He does need to train for endurance - at least a minimum endurance. His coach thinks so also. It is not about endurance for the run but if one has good blood flow capability in those muscles one will recover better between heats. The "endurance" training is really "recovery" training. If one recovers better between heats then one is better capable of performing well in the finals.

I think some power training is important because the high cadence stuff fails to recreate the effort when on the ground. Runners go from zero resistance to foot movement to high resistance to foot movement. It is possible that this is unnecessary but I can make an argument for including at least some in the mix. I do think the high cadence, low resistance, stuff is much more important here for runners like this.

---

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

So Frank, I think that all he needs is 6-10x2 min @120-130 at the same "power output" as he'd do at the track (no pounding). Its probably sufficient to use heartrate and perceived exertion as as the gage for "effort" so that it is in line with running.

With a high cadence, he just needs moderate "force"....but no need for high force lower RPM work to achieve a high work load. That's not specific to his event.

Dev

There was a Marino who did the GABR, which was the precurser to RAAM. I believe it was Frank, not Dan, but I might not have his first name correct. He was one of the original four who raced the first modern race across the country. Lon Haldeman won.

Styrrell

I predict a 30 second improvement. This is based on the 1 minute/mile improvement in run pace that one can expect with PowerCrank training. A sub 1:20 should win gold unless others are also training using PowerCranks.

about the force I am not sure what would be considered "high" when you are at 140 rpm and 200 mm crank length. One thing we learned from the Chris Zieman experiment was he started having trouble getting his HR up at racing cadence with light resistance as he adapted. He chose to bring the cadence up rather than increase the resistance which I supported. But, another way to increase intensity is to increase resistance and the 800 requires more "power" than the marathon. I don't know what the best thing to do is but I suspect mixing it up is probably a better way to go rather than staying with one, but I don't know. Hopefully, we will get a few more data points here to put into the computer to make our future recommendations to others like him more "evidence" based.

---

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

My take is that his "real fitness" will come from "real running" at the track. The PC work is a supplement. I'd imagine that high RPMxmoderate resistance will give him similar workload to real running, however, there are only so many hard sessions he can do in a week and as an elite runner he needs to do them at the track...the PC stuff is supplementary and to some extent, a "neural"/coordination workout that will cross over to high speed running...the problem with high speed running is that you can only do so much in a week without blowing up and getting injured. This will allow a similar "technical/neural" training effect without the injury impact.

Dev

Obviously, a lot of his run fitness comes from work done on the track. But, he had already integrated cycling into the mix about 1/3 of the time as a way of increasing his intensity without increasing risk of injury. That, itself, is pretty unusual. So, cycling was already part of the intensity mix for this man. So, it will be interesting to see how he evaluates the difference between regular cycling and PC cycling in this regards. It is clear to me that he and his coach feel that all of his workouts are important for achieving the overall goal and he doesn't see track "high intensity" workouts as being more important. The nice thing I see about the PC's is it is possible to "simulate" more high speed running without seriously risking "blowing up" and getting injured because there is zero impact.

I have given him my thoughts as to how they might best be used but I am sure he will use them as he thinks is best. I look forward to hearing about his experience and what they think. I will let them know your thoughts also, next time I talk.

---

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

Pure gold, pure gold! This is like watching Kasparov play chess.

Great, another anonymous stalker half of whose posts fall into this category...no added value to the board, just cheap shots...thanks for making ST a great place for people to exchange thoughts.

This is post of the thread! Classic.

That's why I read these threads!
Mark

---

Fast-Finishes.com
Triathlon and Running Race Timing
Athletic Event Management

Frank, I was just wondering if Simon Whitfield does any specific workouts on his powercranks that benefit his run training. Does he still use them?

Just giving Frank a hard time. I am and have been a PowerCranks user for almost a year now. I have them installed on my road bike and use them at least a couple of times a week. I have no way of knowing whether my cycling has improved with their use. I can, however, say that running does feel easier, and I strongly believe that their use has alleviated the pain in my right hip flexor/ITB that I have stuggled with in the past.

No, No pardon me. Sorry, to disrupt your brainstorming session. Please continue.

you are absolutely right, because sending magic beans to someone who may or may not be a 1:50/800 runner, who may or may not be attending the olympic trials -and- who we have no clue of their current PR has so much value.

there. I just sent him a tube of chapstick. If he gets faster, I'll attribute the chapstick.

Don't know. As far as I know he still uses them. I believe he actually did a cyclocross race on them, or so I was told.

---

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

Hey, I thought your post was great. At least you explained your reasoning which seemed perfectly reasonable as ST reasoning goes. If you are right my days of trying to convince the running community of the usefulness of the device will be over. :-)

---

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

I did not say nor hypothesize that the guy might get faster...Frank did. I was just discussing what I felt would best way to use the powercranks for crossover benefit to a specific race scenario. But heaven forbid that one could actually have a civilized discussion without people taking cheap shots and not contributing to the discussion.

Exposed are the hazards of sleep deprivation!

I meant to say John Marino, Founder of RAAM and the UMCA. He is one of the most inspiring people I have ever come to know personally. I am embarrassed that Dan popped out of my fingers.

Likewise, I will blame sleep deprivation for not quickly recognizing that PowerCrank is not PowerCAM, the device I was referencing which changed the circular pedal stroke to an adjustable, elliptical stroke. It was marketed in the early 80's. A few Triathletes used it for a bit. The mechanism was to add a cam to the shaft element of the bottom bracket and match it with an altered crank to produce the eliptical stroke. It was extra work, money and weight. Shortly thereafter Shimano released their eliptical chain rings, a much simpler solution, which put the nail in the coffin... or so I thought until I saw your post.... My bad.

Please see my reply to Frank... Again, my bad.

PC's get mistaken for a lot of things they are not.

1. They are not the new "biopace".
2. They are not the same as PowerCam or RotorCranks
3. They do not measure power.

Anyhow, I am going to have to remember that sleep deprivation thing. I generally blame my "slips" on my greatly advanced age. If I can remember it I will try to use sleep deprivation once in awhile to mix things up. If it is really bad I may have to use them both :-)

---

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

Ditto. I'd tack on PC rides at the conclusion of every training activity. Best way to flush out and pump in the raw materials by way of recov drink. I think there is also great benefit in going directly to a bike at that point in a track interval workout where form begins to break, whether it be due to general fatigue or injury specific limitations. That is the point of diminishing return. Continuing from there can aggravate an injury, reinforce poor form and/or increase negative effects of less than optimal foot strikes.... but this is the sweet spot in the evolution, the oven that bakes the greatest adaptive response. Jumping directly onto a bike and mimicking the nature of the track session eliminates the negatives and accentuates the positives as the athlete can be exposed to increased repetitions and/or duration as well as levels of pain seldom experienced while supporting their body weight. They can both experience and fully recover from some of the most painful and intense interval training they have ever been exposed to. Can show meaningful results in 3-4 wks.
My three cents... Interesting string

Interesting thought about doing most of the PC work at the end of the workout, when you are tired. since they enforce good "form" they would prevent the reinforcing of bad form if one pushes things too much. I am not sure that is the best way to use them in the beginning, when one is still getting up to speed on them but once a good adaption has occurred it seems like a good idea.

I also think they might be a great way to start every workout. Warm everything up equally, then get on the track. Then, finish the workout with the PC "pushing the envelope" work. What do you think of that approach?

---

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

Value can be gained from all of it. Just a matter of portioning it out. Power work does much for lactate tolerance. What makes or breaks most 800M runners is to what extent they can maintain or even increase stride rate while minimizing what is most often a rapid reduction in stride length in the final 200+ meters. So, sessions that begin each interval with a rapid flush of lactate, a middle that does not generate more but stimulates tolerance/clearing of same closing with an attempt to increase rpm's at same load can do a hell of a lot to mimic race conditions, as much as one can expect from non-run training.

If you use HR make sure to add at least 10BPM to the norm while running. That will give a very close approximation. Agree no high load/low RPM but have had good success with high load/high RPM as the intro to each interval. Also like increased RPM/s to close out. It load needs to be reduced to get it done, so be it.

Solution is to pull runner off track as soon as form begins to break and put them on the bike. The amount of high quality training that can be done in a week can not only be maintained but potentially increased as a good portion of the resources the body would normally spend on recovering from the pounding one takes in the last 20% of a good track workout can be spent on the adaptive response to the training. Just need to make sure that quality recov drink is pounded as soon as possible.