Dr. Winkle wrote: "As was explained to you several times, the etiology of the incomplete filling is the fact that the heart can't relax fast enough to reach maximal end systolic volume (which is normally restrained by the pericardium). Since beta blockade results in increased stroke volume (although reduced cardiac output) at VO2max, the "precipitating factors" seems to be excessive ionotropic and chronotropic stimulation of the heart by the sympathetic nervous system."

Thanks. Finally some iinformation that actually might support the cardiac point of view. Couple of questions as I see a couple of "problems" with the explanation. Since it requires energy for muscle to relax, is the failure to relax due to inadequate energy supplies or something else. What is the basis of the inadequate relaxation. You state that SV is constrained by the pericardium, but then state that beta blockade will allow increased SV. Is it constrained by pericardium or not? Is there a reference where this data was reported? Did they also report what was going on with electrolytes, filling pressure, and pH when all of these changes were occuring?

Anyhow, it makes sense that the changes you describe probablyt occur (although your explanation has some contradictions) but they, in and of themselves, do not prove your argument that the basis of these changes are entirely cardiac as these changes could just as well come from lack of energy due to pH changes interfering with energy production, leading to poor relaxation. The argument here, again, is what is the trigger that starts all of these changes.

---

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

RIP wrote: "If by "anaerobic" you mean release of lactate"

by anaerobic, I meant ischemic. I think you knew that.

---

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

If you read my thread titled "Sorry, another powercrankers view" I am currently trying PCs.
Having been a runner for 20 years and a cyclist for almost as long I continue to be somewhat skeptical of the results I will see with the PCs. Why? Simply I do not find them that difficult. In order to convince me that something will work, I want to feel like it is really pushing me. With the PCs, I just have not gotten that yet. My first trainer ride, I went 30 minutes straight at over 20 mph and could of gone longer.
I feel the people who will most benefit from Powercranks are beginners as they are still developing. Others who have been at it for a long time, regardless of their talent level, I feel have far less to gain from PCs then beginners. Sure I know that this pro and that pro is using them but to what extent? Is George Hincapie riding them exclusively? Is Lance Armstrong? Are they simply using them as a time saving device for doing their normal one-legged drills?
I also believe there is something to be said about the "power of suggestion" with using Powercranks. In other words, damn-it, I am using Powercranks so I will be this much faster in this amount of time! Make sense?

Rip wrote: "If, however, you take the somewhat simplistic view that there can be only one limiting factor at any time"

I am taking the simplistic view that there is "only one limiting factor at any one time"? Which thread have you been following? Explain to me again this metabolic control theory again and how it relates to your latest explanation of "failure to relax" and "pericardium restriction". Thanks.

---

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

I think the main issue is the claims Frank makes regarding Powercranks. If Frank came out and said "Powercranks work at building your hip flexors giving you a more efficient pedalling style, but a 40% increase in power may have been an overestimation" I think the anti-PC establishment would respond with "We agree"

In looking at the powercranks.com website the only comment I have is that it claims to help so many sports. I've always believed and heard that specificity in training is the key to improvement in any sport. How is it that a product is able to help so many different sports when it's something that is used specifically on a bicycle? For example...it claims to help swimmers...but in order to be proficient in PC's and to see improvement a swimmer would have to spend more time on the bike using the PC's which in turn would take away from sport specific training. The same goes for field sports, court sports, etc....Is it a magic "elixir" for improved performance across the board? That seems fairly far fetched to me....

Skyman, As I said on the other thread, your transition is well above normal and it is quite possible that you and others of your ilk may not see 40% improvement in power. However, you should see improvement.

Were you able to ride them 100 miles yet at a cadence of 90 and break or tie ttn's record? If we didn't stress you some on that ride then send them back. That is the whole purpose of the moneyback guarantee. My guess though, is, if you will use them exclusively, you will be seeing the benefits before that 90 days are up.

Regarding the elites I don't know any who are riding them exclusively. Some have tried in the beginning but have not had as easy an adaption as you. As S. Larsen told me after he had ridden them exclusively for about 3 months after his MTB racing season started "I can't do my recovery rides on them as these are not recovery for me".

Also, as I said on the other post, there have been a few like you. One is Alan Larsen, who has won RAAM a few times. He got on them for the first time at the Seattle Bike show and was able to ride at a cadence of 90 for 20 minutes and could have gone longer. Despite this ability, he is no seriously training on them and the last email I had from him was something like "I wish I had known about these sooner". I cannot control how users use them. I have almost no control over the elites who usually have coaches telliing them what to do and I get very little feedback. I feel lucky they will even try them. I try to influence how people use them because I am not just looking to take their money but, rather, am looking to help them get the most out of the product. Since people try them because they are looking for improvement, I suggest that to help them see the best improvement. I don't suggest exclusive use for runners or other athletes. However, users are free to do what their own intuition and schedule dictate. I even take the cranks back if the person hasn't used them properly.

And, of course, there is something about the power of suggestion. In medicine it is called the laying on of the hands. However, appropriate studies can usually elicite what is "placebo" and what isn't. Clearly, however, if you improve, it doesn't look like it will be from placebo. Report back.

Frank

---

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

Now I understand Kraig. It is bad to ask respected scientists to connect the dots. Perhaps that is what makes the arguments sound plausible.

Anyhow, I don't see the problem and I am not even sure this is a gap argument as I am asking what is the initiating event, not what is in the gap between the initiating event and end result.

Let us see, Einstein came up with the theory of relativity around the turn of the century and the US last week sent up a satelite to see if it is true, a satelite that apparently took 40 years to build). Seems like a big waste of time and money for all these scientists to ask the question as to whether this generally accepted theory could possibly have any holes in it. Sounds like a classic gap argument to me, doesn't even sound plausible to me, but then it is way over my head. I will get in line to have my hand slapped for daring to question the "experts" on something that is "settled" amongst the "experts" even though I have a purely inadequate background in physiology, according to the "experts"

Or was your cartoon directed towards my claims and not the current debate - it is not clear. Anyhow, my claims are based upon what I have seen and what users report. I do not claim to "know" exactly what we do to achieve those ends. I have made theories (and, I suspect, there are many things that add up) but it is up to others to study this to determine exactly what they do. Instead, what we get are objections from people who have never trained with them that they can't do what everyone (or almost everyone) reports.

Frank

---

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

Many athletes alter their training by adding things that are not sport specific. When I rowed crew the coach had us run, even thow it had nothing to do specifically with rowing. No one suggests that swimmers should start riding a bike and stop swimming. However, the PC's might be used as an adjunct to give them better capable hip flexors such that they can have a stronger kick, expecially for the longer events.

It is only a "magic elixer" in the sense that they actually train the HF's and form beyond what can be done without them and the HF's are important to a whole wide range of sports. You can believe it or not. However, the fact that the TB Buccaneers, and NY Yankees both use and love them says something to these extra uses. I can assure you these athletes are not riding bicycles around the city but using them as adjuncts in the training room.

Anyhow, it is up to the individual athlete to determine how to best integrate them into their sport, or not. Again, except for swimming which is pure conjecture, my claims are based upon reports of users. Anyone can try them and if they don't work, send them back.

Frank

---

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

wow - what a serious problem you have. have you thought of working your issues through with a counsellor?

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com

Frank, I would not put myself in the same paragraphs with others like Steve Larsen or Alan Larsen. Sure, I have found the PCs to be not all that difficult but I am no where even close to a Steve Larsen or a RAAM winner. As I said in my other thread, the fact that I already have fairly developed hip flexors from running steep hills for many years is what is concerning me that the PCs may not be right for me.
I am also not saying that the PCs work simply as a placebo effect. That would be an idiotic statement, like saying bench presses don't develop the pecs.
I do believe that some of the significant gains that some have seen with PCs are as a result of "believing" that they are getting better. Does that make using the PCs worth the money? If you truly are getting faster, be it from suggestion or something physical, then sure!

you're correct; discussing McArdles has nothing to do with limiting factors in endurance exercise, but not knowing that lactate is produced at all times is a pretty basic fact for anyone invloved in this and related fields. this, plus the fact that you take a counter argument on a well accepted general concensus (i.e., Q being the limiting factor) makes me think you don't know much about exercise physiology.

the 40% is ridiculous. it's so ridiculous that it's laughable. now, if you'd have said 4%, that might have been plausible.

Ric

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com

Skyman, let's just see what happens when you have more time on them. Give them a chance and see if they can do anything substantial with time. Improvement takes time. You should start to see it first in your climbing.

Frank

---

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

Med school was awhile ago but not so long ago that I don't remember that this stuff was covered in M1 physiology class. The idea that cardiac output cannot increase infinitely simply by increasing HR, that at some point increased HR will no longer yield increases in CO, is not unreasonable and was probably discovered and verified decades ago.

This literally is M1 stuff and if you can't grasp it then it shows both your stubbornness and ignorance of basic physiology.

I'm perfectly willing to spend lots of money on products that I can be convinced work. Powercranks do not appear to fit in that category.

You're a far better salesman than you are a physiologist, MD, or engineer.


[reply]
Bitey wrote: "This is M1 stuff."

Bitey, I don't know if you are a medical student or not, but if you are, a word of advice from someone who has been around the block once or twice, or more. You and your patients will be much better off in the future if you can develop a sense of humility for how much you don't know over that sense of pompousness for what you think you do. And, don't be afraid to question the basis of anything and don't be upset if someone questions your basis. Sometimes the best you can answer is "that is what I was taught". Anyhow, if you are not afraid to continue to ask a lot of questions, someday you will probably be pretty good.

Frank [/reply]

Dr. Bitey, where on earth did you think I ever said that CO could increase indefinitely by simply increasing HR. All I have said is the underlying limiter (that "weakness" starts the process of being able to do no more) to increasing exercise intensity (VO2 max) is found in the periphereral muscles, not the heart.

For those who say it is the heart, all I have asked for is the underlying mechanism. And once you have given me that, then why is it with training people can generally increase their VO2 max.

I think this gets substantially deeper than is generally taught in in 1st year physiology because it also involves biochemistry and the interaction of all these systems. I mean, I have a pretty good background in this stuff. Why can't I see it if it is so easy? (I know, you and many others keep asking yourself this.)

Frank

---

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

Why can't everyone just try Powercranks for themselves and put an end to all this?
I'm trying them right now, but am not convinced they are for me. That by no means implies that they are not a good product. And if I do decide after 90 days to return them for a refund I certainly am not going to "bad-mouth" them just because they may not have been right for me.
Why do so many think Frank Day (for a lack of a better term) is a quack!? Personally, I think he deserves more credit then he is getting.

I believe it's due to the fact that he claims that Powercranks do so much for so many different types of athletes. From cyclist's to swimmers....field sports to runners. 40% increase in power in 6-12 mos...due specifically to his product. That seems very far fetched to me. It's not the powercrank technology itself...it's what they aim to accomplish...which is quite alot.

Skyman,

What a pleasant thought. Try 'em yourself then comment. It might actually be refreshing if you did decide to send them back before the 90 days because there would be at least one person who gave them a good go who said "did nothing for me".

Anyhow, here is my take on the "quack" thing. Several years ago I started talking about PC's here on the web. Many of the current crop of naysayers were there and immediately lambasted the whole concept and the claims were impossible, etc. etc. In the beginning it wass just me against the world and since I didn't bow to their superior knowledge in this area, egos get hurt. Now, there are lots of users out there posting results that are somewhat consistent with the claims (some better some worse, but generally consistent with the claims when averaged out). But, there is ego and face involved now. It is too risky to try them out themselves because, if they are wrong, all of their arguments are immediately proven wrong as is, their automatic superiority in arguments such as this. So, just keep attributing any possible improvements to placebo, and indicate that the claims are impossible to achieve, and debunk the person, hence the quackery label.

The cranks speak for themselves, if someone will give them a chance. Unfortunately, they only speak to the person training with them. Thanks for trying. Report the truth of your results to the masses. I can take it, whatever it is.

Frank

---

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

well i have to say that the below reset post is the best thing EVER to be posted on this subject on the s-twitch board. so good, i will post it again. :)

but first i wanna thank r stern for his advice concerning a fellow's willingness to always remain open for seeking help with one's issues. always a good idea, that. tell you what tho, while i give a call to the insurance company for a prior authorization and all that stuff, perhaps you or one of your compradres could remind us all at home again:

just WHY was it we are supposed to listen to guys with MS's or whatever in exercise who-ha who perhaps run internet coaching services for hobbyist participatory athlete's ( what else does that qualify you for, btw - could you be, like - madonna's trainer?) and in any case have zero experience with PC's of any significance over the word of , say, dr testa - a man of absolute legendary stature as a coach and mentor in the sport/science of cycling who has worked with them (PC's), at the utter highest level of performance - again?

i mean to say, we all know that YOU guys figure you are smarter than dr testa, despite not . . . . . . er . . . . . . . . . . well that is . . . . . . . . . . . . . possessing ANYthing to match his smallest acheivement in the sport. but let's just say i lost why it is you should possibly think that anybody ELSE ( save maybe your dog) should feel that way too.



in the meantime - wanna know about PC's as revealed by the s-twitch board, here ya go.

"I've been avoiding this thread for several days, but this morning I took my punishment and went through it. My summary:



- 301 posts and I would guess Frank and Rip contributed 70% of them (~210 posts)

- ~90 posts by other people weighing in on everything from red shoes to diarrhea.

- Lots of reasons why PCs can’t work, the majority, of course by Rip. Reasons why they do mostly by Frank.

- Absolutely no posts from anyone who has bought PCs and either found them not to work, or were totally disgusted with PCs, or even merely mildly unhappy, let alone comments that they weren’t worth the money. Similar (identical) pattern in other PC threads. For this forum, I think that speaks volumes.

- Not to say that there weren’t comments that PCs don’t work, weren’t worth the money, and weren’t happy with them. However, it appears that every individual who made these comments has never ridden PCs. The possible exception is the rather enigmatic Ken Willet who won’t clearly acknowledge or deny he has rode/bought/fondled PCs and won’t state experience of said riding (or fondling). One feels that there is considerable underlying politics going on, but being relatively new to the forum (March of this year), I haven’t got a clue. Mr. Day does have a tendency, as evident in other threads, of excessive handwaving and shooting from the hip. I could be gracious and chalk it up to the symptoms of a busy individual, not an uncommon trait in this population (i.e. triathlete culture). However, it is a trait that can and readily does annoy some people

- I get the impression there are people who bought the PCs but didn’t stay with them. Nothing really new there. Any idea of the number of people who buy health club memberships and never go after the first three months (as an example, please don’t debate the specifics e.g. 2 months vs 4 months, yada yada yada.)

- Good science and good scientists repeat other people’s work to verify and validate for themselves. Rip seems to have ample opportunity to borrow PCs and evaluate for himself. Not evaluating the cranks considerably weakens his argument for me. I appreciate the time available to invest argument, however, for someone who has spent this much time arguing against PCs in this and other threads, that argument does not hold a microliter of water."

In an effort to reign in the tangent that this thread has taken, let me remind everyone how it started.

I think it's been a while since the original postings I put up, (maybe over a year ago?) discussing why I thought using the supposedly "less efficient" hip flexors was a good idea to assist the extensors in making the pedal go 'round.

I originally was saying that when you have cardiac output in reserve, why not use it to provide blood flow to an opposing accessory group of muscles to assist the main power providers? This would allow the extensors to operate for longer periods of time before they fatigue. And, don't extensors eventually fatigue at outputs below maximum cardiac output, given enough time? In this kind of exercise workrate, it apparently isn't cardiac output that limits the extensor's ability to continue to work at a given level. I'm not talking about VO2max. I'm talking about someone riding at sub-maximum cardiac output gradually slowing down.

Then a quantum leap, if you will, occured. VO2 max was injected and it's comparisons to maximum cardiac output.


As I have said several times, I think there are times when cardiac output limitations are the main reason for decreased performance....why the cardiac output doesn't keep up with demand is immaterial to the original discussion question...it could be a physical problem of rate and stroke volume and venous return, it could be intracellular myocardial cellular function disruption. Let's don't go there, it gets us off track.

Back to the original question I put up long ago that keeps turning into this morass: If you are able to decrease the rate of energy burn in the extensors at a sub-maximal rate of work at sub-maximal cardiac output, by recruiting hip flexors (and their ilk) to maintain the original rate of work, wouldn't it make sense that the extensors would be able to go longer since we have decreased their rate of work? And since we are talking about a sub-maximal effort at sub-maximal cardiac output, we have extra blood flow to send to the hip flexors...even if they aren't as efficient as the extensors. In this example, cardiac output may actually have to go UP some, if the hip extensors are, indeed, less efficient. BUT, since we have cardiac output in reserve in this case, wouldn't that be OK? KEEP VO2 MAX out of this....I'm not talking about working that hard.

You could also explore the possibility that we keep the extensor's rate of work unchanged, and use the supposedly less efficient hip flexors to remove the energy usually burnt by the extensors to lift the rising pedal up in preparation for the next big extensor firing. In this case, the extensors would fatigue at the same time as they did in the past, but, removing the energy normally used to push the rising pedal up results in more power to the chain, therefore a slightly higher speed would have been realized.

This is how it all started. Please, let's talk about these conditions for a while....

---

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

Here ya go Kraig:

"Testimonials

The internet raises many new consumer protection problems, and poses others in new guises. Some important problems, however, are virtually identical to those that have faced the Commission for years, but still need attention. One important advertising issue that we want to re-examine is the use of testimonial claims. These frequently use extreme, occasionally false, individual experiences to illustrate the potential benefits of a product. You have all seen the advertisements for weight loss products featuring testimonials from individuals that claim to have lost effortlessly tens and sometimes hundreds of pounds in a matter of weeks, accompanied by a disclaimer that "results may vary." We have even seen testimonials about dietary supplements that allegedly cured the endorser's cancer - accompanied by the brief disclaimer that "results may vary." In many such cases the problem is not that "results may vary"- the real problem is that results may not exist at all. In fact, the use of testimonials to make deceptive or unsubstantiated claims is a rapidly growing source of cases.

The traditional FTC approach, reflected in our testimonial guides, has been to require that any "typicality" representation made by a testimonial be supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence or accompanied by a clear and prominent disclosure of the limited applicability of the endorser's experience to what consumers may generally expect to receive. Given the choice between doing studies or research to substantiate the "typicality" of the claim implied by the testimonial, or simply disclaiming its applicability, advertisers have widely chosen the latter. Thus, the current approach to testimonials may have had the perverse effect of discouraging efforts to develop meaningful substantiation, while encouraging advertisers to rely on potentially misleading testimonials accompanied by disclaimers of their typicality. Indeed, many FTC respondents appear to misinterpret our guides, arguing - incorrectly - that, as long as they disclaim the typicality of the testimonial, they are not required to have substantiation showing their product works. Of course, this is not the case, and a respondent may be held liable if they use testimonials to make a false or unsubstantiated claim - even if typicality disclosures are made.

I think it is time to review this approach to testimonials. Assessing consumer expectations is central to establishing a more rational approach to testimonials. For example, I think it is unlikely that consumers understand testimonials to claim that all consumers will receive the same quantitative results obtained by the testimonialist. On the other hand, consumers surely expect that they will likely achieve a significant portion of the advertised benefits. What consumers actually expect from testimonials should provide the anchor for our approach."

http://www.ftc.gov/...sumprotectagenda.htm

Kraig wrote: "What is the FTC's view on the use of testimonials, Frank? "

Huh? Did I do something wrong again?

---

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