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
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
FrankDay said:
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.JamesCun said:
FrankDay said:
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.JamesCun said:
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.JamesCun said:
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.
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.
??? Dixon is simply one result that supports the thesis.JamesCun said:
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.
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.
If you say so.
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.CoachFergie 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". 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.CoachFergie said:
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?
LOL.
FrankDay said:
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.CoachFergie said:
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.
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.JamesCun said:
FrankDay said:
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram