But, how do we know he trained on them? How do we know he actually used them?

He said he did...he said the same thing that I said when I got on them about them. I take him at his word. We dont need a wind tunnel to know if he did, or did not use them - he said he did. If he didnt - that is his honor, not ours.

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

Wouldn't it be helpful if we had some info on the guy? number of years in tri, avg # of hrs training last year vs this year, etc.?

How would that help?

Rik

I hope he crushes it. I mean totally owns the race.

---

-All You Haters Suck My Balls-

The variable would be whether or not he's training harder or the same as the year before, but it is still interesting.

---

56-11...the only way to fly

do you know what the statistical chances are that he finishes right bang in the middle 2 years in a row? i'd take bets against that any day.

in fact now that we know there is a half-fast prize. i'm sure lots of people will be gunning for it.

Will there be power data from last year and this year? If not, how can you tell if something was effective for the bike leg? Just looking at time won't let you isolate whether it's weather related, aero related, fitness related....

I like the "half fast" term, LOL.

Hope you're getting some sleep in the midst of race preparations, Chip.

---

maybe she's born with it, maybe it's chlorine
If you're injured and need some sympathy, PM me and I'm very happy to write back.
disclaimer: PhD not MD

I have no doubt that such a man would absolutely crush it on the bike this year

because he has been forced to WORK HARD every moment he is on the bike.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...you are kidding right? So you assume that last years results in the middle of a horrible storm, were accurate of his abilities last year. It sounds like the guy will simply go faster if the weather is nicer.
I think it is great that Frank stepped up and gave the cranks as a prize but to tout this as anything more than "interesting" is pretty funny. .

the point would be to compare his results relative to the other competitors, I'm sure.

I've just thought of a test I'd love to see if I won the mega lotto:

compare power crank results
to those with an energy wasting bottom bracket that requires like 200 watts to go fast enough not to fall over.

that would be interesting. is it 'pedalling in circles' that is helping or is it 'hard work'?
=)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

 
Nice add for PC's in exchange for the free set of PC's. I personally would have exchanged for a water bottle or something ... but thats just me. Now a fine set of campy record ultracranks ... that would be something I'd keep :-) You need to change your handle to PC10metal I guess ;-)
Dave

If I knew all of ST was going to be updated on my cycling progress a year in advance, I am pretty sure I would step up my training, regardless of whether or not I had power cranks.

So if a slew of fast folks show up and he is BOP, does that mean that Powercranks don't work? ;)
like I said, it was a nice gesture by Frank and a nice prize but that's it.

I think a chi square test of the sample sizes involved would indicate the odds of that are not good.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

I had my PC's on the trainer - in spin class....about killed me. If they do nothing than make you work harder AND enjoy the time spent...well worth the money.

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

possibly, there just might be cheaper/easier ways to do that is all.

like if I can keep attaching myself to the back wheel of austin texas roadies I think I am good to go...

lol

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

You haters are just nervous that we are finally going to prove once and for all and with unquestionable science that PCs work.

We should be able to predict his bike split by calculating what a 40% increase in power will yield.

I have a few sets of Record Ultra Torque Cranks, as well as Record Carbon ST and Record Alu ST. Fact remains - if PC makes you work more, you work more...and we all know that "more is more".

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

I think if he's faster it was the Heed! And if he hadn't had the PowerCranks slowing him down, that Heed would have made him the overall race winner!
(think of that as pink). The point is that you can't control the variables such as training time...perhaps he worked harder this year knowing all eyes would be on him at this year's race.
But then again, I have to believe that PCs will make most riders faster because it guarantees good pedalling form. Is this man going to do the race with the PCs on?

Yeah, while this will be a great endorsement of powercranks, the more scientific version of this experiment would've involved taking 10-30 racers who all had similar bike splits (within a few seconds of each other), give powercranks to half of them and have them all commit to the same training program--hours, periodization, etc.--and report their training weekly throughout the year. That way, you'd have a control group to compare to your experiment group.

Nonetheless, I wish the guy well in the race.

I am not sure, but my gut tells me no.


Still...it the ONLY thing the PC's did was make him train more, better or harder....is that, or is that not worth the price of dimples on your wheel?

(not directed at jyeager - just an over all question)

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

I am not against or pro PowerCranks. I just do not want to spend $1K on a toy (a tri bike is of course NOT a toy :)).

However, even if we let the results of Rockman 2009 speak for themselves, how can we tell the (guessed) improvements are coming from the PowerCranks vs. an extra year of training (and maybe more training and maybe more structured training)?

Fred.

just make sure he shows up to the race the right day

this sounds like standard issue Powercrank "research"......meaningless

huge.

I was wondering about that myself. If a guy trained more due to the powercranks and the additional training is the ONLY factor in his improvement...I'd be inclined to still give the credit to the PCs. I'll take an improvement no matter how it comes.
I think that's factor that results in a lot of the improvements athletes see when they start paying $ for a coach. ;)

I have a few sets of Record Ultra Torque Cranks, as well as Record Carbon ST and Record Alu ST.
_____________________
OK ... your name is cleared ... I was concerned for you though!

Fact remains - if PC makes you work more, you work more...and we all know that "more is more".
______________________
I suspect most would agree with "more is more". I would just rather put in my "more" on some classy record cranks rather than getting laughed at on PCs.

Dave

You do realize that there are thunderstorms predicted for the whole weekend in the Rockford area, don't you? He should have identical conditions this year so that variable probably won't change.

I'm curious how much more he's been training this year. If I was given a shiny new toy, an expensive one at that, I'd be motivated to train better. Especially if I was put on the spot and a spectacle was made out of it.

But hey, it makes for yet another anecdote to add to the PC marketing machine.

I met the guy at IM Arizona last year. He mentioned he won the "half-fast" award. I asked him how the training was going on them and he said he had never used them. I put him on the bike and talked to him about getting on them. I am glad to see he finally took up the challenge. Hope he used them pretty much exclusively through the winter but, whatever, he did what he did and we will see how he does.

---

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

Of course I do. I do nothing but traverse weather.com looking at the weather for all cities in the US.

He does well: "See, PCs work!"

He does not so well: "He didn't train long enough, according to the instructions, so it means nothing."

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Isn't that sort of the case with everything when we are dealing with anecdotal reports? Lots of things can result in poor performance from being kicked in the head during the swim, being stung by a bee or jellyfish, being sick on race-day, mechanicals, etc.

Fewer things can cause improved performance but, still, it is impossible to know what did what.

Frank

---

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

So, you will stop making any claims as to whether PCs contributed to any improved performance?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

No. we actually have some scientific studies that support at least the gist of our claims and why would anyone even bother training on them if they didn't hope to see improvement. Don't you think it is reasonable to give someone a reason to try them? All we do is tell them what we think. So what? We offer an unconditional 90 day money back guarantee. If the user doesn't see improvements they attribute to the cranks that are worth the cost then there is little lost. What other manufacturer (or coach) offers that?

---

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

it is impossible to know what did what
______________

Impossible unless an anecdotal claim was made by Frank on PCs .... which makes it a fact ... always awaiting someone elses study.
Up pops FD ... what a surprise!
Dave

Is there a prize for third place this year?

Unfortunately, there is no way to isolate what portion of the improvement this person has had to the various factors that go into training. An average rider can improve a lot in just a year with hard work - with or without powercranks. As someone else said we would have to know how much additional training this person had been putting in, did they increase intensity, did they increase miles, did they start doing intervals and hadn't before, etc.?

---

http://jesse.centuries.com

Might be a stupid question but, why not do a study here on ST? Get 20 comparable triathletes who are willing to commit to a dedicated training regime for 30-90days, half with PC and half without. At the end measure their improvement. I realize there are multiple factors that would need to be normalized but that should be doable. The major cost would be the 10 sets of power cranks but you could just lend those out for the duration of the study.
So many people pay for coaching that simply offering a regimented plan should be sufficient motivation to get people to join. After IMLou this year, I would be more than willing to take part.
Any reason not to do this?

Will he be racing on PCs or a standard...uh..."linked" crank?

You must be new here. Last year I tried to have a 6 months "smackdown". No one with regular cranks agreed to participate and of those who got on Powercranks no one posted results past one month.

I do have another trial going on right now that should be over soon. It doesn't attempt to compare results but only will look at what those on the PC's achieve over this time. Hopefully everyone did as they were asked.

---

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

I am new here and that seems ridiculous. All these people waste all this time arguing whether or not they work but then aren't willing to actually do something to figure it out? I think we should make it a rule, greater than 3 posts on PowerCranks automatically volunteers you for the study. We should have plenty of volunteers by the end of the summer.
Personally, I have a regular crank and am more than willing to participate. I would like to know if the penismightier really works...will it really mightier my penis?

Yeah, ridiculous! There should be hordes of people volunteering to do something that will give them no benefit! And then get berated by the inventor they weren't using the product right.

Frank should request that John Wiggins, the Belgian National (Cycling) Track Team coach, post a follow up to his two "blog" posts on the PC site from 2007. In Fall 2007, Wiggins stated in an interview on the PC site that his athletes were seeing 60-100 watt power increases. Given that these were some of the best pursuiters in the world before using PCs, it would be really interesting to see the reason for the (lack of) results) in Beijing after using PCs extensively for at least a 15-month period prior.

Rik

Many here have way to much invested personally in this issue to take a chance on being wrong. I, on the other hand, have sent many cranks out to "naysayers" who agreed to use them as I proposed and have yet to be disappointed. The cranks seem to do a pretty good job of speaking for themselves to those willing to listen. Some of those former "naysayers" even hang out here at this very forum, TTN and Phil Holman for example. To bad the TTN interaction disappeared with the new forum - no one was more negative than he was and it took about 3 weeks for the cranks to change his mind. The Phil Holman interaction (he was a track racer who, in 6 months, increased his top speed from 35 to 38 mph and his pursuit speed from 30 to 32 mph - winning a bronze at masters worlds in the process - but since he didn't have actual power numbers such improvements easily are discounted here) happened on another site but he has been known to hang out here.

Anyhow, you are welcome to do your own trial of one and report back to the group. Most people don't like to admit that their organ needed any help but if you want to post on that aspect of the cranks, feel free to do so.

---

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

So what exactly are you waiting for? You're smart enough to realize his results (good or bad) would be meaningless in this situation.

Thanks, Chris

Frank

I suck at cycling. I have a HIM in November. Can PC's, if used in accordance with your ways, make an improvement by then? I just got a powermeter so if you send me cranks I am willing to do some sort of test. Hell if I get ridiculed on ST for that it will just take the place of being ridiculed for being such a crap bike rider.

I would expect PC's to be able to give you significant help between now and November. They would, probably, also help your run. But, you will have to do that experiment on your own. If you got better no one here would believe it was from the PC's because you have so much room for improvement. Lakerfan, who posted above, was seeing personal best power improvements in the first few weeks of using them yet he refuses to give the cranks any credit for those improvements. Others who see similar improvements credit the cranks yet the naysayers attack them for such conclusions. There is no "winning" these arguments. Each person has to make their own decision as to what they are willing to try or do to get better and then accept the outcome.

---

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

As I keep pointing out to you, this is utter BS. Stop trying to shove it down our throats.

Lakerfan never did any power testing during that period. Because his Powercranks broke.

Rik

Again, why don't we let the reader decide for themselves. Here is a link to his experience and what he wrote at the time: Triorganic forum

I think most would intepret that result as his seeing substantial power improvement in a relatively short period of time even though he did no formal power testing.

---

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

If you really wanted to "let the reader decide for themselves" you wouldn't say things that are patently false like "Lakerfan, who posted above, was seeing personal best power improvements in the first few weeks of using them".

You might also provide some context such as that Lakerfan used PCs extensively for a 8-9 month period, increased his training load by at least 30% over previous years and got a 20-watt increase in his FTP (or about 7-8%) at the end of that season. And logically attributes most if not all of that FTP increase to the increase in training load.

Rik

Rik

Hey, Rik, I would say some of what you are saying is "patently false". Lakerfan only used the cranks for about 5 months, as I remember, mid Dec to May. Further, most of my comments are going to the first 6 weeks of his training where the improvements are rapid and must be obvious, I suspect, even to you. He was seeing substantial average power increases for his training rides in the first 3 weeks that did not involve any increase "training load". In fact, it appears the "increase training load" that Lakerfan refers to (at least in these early sessions) is the fact he was riding at increasing power even though these did not involve any increased perceived effort. Even though he is riding at increased power, if the effort is not greater then I would not call that an increased training load. Something else caused the change, IMHO.

Anyhow, my statement "Lakerfan, who posted above, was seeing personal best power improvements in the first few weeks of using them" is my interpretation of his posted efforts. I would love to hear from anyone else who reads his blog that comes up with a different conclusion. I mean, it was the conclusion of Lakerfan himself as he kept writing words to the effect "I have never done such and such before."

So, let each decide for themselves. I don't see many coming here and supporting your view even though lots here seem to like to pile on to me whenever there is an opportunity. But, this is a good example for discussion as to what might be causing what.

---

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

There was a big discussion on another thread involving others "coming here" and telling you that you were wrong on this issue. Including lakerfan himself and tigermilk, and others.

The gist of it, in case you forgot, was that someone riding around on a new toy at sub-FTP intensities at a power output completely within the predicted range for the FTP of the rider is no kind of indication of a power increase.

You ignored my earlier question that if lakerfan really saw a 10% increase in the first few weeks of riding with PCs, why did he have only a 7-8% increase in his FTP (when he actually tested it) after using PCs for x months (I don't feel like looking that up again) and increasing his mileage 30% from previous seasons.

Maybe you could answer that now. To make it easy for you, I'll make it a multiple choice format:

a) he didn't really have a 10% increase in power in the first 6 weeks
b) he had a 10% power increase in the first 6 weeks, but using PCs for x months caused a subsequent power decrease

Rik

P.S. have you contacted John Wiggins for that blog update yet?

Frank,

I know I never said I would comment on these type of threads again but I think it's important that people know the facts. No speculation -- just facts.

Look, I've said this many times over but I just don't know what the main contributor was to my increase in FTP that year. I simply changed too many variables. Like all things in this sport it was likely multi-factorial. The one thing I do know is that I was very very focused on achieving top 5 in my AG at IMC that year so I rode a ton. Is was quite common for me to ride 5x/week, for example. I also did some things (not on PCs) that I never did before like ride 6hrs @ IF between .77 and .81. Not sure about you but but if you ever want to kick your own ass real hard then just ride 6hrs @ IF of .81. It makes suffering through a set of indoor 2 x 20s seem like a walk on the beach with a hot Victoria Secret chick by your side (preferably Alessandra Ambrosia). ;-)

Now there are several ways I can provide you the data (eg miles/week, TSS/week, etc) but I can quantitatively tell you that my training load increased substantially. So, if we just focus on the facts then you can't ignore the fact that my training load increased. And if I was a betting man and you asked me to put my money on a guy training on PCs with no increase in training load vs a guy training on regular cranks with a 30% increase in training load then I'd put my annual salary on the latter dude.

Here's another data point, btw. Last year I trained on PCs from Oct - April but my training load decreased from the previous year. Interesting enough, my FTP probably dropped about 10w. I couldn't even maintain the same power for intervals or long rides but last year was just about survival for me. Now I don't talk about this too much because I also had an extremely mentally challenging time last year and that could have certainly played a significant role in my decreased performance.

Last thing... If anyone ever tells you they are 100% sure they know what contributed to their increase in power then I think they're (unintentionally) lying to you. The fact is that we all change way too many variables year to year to know for sure. And, as I stated above, it's almost always more than one factor that's reponsible for our improvement in the sport anyway. This is why I just try to focus on the funadamentals. We, including myself, all tend to debate the silly stuff way too often. It's entertaining but I'm getting too old. Just get out there and figure out a way to increase your training load. If that's using PCs then all the power to you.

If you want to talk about then details then let's talk about race execution... ;-)

Thanks, Chris

I am sorry, Lakerfan did not dispute his improvement, as I remember. I don't remember Tigermilk, either, disputing Lakerfan's improvement. The dispute as I see it (except with you) is not that there was or was not improvement during this period but why did the improvement occur? You are the only one that is denying that there was improvement in that first 6 weeks, that I know of.

Here is what he wrote in his very first post on them after about 1 month on the cranks. "You can clearly see that I've had a nice progression starting from about an average of 140 - 170 watts to consistently above 200 watts. I should point out that I don't believe I've ever managed more than 2 or 3 consecutive rides where I've averaged more than 200 watts on the trainer or outside. As you can see, my last 7 rides have all yielded an AP above 200 watts." So, he reported never having 3 rides in a row averaging over 200 watts before PC's to never having a training ride below 200 watts at about 4 weeks and being at about 220 watts average on his training rides at the end of 6 weeks. I would interpret that (and I suspect most others would also) to be about a 10% increase.

I cannot explain his failure to further that later when he did his testing although, if I remember correctly, he did have some sickness and other issues interfere with his training and racing, plus he stopped using the PowerCranks entirely after about 5 months. Lots of things can reduce performance for a race or testing. Few things can increase it. You have failed to explain his reported improvements (on his documented training time) in the first six weeks, other than to deny those reports indicate improvement. LOL.

---

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

I'll take your answer as a 'b" then: He had a 10% power increase in the first 6 weeks, but using PCs for x months caused a subsequent power decrease. Despite increasing his training load 30%. Those PowerCranks giveth and taketh away, eh?

You don't seem to get it: someone riding around on a new toy at sub-FTP intensities at a power output completely within the predicted range for a given ride time given the FTP of the rider is no kind of indication of a power increase. Period.

The fact that you keep desperately clinging to this dubious "10% power increase in six weeks" idea in thread after thread is a sad reflection of the fact that you have no other data to go on. Have you talked to Jon Wiggins yet? He could surely supply you with some more meaningful data. C'mon Frank: some of the best track cyclists in the world were using your product as an integral part of their training for well more than a year, reported huge power gains initially, but then didn't show for Beijing. You're not a little curious to find out what happened?

Rik

Thanks Chris but I am focusing on the first 4-6 weeks. The longest ride you had in that first 4 weeks were two rides of 2 hours yet you were seeing average power increases in those rides (and on all the rides in that 4th week) that you had never seen before (you averaged 205 and 210 watts on those long rides). It is quite possible that you changed many things in your training later on as you became more adapted but I see nothing in that first 4 weeks that can account for that early improvement you were reporting other than the PowerCranks doing something to change your mechanics to something more efficient and powerful. Of course, once the basic pedaling mechanics have changed then normal training principles apply and all the other stuff you did interferes with the analysis as to what role the PC's played. But, your changes were so rapid and so dramatic in that first 4 weeks I just cannot come up with any explanation that makes any sense other than to invoke the PowerCranks as the source of that improvement. Even at that I cannot say exactly what it was that changed to allow this improvement amongst the several things we postulate as potential sources of improvement.

---

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

Last thing... If anyone ever tells you they are 100% sure they know what contributed to their increase in power then I think they're (unintentionally) lying to you. The fact is that we all change way too many variables year to year to know for sure. And, as I stated above, it's almost always more than one factor that's reponsible for our improvement in the sport anyway. This is why I just try to focus on the funadamentals.

Chris,

Wow! Outstanding summary.

The problem is that many here and elsewhere want to see that nice linear, 2 + 2 = 4 relationship, that if I do these workouts, for this long, I'll get this result. For those that have been around endurance sports for a while, we know that, that rarely IF EVER happens. Lot's of variables and lots of influence from what you did 6 months ago or more than a year ago. Maybe what you did or did not do 6 months to a year ago is having more positive/negative impact than what you are doing now!! This never get's mentioned in any of these threads. People just put the training in 6 month or less silos and think that's what's impacting what they are doing.

The best, most predictable, and quantifiable results come from a moderate amount of training done every day, and every week and every month for several years!

I am still benefiting from the training I put in 15 years ago!! :)

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Frank,

Something to consider... I was also running much less than previous years during that period of time. Note the following paragraph:

So far I'm quite impressed with my results. Note: I didn’t say I was impressed with the PCs or with the change in my training. Yes, I’m impressed with the amount of power I’m producing as it’s clearly greater than anything I’ve produced over a number of consecutive rides in the past. However, I have run very little in the last month so it’s simply too early to even begin to draw any conclusions at all. In addition, look at my frequency. Although the overall mileage isn’t overly impressive, I’ve never ridden with this much frequency in my life.

I hope that helps,

Chris

You really make it too easy. How about this from tigermilk: "Not to belittle lakerfan, but personally I think the dude was just wimping out in the past. His per-existing FTP indicated he could ride at those wattages."

To elaborate on that theme, Lakerfan stated that his estimated FTP was 260 watts then. He also stated that his HIM power was 205 watts. That's 79% of FTP, which is a bit below the guidelines of 83-87% of FTP for a HIM in Training and Racing with a Power Meter (216-226 watts in this case). So his rides on PCs that were 200-220 watts for 2 hours are well within the rough range of his HIM bike power, which takes significantly longer than 2 hours and occurs after swimming 1.2 miles and before running 13.1 miles.

The idea that because you do a 2-hour ride at around your HIM bike power, it means that your power has increased is silly. It just means that, as tigermilk pointed out, you rode harder. Which is natural for anybody trying out a new toy. While riding 2 hours at 80% or so of FTP requires some work and concentration, it's really not all that hard. Depending on the person, all out power for 2 hours would be about 93% of FTP. Now that would not be pleasant at all. If his data showed a 2 hour ride above 242 watts then, yeah, I would say his FTP had increased substantially above 260 watts in that six weeks. But it didn't and it didn't.

Is there a reason you are not contacting Jon Wiggins? Maybe you already have, and you don't like what his data shows?

Rik

You know, I couldn't agree more with you on the statements above.

Thanks, Chris

You guys are wasting too much time discussing this. Don't you realize that this debate will be resolved this weekend with "Half Fast Man" and his race results? Then, and only then, can we move beyond the big PC debate.

You make it too easy.

Remember his FTP was an estimated FTP. And, his half IM power would have been after a period of peaking and taper while what he was reporting here was off-season base work. If he could ride at those powers before, why didn't he? Wimping out indeed. That is simply rationalization. He simply reported that he had never done such power in training before (and he did have a power meter and keep records) and after awhile he reported it being impossible to ride at less than 200 watts. He was reporting improvement in his ability to train at higher power without really trying. What more do you want?

You know, I am not Jon Wiggins boss. I am not bothering him to provide data that you wouldn't believe anyhow. When I get it I will share it with everyone.

---

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

Is there a reason you haven't commented on the Phil Holman data?

---

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

Hey, that is fine. However, I am not aware that simply cutting back on one's running would produce such dramatic power improvements. Maybe TDF riders should do some run cross-training then cut back on their running the month before the TDF. So, you cut back on your running, but we are talking simple base work in the off season over 4-6 weeks. No attempt to maximize power or anything, just putting the time in (and it was less time than usual). These changes simply happened. In fact, you reported it became impossible for you to ride at less than 200 watts now. And, I wasn't aware that frequency could make up for low mileage in an endurance athlete.

Yes, I noted you did not say you were impressed with the PC's. You have stated that clearly. However, you were impressed with your results (and so am I), even though others here are not and some just think you were "wimping out" before. The only point of debate/discussion (except in the mind of Rik, who still denies you were seeing improvement) is why that improvement, that so impressed you, occurred?

---

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

God Damn you Chip!!! I saw this thread and knew I should stay away. I saw that Frank was commenting and knew immediately that the same drivel and non-sense was being thrown back and forth. I opened the link anyway thinking "maybe this time it'll be different... I'll just read one post" and now I've gone and wasted 20 minutes of my life reading this shit and I'll never get that 20 minutes back. Personally I couldn't give a flyingfuckatarollingdonut whether PC's work or not, but I do know that everytime I subject myself to the ridiculous level of discourse on the topic and the complete inannity of Frank's arguments I lose IQ points. I need to program a little boot that will pop out of my laptop and kick me in the ass every time I read a PC thread. Maybe then I'd learn.

I'm sorry, I was too busy successfully answering your other question. Since that was so easy, let me give this one a try....

Hold on...

OK, I must have missed the power data that was posted in that thread on Phil in the first go round. Let me read a little more...

Oh wait, there wasn't any power data. Or historical training data. Not really worth a comment. It was worth opening that thread though for this gem from the notable curmudgeon Jobst Brandt:

I don't think you are a suitable specimen to evaluate whether there
are merits to this method for general application. I believe to
validate this, young racers who are well trained should try it.
Racers in retirement years have often invented uncommon positions,
special handlebars, unconventional cranks and the like, claiming great
advantage when in fact the device was an accommodation of their
declining athletic ability.

Your turn...how's Coach Wiggins doing lately? You need to freshen up your so-called "data" a bit methinks.

Rik

You're misreading things again Frank. He didn't say he hadn't done rides at that power before, because he had. He said he hadn't done that many 2-hour rides in a row at that power before. Since he was using a new toy. that is not surprising. Since he was doing more longer rides before starting with PCs, that is not surprising. Since he was doing a lot more running before, that is also not surprising:

"Keep in mind that I've never quite trained this way either though. IOW, I'm riding more frequently with nothing longer than 2hrs so far. My running has also been very sporadic and relatively limited so I know can handle more intensity given that most of my training is just cycling."

Since he wasn't putting in the typical 5-hour rides and wasn't running much, he was more rested for his 2-hour rides. No magic there.

In any case, riding around at 77-85% of FTP (200 to 220 watts in this case) for 2 hours doesn't impress me as being out of the ordinary. And it certainly doesn't point to a power increase beyond the 260 watt FTP reported. I can show you power data from many, if not most, of my 2 hour+ rides done at that intensity factor. If his FTP had increased by 10% during that 6 week period, those 2-hour rides are even less impressive since they would have been at just 70 to 77% of FTP, which is downright slacking off, IMO.

In the data I don't see any 2-hour rides in the 245 watt range or higher which would indicate a likely power increase beyond 260 watts.

Rik

Ummmm can I take this all to mean that you are not sending me a set of PC's to test?

;-)

Have a good day all

True to form. It is impossible for you to assess any improvement without power data. OK, so be it.

So, we have a senior rider who has been competing for 10 years. He reports certain speed improvements, in 7 months, that he thinks allowed him to he is able to make it to Worlds (and to win a medal). Most people would be able to make some reasonable suppositions regarding his abilities before the PowerCranks experiment, but not you. So be it.

Here is another anecdote for you. Joe Skufka, an experienced IM, did a 12 mile TT every month to assess his fitness. In 6 months on the PC's he increased his average speed for this TT from 20 mph to 25 mph. No power data again so I presume you will deny this represents any improvement. Am I correct?

---

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

I didn't misread anything. Are you saying that increasing his ability to do higher wattage workouts every ride is not an improvement? And, he was doing this in the middle of December on lower volume. He commented that he was finding it impossible to ride at under 200 watts. What are we to make of that? If he was one of your athletes I suggest that you would be congratulating him (and yourself) and telling him that all the hard work was paying off, except he wasn't doing any hard work.

Perhaps it is you who have misread some of this. Here is part of a post from, I believe, his coach on Jan 25th
So, it seems, his previous FTP indoors was 245, not 260. Certainly this person seems to think that the data he is seeing is indicating an improvement. Anyhow, thanks for continuing to keep the thread going.

---

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

Actually, without power data you won't really know what improvement there was. However, in this case with a fairly drastic increase in speed, I would say even HR data would be useful. Now one thing that does not go together is "experienced IM" and someone who was able to have his 12 mile TT go from 20 mph to 25 mph. No offense to Mr. Skufka, but 20 mph for a 12 mile TT is rotten pathetic. I could do that in the first few months of even riding a bike!

No offense to triathletes, but one former teammate who was an IM distance tri-guy said the hardest event he ever did was a 40k TT with a bunch of roadies. He wasn't used to pushing at 100% for an hour. What do you expect from a guy who mostly rides around for 2-6 hours at 60-85% of his ability?

So what does this have to do with PCs? Recall my thoughts on PCs - they teach people to work harder. They always had the ability but simply wimped out. I said it once, I'll say it again, and I'll keep on saying it. PCs force you to work beyond the previous self-imposed limits a rider put on himself. That VO2-like HR response you get the first few weeks drills you mentally to learn to accept harder training. Can you get there without PCs? You bet, but only if you have the discipline and masochistic inclinaton to begin with. PCs, in my opinion, bring that innate characteristic out. They are as much a mental tool as a physical tool.

Based on my experience with PCs, I put it this way. My genetic limit is 100%. My training will put me anywhere from 0% to 100%.

Will PCs get me to 100%? Sure.
Will not using PCs get me to 100%? Sure.
Will PCs take me to 101%? Hell no.
Will not using PCs take me to 101%? Hell no.

I think why my use has been more interesting than most is that I've got plenty of data (7 years of it) which suggests where my 100% numbers for powers from durations of 0 minutes out are.

PCs are a tool just like a powermeter. Neither is a substitute for putting the work in (I will say that despite being addicted to PMs, I could have gotten to where I am today without one as long as I knew how to push myself), and neither will take you to 101% or more of your genetic limit.

You are the one claiming power improvements. So, yes, I would like to see power data. That does not seem unreasonable.

These anecdotes of yours tell us nothing about training load/type/protocol changes, equipment changes, body position changes, or a myriad of other things that can contribute to speed increases. The only references Google could come up with for "Joe Skufka" are threads on other forums where you mentioned him - back in 2005. Your "data" is growing stale. Is this really the best that you have?

Rik

Hey Rik, the evaluator (Mr. Holman) came to the conclusion "they worked for him". He did the best job he knew how in detailing his experience on the RBR/RST boards. You must think he is an idiot as you think anyone else who might conclude the PC's did something for them an idiot. Anyhow, he has been known to post here and should be available for you to ask him all the questions you want. I suspect you won't go to the bother though fearing you won't like the answers.

Thanks for keeping the thead alive.

---

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

Don't put words in my mouth. If you feel the need to think that I think anybody is an idiot, you can put yourself in that role. Not the least because you think "keeping a thread alive" that shows your bogus claims about your product is a good thing. I'm quite happy to continue to do that for you.

Rik

Tigermilk,

Thanks for posting.

Let me take issue with a couple of things you say. First, lets talk about genetic potential. I would agree that I cannot exceed my genetic potential. But, what do we mean about this. If you are a cyclist your muscles cannot be trained to take you beyond a certain point unless you are able to change something else that allows them to go beyond that point. That something else would be efficiency. If efficiency can be changed by changing the pedaling coordination then in fact, the "genetic potential" is not fixed. Perhaps you are one of the rare ones whose stroke and efficiency are already optimum (I presume they exist) but most people are not. In fact, I believe most of the improvements that most users see come from increasing efficiency. They are seeing increased power at the same HR. I believe that is what Lakerfan was reporting. Increased power at the same HR.

No offense to cyclists but they do not swim before their time-trials and they do not run afterwards. Just because a triathlete trains to race triathlons does not mean they are "wimps" when it comes to training compared to cyclists. How much running have you done this year?

So, let us presume you are right, perhaps PC's only teach people to work harder. What on earth is wrong with that. Most people are trying to get from point a to point b as fast as they can. If PC's facilitate that isn't that a good thing? Is it worth $900 to cut a year or two off the journey?

Now, I think they do more than simply make the athlete work harder (I mean, how do they help with running if that is all they do) but even if you are right, isn't that enough?

---

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

Mr. Holman, an engineer by trade, I believe, and a big time PC naysayer (on the order of you) before he got on them, concluded they worked for him. Don't you think he may have asked himself all those questions before he wrote his evaluation.

---

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

Point about triathletes is that they tend to train at intensities suited for their events. Nothing wrong with that (that whole "specificity, specificity, specificity" thing). PCs elicit a VO2-like response upon the first few weeks. Triathletes may very well be familiar with that sensation on the run, but on the bike it's a whole different beast (as someone who has done VO2 on both bike and run, I feel I can make that statement). It opens a whole new world to them.

I haven't done much running. A few weeks worth...

Mental is just as important as physical. If not, there would be no sports psychologists.

My only point is that you can't create something from nothing. You can raise efficiency by a small amount through training. Don't use that "increased power at the same HR" argument as the basis for efficiency or PCs, as you get that anyway through training. When I first started using PCs, the slope of my power-HR curve was higher than for regular cranks. Within a month it was the same. Granted for both cases I didn't do an actual ramp test but I did ride with a HR monitor for grins, and knowing my body over this last decade, I was well assured of how the response was behaving. Does that mean I became more efficient? Well I guess you could say that. I was horribly inefficient with PCs at the start. I could pedal in synch. Training with PCs got me more coordinated with independent cranks. My "PC efficiency" could be said to have gotten better (i.e., no more sloppy PC pedaling). But that didn't translate to increase "efficiency" with regular cranks.

And nothing is wrong with them if they teach people to work harder. Likewise nothing is wrong with having a pit bull behind you to make you work harder or any other carrot. Heck, hard group rides make you work harder. They, in my book, are all good if they do indeed cause someone to work harder. You can certainly cut a year or two off the journey with anything which provides stimulus to make you work harder.

Well, I appreciate that you seem to hold engineers in high regard, but unfortunately we are no different than other professions. Just like there are great/good/mediocre/lousy doctors, lawyers, waiters, secretaries, etc, there are also great/good/mediocre/lousy engineers. One can not infer intelligence, wisdom, nor any other quality by one's profession.

It takes a long time to see increased power at the same HR through the cardiovascular/muscular "fitness" changes. Such changes occurring over a short period of time are more likely pure efficiency changes. HR correlates very well to VO2 uptake in any one individual at any period of time. Now that can change over the long-term (that is what training is all about, isn't it) but it usually doesn't change much in the short term. So, it is possible to make some inferences from HR data alone. Short-term efficiency changes are not "fitness" efficiency changes.

In the Luttrell study, the efficiency of the athletes increased about 10% and the HR at the same tested power dropped about 10% (165 to 150). Very nice correlation me thinks in this 6 week study.

You only became more efficient over this period if you were generating the same power at a lower HR. Since that was not the case in your instance, then your efficiency has not changed much (although I suspect it has changed some for the positive as your power is up from last year to your personal bests, although we could not tell without formal testing). That is not the case with most new users (similar to what Lakerfan saw).

---

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

So, can we infer anything from his being a big time PC naysayer before he got on them or a convert after he got on them?

---

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

Yes. We can infer that he believes that they did something positive for him. Unfortunately not all beliefs can be scientifically proven. One could argue that the lack of proper data collection in Mr. Holman's experience (lack of power data and only a "bronze at Worlds" and better pursuit time) can be used as supporting evidence, but clearly it is not sufficient on its own. The fact that HR is a function of so many factors muddies what was really behind the "150" to "160" data point. Likewise speed on its own is not a good measure of stimulus-response. Speed is affected by power, rolling resistance, altitude, wind speed and direction, temperature, humidity, pressure, your position on the bike, the bike equipment, ...

Here is an explanation that doesn't involve the need to ascribe any benefit to the PowerCranks. You have been chronically overtrained. When you started on the PC's the reduced mileage (and time) on the bike combined with the reduced run mileage allowed you to recover and see those training power improvements. Why you would be overtrained in mid-December is not clear to me but it must be true. It all makes sense to me now.[/reply]
Yep, that's my secret to getting to Kona 4 years in a row now -- chronic overtraining!! ;-)

Thanks, Chris

Define "takes a long time." Depending on your definition, I would not say it "takes a long time." That is a function of the individual and the training protocol. You quote the Luttrell study which was 6 weeks. 10% in 6 weeks. Is that "a long time"?

Inferences from HR data alone? Not so sure. One of my teammates, a young medical doctor, was remarking just last week about how the week before his heart was ready to pop through his chest. Due to a bout with the swine flu (one of the joys of working in a hospital) he was off the bike for over a week. Upon returning his HR was shooting through the roof. But with each passing day and at the same effort his HR was dropping. Clearly his VO2 uptake could not have fallen so far in just 2 weeks and recovered so quickly in just 3 days now could it? Or perhaps so. While I am a doctor, I philosophize about mechanical engineering rather than claiming expertise in medicine or physiology. Or were they perhaps natural beta-blockers doing their thing? Personally I experience the same thing. Take just a couple of days off the bike and if I go out for a VO2 effort I can pop a HR 5-10 bpm higher than had I not taken a break. I certainly haven't lost aerobic fitness in that time...

I said my HR on PCs was dropping for the same effort; I was getting more "efficient" at riding PCs. Unfortunately those same "efficiencies" did not transfer over to the regular cranks. And trust me, I REALLY wanted them to. Who wouldn't want more power? And before you say "you should have used them more" or "stuck with the program" or anything else, just remember Mr. Holman (7 months to a stronger pursuit), the Luttrell study (6 weeks to the perfect stroke), your interpretation of Lakerfan's data (what was it, a month or two to a long ST debate), or the many other studies on the PC site used them for far less time (and perhaps intensity as well) than I have. So don't go to the "blame the user" game with me... Personally I think they would benefit a new rider more than just riding around. I think they can get you from the starting fitness to the same fitness level achieved with other means in a little quicker time. The end point is the same, but the time constant is a little shorter.

Again, I would say your product is a tool. If it provides the stimulus to allow folks to break through plateaus, then great (as other training stimuli can do). Early on I thought it might be doing something for me. But with time and collection of sound data, I realized that in fact I was already sitting close to my 100% mark prior to PC use. It was an experiment that failed to increase my power, and there is nothing wrong with that. Had I spent large sums of money on a coach for the past year and ended up right at 100% like I did with PCs, I would say the same thing about the coach. And no one will say paying for coaching is a waste of money, now will they? But based on my n=1 experience (and I do have another month+ with them, though I haven't resumed training after last weekend's crash yet), they did not raise my efficiency, and therefore, power.

Well, it took Armstrong several years to effect an approximate 10% efficiency improvement. And, we don't even know that this was a fitness efficiency improvement as such an improvement at an athlete at his level is almost unheard of. I am sure Dr. Coggan will put forth some studies that have looked at this if they exist. But, if they don't I think we can all agree that improvements from the usual training effect tend to occur slowly over months and years, not suddenly or days and weeks.
Well, I am an old doctor (an anesthesiologist who "specialized" in the physiology of oxygen delivery to the tissues) and the inference only works in the healthy body. To say that his VO2 uptake could not have fallen that much in "just 2 weeks" after a respiratory infection shows your (and, perhaps, his) ignorance of the importance of diffusion in this ability. Maybe you should ask him again if he can explain what was going on in physiological terms.

And, how fast can you lose aerobic fitness? It starts the first day you stop exercising. The body only expends energy maintaining systems it sees necessary to see stresses it sees regularly. The trick in the "taper" is to allow the recovery improvement to trump the fitness loss. If you don't do it right you will see that effect.

The problem is, you are guessing. Of course your ability to ride the PC's improved as you rode them more. Unfortunately, we don't really know if you had ridden the PC's more if your overall efficiency might have improved more. And, I will use the "you didn't follow the directions" criticism with you because you didn't follow the directions you agreed to follow. You were obviously above average as our users go. As a result I would expect improvements would come harder and come slower (and, it appears improvement did occur, see below). But, if you don't do the work that we think is required then one cannot say what would or would not have occurred. Small improvements in a rider such as yourself would be a big deal. The fact that you didn't think the extra work would not have made any difference is not evidence that the extra work would not have made any difference as we think it might have in someone like you. If you had actually done as I asked and as you agreed to then I would have no complaint or criticism.

I find it interesting that you needed to change the way you crunched your data to "show" there has been no improvement or increased power. Guess it depends upon how one looks at the data. Clearly, you have seen improvements in your maximum power over last year at almost all time intervals. But, you haven't seen improvements in your career maximum power yet, except for some very small impovements at under 30 minutes (edit: and over 150 minutes).

This is the data you have always used to evaluate your performance. But, it seems, because I was pointing to this improvement over last year, you changed the way you crunched" your data. You have had to look at the top 20 performances in any year and confine your analysis to times less than 90 minutes (the time that most interests you) to determine that there has been no change. But, if you look at times over 2 hours there is a clear improvement over all previous years and especially last year.

So, perhaps you haven't seen big improvements in the time-frames (under an hour) that most interest you but it seems there are substantial improvements in the time-frames that interest most long-course triathletes - which happens to be the focus of this forum - wouldn't you agree? Also, perhaps, this data is skewed at the shorter times because you don't have a full year yet on the PC's and with more efforts and time the PC's will look better. Further, we haven't seen how you have performed in your major races yet. I look forward to seeing that.

---

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

Perhaps a second read of some of my postings on the blog is in order as to 1) why I'm processing the data in this additional way and 2) why I believe my power is higher for 2 hours and more. I'll repeat here:

1) I find that merely enveloping data is fantastic for bragging rights with my pals and on the internet but utterly useless when it comes time to predicting performance. I'd rather count on the expected norm come race day than an aberrant value that may have been instrumentation error (calibration and/or temperature compensation issues) or the effect of a newly cleaned drivetrain (PTs are great for aero modeling, but given they measure wheel horsepower rather than crank horsepower, there's always some guesswork at how much you actually put out by the legs). The former plot you provided is an enveloping curve. The lower plot is an average of my top 20 performances at each duration, which gives some measure of confidence about the repeatability of my power for a given duration. I can hope (as in a 2- or 3-sigma type event) for the first plot come race day; I can practically bank on the second plot come race day.

2) Sept 6, 2009 was the first time my team decided to go to a longer route that added about 20-30 minutes to our usual weekend hammerfest route. The previous route of 55 miles would take us 2:30 to 2:45 due to warmup, cooldown, rests after sprint zones, etc. The new route added 10 miles, so we are now finishing in 2:50 to 3:15 depending on how much we decide to blitz things. If you look at the first plot, which is an envelope off ALL data you will see that in many years I was hitting the same wattage. But in the second plot there's a big difference. Why? A larger number of rides where I'm really hitting it hard for that duration due to the change in the training ride distance. Clearly with more samples closer to P_envelope, P_average will tend to increase now wouldn't it? The "large" gap in the bottom curve is for no reason other than a change in distance for a weekly hard group ride. You may not believe it, but I have the data to prove that. Incidentally, I'm sure if I did a 3 hour TT I would do even better than either of those curves and converge towards normalized power for that duration. And my interpretation of the data would be just that - conditions of the experiment were such that this was OK.

We could also argue that I am slower after using PCs. My usual weight this time of year is ~150 lb. I've put more hours in this year than previous years thanks to less work travel. However, I'm hovering around 160 lb. So I'm 6-7% heavier which means my power/weight ratio is actually getting worse since using PCs. My teammates feel my butt has gotten bigger this year due to PCs. Is it? I don't know. But going by your cause-effect rationale for PCs, (you rode PCs, you got faster/more power so clearly PCs did it) then we must say that PCs caused my weight gain and effectively reduced my power-to-weight across the board. And I doubt you would say that, now would you? You can't always have it your preferred way Frank. Sometimes you have to acquiesce to what the data says.

September 6, 2009?

Well, I guess one could argue that but can you clarify what the average line encompasses. Is it all the data or only all the data before the PC's? If it is all the data before PC's one can say you are definitely better this year than you were in the past, on average, for times longer than 10 minutes or so. If the average line includes all the data then we would expect this difference between this year and the prior years average to be even larger. I would also expect the line to diverge even more as the test continues as I would expect a couple of more high power efforts in the next few weeks that would bump off a couple of lower power efforts from months ago that are currently in the top 20 for this year. We might see if this large number is lowering this years data line by looking at the top 10 instead of the top 20. This should get rid of several older rides before you might have been seeing any PC benefit. Of course, I think all of these rides (except one) were done on regular cranks so maybe the older rides will not be as bad as I think they might be. Would be interesting to see.

If we look at the normalized power graph (which should get rid of some of the variable attributable to group rest stops, etc) we see a similar situation.


What is especially interesting to me as I look at these graphs is how the slope of the line changes in 2009 at 90 minutes compared to all the other years. This suggests to me that somehow you have become more fatigue resistant. The usual rule of thumb that says something like: if you can go x hard at y distance should mean that you can go .9x hard at 2y distance is no longer applying to you as it did before. How can that be explained? Is it because your HF's are not fatiguing as fast as they did before? Are you more efficient so not fatiguing as fast? Something else. I would have expected this years curve to look just like the others except to be displaced up a bit. That change in slope is very interesting to me and I would be interested in understanding the mechanism.

Anyhow, the data is the data. It is showing you are pretty much at your personal best for efforts lasting less than 90 minutes and showing less power drop off starting at about 90 minutes resulting in an overall power improvement that gets bigger with the longer times, again starting at about 90 minutes. That is some of what the data says to me. I am not sure how to explain it.

---

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

Here is some more food for thought going back to the change in slope.

Here is a graph you posted after your first 11 weeks on the cranks.


Again, there is this flattening of the curve starting about 90 minutes.

And, where you were on Nov 3rd

And at the end of the year:

And here is where you were on Jan 12th

The first time we have seen a more "normal" drop off with time although still a little flatter than before. Next April 13th

Normalized power looks pretty normal but average power still has a flattening beyond 90 minutes. Then on May 6 you did another 10 or 20 "repeatability" analysis. Here are those:

You are now seeing personal bests in the "reliability" area for times above 90 inutes, especially with the normalized power graph where the flattening is also apparent. Then we have your most recent post;


Here this flattening is becoming more apparent again. It would appear that this has been a feature of your PC experience since the get-go. That the benefits to you are definitely greater the longer the duration of the ride.

One other question, about the last graphs. What are the black vertical lines representing? Three standard deviations?

Anyhow, I find this interesting. Thanks for keeping such great records and taking the time to do the analysis.

---

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

In your never-ending quest to try to make data say what you want it to say, you seem to be missing the entire point. Tigermilk's group rides increased in length. Because they are intense rides, the data he has collected for longer rides now show a greater average power output than the data he had collected for longer rides previously (non-group rides than he did at lower intensities). It's really quite simple.

To use another example, my power data for this year shows that my 40-minute power is 20 watts below my historic best. Does this mean that my power is down this year? No. It means that I haven't done an all-out effort for 40 minutes this year yet. That will change as of Sunday, and I will likely have a new 40-minute all-time power best.

Rik

Then, my question goes to why hasn't he seen this improvement in his shorter efforts? If he has increased the "intensity of his training" shouldn't this improvement be seen across the board? Is it he simply hasn't done an "all-out effort" yet. Does this mean when he actually does I can expect to see about a 5% increase in power in his 40km TT (the approximate improvement he is seeing at 2-3 hours)? That would be great as that was all he was hoping for. Earlier he was saying he thought he had hit his genetic potential. Are you telling him he hasn't?

I can see it now. He is actually going to substantially increase his power for 40 km (he already has for longer distances) and zero of the improvement will be attributed to the PC's, it will all be given to this 30 minute longer Saturday ride. You guys are amazing.

Or, if he doesn't increase his 40 km TT somehow the PC's will be blamed since it is clear he could increase that power because he was able to do so at 2-3 hours by simply doing that one longer ride a week.

Or, something else. LOL.

---

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

No Frank, you are still missing the point. The power data for the longer stuff is tracking training rides. He is doing them with more intensity than in the past because he is doing them now as part of a group ride "hammerfest". And that's what the data shows. That's all. It doesn't mean that his maximum power output for a longer ride has changed at all. This is the same mistake you were making in misinterpreting lakerfans data for longer rides.

We don't know if tigermilk's max power for a 1.5-2 hour ride has increased because he hasn't done a 1.5-2 hour ride all out (and we don't have a baseline to compare to either). But based on his FTP not increasing, it's very likely that there has been no increase.

On the other hand, for his shorter rides, some of those are done at maximum effort in the form of TTs or testing. It is valid to use those as an indication of increases/decreases in power.

Rik

Ugh, all of his data, at least for this year, is tracking training rides. His longer rides are not any different in intensity than before, they do intervals, rests, etc. like cyclists do, only it is lasting about 30 minutes longer. So, it seems the mix would be similar to before. I can see how this might affect his fitness but I am not so sure this should effect the slope of the curve.

Looking at his earlier years there is a big drop off from the straight line at longer durations. This would indicate to me that he had poor fitness. But, in the last two years the drop off has been in a straight line. Now that he has improved fitness such I would expect any improvement in that fitness to be reflected across the board as those rides reflect lots of efforts at different durations. It does not.

Perhaps you are right, this is simply a reflection of this one longer ride. But, I am not convinced.

It would be interesting to me to see the power distribution of some of these rides from the before PC era and recently. Coggan, in his book, has a way of analyzing that data to make an estimate of FTP. I would be interested in seeing if that has changed.

---

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

Tigermilk's earlier explanations are straightforward and seem to fit the data:

and

Rik

Perhaps. But, then, why wasn't he seeing these improvements back in September, Ocotber, November, etc. when these rides started. He was doing them on regular cranks. This is a relative recent phenomenon.

What Tigermilk and you have done is give an explanation. That doesn't, necessarily, make it right.

---

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

Because I was bored and I actually had the chance to read the thread more thoroughly I thought I would clarify just a couple of things:

1. My quoted FTP of 260w at the time was based on peak fitness in '06. I'm quite certain my FTP had dropped a good 10w by the time I started training on PCs. I don't bother to change it in WKO+ during the off-season. I establish an FTP primarily for race execution purposes so I adjust it only during summer timeframe. I don't really care if I'm doing my training intervals at 90% of (true) FTP or 95% of (true) FTP -- they're always done based on my RPE anyway so they tend to vary week to week by maybe ~5% one way or the other.

2. I have a good 5+% delta between indoor and outdoor power and my FTP is based on outdoor power. Many times you guys were comparing indoor power to an outdoor FTP at peak fitness.

It just points out that we have to be careful about reading too much into the numbers in certain situations. You can easily see how things could be 10% off based on indoor vs outdoor power and/or peak fitness vs non-peak fitness.

I can say without a shred of doubt that the biggest bang for me came that year after I did a series of 6hr long rides on a very tough course yielding IFs between .77 and .81 (based on a 270w FTP). Of course, that series was all performed on regular cranks.

Thanks, Chris

Thanks for the clarifications. I think it speaks to the importance of not assuming too much about FTP levels without doing actual FTP testing. And even then the results have to be factored against training load and freshness.

BTW, doing 6 hour rides at an IF of 0.77 to 0.81 is not wimpy in the slightest!

Rik

Frank, I suggest you brush up on Monod critical power models. You'll find that power does decrease much beyond an hour from that model. Due to my high aerobic power relative to my anaerobic work capacity, my power for durations longer than 1 hour is not expected to drop much. Indeed, here are my expected critical powers for 60, 120, and 180 minutes for the last 7 years if I use the average of my top 10 performances at durations of 3, 5, 8, 10, and 15 minutes (again, I am using an average of top values rather than cherry picking):

Year, CP60, CP120, CP180
2003, 262, 260, 260
2004, 260, 258, 257
2005, 271, 269, 268
2006, 271, 270, 269
2007, 274, 272, 271
2008, 272, 270, 270
2009, 273, 272, 271

Granted Monod does breakdown for longer times, it nonetheless demonstrates my aerobic power is my strength. If I had much better AWC, there would be a bigger difference between the critical powers.

Additionally, looking back at the data from the start of PC use, here are the peak 120, 150, and 180 minute normalized powers since that time along with my all-time best prior to PC use:

Month, NP120, NP150, NP180, Comments
All-time, 265, 256, 249
August, 230, 223, 198, Started to use PC and rode mostly L2 for the month
September, 242, 240, 234, Longer "hammerfest" group ride, more L3 work during the week with PCs
October, 258, 256, 247, L3/L4 work with PCs
November, 260, 256, 249, L4 work with PCs
December, 256, 252, 245, doing some L5 work
January, 264, 256, 244
February, 257, 255, 249
March, 252, 248, 242
rest of the time - just haven't done that crunching yet, but they are enveloped by the above

As you can see, the powers during that time are enveloped by my previous bests for those durations. Given that August was essentially a month of "junk" miles (L2 stuff) and by September I was seriously starting my training year again, it's not a surprise to see an increase from August --> Sept --> Oct due to increased tempo and threshold volume. A detraining effect in August followed by rebuilding the engine. Are you surprised by that?

So what is going on here? I'm an aerobic engine by nature. Those NP120 numbers are close to what I can do for average power if rested for a few days and my fuel stores are up. Those numbers don't surprise me one bit. I honestly expect to be in that range.

The answer to #2 was in one of my posts. Yes, my teammates are seeing similar "gains" compared to last year. Just the increase in ride length accounts for higher 2-3 hour power values. Considering most of my teammates are likely aerobic engines, this is not surprising.

Now you say


Spun another way, having a higher ability at two or three hours than before would be interpreted by most as having longer, more intense, rides than previously, regardless of FTP. You can certainly increase your 2 or 3 hour power WITHOUT increasing FTP. One of those power axioms is FTP is a measure of how hard you can ride, your CTL (chronic training load) is a measure of how long you can ride hard. I'm a mileage junkie; I like to have a higher CTL. It's very old school - want to go harder longer? Ride lots...

And don't worry Frank. I won't be attributing any gains in FTP to my Saturday rides. Why? Because based on the historical data and based on mixing up my training with PCs, my FTP hasn't budged. If anything, what this year has taught me is that I should make better use of my time - train less but harder. I'll have the same fitness but have more hours in the week for stuff off the bike. Likewise, I won't blame PCs for not increasing my FTP. I'll blame that instead on genetics.

Let me get this straight. You are trying to tell me that the maximum power you can sustain for 1 hour is only two watts higher than what you can sustain for 3 hours? And, that this power hasn't varied more than a couple of watts of the last several years?

I certainly don't see that in this graph


Perhaps you could fill us in on how your reached this conclusion.

---

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

So, I see a 15 watt drop between NP 120 and NP 180 in your all-time bests. Tell me again how it is you only have a two watt drop between CP 60 and CP 180?

---

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

It doesn't surprise me they are better. It does surprise me that the only improvement they would see would be beyond 90 minutes or only in the slope of their drop off beyond 90 minutes and not increases across the board. Can you get and post their data so we can confirm?

---

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

Your admitted focus is the 40km TT. Why on earth would you train that way if all you expected it to do is to improve you in times beyond 90 minutes? Makes no sense to me.

---

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

More I read about the PC's more confused I am.
I am really curious to know how it would work for me.
A pitty it's so expensive. The price would be more accessible, the decision would be easier.
It's really hard to proove that any improvement is dedicated to the PC's ... how you can manage that scientificaly ? No way to proove it with humans because
conditions always change.
The same story with Newton shoes ... how can you quantify the improvement ? Impossible ...
Now, I am thinking to purchase a set of PC's, put it on a static bike ...

---

Disclaimer : work in bike/triathlon industry

Your analysis is correct. Almost impossible to prove anything about any product. The only thing we really do to help make your decision a little easier to try them (and to see what they might do for you) is our 90 day money back guarantee. Almost everyone is starting to see the improvement by that time if they are used regularly.

---

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

Frank, all I can say is

1) read up on the Monod critical power model and report back when you understand it and its limitations
2) get a powermeter, ride your bike, and understand the difference between average and normalized power
3) re-read up on critical power
4) understand that for longer durations, there are two ways to raise the curve - raise the y-intercept or increase the negative slope (make it less negative and closer to 0); if you get out and ride with power and make an earnest effort at training, you'll find that for those longer durations it's more about slope than intercept
5) re-read up on critical power
6) my yearly A-race is a 40k TT, but I do other events as well ranging from track events to 2-5 hour road races

Seriously, I think it's to the point where you should really pick up a book on bike training, pick up a power meter, and train hard for a couple of years so you can actually understand all this conversation that is whizzing around you and that you fail to grasp some of the basic concepts of. You may feel you are strong on theoretical, but honestly you need to be strong on the application to better understand what's bandied about and to better support your product.

Could you answer the question. Were you telling me (us) that your CP 180 is only 2 watts less than your CP 60? If so, how did you reach this conclusion?

---

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

So, I took your suggestion and tried to do a little more reading to see if I might be missing something.

I found this:
From this list from Dr. Coggan it would seem that a better estimate of what you can do is what you can routinely generate in training than critical power testing. Isn't what you can routinely do in training those graphs you did using the 20 ride analysis? I am still confused as to how you determined that your max sustainable power drops only about 2 watts going from 1 to 3 hours.

Then I found this from Training and racing using a power meter: an introduction by Andrew R. Coggan, Ph.D.
I am still confused, based on the above (and my previous understanding), how it is you are trying to explain how increasing the duration of the long "hammerfest" ride would only have an effect on your power over 90 minutes.

---

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

I had answered it in the original post - Granted Monod does breakdown for longer times, it nonetheless demonstrates my aerobic power is my strength. If I had much better AWC, there would be a bigger difference between the critical powers.

Now if you properly did your research you would have found this out for yourself rather than having to be spoonfed every step of the way. Yes, critical power is one of those "7 deadly sins" of estimating threshold, but it's not as "deadly" as some of the other sins. If you had taken the time to research critical power, you would have found that it's an extremely good estimate for sustainable power. Is it as good as a 1 hour TT? No. But I will tell you this, Frank. In my 7+ years of being guided in my training with a powermeter and analyzing several thousand files of my own and others, I think I have developed a rather good knack at estimating FTP based on said files. The CP60 numbers I provided are within a few percent (as in 1-2%) of what I would consider my sustainable (and repeatable) hour power when in form. Could I squeeze a few more watts out come race day with a 2- or 3-sigma performance? Perhaps, but perhaps not.

Did I ever say my max sustainable power drops only a couple of watts for 2 to 3 hour rides? No. I never did. You did. I said THE MODEL says that, and that bold text above, which I'll repeat here so there's no confusion - Granted Monod does breakdown for longer times - is what predicts that minimal drop. The presentation of my predicted CP60, CP120, and CP180 was merely to demonstrate to you how my aerobic power is a bigger contributor than my anaerobic work capacity. It should be clear that I presented my ACTUAL data for 120 and 180 minutes, and those clearly are not the same as my CP120 and CP180 predictions.

Regarding the comment from Andy about pursuiters doing a ton of aerobic work, etc. Spend the time to do the research. You'll find it's all about the ability to do work. The pursuit, desite its short length, is an aerobic event. If pursuiters only did 5 minute workouts, they'd be missing out on aerobic power development and wouldn't improve.

Now here is a nice instructional lesson on how to calculate critical power, how it predicts, how it breaks down in some situations, and also how if include longer efforts how it predicts practically no benefit for shorter durations. Let's use actual data, an average of my top 10 powers for durations of 3, 5, 8, 10, and 15 minutes. That would be 331, 317, 297, 294, and 283 W. Calculate the work (that's power*time) and plot time on the x-axis, work on the y-axis. Fit curve to that data. The equation for this line is W=270*time+214 (numbers have been rounded). Back solving for CP120 and CP180, you would find values of 272 and 271 W respectively. Now let's say I've got a super-diesel and can actually produce 272 W for 2 hours and 271 W for 3 hours. Using only those 2 data points, what would the new equation be? My math gives me W=269*time+360. So what would the predicted power be for 60 minutes? Pretty easy to figure out .... (269*60+360)/60=275 W!!! So a whopping 2 W increase! It should be noted that this increase is solely due to rounding errors. Had I used the number popping out of the original equation as inputs the 2nd go-round, CP60 would be the same, as it should as they are the same line.

Let's use my actual data. Cherry picking and using my best 2 hour NP of 265 W and 3 hour of 249 W, this leads to W=217*time+5760. This equation predicts an hour power of 313 W. Quite a difference huh? But look at that equation. That slope dropped like a rock. That slope is a measure of your aerobic power. To compsenate, my AWC has shot through the roof. Now I would love to have an AWC that high. But even going back and choosing my parents and being doped to the gills would make that sort of AWC impossible.

That simple exercise alone should easily demonstrate how increasing the length of my "hammerfest" ride would only affect longer term power. Yes the Monod model has limitations, but those limitations are more on the predictive side of longer durations (i.e., much longer than an hour). Likewise, it demonstrates that raising the right side of the power-duration curve doesn't mean an increase in shorter term powers.

I'm not the first to notice that generating higher power for longer durations has no/minimal effect on FTP. Take a look at http://www.biketechreview.com/.../stripped_down_3.htm

Perhaps your misunderstanding of power and how performance modeling is done affects some of your comments to me. I would say that I felt I was adapted to PCs, but your response was always, well, you may think you are adapted since you can ride for 3 hours, but what about 4 hours? Perhaps you interpret this additional time as being the answer to increasing FTP. I don't know. But I chuckle to myself that if I reported I did a double century on the damned things you'd say I still wasn't adapted until I did a triple. At what point does one become adapted? It seems like a moving target for you. You'll take claim of the Luttrell data and take pride in that 6 weeks of limited use. If anyone sees a gain, they are adapted. In they don't they aren't, regardless of how much time they've spent on them. You can't have it both ways.

There are a myriad of tools in our toolboxes to analyze the data. I've selected ways which I believe truthfully represent what is going on with my physiology. All my data is available for the asking, from this past year of PC use and all the way back to my very first ride on a Powertap 7 years ago. Anyone is welcome to view, critique, and spin the data as they choose fit. And most importantly, my data is guaranteed not to have gone through the "Joanquinizer."

Same. I heard of a swim coach who, at the entrance to the pool, hung a sign which said, "Don't swim half-fast."

I wonder if I could get away with that in my district.

---

#cureMS

Joaquinizer beckons!

Thanks for the further explanation.

I am pretty much amazed that you presented your CP60 and CP180 data as evidence you are an aerobic engine when if comes strictly from a model that you admit breaks down at longer durations. And, then you come here and defend it by explaning the equation that you admit that breaks down. Why did you even present that data if you don't believe it to be true or if you don't believe the equation applies.

If we look at your graphs of best power vs time we should be able to come up with an equation that best fits those curves. I presume that is what Monod is trying to do, trying to predict these curves using data from short trials. But, it doesn't predict your curves very well and, what I was originally commenting on is it would appear that the equation that fit this years data is substantially different than the equation that fit the prior few years. I asked the question as to how one could explain that as it didn't make any sense to me. I would expect your entire curve to move up if you improved your aerobic fitness (accoridng to Monod?), not just one aspect.

So, you have tried to explain this by simply saying it is just that extra 30 minutes of the Hammerfest once a week. I guess that is possible but I am not so sure how you are so positive when you have made other changes to your training regimen also. So, show us the other members of the group have seen similar changes only beyond 90 minutes and, then, come up with a mechanism as to how this change only affected your abilities beyond 90 minutes? I can't do it. I know, I keep asking for those pesky mechanisms and as I have been told, exercise physiologists don't do mechanisms.

You wrote: I would say that I felt I was adapted to PCs, but your response was always, well, you may think you are adapted since you can ride for 3 hours, but what about 4 hours? Perhaps you interpret this additional time as being the answer to increasing FTP. I don't know. But I chuckle to myself that if I reported I did a double century on the damned things you'd say I still wasn't adapted until I did a triple. At what point does one become adapted?

And, why would I claim that you are not fully adapted to the PowerCranks when you feel you are. Well, lets look at the muscles and what we are trying to do. We are trying to invoke the use of more muscles into the pedaling action "equally" according to their ability. This means we need to make them equal from an aerobic stand point.

If you look at your graphs of your max power vs time for each year we see a substantial drop off starting at about 2 hours the first two years and then after that your curves have been pretty consistent. This suggests to me that it took you about 3 years to develop your aerobic capacity in those muscles and CV system.

So, along comes PowerCranks after you have several more years of training under your belt and into thse muscles and they make you use muscles fully that you had been underutilizing. My point is that I don't think it is possible to make those new muscles the aerobic equivalent of these other muscles in only a few months of part-time use when iit took you 2-3 years to achieve this level in your "pushing muscles" and you are cotinuing to use them 100% of the time. I don't doubt you are well adapted to the PowerCranks but there is no way in hell you can convince me you are fully adapted based upon your use of them.

When do you become fully adapted? Well, you are fully adapted when it makes absolutely no difference which cranks are on your bike as to what you can do on them. You are not there yet.

---

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

Incidentally, you do have to be careful about what data you use for calculating critical power. Recall using my "top 10 averaged" for a given year:

Year, CP60, CP120, CP180
2003, 262, 260, 260
2004, 260, 258, 257
2005, 271, 269, 268
2006, 271, 270, 269
2007, 274, 272, 271
2008, 272, 270, 270
2009, 273, 272, 271

If instead I cherry pick and use my absolute best at each duration during the year, I get

Year, 3 min, 5 min, 8 min, 10 min, 15 min, CP60
2003, 328, 312, 284, 282, 278, 267
2004, 327, 313, 288, 282, 278, 267
2005, 351, 326, 303, 297, 289, 276
2006, 339, 330, 306, 296, 292, 281
2007, 354, 348, 321, 309, 293, 280
2008, 364, 323, 302, 299, 293, 279
2009, 333, 320, 302, 301, 298, 290

So on the surface you could say (I'll play Frank for a moment), "Look, 2009 is your best year. The critical power model clearly says so as your predicted FTP is 9 W higher than any previous year." But look at the composition of that data. Notice my 3 minute power is quite low compared to the last 2 years. I just haven't gone out and drilled it for that duration this year. As an experiment, bump the 2009 3 and 5 minute #s up to 2007 levels. Know what happens? The R^2 for the fit drops from 1.0 to 0.985, the plot of work versus time has a noticeable jog to it, and my CP60 jumps to 299 W. Conversely, if I reduce my 2007 numbers a tad (given I know that my 3 and 5 minute numbers were done on a 5-6% grade on a trip to France with a fair amount of standing compared to flat land for 2009 this is a fair thing to do) the R^2 for that year goes from 0.998 to 0.997 and my CP60 goes from 280 to 287 W.

Or I could take only the data from 3 to 10 minutes for the model and leave out the 15 minute number. Doing that, my CP60 for 2007 would be 292 W and my CP60 for 2009 would be 288 W. Uh oh Frank, those PCs made me slower! But I would not leap to that conclusion (though you should given the way you seem to interpret data). It's but one way to look at data.

What this demonstrates is 1) you have to be careful which data is used for this analysis, 2) you have to understand what's behind the data, 3) you can't take what this model spits out as the be all and end all (i.e., you should use other data and methods in combination with the CP model to set your FTP).

With respect to 3) above, given the values of CP60 above for cherry picked and "averaged top 10", compare to my peak normalized power for the last several years to my averaged normalized power for the top 10 and 20 rides of each year:

Year, CP avg, CP cherry picked, NP60 max, NP60 "top 10", NP60 "top 20"
2003, 262, 267, 268, 257, 252
2004, 260, 267, 266, 261, 255
2005, 271, 276, 275, 269, 264
2006, 271, 281, 287, 269, 265
2007, 274, 280, 275, 271, 268
2008, 272, 279, 271, 263, 261
2009, 273, 290, 283, 266, 262

When you look at the set of data above, does anything really jump out at you? In my opinion, the ONLY thing that sticks out is a somewhat down year last year compared to the previous 2 years, and even then it wasn't down much. If I were truly seeing marked improvements, I would see those improvements for a variety of these measures. I have to be careful with the columns marked "CP cherry picked" and "NP60 max" knowing full well that one-off performances may have been affected by the inherent error in the measurement system (the Powertap). That 2% error associated with the PT put all those values within a few watts of each other. I see nothing in the data which suggests 40%, 30%, 20%, 10%, or even 5% improvement except for my own training from 2003-2004 and 2005 beyond.

I would say

2003 - very limited data set of only 40 or so data points; it was the year after coming off my hip fracture; learning how to effectively use power to guide my training, and even at that my 2003 data despite coming off a MAJOR surgery is within 10% of my future years; IOW, I was pretty much already "adapted" to regular cranks and already developed those push muscles
2004 - if you had all my data, you'd find that while my hour power was a little lower, it was within the same general levels (a few percent) as later years; yes my longer duration power was much lower but I wasn't specifically training that - group rides and races were typically 90-120 minutes max.
2005 onward - demands of the racing and training changed the way my rides were structured accounting for the upward shift

Don't make conclusions about me without having access to all the data.

Interesting comment you make about being fully adapted. Recall that as early as 2-3 months into my PC use I was doing tempo (L3), threshold (L4) and even a few VO2 (L5) workouts ON THE Powercranks at the SAME powers as regular cranks. So by your very own definition I was adapted. And I pushed HARD on those things man. I was pushing hard to put the damned things to the test, to put you in a positive light, and to improve my power. No I will admit that I must not be fully adapted to them since I can't get out of the saddle at the drop of a hat and sprint like mad on them. But I choose not to for safety reasons. Guilty as charged...

Now on the other hand you claim 2-3 years for me to achieve my longer duration levels for my "pushing muscles" with regular cranks. So I guess honestly users of your product should expect to be floundering for 2-3 years before seeing gains? What about all those folks in the Luttrell group? What about Joanquin? What about the Dixon study? Those were all less than 2-3 year timeframes, and 2 of those were a mere 6 weeks! I guess those riders just adapted a lot faster?

Tigermilk: You have a lot of patience to present this stuff here! Thanks for the detailed explanations.

And if it helps ameliorate your frustration, you have Frank so flustered that he is quoting Andy Coggan at you. Never thought I'd see that day!

Rik

You don't have to "play Frank" here. When you started this evaluation you were the one to chose your yearly maximum at each power as a way of evaluating improvement, not me. When you had both new maximums at both the short and long end of the spectrum (albeit by only a small amount at the short end) you decided on changing the way of evaluating to a better way. (I would agree it is a better way by the way as long as to many of the early efforts, when learning the adaption of the PC's are not included. An even better way might be to compare rides during equivalent months instead of the entire year. So, compare your top 2-3 May efforts for example. Of course, you have recently stopped using your power meter on your PC rides so not sure that is entirely fair (maybe April would be better, or do all the months and watch the changes) but it might be interesting to see.) When you changed this evaluation method it really pointed out to me your really substantial improvements this year in the endurance part of the spectrum compared to all years in the past. The questions were then asked by me, why did this occur and why is it only for periods longer than 90 minutes. Those who want to deny PC's have any usefulness, it would seem, want to attribute all of the gains to this longer Saturday ride you are doing. That is one opinion, but I haven't seen any data that would support that view.
I don't know why you are still using a model that you have admitted breaks down at the times we are discussing
I can't understand what is behind the data unless you tell me. It is why I asked how you came to these numbers.
Well, why don't you do those calculations for your 2 hr and 3 hr data (I would also be interested in seeing a 5 point average) and see if anything jumps out at you. So could you fill out these charts:
Year, CP avg, CP cherry picked, NP120 max, NP120 "top 5", NP120 "top 10", NP120 "top 20"
and
Year, CP avg, CP cherry picked, NP180 max, NP180 "top 5", NP180 "top 10", NP180 "top 20"

One other thing of interest would be to know how the top 5, 10, or 20 are distributed through the year. If in 2009 they are all in the last few months but in the earlier years they are distributed through out the year I think it would say something else.

It has always been clear that you have not seen much benefit at the times you are most interested in, less than an hour. But, it appears you have seen substantial benefits for efforts lasting 90 minutes or more. Everyone here keeps telling me that the value of a power meter is you get actual power data. Yet, here we have all this data and it is being argued, "forget the data, look at this model that I admit breaks down". Can we discuss the actual data and its significance in the area where there seems to be significant change and why this change (which seems real) is not being reflected in the shorter efforts?

---

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

Come on. You can't be serious. Being able to do something, tempo rides at the same power as on regular cranks, is not an indication of being fully adapted. (edit: all it shows is you have attained minimal degree of training needed to get the legs over the top that many times in that period of time, nothing about being "fully adapted". Now it is a big milestone for most users but it only represents the end of the beginning of the process not the end of the process) Take a new cyclist, he can do tempo rides for that period within the first year or two yet no one would dare suggest he has reached his full potential. Yet, you are trying to say you turned your HF's into the aerobic equivalent of your quads in three months even though you have been exercising your quads for many years. What your being able to do that in 3 months suggests to me is that there is plenty of room for improvement with further adaption if one would simply push those muscles further instead of being satisfied that they are "fully adapted" because you can do on the bicycle what they could do before. To suggest that muscles can be fully adapted in 3 months indicates a poor understanding of physiology and the training process, and a poor understanding of what the PC's are trying to do, IMHO. The whole purpose of the PC's is help the rider to push beyond where we were before, not to get back to where we were then consider the work done. Show me any data that suggests that one can achieve full aerobic adaption in skeletal muscle in 3 months and I will take it all back.

---

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

Here are my absolute best (i.e., enveloping) values before using PCs and the values since for the times I'm tracking for both average and normalized power:

Duration (min), Before PCs (NP), After PCs (NP), Before PCs (AP), After PCs (AP)
3, 364, 333, 364, 333
5, 348, 320, 348, 320
8, 321, 302, 321, 302
10, 316, 305, 309, 301 (NOTE NP really shouldn't be used for this duration)
15, 302, 301, 293, 298 (NOTE NP really shouldn't be used for this duration)
20, 291, 298, 290, 296
30, 291, 296, 290, 294
40, 289, 290, 287, 283
50, 288, 284, 285, 282
60, 287, 283, 284, 282
75, 273, 275, 269, 268
90, 271, 269, 261, 254
120, 265, 264, 245, 243
150, 256, 256, 230, 232
180, 249, 249, 217, 222

Should be noted that many of those PBs were in the 2007 training year. As you can see, ALL of the pre/post PC best numbers are within the error of the Powertap with the exception of the short duration (3-8 minute). Those I mentioned the bests were on a hill during a VO2 workout with some standing which tends to increase the power. I would conclude, based on the data above, that I haven't broken past any personal bests. I don't consider a couple of watts reason to jump for joy. And as you can see, my bests for 90 minutes didn't all of a sudden jump when the ride was lengthened. The "top 10" or "top 20" rides, when averaged together, did jump relative to previous years, but that's due to the larger number of samples.

To be clear: I AM NOT ATTRIBUTING ANY GAINS TO LONGER SATURDAY RIDES BECAUSE I HAVEN'T HAD ANY GAINS. What I am attributing to the longer rides is a higher overall average (when the top 10 or 20 performances are taken) due to the larger sample size. That is all. If you prefer, forget about data after 90 minutes. It neither supports nor refutes any potential benefits from Powercranks based on my data.

I would compare monthly efforts, but honestly I've shifted my season from year to year. Each year I tend to start earlier. But you can see a seasonal breakdown of 20 and 60 minute normalized power here and here (albeit the 2nd one is from December).


I'm not going to do all that right now. I would be more than happy to send out raw data to anyone who pleases. I've crunched the data in a ton of different ways and they all lead to the same thing - my performance this year is in line with past years to within the standard error of my Powertap and the expected difference between a clean and dirty drivetrain (another source of error that has to be considered).

So in a nutshell - there honestly is no significance to the 90+ minute data. I can only discuss why this change (which you think is real but actually is an artifact of the length of previous training rides) is not being reflected in shorter efforts only to a small degree. I'm a structural engineer, not an exercise physiologist. Perhaps you should get the opinion of a ex. phy. on this matter.

You know, since I wrecked last weekend I've only managed one ride - a whopping 90 W for 30 minutes. Muscles below the waist are screwed up in a big way. Wife said no bike until completely better, which may be another week. I should do a FTP test when I get back on, train exclusively on my track bike, get my FTP back to where it was and claim a fixed gear will improve your power 10-20%!

Frank said: When do you become fully adapted? Well, you are fully adapted when it makes absolutely no difference which cranks are on your bike as to what you can do on them. You are not there yet.

I said: Interesting comment you make about being fully adapted. Recall that as early as 2-3 months into my PC use I was doing tempo (L3), threshold (L4) and even a few VO2 (L5) workouts ON THE Powercranks at the SAME powers as regular cranks. So by your very own definition I was adapted.

Frank said: Come on. You can't be serious. Being able to do something, tempo rides at the same power as on regular cranks, is not an indication of being fully adapted.

Hey, just going by your definition...


Why? In actuality (and again, I'm an engineer and not an exercise physiologist (nor are you)) shouldn't hip flexors already be aerobically trained in many respects? We use our hip flexors for running, cycling (whether or not you use PCs, they contribute somewhat), walking, climbing stairs...

Now I do get a kick out of this statement from your site: But even climbing stairs in not an equivalent workout because stairs are rarely more than a foot tall, the diameter of a bicycle crank circle and it is hard to find stairs that go on forever.

Reminds me of a trip to Japan once where I was without the bike. I decided climbing the stairs would be a good subtitute workout. First day I climbed 108 flights. Second day 144 flights. I'd take them anywhere from 1 to 2 at a time (which incidentally does give a pretty close knee angle to cycling). My hip flexors weren't the problem. My legs locked up in the quads.

Now regarding finding a study - I don't have the resources for that. I don't have the background and neither do you. I'd suggest again bringing a physiologist in the debate.

And with that I'm out. It's been an interesting debate but I think all that can be said has been said. As mentioned, my data is available for anyone who wants to digest it for themselves. Frank, as I said previously, I think your product has merit as a training tool. After using them I feel there's a strong mental element to them which benefits riders. I think they can help riders break through self-imposed plateaus if they haven't pushed themselves to the limit in the past. That's a good thing.

Your interpretation of my definition is not my definition. As I said before, your ability to ride those temp rides and L5 workouts at three months were simply and indication that your HF's had achieved a minimal ability that was allowing you to get back to using your other muscles the way they had been previously trained (less, perhaps a little for the drop in training you did). You can't look at the fact that you are now back to the point of being able to ride at your previous powers and efforts as evidence that the HF's are the equivalent of your other muscles as you have no way of evaluating that. But, it makes no physiological sense to say that. It is like saying that because I have been training for 3-6 months and can now "run" a marathon that my leg muscles are fully adapted like Ryan Hall. No one would seriously say such a thing but you are trying to say that about your hip flexors after 3 months of PC use. It is non-sensical.

Then, you write: "Why? In actuality (and again, I'm an engineer and not an exercise physiologist (nor are you)) shouldn't hip flexors already be aerobically trained in many respects? We use our hip flexors for running, cycling (whether or not you use PCs, they contribute somewhat), walking, climbing stairs..."

Regarding my background, while not an "exercise" physiologist, I am an MD and happened to specialize in the specialty (anesthesiology) that pays the most attention to human physiology and expecially the physiology of the cardiovascular system and oxygen delivery to the tissues. I think I am capable of understanding this stuff. Regarding the rest of your comment. Yes, the HF's are "aerobically trained", at least to the level they see regular stress. The problem is, they are underutilized in almost all the activities you mention. Everyday walking is pretty passive, the leg is brought forward mostly by gravity and hip rotation, HF's are almost silent. Climbing stairs only requires the foot to be lifted about 6-8 inches (not the 14 required in biking) and how many steps does the average person climb in a day (and at what cadence), 50? Pretty useless as an aerobic conditioner. They are used in running and cycling but they are only used as much as you use them. If you want to use them more, you must train them. PC's is a way of forcing them to become better muscles so they can be utilized more in activities like running and cycling. So, lets change the analogy I gave above. We have a 5 hour marathoner who suddenly decides to get serious and increase his training. 3 months later he runs a 4 hour marathon. Would anyone seriously claim that this improvement represents "maximum adaptation" of his leg muscles? Me thinks not, but this is ST and I suspect someone would try, at least if PowerCranks were somehow involved.

You then wrote: "Reminds me of a trip to Japan once where I was without the bike. I decided climbing the stairs would be a good subtitute workout. First day I climbed 108 flights. Second day 144 flights. I'd take them anywhere from 1 to 2 at a time (which incidentally does give a pretty close knee angle to cycling). My hip flexors weren't the problem. My legs locked up in the quads."

Of course you locked up in the quads because you were forcing the "pushing muscles" to lift your entire body weight where your cycling hardly every has you pushing with a force more than 40 lbs. They were being asked to do much more than they were used to than your HF's were being asked to do than they were used to (you already being a well-trained cyclist who unweighted reasonably well as evidenced by your transition that went much better than average) It is why most users can't go more than 5-10 minutes their first ride on the PC's and why you failed then. You were going way beyond what you had trained those muscles to do. You saw improvement in just one day. Now, if you had gone back and done that everyday you would have continued to improve in both distance and speed. But, after 3 months of doing that when you were able to do much more would you say, "well, those muscles are fully trained. No more improvement is possible here."

"Now regarding finding a study - I don't have the resources for that. I don't have the background and neither do you. I'd suggest again bringing a physiologist in the debate." Just to remind you, I am a physiologist. But, if you want an exercise physiologist, I am sure many are here reading this and I am sure they would provide such a reference if one exists. I assure you, it does not.

Let me ask you a couple of more things, if you will. Even though you did have a few rides on them early, you did not really start the "full-time" efforts on the PC's until after the State time-trial in August. ("I'm a week out from the TT event, so my use of PCs will be somewhat limited. I'll be on them several times this week, but the real exclusive use comes in one more week." written July 26th) so can we reserve final judgment until we see how you do in the TT. Also, in your very first post you posted the following:
I think it would be interesting to see how this year has stacked up so far in relationship to this.

---

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

So how did "half fast" do? What were the splits last year and this year?

If he was the guy who finished 139th out of 278 finishers last year, then he was 88th out of 188 finishers this year. Or almost "half fast" once again.

I would hazard a guess that the splits varied substantially for most people from last year to this year based on the thunderstorms and giant winds last year.

Rik

I know nothing more than he was faster by about 24 minutes. Don't know a name, anything about whether it was mostly bike or run or evenly distributed, or anything else. Chip promised a report so we will all have to simply wait.

---

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

Todd Hansen. Swim was about 12 minutes faster this year. You gonna take credit for that?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

"You gonna take credit for that?"

You really think Frank wouldn't try ... lets see, 40% power increase in swimming ... but only if the protocol for PCs is EXACTLY followed ;-)
DAve

If that's him.

If so, he was 20 minutes faster this year, with 11 of that accounted for by the swim. Presumably not having to endure "40-mph wind gusts, torrential downpours and even toppling trees" (from 2008 newspaper report) would make the bike and run splits a lot faster this year compared to last.

Rik

Swim was about 12 minutes faster this year. You gonna take credit for that?

I think he was wearing a Nineteen wetsuit! :-)

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Todd Hansen you say?

2008 Swim 42:08, Bike 2:54:05, Run 2:08:56
2009 Swim 31:09, Bike 2:41:31, Run 2:04:52

Weather from weatherunderground.com for Love's Park, IL

2008 Weather 8 AM - noon should encompass things
Air temp ~80 F, Dew point ~68 F, pressure ~29.8 inHg, winds 15-25 mph with gusts to 35+, rain and thunderstorm

2009 Weather same time period
Air temp ~75 F, Dew point ~65 F, pressure ~29.7 inHg, winds 5-15 mph with gusts to 20-25, rain

Temperature and pressure is about a wash, but winds were much better this year. Last year looked worse with thunderstorms, though both days reported rain. I'm too lazy to grab my spreadsheet for power calculations which implements wind, plus it only does head/tail wind. So I'll use analyticcycling.com's "wind on rider" module. With that, assuming the same power I get that 2008 would be 1.12 times longer for the bike course, give or take (i.e., probably anywhere from 1.1 to 1.15 in reality) due to the higher winds. So he should have, given the same power, finished this year in around 2:35:24 (the 1.1 to 1.15 range yields 2:31 to 2:38). So you could say all else being equal (i.e., CdA, rolling resistance), he was pretty much the same performance as last year. I would expect the run was affected last year by the winds as well.

I'll generate more plots in time, but in the meanwhile, I was thinking about the aerobic nature of hip flexors and also the time required for adaptation. Perhaps you can explain it to me a little better.

First we have a plot which you threw up here last year. BTW, I'd really like to get my hands on the (x,y) data behind the plot for more detailed analysis. Anyway, I'm presuming the y=0 line is the one just below y=1.875. Clearly this plot shows that when using PCs you apply a tangential force >0. Indeed, you have to to lift the pedal. you also have the 2nd plot "corrected" for the same cadence.




So what we have is higher downward force applied with regular cranks but negative torque on the backstroke, whereas PCs give positive torque on the upstroke and compensate somewhat with lower downward torque. It could be argued that the higher down force is required to lift the other leg which doesn't want to apply upward forces, correct?

Now here you write


So the default use pattern by most users would be to "unweight and nothing more." In other words, we've got this built in force (torque) limiter. Torque on the upstroke will always be fixed such that power is a function only of cadence (power being proportional to torque times cadence). Since, by your own words, we "unweight and nothing more" than we could probably say that we are indeed adapted to PCs once we can ride for several hours at a time at our self-selected cadence, correct?

You have a point about adaptations for running and also you could make the same argument for the downward stroke of a pedal stroke on the bike. Both of those are forces being applied against an ever increasing resistance - as your speed increases, you face exponentially increasing air resistance and linear increases with speed for rolling resistance/running. As you push harder, you are met with more resistance. Your muscles have to adapt to the great physiological (cardiovascular) stress compared to before.

But the "unweight and nothing more" has a definite upper bound unless more weight is added to the system to increase resistance, at which point you just have to adapt to slightly more weight. I would argue, that because this is a force/torque/power limited application, you achieve adaptation when you can smoothly pedal with PCs and without fatigue. If your target event is 0-3 hours in duration, the ability to pedal with PCs for 3-4 hours at ANY intensity at a cadence at or near your self-selected cadence for regular cranks demonstronates adaptation. It is because of this upper bound on force (or torque) that in my simple mind (granted I'm an engineer and not a physiologist) that I come to this conclusion.

I have the rough data somewhere with both the x and y values. I have looked at it and I believe it shows the force vector to be slightly more tangential at almost all angles. I will be happy to forward the data to you for your own analysis once I can find it. Yes, that would be the argument. Any work not done (less than is necessary to bring the leg and crank up) by the recovery leg must be done by the pushing leg. Hence, at the same power the pushing leg must push harder. Remember, these two trials were done at the same power but the rider self-selected different cadences. What was extremely interesting is this rider rode the regular cranks at 88 RPM and the PC's at 81 RPM and, even though one would normally expect him to have to push harder at the lower cadence to maintain the same power, he was actually pushing less as seen in the first graph. I can't remember exactly but I think I made the basic assumption in the "corrected" graph that if the cadence were lowered on the regular cranks that the unweighting on the backstroke would actually get a little better instead of staying the same. It is not clear to me what actually happens to most people on the backstroke as they change cadence.
Yes, I think the default pattern is to unweight and nothing more, the vast majority of the time. Of course, people do pull up with force when they are thinking about it or at specific times, like the start of a track race. Now, it should be possible to train the rider beyond this point with enough time and the proper stimulus. For instance, I (and others) frequently go out on rides with ankle weights. If one does this enough then it should be easy to eventually get to the point where one does more than simply unweight. But, if the user doesn't push himself in this area I think it doesn't happen by itself. The body usually doesn't like to do anymore than is necessary and if you don't actually do it in training you won't be able to do it in the race. Also, I think most of the "positive" forces you see from 6 to 12 are coming from the pulling back and pushing over the top, not from pulling up.

The other issue regarding being "fully adapted" has to do with cadence. The muscles have to do more that simply lift the leg against gravity. They also have to accelerate that thigh (the thigh is the big problem here) up to pedal speed. At low cadences this is not much of a problem, the pedal is not going very fast and there is lots of time for recovery between efforts. But, as the cadence increases both the speed of the pedal increases and the time for recovery decreases. The nature of the bicycle is such that high cadences tend to be less efficient but high powers tend to require higher cadences. So, just because one can go out for 3 hours at a cadence of 70 or 80 or whatever doesn't mean that, if one could bring the cadence up to 85 or 90 or whatever, that more power could not be gained. So, it is not so simple to say that "I can ride them for 3, or 4 or 5 hours" as evidence of optimal training and there is nothing more to be gained. If we are doing work on the backstroke (which we are doing, even if we are only unweighting) then it seems to me that if we can do more work, that would be beneficial to the racer.

Yes, but if you can do more of that increased work on the backstroke then one doesn't have to increase the ability of the pushing muscle as much. It seems that it would be "easier" to increase the ability of a large number of muscles a little than it would be to increase the ability of a smaller number of muscles a little.
Well, I can see your argument, if one accepts that there is no benefit to doing any more than just unweighting and if there is no benefit to increasing cadence. I submit there are benefits to both. It takes substantially more training to ride the PC's for 3 hours at a cadence of 80, 90, or 100 than it does at 70. If we accept that there is a limit as to what can be done by those muscles then once we reach that limit I would accept that the adaption is complete. I do not accept that contention. If I have said in the past that all PowerCrankers do is unweight and nothing more I said that because I believe that is all most of them do. But, that is not the case with all of them. That is not to say they could not do more and see more benefit. We have recently had a correspondence from a Keirin rider in Japan who is noticing his pedals moving in and out at the bottom when he is doing one-legged drills. We think that is because he is flexing the frame with his one leg and can see this in the pedal. That man is working on his lifting strength.

Another aspect of "adaption" that takes more time than 3 months is how well one recovers between efforts. The better trained a muscle is the quicker one will recover after a training effort and the more it can be used in the next training effort.

Anyhow, simple unweighting at relatively low cadence is all that is necessary for minimal adaption to the PC's. However, I believe there is much more to be gained from pushing things further if one has the patience and motivation to do so.

Further, there is one other adaption that I suspect comes slowly. That is the ability to apply the pedal force more tangentially. I don't have any evidence that it does continue to get better with time but I suspect it does.

---

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

This thread started because Chip told us he "can't wait". He managed to post 10 times today on at least 4 different threads. And yet no news on "Half Man"? Evidently he can wait.

He hyped the event as follows:


And yet "Half Fast" was almost exactly half fast again this year at Rockman (6 places faster than "Half Fast" this time). This is after we were told that "Half Fast" was "training on PowerCranks all spring" and "fueling Right with the Hammer products".

The PowerCranks certainly didn't live up to the hype from the Rockman 2008 website: "Rockman Sports and PowerCranks want to help one lucky Rockman Half Iron finisher go from the “Middle of the Pack” to the “Front of the Pack”. PowerCranks provide for many athletes an extra training tool to not only make you a stronger faster cyclist, but also improve your run."

Rik

There is all kinds of hype about all kinds of products spread about here on ST.

Most of it is just marketing and nothing more.


.

Rik...I CAN wait on this as I have not yet spoken to the person who has the cranks - but for about 30 seconds after the race. I spent most of the day in a truck picking up litter from the park, returning road barriers, and arguing with my ambulance service who was seriously sleeping on the job.

This is what it is. I know the person was faster...and I will post what he tells me, he thinks and his opinion as he gives it to me. Do I think PC are the best thing since women? Maybe not. I dont think ANYTHING is. I dont think dimples are, BioPace (Q-Rings), any new miracle from Cobb, Cervelo, Bayonett forks, aero helmets - with or with out dimples.

BUT - if any one of these products makes a person train more, harder, better or longer and ENJOY it...then the product is worth the money.

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

That's a far cry from your original post of "I will let the results of the Rockman 2009 speak for themselves." The results have spoken: "Half Fast" last year almost exactly "Half Fast" this year too.

Rik

Regarding cadence, it is why I said the ability to turn the cranks at the self-selected cadence for regular cranks. IOW, I would say based on the above we can conclude that adaptation has occurred if

1) a user can ride PCs on consecutive days without residual fatigue in the HFs (perhaps a better way of saying it would be the quality of normal training isn't impacted by their use?)
2) a user can ride PCs for workout durations (of approximately the duration of target events) at a cadence equivalent to their self-selected cadence using regular cranks (personally I think it's better to trust the body choosing the cadence than to go the "everything Armstrong does is better" route and artificially raise cadence - IMO, Mother Nature knows best)

For the keirin rider, I'm assuming you mean traditional one-legged drills. If so, I could certainly see how there's a feeling of moving the pedal in and out of the plane of the frame. One-legged drills put you in a state of mass imbalance. The kinematic motion associated with one-legged drills (one leg unclipped) is MUCH different than the kinematic motion associated with independent crank motion of your product. Even doing "one-legged" drills with PCs you'll notice this, though the response is a bit better if you stay clipped in on the side not being worked. I think you can probably visualize this - in one-legged drills you aren't reacting that roll moment with the other side, and as such, you get greater roll angle.

Well, "stomping" should be less efficient than "spinning" because the harder the muscle has to contract the more fibers it has to use. The more fibers it has to use means it will be using a higher percentage of less efficient fast-twitch fibers. In addition, if the direction of the "stomp" is not tangential to the circle then additional losses are associated. Now, we are never "exactly" tangential but the goal of "spinning" should be to get the direction of the applied force to be as close as possible to the tangential

And, the integrals of those curves should be equal (at least the one corrected to the same cadence) but I haven't confirmed it.

BTW, I found the file with the raw data. If you would still like I will email you a copy so you can do your own analysis. I had done some analysis looking at how the angles change between the two scenarios. I will attach graphs that put this together. These are from the raw, uncorrected, data. Note that the PowerCranks applied forces are substantially closer to being tangential around most of the circle than when riding regular cranks.

---

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

LOL. Best post of the thread.

Here is what you wrote in May of this year:
"Staring at the powermeter while PCing away just makes me hate the bike
(or rather, a PC equipped bike). I've turned to a heart rate monitor
for PC rides, and even then I don't know how hard I'm going as the
watch is tucked under my shorts near my knee (thanks to a broken band).
So now I ride for enjoyment with the PCs and see how long I've ridden
and my average heart rate for the ride once I get home. It really has
made it more enjoyable."

Such a post simply suggests that you still consider riding PowerCranks substantially different than riding regular cranks regardless of what you are saying you can do endurancewise. If you were fully adapted I submit you would not feel this difference. The purpose of posting abut the Keirin rider was to point out that if the only benefit of using PC's was to learn to unweight then there would be simply zero benefit of doing one legged drills, where one must do substantially more than simply unweight on the backstroke. This rider, who develops much more power than the average triathlete, apparently thinks there is an advantage to such work and further developing this skill.

Simple unweighting offers substantial advantages to traditional pedaling technique but that doesn't mean it is optimum for maximum power production if more can be done.

---

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

I have a proposal for Half Fast

I believe that I can improve his performance by far more than 6 places

by simply working with him on Aero Weenie details.

I will work with him on tire, tube, wheel, and frame selection, and position.

I predict more than 6 places improvement if he trains the same. he can use PC or not I don't care.


half fast if you are reading this, send me a PM.

I Wont charge anything, and maybe we can get wheelbuilder to sponsor us =)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Well yes I consider riding Powercranks substantially different - I can't jump out of the saddle quickly and easily for ultra-hard accelerations (and I won't due to safety issues). It's a pain at intersections getting rolling again. With a PM the PC based workouts were just BORING and was taking all the motivation away from me (there's that mental aspect of training again...). So I stripped the PC bike of the PM and just started to do casual "smell the flowers" rides on it, since after all it's all about "unweighting and nothing more." By not having a clock staring back at me I lose track of time and forget about how I can't have a fun "fartlek" style ride with the PCs. It has nothing to do with fitness/adaptation issues.

Maybe. But will it be enough to make up for the slower running he is doing this year after training on PCs? His running race times are substantially slower this spring (as in 30 seconds/mile slower).

Rik

I don't know. I intend for him to spend a lot less time on the bike so maybe he will be less worn out for the run =)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Well, there are PowerCranks users who jump out of the saddle quickly, sprint on them, even do all that during races, without regard to fear of any "safety issues" because they are well adapted. I have some video of pro Darren Lil climbing Mt Diablo on his PC's going in and out of the saddle frequently and without hesitation, the only issue being a slight hiccough when going back down (both legs go down briefly). If you didn't know he was on PC's it would be impossible to tell by watching him (except for that hiccough) because he is so smooth. Now some of these adaption issues are neuromuscular coordination adaption issues but still correspond to my assessment that you are not as "fully adapted" as you think you are. If you are fully adapted riding PowerCranks should be just as much fun as riding regular cranks or riding regular cranks should be just as much a pain as riding PowerCranks. The fact they are different certainly suggest you ride the two cranks differently, just as was seen in the pedal force data posted above as that was taken from a PowerCranker changing back and forth between regular cranks and PowerCranks. Who knows what his pedal dynamic would have looked like on regular cranks if it had been measured before he had any time on the PC's? Full adaption requires more than a simple muscle endurance adaption.

---

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

That was my opinion at the time, but also looking back at some of my October musings I have entries and data which show that 2007 was still my best year. And "good gains" doesn't imply personal bests (indeed they weren't). I just hadn't digested all the data at that point.

An interesting entry was this one. Cadence a little lower but power awfully close to each other...

Never did that century. Kind of lost motivation for 4-6 hour rides in favor of shorter but more intense rides. Trying to get more bang for my training time. It wasn't for lack of fitness.

Hey, at least he showed up on the right day. ;-)

Hey, at least he showed up on the right day. ;-)

OK ...so you're acknowledging that use of PCs MIGHT at least result in a user showing up on race day similar to a user with standard cranks ;-)
Dave

Well, there are PowerCranks users who jump out of the saddle quickly, sprint on them, even do all that during races, without regard to fear of any "safety issues" because they are well adapted. I have some video of pro Darren Lil climbing Mt Diablo on his PC's going in and out of the saddle frequently and without hesitation, the only issue being a slight hiccough when going back down (both legs go down briefly). If you didn't know he was on PC's it would be impossible to tell by watching him (except for that hiccough) because he is so smooth. Now some of these adaption issues are neuromuscular coordination adaption issues but still correspond to my assessment that you are not as "fully adapted" as you think you are. If you are fully adapted riding PowerCranks should be just as much fun as riding regular cranks or riding regular cranks should be just as much a pain as riding PowerCranks. The fact they are different certainly suggest you ride the two cranks differently, just as was seen in the pedal force data posted above as that was taken from a PowerCranker changing back and forth between regular cranks and PowerCranks. Who knows what his pedal dynamic would have looked like on regular cranks if it had been measured before he had any time on the PC's? Full adaption requires more than a simple muscle endurance adaption.[/reply]
Saying that because I don't feel comfortable/safe jumping out of the saddle and sprinting with PCs as evidence that I'm not adapted is just silly. It's more my engineering background knowing full well that what I have attached to my feet is an unstable mechanism (the system is not fully constrained as it is with fixed cranks). I'm one awkward lurch from face planting into my stem. I prefer not to run that risk. I can stand up and accelerate, but I do so with caution knowing the system design.

That's just silly...

Saying that because I don't feel comfortable/safe jumping out of the saddle and sprinting with PCs as evidence that I'm not adapted is just silly. It's more my engineering background knowing full well that what I have attached to my feet is an unstable mechanism (the system is not fully constrained as it is with fixed cranks). I'm one awkward lurch from face planting into my stem. I prefer not to run that risk. I can stand up and accelerate, but I do so with caution knowing the system design.

That's just silly...[/reply] It is not silly. Kids, when they first learn to ride a bicycle are very cautious because it is not what they are used to. But, eventually, they overcome that caution as they develop their confidence and, eventually are not thinking about how potentially unstable the platform they are on is. It doesn't matter if one is learning to drive a car, fly an airplane, ride a bicycle, or riding a bicycle with PowerCranks or almost anything else. Part of any adaption process is overcoming the initial sense of unfamiliarity with doing something new/different such that the routine things can be done without thinking or fear. And, even if one is past that "thinking/fear" point full adaption may not be present. In none of the things I mentioned does full adaption generally occur in 3 months or, even, a year. People may be "good enough" to solo an airplane in less than a year but nowhere will anyone give them a license to carry passengers with that background as they simply are not good enough yet.

(edit: I might add. It is for this reason we recommend exclusive use of the PC's in order to facilitate this neuromuscular adaption process. Frequently going back to regular cranks simply confuses the issue and slows it down, IMHO. Full adaption to PC's involves much more than simply a muscular aerobic adaption.)

---

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

"Kids, when they first learn to ride a bicycle are very cautious because it is not what they are used to. But, eventually, they overcome that caution as they develop their confidence and, eventually are not thinking about how potentially unstable the platform they are on is."

The same may be true for PCs. However once a user experiences, after gaining confidence in the crank, a clutch failure, the original caution they once exercised becomes that much more prudent.

True, But, but most are able to overcome similar "cautionary experiences" after, say chain breakage, pulling out of pedals, blowouts at high speed or when cornering, or crashes encountered in group rides, etc. Lots of things can cause bike crashes, especially when riding very hard. Such failures are extremely rare with our new, stronger, clutch. In most instances clutch failure is not a good excuse for not adapting as most have never experienced same or if they have it was not a catastrophic failure (most failures). PC's simply add one more structural element involved in riding a bicycle that could fail. We warn new users, if they don't want to take that additional risk, they should not mount them on their bikes and send them back for a refund.

---

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

We have the makings of another PowerCranks legend here.

I don't think it's all that fruitful to try to compare bike times with the dramatically different conditions for the Rockman Tri for 2008 and 2009. And it's hard to compare run times too. I will point out though that I had a bike split for a tri this year that was 6 minutes faster over 18 miles (~20 seconds/mile) on 15 more watts compared to the same course last year in the midst of a crazy windy rain storm. So "Half Fast" getting a bike split only 12.5 minutes faster for 56 miles (~13 seconds/mile) than last year, seems, if anything, like a worse performance than 2008 given the conditions.

More cut-and-dry though is the fact that after "Half Fast" was "training on PowerCranks all spring" and "fueling Right with the Hammer products," he is in significantly worse running condition this spring compared last year based on his results in running-only races. He did the Rockford Marathon about 13 1/2 minutes faster in 2008 (~31 seconds/mile), and that was after back-to-back half marathons in the previous two weeks. And his Great Western Half Marathon time was over 6 minutes faster in 2008 (~28 seconds/mile)

5/17/2009 Rockford Marathon: 4:15:57
5/3/2009 Great Western Half Marathon: 1:47:00

5/18/08 Rockford Marathon: 4:02:35
5/10/08 Literacy Run Half Marathon 2008: 1:46:05
5/4/08 Great Western Half Marathon: 1:40:51

Just anecdotal, but this is one many anecdotes that I have now collected showing people running significantly slower after using PowerCranks.

I'm wondering how Frank and Chip are going to try to spin this one.

From the Rockman 2008 website: "Rockman Sports and PowerCranks want to help one lucky Rockman Half Iron finisher go from the “Middle of the Pack” to the “Front of the Pack”. PowerCranks provide for many athletes an extra training tool to not only make you a stronger faster cyclist, but also improve your run."

And the thread started with this bold prediction: "I get the feeling that our rider is no longer "Half Fast".... "

Rik

Rik,

It is hard for me to "spin" anything here as I don't know who half-fast is and, even, assuming you do, neither of us knows how he trained or anything else about what may have happened in the race. Like I said earlier, when I met him in Arizona he had yet to take them out of the box and had no idea what they were. So, he did what he did, I can accept that.

But, it is ok, this is ST and it is a PC thread so you an try to make whatever you want out of this.

---

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

Frank, regarding the plots, you mentioned

I assume when you say "changing back and forth" that that means switching cranks during a single test session. What I find interesting is that there is a relatively large difference between the regular crank data and PC data. In other words, the moment this "PowerCranker" is back on regular cranks the rider essentially reverts back to old patterns. Granted you say no measurements were taking prior to PC training, but the moment this rider goes back to regular cranks, he's no longer fully "unweighting." In other words, there is not really any muscle memory being transferred from one crank system to another...

So, "Half Fast" met you and introduced himself as such? "Hi, I'm the guy who was half-fast at Rockman". No name? You didn't ask his name?

Are your cranks registered by their owners? You never asked Chip who received the cranks?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I am sure he told me his name at the time, I simply don't remember it. What stood out to me is we had done this promotion to "demonstrate" the benefits of the cranks from one year to the next and the recipient hadn't even put them under his pillow let alone thought about using them in training. So, it seems my talking to him at least got him to take them out of the box. How much and how long he used them is unknown to me and, I assume, Rik.

And, we don't require or ask owners to register with us.

---

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

Chip: we're still waiting....you seemed really enthusiastic about this pre-race. What happened?

And while were at it, I'm still waiting for this to be answered...

Yes, I think so. It is clear that happened in the "graph instance", although i don't think people go back to being as "bad" as they were before I think almost everyone reverts some, a partial reversion of sorts.

(edit: I might add. I think the reason for this reversion is as soon as the body gets some feedback that it doesn't have to pull up - which takes about one revolution of the cranks - it understands that it doesn't have to pull up so it tends to relax. Just like it doesn't push hard unless we make it, it doesn't want to "pull up" completely unless we make it.)

Along this line I just got off the phone with a long-time customer. He is getting ready for IM CDA. He has been in a long period of PC only training, watching his power go up (which is sort of amazing as he already was a top age-grouper and, about, 7 year PC veteran). He went back to his tri bike for the final push and for the life of him he cannot match his PC power within 20 watts for any length of time. He is convinced he is reverting back a little and just that little bit of back pressure is causing him to lose that much wattage. Now, I admit that not everyone sees such a dramatic difference (certainly you haven't), but I am convinced it exists to some degree in almost everyone except the most adapted person. Anyhow, this power difference is so great he was calling me to discuss some of his thoughts/findings and has decided to race on the PC's. He hopes to win his age group so we shall see if "PC's make you slower", as Rik asserts. And, maybe we will see if racing on PC's hurt your run as "tiring out those HF's" should do. If you are interested in following him his name is Greg Taylor. Rik, you might want to pay special attention.

---

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

"The sun'll come out
Tomorrow
Bet your bottom dollar
That tomorrow
There'll be sun!

Tomorrow! Tomorrow!
I love ya tomorrow!
You're always
A day
Away!"

I guess Half Fast didn't work out so well?

Rik

I have no idea if half-fast worked out or not. I don't know who he is. I don't know how he trained. I don't know how is race went. Or, anything else. Neither do you (except you seem to think you know who he is). But, that doesn't seem to stop you from wasting a lot of band width on this topic.

If you want to draw some conclusions about PowerCranks it seems to me that you ought to look at some people who we know something about how they have used them and how the race went. I am putting out another name here ahead of time, based upon his report to me, even though I have no idea what might happen during the race. So, Greg Taylor seems to fit that "what will they do for you" bill better than half-fast although, for your purposes it seems all you are really looking for is something to use to bad-mouth them. Half-fast seems to fit the bill for you despite the limitations indicated above. So be it.

---

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

Frank,

Just out of curiosity, were his PC's on the tri-bike? Or were they on another bike? One reason I ask is because if, in addition to switching from PC's to regular cranks, he's switching from a road bike to a tri bike, it's a frequent observation that watts drop when moving from training primarily on a road bike to training on a tri bike, esp. if the athlete in question isn't meticulous about matching the fit across the two bikes.

I would just hate for a loss in power to be attributed to regular cranks without examining all possible contributing factors. ;)

cramer

I think I know who he is because he was the middle finisher last year. That's the definition. These post aren't directed to you, because you know nothing about this guy (nor do you care to evidently, but that's another story best filed alongside the Belgian track cyclists). Chip was talking Half Fast up based on his training with PCs this spring. Chip was confident enough to say based on what he knew about his training that "I do think that if there ever was an honest "What can they do for me" time in the years of PowerCranks - we are on them this weekend right here in Illinois..." While Chip "couldn't wait" to see the results, now, he apparently is able to wait.

Speaking of bandwidth waste - you have posted more on this thread than anyone. You have posted a lot of charts and graphs on this thread that have nothing to do with the original topic. If you were really concerned with bandwidth waste you would STFU.

So, are you going to provide some data about how Mr. Taylor has used PCs over the last year? The last 7 years? Previous race results? Power output this year compared to previous years? Power output in the upcoming IMCDA on PCs compared to other races? Is this the same Mr. Taylor that finished 2nd in his AG in Kona in 2007?

Rik

1. i was mentioned earlier as a former PC hater.

2. i am unclear - was tigermilk's PC data vs "normal" data done ON PC's ?? in other words . . . dis tigermilk do studies and PM records whilst riding PC's, or whilst riding a normal bike after training on PC's ?? tigermilk admits he ( she ? ) rides diferently than he ( she ) does on normal cranks. . . . why then would it be a surprise that the numbers are askew ??

2.5 big freaking difference.

3. i do not need a powermeter to tell me i am slower on PC's, than i am on regular cranks. i know it as a fact. they are a training tool - of course they are !!!

4. to review, i was one of the biggest naysayers about PC's ever. however, i had the common sense to realize - unlike many on s-twitch - that to invest energy hating on something i quite literally knew nothing about was stupid. so, i took frank up on a challenge to try some out. he told me what to do with them, and i did it.

5. this was prior to modern PM lingo and sophisication, but that did not matter. i do need a meter to demonstrate to me that if i weigh 200 lbs at 5'7" i will go up a hill with more difficulty than if i weigh 150 lbs. an open minded person, doing the PC thing properly, will in my opinion come to a similar conclusion. not that i was in such a state when i got them - quite the opposite. i rode 100 miles on them my 3rd time out so my 'adaptation" was at the time, the best ever. furthermore, in my experience - the vast majority of people do not allow the devices to work - they try to adapt the cranks to what they already do, instead of vice versa. i suspect tigermilk did the same, but he ( she ? ) deserves credit for at least trying them out. even so, the purpose of a training device is nudge you to CHANGE the way you do something, or at least add to it. to use PC's, and expect them to make ytou better at doing exactly what you did before like most people do is idiotic. it would be like taking archery lessons, and then ignoring everything the instructor taught you and shooting the way you used to - and then claiming archery instructions " don't work ". idiotic, but this is precisely the logic most people use about their PC experience.

6. if you invest energy in hating, and you haven't tried them out i think you are being silly. there simply is not enuf data out there on pedalling dynamics to make an informed decision of whether they work or not - they are a unique product. coggan claims otherwise, but he is wrong - the level of study of full body pedalling dynamics is NOT at a point of sophisication appropriate to support a claim either way at this point in time ( and for god's sake coggan, do not bring that ridiculous irrelevant old study from whathismane back up again). similarly, a double blind study of them is impossible due to their very nature. it is not going to happen.

7. they are not for everybody. nor for people who are hyper-focussed on other aspects of training, such as hyper-scrutiny of PM data, perhaps. doesn't mean they wouldn't benefit at some point, but not everybody is in a place/time for that.

8. most of this is bullshit. they are just a training device. like pull-bands in a pool, or doing strides on the track, or any other sort of training protocol . . . . . . . do them or don't. they can make a difference, but many many people will do great without them, obviously.

9. also silly is the obsession and impossibly high bar s-twitch sets for them. people accept and indeed do all manner things without demanding the "proof" that they do for PC's. aero seatposts, brakes under chainstays. pre-race food rituals. periodization obsessions, etc etc etc are all slavishly followed with minimal to no proof any of it works, yet s-twitch demand frank prove PC's effectiveness beyond the most rigorous standards imaginable.

10. in closing - all you haters suck my balls. :)

That's pretty funny. I'd just like to see Frank provide an example of one person, ceteris paribus, with a significant verifiable power improvement after using them. There are plenty of people who show no improvement and plenty who are slower after using them.

If someone is claiming a 40% average power improvement for his product, you'd think he'd have some sort of data to back that up. Yet time and time again, Frank shows up empty-handed.

Rik

That's a question I have as well. Apples and oranges.

A few other things I'd ask would be:

1) 20 W over what duration? 20 W without any other day is meaningless IMO. Now if it's 20 W for a duration of 30 minutes, 60 minutes, 3 hours, etc, that's some important data. But 20 W in and of itself doesn't say much.
2) What's the weather like?
3) Is the 20 W drop a one-time event or is this a repeatable thing? Just like I've decided to not take credit for one-off high performances, likewise you shouldn't penalize yourself for a really bad time. After all, consistency is more important.

As with anything the devil is in the details.

I don't know. However, I suspect that if he transfers the PC's to his tri bike and doesn't see the same power he is used to training will he will figure it out. He is pretty experienced so I suspect this is something new to him.

---

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

That would most definitely be a HE! My data is a combination of Powercrank and regular crank data. I'd have to look at individual ride data to correlate peak performances to which crank system. 2 different bikes, each with Powertaps. And by riding differently, the issue there is one of safety, so I tend to focus on isopower workouts rather than having "fun" ala tempo rides with a bunch of corner sprints and such. That's all. I apologize if I don't have the "confidence" to jump out of the saddle at a moment's notice and sprint. As mentioned earlier, the PCs with a man in the loop is an inherently unstable system, particularly when you are out of the saddle (just try to hold the cranks at 3 and 9 o'clock with your butt off the saddle...). Aside from that my riding would be pretty similar - I'm all slowtwitch, and my training rides would be the same on regular cranks and PCs.


Well of course you have to adapt the cranks to what you already do - you need to turn the cranks. So at what point to you consider yourself adapted, and do those lessons transfer to regular cranks? And for a product marketed as something that improves your power, why wouldn't you "expect them to make you better at doing exactly what you did before", where "what you did before" was, well, turning the cranks? Or in other words, what did they do for you?


I'd agree in some respects. Or more importantly, what is truly the best for pedal dynamics? We can cite studies that say elites are mashers, but does that make it the best? Not necessarily.



Don't see what "hyper-scrutiny of data" has to do with anything. That's just a device to see if your training is bringing about the effects you intend and also to guide your training.


No argument there. I could scratch my belly before each training session thinking it helps. If I see performance gains, than I may really believe there's a correlation. Likewise, I may see no difference and decide scratching my belly is worthless in my training. Same things with PCs. For my n=1 experience, they don't seem to provide any increases. The part which concerns me, however, is that whenever someone reports no improvement, Frank accuses the user rather than accepting that perhaps they really don't provide that training stimulus. And by stimulus, I mean that if someone is at 80% of their capacity and PCs motivate them to get to 100% of their capacity, that's great. Can they get there another way? Probably so. But that doesn't discount their ability to take someone from 80% to 100%. Now if someone is at 100%, can they take them to 105%....?

Agree, but some of those things have definite measurable traits, such as brakes under chain stays. You could argue that the drag of the rear brake is not a function of the size/shape of the rider (or lack of one) in a tunnel or CFD run, so the effectiveness of that brake (reduction/increase/no difference in drag is measurable).

I believe it was 20 watts for durations of over an hour but I am not sure. Just seem to remember him saying something about those lengths of time. And, I think it has been going on for a couple of weeks. I believe he has been switching back and forth trying to figure out what is going on so it has been constant and repeatable, as I understood him. I think he came to the conclusion the only variable to explain the difference was the PC's. He was a little embarrassed, I think, waiting until so close to the race to reach this conclusion but I don't think it will hurt him as he has so many years of PC's under his belt.

Because he is going to race on them and we both expect him to win his age division I did offer to send him a pair of "racing cranks". Hopefully, those will help him even more.

One question I would ask him, however, after this is all done, is why does he think this is popping up now and not 3 or 4 years ago?

---

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