indeed at altitude. 4500ft roughly (don't have the exact height). although doesn't the lack of air resistance is compensate by the lack of O2?
I guess it is highly individual. I have seen a paper stating some people are 99% of Vo2 at 4000ft and some at 90% (avg quoted is loss of 3% per 1500ft)

Fred,

Coyles research (at least based on the abstract) doesn't support a single thing that you have said, other than better cyclists apply more power to the pedal than lesser cyclists (duh). Especially in view of the finding that the group one cyclists had higher muscular capillary density.

The only conclusion that makes sense is the one they came too. Those that train more are better than those who train less. Duh.

Frank

---

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

But the paper means nothing in the post PC world as these riders were not capable of learning how to pull up. So, the ony way to really get faster was to get stronger. If he were to repeat that study using two groups of "equal" riders one pc trained and one not and he found the same thing then it would mean something.

It proves nothing in the PC debate.

Frank

---

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

Moriarity? where is that?

I have done it on Columbus drive ( a long stretch of road going by the border patrol in santa teresa that runs about 400km with like 3 turns)...popular place for TT and challenges between triathletes and cyclists.

however, the difference between best TT at sea level and here is close. (a bit less) 51'37'' at sea level
vs just 50' at the time (when I arrived in El Paso).
so maybe a low 51' high 50' at sea level

Fred,

Have you seen the anecdotal report of Phil Holman, a masters track cyclist, who, in seven months on the PC's, increased his top speed from 35 to 38 mph and his pursuit from 30 to 32, winning a medal at masters worlds? This calculated to an aproximate 25% power increase in 7 months at the highest competitive level. Do you think it is possible at this level in this period of time to increase muscle recruitment and use 25% to see this type of power increase? If so, why can't everyone do it? Or, could there be another explanation?

Frank

---

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

-" I'm more interested in the intellectual debate."

ahhhh, yah. and so you post a wordy paper which is scarsely relevant to what PCs even do? n-i-c-e. "intellectual" as opposed to what? what works for people? is something only worthwhile in fred-land after fred intellectualizes it? nothing works until fred deems it intellectually possible? it never occurs to fred to go out and do a field study himself or listen to those who have unless fred first has a preconceived intellectualization on the outcome??? did i say "good lord "yet?

..." I made no representations that it was relevant to this debate"

oh, that helps then.

Fred, I really liked your "not a leg to stand on" humor! Thanks!

What I view about this whole sheebang is...OK, let's say you've done everything to your extensor group that's possible, and you no longer are able to improve their function of putting power to the wheel in a sustained time trial. Do you think your cardiac output is the limiting factor in the force being applied to the wheel?

If cardiac output is the limiting factor...OK. Extensors are the only way to go. They are more efficient (I'll have to take your word for it, and it seems to make sense to me.)

If cardiac output is not the limiting factor, then recruiting other muscles to at least decrease the work wasted by the extensors to raise the foot would result in an increase of power to the wheel.

But, my entire, simple arguement rests on the cardiac output not being THE limiting factor.

---

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

found it...it's in NM actually. El Paso is in TX (nearly NM though),http://www.cooltri.com/ag40kmenbike.htm

also say that it is actually slower and times should be corrected downwards because of thinner air and
180 turn (as on Columbus road for sundown TT)

Fred, you didn't answer the questions. Do you think it is possible that this was due to increased extensor muscle fiber recruitment or to some other reason?

You only commented that maybe PC's caused burnout because he is no longer competing. Perhaps a 50 + man could possibly have the maturity to want to do other things with his life when he achieves an athletic goal. Let's try to keep the discussion academic and "factual" if possible.

Frank

---

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

Gary, if you're still out there, apparently I did have the story incorrect...I owe you an apology for getting the story wrong. I didn't do it on purpose. Now, as for the other things...well, let me just leave this post for the apology you deserve. Sorry!

---

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

fred,

You are fighting the good fight. I have heard most of your agruments from people much more educated than I (2 phd level physiologists and a phd anatomist, and one of those physiologists is very well known in the cycling world), and I agree with them. I dare say their opinion carries a bit more weight than that of the manufacturer. I refuse to continue in this debate because it is like arguing religion with people.

The fact is that there is no good (or published) data to support the manufacturers claims, or the anecdotal claims of those who have improved using them. When there is such data, I will be glad to look at it. I am not arguing that they don't work, I am arguing that there is no publishable evidence that they do. They might, in fact, work.

It is not up to us to prove PCs don't work, it is up to the manufacturer to prove they do. Until that time, my $700 bucks is going towards a power tap, as power based training has been shown to be demonstrably (and repeatedly) beneficial. More times than not, when you see pics of lance armstrong in the trade mags, or even on posters, what is he on? SRM CRANKS. Not power cranks.

If you still have the energy for this, Fred, you are a better man than I. Rock on.

Over and out,

Philbert

---

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

Actually, I quite agree except on one point: it is not up to the manuf. to prove they work.

it would have to be an independent research study not paid by the manufacturer. it is more ethical.

Frank asked for a reference, and I was kind enough to give him the entire abstract rather than making him look it up himself

- -------an abstact with no relevance to the current discussion, that is

. I made no representations that it was relevant to this debate,

- ---------i think we've already covered this

except that it supports what I've been saying about how elite cyclists actually do pedal.

------------ yes it does in the absence of the relevant discussion, whoopee.

Well, he attributed a good portion of his success to the PC's, as do many of the users at this site. I guess it is easy to discount all of these observations saying, well, they are all just working harder. Perhaps true, perhaps not.

One of the problems with anecdotal reports is they are inconvenient when they conflict with the current favored theory. Ignoring them is the easiest solution to this problem. Studying them is a better solution but requires intellectual honesty, something in short supply in some circles.

While some anecdotal reports are pretty easy to ignore (UFO's for one) others aren't. The PC reports would fall into the last category for most, but apparently not for you.

Frank

---

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

......"The fact is that there is no good (or published) data to support the manufacturers claims, or the anecdotal claims of those who have improved using them. When there is such data, I will be glad to look at it. I am not arguing that they don't work, I am arguing that there is no publishable evidence that they do. They might, in fact, work.

It is not up to us to prove PCs don't work, it is up to the manufacturer to prove they do. Until that time, my $700 bucks is going towards a power tap, as power based training has been shown to be demonstrably (and repeatedly) beneficial. More times than not, when you see pics of lance armstrong in the trade mags, or even on posters, what is he on? SRM CRANKS. Not power cranks. ............"



as one of anaecdotal guys i see no problem here. an entirely reasonable view as a consumer. i took a chance on something that i doubted very much would work and my seat of pants results convinced me otherwise. altho, it is still worth noting that a whole passel of stuff for tri is purchased on simialr faith, anecdotal support, or even data which is plain wrong or insignificant. this is all in contrst to quoting a bunch of speculative hooha on why they won't or can't do what people actually riding them say they can and do without any data to support what you are espousing ( sound familiar?) and calling it intellect or science. it is neither. most of us anecdotal guys have already said we took a chance and are happy with the way things are turning out for us. waiting for more results is likewise good. offering unrelated obscure rhetoric based on unrelated studies and incomplete assumptions as fact is just plain a waste of time. buy them or not. try them or not. wait for irrefutable proof or not. buy a powertap or a coach. all good. spout off rhetoric on why they can't work based on - lets be honest - nothing is plain dumb, no matter how smart you fancy yourself.