The Powercrank Thread

[h2ofun]

Show me one single post where I have put your product down. Give me one example. I have questioned the science behind it and rightly so when you base your power assessment on three cyclists, you have not measured the speed improvement directly but rather extrapolated from a program, you have not declared on your website how you have come up with either of these figures (or reported the 70% dropout rate in your one and only attempted study), and you refuse to perform a study on your product thereby raising further suspicion about the validity of your claims. So, I repeat, show me a post where I have stated something derogatory about your product. You keep accusing me of personal attacks and making derogatory statements, but you confuse this for rightly questioning the methods you use for marketing your product.

Frank seems to be starting the study you say has never been done. I am person one. I just sent Frank another top racer who cannot run at the moment because of PF. He has never tried PC's. So this will be another great data point for a top person starting from zero on PC's. Maybe you should be in the experiment and see what happens? Game?

 

[sciguy]

I have not even had the velotrons for 10 years. I did not do as much training as I do not until the last few years now that I am retired.

Yeah it looks like you got one in October of 2005 about the same time you got your Powercranks. Hmmmmmmmmm makes it tough to sort out which helped.

Logically the PC's make SO much sense to use that I cannot even believe anyone could argue they cannot help someone get faster.

What logic is that?

I have seen some data which is a first. I did see that my pedaling stroke is pretty good. Do you know what yours looks like?

Dave, I spent years doing single leg drills, riding track bikes on the road, fixated my self on Spinscan and finally came to the conclusion that hammering the pedals generated the most power. There are tons of other folks who have found the same.

Based on Franks inputs, and reading others, 6 months ago I changed the PCs on my Velotron to 175s, but am still racing on 200's, mainly because I did not want to spend another 500 bucks on a crank arm when I did not have data for the best crank length for me.

Very nice quality cranks can be had for less than $100 and much less if you go used. No need to spend $500 on custom cranks.

I am now running faster than I ever have. 2 months ago I ran the Davis Lucky Half Marathon. I did a 1:27 at 57 years old. Not bad for an old guy. But wait, there is more. Just running is too easy, so I pushed one granddaughter in a stroller the entire time. Could you do that? )

You're an excellent runner especially for your age. I know you're sure the Powercranks are responsible but I know women who got off the couch at 45 with no endurance background what so ever and went on to be top area runners without ever using Powercranks. The study of their affect on elite runners showed no help. It will be interesting to see the details of the newest study Frank has mentioned.

So what size cranks will I end up on? What gearing will I end up with to handle the hills I climb when I am such a poor biker? I have no idea, but am loving the idea to work with Frank with the Icranks and let the data and race results do the talking. Scares the hell out of me to say I offered to Frank to do IMLT 70.3 on the icrank Powercranks and hopefully collect the data to see how my bike performance does, but this sport for me is all about fun, trying new things.

I think it's nice that you're doing this too. Hopefully you will race with the cranks locked out. That way it will really show how much of the technique is preserved versus forced upon you. Your excellent run time show that you have vastly more bike potential than you seem to express in races. Perhaps you unconsciously hold back on the bike so that you will be able to unleash on the run. You're fast enough to get away with that execution in local races but as you saw at IMLT a speedy bike is important on the really pointy end of the spectrum.

Have fun, stay safe and keep that blood pressure down.

Hugh

 

[h2ofun]

powercranks

I purchased a Velotron in 2005, kept for 2 weeks, then returned it. I forget when I bought another one, but it was not that long ago.

So, you have never tried powercranks? But you know they cannot help anyone improve anything?

The sport is who gets to the finish line faster so I try to save for the run. Now this season I have tried to see if I biked a little harder, what would happen. So far in my races I seem to have improved on the bike, and my run times have not suffered.

Our sport was founded on trying things that folks said could never work. Aerobars is a great example.

Oh well, I still love to try new stuff. Why some folks have to spend their energy trying to "save" folks from things they think are evil just make me smile. Life is too short.

 

[CoachFergie]

So, you have never tried powercranks? But you know they cannot help anyone improve anything?

Good grief, that tired and sad cliche. The point is no one has provided any credible data that they have improved anything. Maybe after ACSM this will change.

The sport is who gets to the finish line faster so I try to save for the run. Now this season I have tried to see if I biked a little harder, what would happen. So far in my races I seem to have improved on the bike, and my run times have not suffered.

This adds nothing to the debate. 1000s of athletes improve for a multitude of reasons.

Our sport was founded on trying things that folks said could never work. Aerobars is a great example.

Who said aero bars wouldn't work? Out of curiosity how do people an set of aero bars or riding with them could not work???

Oh well, I still love to try new stuff. Why some folks have to spend their energy trying to "save" folks from things they think are evil just make me smile. Life is too short.

Yep, some people need a new gimmick every five minutes.

 

[h2ofun]

PC

Yes, I do like gimmicks to a point. I wish the folks who post comments would post their results, and age. At my age of 57, so many are hurt, slow or cannot race anymore, I will stay with the safety of training on my indoor trainer, and let the big boys kick **** on bike stuff. I cannot swim or bike or run, which is why I do Triathlons. )

Mr. Gimmick here. )

 

[CoachFergie]

Yes, I do like gimmicks to a point. I wish the folks who post comments would post their results, and age. At my age of 57, so many are hurt, slow or cannot race anymore, I will stay with the safety of training on my indoor trainer, and let the big boys kick **** on bike stuff. I cannot swim or bike or run, which is why I do Triathlons. )

Results! Do you have a mental age of 10??? Get a fricking clue.

Evidence! Buy a dictionary and find out what this word means!!!

 

[elapid]

Frank seems to be starting the study you say has never been done. I am person one. I just sent Frank another top racer who cannot run at the moment because of PF. He has never tried PC's. So this will be another great data point for a top person starting from zero on PC's. Maybe you should be in the experiment and see what happens? Game?

Frank has refused to perform the study. He has said so:

My doing this study is a waste of time.

If you are waiting for proof of the 40% claim I suspect that will never happen, at least in my lifetime.

There are many more examples that Frank is running scared from doing this study if you bothered to read all of his posts in this thread.

Lastly, anecdotes here and there do not make a study. A well-designed study would involve a PowerCrank group and a control group of decent numbers of equivalently trained cyclists tested in the same way, training in the same way, and tested at regular intervals in the same way.

 

[FrankDay]

Did they also have a group that rode fixed cranks at the same intensity and time as the uncoupled cranks?

Hugh

No, they substituted PowerCranks training for equivalent time spent running. So, if they were running 10 hours a week running before, the control group continued running 10 hours per week and the PC group PC'd for 3 hours and ran for 7. Cycling on regular cranks has never been shown to improve running so there was really no need to have a regular cranks group as that is a been there, done that sort of thing. Runners tend to think that the only way to improve running ability is to run. This study suggests that thinking is wrong.

 

[h2ofun]

PC

I know he is trying. Why not ask to join the test group. Work with Frank with an open attitude to see the best things can be. I know Frank of course is trying to prove his thoughts, but he is totally going about the data I saw him collect on me without any bias. As I said, I am hoping to get a great athlete I know to get into his study with a zero base on PC's. I just do not understand why some just love to get so personal. My experience is these folks just love to do this on everything in life, just there way of having fun.
Another word for many of these folks I know is bully.

So I am going to continue to support and work with Frank. The day I see something that does not work for ME, I stop, no matter what Frank thinks.

Frank is one very smart guy with a track record. This sure means I am more than willing to listen to him compared to folks who know the answer on PC's, but have never had the guts to try them. Why? Are they afraid they might find some improvements, then what would these folks say? )

 

[FrankDay]

Show me one single post where I have put your product down. Give me one example. I have questioned the science behind it and rightly so when you base your power assessment on three cyclists, you have not measured the speed improvement directly but rather extrapolated from a program, you have not declared on your website how you have come up with either of these figures (or reported the 70% dropout rate in your one and only attempted study), and you refuse to perform a study on your product thereby raising further suspicion about the validity of your claims. So, I repeat, show me a post where I have stated something derogatory about your product. You keep accusing me of personal attacks and making derogatory statements, but you confuse this for rightly questioning the methods you use for marketing your product.

right above you wrote:

First is that the improvement in speed is purely based on a highly suspect increase in power and has not actually been measured.

Ugh, I have measured such power increases in a small group I gathered to determine what kind of claims I might make for my product. And, many others, customers, have measured similar increases. The problem is that people like you, even when people report such improvements, simply don't believe them and call them liars and shills. Such statements put both me and my product down without any evidence to back it up. You don't believe it is possible so any reports have to be made up.

 

[FrankDay]

Frank seems to be starting the study you say has never been done. I am person one. I just sent Frank another top racer who cannot run at the moment because of PF. He has never tried PC's. So this will be another great data point for a top person starting from zero on PC's. Maybe you should be in the experiment and see what happens? Game?

I am not starting a study. I don't have a control group. I am trying to gather data to help me make better suggestions to customers (and others willing to listen) as to what is important and what is not in making crank length decisions.

 

[sciguy]

No, they substituted PowerCranks training for equivalent time spent running. So, if they were running 10 hours a week running before, the control group continued running 10 hours per week and the PC group PC'd for 3 hours and ran for 7. Cycling on regular cranks has never been shown to improve running so there was really no need to have a regular cranks group as that is a been there, done that sort of thing. Runners tend to think that the only way to improve running ability is to run. This study suggests that thinking is wrong.

Actually I'm sure I remember a study where coupled cranks did help running speed for low experience runners. For that matter in what previous study have uncoupled cranks been shown to improve running? If we used your logic there would be no reason to test them again since they've already come up short once. It makes perfect sense to me to run groups biking on coupled as well as uncoupled along with pure running and while we're at it match up the biking trial so both groups work at the same intensity and duration. For all we know the PCers were busting there bums while the pure runners were noodling around the track.


Hugh

 

[CoachFergie]

I know he is trying. Why not ask to join the test group. Work with Frank with an open attitude to see the best things can be. I know Frank of course is trying to prove his thoughts, but he is totally going about the data I saw him collect on me without any bias. As I said, I am hoping to get a great athlete I know to get into his study with a zero base on PC's. I just do not understand why some just love to get so personal. My experience is these folks just love to do this on everything in life, just there way of having fun.
Another word for many of these folks I know is bully.

Frank gives as good as he gets. Yup, funny how people get when you get lied to as many times as Frank has over the last 10 or so years.

So I am going to continue to support and work with Frank. The day I see something that does not work for ME, I stop, no matter what Frank thinks.

You just remain an anecdote. You can not prove if PC's have made you better or worse and you can not prove if an alternative plan would have worked better. That is the fallacy of results. Many athletes achieve results in spite of their training.

Frank is one very smart guy with a track record.

Smart? Would like to see evidence of that!

Track record? Yes he does

This sure means I am more than willing to listen to him compared to folks who know the answer on PC's, but have never had the guts to try them. Why? Are they afraid they might find some improvements, then what would these folks say? )

"Not having used them" is nearly as lame as claiming them "leading to results".

 

[CoachFergie]

Actually I'm sure I remember a study where coupled cranks did help running speed for low experience runners. For that matter in what previous study have uncoupled cranks been shown to improve running? If we used your logic there would be no reason to test them again since they've already come up short once. It makes perfect sense to me to run groups biking on uncoupled as well as uncoupled along with pure running and while we're at it match up the biking trial so both groups work at the same intensity and duration. For all we know the PCers were busting there bums while the pure runners were noodling around the track.

Most of the studies on weight training were similar. Both groups did the same amount of bike riding but the experimental group did resistance training in addition so not really comparing apples with apples.

 

[FrankDay]

The study of their affect on elite runners showed no help. It will be interesting to see the details of the newest study Frank has mentioned.

You guys are a hoot. Do you actually read the studies you reference? If you read them do you understand what was done in the study? You do realize that for training to have any effect that increased stress must be applied to see any effect? In the Wagner study on running he took ELITE runners and had them use the PowerCranks at a cadence of 60 for a few weeks. He may as well had them put them under their pillows to see if that had any effect. The fact that someone did a study doesn't mean the study is any good. The more recent study, the researcher talked to me and listened to my criticism of the Wagner study, which were two. I thought it would be easier to show a benefit in runners who were not elite and that the intervention should be at a running cadence or higher. He made both changes and showed a statistically significant difference. Like I said, you guys are a hoot.

Elite runners have found the cranks useful (including American record holders). I doubt any of them use them at a cadence of 60.

 

[elapid]

Ugh, I have measured such power increases in a small group I gathered to determine what kind of claims I might make for my product.

A small group = 3 cyclists. That is a pitiful sample size. Why don't you report the 70% dropout rate? That is far more significant than what 3 cyclists did on your product.

Back in your anesthetist days, would you have used a new anesthetic drug which had been researched in just 10 people? Moreover, would you have used that same drug if the results were great in 3 people, but 7 people dropped out of the study because of complications with the drug?

 

[elapid]

I am not starting a study. I don't have a control group. I am trying to gather data to help me make better suggestions to customers (and others willing to listen) as to what is important and what is not in making crank length decisions.

This is what a study would do for you, Frank. You don't have to prove it to us, you have to prove it to the customers who are interested in your product. Who knows, if the results of this study are anywhere near as good as you say, then that would make a lot more people sit up and take notice and buy your product.

 

[FrankDay]

For that matter in what previous study have uncoupled cranks been shown to improve running?

None. The only reason to suggest the cranks should be studied for running improvement come from the reports of triathletes who, almost to a man, think the running benefits of using the cranks are greater than the cycling improvements they see, and from two phone calls I got early on. One of these phone calls was from Alberto Salizar (ever hear of him?) who saw an ad for the cranks and called me telling me all the great things these would do for runners and he wanted a pair for his coaching practice. Another was an elite sprinter and coach named Aaron Thigpen who had a patellar tendonitis and was looking for a non-impact way of continuing to train. He got on them and shortly thereafter ran a 10.34 100m at the age of 38, setting an age record for the distance at the time. Then, there was Hall of Fame running coach Joe Vigil who saw the cranks and immediately asked to get a bike for Team Running USA which included Ryan Shea, Meb Keflesghi (yes, Meb has used them), and other elite runners. When you know as much about running as these folks I will listen to your criticism. Until then, perhaps you should listen to my criticism of the studies you refer to. You guys are such know-it-alls about things of which you have no (as in zero) experience. A real hoot.

 

[FrankDay]

Frank has refused to perform the study. He has said so:





There are many more examples that Frank is running scared from doing this study if you bothered to read all of his posts in this thread.

Lastly, anecdotes here and there do not make a study. A well-designed study would involve a PowerCrank group and a control group of decent numbers of equivalently trained cyclists tested in the same way, training in the same way, and tested at regular intervals in the same way.

A decent study would also last 9 months. That is the problem. Plus, if I do the study, I inject bias so the results are easily discounted. As an alternative I let each individual run their own study. They either work for them or they can get their money back. I don't see that as running away from anything.

 

[elapid]

A decent study would also last 9 months. That is the problem.

That is also the problem with your product and why you had a 70% dropout rate.

Plus, if I do the study, I inject bias so the results are easily discounted.

You're presenting a study you conducted on PowerCranks and running (at least I am presuming you did the study), why weren't you worried about bias with this study?

You are worried about bias if you perform the study, but the proof is in the design of the study and the results will speak for themselves. Personally, I think you owe it to your customers to provide accurate information based on a well-designed study. Cherry-picking anecdotal reports, extrapolating power increases using a computer program to come up with speed increases, not reporting a 70% dropout rate, and using that as marketing makes me very skeptical.

 

[FrankDay]

That is also the problem with your product and why you had a 70% dropout rate.

If you want to "prove" the 40% number 9 months is how long it takes because that is what our claim is. If you want to see the 40% number it takes quite a commitment, something that is hard to find in people volunteering to do a study (but something customers who have paid for the product seem more willing to do). If you just want to prove effectiveness it can be done quicker but still requires immersion training, as Dixon did, showing, as I remember a 16% improvement in VO2max and 12% increase in max power (P<0.05) in 6 weeks of immersion training. But, you don't accept these studies because they don't prove my 40% number.

You're presenting a study you conducted on PowerCranks and running (at least I am presuming you did the study), why weren't you worried about bias with this study?

I didn't do the study. It is a university study done by a facility that purchased the cranks from us so no issue with bias. See what your assumptions get you.

You are worried about bias if you perform the study, but the proof is in the design of the study and the results will speak for themselves. Personally, I think you owe it to your customers to provide accurate information based on a well-designed study. Cherry-picking anecdotal reports, extrapolating power increases using a computer program to come up with speed increases, not reporting a 70% dropout rate, and using that as marketing makes me very skeptical.

No, it doesn't matter what the study design is, if I do the study the potential for bias being interjected always exists. Anecdotal reports are important because they should lead researchers to ask the question as to whether there is something to them. Few doing cycling research seem interested in exploring this issue. Says something about their bias, don't you think?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I have some new miracle running shoes. I call them Mirunners^TM.

People who train on Mirunners will attain, on average, a 40% improvement in their running pace.

The fact that they might attain a 40% improvement from training on any other pair of running shoes isn't relevant. I'm claiming the 40% improvement as solely being the result of using Mirunners.

One of my clients has used Mirunners for the last 10 years, and he's running really well, and swears by them.

XenonSucker says "I have made more progress using Mirunners than ever, it really hasn't anything to do with training consistently for the last 10 years, it's the Mirunners, they're awesome". XenonSucker goes on, " I don't get all you non-believers. I'm living proof that Mirunners work. There's no way I'd have made such tremendous improvements training consistently for 10 years on Nikes".

 

[sciguy]

Alex,

That was the perfect segue into today's anecdotal Powercrank report from long time user Chad over on Slowtwitch. Chad was one of most vocal advocates of PC use back in 2005. His posts proved instrumental in convinced H2Ofun that longer cranks as well as Powercranks were the way to reach cycling bliss. I wrote him yesterday to see how he feels about Powercranks now.

Chad,

Just wondering if you'd share your current thoughts regarding Powercranks. You seemed to be a big fan early on who cooled over time. Are you still using them? Thoughts?

Thanks for info you're willing to share.

Hugh

Chad responded:

Hugh,
Unfortunately, early in my triathlon competition, I was always looking for the magic pill that would push me over the top. I was reasonably talented (enough that I just ran a 10:00 3200 and 4:42 1600 at age 43) but always looking for something to push me over the top. I tried long crankarms, powercranks and other silly stuff along the way until I finally realized it was just hard work and persistence that makes you fast. Even the structure and precision of training with a powermeter never made me as fast as just doing a lot of running and riding with no goal other than high volume.

As such, I have kept one set of Powercranks in the event that I ever have an injury that prevents me from running. I do think they can work some running muscles that are not worked in cycling without the impact of running, but I don't use them regularly. From a cycling standpoint, I think you are simply strengthening one set of muscles at the expense of another and it is a zero sum gain.

Chad

Of course I'm sure Frank will say that Chad is still benefiting from his earlier time on PCs because once a Powercranker always a Powercranker

Hugh

 

[sciguy]

And then there is this one from a current professional triathlete who hits the podium in the IM distance. His name is removed to protect him from sponsor back lash.

%^&*%$,

While data mining Powercranks vs aero position information I came upon a post by you from 2006 when you were using Powercranks.

If you don't mind commenting, I'm wondering if you still train on them and your current thoughts regarding their use.

Hope you and your wife are happy, healthy and fit for a great season.

Best Regards,

Hugh

His response:

I don't use them.

My current thought is that you'll take a pretty big current bike 'fitness' hit to get used to them or get to the point of using them where they will yield any 'possible' more benefit than more focused training. Does that make sense?

As a run substitute...'maybe'.

Frank's probably going to say that %^&*%$ didn't following his prescription time wise or exclusivity wise but as I understand things his directions were followed very carefully for more than one season.

I think Frank really needs to do some careful follow up of the folks he's taking credit for helping. How about a live online interview with Mirinda when you're at Challenge Atlantic City?

Hugh

 

[sciguy]

Then there is this one from Rick Ashburn: Obviously he is one of the 1 in 1000 who returned his cranks for a refund. Back then Frank claimed you'd see benefit in 3 weeks.

Rick,

Nice to see you back on ST. A couple of weeks ago I was searching for a link to the writeup you did on your PowerCrank experience but was unable to find it. Does that web page still exist? I'm accumulating a bit of information to fuel and argument with Frank Day regarding his 40% improvement claims and felt you had written an extremely intelligent, well balanced blog entry describing your experience.

Hope the training and life are going well.

Hugh

Rick's response:

Hey Hugh...

Thanks for the note. I let that blog site expire and go away a while back.

It's impossible to argue with Frank. It's like arguing with creationists -- since their position is that their claims are true *by definition* then it is impossible (from their perspective) that arguments against it are valid.

Frank claims that his cranks work *by definition.* No evidence need exist for him to be right. And no contrary evidence is allowed.

Ultimately, one must go ride with them. I did -- but I no longer have the data at hand. I did the 3 weeks of training with them, as he recommended. I did time trials before and after, measuring power, speed and heart rate. No change. So I returned them per his policy.

In an interesting development, my teenage son tore a hip flexor in HS football. He then went to a high-end training/rehab gym run by a former Olympic sprinter, who had my son do sessions on a stationary bike with PowerCranks. It really helped him rehab the hip flexor and strengthen the whole area. But the trainer did say he stopped using the cranks on healthy athletes since he saw no results from them.

Interesting that even the rehab guys don't see any benefit except for a very specific situation. Perhaps that's what Alberto has come to see as well. Just because you sent him a set doesn't mean they're still using them. I do know his group has done tons of reduced gravity training with fragile athletes and seem to feel that helps.

Hugh