My sense is its pretty simple. Non round rings don't improve or hurt performance. So, if you happen to be having a good fitness day the first time you ride them, you may be inclined to attribute your good performance to the chainring. Those having a bad day might conclude they suck. Those having an ordinary day will believe they don't do anything.
EDIT: Of course there is also a large "belief" factor. If you believe, up front, that they will improve your performance then they very well might. If placebo wasn't important we wouldn't have to control for it.
Ride em if you like em.
Cheers,
Jim

In the next paper we'll report the efficiency during submaximal cycling. Or you can read the dissertation directly. I won't disclose but the simple answer has already been posted by Alex.

So he got a PhD for a negative result...I guess it is a little bit easier these days, huh? All one needs is a null hypothesis.[/quote]

Lolwut? If I suspect that some orthopedic surgeries are no better than sham, and get phd funding to research a few common procedures that are not evaluated vs sham I can only get the doctorate if the surgeries turn out to actually be better than sham, because it's not "supposed to be easy"?[/quote]
I think that the highest achievement in academic training should show more than 'this also is not the way things work' type of statement. No?

Stephen J

---

I believe my local reality has been violated.
____________________________________________
Happiness = Results / (Expectations)^2

In natural pedalling the lower leg cannot produce effective pedal power, it is used in almost the same way as Alex S uses his prosthesis to transfer power from knee to pedal. But with a change in technique together with the foot muscles it can form part of a much more effective extended power stroke that can drive maximal tangential force through 12, 1 and 2 o'c. Circular and non round ring pedalling have somewhat similar problems, in both cases four changes are taking place around the pedalling circle and while the idea may look good in slow motion, as cadence increases any advantages begin to lose their effectiveness.

Hello perfection and All,

Gotta love that handle!

"Circular and non round ring pedaling have somewhat similar problems, in both cases four changes are taking place around the pedaling circle and while the idea may look good in slow motion, as cadence increases any advantages begin to lose their effectiveness." [sp and emphasis added]


Why?


And what is the measure of loss of effectiveness?

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

No. Academic training should teach you that good science comprises formulating a hypothesis, designing appropriate experiments to test this hypothesis, including appropriate controls, and then truthfully and comprehensively reporting the results. If we knew which hypotheses were true or false from the outset, there wouldn't be any need for research to begin with.
Attitudes like yours are what's causing the very real problems we're having with confirmation bias in science. We need more reporting of negative results.

You're quite right, but it's confirmation bias or being a 'yes man' that gets people further on in their careers I'm afraid. Any career where you move regularly is prone to people spinning BS to get promoted, then moving-on before the reality hits their successors.

---

29 years and counting

I agree with what you suggest academic training should be at the levels working up to a PhD. You are missing one important thing...scientists should know that if you are working on your PhD and find your hypothesis is incorrect and are not able to show anything new or unique from the work...well, that scientist needs to start over again if they want that degree. You don't just print up results and get the participation award. That is ANOTHER problem with science today. Scientists need the integrity to say that either this stuff is not for you, or to dig in deeper and figure out what the real answers are with better experimental design to address the shortcomings of the previous experiments. Even if that means you just wasted 3 years or more of your life due to a collaborators error. Your statement about knowing the outcome from hypotheses shows a bit of naivety about how the process works. If you don't have guiding experiments going in multiple directions at the same time to provide some directionality, you become too invested in a single path which forces you to continue down that path due to the investment (time and/or money). This leads to strong temptations to compromise scientific integrity. Don't make comments about my attitude without the data which actually supports your assertation.

Stephen J

---

I believe my local reality has been violated.
____________________________________________
Happiness = Results / (Expectations)^2

Because the interaction between brain and muscles runs out of sufficient time to complete the changes or eventually even start the change. If you don't make a conscious effort to change your technique, how can you expect to gain an advantage.

Your comments make me curious about your training. Where did you do your PhD and in what area?
How many PhD students have you trained?

If you are curious enough, look it up. Im not hard to find. If you would like to discuss further, please PM me. I don't thing this part of the discussion really adds to the forum.

Stephen J

---

I believe my local reality has been violated.
____________________________________________
Happiness = Results / (Expectations)^2

Yeah right. With your Slowtwitch user name (no real name in your profile) I'm gonna find your whole academic record.
You were willing to criticize Dr. Leong's PhD work but you're not willing to show your own credentials.
I guess its easier to be a critic than a craftsman.

Jim,
You must be kidding, or you are just plain incompetent. Your profile gives a dead link and no full name, mine has first and last name and you are criticize me? Even a web hack like me can find you by going to the university site and typing in your last name. If you are interested in my credentials try name with a patent search or even linked; and that is just the very easiest stuff to find. Heck, Ill even point you in the direction of a molecular biology search. Again, if you would like to take offline, PM me. I would be happy to have a spirited discussion about the black hole of academia; which takes more than just snippets typed in this type if interface. In sum, I don't believe that we differ too much in our outlook based on the bits we have written here...it seems we just diverge in the value we place on a degree program. Oh, and one stupid little thing that I hate to point out, but for some reason really annoys me...if you put Dr. before a name, then you do not put Ph.D. as well. That makes a person seem like a degree snob from my experience.

Stephen J

---

I believe my local reality has been violated.
____________________________________________
Happiness = Results / (Expectations)^2

Thanks for letting me know I need to update my link.
Interesting that you don't see my name! When I click on your profile I get this. No real name, no location, no email.
stephenj
Hide User's PostsSend Private Message

---

Status
Registered User - Offline
Registered
Jan 2, 03 12:19
Last Logged On
Nov 23, 17 9:42
Local Time
Nov 23, 17 10:03
Posts
1739 (0.3 per day) | view posts
Real Name
No name entered.
Location
No location entered.
E-mail
No email entered.

Note the possessive 's. I'm pretty sure that can be read as "the work Dr. Leong did during his PhD".

sorry,
I missed the ' . I should read a little more carefully before I complain. I guess your questioning hit me a little more emotionally than I thought and I was getting careless. My mistake. Thank you.

Stephen J

---

I believe my local reality has been violated.
____________________________________________
Happiness = Results / (Expectations)^2