Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
New research: no effect of PowerCranks on cycling efficiency, running economy, or cycling or running performance
Quote | Reply
Presented the other day at ACSM...sorry for the poor formatting of the table.

Presentation Number:
1294
Title:
The Impact of 10 weeks of Independent Cycle Crank use on Cycle Performance
Presentation Start:
5/28/2008 11:00:00 AM
Presentation End:
5/28/2008 12:30:00 PM
Topical Category:
103 endurance training
Authors:
Robert M. Otto, FACSM, Laura Walsh, Jessica Marra, Christopher Kushner, Alicia Diaz, Carolyn Richardson, John W. Wygand. Adelphi University, Garden City, NY.
Email: otto@adelphi.edu
Improvements in cycle performance may be a result of enhanced efficiency and/or a greater power output. Cyclists strive to achieve both by over-distance training, high intensity training, and specific cycle drills. Special products that claim to improve performance by offering improved aerodynamics, reduced total cycle mass, better force transfer to the crank, or providing biomechanical feedback rely on a paucity of research.
Purpose: To evaluate the effect of ten weeks of using independent cycle cranks (ICC) on cycling performance as measured by oxygen efficiency (OxE), time trial performance (TT), and body composition (BC).
Methods: After a medical/health screening, thirty triathletes (16 male, 14 female) (age 43.2 [range 25-54 yr], ht 176 [range 160-188 cm], and body mass 73.3 [range 54.3-97.7.5 kg]), participated in familiarization trials including DEXA scan, electronic cycle ergometer based steady state OxE trial and a time trial. Identical testing was performed during the familiarization trial, pre-test (within one week) and the post-test (ten weeks later). After the pre-test trial, subjects were randomly assigned to one of three groups (C = control, 90 = 90 min/wk and 180 = min/wk). For ten weeks all subjects exercised (swim, cycle, run) a minimum of eight hours per week. All groups cycled a minimum of three hours/week with C in fixed cranks, 90 for 90 min fixed and 90 min ICC, and 180 for 180 min ICC. Results:

C pre
C post
90 pre
90 post
180 pre
180 post
OxE (mLO2/watt)
.272
.250
.273
.241
.296
.279
TT(min)
30.9
30.8
30.8
29.2
35.5
35.5
Body Mass (kg)
71.8
69.2
80.1
79.3
70.1
70.1
Lean Body Mass (kg)
57.8
56.9
67.0
66.3
57.0
56.5

Statistical analysis by ANOVA (P<.05) reveals no significant difference among or between trials.
Conclusion: The use of independent cycle crank arms for a maximum of 30 hours within ten weeks, requires the user to apply force independent of crank position, but does not result in quantifiable changes in cycle efficiency or performance.



Title:
The Impact of 10 weeks of Independent Cycle Crank use on Run Performance
Presentation Start:
5/28/2008 11:00:00 AM
Presentation End:
5/28/2008 12:30:00 PM
Topical Category:
103 endurance training
Authors:
Alicia Diaz, Robert M. Otto, FACSM, Christopher Kushner, Jessica Marra, Laura Walsh, Carolyn Richardson, John W. Wygand. Adelphi University, Garden City, NY.
Email: wygand@adelphi.edu
Enhanced endurance run performance is usually associated with improved aerobic power and run efficiency resulting from high intensity, tempo, interval, and/or long slow distance run training. However improvement in run performance has been reported in triathletes from cycle training, despite the contradiction to principles of specificity.
Purpose: The purpose was to evaluate the effect of ten weeks of independent cycle crank (ICC) training on run performance as measured by oxygen efficiency (OxE), time trial performance (TT), and leg strength
Methods: After a medical/health screening, thirty triathletes (16 male, 14 female) (age 43.2 [range 25-54 yr], ht 176 [range 160-188 cm], and body mass 73.3 [range 54.3-97.7.5 kg]), participated in familiarization trials including leg strength (LE [leg extension], LF [leg flexion]), and treadmill based steady state OxE (mLO2/kg-meter) trial and a 5 K time trial. Identical testing was performed during the familiarization trial, pre-test (within one week) and the post-test (ten weeks later). After the pre-test trial, subjects were randomly assigned to one of three groups (C = control, 90 = 90 min/wk and 180 = min/wk). For ten weeks all subjects exercised (swim, cycle, run) a minimum of eight hours each week. All groups ran a minimum of 2.5 hours/week at low-moderate intensity (<75% HRR) and cycled a minimum of three hours/week with C in fixed cranks, 90 for 90 min fixed and 90 min ICC, and 180 for 180 min ICC. Results: Changes of -3.8%, -6.2%,and -0.8% in OxE, -4.0%, -5.3%, and -0.4% in TT, 7.1%, 8.8%, and 3.2% for LE, and 5.4%, 6.5%, and 5.5%, were evident for the C, 90 and180 groups, respectively. Statistical analysis by ANOVA (P<.05) reveals no significant difference among groups or pre-post changes within groups, except group 90 significantly improved run efficiency (OxE).
Conclusion: Ten weeks of winter time, base training for seasoned triathletes reveals subtle changes that for the most part are not statistically significant. Although self report indicates perceived improvement, the principle of specificity is upheld with little influence of independent cycle crank arm use on run or strength performance.

Quote Reply
Re: New research: no effect of PowerCranks on cycling efficiency, running economy, or cycling or running performance [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
First! Now I'll go get some popcorn and read it.
Quote Reply
Re: New research: no effect of PowerCranks on cycling efficiency, running economy, or cycling or running performance [OT in CA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This should be on Pay Per View!

_________________________________________________

It hurts so bad, it feels good.
Quote Reply
Re: New research: no effect of PowerCranks on cycling efficiency, running economy, or cycling or running performance [S~] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Is there a Reader's Digest version?

Anyway, I know someone who swears that these things helped his cycling & running.
Quote Reply
Re: New research: no effect of PowerCranks on cycling efficiency, running economy, or cycling or running performance [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Not sure if I should sit in the stands with the popcorn or participate in the fight. Maybe I'll throw some meat into the arena with the Gladiators and Lions and return to the stands....did I read correctly that one group trained 90 minutes per week and the other 180 minutes per week. How much training were these slackers doing before....they are making Steve Larsen look like he is an overtrained "MORE IS MORE" slowtwitcher... was there any group that did 100% on independent cranks for 10 weeks. I'd agree with Frank (before he chimes in) that 10 weeks of 90 or even 180 per week might result in zero change in how someone pedals.

OK, that's all I have back to the stands where I will foolishly be doing laps on my powercranks as this thread evolves....
Last edited by: devashish_paul: Jun 2, 08 11:19
Quote Reply
Re: New research: no effect of PowerCranks on cycling efficiency, running economy, or cycling or running performance [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This was #3 on Yahoo news!

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: New research: no effect of PowerCranks on cycling efficiency, running economy, or cycling or running performance [cjbruin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Is there a Reader's Digest version?

Anyway, I know someone who swears that these things helped his cycling & running.

In essence, those are the Reader's Digest versions...and note the comment at the end of the second abstract about perceived improvements.
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Jun 2, 08 11:22
Quote Reply
Re: New research: no effect of PowerCranks on cycling efficiency, running economy, or cycling or running performance [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
did I read correctly that one group trained 90 minutes per week and the other 180 minutes per week.
...using PowerCranks. Total training was 8+ h/wk.
Quote Reply
Re: New research: no effect of PowerCranks on cycling efficiency, running economy, or cycling or running performance [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
did I read correctly that one group trained 90 minutes per week and the other 180 minutes per week.

No.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
"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
Quote Reply
Re: New research: no effect of PowerCranks on cycling efficiency, running economy, or cycling or running performance [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Oh boy! Coggan vs Day, round...well...whatever in the hell round this is... its looking like a KO!

Its about time! Thanks for posting that, AC.
Quote Reply
Re: New research: no effect of PowerCranks on cycling efficiency, running economy, or cycling or running performance [TriBriGuy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Oh boy! Coggan vs Day, round...well...whatever in the hell round this is
I'm just relaying some information that came my way...
Quote Reply
Re: New research: no effect of PowerCranks on cycling efficiency, running economy, or cycling or running performance [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
A useless study that really tested nothing and says less.

Powercranks are a tool. I'll say similar to a track.

If you get on a track (or powercranks) and run (cycle) the same way as you did on the road (normal cranks), of course there will be no difference.

However, if you use the tool in the recommended fashion, whether it be mile repeats at 5k race pace in the case of the track for example or high cadence work in the case of powercranks, that is when improvements may be expected.

Simply putting someone on a track (powercranks) and saying do what you've been doing is useless.

Having been a scientist/engineer my whole career, these useless studies bother me... but what bothers me more are the ignorant people who use them as weapons in a fight that they alone take personal.
Quote Reply
Re: New research: no effect of PowerCranks on cycling efficiency, running economy, or cycling or running performance [buttermilk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nice.
Quote Reply
Re: New research: no effect of PowerCranks on cycling efficiency, running economy, or cycling or running performance [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks for all the info Andrew a lot of the local bike shops that bash the product will love to hear this
Quote Reply
Re: New research: no effect of PowerCranks on cycling efficiency, running economy, or cycling or running performance [buttermilk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If you get on a track (or powercranks) and run (cycle) the same way as you did on the road (normal cranks), of course there will be no difference.

Explain to me how you can cycle the same way on PC's as you can on normal cranks, please.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
"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
Quote Reply
Re: New research: no effect of PowerCranks on cycling efficiency, running economy, or cycling or running performance [buttermilk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
A useless study that really tested nothing and says less.

Powercranks are a tool. I'll say similar to a track.

If you get on a track (or powercranks) and run (cycle) the same way as you did on the road (normal cranks), of course there will be no difference.

However, if you use the tool in the recommended fashion, whether it be mile repeats at 5k race pace in the case of the track for example or high cadence work in the case of powercranks, that is when improvements may be expected.

Simply putting someone on a track (powercranks) and saying do what you've been doing is useless.

Having been a scientist/engineer my whole career, these useless studies bother me... but what bothers me more are the ignorant people who use them as weapons in a fight that they alone take personal.

I would agree that the participants in these studies didn't use the cranks as Frank recommends (i.e., "exclusive use"). OTOH, they did appear use them the way most seem to, and as such the studies can be considered a reasonable test of what the average user would (fail to) gain from them.

As for taking things personally, from the tone of your post it seems to me that you're the one guilty of that (maybe because you're a PowerCranks user who is wondering if they've been duped?).
Last edited by: Andrew Coggan: Jun 2, 08 11:38
Quote Reply
Re: New research: no effect of PowerCranks on cycling efficiency, running economy, or cycling or running performance [cogsci] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Thanks for all the info Andrew
You're welcome, but the credit really belongs to Dr. Otto and colleagues (and the person who brought these studies to my attention).
Quote Reply
Re: New research: no effect of PowerCranks on cycling efficiency, running economy, or cycling or running performance [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yawn
Quote Reply
Re: New research: no effect of PowerCranks on cycling efficiency, running economy, or cycling or running performance [rdm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Yawn
Ya think? The results of the first study aren't all that surprising, but I found the second one interesting, since it is the first (that I can recall...but then again, I don't pay much attention to the area) to address the effects of PowerCranking on running economy.
Quote Reply
Re: New research: no effect of PowerCranks on cycling efficiency, running economy, or cycling or running performance [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
touche. :-) I admit I am guilty of both. I am a powercranks "user" who is giving them a chance via a three-month free trial. No secret in that based on the number of questions I've raised on slowtwitch.

AND as a former researcher, yes, I take bad studies personally. Funding and participents are not easy to get. These guys wasted money and volunteers' time.

I applaud that you admit that these are not being used as directed. But being as experienced in this debate as you are, perhaps, good faith should have prevailed and you should have mentioned that little caveat from the get go.
Quote Reply
Re: New research: no effect of PowerCranks on cycling efficiency, running economy, or cycling or running performance [brandonecpt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
After a week or so adaptation period, cycling normally was not that hard, i.e. 19-22mph at 85rpm but I was not noticing any run improvement at all. What IS hard is 14mph at 110rpm. n=1, I now feel like my run has been helped.
Quote Reply
Re: New research: no effect of PowerCranks on cycling efficiency, running economy, or cycling or running performance [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
did I read correctly that one group trained 90 minutes per week and the other 180 minutes per week.
...using PowerCranks. Total training was 8+ h/wk.

Wait...so if the total swim/bike/run training time was 8 hours, does that mean that the 180 group WAS using the PCs exclusively for their bike training? I'm assuming the other 5 hours of the week were taken up with the other activities.

If that's so, that would mean that the 90 group represented a "typical" user approach (i.e. part time use) while the 180 group represented the FD recommendation of exclusive use, correct?

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: New research: no effect of PowerCranks on cycling efficiency, running economy, or cycling or running performance [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
did I read correctly that one group trained 90 minutes per week and the other 180 minutes per week.
...using PowerCranks. Total training was 8+ h/wk.

Wait...so if the total swim/bike/run training time was 8 hours, does that mean that the 180 group WAS using the PCs exclusively for their bike training? I'm assuming the other 5 hours of the week were taken up with the other activities.

If that's so, that would mean that the 90 group represented a "typical" user approach (i.e. part time use) while the 180 group represented the FD recommendation of exclusive use, correct?
I think you could possibly be right. It only says that the groups had to run 2.5 hours at moderate intensity (if I remember correctly from reading a second ago), but no mention of how much swimming that I can find.

Plus they were 8+ hours, no 8 even. My guess is that no one was exclusive, but from what I am reading I don't think we can put that together for sure....

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"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
Quote Reply
Re: New research: no effect of PowerCranks on cycling efficiency, running economy, or cycling or running performance [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
did I read correctly that one group trained 90 minutes per week and the other 180 minutes per week.
...using PowerCranks. Total training was 8+ h/wk.

Wait...so if the total swim/bike/run training time was 8 hours, does that mean that the 180 group WAS using the PCs exclusively for their bike training? I'm assuming the other 5 hours of the week were taken up with the other activities.

If that's so, that would mean that the 90 group represented a "typical" user approach (i.e. part time use) while the 180 group represented the FD recommendation of exclusive use, correct?
Well, the abstract says that the particpants cycled a minimum of 3 h/wk, and trained at least 8 h/wk. It is therefore possible that the 180 group still represented part-time use.
Quote Reply
Re: New research: no effect of PowerCranks on cycling efficiency, running economy, or cycling or running performance [Andrew Coggan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I know nothing about PowerCranks but I do know that differences would have to be huge for ANOVA to pick them up as statistically significant. 30 subjects is about 270 short of what you need to use that technique effectively in this situation. As a professor who teaches graduate statistics this isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Simply not enough statistical power. Notice that the results showed improvement but not statistically significant. That is simply because the number of subjects was not large enough. I hope the researchers at least got a nice trip at taxpayer expense.


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

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Quote Reply

Prev Next