of the 3 responders knew if Stephen had gone on to complete his Masters but I have found no record of it if he did so. He recently opened a craft brewing company,Grimross Brewing, with his wife in Fredericton NB. I was unable to find an email in the public domain and his old UNB email is no longer viable.

Dr. Cheung has never responded to any of my emails regarding the study so you and I have had the same luck with him. Dr. Patrick Neary the second adviser on the project responded quickly and as helpfully as he was able to. It turns out that Dr. Neary left UNB in 2005 and therefore was "out of the loop" on many of the project details. My good luck came from trying to contact all 5 authors rather than just 2.

Hugh

So we have learned that the subjects were not elites and the timing, at least for some of the subjects, was in the spring. Did any of them suggest the results were different than reported?

 

[sciguy]

So we have learned that the subjects were not elites and the timing, at least for some of the subjects, was in the spring. Did any of them suggest the results were different than reported?

Frank,

There were 8 subjects who all trained together at the same time as a group. So it was the same time of year/season. I have no idea how you're coming up with "at least some". It was all of them as a group.

More details to follow.

Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

Frank,

There were 8 subjects who all trained together at the same time as a group. So it was the same time of year/season. I have no idea how you're coming up with "at least some". It was all of them as a group.

More details to follow.

Hugh

I came up with the "at least some" because you reported these efforts as individuals, as I understood it. This is the first I have heard that they trained as a group. You had that information but didn't report it unless I missed something. Did any of them imply the results were different than reported. Did any of them express surprise at the results? Had they trained as a group in previous years and seen similar or different results?

 

[JamesCun]

So we have learned that the subjects were not elites and the timing, at least for some of the subjects, was in the spring. Did any of them suggest the results were different than reported?

The details change the interpretation of the results. As many have said, the abstract didn't give enough detail to draw any conclusion.

A relatively weak group in the spring would likely increase doing any training. The study doesn't offer any way to suggest the PC made any difference compared to training with regular cranks.