The importance of crank length to the cyclist.

[coapman]

Are you referring to the Abiss paper? Here is what Dr. Martin himself has said about that failure (his remarks are, in part, valid for almost every PC study thus far): "While it is true that we did not obtain a performance improvement we did not really expect it after only 6 total workouts over three weeks. Anytime you design a study you are constrained by what you believe the participants are will to do and how much time they will take off of their normal training. We decided on three weeks knowing it might not improve performance. That's where the analysis of muscle biopsies came in. We pulled biopsies before and after each block of training (single and double) and analyzed the tissue. The results for increases in glut-4 (insulin and contraction mediated glucose transporter) and CoxII and CoxIV (limiting steps in the respiratory chain) are highly compelling. They suggest that this will be a potent training stimulus as well as clinical modality. "

Martin demonstrated that training those additional muscles have the potential to benefit performance (even though talking about potential seems to be lost on many here). The paper's abstract concludes: "Single-leg cycling may therefore provide a valuable training stimulus for trained and clinical populations." How does that "not help" PowerCranks?

A further comment or two about one-legged training. One-legged pedaling, while training the muscles does nothing to train the two-legged unconscious coordination. It does little good to train the muscles if the brain isn't going to use them in competition. That is the biggest weakness of one-legged training IMHO. And, further, most people do one legged training for periods ranging from 5-10 minutes at cadences of 30-50. How does that prepare one to use those muscles for a 1-5 hour race at cadences of 80-100? That inadequate aerobic stimulus is the second big weakness of one-legged training. PowerCranks training solve both these weaknesses of one-legged training by making the entire training session a one-legged pedaling session for both legs at the same time.

Not sure what studies I was reading but it was said that counterweighted single leg pedaling was more beneficial than non counterweighted single leg pedaling (PC type). Another study claimed single leg pedaling was beneficial because it improved blood flow through that leg, this would not be true if both legs were in action at the same time.

 

[FrankDay]

Not sure what studies I was reading but it was said that counterweighted single leg pedaling was more beneficial than non counterweighted single leg pedaling (PC type). Another study claimed single leg pedaling was beneficial because it improved blood flow through that leg, this would not be true if both legs were in action at the same time.

I am sorry, but PC riding is counterweighted single legged pedaling similar to the study. In the PC case the opposite thigh/leg provides the counterweight. Better than the study because we know the two sides are almost perfectly balanced.

Anyhow, single legged pedaling better trains the unweighting muscles than two legged pedaling on regular cranks, as long as it is done enough. then the question is, will you use those better trained muscles when racing when back to two legged pedaling. Some seem to manage, most do not. That is pretty much the original point of PowerCranks, to make sure the rider is capable and does, for the entire ride.

 

[Tapeworm]

PC is the same a counterweighted single leg? Really Frank?

What a load of claptrap.

 

[CoachFergie]

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. The Frank of old has never changed.

 

[FrankDay]

PC is the same a counterweighted single leg? Really Frank?

What a load of claptrap.

The PC's should behave exactly the same except PC's works both legs at the same time and the counter weight, instead of coming from lead weights applied to the pedal come from the weight of the leg on the pedal. What makes you believe they are somehow substantially different? Have you actually ridden a pair?

 

[CoachFergie]

The PC's should behave exactly the same except PC's works both legs at the same time and the counter weight, instead of coming from lead weights applied to the pedal come from the weight of the leg on the pedal. What makes you believe they are somehow substantially different? Have you actually ridden a pair?

That tired old argument. Do I need to smoke to know that it's bad for me?

Have you tried a counterweighted single leg pedal stroke? Completely different to an unweighted single leg pedal stroke.

 

[FrankDay]

Have you tried a counterweighted single leg pedal stroke? Completely different to an unweighted single leg pedal stroke.

I do a counterweighted single leg pedal stroke everytime I ride the PC's. Have you ever done a counterweighted single leg pedal stroke? Do you understand the purpose/intent of the counterweight? And, exactly what is an "unweighted single leg pedal stroke". Do you actually understand some of the stuff you post?

 

[CoachFergie]

I do a counterweighted single leg pedal stroke everytime I ride the PC's. Have you ever done a counterweighted single leg pedal stroke? Do you understand the purpose/intent of the counterweight? And, exactly what is an "unweighted single leg pedal stroke". Do you actually understand some of the stuff you post?

Ha ha funny Frank.

Yes I have done a single leg pedal stroke with the counterweight on the other side and use it with riders while they are recovering from knee injury. I have also done single leg pedalling without a counterweight on the other side and it is different. One is specific to cycling and one is non-specific.

 

[FrankDay]

Ha ha funny Frank.

Yes I have done a single leg pedal stroke with the counterweight on the other side and use it with riders while they are recovering from knee injury. I have also done single leg pedalling without a counterweight on the other side and it is different. One is specific to cycling and one is non-specific.

But, you haven't done PowerCranks. PowerCranks is more like counterweighted single legged pedaling. Thanks for the endorsement.

 

[CoachFergie]

But, you haven't done PowerCranks. PowerCranks is more like counterweighted single legged pedaling. Thanks for the endorsement.

Ha ha funny Frank

That is even more non specific. Hence no published study on independent cranks has shown a significant performance improvement compared to training with a normal crank.

Hence no performance difference in the Abiss study when other studies on different training methods like short term intervals elicited huge performance improvements in training periods as short as two weeks Burgomaster and Gibala studies). The one leg training with a counterweight (Abiss goes into detail why the counterweight is used instead of single leg pedalling) offer a sufficient stimulus to maintain fitness although one would question performing twice the duration training each leg independently when you can achieve the same stimulus with two legs in half the time. Unless of course when one leg is injured.

 

[FrankDay]

Ha ha funny Frank

That is even more non specific. Hence no published study on independent cranks has shown a significant performance improvement compared to training with a normal crank.

Hence no performance difference in the Abiss study when other studies on different training methods like short term intervals elicited huge performance improvements in training periods as short as two weeks Burgomaster and Gibala studies). The one leg training with a counterweight (Abiss goes into detail why the counterweight is used instead of single leg pedalling) offer a sufficient stimulus to maintain fitness although one would question performing twice the duration training each leg independently when you can achieve the same stimulus with two legs in half the time. Unless of course when one leg is injured.

If one could actually achieve the same stimulus in both legs in half the time using regular cranks, then there would have been no difference between the groups in the Abiss study. Except is is possible to achieve the same stimulus as single-legged training in half the time if one is doing those single-legged training on the PowerCranks because it is single-legged, counterweighted, training for both legs at the same time. That is the power of them - plus they work on the two legged coordination. You just can't seem to wrap that around your mind. Perhaps if you actually were to try them just once the lightbulb would go on, even if only dimly.

Regarding those "negative" studies. Let me quote Dr. Martin again. "Anytime you design a study you are constrained by what you believe the participants are will to do and how much time they will take off of their normal training." Anyone with any experience with the product will tell you that the studies thus far done on the PC's have an inadequate design to test the claims, let alone test whether any improvement occurs at all. Most new users are just getting back to normal training intensities and speeds in 5-6 weeks (I know, I know, you believe it has been shown that 6 weeks is plenty of time). One has to look at studies carefully to determine if they have any real world application and not just rely upon the conclusions stated by the author. Thanks for joining in the discussion anyhow. You help keep the thread alive.

 

[Tapeworm]

The PC's should behave exactly the same except PC's works both legs at the same time and the counter weight, instead of coming from lead weights applied to the pedal come from the weight of the leg on the pedal. What makes you believe they are somehow substantially different? Have you actually ridden a pair?

Isn't the whole point of PCs that the cranks AREN'T connected? With the counterweight trial a normal muscle firing pattern (ie: only pushing down) was maintained and no "upstroke" needed to be applied. Unlike PCs. Do you understand your product, physiology, or how the study was conducted?

And as Fergue pointed out the counterweight work yielded the same result for double the time. Useful if injured.

 

[FrankDay]

Isn't the whole point of PCs that the cranks AREN'T connected? With the counterweight trial a normal muscle firing pattern (ie: only pushing down) was maintained and no "upstroke" needed to be applied. Unlike PCs. Do you understand your product, physiology, or how the study was conducted?

Sigh… Yes, the whole point of the PC's is the cranks are not connected. The whole point of single-legged drills is to train the rider to use the entire circle. What makes single legged drills especially difficult is the need to pull up with force on the back stroke to keep the wheel moving, especially when done on a trainer. What the counterweighted single legged drill means is that the counterweight will keep the bike going because of gravity so the rider need only unweight on the upstroke, something substantially easier and more like what is actually required to just eliminate the back force on the upstroke, which is all one need do to eliminate inefficiencies in the stroke. PowerCranks behave the same way even though the cranks are not connected. The downward pushing leg keeps the bike going and all the rider must do is to unweight enough to get the leg up but it is not necessary to do any more. The effect is the same except both legs are being used at the same time.

And as Fergue pointed out the counterweight work yielded the same result for double the time. Useful if injured.

The counterweight work did not yield the same result, unless one looks only at performance improvements only. The author found changes in the muscles that suggested with more time the riders would eventually see performance enhancement, assuming that they could learn to utilize those muscles when riding two legged. Otherwise it seems to me that these final sentences in the abstract would have never gotten past the reviewers: "The results for increases in glut-4 (insulin and contraction mediated glucose transporter) and CoxII and CoxIV (limiting steps in the respiratory chain) are highly compelling. They suggest that this will be a potent training stimulus as well as clinical modality. "

You folks that have never had any experience with my product who keep coming here telling me what it does or doesn't do simply kill me. Keep it up, this thread can go on forever.

 

[CoachFergie]

If one could actually achieve the same stimulus in both legs in half the time using regular cranks, then there would have been no difference between the groups in the Abiss study.

There was no difference in performance tests between the two groups. Single-legged counterweighted pedalling was performed at 58.3 +- 3.7% of the power as doubled legged pedalling but they had to perform twice the duration to achieve this balance.

Except is is possible to achieve the same stimulus as single-legged training in half the time if one is doing those single-legged training on the PowerCranks because it is single-legged, counterweighted, training for both legs at the same time.

Nonsense. Fernandez-Pena showed that training with a independent crank changed the application of power through the crank cycle and when the subjects went back to normal cranks this change was not maintained. And of course no published study has shown a performance enhancement using independent cranks.

That is the power of them - plus they work on the two legged coordination. You just can't seem to wrap that around your mind. Perhaps if you actually were to try them just once the lightbulb would go on, even if only dimly.

Pity, you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your claims.

Regarding those "negative" studies. Let me quote Dr. Martin again. "Anytime you design a study you are constrained by what you believe the participants are will to do and how much time they will take off of their normal training."

Because cyclists train to improve their performance not assist researchers get published. Doesn't change the fact that numerous studies have shown performance can change by substantial amounts in as little 2-3 training sessions.

Anyone with any experience with the product will tell you that the studies thus far done on the PC's have an inadequate design to test the claims, let alone test whether any improvement occurs at all.

Spare us your unsubstantiated marketing claims.

Most new users are just getting back to normal training intensities and speeds in 5-6 weeks (I know, I know, you believe it has been shown that 6 weeks is plenty of time). One has to look at studies carefully to determine if they have any real world application and not just rely upon the conclusions stated by the author.

Plenty of good research using various products, techniques and supplements that show changes in performance in time frames far shorter.

My claim is that if PC users are taking 5-6 weeks to come to grips with the product this reflects the intelligence level of someone who would buy it in the first place

 

[CoachFergie]

The whole point of single-legged drills is to train the rider to use the entire circle.

Even though this is non-specific to how cyclists perform in competition.

What the counterweighted single legged drill means is that the counterweight will keep the bike going because of gravity so the rider need only unweight on the upstroke, something substantially easier and more like what is actually required to just eliminate the back force on the upstroke, which is all one need do to eliminate inefficiencies in the stroke. PowerCranks behave the same way even though the cranks are not connected.

You're a funny guy!

The downward pushing leg keeps the bike going and all the rider must do is to unweight enough to get the leg up but it is not necessary to do any more.

Ummmm so why the responses from PC users that riding them kills their hip flexors in the same way single leg without counterweight cycling does. And your marketing claim that PC's are a great training tool for runners. And golfers

The effect is the same except both legs are being used at the same time.The counterweight work did not yield the same result, unless one looks only at performance improvements only. The author found changes in the muscles that suggested with more time the riders would eventually see performance enhancement, assuming that they could learn to utilize those muscles when riding two legged.

You're a funny guy.

The stimulus is the same. The purpose of the SLAM system is allowing injured riders to maintain some fitness while doing rehab. There is no difference in performance (which is the only metric cyclists in training are interested in) because the stimulus is the same. Just takes twice as long to achieve if training both legs which makes the exercise redundant if the rider is not injured.

Otherwise it seems to me that these final sentences in the abstract would have never gotten past the reviewers: "The results for increases in glut-4 (insulin and contraction mediated glucose transporter) and CoxII and CoxIV (limiting steps in the respiratory chain) are highly compelling. They suggest that this will be a potent training stimulus as well as clinical modality. "

If the cyclist wants to train twice as long as they do for the same benefit.

You folks that have never had any experience with my product who keep coming here telling me what it does or doesn't do simply kill me. Keep it up, this thread can go on forever.

Only because your just so dammed funny!

 

[coapman]

Anyhow, single legged pedaling better trains the unweighting muscles than two legged pedaling on regular cranks, as long as it is done enough. then the question is, will you use those better trained muscles when racing when back to two legged pedaling. Some seem to manage, most do not. That is pretty much the original point of PowerCranks, to make sure the rider is capable and does, for the entire ride.

Repeating an earlier question, after a masher's 6 or 12 months of full time intensive training using Powercranks, how would you describe his pedaling technique a week after returning to standard cranks ?

 

[FrankDay]

Repeating an earlier question, after a masher's 6 or 12 months of full time intensive training using Powercranks, how would you describe his pedaling technique a week after returning to standard cranks ?

I would expect very little reversion in 1 week after 6-12 months of intensive PC work as long as the rider doesn't bring the cadence up beyond what he is used to. The rider should show very little negative force on the upstroke and much larger component coming over the top and bottom.

 

[coapman]

I would expect very little reversion in 1 week after 6-12 months of intensive PC work as long as the rider doesn't bring the cadence up beyond what he is used to. The rider should show very little negative force on the upstroke and much larger component coming over the top and bottom.

What I mean is circular or mashing ?

 

[FrankDay]

What I mean is circular or mashing ?

Define 'circular' or 'mashing'. I told you what I thought the pedal force would look like compared to before PC's. Most of the power will come on the downstroke, little if any on the upstroke, and much more will come from the top and bottom. It is the PC way. It isn't what many think of as being circular (forces aren't the same around the circle) and it isn't what I consider to be mashing.

 

[coapman]

Define 'circular' or 'mashing'. I told you what I thought the pedal force would look like compared to before PC's. Most of the power will come on the downstroke, little if any on the upstroke, and much more will come from the top and bottom. It is the PC way. It isn't what many think of as being circular (forces aren't the same around the circle) and it isn't what I consider to be mashing.

What is your definition of circular pedaling and how does it differ from the style of a fully trained pc'er using standard cranks (the PC way).

 

[FrankDay]

What is your definition of circular pedaling and how does it differ from the style of a fully trained pc'er using standard cranks (the PC way).

To me, circular pedaling involves putting some positive force (or, at least, no negative force) around the entire pedaling circle. It doesn't have to be equal but one has to "work" the entire circle. It is what PC'ers do. Unfortunately, to many circular pedaling means equal force around the entire circle, something almost impossible to do because of gravity.

 

[coapman]

To me, circular pedaling involves putting some positive force (or, at least, no negative force) around the entire pedaling circle. It doesn't have to be equal but one has to "work" the entire circle. It is what PC'ers do. Unfortunately, to many circular pedaling means equal force around the entire circle, something almost impossible to do because of gravity.

Would you say the circular pedalers used by Coyle in his (circular v mashing) research were using the correct circular style and if so how do explain his results. This is how I see it, after the 6 months of suffering with Powercranks the masher's brain has now stored two different techniques in its memory and when real power is required, instinct takes over and it will select the most powerful of the two, which is mashing.

 

[FrankDay]

Would you say the circular pedalers used by Coyle in his (circular v mashing) research were using the correct circular style and if so how do explain his results. This is how I see it, after the 6 months of suffering with Powercranks the masher's brain has now stored two different techniques in its memory and when real power is required, instinct takes over and it will select the most powerful of the two, which is mashing.

First, Coyle didn't select his subjects based upon pedaling style or not. Second, there was not a statistically significant difference in style between the fastest and the slowest groups. Here are the main differences between those groups that might account for their differences:

1. The faster cyclists put out more power than the lesser cyclists. (so, of course, as a group they pushed harder since their basic technique was the same).

2. The faster cyclists had better aerodynamics/bike handling skills than the lesser cyclists. (they went substantially faster than the power differences alone would have predicted)

3. The faster cyclists had much better aerobic backgrounds than the lesser cyclists. (3 years more as I remember)

4. Pushing harder had little to do with how fast one was. The fastest rider by far only had the 4th hardest push whereas the two riders with the hardest push were the 4th and 10th ranked riders in this group of 15 riders. Clearly, going fast involves a lot more than just pushing harder.

If one wants to analyze pedaling style and determine which is better and which is not then, it seems to me, that one needs to take two groups and train one to ride one style and the other another style and, after after an appropriate amount of time, then do testing (while confirming that they are actually riding in the applicable style) and see which group does better. Unless one actually does that then I suspect that people will test best using the technique they have been using in training everyday. And, of course, such a testing protocol has not yet been performed. Once power meters that measure the right and left pedals independently become widely available such a protocol will be much easier to perform and maybe we will see it in the next 5 years.

 

[coapman]

First, Coyle didn't select his subjects based upon pedaling style or not. Second, there was not a statistically significant difference in style between the fastest and the slowest groups. Here are the main differences between those groups that might account for their differences:

1. The faster cyclists put out more power than the lesser cyclists. (so, of course, as a group they pushed harder since their basic technique was the same).

2. The faster cyclists had better aerodynamics/bike handling skills than the lesser cyclists. (they went substantially faster than the power differences alone would have predicted)

3. The faster cyclists had much better aerobic backgrounds than the lesser cyclists. (3 years more as I remember)

4. Pushing harder had little to do with how fast one was. The fastest rider by far only had the 4th hardest push whereas the two riders with the hardest push were the 4th and 10th ranked riders in this group of 15 riders. Clearly, going fast involves a lot more than just pushing harder.

If one wants to analyze pedaling style and determine which is better and which is not then, it seems to me, that one needs to take two groups and train one to ride one style and the other another style and, after after an appropriate amount of time, then do testing (while confirming that they are actually riding in the applicable style) and see which group does better. Unless one actually does that then I suspect that people will test best using the technique they have been using in training everyday. And, of course, such a testing protocol has not yet been performed. Once power meters that measure the right and left pedals independently become widely available such a protocol will be much easier to perform and maybe we will see it in the next 5 years.

Unlike PC's circular pedaling has been used for many years, the objectives are simple and easily learnt in a short time. Why should a rider suffer 6 months of torture when the result will be the same, and if not where does the PC'er apply more torque than the natural circular pedaler. Only when you get this sorted out will you be able to judge the true value of shorter PC cranks.

 

[FrankDay]

Unlike PC's circular pedaling has been used for many years, the objectives are simple and easily learnt in a short time. Why should a rider suffer 6 months of torture when the result will be the same, and if not where does the PC'er apply more torque than the natural circular pedaler. Only when you get this sorted out will you be able to judge the true value of shorter PC cranks.

Sigh. This has been discussed many times before. Let me post again a graph showing actual pedal forces done by the same rider (obviously incompletely trained) riding at 250 Watts. This rider worked at UC Davis so had access to their force pedals so decided to test himself and see what was happening.

Most of the big changes occur across the top and bottom and eliminating the negative forces on the upstroke. As a results of these seemingly small changes in this portion of the stroke the rider doesn't need to push nearly as hard to maintain the same power.

The blue is what I call pedaling in circles. The green is closer to what most people do and, while close, doesn't qualify for that definition in my book.