LOL. You simply didn't understand the control group.
Revisionist biomechanics, revisionist physiology and now revisionist research methodology. LOL indeed.
Anyhow, neither does the highest power assure the best result.
That is correct.
So, are you saying that a demonstrated substantial increase in VO2max does not infer a similar increase in sustainable power?
In the Dixon case because there was no control group you can not make any assertion beyond "training works".
We already know that you don't believe that a demonstrable substantial increase in efficiency cannot be interpreted to infer a similar increase in sustainable power.
Does not equal an increase in power only that we are more efficient at that power.
You are so rigid that the only "performance" measure you can accept is for one to actually measure power.
Well not really. Based on power measurement a rider I coach could be expected to improve her 15km TT performance by 54 seconds from last year. At the regional championships she improved her time from last year by 2:30min.
Well, no study subsequently has exactly reproduced Luttrell. They either had less intervention or had a higher quality cyclist enrolled.
More revisionist methodology. One of the big issues in sport science is a lack of studies on world level athletes. A recent hot potato is Dietary Nitrates. A clear ergogenic effect in untrained subjects but when the same studies were performed on high performance athletes there was no meaningful effect.
Luttrell was not trying to discern the mechanism of any improvement but, rather, whether there was any demonstrable improvement.
Only performance measure they made was Individual Anaerobic Threshold (IAT) and there was no significant improvement over the control group.
Although, it can be inferred that the uncoupled cranks were responsible for the efficiency improvement as that was the only difference between groups. To determine the mechanism with certainty would require a different protocol to be left for follow-up studies.
Follow up studies compared two groups and measured efficiency. They found no significant difference between groups.
Anyhow, all of the negative studies are deficient regarding "proving" the negative as none of them demonstrated the stimulus was adequate to make the expected changes.
Your opinion. Fernandez-Pena showed that 2 weeks was sufficient to change the application of force around the pedal stroke. Numerous training studies have shown that a minimal training stimulus (SIT studies like Gibala with a 12-16min training load over a 2 week period leading to a 100% improvement in performance in untrained subjects) can lead to an increase in performance.
The fact you think it should have been is not evidence it was. The fact I think it was clearly less than necessary is not evidence it wasn't. The fact remains that the two studies with positive results just happened to be the two studies with the biggest relative intervention.
The Impact of 10 weeks of Independent Cycle Crank use on
Robert M. Otto, FACSM, Laura Walsh, Jessica Marra, Christopher
Kushner, Alicia Diaz, Carolyn Richardson, John W. Wygand.
Adelphi University, Garden City, NY.
(No relationships reported)
Improvements in cycle performance may be a result of enhanced efficiency and/or a greater
power output. Cyclists strive to achieve both by over-distance training, high intensity
training, and specific cycle drills. Special products that claim to improve performance
by offering improved aerodynamics, reduced total cycle mass, better force transfer to the
crank, or providing biomechanical feedback rely on a paucity of research.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of ten weeks of using independent cycle cranks
(ICC) on cycling performance as measured by oxygen efficiency (OxE), time trial
performance (TT), and body composition (BC).
METHODS: After a medical/health screening, thirty triathletes (16 male, 14 female)
(age 43.2 [range 25-54 yr], ht 176 [range 160-188 cm], and body mass 73.3 [range
54.3-97.7.5 kg]), participated in familiarization trials including DEXA scan, electronic
cycle ergometer based steady state OxE trial and a time trial. Identical testing was
performed during the familiarization trial, pre-test (within one week) and the posttest
(ten weeks later). After the pre-test trial, subjects were randomly assigned to one
of three groups (C = control, 90 = 90 min/wk and 180 = min/wk). For ten weeks all
subjects exercised (swim, cycle, run) a minimum of eight hours per week. All groups
cycled a minimum of three hours/week with C in fixed cranks, 90 for 90 min fixed and
90 min ICC, and 180 for 180 min ICC.
RESULTS: Statistical analysis by ANOVA (P<.05) reveals no significant difference among or
CONCLUSION: The use of independent cycle crank arms for a maximum of 30 hours
within ten weeks, requires the user to apply force independent of crank position, but
does not result in quantifiable changes in cycle efficiency or performance