The Powercrank Thread

[CoachFergie]

Seeing all the current studies on independent cranks have no performance advantage over a control group there seems little point in carrying out further research. Ball would be in Franks court to put something out there to re spark interest in the subject. All we have at present is a bunch of ludicrous claims.

 

[FrankDay]

Seeing all the current studies on independent cranks have no performance advantage over a control group there seems little point in carrying out further research. Ball would be in Franks court to put something out there to re spark interest in the subject. All we have at present is a bunch of ludicrous claims.

I guess everyone could agree with you here if it weren't for that study that did demonstrate a performance advantage. Even without that study one reason to do more study on this subject would be to actually do an adequate study because if that were done, and the results showed no difference, then it might actually shut me up, or not. We would have to see. LOL

Along this line, in view of the fact that every study ever done looking at power meters has failed to show a performance advantage for power meters one has to wonder why your masters thesis study was done on power meters because you had to know, based on these earlier studies, the result was pre-ordained to show no advantage even though the apologists are now trying to explain away your failure by your poor study design.

 

[CoachFergie]

Just to lighten the mood. Whats the difference in proven performance gains between using Powercranks and using a Power Meter?

NOTHING!!!

 

[elapid]

Frank, answer a direct question for us: after dropouts and exclusions, how many of the 10 or so cyclists actually completed your so-called study?

 

[CoachFergie]

Frank, answer a direct question for us: after dropouts and exclusions, how many of the 10 or so cyclists actually completed your so-called study?

Is this the initial study he claims he did 15 years ago now but claims he lost the data. A bit like his claim to be working with people at British Cycling Federation and he couldn't remember the name of who, because I would check with the people I communicate with there.

No sense debating a man who is repeatedly caught in a lie.

 

[FrankDay]

Frank, answer a direct question for us: after dropouts and exclusions, how many of the 10 or so cyclists actually completed your so-called study?

There were only 3 that stayed long enough (more than a month or two) to show any change and all three showed about the same improvement. It wasn't like we chose the best outlier to tout, all those who stayed with the program showed essentially the same result. You can be assured I was surprised but it was what it was and, as I have said, many, many customers have reported similar results since then.

 

[elapid]

There were only 3 that stayed long enough (more than a month or two) to show any change and all three showed about the same improvement.

You stated:

In my data 40% max power improvement occurred as early as 6 months so to "replicate" my data you have to go at least that long.

But you state that only three cyclists made it past 1-2 months. How many made it to 6 months or more? Three does not make a study, particularly when you are being evasive about how many actually completed the 6 months and actually showed 40% max power improvement. Sorry, Frank, but the ball is well and truly in your court to conduct a well-designed study with a control group and repeatable methodology with sufficient numbers.

When I first started using a PM and a coach, my average power output increased by 10% in the first 4 weeks and 25% in the first 4 months. My improvements would have been very similar to those reported by the three cyclists that completed your so-called study. So that means that PowerCranks provide no greater advantage than a well-designed training program, especially considering that sample size apparently doesn't matter according to your very suspect grasp of research and study design.

 

[FrankDay]

You stated:



But you state that only 3 made it past 1-2 months. How many made it to 6 months or more? Three does not make a study, particularly when you are being evasive about how many actually completed the 6 months and actually showed 40% max power improvement. Sorry, Frank, but the ball is well and truly in your court to conduct a well-designed study with a control group and repeatable methodology with sufficient numbers.

When I first started using a PM and a coach, my average power output increased by 10% in the first 4 weeks and 25% in the first 4 months. Am I an average cyclist that would have qualified for your so-called study? If so, then my improvements would have been very similar to those reported by the three cyclists that completed your so-called study. So that means that PowerCranks provide no greater advantage than a well-designed training program, especially considering that sample size apparently doesn't matter according to your very suspect grasp of research and study design.

Three made it past 6 months. One of the interesting things we saw was an increase for the same perceive exertion for the entirety of the test. For example, in the pretest a rider might be at a HR of 100 at a perceived exertion of 10 (out of 20) and wattage of 150 and finish the test at a HR of 180 and a perceived exertion of 18 and wattage of 260. In the post test at a perceived exertion of 10 and HR of 100 the wattage was 40% higher or 210 and at the HR of 180 and PE of 18 a wattage of 380. So, the improvement was seen across the board. One of the cyclists in the monthly testing was showing this exact same improvement across the board, 40% improvement but suddenly couldn't go any longer at a PE of about 15, well short of his maximum HR and PE on pre-testing (remember I did the post testing on PowerCranks such that when the HF's failed the test was over a common problem in the early months). It was clear he simply needed to develop more endurance in the HF's and we expected to see him complete the test the next month but he never returned. I counted him as a 40% improvement because we were seeing this early on but he simply didn't have enough endurance to complete the test.

Anyhow, as I have said many times before here, this was not a study but, rather, an attempt to gather data to help me to tell people what they might expect if they train with the device. The data I gathered convinced me that, if the cranks were used appropriately and for a long enough period that 40% power improvement would not be unusual because that is what I saw when I tested for this. The numbers of participants were small but the changes were reliable.

In your own case I would like to point out that you haven't claimed you saw a 40% improvement over a longer period. I don't deny that some of the improvement we saw may be due to training effect. Certainly people improve with continued training. But, there is one difference between your experience and the experience of PowerCrankers. You report seeing a 10% improvement in the first 4 weeks. PowerCrankers generally report a drop in power in the first four weeks. It is not until they start to see substantial endurance developing before they start to see power improvements. Your experience is more in line with training effect improvements. It makes little sense that dropping power for a period should then, suddenly, result in power improvements 6 weeks later. If anything one would expect to see detraining and power loss with a prolonged drop in training power. It doesn't happen because at some point it all starts to come together and suddenly the power is better for more than just a few minutes. My guess is, because of your training effect improvement you saw after getting a coach (who probably pushed harder than you were used to), that if you had been part of my original group and stayed with the program your improvement would have been greater than 40%. Of course, that is all speculation on my part but we do see customers who see more than 40% improvement in that time-frame so it is possible.

 

[CoachFergie]

But you state that only three cyclists made it past 1-2 months. How many made it to 6 months or more? Three does not make a study, particularly when you are being evasive about how many actually completed the 6 months and actually showed 40% max power improvement. Sorry, Frank, but the ball is well and truly in your court to conduct a well-designed study with a control group and repeatable methodology with sufficient numbers.

When I first started using a PM and a coach, my average power output increased by 10% in the first 4 weeks and 25% in the first 4 months. My improvements would have been very similar to those reported by the three cyclists that completed your so-called study. So that means that PowerCranks provide no greater advantage than a well-designed training program, especially considering that sample size apparently doesn't matter according to your very suspect grasp of research and study design.

Nice work, some serious measured gains there. Some products that just claim they make gains or use untestable measures can learn a lot from people like you using real metrics to ensure your training, recovery and diet are taking you in the right direction.

I have started riding more seriously, training for the start of the Tour de France, and have seen a 9.28% improvement in a max aerobic power test after 2 weeks of training. Again, real measurements not marketing claims from a pathological liar.

 

[sciguy]

There were only 3 that stayed long enough (more than a month or two) to show any change and all three showed about the same improvement. It wasn't like we chose the best outlier to tout, all those who stayed with the program showed essentially the same result. You can be assured I was surprised but it was what it was and, as I have said, many, many customers have reported similar results since then.

Didn't you find it troubling that 70% or so of those that started the experiment dropped out? Have you considered that it was the regular testing that actually provided the motivation for the three who stayed to train their butts off and make such nice progress? In my experience measured improvement is an incredible motivator. That's one of the prime advantages of training with a power meter. Perhaps your monthly measurements were the driving force for improvement rather than the PCs. On the flip side, perhaps the 70% quit the trial because they saw they were going backwards in terms of fitness which completely sapped their motivation to continue.

" Yeah, in our first trial the majority of athletes quit without seeing any performance gain" isn't the kind of thing you probably want to tell prospective customers

Hugh

 

[elapid]

Anyhow, as I have said many times before here, this was not a study but, rather, an attempt to gather data to help me to tell people what they might expect if they train with the device. The data I gathered convinced me that, if the cranks were used appropriately and for a long enough period that 40% power improvement would not be unusual because that is what I saw when I tested for this. The numbers of participants were small but the changes were reliable.

This is the problem. You have not conducted a study on PowerCranks. The numbers may be satisfying to you, but they won't be to anyone else. The dropout rate is not alarming to you, but it is to most other people. This is your area of interest and the onus is on you and no one else to do this study. It is a copout to complain that no one else is doing this study when it is not their area of interest. The ball really is in your court to conduct a well-designed study on your product. Once you have conducted this study, then others can repeat it to test the repeatability and impartiality of your results to validate your findings.

 

[elapid]

Nice work, some serious measured gains there. Some products that just claim they make gains or use untestable measures can learn a lot from people like you using real metrics to ensure your training, recovery and diet are taking you in the right direction.

I have started riding more seriously, training for the start of the Tour de France, and have seen a 9.28% improvement in a max aerobic power test after 2 weeks of training. Again, real measurements not marketing claims from a pathological liar.

+1. My gains were because I started training seriously for the first time. A better trained and conditioned cyclist would obviously not make the same improvements. Good luck for the start of the TdF - been once (watch, not ride) and it was an awesome experience.

 

[FrankDay]

Didn't you find it troubling that 70% or so of those that started the experiment dropped out? Have you considered that it was the regular testing that actually provided the motivation for the three who stayed to train their butts off and make such nice progress? In my experience measured improvement is an incredible motivator. That's one of the prime advantages of training with a power meter. Perhaps your monthly measurements were the driving force for improvement rather than the PCs. On the flip side, perhaps the 70% quit the trial because they saw they were going backwards in terms of fitness which completely sapped their motivation to continue.

No. We were doing this in the middle of the racing season. That early adaption period is very difficult for people who are racing as they see the "slowing down" and mileage drop they see as detrimental. Further, we had little experience (just me) so I really didn't know what to tell them what to expect.

Why would the "regular" testing be the motivation when the first several tests showed a drop in ability? Anyhow, if you think that monthly testing is enough motivation to get cyclists to improve 40%, on average, in one season I suggest you publish that thought so the whole world can try that trick. Maybe we can find a performance enhancement use for the PM if that works.

" Yeah, in our first trial the majority of athletes quit without seeing any performance gain" isn't the kind of thing you probably want to tell prospective customers

Hugh

Have you been to our site? Have you watched the "first ride" video? Our typical customer has heard all the stories and most of them are so afraid of these things. It is one of the reasons we recommend exclusive use. The part-time users seem to never get to the point that they feel like normal cranks to them and eventually give up on them. The exclusive use users are getting back to normal training (distance and effort) in 6-8 weeks usually.

 

[CoachFergie]

+1. My gains were because I started training seriously for the first time. A better trained and conditioned cyclist would obviously not make the same improvements. Good luck for the start of the TdF - been once (watch, not ride) and it was an awesome experience.

Cheers.

Yours and my experience highlights the sort of gains one can expect starting from scratch and in a very short period of time. Outstanding gains of up to 100% in untrained subjects in the Gibala studies using high intensity intervals with a training stimulus of 12-18 min over two weeks.

Sure as you have found the rate of improvement levels off and this is reflected in the literature. Amusing that Frank claims the learning curve goes the in the other direction. Either there is just some plain old lying going on or his subjects, all 3 of them, are pretty abnormal

 

[coapman]

Three made it past 6 months. One of the interesting things we saw was an increase for the same perceive exertion for the entirety of the test. For example, in the pretest a rider might be at a HR of 100 at a perceived exertion of 10 (out of 20) and wattage of 150 and finish the test at a HR of 180 and a perceived exertion of 18 and wattage of 260. In the post test at a perceived exertion of 10 and HR of 100 the wattage was 40% higher or 210 and at the HR of 180 and PE of 18 a wattage of 380. So, the improvement was seen across the board. One of the cyclists in the monthly testing was showing this exact same improvement across the board, 40% improvement but suddenly couldn't go any longer at a PE of about 15, well short of his maximum HR and PE on pre-testing (remember I did the post testing on PowerCranks such that when the HF's failed the test was over a common problem in the early months). It was clear he simply needed to develop more endurance in the HF's and we expected to see him complete the test the next month but he never returned. I counted him as a 40% improvement because we were seeing this early on but he simply didn't have enough endurance to complete the test.

Anyhow, as I have said many times before here, this was not a study but, rather, an attempt to gather data to help me to tell people what they might expect if they train with the device. The data I gathered convinced me that, if the cranks were used appropriately and for a long enough period that 40% power improvement would not be unusual because that is what I saw when I tested for this. The numbers of participants were small but the changes were reliable.

In your own case I would like to point out that you haven't claimed you saw a 40% improvement over a longer period. I don't deny that some of the improvement we saw may be due to training effect. Certainly people improve with continued training. But, there is one difference between your experience and the experience of PowerCrankers. You report seeing a 10% improvement in the first 4 weeks. PowerCrankers generally report a drop in power in the first four weeks. It is not until they start to see substantial endurance developing before they start to see power improvements. Your experience is more in line with training effect improvements. It makes little sense that dropping power for a period should then, suddenly, result in power improvements 6 weeks later. If anything one would expect to see detraining and power loss with a prolonged drop in training power. It doesn't happen because at some point it all starts to come together and suddenly the power is better for more than just a few minutes. My guess is, because of your training effect improvement you saw after getting a coach (who probably pushed harder than you were used to), that if you had been part of my original group and stayed with the program your improvement would have been greater than 40%. Of course, that is all speculation on my part but we do see customers who see more than 40% improvement in that time-frame so it is possible.

What is your explanation for the drop in power after 4 weeks of exclusive PC use.

 

[FrankDay]

What is your explanation for the drop in power after 4 weeks of exclusive PC use.

Because when pedaling the PC way the sustainable power is limited by the weakest muscle group. Until the untrained muscles are better trained aerobically sustainable power will be reduced. It generally takes 4-6 weeks to see any substantial aerobic fitness changes in muscles and, after this period, people will start to see some improved sustainable power.

 

[CoachFergie]

What is your explanation for the drop in power after 4 weeks of exclusive PC use.

Frank himself said a Ironman athlete lost power going into the race on normal cranks after training on independent cranks. So even the creator acknowledges that training with them harms performance in competition.

A pretty simple explanation is the specificity principle. Train as you intend to compete. Training with an independent crank only makes you better at training with an independent crank. Specificity is the most common observation in sport science.

 

[coapman]

Because when pedaling the PC way the sustainable power is limited by the weakest muscle group. Until the untrained muscles are better trained aerobically sustainable power will be reduced. It generally takes 4-6 weeks to see any substantial aerobic fitness changes in muscles and, after this period, people will start to see some improved sustainable power.

What I find hard to understand is why when testing the very first set of these cranks anyone would continue using them after getting such negative power returns from weeks of using them.

 

[FrankDay]

Frank himself said a Ironman athlete lost power going into the race on normal cranks after training on independent cranks. So even the creator acknowledges that training with them harms performance in competition.

You are indeed crazy and misrepresent pretty much everything I say. If I remember correctly, the athlete in question lost power from what he could do on the PowerCranks (because regular cranks allowed him to revert back to less efficient technique) even though his power was still higher than when he started training on the PowerCranks.

A pretty simple explanation is the specificity principle. Train as you intend to compete. Training with an independent crank only makes you better at training with an independent crank. Specificity is the most common observation in sport science.

LOL. I guess if you want to pedal with the technique you were using when you were 12 then train with the tool that taught you that technique, regular cranks. If one pedals using the PC technique it doesn't matter which cranks are on your bike.

 

[CoachFergie]

What I find hard to understand is why when testing the very first set of these cranks anyone would continue using them after getting such negative power returns from weeks of using them.

Like most products with only anecdotal claims backing them even with money back guarantees consumer psychology is people just accept they made a mistake, keep quiet and move on. The truly desperate just make up claims like increased average speeds or lowered heart rates in a lame effort to reduce the cognitive dissonance from their bad purchase and poor investment of time.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

As I stated, there was no control group.

Well after this the rest is wild speculation. Apart from the fact that it is implausible.

But, our expectation was that it was unlikely that any group of experienced cyclists would see a 40% increase in one season of ordinary training so it seems reasonable for us to make a positive claim. If we only saw a 5% change one would have to wonder if it was PC's or training effect. But, it wasn't 5%, it was 40%. Our claim is what we observed after people trained on the device for a long period of time.

Let's face it Frank, a 40% increase in sustainable power for many experienced cyclists would mean they'd be blowing away all of the professional peloton.

It's quite clearly a total nonsense and your claim lacks any plausibility.

 

[FrankDay]

Well after this the rest is wild speculation. Apart from the fact that it is implausible.

Anyhow, it isn't wild speculation as I ran the tests and those are the results I got. Implausible perhaps to those with tiny imaginations and a fear of trying something different.

Let's face it Frank, a 40% increase in sustainable power for many experienced cyclists would mean they'd be blowing away all of the professional peloton.

Someone who now averages 150 watts isn't going to blow away the peloton being able to average 210. And, ugh, everyone doesn't see 40%. The better you are now the less improvement we would expect you to see. Of course, the better you are now the harder it is for you to achieve any improvement so even a tiny improvement is a big deal. And, another reason you (or anyone else) is not likely to "blow away the pro peloton" by getting on these training devices is a large number of the top pros are already on them. They already have take advantage of the tool, it is unlikely you will pass them starting now.

It's quite clearly a total nonsense and your claim lacks any plausibility.

Of course it sounds like total nonsense to those who have never tried them, let alone trained on them. One cannot imagine what they are not doing now and what these changes mean over the long term. I'll bet more than a few of our customers have purchased them in order to prove our impossible claim wrong. I guess we make them cut off their fingers when they mount them to their bikes because they sure are not posting their poor results here or anywhere else. The only truly vocal negative remarks come from those who have never used them. There have been a few "less than stellar" results posted but I am not aware of a single one of those people using the cranks as we prescribe (exclusively) to see the big results. If you are going to bash something that others report having good experiences with don't you think you should have some personal experience with it to justify the bashing?

 

[CoachFergie]

Well after this the rest is wild speculation. Apart from the fact that it is implausible.



Let's face it Frank, a 40% increase in sustainable power for many experienced cyclists would mean they'd be blowing away all of the professional peloton.

It's quite clearly a total nonsense and your claim lacks any plausibility.

Pretty wide confidence intervals with only 3 subjects.

Hmmmm paging Tigermilk who posted his experience of using a Powercrank. Not a glowing review.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

If you are going to bash something that others report having good experiences with don't you think you should have some personal experience with it to justify the bashing?

I don't need to smoke to say it's bad for people.

 

[FrankDay]

I don't need to smoke to say it's bad for people.

100 years ago cyclists thought it was good for the lungs. Amazing how wrong we can be when we guess.