Have done it twice now during a race. Both times my runs seemed decent, but need more data points. Plus, need to make sure my rpm was as low as I thought.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

You’re guessing the fucking rpm during a race 🙄

How will another test confirm the result of the last one?

Despite the regularity with which you use the word, I find it questionable whether you understand what data actually IS.

The reason to test something more than once is to check for repeatability/consistency and identify issues with the test method. I can't see how a new test can make sure your rpm for previous tests were as low as you thought unless there is some uncertainty about the means previously used for measuring your cadence.

Is there some issue with your cadence measurements? Can you explain?

Hooooly... these two are the same person. Everything makes more sense now. Wow.

I assume he doesn’t have a cadence meter on his race bike. He is going by feel...otherwise it would be obvious if the bike computer is showing 70rpm vs 90rpm.

Anazing, right! Frank was booted from every major forum for the same reason. Surprising that Dave isn’t also booted, but I guess that might be because he isn’t selling anything??

Personal favourite is the straw man about power meters. For someone who is apparently educated (Frank was at some point a doctor...) he has no clue. He is still looking for the data to support the theory that a power meter improves performance. Funny, since no one has ever claimed adding a power meter to a bike will magically improve performance. Confusing that Frank thinks a power meter is the same as an aero wheel and should have ‘data’ to support any performance improvement.

Similar to this stupid thread. Dave just sticks his head in the sand and says ‘data data data’ and ignores all the data that exists. They have found what everyone else already knows, and taken massively more time to do so. The data is shit and certainly isn’t meaningful. Any HR ‘trends’ are minor and so variable that there is no statistical relevance.

In the two races I did at the end of the season, I quickly changed to 175 cranks. And for various reasons, I was not able to get my garmin going, so I was racing blind. I know I was pedaling a lot slow rpm's, but since I did not have my garmin, I cannot say exactly what I was spinning.

In my training testing, it is pretty easy since it is all working.

I now have my garmin working my 3 bikes, but since no races until next year, will have to wait on race data. And since I will probably race on cranks less than the 175's I have, will have to find cranks, and get the garmin working with them again.

This is the reason the testing I am doing on the trainer is the only way to really tell what is going on. Everything is 100% repeatable.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Okay, thanks. Glad to have that clear.

So you do not in fact have any race data regarding cadence on 175mm cranks then?
It's not a case of confirming existing data, there is no existing data.

When you say everything is 100% repeatable do you mean:

1. You can repeat the same test ad nauseam with zero equipment variation.
2. You can produce the same results every time you do testing.

If the former, great. Does that include fatigue, illness, room temperature, relative humidity, diet & hydration? Given that HR is being used as a critical variable, these all seem important. What's the full set of variables you're recording and analysing?
As I understand it you're attempting to optimise cadence, crank length, and position, using HR. Is that correct? What does your test matrix look like?

I used 175's in the past, and always pedaled as fast as I could but other than knowing I was in the upper 80's or low 90's, nothing as focused as I am trying to do now.

1). Yes, I can setup the hw 100% the same and the test setup, meaning, when I am testing HR, it is the exact same warmup, and 200 watts at the RPM's No wind, or stop signs or perceived effort.

2). No, I cannot produce the exact same results, which is why were are testing. Meaning, some days I am more tired, others,. And we have this going on now. I am testing on 145 cranks, but for some reason, my HR has been much higher than my previous 150 crank tests. Since I ran good off the bike yesterday, we are not sure what is going on. So, will do another test this morning. If things stay high, I guess I would put back to 150 and just get more data. Now, at some point could there be a HW change? Does the HR strap always work perfectly each day? Lots of questions which is why I am doing so many test points until we can say we have a real trend.

My test is I start a warmup for 15 minutes. start 150 watts to 300, i minutes jumps of 10 watts. Then 5 minutes of 150 watts spin. Then 200 watts fixed. Start at 50 rpm for 10 minutes. 5 minutes sitting up, 5 minutes aero. Repeat each for 10 minutes with 10 rpm jump So do 50 to 90 rpm. I finish off at 120 watts 10 minutes.
For the non fixed watts, I try to spin at 70. But when I get near the 300, I am out of the seat doing whatever, which is around 40.

Attached is the spread sheet on what we are recording. Anything missing you would suggest adding?

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Thanks for all the info. I've just had a quick look at the spreadsheet. I'll have a closer look later. First thoughts would be that you're taking a lot of measurements and recording a lot of additional info but it's not clear how you'll analyse it. Do you have any graphs? I don't see any clear trends that don't have multiple possible explanations and the tests don't appear to be chosen to eliminate those explanations. I would be inclined to say that for this sort of testing, if you can't put the data on a chart, you don't know what it's for. That's probably one for Frank to answer.

Dave asked me to reply to Ai_1’s good question question. Sorry I can’t get involved in this back and forth directly.

The problem with doing any testing is one doesn’t know if the athlete is having a good day or a bad day or anything else in order to judge the relative performance of two different tests. Further, some changes require some time to gt used to them before the true benefit can be seen, assuming there is a benefit. So, in this little effort to find Dave’s most efficient pedal speed required doing lots of tests. Dave has included a lot of stuff on his spreadsheet that is pretty worthless for this effort but it may be useful later on. But, one never knows what little tidbit might be important sometime later? That is an issue in comparing his usual ride with what he is doing now as he did not note what crank length he was on and some did not have HR information so he is force to try to reconstruct from memory, a problem when there are a lot of tests going back 4 years. However, I did compare to what he did a year ago when he knows both crank length and HR is recorded. I think we have 4 rides now that tested as good as he was 4 years ago, not bad for an elite in his 60’s.

Anyhow, we previously posted the graph that I am using to assess where I think he should be riding. I am basing my recommendations on the work of BioMcGeek (who has wondered where the science is, guess he doesn’t understand his own study) that showed the two metrics best associated with efficiency were power and pedal speed. It is my assumption here that any given athlete will be able to maximize power for any given effort. I am measuring efficiency by looking at the pulse power (power divided by HR). Since in anyone individual in the aerobic range HR tracks oxygen consumption this should be a good measure.

The graph plots PP vs pedal speed. While it is clear there is quite a bit of daily variation it is also clear that the basic curve is the same whether he is having a good day or bad day. Analysis of the data also reveals that even though we did this on a wide variety of crank lengths that he had good days and bad days on all crank lengths so the only important variable it seems regarding efficiency is pedal speed (confirming BioMcGeeks study). We can see also that he peak efficiency is around 110 cm/sec pedal speed although he can go a go ways on either side of this without losing much efficiency. It also appears that efficiency drops faster at the higher pedal speeds than when going slower. This is good because climbing typically drops pedal speed so we don’t have to worry too much about whether he might be too low as the real issue for him (and probably everybody) is too high). In my opinion when people report improvement with shorter cranks they see it not because the cranks are shorter but because shorter cranks naturally reduce pedal speed (unless they are aero where I do believe crank length itself is important - I might add that BioMcGeeks study in which he concluded that crank length was not important for power production did not look at the aero position).

You can see the chart is also looking at aero position. There is a drop in efficiency when Dave goes aero (which is probably the case for everyone). We are now trying to find how close we can get to his optimum by varying crank length. This is complicated by the fact that Dave has trouble staying in the aero position because of back and knee issues so we are also trying to look at that. I would take somewhat less efficiency if we can keep him aero. I might add that anyone who does this work should end up with a chart that looks somewhat like this, all that will vary is where that peak is and what that number is. I would expect that those generating more power to optimize at higher pedal speeds (maybe as high as 150) and those generating less at lower speeds. Obviously there will be individual variation. 110 cm/sec calculates to a 150 crank at 70 rpm or a 175 crank at 60 rpm. Will that hold for him in the aero position. We are working on that question now.

Hope this helps you to better understand what I am trying to do. So far I am quite optimistic this is an important advance for the individual athlete. Train smarter, not just harder.






Frank Day

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Jason, this first post had the protocol I am been using to start with. What is it missing? And attached is the data I have collected to do.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Dave,

Where is the data from you "test loop" you ride? I don't seem to see any of that and it's actually of way more interest that what you did show.

Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

Been in the spreadsheet all the time. Take a look

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Sooooo....what you’re saying is you can modify “pedal speed” just by changing gearing and your specific cadence to find an optimum efficiency point...


...and then use crank length for what itÂ’s meant for, BIKE FITTING, and get the same results without wasting your time?

Shocking, exactly what we told you before you started this idiotic endevour...

Furthermore, if you took this “study” design to an academic, they wouldn’t give you a second look. You have zero idea how much variability there is in heart rate, and you have no controls on state of rest, diet, general health, hydration status, medication...you have one subject rather than a population, you don’t mention if the workout has the same order every time or if you change the order, you state you have no idea how long the “acclimation” period of changing crank length is but decided to just ignore that. You just think that if you collect enough data you’ll get rid of the noise, but you can’t ever know for sure if you’re actually measuring anything due to all the potential errors above maybe introducing a systematic bias to the data. Your error analysis would have no basis for creating confidence intervals, so you’re measuring garbage.

OK got it. So no data from the 200s that you keep mentioning? Were the 175s locked or unlocked?

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

Opps, my mistake. Let me look up the data and include it.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

And no HR or effort rating for the previous tests. So, we have data that shows higher avg power=faster bike time. Ground-breaking...

What is the metric you are using to evaluate the effectiveness? You are using erg mode, therefore watts is a controlled variable. Distance covered is irrelevant in erg mode. The only thing you have left is HR, which is variable from day to day anyway.

What does "5 of 10 in aerobars" mean. You need to separate the aerobar from the non-aerobar data.

Where are you evaluating what your threshold power output is with the various crank lengths.

How are you separating fatigue effects and training effects from the HR data? i.e, you are following the same RPM progression each session, which means that you are fresher at the low rpm than the high rpm all the time.

why 10 minutes at each RPM rather than do sessions at self selected RPMs?

What is your protocol for adjusting seat height and position with changing crank lengths? Is there an actual methodology, or are you just guessing? Are you moving through a range of seat heights?

Thats just off the top of my head. You have the equipment needed, but the methodology is VERY important.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Also good to clarify if HR averages are being used for the entire 10min duration or if just selecting heart rate for the last 5min or single reading at end of 10min stages. Is 70rpm actually 70 or really 73?

Also, that first post has a protocol that was abandoned and adjusted to be something different. Also, he talked about moving up and forward with the seat instead of up and back...basically a dogs breakfast of garbage data with random protocols and changing variables.

The data analysis is undertaking on......

https://images-eu.ssl-images-amazon.com/...z-ywpDjL._SY355_.jpg

I'd really like if people didn't pile on to Dave, at least not in this thread. I know he's everyone's favourite metaphorical punching bag (I hope not literal, he's pretty skinny) but I would like him to clarify the protocol, and if there are things that he didn't think of, or is doing but didn't include, that we can have a respectful conversation about it.

I'm pretty sure I know what the outcome of his experiment will be if he starts running properly controlled testing, but he's willing to do it, so lets help him rather than attack. again.

He'll be around later for the attacks, I'm sure...

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Thank, that has only been my intent, but I just never knew there were SO many snowflakes on this forum.

As I will always say, I post because I always get feedback that same appreciate it and cannot stand that Dan allows the attacks which is why they never post on this forum.

I am not trying to say what I am doing it right or wrong, but so far, I have yet to see anyone who has attempted to take a serious effort to do some real testing in the closest thing to 1 100% controlled test setting.

I sure can tell my the HR numbers when I am tired. Right now am trying to figure out why my HR has gone up at 10 points the last 2 weeks compared to what it had been testing at.

Using the 150's at 70 rpm is sure feeling good. When I get up to the higher RPMs this morning, I really can feel my knee acting up.

I have not been putting much riding on the powercranks the last two months and I can feel this in my legs. Going to get back to using them every other day since I strongly believe the powercrank use over the years has helped me be a very strong runner even at my old age. I also believe it has helped me avoid injuries.

So what specific in my testing process can I help explain more since if it can be improved, I am all ears.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

I already posted a few questions a few posts back, as did others. Start there...

Just for this thread, can you PLEASE stop with the passive aggression and "everyones a snowflake syndrome" and lets just have a normal discussion.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly