Being fairly new to these boards, I find this obsession with powercranks to be pretty funny.

I mean, these things have been around long enough that if they really had any positive effect whatsoever, every roadie and their brother would be using a set by now.

But hey, carry on. =)

Its more for the running improvements. That is why some triathletes like them. I find they are also good for a recovery ride if your legs are pretty cooked from the previous day, as you really don't use your quads as much as conventional cranks.

"I mean, these things have been around long enough that if they really had any positive effect whatsoever, every roadie and their brother would be using a set by now"

You're not alone. Not to mention the fact that the creator can't seem to pin down a study better than n=1 showing they work.

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"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

"Its more for the running improvements"

I've been misled, I thought the running improvements were more a positive side effect that Frank claims

"I find they are also good for a recovery ride if your legs are pretty cooked from the previous day, as you really don't use your quads as much as conventional cranks"

That's news! I know PC's make you raise the pedal on your own, but I didn't realize you didn't have to push down!

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"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

You guys are a real kick. Not only can I pin down such a study, I have - but if you keep saying I haven't some will actually believe it. Say it enough and it becomes true in the minds of many. You should consider politics. But, that being said, most of the products frequently touted here have essentially zero independent studies to back up their claims. Even something that has been around as long as "weight lifting" remains totally controversial, you either believe or you don't. Up til now the only studies that have been done n PowerCranks show that they work but not enough have been done to convince everyone. As of yet, no study has been done on PowerCranks that shows zero benefit. Until more studies are done on PowerCranks I am afraid they will continue to be somewhat similar, in that you either believe in them or you don't or you are undecided. :-)

---

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

Who is Joaquin?

You haven't been misled, you just haven't read very closely what I have written. We thought that when it first was reported to us, that the running improvement was a side effect. We now think it is a primary benefit and we market these to non-cyclists for their running benefits and injury reduction benefits.

PowerCranks and running explanation

We have pure runners using them, professional football teams, baseball teams, etc. using them for this very purpose.

Again, you misread or misconstrue (probably deliberately) what is posted. Not pushing down as much is not the same as not pushing down at all. Many find they have been pushing too hard and that they can become better balanced, with more power and endurance, when they train themselves to pedal in the PC fashion. Others are able to continue to push down just as hard as they did before. PC's do not dictate any specific manner of "pushing", they only dictate a minimum amount of work on the backstroke. The user can develop the style (pushing hard or not) that is best for them.

---

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

"You guys are a real kick. Not only can I pin down such a study, I have - but if you keep saying I haven't some will actually believe it. Say it enough and it becomes true in the minds of many."

Calm down Frank, I am joking. If you'll read my posts, I've actually been quite highly spirited with water boy lately. I'm done arguing and I'm just looking for results on PC's beyond one of your loyal devotees.

"You should consider politics"

I am.

"But, that being said, most of the products frequently touted here have essentially zero independent studies to back up their claims"

THe difference being that I don't feel like the founders of those products bombard an online forum with advertising.

"Even something that has been around as long as "weight lifting" remains totally controversial, you either believe or you don't."

Why should I have to "believe" in something when there is science to prove it one way or another?

"Up til now the only studies that have been done n PowerCranks show that they work but not enough have been done to convince everyone"

Correct. I'm not convinced. But I will admit that I think I am much more open minded than I used to be...even if I don't come across that way.

"As of yet, no study has been done on PowerCranks that shows zero benefit"

Let's be honest, I don't think it'd be tough to make a study show more than zero benefit. I'm looking for something that shows PC's are worth $1000+ to me.

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"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

"You haven't been misled, you just haven't read very closely what I have written"

Dear God Frank, with the novels you write, who does?! ;-)

"We thought that when it first was reported to us, that the running improvement was a side effect."

So I wasn't SO far off...

"Again, you misread or misconstrue (probably deliberately) what is posted. Not pushing down as much is not the same as not pushing down at all"

Frank, calm. I am joking. I need to get more deliberate with the pink font.

"they only dictate a minimum amount of work on the backstroke"

40% doesn't seem SO minimum :-)

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"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

With all of this said, has anyone seen Joaquin's PT file yet?

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"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

That is not what you said. Here is what I was responding to. "Not to mention the fact that the creator can't seem to pin down a study better than n=1 showing they work." Such comments make me look like a liar. I don't take to them kindly.

---

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

Perhaps you can replace the fluff in your signature file with direct links to such studies and counter the 'big lie' phenom.

BTW - didn't see you guys at PCB today. Where you hidden in the back?

"That is not what you said. Here is what I was responding to. "Not to mention the fact that the creator can't seem to pin down a study better than n=1 showing they work." Such comments make me look like a liar. I don't take to them kindly."

Fine, my apologies. Can I see the study you are referring to that show PC's work that is more than n=1?

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"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

The Luttrell study. or a link to several studies that relate to PC's either directly or indirectly

http://www.powercranks.com/...ce-lateststudies.htm

---

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

Has the result of the Luttrell study ever been replicated? Not only were the results surprising, the a priori hypothesis that was tested that lead to those results was surprising. And, has the Dixon study yet been published? I wondered because there was no control group.

Well, the Luttrell study can't be replicated until someone does the work. I have been told that there are a couple of studies that are in the final throws of being published, of which all I know is the results are supposedly positive, but I do not know the protocols as to whether they replicate the Luttrell or Dixon studies or do something else. We will all have to wait.

The only thing I found surprising about these results were the degree of improvement seen in this relatively short period of time. An engineering analysis would predict such results but prior experiments trying to document pedaling pattern makes a difference have failed to show such a change. Presuming the follow-up studies confirm the Luttrell and Dixon results in general I think what can be taken from this are two things. 1. Asking someone to change pedaling style during a study and measuring the effect is not the same as actually training someone to pedal in a new style and then measuring the effect. And, 2. It is not easy to train someone to pedal in a new style from what they are used to.

If the Luttrell study is confirmed, any study in the future or any study in the past that tries to look at what the best pedaling style is and which does not take into consideration the above two elements should be ignored as pretty much useless.

As far as I know the full Dixon study has never been "published" beyond the abstract and presentation at the CSEP meeting. And, we don't know if there was a control group or not. A control was not mentioned in the abstract but they did mention the results reached statistical significance. Without the protocol or the raw data it is not possible to know exactly what was done.

---

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

I would think that if, as you say, it is not possible to know exactly how the Dixon study was done, one should be cautious in promoting it as evidence, whether as support or refutation.

Hey, I recognize the weaknesses of that study (or, at least, the write up). But, the data is the data. I simply put it forward as what has been reported, although the results do jibe with what users frequently report regarding power increases (few get their VO2 max tested) or, say, with the Joaquin testing results (who did get his VO2 max tested). Some here would like to pretend that these studies never happened because the results go against their bias.

---

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

Where is that power file? It seems to be taking an awful long time getting posted/circulated...

Why are you asking me? Why don't you ask that of Joaquin? Are you trying to imply something nefarious in that it is taking him more time than you would like for him to provide it to the group. At least there was a ST'er there to observe he actually did the climb and was seemingly pretty good. If Kendall wasn't there I can just imagine what this thread would be like. The Liar, liar thread all over again.

---

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

 
The only thing I found surprising about these results were the degree of improvement seen in this relatively short period of time. An engineering analysis would predict such results but prior experiments trying to document pedaling pattern makes a difference have failed to show such a change. Presuming the follow-up studies confirm the Luttrell and Dixon results in general I think what can be taken from this are two things. 1. Asking someone to change pedaling style during a study and measuring the effect is not the same as actually training someone to pedal in a new style and then measuring the effect. And, 2. It is not easy to train someone to pedal in a new style from what they are used to.
If the Luttrell study is confirmed, any study in the future or any study in the past that tries to look at what the best pedaling style is and which does not take into consideration the above two elements should be ignored as pretty much useless.
[/reply]

Why or how would an engineering analysis predict such results.
You don't have to ask a rider to change pedaling style. The question to be answered is, does the continuous use of PC's increase power output. Let's take a normal circular pedaler and the four different areas of his pedaling circle. Starting with the 1 to 5 o'c portion, PC's cannot increase his power here as he is already accustomed to using the unweighting effect. In the 5 to 7 area, no increase here as he is already accustomed to drawing the shoe back. The 7 to 11 area, no increase possible here as he will not be pulling up any more than is necessary for the unweighting to take effect. The 11 to 1 o'c area, no increase here as he will be already accustomed to the rolling barrel shoe effect here. So there is no increase in power output and don't forget , the circular style is the weaker of the two known normal
techniques. The advantage of PC's is restricted to teaching a learner how to perfect the circular technique which is the stepping stone to Anquetil's linear style. Now there you can not only get that 40% increase but you can also explain and demonstrate in five minutes to any interested onlooker where and how that additional power is generated.

Okay, I'll make it a little clearer for you. I'm saying that you seem to have put a lot more effort into hyping/marketing Joaquin's performance than you've put into backing up the marketing with evidence.

First, I didn't start this thread. I have stated I would provide the file when it is provided to me. I can only present the evidence i have and you all have seen all that I have seen, including the test results from his doctor, which were provided in the "Liar, liar" and "stir up the flames" thread. I have yet to see this latest file so I cannot present it. Joaquin had been in contact with others here and has told them he is traveling on business and would provide the file to them when he could.

Of course, I present such data when it is made available to me as it confirms pretty much what I have been saying about the product all along. You, of course, are free to ignore it. And, I am not so sure that qualifies as hype. It is simply data. Such data is obviously not enough to overcome your bias but I can only present what I have.

---

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

Well, I had done one, as I think had many people in the past who were trying to show that pedaling style would make a difference.[/reply] Your engineering analysis predicted a change in gross efficiency? What was your prediction for the magnitude of the change?

Your engineering analysis predicted a change in gross efficiency? What was your prediction for the magnitude of the change?[/reply] No, my original engineering analysis only predicted a large increase in power from simply changing all the negative pedal forces to zero and keeping the positive forces the same. There were potential efficiency (and additional power) gains if one could change the direction of the applied forces but one could not predict that these would definitely occur as I could with predicting the definit elimination of the negative pedal forces with PowerCranks. Now that it is pretty clear that efficiency is also improved the easiest way to explain that is training with the cranks also change the force application pattern, even though this has not been demonstrated and it is not the only potential explanation.

---

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