well enjoy your ride, by all means. i KNOW you didn't make "THAT" statement, because i paraphrased it from memory. i recall you making a claim very much like it. if this is truly not the case, i'm sorry i attributed to you falsely, and nevermind.

Seriously, if you could PROVE that a training method works with a sample of people wouldn't that mean that science could tell us exactly how much training we had to do, at what exact heart rate, at what times of day and on a specific day to be able to run a say 3 hour marathon? Just test it until you figure out what each circumstance was and then everyone can do exactly the same thing? (I doubt it)

This shit isn't like PROVING the world is flat. Each person you put in the test is an unexplainable variable. You can't control all aspects of the test (because every person is different) so how can you possible PROVE anything?

Frank Wrote "I didn't learn that in medical school and i doubt you did either."

No, really, I did learn that in our sports phys lecture series. Maybe you slept through that one :^).

---

Dr. Philip Skiba
Scientific Training for Endurance Athletes now available on Amazon!

I just don't see Dr Coggan having a bias against PCs, other than believing that they don't work as claimed I suppose. I do sense a level of frustration in his recent posts on these sorts of topics... hence his abandonment of this forum.

I believe his main argument is that there is little to be gained form trying to improve cycling efficiency in the first place, given the supporting evidence of efficacy of "mashers" at top levels.

Joel

Frank Wrote: "The limiter is the local muscles ability to extract oxygen from the blood, not the ability of the heart to deliver oxygen to the muscle. "


What?!

My prof in med school cited some studies (and I wish I could provide a reference) regarding oxygen extraction, which you claim is limited by local factors at the site of extraction in the muscle. He explained that if you put a trained runner on a treadmill, had them achieve V02 max, and then added some additional exercise (arm cranks? I don't really remember and could be wrong about that part), there is no increase in V02 max. So this would seem to argue for a central mechanism that determines maximal oxygen uptake, would it not?

I have not been able to find any references that show that local factors are the main determinant of V02. (Though I have seen a couple regarding oxygen extraction and how it is affected by endotoxin in shock, for example, which has exactly nothing to do with our discussion here). I have been able to read a great deal in primary and secondary sources that point to V02max being determined by cardiac output. So, for now I think I have to side with Astrand and Co. as they would probably know more phys than you or I and six of our physician friends.

Philbert

---

Dr. Philip Skiba
Scientific Training for Endurance Athletes now available on Amazon!

If someone comes out with a perpetual motion machine, without any explanation of the physics of why it supposedly works, is it necessary to "ride on it" to know that it doesn't work? Are you really saying that nobody can criticize a piece of exercise equipment unless they've tried it out? Did you buy one of those vibrating belt weight-loss machines way back when?

Tell me how a perpetual motion machine differs (in principle, not saying that PCs work or don't work) from PCs. Some here are saying that there are many studies that show that PCs don't work the way they are purported to work; they don't need to "ride on them" to know it.

For my part, Mr. (Dr.?) Day lost credibility with his 40% power gain claim, assuming that that number refers to something useful, like functional threshold power. No way, no how, no matter what, my threshold power is going to go from about 280W to near 400W. That's a ridiculous prospect.

---

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

Uh, did these participants reach VO2 max or maximum cardiac output. If not, then their failure to be able to increase any more is not cardiac limited and must be a local limiter.

Looking at isolated muscle contraction can give useful data to understand what is going on over all, but extrapolation to the whole organism and whole body exercise is difficult at best. Your data just isn't convincing to me, although clearly others believe it to be true. If so, how is it possible for Lance to increase his performance (or anyone) Why aren't there more deaths as people collapse over the finsih line have "given their all?"

---

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

I think it's called "statistics".

---

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

  


"Tell me how a perpetual motion machine differs (in principle, not saying that PCs work or don't work) from PCs."

A perpetual motion machine will need only one force input to work for an infinite amount of time while PC require constant force input.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

I think the difference is that these people are saying that PCs CAN'T work based upon the studies that they are referencing. They are not saying that they DON'T work although that is inferred from their hypothesis that they CAN'T work.

A perpetual motion machine either works or it doesn't. You can do a test on a perpetual motion machine and control all variables to show that it works. You can't put PCs on a bunch of people's bikes and then PROVE that they worked as each and every person who uses them will have a different experience on them.

Look VO2 max and Maximum cardiac output are related. that doesn't mean one or theother is the limiter. If we could find the ability to exercise more muscle would cardiac output go up (compare the maximum cardiac output of rowers or XC skiers to that of runners, cyclists or tiddlywink players you use less muscle mass in performing their sports. The heart has the capability of adapting to the stimulus. Your med school professor who gave the runner using hand cranks analogy story is wrong. If the runner trained to do the two together, the runner could increase VO2 max. It is what rowers and XC skiers do, use both the legs and the arms maximally.

It is a matter of how much muscle mass can we train. The heart will adapt. Show me one paper that indicates the healthy heart has a maximum cardiac output that can never be exceeded under any circumstances and then i might believe that exercise is cardiac limited.

---

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

klehner states: " Some here are saying that there are many studies that show that PCs don't work the way they are purported to work"

which studies? the only study on PC's that has been referenced or completed found them to be effective.

the stuff you are referring to is/are interpretations of other factors which are then extrapolated by those opponents to what they might possibly mean regarding PC's and how they think they possibly affect people. not quite the same thing, particularly when the very first interpratations, not to mention every leap afterwords is fraught with potential misapplication. in other words, they do not really know of what they are speaking. direct experience seems to be a reasonable alternative - or direct observation of somebody else's experience. the " anti" crew have offered neither.

But my point is that given the magnitude of the claims, it should be fairly easy to prove your claims. Even if the level of improvements is a 10th of what you claim is possible (4%), then this too would be provable and woudl not get lost in the "noise" of performance. A 4% difference at a world class level would be enough to make a signicant difference in the results (for e.g. 416 vs 400 watts over the course of a TT) and would help your case.

For the record I don't think I have any particular bias against PCs. I can afford them if I wished, and if they truly did make a significant difference in performance I would see no reason not to support their use. I am not "bashing" PCs, but I do feel compelled to look critically at your claims and offer my opinion.

And I do have experience with them. A number of athletes I work with either have them or have used them.

Joel

"A perpetual motion machine either works or it doesn't."

Again sir I beg you to stop being logical.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

So, then what everyone here wants is someone to provide "statistics" that yes it worked for me and no it didn't work for him, and it kind of worked for her?

Statistics can be manipulated in many different ways so how can they be used as PROOF that something works or does not work.

RIP writes: "Right - which is why it is rightfully called VO2peak, not VO2max. (This is more than a semantic distinction, as it gets to the heart of the issue of what limits the highest attainable VO2 during different modes of exercise.) "

Which is why exercise is not cardiac limited as, according to you we do not exercise at VO2 max but rather VO2 peak, so there is always some cardiac reserve. Unless we are exercising at a rate that exceeds VO2 max (sprinters perhaps) exercise cannot be cardiac limited, as long as there is a cardiac reserve.

---

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

it is funny what people look at. i could not tell you whether PC's or cytomax or tide laundry detergent claim to be 20% brighter, give 40% less fatigue, or increase power by 250% before i bought either of them. persoanlly i expect those numbers to be complete bullshit as utterly meaningless. do they help, do nothing, or hurt? how much do they cost and can i sneak them onto my bike without the wife noticing ??? that is all i care about.

Klehner wrote: "Tell me how a perpetual motion machine differs (in principle, not saying that PCs work or don't work) from PCs."

A perpetual motion machne goes on for ever with no energy input. the first attempts to pedal PC's even in trained cyclists usually can only be sustained for about 20 seconds without a rest. PC's make most people use muscles they didn't even know they had.

---

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

speaking of which . . . no way in hell are you gonna sneak PC's onto your bike without the wife noticing.

in a savvy move of epic scale, however, mr day went the other way entirely in their design. the spiffy gold anodizing makes them look, to the female eye, as if they are really expensive . . . . . what with that heavy and being gold thing and all. it appeals to their female genetic bling hardwiring, i believe. quite remarkable.

I doubt that you'll get world class athletes to interrupt their training for this type of a time period.

4%? Well maybe he was at a plateau and those last couple of months on the bike pushed him forward that 4%. Maybe when he was tested at the beginning he was feeling just a little bit off. Can you tell if you were feeling 96% or your maximum versus 100%? What about wind, weather, etc?

I know if I did the same 40k TT over and over again I would never get the same time twice, so which is my baseline to start from and then which is the final time used to measure improvement?

But your experience with them is then second hand. Have you used them?

No, the definition of V02 max is just that, the MAXIMAL uptake of oxygen that is possible. If it is possible to acheive more uptake of oxygen, you are not yet at V02 max, just VO2 peak. So what you are suggesting is that no one ever actually acheives their VO2 max, even after their 02 consumption during the test levels off and work output is increased? That is bizzare.

---

Dr. Philip Skiba
Scientific Training for Endurance Athletes now available on Amazon!

Tyrius,

Studies can "prove" or "disprove" things by statistical analysis to a point. In general, the statisitaal analysis says "these results are probably not due to chance 95% of the time". This is generally accepted in scientific circles as being a positive finding. Then if this is repeated over and over, people come to see it as being "truth". If you were to flip a coin 10 times and got 8 heads, statistical analysis would probably show this was pretty likely to be a chance difference and not real. If you flipped a coin 1000 times and got 800 heads, it would probably say this was a real finding, even though it was not. It is all in the numbers and design of the study as to what can be inferred.

---

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

Frank, innumerable studies have shown that increases in Vo2 max plateau very quickly with endurance training. That is not where Lance's, or most other athletes training gains are coming from after being in the game for years. What is further trainable is the amount of work you can do at a given percentage of V02 max, and the percentage of your VO2 which you can maintain during exercise. These adapations occur over a period of years.

And as far as lance, who said he is continually improving his performance? Are you privy to his testing?

Philbert

---

Dr. Philip Skiba
Scientific Training for Endurance Athletes now available on Amazon!