[reply]I agree with you on this one. But can anybody ever have a perfect preparation, perfect nutrition, and perfect race? I believe that perfectionism is a goal that cannot be reached, nevertheless it is important to use it.[/reply]

As mortals, it is not possible to achieve perfection. If one doesn't try, however, one doesn't stand a chance to even come the least bit close.

---

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

[reply]I seriously doubt Lance would have any positive gains if he used powercranks. Can PC help mid-level triathletes who's pedal stroke is not very effecient? Probably. Could they help a pro who's been riding a bicycle for a living for the past 15 years? Probably no.[/reply]

Here i disagree with you. Unpublished data done at the Mapei center inItaly on very elite PC cyclists have shown benefit. Very elite cyclists try, then continue to use them including such as Bettini, Garzelli, Hincapie, Leipheimer, and many others. We have probably received 25 reports from people telling us that Lance uses them (or they have seen him riding them or other indications he uses them at least some of the time) but we do not know this to be true, but it would not surprise me. I think I know where he got them, if he does, but I don't know. Anyhow, these pros do not do so because we pay them. They do so because they have evaluated them as being a benefit to their performance. Perhaps that is why we continue to get requests from pros of this ilk asking to get with the program, the latest "big" names being Tom Steels and Michael Rogers. I can only assume they are hearing positive things about the product from their contemporaries, not from what they hear me say on this forum.

So can PC's help pros who have been riding a bicycle professionally for 15 years? Yes. the only question is how much? I suspect it will not be quite as much as for the "typical" user. However, at that level, any improvement is significant.

---

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

"unpublished data" eh?

As soon as that data is published & peer reviewed, then I'll believe it.

i'm in no way affiliated with "The Oracle/Committee/RipVanWinkle/etc"

You're out of control...

---

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


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

Smoking times...even if this course is accurate, it would be a bit quicker than some others. If I recall, Damien Angus was around 4:10 at Tupper Lake 2003.



Tupper Lake was only a 12 mile run in 2003 (and years prior to 2004)

---

*********************
"When I first had the opportunity to compete in triathlon, it was the chicks and their skimpy race clothing that drew me in. Everyone was so welcoming and the lifestyle so obviously narcissistic. I fed off of that vain energy. To me it is what the sport is all about."

Energy efficiency is not the limiting factor in these races. It is total work rate, as limited by available fuel. An increase in efficiency alone will not do it -- they'll still run out of CHO before getting to 7:30. (The guys within shot of 8:00 are alread extremely efficient.) What will lower endurance sport times is the ability to burn fuel faster, and have it not run out. That in turn requires burning a higher proportion of fat. That in turn requires a higher pace/power at the (true) lactate threshold. That in turn improves with good training. Work rate at the lactate threshold has only been proven to improve with three things: (A) choose good parents; (B) EPO; and (C) training a lot. PCs have never, ever been shown (in a lab or otherwise) to increase absolute power output at the lactate threshold (versus conventional training).

I say it over and over in these threads -- it ain't about efficiency, it's about power/work rate. Efficiency is nice, but power wins races.

Untrained athletes improve power output with PCs, but elites do not (only because the untrained folks don't start training hard until they get PCs). Wasn't Larsen the supposed poster boy for the sub-4 IM ride due to PC usage? Didn't happen, did it?

As an aside...

The most efficient work rate for a given organism is almost never the optimal work rate. Birds flying 3000 miles nonstop from Cape Cod to Brazil do not fly at their most efficient speed. They fly at the speed (and efficiency level) that allows them to fly the farthest. Simple efficiency is not enough to ensure the longest flight time. They will run out of fuel before they get there when they fly at the most efficient speeds. Similarly, humans do not race at their most efficient work rates; they race at the optimal work rate that gets them to the finish line the fastest.

For more, read Why We Run: A Natural History by Bernd Heinrich. Heinrich is a biologist/physiologist specializing in cellular respiration (ie, aerobic work), and also the holder of the Masters World Record in the 100k run. Fascinating book.

[reply]Energy efficiency is not the limiting factor in these races. It is total work rate, as limited by available fuel. An increase in efficiency alone will not do it -- they'll still run out of CHO before getting to 7:30. (The guys within shot of 8:00 are alread [i]extremely[/i] efficient.) What [i]will[/i] lower endurance sport times is the ability to burn fuel faster, and have it not run out. That in turn requires burning a higher proportion of fat. That in turn requires a higher pace/power at the (true) lactate threshold. That in turn improves with good training. Work rate at the lactate threshold has only been proven to improve with three things: (A) choose good parents; (B) EPO; and (C) training a lot. PCs have never, ever been shown (in a lab or otherwise) to increase absolute power output at the lactate threshold (versus conventional training).

I say it over and over in these threads -- it ain't about [i]efficiency, [/i]it's about [i]power/work rate. [/i]Efficiency is nice, but power wins races.

Untrained athletes improve power output with PCs, but elites do not (only because the untrained folks don't start training hard until they get PCs). Wasn't Larsen the supposed poster boy for the sub-4 IM ride due to PC usage? Didn't happen, did it?

As an aside...

The [i]most efficient[/i] work rate for a given organism is almost never the [i]optimal[/i] work rate. Birds flying 3000 miles nonstop from Cape Cod to Brazil do not fly at their most [i]efficient[/i] speed. They fly at the speed (and efficiency level) that allows them to fly the [i]farthest. [/i]Simple efficiency is not enough to ensure the longest flight time. They will run out of fuel before they get there when they fly at the [i]most efficient[/i] speeds. Similarly, humans do not race at their [i]most efficient[/i] work rates; they race at the [i]optimal work rate[/i] that gets them to the finish line the fastest.

For more, read [i]Why We Run: A Natural History[/i] by Bernd Heinrich. Heinrich is a biologist/physiologist specializing in cellular respiration (ie, aerobic work), and also the holder of the Masters World Record in the 100k run. Fascinating book.[/reply]

What on earth are you talking about? You are confusing apples and oranges. There are two aspects to exercise and performance. What is the limiting ability to burn fuel (and or produce work in the case of anaerobic efforts) into useful energy is one and how much of that energy can be converted into performance work is another. The ratio of these two could generally be referred to as "efficiency". So why you would say "energy efficiency is not the limiting factor in these races" is seemingly nonsensical to me.

Frank

---

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

Because -- If I'm rolling along at a super-human 27% efficiency, why is it that Luke Bell will go roaring past me at a mortal 23% efficiency? Because he's cranking out 300+ watts against my piddling 225, that's why.

But -- that's not the interesting analysis. What if instead we can induce Luke to put out his 300 watts at 24% instead? He's now burning a little less fuel, correct? So what? His race split is still the same. But -- there is more of course.

Now lets say that Luke can up the wattage to 310 at the same fuel burn rate (and O2 uptake rate). Aha! Is this the holy grail we seek? After all, isn't that the crux of the efficiency argument? The sine qua non? Yes it is, but it is not the holy grail of performance.

There are physiological costs to adding wattage. Waste products, muscle fatigue, central fatigue. All sorts of things conspire to drag the athlete off to the side of the road. Remember -- efficiency has to do with fuel usage. We can all acknowledge that plenty of athletes flame out in an IM long before they run out of fuel. If Simon Lessing had ridden more efficiently in Kona last month, he would have been sitting on the side of the road with more glycogen stores. But, he would still have been sitting on the side of the road!

The potential for increased efficiency in powering a fixed-motion device comes from (a) lots of training of the existing muscle set; or (b) adding net new muscles to the work. If PCs add muscles (which, on a net basis, I doubt) to the work output, then any increase in power comes at a cost.

I again return to my earlier assertion -- where is the increase in power over a given work duration? Where is the 4-hour IM ride? Where is the 44-minute 40k? The 2:35 IM run split? Anybody? Lab results? Increases in O2 uptake at a given power level. Sorry -- not conclusive.

One of the hallmarks of a cultish following of a given belief system is this: When a given adherent fails to achieve the results as advertised, the leader of the belief system falls back to the argument, "You didn't do it right, and your failure to achieve results serves only to reinforce the greatness of this system. Since you did it wrong and didn't get results, then you have proven that if one does it right, one will get results."

But a meeting of two enthusiastic believers results in asinus asinum fricat.

That's enough Latin for one night. I'll let somebody else look that one up. And, Frank, I do not intend to engage in argumentum ad hominem. You are a gentleman and I mean no offense.

[reply][reply]
So why you would say "energy efficiency is not the limiting factor in these races" is seemingly nonsensical to me.

Frank [/reply]


Because -- If I'm rolling along at a super-human 27% efficiency, why is it that Luke Bell will go roaring past me at a mortal 23% efficiency? Because he's cranking out 300+ watts against my piddling 225, that's why.

But -- that's not the interesting analysis. What if instead we can induce Luke to put out his 300 watts at 24% instead? He's now burning a little less fuel, correct? So what? His race split is still the same. But -- there is more of course.

[i]Now[/i] lets say that Luke can up the wattage to 310 [i]at the same fuel burn rate (and O2 uptake rate)[/i]. Aha! Is this the holy grail we seek? After all, isn't that the crux of the efficiency argument? The [i][b]sine qua non[/b][/i]? Yes it is, [i]but it is not the holy grail of [b]performance[/b][/i].

There are physiological costs to adding wattage. Waste products, muscle fatigue, central fatigue. All sorts of things conspire to drag the athlete off to the side of the road. Remember -- efficiency has to do with [i]fuel usage.[/i] We can all acknowledge that plenty of athletes flame out in an IM long before they run out of fuel. If Simon Lessing had ridden more [b]efficiently[/b] in Kona last month, he would have been sitting on the side of the road with more glycogen stores. But, he would [i]still have been sitting on the side of the road[/i]!

The potential for increased efficiency in powering a fixed-motion device comes from (a) lots of training of the existing muscle set; or (b) adding net new muscles to the work. [i]If [/i]PCs add muscles (which, on a [i]net[/i] basis, I doubt) to the work output, then any increase in power [i]comes at a cost. [/i]

I again return to my earlier assertion -- where is the increase in power over a given work duration? Where is the 4-hour IM ride? Where is the 44-minute 40k? The 2:35 IM run split? Anybody? Lab results? Increases in O2 uptake at a given power level. Sorry -- not conclusive.

One of the hallmarks of a cultish following of a given belief system is this: When a given adherent fails to achieve the results as advertised, the leader of the belief system falls back to the argument, "You didn't do it right, and your failure to achieve results serves only to reinforce the greatness of this system. Since you did it wrong and didn't get results, then you have proven that if one does it right, one will get results."

But a meeting of two enthusiastic believers results in [b][i]asinus asinum fricat. [/i][/b]

That's enough Latin for one night. I'll let somebody else look that one up. And, Frank, I do not intend to engage in [b]argumentum ad hominem. [/b]You are a gentleman and I mean no offense.[/reply]

What on earth are you talking about. A bunch of gibberish what if this what if that. One never can predict what will actually happen in a race nor how any specific athlete will feel and perform that day.

The range of efficiencies of cyclists typically range from about 16 to 23-24%. For the same energy expenditure the 24% athletes are putting out 50% more energy to the wheel than the 16% athletes. Wonder who is more likely to win that race. then consider, is it "easier" for the 16% athletes to gain the 50% in power to catch up with their competitors by increasing efficiency or increasing the ability to burn fuel 50%. For some, who don't know how to improve efficiency, the answer may be number two, but if one can improve efficiency, the gains are much more easy there, plus one can also improve metabolic burn rate also, if one desires.

Further, these normal efficiencies are so far below the theoretic possible efficiency (about 50%) that even in the professional cyclists (those who tend to be at the higher efficiencies mentioned above), there is substantial potential for improvement. If one analyzes where the potential gains are the greatest why wouldn't one turn towards improving efficiency ("training smarter") over "training harder".

To imply that the more efficient athlete is more likely to fail to finish any particular race is absolute hogwash. Where on earth is there any data to support that notion?

You ask me where the results are and use the failure to have them as evidence of my quackery or whatever. My goodness. I was simply putting forth my prediction as to the possibilities 10 years or so hence. Let me reiterate, PC's are not a magic talisman that will suddenly made someone fast and efficient. One must put in the hard work over many years to make the kind of changes I infer are possible. A few have started the process. One of them may put it all together. We will have to wait to see.

So my recommendations as to how to best use my product satisfies the definition of a cult ("One of the hallmarks of a cultish following of a given belief system is this: When a given adherent fails to achieve the results as advertised, the leader of the belief system falls back to the argument, "You didn't do it right, and your failure to achieve results serves only to reinforce the greatness of this system. Since you did it wrong and didn't get results, then you have proven that if one does it right, one will get results."). Sort of puts every coach into this definition doesn't it. So be it. I am looking for my robes now.

---

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