Actually, I don't do much now fancy wise to jack up the cost, except in some of the new models that came about because people want me to cut back on weight. I try to minimize machining.

The problem is the low volume. Unless the volume gets up the price will remain up. The price I charge is actually a less than I "should" be charging based upon my costs and using ordianary business pricing structure. If the volume gets up then one can afford the up front costs to do mass production techniques and mass production. Even with these, I can't see the cost getting much under $400 and that is several years away. Even, at the current price, for what they do for the athlete I consider them to be one of the most cost effective tools available. People just don't "believe" they do what I say. the only way I can try to get around that is to offer that money-back guarantee.

The one hope for the very poor is to get a pair into your local gym or to get your work to put a pair in their "exercise facility", if they have one, where you don't need your own pair to get some of the benefits. That will happen someday, at least if these things prove themselves useful in other sports also, which I think will happen.

---

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

As a tribute to John Cage, you should make sure it lasts exactly 4 minutes 33 seconds.

This is, roughly, the time it takes to figure out where the thread is going ...

Dre'

---

-----------
...

RVP wrote: he didn't ask what caused fatigue, didn't propose a mechanism for fatigue, and it isn't my job to educate him on the fine points of muscle metabolism and the physiology of exercise (although I certainly could).

I'm not sure what you think you job is in this matter. I'm simply putting out a question that I'd like you to address directly. And, yes, depending upon the answer, it could be used as a hypothesis why it makes sense to train one's hip flexors/hamstrings in order to cycle better. How one chooses to do so is immaterial to the question. We both agree hip flexor/hamstring recruitment IS a good idea at supra-max VO2 efforts. I can even imagine your reasoning that at maxVO2 efforts using ONLY the most efficient muscle groups could be the best strategy. But, why wouldn't recruitment be a good strategy in a sub-maximal VO2 effort?

Thanks for a direct answer...even if it isn't your job to give one.

---

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

There is a point?

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

OW! Tibbs, you are baaadd!

How was your viewing of "Supersize Me" (the movie)?

---

---

Where would you want to swim ?

What seems to be getting lost in this whole debate is differentiating involving the flexor groups to an unnatural extent for training effect vs. involving those same groups because it's a more efficient or economical way to pedal.

Involve the flexor groups for training effect - you may have a valid argument.

Force the flexor groups to unnaturally contribute to the pedal stroke because it's a more efficient or economical way to pedal - that's where your argument loses its validity.

Thanks, for your response, JC.

I'm not arguing that "unnatural" use of hip flexors is more efficient. I'm even saying it could be LESS efficient from an energy consumption standpoint. BUT, if my rider is at 70% of maximal oxygen consumption, or 70% of Maximal cardiac output, I don't care which level of effort you wish to measure by, why wouldn't it be a valid strategy to use supposedly less efficient muscle groups to assist (or actually take over forces required by) the extensors in maintaining a given output over an extended period of time? The rider has the available cardiac output to supply these inefficient muscles groups in this instance. And the extensors WILL fatigue at a sub-maximal output over a period of time...why not help them out and extend the period of time...or why not let them work at their normal rate of power (and therefore time to fatigue) and increase the power to the chain by using hip flexors/hamstrings more than "naturally" done?

Looking for a direct answer to a direct question.

---

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

I'm using a jack to lift my car. It allows me to work with a greater mechanical advantage. Are you saying I should also train myself to be able to lift with more force on the bumper at the same time so my arm doesn't tire as much using the jack?

Not saying that training to be able to lift with more force on the bumper wouldn't have value when the car is so heavy my jack isn't quite up to the task, but if I can do that job more efficiently with the jack I'm wasting my time and energy by pulling up on the bumper, too.

Sorry. Best analogy I could come up with. But that's essentially the argument you're making. That we should train ourselves to pull up as hard as we can on the bumper so we don't have to put as much force to the jack.

There is this inherent presumption in your question also that, even if trained, that somehow using these muscles in this fashion is "unnatural". It presupposes these muscles are not used at all when riding a bike now, when if fact they are. PC's simply make the athlete use them more or to a greater extent than they currently are. Why isn't simply riding a bike considered "unnatural"?, our hunter-gatherer ancestors certainly didn't evolve to do this activity. Playing the piano is "unnatural" also, yet, with enough practice people can get pretty good at it. I have not practiced the piano enough to be good at it so, while some may hold me out as an example that one could not learn to play the piano, it is a false argument.

I don't even get the argument that the movement is unnatural. What is "unnatural" about lifting the foot off the floor 14 inches? But, for the sake of argument we assume it is, the fact that an activity is "unnatural" is not evidence that it cannot be done well or could not provide an advantage if practiced enough. To say otherwise, without evidence, is pure conjecture.

One more thing, it may not be optimal to lift hard. It does seem better to lift more than most do now. It will take time and studies to determine how much lifitng is "optimal".

Frank

---

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

Frank,

You are correct that I am in the record book. As such I plan to give it a go and see for myself. That being the initial jist of this whole thread anyway. What it has turned into is...well, I can't really tell you. I have learned a thing or two about human physiology - and I never intended to:)

My intention is to become a better triathlete and my skeptism is shared in various degrees by many. As I see it though, we will not be able to determine what if any benefit this will have on our bodies based on a study anytime soon. However, I find that my curiosity outweighs my logic in this situation and I am almost compelled at this point to try them if for nothing else than prove/disprove their worth to me.

I will say that you, RIP and a few others are certainly alpha "cerebral" types and not afraid of a good mental joust session. If this thread continues much longer it may shut down the whole internet:)

Ask any PCers who have done one-legged drills if they do them any more. I bet the answer will be a big NO. I remember reading a while back, actually many years ago that Mark Allen used to do up to 1/2 hour sessions of one-legged drills for each leg. With PCs you will never have to do those again.

Drills are great, but do them with PCs and I bet you will get a lot more out of them and become a better cyclist for it.

JC wrote: Sorry. Best analogy I could come up with. But that's essentially the argument you're making. That we should train ourselves to pull up as hard as we can on the bumper so we don't have to put as much force to the jack.


JC, No, that's not it at all. UNLESS you were in a race to see how fast you could jack up the car. THEN, just like RVP and I both agree, you would be in a supra-maximal VO2 effort (short-term, high intensity) mode, when using any and every source of power available would be good!

I'm talking about the activity of cycling at sub-maximal intensity (I keep saying 70% of which-ever marker you wish to consider, VO2 max or cardiac output). If your leg extensors can propel you at a certain speed at this percentage of their potential for a given period of time...let's say 2 hours...then they begin to fatigue and your speed drops because of extensor fatigue...what can we do to either ride longer at the same speed, or to ride faster for the same period of time before this cyclist's extensors fatigue?

He can ride longer than 2 hours if he drops his effort, but, then his speed drops, too. He can ride faster than his 2 hour speed, but, he can't ride for the entire 2 hours before fatigue, when his speed drops.

Why wouldn't using hip flexors/hamstrings (to reduce the workload, or rate of work, of the extensors) allow more than the original 2 hours to elapse before the extensor fatigue caused a decrease in power output (and therefore speed)?

Similarly, why wouldn't using hip flexors/hamstrings to ADD power to an unchanged extensor workload (or rate of work) result in an increase in speed during the 2 hours before his usual extensor fatigue he gets when doing this 70% effort causes a decrease in speed?

I realize recruiting these supposedly less efficient muscles (hip flexors and hamstrings) would probably require a higher oxygen consumption and cardiac output...but, please remember, our cyclist is only operating at 70% of his maximum capabilities...there's 30% more blood flow, or oxygen consumption capability, available to put to good use somewhere else. And, if our cyclist tries to work his extensors any harder, he slows down before the two hours is up. Muscles DO FATIGUE at workloads significantly less than their VO2max levels. We can change the specific numbers if they are not correct by study results. It doesn't matter to me if it usually takes 3.348098 hours at 71.0978% VO2 max before fatigue would occur...don't let the specifics get in the way of the basic question.

Why wouldn't this be a good strategy in a sub-maximal effort?

---

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

OK. Assume your argument is valid. Don't know that anyone has ever argued that strong flexor groups don't contribute to optimal athletic performance. Let's also assume that I may or may not see the need to incorporate PC's into my training to increase the strength and coordination of these muscle groups. By definition, that's what an effective training tool or device does... Provides overload to target muscle groups in a manner as specific to the target athletic activity as possible.

But what I'm hearing are claims that take that a step further... That by using PC's and 'forcing' the rider to use his/her flexors to a certain extent you're providing a more efficient or economical way to pedal than a standard crank that allows the rider to naturally adapt over the course of a ride through different cadence/power/fatigue levels to use the combination of extensors and/or flexors in a way that minimizes overall muscle fatigue. That's where your arguments are totally off base. PC's force you to pedal in a certain way, standard cranks allow you to pedal in the most economical way for any given momentary situation. Forcing you to pedal in a certain way has training applications but is counter productive in terms of economy and efficiency.

PC's as a training tool for specific purposes to address specific weaknesses... You can make a strong argument. PC's as a better or more efficient or economical way to pedal... That's when you cross the line into the world of quackery.

Sorry Frank, but you haven't revolutionized cycling any more than the guys who invented those cute little parachutes, long bungee cords, and weighted vests revolutionized sprinting. I'm old enough to remember Arthur Jones during the Nautilus machine heyday. Remember when variable resistance, muscle isolation, and single set to failure was going to revolutionize strength training and make barbells/dumbbells obsolete?

My 2 cents...

Curious wrote: "But what I'm hearing are claims that take that a step further... That by using PC's and 'forcing' the rider to use his/her flexors to a certain extent you're providing a more efficient or economical way to pedal than a standard crank that allows the rider to naturally adapt over the course of a ride through different cadence/power/fatigue levels to use the combination of extensors and/or flexors in a way that minimizes overall muscle fatigue. That's where your arguments are totally off base. PC's force you to pedal in a certain way, standard cranks allow you to pedal in the most economical way for any given momentary situation. Forcing you to pedal in a certain way has training applications but is counter productive in terms of economy and efficiency."

Curious, when I invented these I thought, boy what a good tool to develop circular pedaling, we could see some pretty good improvement in the average rider but not much in the elite, who is probably already doing this. Then I did some beta testing on some volunteers and the numbers blew me away. And then the pros started using them and they were no better than the amateurs, as a general rule. Then the reports from users started doming in and, not only were these cycling improvements seen by customers, but they reported running improvement also, something I had never anticipated.

Well, when you see this one must come up with reasons to explain it. My efforts at explaining why we see the benefits we do (I don't make these improvements my customers get) gets everybody all a twitter. OK, I am wrong, come up with an alternative explanation. Or, don't believe the reports of improvement. My claims of improvement are based solely on what we have observed and what customers report. Why do you believe such reports impossible. Are we going beyond the muscle contraction efficiency of the human machine?

You say PC's might be a useful training tool but that they couldn't possibly be a better method of pedaling over regular cranks which allows you to pedal both ways (lifting or not). Why on earth would one want to train those muscles, and then not use them? Where is the advantage there? If one is pedaling in the PC fashion on regular cranks one finds out regular cranks work just like PowerCranks. What is so magical and powerful about having the cranks fixed to each other? What is magical and powerful is how the muscles apply force to the pedals, not how the cranks are constructed.

So, another opinion, from someone else who have never ridden them, that the claim that PC pedaling is more efficient than ordinary pedaling crosses the line into quackery and there is nothing revolutionary about the concept. Perhaps, but then, how do you explain the many improvements, assuming they are real. Or do you assume that all these people are just imagining these improvements (or its placebo or something else not "real") having come under my spell? If that is the case, why don't people have the same positive reports for all the other little gadgets out there with similar potential?

Wait for the studies. Another one is getting started at Duke. This one is also going to look at running.

Frank

---

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

JC wrote: Assume your argument is valid. Don't know that anyone has ever argued that strong flexor groups don't contribute to optimal athletic performance. Let's also assume that I may or may not see the need to incorporate PC's into my training to increase the strength and coordination of these muscle groups. By definition, that's what an effective training tool or device does... Provides overload to target muscle groups in a manner as specific to the target athletic activity as possible......



JC, just leave PC's out of the discussion. That's not what is being asked.

A direct question has been posed several times, and that's what I'm wanting a direct answer to. I'm not going to advocate how one achieves recruitment of hip flexors/hamstrings to assist extensors, only why or why not it would be a good strategy to recruit flexors in my rider going at a sub-maximal effort for a period of time sufficient to demonstrate fatigue of his extensors. That's all.

Maybe the thread has burnt out anyone else that might have an idea about the direct question. Thanks for trying. I really would like to keep PC's out of the question and get the double-handful of somewhat-educated thinking people back to address the direct question without it degenerating into something that helps no one.

---

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

rookit...iss Gawdzirra...wunnnnnn

“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.”



Please stop Mr. Tibbs, you’re killing me, you’re killing me!!

I need a tissue to clean up my nose.

---

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)

Sadly, this was your "And then a miracle occurs" step.

As so many others have stated, the evidence is overwhelming at this point that the economy and/or efficiency of 'circular pedaling' is pretty much simply folklore and even the untrained cyclist is not at all very inefficient.

As Rip stated, you solved a problem that pretty much didn't exist.

How about...

If your extensors are starting to fatigue you should recruit your flexors more. If your flexors are fried, you should rest them and use your extensors to a greater extent.

And I have a great invention... They're called standard cranks. When properly used, they allow a seamless transition between the two pedaling styles to occur almost without conscious effort. The rider can use an infinite variety of extensor/flexor contribution levels for his/her pedal stroke based on level of fatigue, power output, cadence, riding postition, etc. I should patent the idea.

In response to your picture on the last page.
Ha!Ha!Ha!....GREAT! I finally quit reading this thing. I think we'll find them both dead at their keyboards. Death by verborrhea!!!

---

_________________
Dick

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

I am assuming that this 40 per cent increase in
power excludes the advantage of the unweighting
effect. Circular pedaling involves pressing down,
drawing back, pulling up and sliding forward. How is
that 40 per cent increase distributed in those four
areas ?

"As Rip stated, you solved a problem that pretty much didn't exist."

Or a solution in search of a problem...

Joel

I dont know if that was a question Tibbsy, but John Cage wrote a peice of "music" where the pianist sits down, opens the keyboard cover, waits 4 min 33 sec, closes the cover and leaves. That was the point

I was gonna buy a pair of PCs, honestly, but Tibbs just made me laugh so hard I strained a hip flexor. No PC's for the Big EE now.

Damn you Tibbs. Before hitting the "post reply" button, please consider the injuries your posts can cause.

-- Big EE

Since I made the obscure reference again to Table 6 in the Coyle study again, and RIP did not answer I will explain.

RIP asked for a reference to a study that showed the efficiecncy of the forces involved in pedaling. That is what column labeled IE is. So here is the explaination of the column IE.

The study used sensors to measure the actual forces applied to the pedals. These measured both the horizontal forces and the vertical forces. These forces were recorded and graphed in the study. Furthermore, it was these forces that were used in determining the power output. The individual forces applied to the pedals in this study did not always produce any power.

The subjects demonstrated a tendency to apply vertical force to the pedals while the pedals were at 6:00. A vertical force applied at 6:00 (180 deg) will produce no power output, and is therefore wasted force. Likewise, positive horizontal force applied at 3:00 (90 deg) produces no power as well.

This translates into the IE column shown on table 6. This means that between 58.2% and 80.7% of the power applied to the pedals actually made it to the rear wheels.

What does this mean? If the subject that had a 58.2% efficiency produces 359 watts at the rear wheel he actually applied 617 watts on the pedals. The other rides produced 336 watts at the wheel while only applying 416 watts to the pedals.

So here we have one subject required to produce 200 more watts to reap only an additional 23 watts at the rear wheel.

Think about it………….could there be a reason this has been avoided by some..................