The Powercrank Thread

[FrankDay]

if I were an engineer, starting from scratch, designing a machine powered by 4 different engines, it would seem to me that I might expect that the most power might be achieved if I used all 4 engines to the best of each engines ability. Muscles are nothing more than engines here. All skeletal muscle have pretty much the same capability assuming an equal training status. Therefore, one might expect, for best performance, it would be best if the muscle work were divided up based on the mass of the different muscles. At least that seems like a reasonable starting hypothesis. Or, if someone brought that engine into the shop and asked you to see if you could increase the power and your diagnosis showed two engines being under utilized and the timing off would your efforts be best spent trying to correct those issues or trying to improve the power output of the engine that is currently working the best. Just sayin'... .

found this in the Elmer study referenced by Martin.

Coyle (9) suggested that more experienced cyclists distribute work across more muscular actions to reduce localized stress.

 

[CoachFergie]

Thanks Hamish! With any luck I might get to meet you in person in NZ in December.

That would be cool. Are you coming to Cambridge where BikeNZ is based, or elsewhere?

The data that I have reported were calculated using standard inverse dynamic techniques. The raw data were recorded from a force measuring pedal and a motion capture system.
It seems there is an interest in what each joint is doing throughout the cycle. Many authors have reported joint powers and joint moments starting back in the 80s. You can see a thorough exploration of joint powers in the Elmer et al paper here.
The key figure from that paper is pasted below. When interpreting these joint powers, keep in mind that all three joints are spanned by uniarticular (muscles that span only one joint) and biarticular muscles (muscles that span two joints). Those muscles have opposite actions at the two joints so the individual joint action doesn't tell the whole story. Most notable example is knee power which goes negative during the last part of the extension phase. At that same point, hip extension power is very high. Thus, this negative knee power likely reflects use of hamstrings to extend the hip which is corroborated by EMG data. Hamstrings will be producing positive muscular power which happens to appear as positive at the hip and negative at the knee. This is why I originally showed the figure of net muscular power; I figure its easier to digest. Hopefully these data will be helpful to you as you think about training and technique issues. These data only represent what cyclists do. I make no claim to know what they ought to do.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Based on Alex's results minimal power if any, but together with the lower leg muscles and a plantar flexed foot position the ankle could add a possible 30% power to each legs power output

Only when sprinting is (was) my peak power reduced.

My best ever sustainable TT power was post amputation.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I am not enjoying the "banter" that occurs here at all so this will likely be my last post in this series.
Cheers,
Jim

Thanks for posting at all here Jim.

I think most of us treat the banter here as not much more than light comic relief and don't expect great swaths of sensible discourse given the key protagonist involved. That is sadly the way of such online public fora.

On rarer occasions we do learn something and are grateful for it. Thanks for bringing us one of those rare occasions.

 

[CoachFergie]

I have blocked Franks posts and encourage others to do the same. No point in debating the guy. Just report when he posts spam to this forum.

Thanks again Jim.

 

[FrankDay]

My best ever sustainable TT power was post amputation.

That certainly suggests that the ankle plays very little role in power production. I still don't understand the 30% max power loss when power is, seemingly, improved at normal efforts.

 

[FrankDay]

I have blocked Franks posts and encourage others to do the same. No point in debating the guy. Just report when he posts spam to this forum.

Thanks again Jim.

I look forward to your going away. Oh, how I look forward to that. Let's see how long this lasts.

 

[CoachFergie]

I look forward to your going away. Oh, how I look forward to that. Let's see how long this lasts.

Not going anywhere Frank, just not wasting time on your nonsense. Will report when you post spam here.

 

[MarkvW]

Powercranks are crap.

 

[Bio_McGeek]

Glad we got that bolded part cleared up.

I should mention that I used to know what everyone ought to do. Before I went back to grad school I was a Masters National Champion and had coached riders to Masters National and Masters World titles. I knew EVERYTHING and wasn't reluctant to say so.
Now, many years, 47 peer reviewed publications (which have been cited over 1300 times), three book chapters, and well over 100 presentations later, I know that I know very little.
I know what I don't know. That, among other things, separates you and me.
Have a nice life,
Jim

 

[elapid]

What the heck does that study have to do with this discussion other than making a muscle (that is doing no work) contract more (use more energy) will reduce efficiency.?

One could make the argument that the ankle joint muscles are responsible for 100% of the power since everything has to go through the ankle joint to get to the pedals. Everyone knows the ankle joint is important to cycling but that would be silly to argue. The question is how much actual power (work) do the muscles of the ankle joint add to the total work done by the glutes, quads, hamstrings, and hip flexors? 25% (20% of the total) seems a bit much to me, in fact a lot much.

Frank, how are your comprehension skills going? Still failing by the looks of things. The above response is to a post which provided some insight, but not answers, to a question posed by Jay Kosta. That simple.

Everyone knows the ankle joint is important to cycling? You don't. You specifically omitted the ankle joint and the lower leg muscles as being important to power and efficiency and then argued tooth and nail when I highlighted your error and provided references to refute your OPINION. You may not believe certain results, as presented very nicely by Jim, but until you come up with evidence to support your OPINIONS then that is all they are ... unsubstantiated opinions. My old boss had a saying ... "Strong opinions, no data" and this applies to you 100%.

 

[elapid]

if I were an engineer, starting from scratch, designing a machine powered by 4 different engines, it would seem to me that I might expect that the most power might be achieved if I used all 4 engines to the best of each engines ability. Muscles are nothing more than engines here.

This is an engineer's approach. Typical black and white with no appreciation for or recognition of the nuances of the biologic influences affecting power and efficiency in cycling. No wonder you get things so fundamentally wrong.

 

[FrankDay]

This is an engineer's approach. Typical black and white with no appreciation for or recognition of the nuances of the biologic influences affecting power and efficiency in cycling. No wonder you get things so fundamentally wrong.

If you say so. LOL

 

[FrankDay]

I should mention that I used to know what everyone ought to do. Before I went back to grad school I was a Masters National Champion and had coached riders to Masters National and Masters World titles. I knew EVERYTHING and wasn't reluctant to say so.

Sounds a lot like some who post here regularly.

Now, many years, 47 peer reviewed publications (which have been cited over 1300 times), three book chapters, and well over 100 presentations later, I know that I know very little.

That is refreshing to hear. We learn more examining what we don't know rather than rehashing what we do. I can assure you, and I suspect you will admit, that you know very little about PowerCranks.

I know what I don't know. That, among other things, separates you and me.
Have a nice life,
Jim

No, there are many things that separate us. Knowing what we don't know isn't one of them. One thing is our different experience. I have close to 15 years closely observing PowerCranks effects, you have essentially zero experience here. I try to wear my scientist hat as much as possible in looking at this stuff. Scientists must first observe the world and then they try to explain their observations. I have spent a lot of time observing what occurs with PowerCranks training. The changes are so large as to be unbelievable. So unbelievable that many think I am simply making them up. I am not.

It is not immediately obvious to understand how a training tool that the first thing it does is to slow the rider down results in an eventual improvement. This also is an observation I have made. Many people think reported PowerCranks improvements must be a placebo effect. Placebos do not first slow people down before speeding them up many weeks later.

So, to be believed, there has to be a mechanism or explanation (theory, hypothesis) to explain what is observed. I believe it is all explainable and that training and better utilization of currently under utilized muscles combined with a change to a more efficient coordination pattern (technique) can easily explain the observations, even the 40% power improvement on average seen after 6-9 months of immersion training. My hypothesis has yet to be refuted.

Anyone who has watched the Big Bang Theory knows there are two types of scientists, the theoretical scientist thinks but doesn't experiment. The experimental scientist, experiments but doesn't always theorize. Sometimes the occasional scientist is good at both. Just because one doesn't do experients does not invalidate their theories. I have made some suggestions that I think should improve cyclists. you, in post 953, stated "I make no claim to know what they ought to do." You are a university researcher with "47 peer reviewed publications (which have been cited over 1300 times), three book chapters, and well over 100 presentations" yet have no thoughts on pedaling technique or what cyclists might do differently to improve performance! You are not even willing to engage in a discussion on the issue. I guess we should put you on the side of the experimental scientist and not the theoretical scientist.

Have a good day.

 

[elapid]

I try to wear my scientist hat as much as possible in looking at this stuff.

You don't have a scientific bone in your body. Marketing charlatan, yes; scientist, no.

The changes are so large as to be unbelievable. So unbelievable that many think I am simply making them up. I am not.

Prove it. You have not shown a shred of proof to support your claims.

I believe it is all explainable ... My hypothesis has yet to be refuted.

Your hypothesis has yet to be proven and what you believe is just your opinion which continues to remain unsubstantiated.

 

[elapid]

You are not even willing to engage in a discussion on the issue.

Frank, you do not know what discussion means. You bully people off this list, good people like Jim. Good people come on to this list to discuss and present evidence and all you can come back with is rubbish like "I don't believe it". Calling Jim a theoretical scientist is so hypocritical when all you have presented here are theories that will forever remain theories because you are too scared to actually test them. Grow a spine, pretend to be a scientist for once, and prove your opinions are something more than wildly exaggerated BS.

 

[elapid]

If you say so. LOL

Proof is in the pudding, Frank. Some of your recent engineering approaches to biologic systems:

1. You state that the ankle joint and lower leg muscles are not important for power and efficiency. Your defend your position by wanting us to fuse the ankle or put the ankle in a cast or splint, and then simply state that you do not believe the published reports which show the importance of the ankle joint and lower leg muscles for power and efficiency.

2. You state the gluteals are important for knee action. You defend your position by saying that the knee is a passive joint and just moves with movement of the hip joint (and hence totally ignoring important muscle groups which actually act on the knee such as the quads and hamstrings) and then argue that the knee is not actually a joint.

Talk about LOL. You do crack me up with your ignorance and your pathetic attempts to fight out of corners which you have put yourself into because of stupid statements that you have made that just makes you look sillier and sillier.

 

[acoggan]

One can have confidence in Dr Martin's lab and results. Years of adding to the peer review research in cycling physiology and biomechanics.

+1. Most of what (little) I know about cycling biomechanics I've learned from Jim.

 

[JayKosta]

Frank,
...
Calling Jim a theoretical scientist ...

========================
My understanding is that Frank categorized Jim Martin as NOT being a theoretical scientist because Martin's research work was focused on 'what is actually happening', without comment about whether there is a way to change the outcome of what was being investigated.

I don't think that Martin's reluctance to theorize about how to improve cycling muscle usage or technique diminishes the value of his work. Martin's research gives new and useful information that perhaps can be useful to those with a goal of improving results.

One item that I found especially interesting from Martin's posts is -

"knee power which goes negative during the last part of the extension phase. At that same point, hip extension power is very high. Thus, this negative knee power likely reflects use of hamstrings to extend the hip which is corroborated by EMG data. Hamstrings will be producing positive muscular power which happens to appear as positive at the hip and negative at the knee."

from Martin's post at -
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1573203&postcount=953

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[elapid]

My understanding is that Frank categorized Jim Martin as NOT being a theoretical scientist because Martin's research work was focused on 'what is actually happening', without comment about whether there is a way to change the outcome of what was being investigated.

My bad. If I were Frank, I would be coming up with all sorts of excuses to try and explain my error. Thankfully I'm not so I'll take it on the chin.

 

[FrankDay]

Proof is in the pudding, Frank. Some of your recent engineering approaches to biologic systems:

1. You state that the ankle joint and lower leg muscles are not important for power and efficiency. Your defend your position by wanting us to fuse the ankle or put the ankle in a cast or splint, and then simply state that you do not believe the published reports which show the importance of the ankle joint and lower leg muscles for power and efficiency.

2. You state the gluteals are important for knee action. You defend your position by saying that the knee is a passive joint and just moves with movement of the hip joint (and hence totally ignoring important muscle groups which actually act on the knee such as the quads and hamstrings) and then argue that the knee is not actually a joint.

Talk about LOL. You do crack me up with your ignorance and your pathetic attempts to fight out of corners which you have put yourself into because of stupid statements that you have made that just makes you look sillier and sillier.

You sure know how to put a guy down. If only any of that stuff were true I would surely look stupid and horrible. I guess as long as you believe it all true then it is and I am truly a terrible person in your mind. I apologize for being so stupid and bothering you (and to any others out there that thinks as Elapid does). Unfortunately though, being particularly stupid, I still can't bring myself around to your point of view so unless you can make arguments or points that I can understand I am going to continue on my previous ways. So, I am going to put on my physician hat now, I would suggest that you perhaps move on to other threads because being here clearly isn't good for your blood pressure.

 

[elapid]

You sure know how to put a guy down. If only any of that stuff were true I would surely look stupid and horrible. I guess as long as you believe it all true then it is and I am truly a terrible person in your mind. I apologize for being so stupid and bothering you (and to any others out there that thinks as Elapid does). Unfortunately though, being particularly stupid, I still can't bring myself around to your point of view so unless you can make arguments or points that I can understand I am going to continue on my previous ways. So, I am going to put on my physician hat now, I would suggest that you perhaps move on to other threads because being here clearly isn't good for your blood pressure.

What's my point of view? I am not trying to bring you around to anything. I am pointing out your errors, which are things that you have said over the last 10 or so pages, and asking for you to provide proof to support your PC claims, which you continue to be unable and unwilling to do so.

You haven't practiced for over 20 years, so I would trust your physician's hat as much as your engineering hat and your unsubstantiated opinions on PCs.

 

[coapman]

It is not immediately obvious to understand how a training tool that the first thing it does is to slow the rider down results in an eventual improvement. This also is an observation I have made. Many people think reported PowerCranks improvements must be a placebo effect. Placebos do not first slow people down before speeding them up many weeks later.

So, to be believed, there has to be a mechanism or explanation (theory, hypothesis) to explain what is observed. I believe it is all explainable and that training and better utilization of currently under utilized muscles combined with a change to a more efficient coordination pattern (technique) can easily explain the observations, even the 40% power improvement on average seen after 6-9 months of immersion training. My hypothesis has yet to be refuted.

The use of extra muscles in cycling can increase pedal power but only when the correct combination of extra muscles is used. It is already obvious to you that attempting to use these extra PC muscles is causing a loss of power and this loss has to be occurring in the down stroke and while this loss of power will be reduced with further training, it will always exist as it does in circular pedalling. This means PC's cannot increase power output.

 

[FrankDay]

I am pointing out your errors, which are things that you have said over the last 10 or so pages,

Errors in your own mind I guess work here on the internet. That fact that you believe I have made these errors does not actually make it so. You (and others) should listen to Hiero2, he is trying to help you make your arguments stronger. Instead you continue to insist on looking like a fixated maniac more interested in attacking me personally than in discussing the topic at hand.

 

[elapid]

Errors in your own mind I guess work here on the internet. That fact that you believe I have made these errors does not actually make it so. You (and others) should listen to Hiero2, he is trying to help you make your arguments stronger. Instead you continue to insist on looking like a fixated maniac more interested in attacking me personally than in discussing the topic at hand.

Your errors are your errors. They are in this thread in black and white for all to see. Because you do not ever own up to your errors does not make them any less errors, rather it just makes you look more foolish when trying to deny them (especially with your pathetic attempts to explain your way out of the errors you have made).

The only person with weak arguments on this thread is you, Frank. You have made extraordinary claims regarding PCs and you have not been able to provide a shred of proof that PCs work as claimed. You have tried to bully people off this thread and wear them down so they leave this thread, and you claim this as some sort of victory. However, when some of us refuse to be bullied and call you out on your fabrications and false claims, then your weaknesses become more apparent to everyone:

1. Your claims are based on your personal opinions
2. Your opinions are unsubstantiated
3. Your opinions will remain unsubstantiated because you refuse to conduct a study to prove your claims and even state that such a study could not be done because there would not be enough willing participants (which is supported by your initial 70% dropout rate)
4. The published literature does not support your claims
5. You continue to use the failures of other companies to justify your own failures
6. Your theories on why PCs work as claimed are unsubstantiated
7. The published literature does not support your theories
8. Your theories on why PCs work as claimed are full of errors and incorrect assumptions as summarized in previous posts

I am very satisfied with the strength of our position. Everything you say about PCs is just your opinion. Opinions are like a$$holes ... everyone's got one. You are the one that comes out of this "discussion" being weak because strong opinions gets you nowhere when there is no data to support your claims or your theories.