The Powercrank Thread

[FrankDay]

And then there is this one from a current professional triathlete who hits the podium in the IM distance. His name is removed to protect him from sponsor back lash.


His response:



Frank's probably going to say that %^&*%$ didn't following his prescription time wise or exclusivity wise but as I understand things his directions were followed very carefully for more than one season.

Did you get the details as to how he used them and the specifics of his experience? Why didn't you get that data so we(I) might comment? Anyhow, it sounds like he gave up on them early. He sees some potential but he wasn't willing to put up with how hard the transition is. Sounds like an ego thing to me, pretty common in elites.

I think Frank really needs to do some careful follow up of the folks he's taking credit for helping. How about a live online interview with Mirinda when you're at Challenge Atlantic City?

Hugh

When bike, and shoe, and, energy bar, etc. etc. etc. manufacturers stop mentioning that winners use their product, implying some cause and effect, I think then your criticism of my mentioning winners who have trained on our product may have some merit. The problem is, the intent of my product is to try to permanently change the unconscious coordination of a user. If they used it, got better, then stopped using it, the hope is that the new technique stays with them. PowerCranks force new users to use a certain basic technique. Regular cranks allow any technique but do not force riders to do anything. Since this is the case the benefits of past use may remain despite no longer using them (should that be the case). This is one of the benefits of something like the iCranks (or pioneer) because one can actually measure and see what technique changes occur after starting training on them and if the technique changes remain after stopping training on the tool. One would have some facts to argue rather than guessing.

 

[FrankDay]

Then there is this one from Rick Ashburn: Obviously he is one of the 1 in 1000 who returned his cranks for a refund. Back then Frank claimed you'd see benefit in 3 weeks.

The only thing I have ever said regarding 3 weeks is that most triathletes are reporting seeing RUNNING improvement start in 3 weeks (I still say that). I have never said one would see cycling improvement in 3 weeks.

Rick's response:



Interesting that even the rehab guys don't see any benefit except for a very specific situation. Perhaps that's what Alberto has come to see as well. Just because you sent him a set doesn't mean they're still using them. I do know his group has done tons of reduced gravity training with fragile athletes and seem to feel that helps.

Hugh

Rehab guys don't see any benefit? Didn't this rehab guy say that he used them for rehab? Whether he feels they "don't work" in "healthy" people or not is just his opinion. That is not the experience of the bulk of our customers who run nor is it what that study showed.

All I know is what Alberto told me when he called me and then purchased a pair from me. The fact that you scrounge around and find some people who have been unhappy with the product (without the specifics as to why) hardly means much. We still offer an unconditional 90 day money-back guarantee for those who are not sure. 1-2 in 1,000 send them back. Why someone might keep them then, much later, bash them instead of sending them back seems a bit strange to me, doesn't it to you?

Regarding Chad's remarks (in another post), again it is impossible to comment without more detail. We don't know the specifics of how Chad used them and what results he saw at the time. We don't know what changes the PC's did for him and whether any of those changes remain. As I have said before this will be the power of the iCranks and Pioneer cranks as it will be possible (if people have the devices and follow their progress) to know with certainty what they are talking about instead of guessing.

Cheers.

 

[elapid]

See what your assumptions get you.

Oh, I know what I get with assumptions and you:

1. You can maintain your spinscan results for "many minutes" and this ends up being 2 minutes
2. Your aborted study into PowerCranks involved an undisclosed number of cyclists, which then ended up being 10 cyclists, which then ended up being only 3 cyclists.
3. Your claim of a 40% increase in power being based on 3 cyclists
4. Your claim of a 2-3mph increase in speed being extrapolated from your claim of a 40% increase in power using a computer program
5. You accusing me of incorrect maths when using Analytical Cycling when you used different settings to the default settings and expected me to know that you had done that.

So, yes, it is important to clarify when discussing things with you because when taken at face value your claims are impressive, but when digging deeper those same claims all fall to pieces.

 

[elapid]

Why do you only offer a 90 day guarantee when it takes 9 months to realize your claims? That doesn't sound like you are standing behind your product at all.

We still offer an unconditional 90 day money-back guarantee for those who are not sure.

If you want to "prove" the 40% number 9 months is how long it takes because that is what our claim is.

 

[FrankDay]

Why do you only offer a 90 day guarantee when it takes 9 months to realize your claims? That doesn't sound like you are standing behind your product at all.

Because, it doesn't take 9 months to see enough benefits (and to know that more are coming) to know that the product is worth the purchase price. Most are seeing running improvements start in 3 weeks and cycling improvements start in 6 weeks. If someone isn't seeing benefit in 8-12 weeks then they are unlikely to see any benefits in 9 months continuing to do what they are doing now (which is, most likely, part-time, use). They should accept the fact they are not for them and send them back for a refund. As I have said before 1-2/thousand do just that. There has to be a cut-off at some point. We think 3 months is more than enough time to figure it out.

We don't guaranteed a 40% power increase. All we say is such increases are typical when used as we recommend for a prolonged period.

 

[elapid]

Because, it doesn't take 9 months to see enough benefits (and to know that more are coming) to know that the product is worth the purchase price. Most are seeing running improvements start in 3 weeks and cycling improvements start in 6 weeks. If someone isn't seeing benefit in 8-12 weeks then they are unlikely to see any benefits in 9 months continuing to do what they are doing now (which is, most likely, part-time, use). There has to be a cut-off at some point. We think 3 months is more than enough time to figure it out.

We don't guaranteed a 40% power increase. All we say is such increases are typical when used as we recommend.

Then why say the study needs to be 9 months to see the claimed benefits? Is it 6 weeks, 3 months or 9 months?

 

[CoachFergie]

Then why say the study needs to be 9 months to see the claimed benefits? Is it 6 weeks, 3 months or 9 months?

3 months???

Short interval training for 12-16 minutes over a 2 week period led to a 100% improvement in performance on a test to fatigue in untrained subjects. Think I will try that before I listen to marketing claims from a known Snake Oil Salesman.

 

[FrankDay]

Then why say the study needs to be 9 months to see the claimed benefits? Is it 6 weeks, 3 months or 9 months?

Because the "claimed benefit" of a 40% increase in power takes that long to achieve on average. Why isn't that clear to you? If one wants to test the claim one needs to abide by all the of claims requirements. PowerCranks are not like aero wheels, put them on your bike and there are immediate benefits. Benefits come slowly and require a lot of hard work.

 

[elapid]

Why isn't that clear to you?

Are you kidding, Frank? Are you seriously asking why isn't it clear to me? You've used all three time frames in just the last two pages of this thread:

Most are seeing ... cycling improvements start in 6 weeks.

We think 3 months is more than enough time to figure it out.

If you want to "prove" the 40% number 9 months is how long it takes because that is what our claim is.

This started with a discussion about you doing a study into PowerCranks. As per above, you said a study would need to be performed for 9 months, but then said that 3 months is enough, and then said that if you are not seeing improvements by 6 weeks (or is it 8-12 weeks, who knows anymore) then you are unlikely to see them by 9 months. So, if that's the case, why do a study for 9 months when according to you you'll know by at least 3 months (or is it 6 weeks ... I have no idea anymore!)?

 

[Oldman]

Are you kidding, Frank? Are you seriously asking why isn't it clear to me? You've used all three time frames in just the last two pages of this thread:







This started with a discussion about you doing a study into PowerCranks. As per above, you said a study would need to be performed for 9 months, but then said that 3 months is enough, and then said that if you are not seeing improvements by 6 weeks (or is it 8-12 weeks, who knows anymore) then you are unlikely to see them by 9 months. So, if that's the case, why do a study for 9 months when according to you you'll know by at least 3 months (or is it 6 weeks ... I have no idea anymore!)?

However long it takes to distance vendor from refund period, it would appear.

 

[FrankDay]

Are you kidding, Frank? Are you seriously asking why isn't it clear to me? You've used all three time frames in just the last two pages of this thread:


This started with a discussion about you doing a study into PowerCranks. As per above, you said a study would need to be performed for 9 months, but then said that 3 months is enough, and then said that if you are not seeing improvements by 6 weeks (or is it 8-12 weeks, who knows anymore) then you are unlikely to see them by 9 months. So, if that's the case, why do a study for 9 months when according to you you'll know by at least 3 months (or is it 6 weeks ... I have no idea anymore!)?

Ugh, three different time frames for three different purposes. (you forgot the 4th time frame

1. Most are BEGINNING to see RUNNiNG IMPROVEMENT starting in 3 weeks of immersion training.
2. Most are BEGINNING to see CYCLING IMPROVEMENT starting in 6 weeks of immersion training.
3. 3 months is enough time for most new users to figure out if the improvements they are seeing makes the cranks worth the cost however they are using them. (our moneyback guaranteed period)
4. After 9 months of immersion training we expect to see a typical user gain 40% in their cycling power. (our "claim" as to what we think new users can expect in power improvement if used for a prolonged period as we specify).

To avoid any further confusion, if that is possible (which I doubt based upon the reading comprehension you have already demonstrated), let me clarify one more thing. You might note that if you really wanted to test our claim it is simpler than you think because any "study" wouldn't require a control group since the claim doesn't say that the product would increase power 40% above what they would otherwise do. So, if you thought you were going to improve 20% in 9 months using your current plan all we would "expect" you to get from adding PowerCranks to the mix would be another 20%, to get our 40% total. Our number doesn't discriminate between "normal" improvement and PowerCranks improvement as we have had no way of separating the two in the reports we have received and testing we did ourselves. We just think the 40% number is large enough that we can assume that some of that improvement is due to the PowerCranks. Apparently most of our customers come to the same conclusion.

If you think our typical customer was going to gain 40% anyhow then the PowerCranks are useless. If you think our typical customer wasn't going to gain much doing what they were doing then you think the PowerCranks do more than we do.

 

[elapid]

You might note that if you really wanted to test our claim it is simpler than you think because any "study" wouldn't require a control group since the claim doesn't say that the product would increase power 40% above what they would otherwise do.

This is what I was unfortunately suspecting from you, Frank. No real interest in science and playing loosey goosey with your "facts". All marketing and no substance. For discerning consumers who research their purchases prior to laying down the cash, your product would raise so many red flags because of your dishonesty and snake oil salesman like tactics. Good riddance to this thread for me.

 

[FrankDay]

Good riddance to this thread for me.

We will see if you are good to your word.

 

[CoachFergie]

The Effects Of PowercranksTM Cross-training On Running Performance

Nicholas Fiolo, Lee Taylor, Angela R. Hillman

(No relationships reported)

Cycling remains a viable form of cross-training for runners. Uncoupled cycling requires each leg to work independently necessitates greater recruitment of the hip flexors and knee flexors to move the pedal through the top and bottom of the pedal stroke. Anecdotal reports from triathletes using PowerCranksTM claim considerable improvements in running performance after uncoupled training.

PURPOSE: To determine the effects of a six week training cross-training program using the uncoupled PowerCranksTM on 5k time trial performance, VO2max, and running economy.

METHODS: 12 recreational runners (9 Male, body mass 83.87 ± 14.02 kg, age 28.67 ± 11.56 years, VO2max 52.17 ± 1.85 ml·kg-1·min-1) completed measures of running performance, VO2max, running economy, and a 5k time trial over a familiarization and baseline sessions. Participants were randomly assigned to a six week training program of PowerCranksTM (PC) cycling, or a control (CON) program of no cycling. The cycling programs consisted of 3 training sessions per week and progressed 20, 30, 30, 30, 40, 40 minutes in duration. Participants in the cycling group reduced their weekly run time by the time spent cycling. Participants repeated the performance tests post training.

RESULTS: PC training resulted in a reduced 5k time (1466 ± 18 vs. 1546 ± 44 s, p <0.05). Average heart rate (HR) was higher over the entire 5k (175.57 ± 18.01 vs. 168.60 ± 17.06 bpm, p <0.05) over the last 5 minutes (179.17 ± 18.36 vs. 176.12 ± 17.74 bpm, p <0.05) following PC training. There was no difference in average HR over the final minute pre and post training. Absolute VO2max increased following PC training (4204.88 ± 866.38 vs. 4124.13 ± 804.13 ml·min-1, p <0.05) and occurred at a lower RER (0.94 ± 0.03 vs. 0.97 ± 0.04, p <0.05). There were no differences in running economy or RER during the running economy for either the PC or CON groups. There were no differences in VO2max or 5k performance in the CON group.

Discussion: Six weeks of PC training resulted in improvements VO2max and 5k performance. PC training may enhance performance at higher intensities by increasing fatigue resistance, as indicated by the higher HR values, and improving oxidative capacity, as indicated by the reduction in RER values. These improvements may explain the reduction in 5k time, as this race is performed near maximal effort.

 

[coapman]

The Effects Of PowercranksTM Cross-training On Running Performance

Nicholas Fiolo, Lee Taylor, Angela R. Hillman

(No relationships reported)

Cycling remains a viable form of cross-training for runners. Uncoupled cycling requires each leg to work independently necessitates greater recruitment of the hip flexors and knee flexors to move the pedal through the top and bottom of the pedal stroke. Anecdotal reports from triathletes using PowerCranksTM claim considerable improvements in running performance after uncoupled training.

PURPOSE: To determine the effects of a six week training cross-training program using the uncoupled PowerCranksTM on 5k time trial performance, VO2max, and running economy.

METHODS: 12 recreational runners (9 Male, body mass 83.87 ± 14.02 kg, age 28.67 ± 11.56 years, VO2max 52.17 ± 1.85 ml·kg-1·min-1) completed measures of running performance, VO2max, running economy, and a 5k time trial over a familiarization and baseline sessions. Participants were randomly assigned to a six week training program of PowerCranksTM (PC) cycling, or a control (CON) program of no cycling. The cycling programs consisted of 3 training sessions per week and progressed 20, 30, 30, 30, 40, 40 minutes in duration. Participants in the cycling group reduced their weekly run time by the time spent cycling. Participants repeated the performance tests post training.

RESULTS: PC training resulted in a reduced 5k time (1466 ± 18 vs. 1546 ± 44 s, p <0.05). Average heart rate (HR) was higher over the entire 5k (175.57 ± 18.01 vs. 168.60 ± 17.06 bpm, p <0.05) over the last 5 minutes (179.17 ± 18.36 vs. 176.12 ± 17.74 bpm, p <0.05) following PC training. There was no difference in average HR over the final minute pre and post training. Absolute VO2max increased following PC training (4204.88 ± 866.38 vs. 4124.13 ± 804.13 ml·min-1, p <0.05) and occurred at a lower RER (0.94 ± 0.03 vs. 0.97 ± 0.04, p <0.05). There were no differences in running economy or RER during the running economy for either the PC or CON groups. There were no differences in VO2max or 5k performance in the CON group.

Discussion: Six weeks of PC training resulted in improvements VO2max and 5k performance. PC training may enhance performance at higher intensities by increasing fatigue resistance, as indicated by the higher HR values, and improving oxidative capacity, as indicated by the reduction in RER values. These improvements may explain the reduction in 5k time, as this race is performed near maximal effort.

It is understandable why PC's can improve running performance because there is only one basic way to run but the same cannot be said for cycling. For almost all cyclists there are two possible ways to pedal, mashing and circular and while PC's may improve the circular pedaller's performance, they will have an adverse effect on the masher's performance because the training of his most powerful muscles will be neglected during the required nine months of PC training. Even after PC training the circular style will still remain not as powerful as the mashing style.

 

[FrankDay]

It is understandable why PC's can improve running performance because there is only one basic way to run but the same cannot be said for cycling. For almost all cyclists there are two possible ways to pedal, mashing and circular and while PC's may improve the circular pedaller's performance, they will have an adverse effect on the masher's performance because the training of his most powerful muscles will be neglected during the required nine months of PC training. Even after PC training the circular style will still remain not as powerful as the mashing style.

You, like Elapid and Fergie, have no clue what is or isn't going on with PowerCranks because you have zero experience with them yet you feel you are an expert. Anyhow, just because the cranks force the rider to do somewhat more on the upstroke doesn't mean that it prevents or stops the rider from pushing down on the downstroke. PowerCrankers still generate the vast majority of their power on the downstroke (as do you and as does the masher). The differences in pedaling we are talking about are small.

I also find it amusing that the peanut gallery here seems to think it reasonable that the PowerCranks might help runners but couldn't possibly do anything for a cyclist. Yet, if you ask a runner they would never predict that doing anything on a bike could ever help running and the only way to get faster running is to run. You know, the old specificity thing.

Anyhow, now there are scientific studies showing improved performance in only 6 weeks in both cycling (VO2max up 15%, Max power up 11% with immersion training, Dixon) and running (Fiolo) for those of you who demand such before pulling the trigger.

 

[h2ofun]

PC

For me, as a Triathlete, I am looking to train that gets me across the finish line the fastest. Split times mean nothing.

When I first started Powercranks, I did notice my run got faster. Seemed, and still seems so logical since when I first tried, I could not last more than a minute on them. I asked, what is going on, I thought I was in shape, but I cannot pull up on the cranks worth beans? After about 2 weeks, I had no issues. But logically what made sense to me is I have now improved my ability to lift my leg up strongly, which sure seems to help me stay strong with my cadence during the run.

Another important factor in triathlons is bike fit and being aerodynamic. Using my adjustable PC's, I am starting to play around with crank arm length, which on top of helping ones aerodynamic position, some say also helps with run speed. So went from 200mm cranks to 175s. I was never able to stay aero very long with the 200's. I have now been able to stay in the aero bars for an hour with the 175's, and have a better aero setup. The 175's have seemed to also help my running some.

So for me, what is there to lose trying some new things? At one point everyone thought the world was flat. Edison had a lot of folks laughing at him with 500 "failures" trying to make the light bulb. I have yet to talk to a person who has used PC's, and this is used them, say they have not helped them during the run!

So will they work for everyone? Nope. Nothing in life works for everyone. But I just do not understand why a few folks think it has become their mission in life to save some of us from this evil powercranks product. Has it killed anyone? Wish these folks with this much passion would work on issues that really could help our society, like obesity! If using PC's make it more fun to ride, like it does for me, great, it gets more folks off their butts.

There are lots of real scams in our society that folks do not seem to get upset about. Being able to return after 90 days is a warranty very few companies offer.

.

 

[CoachFergie]

For me, as a Triathlete, I am looking to train that gets me across the finish line the fastest. Split times mean nothing.

Seriously?

When I first started Powercranks, I did notice my run got faster. Seemed, and still seems so logical since when I first tried, I could not last more than a minute on them. I asked, what is going on, I thought I was in shape, but I cannot pull up on the cranks worth beans? After about 2 weeks, I had no issues. But logically what made sense to me is I have now improved my ability to lift my leg up strongly, which sure seems to help me stay strong with my cadence during the run.

That is so like scientific

Another important factor in triathlons is bike fit and being aerodynamic.

Really? Gee, wonder if that applies to cycling or any sport that requires a fit between man and machine and involves moving through an environment.

Using my adjustable PC's, I am starting to play around with crank arm length, which on top of helping ones aerodynamic position, some say also helps with run speed. So went from 200mm cranks to 175s. I was never able to stay aero very long with the 200's. I have now been able to stay in the aero bars for an hour with the 175's, and have a better aero setup. The 175's have seemed to also help my running some.

And you know this because of your results

So for me, what is there to lose trying some new things? At one point everyone thought the world was flat. Edison had a lot of folks laughing at him with 500 "failures" trying to make the light bulb. I have yet to talk to a person who has used PC's, and this is used them, say they have not helped them during the run!

Seriously world was flat and Edison comments. Wow, go on Frank Jnr.

So will they work for everyone? Nope. Nothing in life works for everyone. But I just do not understand why a few folks think it has become their mission in life to save some of us from this evil powercranks product. Has it killed anyone? Wish these folks with this much passion would work on issues that really could help our society, like obesity! If using PC's make it more fun to ride, like it does for me, great, it gets more folks off their butts.

Why would they not work for everyone? Are you special

There are lots of real scams in our society that folks do not seem to get upset about. Being able to return after 90 days is a warranty very few companies offer.

Hmmmm, more marketing BS rather than science.

The thing that really makes me question if you have the IQ to tie your shoelaces is that I have just handed you an abstract for a scientific study that is the first to claim a performance improvement for uncoupled crank use and yet you would rather use your personal experience to try and convince us.

Frank is soooo lucky to have such intellamalectuals like you shilling for him

 

[FrankDay]

The thing that really makes me question if you have the IQ to tie your shoelaces is that I have just handed you an abstract for a scientific study that is the first to claim a performance improvement for uncoupled crank use and yet you would rather use your personal experience to try and convince us.

Wrong my friend. Dixon was the first showing statistically significant improvement in both VO2max and Max power after 6 weeks of immersion training. You don't like it so you try to ignore it. PowerCranks now have scientific support for claiming improvement in both running and cycling. (edit: And, of course, Luttrell's demonstration of improved cycling efficiency implies improved performance but doesn't demonstrate it directly.)

I know you don't like Dixon (because it doesn't fit with your bias, I suspect, and you don't understand the design) but Dixon is a fact and was accepted for oral presentation (a bigger deal than poster board, me thinks) at a national meeting, just as Fiolo.

Edit: Why do some studies show benefit and others don't? I think that is easy. I guess randomness could play a role but study design is the obvious answer. Compare the design. The Dixon participants used the cranks in an immersion fashion rather than part-time for the other cycling studies. Fiolo had the participants using the cranks at or above a running cadence where this was not a requirement in the other running studies.

 

[sciguy]

Frank,

Was this a typical screen shot of Dave's testing?

Care to comment on his relatively high degree of asymmetry.....56.5 left vs 43.5 right leg.? It appears most of the difference shows up in the lifting portion of the stroke cycle. Isn't that the area you've been know to say becomes more balanced by the use of PCs. It would seem after 10 years Dave ought to be pretty evenly balanced. My dear wife who needs spinal surgery to correct numbness and weakness in her right leg only has a 53-47 split between her two legs.

Hugh

 

[h2ofun]

pc

Lets just face it, I suck on the bike. Where the PC's I feel have been a great help is my running. When my runs times are such that folks are asking did I cut the run course since no way an old guy like me can run as fast as I did on a tough course, I must be doing something right. Will see how my race goes Sunday.

.

 

[FrankDay]

Frank,

Was this a typical screen shot of Dave's testing?

Care to comment on his relatively high degree of asymmetry.....56.5 left vs 43.5 right leg.? It appears most of the difference shows up in the lifting portion of the stroke cycle. Isn't that the area you've been know to say becomes more balanced by the use of PCs. It would seem after 10 years Dave ought to be pretty evenly balanced. My dear wife who needs spinal surgery to correct numbness and weakness in her right leg only has a 53-47 split between her two legs.

Hugh

Yes, this was typical for him on 200 mm cranks in the aero position, as I remember. When I first saw this I immediately wondered if there was a calibration issue on the right crank (especially since I also seem to have a weaker right leg, but mine seems entirely due to my being weaker across the top and bottom on the right with push and pull being similar - not sure what would cause that although I know how to fix it.). Dave then informed me that he had arthritis in his right knee, explaining the difference. I also noted that the total power correlated well to what one would expect in view of the Velotron being in ergometer mode.

We certainly expect r/l differences to be minimized with PowerCranks training. Many a pro have been sent to us after big crashes and major injury so they can rehab faster and better correct imbalances that tend to occur. That doesn't mean they can (or, even, should) overcome everything. With the iCranks we will actually have data as to what happens so we will no longer have to guess.

What is your "poor wife" measuring her imbalance on? Computrainer? Are you sure that is her real imbalance as most of these tools combine the two cranks together then guess at a right left imbalance number? Is she 53-47 doing one-legged drills? Why would anyone contemplate spinal surgery for such minimal "weakness", a difference that many would consider to be within the range of normal. My guess is that what you are measuring on the bike doesn't reflect what she is actually doing or, if it does, and she does have a real and substantial weakness, it would be interesting to see how she is compensating. Plus, what on earth does it mean that your wife's balance is this and Dave's or mine or anyone elses is that? The data should only mean something to the person who has the imbalance and wants to fix it. One needs more information than there is an imbalance and how big it is before one can know what needs to be done to "fix" it, if it is fixable. We essentially have no historical information in this regards. Right now we are all speculating.

 

[FrankDay]

Frank,

Was this a typical screen shot of Dave's testing?

Care to comment on his relatively high degree of asymmetry.....56.5 left vs 43.5 right leg.?

One more observation. This shot alone should put to rest the argument that power is determined by how hard one pushes. Dave is pushing essentially the same at his peak on both legs. The power difference (imbalance) comes about because one leg is applying power "more broadly" than the other. If he could broaden the weak leg to be the same as his strong leg he would gain another 30 watts without pushing a single ounce more with either leg.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

One more observation. This shot alone should put to rest the argument that power is determined by how hard one pushes. Dave is pushing essentially the same at his peak on both legs. The power difference (imbalance) comes about because one leg is applying power "more broadly" than the other. If he could broaden the weak leg to be the same as his strong leg he would gain another 30 watts without pushing a single ounce more with either leg.

Then why hasn't that happened given 10 years of PC use? Or isn't that long enough?

 

[FrankDay]

Then why hasn't that happened given 10 years of PC use? Or isn't that long enough?

I don't know. He does say he has a physical issue with that right leg. I have a similar assymetry but have no arthritis issues that I know of although I am left handed and legged, which might account for something and I was just diagnosed as being very early Parkinsons, perhaps, which might also account for something. What 10 years of PC use has gotten rid of are all of the negatives in his stroke. That is the minimum they force you to do, that is what he has learned. He may not be perfectly symmetrical (PC's don't force that) but he does what the PC's forced him to learn and he isn't wasting any energy pushing the foot up and over the top. Is there further room for improvement, YES, but only because we know about these issues (that is the power of the information coming from the iCranks).

All this information is still so new that I think it may take awhile for us to understand all of the ramifications of this information.

What I find amusing is that most of you folks are all for the information that a regular power meter gives you when that information have never been shown to be worth anything to an athlete trying to improve but now there is all sorts of additional information being made available and you guys are critical because I don't have all the answers right now.

Dave was my first test subject. The test uncovered a power imbalance that is explained by a technique imbalance (it doesn't seem to be a muscle weakness by my reading of this data). At least Dave has the information now and can try to address ways of "fixing" things if he so desires. Before, all he had was the power he was riding at and was ignorant of this "nuanced" stuff. It is this lack of "what is really going on" data coming from an ordinary power meter that makes them so useless in my opinion. Now, not only do we get the power number but we get information that may help us address issues that are keeping us from reaching our full potential. This is, potentially, a very big thing in my opinion.