Let us put your question into perspective. I take you you think that all of those people here who have purchased a pair and think they work had never done what you suggest and, it seems, you think none of these people have to worry about where they spend their money.

Let us take 4 cyclists. Museeuw, Leipheimer, Hincapie, and you. Who do you think has done the fewest one legged-drills, and volume, and all the things you suggest? My guess is YOU!

Then, who do you think of all those on this list is the only one that thnks PC's are a gimmick and won't make you any faster over just doing the things you suggest? This is not a guess, YOU!

So, do all that you suggest, and get as good as you can possibly get and then try a pair and see if they can make you better. If they can, don't kick yourself too hard for wasting all that time.

Frank

---

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

joking aside, T2, this is a very fair question. in my own case i am certainly no hincapie. however, i am 44 y/o and have ridden and raced and enjoyed and generally wasted massive amounts of my avocational time around bicycles since i was a teen. over that time i am here to say i have seen and done lots of things related to training and riding bikes, my friend. certainly everything you have mentioned and more. i am here to tell you, order a pair, put them on your bike, and ride them 50 miles one way and turn around and try to ride them home - that is, if you can make it even 5 miles . . . . . . . . now come talk to me about your gym work and one legged drills on the trainer. honestly man, they will kick your ass like you have never felt it kicked. i mean it quite literally when i say - " you have a better chance of killing yourself by holding your breath than you do of voluntarily doing what PC's make you do". check it out, and come tell me that i am wrong.

Let us put your response in perspective...you mention pro cyclists, well I don't see Lance jumping on board and saying the way he won his 5 tours was using PC's. I think he has done as many drills as the guys you mention don't YOU think?

I never said that didn't work. Rather I said I was skeptical and for the dollars you charge for PC's I would most definitely rather run out a few other grounders to be sure first. Second point is that I have several friends who do own them and have used them. They pretty much said what t-t-n said about kicking their a$$!!! But you know where those cranks are right now...in their garage.

Hey if you have the discretionary cash and are willing to spend the money then do it. I do believe that if you devote the time necessary to figure them out and become proficient then they probably are an effective tool. More power to the PC'ers but there are plenty of alternatives and guys/gals that don't use them that are just as good or better than anyone you can claim is using them.

I thought I had a pretty efficient pedal stroke and was nicely unweighinig my recovery leg...until I got a set of PCs and saw that the recovery leg was just falling backwards. There is no way you'll do a 100mile ride of one leg drills. With PC's you have no choice. It is 100% one leg drills all the time, whether you crank, spin, sprint, stand, TT, or sit up.

Take the Powercrank 60 day money back guarantee. There is not cost to you. Return them after 60 days if they suck. This is how I got into it. I figured that 60 days was long enough for these contraptions to prove their worth to me. The only two tri companies that stand behind their product this way seem to be Powercranks and QR for their wetsuits. Funny how both these companies had to think out of the box to create respective paradigm shifts with respect to how the sport is done.

T2, your points are excellent. There is the engine and the "wheels". In endurance sport, my heart and lung are the engine, somewhat in the realm of a Honda Civic. My legs are my wheels, the kind that go on the Civic. PC's just help me improve the transmission system to my "wheels", but no amount of improvement of my wheels will help me beat a really gifted triathlete with a Ferrari type engine !

So yes, there are alternatives, but you have to consider that we are talking about fine tuning the final 2-5% of performance, and if you start with a 130 hp engine, you might squeak another 2-6 horses out. Significant, but you still won't be able to blow by a 275 hp turbocharged model.

 
<But you know where those cranks are right now...in their garage.

then borrow PC's from one of your friends.

DP,

That is a great response and makes a lot of sense. I agree that we mere mortals are all searching for something that can help us get the extra 5% tweak on our engines! I do think this tool works for those able and willing to see it through. I also think that it is good business to give a 60 day guarantee. I also still feel strongly that drills and consistency work as well.

My goal was not to discredit the product, rather I want to point out that there are plenty of alternatives to improving technique. Many athletes that want to get better only have so much money to spend in that pursuit. PC's have been portrayed (IMO) to be the only means of making that happen. I'm here defending the "old school" of getting better that's all:)

I appreciate your constructive and logical response.

T

Mr. T2,

First, Lance. I have been told by about 20 people that Lance does use them. However, he didn't get them from me and I have no proof that he does. If I were Lance and I were using them and I thought they gave me a competitive advantage I would think it would be to my financial advantage to keep my competitive advantage secret until I had won 6 Tours or however many he chooses to stop at. If he doesn't use them, so what? Other excellent cyclists do, trying to get the edge to catch up.

Second, if your friend have them in their garage that is not my problem. If they didn't have the strength to get through the initial ass kicking and decided to go back to regular drills or whatever, so be it. How much faster are they? Why are they in the garage instead of their sending them back for a refund? Why don't you borrow a pair and see what they are all about. Seems you shouldn't need any discretionary cash to try them out in that circumstance. Then, after you have done so, then tell us about those plentiful alternatives that are just as good.

Frank

---

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

T2. again you make good points, well stated. and, as a fellow old schooler i can identify with you, believe me. these days you can find me racng a singlespeed mtn bike which is itself older than many of the guys i race against! :) ironically, i see PC's as the ultimate old schooler tool. all they do is deliver on the ancient grail of pedalling as completely as you can. take what the crusty old fixed gear riders tell us about fixies - make it actually so thru PC's, and presto old school meets new in a painful eye opening whack of the zen master's stick upside your noggin.

mind you now, i also can see your frustration in thinking everybody is saying the "only way to get fast" or whatever is with them. altho, i do not think anybody is actually saying that. rather, i am saying that these things do, in fact, make a guy better thru incredibly hard work, and there is no drill or technique that will do what they do.

if you do not mind, i might challenge you - what is about enthusiastic positive reports about PC's that gets your goat, as opposed to somebody saying that he has triied something ELSE new and and perhaps controversial and whaddya know it works really good?

having had a set for a couple years now, i can see why and how a guy might not wish to ride them all the time anymore. i don't. i ride them all winter and in sumer i go mtn biking and singlespeeding and fixie riding and just plain ole road riding on my regular crank bike. i use the PC's for tune up rides, you might say. i reckon this is how most experienced users use them after time. i often tell my cycling buddies that they really will want a dedicated PC bike - most cyclists already have a spare anyway . . . . . . . .

finally. the cost. indeed. this appears to be an issue with you as well, and well it should. but again - how much more does a P3 cost over a P2K? about the same as a set of PC's. and yet, if somebody crows about how fast their P3 is, do you likewise take offense and decry the fact that the same guy for 700 dollars less on a p2K could go just as fast, or obtain a similar result thru other means? just askin. :)

anyway, nice discussion. my offer previous stands. put them on, ride daddy ride, and then let's hear if you still think i am wrong when i say that no amount of drills or technique or anything else will do what they do.

Perhaps you have missed something Mr. Rip. Many races have been won and records broken by PC'ers. Just not with PC's on their bikes. Further, putting them in the hands of an age grouper does nothing to win races or break records. They have to be used by the very best to break records or win races. More and more of the very best are using them, some of them are even using them as I recommend.

One record of note, Sam Whittingham increased his own HPV record from 72 to over 80 mph in one year, then went over 81 the next year when conditions were worse and everyone else was slower. Then, the next year, when there was no HPV competition he set a one hour record of over 52 mph. Ok, I know, it was all aerodynamic improvements - nothing to impress you. Or Aaron Thigpen taking 0.2 seconds off the American age-group record for the 100 m dash after 4 months on the cranks. Where is the aerodynamic improvement there? And I guess all those personal records by users mean nothing.

If I remember right, the americans got killed in the Olympics the year clap skates came out because they thought they were a gimmick. Further, there was an adaption period because it required a different form to see the advantage. PC's are not like epo because they are not cheating.

Frank

---

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

I think the point people who are skeptical about the PC technology are making is that it seems like every time you open a magazine there is something new out there that will make you faster, stronger, bonk-proof, or leaner. Try this and get instant results...but you fall back on the adage "if it's too good to be true it probably is..." I don't know if PC's work...I really don't care. It's cool to read about the pros and cons of the device and to hear some first hand accounts of how it works. As an engineer I'm interested in learing about it as well. But quite honestly...it all comes down to solid, consistant training....nothing more. Buying a particular piece of equipment be it a new wheel, bike, pull buoy, endless pool, creatine max, whatever....it does no good unless you take the time and just train.

t-t-n wrote: "if you do not mind, i might challenge you - what is about enthusiastic positive reports about PC's that gets your goat, as opposed to somebody saying that he has triied something ELSE new and and perhaps controversial and whaddya know it works really good?"

t-t-n/Frank,

I hear what you are both saying and I appreciate the fact that we are discussing this in a constructive fashion. I'm sure both of you would agree that you wouldn't jump on the band wagon simply because everyone else was. You would want to be convinced that the tool or technique you invested your time and efforts in would yield positive results. I know I do.

I have a finite number of training hours per week like everyone else. I now have to ask myself "how much time can a give to learn something new?" and "what discipline do I take that time from?". It appears to me through watching my buddies use them that they were very frustrated and trashed all the time and they did not improve. They also cycled and ran less than I did during this time. When they first got them they were telling me how great they were and that if I didn't get a pair I would be left in the dust. I kept doing my traditional (old school -:) stuff and continued to improve. Sure I wanted to give them a go at first and I am still curious I must admit. But I don't want to lose time...time is chasing all of us and I don't want to make a mistake and lose ground.

OK - since you have given me a challenge let me give you one back. How do you go about using this tool in a way that can give one time to adapt and see improvement beyond what I can achieve through traditional means without losing a race season to do so?

Hello. Long time reader, first time poster.

I have a background in exercise phys (BS), so I have been able to read and understand many of the arguments presented by both sides of this argument. What I suggest is that you thoroughly read some of the internet arguments between Frank Day and Andrew Coggan, PhD. You can find them by searching the newsgroups with Google, and even some on this board before Dr. Coggan stopped posting here. You might also get on medline and read up on some of the studies involving elite athletes and pedalling technique etc. You will find that there are lots of holes in the supposed workings of powercranks.

It is not easy reading, by any stretch, especially if you don't have a background in the stuff. This is to Day's advantage because his arguments seem well thought out and based in science, and he does not use much "scientific terminology", in his posts, if you get my meaning. Also, his arguments seem to be based on common sense, or what has become "common sense" because it is what is fed to us by people like Carmichael and Friel, who have basic misunderstandings of exercise phys. That is easy to do. They have books out and they seem to make sense. I mean, it was a long time before I actually said to myself, "Gee...I probably shoudln't believe this works just because someone says so." and started reading.

Frank Day's arguments are not based on a good foundation of exercise physiology, or knowledge of pedalling mechanics. That doesn't mean his cranks don't work, maybe they do and maybe because of some new mechanism heretofore unknown to science. But the research seems to show that pulling up on the pedals, or the ultimate round pedal stroke, or whatever, is not nessecarly correlated with success or strength or power or success as a rider.

Powercranks kick your ass because they are training you to do something that is unnatural for your body: overusing your hip flexor muscles. They were not meant or built to work in the way that powercranks supposedly teach you to use them on a bike. If are able to, read a little bit about length/tension relationships of muscles. Muscles are meant to work best at very specific lengths and in very specific ranges of motion. For example, knee extensor muscles (quads) were built to help you walk and run, and they work great for biking because you are using them in a range and length that are similar to walking and running. Your hip flexors are not in an appropriate range, and even when trained cannot hope to generate near the power of your quads.

You don't have to believe any of what I just wrote. Read up on it yourself. If you can use the internet you are smart enough to figure this stuff out on your own. Don't let testimonials or money back gaurantees sway you. That is the beauty of science...the ability of the human mind to make predictions and understand things based on pretty simple experiments.

I will leave with one more comment regarding the benefits of PC's., or any other supposed training aid. It is the concept of the placebo effect. In the 70's there was a study where weight lifters were given an injection of what seemed to be steroids, but were really just saline injections. The weight lifters were told that it was steroids. Other weight lifters were given nothing. The ones who thought they got the steroids improved their maximal lift by something like 15% in a week.

think about it.

brian286. i see your point, i do.

but, this is the main reason i enjoy talking about PC's like i do - i think you are mistaken, sir. specifically, PC's are not, to me, anything of the sort of gimmick you describe, all things for which i hold an equal disdain as you.

i have 7 or 8 eight bikes up and running. only two have indexed shifting, and i just caved on that around 4-5 years ago. my off road bikes have drop bars on two of three. over half of them have 7 speeds or less, and half of those one speed. clipless pedals are not on them all. they are all steel but one and that one is an old vitus so it is almost the same. :) i do not own a working bike computer. etc etc

PC's are as simple and old schoolish and no nonsense an idea for cycling as they come, IMHO. that it took so long for somebody to come up with them is a marvel, when i think about it. for 100 years people have sought to pedal completely and to the best ability - and PC's make you do it. there is nothing remotely shortcut-ish or quick fix about them whatsoever. indeed they are the utter antithesis of that - you put them on and you suffer and work like a galley slave for things that used to breeze past you like nothing. that is what i am talking about. :)

Brodsky, I have no intention or interest in getting involved in this discussion but I must compliment you on a well-thought out, well-written first time post. Good to have you here.

T2,

The cool thing about PC's is you don't have to do anything different, once you get through the adaption period. The adaption period varies from person to person, possibly as short as a week to as long as three months. Even those who have a long hard adaption period will usually see immediate results in their racing because it seems we improve efficiency faster (especially in the poorly efficient) than they lose fitness.

It is why I now offer a 3 month money-back guarantee. I got less than 5 per 1,000 back on the 60 day guarantee. I would like to get it to zero. You can't know what they can or cannot do for you or how good you are now) by listening to someone who thinks they know what they, and you, are about.

So you don't want to make a mistake and lose ground. What if the PC's are as good as everyone says. Wouldn't you be making a mistake and losing ground to all the PC'ers who started them earlier than you? Afterall, I think PC's are a 5 year project. Those who start them early will have an advantage over those who don't that should last for 3-5 years. One cannot know if they have made a mistake until looking back in retrospect.

---

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

> but I must compliment you on a well-thought out,
> well-written first time post

Haven't you ever heard the expression: "a constipation of ideas buried underneath a diarrhaea of words"?

Still looking for something new in there ...

Dre'

---

-----------
...

Wow, Mr. Brodsky. I am surprised to find out I don't understand physiology. Anyhow. Here is the big fat hole in Dr. Coggin's (and apparently your) analysis. All the studies showing that is is not useful to pull up on the back stroke were done before it was possible to effectively train this form of pedaling. To infer that it was possible and that cyclists just choose to not do it calls into question the sanity of all the PC'ers who are now learning how to do it and like what they see.

If those studies are repeated on Powercrankers and show the same result then it will mean something. Until those studies are done, Coggin's and your criticisms are simply hot air blowing to support your biases. I am working on getting those studies done. I am not afraid of the results. I look forward to how Coggin responds to them when they are done.

Frank

---

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

heh heh that dre' is a sharp fellow, eh?

to T2 and his challenge . . . . well the safest bet for what you describe would be to just wait for winter and try them out like a crazy man on the trainer or, even better, rollers. i myself got them as a very hostile skeptic and just went for broke on them in the heart of the season. the feedback on them was such that a fellow pretty much knows right away what the score is. that's the best i can say.

as for brodsky's commentary . . .well see dre's suscinct summary. :) you can talk all you want about anglular momentum this, and ideal range of that. personally i will take hard work, and new bigger muscles where none were before in direct reponce to hard-ass bike riding resulting in less effort, lower HR, more speed, fresher legs at the end of races, hills cleaned that used to have to walked, etc etc. and, not to put too fine a point on it but - placebo my ass. put in 6 weeks - shoot - 6 HOURS on them and then you tell me - is there any possible way what you are feeling is a placebo effect ? samo samo - if he knew of what he spoke he would not make that comment - - - same as it ever was - sigh.

 

Sorry about that blank. This discussion is never
ending. It is claimed that Powercranks and Rotor
cranks can eliminate the dead spot area, I claim
that Anquetil's linear pedaling is the only way that
it can be completely eliminated. It would be very
interesting if there could be a showdown between
PC's, RC's, Anquetils technique, anklers, stompers
and the circular style riders.
The test could be done by each competitor completing about 1/2 K. from a seated starting position while using only one leg.
One legged pedaling can really sort out pedaling
styles and crank equipment.

"You can take a good look at a T-bone by sticking your head up a bulls ass, but I would rather take the butchers word for it"
tommy boy(Chris Farley)

Brodsky, most trigeeks could write a book on ex. phys esp. those of us who have been at this awhile. We read, study, and more than anything experiment by trial and error. We have all done 3-400 mile weeks, trained by heartrate, you name it. There is gonna come a time you plateau, and then you will take a chance on Powercranks. My first reaction to them was negative, I was trying to figure out why, and this is what I came up with. My friend got them first, dropped a lot of money, took a chance. I was bound and determined to show him that he was a fool as I wasnt bold enough to take a chance with the $$. I was jealous that he had the balls to gamble with his research. Years later, I kick myself for not jumping on then. Read some posts of people like Dev that have been around awhile, they arent idiots! So get your head out of the bulls ass and listen! (joking)

I was a skeptic. I really didn't believe that they would make that big a difference for me, so I didn't buy them. That was until I was told no running for 8 weeks (this past February) due to some really bad shin splints. My coach said try them. With a money back guarantee what's the risk. So I put a pair on, and my workout schedule was rewritten with Power Cranks in the place of running. I still cycled and swam as usual. PCs just replaced running. My first race I was actually faster in the run. I had only run a few times prior and expected to be really slow. I was pretty amazed.

So my point is this. They are a training tool, that if used properly can make you faster. They are not the only way to train or achieve performance gains. They did help me when I needed it,and I'm going to stick with them. I'm not at the point where I've noticed hugh leaps in my cycling times, but there is no denying the fact that PCs aided in the recovery of my shin splints by making me pull the pedals up (beats sitting on the work-bench lifting paint cans with your toes), and they did help my run time.

I've been commuting to work on them for about a month now, and actually like riding them. For me they are worth the money. Anything that will help my lack luster run time without causing more injury is a good piece of gear in my opinion. Speaking of commuting, looking at the clock it appears to be time to get on my PCs and head back to the ranch.

Just my $0.02.

Joel

yes rip, those powerhouses from the OTC do so routinely whup on the former mapei riders, don't they?

I do not have PC's, but am strongly considering them. The arguements by several posters here, including (I think) Francois and Yaquicarbo and others, that they had been riding and training for years before PC's and have dramtically improved their cycling since, but that it took months may well be a placebo effect. And, it might be less related to hip flexors, which are admitted pretty weak when already flexed, and more related to increased hamstring firing from5:00-8:00, or earlier quad firing, say 11:00 instead of 1:00

Even if it is a placebo effect, placebo effect is real and is consistently more effective than no treatment. But, even if the effect is that it one trains harder or better and could achieve the same benefit without them, the apparent fact that it is achieved is still a benefit. Music in earphones or meditation might do the same, and it might be a placebo, but that does mean it is not beneficial to the individual's training.

The faster running before cycling benefit is almost counterintuitive, but apparently consistent, and very intriguing.

---

_________________
Dick

Take everything I say with a grain of salt. I know nothing.

"Friel, who have basic misunderstandings of exercise phys"

________

What aspects of Friel's stuff do you find questionable. FWIW, I'm not trying to troll, just curious as to what I should be particularly skeptical about, in your opinion, as I read through his book (a recent purchase).

T2, I do have some training "drills" that has seemed to work for me.



Ride a tandem with a 5 or 7 year old...... OR ride a triplet with both of them one there. Of course they will be too busy fighting each other to provide much help, but that will only add to your workout. Just wait until you are huffing and puffing up the hill, and one of them will say "....daddy why are we going so slow.....?" Of course then they will immediately start poking their brother (or sister) after (strike that) WHILE they ask you why are we so slow........Then you can do a ride in the middle of July/August. You will get off the bike tired very sweaty after completing 50 miles on this bike (tandem or triplet).....AND THEN.... get this......."daddy why are you sweating so much...(as he/she takes off their helmet, to reveal his dry hair).....I'm not weating at all...!!!!" All you can do is smile........ Of course I am much slower lately while doing this. Something about toating a 60# bike with 100#'s of kids tends to do that to you. Of course when I hop on the Softride it seems like these drills are paying off ;-D

Seriously it works, you should try it. In case you have no kids, you may substitute the neighbor's kids, girlfriend, wife, significant other........ OK, I'm sorry. I just couldn't resist, but I'm sure other tandem/triplet riders would agree with me.



Your question is valid and so are many of the points given. If I was you I would proceed with your drills for now. Then why not borrow your friends PC's during the off season?

funny you mention that rip - just what was the point over the OTC ordering or not ordering some again?

if you truly do not see some significance in the best road team over the past decade seeing use and benefit for PC's i guess that your conclusion to draw. personally i tend to think those fellows might know a thing or two about what is effective and what is not. at least, i might think so enuf to challenge, and then actually try out and see for myself if these things might be so for me - or - i could just sit at my computer and spout and naysay based on no real first hand knowledge whatsoever and expect ( inexplicably ) that people will think i know what i am talking about. we all make these choice for ourselves, i guess.

RIP wrote: "I gather you never asked anybody at the OTC why they didn't order a slew of your cranks, huh Frank? "

Actually, I sent one of my very first pairs to Jeff Broker many years ago. I got back a letter about them being legal to use in a race and we had a little back and forth about how to use them (he claimed, if I remember right, he couldn't use them because of a back problem). Several years later one of my athletes told me they were still in a box there.

One thing I have come to learn is that someone from outside of cycling can't tell those "inside" anything. Why don't you ask them why they haven't ordered a slew of them? I don't have the time or care since a fair number of their Olympians will have trained on them anyhow (at least some), not from their efforts but from mine and the efforts of the individual athletes and their coaches.

Frank

---

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

Frank,

You may be interested to know that one-legged drills were invented long before powercranks. So, it was in fact possible to train this way before you invented powercranks.

Be that as it may, I am sure riding around on PC's constantly is a different training stimulus than doing even quite a bit of one legged drills, so:

Once you have repeated said studies utilizing PC's, as you suggest you are, and have those results printed in a peer-reviewed scientific publication, I will absolutely positively eat my words and proclaim the benefits of powercranks to all who will listen. Until that time, we have a lot of data that shows why PC's should NOT work, and little data that they SHOULD or DO work (barring anecodtal evidence, which as a man of science you must dismiss). You seem to be trying to remedy that situation, and I think that is excellent. Question: Would we see any negative results posted by you? It obviously would not be to your benefit, but in the interest of science...

In the said studies, one of the things that was shown was that a rounder pedal stroke and even unweighting of the pedals seemed to be the natural progression to becoming an elite rider. However, this progression was neither nessecary nor sufficient to produce success as a rider, increased power, etc. So, you are very specifically training something that was shown not to matter...shouldn't we have seen a benefit in those riders who were able to "pull up" or "unweight more"? Of course, you will argue that PC riders will be able to pull up more, and that the difference will be enough to reach statistical significance. Again, we will have to wait for your experiments, but I would be really interested to see results.



Brodsky

Rip writes: "I did."

I feel like this is American Idol, we will get the scoop after the commercial.

---

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

I don't actually have the specifics of when everything fires, but was using that as an example. Maybe they fire sooner or harder, maybe they don't.

---

_________________
Dick

Take everything I say with a grain of salt. I know nothing.

Even though one legged drills have been around for a long time doing all of your pedaling one legged has not and doing both legs at the same time one legged has not (this last aspect help a tad with right left coordination).

I don't deny people have been trying to learn to do this for a long time. I just think it has been pretty much impossible for most to do until PC's. Now there are some exceptions. Alan Larsen, who has won RAAM a few times got on the PC's at Seattle Bike show this year and was able to ride for 20 minutes at a cadence of 90, and could have gone longer. Still, he is now training on them and has written back about them, "I wish I knew about these before".

Oh, and there was a study in a peer reviewed journal where we increased the efficiency of trained cyclists 10% in 6 weeks over the non-PC group. Link to the reference is on the website. I am sure if there was a study showing they didn't work someone would post it. There is a study just starting at Duke, look for the results (I think they are doing cycling and running benefit first, not rehabilitation benefit, don't know as I haven't seen the protocol). Since I don't believe there is a study showing negative or no benefit to the cranks, this might explain this dearth. Why don't you try to prove this non-effect?

---

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

How about "muscular endurance" versus "endurance" for one?

The best thing about a Placebo is: it can make you feel any way you want. (Steve Martin, circa 1980).

If you don't think Powercranks are "the thing" for you, that's fine! Train another way....there are lots of training ideas out there.

If you don't think Powercranks are "the thing" for you, and you try them anyway just to prove they aren't "the thing", you might end up keeping them and eating your words (right, ttn?).

Even if you are certain that Powercranks are not only NOT "the thing" for anyone to try, but that the inventor and all the others that have been fooled by the contraptions are actually fools...so what? Just because you don't agree with, nor understand what the proponents of Powercranks have experienced and/or understood, it certainly is no skin off of your nose....even if you are right, even if Powercranks are at best only a placebo. You stand to gain nothing even if you are right, except to say "I told you so!" Wow. Such a lofty goal....

This arguing stuff is really pointless. The guarantee...now extended to 90 days, should be enough (for anyone that is curious) to actually try them for themselves to determine if PowerCranks yield significant benefits; tangible or intangible, real or imagined, riding and/or running. If not, send them back and even tell us why they didn't seem worth it to you. If you don't at least try them, you don't have firm enough ground to stand on to discredit them.

I had the opportunity to actually ask Lance Armstrong what he thought about Powercranks, in a face-to-face conversation some time ago. It was a personal conversation, and one I will keep private, as it was meant to be. I will only say this...I have trained on PowerCranks and plan to continue to use PowerCranks in some manner....partly because of "the" conversation, but mostly because of my experience with them. Stick that in your book of theory, science, and name dropping. If that isn't a good enough reason for someone to try them, that's fine and dandy with me. Furthermore, if a person has no significant experience with PowerCranks, their opinion about PowerCranks holds no weight to me.

If you want to know about rockets, talk to rocket engineers. If you want to know about math and vector forces, talk to mathematicians and physicists. If you want to know theories of exercise physiology, talk to exercise physiologists. But, if you want to know about PowerCranks...just freakin' ride them for yourself. All others are just guessing regarding something about which they really aren't qualified to evaluate. Over and out.

---

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

As someone below pointed out...one example is muscular endurance vs. endurance. He seems to make up meaningless terms. There is one set of terms that should be used so that everyone understands what each other is talking about: the scientific terms. Making up terms may serve to differentiate his particular training programs from others, but they have no real meaning in terms of physiology. The average person doesn't know this sort of thing, most likely, but if someone wants to be held up as an "expert" of some kind, you ought to be aware of these things.

His advocating strength training is another point. Carmichael is guilty of this as well. Now there is in fact some literature that supports strength training. The studies that show benefits of weights were largely done in UNTRAINED people, for whom any training will improve their fitness. There just isn't any proveable benefit to sterngth work, even his "sport specific" strength work, in athletes who have been training at their sport for any length of time. I don't care who does it, be it the guy down the street or an olympic champion. The overriding principle of physiology is specificity of training. If you want to climb at a cadence of 50 with a ridculous gear, you will get better at that. You should not expect that it will make you better if you try to climb at a cadence of 90.

I'm sorry I don't have more time to write, as these discussions are important to have. I'm working a lot of overtime right now. But these points can serve as starting places for your own reading. Don;t believe it because me or anyone else says it is so. Investigate yourself using a phys text and medline. there is a lot of info out there and you will be surprised how much of it certain popular authors don't know.

I don't understand the criticism. I haven't read the book but because he might differentiate between "muscular" endurance from some other type of endurance, like psychological endurance required to do an IM, when talking to non-scientists doesn't bother me. Further, it just seems he interprets the data differently than you when talking about strength training. Sounds more like sour grapes and a difference in interpretaion of the data than real criticisms of the science, to me. Why don't you write your own book or start your own coaching empire then we can all do it the correct way, using your interpretation of the contradictory data.

---

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

Maybe Friel is trying to differentiate it from bone endurance.

One time, in a similar discussion about ankling, I had them going for awhile by promoting my "toeing" technique as an evolution of ankling. I first convinced them that toes were strong because you can stand on your tippy toes and then talked about how I quit training altogether because this technique alone allowed me to simply ride off the front of Pro/1/2 races. Also, you had to use SPD sandals because conventional cycling shoes are obviously too rigid.

Brodsky wrote: Don;t believe it because me or anyone else says it is so. Investigate yourself using a phys text and medline. there is a lot of info out there and you will be surprised how much of it certain popular authors don't know.

Very good recommendation, albeit incomplete. There are literally truckloads of pertinent information to be gleaned on these subjects. But, not ALL of the information is found using a physiology text and medline....you can read all you like about pole vaulting, but until you do it, you won't understand it the way a good pole vaulter understands it. Same with many other subjects....including the one in this thread.

By the way, I'm not surprised at all about how much certain popular authors don't know. Nor am I surprised about how much PhD's DON'T know about their own field of study...and I'd venture to say that those with PhD's that realize they don't "know it all" are MUCH smarter than the PhD's that think they do know it all. I also don't trust anyone that relies solely upon medline or Pubmed or any other conglomeration of published papers for the totality, even majority, of their formed opinions...it's an incomplete list at best, often contradictory, and often: proven wrong over time.

That's the way science is. In over 25 years of being a scientist, I can tell you there is a lot of misinformation in peer-reviewed publications, as well as published texts...I'm not saying peer-review isn't better than non-peer-reviewed garbage, I'm just saying peer-review doesn't equate to "Truth". "Peer-reviewed" just means that: at some time, a bunch of people approved something to be published that seemed to be done in an acceptable manner. Again, it doesn't make it Truth.

Muscular endurance, endurance, even bone endurance (yes, there IS such a thing as bone endurance...ever consider it under the context of a stress fracture?)...they are all correct terms if used in a certain context. They are all incorrect if used in other contexts. It doesn't really matter that much.

Some people believe Cardiac Output, or Lung function are the limiting factors to exercise. Others believe it is local muscle cell function and or specifics of the Mitochondrial environment that is the limiter to exercise...doesn't matter much...both groups probably train in similar manners. Depending upon the situation, and the test used to observe the situation (although observing a test is always fraught with the problem of: the observer misinterprets the result of the test because THAT is what observers do...interpret results, not "find the Truth"), both groups can claim their idea is some semblance of the Truth. Doesn't matter....train one way, see what happens. Train another way, see what happens. The Truth is found somewhere in the DOING.

There are at least two categories of scientists: Those that realize the more they know, the more they realize they don't know; Or, those that think their expanding base of knowledge is actually making them more complete, rather than leaving them with more questions.

---

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

on a related note, yaqui . . . last night i mentioned this thread to the wife. she herself has a set of PC's, but uses them only sparingly. when i asked why that is she said " well yeah obviously they " work" , that is not the point. i don't really care all that much how fast i ride a bicycle - mostly i am happy with how i am now - you're a freak for riding them all the time". gotta love the female ability to cut thru the crap sometimes, no?

anyway, last nite she went to point out that much of the content of the thread soundly hauntingly familiar to the (very) old business that went down back when skate style xc skiing appeared. before that medal by the marathon-skating bill koch, and even for a good time afterwords there was much debate. interestingly, it took the same basic lines as the PC one thus far - with guys who actually went outdoors and learned to skate raving, and those who didn't offering overworded article after no longer relevant study after prissy smug " in-the-know" snipe as to why skating could never work.

the same arguments were seen. it wasn't biomechanically proper. the body couldn't physiolgically do what we were asking it to do. the old way was more efficient. and of course my personal favorite - it was a placebo effect at work. possibly one or two of them actually DID try a few faultering skate strides and sucked at it - and instead of putting in the time returned to their desk with renewed vigor to pontificate as to why skating would never work, and all those guys you see flying around the lake are "fooling themselves".

none of this mattered to those of us out on the frozen lakes or golf courses or glaciers. sometimes it wasn't pretty, and sometimes we suffered, and sometimes we just made stupid errors ( poles up past your forehead . . . . ). but we knew we were going faster with less effort and any fool who ould shut up and look out the window, at least, could see that if he had a mind to. you know, the xc crowd and the tri-head crowd are similar. lots of over educated dudes in a participatory activity. within that subset are always, i guess, gonna be guys who prefer to try to impress others with their self baked knowledge of the sport, as opposed to simply going out and enjoying or progressing it. there will always be prissy little-girl smug yayhoos like that red-shoe guy stroking himself over his smuggness , trying to wrap it in some pathetic shell/veil of "science" when, as yaqui points out - it is nothing of the sort.

none of this should matter to those who are out on the snow, so to speak. as the wife concluded " obviously none of those guys know what they are talking about, just like the old time skiiers. why would anybody listen to them, when you could just go ski and see for yourself?"

Bravo!!!

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

t-t-n wrote: "i guess, gonna be guys who prefer to try to impress others with their self baked knowledge of the sport, as opposed to simply going out and enjoying or progressing it."

I agree with this statement and I also don't ever want to think of myself as a stick in the mud. My thinking on this has been more along the lines of what Brian said way back in the thread that there is always something in every magazine that promises to make you faster, stronger, leaner you name it. Nothing much about hard work and consistency...you know just putting in the time. So I guess I have simply been trying to advocate the tried and proven means of improvement rather than hype. I think we can all agree, even you Frank, that some of the claims of improvement have been pretty far fetched to say the least. Didn't somebody say PC's made them taller (joke).

That said though, I must admit I am still curious. If I wasn't why would I care to get this discussion going in the first place. Didn't you act like you weren't interested in that girl in school...but you were! At any rate you have made sound points, at least to me, to give them a try and make a call after a fair trial. Most likely I will wait until base to do so given the fact that I am in the race season but I intend to give them a shot.

well i am going to guess that you aren't a skiier either, rip. a fellow has to give you credit for boldly pontificating a a wide variety of subjects which you actually know nothing tho - so there is that. anyway, skating was not a rapid revolution at all. it gained serious ground only after that medal, but had been around for years before that. there was nothing "clear" about it during that time - not because it wasn't faster - only because guys who never did it liked to talk a lot.

the analogy for PC's, at this time (and as i said), is really BEFORE the medal. that has not happened yet.



your challenge of the word "we" to mr day is just poor reading on your part and stupid, btw, as is that quack thing. once again, anybody who has so much as entered a high end roadie hangout knows that a certain level if exclusivity and insular thinking is a part of cycling culture.

RIP wrote: "That's a bad analogy, because the skate technique in skiing - like clapskates in skating - caught on very quickly because it was so clearly superior. So far, that hasn't happened with PCs, despite the fact that they have been around for a number of years now. Why is that, if they provide such a large improvement in speed?? "

Here is my take on that. Bias and the entrenched old boys network (how does someone from outside of cycling tell those inside he can improve on what they have done for years?), plus the fact that skate skiing and clap skates were all used in competition so the advantages were obvious to all whereas, up til now, PC's are so much harder and most cycling races are so long, that most users only use them in trainng and many do not know the competition is using them or the advantages.

I know of several elite athletes who have wanted to try them but their coaches told them they didn't need them or they were a gimmick or whatever. Erin Mirabella got a pair very early on but her coach wouldn't let her use them. She has a new coach now and he is making her use them. She is not alone in this regard.

This is one of the reasons I am offering incentives to athletes to race on the cranks, to increase the visibility of them and to point out the wimpiness of many of the current users ("oh, poor me, these are so hard I could NEVER do an IM on them cause I can't do any long rides on them, boo, hoo, hoo") Seems that argument will soon go the way of the "marathons are too hard for girls" approach to physiology as soon as someone does RAAM on them, if not this year, probably next.

---

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

of course the only two options for the comment available are the ones that you see rip. as we have seen that is largely how you interact with the world at large.

i likewise do not have any doubt that you did not know of skating prior to the medal. it was outside the established line of thinking, and thus, i am sure, quite unavailable to you by your own walls. let me guess, once the medal WAS won, you rushed to your electric typewriter to tell us all how only a top level olypiam could POSSIBLY marathon skate a race like that. how a full field skate was only approprite for 50 yards or less, and how a V1 or V2 skate would never work over any distance as it was physiological impossible. we have heard all this before. i will stand by my admiration of you for maintaining bold statements of 'fact" on subjects which you haveno experience, tho. maybe you should run for office.

"We" means Powercranks. I knew nothing of this study until I was informed it was going to be published. I did provide a pair of cranks to the investigator for such a purpose many years before, although I had lost contact with him.

---

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

Let's take the three professional racers you reference: I assume that they are using PCs. How many races did Messrs. Museeuw, Hincapie, and Leipheimer win prior to using PCs? How many races have they won after using PCs? Surely you know the answers.

---

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

In regards to how people are using them and their motivations, I only know what I am told. I am also not their coach. The fact that someone has a pair doesn't mean they are being used optimally. I brought her up as an illustration as to explain, perhaps, why they had not "taken off" as we would all expect, "if they are so good".

I am glad to see you limited you criticism of her to failing to win a race to the US since she won a World Cup event earlier this year in Mexico. "slower and slower" indeed. One thing you are extremely good at is being critical of the athletic efforts of others.

---

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

Excellent posts Brodsky, welcome to the forum and keep them coming.



And since Dr. Coggan doesn't post here anymore, someone has to be saying at all times "Specificity, specificity, specificity!!!" :-)



Paulo

---

-
"Yeah, no one likes a smartass, but we all like stars" - Thom Yorke


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

truly your hubris knows few bounds, rip. YOU couldn't do it, or figure it out, so it was the skiis, or the technique, or something other than your own lack of experience or willingness to put in the time.

where do you think ANY of the early skaters laid the groundwork from? we worked at it. we did not listen to wankers who told us crap from indoors when we - outdoors - knew better. we made errors and struggled some, as i said before. what we were doing was not for the masses, but neither was it "impossible" or in our heads. we didn't make excuses about equpment, we made our own or modifiied what we had or made itbetter. we . . . . . . .get this now, rip . . . . . . . .D-I-D stuff. we did NOT whine and naysay and pontificate, until we knew what we were pontificating about.

whatever. you are a self professed knowitall who knows not of what you speak, on evidently any topic. later, fool.

So, when I'm climbing and I feel the pressure of my shoe on the top of my foot when on the upstroke (with normal cranks), am I pulling up? Why was this training not possible before PCs?

You do yourself a disservice by (I can only assume, since you are intelligent, literate, and have seen his name several thousand times) deliberately misspelling Dr. Coggan's name. Knock it off.

---

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

"Some people believe Cardiac Output, or Lung function are the limiting factors to exercise. Others believe it is local muscle cell function and or specifics of the Mitochondrial environment that is the limiter to exercise"

Belief has nothing to do with science. It is what the data shows that matters. These disputes are clearly answered by experiment. Lung function is not a limiter unless there is lung disease. Muscles will use as much oxygen as the heart can provide. These points can be clearly found in a basic undergrad physiology text. This is exactly the problem: People "believe" things without supporting evidence. The link someone posted to the quackwatch site is particularly germane.

Brodsky

Actually, I don't know the answer. I don't have a clue how many professional races those individuals won before using PC's, plenty I suspect. I am not sure it is reasonable to ask how many after as evidence of anything in view of the three names. Museeuw has been on them a couple of years so how many races did he win in the last couple of years? He should have won PR this year but an untimely flat nixed that. To claim his loss there was due to PC's making him slower would be pure idiocy. Hincapie started on them this spring and won his first race in several years. Leipheimer started on them last spring and lost his season due to an unfortunate injury in the TDF.

What is more impressive to me is not necessarily what they have done or not done race-wise since starting them, as the kind of racing they do it would be difficult to see an obvious PC advantage in a short time but, rather, that these individuals determined on their own, after trying them, that they thought PC's would help them to get even better. Of all the very elite pro's who are using them I would say I have had more sales from direct referrals from Museeuw and Hincapie than any others. "Hello, PC's, Johan (George) says I need to get these". Guess, they haven't told you that yet, or they have but you don't respect their cycling ability because they haven't won much lately, and, besides, they are not familiar with the cycling literature that proves PC's are a bunch of hooey, and their ability is probably all due to drugs anyhow so, of course, their opinion can't be trusted.

---

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

Brodsky wrote: " Muscles will use as much oxygen as the heart can provide."

thereby demonstrating your lack of understanding of how oxygen is delivered to the tissues and the limiters thereof.

Yes, these questions caan be answered by experiment. The problem is in properly interpreting the data. You blew it here.

---

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

http://www.google.com/...%20stress%20fracture

Yes, terms have meaning if you make them up and redefine them anyway you please.

The Earth is flat, if, by flat you mean round.

I'm going to call this phenomenon PowerCrankSpeak.

So let's interpret it the other way: "Muscles will use more oxygen than the heart can provide." So O2 diffuses through the skin? Photosynthesis?

Sounds like more PowerCrankSpeak to me!

if you are feeling your toes on the tops of your shoes you are probably pulling up. And training like this was possible before PC's. what was not possible was to actually concentrate on this every stroke of every ride and to get the feedback if you ever got the least bit lazy.

Sorry about the misspelling. Am spelling phonetically I guess. I will practice, Coggan. There I did it. Probably be easier if he were still posting, at least under his own name.

Frank

---

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

Uhhh, no. This is what I meant earlier by your misunderstandings of physiology. Again, I refer you to Costill or Astrand or any other physiology text.

Motor units are perfused with blood when they are activated by the nervous system. The limiter is cardiac output; perfusion of muscle must be balanced against systemic blood pressure. If you suddenly and maximally perfused all possible motor units, you'd be on the floor because of low blood pressure. So, in fact, the ultimate exercise limiter is cardiac output. If you could endlessly increase your cardiac output, your criticism might be understandable at least.

This point is demonstrable by testing oxygen uptake while exercising a small muscle mass. I'll try to find one of the papers if you need a citation...a physician friend of mine is writing a book and turned me onto it. Basically, O2 uptake (and local blood flow) is higher when you exercise a small muscle mass because the heart is able to perfuse that muscle more, because maintaining systemic bp is easier.

Finally, if 02 delivery was not the issue, why does EPO work? It doesn't increase heart function, but does in fact increase the amount of available 02 per unit of blood. And it certainly does not change cellular factors.

Brodsky

No Mr. Bitey. Oxygen diffuses from the capillaries to the mitochondria. One can exercise a single muscle to past anaerobic threshold (the point where oxygen delivery lags need) without exceeding the hearts ability to deliver more blood. The most important limiter to oxygen delivery to the muscle is capillary density in that muscle, not the heart.

It is "SIMPLE" physiology, if one has an adequate understanding of physiology. If one doesn't, well, then, stuff like this pops up.

---

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

Here's the answer, as far as Museeuw goes: a whole f'ing lot of races. My point is that these people were highly accomplished winners before using PCs; I can't imagine a scenario where their performance after using PCs could be used to show the benefit of PCs. Throwing these names around shows nothing of significance.

As for the idiocy of claiming PCs made him slower, that's a poor strawman argument that nobody has raised, but you.

To use the argument "hey, they think PCs work" is also pretty useless. A lot of people think tied and soldered spokes make better wheels, too. There is a lot of "myth and lore" in cycling that resists science and common sense.

---

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

Sorry, but you claimed that muscles can use oxygen not delivered by the heart. What you wrote doesn't support that claim. We all know about anaerobic glycolysis but you're still talking about oxygen delivery and use which doesn't sound anaerobic to me.

The tower of PowerCrankSpeak collapses!

I was not going to get into this debate, and I will not as far as powercranks go, until there is enough data on the subject gathered specifically from the use of powercranks. Otherwise, we are simply making educated (or not so educated guesses) about why they work or do not work. Standard physiology thinking says no, Frank says yes, but until there is more experiment all of us must agree that there is no *specific* data and we are all just blowing smoke.

However, I will say that Frank has missed the boat on this one. Brodsky's post about cardiac output being the limiter was right on. You and I both learned this in physiology in med school, Frank. I'd be interested to know where you got any idea otherwise. (Seriously, I'm not trolling here I am wondering if there was some work I am not aware of).

Philbert

---

Dr. Philip Skiba
Scientific Training for Endurance Athletes now available on Amazon!

All excellent points, Brodsky. Welcome to the group.

Philbert

---

Dr. Philip Skiba
Scientific Training for Endurance Athletes now available on Amazon!

The fact that one can force more blood through a small exercising muscle mass than through a very large exercising muscle mass, because BP can be kept higher with lower CO is not proof that the limiter to oxygen delivery is the heart or crdiac output. Your "suddenly increased blood flow perfused all muscle mass you would be on the floor" explanation does not work either as such is not possible in healthy individuals (or give me an instance of where this has occurred in the absence of a pathological condition like shock).

As with most pumps, output pressure will drop some as pumped volume increases. Since the distribution through the muscle is purely passive, this will affect the amount of blood that can get through the existing capillary bed. However, the heart is not the limiter unless it cannot respond to increased demand. To increase the demand and to improve oxygen delivery all one needs to do is to train more to develop a more dense capillary bed. This both increases the caapillary cross section but also decreases the mean diffusion distance, making delivery of oxygen more efficient. This new improved muscle can therefore pass more blood and deliver more oxygen even though there may be a nominally lower blodd pressure. The question is, is the heart the limiter? In the absence of cardiac disease, it is not. It is simply a matter of interpretation of the data and the basic understanding of how oxygen is delivered to the tissue. You and your friend have got it wrong.

---

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

RIP wrote: "Brodsky is correct, and you are wrong. The evidence is as follows:

1) there is very little O2 left in venous blood draining muscle during exercise at/near VO2max,

2) increasing O2 delivery to muscle results in an increase in VO2max.

The capacity of muscle to utilize O2 is therefore clearly not limiting, at least during exercise engaging more than a small fraction of the total muscle mass.

Being generous, I assume that the reason he understands this simple fact and you do not is just because he has studied exercise physiology, and you have not. "

Little oxygen in the veous blood at VO2 max is evidence the muscle has extracted all it is capable of, not that the heart cannot increase cardiac output if the muscle could take more.

Misinterpretation of the data is misinterpretation of the data regardless of what he has studied. Perhaps I understand this and he doesn't is because I had many years training as an MD anesthesiologist where delivery of oxygen to the tissues under all sorts of awful circumstances is the number one job. Understanding what is really going on and what makes it easier and harder helps in this job.

It is a relatively easy job to increase cardiac output without changing oxygen consumption.

Frank

---

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

Philbert wrote: "You and I both learned this in physiology in med school, Frank. I'd be interested to know where you got any idea otherwise. (Seriously, I'm not trolling here I am wondering if there was some work I am not aware of). "

I didn't learn that in medical school and i doubt you did either. What I learned was that CO simply responded to peripheral demands. The main determinant of CO response to exercise is venous return which is determined by peripheral demands. To say otherwise requires there to be an active control of the heart to provide cardiac output primarily in anticipation of peripheral demands. It don't work that way. If the heart were the limiter we would all stop exercising in response to chest pain.

Even if we were taught that in medical school, one of the things I was taught in medical school was: "50% of what we are teaching you will be deemed wrong in 10 years, only problem is we don't know which 50%" If we were taught that, it was part of the wrong 50%.

Fran

---

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

alright. you fellers can talk that o2 stuff all day, but this is more to me:

"As any experienced skier will tell you, the skate technique is actually quite easy to master. If, however, you try it with old-fashioned wooden skis (remember those?) or the early fiberglass ones (waxed or waxless), you won't find yourself going any faster. This is why no one, including myself, ever used it except in certain situations. Again, it wasn't until much stiffer fiberglass skis that kept the kick wax from dragging on the ground all the time came along that people realized the potential. The skate technique in skiing is therefore much more akin to clapskates than it is to, say, the Fosbury flop. "



blah blah. how intriguing. i really do think rip should run for office - just blather on in a pedantic tone about complete rubbish and it MUST be right. in this case, tho, as in most of his drivel, nothing actually is with the key point being he would actually know that already if he had actually DONE it. same as it ever was, with rip.

easy to master? uhhhh no. stand in wave 2 or 3 to wave 14 of the birkie and watch those people and tell me how easy it is to master - those enthusiats certainly haven't.

try it on older skiis and it isn't faster? uhhhh, no again. the technique was ALWAYS faster, how could it not be? maybe you just sucked at it, or maybe you were too stupid to scrape your kick wax off or maybe - more likely - you would rather write about something you don't know about because you were ( are) too lazy to bust your ass sufficiently to put yourself in an actual position of knowledge.

it wasn't till better eqipment came along that it was practical? uhhhhh, no again. where do you think that equipment CAME FROM? it came from people who . . . . . pay attention now rip . . . . . . had DONE IT making demands and requests for it. we knew it was there, we put in the time, and then we got ski makers to make it easier so lazy knowitalls like yourself could do it too. that is how it happened.

and, the analogy still holds. early skating was hard, it was not fully understood, and it was not for everybody, and idiot physiacally lazy knowitalls who couldn't do it with large vocabulary's always badmouthed it with various overworded and irrelevant faux-scientific jargon to stroke themselves. in the early days it took more out of you than it gave back. sound familiar?

you don't get it, and you are too freaking lazy to find out better for yourself - a pitiful state of being, to be sure. that you would take the next step and continue on prattling like you do given your lack of real experirence is so sad as to actually be maddening, from the sense of waste.

So, RIP, which would be the better oxygen delivery lottery to win? Increase CO capability lottery or the increased capillary density (increased ability of the muscle to pass blood and extract oxygen) lottery. I'll go for the second. You go for the first.

Actually, it isn't necessary to win the lottery for the less than elite as through training, one does develop the muscle capability and the CO capability follows. it is not the other way around.

---

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

Look RIP, you (all all the others) can claim that deliveryof oxygen during exercise is different than at other times if you want. Fine. Show me some data to indicate what has changed and I may believe it (depending upon the data, of course). I for one think I have a pretty good understanding of this stuff and until I have some data to indicate that my understanding is wrong I will continue to believe same. Your pronouncements that I am lacking don't bother me. Give me some data that means something.

Frank

---

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

mr day. you are asking rip to produce data that means something, and i am asking him to obtain practical experience in the subjects he spouts off about. i guess your request counts double in the sense that you have experience in holding people's very lives in your hand based on your knowledge of the subject you are debating and he . . . . . . . . . . ho hum . . . . . . does not.

most people would, you know, find those request sorta reasonable.

i got a buck that sez rip will be undaunted by either request, however.

there you go mr day, you owe me a buck.

RIP, you ought to review what determines CO. Inthe absence of external cardiac stimulant drugs which can transiently affect CO, CO is determined mostly by venous return.

Epo works, not because it increases CO, but because it improves the amount of oxygen the muscle can extract using the existing capillary density and CO. The limiter is the local muscles ability to extract oxygen from the blood, not the ability of the heart to deliver oxygen to the muscle.

---

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

Don't worry, I am not going to take your word for it. Who is Michael Kjaer? Why isn't he here so we can ask him?

---

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

Tim,

the best scientists try to develop theories that support observation. In this instance, the PC opponents here will not even attempt to observe the devices, simply proclaiming they cannot work. You were an opponent once who was willing to let them speak to you themselves and you were converted. The PC's are so powerful they can overcome the strongest bias, if theyare given a chance. You are correct in pushing them to get some real experience.

In view of my academic arguments, I am simply someone with an appropriate background that refuses to be bullied by their "your not smart enough to understand this stuff so trust me" argument.

Frank

---

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

If you can show specific evidence to support this statement, we might be able to put this issue to bed once and for all.

Thanks again to all for the informative and entertaining debate.

RipVanNotAPCerChameleon,

Why don't you write up the difinitive paper on why PowerCranks can't work/don't work? Also, consider coming out from behind the shroud of you handles, step up and let us know who you are and why we should buy any of your arguments.

I'm pretty sure I know why you have not/will not do either of these things. I think you know too...

Cluck cluck...

I think you've got a slam dunk if you can show some evidence that say... during a repeated, sub max single leg knee extension (with similar forces and contraction frequencies that the quad group would see during cycling or running at VO2max) that O2 extraction is incomplete.

If during whole body exercise that extraction is complete, and if the muscle group is worked in isolation with similar forces and frequencies of contraction and the extraction is not complete; it seems to me your argument would be proven and even Frank would come around.

Ask him to come here and speak for himself. the abstract you referenced has little to do with this issue although it did go to my cntention that CO is primarily determined passively. Nervous system activation can be useful to help smooth the transition and control blood pressure. (the failure to maintain blood pressure in the spinal patients probably had more to do with the nervous system failing to reduce blood flow to the non-essential tissue, a homeostatic mechanism that has evolved to allow improved capability.

Frank

---

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

redshoe boy writes:

The above statement alludes to Frank's ultimate goal. His goal is not to educate, learn or understand. His ultimate goal is to convert people over to the seeing the "truth". "

again we see a simple lack of decent reading comprehension, stemming from a preconceived agenda leading to an idiotic challenge or accusation. in his instance 'converted" is a colorful term for " changed your mind on evidence of direct experience". however, since neither you nor rip HAVE direct experience perhaps it is a bit much to expect you to understand the implications of it now.

your statements are, as usual, without balance or perspective apart from from your own promotion, shoe boy. go back and read your red-shoe thing and tell yourself how gosh durn clever you are. we know you really really do like that red-shoe thing.

You are right Kraig, it's an interesting choice of words. Frank Day could have used "convinced" or "understood the principle" but he alluded to a convertion. That says it all.

---

-
"Yeah, no one likes a smartass, but we all like stars" - Thom Yorke


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

Curious wrote: "I think you've got a slam dunk if you can show some evidence that say... during a repeated, sub max single leg knee extension (with similar forces and contraction frequencies that the quad group would see during cycling or running at VO2max) that O2 extraction is incomplete."

Possibly. the problem is exercise involves many muscles. If one of them fails because it has reached maximal extraction, then the body must shut down, the others can't just keep going. If the muscle that is being measured is not the limiting muscle, then extraction may not be complete even though the limit is not cardiac. Every new PC'er understands this as their ability to exercise ceases when the new muscles reach their limit, even though they are way under their usual capabilities.

Further, if the CO were the limiting factor, all muscles (including the heart) should reach this limit at the same time. It don't happen.

---

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

You're kidding, RIGHT??? ROTFLOL..................

---

-
"Yeah, no one likes a smartass, but we all like stars" - Thom Yorke


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

says it all, ya right. you guys are not really serious, are you?

the term is one reflecting the powerful experience that comes from riding anf training on the things. i used it myself, after experiiencing them. that you cannot grasp that says far more about the glaring and complete LACK of knowledge of the experience which you are so eager to bash, than it does anything.

get freaking real - you guys do not know of what you are speaking. yet speak and speak you do. pathetic.

Man, who doesn't love a good PC flame war?

Rip- over several threads you've invested a fair amount of time making it clear that you don't believe that PCs are necessary or sufficient to improve cycling performance. Maybe you've given some thought as to how to prove it?

Hypothesis- regular use of PCs does NOT improve cycling performance in trained recreational athletes. (Or elite, I'm more interested in the former, personally).

What would a well designed experiment to answer the question look like? I ask because I'm curious and like most people around here am happy to admit I don't know much of anything about exercise physiology.

Ken

RIP wrote: "ointed you at innumerable studies accessible via PubMed that support my statements, and others have referred you to textbooks on the subject. I am not sure what more can be done to help educate you."


Refer us to some studies that are relevant to your arguments. Let's see, we have been shown studies referring to pathological states, and children, etc. to which YOU (and perhaps others) have wrongly extrapolated the data is valid for the healthy individual.

---

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

Re: Drills vs. PC's [Brodsky] by Frank Day wrote:

"Until those studies are done, Coggin's and your criticisms are simply hot air blowing to support your biases."

Good Lord. What biases do you think Coggan has? Upholding principles of good science? What about your biases?

Joel

t-t-n,



Your post would fit right into alt.rec.aliens, congratulations!

You're one of the chosen one, you saw the light, while us, we are those that either await convertion or forever will live in the real world of cycling.

---

-
"Yeah, no one likes a smartass, but we all like stars" - Thom Yorke


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

uhhh, smartass. it is you who are hung up ona word conveying meaning which was not intended, not i.

i said the term was used in colorful reference to convey something. that something could be said to be on the order of " has actually experienced them first hand and weighed it on previous experiences and concluded that they are an effective training tool"

your commentary vis a vis the aliens or whateverthehell since the first is still adrift, and meaningless (as is your argument).

anyway, await what you will, or actually find out for yourself as did i, or just keep talking like a dumbass about stuff you don't know about,. congratulations yourself on the fine decision you have made thus far on those choices.

I had to go down to your level, I mean... you don't even get that the red shoe thing is a JOKE!



Anyway, I won't flame you anymore, this is not rst and we're in the 21st century now.

---

-
"Yeah, no one likes a smartass, but we all like stars" - Thom Yorke


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

uhhhh, i do. it is a very funny joke, willet enjoys the joke over and over so many times. some jokes and parody's are funny, and some are stupid and used inappropriately. that you cannot see the difference is somewhat troubling, for a guy who deams himself at a certain "level".

RIP the Richardson study is interesting but doesn't prove your point, at least in the abstract. How did they measure O2 uptake, whole body or femeral venous blood? How did they control for isometric contraction of other muscles in the body to increase blood pressure, to increase blood flow to the isolated muscle which would allow for increased work, and, BTW, these isometric contractions would also increase total body oxygen consumption even though these muscles were doing absolutely no "work".

Why did they theorize that the muscle didn't reach full extraction before reaching the cardiac output limit? Did they measure cardiac output? Was it equal to or above these subjects normal "maximum"?

How the data is gathered and how it is interpreted is critical to whether the conclusions drawn are valid. My guess is this study proves nothing towards your argument although i can see how one might wrongly misinterpret it.

---

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

but indeed. i actually have no issue with red-shoe boy. it is the inappropriate use of his self-gratifying parody that i have issue with.

specifically, if you fellows had or would bother to have experience with PC's you would no longer see the parody as apprapo to them.

this, really is the ultimate crux of the issue. no flame, just fact - you do not have experience with them. you have not trained on them nor have you observed others do so under meaningful circumstances. you - quite simply - do not know what you are talking about. i mean that most literally. you may have convinced yourself that you do - but the real world is quite clear that you do not. yet talk and talk you do. odd, that.

RIP writes: "So you're now claiming that it isn't possible to exercise at intensities above 100% of VO2max?"

No, however, if one goes anaerobic on one muscle it must eventually stop performing. The 60 meter sprinter can pretty do his race regardless of what the VO2 max is or the rate of oxygen delivery to the tissues is. Lance Armstong or any endurance athlete cannot.

Again, you misconstrue the point to try to make a point that I am an idiot. I may be but I haven't seen the data yet to prove it.

---

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

You're funny, I like you...

---

-
"Yeah, no one likes a smartass, but we all like stars" - Thom Yorke


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

IMO it's not up to RIP or anyone else to prove that PCs don't work, it's up to the seller to prove that they do in fact work as described.

The problem is that the seller proclaims that such enornmous improvements are possible using PCs ("typical cyclist/triathlete can increase power on the bicycle 40% (that's 2-3 mph faster on the road for most) in 6 months and the typical runner can take 20 minutes off their marathon time in less than 3 months.") that if true, would make any scientific studies purely academic as the improvements in performance would be so obvious and apparent that in short order the whole world would be using them.

I suspect that PCs may in fact "work" (but not nearly to the magnitude claimed), but not by increasing efficiency, or potential sustained power output, but simply because they force users to train at a higher average intensity than they would otherwise (whitness the "difficulty" of pedaling/training in this fashion initially). If this is the case however, then potential users must realize that they can similar acheive results simply by training more intensely., i.e. there are no shortcuts.

Joel

Coggan (oops, almost wrote Coggin) refused a free pair to simply look at or evaluate. His biases are pretty evident if you read his posts. they are pretty similar to RIPs except Coggan has made such statements as the pedaling motion requires zero, zilch, nada energy or some such BS. Further, he is so enamored with his own research that he belittles everyone elses that might draw a different conclusion than what he has previously drawn.

Read his posts.

Frank

---

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

Oh, I agree that if you want to claim performance benefits, there should be some data (not the plural of anecdote, i love it!) that support the claim. So the question would be equally valid to pose to Frank. He has mentioned some studies in the past, I haven't seen them, I wouldn't feel qualified to comment on the validity of them anyway. So I asked Rip, since he seems to have some expertise in the area, how he would conduct the test. What would a well conducted trial look like, and how would we know it was well-designed? I'm guessing more data will be available in the future, and asking for some guidance in interpreting them.

Ken

hey smartass. i know i am funny, but thanks anyway. i like you too.

czone posits a fine sounding theory . . . . . .but i have a bag of do-nuts here that sez if he got some PC's and rode them steady for 6 weeks he would withdraw the theory, tho. :) haven't we been here before?

and, in a related note, how come none of you guys get on slowtwitch and piss and moan about endurox or cytofuel or whoeverthehell claiming 40 % better this or 30 % improved that? just wondering.

anybody want to talk politics? much less contentious...

---

f/k/a mclamb6

Kenwill wrote: "he problem is that the seller proclaims that such enornmous improvements are possible using PCs ("typical cyclist/triathlete can increase power on the bicycle 40% (that's 2-3 mph faster on the road for most) in 6 months and the typical runner can take 20 minutes off their marathon time in less than 3 months.") that if true, would make any scientific studies purely academic as the improvements in performance would be so obvious and apparent that in short order the whole world would be using them. "

It is not possible to "prove" the above statements with the resources available to me but it is what i believe. Many users have reported greater benefit than the claims. It is why I offer a 90 day money back guarantee to let the user "prove" it to him or herself, which is the only "proof" that should matter. When I offered a 60 day guarantee I got less than 5 in 1,000 back so I increased it to 90. I am tring to get it to zero, if that is possible. Put your biases and suspicions to the test. Give them a try then come back here and bash them with some authority.

---

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

This is not politics, but Frank Day and his followers sure make it look like religion...

---

-
"Yeah, no one likes a smartass, but we all like stars" - Thom Yorke


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

Check this out. In an effort to be fair and balanced...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...mp;list_uids=7503247

If I'm reading this right, this seems to support a counter argument.

Czone,

Rip and AC, and others have been asked that question in the past and failed to answer with any specificity.

Actually, a study design to answer the question of "do they work" is pretty simple, and was done reasonably well by the Luttrell group (no study is ever "perfect"). I think another study is just getting underway at Duke to answer this question also. What is more difficult to do would be to do a study to answer the question of "how much could they work?" (when maximum benefit may take 5 years) or "How do they work", (when there may be many mechanisms) assuming they work.

---

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

careful now--i pc but i am not religious about them. they work me for me. if it's placebo, well, ignorance is bliss.

happy training.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

redshoe-boy asks: "Are you afraid to answer the Redshoe question because it reveals a weakness in your position of the PC deal? "

uhhhh. hooboy are we funny. anyway, i really don't think you need me to comment further on your little parody, as i know you enjoy it so much yourself. somewhat oddly, i might add. they say in humour timing is everything. close second to that is perhaps oh, i dunno, context? specifically, the context of your sure to be pulitzer winning little red-shoe placebo/gimmick/sillything take-off parody is misplaced when it comes to PC's. wrong place, wrong context, and whaddya know you suddenly need a laugh track to try to MAKE it funny. just like those old reruns of three's company, sometimes that doesn't even help. so it is with red-shoe, i'm afraid, red-shoe boy.

if you knew what PC's actually DO, you would not try to cram that tired lame-ass parody like a 2:00 am sit-com on us in reference to them. but you don't. you have not trained on them, nor observed anybody do so under meaningful circumstances, have you?

Rip I explained my potential objections to the study in my post. Address those and maybe we can talk. Otherwise, the abstract is unconvincing. There are plenty of explanations for those results, as presented in the abstract, other than yours.

---

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

Agreed.

And for Frank...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...mp;list_uids=3057322

and

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...mp;list_uids=3414535

i have been down that road before with red-shoe boy. he never , to my knowledge, comes out and actually says what his experience with them is.

he certainly never STARTS a post by stating clearly and openly " i used PC's for XX mount of time in XXX fashion and here is what i found' like everybody else in the world does.

he instead lets this supposed secret use of them sit there in the background, and he hints at it from time to time. i once equated his overall pattern of disclosure of this topic to be very much like that of a high maintenance teenage psycho girlfriend we all probably had back in 11th grade. at the least, we are left wondering - what the hell hapened/ did he use them or didn't he? how much/ how long? whyinthehell doesn't he just come out and say so like anybody in the world might do ???

like that psycho girlfriend from hell, who knows what she wants, before she will just say what she means?

   

If you hadn't noticed, I (and a number of others) will challenge any claim that seems outrageous or not based on evidence.

In any case, I'm friends with the wife of the owner of the company that makes Endurox, and was part of a focus group she led before the product came out. A friend and I tried the stuff, and both came to the conclusion that it works by restricting your ability to burn carbohydrates, somehow. No matter how hard I worked on the bike, my heart rate just wouldn't go up. I stopped using the stuff.

---

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

r-s-b observes: "If direct experience is your only argument, well then, you don't have really have an argument... "

oops, you're gonna want to read a little closer, there r-s-b. direct experience would certainly be a great start - but that is admittedly just me. i am a practical man.

but, i DID also offer you the option of that 'observation under meaningful circumstances' thing too, did i not? without either of those two itsy bitsy things, would you care to describe just how it is that you are NOT simply talking about shit you know nothing about again?

I am sorry Kraig, I did my own study, that I thought was pretty well designed that allows me to make the claims I do but, of course, it will not "prove" anything to anyone because of the potential bias. However, nothing I have received back from customer reports in the way of feedback causes me to even consider to revise the claims.

I cannot do "science" on these because of the potential bias. Even Luttrell got knocked here because he didn't "reveal" that he received a gratis pair to do his "independent" study. So, until several someones buy a pair or two using their own funds and then does a good independent study using their own funds that shows a 40% increase in power per my claims (25% won't do) it will not be possible to come up with a study to satisfy some here.

it is my cross to bear. Choose to not believe the claims if you must and attribute all improvement athletes ever achieve to placebo effect if you must. do RedBrand shoes have clips on the bottom? Why? It is all just placebo effect anyhow. I claim 40% increase in power in 6 - 9 months because I believe that is what the typical new user (emphasize typical) caan expect. Then I give them 90 days to see if I duped them into a purchase by misrepresenting them and what they do. If they think i did, they can get their money back. What on earth is wrong with that? How am i conning anyone?

The fact that the so-called "scientists" here can't explain these reported results beyond placebo effect or why these same scientists and skeptics can't explain why almost everyone who tries them keeps them is what keeps these threads going, not my trying to market them when someone posts a positive result or asks a question about how to use them best and they are told by a non-user to put them in the closet next to the biopace.

---

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

Damn! I forgot to make the $5 side bet that you'd call me out for working to prove a hypothesis, rather than to reject the null hypothesis. But I do appreciate the response. In very general terms, this is more or less what i would have tried if I were to do it myself. The big questions being how many people do you recruit, and for how long do you study them? But i don't quite follow the explanation as to why you think the study won't be done- are you saying that because there's no theoretical reason to believe in the advantages of such training, there's no reason to investigate the possibilty in a formal way?

Ken

Look all this arguing has just turned into dick swinging. The argument just keeps going round and round. Frank send me a pair, Rip send me the numbers you want to know, smartass coach keep on smart assing. We will do a study and prove this once and for all!

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Dr Winkle. How did the Luttrell study fall down as compared to your optimum study design? Didn't they do all of those things (except, of course, look at how they effected the change), they even controlled for cadence? Of, I forgot, Luttrell is not a "respected sports scientist" so, that, in and of itself, makes his attempt and data useless and questionable.

---

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

funny! mr day asks: "do RedBrand shoes have clips on the bottom?"

for those of you at home, red-shoe boy once stated, on this forum i believe, that;

"the only reason for toeclips or clipless pedals is so your feet stay on"

now, before you believe anything else he might say, ask yourself this: does anything in my cycling experience make me believe that ridiculous statement to be true? if not. . .. . i am certainly guessing nearly anybody's real world experience will draw the negative on this, btw. . . . ask the next question - if this dude is purporting the sort of obviously bogus BS as that what makes me think ANYTHING r-s-b has to say is any better? . .

> Look all this arguing has just turned into dick swinging.

You (?) had it right from the beginning: "(...) a constipation of ideas buried underneath a diarrhaea of words.". How can you act surprised?

Dre'

---

-----------
...

Mr Tibbs,



I'm sorry but I'll have to disagree with you here. It's not dick swinging. That's what Frank wants people to think is happening by replying to every post ad nauseum.

In fact, Rip, Kraig and others make a very good argument against the usefulness of Powercranks, based on sound science.

If Galileo and Aristoteles were discussing the flatness of the earth, would you call it dick swinging? I think not.

---

-
"Yeah, no one likes a smartass, but we all like stars" - Thom Yorke


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

ok r-s-b. you do not desire the truth of the matter, nor wish to point toward it. you wish to 'catch' me in a minute point of debate for some sort of 'victory".

yet, you wish to be seen as a valid researcher. and you wish your "findings" from that research to be taken seriously.

you trully do take the cake.

"How can you act surprised?"

I'm not suprised it's just funny. Some people ride PCs and like the effects,some don't. Who gives a crap? Come on everyone just ride your damn bike.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Hmmm. I wouldn't have guessed that it would be terribly expensive to do a good study, particularly if the performance gains are anywhere near what is claimed. But as before, I don't know much of anything about the field. Your statement regarding the allocation of resources and effort is impossible to disagree with, I appreciate your insights.

Ken

How can you take a group of people and have half train one way and the other half train another and then PROVE that one way is better? Maybe if we could clone the same person over and over and then have those clones train in those manners then it would be proof. But, I would say (and bash me all you want) that if you are just using regular people then you are showing maybe a tendency of one training method over the other, but in no way would you be proving that A is better than B. You could do the test once with 5 people on PCs and 5 people using "redshoes", gather and then report your results. Then do the same test again with all different people and you would get different results. So where is the proof in that?

All this science this and science that is really a statement of this is what are results SEEM to show at this given time so therefore I will make this conclusion. It's not like we are testing inanimate objects where we can control every variable.

Oh and I don't own PCs and probably never will, not because I don't believe in them, but because I'm poor. My bike costs less than a set of PCs.

science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.



in what way have rip or r-s-b done this vis a vis powercranks?

***************************************************************************

for those of you at home, red-shoe boy once stated, on this forum i believe, that;

"the only reason for toeclips or clipless pedals is so your feet stay on"

now, before you believe anything else he might say, ask yourself this: does anything in my cycling experience make me believe that ridiculous statement to be true? if not. . .. . i am certainly guessing nearly anybody's real world experience will draw the negative on this, btw. . . . ask the next question - if this dude is purporting the sort of obviously bogus BS as that what makes me think ANYTHING r-s-b has to say is any better? . .
***************************************************************************

Umm...you do realize you just proved red-shoe boy's point, dontcha?

Might want to check the truth behind that statement before declaring it "ridiculous".

Dave

r-s-b asks: "Find the post where I made this statement, please.

'cause I certainly don't recall making it... "

well let me state up front that if you have not purported this statement i stand corrected and offer a very big 'nevermind" to you.

however, being a wee might familiar with some of your tactics of prose and all - remembering that old girlfriend and whatnot . . . . . . could you perhaps offer a small hint as to whether or not the statement is in the ballpark? because, while the exact quote may indeed be off some, i do really seem to seem recall you to purport that basic gist.

i was responding to the post above where the other fellow credits you with this.

r-sb. ya wanna respond to the second half of that "nevermind" post, first?

No, it's dick swinging. All sides seem to really want to prove the other side wrong. Instead of laying sown the evidence and moving on the same points keep getting bashed and bashed. We never here from Frank other than PowerCranks and Rip only wakes up during PC and wieght training forums so he just be a big fucking pissed poster. A man told a another man he was wrong which in man world means "You got a little dick."

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

The Rowell paper does not proove the point. First, it assumes max CO is fixed and not changeable with training. Of course it is possible to overwhelm the hearts ability to pump blood (the shock state proves that) and if one manipulates the muscles to open up all at once but so what? that does not prove that cardiac limits are resticting maximal exercise in humans or any other animal as maximum cardiac output can increase with training, just as maximal blood flow in any one muscle can. Their interpretation is simply one interpretation of the data but there is no evidence to support that as being the correct interpretation. For this to be the correct interpretation one must demonstrate that CO CANNOT increase one iota at maximum exercise intensity. These papers do not prove (or even address) that point that I see.

The sultan article seems even less help to this argument as it has conflicting data. Sultan states in his hypothesis that thepump is limiting but that is not proof. His study indicates that sympathetic stimulation is used to maintain blood pressure but that alpha blocking does not increase blood flow to the muscle. Therefore, sympathetic stimulation would be increasing cardiac output to increase blood pressure and the muscles are fully vasodilated. Nothing in there states the heart couldn't increase more with more sympathetic stimulation. There are only two components to blood pressure, peripheral vascular resistance and cardiac output.

The question is what is the limiter in the real world exercise. I see no data to indicate that CO is ever at a maximum in normal circumstances (there is always some reserve, albeit small at maximum intensity).

The Rowell quote is correct. However, except in pathological conditions it is generally up to the task because the heart can be trained and improved just as every muscle can. So as the athlete trains the peripheral muscles the heart adapts to the increased demands. Only in the instance where it is suddenly put beyond its limits does it fail and I believe the evidence is such that this only occurs in pathological states and, possibly, in the laboratory.

---

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

Well- it would have to be a party with a stake in the results one way or another, right? For an entity to pony up the cash to do the study, they'd have to have an interest in knowing the answer. Based on what you've said, the only person fitting that description at the moment is Frank, who has already stated here he can't perform the study. I suppose if there were some suggestion that the performance claims were legitimate, then some national body which funds the development of elite athletes engaged in cycling and running, that has a pile of money currently earmarked for parasitic lawyers engaged in a leadership struggle might also be interested. But I digress. Since you raise the issue- how much would it cost? Say 10 athletes followed for a total of 6 months- 2 months of training to ensure a performance plateau followed by randomization and 4 months of PCing? Main outcome measurement being 40km TT time. Obviously a nearly random sample size and study duration, but just a starting point.

Ken

So then, are the limitations just ignored as having no impact and whatever results come from the study are used as the "gospel" of science going forward? Then what happens when someone does another study of the same design and finds different results, what is the "gospel" then.

I'm with TTN. If you want to have a stake in the argument get your ass out there and ride on them. You will know if you are getting faster or if you aren't and you will know if you increased or decreased your mileage, intensity, frequency, etc. That to me seems the best way to PROVE whether or not they work. Trust in your own experiences rather than what someone else has concluded from the various experiences of the people in his study.

Listing study after study about why you don't "think" they will work really gets us nowhere. You say you want an independent study showing how they work, but who's going to pay for that one? Frank can't, I'm not going to.

Please keep your clear and simple logic out of this. Really using the product has nothing to do with knowing it works or not. Theory is all you need.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

well enjoy your ride, by all means. i KNOW you didn't make "THAT" statement, because i paraphrased it from memory. i recall you making a claim very much like it. if this is truly not the case, i'm sorry i attributed to you falsely, and nevermind.

Seriously, if you could PROVE that a training method works with a sample of people wouldn't that mean that science could tell us exactly how much training we had to do, at what exact heart rate, at what times of day and on a specific day to be able to run a say 3 hour marathon? Just test it until you figure out what each circumstance was and then everyone can do exactly the same thing? (I doubt it)

This shit isn't like PROVING the world is flat. Each person you put in the test is an unexplainable variable. You can't control all aspects of the test (because every person is different) so how can you possible PROVE anything?

Frank Wrote "I didn't learn that in medical school and i doubt you did either."

No, really, I did learn that in our sports phys lecture series. Maybe you slept through that one :^).

---

Dr. Philip Skiba
Scientific Training for Endurance Athletes now available on Amazon!

I just don't see Dr Coggan having a bias against PCs, other than believing that they don't work as claimed I suppose. I do sense a level of frustration in his recent posts on these sorts of topics... hence his abandonment of this forum.

I believe his main argument is that there is little to be gained form trying to improve cycling efficiency in the first place, given the supporting evidence of efficacy of "mashers" at top levels.

Joel

Frank Wrote: "The limiter is the local muscles ability to extract oxygen from the blood, not the ability of the heart to deliver oxygen to the muscle. "


What?!

My prof in med school cited some studies (and I wish I could provide a reference) regarding oxygen extraction, which you claim is limited by local factors at the site of extraction in the muscle. He explained that if you put a trained runner on a treadmill, had them achieve V02 max, and then added some additional exercise (arm cranks? I don't really remember and could be wrong about that part), there is no increase in V02 max. So this would seem to argue for a central mechanism that determines maximal oxygen uptake, would it not?

I have not been able to find any references that show that local factors are the main determinant of V02. (Though I have seen a couple regarding oxygen extraction and how it is affected by endotoxin in shock, for example, which has exactly nothing to do with our discussion here). I have been able to read a great deal in primary and secondary sources that point to V02max being determined by cardiac output. So, for now I think I have to side with Astrand and Co. as they would probably know more phys than you or I and six of our physician friends.

Philbert

---

Dr. Philip Skiba
Scientific Training for Endurance Athletes now available on Amazon!

If someone comes out with a perpetual motion machine, without any explanation of the physics of why it supposedly works, is it necessary to "ride on it" to know that it doesn't work? Are you really saying that nobody can criticize a piece of exercise equipment unless they've tried it out? Did you buy one of those vibrating belt weight-loss machines way back when?

Tell me how a perpetual motion machine differs (in principle, not saying that PCs work or don't work) from PCs. Some here are saying that there are many studies that show that PCs don't work the way they are purported to work; they don't need to "ride on them" to know it.

For my part, Mr. (Dr.?) Day lost credibility with his 40% power gain claim, assuming that that number refers to something useful, like functional threshold power. No way, no how, no matter what, my threshold power is going to go from about 280W to near 400W. That's a ridiculous prospect.

---

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

Uh, did these participants reach VO2 max or maximum cardiac output. If not, then their failure to be able to increase any more is not cardiac limited and must be a local limiter.

Looking at isolated muscle contraction can give useful data to understand what is going on over all, but extrapolation to the whole organism and whole body exercise is difficult at best. Your data just isn't convincing to me, although clearly others believe it to be true. If so, how is it possible for Lance to increase his performance (or anyone) Why aren't there more deaths as people collapse over the finsih line have "given their all?"

---

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

I think it's called "statistics".

---

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

  


"Tell me how a perpetual motion machine differs (in principle, not saying that PCs work or don't work) from PCs."

A perpetual motion machine will need only one force input to work for an infinite amount of time while PC require constant force input.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

I think the difference is that these people are saying that PCs CAN'T work based upon the studies that they are referencing. They are not saying that they DON'T work although that is inferred from their hypothesis that they CAN'T work.

A perpetual motion machine either works or it doesn't. You can do a test on a perpetual motion machine and control all variables to show that it works. You can't put PCs on a bunch of people's bikes and then PROVE that they worked as each and every person who uses them will have a different experience on them.

Look VO2 max and Maximum cardiac output are related. that doesn't mean one or theother is the limiter. If we could find the ability to exercise more muscle would cardiac output go up (compare the maximum cardiac output of rowers or XC skiers to that of runners, cyclists or tiddlywink players you use less muscle mass in performing their sports. The heart has the capability of adapting to the stimulus. Your med school professor who gave the runner using hand cranks analogy story is wrong. If the runner trained to do the two together, the runner could increase VO2 max. It is what rowers and XC skiers do, use both the legs and the arms maximally.

It is a matter of how much muscle mass can we train. The heart will adapt. Show me one paper that indicates the healthy heart has a maximum cardiac output that can never be exceeded under any circumstances and then i might believe that exercise is cardiac limited.

---

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

klehner states: " Some here are saying that there are many studies that show that PCs don't work the way they are purported to work"

which studies? the only study on PC's that has been referenced or completed found them to be effective.

the stuff you are referring to is/are interpretations of other factors which are then extrapolated by those opponents to what they might possibly mean regarding PC's and how they think they possibly affect people. not quite the same thing, particularly when the very first interpratations, not to mention every leap afterwords is fraught with potential misapplication. in other words, they do not really know of what they are speaking. direct experience seems to be a reasonable alternative - or direct observation of somebody else's experience. the " anti" crew have offered neither.

But my point is that given the magnitude of the claims, it should be fairly easy to prove your claims. Even if the level of improvements is a 10th of what you claim is possible (4%), then this too would be provable and woudl not get lost in the "noise" of performance. A 4% difference at a world class level would be enough to make a signicant difference in the results (for e.g. 416 vs 400 watts over the course of a TT) and would help your case.

For the record I don't think I have any particular bias against PCs. I can afford them if I wished, and if they truly did make a significant difference in performance I would see no reason not to support their use. I am not "bashing" PCs, but I do feel compelled to look critically at your claims and offer my opinion.

And I do have experience with them. A number of athletes I work with either have them or have used them.

Joel

"A perpetual motion machine either works or it doesn't."

Again sir I beg you to stop being logical.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

So, then what everyone here wants is someone to provide "statistics" that yes it worked for me and no it didn't work for him, and it kind of worked for her?

Statistics can be manipulated in many different ways so how can they be used as PROOF that something works or does not work.

RIP writes: "Right - which is why it is rightfully called VO2peak, not VO2max. (This is more than a semantic distinction, as it gets to the heart of the issue of what limits the highest attainable VO2 during different modes of exercise.) "

Which is why exercise is not cardiac limited as, according to you we do not exercise at VO2 max but rather VO2 peak, so there is always some cardiac reserve. Unless we are exercising at a rate that exceeds VO2 max (sprinters perhaps) exercise cannot be cardiac limited, as long as there is a cardiac reserve.

---

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

it is funny what people look at. i could not tell you whether PC's or cytomax or tide laundry detergent claim to be 20% brighter, give 40% less fatigue, or increase power by 250% before i bought either of them. persoanlly i expect those numbers to be complete bullshit as utterly meaningless. do they help, do nothing, or hurt? how much do they cost and can i sneak them onto my bike without the wife noticing ??? that is all i care about.

Klehner wrote: "Tell me how a perpetual motion machine differs (in principle, not saying that PCs work or don't work) from PCs."

A perpetual motion machne goes on for ever with no energy input. the first attempts to pedal PC's even in trained cyclists usually can only be sustained for about 20 seconds without a rest. PC's make most people use muscles they didn't even know they had.

---

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

speaking of which . . . no way in hell are you gonna sneak PC's onto your bike without the wife noticing.

in a savvy move of epic scale, however, mr day went the other way entirely in their design. the spiffy gold anodizing makes them look, to the female eye, as if they are really expensive . . . . . what with that heavy and being gold thing and all. it appeals to their female genetic bling hardwiring, i believe. quite remarkable.

I doubt that you'll get world class athletes to interrupt their training for this type of a time period.

4%? Well maybe he was at a plateau and those last couple of months on the bike pushed him forward that 4%. Maybe when he was tested at the beginning he was feeling just a little bit off. Can you tell if you were feeling 96% or your maximum versus 100%? What about wind, weather, etc?

I know if I did the same 40k TT over and over again I would never get the same time twice, so which is my baseline to start from and then which is the final time used to measure improvement?

But your experience with them is then second hand. Have you used them?

No, the definition of V02 max is just that, the MAXIMAL uptake of oxygen that is possible. If it is possible to acheive more uptake of oxygen, you are not yet at V02 max, just VO2 peak. So what you are suggesting is that no one ever actually acheives their VO2 max, even after their 02 consumption during the test levels off and work output is increased? That is bizzare.

---

Dr. Philip Skiba
Scientific Training for Endurance Athletes now available on Amazon!

Tyrius,

Studies can "prove" or "disprove" things by statistical analysis to a point. In general, the statisitaal analysis says "these results are probably not due to chance 95% of the time". This is generally accepted in scientific circles as being a positive finding. Then if this is repeated over and over, people come to see it as being "truth". If you were to flip a coin 10 times and got 8 heads, statistical analysis would probably show this was pretty likely to be a chance difference and not real. If you flipped a coin 1000 times and got 800 heads, it would probably say this was a real finding, even though it was not. It is all in the numbers and design of the study as to what can be inferred.

---

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

Frank, innumerable studies have shown that increases in Vo2 max plateau very quickly with endurance training. That is not where Lance's, or most other athletes training gains are coming from after being in the game for years. What is further trainable is the amount of work you can do at a given percentage of V02 max, and the percentage of your VO2 which you can maintain during exercise. These adapations occur over a period of years.

And as far as lance, who said he is continually improving his performance? Are you privy to his testing?

Philbert

---

Dr. Philip Skiba
Scientific Training for Endurance Athletes now available on Amazon!

Mr. Winkle,

Luttrells study had to start somewhere. Perhaps they thought there wold be no improvement so didn't think it would be necessary to find elite cyclists in the middle of Kansas just to disprove the concept. They tried to get reasonably serious cyclist by requiring each particpant to have particpated in 3 races in the last 6 months. that seemed reasaonble. And, to me, cycling efficiency is a form of performance. you may disagree but I thought it was a reasonable approach.

My criticism of the study was they only had the people ride the cranks 1 hour 3 times a week and allowed regular cycling in between. I would have never predcited the degree of difference they saw with that little use. If they had seen no difference that would have been my criticism of it. Fortunately for me, even with that little use, a statistically significaant result occurred.

Anyhow, perhaps this is like cold fusion to you, but even in this case, respected scientists tried to repeat the study to see if the effect was real or not, even though they disbelieved the results. That is the scientific method, not bashing results simply because you don't like the results.

---

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

Why is the concept of no one ever achieving VO2 max (as opposed to VO2 peak which is what is measured during testing) during normal exercise bizarre. Are you saying there is absolutely no cardiac reserve at VO2 peak, when measured ox consumption levels off? there are many explanations for this, none of which require the individual to be at maximum cardiac output.

---

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

I understand what you are saying here. I'm just trying to make a point that when it comes to the human body and it's reaction to different "training methods" nothing is ever certain so arguing back and forth for 10 pages in this thread is kind of meaningless. No one will ever PROVE the other one right or wrong as there is always something in the test that is uncontrollable or another test exists that completely refutes the first one? So what's the point in arguing about it all day? TTN can say with 100% confidence that PCs helped his biking and running. I can say with 0% confidence that TTN's increased skills were due to the new color of his bike. Why is it 0%? Because I don't know if he upped his mileage, intensity or if he actually lowered them.

but again my point is that IF they did offer even just a 4% improvment, then you'd have pros lining up to get these things and you're be able to easily quantify the improvements in results. 4% is massive at the elite level. hell epo is only like 6-8% improvement at most, and altitude tents may only be like 1-3% at best.

"4%? Well maybe he was at a plateau and those last couple of months on the bike pushed him forward that 4%. Maybe when he was tested at the beginning he was feeling just a little bit off. Can you tell if you were feeling 96% or your maximum versus 100%? What about wind, weather, etc?"

If you use a powermeter, then yes you can measure 4% quite easily and accurately. I work and have access to the power data of a number of elite athletes and it would be quite apparent if a 4% improvement was acheived. I use elite athletes for eg because for many they have come close to maximizing their performance already and therefore improvements from devices such as PCs would less likely to get lost in the "noise" of normal intra-season and inter-season improvements.

This is why the anecdotal evidence of the typical age grouper has little weight to me, as if they are training on a regular basis then they should expect to be improving their performances whether they use PCs or not, and given that I believe the magnitude of PCs effect is small, then their effect would get lost in the noise.

"But your experience with them is then second hand. Have you used them?"

Do you also expect scientists conducting a study to also be subjects in said study? Not that I'm comparing myself with a serious scientist, but...

And yes I have riden a bike with PCs installed.

Joel

Since you road them then you have more experience than I.

I'm just making the point that regardless of the test circumstances someone who doesn't want to believe the results can find enough holes in it to say that it really doesn't prove anything.

I don't even really know what I'm talking about with any of this stuff. Hell I'm an accountant that just started triathlons 2 years ago and only finds the time to do 1 or 2 races a year.

Dr. Winkle,

That fact that someone caan exercise anaerobically for several minutes as do mid distance runners or wrestlers and a whole host of athletes does not mean they are exercising at VO2 max, which means the absolute maximum cardiac output and uptake. By your definition, this is VO2 peak, isn't it? Whch is the maximum they can do, isn't it. VO2 peak falls short of VO2 max for several reasons and if they are not the same then exercise is not limited by cardiac considerations, as there is always a little cardiac reserve.

BTW, adjusting CO based upon muscle mass is a cop-out to help you explain your biases. the heart starts out the same in all of us. If Co adjusts for exercised muscle mass that indicates that CO does not have an arbitrary maximum and any of us can increase it if we exercise more muscle. It goes against your argument and not for it.

---

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

Frank. Now you've totally flip-flopped.

You got me there

Hey I got an idea….maybe, just maybe…the efficiency of the pedal stroke can be improved. Wait, this may get interesting and here is the beuty of it……this doesn’t require any more oxygen, lung capacity…… Come on, with all of those studies cited surely someone can tell me, what is the average level of efficiency of the cycling subjects studied?





Oh, oh, oh, oh, Mr. Kotter, Mr. Kotter…….wasn’t one of them showing efficiency at around 70%. So if we simply improve this efficiency wont we improve the power output? At NO additional cost. Yep, I said IF, so back off. And be fore you go there… the efficiency of the subjects varied what up to 15%?



Now let’s understand what is meant here by efficiency. I mean that pressing downward with the pedal at 6:00 does nothing for producing positive torque, nor does pushing while at 3:00. Now throughout the cycle there is some level of inefficiency involved. Plotting of the forces exerted on the pedals reveals this. In doing this I am actually saying that we could REDUCE the wasted effort. Thereby lowering the total power produced BUT, not affecting the total power output.



So I would argue IF you could in fact increase the least efficient subject into the range or above the highest subject, then this subject would indeed see appreciable gains in performance.



OK, now check this out…….anyone spend any time drafting a tandem? Ever listen to the rear wheel? It is harder to notice this on a single, but maybe you have. Maybe you have heard this yourself while on the trainer or rollers. The power output sure sounds cyclic to me. So if the power output is cyclic, then the torque curve isn’t steady. Simply flattening out the torque curve could yield favorable results. This may be done by applying some positive torque throughout the cycle or by changing the point at which the current torque curve comes on.



These are simple concepts that do not involve any PHD to understand. Mind you, I am not saying that PowerCranks provide this function, nor I am saying that Rotorcranks do. I am merely pointing out that there could be gains to be had. These gains can also be had without “cost” to the engine.



Have fun, call Frank Day out if you wish. You may be correct that PC’s do nothing. But to believe that there are no further gains to be had is foolish.

****

The power output sure sounds cyclic to me. So if the power output is cyclic, then the torque curve isn’t steady. Simply flattening out the torque curve could yield favorable results.

****

Why and how?

Dave "knowledge is power"

You call 70% efficiency good? Come one on, I didn't say we could make it perfect either. The infamous Coyle study had efficiency ranges from around 65% up to 80%. I was only saying that if we could take the 65% guy and move him up to 80% that would be appreciable.

Why what level of efficiency did your buddy Jeff determine his subjects to have? What was their range of efficiencies?

not sure what this thread is all about (but at over 200 posts it must be hot) but from the looks of the last few posts it looks like a cat fight..jeeze people...go race or something...getting all uptight about details is going to age you really quickly...agree to disagree and let it go..doesn't appear either with convince the other that they are right. And vice versa. This is a sport..go out and play.

My idea is to have Frank and Rip just wip out there tube steaks and measure them. I think it's deeper then just PCs.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Please do not take this be a non answer. But isn't that the ultimate question here as far as the how part is concerned? Even power application would result in a lower level of power needed throughout the cycle.

Do you think that the noise you hear from the back of a tandem is even power application? This means that they are accelerating and deccellerating each time you hear that.

On many multiseat bikes they is a tendancy to position the cranks so that they are not in phase so that the peak torque being applied is much lower. The cummulative affect of this uneven torque curve.



Well its closing time.......

Read the Coyle study - his numbers, not mine.....

I'm sorry I thought yo actually knew the butcher.....



Goto to go.....yes it is just a game....

This is a sport..go out and play.[/reply]

Isn't that what we are doing?

yes..but I forgot to add...play nice...with the other triathletes

The thing that amazes me is the fact that all the "experts" that are posting on this subject have soooo much time on their hands. If we look at the frequency of their posts, these people must not work (or posting while being paid by others), do not enjoy training, and must not have much else going on in their day to day lives. So sad.

jIM

Rip, I thought the highest attainable VO2 uptake, by your definition, was VO2 Peak. VO2 max, by your definition, again is the highest possible VO2 uptake and delivery. How does one measure this and assure onself that it cannot be increased 5 or 10 ml per minute. Many studies have shown that this value can be changed by people encouraging the athlete. VO2 uptake is limited primarily by cardiac output. How does one know that the subject is at the highest cardiac output possible for them. What if they were at their supposed VO2 max and were administered a little beta stimulant. If they were would the CO go up or go down. Only if it went down is the subject at max CO. Unless one has tested for this one doesn't know if the subject has really reached max CO or max O2 uptake.

"I did as much as i could and got all out of breath", whether someone is "encouraging" them or not, is not a very satisfactory end point in my opinion as I can do that to people on the PC's in my booth and they are WAY below their oxygen uptake capacity, and they know it.

---

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

can someone do a study on why i have subjected myself to 10 pages of this?

it's making me want to injure myself...

---

f/k/a mclamb6

LOL

What seemed to be a flip-flop. I thought it was consistent to my position that the limiter to exercise is local and not cardiac. Maybe I was inprecise. Where did I confuse?

---

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

Too slow Wrote: "Come on, with all of those studies cited surely someone can tell me, what is the average level of efficiency of the cycling subjects studied?"

Mr. Slow, the book called bicycling science by Whitt and Wison addresses cycling efficiency. In general, overall cycling efficiency will vary (energy to wheel divided by energy expended) from about 16 and 23%, with the pros having the higher numbers. 20% is a good number for most people. So, if you are riding at 200 watts you are probably burning about 1000 watts of fuel. The simple efficiency of the contracting muscle is about 40-45% so the pedaling efficiency (work to wheel divided by work done by muscle) of cyclists can vary from about 30 to 55%. These numbers certainly suggest there might be lots of room for improvement there if only the inefficiencies could be found and corrected. :-)

You are also right on the energy loss from the constant acceleration and deceleration from uneven force application, although this is probably small. I think I tried to calculate the energy loss from this and it was worth a second or so per mile, if I remember correctly. But, sometimes, seconds count.

---

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

 
If a hand cranking trike rider switched to HAND
POWERCRANKS he probably would not find any
difference because the pulling and pushing powers
of his hands are equal, which is why he is already
pulling and pushing when powering his trike
When using the legs, things are very different and
here unweighting the pedals has more to offer than
serious attempts at producing pulling up power.
PC's are an excellent training tool for developing
the unweighting trechnique because you are forced
to use the pulling up technique on all training rides.
Single leg pedaling is only used for brief periods.
But once unweighting is perfected, the PC's work is
done.
Rowers use their legs to increase and extend the
application of arm power, with a few simple biomechanical changes when pedaling cyclists can
reverse this process and gain many advantages both
from the medical and performance aspects of cycling.
But cycling's long term problem has been the fact
that there are too many doctors or scientists involved
with the mentality of Dr Coggan who believe that
pedaling technique is unimportant, so improvement
must come from other means.

I found a few Pubmed articles addressing helium-oxygen mixtures and measuring exercise tolerance. One concluded that hyperoxygenated helium mixtures improved maximal aerobic exercise duration. The most recent one concluded that it wasn't the hyperoxygenation that did the "trick" of improving exercise duration, but it was the decrease in "normal noxious" effects (local airway sensation factors) associated with the high rate of ventilation during exercise that limits ventilation. In other words, the first study said delivering higher FIO2 (even if it had to be done by using helium) improved exercise (thereby inferring that O2 diffusion in the lung was a limiter to exercise) whereas the recent (April, 2004) study said...hold on...it is the body's "Normal" reaction to the fast-moving air in the airways that limits the ability to exercise at higher levels...maybe this is why higher FIO2 isn't always associated with better exercise tolerance.

It's this kind of banter that makes science interesting.

Perhaps this discussion about local factors vs. Cardiac output as a limiter to exercise gets off track depending upon consideration of the length and intensity of exercise. Maybe at some intensity/durations cardiac output is the limiter. At other intensity/durations...local muscle factors are the limiters. At still other intensity/durations it is something else. I think we could all agree that at certain temperatures/water loss situations that HEAT would be the limiting factor.

Where I have the firm idea that local muscle factors are THE limitation to exercise is this: Whether it is dehydration, intensity, fuel delivery, waste removal, A-V oxygen content/delivery/diffusion/capacity, cardiac output, cyanide poisoning, innervation, etc., no matter what the contributing reasons may be...when energy at the local muscle cell is no longer sufficiently available to produce a contraction forceful enough to allow the person to continue to exercise at a given level...the exercise is then limited. I think this points to mitochondrial function and subsequent energy transport systems as THE limiter to exercise.

I agree there are intensity/durations of exercise wherein an individual's current blood flow through the muscle bed is insufficient to allow the mitochondrial function and energy transport systems to supply the material required for a muscle cell to function. Still, even at these intensities/durations of exercise, cardiac output isn't necessarily at 100%.

In these cases: if cardiac output isn't at 100% when the exercise intensity is unable to be sustained, therefore it isn't cardiac output that is the limiter....even if it were blood flow through the muscle that is the limiter.

But, if cardiac output is at 100% when the exercise intensity is unable to be sustained, then perhaps it could be cardiac output that is the limiter...but, the question isn't over...is cardiac output limited because of secondary reasons...i.e., is is because of dehydration? Cardiac muscle fatigue? Vasodilation in other areas due to attempts at heat radiation/severe embarrassment/ or histamine release from an allergic reaction? Decreased venous return? Decreased stroke volume due to dehydration/decreased venous return/excessive rate? Or is it inadequate training of the heart to acheive higher cardiac outputs in these conditions? Depending upon the answer, cardiac output may not have really been the primary limitation even if cardiac output were at 100% of it's current capacity when exercise intensity decreased.

Where does this differ from your supposition? Are we in agreement on any/some/much of this?

---

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

You want see the Fank vs. Rip measure off too. A BATTLE TO SEE WHO IS THE BIGGEST!!!

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

yaqui,

Several points I have been thinking about and your post goes to some of them.

First, let me say I think this debate is strictly about what keeps people from increasing the overall energy expenditure of their exercise when everything is optimum and that we shouldn't complicate things by adding heat, dehydration, etc. etc. into the mix, otherwise this thread may go on forever. Anyhow, I guess it is possible that, under certain circumstances that cardiac could be the limiter to increasing energy expenditure. the certain circumstances is when every muscle in the body is equally aerobically adapted and used to the exact same degree in the exercise such that they all approach anaerobic threshold at once. However, I think the above situation never occurs and it is more likely that some muscles are better trained than others and how we use the muscles is not so well controlled that some groups may be used more intensely than others so that as we approach our limit some muscles go anaerobic while others are fine. It is these anaerobic muscles that are the limiter because anaerobic metabolism produces lactate, which is buffered by the bicarbonate system (if it weren't we would stop exercising almost immediately after reaching this point) and this buffering produces a LOT of CO2, which then overwhelms the lungs ability to expel CO2, and it is this "problem" that forces us to stop. Want some "proof"? Just come by my booth at any expo and watch novices ride the PC's. Watch experienced cyclists start huffing and puffing after about 15 seconds, their heart rate go up, and be unable to continue pedaling after 30-60 seconds despite the fact they are at a cadence of 70 and the resistance of the unit is 100 watts. These people clearly are not at VO2 max but I managed to overwhelm their lungs and a few local muscles by making them go anaerobic. One muscle going anaerobic enough can stop the whole machine. Want to delay this process, then one needs to better train that limiting muscle or develop techniques to use it less. By the way, putting helium in the inspired air changes the characteristics of the air such that turbulent flow occurs later so the maximum ventilatory volume can be increased to get rid of more of that obnoxious "lactate produced CO2", allowing the athlete to last a little longer.

The other problem that the "cardiac limitor" proponents have that hasn't been addressed is that of the normal respiratory variation of cardiac output with ventilation. Most people don't realize that the cardiac output of the right and left side of the heart varies and are out of synch, that is there is a substantial variation in CO if measured during inspiration or expiration. (for all you lurkers out there, you can check this for yourself by feeling your pulse during quiet breathing, then take a slow deep breath and feel the pulse rate change, then change again as you exhale) Take the right heart, it is higher during inspiration and lower during expiration. The left heart is just the opposite. In the operating room, it is important, when measuring CO to always do it at the same part of the respiratory cycle or the numbers will be all over the place and it will be impossible to make any good clinical judgments about the numbers.

So, if the heart has no reserve at VO2 Max, what happens to the normal ventilatory variation when at VO2 max? Does it go away? How can it go up and down if the heart is at it's very max? Exactly what is the limiter, is it stroke volume cannot increase any more or HR or both? It must be both, but respiratory ventilation variation changes both, how can this be?

Maybe Dr. Winkle can point us to one of his vaunted Pub Med studies that has looked at this "problem" that will answer the question for us.

Frank

---

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

oh god....

find a happy place, find a happy place....

---

f/k/a mclamb6

Rats, caught in a plausibly clever argument. Unfortunately, I don't understand how the argument is constructed. Perhaps you could enlighten me. I just thought I was pointing out a physiological problem with their analysis. They have yet to give a mechanism for what is limiting the heart from increasing CO, it is just stated as fact.

---

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

Kraig,

Let me rephrase my question to Dr. Winkle, so as to not be quite so "devious".

Dr. Winkle, or anyone else, please give me a mechanism for the healthy heart being the limiting factor at VO2 max. Don't just say it can't go any faster or increase stroke volume any more but give me the mechanism as to what prevents it from doing so. Does it run out of energy? Is it impossible for the contractile elements to contract any faster? Does turbulence restrict blood flow to a certain amount? Is it primarily a left heart or right heart problem?

I have a mechanism for the local muscles being the limiter (they go anaerobic). If you have a mechanism for the heart being the limiter please tell me, and the world. I would also be interested if there is any experiemental data to support your hypothesis. I am not interested in your "evidence" that the heart is the limiter, I want your hypothesis as to WHY it is the limiter and any supporting evidence for that hypothesis, if it exists.

Frank

---

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

You are correct, and especially the younger anesthesiologists seem to not realize the effect ventilation has on cardiac output. Since right sided cardiac output varies more due to ventilitory pressure changes than left sided cardiac output (in someone with left-side reserve), and they are always measuring the right side...they tend to get numbers all over the place. I call the cardiac output monitor the "random number generator" when they do this. A couple of times I bet one of them 20 dollars I could get higher results than him every time...I simply cycled the ventilator every time he injected. He learned quickly, and I got to go out to eat that night.

I'm recovering from pneumonia/bronchitis, but went for an easy ride today. My HR never got above 150, partly because if I went hard enough to require that much effort my respirations would deepen to the point I would begin to cough. So, I just rode relatively easy compared to usual. After about 30 miles, my quads began to cramp when pushing up steep hills. I had been no where near my maximum cardiac output at any time all day, yet, my muscles were tired and cramping as a result. I even stood up a couple of times and worked them a little harder, they cramped more. But, as long as I eased the workload enough, they were fine. I had no signs of tetany in any other muscles (during or after exercise), and had taken a few Endurolytes prior to and over the course of the ride, drank an appropriate amount of water, so I think my electrolytes were fine. I can only surmize that local muscle factors limited my exercise rate, it certainly wasn't cardiac output limiting my exercise rate. I think it is this kind of thing that limits exercise rates in many examples.

---

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

Being an anesthesiologist doesn't mean one knows everything about this stuff. Depends upon what their training is like or what they have specialized in (cardiac is much more "aware" of this stuff than Ob-GYN specialists). Anyhow, learning can come from all sorts of areas and I'll bet that anesthesiologist who lost the bet will never forget that "trick". Question is, does he realize this variation occurs in the healthy also (or the sick who are spontaneously ventilating), except it is backwards. Right heart output is lowest when the ventilator is causing inspiration and highest when the diaphragm is causing inspiration. It is all about intrathoracic pressure (higher intrathoracic pressure reduces venous return) and pulmonary vascular resistance (which is increased with higher intrathoracic pressure). BTW, the only way to get a true CO in the ICU is to disconnect the ventilator and do the measurement (that was our routine), the next best way is to do the measurement just before the ventilator fires.

OK, all you guys here now know something your doctor doesn't. Don't get too smug.

---

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

One correction to your statement yaqui. You said: "Since right sided cardiac output varies more due to ventilitory pressure changes than left sided cardiac output (in someone with left-side reserve)"

That really isn't true (at least in the healthy heart) since the totality of the variations have to be the same, otherwise, blood would back up in the body or in the lungs. The extra blood that is given to the lungs when right sided output is greater than left, is eventually given to the left causing it to increase and right sided output to fall. The thing is, this is a respiratory variation and not so much associated with each beat so individual stroke volume can vary widely and since the inspiration phase is usually shorter than the exhalation phase (at least at rest and when a patient is on the ventilator), the slope and magnitude of the various changes is seen as greater on one side than the other. Perhaps that is what you meant, not the totality.

Another way to minimize the impact of this effect in the ICU is to use High frequency ventilation with very low tidal volumes, where intrathoracic pressure essentially remains constant and ventilation occurs primarily through diffusion. Enough medicine. Only you, yaqui, probably cares about this stuff. But it is nice to know that there is someone out there who knows I am not just spouting stuff.

---

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

kay, this is my last word on the subject. For reference, you can find much of the following information in Costill (1999), Chapter 7, entitled Cardiovascular Control During Exercise. It can also be found in Astrand, and some of it in Guyton (my med school text…sorta weak on the phys of exerecise, but usefull none the less).

Cardiac output is determined by a few factors: preload (how much venous return blood is hitting the heart) Contractility (which is how hard the heart is squeezing), and afterload (the blood pressure in the aorta which the heart must overcome to eject blood).

Cardiac output is increased in a few ways as exercise is increased. When muscle units are activated, they are perfused with blood. The heart must respond to maintain blood pressure in the face of an increased volume. Cardiac input increases by increased contractility, by increased rate via the sympathetic system, and also because afterlaod has been reduced, allowing the heart to eject more blood. Finally, the heart begins to receive more blood per unit time because of increased return. This stretches the heart more, and by the frank-starling mechanism, the heart ejects what is put into it. This is that part frank has been harping on.

Frank's argument would hold water IF and only IF the heart was able to increase it's output indefinitely. He keeps talking about "reserve". The problem is this: As heart rate increases, and the heart stretches to accept more blood, there is a problem. The heart is beating so fast that it does not have time to fully fill any more. Thus, cardiac output levels off. There is a nice graph of this on page 228 in Costill, where cardiac output is graphed against treadmill speed for a runner from 4 km/hr to 30 km/hr. Around 14 km/hr, cardiac output begins to level off, maximal output is finally reached at 17 km/hr, and then cardiac output finally begins to FALL because it is beating so fast that it is not filling fully anymore.

Vo2 max occurs somewhere around the point of maximal cardiac output, and certainly BEFORE the point that cardiac output begins to fall because the rate has gone too high. The reason why muscles are going anaerobic and generating high levels of lactate is because the heart is unable to provide them with any more oxygen, because it has reached it's maximum output. They are thus less reliant on oxidative phosphorylation, and more reliant on anaerobic metabolism.

Now, frank may propose whatever he likes to argue with this. This will be his opinion. It is not what is accepted in the field of physiology, and is not what I or any other physician or physiologist I know to be based on data. I refuse to argue the point any more. Please note I am not arguing about powercranks. I stated my position earlier, which is that I have no position until I see a good study. I am arguing that Frank is obviously not familiar with what is understood about the physiology of exercise. If he does not belive this information is true, he is free to argue his opinion and write his own treatise on the subject, after doing the appropriate research. He will then most likely win a nobel prize because he will have undone quite a bit of previous work and revolutionized the science.

Please frank, tell me I am wrong. I have gone through my texts and written a thorough response. I'm on call today, and I have the whole medical library of my hospital at my disposal. I would LOVE to read things that contradict what I just wrote. Problem is, I can't find any, because all three phys texts texts I have access to agree on this. So do the anesthesisologist and cardiologist I had lunch with.



Over and Out,

Philbert.

---

Dr. Philip Skiba
Scientific Training for Endurance Athletes now available on Amazon!

A couple hundred posts back or so Brodsky made the following statement...

"Motor units are perfused with blood when they are activated by the nervous system. The limiter is cardiac output; perfusion of muscle must be balanced against systemic blood pressure. If you suddenly and maximally perfused all possible motor units, you'd be on the floor because of low blood pressure. So, in fact, the ultimate exercise limiter is cardiac output. If you could endlessly increase your cardiac output, your criticism might be understandable at least.

This point is demonstrable by testing oxygen uptake while exercising a small muscle mass. I'll try to find one of the papers if you need a citation...a physician friend of mine is writing a book and turned me onto it. Basically, O2 uptake (and local blood flow) is higher when you exercise a small muscle mass because the heart is able to perfuse that muscle more, because maintaining systemic bp is easier."

It took about a hundred posts to do it, but Rip supported it. You guys are now dancing around it.

You also never addressed:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...mp;list_uids=3057322

and

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...mp;list_uids=3414535

Though this process can often be painful to participate in and watch, I certainly learned a lot and I'm one of those geeks who will actually sit down and read a physiology text. My thanks to all who participated in and contributed to this train wreck.

JustCurious,

Thanks for your contributions. I just posted my last commentary immediately before you did. This thread is too long.

Philbert

---

Dr. Philip Skiba
Scientific Training for Endurance Athletes now available on Amazon!

Dr. Philbert writes: "Vo2 max occurs somewhere around the point of maximal cardiac output, and certainly BEFORE the point that cardiac output begins to fall because the rate has gone too high. The reason why muscles are going anaerobic and generating high levels of lactate is because the heart is unable to provide them with any more oxygen, because it has reached it's maximum output. They are thus less reliant on oxidative phosphorylation, and more reliant on anaerobic metabolism."

Thanks for the support. If VO2 max occurs before the peak, then there is reserve. If it occurs at the peak then there is not but we don't know why it falls. What is the mechanism. Perhaps, the mechanism is that the pH has changed from the peripheral muscles going anaerobic and the lungs unable to exhale the CO2 load. I have never said the ability of the heart to increase was infinite. What I have said is the limiter to exercise is not the heart but theperiphery. Give me a mechanism for that drop off. What is it? I agree it occurs. But you haven't given me a mechanism for its occurance. I propose it is accumulated pH change from peripheral anaerobic metabolism (this occurs slowly because CO2 is water soluble so is distributed through all of the body water so it takes a significant burden to change pH, although it probably doesn't take a big pH change to significantly effect cardiac contractility. Hmm, I wonder why we treat acidosis in the ICU? What is your proposed mechanism? Just give me a mechanism that originates in the heart, that is what the debate is about.

Frank

---

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

Curious,

It is easy to rebut those articles because they do not go to the issue. The fact that blood flow can increase in isolated muscle does not give me a mechanism for failure of the heart to provide adequate flow when the whole body is exercising. Give me the mechanism for the heart failing to be able to increase CO further that lies primarily in the heart (when the periphery is producing lactic acid like crazy). You do agree the periphery is producing lactic acid before one reaches VO2 max, don't you? Actually, I don't expect you to give me a mechanism as you are a lay person. But, until someone can give a mechanism for this failure that is heart specific and originates in the heart, then all these "the limitation to exercise is cardiac" pronouncements are just that, pronouncements without a basis.

Since Philbert is on call today and has the entire medical library (and some others who are capable of thinking deeply about this problem) at his disposal we will await his report (unless he gets overwhelmed with patients in the interim.

Frank

---

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

Sorry, I was trying to be brief and left a little bit out. Let me be precise.

Vo2 max occurs somewhere around the point of maximal cardiac output, and certainly BEFORE the point that cardiac output begins to fall because the rate has gone too high. What happens before it starts to fall is that it LEVELS OFF. There is no reserve to be had, because the output is not changing appreciably one way or the other within those few beats per minute, at least not in any meaningful way we can measure.

I am giving you a mechanism. I am saying that HR increases to the point that the ventricles have balanced filling perfectly with rate, as much as is possible and as much as we can tell with our technology. This is V02 max. As the heart futily tries to provide more blood, rate increases and the ventricles no longer fill completely. Thus CO cannot increase any more. The failure of the muscle is secondary to the primary problem of the heart to provide any additional oxygenated blood. Which part of this don't you get? That sounds like a problem with the heart to me, doesn't it to you?

But really, Frank, it isn't up to me to prove my position with mechanisms. I am merely stating what is obvious from the texts. You are the one proposing mechanims that differ from the established literature. It is up to YOU to provide us with data or literature to back up your points. So far, you have not provided a mechanism that has any backing other than your say-so, and your knowledge of anesthesia that you brought up earlier. I have provided citations to support my case. Don't beat around the bush. The reason you are is that you cannot provide any citations to back up yours. I have tried to find some to back up your mechanism, but I can't. That makes it your opinion, which you are entitled to but which is not defensible via literature. Period.

Now I really AM through with this.

---

Dr. Philip Skiba
Scientific Training for Endurance Athletes now available on Amazon!

Lay person to Reverend Day,

Philbert provided the mechanism. "Frank's argument would hold water IF and only IF the heart was able to increase it's output indefinitely. He keeps talking about "reserve". The problem is this: As heart rate increases, and the heart stretches to accept more blood, there is a problem. The heart is beating so fast that it does not have time to fully fill any more. Thus, cardiac output levels off. There is a nice graph of this on page 228 in Costill, where cardiac output is graphed against treadmill speed for a runner from 4 km/hr to 30 km/hr. Around 14 km/hr, cardiac output begins to level off, maximal output is finally reached at 17 km/hr, and then cardiac output finally begins to FALL because it is beating so fast that it is not filling fully anymore."

I may not be an MD, but I am an engineer. Let me put this in engineering terms. You're claiming the pump is essentially oversized - that it's the 'network' it supplies that limits output. Your logic is implying that limitations in the 'network' the pump feeds is limiting the pump's output (limited capillary density, etc.). If the 'network' can accept or handle more flow (a proven training adaptation), you argue that the pump can handle it (it in fact even also gets bigger through training). It simply speeds up as needed to meet momentary demand. As a 'lay' person before this and some of the previous related discussions on this subject, I would have agreed with you. It makes some of the concepts of those who worship in the 'temple of the heartrate monitor' easier to explain... Things such as demonstrated maximum heartrate seems to be sport or activity specific --> involve more muscle mass and max attainable HR seems to be slightly higher.

What the evidence presented seems to show is that the pump is indeed 'undersized'. At VO2max, the network has the theoretical ability to open up to a point that could exceed what the pump is able to provide in terms of flow. That was demonstrated when flow increased to greater levels when active muscles were worked in isolation than when contributing to an effort at systmemic VO2max. Undersized pump, oversized network being fed --> output pressure would drop off to dangerous levels if our bodies didn't have a built in protection mechanism that closed off that network enough to maintain pressure. As this is a closed system, that restriction to maintain pressure limits the heart's ability to refill between beats. Increase capillary density of the working muscles? Effective, but only to the point where that same training that induces an increase in capillary density also increases cardiac output. Short term effort at VO2max --> It's still your heart that maxes out before the effects of anearobic metabolism begin limiting the effort. If your heart had the ability to put out more, the reliance on and affect of anaerobic metabolism would be lessened. At least that's what mainstream scientific evidence seems to say.

What am I missing?

Sorry Philbert. I should be letting you handle this. We seem to by typing at the same time.

I am sorry, what is the evidence for your mechanism. Do you deny that pH plays a role in cardiac function? Do you deny that the peripheral muscles are producing lactic acid well before the cardiac function levels off? What causes the falling off in ability seen in the graph? Surely if it was just the heart once it reached its maximum ability it would continue to stay there. However, I guess that is an explanation, even though there is no eviddence to support it. A better explanation from the cardiac theorist point of view would be that at very high HR or stroke volume, the valves start to leak, interfering with further forward flow. But, there is no evidence for that theory either, that I know of, even though it gives a real etiology instead of "it just can't do anymore". However, I think my peripheral explanation for making the heart fail makes a lot more sense and there is plenty of evidence to surmise that result.

I don't get what part you don't get. Seems like pretty elementary physiology to me. Everybody sees one graph showing the heart failing to increase CO at high exercise intensities and goes right to "the heart is the limiter" without asking why the heart is failing to increase. Why don't you get out one of those physiology textbooks and see how muscle function varies with pH or CO2. If there is no change (or improvement with significant acidosis) I will eat my words.

---

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

He already explained the mechanism. Once heart rate increases to a certain point, further increases lead to incomplete filling and decreased cardiac output. So it will level off and then start to decline.

This is M1 stuff.