Ask him to come here and speak for himself. the abstract you referenced has little to do with this issue although it did go to my cntention that CO is primarily determined passively. Nervous system activation can be useful to help smooth the transition and control blood pressure. (the failure to maintain blood pressure in the spinal patients probably had more to do with the nervous system failing to reduce blood flow to the non-essential tissue, a homeostatic mechanism that has evolved to allow improved capability.

Frank

---

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

redshoe boy writes:

The above statement alludes to Frank's ultimate goal. His goal is not to educate, learn or understand. His ultimate goal is to convert people over to the seeing the "truth". "

again we see a simple lack of decent reading comprehension, stemming from a preconceived agenda leading to an idiotic challenge or accusation. in his instance 'converted" is a colorful term for " changed your mind on evidence of direct experience". however, since neither you nor rip HAVE direct experience perhaps it is a bit much to expect you to understand the implications of it now.

your statements are, as usual, without balance or perspective apart from from your own promotion, shoe boy. go back and read your red-shoe thing and tell yourself how gosh durn clever you are. we know you really really do like that red-shoe thing.

You are right Kraig, it's an interesting choice of words. Frank Day could have used "convinced" or "understood the principle" but he alluded to a convertion. That says it all.

---

-
"Yeah, no one likes a smartass, but we all like stars" - Thom Yorke


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

Curious wrote: "I think you've got a slam dunk if you can show some evidence that say... during a repeated, sub max single leg knee extension (with similar forces and contraction frequencies that the quad group would see during cycling or running at VO2max) that O2 extraction is incomplete."

Possibly. the problem is exercise involves many muscles. If one of them fails because it has reached maximal extraction, then the body must shut down, the others can't just keep going. If the muscle that is being measured is not the limiting muscle, then extraction may not be complete even though the limit is not cardiac. Every new PC'er understands this as their ability to exercise ceases when the new muscles reach their limit, even though they are way under their usual capabilities.

Further, if the CO were the limiting factor, all muscles (including the heart) should reach this limit at the same time. It don't happen.

---

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

You're kidding, RIGHT??? ROTFLOL..................

---

-
"Yeah, no one likes a smartass, but we all like stars" - Thom Yorke


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

says it all, ya right. you guys are not really serious, are you?

the term is one reflecting the powerful experience that comes from riding anf training on the things. i used it myself, after experiiencing them. that you cannot grasp that says far more about the glaring and complete LACK of knowledge of the experience which you are so eager to bash, than it does anything.

get freaking real - you guys do not know of what you are speaking. yet speak and speak you do. pathetic.

Man, who doesn't love a good PC flame war?

Rip- over several threads you've invested a fair amount of time making it clear that you don't believe that PCs are necessary or sufficient to improve cycling performance. Maybe you've given some thought as to how to prove it?

Hypothesis- regular use of PCs does NOT improve cycling performance in trained recreational athletes. (Or elite, I'm more interested in the former, personally).

What would a well designed experiment to answer the question look like? I ask because I'm curious and like most people around here am happy to admit I don't know much of anything about exercise physiology.

Ken

RIP wrote: "ointed you at innumerable studies accessible via PubMed that support my statements, and others have referred you to textbooks on the subject. I am not sure what more can be done to help educate you."


Refer us to some studies that are relevant to your arguments. Let's see, we have been shown studies referring to pathological states, and children, etc. to which YOU (and perhaps others) have wrongly extrapolated the data is valid for the healthy individual.

---

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

Re: Drills vs. PC's [Brodsky] by Frank Day wrote:

"Until those studies are done, Coggin's and your criticisms are simply hot air blowing to support your biases."

Good Lord. What biases do you think Coggan has? Upholding principles of good science? What about your biases?

Joel

t-t-n,



Your post would fit right into alt.rec.aliens, congratulations!

You're one of the chosen one, you saw the light, while us, we are those that either await convertion or forever will live in the real world of cycling.

---

-
"Yeah, no one likes a smartass, but we all like stars" - Thom Yorke


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

uhhh, smartass. it is you who are hung up ona word conveying meaning which was not intended, not i.

i said the term was used in colorful reference to convey something. that something could be said to be on the order of " has actually experienced them first hand and weighed it on previous experiences and concluded that they are an effective training tool"

your commentary vis a vis the aliens or whateverthehell since the first is still adrift, and meaningless (as is your argument).

anyway, await what you will, or actually find out for yourself as did i, or just keep talking like a dumbass about stuff you don't know about,. congratulations yourself on the fine decision you have made thus far on those choices.

I had to go down to your level, I mean... you don't even get that the red shoe thing is a JOKE!



Anyway, I won't flame you anymore, this is not rst and we're in the 21st century now.

---

-
"Yeah, no one likes a smartass, but we all like stars" - Thom Yorke


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

uhhhh, i do. it is a very funny joke, willet enjoys the joke over and over so many times. some jokes and parody's are funny, and some are stupid and used inappropriately. that you cannot see the difference is somewhat troubling, for a guy who deams himself at a certain "level".

RIP the Richardson study is interesting but doesn't prove your point, at least in the abstract. How did they measure O2 uptake, whole body or femeral venous blood? How did they control for isometric contraction of other muscles in the body to increase blood pressure, to increase blood flow to the isolated muscle which would allow for increased work, and, BTW, these isometric contractions would also increase total body oxygen consumption even though these muscles were doing absolutely no "work".

Why did they theorize that the muscle didn't reach full extraction before reaching the cardiac output limit? Did they measure cardiac output? Was it equal to or above these subjects normal "maximum"?

How the data is gathered and how it is interpreted is critical to whether the conclusions drawn are valid. My guess is this study proves nothing towards your argument although i can see how one might wrongly misinterpret it.

---

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

but indeed. i actually have no issue with red-shoe boy. it is the inappropriate use of his self-gratifying parody that i have issue with.

specifically, if you fellows had or would bother to have experience with PC's you would no longer see the parody as apprapo to them.

this, really is the ultimate crux of the issue. no flame, just fact - you do not have experience with them. you have not trained on them nor have you observed others do so under meaningful circumstances. you - quite simply - do not know what you are talking about. i mean that most literally. you may have convinced yourself that you do - but the real world is quite clear that you do not. yet talk and talk you do. odd, that.

RIP writes: "So you're now claiming that it isn't possible to exercise at intensities above 100% of VO2max?"

No, however, if one goes anaerobic on one muscle it must eventually stop performing. The 60 meter sprinter can pretty do his race regardless of what the VO2 max is or the rate of oxygen delivery to the tissues is. Lance Armstong or any endurance athlete cannot.

Again, you misconstrue the point to try to make a point that I am an idiot. I may be but I haven't seen the data yet to prove it.

---

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

You're funny, I like you...

---

-
"Yeah, no one likes a smartass, but we all like stars" - Thom Yorke


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

IMO it's not up to RIP or anyone else to prove that PCs don't work, it's up to the seller to prove that they do in fact work as described.

The problem is that the seller proclaims that such enornmous improvements are possible using PCs ("typical cyclist/triathlete can increase power on the bicycle 40% (that's 2-3 mph faster on the road for most) in 6 months and the typical runner can take 20 minutes off their marathon time in less than 3 months.") that if true, would make any scientific studies purely academic as the improvements in performance would be so obvious and apparent that in short order the whole world would be using them.

I suspect that PCs may in fact "work" (but not nearly to the magnitude claimed), but not by increasing efficiency, or potential sustained power output, but simply because they force users to train at a higher average intensity than they would otherwise (whitness the "difficulty" of pedaling/training in this fashion initially). If this is the case however, then potential users must realize that they can similar acheive results simply by training more intensely., i.e. there are no shortcuts.

Joel

Coggan (oops, almost wrote Coggin) refused a free pair to simply look at or evaluate. His biases are pretty evident if you read his posts. they are pretty similar to RIPs except Coggan has made such statements as the pedaling motion requires zero, zilch, nada energy or some such BS. Further, he is so enamored with his own research that he belittles everyone elses that might draw a different conclusion than what he has previously drawn.

Read his posts.

Frank

---

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

Oh, I agree that if you want to claim performance benefits, there should be some data (not the plural of anecdote, i love it!) that support the claim. So the question would be equally valid to pose to Frank. He has mentioned some studies in the past, I haven't seen them, I wouldn't feel qualified to comment on the validity of them anyway. So I asked Rip, since he seems to have some expertise in the area, how he would conduct the test. What would a well conducted trial look like, and how would we know it was well-designed? I'm guessing more data will be available in the future, and asking for some guidance in interpreting them.

Ken

hey smartass. i know i am funny, but thanks anyway. i like you too.

czone posits a fine sounding theory . . . . . .but i have a bag of do-nuts here that sez if he got some PC's and rode them steady for 6 weeks he would withdraw the theory, tho. :) haven't we been here before?

and, in a related note, how come none of you guys get on slowtwitch and piss and moan about endurox or cytofuel or whoeverthehell claiming 40 % better this or 30 % improved that? just wondering.