Is the 18.6mph you averaged on normal cranks @ your HR, higher or lower than before you started using PC's?

What, you mean you have not increased your power by 40% yet? "By training with PowerCranks™ one can easily train these important muscles without any additional time commitment, making the time you are now spending training, more effective and efficient. Our data indicates the typical cyclist/triathlete can increase power on the bicycle 40% (that's 2-3 mph faster on the road for most) and the typical runner can take 20 minutes off their marathon time in less than one season. Further, it seems that second year improvement can be just as dramatic, if not more so."

Give it a rest, Gary. It's getting old.

Luntzy, I don't know, I didn't do a pre-pc test, and I don't think I ever trained at this low a HR on a trainer before, but I'll look through my old notes to see if I did anything like this in the past. I usually do some sort of interval workout on the trainer, though.

Gary, come on. Two months? Don't tell me you think I'd be disappointed that I have not come anywhere near the gains that you just quoted. We all know your story. You couldn't stick with the PC program in exchange for a discount price and dissemination of information you agreed to compile. For whatever reasons, you chose to back out of the deal to which you agreed.

That's fine that you couldn't keep your end of the deal. But, to stoop to throw rocks at someone that didn't make a deal, and is sticking with PC's because I see the benefits (even if this test doesn't show a benefit to me when done this way)...well, let's just say that your rock missed it's target. Again. Reload and try again if you wish.

Two months ago, I couldn't pedal PC's longer than a minute without getting out of phase. Now, as long as my rpm's are below the low 80's, my hip flexors have progressed enough that I don't have to stop to rest them. I'm certainly not expecting miracles in only two months. Maybe you did. Also, I'm not an average cyclist, so I expect not to have the gains of an average cyclist. Also, I do expect to have to work hard and long for the gains PC's will provide. (Except for the run benefits...they happened within a week, and are still building.)

The crazy people are those that try the same old things and hope the results will change. PC's are different than anything I've ever done. I'm already seeing improvements that are important to me.

Oh, Gary, BTW, I hope your TT website does well. I especially look forward to reading something other than rehashing old ideas all the time. I assume that will happen at some point in the future on your site.

---

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

Thanks for the update. Great post!

I'm curious, did you do the two tests back to back on the same day? Either way, I'd suggest that each time you do the test you alternate which cranks you ride first. I know that when I do long rides, I really don't settle in an get in a really good groove for about an hour.

Actually Gary, I find an improvement in max speed from 34.5 mph on regular cranks to 40.5 today on PCs rather impressive. Thats a 17.4% improvement in max speed. I'm not sure what that translates to in terms of max power output, but I'd like it if someone could let us know. Of course you're not interested in increasing your max speed by over 17 percent, since that's piss-ant child's play.

That axe you've been grinding looks worn down to a nub. Don't you think it's time to move on? BTW, what happened to your old signature: "PC'r"?

For example Gary, on your site, instead of rehashing old training techniques such as, do volume, a bit at level 2, then level 3 (whatever terminology you are using), you could make a bit of research to figure out what pros are now doing?
if you look at the current training methodology (in cycling with many dutch, german, italians, belgians) in running, in triathlon, and swimming, they use reverse pyramid:

the aim is to get to the volume part of training with a high anaerobic capacity (I skip the details as to why, but you should look at it) with very fast, very short intervals with long recovery, followed with Vo2max work, then putting for the peak prep. the volume and race specific sessions...

the big core of pros in endurance sports are using this approach now, as it allows a higher level of fitness throughout the year, and allow you to be competitive on short and long distances...

however, you choose, instead of moving forward to bash powercranks...
one thing is sure: bashing powercranks, and not looking for newer training techniques will not induce a lot of change in your TT perf.

Interesting concept. Do know of some websites where I can read up on this? Thanks

there used to be a lot of info on this on the website of accusport (lactate analyser) at
www.lactate.com

but since it is becoming increasingly popular, now all the articles are not freeware anymore but come with a CD-rom you purchase with the analyser.

else, if you do a search on jan olbrech or
reinout van schuylenbergh, you can come across some articles. Olbrecht also has a book on this.
I am heading on google to search this and get back to you.

you can start there with LVL talking about his training a bit...still searching, can find a lot of info...but in dutch.

http://web.outsideonline.com/magazine/1197/9711ass.html

Pooks, yes, I did the tests back to back. I rode for 10 minutes to get my heartrate stabilized and to see what rpm and gear I needed to be in to keep my HR in the range I chose. Then, I stopped pedalling until my HR hit 90 and started the PC test. After an hour, I stopped and wrote down the results, changed cranks and re-warmed up as before, then began my regular crank test.

I do notice that I take a while to really get warmed up, too. I'll run the test with regular cranks first next time.

Also, I think I'll run this test a couple of different ways...30 minutes at HR of 160 (more like a sprint/olympic triathlon effort); 5 minutes at HR of 170 then go to half that speed until my HR recovers to 140 and repeat for half an hour (which is more like how I actually ride a sprint tri...what with coasting down hills and all), or some other not-so-boring test. I'm the weakest at the long, slow, grinding courses...I guess my aerobic base isn't very deep?...I much prefer hard effort/coast downhill style of hilly terrain. This probably means I should make myself do more of these long, slow, grinding rides...I just find I'd rather go hard every once in a while...even on my slow rides. I always tell my riding buddies when I just feel like I have to take off, and I'll go on up ahead for a while, turn around and rejoin them for some more grinding.

It's supposed to be good weather tomorrow, so I'll be out there for over 3 hours, I promise, Francois! I'm going to go 1.5 hours out, so I know I'll be out there for more than 3! There, I said it, so that is what I have to do! I need to practice 1/2 ironman nutrition anyway...if I feel real good, I might even run a few miles when I get back in...but, I'm not committing to the run part!

---

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

---

Bob Williams

yes he does,

a friend of mine (Matt Koorey) coaches following this approach at
www.mkmultisport.com.au
(quite cheap for americans as in $au)
he is in contact with the dutch guys and LVL is definitely following this approach.

For info Matt trained himself to a 4h20' half with 10h/week max 13h/wk following this approach.

A bit more info there
http://www.sdxtraining.com/PerformTest.asp

I have a copy of what was on the lactate.com site.
I will summarize the general idea (that can be applied even without the use of a lactate analyzer)

Negtive, not the story dude.

Really? Is that bashing them? Is'nt 40% improvement what they claim?

I believe your original quote is probably accurate, that the typical (that means average) cyclist can increase power 40% (2-3mph) in less than a year. As I said, I am not typical, I imagine I might get half of that increase, and, I've only been on them two months and one week (not a year). This is about 2 months longer than you reported trying them, by the way.

So, yes, I'd say you are attempting to "bash" them. If you don't think you are attempting to "bash" them, I'd be willing to bet you're opinion is in the minority.

My best tt result last year was 24.49 mph. It will be easy enough to see if improve on my time this year...I expect to get to 25.49-25.99 mph...about half of the claim for the "typical cyclist". (As I said, I am starting at a point above the typical, so I should expect less than the typical increase.) We will see. It's easy enough to check out. I'll even post the links to last year's tt and this year's tt results, if you'd like, so you can check it out. Maybe it will happen, maybe it won't. I'm willing to keep on the PC's either way, because they've helped my running so much already.

---

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

I have definately heard that they improve running, similar to POSE in that they strengthen the hip flexor to lift the leg easier. That is definately a reason to use them. I have always said that they are a good tool. I unfortunately could not use them the way I wanted. If I had a set of PC's and a dedicated bike I would use them maybe once per week for 1 leg drill workouts. Its not that I gave up so much as that I was unable to ride my non-PC equipped TT bike, just able to ride my road bike with them. Frank and I were not on the same plane there.

No bigee.

Hey, I'm not the only one who questions the 40%, ask Coach Gordo (xtri.com), Dr. Coggan and L. Zinn (velonews.com).

As for running, well I have never questioned the improvements in running ... just questioned the improvements of "40% in one year and double the next" on the bike.

<hr>

http://www.wi.ca/imcal/comments/index1308.htm

Date: Tuesday February 18th, 2003 7:20 Comment 233261
acorn of Carlsbad email: @
I used to think power was stupid. Then I started using it. Even without a real game plan, power is cool. I used to think powercranks would help. Then I started using them. Without something I'm missing, simple use of powercranks has not made me faster at time trials. I used to think steep angled tri bikes were stupid. Then I trained and raced on slacker road bikes. I was slower. Now I'm back to the dorky tri bike. Yeah it sucks to have to train the flats and ride around in your aerobars with your butt in the air like a friggin bike weenie. But if you want to get faster it's kind of mandatory.

Oh and the training on my site is being revised to show Coggans TT workouts.

hey ktalon. interesting test. but, for me i never really thought i would be or will be faster on PC's than regular cranks. i didn't buy them to race on, i bought them to train with. currently to that end i have them on an exceedingly nice riding but tank-like bike - i care not how fast i am on it and don't even have a computer on the beast. for racing, i consider PC skills as an adjunct to regular style pedalling. hence regular cranks will be faster as you can ride either Pc style or regular style, depending on the immediate circumstance. and, there are certainly benefits to regular cranks in tucking, cornering, or light pedalling when the situation warrants. and uhhhh, there is that matter of the poundage ! :) anyway, that is where i am at today - as people try racing on them maybe i will reconsider. see, and you all thought i was a shameless PC shill !!

t-t-n, I agree with you. I didn't get them to race on, but I thought I might. My test results may change as I adapt, and I'll test to determine if and when I would ride faster on PC's. My top speed is faster on PC's, which tells me something is better about my PC pedal stroke...obviously I'm not getting the rising leg out of the way on regular cranks (much less pulling up with it at high rpm's under load), but that's no big surprise. It takes time to develop a better pedal stroke.

But, if the time comes that I'm faster on PC's, you can bet I'll race on them. Right now, if I were in a sprint, I'd be faster on PC's! I could see how I could road race right now on them, drafting a lot (so being in an aero position for a long time isn't important), and sprinting for the win at the end. That's how I used to win most of my road races back when I did them.

I can also imagine how, after adaptation, especially on long TT races, I would revert to not lifting my leg as well as I tired, effectively sapping power to the drivetrain. If I had PC's on the bike, I would immediately be aware of that condition so that I'd have a chance to correct that inefficiency, therefore going faster.

The only thing I really know from my test, is that on a trainer, using the conditions I used, I'm faster on regular cranks.

So, for a shorter TT effort, I can only assume I'm faster on regular cranks. However, this MIGHT NOT be true, because I'm faster uphill on PC's than regular cranks!!...probably for some of the same reasons I'm faster on PC's in a sprint effort. So, my test showed only one limited characteristic which applies to only MY tested situation. I really need to go ride the actual course on PC's and regular cranks, monitor my HR, PE, and then run 5K afterward in order to tell which set is better. The biggest problem with this is that the course is in a very busy downtown area...no way to actually do this test.

I don't know what the result would be, it wouldn't surprise me if I'm faster on PC's, mostly because of the increased uphill speed I have on PC's. I do have a couple of rural races coming up where I'll have a chance to evaluate each type of crank on the actual courses...one of them is downright mountainous...I'd be surprised if I weren't faster on PC's on that one, even after only riding PC's two months...

The point is, one test I did is limited in it's value to interpret real-world riding...it's value is limited to a flat, non-aero-position-requiring ride. The maximum speed sprint test does indicate real drivetrain power differences. I know the tests have limits in their usefulness in the real world. But, I have the desire to devise and run tests, and to examine the results for whatever they may show, or not show.

All I want to do is to improve my riding, I'm not out to promote one thing over another. And I'm always open to suggestions on how to train more effectively, conduct tests that have meaning, and how to interpret the results. If I do this in a public forum, I understand I'm also, by default, open to pot-shots from naysayers. They don't bother me, I take them for what they're worth.

---

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

cool by me, ktalon. you are on the right track i believe and your tests are interesting to read. i would add only that, as you say 2 mo is not very long.

to not PC-er - those are good questions. not that i am an exercise engineer (?) or anything, but the answer from my own perspective has little to do with PC's per se. it has been an intuitive goal of riders to "pedal in circles" for a hundred years. if there was ever a widespread goal that letting the recovering leg lag along for over half the pedal stroke while the stronger driving one pushed it it is a goal i have never heard of. people have triied all manner of acheiveing the perfect stroke - PC's are simply an elegant and simple way to acheive it every pedal stroke. if you want to pedal circles and maintain drive forward with all your energy they rock most heavily. if you think you already DO maintain postive and not backwards motion at rthe pedals and you have never ridden PC's you are fooloing yourself as a test ride on a pair for 10 min will painfully demonstrate. if you want to say it is more efficiaent to push your recovering leg along the top/bottom/upstroke with the driving one than PC's are not what you want to buy.

as an aside, i am at a training camp this weekend with a bunch of mt bikers who also race the track, and are buds with a few natioanl/world level track riders. they are hip to Pc's, and if the struggling riders can afford them they use them - the one's that can't want to, so they say.

An excellent point.

The fact is that the leg extensors are FAR more powerful than the hip flexors. A couple of points worth mentioning...

1) Power is all about muscle recruitment, which is the fancy term for how many of your muscle fibers are contracting in response to a given nerve impulse. Since you have more, and better developed fibers in your extensors, it is more efficient to recruit these fibers than to try to recruit fibers in the relatively weak flexors. This model would fall apart at truly maximal power output of the extensors, at which time recruitment of the small remaining muscle mass of the flexors could be used since you are already using all of the available power from the extensors. However, I would submit that we are not riding at maximal power output in TT's...I mean, are any of you guys in a 1500 watt sprint for 40k?

2) When you look at the pedal strokes of the truly great sprinters, they are mashers (track guys, cipollini, etc). They do not pull up much on the back end of their pedal stroke, they are too busy pounding down with the full mass of their extensors. (Most of us are in no position to challenge these folks anyway, just an observation).

3) The people with the "best pedal strokes", i.e. the roundest, are MTBer's. This is not about power output. It is a requirement on steep, rough terrain, where an unbalanced downstroke might make the rear wheel spin out, for example in a climb on loose soil.

4) How many of the great professional cyclists use PC's? Did lance or Jan need them to turn into 50 kph TTers? In other words, do pc's provide anything that you cannot accomplish with dedicated training and some one legged drills? What most of us need is solid, consistent training, not expensive cranks.

Push down on your downstroke. Pull across the bottom. That is what physiology tells us. As you get stronger, you will note that you can push bigger gears at the same cadence. That makes you faster.

Hey, I'm just telling it like I hear it in med school/sports physiology. I don't care what you ride. But people ought to know what the science says before they plunk down a bunch of money in a product which is supported by anecdote. Maybe PC's somehow do something heretofore unknown to science. But don't ride them thinking that they have much to do with physiology as it is known today, no matter what the website says. No matter how much "common sense" an explanation seems to make, it does NOT make it science.

Philbert, the other resident Slowtwitch Med Student

---

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