Even though the hills may not be long in terms of getting up them, they are steep. There is one hill I routinely run on one of my routes that, I kid you not, is at least 30 percent grade or more at it's steepest. You have to lift your leg quite a bit to make it up that. You consistently run these steep hills year after year and that adds up.
Something else I have done since I was a kid that probably has helped me. Yaqui made reference to this in his post: Running stairs. Not so much in training, but in everyday activities involving stairs. I probably go up and down the stairs in my house at least 25 times a day. I sometimes like to see how many stairs I could take in one step (I believe my record is 6!) Even simply going up, I will usually take 2 or 3 stairs each step. Often I do this sub-conciously. Maybe all of the years of this type of activity has also contributed to developing my hip flexors.

OK, it is starting to make sense. I was going to send some goons out to follow you and collect some of your sweat so we could do a a dna analysis to see if you are one of those space aliens i talk about in the instructions. No need to do this. Running hills is not just part of a workout, it is a way of life and you have a many year base.

For you, forget what I might have said about 40% power improvement in 9 months or so. For you, most of the improvement will come from form improvement on both the bike and run. For the run improvement I would concentrate on pulling those toes up and getting them going forward at high cadences. I predict improvement, but it will be harder and slower to come by than the usual user sees.

Keep us posted.

Frank

---

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

I think you've mis-understood the data and this study. As RIP pointed out the data shows precisly the opposite of what you are claiming... the cyclists in the study who appeared to be in-effective pedalers (mashers) were actually the most thermodynamically efficient.

"The question is how many watts are applied to the pedals to produce those 300 watts."

the answer is 300W give or take a couple watts for drivetrain loss - all you have to do is is ride a bike with both an srm and a powertap to see that...

Joel

Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1991 Jan;23(1):93-107.

Physiological and biomechanical factors associated with elite endurance cycling performance.

Coyle EF, Feltner ME, Kautz SA, Hamilton MT, Montain SJ, Baylor AM, Abraham LD, Petrek GW.

Department of Kinesiology and Health Education, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

In this study we evaluated the physiological and biomechanical responses of "elite-national class" (i.e., group 1; N = 9) and "good-state class" (i.e., group 2; N = 6) cyclists while they simulated a 40 km time-trial in the laboratory by cycling on an ergometer for 1 h at their highest power output. Actual road racing 40 km time-trial performance was highly correlated with average absolute power during the 1 h laboratory performance test (r = -0.88; P less than 0.001). In turn, 1 h power output was related to each cyclists' VO2 at the blood lactate threshold (r = 0.93; P less than 0.001). Group 1 was not different from group 2 regarding VO2max (approximately 70 ml.kg-1.min-1 and 5.01 l.min-1) or lean body weight. However, group 1 bicycled 40 km on the road 10% faster than group 2 (P less than 0.05; 54 vs 60 min). Additionally, group 1 was able to generate 11% more power during the 1 h performance test than group 2 (P less than 0.05), and they averaged 90 +/- 1% VO2max compared with 86 +/- 2% VO2max in group 2 (P = 0.06). The higher performance power output of group 1 was produced primarily by generating higher peak torques about the center of the crank by applying larger vertical forces to the crank arm during the cycling downstroke. Compared with group 2, group 1 also produced higher peak torques and vertical forces during the downstroke even when cycling at the same absolute work rate as group 2. Factors possibly contributing to the ability of group 1 to produce higher "downstroke power" are a greater percentage of Type I muscle fibers (P less than 0.05) and a 23% greater (P less than 0.05) muscle capillary density compared with group 2. We have also observed a strong relationship between years of endurance training and percent Type I muscle fibers (r = 0.75; P less than 0.001). It appears that "elite-national class" cyclists have the ability to generate higher "downstroke power", possibly as a result of muscular adaptations stimulated by more years of endurance training.

PMID: 1997818 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

hmmmm

so would you say that if a rider could increase the torque on the downstroke, and decrease the torque on the upstroke, all the while eliminating the dead point, would this be a pretty efficient set up?

[reply]
hmmmm

so would you say that if a rider could increase the torque on the downstroke, and decrease the torque on the upstroke, all the while eliminating the dead point, would this be a pretty efficient set up? [/reply]


I would say if you could eliminate all torque on the
upstroke, make maximum use of the dead point
area by making it part of your main power stroke
and increase the overall power on your main
power stroke by making maximum use of arm
resistance and most important of all, do it naturally,
you would have the perfect pedaling set up for
a 4K pursuit. It is possible, linear pedaling
(Anquetil's technique) does just that. But even more
important that technique is the key to the elimination
of the root cause of all lower back pain which is the
continuous back strain associated with circular or
any other natural pedaling style where direct downward pedal pressure is the main power supplier.
But unweighting the idling leg with the Powercrank
technique is a good place to start.

I think I see the source of your confusion: the index of effectiveness is the area under the effective force-crank angle curve divided by the area under the resultant force-crank angle curve. It is *former*, however, that when multiplied by the angular velocity and crank length defines the power applied to crank.

Please read again. It is the force resultant that is used in the calculations.

Barring any calibration errors and small frictional losses in the drive train, this equals the power measured by/applied to the ergometer flywheel.

Although you referenced the incorrect value used earlier, this is correct. Except for the small frictional losses in the drivetrain, we have the power applied.

The *latter*, on the other hand, cannot be used to calculate power, since the angle of the resultant force keeps changing and the torque and angular velocity are undefined.

As mentioned previously, it is the force resultant that was used inthe calculations.

The only way of knowing the power *input* into the system is from the VO2 measurements - and as I keep pointing out to you,

The power input into the system, never was an issue with me. It has always been about the power output, and the effectiveness of transferring this power to the bike. How much power the rider makes is not as crucial as how much power that the rider makes can be transferred to the bike.

the subjects in group 1 were MORE economical (efficient) than the subjects in group 2, despite the fact that their index of effectiveness was lower. One interpretation of these data is therefore that it is better (more efficient) to accept a lower index of effectiveness, rather than expend additional energy trying to reorient the forces applied to the pedal.

Unfortunately you keep assuming that the riders are all identical. This is obviously not true. For your assumption to be correct each rider would have to be physiologically identical, and then maybe your assumption would hold.

TooSlow wrote: Unfortunately you keep assuming that the riders are all identical. This is obviously not true. For your assumption to be correct each rider would have to be physiologically identical, and then maybe your assumption would hold.


BINGO! The elite class of riders supposedly had 23% higher capillary density AND higher % of fast-twitch fibers. There's your increase in power....it may have nothing to do with whether it is reasonable to pull up or not.

Furthermore, in this study, I believe (this is from memory, forgive me if I am wrong) Coyle posits in the discussion that the Non-elites would have done even worse had some of them not pulled up!

---

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

Gary, I've only had two rides on the Rotors so far. (Been very sick). Since they slipped some after the first ride (which was very easy to adjust to, AND faster for me than regular cranks), I reinstalled them at a little higher than midpoint.

I was really not putting out as much power as usual as evidenced by my slower slowest speeds going up steep grades, but, my overall speed was still higher than usual on this route....for the first time, I found I could push a 54X11 gear meaningfully. Meaningfully enough to make up for my poor climbing. I'm still surprised how I don't have to shift as much as I go over undulating terrain. I'm assuming my poor climbing was due to being off the bike for a couple of weeks with my illness, so I'm somewhat de-trained. I'm impressed with the results thus far...plan to race them on Sunday!

---

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

Good to hear, let me know how the race goes, and how your adaptation progresses.

Two of our euro team Spanish triathletes just qualified for the Athens Olympics this month, which means Rotor is going to the Olympics, Worlds Triathlon ITU, Ironman France [elite] and will be raced by several pro road teams in the Vuelta de Espana this fall.

Rip writes: "Why not use the extensors to help the flexors by either decreasing their workload so we can perhaps run faster when the bike leg is over, or using the extensors to increase speed some? "

Rip, you do accept the fact that normal cyclists use their hip flexors now don't you? Afterall, as you have pointed out, the backward pressure on the upstroke is normally quite small and the only way I know of for that to be the case is the rider is using the HF's to unweight the pedal some, just not completely.

If that is the case, why is it not advantageous for the rider to unweight less than they do now? Or, why would it be a disadvantage for the rider to unweight a little more? How does the rider know they are unweighting the optimum amount or that their might be a better amount (either more or less) to unwieght to make them go faster?

---

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

RVP wrote: Fatigue, i.e., failure to maintain the expected or required force or power output, will occur only when there remains an insufficient supply of non-fatigued motor units to allow exercise to continue. During prolonged cycling, this occurs only when the vast majority of motor units - slow-twitch and fast-twitch alike - in the leg extensors have been recruited sufficiently to lead to glycogen depletion. At *that* point, it is questionable whether attempting to recruit the hip flexors would be of any use, since their size and thus power output is much less than that of the leg extensors.

and

However, even if they (hip flexors) *might* be able generate sufficient power to continue the task for some period of time, it is not logical to go to great lengths to try to train them for this eventuality, any more than it logical to spend time training your arms to take over pedaling for you when your legs finally do fatigue. Rather, a much more logical and undoubtly productive route would be to concentrate on enhancing the fatigue resistance of the primarily-recruited motor units, which are the ones that are optimal (in the body's opinion) for performing the task in the first place.



RVP: Thanks, you finally answered the question. It is glycogen depletion, NOT cardiac output, that causes a decrease in work rate, at some point, in submaximal intensity exercise. I 100% agree that the extensors ARE the muscles that are optimal for performing the task. I also agree 100% that the extensors should be where the vast majority of the training is done if high force generation is the goal.

I think where we disagree is this: just because I'm training my flexors, it doesn't mean I'm not able to be training my extensors concomitantly. You say even if the flexors *might* be able to generate sufficient power...it's not logical... Well, it is logical to me. At least more logical than using my arms to help my legs pedal...which I have done as a child, btw.

You seem to think I'm talking about using the hip flexors to generate enough power to continue exercising at the rate the extensors were working. No, I'm saying: it's not necessary for the flexors to work nearly THAT hard to see a benefit, only that if I can train the flexors to provide more force than they did before training them, I have a logical reason to work toward that goal, especially because I have cardiac output in reserve to provide them blood flow.

ONLY if gluconeogenesis was THE limiter to submaximal exercise, would I say that less energy efficient muscle use (the flexors) might be illogical. Still, glycogen depletion seems to be more of a local muscular problem, doesn't it? i.e., it's not a liver gluconeogenesis problem, is it?

Thanks again for finally answering the question.

---

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

Rip, You seem to believe that the fact that athletes of similar ability pedal substantially differently is evidence that it doesn't make any difference how one pedals, or that each of the people has somehow managed to find their own optimum pedaling dynamic using some magical biofeedback principle.

An alternative explanation is simply that athletes of lesser natural ability can improve to the level of those with greater natural ability by paying more attention to pedaling technique.

And, just what is the supposed "biofeedback principle" you refer too? Biofeedback must measure something then give a feedback signal to the organism that attempts to change (in a particular direction, ususally thought to be an "improvement") what was measured. What is the biofeedback mechanism in regular cranks?

Then you say, there is "additional energetic cost and therefore reduced efficiency associated with trying to reorietn the forces applied to the pedal to make them more effective." What on earth are you talking about? Do you say it is a complete waste of time for the athlete to work on pedaling technique or worry about efficiency? Is it the trying that results in reduced efficiency and is a waste of time or is it the actual changing that results in reduced efficiency?

It seems you think the outcome of athletic "training" is predetermined and it is a waste of time for the athlete to train anything but the extensors, and I get the impression if the PC's claimed to train the extensors you would still object to them.

I mean do you see ANY VALUE to the athlete worrying about form? In your opinion, are all the coaches, who counsel their clients to worry about pedaling form, nuts?

Frank

---

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

"In your opinion, are all the coaches, who counsel their clients to worry about pedaling form, nuts? "

Form = push down on pedals

It is that easy

Gary, if you really believed that you wouldn't be riding RC's, as RC's mechanically change the riders form, without the rider having to do anything, don't they? If not, what is all this "eliminate the dead point and increase efficiency" stuff you spout, or were you kidding?

---

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

Seriously Frank

With Rotor Cranks all a rider really needs to do, or to think about, is to push down on the pedals, the cam action of the Rotors brings the recovery leg back around, through the dead point, and into the 1-2 o'clock position ... ready to begin the power application

[reply]
Seriously Frank

With Rotor Cranks all a rider really needs to do, or to think about, is to push down on the pedals, the cam action of the Rotors brings the recovery leg back around, through the dead point, and into the 1-2 o'clock position ... ready to begin the power application [/reply]

====================================

Gary, what the inventors of the ROTOR system had
in mind was to give you between two and three mins.
of extra pedaling time per hour. It's how you pedal
that will decide how much extra pedaling time you
gain and it's what you do with that extra pedaling time that will decide your time reductions in TT's.
Correct unweighting of the pedal is even more
important where RC's are concerned because power
used in pushing your idling leg up and round the
top (faster than the power leg) is power lost to your
rear wheel. How far exactly is the top pedal past
12 o'clock when the lower one is at 6 o'clock. From what I can see, it does not even reach 1 o'clock.
How many miles are RC'S guaranteed to cover before
wear and tear problems arise? Don't misunderstand
me, used correctly RC's can give a rider a winning
advantage but I like the advertising to be accurate
in any claims that area made.

Just wanted to be the 600th reply. :)

I road with the Double AAs (Cat 2/Cat3/Cat4 riders) last night with my Powercranks and didn't get dropped. I hung out at the back. We ended up doing about 45 miles of pretty hard riding. I am still feeling the effects of the ride this morning.

Gary, what the inventors of the ROTOR system had
in mind was to give you between two and three mins.
of extra pedaling time per hour.

huh? this is not true at all

It's how you pedal
that will decide how much extra pedaling time you
gain and it's what you do with that extra pedaling time that will decide your time reductions in TT's.

not true either


Correct unweighting of the pedal is even more
important where RC's are concerned because power
used in pushing your idling leg up and round the
top (faster than the power leg) is power lost to your
rear wheel.

no differerent than what you do with normal cranks

How far exactly is the top pedal past
12 o'clock when the lower one is at 6 o'clock. From what I can see, it does not even reach 1 o'clock.

it does, 1'oclock, if you actually rode a set you would see the difference, you cannot review the system based on a photo


How many miles are RC'S guaranteed to cover before
wear and tear problems arise?

2 yr warranty, and they are bomproof

Don't misunderstand
me, used correctly RC's can give a rider a winning
advantage but I like the advertising to be accurate
in any claims that area made.

what advertising are you referring to?

OK, everyone...here's what I think this thread should be about...GLYCOGEN SPARING!

I think PC use can spare glycogen in the extensor muscles by decreasing the workload of the extensors...even if it is only a little bit, it is an improvement. OR, the flexors can add to the power that reaches the chain and therefore result in a slightly higher speed at the same extensor work rate.

I think RC's can also spare glycogen in the extensor muscles, perhaps by using a couple of techniques, one of which is taking advantage of a biomechanical efficiency point in extension corresponding to the area somewhere circa 3:00 on the pedal "clock. IF this area on the pedal clock IS biomechanically more efficient, it makes sense to use this biomechanical efficient area to assist the rising foot up (especially if the foot isn't being completely picked up by the flexors). Biomechanical efficiency can be glycogen sparing. Additionally, by taking some of unpowered, underpowered, negatively powered area out of the pedal clock (by having the upper crank forward of 12:00 when the lower crank has not yet reached 6:00) an earlier application of force by the extensors becomes possible. Earlier application of force can mean that less peak force needs to be generated in order to maintain a given work rate. Less peak force is a glycogen sparing action.

Furthermore, I see no reason that the two pedalling techniques would interfere with the other. Spare extensor glycogen by using hip flexors to a greater extent than you did before training the flexors to do more work. Spare extensor glycogen by using a pedal system that takes advantage of a biomechanical efficiency point corresponding to somewhere around 3:00 on the pedal clock. Use that biomechanical efficiency area to assist the preparation of the opposite legs' power phase to arrive a little earlier than usual...but, if one is performing a pedal stroke that uses hip flexors a little more than "usual", this biomechanical efficiency ALL shows up at the chain...not wasted picking up that rising foot.

That's what I think. I have no Pubmed backed proof. I could be wrong, or, I could be right but using the wrong reasons. I AM actively pursuing the goal of glycogen sparing, though, and am trying out techniques that seem to me to be plausible.

I really think the two products are complimentary, not contradictory.

---

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

 



[b]no differerent than what you do with normal cranks[/b]

How far exactly is the top pedal past
12 o'clock when the lower one is at 6 o'clock. From what I can see, it does not even reach 1 o'clock.

[b]it does, 1'oclock, if you actually rode a set you would see the difference, you cannot review the system based on a photo[/b]


[b]what advertising are you referring to?[/b] [/reply]
=====================================


If it's as simple as you say, no different from what
you have to do with normal cranks, how come the
renowned cyclist A. Coggan could find no advantage
whatsoever ?

1 o'clock is 30 degrees past the 12 o'clock mark with
3 o'clock as the 90 degree mark, is the crank that
full 30 degrees past 12 o'clock. Why not use a photo
with a clock face behind the cranks when advertising.

The advertising at the bottom of your posts for a
start.

Just wondering do Gary or Frank drive cars with Wankel engines?

Rotory engines Rule!

Can I confirm that training on PC 's would have as much benifit to racing on RC's as to racing on standard cranks i.e. If you believe PC work they will work as well for both(I think they do), if you you don't think they work it will make no difference. Would training on PC's negate some of the benifits you might get from RC's e.g. If training on PC's made you 2mins per 40k quicker and racing on RC's made you 2 mins per 40k quicker, if you trained on PC's and raced RC's would you perhaps just see a 3mins improvement or still only a 2min improvement or would you get the full 4min improvement?

If it's as simple as you say, no different from what
you have to do with normal cranks, how come the
renowned cyclist A. Coggan could find no advantage
whatsoever ?

I do not know his circumstance, it is possible that his regulation point needed to be set higher for his pedaling style. Did he try this? It makes a huge difference.

1 o'clock is 30 degrees past the 12 o'clock mark with
3 o'clock as the 90 degree mark, is the crank that
full 30 degrees past 12 o'clock. Why not use a photo
with a clock face behind the cranks when advertising.

Check out the Simulator page on www.RotorCranks.com