The pedaling technique thread

[elapid]

Phooey. I could have used either word. I choose affect because I felt it best fit the situation. Perhaps effect might have been a better choice. However, your response to that choice by me was way out of line. Instead of simply saying "I think you chose the wrong word" you stated that my choice of that word made my response "look even more amusing than normal", as if you believe my position to be bizarre (even though there is yet to be a counter position posted) yet you later state you have no position and come here to learn. Phooey. At least as far as I am concerned it appears you come here to kibitz about things you know nothing about, hopping on the AC and Coach Fergie bandwagon, thinking they must be right just because of who they are. LOL.

Back when this thread started, I actually supported your theories for the most part. CF and I also had a fairly long-standing disagreement over anecdotes and use of the scientific literature. As for AC, he reminds me a lot of you in some respects. His unwavering support for one of his colleagues and an awful paper on LA has resulted in me losing some respect for him. Having said that, you lost my support Frank because you are an academic who is not prepared to test your theories, and you are not prepared to concede when you are wrong.

CF is a national coach and testing on his athletes and willing to learn from his successes and failures. I respect that.

AC is a world-renowned exercise physiologist as well as being a top level cyclist. I respect that as well.

And you, Frank? I am afraid through time and experience I do not have much respect for your arguments because you do not have the credentials to support them, you are not prepared to test them, and you just continue to argue your way out of a corner no matter how hopelessly wrong you are.

 

[FrankDay]

And you, Frank? I am afraid through time and experience I do not have much respect for your arguments because you do not have the credentials to support them, you are not prepared to test them, and you just continue to argue your way out of a corner no matter how hopelessly wrong you are.

I am not sure what better credentials one could have to make some of my arguments than being trained as a scientist and engineer (BS in applied science), trained as a physician and anesthesiologist, and being an experienced endurance athlete (untra-marathoner and Ironman Triathlete). But, if that doesn't sway you that I MIGHT know something about this stuff so be it. And, to say I am not prepared to test my ideas simply suggests you do not know me. Anyhow, you said: "I do not have a dog in this fight. As you know, I come here to learn rather than participate in discussions on pedalling technique so I have no argument to weaken." The above exposes your bias and makes my point that your remark was unnecessary and pointless to the discussion other than an attempt to take sides.

 

[CoachFergie]

I am not sure what better credentials one could have to make some of my arguments than being trained as a scientist and engineer (BS in applied science), trained as a physician and anesthesiologist, and being an experienced endurance athlete (untra-marathoner and Ironman Triathlete).

Which makes you behaviour on several forums over the last several years all the more deplorable.

The above exposes your bias and makes my point that your remark was unnecessary and pointless to the discussion other than an attempt to take sides.

Does no such thing, but that is what we expect from you. Soon as you sense you are losing grip of the ball you attack the player! Typical Frank Day .You are the only one trying to drive this off topic chipping away at Elapid.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Just popped in to see how things were going over here. Threads like this remind me of Days of Our Lives, the sort of show you can miss for a year but when you tune in it seems nothing's really changed.

Ad hominem attacks say more about the weakness of the argument on the other side (and the character of those making the attacks) than the argument and character of those being attacked.

While I agree that a resort to ad hominem tends to weaken one's case in the eyes of those watching/listening/reading a debate, the use of logical fallacy (e.g. ad hominem) by one side of a debate does not imply the other's argument becomes more valid, nor that their claim is invalid. It's just a case of crummy supporting logic, not necessarily a crummy claim.

That's what known as the "fallacy fallacy".

 

[elapid]

I am not sure what better credentials one could have to make some of my arguments than being trained as a scientist and engineer (BS in applied science), trained as a physician and anesthesiologist, and being an experienced endurance athlete (untra-marathoner and Ironman Triathlete). But, if that doesn't sway you that I MIGHT know something about this stuff so be it. And, to say I am not prepared to test my ideas simply suggests you do not know me. Anyhow, you said: "I do not have a dog in this fight. As you know, I come here to learn rather than participate in discussions on pedalling technique so I have no argument to weaken." The above exposes your bias and makes my point that your remark was unnecessary and pointless to the discussion other than an attempt to take sides.

There were three reasons I had lost respect for your arguments, Frank. As CF said, boasting about your "training" and credentials actually makes me lose further respect for you because you should know better about how to test your theories and admit your inaccuracies and errors.

 

[FrankDay]

There were three reasons I had lost respect for your arguments, Frank.

A casual reader of this thread would get the impression that my ideas have gathered essentially no support amongst those who really know about this stuff and that I am nothing but a troll. Me thinks this is not the case. I especially like this sentence from the article

Like many new ideas that originate in triathlon, the cycling world has been slow to adopt the concept and triathletes are still largely beholden to companies focused on road cycling when it comes to gear.

As CF said, boasting about your "training" and credentials actually makes me lose further respect for you because you should know better about how to test your theories and admit your inaccuracies and errors.

Ugh, mentioning some of my credentials when you bring them up but fail to mention what they are is not, in my opinion, bragging, but, rather, simply informing other readers of this thread as to what they are so they can put your and my comments in perspective (BTW, for those who read this but don't know your background, what are your credentials that have helped you to reach your conclusions?) and draw their own conclusion. While having a background in an area or demonstrated smartness is not a guarantee that their current ideas are correct (lots of examples here, Einstein, Linus Pauling, etc.) it should cause some pause to consider the ideas seriously.

Oh, and I know how to test my ideas (I have done so). I also know that my publishing the "study" would hold essentially zero credibility because of inherent bias in the testing. So, I have to rely on others to confirm or refute my ideas, which has yet to be done to any substantial degree.

 

[sciguy]

Oh, and I know how to test my ideas (I have done so).[/B] I also know that my publishing the "study" would hold essentially zero credibility because of inherent bias in the testing. So, I have to rely on others to confirm or refute my ideas, which has yet to be done to any substantial degree.

Says the fellow who spent years so vehemently rejecting power meters as an appropriate tool of evaluation that he neglected to put one to use to collect actual hard data that might be used substantiate his "feelings" of performance gain. Oh yes there was the Powertap he had for a very short time but that was stolen before put to any real use and never replaced.

Yup, definitely a guy who tests his ideas

Hugh

 

[elapid]

A casual reader of this thread would get the impression that my ideas have gathered essentially no support amongst those who really know about this stuff and that I am nothing but a troll.

Yes, you would be right ... but not just casual readers would think the same thing. This thread reminds me of discussions we would have during my academic career: essentially a meeting of experienced minds to solve a problem (which may or may not exist). However, the major participants in this "discussion" have established their positions and have obviously resolved not to be swayed from their position. Like many academic "discussions", the theorizing continues unabated but no one is prepared to test their theories and actually solve the problem. As more of an observer rather than a participant in this thread, my summary is that you and coapman are claiming that pedalling technique makes a difference but are relying on others to prove your theories. However, you do not seem to accept that other people do not share your passion for pedalling technique and crank length and hence there will be very little impetus for someone other than you to perform these studies. While there may be some skepticism for a study performed and published by you on pedalling technique and crank length, this should be circumvented if the study is well designed and controlled. In the meantime, you can stubbornly maintain your position on every argument you make and refuse to concede to any valid point that someone else may make, and in doing so make yourself look like a troll. I don't think you are a troll, but your argumentative style and lack of acceptance of other member's valid points can make you appear as a troll. Sorry, but that's how I see it at least.

 

[CoachFergie]

A casual reader of this thread would get the impression that my ideas have gathered essentially no support amongst those who really know about this stuff and that I am nothing but a troll. Me thinks this is not the case. I especially like this sentence from the article Ugh, mentioning some of my credentials when you bring them up but fail to mention what they are is not, in my opinion, bragging, but, rather, simply informing other readers of this thread as to what they are so they can put your and my comments in perspective (BTW, for those who read this but don't know your background, what are your credentials that have helped you to reach your conclusions?) and draw their own conclusion. While having a background in an area or demonstrated smartness is not a guarantee that their current ideas are correct (lots of examples here, Einstein, Linus Pauling, etc.) it should cause some pause to consider the ideas seriously.

Oh, and I know how to test my ideas (I have done so). I also know that my publishing the "study" would hold essentially zero credibility because of inherent bias in the testing. So, I have to rely on others to confirm or refute my ideas, which has yet to be done to any substantial degree.

Seems I gave you too much credit calling you intelligent and just seeking to manipulate people to sell a product. It would appear you yourself have brought into your own hype. Placing yourself alongside people who made a huge impact on science, medicine and the humanities is just sad and pathetic. You are a troll and no better than Trev or Boing.

13 years now, and if the early adopters of independent cranks, short cranks, special pedalling techniques had anything major to gain, they would have a long time ago. But they haven't and there is a wealth of research to show that even with your God complex that all you have is self belief on your side.

 

[coapman]

if the early adopters of special pedalling techniques had anything major to gain, they would have a long time ago.

http://video-hned.com/video/0nn20Ix...JACQUES-ANQUETIL-1967-AL-VIGORELLI.html:::::: He did and used it very successfully throughout his TT cycling years but sadly for all other riders unlike Fobury's Flop or triathletes tri-bars this cannot be copied. Do you believe this technique differs from the one you use. How did he do it, he learnt how to apply maximal torque through 12, 1 and 2 o'c in addition to that already applied at 3 and it's possible for every other cyclist who is sufficiently interested to do exactly the same. Frank is correct in what he says about Martin's pedalling research, you can't take riders and ask them to change technique for a day or two and expect to get reliable results. For every change of pedalling technique different objectives have to be put into action and perfected. For a man who has not the slightest interest in pedalling technique you spend a lot of time in this thread with nothing but negative comments. That bet is still there to be covered.

 

[CoachFergie]

waffle waffle waffle

Yes the 10,000 purported by journalists, authors, and psuedo-scientists is a god-send for the likes of Frank and yourself. Pity now it has forced the real science of human performance in many areas to come to light that shows that talent might still be a handy thing to have.

And the way Frank uses the concept of 10,000 hours ignores which way the learning curve slopes.

However your claim of almost doubling power through a change in pedalling is easily testable with any power meter.

I can make un-testable claims as well and would suggest that maybe Jacques was the most talented of the group but we don't have lab tests from all the riders back then or power meter data. Maybe it was the drugs but we don't have dope testing records from then.

Over to you to make some more lame excuses why you can't provide any data for a hypothesis that is very easy to test. Either you pedalling technique almost doubles power or it doesn't.

 

[coapman]

Yes the 10,000 purported by journalists, authors, and psuedo-scientists is a god-send for the likes of Frank and yourself. Pity now it has forced the real science of human performance in many areas to come to light that shows that talent might still be a handy thing to have.

And the way Frank uses the concept of 10,000 hours ignores which way the learning curve slopes.

However your claim of almost doubling power through a change in pedalling is easily testable with any power meter.

I can make un-testable claims as well and would suggest that maybe Jacques was the most talented of the group but we don't have lab tests from all the riders back then or power meter data. Maybe it was the drugs but we don't have dope testing records from then.

Over to you to make some more lame excuses why you can't provide any data for a hypothesis that is very easy to test. Either you pedalling technique almost doubles power or it doesn't.

You are like a spider resting by his web ready to pounce as soon as a post from Frank or myself appears. That bet was to be decided on the claim that maximal torque through 12 o'c was possible. As for almost doubling the power from each pedal stroke, it does not work like that, while that may be possible the advantage of this technique in TT's is that it enables a rider to ride his TT at a much higher power output while using much lower peak torque (than that of natural pedalling at the same power), resulting in less stress on the knees and all other muscles and (unlike all other pedalling techniques) a completely stress free lower back which makes it ideal for sustainable winning power output in a flat TT.

 

[CoachFergie]

more waffle and now back pedalling on his almost doubling power comment

How can it not work like that, YOU SAID almost doubling the power. Like Frank and his confusion over affect and effect are you not sure about your own imaginary theory.

 

[coapman]

How can it not work like that, YOU SAID almost doubling the power. Like Frank and his confusion over affect and effect are you not sure about your own imaginary theory.

While you could, you don't have to use it like that in TT's, riding at maximal power output. Why wreck yourself generating unnecessary torque. Anquetil who always had plenty of power in reserve was contented to win by a few seconds, he did not believe in wasting energy.

 

[CoachFergie]

While you could, you don't have to use it like that in TT's, riding at maximal power output. Why wreck yourself generating unnecessary torque. Anquetil who always had plenty of power in reserve was contented to win by a few seconds, he did not believe in wasting energy.

So you can almost double your power. Then this is easily testable with ANY power meter. Stop hiding behind the Anquetil nonsense. You have no idea why he was as good as he was. That is just a pathetic dodge.

 

[coapman]

So you can almost double your power. Then this is easily testable with ANY power meter. Stop hiding behind the Anquetil nonsense. You have no idea why he was as good as he was. That is just a pathetic dodge.

Regardless of what power it can produce, if this special technique is found to be superior to all other pedalling techniques in flat TT's, it is going to make all experts and coaches who have ignored the importance of pedalling technique in time trials since the Anquetil years look rather foolish. Final reply to your negative nonsensical posts.

 

[CoachFergie]

Regardless of what power it can produce, if this special technique is found to be superior to all other pedalling techniques in flat TT's, it is going to make all experts and coaches who have ignored the importance of pedalling technique in time trials since the Anquetil years look rather foolish. Final reply to your negative nonsensical posts.

So it can't almost double your power? I wish you would make up your mind. No wonder people don't take you seriously.

"If it is found to be superior". Well that is the question indeed and it is easily testable with ANY power meter.

I'm surprised you haven't looked into greater depth in Obree's technique seeing it appears similar, he is still alive and still breaking World Records. Although the notable thing about his Hour record was that he produced a lot less power than the rest so more likely the bike and his position on it.

 

[FrankDay]

Says the fellow who spent years so vehemently rejecting power meters as an appropriate tool of evaluation that he neglected to put one to use to collect actual hard data that might be used substantiate his "feelings" of performance gain. Oh yes there was the Powertap he had for a very short time but that was stolen before put to any real use and never replaced.

Yup, definitely a guy who tests his ideas

Hugh

Huh? I have never rejected power meters as an evaluative (testing) tool. (edit: In fact I did use one - Computrainer - when I did my beta testing in order for me to know what I might put forth as what users might expect from its use. Where else do you think the 40% power improvement over 6-9 months claim came from?) Can't think of a better one if one is interested in testing power/fitness. What I have questioned is whether the use of power meters as an everyday training or racing effort feedback device results in improved outcome compared to not using one. There isn't a scintilla of evidence that it does (in fact, all the evidence is that it doesn't).

Now, I think the new 2nd generation power meters may actually change this because they have the potential to give information (technique) that the end user can use to improve beyond what they can do without that information. However, such a benefit remains speculative.

 

[CoachFergie]

What I have questioned is whether the use of power meters as an everyday training or racing effort feedback device results in improved outcome compared to not using one. There isn't a scintilla of evidence that it does (in fact, all the evidence is that it doesn't).

That's good Frank, because we haven't found or suggested a scintilla of evidence for that either.

 

[FrankDay]

That's good Frank, because we haven't found or suggested a scintilla of evidence for that either.

Perhaps you haven't noticed but lots of people do make that suggestion. Plus, there have been books written and entire forums devoted to the subject. Wonder what the average person, when they put down their money, thinks they will be getting?

 

[CoachFergie]

Perhaps you haven't noticed but lots of people do make that suggestion. Plus, there have been books written and entire forums devoted to the subject. Wonder what the average person, when they put down their money, thinks they will be getting?

Yes I find it amusing myself that people actually think that just by measuring their power alone they will improve as a cyclist. But then some people claim an importance of pedalling technique, crank length or using independent cranks without a significant scintilla of evidence as well. I find that amusing too.

What books btw? Only ones I see tell you how to measure power and how to use that information to facilitate the riding and racing process.

 

[sciguy]

Huh? I have never rejected power meters as an evaluative (testing) tool. (edit: In fact I did use one - Computrainer - when I did my beta testing in order for me to know what I might put forth as what users might expect from its use. Where else do you think the 40% power improvement over 6-9 months claim came from?) .

Frank,

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

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.""

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?

Hugh

Hugh

 

[CoachFergie]

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?

That story changes more often than I change underwear.

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.

Yes, for a guy who claims to have a strong education and does a lot of testing funny how he relies on the weakest of weak anecdotes for his product and has the audacity to criticise the very well performed published studies that show his claims on pedalling, crank length and independent cranks are bogus.

 

[CoachFergie]

Timely that someone linked this on Twitter...

The evidence underpinning sports performance products: a systematic assessment.

 

[FrankDay]

That story changes more often than I change underwear.

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.

Yes, for a guy who claims to have a strong education and does a lot of testing funny how he relies on the weakest of weak anecdotes for his product and has the audacity to criticise the very well performed published studies that show his claims on pedalling, crank length and independent cranks are bogus.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.") 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."? 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.

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. 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. 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.