The Powercrank Thread

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Sure you are a bully. Anything you disagree with you consider BS even though you may have nothing more than your gut feeling in support of your view. You can't have a reasonable discussion regarding disparate views without resorting to personal attacks if the other side doesn't come around to your view. That, in my book, qualifies you as a bully. That may "work" as a debating tactic (i.e., they go away) with many but, as you may have discovered, doesn't work well with me.

Since evidence, reason and logic don't work with you, what would you suggest?

 

[FrankDay]

Since evidence, reason and logic don't work with you, what would you suggest?

Better evidence, better reasoning, and better logic. Bullying only demeans you. Certainly is worthless in persuading me if you haven't figured that out by now. Have a good day.

 

[CoachFergie]

Since evidence, reason and logic don't work with you, what would you suggest?

Not sure why you bother, Frank is a lost cause. Ignore him and file a complaint when people spam the forum.

 

[elapid]

Better evidence, better reasoning, and better logic. Bullying only demeans you. Certainly is worthless in persuading me if you haven't figured that out by now. Have a good day.

This thread should be closed. Frank accuses everyone else of bullying for doing exactly the same as him. As Frank does not have the evidence, reasoning or logic to have anything resembling a discussion and his only mission is a competition to bring everyone around to his way of thinking, which is obviously not going to happen when he doesn't have the evidence, reasoning, or logic to support his way of thinking, then there is really no point to this thread.

 

[CoachFergie]

This thread should be closed. Frank accuses everyone else of bullying for doing exactly the same as him. As Frank does not have the evidence, reasoning or logic to have anything resembling a discussion and his only mission is a competition to bring everyone around to his way of thinking, which is obviously not going to happen when he doesn't have the evidence, reasoning, or logic to support his way of thinking, then there is really no point to this thread.

I disagree, this thread remains a testament to good science showing independent cranks do not provide better training stimulus under normal training conditions and Frank has failed to provide any credible evidence to the contrary. Ignore revisionist science, ignore logical fallacies, report spam and just laugh at the sad little performance artist!

 

[FrankDay]

This thread should be closed. Frank accuses everyone else of bullying for doing exactly the same as him. As Frank does not have the evidence, reasoning or logic to have anything resembling a discussion and his only mission is a competition to bring everyone around to his way of thinking, which is obviously not going to happen when he doesn't have the evidence, reasoning, or logic to support his way of thinking, then there is really no point to this thread.

I'll add you to the list of internet bullies. Of all the threads that shouldn't be shut down is one in which there is a substantial difference of opinion. Asking to have the thread shut down simply suggests that your position/arguments are so weak that you need to "win" by coup d'etat.

 

[FrankDay]

This post is for the triathletes who follow this thread. Early this month Sam Gyde, in his build up for Kona, injured his calf doing intervals on the track. For those that don't know Sam he has won his age-group the last 3 years and is a hard-core PowerCranker. Anyhow, his calf injury has prevented him from running and he is substituting PowerCranks workouts for running workouts. He is doing 20 hours a week on the PowerCranks on the trainer split 2/3 biking and 1/3 running. What is a running workout on the PowerCranks? He is doing low power but high cadence work (as high or higher than his running cadence).

This should be a really good test as to how effective one can train for running at an elite level while injured with zero running. Will also be interesting to see if the extra time on the bike helps his bike split (currently around the 4:30 mark).

One more thing. It looks like there is a good chance I will have a head unit that will allow Sam to ride the iCranks at Kona and record his form for later analysis. This will also be interesting to see if there is any noticeable change in form as he gets tired.

Stay tuned.

 

[elapid]

I'll add you to the list of internet bullies. Of all the threads that shouldn't be shut down is one in which there is a substantial difference of opinion. Asking to have the thread shut down simply suggests that your position/arguments are so weak that you need to "win" by coup d'etat.

You've already had me on your list of bullies, so that's nothing new. I'm on the same list after you, the archetypical internet bully. However, being labelled a bully for calling you on your BS is hardly the definition of a bully.

The only person with weak arguments is you, Frank. Where is your evidence? Experienced exercise physiologists on this thread say it is impossible to improve power by 40%. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and you have not been able to provide that proof. Your single figure of improvement is based on three cyclists and everything else is extrapolated from these three cyclists. No paper has shown anything close to the same level of improvement and there are only a couple which show improvement and more that don't. You contradict yourself continually - negative papers are poor because they tested for only 5-6 weeks, positive papers are good despite only testing for 6 weeks, and your website claims you'll start to see changes as early as 4 weeks. You offer a money back guarantee after 3 months but claim it takes 6-9 months of immersion training to see the type of improvement you advertise. You claim TdF champions and WCs use your product, but we all know this is BS because of what Nibali tweeted about PCs and because otherwise you would have them endorsing your product. None of them endorse your product. I'm not the one who needs to come up with the evidence that they do not work as advertised. You've made the extraordinary claims and you need to be able to back up those claims. The ball has always been in your court and you continually run away scared from that responsibility. You can continue your shouting match with us all, but we are not going away and succumb to your bullying tactics. This is not a competition to see who can win who over - I know from mind-numbing experience that you will stubbornly maintain your position regardless of the evidence against PCs and the only way that you can convince any of us is to produce the evidence that PCs work as claimed. You refuse to do this and hence it is you who has always had the weak position and have tried to hide it by trying to shout the loudest and longest.

 

[elapid]

This post is for the triathletes who follow this thread. Early this month Sam Gyde, in his build up for Kona, injured his calf doing intervals on the track. For those that don't know Sam he has won his age-group the last 3 years and is a hard-core PowerCranker. Anyhow, his calf injury has prevented him from running and he is substituting PowerCranks workouts for running workouts. He is doing 20 hours a week on the PowerCranks on the trainer split 2/3 biking and 1/3 running. What is a running workout on the PowerCranks? He is doing low power but high cadence work (as high or higher than his running cadence).

This should be a really good test as to how effective one can train for running at an elite level while injured with zero running. Will also be interesting to see if the extra time on the bike helps his bike split (currently around the 4:30 mark).

One more thing. It looks like there is a good chance I will have a head unit that will allow Sam to ride the iCranks at Kona and record his form for later analysis. This will also be interesting to see if there is any noticeable change in form as he gets tired.

Stay tuned.

Oh, goodie. Another anecdote.

 

[FrankDay]

Oh, goodie. Another anecdote.

Could you point to a single thread/topic here where the conversation isn't dominated by anecdotes? If it weren't for anecdotes we would have hardly anything to talk about on any subject.

 

[elapid]

Could you point to a single thread/topic here where the conversation isn't dominated by anecdotes? If it weren't for anecdotes we would have hardly anything to talk about on any subject.

This is the only thread (other than your crank length thread) where extraordinary claims are being made with no evidence to support those claims. Anecdotes are not evidence to support your claims. If you think there is another thread where someone is making the sort of claims that you are and supporting them with useless anecdotes, then you can go on to that thread and make your complaints. Otherwise, don't use anecdotes on another thread to explain your failings on this thread.

 

[FrankDay]

This is the only thread (other than your crank length thread) where extraordinary claims are being made with no evidence to support those claims. Anecdotes are not evidence to support your claims. If you think there is another thread where someone is making the sort of claims that you are and supporting them with useless anecdotes, then you can go on to that thread and make your complaints. Otherwise, don't use anecdotes on another thread to explain your failings on this thread.

Anecdotes are evidence. What they are not though is, necessarily, persuasive evidence to those looking for scientific evidence. Such evidence might persuade some to give them a try and not others.

Most of what we do in training and racing is based on anecdotal evidence. Why do an awful lot of racers have power meters? It isn't because there is a bunch of scientific evidence to support their use but there is a lot of anedotal reports/opinion that one did, could, or should train or race better because of them.

At least, as regards PC's, there are some scientific studies with, seemingly, conflicting results, that are being discussed. We can't seem to agree on the significance or worth of any of them but, at least, it is more than anecdote.

Regarding this latest "anecdote" that should be coming it seems reasonable to ask the question as to how what he is doing compares to any of the studies. Here we have someone who has been using the cranks for over 3 years (turning him into a world champ 3 years straight according to him) and is now increasing his use to about 20 hours a week. The most use in any of the studies seen so far was Dixon, 8 hours a week for 6 weeks. How could anyone possibly say that a study looking at 3 hr/wk part-time use has any relationship to what Sam is doing? Plus, what is especially interesting is he is using them to exclusively train his running because of injury. Does it seem reasonable that some might want to compare his results to how he has done in the past using a more conventional mix of training? Or, to those using regular cranks and a more conventional mix of training? Or, to those who are injured using a more conventional running injury training regimen? Will it mean anything scientifically? No. Will it mean anything to those interested in this area? I suspect it will. I, for one, will be interested in how he does. I know many others who will be watching also. edit: Will he be able to defend his title now that he is another year older (against, of course, new and younger people aging up) with zero running in his run up to the event? Of course, if he does, according to you it will mean nothing because it is only an anecdote. If he doesn't you will take it as evidence the cranks don't work as we say.

Your comments are simply a waste of bandwidth.

 

[CoachFergie]

You've already had me on your list of bullies, so that's nothing new. I'm on the same list after you, the archetypical internet bully. However, being labelled a bully for calling you on your BS is hardly the definition of a bully.

Reminds me of standing up to another pathological lier, who kept claiming something many of us knew was not true, was not scientifically plausible and eventually was shown to be a house of cards.

Frank, not sure if Oprah cares about your story, maybe Dr Phil or Ellen. But we don't really care for your lies or spam.

 

[elapid]

Anecdotes are evidence. What they are not though is, necessarily, persuasive evidence to those looking for scientific evidence. Such evidence might persuade some to give them a try and not others.

Marketing. BS as well when your money-back guarantee is 3 months and you say that you need 6-9 months for full effect. Why don't you stand behind your product and offer a 9-12 month money-back guarantee?

At least, as regards PC's, there are some scientific studies with, seemingly, conflicting results, that are being discussed. We can't seem to agree on the significance or worth of any of them but, at least, it is more than anecdote.

Those studies, because they are conflicting, do not support PCs. Even the positive results go nowhere near supporting your claims of 40% increase in power. Your evidence remains weak and your use of anecdotes just further weakens your position.

Of course, if he does, according to you it will mean nothing because it is only an anecdote. If he doesn't you will take it as evidence the cranks don't work as we say..

No, I wouldn't stoop to your level of scientific baffoonery. Again, you have made extraordinary claims and those claims require extraordinary proof, proof that you have so far failed to provide and continue to fail with your constant drivel of meaningless anecdotes.

Your comments are simply a waste of bandwidth.

Who's the internet bully, now? No reason to try and silence me just because you don't have the evidence to support your claims and you continue to fool yourself with ditty little anecdotes.

 

[FrankDay]

Marketing. BS as well when your money-back guarantee is 3 months and you say that you need 6-9 months for full effect.

LOL. So much for your reading comprehension. 3 months is enough time for most to see enough benefit that they can determine the cranks are worth the cost. It takes 6-9 months to see the 40% improvement, on average. And, then "full effect" (whatever that might mean when it comes to training) probably takes 2 years in most, meaning after 2 years any further improvement is probably do mostly to normal training effect.

Those studies, because they are conflicting, do not support PCs. Even the positive results go nowhere near supporting your claims of 40% increase in power. Your evidence remains weak and your use of anecdotes just further weakens your position.

As I stated earlier, of course those studies don't support our 40% power improvement claim because that claim requires 6-9 months of exclusive use in training to see that benefit. Hard to demonstrate that in a study lasting 6 weeks of exclusive 8 hr/wk use (Dixon) or 5-6 weeks of lesser or part-time use. Those negative studies simply support our contention that it takes about 6 weeks before most users start to see measurable benefits. I really don't disagree with the findings of a single one of those studies. What I disagree with is your interpretation as to what those studies might mean regarding the overall worth of the product.

No, I wouldn't stoop to your level of scientific baffoonery. Again, you have made extraordinary claims and those claims require extraordinary proof, proof that you have so far failed to provide and continue to fail with your constant drivel of meaningless anecdotes.

Well, if you are going to require proof then you are asking the almost impossible. It may never happen. It is why we offer the 90 day money-back guarantee. Each person can prove it to themselves as to whether they work or not.

Who's the internet bully, now? No reason to try and silence me just because you don't have the evidence to support your claims and you continue to fool yourself with ditty little anecdotes.

Yep, no scientific evidence to support that claim, none whatsoever. All we have is a little bit of data from a pilot "study" to see what the possibilities might be (for marketing purposes) and lots and lots of anecdotes that support that original conclusion. Anecdotes R us!!! Hey, just realized, when it comes to training tools and techniques, anecdotes is everyone. Whoda thunk?

 

[elapid]

Yep, no scientific evidence to support that claim, none whatsoever. All we have is a little bit of data from a pilot "study" to see what the possibilities might be (for marketing purposes) and lots and lots of anecdotes that support that original conclusion. Anecdotes R us!!!

This is a perfect summary of the evidence for PCs. I am glad you can finally admit to the weaknesses of your evidence and claims.

 

[FrankDay]

This is a perfect summary of the evidence for PCs. I am glad you can finally admit to the weaknesses of your evidence and claims.

Yep, add in the inconclusive scientific studies that have been attempted (because not one of them goes against anything we say) and I would say we have much better evidence of our worth than most products. Lots of anecdotes that suggest our claims are true. No scientific evidence that "proves" them to be true (nor none that proves - or even suggests - them false). Your problem is you seem to think that the lack of proof is "proof" that the product cannot possibly do what we say. Unfortunately for your view, from a scientific perspective, the lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking.

 

[elapid]

Yep, add in the inconclusive scientific studies that have been attempted (because not one of them goes against anything we say) and I would say we have much better evidence of our worth than most products. Lots of anecdotes that suggest our claims are true. No scientific evidence that "proves" them to be true (nor none that proves - or even suggests - them false). Your problem is you seem to think that the lack of proof is "proof" that the product cannot possibly do what we say. Unfortunately for your view, from a scientific perspective, the lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking.

Rubbish. Your claims are extraordinary. Those claims are not supported because 1. the papers are conflicting (and there are more papers which show negative results than positive results), and 2. the two papers which show positive results do not show the magnitude of results that you claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and yet again you fail with this proof.

No other product makes claims anywhere near the same as you. Those that have made ridiculous claims like yours have ended up in court (Vibram as a recent example) because the evidence did not support their claims. You've escaped this fate because you are small fry and no one can be bothered with you.

Regardless, you cannot use what other manufacturers do and do not do as an excuse for your failures to provide the evidence to support your claims.

 

[FrankDay]

Rubbish. Your claims are extraordinary. Those claims are not supported because 1. the papers are conflicting (and there are more papers which show negative results than positive results), and 2. the two papers which show positive results do not show the magnitude of results that you claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and yet again you fail with this proof.

LOL. You can't be serious that any study that lasts 5-6 weeks can say anything regarding what happens with a 6-9 month intervention. And the claims are extraordinary because the product is extraordinary if used as we recommend.

No other product makes claims anywhere near the same as you. Those that have made ridiculous claims like yours have ended up in court (Vibram as a recent example) because the evidence did not support their claims. You've escaped this fate because you are small fry and no one can be bothered with you.

No other product does what we do. We have been around a lot longer than Vibram and have never heard a peep from the FTC or any lawyer. It is more likely we have escaped because the product actually works. LOL

Regardless, you cannot use what other manufacturers do and do not do as an excuse for your failures to provide the evidence to support your claims.

Whatever. Anecdotes R Us. LOL.

 

[elapid]

And the claims are extraordinary because the product is extraordinary if used as we recommend.

Prove it ...

 

[elapid]

We have been around a lot longer than Vibram

Vibram was founded in 1937. I know you're old, but are you really that old? Or is this just another one of your not-so-well researched "facts", like a 2-3mph increase in speed and a 40% increase in power with PCs?

 

[FrankDay]

Prove it ...

We "prove it" every day to the thousands of users who have taken a"leap of faith" (perhaps with the help of that money-back guarantee) and train on the tool. That is the only proof that really matters anyhow; I.e., do they work for you. Of course I expect we will never "prove it" to you because the kind of proof you are looking for is, essentially, impossible to deliver. You, it seems, would rather spend your time and money on "things" that make no promises and offer little potential.

If a new study appears we can discuss it. If an interesting anecdote appears we can discuss it like is done with every other product out there.

So, give them a try and see what happens or don't. The choice is yours. Should you choose to try them be sure to come back and report your anecdotal experience. That was what Phil Holman did. His attitude was like yours and 7 months on them changed his mind.

Edit: I guess you (a non-believer) might think about the risk of trying PowerCranks this way. It would sort of be like buying a lottery ticket. The chances of winning is very small but if you do win you win big. The difference, of course, is if you don't win you can get your money back. Why you think that is a bad deal is beyond me.

 

[elapid]

We "prove it" every day to the thousands of users who have taken a"leap of faith" (perhaps with the help of that money-back guarantee) and train on the tool. That is the only proof that really matters anyhow; I.e., do they work for you. Of course I expect we will never "prove it" to you because the kind of proof you are looking for is, essentially, impossible to deliver. You, it seems, would rather spend your time and money on "things" that make no promises and offer little potential.

If a new study appears we can discuss it. If an interesting anecdote appears we can discuss it like is done with every other product out there.

So, give them a try and see what happens or don't. The choice is yours. Should you choose to try them be sure to come back and report your anecdotal experience. That was what Phil Holman did. His attitude was like yours and 7 months on them changed his mind.

Prove it, Frank. Leaps of faith and anecdotes are not proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and you have failed to provide any evidence that supports your claims.

I am not going to pay $1000 for a product with a 3-month money-back guarantee where the type of results, which cleverer people than you and I say are not possible, are seen after 6-9 months (and up to 2 years according to one of your recent posts) and where there is a 70% dropout rate even when you give them out free. That's not a leap of faith, that's insanity.

If you stood by your product, you would give a 9-12-month money-back guarantee. You don't.

If you stood by your product, you would provide the evidence to support your claims. You don't. Instead you try and deflect your failure to provide this evidence by comparing PCs to other products, knowing full well that none of the manufacturers of other products make the same claims as you do and that what other product manufacturers do and do not do is no excuse for your failure to provide the evidence to support your extraordinary claims.

 

[FrankDay]

Prove it, Frank. Leaps of faith and anecdotes are not proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and you have failed to provide any evidence that supports your claims.

that's the way life works sometimes, hardly anything is guaranteed. The FDA requires medicines to have been proven both "safe and effective" before they can be marketed but that is no guarantee the medicine will work on you or that you won't have a bad outcome.

I am not going to pay $1000 for a product with a 3-month money-back guarantee where the type of results, which cleverer people than you and I say are not possible, are seen after 6-9 months (and up to 2 years according to one of your recent posts) and where there is a 70% dropout rate even when you give them out free. That's not a leap of faith, that's insanity.

That is your choice. And, if those so-called cleverer people are wrong in their assessment (my data says they are) then exactly how clever are they? They are doing nothing more than expressing an opinion without a single solid fact to back them up. Regarding a high dropout rate we have found a higher drop out rate in people who have gotten the product for free. We believe this is because they have a harder time getting throug the transition when they haven't "invested" in the concept. It is why we no longer give free product to anyone, including pros.

If you stood by your product, you would give a 9-12-month money-back guarantee. You don't.

LOL. There has to be a cut off some time. In our experience if someone isn't seeing improvement in 3 months they aren't going to see it in 4, 6, or 12 months. 3 months is enough.

If you stood by your product, you would provide the evidence to support your claims. You don't. Instead you try and deflect your failure to provide this evidence by comparing PCs to other products, knowing full well that none of the manufacturers of other products make the same claims as you do and that what other product manufacturers do and do not do is no excuse for your failure to provide the evidence to support your extraordinary claims.

Scientific proof of the general utility of the tool is not proof the device will work for you. I have told you what the claim is based on then have given lots of user reports that substantiate that such improvements are possible in real rpeople willing to try the product. Declarations of "impossible" from people unwilling to even try them doesn't hold much water with me. We give a guarantee to the purchaser that it will work for them to their satisfaction. While more studies might convince a few more to try them (I suspect no study could ever be good enough to convince you as you have already declared any improvement due to the tool impossible) studies are less useful to the user than a personal guarantee the device will work for them me thinks. I think you are going to have to learn to live with that as no amount of bullying will get me to do the "impossible".

 

[elapid]

I think you are going to have to learn to live with that as no amount of bullying will get me to do the "impossible".

It is not bullying if I am calling you on your claims and asking you to prove them. I understand that you think it is impossible to substantiate your claims because the claims are extraordinary and you cannot provide the evidence to support them. I don't need to learn to live with your failures, I expect them of you. You have shown no inclination to provide the necessary evidence to support your claims, your money-back guarantee doesn't cover the amount of time you have stated in many other posts as the time required to see an improvement when using PCs, you are all over the place with what this time may be (4 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, 2 years), you have a 70% dropout rate with PCs, and the only thing you can come back at us with is "take a leap of faith" and pay me $1000 for a product that I have no proof works. Taking a leap of faith requires some element of trust and nothing you have written on this thread engenders any form of trust in you or PCs. Trying to hide your failures with your bullying tactics will not work with me.

If PCs worked as claimed, riders, from pros down, would be on PCs. They are not.

If PCs worked as claimed, there would be scientific papers verifying your claims. There are not, not even the ones that show a difference (which are outnumbered by the ones that show no difference).