funny! mr day asks: "do RedBrand shoes have clips on the bottom?"

for those of you at home, red-shoe boy once stated, on this forum i believe, that;

"the only reason for toeclips or clipless pedals is so your feet stay on"

now, before you believe anything else he might say, ask yourself this: does anything in my cycling experience make me believe that ridiculous statement to be true? if not. . .. . i am certainly guessing nearly anybody's real world experience will draw the negative on this, btw. . . . ask the next question - if this dude is purporting the sort of obviously bogus BS as that what makes me think ANYTHING r-s-b has to say is any better? . .

> Look all this arguing has just turned into dick swinging.

You (?) had it right from the beginning: "(...) a constipation of ideas buried underneath a diarrhaea of words.". How can you act surprised?

Dre'

---

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

Mr Tibbs,



I'm sorry but I'll have to disagree with you here. It's not dick swinging. That's what Frank wants people to think is happening by replying to every post ad nauseum.

In fact, Rip, Kraig and others make a very good argument against the usefulness of Powercranks, based on sound science.

If Galileo and Aristoteles were discussing the flatness of the earth, would you call it dick swinging? I think not.

---

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


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com

ok r-s-b. you do not desire the truth of the matter, nor wish to point toward it. you wish to 'catch' me in a minute point of debate for some sort of 'victory".

yet, you wish to be seen as a valid researcher. and you wish your "findings" from that research to be taken seriously.

you trully do take the cake.

"How can you act surprised?"

I'm not suprised it's just funny. Some people ride PCs and like the effects,some don't. Who gives a crap? Come on everyone just ride your damn bike.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Hmmm. I wouldn't have guessed that it would be terribly expensive to do a good study, particularly if the performance gains are anywhere near what is claimed. But as before, I don't know much of anything about the field. Your statement regarding the allocation of resources and effort is impossible to disagree with, I appreciate your insights.

Ken

How can you take a group of people and have half train one way and the other half train another and then PROVE that one way is better? Maybe if we could clone the same person over and over and then have those clones train in those manners then it would be proof. But, I would say (and bash me all you want) that if you are just using regular people then you are showing maybe a tendency of one training method over the other, but in no way would you be proving that A is better than B. You could do the test once with 5 people on PCs and 5 people using "redshoes", gather and then report your results. Then do the same test again with all different people and you would get different results. So where is the proof in that?

All this science this and science that is really a statement of this is what are results SEEM to show at this given time so therefore I will make this conclusion. It's not like we are testing inanimate objects where we can control every variable.

Oh and I don't own PCs and probably never will, not because I don't believe in them, but because I'm poor. My bike costs less than a set of PCs.

science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.



in what way have rip or r-s-b done this vis a vis powercranks?

***************************************************************************

for those of you at home, red-shoe boy once stated, on this forum i believe, that;

"the only reason for toeclips or clipless pedals is so your feet stay on"

now, before you believe anything else he might say, ask yourself this: does anything in my cycling experience make me believe that ridiculous statement to be true? if not. . .. . i am certainly guessing nearly anybody's real world experience will draw the negative on this, btw. . . . ask the next question - if this dude is purporting the sort of obviously bogus BS as that what makes me think ANYTHING r-s-b has to say is any better? . .
***************************************************************************

Umm...you do realize you just proved red-shoe boy's point, dontcha?

Might want to check the truth behind that statement before declaring it "ridiculous".

Dave

r-s-b asks: "Find the post where I made this statement, please.

'cause I certainly don't recall making it... "

well let me state up front that if you have not purported this statement i stand corrected and offer a very big 'nevermind" to you.

however, being a wee might familiar with some of your tactics of prose and all - remembering that old girlfriend and whatnot . . . . . . could you perhaps offer a small hint as to whether or not the statement is in the ballpark? because, while the exact quote may indeed be off some, i do really seem to seem recall you to purport that basic gist.

i was responding to the post above where the other fellow credits you with this.

r-sb. ya wanna respond to the second half of that "nevermind" post, first?

No, it's dick swinging. All sides seem to really want to prove the other side wrong. Instead of laying sown the evidence and moving on the same points keep getting bashed and bashed. We never here from Frank other than PowerCranks and Rip only wakes up during PC and wieght training forums so he just be a big fucking pissed poster. A man told a another man he was wrong which in man world means "You got a little dick."

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

The Rowell paper does not proove the point. First, it assumes max CO is fixed and not changeable with training. Of course it is possible to overwhelm the hearts ability to pump blood (the shock state proves that) and if one manipulates the muscles to open up all at once but so what? that does not prove that cardiac limits are resticting maximal exercise in humans or any other animal as maximum cardiac output can increase with training, just as maximal blood flow in any one muscle can. Their interpretation is simply one interpretation of the data but there is no evidence to support that as being the correct interpretation. For this to be the correct interpretation one must demonstrate that CO CANNOT increase one iota at maximum exercise intensity. These papers do not prove (or even address) that point that I see.

The sultan article seems even less help to this argument as it has conflicting data. Sultan states in his hypothesis that thepump is limiting but that is not proof. His study indicates that sympathetic stimulation is used to maintain blood pressure but that alpha blocking does not increase blood flow to the muscle. Therefore, sympathetic stimulation would be increasing cardiac output to increase blood pressure and the muscles are fully vasodilated. Nothing in there states the heart couldn't increase more with more sympathetic stimulation. There are only two components to blood pressure, peripheral vascular resistance and cardiac output.

The question is what is the limiter in the real world exercise. I see no data to indicate that CO is ever at a maximum in normal circumstances (there is always some reserve, albeit small at maximum intensity).

The Rowell quote is correct. However, except in pathological conditions it is generally up to the task because the heart can be trained and improved just as every muscle can. So as the athlete trains the peripheral muscles the heart adapts to the increased demands. Only in the instance where it is suddenly put beyond its limits does it fail and I believe the evidence is such that this only occurs in pathological states and, possibly, in the laboratory.

---

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

Well- it would have to be a party with a stake in the results one way or another, right? For an entity to pony up the cash to do the study, they'd have to have an interest in knowing the answer. Based on what you've said, the only person fitting that description at the moment is Frank, who has already stated here he can't perform the study. I suppose if there were some suggestion that the performance claims were legitimate, then some national body which funds the development of elite athletes engaged in cycling and running, that has a pile of money currently earmarked for parasitic lawyers engaged in a leadership struggle might also be interested. But I digress. Since you raise the issue- how much would it cost? Say 10 athletes followed for a total of 6 months- 2 months of training to ensure a performance plateau followed by randomization and 4 months of PCing? Main outcome measurement being 40km TT time. Obviously a nearly random sample size and study duration, but just a starting point.

Ken

So then, are the limitations just ignored as having no impact and whatever results come from the study are used as the "gospel" of science going forward? Then what happens when someone does another study of the same design and finds different results, what is the "gospel" then.

I'm with TTN. If you want to have a stake in the argument get your ass out there and ride on them. You will know if you are getting faster or if you aren't and you will know if you increased or decreased your mileage, intensity, frequency, etc. That to me seems the best way to PROVE whether or not they work. Trust in your own experiences rather than what someone else has concluded from the various experiences of the people in his study.

Listing study after study about why you don't "think" they will work really gets us nowhere. You say you want an independent study showing how they work, but who's going to pay for that one? Frank can't, I'm not going to.

Please keep your clear and simple logic out of this. Really using the product has nothing to do with knowing it works or not. Theory is all you need.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.