The importance of crank length to the cyclist.

[Shady87]

SRM make an adjustable length track crank.

There is some other models out there that I can't talk about (with London next year) that allow the rider to measure power and experiment with different lengths.

Could well be it, but not certain.

Does sort of imply that crank length is important.

 

[CoachFergie]

Could well be it, but not certain.

Does sort of imply that crank length is important.

Not really. Still think the medals will be won by the riders in London next year not what crank length they choose. What the research shows is that it isn't a deal breaker.

One of my riders in the NZ U23 Track Team was sitting very high and we experimented with his seat position and have dropped him to a position where we have lower drag and haven't compromised power delivery.

 

[CoachFergie]

Could well be it, but not certain.

Does sort of imply that crank length is important.

Also doesn't mean they have adjustable length cranks to test crank length. Maybe that different riders run different lengths or if they were power meter cranks that they were setting them up to measure power for different riders.

Sprinters appear to be going shorter and teams pursuit appear to be going longer.

I expect the US track team will perform all manner of experiments like they usually do and fall well short while the other teams focus on the things that do have an impact on performance like racing experience, training, recovery, diet, knowing the rules, aerodynamics, tactics and technique.

 

[Shady87]

Going back over a year now, but the AIS were using adjustable cranks to test crank length. I don't know what the results were like, or even if they were significant. It seemed they were looking at it from an individual basis, rather than trying to find trends.

 

[CoachFergie]

Going back over a year now, but the AIS were using adjustable cranks to test crank length. I don't know what the results were like, or even if they were significant. It seemed they were looking at it from an individual basis, rather than trying to find trends.

Jim Martin was in Australia around then so more than likely.

The plot thickens.

 

[Tapeworm]

Jim Martin was in Australia around then so more than likely.

The plot thickens.

Indeed he was

 

[Tapeworm]

...and before you go tearing off on another mind-numbing rant here are some words of wisdom from the world-famous astro-physicist Dr. M.R.McKay ( unfortunately somewhat paraphrased but you should get the point )..

The only thing that is consistent about science, is that over the long run, it is always wrong.

I prefer "Physiology is all propoganda and lies, all waiting to be disproven by the next study."

If you think that means we should ignore what we know now then you miss the point of the quote.

But yeah, science is so bad, so wrong. I will now stop using the Internet immediately.

And google what an ellipsis is, and how it applies to written text.

 

[CoachFergie]

If you think that means we should ignore what we know now then you miss the point of the quote.

Doing a study on power data from a road race. Now what is better. Drawing conclusions from one data file or from 36?

It's not all bad in the physiology literature. At least it's not as nuts as the drivel that gets published in the sports psyc journals.

 

[Tapeworm]

Doing a study on power data from a road race. Now what is better. Drawing conclusions from one data file or from 36?

Exactly.

The quote about physiology come from a friend of mine whom I can only ever hope to play catchup to his knowledge of physiology. His point was that our knowledge about the human body is ever increasing, and sometimes little "lies" and "propaganda" is sometime used to fill the gaps in this knowledge (one only has to look to old medicine books about the causes of diseases for example). The next study comes along and narrows the gaps once more.

But oh, i forget, science is always wrong.

 

[CoachFergie]

Exactly.

The quote about physiology come from a friend of mine whom I can only ever hope to play catchup to his knowledge of physiology. His point was that our knowledge about the human body is ever increasing, and sometimes little "lies" and "propaganda" is sometime used to fill the gaps in this knowledge (one only has to look to old medicine books about the causes of diseases for example). The next study comes along and narrows the gaps once more.

But oh, i forget, science is always wrong.

Although some studies from the past are good. I had a paper to hand in on protein signalling and mitochondrial biogenesis and the lecturer suggested look at a Holloszy paper from 1967. Provided a great launch pad for the review. Some lecturers will tell you to look back no further than 10 years in the literature if that.

A few years back Ed Coyle came to Christchurch and said that back when he started out they fed people carbohydrate and then could do more work on an erg. Now we can observe what is happening in the muscle while it is working and look the molecular adaptations but we are not performing any more work.

There is some suggestion that while it's call we have these procedures and equipment to test to such a level we may be focusing a little too narrow. Up at the Human Performance Lab at Massey I did a VO2max test and they also measured heart rate and took lactate samples. All I was interested in was how much work (watts) could I perform on the erg. The other stuff was nice but not necessary.

If I weighed what I weighed at 21 I would have a higher VO2 than Greg Henderson (where is my $365,000 a year contract), I have a stupid high Max HR and I love the lactate. But I knew that and only the power is a measure of performance.

I guess we could look at alternatives...

Homeopathic A&E

 

[blutto]

Exactly.

The quote about physiology come from a friend of mine whom I can only ever hope to play catchup to his knowledge of physiology. His point was that our knowledge about the human body is ever increasing, and sometimes little "lies" and "propaganda" is sometime used to fill the gaps in this knowledge (one only has to look to old medicine books about the causes of diseases for example). The next study comes along and narrows the gaps once more.

But oh, i forget, science is always wrong.

...you really should work on your reading comprehension skills or if you actually had read and understood what was said resist the urge to use straw men upon which to base your arguments...in the former case you end up looking kinda dumb and in the latter needlessly argumentative ( and dead wrong)...

...the point is that science is plagued by what is known as The Aristotlien Fallacy....that is, the map is not the territory....or as Whitehead/Russell explained a set is not a member of itself....so that you have to see science as a map which is not absolutely wrong all the time but is limited in its application and is always being superceded by better maps because, say, the gradiations may become finer or the mapped territory changes...

....science does not actually have the god-like qualities we moderns like to give it...it is simply a tool that has limitations, and if it healthy, is always in a state of evolution....and that evolution is most often driven by niggling facts that don't fit the existing theoretical frameworks ( just the things that our sanctimonious ranting coach sees as beneath his contempt....where in fact that is the stuff that drives science forward )...

Cheers

blutto

 

[FrankDay]

Exactly.

The quote about physiology come from a friend of mine whom I can only ever hope to play catchup to his knowledge of physiology. His point was that our knowledge about the human body is ever increasing, and sometimes little "lies" and "propaganda" is sometime used to fill the gaps in this knowledge (one only has to look to old medicine books about the causes of diseases for example). The next study comes along and narrows the gaps once more.

But oh, i forget, science is always wrong.

I was taught in medical school that 50% of what they were teaching us would be wrong in 10 years. The only problem was they didn't know which 50%. (edit: I would be surprised if they were not still teaching that now, 35 years later)

In that way the science is always wrong because we can't know for certain which part of the science we know today is the right part.

 

[Captain Serious]

Thanks. People who think you have to raise the handlebars because you raise the seat with this change clearly haven't tried it..

Ha! That's exactly what I did when I put the 165s on one of my bikes (I usually use 172.5). I obviously thought I had to raise the bars coz I raised the saddle (my lower back isn't the best going around), but stopped after about the first 20km to lower the bars lower than where they were in
the first place.

 

[Captain Serious]

Another 'episode'/anecdote':

I had a great ride on the 165s on Sunday.
It was pretty windy and the road was flat. Being able to get really low into the headwind while still riding flatout felt pretty good. I was just about chinning the stem! I haven't been able to ride so low for probably 15 or 20 years. Feeling so good with the 165s may well be the placebo effect of being enthused about trying something new, but I dunno.

I rode some 172.5s tonight on a group smashfest (flat road), and didn't feel as good, but that could've been for several other reasons.

It's funny coming full circle since about 5 years ago, where I spent about $1500 on 3 sets of 180s (I ended up not liking them after a year and a bit).

Anyway, so far so good, but, unfortunately, even if I did decide to go exclusively, I wouldn't be able to afford new DA cranks for at least half-a-dozen bikes.

 

[oldborn]

....science does not actually have the god-like qualities we moderns like to give it...it is simply a tool that has limitations, and if it healthy, is always in a state of evolution....and that evolution is most often driven by niggling facts that don't fit the existing theoretical frameworks ( just the things that our sanctimonious ranting coach sees as beneath his contempt....where in fact that is the stuff that drives science forward )...Cheers

blutto

It is not about science at all, it is about kissing Dr. Coggan et al ***
Fargo is not a scientist at first, all he want to achieve is cheap self promotion to black toxido club.
I am just saying

 

[FrankDay]

Ha! That's exactly what I did when I put the 165s on one of my bikes (I usually use 172.5). I obviously thought I had to raise the bars coz I raised the saddle (my lower back isn't the best going around), but stopped after about the first 20km to lower the bars lower than where they were in the first place.

Think what you could do if you went with even shorter cranks.

 

[elapid]

I was taught in medical school that 50% of what they were teaching us would be wrong in 10 years. The only problem was they didn't know which 50%. (edit: I would be surprised if they were not still teaching that now, 35 years later)

In that way the science is always wrong because we can't know for certain which part of the science we know today is the right part.

Not exactly wrong, but perhaps modified. Back in the early 1990s, the doubling rate of information in the medical fields was estimated at 2 years. With so many researchers, studies and publications, there are always going to be advances in our own fields and no doubt what we thought was right last year will be wrong next year for some things based on some ground-breaking break through. So I wouldn't say science is wrong, it just evolves as researchers look harder and people become more and more specialized in their chosen field.

 

[FrankDay]

Not exactly wrong, but perhaps modified. Back in the early 1990s, the doubling rate of information in the medical fields was estimated at 2 years. With so many researchers, studies and publications, there are always going to be advances in our own fields and no doubt what we thought was right last year will be wrong next year for some things based on some ground-breaking break through. So I wouldn't say science is wrong, it just evolves as researchers look harder and people become more and more specialized in their chosen field.

100 years ago a doctor could get along fine with what he learned in medical school. At least until the era of antibiotics. But now? While many principles still apply, without CME a doctor will be "outdated" in 5 years, regardless of specialty.

Why someone would think that all this exercise science stuff is well known and settled in view of the fact that so much less research is done in this area compared to medicine is beyond me. But, they exist. Some of them even hang out here.

 

[FrankDay]

Ha! That's exactly what I did when I put the 165s on one of my bikes (I usually use 172.5). I obviously thought I had to raise the bars coz I raised the saddle (my lower back isn't the best going around), but stopped after about the first 20km to lower the bars lower than where they were in the first place.

Another FB update: "Rode the 120s into work today and felt good. a few months ago this would have felt so strange - now it feels excellent. as the cranks go smaller the front end wants to get down and more aero. I will drop the bars around 4 cm. this will be a saddle to bar difference of around 19cm. I was thinking an analogy would be this - if you were to climb up a stairs for 5 hours would you want to climb big steps or small steps."

Regarding climbing stairs look at what people naturally prefer on the Stairmaster if they are climbing for an hour or more (even 20 minutes). It sure as hell isn't 13+ inch steps, what 170 mm cranks force you to take.

 

[CoachFergie]

Regarding climbing stairs look at what people naturally prefer on the Stairmaster if they are climbing for an hour or more (even 20 minutes). It sure as hell isn't 13+ inch steps, what 170 mm cranks force you to take.

Yup, people should select a crank length because of your observation of people on a Stairmaster

"So Frank Day"

 

[CoachFergie]

Think what you could do if you went with even shorter cranks.

Think of what he could do if he increased his squat.

Think of what he could do if he increased his miles.

Think of what he could do if he took more supplements.

Think of what he could do if he used deeper section wheels.

Think of what he could do if he used lighter tyres.

"So Frank Day"

More, or less is not always better. For every short crank anecdote there is always going to be someone who goes longer and thinks they are more aero, more comfortable, more power and they are right because Pro rider X used long cranks.

 

[Boeing]

Yup, people should select a crank length because of your observation of people on a Stairmaster

"So Frank Day"

not to agree or disagree with anyone here but I am sure what Mr. Day was doing in his post was the use of an analogy to help support his position. something you might consider once you formulate a topic that is....

An analogy is a......aaaa forget it



so fargo your avy suggests you are a bloke after all, my bad.

 

[blutto]

Yup, people should select a crank length because of your observation of people on a Stairmaster

"So Frank Day"

....observations are observations....context does not necessarily diminish their value....and as we all know, inspiration can be found anywhere....

....but as a professed apostle of the one true way you would know that.............wouldn't you?...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Tapeworm]

...you really should work on your reading comprehension skills or if you actually had read and understood what was said resist the urge to use straw men upon which to base your arguments...in the former case you end up looking kinda dumb and in the latter needlessly argumentative ( and dead wrong)...

Indeed, maybe you should practise what you preach. Did you read or understand the quote I posted?

And using utterly inappropriate punctuation continually isn't making you look "kinda" smarter.

Perhaps google "sarcasm" for the last bit.

...the point is that science is plagued by what is known as The Aristotlien Fallacy....

Which is what? Do you mean the types of fallacy outlined by Aristotle or his own theory of moving bodies, which was a fallacy?

( just the things that our sanctimonious ranting coach sees as beneath his contempt....where in fact that is the stuff that drives science forward )...

So at what point does something go from driving science forward to being either inconsequential, good marketing (but still inconsequential), or just plain old snake oil? What is your level of evidence required to prove something or disprove it?

Lab studies? Or is the "overwhelming" amount of anecdotal evidence sufficient for you?

 

[oldborn]

Guys it is almost midnight here, so we should all take a deep breath now, close your eyes, imagine like we are swimming among dolphins, all of a suddenly (or sudden?) big SOB gray whale... you know.