• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

The pedaling technique thread

Page 44 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 1, 2014
385
0
0
Visit site
Really...now 6 months isn't even enough to show a real change. His efficiency was down significantly after 6 months of immersion training. Things just aren't passing the smell test here.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Visit site
Re:

JamesCun said:
Really...now 6 months isn't even enough to show a real change. His efficiency was down significantly after 6 months of immersion training. Things just aren't passing the smell test here.
Well, I guess you can look at the data however you want but most people evaluate efficiency when the athlete is still aerobic, not at max power when they are full out anaerobic. I think looking at the 26% increase in FTP, when compared to the 13% increase in VO2max, at 6 months suggests an increase in efficiency at this time also. I guess if you worry about losing efficiency (and that is how you define efficiency) then going for gains like this would be a good reason to not use the product. :)
 
Jun 1, 2014
385
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

FrankDay said:
JamesCun said:
Really...now 6 months isn't even enough to show a real change. His efficiency was down significantly after 6 months of immersion training. Things just aren't passing the smell test here.
Well, I guess you can look at the data however you want but most people evaluate efficiency when the athlete is still aerobic, not at max power when they are full out anaerobic. I think looking at the 26% increase in FTP, when compared to the 13% increase in VO2max, at 6 months suggests an increase in efficiency at this time also. I guess if you worry about losing efficiency (and that is how you define efficiency) then going for gains like this would be a good reason to not use the product. :)

Frank, power at vo2max is an aerobic measure. That is why it is the maximum use of oxygen. They were obviously not measure max power in an all out sprint, otherwise he has the worst max power of any rider in the world.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

JamesCun said:
FrankDay said:
JamesCun said:
Really...now 6 months isn't even enough to show a real change. His efficiency was down significantly after 6 months of immersion training. Things just aren't passing the smell test here.
Well, I guess you can look at the data however you want but most people evaluate efficiency when the athlete is still aerobic, not at max power when they are full out anaerobic. I think looking at the 26% increase in FTP, when compared to the 13% increase in VO2max, at 6 months suggests an increase in efficiency at this time also. I guess if you worry about losing efficiency (and that is how you define efficiency) then going for gains like this would be a good reason to not use the product. :)

Frank, power at vo2max is an aerobic measure. That is why it is the maximum use of oxygen. They were obviously not measure max power in an all out sprint, otherwise he has the worst max power of any rider in the world.
If you say so.
 
Jun 1, 2014
385
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

FrankDay said:
JamesCun said:
FrankDay said:
JamesCun said:
Really...now 6 months isn't even enough to show a real change. His efficiency was down significantly after 6 months of immersion training. Things just aren't passing the smell test here.
Well, I guess you can look at the data however you want but most people evaluate efficiency when the athlete is still aerobic, not at max power when they are full out anaerobic. I think looking at the 26% increase in FTP, when compared to the 13% increase in VO2max, at 6 months suggests an increase in efficiency at this time also. I guess if you worry about losing efficiency (and that is how you define efficiency) then going for gains like this would be a good reason to not use the product. :)

Frank, power at vo2max is an aerobic measure. That is why it is the maximum use of oxygen. They were obviously not measure max power in an all out sprint, otherwise he has the worst max power of any rider in the world.
If you say so.

What part do you disagree with?

Vo2max is a measure of maximum aerobic power.
FTP is a measure of aerobic capacity.
Wingate tests are good for anaerobic capacity.

The max power recorded in a wingate is massively higher than in a vo2max test.
 
Re: Re:

JamesCun said:
...
power at vo2max is an aerobic measure. That is why it is the maximum use of oxygen.
...
-----------------------------------
Do you think that there is a 'time duration' associated with the the vo2max measurement?
E.g. does the vo2max number have to be maintained for some amount of time, or is it the max vo2 usage number achieved during some test session.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
 
Jun 1, 2014
385
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

JayKosta said:
JamesCun said:
...
power at vo2max is an aerobic measure. That is why it is the maximum use of oxygen.
...
-----------------------------------
Do you think that there is a 'time duration' associated with the the vo2max measurement?
E.g. does the vo2max number have to be maintained for some amount of time, or is it the max vo2 usage number achieved during some test session.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

??? Vo2 max is typically the maximum O2 usage recorded at any point during a test. Labs use breath by breath or some average of varying durations. Power during a vo2 test is much more variable in how it is defined.

Since no one here has any knowledge of how these numbers were collected, they are relatively meaningless.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

JamesCun said:
FrankDay said:
JamesCun said:
FrankDay said:
JamesCun said:
Really...now 6 months isn't even enough to show a real change. His efficiency was down significantly after 6 months of immersion training. Things just aren't passing the smell test here.
Well, I guess you can look at the data however you want but most people evaluate efficiency when the athlete is still aerobic, not at max power when they are full out anaerobic. I think looking at the 26% increase in FTP, when compared to the 13% increase in VO2max, at 6 months suggests an increase in efficiency at this time also. I guess if you worry about losing efficiency (and that is how you define efficiency) then going for gains like this would be a good reason to not use the product. :)

Frank, power at vo2max is an aerobic measure. That is why it is the maximum use of oxygen. They were obviously not measure max power in an all out sprint, otherwise he has the worst max power of any rider in the world.
If you say so.

What part do you disagree with?

Vo2max is a measure of maximum aerobic power.
I disagree with that
FTP is a measure of aerobic capacity.
In a sense, yes but the definition of FTP does not include a measurement of aerobic capacity. FTP gives a power number. So, again, I disagree with this.
Wingate tests are good for anaerobic capacity.
What has this to do with this discussion?
The max power recorded in a wingate is massively higher than in a vo2max test.
I don't disagree with this but, again, no wingate testing was done here so what does this have to do with anything regarding this thread?
 
Jun 1, 2014
385
0
0
Visit site
Ok Frank. Not goin to waste my time with someone who doesn't understand basic exercise physiology. Have a nice day.

Edit: I think it is fairly clear the relevance of mentioning the wingate test. I was trying to educate you since you don't understand these concepts. The max number they reported (451 in the final test) is a reflection of the riders max aerobic power, not an anaerobic number as you suggested. A wingate would've given that anaerobic number.
 
Re: Re:

JayKosta said:
JamesCun said:
...
power at vo2max is an aerobic measure. That is why it is the maximum use of oxygen.
...
-----------------------------------
Do you think that there is a 'time duration' associated with the the vo2max measurement?
E.g. does the vo2max number have to be maintained for some amount of time, or is it the max vo2 usage number achieved during some test session.

That is the difference between a VO2peak, peak VO2 observed in the test, and the VO2max, where a plateau is observed.
 
Re: Re:

FrankDay said:
sciguy said:
Frank,


Are we back to the BS of 2007 again with Joaquнn of made up power file fame?????????????????????????


Please tell me it isn't so.


Hugh
I guess that is up to you. Of course, that "made up power file" has nothing to do with these results and the current discussion, or even with what was going on then. But, it is up to you (or Fergie, as I suspect he won't be able to let it go).

Love it, Frank Day has admitted that the files were somehow doctored, if you know what I mean, is not prepared to say how they came to be doctored, and is still using them as evidence!
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Visit site
Re:

JamesCun said:
Ok Frank. Not goin to waste my time with someone who doesn't understand basic exercise physiology.
If you say so. LOL
Edit: I think it is fairly clear the relevance of mentioning the wingate test. I was trying to educate you since you don't understand these concepts. The max number they reported (451 in the final test) is a reflection of the riders max aerobic power, not an anaerobic number as you suggested. A wingate would've given that anaerobic number.
Thanks for that effort but I think I will stay with what I know as opposed to what you "know."

You do know I am trained as an anesthesiologist and some think our motto should be "physiology R us."

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingate_test
"The Wingate test is believed to show two things: all-out peak anaerobic power and anaerobic capacity.[1] These two values have been reported as important factors in sports with quick, all-out efforts. Short sprinting events rely heavily upon the anaerobic energy pathways during execution[2] which leads to the theories that greater performance in a Wingate test can predict success in these events. This has not been proven, and the more applicable theory would be that improvements in Wingate scores could predict improvements in sprinting times."
The max power number given did not come from a wingate test, which requires specialized equipment. I, actually, have done a wingate test, have you? Wingate testing has zero relevance to this thread or to this testing.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

CoachFergie said:
FrankDay said:
sciguy said:
Frank,


Are we back to the BS of 2007 again with Joaquнn of made up power file fame?????????????????????????


Please tell me it isn't so.


Hugh
I guess that is up to you. Of course, that "made up power file" has nothing to do with these results and the current discussion, or even with what was going on then. But, it is up to you (or Fergie, as I suspect he won't be able to let it go).

Love it, Frank Day has admitted that the files were somehow doctored, if you know what I mean, is not prepared to say how they came to be doctored, and is still using them as evidence!
LOL. If you say so.
 
Yes, but when were you last licenced or registered to practice as an anesthesiologist and because you did that 20 or so years ago does it mean you have kept up with the numerous findings in the field of exercise physiology?

Till then you are just another quack hiding behind a, now irrelevant, piece of paper.

So when the statement is, "trust me I'm a Doctor"(or was a Doctor), the answer is no!
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Visit site
Re:

CoachFergie said:
Yes, but when were you last licenced or registered to practice as an anesthesiologist and because you did that 20 or so years ago does it mean you have kept up with the numerous findings in the field of exercise physiology?

Till then you are just another quack hiding behind a, now irrelevant, piece of paper.

So when the statement is, "trust me I'm a Doctor"(or was a Doctor), the answer is no!
LOL, rather than address the issues here you, again, resort to personal attacks, a sign of weakness in your argument I would say. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.

Anyhow, I am interested in hearing about the new understandings in physiology that have occurred in the last 20 years that I am unaware of, especially those that relate to this thread. Educate me oh enlightened one.
 
Ha ha, mine was not really an ad hominem when it was highlighting you hiding behind your worthless medical degree from the distant past. But your comment was. And a straw man as I said exercise physiology, not physiology and we see you being schooled all the time by people like Jim Martin and Andy Coggan.

Not our jobs to enlighten the unenlightened but to point out that your claims and theories have no evidence to support them. Bit like Noel and his pedalling claims. No evidence and quite a lot of evidence to suggest that there are a lot of mountains being made out of molehills by both of you. Noel is clearly a nutter, you just have snake oil to sell and have to invent your truth to do so.
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Visit site
Re:

CoachFergie said:
Not our jobs to enlighten the unenlightened
Yes, I have noticed that. You, Coggan, and others of your ilk never really tell people what you think is correct, all you do is tell others they are wrong, and let it go at that. That sure makes "debating" (if one can call it that) easy. LOL
 
Jun 1, 2014
385
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

FrankDay said:
CoachFergie said:
Not our jobs to enlighten the unenlightened
Yes, I have noticed that. You, Coggan, and others of your ilk never really tell people what you think is correct, all you do is tell others they are wrong, and let it go at that. That sure makes "debating" (if one can call it that) easy. LOL

How many times have you said "if you say so". You don't offer anything new or useful. Just pull out your medical degree from 40yrs ago and say you are smarter. The evidence shows that you aren't, so how about explaining to people by using credible evidence that you can support. You're latest YouTube video does nothing but rehash the junk studies and 'evidence' in your website.
 
Re: Re:

FrankDay said:
sciguy said:
There's a new study out which probably deserves it's own thread.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=29406

Hugh
Actually that study would do well here as it deals with pedaling technique. And, as I posted in that new thread you started, that study, I believe, actually supports my current view that a better balanced muscle use is more efficient.

and how might that be? The use of the counterweight forces a much less balanced use of leg flexors versus extensors and yet improved the athletes efficiency substantially. How do you reconcile that?
With counterweight the work done on the down stroke is increased while that done on the upstroke is decreased. It certainly sounds counter to your conception of the ideal use of muscles.

Hugh
 
Sep 23, 2010
3,596
1
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

sciguy said:
FrankDay said:
sciguy said:
There's a new study out which probably deserves it's own thread.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=29406

Hugh
Actually that study would do well here as it deals with pedaling technique. And, as I posted in that new thread you started, that study, I believe, actually supports my current view that a better balanced muscle use is more efficient.

and how might that be? The use of the counterweight forces a much less balanced use of leg flexors versus extensors and yet improved the athletes efficiency substantially. How do you reconcile that?
With counterweight the work done on the down stroke is increased while that done on the upstroke is decreased. It certainly sounds counter to your conception of the ideal use of muscles.

Hugh
Nope, when riding PowerCranks the opposite leg acts as the counterweight. PowerCranks is nothing more than counterweighted single legged pedaling both legs at the same time. Since that was the best outcome in this experiment it supports my theory. Your problem is you don't seem to have a clue what the PC's do or don't do but are shouting very loud here pretending you do.