The Powercrank Thread

[elapid]

Really, is that what he said? Wonder then why they showed up on his bike at training camp? And, even if so, so many other TDF and World Champs have and do use them that it really doesn't matter.

Hmmm ... just like Nibali uses them ... probably good door stops if all the TDF and World Champs stop using them after an hour and vow to never use them again like Nibali.

 

[FrankDay]

Hmmm ... just like Nibali uses them ... probably good door stops if all the TDF and World Champs stop using them after an hour and vow to never use them again like Nibali.

I am sure you are correct with all your sources. Darn!!!

 

[BikeGrip]

Quote:
Instead, a smaller company would be far more profitable to make vague unsubstantiated claims or reference vague and inconclusive "studies" and then rely on its marketing and distribution channels to generate profits (which is how 99.9% of any sports/fitness companies make their money.) As soon at it is established that the device is universally a good thing, then sales and marketing become irrelevant and manufacturing and economics of scale dominate -- which would favor large established companies.

Ummm, tell that to the marketing departments at Coca Cola, Nike and MacDonalds.
---


So, there is a scientific study that shows that Coca-Cola and McDonalds are universally good?

Either you didn't listen, or you are just trying to be argumentative. I said, if a study establishes that a product is universally useful, then marketing becomes irrelevant. Now, I am not going to cite a bunch of scientific studies here, but Coca-Cola and McDonalds are generally "not good" for you. Hence their massive marketing campaigns. If you take a product that is good for you (let's say water). You don't see a bunch of people trying to sell plain old water, nor publishing studies about how it is useful for cycling, triathlons, etc. Instead, you see a bunch of sham statements made about "smart water" or some other type of additive to water that supposedly makes it "better" -- all without any scientific basis. The reason is that there is absolutely no way to make money selling plain old water -- no matter how much you preach to people that it really is good for them (Well, maybe during like a earthquake or something you could, but then no need to advertise its benefits.)

 

[elapid]

I am sure you are correct with all your sources. Darn!!!

Seems your sources are not very accurate or willing to share information with you. You have misrepresented everything you have posted in regards to Nibali. Researchers will not share their information with you. As you are my only source regarding your claims, I am just left to wonder why all your supposed TdF winners and world champions do not endorse your product, and investigators researching your product refuse to provide you with information on their research?

 

[CoachFergie]

So, there is a scientific study that shows that Coca-Cola and McDonalds are universally good?

Either you didn't listen, or you are just trying to be argumentative. I said, if a study establishes that a product is universally useful, then marketing becomes irrelevant. Now, I am not going to cite a bunch of scientific studies here, but Coca-Cola and McDonalds are generally "not good" for you. Hence their massive marketing campaigns. If you take a product that is good for you (let's say water). You don't see a bunch of people trying to sell plain old water, nor publishing studies about how it is useful for cycling, triathlons, etc. Instead, you see a bunch of sham statements made about "smart water" or some other type of additive to water that supposedly makes it "better" -- all without any scientific basis. The reason is that there is absolutely no way to make money selling plain old water -- no matter how much you preach to people that it really is good for them (Well, maybe during like a earthquake or something you could, but then no need to advertise its benefits.)

You said once a product gains acceptance then it doesn't need to be marketed. Coca Cola, Nike and MacDonalds are market leaders but you don't see them buttoning off their extensive marketing programmes.

No arguments about the quality, health effects or manufacturing practices from me.

Ummmm, you see every man and his dog trying to sell plain water. Stores are full of different brands of plain water, and all the other s**t.

 

[CoachFergie]

Seems your sources are not very accurate or willing to share information with you. You have misrepresented everything you have posted in regards to Nibali. Researchers will not share their information with you. As you are my only source regarding your claims, I am just left to wonder why all your supposed TdF winners and world champions do not endorse your product, and investigators researching your product refuse to provide you with information on their research?

Not that product endorsement or celebrity endorsement means anything really.

The missing Dixon study is more amusing. Several authors of that paper. Must have been pretty bad to not have not been published anywhere. Looks like a Masters or Honours level project. Perhaps it got a fail mark.

 

[FrankDay]

Seems your sources are not very accurate or willing to share information with you. You have misrepresented everything you have posted in regards to Nibali.

I have? Seems to me all I posted was a tweet and a link to an article that indicated he had trained with them.

 

[FrankDay]

Quote:
Instead, a smaller company would be far more profitable to make vague unsubstantiated claims or reference vague and inconclusive "studies" and then rely on its marketing and distribution channels to generate profits (which is how 99.9% of any sports/fitness companies make their money.) As soon at it is established that the device is universally a good thing, then sales and marketing become irrelevant and manufacturing and economics of scale dominate -- which would favor large established companies.

Ummm, tell that to the marketing departments at Coca Cola, Nike and MacDonalds.
---


So, there is a scientific study that shows that Coca-Cola and McDonalds are universally good?

Either you didn't listen, or you are just trying to be argumentative. I said, if a study establishes that a product is universally useful, then marketing becomes irrelevant. Now, I am not going to cite a bunch of scientific studies here, but Coca-Cola and McDonalds are generally "not good" for you. Hence their massive marketing campaigns. If you take a product that is good for you (let's say water). You don't see a bunch of people trying to sell plain old water, nor publishing studies about how it is useful for cycling, triathlons, etc. Instead, you see a bunch of sham statements made about "smart water" or some other type of additive to water that supposedly makes it "better" -- all without any scientific basis. The reason is that there is absolutely no way to make money selling plain old water -- no matter how much you preach to people that it really is good for them (Well, maybe during like a earthquake or something you could, but then no need to advertise its benefits.)

I am a little confused as to what comment this post is in response to. Was it to something I said?

 

[CoachFergie]

Seems your sources are not very accurate or willing to share information with you. You have misrepresented everything you have posted in regards to Nibali. Researchers will not share their information with you. As you are my only source regarding your claims, I am just left to wonder why all your supposed TdF winners and world champions do not endorse your product, and investigators researching your product refuse to provide you with information on their research?

I have many photos, videos and .srm files of Nibali training and racing with an SRM. Does this constitute evidence that SRM use helped him win the Tour de France

 

[elapid]

I have? Seems to me all I posted was a tweet and a link to an article that indicated he had trained with them.

Seems to me you have a very short memory and have forgotten that you have posted a lot more than that:

Post #661

That is one of the most nonsensical inferences ever in view of the fact that current grand tour winners are using the product.

Post #664

And, even if so, so many other TDF and World Champs have and do use them that it really doesn't matter.

I cannot be bothered searching the remainder of the thread, but you've posted much more than a tweet and a link to an article. Furthermore, the translation of his tweet showed how much he trained with them (1hr) and what he thought about them (never going to use them again).

Again, you would be using these grand tour winners and world champions to endorse your product if they had actually used them and benefitted from them. The fact they have not endorsed your product, despite having said using them (like Nibali?), says volumes about your product and your marketing policies.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Keep digging Frank.

I was referring to threshold power values. Sustainable aerobic power. That which is needed to sustain such a speed increase you claim.

The performance improvement claims you attribute to use of your cranks are nonsense.

Gains are due to training people do, not due to the type of cranks used. Stop lying to people.

In your bizzaro world, all the pro riders are there because they were all power crank riders. el oh el

 

[JamesCun]

You do know that Computrainer offers a Performance Improvement Guarantee, improve 10% in 5 months or your money back? Do you know if that claim is backed by any credible evidence? They are the only other company that makes any kind of performance improvement claim that I know of yet I am unaware of any scientific data that supports their statement. I suspect they are simply comfortable that they have enough internal data to support that guarantee. It is the same with us.

Not sure that is a great comparison for you. Computrainer is basically a measuring/motivational tool for indoor training, they aren't claiming to alter your technique. It is a tool that exists in many forms at a basic level. People don't need a study to know that training indoors on a bike is going to help their biking vs not training on the bike (and hundreds of studies have established specificity as a real thing). Computrainer just adds some resistance and variability to let you measure your training and give you a more varied workout. And, 10% is a reasonable number for many amateur riders. 40% is a huge number and carries a higher burden of proof.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Not sure that is a great comparison for you. Computrainer is basically a measuring/motivational tool for indoor training, they aren't claiming to alter your technique. It is a tool that exists in many forms at a basic level. People don't need a study to know that training indoors on a bike is going to help their biking vs not training on the bike (and hundreds of studies have established specificity as a real thing). Computrainer just adds some resistance and variability to let you measure your training and give you a more varied workout. And, 10% is a reasonable number for many amateur riders. 40% is a huge number and carries a higher burden of proof.

It's probably better than that given the PIG provides a training plan and the device is there to ensure the rider actually does the training by controlling the workload.

IOW CT are basically saying that it's the training that works. All their device does is help ensure you do the suggested training at applicable work rates and workloads.

I bet they would never say that you wouldn't achieve such results from executing the same plan on another trainer. The CT just makes the process of executing the training more convenient, while simultaneously providing objective data on progress.

 

[Tapeworm]

But but but, how could any of these World Tour Pros show any improvement from the cranks without exclusive 9 months of usage??

 

[CoachFergie]

They almost all use power meters, got pictures and all, got endorsements, got tweets, got substantial mentions in numerous autobiographies, every Olympic Champion on road since 2000 has used a power meter. Just saying

 

[coapman]

They almost all use power meters, got pictures and all, got endorsements, got tweets, got substantial mentions in numerous autobiographies, every Olympic Champion on road since 2000 has used a power meter. Just saying

Off topic. You mean they had them on their bikes and why not, it's the latest craze and means of getting easily led cyclists to part with their hard earned cash. What will be next ?

 

[FrankDay]

Not sure that is a great comparison for you. Computrainer is basically a measuring/motivational tool for indoor training, they aren't claiming to alter your technique. It is a tool that exists in many forms at a basic level. People don't need a study to know that training indoors on a bike is going to help their biking vs not training on the bike (and hundreds of studies have established specificity as a real thing). Computrainer just adds some resistance and variability to let you measure your training and give you a more varied workout. And, 10% is a reasonable number for many amateur riders. 40% is a huge number and carries a higher burden of proof.

So, let me get this straight.

I only know of two companies the claim their tool will improve performance. Computrainer and us.

Computrainer costs $1500+ (you also need a windows computer) and offers their performance improvement guarantee, from this web page

Speed Guaranteed

Our Performance Improvement Guarantee is proven to increase your cycling power by 20% and your speed by 2 to 4 MPH – or your money back.

Apparently (it isn't clear) in order to get this guarantee you need to download and follow some PIG courses. Also, one should note that they really don't say the speed improvement is proven but that their guarantee is "proven". edit: one more thing, how on earth does someone get a 4 mph speed improvement from a 20% power improvement?

Here is what they say on their UK site:

The regular use of CompuTrainer will increase your bike speed by 2 to 4 MPH. This is a bold statement which is backed up by the experiences of over 25,000 triathletes and cyclists of all ages and ability levels over a 20 year period! It is such a routine result that we unequivocally guarantee it!

We guarantee a 10% improvement in 5 months or you can have YOUR MONEY BACK. Not only that, but for all purchasers in 2009 there is a BIG BONUS! We are GIVING AWAY a FREE training programme to help you get that 10% improvement.

Then we have PowerCranks. For $700 - $1,000 (no computer required) PowerCranks claims that most new users will gain 2-3 mph in bike speed in 6-9 months if used in a certain way and some running benefit if used even part-time. We offer a 3 month unconditional moneyback guarantee if users are not seeing benefit in that period that they feel justifies the purchase.

Neither company has scientific proof that their claimed speed/power improvements actually occur although one company (mine) does have a few, albeit imperfect, scientific studies that suggest a real benefit.

So, Computrainer (which costs $1500+) claims 2-4 mph speed increases in 5 months if one follows their program and PowerCranks claims 2-3 mph speed improvement in 6-9 months if one follows their program. The PowerCranks speed improvement claim is less than Computrainers yet the PowerCranks claim is somehow implausible because, if true, would turn people into Tour Champions While Computrainer's is plausible and just makes people better. Could one of you haters please explain the reason for this seeming disconnect?

 

[FrankDay]

Seems to me you have a very short memory and have forgotten that you have posted a lot more than that:

Post #661

Post #664

I cannot be bothered searching the remainder of the thread, but you've posted much more than a tweet and a link to an article. Furthermore, the translation of his tweet showed how much he trained with them (1hr) and what he thought about them (never going to use them again).

Again, you would be using these grand tour winners and world champions to endorse your product if they had actually used them and benefitted from them. The fact they have not endorsed your product, despite having said using them (like Nibali?), says volumes about your product and your marketing policies.

I am sorry, do you have evidence that anything I posted there is not true? The first quite might be more correct if I had used the word "had used" instead of "are using" as I can prove the first, I cannot prove the second, although I have no information to indicate that statement is wrong. My sense was that tweet was after his first ride and that was about all his legs could do on them, which is a lot better than the average first ride. If he were never going to use them again I doubt they would have shown up at training camp where he was observed using them by a journalist.

The fact that these world champions have and do use the product (even if they don't use it in the manner I suggest) to me is better than a paid endorsement. We say they endorse the product. All we do is say they have used it as part of their training regimen, as they have used many other things. Each person can draw his or her own conclusions as to the significance of that.

 

[FrankDay]

But but but, how could any of these World Tour Pros show any improvement from the cranks without exclusive 9 months of usage??

I doubt any of them used them exclusively so, all that means, is we doubt they saw a 40% power increase.

Come on. Each person, I presume, uses them in a way that they feel is best for them. Our recommendation is for the best benefit for the typical new user.

 

[CoachFergie]

Off topic. You mean they had them on their bikes and why not, it's the latest craze and means of getting easily led cyclists to part with their hard earned cash. What will be next ?

How long do you think watts has been a measure of work Noel?

Funny that you are so snide about Power Meters just like Frank. I presume because this tool allows us to test your bogus claims.

Next? I am picking real time measurement of lactate.

 

[elapid]

I am sorry, do you have evidence that anything I posted there is not true? The first quite might be more correct if I had used the word "had used" instead of "are using" as I can prove the first, I cannot prove the second, although I have no information to indicate that statement is wrong. My sense was that tweet was after his first ride and that was about all his legs could do on them, which is a lot better than the average first ride. If he were never going to use them again I doubt they would have shown up at training camp where he was observed using them by a journalist.

The fact that these world champions have and do use the product (even if they don't use it in the manner I suggest) to me is better than a paid endorsement. We say they endorse the product. All we do is say they have used it as part of their training regimen, as they have used many other things. Each person can draw his or her own conclusions as to the significance of that.

As we all know ... no substance and all marketing BS. Spin it anyway you want ... none of these pro riders are endorsing your product. Period.

 

[JamesCun]

I doubt any of them used them exclusively so, all that means, is we doubt they saw a 40% power increase.

Come on. Each person, I presume, uses them in a way that they feel is best for them. Our recommendation is for the best benefit for the typical new user.

Have you asked them to tell you what they do? I would think that would be valuable info for you.

 

[coapman]

Have you asked them to tell you what they do? I would think that would be valuable info for you.

I would say they use them not for a power increase but instead of one legged pedalling to polish up their circular technique.

 

[coapman]

How long do you think watts has been a measure of work Noel?

Funny that you are so snide about Power Meters just like Frank. I presume because this tool allows us to test your bogus claims.

Next? I am picking real time measurement of lactate.

You need the proper PM to confirm my claim of maximal torque through 12, 1, and 2 o'c where nobody else can apply it while in the natural racing drops position. Unlike the difficulty of proof of what Frank is claiming, mine will have a simple yes/no answer. Why not pick a useful research project, one that will give a free lunch to cyclists as mine does.

 

[CoachFergie]

You need the proper PM to confirm my claim of maximal torque through 12, 1, and 2 o'c where nobody else can apply it while in the natural racing drops position. Unlike the difficulty of proof of what Frank is claiming, mine will have a simple yes/no answer. Why not pick a useful research project, one that will give a free lunch to cyclists as mine does.

Pathetic Noel, absolutely pathetic. If your method allows a cyclist to deliver more power while riding then ANY power meter will be able to detect this. Your selective ignorance of this, like Frank's, are why the two of you are so well respected on the Internet.