While this is theoretical I agree completely with you, especially in the beginning. People like Goatboy (who is well into his second year on them) or Francois who started at a much higher lever than most) may be the only ones out there generating any significant force on the upstroke for any length of time and we don’t know because we can’t meaure it.
Most are simply getting that foot out of the way.
And, hey, I am almost always willing to agree to disagree with almost any posting so I am on your good side, right?
Whitt and Wilson has pedal force data in their excellent source book “Bicycling Science” I have been told they are coming out with a new edition and I believe they will be discussing PowerCranks in it when it is out.
I am sorry you seem to think that the only way to increase power is to increase the number of motor units being recruited. It ain’t true but you can’t be swayed. It is one way, it is not the only way, or, even, necessarily, the best way.
guy after guy who has triied and uses them say they are certain they are getting better and you blow off each one as anecdotal.
the devices insure that a rider pedalls the way people have been intuitively trying to do for a hundred years and you say those hundred years worth of coaching and rider’s intuition is wrong.
the simple equation of directing energy at driving the actively thru the pedal stroke is acheived and you say it is better to backpedal and overcome it.
people in general ride hard as they can and their legs get bigger and you say their legs were never fully stressed to begin with.
and on and on.
i get the feeling if somebody comes on with power data and as much control as be realistacally obtianed you will say they would have acheived the same gains just from their parent’s genes.
all this, and from what i can gather you have never so much as held a pair in your hand, let alone used a pair, or worked with anybody who has - tha t is if you do in fact ride at all. does the word " whatever" mean anything to you? i had lots of doubt about them, so i got some and triied them. isn’t that good enuf for you? if not, why not? it is bike, it is meant to ridden on the road - your ridiculous ramblings on the arcane inner workings of the pedal stroke don’t amount to much if you have zero field application in my book - otherwise known as riding the bike. good lord.
Coyles research (at least based on the abstract) doesn’t support a single thing that you have said, other than better cyclists apply more power to the pedal than lesser cyclists (duh). Especially in view of the finding that the group one cyclists had higher muscular capillary density.
The only conclusion that makes sense is the one they came too. Those that train more are better than those who train less. Duh.
But the paper means nothing in the post PC world as these riders were not capable of learning how to pull up. So, the ony way to really get faster was to get stronger. If he were to repeat that study using two groups of “equal” riders one pc trained and one not and he found the same thing then it would mean something.
Have you seen the anecdotal report of Phil Holman, a masters track cyclist, who, in seven months on the PC’s, increased his top speed from 35 to 38 mph and his pursuit from 30 to 32, winning a medal at masters worlds? This calculated to an aproximate 25% power increase in 7 months at the highest competitive level. Do you think it is possible at this level in this period of time to increase muscle recruitment and use 25% to see this type of power increase? If so, why can’t everyone do it? Or, could there be another explanation?
-" I’m more interested in the intellectual debate."
ahhhh, yah. and so you post a wordy paper which is scarsely relevant to what PCs even do? n-i-c-e. “intellectual” as opposed to what? what works for people? is something only worthwhile in fred-land after fred intellectualizes it? nothing works until fred deems it intellectually possible? it never occurs to fred to go out and do a field study himself or listen to those who have unless fred first has a preconceived intellectualization on the outcome??? did i say "good lord "yet?
Fred, I really liked your “not a leg to stand on” humor! Thanks!
What I view about this whole sheebang is…OK, let’s say you’ve done everything to your extensor group that’s possible, and you no longer are able to improve their function of putting power to the wheel in a sustained time trial. Do you think your cardiac output is the limiting factor in the force being applied to the wheel?
If cardiac output is the limiting factor…OK. Extensors are the only way to go. They are more efficient (I’ll have to take your word for it, and it seems to make sense to me.)
If cardiac output is not the limiting factor, then recruiting other muscles to at least decrease the work wasted by the extensors to raise the foot would result in an increase of power to the wheel.
But, my entire, simple arguement rests on the cardiac output not being THE limiting factor.
Fred, you didn’t answer the questions. Do you think it is possible that this was due to increased extensor muscle fiber recruitment or to some other reason?
You only commented that maybe PC’s caused burnout because he is no longer competing. Perhaps a 50 + man could possibly have the maturity to want to do other things with his life when he achieves an athletic goal. Let’s try to keep the discussion academic and “factual” if possible.
Negtive, not the story dude.
Gary, if you’re still out there, apparently I did have the story incorrect…I owe you an apology for getting the story wrong. I didn’t do it on purpose. Now, as for the other things…well, let me just leave this post for the apology you deserve. Sorry!
You are fighting the good fight. I have heard most of your agruments from people much more educated than I (2 phd level physiologists and a phd anatomist, and one of those physiologists is very well known in the cycling world), and I agree with them. I dare say their opinion carries a bit more weight than that of the manufacturer. I refuse to continue in this debate because it is like arguing religion with people.
The fact is that there is no good (or published) data to support the manufacturers claims, or the anecdotal claims of those who have improved using them. When there is such data, I will be glad to look at it. I am not arguing that they don’t work, I am arguing that there is no publishable evidence that they do. They might, in fact, work.
It is not up to us to prove PCs don’t work, it is up to the manufacturer to prove they do. Until that time, my $700 bucks is going towards a power tap, as power based training has been shown to be demonstrably (and repeatedly) beneficial. More times than not, when you see pics of lance armstrong in the trade mags, or even on posters, what is he on? SRM CRANKS. Not power cranks.
If you still have the energy for this, Fred, you are a better man than I. Rock on.
Well, he attributed a good portion of his success to the PC’s, as do many of the users at this site. I guess it is easy to discount all of these observations saying, well, they are all just working harder. Perhaps true, perhaps not.
One of the problems with anecdotal reports is they are inconvenient when they conflict with the current favored theory. Ignoring them is the easiest solution to this problem. Studying them is a better solution but requires intellectual honesty, something in short supply in some circles.
While some anecdotal reports are pretty easy to ignore (UFO’s for one) others aren’t. The PC reports would fall into the last category for most, but apparently not for you.
…"The fact is that there is no good (or published) data to support the manufacturers claims, or the anecdotal claims of those who have improved using them. When there is such data, I will be glad to look at it. I am not arguing that they don’t work, I am arguing that there is no publishable evidence that they do. They might, in fact, work.
It is not up to us to prove PCs don’t work, it is up to the manufacturer to prove they do. Until that time, my $700 bucks is going towards a power tap, as power based training has been shown to be demonstrably (and repeatedly) beneficial. More times than not, when you see pics of lance armstrong in the trade mags, or even on posters, what is he on? SRM CRANKS. Not power cranks. …"
as one of anaecdotal guys i see no problem here. an entirely reasonable view as a consumer. i took a chance on something that i doubted very much would work and my seat of pants results convinced me otherwise. altho, it is still worth noting that a whole passel of stuff for tri is purchased on simialr faith, anecdotal support, or even data which is plain wrong or insignificant. this is all in contrst to quoting a bunch of speculative hooha on why they won’t or can’t do what people actually riding them say they can and do without any data to support what you are espousing ( sound familiar?) and calling it intellect or science. it is neither. most of us anecdotal guys have already said we took a chance and are happy with the way things are turning out for us. waiting for more results is likewise good. offering unrelated obscure rhetoric based on unrelated studies and incomplete assumptions as fact is just plain a waste of time. buy them or not. try them or not. wait for irrefutable proof or not. buy a powertap or a coach. all good. spout off rhetoric on why they can’t work based on - lets be honest - nothing is plain dumb, no matter how smart you fancy yourself.
I am confused. I ask for a reference to support your arguments and you post one then you claim that you made no claim that it was relevant. Certainly you must admit that it was a reasonable assumption on our part that you thought it was.
Please give us a relevant referance to this debate, if you have one, to support your side. It doesn’t exist I am quite sure as the work hasn’t been done.
Why did you throw out Ed Coyles name if you didn’t believe his study supported your arguments? I think it was a reasonable assumption on our part that you believed that it did. i thought I was “being real” based on the “arguments” being thrown my way.
If you now believe that that Coyles study doesn’t support your argument can you give us (the other side, I am not alone this time) another one that does.
I said that “Ed Coyle used to be a believer in the “spread the work around” idea as well - then he made direct measurements using muscle biopsies, force pedals, and realized that he, too, had been suckered by this age-old misconception.” You asked for a reference, and I gave it to you. Obviously since this study was conducted in the pre-PC era, it isn’t a direct test of your claims - however, it is entirely consistent with everything I’ve said about non-PC users actually pedal.
