anybody want to talk politics? much less contentious...

---

f/k/a mclamb6

Kenwill wrote: "he 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. "

It is not possible to "prove" the above statements with the resources available to me but it is what i believe. Many users have reported greater benefit than the claims. It is why I offer a 90 day money back guarantee to let the user "prove" it to him or herself, which is the only "proof" that should matter. When I offered a 60 day guarantee I got less than 5 in 1,000 back so I increased it to 90. I am tring to get it to zero, if that is possible. Put your biases and suspicions to the test. Give them a try then come back here and bash them with some authority.

---

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

This is not politics, but Frank Day and his followers sure make it look like religion...

---

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


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

Check this out. In an effort to be fair and balanced...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...mp;list_uids=7503247

If I'm reading this right, this seems to support a counter argument.

Czone,

Rip and AC, and others have been asked that question in the past and failed to answer with any specificity.

Actually, a study design to answer the question of "do they work" is pretty simple, and was done reasonably well by the Luttrell group (no study is ever "perfect"). I think another study is just getting underway at Duke to answer this question also. What is more difficult to do would be to do a study to answer the question of "how much could they work?" (when maximum benefit may take 5 years) or "How do they work", (when there may be many mechanisms) assuming they work.

---

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

careful now--i pc but i am not religious about them. they work me for me. if it's placebo, well, ignorance is bliss.

happy training.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

redshoe-boy asks: "Are you afraid to answer the Redshoe question because it reveals a weakness in your position of the PC deal? "

uhhhh. hooboy are we funny. anyway, i really don't think you need me to comment further on your little parody, as i know you enjoy it so much yourself. somewhat oddly, i might add. they say in humour timing is everything. close second to that is perhaps oh, i dunno, context? specifically, the context of your sure to be pulitzer winning little red-shoe placebo/gimmick/sillything take-off parody is misplaced when it comes to PC's. wrong place, wrong context, and whaddya know you suddenly need a laugh track to try to MAKE it funny. just like those old reruns of three's company, sometimes that doesn't even help. so it is with red-shoe, i'm afraid, red-shoe boy.

if you knew what PC's actually DO, you would not try to cram that tired lame-ass parody like a 2:00 am sit-com on us in reference to them. but you don't. you have not trained on them, nor observed anybody do so under meaningful circumstances, have you?

Rip I explained my potential objections to the study in my post. Address those and maybe we can talk. Otherwise, the abstract is unconvincing. There are plenty of explanations for those results, as presented in the abstract, other than yours.

---

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

Agreed.

And for Frank...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...mp;list_uids=3057322

and

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...mp;list_uids=3414535

i have been down that road before with red-shoe boy. he never , to my knowledge, comes out and actually says what his experience with them is.

he certainly never STARTS a post by stating clearly and openly " i used PC's for XX mount of time in XXX fashion and here is what i found' like everybody else in the world does.

he instead lets this supposed secret use of them sit there in the background, and he hints at it from time to time. i once equated his overall pattern of disclosure of this topic to be very much like that of a high maintenance teenage psycho girlfriend we all probably had back in 11th grade. at the least, we are left wondering - what the hell hapened/ did he use them or didn't he? how much/ how long? whyinthehell doesn't he just come out and say so like anybody in the world might do ???

like that psycho girlfriend from hell, who knows what she wants, before she will just say what she means?

   

If you hadn't noticed, I (and a number of others) will challenge any claim that seems outrageous or not based on evidence.

In any case, I'm friends with the wife of the owner of the company that makes Endurox, and was part of a focus group she led before the product came out. A friend and I tried the stuff, and both came to the conclusion that it works by restricting your ability to burn carbohydrates, somehow. No matter how hard I worked on the bike, my heart rate just wouldn't go up. I stopped using the stuff.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

r-s-b observes: "If direct experience is your only argument, well then, you don't have really have an argument... "

oops, you're gonna want to read a little closer, there r-s-b. direct experience would certainly be a great start - but that is admittedly just me. i am a practical man.

but, i DID also offer you the option of that 'observation under meaningful circumstances' thing too, did i not? without either of those two itsy bitsy things, would you care to describe just how it is that you are NOT simply talking about shit you know nothing about again?

I am sorry Kraig, I did my own study, that I thought was pretty well designed that allows me to make the claims I do but, of course, it will not "prove" anything to anyone because of the potential bias. However, nothing I have received back from customer reports in the way of feedback causes me to even consider to revise the claims.

I cannot do "science" on these because of the potential bias. Even Luttrell got knocked here because he didn't "reveal" that he received a gratis pair to do his "independent" study. So, until several someones buy a pair or two using their own funds and then does a good independent study using their own funds that shows a 40% increase in power per my claims (25% won't do) it will not be possible to come up with a study to satisfy some here.

it is my cross to bear. Choose to not believe the claims if you must and attribute all improvement athletes ever achieve to placebo effect if you must. do RedBrand shoes have clips on the bottom? Why? It is all just placebo effect anyhow. I claim 40% increase in power in 6 - 9 months because I believe that is what the typical new user (emphasize typical) caan expect. Then I give them 90 days to see if I duped them into a purchase by misrepresenting them and what they do. If they think i did, they can get their money back. What on earth is wrong with that? How am i conning anyone?

The fact that the so-called "scientists" here can't explain these reported results beyond placebo effect or why these same scientists and skeptics can't explain why almost everyone who tries them keeps them is what keeps these threads going, not my trying to market them when someone posts a positive result or asks a question about how to use them best and they are told by a non-user to put them in the closet next to the biopace.

---

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

Damn! I forgot to make the $5 side bet that you'd call me out for working to prove a hypothesis, rather than to reject the null hypothesis. But I do appreciate the response. In very general terms, this is more or less what i would have tried if I were to do it myself. The big questions being how many people do you recruit, and for how long do you study them? But i don't quite follow the explanation as to why you think the study won't be done- are you saying that because there's no theoretical reason to believe in the advantages of such training, there's no reason to investigate the possibilty in a formal way?

Ken

Look all this arguing has just turned into dick swinging. The argument just keeps going round and round. Frank send me a pair, Rip send me the numbers you want to know, smartass coach keep on smart assing. We will do a study and prove this once and for all!

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Dr Winkle. How did the Luttrell study fall down as compared to your optimum study design? Didn't they do all of those things (except, of course, look at how they effected the change), they even controlled for cadence? Of, I forgot, Luttrell is not a "respected sports scientist" so, that, in and of itself, makes his attempt and data useless and questionable.

---

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