FrankDay said:
How or why do PC's make you slower ? Is this not telling you something about this different technique ? What is responsible for the improvement at a later stage.
How or why do PC's make you slower ? Is this not telling you something about this different technique ? What is responsible for the improvement at a later stage.
If only were it so… alas, it is not. Because, if it were, these threads would have a chance of being "normal" in the sense of a normal back and forth between views and experience.CoachFergie said:
[/QUOTE]
Have submitted my thesis so we will have some good power meter discussions coming soon![/QUOTE]And, you posted this on the PowerCranks thread because…?
That is easy. The PC's are forcing the user to use the muscles relatively equally. But, when you start using them, the muscles are not trained equally so one is limited to the ability of the weakest muscle. Until it is trained up to the capability of the others the rider will be slower.coapman said:
- Apr 21, 2009
- 3,095
- 0
- 13,480
coapman said:
And speaking of 13 years of nonsense.
Some pretty simple exercise physiology and motor learning going on here. Frank himself has said that going from his product to normal cranks after a long period of immersion training harms performance.
Specific adaptations to imposed demands!
So whether Nibali ever used independent cranks again it's clear he either doesn't use them enough to create a worthwhile training adaptation and anyone who does actually manage to put in 6-9 months of immersion training is going to perform worse when they compete on normal cranks. So the 12hr TT chap probably would have gone further as he competed on a fixed wheel bike.
Hmmmm, didn't Cadel Evans and Ivan Basso both have their best season after Aldo Sassi get them to spend the off season riding a fixed gear!
- Mar 18, 2009
- 2,442
- 0
- 0
FrankDay said:
Again, Frank, I have never criticized PCs. I have repeatedly stated that for the very reasons you have stated, but you lack that comprehension because you only read what you want to read. What I have questioned, and will continue to do so, is your shoddy marketing and your surprising lack of scientific interest in your own product, especially coming from a scientific background.
FrankDay said:
After a year of continuous training with PC style pedalling what percentage of down stroke 3 o'c force can the PC'er expect to apply at 9 o'c. What prevents him from retaining his natural maximal masher's down stroke force while also training the weakest muscle in another sector of the pedalling circle.
Could have fooled me.elapid said:
I certainly lack the comprehension to understand that sentence. What did you say/mean "repeatedly stated that for the very reasons you have stated".
Ugh, this is a thread about a product, my product, and it wasn't started by me. You have nothing against the product, or so you say, so instead you come here to attack me for telling people about it because you don't think my information is scientific enough. Apparently you would prefer those curious about the product to get their information from people like Fergie, who has never used it but has no issue talking about it.
Whether the data I have meets your scientific standards or not is not particularly relevant. The product will do what it does whether someone has gone and proven it scientifically or not. While I agree that the data I have is not scientifically rigorous regarding the claims I am quite confident that what we have is good enough to make reasonable conclusions and our experience over time has reinforced that view. However, because our data is not scientifically rigorous, we have tried to make up for this "failure" by offering the new user a very generous money-back guarantee, just in case the product doesn't work for them.
Perhaps you could give me an example of a product in this area that does meet your requirement for scientific rigor regarding any claims they might make. Give me an example of a product which you think sets the scientific example for me to follow.
Probably depends on the effort. My guess would be anywhere from 0%(low effort) to 5% (high effort).coapman said:
Nothing. The issue is one of endurance. If the rider does that the cadence will come up to a level that it will be overwhelming to the new muscles and they will fail quickly. Hence, the user tends to hold back on the pushing in order to keep the cadence down to help the new muscles develop some endurance.
Yes, but people don't because the "push" then doesn't feel right. Most people are used to riding around at cadences or 90 or so. When they start out on PC's their HF's can sustain, reasonably well, cadences of 50-60 or so. They are used to pushing so hard and the pedal moving so fast. Whatever they do it isn't going to feel right until the new muscles get up to speed.coapman said:
- Mar 18, 2009
- 2,442
- 0
- 0
FrankDay said:
Obviously I have fooled you, probably because you have preconceived ideas and you will not be swayed from them regardless of the evidence presented to the contrary. Show me a post where I have criticized PCs. You will not find one. The reasons you will not find one are because 1. I have never used them, and 2. I do not have the biomechanical knowledge to comment on their use, advantages, and disadvantages. I have and will criticize your marketing and lack of scientific rigour, because both are very shoddy.
Cool. Could you provide me with an example of a bicycle training or racing tool that meets your high "scientific rigor" standards that I could use as an example for my own behavior?elapid said:
Those "preconceived ideas" to which you speak are the result of many years of trying to explain the results that users see and report. What I thought 15 years ago looks little like what I think now. It is "difficult to sway" me because of all the work I have put into explaining what I see. If new evidence (new evidence, not the lame stuff Fergie keeps bringing up) shows up that doesn't fit with my current understanding I will most assuredly change my thinking. I am not locked to anything other than trying to better understand this product so I can better help users get the most out of it (at least those who care to listen).
I also find it interesting that even though you admit you "do not have the biomechanical knowledge to comment on their use, advantages, and disadvantages" you are willing to criticize my (someone with the education and training, being trained as both an engineer and a physician, to actually understand this stuff) scientific rigor even though you wouldn't know how to conduct such a study if asked to. Sometimes in science and life "good enough" is, while not perfect, good enough!
FrankDay said:
Having brought these weakest muscles up to peak performance, how many days of non PC style pedalling does it take for these muscles to lose this effect of a year's PC training.
- Mar 18, 2009
- 2,442
- 0
- 0
FrankDay said:
Because you are/were both an engineer and a physician doesn't make you a scientist and certainly gives you no right to criticize my ability to design or conduct a study when I am a practising physician and researcher. Having published over 100 scientific papers, I do know how to conduct a study and I can critically evaluate study design. Your memory is obviously failing you because we discussed how to design a study to investigate your claims in depth earlier in this thread. I don't need to have an in-depth knowledge of the subject to be able to critically evaluate a study design. I know your attempted study of PCs was fundamentally flawed, and your use of that flawed data is even a more flagrant example of your shoddy marketing practices. Here are some examples of your scientific process, or lack thereof:
elapid said:
These are just a few examples of where your good enough is nowhere near anyone else's good enough, let alone nearing perfect. Whenever I or anyone else has discussed studies into your products with you, you have ALWAYS either shifted the responsibility or made inane excuses for your apparent inability to conduct those studies.
No clue. My guess is quite a bit though as people who use the cranks for a year or two and then don't use them for several years then go back to them report being afraid they are going to have to go through the transition again and it is never as bad as the first time, usually goes quite easily. Suggests these muscles continue to be used pretty well once the coordination reasonably trained.coapman said:
Your specialty?elapid said:
My friend, did you tell me how I could do this wonderful study and not inject bias into the results? If so, could you repeat it here as I seemed to have missed it.
Really? If you say so.
Yes, that was the basis 15 years ago. So?
Yes, 15 years ago. It has been validated many times through user experience and reports since then. If I had any indication that the number was not close to being accurate then I would revise it. I do not. Neither do you. If you have such data please present it to me.
Wrong. I previously addressed this. Most of our users do not have power meters and report to us speed improvements, not power improvements. It just so happens that they typical 2-3 mph speed improvement also calculates to about a 40% power improvement we measured in our initial testing.
Again, tell me again how I can do a scientifically valid study on my own product without inviting the "biased" criticism from anyone critically reading the study? People have criticized the Luttrell study because he failed to report that he received a pair of cranks from me to help him perform the study. Those that can do. Those that can't teach (or, apparently, do research).
Really, I feel like we are having a debate over climate change. Those who don't understand the science criticize the research because the research hasn't "proven" the theory to be true. All that ice melting in Antarctica means nothing because Podunk USA had a cold winter last season. Sometimes proof is hard to come by and one has to go with what is the best evaluation of the existing data.
- Mar 18, 2009
- 2,442
- 0
- 0
FrankDay said:
Yes. Check earlier in the thread. I am not going to do your work for you. Just another example of you avoiding the study.
FrankDay said:
And those that can't do either try and pretend they can do both. When did you last practice medicine again, Frank?
FrankDay said:
Frank, there is no science to what you do. Absolutely none. You pretending otherwise is just sad. I know you'll never admit it, but the most critical members of your products on this and the other thread are scientists and researchers with a strong background in study design and biomechanics. Comparing yourself to climate change scientists is so sadly misguided its laughable.
It isn't a matter of "doing the work for me" but rather helping out those who are following this debate. You aren't going to convince me as I know what you are saying is impossible. Let's review your stand, as I understand it.elapid said:
1. you admit you have no knowledge or experience in this area but feel confident you could design a great study to look at the product. Maybe you should volunteer your ability to the Large Hadron Collider people as I suspect you have no knowledge or experience with that technology either and I'll bet they could use some good experimental ideas.
2. I have asked you to give a single example of a company in this area that has done its own study on its own product that meets your criteria as you demand that I do. You have failed to do so.
3. You continue to suggest it is possible for me to conduct my own scientific study on my own product and maintain scientific validity. I guess youhave never heard of conflict of interest or injected bias (intentional or not) interfering with the validity of scientific papers. Of all those research papers you have done were they done for the tobacco industry?
4. You seem to insist that I claim the work I have done is "science". In a way it is as I have tried to look at just one variable, the PowerCranks, when gathering my own data but I have never claimed that what I have done was particularly good science. But, what I have done does qualify as science as I have tried to evaluate what the cranks do in a systematic way. We have gathered data that suggests that a certain use will result in a certain result (on average). We tell people that then give them a guarantee if it doesn't work out to their satisfaction. That is more than what most companies do. The good science to look at what the product can really do can only be done independently. I try to support anyone who has a reasonable ability and intention to try. Most of the studies on PowerCranks that do exist have involved some support from me (supplied the product to them for their testing). I would only be wasting my time and money to try to do so on my own.
And, that is relevant to this discussion how? BTW, it seems you have failed to mention your specialty, if any.
I would disagree. What I have done qualifies as science.
Science is a way of evaluating hypotheses. Let's ask the question, does training improve athletic performance? Is it necessary to have two groups, a couch potato group that continues to do nothing to compare to the group that starts running everyday to confirm that training improves performance? I suspect you would say yes. I would say no as the data is so convincing that it isn't necessary to do that work. But, one can even look at this statistically because it is reasonable to assume that the "control group" would not improve at all doing nothing such that the experimental group can act as their own controls for the purposes of statistical analysis. That is essentially what Dixon did in his study looking at PowerCranks when he saw statistically significant increases in power and VO2max after immersion training. Am I not allowed to use that data? Or, what do you think of the Luttrel study that showed an improvement in efficiency? Comments?
Does learning how to pedal in circles or training on PowerCranks improve cycling performance (or running performance, or many other questions). My own data, even though it is not rigorous in that I am not able to "prove" a conclusion statistically, certainly suggests it does if one takes enough time to ensure the change is substantial. Then there is the work of some independent researchers that support the conclusion also. You may not like the fact there isn't more "proof" but we have what we have. In fact, this is the case for almost everything in the sports sciences. It is almost impossible to prove the worth of anything. As a consequence few products (I can think of one other) make any claim at all (probably because there isn't any evidence to even suggest a benefit), we being one of the few because we have actual data that supports such a conclusion.
- Mar 18, 2009
- 2,442
- 0
- 0
I have told you my specialty before. If you cannot remember it, then that's your problem. Getting through two degrees does not make you a scientist. Do you have a research degree? Have you conducted a scientific study? Have your studies been funded? How much funding? How many papers have you published? As a triple boarded (practising) specialist with two degrees, including a research degree, with over $100,000 in funded studies, and over 100 published papers, I can without a doubt say that I have the background to critique your lack of scientific technique.
I have discussed the study design for PowerCranks in depth in this thread, including the biases that are potentially involved. If you cannot remember it, then that's your problem. I remember the discussion well, particularly you running and ducking from any thought of doing a study for any number of excuses.
Your information gathering is not science, Frank, no matter how much you want to delude yourself. The data you collect and (mis)present is marketing, not science.
I have discussed the study design for PowerCranks in depth in this thread, including the biases that are potentially involved. If you cannot remember it, then that's your problem. I remember the discussion well, particularly you running and ducking from any thought of doing a study for any number of excuses.
Your information gathering is not science, Frank, no matter how much you want to delude yourself. The data you collect and (mis)present is marketing, not science.
I see you take the A. Coggan academic bully approach to "debate". While I haven't done much actual research (I have done some) I have taught as part of an institution that does a lot of research, (UCSF Department of Anesthesiology). Most of my "publications" have involved letters to the editor criticizing or giving alternative views to the work/opinions of others. Anyhow, you again fail to answer any of the questions previous put to you. Is it ok for me to use the findings of Dixon and Luttrell in discussing what PowerCranks can or might do?elapid said:
I know perfectly well how to design the definitive PC study. I, however, will not be the one to do it. If it will take something like that to convince you to try them then I guess you will miss out. I don't need to convince me. I know the cranks work. I have moved on to trying to figure out all the things they do and how to maximize the benefit.
The first thing a scientist must be is a good observer.
- Mar 18, 2009
- 2,442
- 0
- 0
FrankDay said:
How do you expect me to respond when you are trying to bully me? I have engaged in debate with you many times before, and debate is a word I use very loosely with you. Bullish is probably a more appropriate description of your debating style.
FrankDay said:
So what gives you the right to criticize the work of others with so little research and publication experience, when you tell me I cannot criticize your feeble efforts at science because you don't believe my credentials?
FrankDay said:
Of course ... run, run away. I expect nothing less of you. Perfect example of the level of your scientific interest. Stick with the marketing, Frank. I am sure you can bamboozle some other sucker.
FrankDay said:
Yes, very true. I have observed your attempts at science are abysmal.
Bully you? All I have asked you to do is to answer a few questions. Give an example of another company that has done what you are asking of me? Discuss some of the PC studies that have been done. All we get is nothing but criticism of me personally.elapid said:
When have I criticized the work of others? I have criticized a few study designs and I have criticized the way people have interpreted what a study means. But, the work? not really. It is what it is.
Not running away. I have seen enough to know the answer. I don't need to repeat stuff when I know, in general, the answer from what has been done before. I am moving on. My scientific interest is in better understanding what is important and what is not amongst the many changes the PC's cause and to see how the important stuff can be maximized.
If you say so. Just as your intellectual curiosity and ability to engage seems to be. You admit you know nothing about the topic so you criticize me for seeming scientific failures. That's all you got. Meanwhile, the product seems to work just as we say it does for many even though its worth hasn't been scientifically proven to you. How could that possibly be?
Mr. (Dr.) Elapid. (and Fergie),
I think it is clear you are unhappy with my evidence that the cranks work as I claim. However, conversely, could you point me to your evidence that they don't work as I claim when used as we recommend?
While you may claim that the burden is on me to prove my claims I would say that the burden is really on you if you don't want to fall behind your competition, should I be correct. It is all a matter of perspective.
I think it is clear you are unhappy with my evidence that the cranks work as I claim. However, conversely, could you point me to your evidence that they don't work as I claim when used as we recommend?
While you may claim that the burden is on me to prove my claims I would say that the burden is really on you if you don't want to fall behind your competition, should I be correct. It is all a matter of perspective.
- Mar 18, 2009
- 2,442
- 0
- 0
FrankDay said:
The burden of proof lies solely with you. Always has and always will. Relying on others to do research on your product is avoiding your responsibilities to your customers and potential customers. Until you provide evidence beyond anecdotes in the form of a well-designed study, the so-called evidence that you provide is pure marketing and nothing else.
Anyway, I am away for a week. Like all soap operas, I know this tune will not have changed when I return. Cheers.
- Apr 21, 2009
- 3,095
- 0
- 13,480
elapid said:
And lets face it most of the claims made are fabricated or exagerated beyond belief.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 36K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram