• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

The pedaling technique thread

Page 41 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 21, 2009
2,686
0
0
Quit watching after 10min of that infomercial. What a load of horse waste! No new information provided, same old cherry picking of poorly performed or outdated research. Same old made up charts. Same old reinvention of the laws of physics to suit your marketing claims. Pathetic!
 
Jun 1, 2014
262
0
0
Re: Re:

FrankDay said:
Many thanks to A. Coggan for giving me the data a few months ago to rethink pedaling technique. I have my current thoughts together in a new youtube video. The first half is pedaling technique and the last half, mostly, is about crank length. It is mostly about getting faster on the bike. Be prepared to have some of what you believe trampled upon. I hope this will generate lots of discussion.
Care to expand on what you feel is new or different information in the video (link removed to avoid spamming more people).

Sounds like the same stuff packaged around a few logos and rather poor overall presentation. Snake oil is the first thing that comes to mind.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,194
0
0
Re: Re:

JamesCun said:
FrankDay said:
Many thanks to A. Coggan for giving me the data a few months ago to rethink pedaling technique. I have my current thoughts together in a new youtube video. The first half is pedaling technique and the last half, mostly, is about crank length. It is mostly about getting faster on the bike. Be prepared to have some of what you believe trampled upon. I hope this will generate lots of discussion.
Care to expand on what you feel is new or different information in the video (link removed to avoid spamming more people).

Sounds like the same stuff packaged around a few logos and rather poor overall presentation. Snake oil is the first thing that comes to mind.
One thing that was completely new was the Andrew Starykowicz video explaining pedaling technique. Are you faster than him? I presume not since he has the fastest ever bike split in both full and half Ironman events. Here is the link in case you missed it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg8lgnMgJkI I thought what he says supported my case pretty well.
 
Jun 1, 2014
262
0
0
Re: Re:

FrankDay said:
JamesCun said:
FrankDay said:
Many thanks to A. Coggan for giving me the data a few months ago to rethink pedaling technique. I have my current thoughts together in a new youtube video. The first half is pedaling technique and the last half, mostly, is about crank length. It is mostly about getting faster on the bike. Be prepared to have some of what you believe trampled upon. I hope this will generate lots of discussion.
Care to expand on what you feel is new or different information in the video (link removed to avoid spamming more people).

Sounds like the same stuff packaged around a few logos and rather poor overall presentation. Snake oil is the first thing that comes to mind.
One thing that was completely new was the Andrew Starykowicz video explaining pedaling technique. Are you faster than him? I presume not since he has the fastest ever bike split in both full and half Ironman events. Here is the link in case you missed it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg8lgnMgJkI I thought what he says supported my case pretty well.
Great, so you didn't provide any new info, just rehashed your flawed claims and added some very weak 'evidence' from a pro triathlete. Why not just link to his video I the first place? And I thought we had shown that the Dixon 'study' was almost worthless due to the flawed approach and lack of any real info about the study.
 
Apr 21, 2009
2,686
0
0
A pretty shameful response, so Andrew Starykowicz is right because he is faster than us.

"The day the science died"
 
Apr 21, 2009
2,686
0
0
Hmmmmm, so Andrew Starykowicz is an idiot if he thinks pedalling like that is the reason he is so fast on the bike.

Sorry Frank, still unimpressed, will stick with the real science than your Snake Oil.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,194
0
0
Re: Re:

JamesCun said:
FrankDay said:
JamesCun said:
FrankDay said:
Many thanks to A. Coggan for giving me the data a few months ago to rethink pedaling technique. I have my current thoughts together in a new youtube video. The first half is pedaling technique and the last half, mostly, is about crank length. It is mostly about getting faster on the bike. Be prepared to have some of what you believe trampled upon. I hope this will generate lots of discussion.
Care to expand on what you feel is new or different information in the video (link removed to avoid spamming more people).

Sounds like the same stuff packaged around a few logos and rather poor overall presentation. Snake oil is the first thing that comes to mind.
One thing that was completely new was the Andrew Starykowicz video explaining pedaling technique. Are you faster than him? I presume not since he has the fastest ever bike split in both full and half Ironman events. Here is the link in case you missed it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg8lgnMgJkI I thought what he says supported my case pretty well.
Great, so you didn't provide any new info, just rehashed your flawed claims and added some very weak 'evidence' from a pro triathlete. Why not just link to his video I the first place? And I thought we had shown that the Dixon 'study' was almost worthless due to the flawed approach and lack of any real info about the study.
This thread goes on for 50 pages or so. What I did do is put all of my current thoughts together in both addressing my view and the criticism of my view (while answering that criticism) in one place and I tried to present them in a rational manner using science to support my views. Starykowicz was simply a fortunate find that went with my thoughts so I included it as the "nail in the coffin" so to speak. You only "put down" Dixon in your own mind. I believe there is a better way of pedaling than most do. In the video I make the argument as to what it is and how much improvement one might expect if one were able to change. If you believe that pedaling technique doesn't matter or that there is a better technique than what I am advocating then please make your argument.
 
Jun 1, 2014
262
0
0
Frank, do we need to rehash the discussion about Dixon? You made a dozen assumptions on an abstract with no real info and none of the assumptions were supported by the other researchers involved.

The point is that your 'science' is weak at best. You put together an infomercial about powercranks and pass it off as something useful. You claim the only new thing is some obscure reference to pedalling technique by an athlete, who if he doesn't use PC would fly in the face of your claims.

And sorry for not responding to you PM earlier, didn't know it was waiting for me. But I am happy that you felt it important to shame my bike time because a PC user beat me. Oh wait, that wasn't me, you were actually bashing a pro athlete you thought was me. Really big of you...
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,194
0
0
Re:

JamesCun said:
Frank, do we need to rehash the discussion about Dixon? You made a dozen assumptions on an abstract with no real info and none of the assumptions were supported by the other researchers involved.
I am sorry. Did a single one of those people whose name was on the paper say that the results were not true? The paper is the paper. It was accepted by a national society for presentation at their national convention. The fact you do not have the raw data is not a good reason for me (or anyone else) to ignore it.
The point is that your 'science' is weak at best. You put together an infomercial about powercranks and pass it off as something useful. You claim the only new thing is some obscure reference to pedalling technique by an athlete, who if he doesn't use PC would fly in the face of your claims.
Everyone's science about almost everything we do is "weak at best". Point me to the science that supports the use of the power meter. There is none. At least I have some science to back up my theories and position. "Weak science" should be better than no science. The lack of science to prove a theory does not invalidate it. Einstein's theory of relativity went for 50 years before there was any supportive experimental evidence. If you want to argue against my position, then point us to the science that supports your view.

And, I have never said it is impossible to learn to pedal this way without PC's. In our experience, about 1 in 1,000 experienced cyclists are good enough in this technique that PC's would be of no additional benefit to them. As Greg LeMond said to me after he rode them, "I spent years learning how to pedal this way, now people can learn it in months." All PC's do is facilitate the process if one is interested in going there.
And sorry for not responding to you PM earlier, didn't know it was waiting for me. But I am happy that you felt it important to shame my bike time because a PC user beat me. Oh wait, that wasn't me, you were actually bashing a pro athlete you thought was me. Really big of you...
Well, I "shamed" you in a PM rather than doing so in public. I thought you were someone you apparently are not and since you seem to have no trouble bashing a product you have zero experience with I was just trying to make a point. As I said in my PM to you, I apologize for the error.
 
Apr 21, 2009
2,686
0
0
Same old broken record.

Plenty of science to show that power meters measure power.

Dixon is an abstract not a paper.

Getting accepted in present at a National convention is no guarantee of quality. I was invited to present my research at an International conference because of who my supervisor was.

Dixon study proves nothing as there was no control group. Most training studies elicit far better results.

Then more spam, red herrings and strawmen arguments.

Then despicable shaming of the wrong person. Guess Contador and Froome shame most Gimmickcrack users every time they race :rolleyes:

Please keep your SPAM and unscientific nonsense off this forum.
 
Jun 1, 2014
262
0
0
Last post in this line of spam...

You are basing a lot of your claims on an abstract that has been shown to have very different study design than what you originally claimed. This is dishonest of you to continue to make claims about it after more info was gathered.

Please stop mentioning Einstein in the same breath as yourself or powercranks.

Please stop mentioning the science behind a measurement device. Power meters are proven to reliably measure power, please try to disprove that.

The point in your PM was bogus and shows a lack understanding of cause and effect. Because Sam Gyde can beat someone doesn't mean that powercranks are a good training tool.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,194
0
0
Re:

JamesCun said:
Last post in this line of spam...

You are basing a lot of your claims on an abstract that has been shown to have very different study dragon than what you originally claimed. This is dishonest of you to continue to make claims about it after more info was gathered.
??? Dixon is simply one result that supports the thesis.
Please stop mentioning Einstein in the same breath as yourself or powercranks.
Why? The point is that just because a theory has not been "proven" does not make it invalid as long as it has not been disproven. Einstein is simply an example that most people can relate to.
Please stop mentioning the science behind a measurement device. Power meters are proven to reliably measure power, please try to disprove that.
Of course power meters measure power. The problem with power meters is it is generally held that getting a power meter is the single best thing a cyclist can do to get better. I was at a training camp this last week where I heard that very phrase come out of the mouth of one of the mentors. It is that perception that has zero scientific backing. In fact, there is zero scientific backing that getting a power meter results in any improvement at all beyond what occurs with normal training.
The point in your PM was bogus and shows a lack understanding of cause and effect. Because Sam Gyde can beat someone doesn't mean that powercranks are a good training tool.
If you say so.
 
Apr 21, 2009
2,686
0
0
Re: Re:

In fact, there is zero scientific backing that getting a power meter results in any improvement at all beyond what occurs with normal training.
Which is the same as Gimmickcranks. At least Powermeters are there to measure power not improve it.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,194
0
0
Re:

CoachFergie said:
Dixon is an abstract not a paper.
Abstracts are nothing more than a summary of the important findings of a study. They are done so the busy person can decide whether, after reading the abstract, they want to take the time to read the entire study. The fact that the details of the study are not available to you does not, in and of itself, invalidate the abstract results in the least. It would be better if we had the study but we don't. So, we go with what we do have. It would be "easy enough" for someone to repeat the study to see if they got similar results. If that happens enough times then the "result" is "proven" because the probability of the result being due to chance falls to near zero. That is usually how science works. As of yet no one has attempted to repeat this study. Edit: The reason to actually read a study is sometimes the conclusions of the author are simply wrong, like the conclusion of Martin, from his data, that crank length makes no difference to the competitive athlete. Of course, in the Dixon abstract he presented his actual data so there is no reason to read the study to get that and his conclusion that PowerCranks makes a difference is in concordance with the data he presented.
 
Apr 21, 2009
2,686
0
0
And we can't read the study because it was never published, so you are incorrect in calling it a paper.

The results mean nothing as there was no control group. The study shows that training works. We already knew that.

If you go to the Gimmickcrank thread you will see many others did far better studies that were worthy of publication in quality peer review journals that show that trying to change pedalling technique using a Gimmickcrank does not lead to an improvement in cycling performance.

Your product does not work, according to the science, at all. It does not come close to meeting your claims. Especially the most bogus of all that the typical user sees a 2-3mph improvement in speed. Reminds me of the time you claimed a Gimmickcranker improved their time in a fun ride by over an hour when it turned out they rode the course in reverse and it was shorter than the prior year.

Pretty shameful Frank Day bullwaste!
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,194
0
0
Re:

CoachFergie said:
And we can't read the study because it was never published, so you are incorrect in calling it a paper.
I think a paper was written, otherwise there wouldn't be an abstract. Lots of studies are done and papers written that never get "published". When I was a practicing anesthesiologist I used to get the ASA Journal. Each month there would be maybe 20 studies published. About once a year they would publish a supplement that would include the abstracts to about 1000 studies that were submitted but not published. That was so if there was something of interest we would know about it and if it was of special interest we could contact the authors. In addition, the annual meeting included poster sessions and some presented their data. This was the case with Dixon, he was chosen to present his data. The fact you don't have the paper in your hand doesn't mean the work wasn't done nor the result invalid.
Your product does not work, according to the science, at all. It does not come close to meeting your claims. Especially the most bogus of all that the typical user sees a 2-3mph improvement in speed. Reminds me of the time you claimed a Gimmickcranker improved their time in a fun ride by over an hour when it turned out they rode the course in reverse and it was shorter than the prior year.
Hard to disprove a claim of 2-3 mph speed improvement in 6-9 months immersion training in a study lasting 5-6 weeks of part-time training, wouldn't you say?
Pretty shameful Frank Day bullwaste!
LOL.
 
Apr 21, 2009
2,686
0
0
Re: Re:

FrankDay said:
I think a paper was written, otherwise there wouldn't be an abstract. Lots of studies are done and papers written that never get "published".
You think? The paper should be pretty easy to find even if Mr Dixon is no longer in the sport sci world. Considering the quality of his study he is probably the man called when someone yells "clean up in aisle 3".

That was so if there was something of interest we would know about it and if it was of special interest we could contact the authors.
Then there should be no issue finding the paper.

In addition, the annual meeting included poster sessions and some presented their data.
Yes, they are called conferences. I gave a short oral presentation of my research in Leeds last year at an International Cycling Science conference. Abstract published in Journal of Cycling Science. Meet the guys from Mapei Sport that you called were all over Gimmickcranks, they weren't, so you had lied again. Also met the guys from BCF and ACF that you claimed were Gimmickcrankers, they weren't either, so you lied again. Got my Masters so now I will write a paper to submit for publication. A lot of us know the process. You clearly are trying to confuse the issue to make the Dixon study seem relevant when it is not.

This was the case with Dixon, he was chosen to present his data. The fact you don't have the paper in your hand doesn't mean the work wasn't done nor the result invalid.
Red Herring: No one is disputing the research was done, just the quality of the work, which was bullswaste, and the conclusions drawn do not reflect the results of the study.

Hard to disprove a claim of 2-3 mph speed improvement in 6-9 months in a study lasting 5-6 weeks, wouldn't you say?
Strawman: You can't prove that Gimmickcranks caused the improvement. I proudly proclaim my coaching leads to a 3-4 mph increase in speed in 1-3 months and a 41% increase in power. So it would appear that based on my marketing claims that my product is better than yours! Wouldn't you say?
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,194
0
0
Re: Re:

CoachFergie said:
I proudly proclaim my coaching leads to a 3-4 mph increase in speed in 1-3 months and a 41% increase in power. So it would appear that based on my marketing claims that my product is better than yours! Wouldn't you say?
It would appear so, although I didn't find that on your web site. Do you also give a money-back guarantee? Edit: Although there is something just a little bit fishy about your claim in that a 3-4 mph increase in speed would usually take substantially more than a 41% increase in power for most. According to analyticalcycling.com a 3 mph increase from 20 mph would require almost a 50% increase in power and a 4 mph increase would require a 65% increase in power. You must really work on the aerodynamics. Good for you.
 
Apr 21, 2009
2,686
0
0
Well of course thanks to being able to measure aerodynamics with a power meter thanks to the Chung Method we are able to achieve extraordinary gains in speed.

Gains in speed are easy, you test in Winter and retest in Summer.

Gains in power are easy, use untrained or injured subjects to test and retest after a block of training. Also use tests to failure as the biggest improvements in power are seen in these tests.

I actually feel ashamed with only claiming 41% seeing Gibala and Burgomaster studies saw a 100% improvement in just two weeks performing 12-16 minutes of high intensity intervals.

And you have no credible evidence that Gimmickcranks improve performance at all. They must really suck.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,194
0
0
I have been thinking about my liitle presentation and I think there is one more aspect of the data I present to discuss. I think I will revise the presentation to include some of this but thought I would put it out here to see if I could get some considered feedback. I know Fergie will respond but I don't consider his feedback "considered."

Anyhow, one of the most remarkable aspects of the Rodriguez data is his FTP1 improvement, where is FTP increased to be a greater portion of his max power - increasing from 78% to the 87-89% level in the two follow up studies. This got me to thinking about another similar result, that of Sam Gyde at Kona as commented on at the trainingpeaks site. http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/kona-race-analysis-elite-age-grouper-sam-gyde
The other component of a solid bike is riding at the correct intensity. Using Intensity Factor® (IF®), which gauges your effort against your Functional Threshold Power (FTP), or what you can sustain for one hour. Top pros are typically at .80, while strong age group athletes would be around .75. This year, Gyde rode at .85 IF. Since he didn’t blow up at any point, which is the typical consequence of riding at too high an IF, Gyde’s FTP (set at 320) is likely a bit low. He is probably closer to 335 watts.
While it may be that his calculated FTP is too low it may also be that he is able to ride closer to the edge without blowing up, as demonstrated by Rodriguez being able to ride closer to his max power at his FTP. "Blowing up" occurs when the first muscle (the weakest muscle from an aerobic ability perspective in the chain) being used fails. If the weakest muscle is stronger, compared to the strongest (e.i., the muscles are better balanced) then it should be possible to race closer to the edge. This data surely supports such a possibility.
 
Jun 1, 2014
262
0
0
I'll reply again since this is a newish aspect to the thread. The data on Sam is meaningless without an accurate FTP. End of story.

Can you also explain what FTP1 is?
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,194
0
0
Re:

JamesCun said:
I'll reply again since this is a newish aspect to the thread. The data on Sam is meaningless without an accurate FTP. End of story.

Can you also explain what FTP1 is?
FTP1 is the maximum power the athlete can sustain for 1 hour. Here is the problem, of course, the data on everyone is meaningless without an accurate FTP1 because FTP1 is the basis many use for determining race effort (using intensity factor). How does anyone know that their FTP1 is accurate? The problem here is that if Sam had used the recommended IF for racing IM based upon his "known" FTP1 he would have raced at .75 of 320 or 240 watts. yet, he was able to race at 280 watts. Even if treated like a pro and is told to race at an IF of .8 he would race at 256 watts, 24 watts below what he was actually capable of doing. No way he wins his age-group if he follows the recommendations for either pro or amateur athletes. So, it appears he raced based upon how he felt and how he felt gave him a much better result than anyone would have predicted looking at his numbers.

The point of my question was TP simply said his FTP was too low so he could fit into their general recommendations. That may be true but seems like a cop out, like Martin concluding that it is ok to continue riding 170 cranks when the data suggested otherwise. But, looking at the Rodriguez data, it suggests that it is possible to ride at higher intensities if the muscles are better balanced. Unless we know both the FTP and the IF the rider can sustain we cannot accurately predict what they can do. One thing about science, we learn more trying to explain what doesn't fit than seeing a lot of data that simply reinforces what we know. Want to advance your knowledge? Try to explain the stuff that doesn't make sense to you. Clearly, Sam doesn't fit into their model very well, it would seem. Can you explain why? I think it has to do with how he trains allowing his muscles to be better balanced than typical.
 
Apr 21, 2009
2,686
0
0
Again, clearly misunderstanding TrainingPeaks metrics.

And misinterpreting Jim Martin's findings. He said riding 170s would make an infinitesimal difference in power for the shortest and tallest of riders. Certainly no where near your made up numbers.
 
Jun 1, 2014
262
0
0
Re: Re:

FrankDay said:
JamesCun said:
I'll reply again since this is a newish aspect to the thread. The data on Sam is meaningless without an accurate FTP. End of story.

Can you also explain what FTP1 is?
FTP1 is the maximum power the athlete can sustain for 1 hour. Here is the problem, of course, the data on everyone is meaningless without an accurate FTP1 because FTP1 is the basis many use for determining race effort (using intensity factor). How does anyone know that their FTP1 is accurate? The problem here is that if Sam had used the recommended IF for racing IM based upon his "known" FTP1 he would have raced at .75 of 320 or 240 watts. yet, he was able to race at 280 watts. Even if treated like a pro and is told to race at an IF of .8 he would race at 256 watts, 24 watts below what he was actually capable of doing. No way he wins his age-group if he follows the recommendations for either pro or amateur athletes. So, it appears he raced based upon how he felt and how he felt gave him a much better result than anyone would have predicted looking at his numbers.

The point of my question was TP simply said his FTP was too low so he could fit into their general recommendations. That may be true but seems like a cop out, like Martin concluding that it is ok to continue riding 170 cranks when the data suggested otherwise. But, looking at the Rodriguez data, it suggests that it is possible to ride at higher intensities if the muscles are better balanced. Unless we know both the FTP and the IF the rider can sustain we cannot accurately predict what they can do. One thing about science, we learn more trying to explain what doesn't fit than seeing a lot of data that simply reinforces what we know. Want to advance your knowledge? Try to explain the stuff that doesn't make sense to you. Clearly, Sam doesn't fit into their model very well, it would seem. Can you explain why? I think it has to do with how he trains allowing his muscles to be better balanced than typical.
You are making stuff up now. FTP1 isn't a thing, certainly not something I've ever seen Coggan discuss. It also isn't a 60min number, you should review his thoughts on the subject. You also don't understand the IF pacing guidelines for IM racing. They are GUIDELINES...you must interpret your own situation and experiment with things to find out what works for you. Pretending Sam is an age grouper is just silly, he rides and races as fast as a pro. His label is irrelevant in terms of physiology.

It is also more than ironic that you are questioning TP's integrity in terms of reporting numbers. You often misrepresent things to try and prove your product is effective.

The explanation is simple, Sam didn't know his accurate FTP and the IF was just plain wrong. Garbage in garbage out.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
J Exercise & Fitness Discussion 0

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS