Lakerfan, who posted above, was seeing personal best power improvements in the first few weeks of using them yet he refuses to give the cranks any credit for those improvements.

As I keep pointing out to you, this is utter BS. Stop trying to shove it down our throats.

Lakerfan never did any power testing during that period. Because his Powercranks broke.

Rik

Again, why don't we let the reader decide for themselves. Here is a link to his experience and what he wrote at the time: Triorganic forum

I think most would intepret that result as his seeing substantial power improvement in a relatively short period of time even though he did no formal power testing.

If you really wanted to "let the reader decide for themselves" you wouldn't say things that are patently false like "Lakerfan, who posted above, was seeing personal best power improvements in the first few weeks of using them".

You might also provide some context such as that Lakerfan used PCs extensively for a 8-9 month period, increased his training load by at least 30% over previous years and got a 20-watt increase in his FTP (or about 7-8%) at the end of that season. And logically attributes most if not all of that FTP increase to the increase in training load.

Rik

Rik

So, let each decide for themselves. I don't see many coming here and supporting your view even though lots here seem to like to pile on to me whenever there is an opportunity. But, this is a good example for discussion as to what might be causing what.

There was a big discussion on another thread involving others "coming here" and telling you that you were wrong on this issue. Including lakerfan himself and tigermilk, and others.

The gist of it, in case you forgot, was that someone riding around on a new toy at sub-FTP intensities at a power output completely within the predicted range for the FTP of the rider is no kind of indication of a power increase.

You ignored my earlier question that if lakerfan really saw a 10% increase in the first few weeks of riding with PCs, why did he have only a 7-8% increase in his FTP (when he actually tested it) after using PCs for x months (I don't feel like looking that up again) and increasing his mileage 30% from previous seasons.

Maybe you could answer that now. To make it easy for you, I'll make it a multiple choice format:

a) he didn't really have a 10% increase in power in the first 6 weeks
b) he had a 10% power increase in the first 6 weeks, but using PCs for x months caused a subsequent power decrease

Rik

P.S. have you contacted John Wiggins for that blog update yet?

I am sorry, Lakerfan did not dispute his improvement, as I remember. I don't remember Tigermilk, either, disputing Lakerfan's improvement. The dispute as I see it (except with you) is not that there was or was not improvement during this period but why did the improvement occur? You are the only one that is denying that there was improvement in that first 6 weeks, that I know of.

Here is what he wrote in his very first post on them after about 1 month on the cranks. "You can clearly see that I've had a nice progression starting from about an average of 140 - 170 watts to consistently above 200 watts. I should point out that I don't believe I've ever managed more than 2 or 3 consecutive rides where I've averaged more than 200 watts on the trainer or outside. As you can see, my last 7 rides have all yielded an AP above 200 watts." So, he reported never having 3 rides in a row averaging over 200 watts before PC's to never having a training ride below 200 watts at about 4 weeks and being at about 220 watts average on his training rides at the end of 6 weeks. I would interpret that (and I suspect most others would also) to be about a 10% increase.

I cannot explain his failure to further that later when he did his testing although, if I remember correctly, he did have some sickness and other issues interfere with his training and racing, plus he stopped using the PowerCranks entirely after about 5 months. Lots of things can reduce performance for a race or testing. Few things can increase it. You have failed to explain his reported improvements (on his documented training time) in the first six weeks, other than to deny those reports indicate improvement. LOL.

Frank,

I know I never said I would comment on these type of threads again but I think it's important that people know the facts. No speculation -- just facts.

Look, I've said this many times over but I just don't know what the main contributor was to my increase in FTP that year. I simply changed too many variables. Like all things in this sport it was likely multi-factorial. The one thing I do know is that I was very very focused on achieving top 5 in my AG at IMC that year so I rode a ton. Is was quite common for me to ride 5x/week, for example. I also did some things (not on PCs) that I never did before like ride 6hrs @ IF between .77 and .81. Not sure about you but but if you ever want to kick your own ass real hard then just ride 6hrs @ IF of .81. It makes suffering through a set of indoor 2 x 20s seem like a walk on the beach with a hot Victoria Secret chick by your side (preferably Alessandra Ambrosia). ;-)

Now there are several ways I can provide you the data (eg miles/week, TSS/week, etc) but I can quantitatively tell you that my training load increased substantially. So, if we just focus on the facts then you can't ignore the fact that my training load increased. And if I was a betting man and you asked me to put my money on a guy training on PCs with no increase in training load vs a guy training on regular cranks with a 30% increase in training load then I'd put my annual salary on the latter dude.

Here's another data point, btw. Last year I trained on PCs from Oct - April but my training load decreased from the previous year. Interesting enough, my FTP probably dropped about 10w. I couldn't even maintain the same power for intervals or long rides but last year was just about survival for me. Now I don't talk about this too much because I also had an extremely mentally challenging time last year and that could have certainly played a significant role in my decreased performance.

Last thing... If anyone ever tells you they are 100% sure they know what contributed to their increase in power then I think they're (unintentionally) lying to you. The fact is that we all change way too many variables year to year to know for sure. And, as I stated above, it's almost always more than one factor that's reponsible for our improvement in the sport anyway. This is why I just try to focus on the funadamentals. We, including myself, all tend to debate the silly stuff way too often. It's entertaining but I'm getting too old. Just get out there and figure out a way to increase your training load. If that's using PCs then all the power to you.

If you want to talk about then details then let's talk about race execution... ;-)

Thanks, Chris

Could you please find just one person who agrees with you that the data and comments posted by Lakerfan in that first 4-6 weeks of PC use does not indicate a substantial improvement in cycling power?

You really make it too easy. How about this from tigermilk: "Not to belittle lakerfan, but personally I think the dude was just wimping out in the past. His per-existing FTP indicated he could ride at those wattages."

To elaborate on that theme, Lakerfan stated that his estimated FTP was 260 watts then. He also stated that his HIM power was 205 watts. That's 79% of FTP, which is a bit below the guidelines of 83-87% of FTP for a HIM in Training and Racing with a Power Meter (216-226 watts in this case). So his rides on PCs that were 200-220 watts for 2 hours are well within the rough range of his HIM bike power, which takes significantly longer than 2 hours and occurs after swimming 1.2 miles and before running 13.1 miles.

The idea that because you do a 2-hour ride at around your HIM bike power, it means that your power has increased is silly. It just means that, as tigermilk pointed out, you rode harder. Which is natural for anybody trying out a new toy. While riding 2 hours at 80% or so of FTP requires some work and concentration, it's really not all that hard. Depending on the person, all out power for 2 hours would be about 93% of FTP. Now that would not be pleasant at all. If his data showed a 2 hour ride above 242 watts then, yeah, I would say his FTP had increased substantially above 260 watts in that six weeks. But it didn't and it didn't.

Is there a reason you are not contacting Jon Wiggins? Maybe you already have, and you don't like what his data shows?

Rik

Is there a reason you are not contacting Jon Wiggins? Maybe you already have, and you don't like what his data shows?

Rik

Frank,

Something to consider... I was also running much less than previous years during that period of time. Note the following paragraph:

So far I'm quite impressed with my results. Note: I didn’t say I was impressed with the PCs or with the change in my training. Yes, I’m impressed with the amount of power I’m producing as it’s clearly greater than anything I’ve produced over a number of consecutive rides in the past. However, I have run very little in the last month so it’s simply too early to even begin to draw any conclusions at all. In addition, look at my frequency. Although the overall mileage isn’t overly impressive, I’ve never ridden with this much frequency in my life.

I hope that helps,

Chris

Is there a reason you haven't commented on the Phil Holman data?

Frank, the only thing I'll address in your statements above is the fact that you are unaware the impact a reduction in run volume will have on your power. Honestly, this is shocking!! I can provide you with quantitative data that shows my power will, on average, easily increase 5% when I reduce my run volume from 5x/week (~40 miles) to 2 - 3x/week (20 - 25 miles) and I was probably running less than 20 miles/week at the time. My power improvement was not dramatic during the period you're focused on. There was an improvement and it could easily be accounted for by a pretty serious decrease in my run volume.

Thanks, Chris

If he could ride at those powers before, why didn't he? Wimping out indeed. That is simply rationalization. He simply reported that he had never done such power in training before (and he did have a power meter and keep records)

Here is an explanation that doesn't involve the need to ascribe any benefit to the PowerCranks. You have been chronically overtrained. When you started on the PC's the reduced mileage (and time) on the bike combined with the reduced run mileage allowed you to recover and see those training power improvements. Why you would be overtrained in mid-December is not clear to me but it must be true. It all makes sense to me now.

---

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

I'm sorry, I was too busy successfully answering your other question. Since that was so easy, let me give this one a try....

Hold on...

OK, I must have missed the power data that was posted in that thread on Phil in the first go round. Let me read a little more...

Oh wait, there wasn't any power data. Or historical training data. Not really worth a comment. It was worth opening that thread though for this gem from the notable curmudgeon Jobst Brandt:

I don't think you are a suitable specimen to evaluate whether there
are merits to this method for general application. I believe to
validate this, young racers who are well trained should try it.
Racers in retirement years have often invented uncommon positions,
special handlebars, unconventional cranks and the like, claiming great
advantage when in fact the device was an accommodation of their
declining athletic ability.

Your turn...how's Coach Wiggins doing lately? You need to freshen up your so-called "data" a bit methinks.

Rik