During our previous discussion you stated that Cippolinni had recently been measured with a pedaling efficiency of 30%.
Assuming the typical rider rides at an efficiency of 20% (16-24% range typical) what do you think he is doing different to set him above the rest? Where did the improvements come from?
If PC’s improve pedaling efficiency as I claim, then an improvement from 20% to 30% would result in a power increase greater than the 40% that I claim wouldn’t it?
What do you believe to be the maximum obtainable pedaling efficiency at reasonable power? And why?
I have a problem with your reasoning. You state a fact that Cippolinni has a pedaling efficiency of 30%. You then make an assumption that the average cyclist has a pedaling efficiency of 16-24%. You then use this assumption as fact to underscore your claim that PC’s can improve your power by 40%. Even assuming that pedaling efficiency translates equally to power you’re still using an assumption of average guy pedaling efficiency.
BTW, I am a PC skeptic particularly due to your improvment claims. Indeed, your claim that PC’s will strengthen your hip flexors thereby allowing one to increase stride length and consequently run faster is also flawed. An increased stride length can be detremental to a runner resulting in overstriding and injury. Most running coaches prefer to see a quicker turnover in their runners while keeping stride length under control. The current interest in the POSE method underscores this thinking.
My biggest concern is the advertised “improvement” in cycling and running which as I recall started when you went to market with this product. I’m curious how these stated improvements were quantified?
The published pedaling efficiency of typical cyclists is between 16% (beginners) and about 23% (elites/pros) in Whitt and Wilson. Dr. Coggan stated in our discussion that cippo had just been tested at an efficiency of 30%. If it is possible to get to a pedaling efficiency of 30% without PC’s (per Dr. Coggan) then why is it not possible to improve someone to 30% (or more) with them?
And if one does improve efficiency wouldn’t one expect power to improve?
It doesn’t matter if you or Dr. Coggan believe the PC claims or what others are posting about their experiences. The above previously known and published “power and efficiency data” and my theory support what I say (and what users experience and are posting here). Unless there is an alternative explanation and theory that holds water to explain what everyone is experiencing criticism (IMHO) is empty. Does Dr. Coggan have an alternative theory that explains the data that can be tested?
if i might pick up on francois’ points: i find it ironic that for 100 years people have instinctively sought to improve their pedalling form - specifically maintaining positive pressure forward throughout the pedal stroke. many different drils and techniques have sought to acheive this, and many very complicated ways of trying to measure it have been triied also. those riders which came by it after years of work ( lemond, lance) and those who came it naturally (roche) have been praised and studied themselves. along comes mr day with a simple way for anybody to immediately and effectively and directly acheive it with their first pedal stroke and everybody jumps off the platform. it is comical. i was one such person and then i triied them. i encourage anybody interested enough to devise a model of why they will not work to set that aside and do likewise - it will not take long. in the meantime - what francois said.
I have no opinion on PC, but just because the average beginner is 16% and the average pro is 24%, you assume JaJa or Cipo has improved quite a bit to get to 30%. That’s number juggling, we don’t know if JaJa/Cipo ever was 16% or 24%, those are just averages. They may have started out at 30%, and just stayed that way. Zero improvement. Or he could have started out at 3% efficiency, and gotten all the way to 30%. We have no idea, so I don’t see how you can draw a conclusion about possible improvements out of these numbers (with or without PC).
<<And if one does improve efficiency wouldn’t one expect power to improve?
Sure. But your claim is a direct correlation between efficiency and power; i.e., efficiency increases X ergo, power increases X. At least that’s what you indicated in your original post.
Users increase in power can come from a variety of training techniques - PC’s included. These would include a greater focus on cycling training hills, intensity, greater aerobic conditioning, etc. etc. etc. My theory (unproven as is yours) is that it is this combination that provides the results. Claiming 40% from PC’s alone is, in my estimation a stretch.
Bernie: Does Dr. Day claim to be able to reach 40% efficiency, or to increase current efficiency by 40%? I don’t really know the answer.
However, I’ve been evaluated by a professional fitter that has worked with current USPS team member as well as the current USA tt champion, and this fellow told me my pedal stroke was smooth enough to put me in the top 10% of the cyclists he sees. Well, I put on my new PC’s yesterday, and let me tell you…I have a LONG way to go to get a “round” pedal stroke! I managed about 30 minute of riding on a resistance trainer, but, it took me 40-45 minutes to get that 30 minute time.
I found that although my right leg IS smooth, it is essentially no help in the stroke for about 30 degrees of rotation…near the top of course. My left leg isn’t very smooth, and is even dead weight for about the same distance. I didn’t stay on them long (I have a 5k race this AM), but I can hardly wait to begin the personal test to see if I’m improving.
Basically, I don’t care if these things are proven to work in all athletes, 75% of them, or even 10% of them. I don’t care if it is because my hip flexors are getting stronger, being made to be more efficient or aerobic, or if it is because my neuromuscular system relearns the pedal stroke, etc. All I care about is if they allow me to put in quality work that improves my bike and run times.
And I have a guarantee that will enable me to get my money back if I am not getting those results. I’m open to the possibility that they work…BUT, just as I returned my Nimble Crosswind rear wheel because it didn’t bring on the “results” for me that Nimble was claiming, I’ll return these PC’s if they don’t work for me.
that is very good point, ktalon. IMHO experiencial evidence is the essence of the PC. . . .experience as one other guy noted recently there has never been proof that clipless pedals do anything for you either - in fact if you look at track riders there is ample evidence they do not. yet everybody uses them because or physical experience suggests that we are better with them. i am like you, in that i found the experience of actually putting them on my bike and going out riding to be an eye opener of hugely unsuspected proportion. and also like you i never really paid much heed to percentage of this or O2 uptake of that. do the phone poles go by faster and is it any easier to make them do so? for me the answer has been yes and considerably, respectively. i could make an anology with xc skiing - i can tell you what it is like to ski with total weight transfer and efficient drive - and you can agree or disagree that it makes sense to ski this way, particulary if in order to acheive it you must relearn what you are doing and go slower for a spell. BUT - i have never seen a person who, once they get a flash of the visceral feedback of “getting it” for a second or two does not become an immediate seeker of more of the same. so it is with PC’s, in my experience. i suppose it is similar for the difficult and technique oriented sport of swimming - i really do not know as i stink as a swimmer. but, i am continuing to drill and get wet in search of that level of “getting it” that people describe. again, i would encourage anybody who puts the interest into developing a mental model of why PC’s don’t work to instead suspand that and devote that energy to simply trying them out. some things have to be felt, to be experienced, and PC’s are one of those things for most of us and as a side bonus are extremely fun to ride - just like a flat running perfectly driven and weighted xc ski over freshly groomed corduroy snow.
ktalon, I agree with you. The proof is in the results. If you feel the results come entirely or partially from PC’s that should be good enough for you or anyone else who wants to try them. I guess my main problem(s) with Frank are the claims he makes and chalking those claims up to theory or results from PC riders and really having no idea of how those results were achieved. As example, the following is a direct quote from the Power Cranks web site:
“Our data indicates the typical cyclist/triathlete can increase power on the bicycle 40% (that’s 2-3 mph faster on the road for most)…”
A 40% increase in power? As I said before, I think thats a stretch. I’ve had problems with Frank’s claims in the past and one time indicated that the next claim will be that PC’s can cure cancer :-).
I really do hope you are successful in getting the results you are hoping for or as claimed. So when your steady state wattage goes from 200 to 280 let us all know ;<)
100% efficiency is not possible as the efficiency of a contracting muscle (work out vs energy consumed) is only about 45%.
Efficiency is simply a measure of the enrgy that gets to the wheel compared to the energy consumed by the organism. higher efficiency gets more power to the wheel for the same effort.
It doesn’t matter what efficiency jaja started with. what matters is how much power one gets to the wheel. Since we all have pretty much the same muscle physiology and capabilities then the difference between the top and the bottom of the heap is typically efficiency. I would love to see a study where a beginner was shown to be pedaling at an efficiency of 30%. It is possible to achieve high powers through brute force but i do not think high efficiencies occur naturally.
This is what you wrote in your first post:
" 1. Assuming the typical rider rides at an efficiency of 20% (16-24% range typical) what do you think he is doing different to set him above the rest? Where did the improvements come from?"
So in your first post you’re talking about improvements JaJa/Cipo have made to get from 20 to 30%, now you say it doesn’t matter what efficiency they started at. Aside from the fact that there is no reason to assume that JaJa/cipo started out with an average pedal efficiency, now you’re saying it doesn’t matter what they started at nor what it is now. Then I wonder why you asked the question.
I guess I had assumed that the power that JaJa and Cippo have now is greater than what they had when they first started riding. Power improvements can only come from two sources. Increased muscle mass and improved efficiency. Do riders like Cippo and JaJa have more muscle mass than those they are beating routinely? I think not, otherwise these guys would be spending all their time in the weight room and not on their bikes. I know it is hard for some here to swallow, but all other things being equal, the rider with the highest efficiency wil have the most power. Improving ones efficiency while maintaining muscle mass will result in increased power. The logic is not flawed.
I’ve been reading this thread in the hopes of grasping some ephemeral understanding at best. Now I’m totally lost. Here’s my attempt at hitting the reset button on this (admittedly) valuable intellectual intercourse:
I think Powercranks exert a significantly positive (but unquantifible in empiracle terms) training effect on running and cycling.
Pedalling effeciency is perhaps one of the most important elements in optimizing bicycle performance.
That’s as far as I got, and why I’m sitting at the back of the class with my head on the desk.
Do you not see the difference between a high efficiency and an improved efficiency? In your first post you say JaJa/cipo IMPROVED their efficiency to 30%. All I am saying is that we don’t know that, we don’t know if it was lower before. All we know is that it is HIGH now.
I understand you can guess that their power now is higher than when they started (not even sure if that is true or not, there are more than two ways to get faster, for example by losing body weight or by improving your position). But if their power output now is bigger than way back when, then that could be due to an improvement in efficiency or in muscle mass, does anybody know what those numbers were when JaJa was 14?
All I would say is that comparing when any cyclist starts to when he/she reaches his/her peak, there will be improvements in efficiency and/or muscle mass and/or body mass and/or aero positioning and/or tactical sense. It wouldn’t dare to estimate how big each of these improvements are for JaJa or Cipo, although recent power studies show that the biggest improvements can probably come from tactical improvements, saving energy at the right moments and riding in the right spot in the pack.
What any of this says about PC is still beyond me.
I accept that I do not “know” if JaJa “improved” his efficiency to 30% or if he has always been there. I just thought it was so preposterously high that it is incredulous to me why anyone would think he has always been there.
I guess the question that comes to mind, if pedaling technique or efficiency if improved does not result in higher speeds, then why on earth do the best cyclists spend a lot of time doing technique drills? If improved technique can result in improved speed why would anyone question the results people are posting as not coming PRIMARILY from technique improvement.
The presumptions and conclusions seem logical to me and others. Apparently not to you and others. where is Dr.Coggan? I asked him the question as he has the academic background to comment on whether it is logical or not to assume that JaJa’s efficiency could have been 30% when he was 14 or 18 years old. Or, even, whether improving efficiency is desirable.
Surely, I accept, there are other elements to racing. Power is just one, albeit an important one if one wants to win or go fast.
An athlete can, through training, increase their aerobic capacity WITHOUT increasing either efficiency or muscle mass. Many of the fastest cyclists in the world have efficiencies that are not uncommon (~22-24%) and muscle masses that, while large, don’t explain their ability to produce power.
They do have very high mitochondrial density in muscles and capillary bed density, the ability to tolerate and clear large quantities of lactic acid, and other markers of a highly trained aerobic system. Adaptations like these are where most of the power comes from.
This thread appears to mix the idea of physiological efficiency, which is the amount of used oxygen that becomes usable work. with the idea that somehow a smoother pedal stroke must be more efficient. Research done by Coyle showed that pro riders who produced more power weren’t smoother – they actually stomped down on the pedals much harder. Often they were more efficient in a physiological sense even though their pedal strokes were a bit more lopsided.
as one other guy noted recently there has never been proof that clipless pedals do anything for you either - in fact if you look at track riders there is ample evidence they do not. yet everybody uses them because or physical experience suggests that we are better with them. i am like you, in that i found the experience of actually putting them on my bike and going out riding to be an eye opener of hugely unsuspected proportion. and also like you i never really paid much heed to percentage of this or O2 uptake of that. do the phone poles go by faster and is it any easier to make them do so? for me the answer has been yes and considerably, respectively. i could make an anology with xc skiing - i can tell you what it is like to ski with total weight transfer and efficient drive - and you can agree or disagree that it makes sense to ski this way, particulary if in order to acheive it you must relearn what you are doing and go slower for a spell. BUT - i have never seen a person who, once they get a flash of the visceral feedback of “getting it” for a second or two does not become an immediate seeker of more of the same. so it is with PC’s, in my experience. i suppose it is similar for the difficult and technique oriented sport of swimming - i really do not know as i stink as a swimmer. but, i am continuing to drill and get wet in search of that level of “getting it” that people describe. again, i would encourage anybody who puts the interest into developing a mental model of why PC’s don’t work to instead suspand that and devote that energy to simply trying them out. some things have to be felt, to be experienced, and PC’s are one of those things for most of us and as a side bonus are extremely fun to ride - just like a flat running perfectly driven and weighted xc ski over freshly groomed corduroy snow.