devashish_paul wrote:
Specificity is required for some athletes, while for other athletes, neurally engaging different patterns can be additive to their performance. If it is all in their head and if something happened through powercrank pedaling to help their running coordination that might be a big gain.
If any of that happened it would be measurable and maybe one or more of the several studies would have showed a different result.
Quote:
And maybe because they are more fluid/coordinated at running they are now able to enter other sport sessions less trashed. We don't know exactly how different athletes adapt to different sports/activities and then return to their own sport
Well actually we do. Pretty well established base of information on biomechanics and motor learning. Slowtwitch is very lucky that someone like Jim Martin and others post regularly here.
Quote:
For example, I have not done much swimming at all lately but have XC skied more and suddenly I am going faster in my swim kick sets because I can't get as good conditioning out of my body through swimming only. Theory would say I should do swim kick sets to get faster at that, but how many studies are there that have been done on reducing swimming and then doing big volume classic skiing and measuring the outcome on swim kick speed. I'm just using that as an example.
Not a good one, there are a variety of factors at play. Maybe you were overtrained for swimming and the break did you good, maybe there was on injury about to happen in swimming muscles that was given a chance to heal, maybe you were stale in the water the list is endless.
Quote:
Seriously have you used the powercranks because your analogy that you don't have to smoke to know that smoking is bad is not quite the same. The sample size that they have derived data off relative to smoking is massive and constitutes a big part of humanity over time. Not so for powercranks.
Seriously, are you really asking that?
Quote:
Even if it is placebo, and they helped Steve Larsen win Ironman Lake Placid and Wildflower, then perhaps that placebo is not such a bad thing.
They measurably helped or he thinks they helped. Bit of a difference.
Quote:
There are enough athletes who have used them seriously and gotten a bump in performance that its not worth dismissing their summation of n=1 anecdotal observations. Sometimes the practitioners in the field stumble upon some good protocols that the studies are unable to replicate at least in the near term. Sam claims that he gained 40W. I am assuming that is more than 10% on his topline.
Don't waste my time with BS claims, show us something measurable. Sam should ask for a refund, he who shall not be named claims that exclusive use will lead to an average 40% improvement in power.
Quote:
In theory, we are limited by what our cardio can deliver to our muscles, but we consistently see that in a weight bearing sport like XC skiing that is full body, the top Nordic skiers have the highest VO2's. Now is this because there is a better gene pool in that sport than cycling or is it because the sport can load the cardio more than cycling and thereby create athletes with a bigger "top line". What if Powercranks have a similar affect, allowing the athlete to engage more muscles than totally conventional pedaling that thereby lifting their cardio output over time. That's the only way Sam Gyde is going to gain 40Watts. I just can't see him gaining 40W any other way than his heart being able to deliver more oxygen rich blood to more working muscles that are actively helping his forward propulsion.
If it can be shown that uncoupled cranks were the only reason for the alleged gain in power.
The VO2max argument is flawed. A cross country skier will have a lower VO2max if tested on a bike. None of their trained muscle for the skis will contribute to the performance when testing on the bike, or swimming, or using a rowing erg.
Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach