The Powercrank Thread

[FrankDay]

At the 2nd World Congress of Cycling Science and the Mapei Biomechanist has just given a presentation of how they are optimising performance on the bike. No mention of Powercranks or Crank Length. Main measures are Vo2, efficiency and Power. With power they are using Best Bike Split and Alphamantis to optimise position and performance on the bike.

Fergie, you are really a hoot. You either don't realize what you have said before or don't understand almost anything you do say. You do realize, when discussing the Luttrell finding of a 10% improvment in cycling efficiency from training with PowerCranks, that you have said that efficiency has nothing to do with performance. Now, you mention a symposium where they mention is is a major factor. Of course, it is always been a major factor but you never quite understood why (nor, probably, do you do now).

Further, you don't seem to realize that V(dot)O2, efficiency, and power are all related. V(dot)O2 is little more than current energy cost (effort). Multiply energy cost by efficiency and one gets power. Want to increase power? Increase oxygen consumed (V(dot)O2, muscles used) or efficiency, or both. Simple as that.

 

[CoachFergie]

---------------------------------------------
Was there any specific information about what they have found that actually does optimize performance? For example was any specific equipment or training method mentioned?

Tools such as 'Best Bike Split and Alphamantis' seem good for evaluating changes, but it isn't clear whether either one provides help in deciding what to change.

Should also stress that the Mapei talk was not presenting research just outlining their history and the current activities they were doing at their lab. So no data was presented or research outlined for why they follow certain practices or used certain metrics.

 

[FrankDay]

Congratulations to Vincenzo Nibali for his win in the 2014 TDF. A PowerCranker since 2011 here is a picture he tweeted of the cranks on his bike.

He even took them to training camp. I know this proves nothing to many of you but, in view of his dominating performance, I think it worthy of mention in the PowerCranks thread.

 

[veganrob]

Says he was testing them in 2011. Maybe you could find proof he is still training with them. Of course they would have to be on a Specialized bike now.

 

[CoachFergie]

Says he was testing them in 2011. Maybe you could find proof he is still training with them. Of course they would have to be on a Specialized bike now.

If Nibali is still using them it would be a testament to his ability to overcome their effect which even Frank has said reduces performance when a rider goes back onto normal cranks. Sure Frank would claim that after 6-9 months immersion training that this would not happen but for a road cyclists that is simply never going to happen.

From 2011 Nibali turns up to training on normal cranks...

http://pelotonmagazine.com/goods/nibalis-2011-liquigas-cannondale-supersix/

This video showing him training with the team. Shows him training using another well know measurement tool

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azT_MA5GWi4

(Entire team loses 1 Man Card point for listening to Carly Rae Jepsen)

This article shows how he uses data to monitor his training and racing. SRM of course!

http://blog.cyclefit.co.uk/blog/nibali-the-training-cycling-nutrition-behind-a-winning-performance

 

[veganrob]

LOL Great finds. Of course Frank knew all that.

 

[FrankDay]

It seems to me, Fergie and VeganRob, if one is really interested in learning what makes a difference (edit: between the top and middle of the pack, regardless of level) and what doesn't that one ought to be looking at what the top dogs are doing differently than everyone else rather than noting that they also do a lot of the same things everyone else does. If you'd rather ignore some of this stuff because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion of what works and what doesn't so be it. PowerCrankers have a pretty good track record (last 4 Olympic road race champions, for example) when it comes to winning big races especially when you compare it to the percentage of all riders using the tool where one might expect the winning percentage to be about the same as the percentage using the tool (edit: if it made little or no difference).

It seems to me, looking at Nibali's record, that he is winning a lot more and winning bigger races after PC's (2012 season and later) than before. It is simply an observation that I am sure you will choose to ignore or discount. It is a shame that Contador and Froome both crashed out as many will use that to discount his performance even though he was dominating both of them before their departure.

Is Nibali still using the tool? Don't know. Wouldn't surprise me though since his DS (Vinokurov) was also a PC'er. Further, these top pros tend to use them only in the off-season (although Garzelli rode them several years ago on a rest day at the TDF). But, even if not, it doesn't matter if they were used enough to achieve the desired technique change that change should stay with the rider for some period.

So, can Nibali's win be attributed directly to his PC usage? Nope. All that can be said is we know it was one tool used by the rider in his training. You are free to draw your own conclusion as to what it might or might not mean.

 

[CoachFergie]

LOL Great finds. Of course Frank knew all that.

At the World Congress of Cycling Science I got to listen to and speak with many of the people working with the best cyclists in the World. I was impressed with how open they were with what they were doing. Certainly not into any unproven gimmicks and just a case of getting the basics right.

The coolest stuff was developing different models based on the collection of data from various sources...

http://dataconomy.com/theres-a-new-performance-drug-in-town-its-data/

And of course Nibali was a Grand Tour winner in 2010 so his performances of 2013 and 2014 are not that surprising. Product of good coaching and sound career progression rather than any one turning point.

 

[FrankDay]

At the World Congress of Cycling Science I got to listen to and speak with many of the people working with the best cyclists in the World. I was impressed with how open they were with what they were doing. Certainly not into any unproven gimmicks and just a case of getting the basics right.

The coolest stuff was developing different models based on the collection of data from various sources...

http://dataconomy.com/theres-a-new-performance-drug-in-town-its-data/

Your point? You were impressed that they didn't hold anything back? Did they know you were a potential competitor?

The list of successful PC users goes on and on and on. And you think it significant that some presenters at some conference you went to didn't mention them (presenters who may or may not have anything to do with the training of the riders in question) didn't mention PC's to you, someone they may see as a competitor.

The fact remains that Nibili (and many many other world champs) have used the tool. Everyone uses a power meter and trains hard. What sets Nibili apart from the other riders in the race?

 

[FrankDay]

And of course Nibali was a Grand Tour winner in 2010 so his performances of 2013 and 2014 are not that surprising. Product of good coaching and sound career progression rather than any one turning point.

Yes, but I think most would consider it a big difference to winning the Tour of Spain in one year (followed by not a single win the next year) to
1. Winning the Tour of Italy and being second in the tour of Spain in a single year. and then,
2. Winning the Italian National Championships RR and the Tour of France the next year with more to come.

So, yes, I agree, it is all a product of good coaching and training. The main question being exactly what encompassed all that good coaching and training? Do you have access to the details of his training for the last couple of years? Did he just do what everyone else was doing (just doing more of it) or did he add something "special" to set himself apart?

 

[veganrob]

Yes, but I think most would consider it a big difference to winning the Tour of Spain in one year (followed by not a single win the next year) to
1. Winning the Tour of Italy and being second in the tour of Spain in a single year. and then,
2. Winning the Italian National Championships RR and the Tour of France the next year with more to come.

So, yes, I agree, it is all a product of good coaching and training. The main question being exactly what encompassed all that good coaching and training? Do you have access to the details of his training for the last couple of years? Did he just do what everyone else was doing (just doing more of it) or did he add something "special" to set himself apart?

Well maybe you can tell us what he is doing different or special. You were the one who made the claim Nibali has been training on PC since 2011. It looks like that post was deleted. You claimed Nibali tweeted this and that is also not what was stated in the article, it said testing. He has only been with Astana this year so what of the Vino connection. Vino has shown more than once what made him go.
Nobody, including myself or CoachFergie are against trying anything new. That is one reason he is a top coach. He reads, studies, listens and tests. But your claims are disengenuos and so full of holes and other BS it is impossible to take you seriously. And this Nibali subject is another perfect example. Hell Frank, I want you to be right on all your claims but there is nothing that I can see.

 

[CoachFergie]

Well maybe you can tell us what he is doing different or special. You were the one who made the claim Nibali has been training on PC since 2011. It looks like that post was deleted. You claimed Nibali tweeted this and that is also not what was stated in the article, it said testing. He has only been with Astana this year so what of the Vino connection. Vino has shown more than once what made him go.
Nobody, including myself or CoachFergie are against trying anything new. That is one reason he is a top coach. He reads, studies, listens and tests. But your claims are disengenuos and so full of holes and other BS it is impossible to take you seriously. And this Nibali subject is another perfect example. Hell Frank, I want you to be right on all your claims but there is nothing that I can see.

Have been discussing this very thing with people on my return from Leeds. The folly of just looking at one rider. I share my information as widely as possible. So rather than just base my coaching off what one rider, or a small group of riders (anyone with a basic grip on statistics will know why) is that the more people we can measure, trying different approaches, the better we can understand the performance process.

Also with newer modelling techniques we can look at performances of the Elite as a group and determine those things which are making a difference.

It is obvious watching Nibali's career progress that it is a steady progression with no spike in performance. And lets face it, we know what that would more likely have meant.

 

[FrankDay]

Well maybe you can tell us what he is doing different or special.

Did I forget to mention that he started training on PC's off season 2011?

You were the one who made the claim Nibali has been training on PC since 2011. It looks like that post was deleted. You claimed Nibali tweeted this and that is also not what was stated in the article, it said testing.

Last I looked articles and tweets (hmmm, so a sponsor - or his manager - made him take it down, it was there this morning, since we are not paying him. try this) were not the same. We became aware of his using the cranks seriously when the magazine contacted us about seeing him with them at training camp.

He has only been with Astana this year so what of the Vino connection. Vino has shown more than once what made him go.

As has every cyclist of his generation. What possibly could have made Vino better than the other dopers? My guess is attention to detail.

Nobody, including myself or CoachFergie are against trying anything new.

Sure you are, you won't even try them.

That is one reason he is a top coach.

If you say so.

He reads, studies, listens

LOL

and tests. But your claims are disengenuos and so full of holes and other BS it is impossible to take you seriously. And this Nibali subject is another perfect example. Hell Frank, I want you to be right on all your claims but there is nothing that I can see.

Better get an eye exam.

 

[CoachFergie]

Well maybe you can tell us what he is doing different or special. You were the one who made the claim Nibali has been training on PC since 2011. It looks like that post was deleted. You claimed Nibali tweeted this and that is also not what was stated in the article, it said testing. He has only been with Astana this year so what of the Vino connection. Vino has shown more than once what made him go.
Nobody, including myself or CoachFergie are against trying anything new. That is one reason he is a top coach. He reads, studies, listens and tests. But your claims are disengenuos and so full of holes and other BS it is impossible to take you seriously. And this Nibali subject is another perfect example. Hell Frank, I want you to be right on all your claims but there is nothing that I can see.

If we are looking at spikes in performance I would be wanting to know what Jean-Christophe Péraud and Thibault Pinot have been doing to come from nowhere to podium at the Tour ahead of proven performers like Valverde and Van Garderen.

 

[FrankDay]

If we are looking at spikes in performance I would be wanting to know what Jean-Christophe Péraud and Thibault Pinot have been doing to come from nowhere to podium at the Tour ahead of proven performers like Valverde and Van Garderen.

Good question. Of course, you don't know do you? But, you do know what the guy who cleaned both their clocks was doing yet you don't care.

 

[veganrob]

Good question. Of course, you don't know do you? But, you do know what the guy who cleaned both their clocks was doing yet you don't care.

No, we don't know what Nibali did that made him so superior to the others, And neither do you. If you are suggesting that since he "tested" PC three years ago is why he won, that is crazy. Then prove that he is still training with them. You can't. You don't have any proof.

 

[CoachFergie]

No, we don't know what Nibali did that made him so superior to the others, And neither do you. If you are suggesting that since he "tested" PC three years ago is why he won, that is crazy. Then prove that he is still training with them. You can't. You don't have any proof.

Yet we have a lot of proof that he uses an SRM power meter. All manner of charts on various websites from racing and training. Now of course only the utterly stupid think or would try and convince us that using a power meter makes difference to performance. But the obvious point is if he is using his SRM then he is not using independent cranks.

 

[FrankDay]

No, we don't know what Nibali did that made him so superior to the others, And neither do you. If you are suggesting that since he "tested" PC three years ago is why he won, that is crazy. Then prove that he is still training with them. You can't. You don't have any proof.

Don't you find it strange that a rider of Nibali's ability (and many others at that level) are, at a minimum, willing to "test" out the PowerCranks and you (at whatever level you are) are not because you know them to be worthless (or, at least, not proven effective)? In the last week we have had calls from two Sky domestiques wanting to get onto the cranks. Can't imagine why because, as I have been told here many times, this would be a complete waste of time and money for even mediocre cyclists and I can't believe professional cyclists love wasting both their training time and money. The stupidity exhibited by some people can be overwhelming, don't you think?

 

[veganrob]

But Frank, you have just answered your ownd question. "Not proven effective".
I have not knocked your product ever. Just that you have shown no proof in a study of their worth. It does not help when you delete posts because you misled people on a person tweeting they are training with your PC, changing the dates etc. Why would anyone believe anything you say when you are constantly doing what appears to be outright fabrication and lies.
Coach Fergie provides links to studies that show that training with PC's are of no benefit. Why don't you provide otherwise?
So two Sky doms want to try PC's. So... I have a client that bought them, trained on them for 6 months and declared them useless. So who am I going to believe, my client obviously. Not some story about Sky which was possibly made up by you because you want to sell a product. Or misleading stories about Nibali that you delete because you know you lied about it.
Like I said previously but you can't see past your hate, I want the PC be of worth. Everyone would like them to be. We are constantly looking for something to improve our performance. But i for one can't afford to throw away $1000 because you say they work, with no proof. Sorry. Best wishes
Rob

 

[FrankDay]

But Frank, you have just answered your ownd question. "Not proven effective".
I have not knocked your product ever. Just that you have shown no proof in a study of their worth.

Could you name one or two products that you currently use that have an independent study that prove their worth? (and how about a link or two to the studies.) The problem I see of your attitude is you are not willing to even try them so you can determine for yourself as to whether they will help you using your own judgment. Are you so unsure of yourself that you are unable to judge as to what you are doing is helping or not? Nibili and many others at that level have been willing to do that (and some of them have actually liked them, imagine that.)

It does not help when you delete posts because you misled people on a person tweeting they are training with your PC, changing the dates etc.

I did not delete the post I made that is missing.

Why would anyone believe anything you say when you are constantly doing what appears to be outright fabrication and lies.

Where have I deleted a post? I don't delete posts generally. I live with my mistakes when I make them. When have I ever posted a lie (specifics please)? (edit:I went to the US Naval Academy. I still live by the honor concept. Lying is not part of who I am.)

Coach Fergie provides links to studies that show that training with PC's are of no benefit. Why don't you provide otherwise?

Fergies "studies" are simply terrible. Part-time use for 5-6 weeks. Most users are just getting to the point of getting back to their previous ability in 5-6 weeks. We tell customers that they most should START to see improvement in 6 weeks then we give them 3 months, just in case they are slower than usual. Anyhow, there several studies that show benefit. Luttrell, Dixon, for two. That fact that a poorly conceived and executed study shows no benefit is hardly a knock on the product when it has been used by the last 4 Olympic road race champions or the current TDF champion and on and on.

So two Sky doms want to try PC's. So... I have a client that bought them, trained on them for 6 months and declared them useless. So who am I going to believe, my client obviously. Not some story about Sky which was possibly made up by you because you want to sell a product. Or misleading stories about Nibali that you delete because you know you lied about it.

How did your client train on them? Why didn't he send them back for refund in less than 90 days? Huh? lied about Nibali?

Like I said previously but you can't see past your hate, I want the PC be of worth. Everyone would like them to be. We are constantly looking for something to improve our performance. But i for one can't afford to throw away $1000 because you say they work, with no proof. Sorry. Best wishes
Rob

Hate? My friend, if you want them to work all you need do is try them. If they are not working for you within 90 days they probably have nothing to offer you. 1-2 in 1,000 send them back for that refund. We think that is a pretty good "success" rate. Yet, you are afraid to even give them a try.

 

[CoachFergie]

But Frank, you have just answered your ownd question. "Not proven effective".
I have not knocked your product ever. Just that you have shown no proof in a study of their worth. It does not help when you delete posts because you misled people on a person tweeting they are training with your PC, changing the dates etc. Why would anyone believe anything you say when you are constantly doing what appears to be outright fabrication and lies.
Coach Fergie provides links to studies that show that training with PC's are of no benefit. Why don't you provide otherwise?
So two Sky doms want to try PC's. So... I have a client that bought them, trained on them for 6 months and declared them useless. So who am I going to believe, my client obviously. Not some story about Sky which was possibly made up by you because you want to sell a product. Or misleading stories about Nibali that you delete because you know you lied about it.
Like I said previously but you can't see past your hate, I want the PC be of worth. Everyone would like them to be. We are constantly looking for something to improve our performance. But i for one can't afford to throw away $1000 because you say they work, with no proof. Sorry. Best wishes
Rob

Such claims are pathetic. Frank makes them all the time and like most of his claims are unproven. He claimed to be working with British Cycling Federation yet couldn't tell us who his contact was and when I asked my contacts at BCF they didn't know a thing. Same with Australian Cycling and most recently his claims to be a supplier to Mapei training centre turn out to be a few riders doing them and the Mapei sport sci people think they are wasting their time.

If it's true about Team Sky probably reflects how desperate they are after the whole season has gone pear shaped.

It's not throwing away money, it's throwing away time. Either they don't work because you don't use them enough or they harm your performance carrying out immersion training when you go back on to normal cranks.

The science is pretty clear about the former and it was Frank himself who highlighted the latter.

As for Nibali, one photo. Real scientific

 

[FrankDay]

Such claims are pathetic. Frank makes them all the time and like most of his claims are unproven. He claimed to be working with British Cycling Federation yet couldn't tell us who his contact was and when I asked my contacts at BCF they didn't know a thing. Same with Australian Cycling and most recently his claims to be a supplier to Mapei training centre turn out to be a few riders doing them and the Mapei sport sci people think they are wasting their time.

Fergie, essentially all of my claims are "unproven." This is because it is almost impossible for us to scientifically prove what we believe to be true. We must rely on others and no one has stepped up and done the work yet (probably because it would be a very hard study to do). All we claim is what we believe that will happen to most users based on our testing and user experience (if they use them as directed), then we give them a money-back guarantee if it doesn't work out for them. At least we are a product that makes a specific claim. Most products make no claim (probably because they don't do much) so there is nothing to prove. Name a single product that makes a claim that has independent scientific proof of that claim! And, just because your contacts at the BCF are not our contacts isn't particular proof of anything. I wasn't the person here "contacting" them anyhow.

If it's true about Team Sky probably reflects how desperate they are after the whole season has gone pear shaped.

LOL

It's not throwing away money, it's throwing away time. Either they don't work because you don't use them enough or they harm your performance carrying out immersion training when you go back on to normal cranks.

Really? Who has ever said they got slower because of a 6-12 week trial? The real problem with people not seeing improvement is they are so afraid of "losing fitness" because of the hit they take in training volume they are afraid to buy fully into the concept and do the part-time thing. We warn them. Part-time use has much more variable results. So, the real question you should ask someone when they said they didn't see any improvement is: "How did you use them?" Part-time use isn't as reliable in causing improvement. Putting them under your pillow and sleeping with them doesn't work at all.

The science is pretty clear about the former and it was Frank himself who highlighted the latter.

Huh?

As for Nibali, one photo. Real scientific

I would agree that it isn't science but I do think that a photo tweeted by Nibali himself of a picture of his bike with the PC's on it along with words to the effect as to how hard the first ride was does constitute pretty good PROOF of use by the man.

 

[FrankDay]

Mark Arnold won the UK National 12 Hr TT championship on a fixed gear (51x14 I am told) after training on PowerCranks. He rode 299.03 miles in the 12 hours. His previous best was in 2010 when he finished fourth with 274 miles.

 

[coapman]

Fergie, essentially all of my claims are "unproven." This is because it is almost impossible for us to scientifically prove what we believe to be true.

Why did you delete your last post, who objected. What do you believe to be true about PC's, can you explain why powercrank pedaling is more effective than mashing. I can explain why the opposite is true.

 

[CoachFergie]

Why did you delete your last post, who objected. What do you believe to be true about PC's, can you explain why powercrank pedaling is more effective than mashing. I can explain why the opposite is true.

More importantly, what can be shown about any method. Where is the data to show that any product or technique has a proven effect. The statistical methods are available and the research that disproves Franks claims is widely accessible. Independent cranks, crank length and pedalling technique. All claims debunked rather neatly.

Still waiting for you to provide more than opinion about your pedalling technique claims.