You know, as I thought about this I thought of another way to look at this. What you describe with your motorcycle is, to the cyclist, increasing the pushing portion of the stroke. While unloading the backstroke would be reducing the resistance of the exhaust. Tell me, does the resistance of the exhaust make any difference in motorcycle racing or is it all just a wash and we may as well use small pipes to save weight?sciguy said:
FrankDay said:
Talking 2 stroke race engines here.... the exhaust system is actually tuned to speed evacuation of burned gasses from the combustion chamber and then a pressure wave is reflected back towards the cylinder to in effect cram a bit more fuel air mixture into the chamber than would be otherwise.
If you look at the diagram the stinger of the pipe is rather restrictive compared to the pipe as it exits the cylinder at D1.
Hugh
I take it you guys think that cycling training is a zero sum game. Do you believe that VO2max means the maximum VO2 that this person can attain ever? Or, do you believe that it is possible to improve VO2max by adding new muscles into the mix?sciguy said:Frank,
Which of the two cards below you're trying use in your argument regarding the 40% improvement?
or
or perhaps you're insisting that :
Hugh
Have you actually read what I believe is going on. Certainly there is no free lunch but the 40% improvements that many have seen have to be explained. They are explained by many different improvements happening together. Training additional muscles increase VO2max (shown in studies by Dixon and Fiolo and individual testing by some), changing muscle coordination can change force patterns (shown by many) allowing generated muscle force to be more tangential to get more work out of the same muscle contraction causing increased efficiency (shown by Luttrell). And, better balance (not right left but fore aft) can allow one to ride at higher intensity without going anaerobic (demonstrated by Gyde riding IM Kona last year at IF of 0.88).
No one thing can easily explain a 40% power improvement in already trained riders. But lots of "little" things added together can. Lots of people have seen such improvements but we have never really had the tools to know what changes actually occurred to them so our explanations involve speculation in each case. Now, with the advent of technique measuring cranks we should be able to answer these questions much better than before.
TomA wants to invoke physics to explain that resistance on the backstroke makes no difference. That would be fine if we weren't talking about physiology also. Muscles are not adiabatic engines. His analogy falls flat on its face when confronted with cold hard real world facts. Of course, he won't come here to defend what he wrote because he knows he is wrong. Training is not a zero sum game. Muscles are not adiabatic engines where no heat is lost when doing work.
the additional force pulling up cannot explain the entire difference. Look at the patterns closely. The high force portion is broader and lasts longer. There is substantially more force across the bottom (270º on the graph) and a little more across the top. He is doing more everywhere except at the very maximum and it is getting him a 30watt (15%) increase.JayKosta said:
Why would one think that when that "style" generates less power. If he could push harder don't you think he would?
Yes, but not as useful as increasing the power generated around the entire circle, as demonstrated.
Yes, it will be, unless you are some of the people who hang out here that thinks this a worthless exercise.
FrankDay said:
Frank,
You're just embarrassing yourself here with this statement. Sam has been very open about the fact that the TP folks just threw a random number into his FTP box. He certainly didn't ride at an IF of .88 and in all likelihood more like .75.
Hugh
So, let me get this straight. All the data that people are putting into TP results in them just throwing random numbers back? Wow, that is a big vote for the usefulness of gathering all that power data and for TP in particular. Perhaps AC would like to comment on that.sciguy said:
I suspect Sam's number was generated the same as everyone elses. Sam rode that race at an IF of 0.88, substantially higher than everyone else (a couple of pros were at 0.82 or so). Sam has no way of knowing what he really did and, of course, doesn't want to claim that is what he did because he didn't generate the number. Of course, he was able to generate such a number because he didn't ride using power as his guide but rode by feel. If he had been using power he would have calculated a power based upon that random FTP at a lower IF and not done as well. But, if he did what he did and it has to be explained how he could do it and no one else could come close. Either his FTP is wrong (meaning TP is a waste of time?) or he rode at a IF of 0.88. I am just trying to come up with an explanation, assuming it to be true.
What I love about you guys is you think all this data is just wonderful until it doesn't fit with your bias then it should just be ignored. Let's see what he does this year (can he win 4 years in a row?).
I felt I gave them a fair shake. In the 2008-2009 timeframe I rode them for over 200 hours in a year the training wise was a bit short due to injuries and work travel. Overall I rode around 350-380 hours in a 12 month period. Frank will say that because I wasn't exclusively on PCs, my impressions are meaningless. I beg to differ. Frank is playing the card of the car manufacturer that voids a warranty because the consumer waited until mile 5001 to change the oil rather than within the manufacturer recommended 5000 miles. Whatever...CoachFergie said:
Prior to my use of PCs I felt I was tapped out on my potential, so a 5-10% improvement would have been something desired. After an initial adaptation period, which I'll fully admit really hurt, I was riding PCs as effectively as my normal cranks. I own Powertaps, so I could easily tell my power was in my normal range.
But an odd thing happened - my power didn't improve to any measurable amount, let along 5-10%. No doubt I had some good numbers, but they were no better than my best ever year. Was it because I didn't ride PCs exclusively? Would I have had better numbers if instead of riding normal cranks for 100+ hours that year I rested instead such that I was 100% PCs? We'll never know. I do know one thing - if I had improved my hour power by 10-20% with the mix of PC/normal crank riding, Frank would have used that as proof positive PCs are a gift from God. He has a knack of having it all ways. Marketing 101...
In my summary of PCs I stated why they could be an effective tool, which Frank dismissed out of hand since it didn't directly fit his agenda (and I think that is a mistake):
I still stand by that quote. If I gave my couch potato wife a set of PCs and told her she had to ride or be locked out, I'd either be divorced or my wife would get in shape and undoubtedly her power would improve. But her power would improve if I gave her normal cranks, the same threat, and targeted workouts. PCs are nothing more than a tool, not a magic formula, in as much as being chased by a pit bull for 20 miles will make you fitter, or telling a horny 18 year old that Scarlett Johanson is his for the taking if he can catch her (but she's always just that little bit faster...).
Is Frank correct that power may increase 40%? Sure. But again, the same can be said for my couch potato wife or that horny 18 year old with another training method. Will the power of your amateur racer improve 40%? Not on your life, unless that amateur racer is an out-of-shape rider who one day was in front of the TV and the next day said "I'm going to start riding and racing tomorrow." Anyone with a solid base WILL LIKELY NEVER SEE 40%!
Humans will see anywhere from 0-40% (or more) improvement, but the amount of improvement is a function of their starting point and genetics. PCs don't change that, but in my opinion, because they induce a lot of pain at the beginning, they are good mentally in learning to suffer. And as we all know, improving power isn't a function of using PCs, a power meter, being chased by pit bulls, or chasing skirts, but the ability to dig deep and suffer, rest, and repeat.
Frank will never back down on his claims. He's just too small a fish in a big pond. No doubt if some lawyer on this forum convinced his firm to file suit, things would change. Reebox and Skechers were both forced to settle based on their claims that "toning" shoes were effective. More recently Vibram settled a lawsuit regarding their unfounded health claims. Franks products is too far under the radar to bring such scrutiny.
As a postscript, it's been 5 years since I last touched PCs. In that time I've had significantly reduced years of riding, back issues, and more. In the last 8 months, however, I've had renewed enthusiasm for riding. Despite being 5 years older, because I know that training gains come with suffering, even with those lousy normal cranks I'm back to power levels I had in my younger days. At 45 my aerobic power is comparable to that in my mid 30s. While I can't touch my all-time best VO2 power, I am within 5% or so (and it should be noted my best VO2 power was set on a 5-6% grade one summer while in cool dry weather rather than the oppressive heat and humidity of Houston - no doubt weather and likely standing on the pedals gave me my personal best). I'm also setting power records for durations from 1.5-4 hours despite my age. May be only a few percent higher than in my youth, but they are records nonetheless. All on normal cranks, and levels I wasn't touching on PCs.
FrankDay said:
Like any computer generated data base GIGO applies. In Training Peaks it is the athlete who is responsible for entering their FTP. My understanding it that when Sam was asked what his was he said words to the effect IDK how about XXX? I really don't know if Sam or his coach knows his FTP but I do know that he and his coach worked out a power pacing plan for IMMT they felt good about and were going to carry it forward to IMH. Sam mentioned that he felt strong there and went a bit harder than the plan but if you look at his power file he backed off a good bit in the second half when he really could have been making better time into the headwind. So he went a bit harder than the IMMT plan when with the tail wind and then chose to back off into the head wind because he realized he was not feeling quite as fresh as in the beginning. Who knows, if he went with his IMMT plan he might have been even faster by not reducing power into the head wind.
All that said outside of IF and TSS the other data shown in Training peaks may be valid. I know that Sam rides Rotor chainrings in order to reduce time in the lifting part of the pedal stroke. It has been well established that when used on an SRM, the power shown with Rotor rings is inflated by ~3% compared to what is actually being generated. I have no idea if Sam or his coach have checked the calibration of his SRM. I have no idea if Sam checked and updated the unit's zero offset during the day in Hawaii. With a large temperature upswing my SRMs have always read high if zero offset was not updated during a ride.
FrankDay said:
You'd be wrong because the computation of IF relies on a correct input of FTP which depends on the athlete to give an accurate number.
FrankDay said:
Utter BS.
FrankDay said:
and yet he tells us how he and his coach set down and formed a power pacing plan for IMMT that worked so well they planned to carry it forward.
FrankDay said:
I and others have explained this to you before but you seem to keep forgetting. Training peaks does not come up with the athlete's FTP. Either the athlete or their coach do this. If that number is off the mark, IF and TSS will be incorrectly computed but not other data such as average speed, average power, normalized power, total time....
Hugh
FrankDay said:
Not according to Sam himself. This from him after the race. http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/the-road-to-the-kona-podium-kyle-buckingham-and-sa
Sam Gyde said:
Hugh
My friend, you agreed to test our claims, which required exclusive use in training for many months. You did not do that. How is it you consider that a "fair shake"?tigermilk.james said:
They are, for the purpose of evaluating our claims. Otherwise, they are not worthless because it reemphasizes that some people may need to use them more than part-time to see benefit.
I don't void any warranty if someone doesn't use them as we recommend. The guarantee is an unconditional one. However, our claim,depends upon exclusive use in training. Your use fell substantially short of that and was not what you agreed to do. Yet, you pretend that you gave them (and us) a fair shake. I call BS to that claim.
Might I point out again, you didn't use them as you agreed and as we recommend. Perhaps if you had done those hammerfests on the PC's you might have seen some improvement. You did not and you did not. Not everyone sees improvement but your test was certainly not a fair one as you failed to do what you agreed to do.
No, you continually post a link to your blog as your experience indicating that you saw no improvement as if it means something regarding our claim. It doesn't.
That has not been the experience of many others who have decided to use them exclusively, as we recommend. You are guessing here as to what others might see based upon your own inadequate experience with the product.
If that is all it takes why were you stuck?
LOL. A lawyer will never miss an opportunity to go after anyone if they see an opportunity. We do carry insurance afterall. Our claim requires a specific use if one is to expect the claimed benefit. I wonder why I keep pointing that out. It is because, in our experience, when people use them like you did the benefits are all over the place and frequently substantially less than those who use them exclusively. We make our recommendations to help our customers get the most out of the product they have purchased. If they choose to follow their own path all we can do is wish them good luck.
Hooray for you. Now, when are you going to admit that you told me you would do one thing then ignored it and did your own thing and are trying to tell people it means something regarding our claim? Our claim has specific requirements. You didn't follow them even though you agreed to. I consider you to be somewhat less than completely honorable.
That is cool. Did you forget the interview where he gave major credit for a lot of his improvement to PowerCranks?sciguy said:
Me thinks Sam wasn't watching his PM but, rather, racing on feel, based on the many back and forths I have had with him. I think this simply suggests he can predict pretty well, based on how he feels, his power. It is what any experienced athlete should be able to do (not predict their power unless they train with a power meter but to predict their race effort). And, I would bet quite a bit that Buckingham, the other athlete in the article, is also a PowerCranker because his coach, Reynard Tissink, was a long time PowerCranks advocate when he was racing.
In addition, you are telling me that TP asks the athletes for their best guess as to their FTP? Then, (almost) everyone says for an IM most should be at an IF of 0.8, a little lower if you are new to the game. But, how does someone do any planning if the basis of IF is a big fat guess? Just exactly how does one use all this power data to optimize race plans when it is all based upon a guess done by the athlete?
Such issues really are a problem for those who claim power data can be used to optimize race results. But, that is off topic and should be in the power meter thread.
FrankDay said:
and you'd be wrong on that one too. This from Kyle's very good friend Nick Balwin AKA Sesel on Slowtwitch.
FrankDay said:
Sorry, no, you're showing you ignorance again. Anyone riding an IM at an IF of over .80 better be an absolute bike stud pro with a huge VO2 max like Sam had even before he ever even saw a set of Powercranks. Solid age groupers should seldom ride over .75 with folks like you and me more on the order of .65 to just a bit higher.
FrankDay said:
Frank,
It's so easy to get a good estimate of your FTP that even you could do it very effectively over a few days.
FrankDay said:
While an estimated goal power can be derived from your FTP any competent coach or self coached athlete would carryout several trials of their planned power for from 3/4 to the whole distance of the event they are planning to compete in. If possible, at the same time they should also use the nutritional strategy, equipment and clothing that is planned for race day.
FrankDay said:
These are really non issues for anyone who has spent even a minor amount of due diligence on the topic.
Ugh, the point is that people are told to put in their own FTP which may or may not be accurate then many base what they should be aiming for based on that number. Lots of accuracy there. No wonder racing using power for guidance has never been shown to offer any advantage.sciguy said:
Ugh, then why is Sam's "so far off"? I suspect Sam knows almost exactly what his FTP is. He either doesn't care to put it into TP because he isn't going to use it to base anything on because he knows what a good race effort for him should feel like (and what that power generally represents) or he put it in and is now telling you it was a random number when he raced at something that looks "funny" to the world. It is a simply a fact his IF shown on his TP data was way higher than anyone cares to think possible. Edit: another possible explanation might be his FTP is based off of a trainer power (because almost all his training is trainer based and he is using PowerCranks on the trainer) measuring power at the wheel but his race power is based off of a crank based system (SRM) which should be higher and would inflate his IF.
Sam either just put in a random number because he doesn't know or care what his FTP is or he put in what he actually thought it was and raced at a very high IF. If he doesn't know or care what his FTP is it is clear none of this information is necessary to race well.
Well, they are issues when you are trying to compare efforts and the information is garbage. Lots of people were willing to publish Sam's data with that IF without comment. When someone points out something in it that doesn't fit your bias you say that is garbage. How does one know anyone's data is "real". You can't but you are sure willing to pick and choose stuff you like. So, I guess the question is: why bother?
=====================================FrankDay said:
My thinking is that due to 'individual variability', a single specific type of pedaling technique is not best for everyone. The details of the technique must acknowledge the physical attributes and abilities of the person.
When training with PCs there might be an inclination to devote a large effort to actual 'pulling up' on the upstroke - versus simple unweighting. That type of concentration on the upstroke might result in LESS emphasis on improving the downstroke.
The emphais should be on preventing 'negative power' that can be achieved with minimal effort, and improving the power output in the sector that would most benefit from additional training.
There may be physical limits to the amount of power generated on the upstroke. I don't think the structure of the knee and ankle are well suited for strong 'pulling' motions.
Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
Of course there are individual differences but we are all built pretty much the same with the same muscles and bones with small differences in muscle fiber type and size. I think the best we can do right now is to say that there is probably a "best" technique that fits for most people that everyone should use as a starting point to explore if any variance from that "best" technique might be better for them.JayKosta said:
Of course there is that inclination IN THE BEGINNING when those upstroke muscles are way undertrained compared to all the other muscles. However, once everything gets better balanced then one can get back to just riding and "pushing" can become the dominant force again. After a couple of weeks PowerCrankers don't have to think about pedaling, they just ride their bike like they do now. The difference is that all the muscles are being trained in a reasonably balanced fashion as the coordination is being fine-tuned and ingrained into the unconscious nervous system.
And, which sector do you predict would most benefit from additional training? Let's look at Dave's right leg again. His "max" push phase lasts for about 10% of this total stroke (36º). If we subtract the power provided by gravity his power provided by his muscles through this sector is about 125-130 watts and the total power is 104 watts. What would be necessary to increase his wattage to 105 watts? He could keep everything the same except for this max push and increase that 10 watts (10 watts through 10% of the stroke is a 1 watt average increase). Or, he could increase the power generated around the entire circle 1 watt. Now, say he wants to increase 10 watts? He would have to generate 100 watts more during that push phase without changing anything else. to increase the 30 watts to bring it up to the left leg he would have to increase his pushing 300 watts through this sector. You start to see the problem of concentrating on one sector. Muscles have a limited ability to improve. It should be much more effective to improve power by improving a lot of muscles a little bit then improving a small number of muscles a lot.
Of course there are physical limits on what we can do on the upstroke, just as there are on what we can do on the downstroke. What surprised me about Dave's data was how much work he did on the upstroke. All I expected was to see unweighting. He did more than that even though we weren't really stressing him, where everyone (even non-powercrankers) tend to increase upstroke effort. Probably the result of 10 years of training on PC's such that he finds such efforts easy and natural.
- Apr 21, 2009
- 3,095
- 0
- 13,480
let me try to put in a visual format. Let's assume there are 10 pedaling sectors. In each sector there is a different muscle or combination of muscles working to provide power. Unfortunately, gravity also provides some force to the pedals and this can distort our understanding of what the muscles are actually doing. Because gravity is always pulling down this distortion tends to increase the impression of muscle work being done on the down stroke and decrease the impression of muscle work being done on the up stroke.coapman said:
Now let's look at what it takes to increase power 5% using two different scenarios, when we concentrate on increasing the forces on only the large downstroke portion of the circle (in my example I am using 20% of the circle, 72º - larger than most peoples large downstroke pushing sector) and comparing it to an even increase in force of 5% involving all the sectors. In gravity the chart looks like this:
This doesn't look too bad as the extra work seems like just a little bit more and these are big muscles. But, substract the effects of gravity and we get a different picture because this shows the changes the muscles actually have to make. Granted the relative effects of gravity will vary depending upon the cadence and the power but we can all agree, I am sure, that for any given rider the effects will be constant at any given power and cadence and that the thighs and legs are reasonably massive such that the gravitational forces are not trivial. Here is what it looks like subtacting gravity from the picture and assuming the muscular work done around the circle is even to begin with.
Now we can see that we are talking a relatively large increase in a couple of muscles (that are already working as hard as they can) compared to a very small increase in a lot of muscles to get exactly the same effect.
Now, lets look at what one would have to do to increase 30% using these different approaches. This is what Dave would have to do to bring his right leg up to his left.
Now, subtracting gravity and just looking at changes in muscle action required.
Which plan looks like it would be easier to do as long as one had a way to improve all the muscles evenly?
FrankDay said:
Who says those muscles are working as hard as they can? Jeepers if that were the case don't you think they would show a good bit of hypertrophy. You seem to be in the camp that says if we have more muscle we bike faster. Give either of the two pictured a nice transfusion of two units of blood and I guarantee they will ride a good bit faster using the exact same muscles.
No. We are talking aerobic efforts here. Hypertrophy has little to do with that.sciguy said:
No, I am in the camp of "if we use more of the muscle we already have we will bike faster if we use the muscle smartly and efficiently."
Which has nothing to do with this argument, and you know it (or should know it).
Well, if they weren't working as hard as they can (under the circumstances of a race, of course) I suspect it would be quite easy for people to go faster whenever they wanted to.sciguy said:
No, topping off the HCT doesn't help the CV system. No more blood is pumped with increasing HCT. In fact, less blood may be pumped as blood viscosity increases. The CV system is not the limiter for TT type efforts (nor for any effort that I know of). Topping off the HCT helps oxygen delivery to the exercising muscles (which is what I thought you meant) and something I suspect you might have not thought of, helps all muscles equally.sciguy said:
================================sciguy said:
I don't see the tie-in to PowerCrank usage, if there is one please elaborate.
If hematocrit level is what is imparing performance gains, the type of training wouldn't make a difference, would it?
I AM interested in non-doping methods that increase hematocrit levels, but that deserves its own thread.
Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Tour de Suisse 2025 - Men's (June 15- June 22)- Started by Tricycle Rider
- Replies: 1K
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d'Italia 2025 stage 20: Verrès – Sestrière, 205 km- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 1K
-
Giro d'Italia Giro D'italia 2025 Stage 16: Piazzola sul Brenta – San Valentino- Started by YavorD
- Replies: 1K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 31K
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d'Italia 2025 Stage 17: San Michele all’Adige – Bormio, 155 km- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 742
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 32K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram