The Powercrank Thread

[CoachFergie]

If PCs worked as claimed, riders, from pros down, would be on PCs. They are not.

Was saying something similar to a new client last night. Team Sky were the first to do proper cool downs at the end of races and because it is an accepted and beneficial practice everyone is now doing it.

I would just leave Frank to his delusions and report any person who spams this forum.

 

[FrankDay]

If PCs worked as claimed, riders, from pros down, would be on PCs. They are not.

They're not? I was pretty sure we have an awful lot of pros on them. Last four Olympic road race champions as I remember. But, you know more about this than I do I guess. Oh, and we have a few of those that are down from the pros. But, what could it mean when all we have are anecdotes and some testimonials (nothing more than an anecdote from a famous person). Not a single scientific paper proving they are on them. LOL

 

[elapid]

They're not? I was pretty sure we have an awful lot of pros on them. Last four Olympic road race champions as I remember. But, you know more about this than I do I guess. Oh, and we have a few of those that are down from the pros. But, what could it mean when all we have are anecdotes and some testimonials (nothing more than an anecdote from a famous person). Not a single scientific paper proving they are on them. LOL

You claimed Nibali used PCs for training. The truth later comes out that he used them once for an hour and never wanted anything to do with them again. Is this an example of a pro being on PCs?

You can name drop all you like but, like your ditty little anecdotes, it means nothing unless they are actually using them as intended, they are getting the performance advantages as claimed, and they are then endorsing PCs. Where are all the pros endorsing PCs? There are none. For all your marketing BS, if there was a pro willing to sign his name on the dotted line to endorse PCs then we would have heard about them by now. We haven't.

 

[FrankDay]

You claimed Nibali used PCs for training. The truth later comes out that he used them once for an hour and never wanted anything to do with them again. Is this an example of a pro being on PCs?

You can name drop all you like but, like your ditty little anecdotes, it means nothing unless they are actually using them as intended, they are getting the performance advantages as claimed, and they are then endorsing PCs. Where are all the pros endorsing PCs? There are none. For all your marketing BS, if there was a pro willing to sign his name on the dotted line to endorse PCs then we would have heard about them by now. We haven't.

Whatever. Sigh :-(

 

[elapid]

Whatever. Sigh :-(

That's what I thought. No evidence, no proof, no answers.

 

[FrankDay]

That's what I thought. No evidence, no proof, no answers.

Whatever. LOL.

 

[CoachFergie]

You claimed Nibali used PCs for training. The truth later comes out that he used them once for an hour and never wanted anything to do with them again. Is this an example of a pro being on PCs?

You can name drop all you like but, like your ditty little anecdotes, it means nothing unless they are actually using them as intended, they are getting the performance advantages as claimed, and they are then endorsing PCs. Where are all the pros endorsing PCs? There are none. For all your marketing BS, if there was a pro willing to sign his name on the dotted line to endorse PCs then we would have heard about them by now. We haven't.

A long article about Nibali's preparation for the Tour with his coach Paolo Slongo and it's all pretty specific stuff, measuring the power he was producing, training measuring the power to track long and short term improvements and using the expected power demands of the Tour to focus his efforts. No mention of any gimmicks.

 

[elapid]

A long article about Nibali's preparation for the Tour with his coach Paolo Slongo and it's all pretty specific stuff, measuring the power he was producing, training measuring the power to track long and short term improvements and using the expected power demands of the Tour to focus his efforts. No mention of any gimmicks.

Didn't you say the same about some other pros and pro teams (Mapei?) who Frank had claimed where using PCs?

 

[elapid]

Whatever. LOL.

We're all laughing, Frank ... but not with you. Quite sad when you can only answer your failures at not being able to provide the evidence to support your claims with repeated "whatever" posts.

 

[CoachFergie]

Didn't you say the same about some other pros and pro teams (Mapei?) who Frank had claimed where using PCs?

At WCSS in Leeds I asked their biomechanist if they used independent cranks. He said a couple of riders did, only in the off season, and for short periods. Professor Morelli said he didn't see any benefit and Mapei did not use them or recommend their use.

Bit like Franks claims of use by British Cycling Federation and Cycling Australia, but when asked who he was dealing with, because I know people in both organisations, he couldn't provide a name. More lies.

 

[coapman]

Whatever. Sigh :-(

By following specified instructions and using "one legged" pedalling, one can learn and perfect the circular technique in a couple of weeks and retain it for life for use when required. When expensive PC's are used, it takes a year or more of exclusive use to perfect the technique and then on return to standard cranks, instinct takes control and you revert back to your natural pedalling style with nothing to show for all your suffering and large financial outlay.

 

[CoachFergie]

By following specified instructions and using "one legged" pedalling, one can learn and perfect the circular technique in a couple of weeks and retain it for life for use when required.

No, if something learned is not constantly practiced the level of learning is diminished over time. Rapidly. Fernandez-Pena illustrated that nicely with independent cranks.

When expensive PC's are used, it takes a year or more of exclusive use to perfect the technique and then on return to standard cranks, instinct takes control and you revert back to your natural pedalling style with nothing to show for all your suffering and large financial outlay.

That is wrong as well. Learning appears to happen fast and like anything the more you practice the better you learn. But thanks to numerous studies on performance show the benefits are never greater than what can be achieved using normal cranks.

That is why they are a waste of time.

 

[coapman]

No, if something learned is not constantly practiced the level of learning is diminished over time. Rapidly. Fernandez-Pena illustrated that nicely with independent cranks.



That is wrong as well. Learning appears to happen fast and like anything the more you practice the better you learn. But thanks to numerous studies on performance show the benefits are never greater than what can be achieved using normal cranks.

That is why they are a waste of time.

Changing pedalling technique is 50% mental and 50% physical, for as long as your memory remains intact there is nothing to prevent you from using any of the new techniques you have learned. PC's take care of the physical side. Why were numerous studies needed, PC pedaling is no different from circular pedaling (having the same objectives) and Coyle's research supplies the proof that it is not as effective as the natural mashing technique.

 

[CoachFergie]

Changing pedalling technique is 50% mental and 50% physical, for as long as your memory remains intact there is nothing to prevent you from using any of the new techniques you have learned.

Wrong. If not practiced the learning diminishes. You are ignoring some pretty basic motor learning concepts.

PC's take care of the physical side.

Either way you do it, it is a waste of time.

Short term use of independent cranks is pointless as not enough to learn the pattern of pedalling to retain it when using normal cranks.

If you do complete immersion training as suggested by the manufacturer it harms your performance, Frank has said this himself. The reason is obvious, you are training in a non-specific manner to how you intend to perform in competition.

This is why there is no data available to support Frank's claims. And he has to resort to anecdotal evidence and outright lies to market his product.

 

[coapman]

Wrong.

Short term use of independent cranks is pointless as not enough to learn the pattern of pedalling to retain it when using normal cranks.

If you do complete immersion training as suggested by the manufacturer it harms your performance, Frank has said this himself. The reason is obvious, you are training in a non-specific manner to how you intend to perform in competition.

Which comes first pedalling objectives or pattern, if your brain has got the objectives the pattern of pedalling will follow. That probably is why the PC technique is soon lost after return to standard cranks, the objectives are not given with the PC's, the rider only does what independent cranks force him to do. Performance is harmed because during all the immersion training time, training of the most powerful cycling muscles is ignored.

 

[JayKosta]

This comment gets near the core of the controversy about PC usage -

...
That probably is why the PC technique is soon lost after return to standard cranks, the objectives are not given with the PC's, the rider only does what independent cranks force him to do. Performance is harmed because during all the immersion training time, training of the most powerful cycling muscles is ignored.

The controversy seems to boil down to 2 camps of thought:

pro-PC - the technique of never applying negative torque to the pedal is ideal and needs to be learned. It strengthens the 'unweighting' (or 'pulling') muscles while also strengthening the 'pushing' muscles. Thus, the overall power and effectiveness is increased beyond what is achievable with regular cranks.

con-PC - there no advantage to strive for 'no negative torque'. The power application developed by standard training methods on standard cranks is sufficient to develop maximum achievable overall power and effectiveness.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[sciguy]

This comment gets near the core of the controversy about PC usage -



The controversy seems to boil down to 2 camps of thought:

pro-PC - the technique of never applying negative torque to the pedal is ideal and needs to be learned. It strengthens the 'unweighting' (or 'pulling') muscles while also strengthening the 'pushing' muscles. Thus, the overall power and effectiveness is increased beyond what is achievable with regular cranks.

con-PC - there no advantage to strive for 'no negative torque'. The power application developed by standard training methods on standard cranks is sufficient to develop maximum achievable overall power and effectiveness.

Jay Kosta

Endwell NY USA

Jay,

That's a good synopsis on the con-PC side of the equation. I'm not sure where you're seeing the "strengthening of the "pushing muscles" come from with Pro-PCs. For the first many weeks of use, one actually needs to soft pedal with the pushing muscles so that the hip flexors can "keep up". So the extensors actually weaken due to less stimulus over the many weeks needed to begin to develop a minimal amount of strength in the hip flexors.

If I could borrow a set of PCs this winter, I'd use them just to shut Frank up regarding not having ever spent time on them. I'm sure the experience wouldn't be the absolutely worst waste of time I've ever spent......thinking back to a few of those snoozer grad courses so many years ago.

Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

This comment gets near the core of the controversy about PC usage -



The controversy seems to boil down to 2 camps of thought:

pro-PC - the technique of never applying negative torque to the pedal is ideal and needs to be learned. It strengthens the 'unweighting' (or 'pulling') muscles while also strengthening the 'pushing' muscles. Thus, the overall power and effectiveness is increased beyond what is achievable with regular cranks.

There is so much more than that. Eliminating the negatives is one thing but that can only account for a small part of the total increase that is seen. And, SciGuy is right, we don't "strengthen" the 'pushing' muscles per se because in the beginning people back off on the pushing to keep the cadence down to something they can do while developing the technique. What most seem to be missing is PowerCranks improve power by improving the effectiveness of the muscles contractions, including the pushing muscles. For instance, most people think of pushing down the same as maybe a weight lifter would do which involves both the glutes and the quads. The problem is that below 3 o'clock on the pedal stroke if one is using the quads the quads would drive the foot forward in relation to the knee when, the pedal is moving backwards. Contracting the quads past 3 o'clock is a complete waste of energy. What PowerCranks do is change the timing of the muscle contractions to contract the quads earlier and stop it earlier, to only be contracting when the pedal is moving forward such that the muscle is used more efficiently to produce power at different parts of the circle than one sees if one only concentrates on the downstroke. It has more to do with better timing of the different muscle contractions to develop get more power out of what the muscle is trying to do than in developing an improved capacity to push or pull (although that is part of it when it comes to the backstroke). It is a lot of different small changes that add up to a big whole.

con-PC - there no advantage to strive for 'no negative torque'. The power application developed by standard training methods on standard cranks is sufficient to develop maximum achievable overall power and effectiveness.

Yep, according to the con advocates cycling is the only sport in the world where technique doesn't matter to the major thing they do.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

This comment gets near the core of the controversy about PC usage -



The controversy seems to boil down to 2 camps of thought:

pro-PC - the technique of never applying negative torque to the pedal is ideal and needs to be learned. It strengthens the 'unweighting' (or 'pulling') muscles while also strengthening the 'pushing' muscles. Thus, the overall power and effectiveness is increased beyond what is achievable with regular cranks.

con-PC - there no advantage to strive for 'no negative torque'. The power application developed by standard training methods on standard cranks is sufficient to develop maximum achievable overall power and effectiveness.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

The con side of the equation is that they don't improve performance above that attainable with regular cranks. Assigning reasons for that isn't really relevant.

 

[coapman]

There is so much more than that. Eliminating the negatives is one thing but that can only account for a small part of the total increase that is seen. And, SciGuy is right, we don't "strengthen" the 'pushing' muscles per se because in the beginning people back off on the pushing to keep the cadence down to something they can do while developing the technique. What most seem to be missing is PowerCranks improve power by improving the effectiveness of the muscles contractions, including the pushing muscles. For instance, most people think of pushing down the same as maybe a weight lifter would do which involves both the glutes and the quads. The problem is that below 3 o'clock on the pedal stroke if one is using the quads the quads would drive the foot forward in relation to the knee when, the pedal is moving backwards. Contracting the quads past 3 o'clock is a complete waste of energy. What PowerCranks do is change the timing of the muscle contractions to contract the quads earlier and stop it earlier, to only be contracting when the pedal is moving forward such that the muscle is used more efficiently to produce power at different parts of the circle than one sees if one only concentrates on the downstroke. It has more to do with better timing of the different muscle contractions to develop get more power out of what the muscle is trying to do than in developing an improved capacity to push or pull (although that is part of it when it comes to the backstroke). It is a lot of different small changes that add up to a big whole.
Yep, according to the con advocates cycling is the only sport in the world where technique doesn't matter to the major thing they do.

What makes PC style pedalling with regular cranks more powerful than circular pedalling. Where do all the small changes occur.

 

[sciguy]

Yep, according to the con advocates cycling is the only sport in the world where technique doesn't matter to the major thing they do.

Frank,

If I remember correctly, there have been numerous studies where researchers attempted to "improve" the technique of runners with the consistent result being a reduction of economy as a result of their interventions. Here is one done with triathletes. :

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02640410400022003?src=recsys#.VAMDcqPEdj4

That said, I have seen a number of studies where runners were seen to improve their economy by doing hard intervals on the flat as well as hills but they used a running "style" as they saw fit.

Many of us on the forum would contend that cycling is much less technique intensive than running due to the constrained nature of the pedaling motion but I'm sure you will disagree as it's the only way to support your claims.

On a related side note, Jack Daniels once showed a number of experienced exercise scientists and coaches a series of videos of different athletes running on a treadmill and asked them to rank the subjects likely efficiency as evidenced by how their running "looked". As it turned out, while there was consistency of the ratings between the coaches and scientists, however their ratings did not match up at all with the actual measured economies of the runners. Running "pretty" was not correlated with excellent economy of motion.

Hugh

 

[FrankDay]

Frank,

If I remember correctly, there have been numerous studies where researchers attempted to "improve" the technique of runners with the consistent result being a reduction of economy as a result of their interventions. Here is one done with triathletes. :

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02640410400022003?src=recsys#.VAMDcqPEdj4

That said, I have seen a number of studies where runners were seen to improve their economy by doing hard intervals on the flat as well as hills but they used a running "style" as they saw fit.

I am not sure what you are trying to say. No one claims that running technique is unimportant. I think all your study demonstrates is how difficult it is to change and improve running technique (and, of course, which elements of technique are most important to change). Of course, there is now a study demonstrating that PowerCranks improves running performance. We have always known this because of the numerous ANECDOTAL reports received about this phenomenon but didn't have the study substantiating our belief. While we believe some of this improvement is due to technique improvement we cannot prove it.

It seems to me the question is not whether technique is important but does one have an effective method for improving technique. I think the same question is a reasonable one to be asked in cycling also. For this question I believe the answer is undeniably, YES!

Many of us on the forum would contend that cycling is much less technique intensive than running due to the constrained nature of the pedaling motion but I'm sure you will disagree as it's the only way to support your claims.

Many on this forum contend that technique makes no difference whatsoever. Hey, in weight lifting technique is even more contrained than in cycling (the feet are planted on the floor and don't move at all) yet no weight lifter would ever claim that technique is not important. The fact that the motion is constrained does not mean the muscle coordination is constrained. As I said a little earlier, contracting the quads moves the foot forward. Why on earth would it be beneficial to the cyclist to contract the quads when the pedal is past 3 o'clock and moving backwards? Yet, I can almost assure you that if you are not a powerCranker you are probably contracting the quads down to 5 o'clock or beyond.

On a related side note, Jack Daniels once showed a number of experienced exercise scientists and coaches a series of videos of different athletes running on a treadmill and asked them to rank the subjects likely efficiency as evidenced by how their running "looked". As it turned out, while there was consistency of the ratings between the coaches and scientists, however their ratings did not match up at all with the actual measured economies of the runners. Running "pretty" was not correlated with excellent economy of motion.

Hugh

Ugh, lots of things are involved in running economy including the muscle mix. If that study were repeated using a variety of runners with a similar muscle mix one might be able to discern which elements of running technique are really important to running economy. And, cycling has a similar problem. Looking at a cyclist it is impossible to really discern a difference in technique by looking because the feet are constrained to move in circles regardless of what the muscles are doing. How does one explain a cycling efficiency variation from 16 to 26%? Muscle mix can explain part of this but not all. Technique difference has to be part of this variation. In fact, isn't this what can be taken from the Leirdahl results?

Multiple regressions revealed that DC size was the only significant (P = 0.001) predictor for GE.

What is especially interesting here to me is DC size is determined mostly by the activity of the quads at or near TDC and the hamstrings at or near BDC.
Of course, we know that TDC and BDC is a part of the stroke that we know PowerCranks enhance. In fact, I believe that TDC is the weakest part of most peoples stroke and the part of the stroke where the biggest changes occur that account for the biggest changes seen from PowerCranks training. Of course, this is speculation on my part trying to explain what we observe. We will have to wait for the studies to fully explain what is going on.

 

[FrankDay]

The con side of the equation is that they don't improve performance above that attainable with regular cranks. Assigning reasons for that isn't really relevant.

And, of course, some say the pro side is they DO improve performance above that attainable with regular cranks!

Neither side has definitive proof of their belief.

So, in view of this, don't you think this is one reason this won't be resolved until additional and much better studies on the subject are completed?

 

[JamesCun]

And, of course, some say the pro side is they DO improve performance above that attainable with regular cranks!

Neither side has definitive proof of their belief.

So, in view of this, don't you think this is one reason this won't be resolved until additional and much better studies on the subject are completed?

What have your tests shown when you look at muscle activation through the pedal stroke? Would be simple to strap on some electrodes and do some EMG readings on pre/post PC training.

Of course, once you determine if PC can make a lasting change to activation patterns, you would need to show that a different pattern is actually more efficient.

 

[sciguy]

Hey, in weight lifting technique is even more contrained than in cycling (the feet are planted on the floor and don't move at all) yet no weight lifter would ever claim that technique is not important. The fact that the motion is constrained does not mean the muscle coordination is constrained. .

Frank,

The above statement has to be one of the silliest statements you've made this week. Let me get this straight, you're contending that the motion involved in the lifting of free weights is more constrained than the motion involved in pedaling a bicycle? I guess you've never spent any time lifting free weights or compared that effort/motion to lifting via a machine weights where the motion is constrained. You also seem to be under the impression that even though the pedals and cranks constrain a fixed cranker's leg motion the offer no feedback to the cyclist.............That a fixed cranker will just aimlessly keep pushing downward at the bottom of the stroke without having a clue that they're doing so.......not noticing the unweighting of the saddle that would occur if one did this. Give our feeble cyclist' brains some credit. They're amazing at processing these sorts of subtle cues and have been for millions of years.


Hugh