The Powercrank Thread

[FrankDay]

Franks it's your power that is surging when you pedal harder for 30 to 90 seconds then coast for 5 seconds. It's the surging of power that influences glycogen usage rather than anything to do with the speed.

Oh phooey. A surge involves a sustained increase. A short decrease in power to rest and then coming back to essentially the same power is not a surge in my mind. There are huge variations in instantaneous power as the pedals simply move around the circle. No one would call those large power variations a surge.

Time for another anecdotal report that might shed some light on the practicality of competing on Powercranks at low wattages.

I recently asked long time Powercranker Devashish Paul the following question.
Dev's reply:
So here is a long time user and advocate of Powercranks who feels that when you are using them you are less efficient particularly at lower power outputs. Dev still thinks that training with Powercranks has helped him and he continues to use them.

Actually, I would agree that using PowerCranks for low power (in relation to ones racing power) is not a particularly good way to go. The reason is that one is resting the pushing muscles but not resting the pulling muscles (because you have to fully unweight whether at high or low power, no option). That is why coasting is a better option when on PowerCranks because you are resting both phases equally.

From your experience needing to coast every 30 to 90 seconds it would seem you're finally seeing that your hip flexors aren't up to the task despite years and years of 90 to 95 spinscans.

It isn't a matter of needing to rest every 60-90 seconds (I usually go longer than 30 seconds) but something that feels best for me for long term effectiveness.

I'll freely admit to have zero hours on Powercranks but can turn around to tell you that I spent hundreds of hours doing one legged drills back in the early 70s and umpteen hours working to drive my spinscan to higher and higher numbers when Computrainer first came out. The interesting thing is that when I began to correlate spinscan with my sustainable power they two were distinctly inversely proportional. The fibers of the muscles we use to do situps are predominantly of the fast twitch variety and because of that not well suited to endurance feats.

There are two ways to improve spinscan. One is to push less, the other is to increase the forces across the top and bottom. Lierdahl showed that efficiency is related to the relative force across the top. Spinscan has no way of knowing one from the other. Further, what is really important is what you are doing when you are not thinking about it rather than what you are doing when you are looking at the computer screen. One-legged drills are not very effective in making this change because one hardly does them for more than a few minutes and usually at lower cadences and it does nothing for the two legged coordination. How does that help you for a 2 hour rider at high cadences? And, the reason the HF's are mostly FT fibers is that they have never been trained as endurance muscles. If you check I think you will find that training actually changes the muscle mix. So, despite those efforts in the past you still know absolutely nothing about what the PC's do for the rider.

 

[sciguy]

If you check I think you will find that training actually changes the muscle mix. .

So show me a link where type II fibers are converted to type I. We're not talking IIx to IIa but instead all the way to type I fibers that you really want in order to have great endurance.

Hugh

 

[sciguy]

Oh phooey. A surge involves a sustained increase. A short decrease in power to rest and then coming back to essentially the same power is not a surge in my mind.

I believe most would say that it's a stellar example of surging. Full power to zero power repeated time after time.........yup if an engine was doing that any mechanic would say it was surging.

Hugh

 

[sciguy]

Lierdahl showed that efficiency is related to the relative force across the top.

I assume you meant Leirdal. You fail to mention in his follow up study they saw no relationship.

Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

I believe most would say that it's a stellar example of surging. Full power to zero power repeated time after time.........yup if an engine was doing that any mechanic would say it was surging.

Hugh

You can call it what you want. I doubt anyone riding with me would call it a surge. The speed hardly varies at all. I don't consider it a surge.

 

[FrankDay]

So show me a link where type II fibers are converted to type I. We're not talking IIx to IIa but instead all the way to type I fibers that you really want in order to have great endurance.

Hugh

Wasn't that the explanation Coyle used in trying to explain Armstrong's improvement in cycling efficiency in his famous paper?

It is hypothesized that the improved muscular efficiency probably reflects changes in muscle myosin type stimulated from years of training intensely for 3–6 h on most days.

 

[FrankDay]

The act of sending a free set of PCs off to someone does not ensure that the box ever gets opened let alone is used for 10,000 hours.

We rarely send free PC's to anyone anymore. Phinney called us and asked for them and, as I remember, he paid for them (we give a small discount to pros). If they pay for them we know they will probably use them and not see them as, simply, more free swag. My guess is the box got opened by all those on our list. Rarely someone on our list will contact us and object to our using their name because they didn't use them much. If that is the case we, usually, remove the name - Just as we have with Pete Jacobs even though we could prove he used them enough to actually race on them. One time many years ago one of the big German teams contacted us that we were using the name of one of their riders, M. Rogers, and wanted us to stop. We contacted him about what to do and he told us he would take care of it. We never heard from them again.

And, does it matter how much they use them? I presume everyone uses them as they feel works best for them even if it isn't exactly what I think is best for the average user. The fact they use them at all should suggest to you that they found them more useful than not using them. If they didn't see 40% so what? At that level 1% is a big deal.

 

[sciguy]

Wasn't that the explanation Coyle used in trying to explain Armstrong's improvement in cycling efficiency in his famous paper?

Yeah and then Lance went on Oprah Go spend some time with the literature. They see IIx to IIa conversion but not II to I conversion.

Hugh

 

[sciguy]

And, does it matter how much they use them? I presume everyone uses them as they feel works best for them even if it isn't exactly what I think is best for the average user. The fact they use them at all should suggest to you that they found them more useful than not using them. If they didn't see 40% so what? At that level 1% is a big deal.

What matters is that when you congratulate someone on your web site like Mirinda Carfrae for her wonderful record breaking Kona win, readers are left with the not too subtle implication is that she's currently riding her **** off on Powercranks when as far I know she hasn't been on them in the last two years. It's pretty darn sketchy advertising if you ask me.

Hugh

 

[sciguy]

Actually, I would agree that using PowerCranks for low power (in relation to ones racing power) is not a particularly good way to go. .

So approximately what power are you flight planning your IM? Well above the 150 watt level Dev finds so inefficient on PCs? Can you lock those Icranks out if need be?

The reason is that one is resting the pushing muscles but not resting the pulling muscles (because you have to fully unweight whether at high or low power, no option)

Well no, we stompers don't get to rest our pushing muscles at all if we keep pedaling as we have continue to lift that back foot/leg by pushing down the front one....no free lunch here. We just use those wonderful extensors while you're stuck with those not so endurance oriented hip flexors.........hmmmmm would I rather do situps for 6 hours or walk for 6 hours.......easy choice there.

Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

So approximately what power are you flight planning your IM? Well above the 150 watt level Dev finds so inefficient on PCs? Can you lock those Icranks out if need be?

Have no idea what power I intend to ride. Even though I have been on the iCranks I have yet to calibrate them for the crank length I am riding. Doesn't matter anyhow as I won't care what the number says even if I have one. I will race by feel.

Well no, we stompers don't get to rest our pushing muscles at all if we keep pedaling as we have continue to lift that back foot/leg by pushing down the front one....no free lunch here. We just use those wonderful extensors while you're stuck with those not so endurance oriented hip flexors.........hmmmmm would I rather do situps for 6 hours or walk for 6 hours.......easy choice there.

Hugh

So, let me get this straight, you are telling me that you "stompers" when you soft pedal you actually don't push less hard? Instead, when you reduce power you push the same, all you change is how much you pull up (or not pull up) on the backstroke? What is surprising, now that I know this, is that the HF's still fatigue the most even though those are the muscles you are resting the most when you reduce power. I would have sworn most of you "stompers" backed off on everything somewhat equally when reducing power. How silly of me to have thought that. Thanks for clarifying things for me.

Anyhow, now that you have clarified for me what stompers do, wouldn't it be nice if you actually understood what PowerCrankers do when you came here and commented on it.

 

[sciguy]

Have no idea what power I intend to ride.

I guess that's not a surprise as you're not collecting any power data while training outdoors.

Even though I have been on the iCranks I have yet to calibrate them for the crank length I am riding.

That would take just a couple of minutes of Velotron time? Are you doing all your training outdoors now?

Doesn't matter anyhow as I won't care what the number says even if I have one. I will race by feel.

Despite those of us who have actually been riding with power meters learned early on that even for very experienced riders "feel" is a terrible dosing devise. You might have learned this already if you spent some time doing your outdoor rides with power....even if you only used it for post ride analysis.

So, let me get this straight, you are telling me that you "stompers" when you soft pedal you actually don't push less hard?

What a pure stomper does is lift their rear leg by using their extensor muscles every single time and surprisingly they don't seem to have a problem with the task.

Perhaps it's the millions of years of evolution that fashioning these muscles to be really efficient at pushing downward leading to a better fiber composition, more mechanically advantaged attachment points and efficient hardwired firing patterns.

Riding Powercranks is like asking a crocodile to crush his food by using the muscles that open his mouth rather than the ones that close it.

Anyhow, now that you have clarified for me what stompers do, wouldn't it be nice if you actually understood what PowerCrankers do when you came here and commented on it.

Powercrankers attempt to substitute the use of muscles not evolved for the task at hand for those which are highly evolved for the task despite the fact that the task is not strength limited by the highly evolved muscles.

Hugh

 

[JayKosta]

...
Perhaps it's the millions of years of evolution that fashioning these muscles to be really efficient at pushing downward leading to a better fiber composition, more mechanically advantaged attachment points and efficient hardwired firing patterns.
...
Powercrankers attempt to substitute the use of muscles not evolved for the task at hand for those which are highly evolved for the task despite the fact that the task is not strength limited by the highly evolved muscles.
...

=============================================

Whether a muscle has 'evolved' is much less interesting than whether it can be TRAINED to increase overall performance.

The muscle usage during climbing steps, or walking up inclines already depends on muscles to lift the leg/foot similar to unweighting on the up-stroke.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[FrankDay]

I guess that's not a surprise as you're not collecting any power data while training outdoors.

Where did you get I wasn't collecting power data? What I said is I didn't know what power I would race at. I didn't know this for two reasons. 1. The power I am collecting doesn't reflect reality as I haven't calibrated to the crank length I am riding. I estimate the power I see is about 40% below the actual power. 2. While I might be able to estimate what power I will probably race at I simply don't care what power I will race at as I will race by feel/PE. Collecting power data is important for someone like me as it will help me document power improvements seen and, with the iCranks, document the technique chnges associated with any improvement seen, for the purposes of "selling" the product to people like you. IMHO, power has little if any benefit to the individual for training or racing purposes because the changes occur from doing the work and not because someone is measuring the power.

That would take just a couple of minutes of Velotron time? Are you doing all your training outdoors now?

We had some issues with the computer that runs the Velotron so it hasn't been possible to do the calibration. I have also been waiting to get a better version of the TA software to put the time into this. They sent it to me a couple of days ago but I am not home now but will be home tomorrow. I should be working on this before the end of the week, calibrating the cranks, gathering data as to how position affects technique, and how crank length affects technique.

Despite those of us who have actually been riding with power meters learned early on that even for very experienced riders "feel" is a terrible dosing devise. You might have learned this already if you spent some time doing your outdoor rides with power....even if you only used it for post ride analysis.

You may have "learned" that feel is a terrible dosing devise but that sure isn't what the science says. Show me some science that says power is a better dosing device for the purposes of determining racing outcome.

What a pure stomper does is lift their rear leg by using their extensor muscles every single time and surprisingly they don't seem to have a problem with the task.

Of course they don't have any trouble doing this, it is what they have trained themselves to do since they got on their first tricycle.

Perhaps it's the millions of years of evolution that fashioning these muscles to be really efficient at pushing downward leading to a better fiber composition, more mechanically advantaged attachment points and efficient hardwired firing patterns.

"perhaps"??? My guess is that millions of years of evolution in a gravitational environment has led to the antigravity muscles being better trained "naturally" than the antagonists. However, the antagonist muscles are surprisingly strong because they are used regularly. their problem is they haven't developed any fitness because normal used doesn't require much aerobic fitness. (for instance, they are used when we sit up from the lying position after sleeping). But, they are muscles so they are capable of being trained just like the antigravity muscles. If you choose to ignore the potential of using these muscles that is your choice. People who choose to train on PowerCranks have made a different choice.

Riding Powercranks is like asking a crocodile to crush his food by using the muscles that open his mouth rather than the ones that close it.

Again, your ignorance of the product and what it does is profound.

Powercrankers attempt to substitute the use of muscles not evolved for the task at hand for those which are highly evolved for the task despite the fact that the task is not strength limited by the highly evolved muscles.

Hugh

PowerCrankers don't substitute anything for anything. What PowerCrankers learn is how to add additional muscles into the pedaling stroke and to change the timing of the muscle contractions to get more to the wheel from each contraction. Again, your ignorance is showing.

Look at the above picture. It appears his calf is strongly contracting at BDC. At that part of the stroke such a contraction is a complete waste of energy because it cannot possibly do any useful work. But the rider doesn't have a clue what he is really doing. And, regarding the first picture, that is you as you have zero curiosity to explore the possibility the PowerCranks offer. You don't want to even hear that there might be a better way. edit: your approach seems to be "Let me train the muscles that are already good to see how much better I can get." Another approach would be to say: "Let me train the muscles that aren't very good to see how much better I can get." My approach is to say: "Let's train them all, the muscles that are already good and those that aren't (and see if we can improve the coordination to be more efficient also) to see how much better we can get." Take your pick as to which approach you feel is best then go for it.

 

[CoachFergie]

Whether a muscle has 'evolved' is much less interesting than whether it can be TRAINED to increase overall performance.

The numerous well performed studies, all at the start of this thread, would suggest the answer to that is yes to the TRAINED part and no the increase overall performance.

Childish examples of riders increasing speed using independent cranks aside the only claimed 40% improvements in power using them have all been proven false.

 

[FrankDay]

The numerous well performed studies, all at the start of this thread, would suggest the answer to that is no.

Childish examples of riders increasing speed using independent cranks aside the only claimed 40% improvements in power using them have all been proven false.

Fergie, you are really a hoot. JayKosta asks regarding the HF muscles "whether it can be TRAINED to increase overall performance"

Your answer is NO, based upon "numerous well performed studies".

Now, I was taught in medical school (back in the very old days, just after blood letting fell into disfavor) that there were only 3 types of muscle, smooth, cardiac and striated. Two of them adapted to stress, cardiac and striated, and the third type, smooth muscle, was only found in certain places like the gut and bladder.

So, apparently these "well performed studies" you base your answer on have found a fourth kind of muscle, one that will not adapt to repeated stress, or, perhaps, those studies are not as "well performed" as you first thought. Those are the only two options I see based on your answer. Which is it?

 

[sciguy]

Where did you get I wasn't collecting power data?.

From when you said what's posted below and the fact that you haven't mentioned collecting power data since the post.

I am training for a 112 mile effort the end of June (Challenge Atlantic City)..................................It made a huge difference to how the quads felt and I averaged about 1 mph faster (17.5 to 18.5 mph) than typical for this loop I ride. (I didn't have power on the bike at the time, sorry folks.)

Collecting power data is important for someone like me as it will help me document power improvements seen and, with the iCranks, document the technique chnges associated with any improvement seen, for the purposes of "selling" the product to people like you.

Bravo and I heartily agree.

You may have "learned" that feel is a terrible dosing devise but that sure isn't what the science says.

Baloney Frank. Take a look at the first half versus second half splits of any amateurs competing in a marathon, half marathon, 10k or 5k or for that matter run done during a triathlon and then tell me that most people are remotely good at choosing an appropriate pace. The first running race I did with GPS was just as enlightening as my first time trial with a power meter. Nearly every one goes out way too hard because it "feels" so easy in the beginning.

My guess is that millions of years of evolution in a gravitational environment has led to the antigravity muscles being better trained "naturally" than the antagonists.

Not only better trained but also endowed with more ideal muscle fiber distribution for endurance activities as well as endowed with more ideal mechanical advantage in their attachment locations to limbs. Lets see how training with PCs change the attachment locations to make it so you don't need short cranks to use them in the aero position.

If you choose to ignore the potential of using these muscles that is your choice. People who choose to train on PowerCranks have made a different choice.

Why spend scarce time on developing second rate equipment when there is already first rate equipment available?

Look at the above picture. It appears his calf is strongly contracting at BDC. At that part of the stroke such a contraction is a complete waste of energy because it cannot possibly do any useful work. But the rider doesn't have a clue what he is really doing.

That poor clueless rider is Chris Froome on his way to yet another time trial win. He just beat Tony Martin World TT Champion from 2011, 2012 and 2013 in the time trial at the Tour de Romandie while on his way to overall victory. Oh and his calves look that way all of the time because he is so lean.

Just think how fast he would be if you coached him

And, regarding the first picture, that is you as you have zero curiosity to explore the possibility the PowerCranks offer. You don't want to even hear that there might be a better way.

Oh please-When I first met you at the Expo in Kona in 1999 I'll admit to having become interested in the concept. I've read all 10,000 of your posts on Slowtwitch so I guess that makes both of us experts at something. I've also spent a huge amount of time looking at how pedaling style influenes my power output. Spinscan on the Computrainer + SRM ............Done hundreds of hours of single leg drills, counter weighted single leg drills...........read all of the studies ........ even bid on some cheap PCs on Ebay and most recently talked to a good number of the folks you often brag about on your web page as Powercrankers. I've actually followed up a many of them and obviously you haven't. Just because they were sent a box doesn't mean they ever opened it.

 

[FrankDay]

When I first met you at the Expo in Kona in 1999 I'll admit to having become interested in the concept. I've read all 10,000 of your posts on Slowtwitch so I guess that makes both of us experts at something. I've also spent a huge amount of time looking at how pedaling style influenes my power output. Spinscan on the Computrainer + SRM ............Done hundreds of hours of single leg drills, counter waited single leg drills...........read all of the studies ........

Whatever. I guess you know more about my product than I do having done all those things except for, of course, train on my product. And, you've talked to all those people who haven't used the product (or used it barely) but apparently never talked to someone who has used it to good success. I have talked to both (including world champs) so I think I know what sets the two groups apart.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

so I think I know what sets the two groups apart.

Gullibility?

 

[FrankDay]

I will be doing some pedaling technique/crank length testing outside of Sacramento (Lake of the Pines) on Saturday. If you live in the area and are interested in attending PM me.

 

[ustabe]

Look at the above picture. It appears his calf is strongly contracting at BDC. At that part of the stroke such a contraction is a complete waste of energy because it cannot possibly do any useful work. But the rider doesn't have a clue what he is really doing. And, regarding the first picture, that is you as you have zero curiosity to explore the possibility the PowerCranks offer.

That's a lot of information to be mined from one photo.

 

[FrankDay]

That's a lot of information to be mined from one photo.

Not really. I simply observed that the photo APPEARED to show something (his calf contracting near BDC) and then made inferences based upon that single observation.

 

[FrankDay]

This post is only for the triathletes who hang out here. We have just seen the results of a soon to be presented study (poster presentation at the ACSM meeting) showing statistically significant improvement in 5 km running speed after 6 weeks training substituting some PC's training compared to running alone. This was a pilot study so additional confirmation of the data is needed. An earlier study didn't demonstrate any benefit. There are a couple of differences in study design that probably accounts for the difference. 1. the cohort were trained but not elite runners as they were in the earlier study, which probably made improvement easier to demonstrate. 2. the study required the participants to ride the PC's at a running cadence compared to the earlier study where the PC's were used at a cadence of about 60.

After the data is presented I will give a link to the actual data if I can. If you are going to the ACSM meeting check it out.

 

[FrankDay]

Hugh, Fergie, Others, We all know what some of you think about the potential of the PowerCranks to improve performance. This is what a pro coach wrote about the PowerCranks during a little discussion on FB regarding the running study results I earlier posted.

proper PowerCranking, to me, is legal cheating, is legal doping -- it's that potent, it's that much of an advantage.…

Guess it is true, what you think probably depends upon your experience.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Guess it is true, what you think probably depends upon your experience.

and gullibility