The Dixon Study

[FrankDay]

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.

Yes, but the detail hardly does anything more than let you apply your bias. I have asked Sciguy to report on the results and what his contacts thought about the results. They are certainly in a better position to determine if the results reflected simple training effect or a PowerCranks effect. If this group had many years of experience training together and such spring improvements were unusual for them then this would point more to a PC effect. If such improvements were common this would not. However, in the abstract, the conclusion was the PC training resulted in these changes. I would be surprised if they would have concluded and published this result if they thought there was nothing unusual about it.

Sciguy is in contact with these folks. Let him come back and tell us about the things that really matter (rather than just the few little things I got "wrong"). Until then your supposition is just that, supposition.

 

[JamesCun]

Yes, but the detail hardly does anything more than let you apply your bias. I have asked Sciguy to report on the results and what his contacts thought about the results. They are certainly in a better position to determine if the results reflected simple training effect or a PowerCranks effect. If this group had many years of experience training together and such spring improvements were unusual for them then this would point more to a PC effect. If such improvements were common this would not. However, in the abstract, the conclusion was the PC training resulted in these changes. I would be surprised if they would have concluded and published this result if they thought there was nothing unusual about it.

Sciguy is in contact with these folks. Let him come back and tell us about the things that really matter (rather than just the few little things I got "wrong"). Until then your supposition is just that, supposition.

It's not bias. There was no control group for the study. They have no way of determining the cause of the improvement. They can't possibly attribute the improvement to powercranks since they have no control group.

You are the one injecting bias here. And, they never published the study. They presented at a conference and dropped it after that.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

So a group of undertrained low-mid level athletes did some early season training and improved fitness. Revelation of the century.

 

[hiero2]

So a group of undertrained low-mid level athletes did some early season training and improved fitness. Revelation of the century.

Which means there's plenty of room for someone to pick up the ball and run with it, if they can get funding for their research, right?

 

[CoachFergie]

Which means there's plenty of room for someone to pick up the ball and run with it, if they can get funding for their research, right?

If you go to the start of the Powercrank thread you can see all the studies that have been done. None found an improvement in performance. One found an improvement in efficiency but this was not observed in at least three subsequent studies.

Interesting that it wasn't even a Masters level project. Final year undergrad or Honours project. Not so much about breaking new ground, more about doing science. And as Alex points out, one group doing a block of training and makes a gain is not earth shattering.

 

[FrankDay]

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.

except that was the conclusion of the authors. The senior author is an experienced cyclist and researcher. One might wonder why he would sign off on this conclusion if normal training benefit was a reasonable explanation. Hopefully Sciguy has gotten more detail than these few snippets seemingly designed to make me look bad and will put them out. Let the study stand on its own.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Which means there's plenty of room for someone to pick up the ball and run with it, if they can get funding for their research, right?

Or know right off the bat that a 40% improvement in power output simply by changing your cranks is just out and out bunkum and needs to be called for what it is. Bull****.

 

[FrankDay]

Or know right off the bat that a 40% improvement in power output simply by changing your cranks is just out and out bunkum and needs to be called for what it is. Bull****.

Hey, if it all came about "simply by changing your cranks" I would call bs also. One thing for certain "just changing your cranks to PC's is almost.guaranteed to slow everyone down for several weeks. Unfortunately, to see that improvement takes quite a long time and an awful lot of hard work. It ain't magic but you seem to keep insisting I think it is.

 

[hiero2]

Or know right off the bat that a 40% improvement in power output simply by changing your cranks is just out and out bunkum and needs to be called for what it is. Bull****.

Alex. What the hell are you talking about? Go back and READ the ephing posts you (and I) responded to. What you just said has NO relation to reality (in this thread). NONE WHATSOEVER. Whatever you are responding to, it is NOT the posts that you and I are responding to. What you say sounds true, and valid - but it is completely out of place! NOBODY BUT YOU has mentioned a 40% yada yada in this thread!!!!!

Suggest you read the following, and learn from it. I know you are able to learn, you've proven that - and now is a time to demonstrate your mastery of learning:

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

 

[JamesCun]

Alex. What the hell are you talking about? Go back and READ the ephing posts you (and I) responded to. What you just said has NO relation to reality (in this thread). NONE WHATSOEVER. Whatever you are responding to, it is NOT the posts that you and I are responding to. What you say sounds true, and valid - but it is completely out of place! NOBODY BUT YOU has mentioned a 40% yada yada in this thread!!!!!

Suggest you read the following, and learn from it. I know you are able to learn, you've proven that - and now is a time to demonstrate your mastery of learning:

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

What is your objective here?? Frank constantly brings up his average 40% improvement with powercranks. This thread is about a study that he claims supports product.

You also might want to dial back the foul language and all caps yelling...thanks

 

[JamesCun]

Which means there's plenty of room for someone to pick up the ball and run with it, if they can get funding for their research, right?

What do you mean here? Do you mean continuing to study the benefits of powercranks?

Alex was pointing out that the study showed training improves fitness. Everyone knows that. It is not a new concept.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Alex. What the hell are you talking about? Go back and READ the ephing posts you (and I) responded to. What you just said has NO relation to reality (in this thread). NONE WHATSOEVER. Whatever you are responding to, it is NOT the posts that you and I are responding to. What you say sounds true, and valid - but it is completely out of place! NOBODY BUT YOU has mentioned a 40% yada yada in this thread!!!!!

Suggest you read the following, and learn from it. I know you are able to learn, you've proven that - and now is a time to demonstrate your mastery of learning:

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

Frank persistently claims the Dixon study demonstrates a large improvement in power output is due to using Powercranks, when all it shows is that training results in improvement.

We really don't need to waste more valuable science resources on proving that training works, nor further replicating the multiple studies that demonstrate powercranks don't do anything like what Frank claims. I'd rather research went into far more useful things.

 

[hiero2]

What is your objective here?? Frank constantly brings up his average 40% improvement with powercranks. This thread is about a study that he claims supports product.

You also might want to dial back the foul language and all caps yelling...thanks

What do you mean here? Do you mean continuing to study the benefits of powercranks?

Alex was pointing out that the study showed training improves fitness. Everyone knows that. It is not a new concept.

Dial back? The alternative is that I should be reporting nearly every post in THIS thread, EXCEPT Frank Day's. He has been about the only poster with manners in this thread. Alex did a bit more than what you say, quite a bit. And particularly note that Frank Day DID NOT bring up the "average 40% improvement", nor even a reasonable facsimile, in this thread! THAT is precisely my point. You may not know me, JamesCun, but I know Frank, and I know Coach, and I know Alex. And they, and others, have some idea about the quality and wisdom that I bring. I am not always right - far from it. And I may be wrong this time - but at this moment, I do not see that. What I SEE is people attacking a poster without cause. This ADDS to the problem - it does not reduce it. What I see are emotional and essentially vile attacks made against opposing arguments. To a level that discourages other posters.

Basically, I see posters, claiming another poster is using rhetorical devices and logical fallacies, using THE SAME (RD & LF) to prove their point! Not only that, but "throwing the first punch"! Now how much validity can I put in their arguments, when they are doing the very thing that they accuse the other of? Neither side has ultimate validity, as the particular arguments can not be ultimately validated!

Get back to basics. No personal attacks. State your points. State your proofs. Add links.

 

[hiero2]

Frank persistently claims the Dixon study demonstrates a large improvement in power output is due to using Powercranks, when all it shows is that training results in improvement.

We really don't need to waste more valuable science resources on proving that training works, nor further replicating the multiple studies that demonstrate powercranks don't do anything like what Frank claims. I'd rather research went into far more useful things.

I sincerely wish you had taken the time to word your first response with this much care. What you say here is reasonable, and is not a direct attack on Frank Day. I completely agree that we should not waste research time on proving what has already been proven, and should be obvious - due to real world results. I don't know what else to say - other than there will always be people who do not believe your research - no matter what research you are doing. One will ALWAYS have to respond to those people in some way.
Perhaps one would rather avoid them entirely - but then you should model your behavior on Satoshi Nakamoto, rather than Newt Gingrich.

Back to the basics. Make your point. Support your point. Add links.

I recognize that some people will always add 'static'. That can't be changed, and it is better to learn to be a duck in the rain.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Back to the basics. Make your point.

OK. Frank sells snake oil.

 

[elapid]

What do you mean here? Do you mean continuing to study the benefits of powercranks?

Alex was pointing out that the study showed training improves fitness. Everyone knows that. It is not a new concept.

+1. Hiero 2, I am not sure how much you have read of the other threads but these are all related to some degree. The topic of this thread has direct relevance to the PC thread, as stated in the opening post, and hence the reference to the 40% improvement with PCs is known to most reading this thread. Criticizing Alex for this, particularly the manner in which you did this, was over the top IMO.

Just to put it in context:

Frank's PC claims ...

of course those studies don't support our 40% power improvement claim because that claim requires 6-9 months of exclusive use in training to see that benefit. Hard to demonstrate that in a study lasting 6 weeks of exclusive 8 hr/wk use (Dixon) or 5-6 weeks of lesser or part-time use.

Frank's science to support his claims ...

While I agree that the data I have is not scientifically rigorous regarding the claims

My own data, even though it is not rigorous in that I am not able to "prove" a conclusion statistically

Frank using the Dixon study to support his claims, despite the fact that the study was never published, the study did not support the magnitude of the improvements claimed, and, as has been revealed by Alex, Frank getting the timing of the study completely wrong ...

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

read Dixon again. He did his best to control for training effect. Let me ask you this question. How much would you expect the power of the average racer to increase after the end of their racing season as they move into the off season if they were to just continue their baseline training for the next 6 weeks?

Frank's statement of Dixon's study that Dixon followed the manufacturer's instructions for best benefit, but as stated above Dixon's study was 6 weeks and not 6-9 months as recommended by Frank and hence was not conducted according to manufacturer's instructions for best benefit ...

Dixon is the only one who has attempted to follow the manufacturers instructions for best benefit and has shown a benefit.

My comment comparing the studies published on PCs, including Dixon's abstract (which was never published but included for Frank's benefit) to show that the evidence does not exist to support Frank's claims on PCs ....

The number of studies for PCs (n = 2; Luttrell et al and Dixon et al) and against PCs (n = 8; Diaz et al, Otto et al, Bohm et al, Van Zant & Bouillon, Williams et al, Hanaki-Martin et al, Sperlich et al, Burns et al) are not as lopsided as you like to make out. Cherry picking studies to suit your purposes and not presenting a balanced view of the literature just exemplifies your weak position. Furthermore, when there are conflicting papers, and hence no consensus, then the problem is most likely not with the science but the subject (in this case PCs). This is further highlighted by the fact that there are far more studies against (8) rather than for (2) PCs. Lastly, these studies are looking for significant differences. These significant differences are likely to be far smaller than the claims you make when training with PCs: none get close to the 2-3mph and 40% increase in power that you claim.

Frank stating that a study to investigate his claims would require 6-9 month study period and would be almost impossible to conduct because of a lack of willing participants (which is supported by the 70% dropout rate in his pilot study) ...

how difficult it would be to design and complete a study to "prove" a change that requires a substantial commitment from the participant, would take more than 6 months to fairly evaluate, and require a large number of participants to guarantee reaching statistical significance - which is what you are asking me to do.

My guess is if one could get a study done that showed a benefit on elite riders one could presume that it would work on all the lesser category of riders also. But, where does a researcher find a large enough group of elite riders in their little neck of the woods willing to stop what they are doing to participate in some lame study? Maybe now you are beginning to understand why there are so few studies that actually demonstrate a benefit to anything we do or use?

 

[JamesCun]

Dial back? The alternative is that I should be reporting nearly every post in THIS thread, EXCEPT Frank Day's. He has been about the only poster with manners in this thread. Alex did a bit more than what you say, quite a bit. And particularly note that Frank Day DID NOT bring up the "average 40% improvement", nor even a reasonable facsimile, in this thread! THAT is precisely my point. You may not know me, JamesCun, but I know Frank, and I know Coach, and I know Alex. And they, and others, have some idea about the quality and wisdom that I bring. I am not always right - far from it. And I may be wrong this time - but at this moment, I do not see that. What I SEE is people attacking a poster without cause. This ADDS to the problem - it does not reduce it. What I see are emotional and essentially vile attacks made against opposing arguments. To a level that discourages other posters.

Basically, I see posters, claiming another poster is using rhetorical devices and logical fallacies, using THE SAME (RD & LF) to prove their point! Not only that, but "throwing the first punch"! Now how much validity can I put in their arguments, when they are doing the very thing that they accuse the other of? Neither side has ultimate validity, as the particular arguments can not be ultimately validated!

Get back to basics. No personal attacks. State your points. State your proofs. Add links.

If only frank could add any proof to his claims. Just a constant stream of BS and bullying. See the PC thread where he bullied a new poster off the thread in about a day or two.

What is your interest in this topic? Other than doing a poor job at moderating?

 

[FrankDay]

If only frank could add any proof to his claims. Just a constant stream of BS and bullying. See the PC thread where he bullied a new poster off the thread in about a day or two.

If only Frank could provide proof. But, since he can't Frank tells people what he believes. Such an awful thing. Similar to the Computrainer claim,

The regular use of CompuTrainer will increase your bike speed by 2 to 4 MPH. This is a bold statement which is backed up by the experiences of over 25,000 triathletes and cyclists of all ages and ability levels over a 20 year period!

don't you think, "proven" by thousands of customers (I might note that 2-4 mph is even larger than our claim). You do realize that sometimes scientific "proof" of something takes quite awhile but just because proof is lacking doesn't mean the "thing" doesn't work as claimed or that people cannot benefit from using it. Perhaps the best example of this would be Einstein's general theory of relativity. It took about 50 years before the first experiment testing it was performed successfully and people are still testing it more than 100 years later looking for flaws in the theory. Yet, it is "proven" enough that it is used every day (GPS couldn't work without it).

And, regarding "bullying" Martin off the PC thread, I don't see pointing out inconsistencies in what they say, or asking someone to explain what they mean or how they arrived at some data (does the questions re Dixon come to mind as an example), or pointing out that the person themselves has stated that they have no opinion on the topic of the thread (why are they there then?) as bullying. As I stated, I didn't expect him to hang around because these so-called experts do not like exposing what they don't know or being critically questioned instead of adored. My prediction seemed to come to fruition.

What is your interest in this topic? Other than doing a poor job at moderating?

Oh, if only he had taken this attitude when he was a moderator these threads would be so much more user friendly.

 

[veganrob]

So if you are so against the Computrainer claims, why do you that as a way to legitimize your own false claims?

 

[FrankDay]

So if you are so against the Computrainer claims, why do you that as a way to legitimize your own false claims?

Why would I be against the CT claim? The CT claim is essentially the same thing we do in that they believe that those who follow their program should see this or that improvement and it is backed up by thousands of customer reports. The only difference is the mechanism of the improvement. They don't claim a mechanism but one can expect their improvement comes mostly from training effect whereas ours, we claim, comes partly from training effect and partly from an improvement in the muscle mass involved in producing power plus an improvement in technique. The only thing I am against regarding the CT claims is I don't understand how they get 2-4 mph improvement from the 10% power improvement they also claim. We only claim 2-3 mph improvement from our 40% power improvement claim. If their 2-4 mph claim is true they are claiming more than us. If you find our claims "impossible" why don't you find theirs? Why the hate our way and nothing theirs?

 

[sciguy]

One of the most contentious points regarding the Dixon Study has been the concept of a control group and whether or not one existed for this study. I thought that it would be easy to find the answer to this question but sadly the waters are still muddy.

One of the three authors I was able to contact responding to my question regarding the use of a control group.

I believe the control group performed the same training as the power crank group, only with fixed cranks rather than power cranks.

To this I responded:

While you have mentioned a control group on conventional cranks if I'm reading the abstract correctly, there was no control group beyond the 8 participants whose pre-treatment performance was used as a virtual control. Are you certain that 8 other matched individuals did an eight hour per week, 80:20 program on fixed cranks?

and his response-

Hi Hugh,

This was a three part study that worked off of Mr. Dixon's training group (he was the coach of this recreational cycling group). I am 90% sure that we had a control group, but it is possible that I am thinking of another portion of the study. You are right though, it isn't reported, so take the control group portion worth a grain of salt. That said, without the control group data, the findings are somewhat meaningless. We have left the abstract in a situation where we do not know whether the power cranks caused an increase, or whether this increase would have occurred to the same degree simply by using normal cranks.

In my personal opinion, I would like to see the study re-done with more rigour.

The way that the abstract is written leaves far too many holes (i.e. lack of control group data - how does the increase from the power crank compare to if the participants had just trained normally).

With the lack of data in our collective possession, I would take the results with hesitation.

Probably not the outlook that you would like to hear, but I have to be honest about the research. As the abstract is written, it is relatively meaningless.

Thinking the author who actually was part of the treatment group would prove to be more knowledgeable regarding that part of the study I wrote to him and asked-

Thanks for the excellent, helpful information that really begins to fill in many of the holes. Sadly Michael Dixon left academia back in 2006 and is no longer contactable via his UNB email address. I have been in contact with %^& @#$%^& who was helpful but is a bit confused as to the particulars regarding the study that was used for the oral presentation. He mentioned that there was a "3 part study" undertaken with Stephen Dixon's training group and was unsure that he recalled the details of the portion that was given as an oral presentation.

So the answers to just a few more pointed questions will likely satiate
me.......

1. The training you folks did with the Powercranks was characterized as 8 hours
per week with 80% aerobic and 20% anaerobic. I'd love to know what the anaerobic work sessions looked like as there are so many possible durations and intensities that various coaches might prescribe and call anaerobic all the way from 30 second intervals balls to wall all the way to sessions just above ftp.

2. Had your training on normal cranks that preceded the intervention been of the same 8 hours per week, 80:20 with as intense anaerobic work that went on to do with the Powercranks?

3. Was there a second group of 8 who carried out 8 hours per week of an 80:20 intensity mix with fixed cranks or did your pre and post treatment act as a virtual control for your portion of the experiment?

4. Did participants get to keep their Powercranks?

Sadly I haven't received a response to the above email since it was sent on August 29th of 2014.

Frank did you know that this was a 3 part study? I don't recall that ever being mentioned. None of the 3 parts were published but it would be interesting to know more about their intent. It's too bad that Stephen Cheung was been unwilling to come forward with information. Most researches seem more than happy to share their work with others.

Hugh

 

[elapid]

If only Frank could provide proof. But, since he can't Frank tells people what he believes. Such an awful thing. Similar to the Computrainer claim,

Using someone else's failures to justify your own failures is just deflection. As we are not discussing Computrainers, their claims are irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[JamesCun]

If only Frank could provide proof. But, since he can't Frank tells people what he believes. Such an awful thing. Similar to the Computrainer claim,don't you think, "proven" by thousands of customers (I might note that 2-4 mph is even larger than our claim). You do realize that sometimes scientific "proof" of something takes quite awhile but just because proof is lacking doesn't mean the "thing" doesn't work as claimed or that people cannot benefit from using it. Perhaps the best example of this would be Einstein's general theory of relativity. It took about 50 years before the first experiment testing it was performed successfully and people are still testing it more than 100 years later looking for flaws in the theory. Yet, it is "proven" enough that it is used every day (GPS couldn't work without it).

Really, Einstein? That is very relevant to this discussion.

I think the computrainer angle is a lame attempt to cover up your lack of evidence. Computrainer isn't claiming some totally different mechanism of improvement. You are presenting a product with no history and only your claims to back up the possible improvements.

 

[M Sport]

Using someone else's failures to justify your own failures is just deflection. As we are not discussing Computrainers, their claims are irrelevant to this discussion.

Agree with this. And will add if CompuTrainer were here trying to justify their own outrageous claims then I for one would be calling them out. If they had prior history of being banned from other forums I frequent because of trolling, bullying behaviour then that calling out would not be that polite, just like with Frank.

How he remains able to post on these forums is an absolute joke when you compare his behaviour with some of the posters that get banned out of the clinic.

 

[FrankDay]

Really, Einstein? That is very relevant to this discussion.

I think the computrainer angle is a lame attempt to cover up your lack of evidence. Computrainer isn't claiming some totally different mechanism of improvement. You are presenting a product with no history and only your claims to back up the possible improvements.

Let's see,Ccomputrainer (a more expensive product) makes, essentially, the same claim and guarantee as we do, based on lots of anecdotal evidence without a single shred of scientific evidence to support their claim, but it is ok with you because it doesn't involve something different than what you know!!!

But, for us, it is not ok for us to make any claim, let alone a claim somewhat less than what Computrainer makes, even though there is some scientific evidence to support some of what we say, because it involves something you have no experience with nor understanding of the mechanism of why it might work. Is that correct?

Regarding having "no history" HAHAHA!!! Let's see, last 4 Olympic Road race champions have trained on the tool. And tons more World Champs in many other disciplines. Just because you have no experience or don't know of anyone with any real experience with the tool you think we have no history. LOL.

You folks are a bunch of hypocrites. You take so much on faith (power meter user anyone?) yet can't fathom anyone touting something you don't understand (and don't have the cajones to even try).