The Powercrank Thread

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

As for her efficiency (in the proper use of the term), as I mentioned she's pretty efficient (as am I...that's what comes with being a slow-twitcher).

Are you saying muscle fiber composition is the only variable?

Comprehension never was your strong point Frank. It's quite clear Andy never said this was the only factor.

It is the only one he mentioned.

So?

 

[FrankDay]

Re: Re:

As for her efficiency (in the proper use of the term), as I mentioned she's pretty efficient (as am I...that's what comes with being a slow-twitcher).

Are you saying muscle fiber composition is the only variable?

Comprehension never was your strong point Frank. It's quite clear Andy never said this was the only factor.

It is the only one he mentioned.

So?

Well, in the past Dr. Coggan, in discussions with me in various forums, has defended Coyle's explanation for his finding of Armstrong's efficiency improvement of about 8% over time as being explained by muscle composition changes with no other possibility. If he believes there are other elements involved in the "efficiency equation" I would be interested in knowing why he didn't mention them. I would also be interested in knowing what efficiency has been measured in her and, in view of his not mentioning other possible explanations for her good efficiency, whether she has had muscle biopsy to confirm she is a "slow-twitcher" or whether this is just an assumption on his part based upon the measured number.

I think it a reasonable question in view of my past interactions with him.

 

[sciguy]

Re: Re:

FrankDay

I think it a rea

sonable question in view of my past interactions with him.

Frank,

I'm surprised you're not aware that most folks no longer believe there actually was any real improvement in Armstrong's efficiency.

http://sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-and-armstrong-research-errors-evaluation/

http://sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-armstrong-research-installment-2/

Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

Re: Re:

FrankDay

I think it a rea

sonable question in view of my past interactions with him.

Frank,

I'm surprised you're not aware that most folks no longer believe there actually was any real improvement in Armstrong's efficiency.

http://sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-and-armstrong-research-errors-evaluation/

http://sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-armstrong-research-installment-2/

Hugh

Sportsscientists is not "most people" as they also have biases. Until the JAP issues a retraction the paper stands on its own merits. Coyle, no slotch in the research area, has defended the data. Either way, does it matter for the purposes of my point?

 

[sciguy]

Re: Re:

FrankDay

I think it a reasonable question in view of my past interactions with him.

Frank,

I'm surprised you're not aware that most folks no longer believe there actually was any real improvement in Armstrong's efficiency.

http://sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-and-armstrong-research-errors-evaluation/

http://sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-armstrong-research-installment-2/

Hugh

Sportsscientists is not "most people" as they also have biases. Until the JAP issues a retraction the paper stands on its own merits. Coyle, no slotch in the research area, has defended the data. Either way, does it matter for the purposes of my point?

You've used the supposed existence of change many times in the past as proof of the potential for improvement due to technique change but if there actually was no change as posited by the Sports Scientists then the point is moot.

One of your recent posts on the counterweight thread:

Frank Day
In the history of cycling I am only aware of three studies that have demonstrated cycling efficiency improvements in trained cyclists. Armstrong, Lutrell, and the OP of this thread. Armstrong and the OP are especially intriguing because, in Armstrong's case, no other athlete of similar stature has ever demonstrated a similar improvement. Coyle attributed it to muscular fiber type change from training but if this were the case such changes would be commonplace amongst the pros. It isn't. How else to explain it. One thing we know is that Carmichael told us that Armstrong was working on improving his pedaling technique at the back and top of his stroke during this period.

 

[FrankDay]

Re: Re:

FrankDay

I think it a reasonable question in view of my past interactions with him.

Frank,

I'm surprised you're not aware that most folks no longer believe there actually was any real improvement in Armstrong's efficiency.

http://sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-and-armstrong-research-errors-evaluation/

http://sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-armstrong-research-installment-2/

Hugh

Sportsscientists is not "most people" as they also have biases. Until the JAP issues a retraction the paper stands on its own merits. Coyle, no slotch in the research area, has defended the data. Either way, does it matter for the purposes of my point?

You've used the supposed existence of change many times in the past as proof of the potential for improvement due to technique change but if there actually was no change as posited by the Sports Scientists then the point is moot.

So, the sportsscientists conjecture that if this this and this is wrong in this case report by one of the most respected cycling researchers around then the improvement reported by Coyle, that he still stands by, didn't happen. Look, the paper still has its data. It isn't two data points (where error would be much more reasonable to consider) but rather, several data points with a consistent trend over the period where error is much harder to explain. Your problem is the paper still exists and the sportscientists are simply trying to come up with explanations that allow them to keep their bias.

One of your recent posts on the counterweight thread:

Frank Day
In the history of cycling I am only aware of three studies that have demonstrated cycling efficiency improvements in trained cyclists. Armstrong, Lutrell, and the OP of this thread. Armstrong and the OP are especially intriguing because, in Armstrong's case, no other athlete of similar stature has ever demonstrated a similar improvement. Coyle attributed it to muscular fiber type change from training but if this were the case such changes would be commonplace amongst the pros. It isn't. How else to explain it. One thing we know is that Carmichael told us that Armstrong was working on improving his pedaling technique at the back and top of his stroke during this period.

Your point? Presuming the Armstrong data to be accurate something has to explain the observation. Muscle fiber type change is an unreasonable explanation in an already world champion, IMHO especially in view of the fact no muscle biopsies were taken.

 

[CoachFergie]

David Martin had been testing Cadel Evans since his early MTB days and through to his Tour de France win and found no increase in efficiency over a 12 year period despite a clear increase in power at threshold.

 

[FrankDay]

Re:

David Martin had been testing Cadel Evans since his early MTB days and through to his Tour de France win and found no increase in efficiency over a 12 year period despite a clear increase in power at threshold.

Your point? What does this have to do with the Armstrong testing data other than to emphasize how unusual it is.

 

[backdoor]

Re: Re:

Has anyone ever heard of anyone going from newbie to pro any faster?

My wife (formerly Angie Vargas) was picked to ride the thirteen stage, 12 d Hewlett Packard LaserJet International Women's Challenge in her 2nd year of racing. Out of ~150 starters, she finished 68th on G.C., ahead of all but 21 other riders from the U.S.:

http://www.truesport.com/Bike/1999/hpwomen.htm#FINAL

Not bad, really, when you consider 1) she's not built like a climber, and 2) that was her first-ever trip to altitude.

Like Fergie said about the Aussie rider, she never used PowerCranks (were they even around back then?). In fact, when we used an SRM w/ torque analysis option to determine her pattern of force application during two-legged and single-legged counterweighted pedaling almost a decade later, we discovered that it was quite unusual (see below). Never seemed to slow her down any, though!

Wouldn't this be better in the pedaling technique thread?

Since this is a combined torque graph how do you know what she is doing or not doing on the backstroke. How do you interpret this?

Which of those graphs is the counterweighted single legged pedaling graph? What was the size of the counterweight?

What about the graph do you consider to be "quite unusual"?

Looking at this graph, she appears to be a stomper who applies all her force so fast that it peaks 30 degrees before the most effective torque return spot of the natural down stroke. That was why I asked for her torque/total pedal force value. It should be very inefficient.

Even though it is not possible to know for sure since this is a combined torque graph I am impressed with how high the torque is at the top and the bottom compared to the up and down. Many people have almost zero torque at top and bottom and hers is close to 20% of her peak. I think this is probably much more "circular" than average although, as everyone knows, I think it could be better.

I saw this pedalling style in action tonight as I walked alongside a cycle track, a sudden thrust of down power followed by a hesitation or very slight pause about half way down before continuing with the down stroke.