Why does the second graph show two sets of numbers for Normalized Power?

Do you not think these sorts of improvements are possible over a 12 month period simply with focussed training? Hell, that could be me at the beginning and the end of a season.

It's be more compelling, too, if both time the PT were reset at the base of the climb. I can see trends in the graph that don't correspond to the same point in the course between the two graphs (not saying the same rider on the same course will produce a consistent power output, especially with the introduction of a PT crankset, but you'd expect *some* similarity - problem is I see similarity between the middle of the first graph and the start of the second graph).

[reply]
Why does the second graph show two sets of numbers for Normalized Power?

Do you not think these sorts of improvements are possible over a 12 month period simply with focussed training? Hell, that could be me at the beginning and the end of a season.

It's be more compelling, too, if both time the PT were reset at the base of the climb. I can see trends in the graph that don't correspond to the same point in the course between the two graphs (not saying the same rider on the same course will produce a consistent power output, especially with the introduction of a PT crankset, but you'd expect *some* similarity - problem is I see similarity between the middle of the first graph and the start of the second graph).[/reply]

I don't know why there are two sets of normalized power numbers for the second graph.

Sure, there is nothing particularly impressive about those numbers 1 year apart if just taken alone and out of context. However, he does have a history that suggests he has been pretty stable (in both training and performance) for the last 10 or so years such that this large a change for this person is not "expected" from some sort of "focused training" period. So, that is a pretty good improvement for someone with a history of "plateuing". However, it doesn't matter much because he is doing the climb again this weekend so the real "proof" of how much he has improved will be comparing the thre graphs. Another change similar to the first one would not fall under the realm of the "usual" improvement that comes from "focused training".

Perhaps he didn't reset things and the effort doesn't appear "identical" because he was doing these more for his own benefit and didn't expect to be using these to "prove" anything to you or anyone else.

Enjoy.

---

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

If his FTP is what he says it is, he ought to be able to send you a file that demonstrates this. So far, he's just saying "Yeah, I had some huge improvements...here are some *other files* that show *some improvements*, just not the ones I am claiming."

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which I am sorry to say is still sorely lacking in this case.

I will be very interested to see what he sends you this weekend.

---

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

Frank, it really seems people are out to discredit power cranks and/or you. I have to admit that they are a novel training tool, but not so far whacked out to deserve such ire from people. The cranks seem more controversial than dimples on wheels or rolling resistance between clincher and tubular tires. Or even Uri Geller bending spoons!

You have your job set out for you, despite having already done a pile of work.

---

------------------------

Toronto Retailer and Fitter

hellovelo.ca

Because that's far more plausible than other possible explanations (e.g., that his doctor was faking the physiological data just to please a client), and less damning (IMO) than accusing him of using, e.g., EPO (of which I don't really think there is any evidence, at least given his performance).


Um, because they don't pass the "smell test"?

Actually, there's nothing in the Results section of Ed's paper that is unbelievable, nor are the hypotheses he puts forth in the Discussion implausible. Thus, the only valid criticism one might possibly have of the paper is that it was too speculative - but that has to do with how you choose to interpret the data, not the data themselves. In contrast, the data in the pezcyclingnews.com article are questionable.

Why do the graphs - which were obviously produced by the original PowerTap software - even show a value for normalized power at all? Moreover, why is the value so much higher than the average power, when the variability in power was so small?

To all you naysayers out there... I'm here to tell you that not only do Power Cranks increase your athletic performance, but they also increase your sexual performance, whiten your teeth and lower your interest rate. *

* Results may vary.

Didn't Coyle rebut the claims made that his Ergometer wasn't calibrated, among other things. I'm curious, what is it about the data that is fishy in your view, or, for those in "the know"?

---

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

He may be using a spreadsheet and formulas to calculate NP.

And the formula may be incorrect...

It's very suspicious that an experienced cyclist, who probably pushed himself for a very long time when he was younger, is only now realizing these gains.

So, let me get this straight. You know that the person who beat Joaquin last year only put out 4.3w/kg in his winning effort? How do you know this? Where did this number come from? What does this have to do with his testing results 10 months later? And, doesn't his PT data show he only averaged 4.8w/kg for that effort (assuming his weight is 68kg)?

Could you be a little more specific about the lies please. Lots of innuendo. Zero facts. Thanks for helping us out here.

Looking forward to your report on this years climb.

Frank

---

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

The claim was actually worse that that: Dave Martin et al. stated that the Monark model that Ed said was used never existed. In fact, it does (did), and I know that because I used that very ergometer myself for my dissertation research.

As I said, there really is nothing "fishy" about the data, at least on the face of things. Thus, as I see it, the only possible issues one might have with the paper (i.e., cause to reject it) are 1) it was a long-term, retrospective study conducted w/o any sorts of controls, and 2) the Discussion is rather speculative. Counterbalancing this, OTOH, is the subject of the research: the only 7 time Tour de France winner in history. On the whole, then, I believe that the paper deserved to be published, and would have recommended so if I had been one of the reviewers (which I wasn't).

[reply]
[reply]
[font "Arial"][size 3]One interesting point of note: he bought the PC’s after reading Ed Coyle’s JAP case study about Lance. Everyone in the know knows those data add up about as much as the data in question here.
[/size][/font][/reply]
Didn't Coyle rebut the claims made that his Ergometer wasn't calibrated, among other things. I'm curious, what is it about the data that is fishy in your view, or, for those in "the know"?[/reply]

I will tell you what I think is "wrong" about this Coyle paper. It is the presumption that the only way that could explain Lance's efficiency improvements is he changed fiber type in his legs. Of course, there is no biopsey evidence to support that view and no other possible explanation was considered. In view of the fact that probably 20 people have told us that Lance trained some on PC's (we don't have proof, we have just been told this by many) it seems at least one other explanation should be considered, to whit, he changed his pedaling style to a more efficient style. Other than that he is pretty much just relating the data he collected over time. I don't see the paper as being controversial except for this one conclusion which seems crazy. Why doesn't this happen to all pro cyclists who train similarly? It probably doesn't happen because this change didn't happen.

---

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

[reply]
He may be using a spreadsheet and formulas to calculate NP.

And the formula may be incorrect...

It's very suspicious that an experienced cyclist, who probably pushed himself for a very long time when he was younger, is only now realizing these gains.[/reply]

This did come from a spreadsheet he forwarded with these two charts on them of which I exported jpeg files for posting. How these numbers were obtained was not included. The PT files are the PT files it would appear. whether there are some errors in the calculations cannot be known from this.

And, I don't find his improvement suspicious. Just because a cyclist is pushing himself when he is younger doesn't mean he is close to reaching his full potential if he has been pushing himself in the wrong way. That is what is so astounding about these numbers, assuming them to be true, is how far from their full potential most cyclists really are now.

The elite pro is probably closer to their full potential than the elite amateur, but everyone has room for improvement and sometimes this potential is surprisingly large, even in someone who is considered now to be pretty good.

---

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

My recollection is that other possiblities were at least mentioned, but I can't state that for a fact. In any case, though, it would seem that we are in general agreement that the Discussion was somewhat speculative, we just have different standards for what is/isn't acceptable.


FWIW, I have become progressively more efficient over the years, despite never worrying about how I pedaled. I therefore suspect that this phenomenon tends to occur in every long-term cyclist. (Note that the counterarguments put forth by Martin, Jeukendrup, et al., are not strongly supported by their data, because it is cross-sectional, not longitudinal, in nature.)

[reply]
[reply]
Why on earth would you even intimate he is a liar if there are many explanations as to why the data doesn't add up?[/reply]

Because that's far more plausible than other possible explanations (e.g., that his doctor was faking the physiological data just to please a client), and less damning (IMO) than accusing him of using, e.g., EPO (of which I don't really think there is any evidence, at least given his performance).

[reply]
Why wouldn't I believe his claims?[/reply]

Um, because they don't pass the "smell test"?[/reply]

And, his motivation for making up these numbers? Don't you think everyone might notice if he doesn't race anywhere close to this potential everyone might figure out he is lying?

No, this doesn't pass your smell test because you just don't believe such changes are possible, let alone probable, from such a simple device or any device or technique. This goes beyond your experience so is "impossible". I have seen reports like this too often so to me this smells like a rose. One more rose in the bunch.

---

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

[reply]
[reply]
I will tell you what I think is "wrong" about this Coyle paper. It is the presumption that the only way that could explain Lance's efficiency improvements is he changed fiber type in his legs. Of course, there is no biopsey evidence to support that view and no other possible explanation was considered.[/reply]

My recollection is that other possiblities were at least mentioned, but I can't state that for a fact. In any case, though, it would seem that we are in general agreement that the Discussion was somewhat speculative, we just have different standards for what is/isn't acceptable.

[reply]
it seems at least one other explanation should be considered, to whit, he changed his pedaling style to a more efficient style. Other than that he is pretty much just relating the data he collected over time. I don't see the paper as being controversial except for this one conclusion which seems crazy. Why doesn't this happen to all pro cyclists who train similarly?[/reply]

FWIW, I [i]have[/i] become progressively more efficient over the years, despite never worrying about how I pedaled. I therefore suspect that this phenomenon tends to occur in every long-term cyclist. (Note that the counterarguments put forth by Martin, Jeukendrup, et al., are not strongly supported by their data, because it is cross-sectional, not longitudinal, in nature.)[/reply]

No other possibilities were mention, I am quite certain. Anyhow, we agree his explanation for the changes he documented were pure speculation, although you have defended them in other "discussions" we have had on this.

show me a single paper where they document that fiber type changes in an endurance athlete like Lance over time. I might accept it changes in a sprinter or trackie, but not in Lance where the aerobic conditioning is essential for elite performance. How do you explain your efficiency improvements over time? And, how much has it changed? It is quite a leap to infer that efficiency changes over time come from changing fiber type without biopsey data.

---

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

To get his 15 min of fame?


You certainly didn't!!


No, they don't pass the "smell test" because his objectively and independently verified performance doesn't live up to what is claimed in the article.

[reply]
[reply]
Don't you think everyone might notice if he doesn't race anywhere close to this potential[/reply]

You certainly didn't!!
[/reply]
What did I miss? You don't mean to say that a performance in which he is not superman 2 months after getting on his PC's (of which I knew nothing says anything about how he will race a year later, after another year on his PC's (and in view of his improved testing results)?

Oh well, such a failure might bother you. It doesn't bother me.

We will both be anxiously awaiting the results of this weekends climb (you, I suspect, will be much more anxious about the outcome than me).

Frank

---

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

They are speculative in the sense that no biopsy data are available for Armstrong himself. Nonetheless, the conclusions are plausible in that 1) small-to-moderate changes in fiber type over time are not impossible, and 2) it would only take a relatively small change in fiber type to explain the improvement in efficiency (i.e., Armstrong wouldn't have had to go from 20% type I to 80% type I). Nonetheless, as a reviewer I would have likely rejected the article anyway, except for the fact that the subject himself was of interest. That is, in this particular case I believe that science was still best served by publication of the paper, despite the inconclusive nature of the data.


This falls into the category of "hints and allegations", i.e., the literature is replete with numerous case reports, etc., suggesting that moderate changes in fiber type are possible, despite the fact that no such changes are usually observed in short-term studies of training (or detraining). To give you just one example, however: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...;itool=pubmed_docsum


The most plausible explanation is a change in myosin ATPase activity (which, importantly, is not quite the same as saying a change in histochemically-demonstrable fiber type distribution...but only the most sophisticated reader of this post is likely to get what I'm saying). The fact of the matter, though, is that I don't really know.


Well, my VO2 (not my VO2max) at 300 W has declined from 4-4.1 L/min when I was in my early 20's to 3.7-3.8 L/min now. I'll let you calculate what that translates to into in terms of a change in gross efficiency.

There's also the not-so-small matter of the fact that his claimed PR on the ~30 min climb is significantly slower than expected based on his claimed power output, AND the fact that his claimed power output doesn't agree with his physiological data (unless those PowerCranks are either 1) making him grossly INefficient, and/or 2) they weigh many kilograms).



Nah, I sleep like a baby at night - after all, I don't have my livelihood partially riding on the outcome of such an event the way that you do.

lies:

morcuera climb is 6,9%, not 8% (not that its important, but it's the first one)

dr. durantez doesn't work for the Spanish federation

and then if you start analizing the data, it's all just plain funny.

the guy that beat him in Navacerrada by two minutes last year was tested in 2006 to have a VO2Max of 65. I've gonne up Morcuera with that guy many times and he always does it in 30 min more or less, going balls out.

With the numbers the author is giving, he should be climbing Morcuera in close to 25 minutes, thats what local Pro Tour riders are doing.

maybe the lab tests are wrong, maybe he's lying, maybe its just lack of rigour, but you can't throw out a bunch of numbers like that and claim that a gyzmo has provoked an incredible, never seen increase in fitmes in a 38 year old guy whos been cicling for 20 years.

my OPINION is: either the data is false, or this guy is using PEDs

At what point to you admit that MAYBE Power Cranks aren't the wonder-toy you're making them out to be?

I certainly can't say they do nothing, never tried them. And from people who have tried them, I guess they give you a tough workout. BUT, when do YOU finally back down and say "OK, you might not rip off 26 min off your marathon time or add 100W to your power."?

If you had said this whole time that they will make you a stronger cyclist, fine. BUT, you make claims of improvements with numbers that have holes ALL over the place.

---

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

Hmmm...should we start a pool about what will be the most likely excuse proffered if the performance doesn't match the claims?

- Just had a bad day?
- Didn't warm up properly?
- Dog ate his homework?
- Locusts?
- Did it a day early? (long-term slowtwitch PC thread readers will get this one)

I just thought we'd try to make it a bit "interesting" ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

You forgot that they will allow you to recover faster too.

---

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06