Brian asks: "How many Powercranks have been sold to the masses? Just curious... "

There are currently about 2,500 out there.

---

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

the quote was “It’s something that nothing else forces you to do and it makes you do work that is without a doubt of benefit."

and i mean, pardon me, but you did not answer the question. i will certainly agree that we shouldn't take the the word of 'god's", or whomever. that is why i took mr day's challenge and found out for myself - something you are unwilling to do.

but, the question was - why should any of us take your word ( tho actually the post you dragged down was to r stern . . . . ) over that of dr testa's? he is a living legend of coaching/cycling performance issues with unasailable palmares in that field and direct PC experience.

step back and ask yourself - why would any of the viewers at home listen to you, over him?

Very cool Dr. RIP, actually giving a cardiac adaptation to exercise. So we now know the heart also adapts to exercise and can improve so CO at VO2 max in any individual is not fixed. If so, one must wonder why my CO is the limiter if my max CO is still under, say, Lances, CO (if I were the same age as Lance).

Oh, and you presented no evidence that reuptake of calcium is actually inhibited PRIMARILY (without external factors affecting it, such as pH changes) as one approaches VO2 max. Your theory, as is mine, is pure supposition. At least there is some evidence that pH does change as one approaches VO2 max to support my theory.

---

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

Die thread. . .DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

does dr testa use them (PCs) himself? How much has he improved?

Joel

So, is there any evidence to support the various weighting factors in looking at this from MCA perspective, or is it simply someones "educated" guess? What weight is given to electrolyte comcentrations or pH in this analysis of yours compared to "convective transport of O2". Or, in the "convective transport of O2" number, does this include changes due to pH and electrolyte changes with exercise such that this number can go down, not due primarily from the heart but from factors affecting the heart which get lumped together as "heart"?



Frank

---

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

If there is a benefit, I'm not so sure it's the hip flexors and not the hamstrings or glutes or whatever that are the source of benefit.

---

_________________
Dick

Take everything I say with a grain of salt. I know nothing.

RIP wrote: "BTW, I don't believe you've provided any direct quotes from Testa in which directly agrees Frank's claims that training with PCs *will* improve performance, have you? "

This isn't a quote but is it enough that Dr. T recommended them to Levi Leipheimer, amongst others?

---

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

in addition to "faith" i think he has a little experience too.

You will admit that not everything we "know" about exercise physiology, or medicine or whatever is absolute. When it comes down to it, it is not uncommon to find that a 'known' is not really so. (eg, when caffeine was given to patients with heart disease before a treadmill, the studier thought he would demonstrate how much they further impaired those patients CO and exercise tolerance. Oops! they did better.)

In this case. The only way to 'know' is to put them to the test. Why don't you and Kraig give them a try, as a prelude to a wider trial. Many of us less experienced cyclists want to know.
------------------------
PS the improvement, if there is one, might be from training of the gastrocs (although they are mostly fasttwitch, if I recall), which as you recall cross the knee joint and aid the hamstrings in knee flexion, or the anterior tibials, which aid in lifting the pedal.

---

_________________
Dick

Take everything I say with a grain of salt. I know nothing.

honestly rip . . . . . . that bit with the " score" over the guy's funny little testa joke does not become you. dr testa is not here, and interpretation of the seemingly clear enuf to me statement that " they provide benefit" could well include more than the interpretation you ascribe to it - believe it or not. for example, one interpretation of that comment COULD be that . . . . . . well, you know . . . . . they provide benefit. .

the rest of that crap is just crap you added.

but thanx for the answer to why you believe we should all listen to you ( with no experience) , over one of the most storied and successful coaches of all time (with lots). just imagine how successful mapei might have been had they had you on board all thru the nineties!

RIP writes: "Once again, you fail to distinguish between the acute responses to a single bout of exercise and the chronic adaptations resulting from training. Is this a deliberate smokescreen on your part, or do you truly have trouble differentiating between them? "

Rip, are you saying that chronic exercise has no effect on the acute exercise response? If so, I disagree. If not, I don't understand what you think I am saying that makes you think I am "failing to distinguish" this difference. Could you be more specific.

---

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

some people started reading it not knowing what it was and they'll just keep on reading it forever just because..it's the thread that never ennnnnddddddss(8)

Your examples to support your conventive transport theory just as well support my peropheral limitor theory since blood doping, epo, and hyperoxia all increase the availability of blood to the tissue for the same CO so significant anaerobic metabolism and, hence, pH and electrolyte change, will be delayed.

Is there any evidence to support tha CO at VO2 max changes (or doesn't change) with blood doping, epo, etc.? How would you interpret that data, if it exists? In fact, your data showing that VO2 max increases with plasma volume expansion in untrained individuals goes against your hypthesis because, in this instance, Hct would have to go down, so the only way to increase VO2 max is to increase CO. So, CO is not the limiter here.

Frank

---

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

Rip writes: "It certainly means that he has *faith* that they will work. Faith, however, is not evidence."

And you have faith they will not, which is not evidence either, although, for some reason you seem to think your faith is based upon the proper gospels. Sounds like a little bit like a religeous debate here.

Oh, except for Dr. T's "faith" is based upon some personal observation, comments, and testing results of athletes he respects who have used them. So, it really isn't "faith" in the religeous sense, that is a believe without evidence, albeit it may be only evidence to him and not to you.

---

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

Hey Frank, your PC look very nice, but is there any chance that you will someday be manufacturing an ultra cheap pair of PCs that are built for functionality, reliability, and durability, but built without any weight or looks considerations?

That way you could sell 'em for a lot less than $700 and those of us without the big bucks could actually try riding with them for a while.

Any thoughts?

---

---

Where would you want to swim ?

rip claims, " However, at least my position is consistent with all presently available published data, rather than contrary to it. "

well not so fast. your position is consistant with your INTERPRETATION and extrapolation of published data. as we have seen on matters of even the simplest interpretation in this thread - you have a demonstarated tendancy towards interpretations which are extremely polemic toward your bias, rip. which, by itself, is not so bad, and even understandable. however, that you appear incapable of RECOGNIZING this pronounced tendancy in yourself is troubling. what's more, that thru this blind spot toward your tendancy you also tend to completely ignore so much as the POSSIBILTY of another interpretation than you own goes to the very heart of your points as being anything but objective or scientific, as you like to pretend.

---

In Reply To

---

Read the Coyle study - his numbers, not mine.....[/reply]I have read the study (and many others), and can tell you flat-out that you won't find such values for efficiency in that paper or anywhere else



Try table 6 for a list of efficiencies of each subject.

I'm going to have to call you on this one for sure. Since the the efficiency of the subjects was a major topic of the study.



To clarify the reason that I brought this up; The focus of this thread has been with the physicological aspect of the person. No problem with that. I will not discuss those aspects as everyone seems to be doing that quite well.

The study did show, however, the ratio of the power applied to the pedals as compared to the power that actually reached the rear wheel. This is the efficiency that I was eluding to. The numbers showed two measurements of efficiency one ranging from 66% - 82% and the other was 58% up to 82%.

Now then having established this. My point, be it very simplistic in concept was.....This is an area for power improvement. Take some numbers for the 66% efficient subject. If this subject was able to produce 500 watts to the pedals, only 330 will go to the rear wheel. If you could improve this to 82%, the rear wheel will now see 410 watts. Of course using the other measure of efficiency sited in the study, the 58% would yeild only 290 watts verses for 82% a yeild of 410 watts.

If PC's cause the level of efficiency to increase, then it would be possible to generate more rear wheel power with no impact to the cardio system.



Further, the study clearly graphed to torque curves generated by the subjects. This torque curve is indeed cyclic in nature. When riding a tandem this torque curve is multiplied due to two riders. The variations of the torque applied to the pavement is audible when drafting.