LOL. Coaches should not be doing studies on clients who are paying them money to do their best for them. They should do what, in their experience, is best. We have done what we think is enough to allow us to tell people what they might expect (which has been substantiated by many customer feedbacks) and then we offer a 3-month money-back guarantee just in case the customer thinks we misled them. That guarantee is more than you will get from most products in this field.elapid said:
Further, it wouldn't matter if I did 100 studies and they were all positive, you (and Fergie, and many others here) wouldn't believe a single one because of my bias. So, if someone in the academic community wants to study our product we will be happy to cooperate but there is little reason for us to do more than we have already done. So, if the ball is in our court, it is in the wrong court and I will kick it down the street to some academic court somewhere. Cheers.
Hmmmmm......... just like legal doping?
http://web.b.ebscohost.com/abstract...1zV2TWpbAdgXwFMGjrwxVaQmtRVItVsl9HjoA==&crl=c
Yes I did see that you mentioned the new study coming out deals with lessor athletes and higher cadences. It will be interesting to see the nuts and bolts of the study. For the record IIRC I've never said the PCs might not help runners a bit and I definitely think they are great for snow shoers. It's their helping of cyclists I have a big issue with.
Hugh
Hugh
http://web.b.ebscohost.com/abstract...1zV2TWpbAdgXwFMGjrwxVaQmtRVItVsl9HjoA==&crl=c
Yes I did see that you mentioned the new study coming out deals with lessor athletes and higher cadences. It will be interesting to see the nuts and bolts of the study. For the record IIRC I've never said the PCs might not help runners a bit and I definitely think they are great for snow shoers. It's their helping of cyclists I have a big issue with.
Hugh
Hugh
- Mar 18, 2009
- 2,442
- 0
- 0
FrankDay said:
If a pro coach thinks this is legal doping then he will have all of his cyclists on PCs. There is your PC group. Find an equivalent group of cyclists (maybe coached by the same pro-coach) and there is your control group. There is every reason for you to do more with bizarre claims of 40% increases in power, etc. Ball is still in your court, Frank. Why are you trying to avoid a study into your product and why do you continue to pass the buck and expect someone else to do your study for you? It really makes me, and I am sure lots of others, believe you have something to hide and they have every right to be skeptical with your avoidance tactics.
P.S. Don't assume what I think. I am a scientist and read a study for its design, results and conclusions.
- Mar 10, 2009
- 2,973
- 5
- 11,485
FrankDay said:
On the contrary.
Unfortunately the studies performed so far are not looking good. It will take a sizeable pool of quality evidence to turn the tide so to speak.
- Jan 13, 2010
- 491
- 0
- 0
FrankDay said:
Actually, I'm quit open to the concept of PowerCranks, and I'm not altogether skeptical of shorter cranks, either, but without certain implausibilities.
Frank, I am against your putting down of anyone who is not in 100% agreement with your whole program, and your attitude that anecdotal evidence in favor of your programs (and products) is perfectly valid while anecdotal evidence against is perfect bull****.
Well, while not exactly at BDC if one looks at the direction of any applied force coming from a calf contraction (around the ankle joint, straight down from the sole of the foot) one will see the direction of any resultant force will be withing about 10º of being inline with the crank direction and, therefore, mostly wasted because only forces tangential to the pedal circle can do any work it is work that results in power. In this case, the resultant tangential force from even a large calf contraction will be tiny. The calf should be relaxing here and most of the applied muscular pedal force should be coming from hamstring contraction pulling the foot backwards for optimum efficiency.Night Rider said:Clearly not even at BDC yet.
There are lots of people who are not in 100% agreement with me that I don't put down. It depends upon the basis of their opinion. Many users of my product don't use them as I recommend. I try to engage them as to the reason as I suspect most people try to use the product to its best benefit and if they know something I don't I would like to learn from them.ustabe said:
What I take issue with is people putting out opinion as fact and personal attacks as a "discussion" tactic.
It is clear that people who do not use the product long enough or as we recommend may not see any improvement or not the improvement we claim. So, if someone has used the product and claimed it didn't work one needs more information about how it was used and how long it was used before one can draw any conclusions as to cause and effect. Such reports are not evidence that the product cannot deliver when used as we recommend for the period we recommend. The fact that these people have talked to some people who didn't like it (lots of people don't like it in the beginning when we slow them down and make them feel as capable as their grandmother) and quit on it is not evidence that the product doesn't work for those who stay with the program.
People come here and call me (and almost anyone who says anything positive about the product) a liar and my product snake-oil without a shred of evidence to that end. (Negative studies last 5-6 weeks and involving part-time use is not proof of anything regarding this product.) The moderators allow personal attacks to be posted (and remain even when I complain) and rather than suing cyclingnews for liable I come here and rebut such implications by pointing out the issues with their so-called "facts" and trying to engage them in discussion and debate, which they are not very good at as they tend to try to make points through personal attack.
If you, or anyone else, has some facts to discuss let's do it. If all you got is opinion and/or attacks on me personally then I will call you on it as long as the moderators continue to allow that crap. The biggest naysayers have never used the product. Those who gotten on it "to prove me wrong" usually shut up pretty fast. Phil Holman is a good example, except he didn't shut up, he posted what happened (about 30% power improvement and a bronze medal at worlds), yet the naysayers refuse to believe the PC's had anything to do with the improvement he saw.
- Mar 18, 2009
- 2,442
- 0
- 0
FrankDay said:
Frank, this a load of crap. We are asking for the evidence. You are not providing the evidence. The evidence is important because you are asking people to commit to a serious amount of time to see the benefits of your product and that is time wasted if your product does not work. Your evidence to date is seriously flawed when you had a 70% drop out rate from your one study and then base all your information on the three remaining cyclists. The drop out rate is concerning enough, but when your claims are rather remarkable (or unbelievable [ie, 40% increase in power]), your claims are conflicting (for instance, a 40% increase in power would make you much faster than the 1-2mph increase in speed you claim), the evidence is not there and you refuse to conduct a study on your product, then the skepticism just builds.
What we offer, in lieu of "proof" (no proof ever proves that the product will work for you), is that 3 month unconditional money-back guarantee. Everyone, who does the work, should be seeing improvement well before the 3 months is up. That is all the proof any person should ever need, that the product works for them enough to justify the cost. 1-2 in a thousand send them back and those that do the reason given is that they are "too hard and take the fun out of riding for them". That says a lot to me. Training is supposed to be hard. PowerCranks are not for everyone.elapid said:
The proof you want is almost impossible to obtain. Even if I were to do it the results would be easily dismissed because it is clear I have a bias. So, if it is so easy why don't you do the study and prove me wrong. My doing this study is a waste of time. I offer the guarantee instead.
Oh, and go to analytic cycling and put in the numbers. a 40% improvement works out pretty well to a 2-3 mph improvement (which is, I believe, what is on our web site), everything else being equal.
elapid said:
Anecdotal is SCIENCE, isn't it? I've offered anecdotal reports from coaches and riders that Frank can't find palatable. How many years has this gone on? I check in for the humor factor as much as the possibility that anything new might come from the discussion. See you in three months.
- Mar 18, 2009
- 2,442
- 0
- 0
FrankDay said:
The proof is very easy to attain. A well-designed study is all you need, and we've discussed this previously. PC group and control group of sufficient numbers analyzed in exactly the same way. Study done. You keep passing the buck on who should be performing the study - this is your responsibility because this is your product and your interest.
A guarantee is not sufficient for those that require proof, especially when you quote a 40% increase in power and a 2-3 mph increase in speed - a 70% dropout rate on your attempted study says a lot about how useful your product is and most will not put themselves through a lengthy training program to get used to your product because of the time involved (hence your unacceptable dropout rate) and the initial drop in performance (even presuming we get the results your report).
FrankDay said:
A 40% improvement starting at 250W, you get a 4 mph improvement. How do you get your 40% increase in power? Three cyclists? How do you get your 2-3 mph increase in speed? Analytical Cycling? These are further areas for skepticism, Frank.
These are not personal attacks. Your science is lacking, your results are highly circumspect, and credibility is poor as a result. This is to do with your product and your marketing of your product, not you.
True, for those who require scientific proof. Not true for those who are willing to prove it to or for themselves. If you require scientific proof I find it amazing that you are able to purchase anything supposedly designed to improve you or your performance. I can't think of a single item that fits that requirement even though you seem to think this such an easy task. Can you name one for me?elapid said:
When I put in 250 watts using their default numbers (except I use zero slope) I get 11.23 m/s or 25.12 mph. a 40% increase gives one 350 watts and plugging that in I get 12.68 m/s or 28.36 mph, a 3.2 mph increase which fits the 2-3mph description pretty well I think. Not sure where you get a 4 mph increase as most people would round 3.2 down, not up.
Anyhow, it looks like you will never become a customer, unless you are looking for running improvement (a scientific study is soon to be available that shows statistically significant improvement in running speed compared to control - running improvement comes faster and easier than cycling improvement). If you are waiting for proof of the 40% claim I suspect that will never happen, at least in my lifetime.
I did my first test yesterday looking at effects of position and crank length on pedaling technique. My first subject was a long-term PowerCranker. I learned quite a bit to help me in the future. This subject races on 200 mm cranks and I fully expected to see a huge change when he went into the aero position. The changes I saw were very subtle although the changes the subject felt were huge. Here is a screen shot of him sitting up (he has arthritis in his right knee explaining his right weakness according to him)
and now in the aero position (he is not very low as the test bike didn't allow him to get into his normal aero position)
As you can see, the software still has the issue of being rotated 90º such that 3 o'clock is 180º on this display.
As I said, I think the changes are very subtle and I think it is clear that the main change we can see is he is having more trouble applying power over the top when in the aero position. He was having a great deal of trouble pedaling in this position though and it isn't reflected here. One thing I learned is there is probably more to be gained having the person pedal for a longer period, at least 5 minutes, to see what happens when they get a little tired, rather than the 30 seconds or so that I did here. If I had done that I would have seen where he started to fail, which he surely would have done per his report.
The other thing I was surprised about was he had zero negatives even in the aero position on 200 mm cranks. He is a big guy (6'5" I believe) but still! I guess those PC's actually do, eventually, change how people pedal, as he has been on them for 10 years or so.
We did some additional testing at 175 and 145 mm cranks. The screen shots change very little from what you see above. What he did report though was the aero position was much easier to maintain with the shorter cranks (same power) with the easiest being 145. He is concerned though about going much shorter than 175 because he lives in a hilly area and is not sure he can get gearing on his bike to allow him to climb some of the 15% grades he sees. We discussed going to a triple or 94BCD 30-32/46-48 set-up up front so solve this issue. He is going to continue to experiment. He has a race coming up and we will see what he chooses. If the iCranks head unit is available by then he will race on the iCranks and we will be able to collect data for analysis.
and now in the aero position (he is not very low as the test bike didn't allow him to get into his normal aero position)
As you can see, the software still has the issue of being rotated 90º such that 3 o'clock is 180º on this display.
As I said, I think the changes are very subtle and I think it is clear that the main change we can see is he is having more trouble applying power over the top when in the aero position. He was having a great deal of trouble pedaling in this position though and it isn't reflected here. One thing I learned is there is probably more to be gained having the person pedal for a longer period, at least 5 minutes, to see what happens when they get a little tired, rather than the 30 seconds or so that I did here. If I had done that I would have seen where he started to fail, which he surely would have done per his report.
The other thing I was surprised about was he had zero negatives even in the aero position on 200 mm cranks. He is a big guy (6'5" I believe) but still! I guess those PC's actually do, eventually, change how people pedal, as he has been on them for 10 years or so.
We did some additional testing at 175 and 145 mm cranks. The screen shots change very little from what you see above. What he did report though was the aero position was much easier to maintain with the shorter cranks (same power) with the easiest being 145. He is concerned though about going much shorter than 175 because he lives in a hilly area and is not sure he can get gearing on his bike to allow him to climb some of the 15% grades he sees. We discussed going to a triple or 94BCD 30-32/46-48 set-up up front so solve this issue. He is going to continue to experiment. He has a race coming up and we will see what he chooses. If the iCranks head unit is available by then he will race on the iCranks and we will be able to collect data for analysis.
- Mar 18, 2009
- 2,442
- 0
- 0
FrankDay said:
I have never, ever said that there is any item I can put on my bike that will improve my performance, other than me and hard work.
FrankDay said:
Here's the maths using their defaults:
7.46 m/s = 26.856 km/h = 16.785 mp/h
9.21 m/s = 33.156 km/h = 20.723 mp/h
Difference = 3.9375 mp/h
Two problems with your calculations, Frank. First is that the improvement in speed is purely based on a highly suspect increase in power and has not actually been measured. That's misleading to your buyers. Second is you have not declared that your calculations are an interpretation based on a computer program and you have not declared the paramaters you used to calculate your claim (ie, how am I to know you used a zero percent slope instead of their default settings?).
FrankDay said:
This says it all. May as well close this thread now. Oldman is right - this thread will just be a continual series of anecdotal reports from you advertising your product; you refusing to conduct a study into your product (despite conducting other studies into the effect of your product on activities other than cycling); and you continuing to use highly suspicious and unsubstantiated performance outcomes without declaring them as such. If this thread is about you advertising your product then it should be closed.
power cranks
Yep, that was me Frank tested. As he stated, I have been using PC's for 10 years and I am sold! No question it has helped my run. My last Tri race in Auburn folks were asking did I cut the course since many could not believe I could run as fast as I did on that difficult course at my age of 57. Guess I am doing something right.
I have been using 200mm cranks for like 10 years. Frank has been giving me a bad time to go shorter. I read some stuff from folks who are thinking shorter is helping running. So six months ago I changed my PC's on my Velotron bike trainer to 175's. Has not seemed to hurt me.
During the testing the piece Frank talked about was my ability to get in the aero position with different crank lengths. The 200's on the trainer it is hard to stay long. (Not an issue on my racing bike so I need to check dimensions). But at 175 was easier, and 145 was even easier than 175's.
Was cool to see my pedaling, with numbers, is not to bad. But, I am open minded now to trying to improve my bike fit, and crank length seems to be another part these tools can help me improve compared to my competition.
I have not raced on PC's, but am open to giving it a shot. Always fun to try new stuff.
So bottom line when folks ask how I can do what I do, PC's are a critical part of my training.
Yep, that was me Frank tested. As he stated, I have been using PC's for 10 years and I am sold! No question it has helped my run. My last Tri race in Auburn folks were asking did I cut the course since many could not believe I could run as fast as I did on that difficult course at my age of 57. Guess I am doing something right.
I have been using 200mm cranks for like 10 years. Frank has been giving me a bad time to go shorter. I read some stuff from folks who are thinking shorter is helping running. So six months ago I changed my PC's on my Velotron bike trainer to 175's. Has not seemed to hurt me.
During the testing the piece Frank talked about was my ability to get in the aero position with different crank lengths. The 200's on the trainer it is hard to stay long. (Not an issue on my racing bike so I need to check dimensions). But at 175 was easier, and 145 was even easier than 175's.
Was cool to see my pedaling, with numbers, is not to bad. But, I am open minded now to trying to improve my bike fit, and crank length seems to be another part these tools can help me improve compared to my competition.
I have not raced on PC's, but am open to giving it a shot. Always fun to try new stuff.
So bottom line when folks ask how I can do what I do, PC's are a critical part of my training.
It is not an issue on your racing bike because you are racing on regular cranks so when you tire out you just revert to a lazier style on the back stroke, pushing the foot up and over the top but, because we don't pay attention to our pedaling style when riding, usually, you don't notice. This hurts your racing because, once this change takes place, you are not racing the way you train.h2ofun said:
FrankDay said:
Did they also have a group that rode fixed cranks at the same intensity and time as the uncoupled cranks?
Hugh
Then, why bother putting anything on your bike or why bother spending more than $150 for your bike?elapid said:
Their default is up a 3% grade. I choose to use a zero percent grade as I think that is what most people use when judging time-trial speed. If I were to use your figure people would accuse me of inflating what people could expect to try to make us look better than what we are. 2-3 mph seems like enough of an improvement to me to claim, don't you think.
Have you gone and watched the cycling video on our web site of the 50 or so customers reporting on their results. Results range from 1 to 5 mph in one season with 2-3 mph being quite common. It is what people, on average, report seeing, it is what we claim.
There are only 3 ways to increase speed on the bicycle. Improve power, improve aero, reduce rolling resistance. If people are reporting speed improvement over the same course the most likely reason is a power increase unless they also report a change in bike fit.
You might note, I didn't start this thread. I think it was started to put the product down (see your posts). I think I deserve the right to rebut those posts.
powercranks
Wow, I only thought ST had the closed minded folks.
I take it personally when folks try to tell me the PC's have not helped my racing. So far it has been my running, but on the bike, there are a lot more things to think about and I have not spent the time to deal with these.
Now that Frank has the testing tool with the icranks, I am excited since I can now see changed made to my bike setup and look at the data for power, pedal efficiency, and how I feel in the aero position. He is also going to be able to test folks who have never tried the PC's, then try them and see what the data shows.
As Frank states, on my race bike my cranks are fixed so I can revert back to different pedaling to deal with the aero position. I look forward to now making some changes with data and see what happens. Since I have yet to find for me a way to improve my bike times over the years, this is exciting to try since I can see data to relate to my racing times. Will it help me, will see. Would it help others? May or may not. But I just do not understand how some can be so negative on something they have never tried. Will it help some 5%, 40%, who cares. If it helps me, however I elect to measure it, why should anyone else care. I just let my race results speak for themselves.
Wow, I only thought ST had the closed minded folks.
I take it personally when folks try to tell me the PC's have not helped my racing. So far it has been my running, but on the bike, there are a lot more things to think about and I have not spent the time to deal with these.
Now that Frank has the testing tool with the icranks, I am excited since I can now see changed made to my bike setup and look at the data for power, pedal efficiency, and how I feel in the aero position. He is also going to be able to test folks who have never tried the PC's, then try them and see what the data shows.
As Frank states, on my race bike my cranks are fixed so I can revert back to different pedaling to deal with the aero position. I look forward to now making some changes with data and see what happens. Since I have yet to find for me a way to improve my bike times over the years, this is exciting to try since I can see data to relate to my racing times. Will it help me, will see. Would it help others? May or may not. But I just do not understand how some can be so negative on something they have never tried. Will it help some 5%, 40%, who cares. If it helps me, however I elect to measure it, why should anyone else care. I just let my race results speak for themselves.
Dave and I talked some about whether his bike has "improved" or not on the PowerCranks. The problem is he has no baseline from before PC's by which to judge. All he can really say is that over the past 10 years or so his bike hasn't deteriorated as one would expect at his "advanced" age. Further, he really hasn't put a real effort into improving his bike. Maybe if he makes some of the changes I have suggested we might see if his bike improves then.h2ofun said:
Edit: he had another issue. He had spent about $500 getting some custom 200 mm cranks made for racing. Now that he understands that that purchase could be slowing him down perhaps he can help some of you guys understand that it would have been more cost effective for him to have done the serious testing BEFORE he made his decision. He did this thinking he needed the leverage for the hills without realizing there were other ways to get that leverage that didn't hurt him on the flats.
Dave,
How much credit towards your improvement do you give to 10 years of consistent training an hour a day on your Velotron along with your hour and a half run? Seems like you've done a great job being consistent in your training and for most that seems to be 95% of the equation. How do you sift out the PCs contribution if any to your success? IIRC you've been a huge fan of long cranks for taller folks and have spent a good it of time talking them up. Now suddenly you seem poised to jump on the short crank band wagon. Tom A. must be chuckling after all your back and forth with him over the topic.
Hugh
Hugh
How much credit towards your improvement do you give to 10 years of consistent training an hour a day on your Velotron along with your hour and a half run? Seems like you've done a great job being consistent in your training and for most that seems to be 95% of the equation. How do you sift out the PCs contribution if any to your success? IIRC you've been a huge fan of long cranks for taller folks and have spent a good it of time talking them up. Now suddenly you seem poised to jump on the short crank band wagon. Tom A. must be chuckling after all your back and forth with him over the topic.
Hugh
Hugh
- Mar 18, 2009
- 2,442
- 0
- 0
FrankDay said:
Show me one single post where I have put your product down. Give me one example. I have questioned the science behind it and rightly so when you base your power assessment on three cyclists, you have not measured the speed improvement directly but rather extrapolated from a program, you have not declared on your website how you have come up with either of these figures (or reported the 70% dropout rate in your one and only attempted study), and you refuse to perform a study on your product thereby raising further suspicion about the validity of your claims. So, I repeat, show me a post where I have stated something derogatory about your product. You keep accusing me of personal attacks and making derogatory statements, but you confuse this for rightly questioning the methods you use for marketing your product.
sciguy said:
Yep, I talked to tall guys, got their inputs on crank length and went long. But guess what, I always am open to new things and if I was wrong, who cares, I am will to try something else. If that means for some I make their day with attacking me, go for it. I sure never treat others that way, ..
I have not even had the velotrons for 10 years. I did not do as much training as I do not until the last few years now that I am retired.
Logically the PC's make SO much sense to use that I cannot even believe anyone could argue they cannot help someone get faster. But again, I will let my race results show it. Folks can find all the reasons everything else I did made the difference but the PC's had nothing to do with it. Great, I could care less. I just try to help others with what I have done.
I am not on the "short" crank arms yet!!! I have seen some data which is a first. I did see that my pedaling stroke is pretty good. Do you know what yours looks like? Now, I have never really had a good bike fit, and yep, to have a good bike fit this needs to deal with crank length. So I am now open to making some changes. Based on Franks inputs, and reading others, 6 months ago I changed the PCs on my Velotron to 175s, but am still racing on 200's, mainly because I did not want to spend another 500 bucks on a crank arm when I did not have data for the best crank length for me. I am now running faster than I ever have. 2 months ago I ran the Davis Lucky Half Marathon. I did a 1:27 at 57 years old. Not bad for an old guy. But wait, there is more. Just running is too easy, so I pushed one granddaughter in a stroller the entire time. Could you do that?
)Another example. A few years back I got a sports hernia. I was not able to do ANY running in training, but I kept on the powercranks. I still found some way to race, and was still running fast. Once I crossed the finish line, I was not able to run another step. I totally put the success of that years race season, where I was all american again, for my running because of my powercranks. How could it be anything else when I was doing zero run training?
So what size cranks will I end up on? What gearing will I end up with to handle the hills I climb when I am such a poor biker? I have no idea, but am loving the idea to work with Frank with the Icranks and let the data and race results do the talking. Scares the hell out of me to say I offered to Frank to do IMLT 70.3 on the icrank Powercranks and hopefully collect the data to see how my bike performance does, but this sport for me is all about fun, trying new things. Some will work for me, others may not. What works or does not work for me may or may not work for others. But I LOVE to be told something cannot work! For me, those are war words.
But again, who knows where I end up. Maybe it will be on the 200 cranks. I just want to see if I can change some things and improve my bike times at my age. I just hope my competition stays static since at the moment, not many can keep up with me which is fun!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 36K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 23K
Latest posts
-
Teams & Riders The Red Bull - Bora - Hansgrohe team thread- Latest: Hugo Koblet
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram