The Powercrank Thread

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Let's for a moment assume Computrainer's claims are baseless.
I don't see how that provides any support for what Frank's claims are.

Let's for a moment assume Computrainer's claims are factual.
I don't see how that provides any support for what Frank's claims are.

It's a big fat red herring. Which is a typical Frank debating tactic.


All that matters is that claims of a cycling performance benefit from training with powercranks is over and above that attainable by training with regular cranks are bogus.

 

[JayKosta]

...
All that matters is that claims of a cycling performance benefit from training with powercranks is over and above that attainable by training with regular cranks are bogus.

=================================
I don't recall ANY claims that training with PCs is beyond what is ATTAINABLE with regular cranks - where did you get that idea?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[CoachFergie]

=================================
I don't recall ANY claims that training with PCs is beyond what is ATTAINABLE with regular cranks - where did you get that idea?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

ARE YOU BLIND, FRANK HAS REPEATEDLY CLAIMED THAT HIS PRODUCT IS THE ONLY WAY TO SEE 40% IMPROVEMENTS IN POWER!!!

Get a clue or I will have to unleash the fury of caps lock some more!

 

[JamesCun]

I would say they use them not for a power increase but instead of one legged pedalling to polish up their circular technique.

The point was to get a direct response from the pros who use them, not a guess from a random forum member. Or a guess from Frank with more guesses about how long they used them.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

=================================
I don't recall ANY claims that training with PCs is beyond what is ATTAINABLE with regular cranks - where did you get that idea?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Two pages back I posted a series of claims taken from Frank's website and provided links to verify my quotes, including e.g. this one from 2012:

Cyclists gain more power and speed compared to the same amount of training time on traditional cranks. (Cyclists typically see 2-3 mph speed improvement in 6-9 months..

But seriously, if Frank is now not claiming a performance improvement over and above using regular cranks, then clearly the cranks don't confer any benefit to cycling performance.

 

[coapman]

The point was to get a direct response from the pros who use them, not a guess from a random forum member. Or a guess from Frank with more guesses about how long they used them.

How can you tell a pro from a random forum member ?

 

[JamesCun]

How can you tell a pro from a random forum member ?

Until they identify themselves as a pro-tour rider, they are random forum members. Silly question...

 

[JayKosta]

Two pages back I posted a series of claims taken from Frank's website and provided links to verify my quotes, including e.g. this one from 2012:



But seriously, if Frank is now not claiming a performance improvement over and above using regular cranks, then clearly the cranks don't confer any benefit to cycling performance.

=============================================
The post from Frank mentioned 'training time' without specifying the intensity. My understanding is that use of PCs is supposed to increase the intensity and the benefit of the training time.

Also, is it your opinion that training with a Power Meter gives improvements 'beyond what is attainable' without use of a PM?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[CoachFergie]

Also, is it your opinion that training with a Power Meter gives improvements 'beyond what is attainable' without use of a PM?

Frank has been warned for making stupid comments like that.

 

[coapman]

=============================================
The post from Frank mentioned 'training time' without specifying the intensity. My understanding is that use of PCs is supposed to increase the intensity and the benefit of the training time

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

If PC training could increase power and speed, then "one legged" training would have done it many years ago. Recommended PC training means you are concentrating all your training hours trying to train muscles which when you return to standard cranks will always be incapable of applying any effective torque without losing more torque in the all important downstroke.

 

[FrankDay]

Have you asked them to tell you what they do? I would think that would be valuable info for you.

actually, for those willing to talk with us we do. Magnus Backstedt (winner of Paris-Roubais) told us that he used to take them out and ride them on the cobbles in preparing for that race.

And, they made Cadel Evans book where he explained how he used them (pre-season to remind him how he should be pedaling).

Sometimes the athletes post snippets on their own. One Ironman World champ posted a blog entry that he used them once in a training race and did well. That implies a certain level of use and adaption.

And, if you go to the web page, you will see videos of many pros talking about there experience so you don't have to take my word for everything.

We aren't in constant touch with every pro (or customer) who has them but we get enough feedback that we think we have a pretty good idea of the range of how the are used and the improvements that are seen.

 

[FrankDay]

=================================
I don't recall ANY claims that training with PCs is beyond what is ATTAINABLE with regular cranks - where did you get that idea?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Actually, that is the claim. The problem is we can't separate the improvement coming from technique/efficiency improvement from "normal" improvement from additional training. Let's assume that the 20% improvement in power Computrainer claims is what can be expected in their typical customer population is all training effect. If our typical customer is similar to theirs (I think it is) then our 40% power increase claim in a similar time period suggests about half the improvement we see would occur anyhow but the other half is due to the technique changes caused by the PowerCranks. If this is true then PowerCranks essentially double the improvement potential of the typical athlete.

The problem comes is extrapolating the typical scenario to everyone which is what some here are trying to do.

For instance, a pro has little little improvement potential from another 6 months of training. They are training 20 hours a week just to stay where they are. In these athletes the improvement potential of the PowerCranks depends entirely on what the technique currently is and how much it can be improved. This could be quite variable but any improvement seen should be attributable to the PowerCranks.

Or, in the case of a complete cycling novice the training effect potential of 6 months of training is huge, way more than 40%. If they were on PowerCranks the % of the improvement they would see due to PowerCranks would be small (compared to the total) but not zero.

Edit: What PowerCranks do is address a training issue (technique) that is typically ignored by traditional training methods. Or, if nor ignored (those doing one-legged drills), should make addressing the issue more effective.

 

[FrankDay]

ARE YOU BLIND, FRANK HAS REPEATEDLY CLAIMED THAT HIS PRODUCT IS THE ONLY WAY TO SEE 40% IMPROVEMENTS IN POWER!!!

Get a clue or I will have to unleash the fury of caps lock some more!

Can you link to a single instance of my saying such nonsense?

 

[FrankDay]

But seriously, if Frank is now not claiming a performance improvement over and above using regular cranks, then clearly the cranks don't confer any benefit to cycling performance.

LOL. You need to improve your reading comprehension skills. Exactly where did you think I said such a thing?

 

[elapid]

Frank, this seems like your kind of journal:

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/health/Medical+journal+will+print+anything/10139560/story.html?__federated=1

You could submit your "observations" as facts, construe it into any type of "study" that you wish, and get a published study in a previously respected journal. Should fit in well with your marketing ethics.

 

[BikeGrip]

"You said once a product gains acceptance then it doesn't need to be marketed. Coca Cola, Nike and MacDonalds are market leaders but you don't see them buttoning off their extensive marketing programmes. "


No. I didn't. You are simply a troll and a forum bully. I suspect other people give as much credence to your post as I do.

What I said is that once a product is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN TO BE GOOD.... not "gains acceptance." Do you see the difference? Go back to second grade and look at your vocabulary lessons. Anyway. You are a waste of time, and I am done feeding trolls.

 

[CoachFergie]

"You said once a product gains acceptance then it doesn't need to be marketed. Coca Cola, Nike and MacDonalds are market leaders but you don't see them buttoning off their extensive marketing programmes. "


No. I didn't. You are simply a troll and a forum bully. I suspect other people give as much credence to your post as I do.

What I said is that once a product is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN TO BE GOOD.... not "gains acceptance." Do you see the difference? Go back to second grade and look at your vocabulary lessons. Anyway. You are a waste of time, and I am done feeding trolls.

Well, cry me a river.

 

[CoachFergie]

2006 and Frank didn't understand statistics...

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=1054329

 

[elapid]

2006 and Frank didn't understand statistics...

While he still does not understand stats and control groups, it seems he knew how worthless anecdotes were back in 2006. Somewhere along the line he forgot his opinion on anecdotes and now relies on them heavily for their supposed scientific merit.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

The post from Frank mentioned 'training time' without specifying the intensity. My understanding is that use of PCs is supposed to increase the intensity and the benefit of the training time.

So just increase the intensity on normal cranks.

Also, is it your opinion that training with a Power Meter gives improvements 'beyond what is attainable' without use of a PM?

Training is what confers physiological benefit.

Power meter measures the work you do and the result of that work.


Pithy Power Proverb: The power meter is a tool, not a bolt on motor. - C. Mayhew


I know that I've been able to find aero improvements for people that don't have access to wind tunnels, e.g. enough improvement to help set two world records.

Another improvement has been correcting pacing mistakes for TT riders much more quickly than they may have worked out naturally. I also developed means to actually quantify that improvement, i.e. parse out what proportion of a rider's improvement is due to improved pacing.


I will leave that there as it's a OT, and there already is another thread on this topic.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

LOL. You need to improve your reading comprehension skills.

My reading skills are just fine thanks Frank.

Exactly where did you think I said such a thing?

That was my point, i.e. you didn't say that.

If your reading comprehension skills were up to scratch you would have noticed I was responding to JayKosta, who was the one that made that inference.

 

[FrankDay]

While he still does not understand stats and control groups, it seems he knew how worthless anecdotes were back in 2006. Somewhere along the line he forgot his opinion on anecdotes and now relies on them heavily for their supposed scientific merit.

You guys are the ones who don't understand what a control is. All a control or control group provides is an expectation regarding the outcome if the null hypothesis is true. A control group is frequently used to provide that expectation for the statistical analysis. However, if that expectation can be provided in another, valid, way then a specific control group is unnecessary.

It is my understanding that the Dixon study was designed to do the experimental phase at the end of the racing season in a bunch of pretty serious racers. The expectation was that their power/VO2max would be maximized at the end of their serious training period and that further training would, at best, only maintain their ability if the null hypothesis were true. That assumption allowed them to have a larger experimental group which would make reaching a statistically significant difference easier, assuming there is an effect. If you have any data that shows that their assumption that resulted in their control for statistical calculation purposes was wrong then you should present it. The study design was good enough for the CSEP to invite Dixon to present an oral presentation regarding his data. If you have any issues with it I suggest you take them up with the author, the CSEP or do your own study of your own design to include a control group of equal power and refute their findings. Blaming me for their study design is crazy. I am only reporting what they did and found.

 

[FrankDay]

My reading skills are just fine thanks Frank.



That was my point, i.e. you didn't say that.

If your reading comprehension skills were up to scratch you would have noticed I was responding to JayKosta, who was the one that made that inference.

Ugh, this is what you wrote:

if Frank is now not claiming a performance improvement over and above using regular cranks…

I asked you where that came from? Since you invoked my name it seemed obvious you seemed to think I said that somewhere. Otherwise, I would have thought you might have said "Frank said no such thing" if you were trying to correct a misperception on Jay Kosta's part.

 

[elapid]

You guys are the ones who don't understand what a control is. All a control or control group provides is an expectation regarding the outcome if the null hypothesis is true. A control group is frequently used to provide that expectation for the statistical analysis. However, if that expectation can be provided in another, valid, way then a specific control group is unnecessary.

It is my understanding that the Dixon study was designed to do the experimental phase at the end of the racing season in a bunch of pretty serious racers. The expectation was that their power/VO2max would be maximized at the end of their serious training period and that further training would, at best, only maintain their ability if the null hypothesis were true. That assumption allowed them to have a larger experimental group which would make reaching a statistically significant difference easier, assuming there is an effect. If you have any data that shows that their assumption that resulted in their control for statistical calculation purposes was wrong then you should present it. The study design was good enough for the CSEP to invite Dixon to present an oral presentation regarding his data. If you have any issues with it I suggest you take them up with the author, the CSEP or do your own study of your own design to include a control group of equal power and refute their findings. Blaming me for their study design is crazy. I am only reporting what they did and found.

Frank, it is you who have no idea of a control group. The same group cannot serve as its own control. You can measure pre and post performance in the same group and that can provide you with data to compare and statistically analyze, but that is not a control. That is just a measure of how well that group did on whatever you are testing. As Alex has mentioned, as well as others in the 2006 Slowtwitch link, for the Dixon study, a control group would include one group of similarly experienced cyclists using PCs and another group of similarly experienced cyclists using regular cranks training exactly the same and being tested at exactly the same intervals. The data from the control and PC groups can then be statistically analyzed to truly measure whether PCs offer anything more than a training effect. Dixon's study does not do that - that was explained to you in 2006 and it has been explained to you in this thread repeatedly. As previously stated, you wouldn't know statistics if it hit you over the head with a baseball bat. Stick to your anecdotes ... oh, wait ... do you believe in those anymore?

 

[JayKosta]

So just increase the intensity on normal cranks.
...

============================================
Yes, that 'was' my understanding prior to Frank's assertion that training with PowerCranks can provide 'more improvement' than is possible with regular cranks.

Also, I do understand your points about PMs being useful as a: test / monitor / evaluate tool.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA