I'm waiting to see how you do on Feb. 9th!

Hoping to recover my losses from Tom's Farm's last fiasco on December 15th. I was 50 seconds slower last time than my PR, dont know why other than I was fatigued, was the second rider up and had no one to chase, didnt train very well in weeks prior and was in a slump .... but other than that ...

I'm shooting for 24:30.

See ya in 30 days, bright and early, bring your knee/arm warmers.



Gary

2000 watts? I had no idea sprinters could generate that much power!

Like Julian, I have a half marathon to race Jan. 18th...the first half I've run in a race since the late 80's. Julian, better get on your horse, I plan to go sub 1:40! I've noticed, since being on PC's for a few weeks, that my knee-lift on hills is much easier, and my training runs are faster without trying to run faster. Also, I tend to run downhill faster than most people...and now I'm able to hold on to this "free speed" for a longer time now that my legs seem to "turn over" faster without much effort.

I've quit lifting weights on my legs completely, too, I never felt like it helped my speed on the bike or run. The only things I lift on now are deadlifts (3-4 sets of 20 reps with light weight), some upper body stuff, and abs. My back always feels better when I'm doing deadlifts, and my shoulders don't ache when I do some upper body work. Got to be careful to keep your machine well balanced especially once you hit your mid 40's!

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

To ktalon:

I've done this workout: Warmup 10-15 minutes on the trainer at normal PC cadence; add in a few faster minutes here and there while warming up.

Build to 95 rpm over 15 seconds, then up that to 100 rpm by the 30 second mark. Stop dead for 10 seconds, and then slowly start pedaling again for 20 seconds. At the one minute mark, start over with the rapid ramp-up to 95 and 100 rpms. Do 6 reps, take an extra 3-4 minutes after the first set and do another 6 reps. Keep resistance/gearing low enough to easily spin up to 100.

This is both a great cadence builder for the PCs and a very nice VO2max building workout (if your resistance is moderately high). My "steady state" cadence on the PCs moved easily up to 75-80 (from 60 where I was stuck) after only two of these workouts a week apart.

BTW, I should credit this workout to Gordo Byrne, from whose newsletter I got the tip.

.

[reply]you don't have to push as hard as you did before because now you are lifting on the back stroke. Don't worry, you are not a knee injury waiting to happen.



The objective in pedaling is to get as much chain
drive power as is possible into the chainwheel, if you
are not going to push as hard, you are not going to
gain anything from the powercranks. You will
probably lose power because very little effective use
can be made of pulling up when travelling at mod
speed. One other matter,it is claimed that powercranks eliminate the upper dead spot area,
I don't understand how they can be any more
effective in that area than the circular or ankling
pedaling styles and they do no enable one to apply
effective power in that area at mod to high speed,
which is when it is most required.
What advantage do POWERCRANKS give over the
practice of training with one legged pedaling?

Thanks for the tip, Julian! I've done a little of this, but not in a structured way. I'll try it. Good luck in your 1/2, hope you reach your goal.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

As far as putting power to the chainwheel: it makes more sense to me to talk about power to the chain, for example...if you stood up on your bike when the crankarms are parallel to the ground, you have equal but opposing force on the crankarms...even though these forces aren't propelling the chain, so it is not propulsive force. PC's immediately showed me I don't even get my rising leg off of the pedal. I could have no net change in power to the chain when not pushing down as hard, simply by removing the force required to raise the "recovery leg". Furthermore, if you maintain the same downward pressure, but remove the opposing force previously used to raise the "recovery leg", you get more power to the chain. Additionally, if you maintain your downward pressure while adding force in this same direction by pulling up with the "recovery leg", your power to the chain has increased yet again. I am not convinced that this is impossible. If it is possible, why would a rider not want to do this?

As far as my knees not hurting with the lower rpm work, maybe it is because there are less out of balance forces applied across the joint, since I am working the hamstrings much more now with PC's. I don't know, I'm just surprised that I have no pain like I used to get when doing low rpm work. I think I am putting the same effort on the downstroke...my speeds are higher on PC's (as long as I'm pedalling...that's the rub for me at this point, I can't pedal very long before my hip flexors demand a break), so I think I must be pushing down as hard, or, maybe I'm actually pulling up for a change...! If this is true, the key will be to push down as hard as I used to while pulling up, too...simple idea, may be harder to do in real life. But, something has already increased my speed when I'm pedalling with these things.

Re: the top deadspot...PC's do eliminate this deadspot by forcing you to either lift and drive your foot forward at the top, or to have enough momentum generated from raising your leg that you sling your foot over at the top. And, just like regular cranks, you can apply whatever your maximal pressure is, as soon as possible for you, anywhere in the crank arc that you can with regular cranks...as long as the pressure is in a direction that contributes (or at least doesn't subtract from) the chain propulsion. I doubt you start pushing down with your foot before the pedal reaches Top Dead Center with regular cranks. (For you automotive types, that brings in a whole set of "timing issues", similar to piston position and spark timing relationships that can be compared to timing of muscle contraction and force applied to the crank!) If you do, you are effectively decreasing power to the chain by having to counter this opposing force with your other leg at the bottom of the arc....again, PC's won't let you rob power from one leg to move the other.

PC's aren't better than one-legged pedalling. They ARE one-legged pedalling...it's just that they are one-legged pedalling ALL THE TIME! You have to learn to do this, and even if you thought you were doing it all the time, you certainly were not...one ride on PC's will convince you of that.

The last point, needing to be able to do all of this at higher rpm's is where I agree with you...I used to run rpm's 20-25 higher than I do on PC's. I'm working on getting my rpm's higher, it will take some time. Already, though, I'm not slower at these lower rpm's...but my hip flexors are limiting the rpm's I can generate at the moment. My hope is that an increase in rpm's combined with the same downforce per revolution as before will result in more speed...pretty simple concept...how does this relate to my speed and efficiency? I'll let you know when I find out!

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

I understand the double advantage of unweighting and lifting the idling leg and I use it naturally, I
don't need powercranks to remind me. Do you
need powercranks to remind you to lift your idling
leg when climbing a stairs?
You will never get the extra effective pedal power
at a cadence of 90 because to do it, you will have
to make 12 directional power application changes
in one second and that is impossible. That is why
concentrated power in one directiion is more
effective than round pedaling or ankling at the
higher revs. and it is only the stomping or linear
styles that allow one to devote total concentration on
maximum pedal power in one direction.

Perfection, you wrote "I understand the double advantage of unweighting and lifting the idling leg and I use it naturally, I
don't need powercranks to remind me. "

I thought the same thing until I rode them. I was told by a fitter that worked with George Hincapie, Pat McCallion, and Chris Harkey, among others, that I had a pedal stroke smoother than 90% of all cyclists he's ever had on a fitting stand. I mean, I am a pretty smooth pedaller!

PC's showed me within 30 seconds that I am NOT unweighting and lifting the idling leg. Naturally, or not, it wasn't occuring. I do need PC's to remind me, you may be much closer to Perfection (and hence, your name)than mere mortals like myself, congratulations!

By the way, I do notice that going up steps is much easier after using PC's...just seems like I never catch the edge of the next step anymore!

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

[quote]I disagree. I believe there is an optimal cadence for everyone at any given power. To say there is no penalty for increasing above that cadence is illogical. Automobile engines have optimal rpms for torque and power, so do humans. [/quote]

First, I believe you are correct that there is an optimal cadence range for each person to maximize a specified output variable. Actually the essence of engineering science usually boils down to optimizing tradeoffs between different input variables to maximize the desired output variables. The art of trade-off applies to engineering discipline in every engineering field.

Here,the issue is which outputs to maximize. I have been reading the new edition of Noakes book, "Lore of Running", and he goes into great depth about these different models exercise physiologosts are using. The Cardiovascular/anaerobic Model, versus the Energy Depletion Model, versus the Energy Supply Model, versus the Central Governor Model, etc., etc., etc. Anyway, the point is that exercise physiologists can't even truly agree on what model causes fatigue and performance limits -- there is significant debate in the field.

So one measure of "efficiency" is oxygen use for a given power output. However, muscle recruitment patterns may also have significant differences in how we experience fatigue. There is neuromuscular fatigue that can be completely independent of our current heart rate or degree of aerobic/anaerobic state.

There is also a brain component, in that some believe the limits are "in our head" (Central Governor model) rather than simple muscle or heart limits, because the amount of EMG activity which affects how many muscle fibers get recruited trails off with fatigue, yet returns to higher levels for the "finishing kick". If our muscle exhaustion or energy exhaustion forces us to a limiting pace at miles 20-25 of a marathon, why can most people summon some sort of finishing kick? Here, the limiting factor seems to be brain, not body. So one cadence might use more oxygen, but to the brain it "feels" easier.

I (obviously) don't know any answers here, I am simply pointing out there are multiple systems involved. Therefore, any trade-offs are only relevant to the effect that they have on the desired outputs. And it appears there are many possible outputs.

To get back to your automobile engine analogy, yes, there are rpm ranges to optimize horsepower or torque for a given engine. However, if we are trying to maximize engine life, or minimize engine emissions, or maximize gas mileage, or minimize lifetime maintenance costs, I would expect there to be completey different rpm ranges. The choice of output variable(s) is paramount when it comes to designing trade-offs.

---

--

~~Bob

I am also a high cadence person, and did not want my PC's to change that.

My best advice for getting your cadence up on the PC's... and it worked for me.. is to just suck it up!Keep that cadence up at all costs and end your session early if you have to. By never wimping out... I was able to pedal at my normal cadence very quickly.

Another thing I did was high cadence drills. For three weeks I did 2 sessions of 5-10 intervals at 130rpms for 30-90s and then trying to max out the cadence at the end of each interval without going out of synch. They hurt like hell, but accellerated my progress. 100rpms seemed easy after those!

Now... after 3 months I'm working on staying aero for longer periods...

Just my thoughts....

There is a lot we do not know here and the PC's blatently pointout our ignorance becaause they go against almost all conventional wisdom. I believe optimum cadence will vary between people and between events. the question is how do we train for and find our optimum cadence.

Even with PC's this is still the athletes problem to maximize performance.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

that sounds like a good drill on how to get cadence up. I will put it in the next edition of my instructions (and credit Gordo).

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Perfection,

the average stair is not 14 inches high, nor do people generally climb stairs 180 a minute for 2-3 hours at a time.

Your other comments are pretty much disproven by the fact that many users have no trouble doing what you say is impossible on the PC's. The number of direction changes are not 12 but, infinite, just as they are in walking or running.

If you think concentrated power is more effective than round pedaling why do the best cyclists spend so much time doing isolated leg drills trying to develop that pedaling style? Your comment makes no sense to me.

[reply]Do you
need powercranks to remind you to lift your idling
leg when climbing a stairs?
You will never get the extra effective pedal power
at a cadence of 90 because to do it, you will have
to make 12 directional power application changes
in one second and that is impossible. That is why
concentrated power in one directiion is more
effective than round pedaling or ankling at the
higher revs. and it is only the stomping or linear
styles that allow one to devote total concentration on
maximum pedal power in one direction.[/reply]

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Bob wrote, "To get back to your automobile engine analogy, yes, there are rpm ranges to optimize horsepower or torque for a given engine. However, if we are trying to maximize engine life, or minimize engine emissions, or maximize gas mileage, or minimize lifetime maintenance costs, I would expect there to be completey different rpm ranges. The choice of output variable(s) is paramount when it comes to designing trade-offs. "

Wow, I didn't think of all that stuff with my automobile engine analogy. There are lots of important ideas there that may be important in understanding our power systems! Thanks for expanding my limited mindset!

I simply was thinking of advancing ignition timing as rpm's increase...such as firing the spark (signalling your muscles to fire) before the piston (your foot that is rising to the top of the stroke) reaches Top Dead Center. The higher the rpm's, the more efficiently power is produced from a given explosion, if the impulse to begin delivery of that power is closer and closer to (and in car engines, even BEFORE) TDC. I guess this is just a fancy way of saying our neuromuscular systems are complicated, and we may be doing things we don't even realize as we train at different rpm's.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

Thanks, Greg. For a while, I was making myself go at 85 rpm's...when I couldn't do that anymore, I simply rested a minute and started again. I found I was resting too much! So I just rode at whatever I could keep up for 10 minutes at a time...and that was closer to 70-75. Every once in a while, I'd do a few reps of higher rpm's. Your structured sets sound intriguing to me...they're similar to what many people use when trying to learn to run a higher rpm on regular cranks...in my case, I'm not looking for a return to 108 rpm's...I think 85-90 will be better (85-90 certainly had me going faster on my TT's last year!), and this seems like a good way to work back up more quickly than what I was doing.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

your concept of pedaling in one direction. I thought you meant pushing down. Your concept of pedaling in one direction corresponds to my concept of "round" pedaling. Keeping forward pressure on the pedal the entire 360 degrees.

Frank

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

I posted this link elsewhere and received a very good reply:

"Regarding Stern's article on weights and cycling -- There is support for both sides of this issue. I am in the camp that backs weights for strength, transfered to the bike -- especially for most AG athletes. Arguably the best cyclist in the world, Lance A., spends many hours pushing weights. Joe contends that fitness is made up of three components -- aerobic capacity, lactate threshold, and economy. Economy can be improved if one is able to generate greater force (strength). In addition, a high VO2max may be of lesser value if one doesn't have the strength to reach high force/power. These two points tend to suggest that strength does have a significant influence on cycling output. I believe we should develope atrength in the gym and on the bike -- a combination of both. Flat out strength and raw force can come relatively quickly in the gym from squats. Couple this with cycling economy, and you have very good output. I am guessing Stern's article is slanted toward elites or Pros who already have loads of Force and Power to apply to the pedal. For many AG athletes this is not the case. Many AGers have both bike endurance and Force as limiters. Most probably do not have the time to spend the hours needed in the saddle to aquire the endurance and strength that Stern might say they can acquire without weights. For those athletes who have Force and/or Power as a limiter weights can be a shortcut to fast improvement in times. IMO, they become even more important if you do not have the time to cycle 15-20hrs a week. "

is, assuming a rider who has limited training time so doesn't have the time to put in to develop strength on the bike, Why would he/she benefit from spending less time on the bike (diverting time to the gym) simply to gain raw strength but almost certainly losing something in form and endurance in the trade-off?

I can only see weights helping in this instance if bike time is kept the same and weight time is added to it. Would the benefits be less, the same, or more if that extra time was spent on the bike.

Frank

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Greg,

Hi! I'm not sure who wrote your reply to my article at cyclingnews.com... but there's some seriously wrong ideas in there, which are neither supported by the scientific literature, and are further not supported when empirical observations are made.

Specifically, the idea that an AG or (indeed) anyone (who is healthy) couldn't generate the forces required to reach VO2 max/peak is erroneous. Looking at a wide range of (male) subjects, VO2 max (during an incremental test to exhaustion) would result in a mechanical power output of ~ 300 - 600 W (for low fitness right up to the very best in the world). The power that most (males) can generate during a 5-second peak power (sprint) test, will be in the range of 800 to 1400+ W (for endurance athletes of say 60+ kg), even accounting for the higher cadence in the sprint, the forces that would need to be applied, would be considerably higher, often in the region of 50% more. As power = force x velocity, you can easily calculate the ratios. Thus, triathlon, which is an endurance sport, and not one that requires maximal force (like cycling) needs very little strength.

I don't disagree that strength is increased in the gym. it's just not warranted for such a sport that requires very moderate* amounts of power output such as cycling and triathlon. *refers males generally riding in the range of 150 - 400 W for tri/cycling, when peak power will be >800 W.

I don't argue that many AG, elites (cyclists and triathletes alike) need to increase power output. However, the power that needs to be increased is sustainable power (i.e., TT power) and force application just isn't a limiting factor. What limits performance here is power at LT, with VO2max/peak being the rate limiting mechanism. Along with power at LT, you need to be looking to increase capillarisation, type I fibres, mitochondrial density, oxidative enzymes etc. None of these are increased (actually, none are stimulated by weight training in reasonably well trained athletes, which is anyone who works out regularly in preparation for races -- be that tri or cycling).

It's actually efficiency that is measured within cycling, and leaving aside any arguments/discussions about Power Cranks, or Rotor Cranks, efficiency varies very little in cycling, primarily because your legs/feet are fixed to the pedals, and can only move in a fixed manner -- thus, cycling is a very simple motor control sport. Accordingly, at a given workload, and a fixed cadence*, two different athletes (but same size) who are at opposite end of the fitness spectrum, will produce the VO2 for that workload, i.e., their energy expenditure will be the same. *At a given workload, different cadences will produce different efficiencies, such that efficiency increases at lower than optimal cadences. as the workload increases the most efficient cadence rises

As i suspect, that many people here are AG or time limited, the best thing to do is to concentrate on the 3 areas of swimming, cycling and running (and for any cyclists only who are reading this, just cycling). any time you concentrate on moving away from this ideal you are loosing valuable training time.

There are reasons to do weight training, but these aren't associated with cycling performance (e.g., some form of muscle atrophy - because you've broken a bone, etc.)

Ric Stern

ric@cyclecoach.com

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com

As i understand it, He states that pedaling is "simple" based upon experimental evidence that shows that overall efficiency is pretty much the same for novices or experts and the main difference between these groups is how much they have trained, not how much they have improved their pedaling.

You seem to think that you have somehow been able to transform your pedaling to be able to apply "linear force" the entire stroke whereas studies that have looked at pros since the beginning of studies have never shown that anyone actually pedals in this fashion. If you are actually able to do so then you should have no trouble riding on the PowerCranks (which force one to do what you say you do) and your first ride should last 4 hours and be no more difficult than what you are doing now. Why don't you see if you can find a pair and try them out and see what you think if you pedal like you think you do or if you pedal like everyone else.

It is this problem that makes the PC's so difficult as it is trying to actually change the way people pedal. Once people who have actually been trained on them are studied for efficiency I think the science will be turned on its head, but it hasn't been done yet.

Not all "scientists" are ivory tower goofballs unaware of the real world. The original post was regarding weight training and cycling and the fine (in my opinion) review of this written by Ric Stern. The only objections that have been put forward to this view have been suppositions by those who think it should help (for any of various reasons). Until there is some scientific data to refute these conclusions it seems to me that those who are primarily interested in improving speed (and not some "overall" goal) can safely ignore weight training.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

He is correct in all he said about weight lifting, it was the brushing aside of the importance of pedaling that I disagreed with. You said studies on

all the pros never showed any of them pedaling linear style. Was

Anquetil included in these studies. I can show you live pedaling action

of Anquetil on the video of his racing years and he is clearly using the

identical linear technique that I use. I cannot use normal round pedaling

for very long because I have the weakest lower back in the sport and

lower back pain prevents me from using it. There are three different

pedaling styles stomping best for track sprinting, linear best for time

trialling, track pursuit and the round pedaling style best for road racing

when in the bunch. To successfully acquire Anquetil's, you first need

to have perfected round pedaling and that is where your PC's could be

of assistance but as I have already perfected it, the PC's would be

of no benefit to me. I solved the mystery of Anquetil's pedaling when

I attempted and succeeded in biomechanically combining the upper

body arm power of a " hand cranked " trike rider with the lower body

power of a normal road racer.

If I do manage to get a set of PC's I will give them a try but apart from

helping a beginner to get using a good technique from the start, I can't

see them being of further use because I don't believe there is anything

to be gained from pulling up with the returning leg, offloading the weight

yes but not pulling up.

WOW, this guy IS Perfection. If PC's would be far too much of a digression in his hierarchy of pedalling technique, he's got to be, in actuality, perfect.

Oh, well! For the rest of us beginners, I guess Perfection would recommend we work hard on PC's for a while before trying out his obviously superior pedalling techniques. Since PC's are very difficult for me, I'm liable to be dead before I get as good as Perfection at pedalling! I guess I'll just have to slog along at about an hour for a 40K TT until I figure it all out...

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)