Well we buried him out t' back yard, but that was so many years ago I doubt there's much evidence left. I'm pretty certain he's dead, though. If he wasn't dead when we buried him, I'm sure he is by now.

Dr. Winkle sez: "As simple as that", except I can support my position by reference to literally thousands of experimental studies, whereas you have - what, your beliefs? "

Uh, at VO2 max at least some skeletal muscle is in anaerobic metabolism and cardiac muscle is not. If I increase the number of capillaries in the skeletal muscle through training then I delay the onset of anaerobic metabolism and both CO and VO2 max will go up. If I increase it again, it will go up again. Now you take the fact that CO stops increasing at VO2 max as evidence that CO is the limiter. I don't.

Do you need a reference for the fact that VO2 max and Cardiac output will both go up as the athlete increases the capillary density in the exercising muscle or will you accept that as fact? Do you claim CO and VO2 max can increase without increasing capillary density (or muscle mass, a less effective way at increasing VO2 max) in vivo?

---

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

Curious wrote: "Try the latter, more humble approach and I'll bet you'll be surprised by the support you receive not only from your loyal followers, but the non-believers, too."

Curious, of course that is possible, but I would guess not. As if it were possible for me to argue someone into buying them or soft sell them. The cranks sell themselves to those who have an open mind or to those who have seen others improve. Most of my sales now come from word of mouth I would guess.

In some ways, I try to do as you suggest, except I make a stab at what the typical user can expect to see in improvement and make a stab at a mechanism to explain what we see. Few who try them are disappointed.

The problem is, even if I saw 40% improvement but said I only saw 5% improvement, I wold have to come up with a mechanism to account for the improvement. RIP and his ilk cannot fathom any improvement is possible so downplaying the improvements that people actually see would serve no purpose, other than have people say, "well, 5% aint worth $700 to me, I won't even try them"

I prefer to be honest about what I think until I have evidence to change my mind. I think it will serve me well in the long run. I can't think of any actual customers who have come back and told me they thought I misrepresented the cranks, even those who have sent them back. RIP and his ilk will be the ones scrambling trying to account for the improvements once the data is in in a manner so as to not lose face. I can hear it now: "I never said they couldn't work, I just said it hadn't been proven."

I am pretty comfortable with myunderstanding of the physiology here. RIP is too, otherwise he would be trying to educate me rather than calling names, misrepresenting what I say, and referring to references that do nothing for his point of view, at least to the very well informed. Don't worry about me or the PC's. Those serious about getting better will at least give them a try and see for themselves. Those who are not probably wouldn't do the hard work required. This current debate really has nothing to do with the PC's except in both regards RIP sez I am an idiot.

So, even if I am "hurting" sales, PC's are not dependent upon this market to survive anymore. We are moving on to the rehabiltation and team sports market, a much bigger one by the way. I am in this debate, not to sell cranks (others are defending the cranks just fine), but because I find it intellectually challenging and interesting. I occasionally revise some of my views based upon what I hear, believe it or not.

Frank

---

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

God damn bastards don't care at all about Skippy.

How can you be sure Skippy was a dog. I mean, it could have been a cat. Do you know the physiological differences between cats and dogs? For one, I think cats sleep more than dogs.

---

Behold the turtle! He makes progess only when he sticks his neck out. (James Bryant Conant)
GET OFF THE F*%KING WALL!!!!!!! (Doug Stern)
Brevity is the soul of wit. (William Shakespeare)

Kraig Willett wrote: How's about this:

I ride exclusively for 50% of whatever your marketplace gaurantee was two months ago. You make the gaurantee of 50% of whatever the power gains your marketplace gaurantee was two months ago. So, by my estimation that's 30 days of exclusive use, and 20% increase in power.

No money leaves my hands, and you pay me 30 cents a word for anything I write (and you know I can easily write 5,000+ words on the dullest of topics)...


THEN, Rip Van Winkle wrote: In Reply To

---

I had to almost choke laughing when Kraig requested to be paid for his writing[/reply]What the fuck are you talking about? It was Frank who impugned Kraig's reputation for impartiality by implying that he charges companies $0.15 per word for reports he writes. Seems like grounds for a libel (or would an internet post be considered slander?) suit to me.


Dear RVW. Where did I go wrong to quote Kraig...was it that he requested 30 cents a word instead of 15 cents a word? I just don't get you.....

---

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

Yaqui, it was in a later post that Kraig kindly reduced his demand to 0.15 per word which was the basis of my reply. RIP just doesn't read this stuff. I chose not to get into a pissing contest over that misrepresentation as I piss off enough of the viewers already. Thanks for pointing that out. Rip reads into these things what he wants them to say. He does the same in his over interpretation of the medical literature, but you knew that. Many here don't.

---

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

Yikes, you leave the forum for 4 days and then you see this thread has grown into a monster...

...please someone, kill this thread before it takes over all sane free thinking minds in free world :-)

Happy Riding folks !

This has way outstripped Becca.

---

_________________
Dick

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

Oh the HUMANITY!!!!!!!!!! Please Satan. . .sign the truce papers!

Die. . .

DIE. . .

DDDDDDDIIIIIIIIIEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RVP wrote: The reason that VO2max was introduced into the discussion is that well-trained non-PCers can often exercise at intensities approaching VO2max for up to one hour at a time. The notion that there is substantial cardiac reserve that can be used to perfuse the (small, inefficiently positioned) hip flexors is therefore incorrect.



OK, RVP, I will type more slowly to see if you can get the question straight....extensors will fatigue at work rates well under VO2 max in a period of time....this could be two hours, or three hours, or even longer depending upon numerous other factors...quit trying to put a time limit on the conditions of MY RIDER in MY QUESTION.

Since my cyclist is well under maximum cardiac output, well under VO2 max, and his extensors STILL FATIGUE after a period of time...it IS NOT fatigue due to cardiac output limitation.

Again, slowly, so hopefully you'll get the conditions and question straight....it IS NOT fatigue due to cardiac output limitations if he stays well under his maximum cardiac output, well under his VO2 max.

In this case...don't change the time frame to suit your arguement....why would it not be advantageous to train and use accessory muscles, such as the hip flexors, to assist in making the pedal go around.

This rider obviously has unused or reserve cardiac output available. Even if the hip flexors are not as "efficient" as the extensors, there is NO CARDIAC LIMITATION reason why it would not be possible to provide blood flow to the hip flexors as they work to assist the extensors. IN THIS CASE, using trained hip flexors to assist making the pedal go around, either the extensor work rate could be decreased and therefore they will work longer before fatigue; OR, IN THIS CASE, the rider would be able to go a little faster (however much faster the TRAINED hip flexor power would provide in speed) until the extensors fatigued.

Please, read this more carefully than you did before you squealed shrilly about a slander and/or libel suit that you suggested might be taken against me when I simply quoted what Mr. Willett wrote.

Can you do that? Pretty please?

---

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

Stop! I snorted six times in a row! Oh my golly that was great!

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

What have I started...where am I...

Where are you? You are in the record book, my friend. Now your only dilemma is, at the next race, do you strut around proudly or hide? :-)

---

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

Can we go back to table 6 in the Coyle study. Tell me again what that IE column represents? Please explain so that we all understand that.....

Dr. Winkle writes: "The fallacy of your line of reasoning is several-fold:

1) it presupposes that there there is significant negative "backpressure" being applied against the pedal when using normal cranks. As I've pointed out time and again, this isn't true, and I defy you or Frank to point to any data in the literature showing net *muscular* forces resisting the forward rotation of the pedals.

2) more importantly, it fails to recognize that the lower the relative exercise intensity, the more unrecruited/underrecruited motor units there are in the leg extensors, which can, if necessary, also be called upon to either increase the power output or sustain the same power output longer. To put it another way: performance during exercise requiring significantly less than VO2max is not limited by the available muscle mass, so bringing the hip flexors into play more serves no purpose. The only time that recruiting additional muscle can improve performance is if

A) you could provide those muscles with the additional O2 needed via an increase in maximal cardiac output to achieve a true VO2max, instead of merely a VO2peak (e.g., addition of arm cranking to leg cranking in untrained persons). However, this possibility doesn't exist in individuals trained at cycling, because they can achieve a true VO2max (i.e., a VO2 limited by maximal cardiac output, not the amount of muscle recruited/vasodilated).

B) the exercise intensity is so high that it requires >100% of VO2max, such that supplementing the power output using the newly-recruited motor units' anaerobic capacity leads to an increase in performance. In this situation (not really relevant to triathlons), recruiting the hip flexors, etc., could indeed result in a temporary increase in power output - which undoubtly explains why trained cyclists pull up significantly in this, and generally only this, situation. Notably, however, they have learned and trained themselves to do without ever using PCs.

3) it fails to recognize that there is a significant energetic cost associated with trying to "pedal in a circle", as this requires simultaneous coactivation of uniarticular agonists and biarticular antagonists to orient the forces in the proper direction. (It is this fact that undoubtly contributes to the non-linear relationship between cadence and the energy cost of unloaded pedaling, not some impossible - under the Laws of Thermodynamics - loss of energy to the environment as Frank claims.) Given this *fact*, and the *fact* that cyclists in general do *not* apply significant muscular forces resisting the forward rotation of the pedals, there is little if any reason to expect that trying to further reorient the forces would be of any benefit. Instead, a more reasonable hypothesis is that by simply training using normal cranks, cyclists have learned to orient the forces in a manner that entails the least energetic cost, i.e., they don't waste energy contracting muscles trying to stretch or bend the cranks, but they also don't waste energy fighting themselves to try to exert large positive torques at all points throughout the pedal cycle (as you apparently used to, as a result of overthinking matters based on Computrainer SpinScan feedback.) "

As to your first point Dr. Winkle, Want a reference that cyclists apply back pressure on the upstroke, try Whitt and Wilson's book. But, cleverly, you specified muscular back pressure (I actually ready your posts) and that back pressure probably isn't from muscular efforts because the thigh and leg probably weigh 20 lbs, so, if the back pressure is only 2 lbs, then the rider is actually unweighting 18 lbs. However, that two lbs of back pressure is two lbs of inefficiency. Doesn't seem like a big deal to just lift another 2 lbs does it to simply make it all go away, does it? Tell that to the average PC'er and watch them laugh at the statement.

Then in your second point I can only see where you said Yaqui is wrong without telling him what the mechanism for fatigue is, or do you deny that leg fatique happens to the rider riding 125 watts for 7 hours in an IM? Why can't you answer his question? If his mechanism for fatigue is wrong, tell him what the mechanism is or tell him fatigue doesn't occur.

Then, in your last point you state that it requires significant energy to pedal in a circle, which may very well be true, but you fail to mention this extra energy is being used to eliminate other inefficiencies, so the net effect could be positive (as reported in the Lutrell study). Until this is studied specifically it is not possible to state with certainty, even though you are. Not a pretty picture, a "scientist", stating conjecture as fact.

---

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

RVP wrote: more importantly, it fails to recognize that the lower the relative exercise intensity, the more unrecruited/underrecruited motor units there are in the leg extensors, which can, if necessary, also be called upon to either increase the power output or sustain the same power output longer. To put it another way: performance during exercise requiring significantly less than VO2max is not limited by the available muscle mass, so bringing the hip flexors into play more serves no purpose. The only time that recruiting additional muscle can improve performance is if

A) you could provide those muscles with the additional O2 needed via an increase in maximal cardiac output to achieve a true VO2max, instead of merely a VO2peak (e.g., addition of arm cranking to leg cranking in untrained persons). However, this possibility doesn't exist in individuals trained at cycling, because they can achieve a true VO2max (i.e., a VO2 limited by maximal cardiac output, not the amount of muscle recruited/vasodilated).

B) the exercise intensity is so high that it requires >100% of VO2max, such that supplementing the power output using the newly-recruited motor units' anaerobic capacity leads to an increase in performance. In this situation (not really relevant to triathlons), recruiting the hip flexors, etc., could indeed result in a temporary increase in power output - which undoubtly explains why trained cyclists pull up significantly in this, and generally only this, situation. Notably, however, they have learned and trained themselves to do without ever using PCs.


Thanks for your response:

I still don't understand why you say since the extensors have unrecruited muscle fiber in a sub-max work rate, it would do no good to recruit other muscle groups to assist. I 100% agree that there are muscle fibers not being used in the extensors in a sub-max effort...BUT, the extensors will STILL evenutally fatigue (defined as a decrease in power produced) at let's say, 70% of maximum cardiac output, or let's say, 70% of VO2max. Don't say all you have to do is to utilize the unused extensor fiber units...doing so causes the extensors to fatigue even more quickly. SO, why not use hip flexors, hamstrings, etc. to do some of this work (allowing the extensors to go even longer before fatigue)...or, to add to this constant extensor work rate (therefore increasing power somewhat), when we have underutilized cardiac output available to supply the extra blood needed to supply the hip flexors/hamstrings?

Secondly, I 100% agree that at supra-max VO2 efforts, recruiting hip flexors/hamstrings makes sense, and that obviously, almost every cyclist in history that has learned to do this to some extent, has learned to do this without PowerCranks. That's a given. This doesn't mean PowerCranks aren't suitable to train a cyclist to pull up...just that they weren't available. It also doesn't mean PowerCranks are better to teach one to do this, either. That isn't germaine to the discussion about recruitment being a positive thing. We both agree recruiting can be a good thing in supra-max VO2 situations...and we both agree that this supra-max VO2 state isn't applicable to most situations in triathlon.

I still don't understand your opposition to recruiting in sub-max VO2, sub-max cardiac output states. I certainly disagree that firing unused muscle fibers in the extensors would be appropriate, because, in this case, using more muscle fibers would fatigue the muscle group more quickly. That only makes sense...if the rider can ride 97 minutes using only his extensors at lets say 250 watts, and this is at 70% of his VO2 max, firing those unused-underused fibers to get more power will fatigue the extensors more quickly, so he will ride less than 97 minutes at the given workrate. So, we are left with only one alternative...using other muscles to assist them. Please don't try and say the rider should practice more to increase his efficiency of his extensors...I'm talking about a theoretical rider that has done all the training possible to maximize his extensor efficiency/fiber recruitablility, etc...he's at his OPTIMUM extensor function....what now? Why not bring in hip flexors and hamstrings to assist? He obviously has cardiac function in reserve.

I know that this recruitment of "less efficient" hip flexors will increase HR, it will also increase the amount of oxygen used per unit of time, as would simply using more extensor fibers...but, keep in mind that we are talking about a workrate that will result in the extensors' fatigue in a period of time...so, we cannot simply use more extensor fibers...that would decrease the time before the extensors' power decreased. I don't see why this isn't a good strategy. It doesn't matter that your reports state that cyclists don't have much, if any, backpressure on the pedals. It's immaterial. I am talking about effecting a change in the cyclist example above.

Thanks again for a response.

---

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

Hey Frank, did you see this post from me?

Your PC's 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 about this from you?

---

---

Where would you want to swim ?

I just did a piece called PC Thread Study #23 Untitled. I walked on stage nude and layed down. My wife put my testicals between two 2x4 and smashed them 30 times with a 15 pound sledge hammer. It was my way of explaining to the world the pain this thread has caused.

I think it only showed half of the pain.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

So, I figured I'd see what all the fuss was about. Hmmm. We are talking about cranks, right?

Hey, TriBriGuy, your sig would work better if you added the "Or"

He would've lived 40% longer if he used Powercranks.

Dr. Winkle writes: "Correct, those are not muscular forces - and therein lies the issue: since the energy associated with returning the leg to the top of the pedal stroke is due the need to overcome inertial and graviational forces, what difference does it make from an efficiency perspective whether this is done using the leg extensors one the other side to push the trailing leg up, vs. using the leg flexors to pull it up?"

You presume there is no advantage one way or the other. Wrong! Even if no forward pressure is being applied to the pedals, just unweighting, lifting the leg increases the potential energy of the leg that the rider recovers on the downstroke, making the bike go faster. Then you presume to think that because the HF's fatique "more easily" than the extensors this provides an advantage to just pushing and not using the HF's. Where does this come from. First, your current ordinary rider is using his HF's now as there is some unweighting on the upstroke, it just isn't complete. And, second, why on earth do you think that with proper training the HF's can't develop the necessary endurance so as to not fatique as fast as the extensors. It is all a matter of training. It is of no consequence if they are working at considerable mechanical disadvantage (I am not sure where this comes from but let's accept this as true for the purposes of this argument) if they can improve efficiency or power more than it costs the organism. Clearly, not all muscles have the same mechanical advantage but we tend to use all of them when we work, even if some are just used for stabilization and do no work, rather than just the most efficient. I don't think my claims are quite like saying you can swim faster with one hand. I am saying you can cycle faster if you use all the muscles available to you. It is somewhat different I think. It is you who are saying one can cycle faster using only half the muscles of the leg. Where is the logic in that?

Then in response to my second point. "Red herring: he didn't ask what caused fatigue, didn't propose a mechanism for fatigue"

Ok, he postulated that fatique occurred under these circumstances and wanted to know why it wouldn't be better to work those muscles a little less to delay the fatigue. Either way, it seems you ignored the question. Doesn't matter, Yaqui has come back and I will let him hold your feet to the fire on this one.

He then writes: "What is about the word HYPOTHESIS that you don't understand?:"

Uh, does hypothesis mean theory or proposal or not proven or some such thing in your book? Does this mean you are backing off on your previous statements that the PC's couldn't possibly work? That previous studies have proven that the PC's would be a big fat waste of time?

Uh, don't hypotheses generally need to withstand experimental observation before they are held to be true, or not? Of course, if you believe in your hypothesis over the new hypothesis on the block to such an extent that it is not necessary to study the two to see which better stands up to scruitiny, why do you refer to it as a hypothesis? I see the door being opend a crack, just in case the PC's are proven to be effective at sometime in the distant future you can point to this post as saying "I never said all those things as it was all just hypothesis"

---

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