The pedaling technique thread

[CoachFergie]

You guys are crazy, just hearing the stuff you want to hear and then make assumptions that I couldn't possibly know what the hell I am talking about or do anything correctly. I criticize those studies because they are just awful studies. If you want we could have an in depth discussion as to the strength and weakness of any study you might like to discuss. Just because there is a big name on the study does not mean it is well done.

Oh wow, the guys whose product claims are discredited by these well performed studies thinks the studies are awful. How surprising. But as per usual we have to take it you at your word on this. I definitely made a mistake thinking you were intelligent and were just trying to deceive people. Clearly been drinking the Kool-aid.

Anyhow, when I first decided I had something worthwhile I didn't have a clue what I should claim that users might expect. So, I went to a local cycling club swap meet to see if I could recruit some beta testers. I got several and what I did was bring them in, do a Conconi protocol, then give them some cranks and bring them back about once a month for retesting on the PowerCranks. Some dropped out but after awhile it was clear we were seeing efficiency improvements but people couldn't complete to the same ending HR. It wasn't until 6-9 months that people were able to complete the test to the same HR, same perceived exertion and of those who did, they averaged a 40% increase in max power (or power at the same HR). That is the basis for the 40% power improvement claim if one uses the cranks exclusively for 6-9 months.

Yawn, so you claim. Present the data, show that all bias and other variables were controlled for. How was power measured. Same as Phil Holman who used a Cateye Cyclosimulator which just guesses power?

Subsequent reports from users have done nothing but substantiate the results of that testing. But, of course, you folks who have never used the product continue to insist that such improvements are not possible or if they are it couldn't possibly be due to the cranks, regardless of what those who have actually use them think.

More yawn. Do I have to do Crack myself to know it is bad? Studies using independent cranks up to 10 weeks which is easily enough time to see an improvement have proved fruitless. What way does the learning curve slope Frank?

And, might I say, your memory of the "doctored" file is so off it is bizarre. He happened to have had himself professionally tested before starting on the PC's and then at 6 and 13 months. It was the results of that testing that caused him to say he had improved 40%. His "doctored file" came about because he invited anyone to come over and ride with him. Someone did and reported back that "he was the real deal" having ridden away from him. People asked for him to submit his power file, which he did. That file was doctored. But, that file had nothing to do with his 40% claim. It simply would have substantiated what was observed, that he rode away from this fellow who was with him climbing this mountain.

Present the results of those tests then.

Most of the people who have come to share their experience become so disgusted with you naysayers who call them incompetent liars they have simply stopped posting. (They are probably smiling inwardly saying "cool, less competition for me.")

Like we care what liars, the incompetent or just plain stupid have to say.

Don't you think it a bit strange that you don't see many posts from people who say "I used them like they said for 6-9 months and they made me slower."?

Perfectly normal, if I did something that stupid I probably wouldn't be bragging about it.

Don't you think it a bit strange we keep getting orders from european pros on the major teams? (got one today) It is not possible to have a reasonable discussion about what learning a better pedaling technique might do to power because most of you are too lazy to even try so you rationalize that it must be snake oil so you have an excuse to not do it.

Ha ha like your claims of working with the BCF and AIS but when asked who you were dealing with in both you can't produce a name. Because I am more than happy to go to them and ask. I asked one of the BCF coaches at the time and he said there had been no contact. One of you must be lying!

You are the one who has a problem. Despite calling yourself a science guy you are the one who fails to accept that there might be something to all those anecdotal reports. Pulling this crap out of ancient history as "evidence" that my ideas are BS.

The evidence I need about pedalling, crank length and Gimmickcranks is well covered in the well performed published research. What I posted is simply to remind people of the levels you will lower yourself to.

New ideas and theories need to be tested before science accepts or refutes them. Independent cranks have yet to be adequately studies, despite what Coach Fergie seems to think. I am confident that when the proper science gets done that the product (or the concept) will prove itself many times over.

Several well performed published studies on independent cranks and zero % improvement in power. Not even 1-2%, and seeing most of us know which way a learning curve slopes your claims of 40% are just fictional.

Until then we have as much science behind our product than any other product out there (probably more, at least there are a couple of positive results out there for the PC's). We certainly have as many world champions using them as any other product out there that claims to offer a benefit.

Just shows you don't need a high IQ to ride a bike fast.

Ha ha you have more World Champions using Gimmickcranks than use Aerodynamic Helmets or Aerodynamic Wheels. They are proven to improve performance over standard wheels. Your arguments are weak!

 

[acoggan]

The 40% came from stories like a 2000m pursuiter improving 2-3mph over a season. A fairly common occurrence here as we run a Omnium each month including a 2000m IP and numerous variables lead to an increase in speeds like improving weather, riders fitness increasing, riders specific fitness increasing, as the season heats up competition drives riders to faster times, the bling equipment comes out and if outdoors just pure luck with the wind.

Then a Doctored (I selected that word specifically) of a file from a Spanish climber who claimed a 40% gain in performance but the file had clearly been tampered with.

My favourite is a engineering student (MIT no less) who didn't have any suspicions after he produced a higher 60min power on rollers than he had done for a 20min hill climb. This rocket scientist wasn't aware of the need to zero his PM before testing.

My favourite is a Frank claiming a huge improvement in time for a US fun ride from one year to the next when it turned out the course was run in reverse, was shorter and completely different weather conditions.

Let's not forget the US masters national champion from the East Coast who Frank sponsored and who he claimed was a big proponent of his product, but turned out 1) to have decided that they were worthless, and 2) to be a doper (thus losing all credibility regardless).

 

[FrankDay]

Let's not forget the US masters national champion from the East Coast who Frank sponsored and who he claimed was a big proponent of his product, but turned out 1) to have decided that they were worthless, and 2) to be a doper (thus losing all credibility regardless).

Hey, rather than your usual character attacks and sniping, now that you are back, how about answering the criticism of your earlier remarks found in post 235 of this thread.

Originally Posted by acoggan View Post
"Increasing the forward torque on the crank will always result in an increase in power"

IOW, unless the rider is actively resisting the rising pedal, there's no more "opportunity" on the upstroke than on the downstroke.

Reason #1 why this is complete BS.

Let's presume that a rider generates all of his power on the downstroke and does nothing on the upstroke (minus 20 lbf average force on the pedals). And, let's say he is maxed out, generating 400 watts (meaning 800 watts on the downstroke for half the time) with an average force on the pedals of 120 lbf during the downstroke 90 times a minute. (This gives him an average force on the pedals for the entire circle of 50 lbf)

Now, let's presume this rider wants to improve 5%. Is he more likely to improve by improving his push to 125 lbf 90 times a minute (increasing to 840 watts on the downstroke) or learning how to unweight 5 lbf on the upstroke (to a minus 15 lbf average on the upstroke - generating 40 watts on the upstroke) 90 times a minute?

So, putting it another way, is it easier to improve a muscle that is working maximally (or near maximally) and extra 10% or to start using a muscle that is not being used at all (or being totally underutilized) to generate improvement? Submit your votes folks.


Reason # 2 to follow soon if it isn't obvious what is wrong with this thinking.

If you can address this criticism reasonably well I will then put forth reason #2 why what you say is complete BS.

 

[CoachFergie]

Still caught up in this delusion that it is increasing force that one needs to do to improve the pedalling stroke. That is easy, just mash harder. Cycling is an endurance event. Even a flying 200m is an endurance event as it is ridden at 85-95% of ones maximal power so even these riders can just mash harder. But it comes at the cost of endurance. So the question is not how do I mash harder as this is easy. It is how can I sustain my mashing for the duration of the event.

So even if Noel can show an increase in force application around the pedal stroke or you can show a change in application using a independent crank (like Frenandez-Pena, Bohm and Hug studies) what you haven't shown is this contributing to performance in endurance cycling. Even in training studies of a more than sufficient duration of 5-10 weeks. Yes very sufficient for those of us who know which way the learning curve slopes.

We also know that once you remove the stimulus for learning like the mechanical constraint applied using an independent crank that the learned response decreases and reverts back to the originally learned pattern (Frenandez-Pena).

 

[acoggan]

Reason #1 why this is complete BS.

Let's presume that a rider generates all of his power on the downstroke and does nothing on the upstroke (minus 20 lbf average force on the pedals). And, let's say he is maxed out, generating 400 watts (meaning 800 watts on the downstroke for half the time) with an average force on the pedals of 120 lbf during the downstroke 90 times a minute. (This gives him an average force on the pedals for the entire circle of 50 lbf)

Now, let's presume this rider wants to improve 5%. Is he more likely to improve by improving his push to 125 lbf 90 times a minute (increasing to 840 watts on the downstroke) or learning how to unweight 5 lbf on the upstroke (to a minus 15 lbf average on the upstroke - generating 40 watts on the upstroke) 90 times a minute?

So, putting it another way, is it easier to improve a muscle that is working maximally (or near maximally) and extra 10% or to start using a muscle that is not being used at all (or being totally underutilized) to generate improvement? Submit your votes folks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

 

[FrankDay]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

LOL. Rather than linking to some nebulous "false dilemma" it might be better if you were to expand on what exactly the third option is in this issue. You were the one who made the "all black, no white" statement that 5 lbs here is the same as 5 lbs there. Exactly what did that post do other than obfuscate the fact you have no comeback to the original question to you.

Anyhow, the issue isn't whether 5 lbs here is the same as 5 lbs there, it is. The question is, from the athletes standpoint, is the generation of 5 lbs here the same as the generation of 5 lbs there. It isn't. You say the opportunity is the same. Prove it because 5 lbs here is not the same as 5 lbs there when we are talking humans (and a whole bunch of different muscles) as the engine.

 

[CoachFergie]

Seeing you are asking people to change cranks, to change crank length, which may necessitate changes in position and to rack up 10,000 hours to perfect this new technique the burden of proof is on you. Sure you can make up a nice anecdote or fabricate a power file or two

 

[acoggan]

LOL. Rather than linking to some nebulous "false dilemma" it might be better if you were to expand on what exactly the third option is in this issue. You were the one who made the "all black, no white" statement that 5 lbs here is the same as 5 lbs there. Exactly what did that post do other than obfuscate the fact you have no comeback to the original question to you.

Anyhow, the issue isn't whether 5 lbs here is the same as 5 lbs there, it is. The question is, from the athletes standpoint, is the generation of 5 lbs here the same as the generation of 5 lbs there. It isn't. You say the opportunity is the same. Prove it because 5 lbs here is not the same as 5 lbs there when we are talking humans (and a whole bunch of different muscles) as the engine.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

and

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

 

[FrankDay]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

and

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Address the issue. Support your contention that generating 5 lbs of force has the same metabolic cost regardless of where it is done around the circle under all circumstances. You made that hair brained (IMHO) statement. Support it! https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

 

[CoachFergie]

Burden of proof is on you Frank! Address that!!!

 

[FrankDay]

Burden of proof is on you Frank! Address that!!!

I can't prove my contentions (at least yet), they are based on theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. The question before Dr. Coggan (or any of his minions) is to not even prove his contention but to simply give an argument (that makes some sense) in support. He made the statement to discredit me. He can at least support his statement. (Of course, I egg him on because I know it cannot be supported because it simply isn't true. Why doesn't he just admit it? Must be frustrating when someone used to bullying his way around the internet comes up against someone with the background to take him on.) So, stop trying to change the subject and let him support his statement. LOL

 

[CoachFergie]

I can't prove my contentions

Really, well this is progress!

 

[FrankDay]

Really, well this is progress!

Huh? I have admitted that from the beginning. Hardly anything in cycling or sports can be scientifically proven. Almost everything we do is based upon theory and empirical evidence. And, that includes essentially everything you do and believe also. We all fly by the seat of our pants regardless of how self assured we sound on the internet.

 

[CoachFergie]

Huh? I have admitted that from the beginning. Hardly anything in cycling or sports can be scientifically proven. Almost everything we do is based upon theory and empirical evidence. And, that includes essentially everything you do and believe also. We all fly by the seat of our pants regardless of how self assured we sound on the internet.

Gosh, what a convenient mindset to have when one doesn't have any data to support his argument.

 

[FrankDay]

Gosh, what a convenient mindset to have when one doesn't have any data to support his argument.

Well, right now we are all waiting to see how Dr. Coggan supports his argument.

 

[CoachFergie]

But the burden of proof is on you Frank, you're the one making the outrageous claims about your product.

 

[acoggan]

Address the issue. Support your contention that generating 5 lbs of force has the same metabolic cost regardless of where it is done around the circle under all circumstances. You made that hair brained (IMHO) statement. Support it! https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question

 

[FrankDay]

Frank,

You've mentioned many times in the past using the analytic cycling site for power estimates.

Yes, do you have a problem with how they reverse engineer power?

For example:

"and I went to analytic cycling.com and assuming everything else remained the same found out how much more power would be required to see those speed improvements. Turns out it was slightly different for the two speeds but about 30%, as I remember. You can do it. See what you get.""

What would you like me to do when customers report speed improvements but do not have power meters?

To be honest, I don't ever recall you mentioning the use of your Computrainer for any purpose other than for its SpinScan function.
Perhaps you can point me to a post or posts where you describe the process you went through. My recollection is you've mentioned several times that you came up with the 40% number from hearing reports that your typical customer's speed improved by 2 to 3mph after training with PCs for several months. ..........or has the story changed?

Then, you just haven't paid enough attention. That has been the story from the beginning. Using analyticcycling.com is simply a way of converting one method of reporting improvement into another (using an unbiased 3rd party method) that supports my claims that were based upon my original power based testing.

If you had any real questions about this wouldn't it have been better to have clarified them with me through a PM or email before making such accusations in a public forum. It isn't like you have never contacted me before on other issues.

 

[FrankDay]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question

The great obfuscator strikes again. At least your recent posts say more about your "debating" style than mine.

You were the one who posted "there's no more "opportunity" on the upstroke than on the downstroke." We can agree that if we are talking output that is the case but I am talking the metabolic cost to the rider of generating that equal output and that is quite arguably not the same under some, if not all, circumstances. All I have asked you to do is to make an argument in support of your statement or to admit that you are wrong. Asking you to do so is not a "strawman" nor is it a "loaded question". Nor is it any of the other things you have tried to accuse me of in order to divert the readers attention.

 

[CoachFergie]

Yes, do you have a problem with how they reverse engineer power?

No problem for a one off estimate; but when you compare two estimates and hold all other inputs constant you go from estimating to guessing.

What would you like me to do when customers report speed improvements but do not have power meters?

Well using the Phil Holman example you would need to input the wind speed, wind direction, temperature, wheels used, tyres used, position, tyre pressure, riding line, pacing strategy, clothing used, helmet used among other things to get an accurate power estimate.

Then, you just haven't paid enough attention. That has been the story from the beginning. Using analyticcycling.com is simply a way of converting one method of reporting improvement into another (using an unbiased 3rd party method) that supports my claims that were based upon my original power based testing.

Well, a bit of a stretch saying unbiased when you get files falsified or extremely biased reports like Phil Holmans unless you can show he recorded all the inputs above and that his power testing was done on an erg that actually measures power rather than a Cateye cyclosimulator that just estimates power. Or an engineering student (MIT no less) who gets upset because we point out that he clearly didn't zero his powertap before he does a rollers based FTP test. You would think an engineering student (MIT no less) would have firstly questioned greater power for 60min on rollers than his power in a 20min uphill time trial.

If you had any real questions about this wouldn't it have been better to have clarified them with me through a PM or email before making such accusations in a public forum. It isn't like you have never contacted me before on other issues.

Where is the fun in that? Where else would we see the depths some people will go to flog their snake oil on a forum because they are too cheap to buy advertising on the site like any person or company would do if they really stood behind their product with credible evidence.

 

[FrankDay]

No problem for a one off estimate; but when you compare two estimates and hold all other inputs constant you go from estimating to guessing.

No, even if other inputs have changed one is still doing an estimate. All that is affected is the accuracy of the estimate. Guessing involves having no basis for coming up with that number. It is similar to looking at a measured power number and going to analyticcycling.com and trying to predict how much faster (or slower) someone will be. Unless everything else is held constant it is only an estimate. Speed is actually a better predictor of performance than power because that is what wins races.

Well using the Phil Holman example you would need to input the wind speed, wind direction, temperature, wheels used, tyres used, position, tyre pressure, riding line, pacing strategy, clothing used, helmet used among other things to get an accurate power estimate.

Huh? Phil Holman was a track rider. Do you think there was a lot of variation in some of those things causing the improvement he reported?

5/ My training sessions got faster especially intervals on the track.
My pursuit pace for training improved from last years 30 mph to 32 mph this
summer.

6/ My top speed improved from around 35mph to 38mph.

Well, a bit of a stretch saying unbiased when you get files falsified or extremely biased reports like Phil Holmans unless you can show he recorded all the inputs above and that his power testing was done on an erg that actually measures power rather than a Cateye cyclosimulator that just estimates power. Or an engineering student (MIT no less) who gets upset because we point out that he clearly didn't zero his powertap before he does a rollers based FTP test. You would think an engineering student (MIT no less) would have firstly questioned greater power for 60min on rollers than his power in a 20min uphill time trial.

Phil Holman's reports were falsified or biased? Do you have anything to back up that accusation? You do know he was as negative regarding the possibilities of the product as you when he did his trial. One difference between him and you, he was willing to prove me wrong by putting them to the test and using them pretty much exclusively as required. People thought I was crazy to let him do that public testing. A bronze medal at worlds was the result. Oh, and that engineering student (now graduate) thinks you guys are all crazy. You grab on to any twig of hope and embellish it to discredit any report of benefit.

Where is the fun in that? Where else would we see the depths some people will go to flog their snake oil on a forum because they are too cheap to buy advertising on the site like any person or company would do if they really stood behind their product with credible evidence.

LOL. Now, if Dr. Coggan will only show his face and defend his statement.

 

[CoachFergie]

Huh? Phil Holman was a track rider. Do you think there was a lot of variation in some of those things causing the improvement he reported?

Did he record wind speed, wind direction, temperature, wheels used, tyres used, position, tyre pressure, riding line, pacing strategy, clothing used, helmet used among other things for each ride he did?

Phil Holman's reports were falsified? Do you have anything to back up that accusation?

Your chap in Spain's were, sections of files repeated.

Oh, and that engineering student (now graduate) thinks you guys are all crazy.

That's okay, we don't care what an engineering student (MIT no less) who doesn't understand the need to zero a measurement tool before doing a test or even the hindsight to think the data may be wrong when he saw higher power from a 60min test than a 20min hill climb thinks.

[

You grab on to any twig of hope and embellish it to discredit any report of benefit.LOL.

You keep serving them up.

 

[FrankDay]

Did he record wind speed, wind direction, temperature, wheels used, tyres used, position, tyre pressure, riding line, pacing strategy, clothing used, helmet used among other things for each ride he did?

I don't know. Do you know that he didn't? Would it have made any difference. He did have 10years of history behind him before he reported these improvements. Do you think he was an idiot? (Perhaps so since he was an engineer also and we know you can't trust them.)

Your chap in Spain's were, sections of files repeated.

So what? That file had nothing to do with his reported improvement that was documented by professional testing done just before starting PC's and at 6 and 13 months. He was able to find the original file still on his device and was able to download it and he sent it to me and to Dr. Chung to prove it existed but he asked us to not share it with anyone else as he was so discusted with all of you.

Calling Dr. Coggan, Calling Dr. Coggan. Fergie is trying to divert attention from your failing to support your statement. I will keep us on track.

 

[CoachFergie]

You do know he was as negative regarding the possibilities of the product as you when he did his trial. One difference between him and you, he was willing to prove me wrong by putting them to the test and using them pretty much exclusively as required. People thought I was crazy to let him do that public testing. A bronze medal at worlds was the result.

If you can show that that was the only variable that changed from previous attempts to medal at a World Championship. Where did he place the year before. As equally an un-testable hypothesis is that the time he wasted on Gimmickcranks cost him a Gold or Silver medal.

Or

I had a rider take a Silver medal in the Pursuit at Master's Worlds one year in one of the numerous 5 year age bands for men and women. Does that make my methods better because Phil only got the Bronze?

 

[CoachFergie]

I don't know. Do you know that he didn't? Would it have made any difference. He did have 10years of history behind him before he reported these improvements. Do you think he was an idiot? (Perhaps so since he was an engineer also and we know you can't trust them.)So what?

Well, yeah, he was reporting power from a Cateye Cyclesimulator which just guesses power from the roller speed. So probably sounds like he wasn't too interested in accuracy.

Also running a 2000m TT every month through the season it has to be said that 2-3 mph is fairly common as the weather heats up, competition heats up, the bling equipment comes out, riders peak for events. Phil's performances are nothing special.

That file had nothing to do with his reported improvement that was documented by professional testing done just before starting PC's and at 6 and 13 months.

Well be a good boy and share these results.

He was able to find the original file still on his device and was able to download it and he sent it to me and to Dr. Chung to prove it existed but he asked us to not share it with anyone else as he was so discusted with all of you.

Well isn't that convenient.