JOaquín, Joaquín...no te enfades, je, je... no veas las risas que estamos echando...

Ugh, "most" does not mean all, it would simply mean about half or more. Second, that claim requires the user to use the cranks exclusively (or nearly so) for a period of 6-9 months. To see the benefit one must do the hard work. Since many users do not use them exclusively, the fact that "most" users do not report such improvements is not evidence the claim is hogwash. Those who use them as I suggest frequently and regularly see such improvements well exceeding the 50% mark. Those who do not, do not.

And, that is a marketing claim in order to try to let the potential buyer understand what we believe the potential of the product is. It is what we believe the evidence shows. We don't have proof of the claim and we don't claim to have proof of the claim. However, we give a 90 day money-back guarantee to the buyer, just in case he or she might feel we misrepresented it.

Anyhow, there is soon to be a study underway to test the claim. We will see what we see.

While you may disagree with the claim thinking that if someone buys it and puts it under their pillow at night and doesn't see 40% improvement that my claim is bogus. I disagree. Such disagreements do not constitute ethical lapses on either one of our parts :-) Where a marketing or product claim starts to cross the ethical barrier is perhaps something like "it is still not proven that cigarettes cause cancer" despite massive amounts of evidence they do. There is not a single shred of scientific evidence that the PC marketing claims are false.

---

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

Post them up. It would be simple to prove that Maggie uses them.[/reply] http://www.powercranks.com/v4pages/sp-cycling-pros.htm

---

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

Ugh, but I'm not asking for 'most', I'm asking for a single documented case of a well-trained athlete increasing his or her power 40%. Just one.... If you're going to claim 'most', you'd think there'd be at least ONE out there.

I know--the guy who increased his speed 8mph...

Phooey.

¿quién eres?

No, your analysis is correct. My only problem is the attribution that the only explanation for this "corruption" is the deliberate manipulation of the file by Joaquin to make himself look better than he is. There is actually no evidence the power numbers are suspect (since his reported time and power comports with the analyticcycling estimate for this climb and there was a witness to the effort who states he believes the reported time to be correct), only the speed and HR numbers are truly bizarre as I understand it. So, such a "deliberate manipulation" explanation makes little sense to me, even though i cannot come up with another one.

The file is corrupted. How it got that way is unknown although some here have speculated nefarious intent, even though they have no proof of same. Anyhow, IMHO, the data should not be used to try to "prove" anything. I think it should be left at that.

---

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

[reply]Ugh, "most" does not mean all, it would simply mean about half or more. Second, that claim requires the user to use the cranks exclusively (or nearly so) for a period of 6-9 months. To see the benefit one must do the hard work.

However, we give a 90 day money-back guarantee to the buyer, just in case he or she might feel we misrepresented it. [/reply]

So it takes 180-270 days to see the "true" benefit, yet you lock potential users into 90 days? Why not extend that guarantee to at least 6 months?

I'll tell you what. If you give me a 6-9 month money back guarantee, I'd be more than happy to train with them exclusively. I've been stuck at 270-285 W for my threshold for 3 years now. I put 12-17 hours a week on the bike in on terrain that would be ideally suited for powercranks - flat flat flat (coastal Texas). I'm a scientist at heart, and I analyze data endlessly and I'd judge the data fairly. I'd love to even get a 10% increase in hour power but what impetus is there for me to try if I can only get 3 months risk free?

Well, Joaquin for one. He has submitted 3 tests showing such an improvement over one year, increasing his FTP 40%. Now people have a lot of heartburn with the methodology used by his doctor, but his doctor, who did the test, is experienced in this area and it just happens to be the methodology he uses.

I would also use the example of Phil Holman. He did not train with a power meter but his documented speed improvements (increasing his top speed on the track from 35 to 38 mph) in 7 months calculate to about a 30% increase in power and got him to a world class level. It isn't 40% but it is about 40% and he probably started at a higher level than our average new user.

And, Joe Skufka, an experienced triathlete, who reported improving his monthly 12 mile TT loop in 6 months from an average speed of 20 mph to over 25 mph. Even though he again did not have a power meter I defy anyone to get that kind of speed improvement without seeing at least a 40% increase in power! And, the next year he was up to 27 mph. And the next year 28 mph.

Or, Tom Evans. Again no power meter but he improved his best IM bike split from over 5 hours to about 4:30, although it took him a little more than a year to do so.

Anyhow, lots of these examples exist. Just go listen to the cycling improvements testimonials video on the web page. I have put a link to in in this thread already so I won't repeat it here.

---

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

Estos guiris son la hostia...Joaquín, no te mosquees, "catedrático", que ya sabemos que vas como una moto en bici con las bielas esas raras que usas

Ummm...you must have missed about 5 pages of this thread:
1. There's overwhelming evidence the power numbers are suspect, and manipulated.

2. The 'witness', by his own admission, didn't actually witness much of anything.

Most people are sold on them in 2 weeks. All they need see is the potential for them, not that they will be seeing any specific benefit "promised" by me. In 2-3 weeks almost everyone is getting through the transition and starting to see improvement at least for short efforts. Three months is not long enough to really make any "permanent" neurological pattern changes but is long enough to let everyone get through the transition and see the potential. If we gave a 9 month guarantee some of you "cheaper" folks would just order the product, derive a large portion of the benefits, then send them back. Hey, we are in business to make money, not to provide you folks with free training aids. :-)

In view of your problem about training for the mountains but living in a flat area you might be interested in this blog entry on our web site:

http://www.powercranks.com/...e-Norseman-2007.html

---

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

As I have posted, I only see the improvement with the longer cranks on the hills. Seems like no change on the flats.
So, other than Berkeley, none this year had real hills. Now, when I get back to Donner, that will be a compare point.

So, again, look at all the times pre and post 30 mile loop. Same HILLY course.

My best with 180's was like 1:45. My best with 200's is 1:41. I seem to average going up the 12 mile hill about 3 to 5 minutes faster.
But, going back down the rest of the 18 miles, I really have seen no change.

This comment about better hills with longer cranks I have seen posted many times on ST. Flats, yep, no change.

Dave

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

So, in other words, there's not a single documented case of a well-trained athlete increasing his or her power by 40%. That's what I thought.

OK, fine. I don't see it on the power numbers but I will accept your assertion. The data is bad. It shouldn't be used to prove anything. I have already said that since if any of the numbers are obviously wrong, all of them should be suspect.

---

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

Thanks for looking at the data.

Folsom is pretty flat, and longer cranks do not see to help on the flats. In 2006 I had Zipp 404's.

Golden state is a draft legal race, so I would not do any bike to bike compare that I could support.

Granite Bay, wow, I was a real wuss, but got first in my AG. ;o(

Tri for reals, lots of changes at that race. Distance changed one year because of road construction.
Heat and wind change all the time. But, not sure if this was 06 or 05. Again, I just won all my AG races with TBF this year so I am a wuss.

Yep, getting older, slower, and placing better. Guess I will take that.
I won one race outright. I placed better in all races than I ever have. So, I guess it was just me slower,
what do you call all the other folks then, since I moved up in every race overall?

Oh well, I will take the results I got this year, and continue my non ST approved training methods.
See ya at worlds.

I have the same aero helmet as last year. No idea if the new zipps are really any faster then my zipp 404's.

Oh well, just finished my hour swim at the pool 5 minutes away from me. Will do do a PC ride after lunch in the hills
around my house and see how far I can get.

Now, when I see Dev and Chad stop using the PC's totally, then I will have to revisit if they are helping at all.
But, they have about more years on them than anyone on ST, and they continue to use in their training plans.
Good enough for me to follow studs like them.

Dave (the going slower guy)

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

I'm not letting you off the hook. You cast aspersions on my analysis as biased and motivated by a desire to discredit your PC's. I remind you that I gave you (and Joaquin) a heads-up that there were oddities so you (and he) could get out in front of this. Then I delayed showing my analysis until you'd already posted about it. Then I specifically withheld any judgement about how the oddities occurred and only described (some of) them. I repeat your question and ask that you answer it: of the two of us, who has the greater motivation to manipulate the interpretation?

And, your understanding of what was "truly bizarre" is incorrect. Frank, how much riding with a Power Tap, or analysis of Power Tap files, have you done? The oddities I described are not the only oddities. It's too late to get out in front of this but you can stop digging a hole.

No sé quién eres, pero si tienes algo que ver con esto, no veo qué estás buscando. Te he hecho yo algo? Es divertido?

I promised myself to stay out of this thread but I just have to say this...

I know various cases of overstimated VO2Max tests from joaquin's doctor, for instance, a man who is over 50 years old, weights a little over 60kg and climbs morcuera in 38-40 minutes was tested by this doctor and 'diagnosticated' a VO2Max above 70.

I suspect the equipment that this doctor uses is not working well, or at least has not been working well during a certain period of time.

Ah, yes, if you are requiring well-documented improvements I would pretty much agree. All the reports are anecdotal. That is pretty much the "data" I have to work with. So, it is not that there is no data, just that there is not "well-documented" (in the scientific sense) data. I have enough data that I am comfortable making the claim I do but it has not been scientifically validated. It is why I am so interested in getting a good long-term study done, so I can answer critics like yourself. Hopefully, we will have an answer within a year but I may not be able to present it immediately if it will potentially interfere with publication. May have to wait longer until it is published. I want the data published, if possible. I could care less, what you, as an individual, desire or demand. Unfortunately, it will not last as long as the long end of our claim. Six months is enough to answer the major questions I have but I may try to see if I can get the 100% PC group extended to a full year or, even, two, so we can better "document" the long-term potential.

Would you agree though that Skufka's reported improvement calculates to an almost doubling of power for that 12 mile loop. That is substantially more than 40%.

---

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

alvaro, your posts are pretty tiring. Any "test" that doesn't meet your expectation means nefarious intent or poorly calibrated equipment. Pretty much everyone knows that performance has little to do with VO2 max. One can have a large VO2 max and very poor efficiency and perform poorly or a low VO2 max and high efficiency and perform well. Or, high VO2 max and high efficiency (Lance) and kick everyone's butt.

Anyhow, why don't you meet up with Joaquin (and bring some of your friends) and ride up this mountain, then go have a beer with him, and report on the result to everyone here. Be sure to bring your working PT with you.

---

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

 
So, you are saying that the fact that PowerCranks force the user to "unweight" somehow prevents them from "using an extended main power stroke with power applied in the same direction from 11 to 5"? [/reply]

What I am trying to say is that it is the objective of the circular pedaler (and PC rider) to attempt to apply continuous tangential force to the crank throughout its full rotation, this means that he will be continually changing the direction through which he will be applying the power. His attempted power application will be forward at 12 o'c and vertical at 3 o'c. With the extended main power stroke which gives max power from 11 to 5, the direction will be at a 45 degree angle all the way, all it takes is a simple knack to be able to do this.

Te he mandado un mensaje. Espero que contestes....pero las fuerzas guárdalas para las carreras, no para cachondearte...y si tienes c... contestame en privado

have you heard of performance (IOW: speed) enhancers like:
1. ducking your head?
2. upgrading equipment?

I'm thinking not.

Dave, you are hilarious. You offer up your training log as proof about how you've gotten faster on less running while using PC's. I spend about 90 seconds finding out your running hasn't really been reduced much, you actually haven't gotten any faster on the same courses year to year, but you continue to claim PC's are making you faster and totally disregard the fact that you've DOUBLED your training volume as POSSIBLY just part of the reason you think you're faster.

You are about as blind to the facts as Frank is.

"I won one race outright"

Which race was that? Lake Orroville? What happened to that other guy who finished before you? Oh wait, I remember....

"So, I guess it was just me slower, what do you call all the other folks then, since I moved up in every race overall?"

Dave, I'm ONLY USING THE DATA YOU SUBMITTED. I have no idea what happened to everyone else. Hell, they may have all doubled their splits, but we're not talking about them, as always, we're talking about you. YOU WERE THE ONE WHO SUBMITTED THE DATA TO ANALYZE. All I can analyze is what I have.

"Oh well, I will take the results I got this year, and continue my non ST approved training methods.
See ya at worlds. "

Knock yourself out, just don't keep trying to tell everyone your increased speed while using PC's and running less is the reason. Because as I said, it took me about 90 seconds with your log to poke holes through that theory.

Oh, and I didn't know you were going to be at Maui next year! I'm hoping to make it to XTERRA Worlds as well....oh yeah, you mean short course worlds. I didn't know they even had those ;-)

"I have the same aero helmet as last year. No idea if the new zipps are really any faster then my zipp 404's"

No biggie, you don't know if the PC's made you faster, why would you know if the wheels did? For an engineer, you sure don't know much about analyzing data and crunching numbers.

"Oh well, just finished my hour swim at the pool 5 minutes away from me. Will do do a PC ride after lunch in the hills around my house and see how far I can get"

I don't care. But have fun! This has nothing to do with our conversation.

"Now, when I see Dev and Chad stop using the PC's totally, then I will have to revisit if they are helping at all"

Why would someone else stopping with a training aid change how well they are working for you? I won't be changing my golf shoes to Nike's because Tiger's a good golfer.

Dave, I would have no issues with you at all if you'd just admit that you like using PC's because they are fun, or they make you train more because you have them. BUT PIPE DOWN ABOUT HOW THEY ARE MAKING YOU FASTER until you KNOW they are making you faster.

This whole "how could they know without using them" BS is really old. You HAVE used them and you STILL DON'T KNOW!

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lemond is cycling's version of Rev Jessie Jackson." -johnnyperu 5/18/07
"Just because I suck doesn't mean my bike has to" -rickn 9/2/08

As I said, two people can look at the same data and get two different answers, depending on what they are trying to "prove".

I, and others, believe PC's help. I will continue to use how I think they help me, which is not the 100% what Franks recommends.
Now, if they loan me a SRM/PC setup, I might have to change that statement.

And, I totally believe the PC's, with my data, show I am running faster. It might all be in my head,
but, that is what I believe, and I am sticking with my training plans. I like my results.

Dave

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep